This research undertakes an in-depth examination of Pierpesar, the 2023 Iranian feature film directed by Oktay Barahani and produced by Hanif Sarvari and Babak Hamidian, by mobilizing the conceptual architecture of Lacanian psychoanalysis. Through a methodical exploration of Lacan’s three registers—the Imaginary, the Symbolic, and the Real—the study aims to illuminate how the film articulates the complex entanglement between intellectualism, the mechanisms of domination, and the persistence of patriarchal order in contemporary Iranian society. The study’s principal inquiry concerns the manner in which Pierpesar represents the failure of the intellectual project, the self-perpetuating logic of authoritarian power, and the place of jouissance (enjoyment) within closed political systems. By extending its analysis beyond a surface reading of narrative elements and cinematic technique, the study demonstrates how the film offers a subtle yet incisive critique of the structures that enable domination to repoduce itself across social and familial contexts.

In the Imaginary register, the film situates the intellectual figure within a fraught terrain of misrecognition, narcissistic projection, and identity fragmentation. Lacan’s Imaginary is the realm in which the subject becomes entangled with ideal images, striving to embody a coherent and unified self that can never be fully realized. In Pierpesar, this dynamic is expressed through the intellectual’s persistent effort to cultivate a polished self-image—one that aligns with his fantasy of being a critical, enlightened, and morally elevated figure. Yet beneath this carefully constructed image lies a network of unconscious conflicts that undermine his agency. His self-perception begins to fracture under the pressure of unresolved psychological tensions, leading him to displace critical energy into trivial competitions and fruitless confrontations. Instead of challenging the apparatus of domination, he becomes preoccupied with the maintenance of his Imaginary identity. This portrayal underscores the vulnerability of intellectual subjectivity when it relies on idealized fantasies rather than confronting the Real conditions of power and social constraint. The Imaginary, in this reading, functions not as a liberating domain but as a mask that conceals the intellectual’s incapacity to intervene effectively in the social field. The removal of the mother and the appropriation of the family home further reinforce this logic of power. The home, traditionally associated with maternal bonds and emotional security, is transformed into a patrimonial asset controlled entirely by the father, demonstrating how desire and social relationships are subordinated to the structures of domination. The sons experience a profound sense of loss and are compelled to align their desires with the will of the father rather than their authentic wishes, resulting in the suppression of key aspects of their own subjectivity.

Within the Symbolic register, the film exposes the intricate ways in which institutions, norms, and discursive structures sustain authoritarian and patriarchal power. The Symbolic order, which Lacan conceptualizes as the domain governed by language, law, and cultural codes, operates here as the locus of the “Big Other”—the authority that defines the permissible forms of identity, behavior, and desire. In Pierpesar, the Big Other is embodied by the patriarchal father-figure and extended through broader structures that impose distorted legal and moral codes upon both the intellectual and the community. These rules are not merely external constraints but internalized frameworks that shape perception and govern the subject’s relationship to desire, authority, and resistance. The film demonstrates how class-based and gender-based privileges acquire legitimacy through these symbolic mechanisms. The daughter of the tenant becomes a symbolic object—an objet petit a—whose position within family and social dynamics reinforces obedience and consolidates patriarchal authority. The father’s desire dictates the configuration of the household, compelling others to adjust their own actions and desires in accordance with his will. Through this mechanism, the film illustrates how desire, law, and authority intertwine to maintain social hierarchies, and how even acts of critique or rebellion are often constrained within the dominant symbolic logic.

In the Real register, the film highlights moments in which the coherence of the narrative collapses and the contradictions inherent in the structures of power become visible. The Real represents that which cannot be fully symbolized or articulated, moments in which the symbolic order is revealed to be incomplete or inconsistent. In Pierpesar, this occurs during the exposure of the father’s hypocrisy and during confrontations in which characters such as the tenant’s daughter assert themselves against authority. These ruptures illuminate the gaps within power structures and reveal the possibility of resistance, showing that the law and social norms contain fissures that subjects can potentially exploit. Yet the film also makes clear that enjoyment—or jouissance—remains a key mechanism for perpetuating patriarchal domination. Even resistance is frequently incorporated into the existing cycle of authority through affective or compulsive channels. The father’s manipulation of desire and pleasure serves to bind the subjects to the system, demonstrating that liberation is never straightforward and that enjoyment is often co-opted to reinforce the structures of power.

The analysis demonstrates that Pierpesar offers a complex depiction of the paradoxical relationship between intellectuals and systems of power. The intellectual’s inability to enact meaningful change is not simply a matter of personal weakness; it is rooted in the structural constraints imposed by the Imaginary, Symbolic, and Real registers. The Imaginary imposes limits through misrecognition and idealized fantasies, the Symbolic constrains action through institutional and discursive authority, and the Real disrupts attempts at coherence through the revelation of systemic contradictions. The film thus contributes to broader discussions about the role of intellectual critique in societies characterized by authoritarianism and patriarchy, emphasizing the ways in which subjectivity and power are mutually constitutive.

Moreover, Pierpesar illustrates how patrimonial domination endures through the combination of control over material and symbolic resources, the cultivation of psychological dependence, and the integration of law with moral authority. These mechanisms operate not only at the institutional level but also within intimate family relationships, demonstrating the pervasiveness of patriarchal power. The intellectual and other characters, even when aware of these dynamics, remain caught in a web of desire, obligation, and internalized norms that continuously reproduce the existing order. This perspective highlights the importance of attending to both structural and affective dimensions when considering the persistence of domination in social and familial contexts.

Ultimately, the film shows that genuine transformation requires a radical rupture from these recurring cycles. The intellectual’s failure is emblematic of the broader challenges of resisting entrenched power: without fundamental changes to the symbolic, social, and psychological foundations of authority, critique risks being absorbed and neutralized. Pierpesar demonstrates that patriarchal and patrimonial power is reproduced through the interplay of desire, law, and affect, underscoring that both personal and structural forms of liberation demand a profound reconfiguration of social norms and relationships.

Finally, the film emphasizes that these dynamics are not merely abstract or theoretical but are concretely embedded in everyday life. The appropriation of the home, the structuring of desire, and the orchestration of familial relationships reveal the subtle and pervasive ways in which authoritarian and patriarchal authority operates across generations. By tracing these interconnections, the film illuminates how the cycles of domination, enjoyment, and repression are reinforced through both institutional and intimate mechanisms, ultimately demonstrating that any meaningful social transformation requires attention to the psychic, symbolic, and material dimensions of power simultaneously. Moreover, the film underscores the enduring tension between social norms and individual desire, highlighting how subjects are constantly negotiating between internalized authority and personal aspirations. This tension demonstrates that the reproduction of patriarchal and authoritarian structures depends not only on overt control but also on subtle psychological conditioning, internalized expectations, and the mediation of affective relations across generations.