Egyptian Cinema and the 2011 Revolution

Film Production and Representing Dissent

Ahmed Ghazal

• Publisher: I.B. Tauris
• Year: 2020
• Print ISBN:
  9780755635429
• Edition: 1
• eBook ISBN:
  9780755603152
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Film & Video
• Index: History

Egypt's film industry is the largest in the Middle East, with an output that spreads across the region and the world. In the run-up to and throughout the 2011 Revolution, a complex relationship formed between the industry and the people's uprising. Both a form of political expression and a documentation of historical events, 'revolutionary' film techniques have contributed to the cultural memory of 2011. At the same time, these films and their makers have been the target of increasing state control and intervention.

Ahmed Ghazal, drawing upon his own background in film-making, looks at the way in which Egyptian film has shaped, and been shaped by, the events leading up to and beyond Egypt's 2011 revolution. Drawing on interviews with protagonists in the industry, analysis of films, and archival research, he analyses the critical issues affecting the political economy of the industry. He also explores the technological developments of independent productions and the cinematic themes of dictatorship, poverty, corruption and police brutality that have accompanied the people's calls for freedom - and the counterrevolution that has tried to suppress them.

1

Cinema and revolution

Popular culture is a form of political activity, that it involves the expression of political ideas and the inspiration of political actions. (Street, 1997, p. 121)

Films have played a crucial role as agents of revolutions. They have contributed to social change through raising awareness and by resisting dominant ideologies. Films have also played a significant role in documenting revolutions. Fiction and documentary films that represented revolutions have historicized events and developed visual memories of struggles. In The Political Unconscious, Fredric Jameson prioritized reading texts politically and adopted a Marxist philosophy to emphasize the political role of texts in historicizing class struggles: ‘It is in detecting the traces of that uninterrupted narrative, in resorting to the surface of the text the repressed and buried reality of this fundamental history, that the doctrine of a political unconscious finds its function and its necessity’ (Jameson, 1981, p. 20). Thus, films about revolutions have contributed to the histories of nations and complemented previous historical narratives about the oppressed and their oppressors. Revolutions have also impacted film industries and influenced film style and content. Post-revolution governments prioritized the support for film industries, due to the significance of film as a tool of education and propaganda. Post-revolution film movements have contributed to the construction of ‘revolutionary values’ through innovative film language.

This chapter reviews the conceptualization of the relationship between political conjunctures and cultural production in previous scholarship. It considers the understanding of scholars such as Kellner (1995), Street (1997) and Wheeler (2006) who articulated the dialectical relationship between film and politics, with an emphasis on Hollywood. MacBean (1975) took a more narrowed approach and emphasized the presence of revolutions in film forms as well as content. The chapter then examines studies of film-making during revolutions in the Soviet Union, China, Latin America and Iran to provide a framework for the relationship between cinema (as an art form and as an industry) and revolution. I consider multiple aspects of the relationship between cinema and revolution including the role of film in mobilizing audiences and historicizing uprisings as well as the influence of revolutions on film content and style and film industries.

Scholars have studied several models of film-making during revolutionary times. These studies and cases have shaped our understanding of the relationship between cinema and revolution. I classify these aspects into four main categories: (1) film as a form of political activism, (2) documenting revolutions on film, (3) the impact of revolutions on film industries and (4) the impact of revolutions on film content. Under the first category, film-makers used film as a form of political expression. They conveyed political ‘messages’, whether explicitly or implicitly, in their film content. These films did not only emerge after revolutions, but they also appeared before and contributed to revolutions through politicizing viewers. Film-makers produced these films, the first type of ‘revolutionary films’, to represent the oppression and resist the dominant ideologies. The second category considers the role of film in documenting revolutions. These ‘revolutionary films’ developed the cultural memory of the events of revolutions. One of the best examples of this type of film is The Battle of Algiers (Gillo Pontecorvo, 1966), which records the struggle of Algerians against the colonial French government. The third aspect of the relationship focuses on the political economy of film-making during post-revolution periods. Governments have supported and nationalized film industries to support the construction of revolutionary ideologies. The fourth aspect of the relationship suggests the emergence of alternative film movements that oppose mainstream film-making styles.

