Iranian man who lived in Paris’ Charles de Gaulle airport for 18 years dies
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_have_lived_...
"The film is about an Eastern European man who is stuck in New York's John F. Kennedy Airport terminal when he is denied entry to the United States and at the same time is unable to return to his native country because of a military coup."[0]
If you were able to come and go, you would just technically be homeless with the unknown benefit to stay in airport for 20 years.
He speaks well in english, smokes an exquisite tobacco pipe indoors and you can hear the airport flip boards in the background during interviews with him. Also pretty interesting to pause and see what's on the newspapers.
Great way to tell how unfair this world is.
May he rest in peace.
With 250k you can't even buy a decent apartment in a decent area in Paris
Why would you want to send him back to Iran?
Ya he could've gone anyone and live as hermit, but this doesn't make the story less unfair.
He has gotten way less compared to what he has generated for the movie industry.
Well I meant that he would willingly want to do so himself instead of living in an airport.
But as to why France would want to? Because they don't want this guy living in their airport, and he's Iranian that's his home. He could have a real life there.
I think it's fair to be handed a check while other people make the movie, it's a good chunk of money. If he didn't have skills to allow him to earn money to afford a real apartment along with the movie money, yes he should have "been a hermit" in a smaller village or gone back to Iran. It's a ridiculous story to live in an airport for 18 years, he was a hermit there too.
You mean in the section following his (short lived) claims that he was actually Swedish?
This is one of the more shallow insights I’ve seen on HN recently, and is quite offensive.
Just saying
The production has decided to invest 60 million dollars, these money are going to be wasted ok? They have to do the production, pay the actors, technicians, marketing, royalties etc.
Whatever is the case, BEFORE the movie is out, they lost 60 millions. That's what an investment is, losing money in the short term, with the intention to make more on the long run.
So, in any case, someone smarter than me and you, decided that this guy story is worth, at the very least, an investment of 60 millions dollar. THIS IS MY POINT!
The fact that they did more money, good for them, no problem at all that's their business. If nobody went to see the movie, they'd lose 60 million dollars. Not a big deal, cause the production will make not 1 movie but plenty, so from a diversification point of view, they're covered. They can make the 60 million or more in the next movie if this would've had a bad result.
Is that clear?
Replying with the fact that movie lose money too, doesn't change anything upfront. Cause the production spent 60 millions, so for them IS A MULTI MILLION DOLLAR STORY
Why are you so angry at others not spending more than the $250k they did when apparently you spent none?
I'm always amazed how people are so quick to demand others give to some cause when not giving even a penny.
So it's not irrelevant. It demonstrates quite clearly the issue. Once you understand why you gave zero, you're closer to understanding why someone else didn't give a million.
We're talking about a Hollywood production making 220 millions, not a couple of people running a show for a small town of 300 people.
You do understand that this is exploitation right?
Paying someone 250k and profiting 220 millions?
I'm not on the position to give anything to the guy because he was not asking for it.
Since the Hollywood production made a fortune on his, they could've at the very least provided him with a normal life for the time he was around.
Exactly. It's always those with the most excuses about why they won't spend their own money on something who are loudest about wanting to spend other's money on it. Again, "Once you understand why you gave zero, you're closer to understanding why someone else didn't give a million".
>Paying someone 250k and profiting 220 millions?
Profiting $220M? This is complete nonsense. The movie cost $60M to make. It had a box office ticket sales of $220m. Those ticket sales are not "profit" - some goes to theaters, some goes to pay back the $60M + interest. Some is spent on marketing. Calling revenue profit is untrue no matter how you slice it.
And the exposure the movie brought to the story likely added far more to helping the man than the money they paid for him.
You have a very misguided understanding of this.
>You do understand that this is exploitation right?
Yes, if we could just ban making movies about any topic unless everyone in the entire chain is provided a life of luxury then we'd all be just fine. Except movies bringing many important issues to the wider masses would not happen, and there would likely be more, not less, exploitation in the world since no longer could filmmakers choose important social topics, because some internet troll isn't happy about people not being paid millions.