The framework embraces the examination of the Egyptian cinema during the 2011 Revolution. It provides an understanding of the development of the relationship between cinema and revolution through history, as well as the continuities and discontinuities in relation to the 2011 Egyptian case. Egyptian films have actively engaged with sociopolitical issues during the pre-revolution period and were a significant mode of documentation during the uprising. The development of digital technologies facilitated the production and distribution of independent films since the revolution. The political and economic consequences of the 2011 Revolution exacerbated the crisis of the film industry that started shortly before the revolution. In contrast to other cases, the post-2011 governments did not support the film industry. Also, the rise of a counter-revolution and the lack of a clear and consistent aesthetic framework during the post-revolution period have hindered the development of a ‘revolutionary cinema’. Film-makers did not constitute a post-revolution film movement that followed a particular aesthetic approach due to the counter-revolution that grew with the Muslim Brotherhood in 2012 and that prevailed with the 2013 Coup. Instead, film-makers represented struggle through expressing their personal experiences and using their own styles, which in many cases depended on traditional realist approaches.

The context in which Gramsci wrote his prison notes (1929–35) after the defeat of socialist revolutions is similar to the situation in post-revolution Egypt. Gramsci described this post-revolution period as a moment of crisis that ‘creates situations which are dangerous in the short run, since the various strata of the population are not all capable of orienting themselves equally swiftly, or of reorganising with the same rhythm’ (Gramsci as cited in Forgacs, 2000, p. 218). The political instability in Egypt after the revolution has created a state of confusion among the public. The Censorship of Artistic Works was uncertain of the political directions that it will support (pro- or anti-revolution). In the meantime, film-makers were striving to produce their films, using digital technologies, within a growing anti-revolution environment. However, after the 2013 Coup and the retention of power by the traditional ruling class (as Gramsci explained) a new equilibrium was found. Although the current regime recognizes the events of 2011 as a revolution, it suppresses oppositional voices and allows a counter-revolutionary discourse to dominate mainstream media. The challenges set by the current regime and forced through the Censorship of Artistic Works limit artistic freedom, which Gramsci emphasized as a determinant of a new culture and was evident in cases such as Latin America.

After the Cuban Revolution and the political mobilization of Latin America in the 1960s, films, interviews, discourses and manifestos proposed the integration between cinema and revolution. These texts have coined terms such as ‘political cinema’ and ‘revolutionary films’ in different contexts, and thus produced different definitions and generated ongoing debates around them. For example, film directors, such as Solanas and Getino, issued manifestos calling for a ‘revolutionary cinema’ – a sociopolitical conscious cinema that opposes the traditional/mainstream styles of film-making and adheres to the values of the revolution. Meanwhile, studies that have focused on the relationship between cinema and revolution in particular contexts include Kenez (2001) and Malitsky (2013) in the Soviet Union’s case, Pang (2002) and Yau (1997) in the Chinese case, Hernandez (1974) and Balaisis (2010) in the Cuban case and Naficy (2012a) and Behnam (2014) in the Iranian case. These studies have explored changes in the film industries and the texts of the countries they focus on during revolutionary times. Examining the common political and film-making practices among these models will form an understanding of the dynamics of the relationship between cinema and revolution. For example, the intervention of post-revolution governments in regulating and deregulating film-making processes and the use of film as a popular instrument of education or as a tool for propaganda are evident in almost all cases. However, before examining the relationship in different national contexts, it is crucial to explain how cinema and revolution are connected.

One of the fundamental theories that can be used to understand how cinema and revolution cohere together within political and cultural discourses is Stuart Hall’s articulation. According to Hall, articulation is,

the form of the connection that can make a unity of two different elements, under certain conditions. It is a linkage which is not necessary, determined, absolute and essential for all time. You have to ask, under what circumstances can a connection be forged or made? So the so-called ‘unity’ of a discourse is really the articulation of different, distinct elements which can be rearticulated in different ways because they have no necessary ‘belongingness’. The ‘unity’ which matters is a linkage between that articulated discourse and the social forces with which it can, under certain historical conditions, but need not necessarily, be connected. (in Grossberg, 1986 p. 53)

However, the articulation of cinema and revolution is not a simple connection between two distinct elements but an assemblage of political, social, cultural and technological forces. In the case of the 2011 Revolution, films were used to represent political dissent and document social change. Technological developments facilitated the production and distribution of films and offered wider opportunities for expressing rebellion. On the other hand, post-revolution governments have shown interest in cinema and met film-makers to discuss the crisis of the industry, but they never took any further actions to solve the confronted problems such as piracy. The Censorship of Artistic Works does not issue screening permits for films that criticize police or military officers, and the state encourages the production of propaganda films. Such forces have hindered the production of radical texts that engage with the sociopolitical situation in Egypt after the revolution and construct a new ‘revolutionary’ culture.

In articulating the relationship between film and politics, scholars have emphasized the reciprocity of both elements. In his work on popular culture and politics, John Street (1997, p. 10) contended: ‘Popular culture’s ability to produce and articulate feelings can become the basis of an identity, and that identity can be the source of political thought and action.’ Street has examined the ‘intimate relationship’ between politics and popular culture through two perspectives: from popular culture to politics and from politics to popular culture. While the first perspective looked at how we read popular culture politically, the second considered the use of popular culture by politicians (e.g. associating themselves with popular culture icons). For the purpose of this text, I will be focusing on the first perspective, where popular culture holds a political significance. Under this view, Street argued that we engage with politics through producing or consuming popular culture. He noted,

‘Politics’ […] refers to many dimensions of social interaction – from the mediating role of institutions, to the expression of ideals, to the relationship between interests and identities. Politics extends beyond the formal boundaries of the constitution and the political processes as they are conventionally understood. It extends to the ways in which people see themselves and those around them. And it is this broader view of politics that establish the place in politics occupied by popular culture, making the consumption and production of popular culture a political act. (Street, 1997, p. 42)

Street used a wide variety of examples, from music and films, to demonstrate popular culture as a form of political engagement including pressure to resist or reinforce a certain ideology. He referred to the role of East German rock musicians bringing the Berlin Wall down in 1989 as an example of how popular culture ‘can function as an instrument of political change, not merely reflecting reform, but actually prompting it’ (Street, 1997, p. 28). Street’s suggestion of viewing popular culture texts as political statements, whether in their explicit intentions or interpretations, confirms the political role of cinema. Films, songs and plays that engage with sociopolitical issues, through supporting a position or requesting change, become a part of the political discourse. Street’s argument of producing and consuming popular culture as a political act also reinforces the relationship between film and politics. In the Egyptian case, pre-revolution films have raised awareness or reinforced popular discourses about the corruption of Mubarak’s regime. Their depiction of scenes of revolt suggested the possibility of overcoming social struggle.

Street (1997) also examined the political management of popular culture. He considered the role of government in regulating and deregulating censorship, subsidies, legislation and copyright protection to constitute cultural policy and ‘fashion’ culture. Street’s argument of how popular culture stimulates political action serves as a strong base for theorizing the relationship between cinema and revolution. His discussions of film as a political statement that motivates action and the political management of film industries explore relevant characteristics of the relationship between cinema and revolution.

During the process of examining the relationship between cinema and politics, it is hard not to acknowledge The Battle of Algiers as one of the most significant ‘political films’. The film, based on Saadi Yacef’s memoir, is a lyrical representation of the oppression and struggle of Algerians for independence against the French colonial government. For Rastegar (2015), the film developed the cultural memory of and recognized colonial struggles. Several studies have considered the film’s aesthetics for producing a sharp depiction of struggle and oppression (Mellen, 1973; and Solinas, 1973; and Harrison, 2007). These analyses provided some of the characteristics of political film as a genre. For example, Mellen (1973) analysed Pontecorvo’s employment of hand-held camera shots, natural light, black and white film stock and grainy image to produce newsreel style. She argued Eisenstein and Rossellini inspired Pontecorvo’s cinematic style, particularly in terms of mise-en-scène and editing techniques. Pontecorvo’s focus on the masses rather than a single hero and defining the characters according to their social conditions linked the film to earlier political film styles. However, Mellen criticized the film for not representing the historical events accurately (1973, p. 60). Political criticisms of the film also indicated its favourable characterization of one side of the struggle. The examination of the film’s aesthetics and the critique of the ‘accuracy’ of depiction construct a critical base for analysing ‘revolutionary films’. Film theorists and critics examine the perspective, which the narrative is told through, as well as its stylistic approach. The film techniques identified by these studies demonstrate how some theorists understood the styles of ‘revolutionary films’.

The articulation of cinema and politics is not limited to the revolutionary context. Ryan and Kellner (1988) and Wheeler (2006) have examined the reciprocal relationship between Hollywood and politics. They focused on the engagement of films with social movements, their celebration of Reaganite ideologies and the support of the governments for the film industry.