So, if you really want to help people, and not just rant about spending other people's money, get out there, donate, spend time, or whatever, helping those around you.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33582060
Also, actors don't get paid if the movie doesn't go well? How about the technicians, crew, marketing etc?
Lol
Sometimes they don’t. It depends on what deal they are on. Heh, you need to follow your own advice you gave to some random person on this website some days ago. You should google before you say something.
There's something called contracts and not all actors are paid in the same way. "LOL" as you said.
Paris itself no, but in the metropolitan area (where most people actually live), 250k€ gets you a nice appartament in a nice city well connected to Paris. Especially 20 years ago's 250k€.
According to the BBC, he used the 250k to move out of the airport [0]. He moved back to the terminal a few weeks ago before dying there.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terminal
Was it to much to give, lets say, even 1 million to this guy? It would've been less unfair at the very least.
Outside of the popcorn movies, 90% of a proper movie are the stories behind. All bio movie have a powerful story to tell... Not the always available Hollywood plot: world in danger -> bad guy to fight -> Americans to save the world -> we'll live in peace and prosperity
A movie costs a lot more.
Have you considered the fact that if he was given a choice of royalty payment (for ex. 10K advance and rest royalty) vs $250K cold hard cash, which one he would have opted for anyway?
I know what I would have opted if I was in his situation.
60 mil budget, they could've increased easily to lets say 61 or 65 and let this guy pocket the difference (1 to 5 mil)
What if the stars that got paid millions would've instead cut their own profit for a small amount (eg. 100k) each, that would've provided the man with a reasonable amount of money, while at the same time they wouldn't even feel the difference.
If really there was any budget constraint.
That's why I was shocked that last time I was there, struggling to understand where i could find food at the late hour of 21h, a bathroom or an electrical socket that worked, that it has apparently been voted as best European airport by Skytrax for 2022.
The 15-Year Layover (2003) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20029911 - May 2019 (39 comments)
Others?
Maynot be rich but atleast he seemed to be in a reasonable state because of the movie.
The movie has generated 220 million, they had a budget of 60 million dollars.
This guy has been paid 250k. If he wrote a book and sold it he would've made much more than that.
Then of course you may argue that he should've asked for more, or capitalize on his fame better but that's another story.
Yes what's a better life is subjective but this doesn't make the whole thing less unfair
What makes you think that? Most books don’t net that much profit.
The movie did well because it has a compelling story, yes, but also because it involves Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks.
Even if he'd made 2 mil would've been better than 250k.
Sometimes books have been written after the movie that featured the story and have generally done well
You can’t patent or copyright a concept based on your life. At least I don’t think you can. They didn’t need him to come up with the story. “Man lives in airpot”. As I recall the film was quite different anyway in how the story evolved.
They point is that either the production or the stars that got featured could've provided a better result.
Even if only for charity. I don't think is hard to understand.
But ya, lets argue for the sake of arguing
He did.
> His autobiography has been published as a book and he may have been the basis for the movie The Terminal.
https://books.google.com/books/about/Mehran_Karimi_Nasseri.h...
Overwhelming majority of people live in single family houses/apartments.
That's a reasonable living condition.
And by comparing it to other people in worst condition you are just missing the point
It comes down to this:
> In 1992, a French court ruled that having entered the country legally, he could not be expelled from the airport, but it could not grant him permission to enter France.
He was legally stuck at the airport with no options from 1988 to 1995 when Belgium said they would take him. After that he stayed due to stubbornness in refusing to sign bureaucratic papers that did not represent his mental truth, which was affected by the years trapped and made him a bit off in the head like it would anyone. So he remained stuck.
He never could afford to stay at the airport. He was trapped there by bureaucrats. Humanists recognizing his dilemma gave him food.
what a sad one from all sides! we need to do better.
And is one thing when evil is commited out of hatred, or for profit. That I can understand.
But this is worse - this evil was commited for no reason at all! Nobody benefits from it and noone asked for it!
This is a massive stain on all of civilisad society.
> Humanists recognizing his dilemma gave him food.
"...And yet from the moment I sat down next to him I felt the force of his - there is no better word - dignity. Alfred seemed totally content within himself. He did not aim to please or play on your sympathy. He was not the homeless guy on the tube singing for a drink. Everything in Alfred's life was conducted on his own terms. In some sense he was a freer man than most...
...Despite outward appearances, Alfred lived a life of total self-sufficiency and order. He kept himself meticulously clean and groomed, using a nearby airport bathroom. He hung his freshly dry-cleaned clothes from the handle of a suitcase next to his bench. He always ate a MacDonald's egg and bacon croissant for breakfast and a McDonald's fish sandwich for dinner. (Perhaps one day McDonald's will have the wit to sign Alfred up for a celebrity endorsement.) He always left a tip. Alfred was not, to put it bluntly, a bum..."
Probably said by someone who laments the era of garden hermits.
> In 2004 Nasseri's autobiography, The Terminal Man,[6] was published. It was co-written by Nasseri with British author Andrew Donkin and was reviewed in The Sunday Times as being "profoundly disturbing and brilliant".[9]
Hopefully he also received some money from the 2004 Tom Hanks movie which used an adaptation of his story to earn $219 million on a budget of $60 million.
For context his primary stay in the airport was until 2006, it seems he returned at a later date (recent weeks?)
How is it possible to inspire Steven Spielberg 18 years ago if he lived here only 18 years?
“May your journey inspire a Tom Hanks movie” is a horrible curse.
As long as it’s not Cast Away (2001). I’d rather not be stranded on a remote island all alone :p
Anyway, it's not the worst airport I've been in. Not great, but not that bad. Steigl for breakfast is grand.
That's some lazy writing. Whoever wrote it didn't even bother googling the French film's name.
https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehran_Karimi_Nasseri#Documentari...
According to Wikipedia: "In 1992, a French court ruled that having entered the country legally, he could not be expelled from the airport, but it could not grant him permission to enter France."
A very constructive and humane decision indeed. So this poor chap was the living proof of the futility of the court decision.
When speaking positively about some authors that wrote plays in the 'theater of the absurd' genre to an actor friend earlier this week, he replied that absurd theater was producing the only plays realistic enough to confront the modern Kafkaesque society and world. Indeed.
There's been a Sheraton hotel inside one of the terminals since ~1995, hopefully he got a chance to stay there before he died.
It also seems to be a 5 star hotel according to Google, so it’s possible my idea of third rate is a bit skewed.
My point is Japan has a ton of these hotels, and they seem reasonably priced compared to airport hotels or US hotels anyway.
My issue is not so much about the physical design of the airport (although I do have beef there) but more the human institution of it. Suffice it to say that I have missed way too many international connections there due to kafkaesque bureaucracy, and they've lost way too much of my checked baggage. It's also an especially bad place (relative to other major European air hubs) to have a member of your travel party in a wheelchair.
However, they do have an on-site high speed rail terminal and I think that's super awesome and deserves major kudos.
Basically a lot of Americans find CDG stressful because it is so close to the beauty of Paris without allowing any exposure to it. It is a perfectly accomodating and pleasant space, but it hits the uncanny valley of manufactured cultural institutions while really just being an airport at the behest of arbitrary French immigration officials.
The airport is also very open even by airport standards. There are very few nooks and/or crannies to hide away in to catch your bearings. The omnipresent announcements relay information relevant to you 1% of the time but you constantly feel on edge trying to keep up with all of them.
Couple that with the fact that travellers are likely to be sleep deprived (or in my case Ambien deprived) and you have a recipe for disaster.
If purgatory is a real place I am pretty sure it will feel like CDG. Its quite a nice place for an airport. In fact, your first hour there is always lovely, but it seems to have an exaggerated version of that 'airport feeling.'