In Camera Politica: The Politics and Ideology of Contemporary Hollywood Film (1988), Ryan and Kellner argued that popular Hollywood films produced between the 1960s to late 1980s are closely related to political struggles and movements of the time. Many of the late sixties films responded to social movements that were widespread during the Cold War such as civil rights, poverty, feminism, counterculture and militarism, as well as taking positions within the debate over the Vietnam War. Ryan and Kellner argued that these films ‘debate significant social issues, and many, operating from a left-liberal perspective, attempt to use the traditional representational formats and conventions for socially critical ends’ (p. 2). They used examples such as The Graduate (Mike Nichols, 1967), which represented the alienation of younger generations, and Easy Rider (Dennis Hopper, 1969) focusing on the hippie counterculture. In addition to the radical and social movements of the 1960s, industrial movements as well influenced the critical and stylistic modes that Hollywood adopted (and characterized European and Third World film-making). The waning of the influence of studio system gave film-makers more control over their projects, which helped them produce more socially conscious films.

Ryan and Kellner’s argument demonstrates the engagement of films with social and political matters, which can be represented through traditional and conventional forms and are not limited to radical film-making style. Their argument also reinforces the role of the political economy of film industries in shaping film content and style. The influence of political management of film industries on the content of films produced was also evident in the case of Egyptian cinema. While some fiction and documentary films have represented the 2011 Revolution, only a few films have engaged with the post-revolution conditions due to state censorship pressures.

Kellner expanded on the relationship between media and politics in Media Culture: Cultural Studies, Identity and Politics between the Modern and the Post-modern (1995). He suggested that we should read media cultures politically as they are intensely ideological and political. Media cultures depict relations of power through reinforcing or resisting dominant ideologies. Kellner contended that media culture texts take either a progressive or a reactionary position to representations of gender, sexual preference and race. According to Kellner,

The representations of popular cultural texts constitute the political image through which individuals view the world and interpret political processes, events, and personalities. The politics of representation thus probes the ideological images and figures, as well as discourses, which transcode dominant and competing political positions in a society […] Moreover, it is through the establishment of a set of representations that a hegemonic political ideology is established, such as New Right conservativism. Representations thus transcode political discourses and in turn mobilize sentiment, affection, perception, and assent toward specific political positions. (1995, p. 60)

To support his argument, Kellner (1995) examined some examples from Hollywood film in relation to political debates and struggles during the presidency of Ronald Reagan. He assumed that Hollywood films celebrated conservative and militarist values, which included limiting the role of government, supporting individual entrepreneurialism and the invasion of Grenada and the bombing of Libya. Kellner’s analysis of Rambo (1982, 1985 and 1988) and Top Gun (Tony Scott, 1986) affirmed that they ‘articulate conservative imperialist/militarist fantasies which in turn transcode Reaganite anti-communist and pro-militarist discourses’ (1995, p. 74). The analysis of Rambo also included the character’s success over the ‘evil communists’, which is portrayed as a ‘mythic redemption’ (Kellner, 1995, p. 69). Kellner viewed this ‘mythic redemption’ as similar to Reagan’s use of violence in resolving political conflicts. Thus, Kellner suggested that Hollywood films and franchises, such as Rambo, Top Gun, Indiana Jones (1981, 1984, 1989) and Star Wars (1977, 1980, 1983), complement the Reaganite conservative ideology and provide propaganda for his militarism. Kellner’s work considered the role of films in normalizing and reinforcing political ideologies, which represents one important aspect of the relationship between politics and cinema.

This view can be applied to Egyptian cinema history, which reinforced the ideologies of political leaders such as Nasser’s socialism in Bur-Sa’id (Port Said, ‘Izz al-Din Zu-l-Fuqqar, 1956) and Rudda Qalbi (Return My Heart, ‘Izz al-Din Zu-l-Fuqqar, 1957). Even after the 2011 Revolution, a few films have supported the state’s view in depicting police officers as heroes including al-Maslaha (The Deal, Sandra Nash’at, 2012) and al-Khaliyya (The Cell, Tari’ al-‘Irian, 2017) or military officers in Al-Mamar (The Passage, Shirif ‘Arafa, 2019). Also, Gawab I’ti’al (An Arrest Letter, Muhammad Sami, 2017) criminalized Islamists and portrayed them as terrorists to support al-Sisi’s regime ideologies. Meanwhile, the censorship body did not issue a shooting permission for films such as illy Hasal fi-l-Niyl Hiltu...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Halftitle Page
• Title Page
• Contents 
• List of figures
• Introduction
• 1 Cinema and revolution
• 2 The crisis of the Egyptian film industry
• 3 Representing the national crisis: Films before the revolution, 2006–10
• 4 Constructing cultural memory: Fiction and documentary films that represent the revolution
• 5 Technology and revolution: The continuity of ‘independent’ films
• Conclusion
• Notes
• Filmography
• Bibliography
• Index
• Imprint