‘Da Vinci’ unlikely to pass Egypt censors

“The Da Vinci Code,” the film based on Dan Brown’s best-selling book, will not be seen in Egypt when it is released worldwide Friday. Nor will the long-awaited film play in Jordan or Lebanon, which banned Arabic translations of the book. Observers here blame fears that the film’s controversial take on Christ’s life will fan sectarian tension. The thriller posits the idea that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and their heirs exist today in secret. Christian-Muslim relations in Egypt are especially strained after two deadly clashes in Alexandria, the country’s second largest city. Youssef Sidhom, editor of a Christian newsweekly, thinks many Egyptians may view the film as “a conspiracy against Christianity.” But he opposes banning it, which he expects would provoke more curiosity – and a greater demand for pirated copies. “If the movie was green-lighted by the censors, it would be criticized by the Coptic Church,” Egyptian film critic Sherif Awad said. Coptic Christians make up 10 to 15 percent of Egypt’s 73 million people. Moustafa Darwish worked as a film critic and directed government censorship in the 1960s. He recalls “many films (that) had something to do with religion… were forbidden,” although he felt they contained “nothing against public order or morals.” Films showing “the face or voice of a prophet or his disciples” were routinely banned, he says. Darwish was fired because he allowed movie trailers of Elizabeth Taylor’s “Cleopatra” (1963), “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?” (1966) and “The Taming of the Shrew” (1967) to run in Egyptian theaters. At the time, Taylor was considered a “Zionist agent,” he said, laughing. Religious films are always controversial, and “Da Vinci Code” has stirred debate and criticism from clergymen worldwide. Jordan’s Council of Churches urged the government to ban the film, according to the official Petra news agency. Council secretary-general Hanna Nour said the film tarnishes the memory of Christian and Islamic figures and “contradicts the truth as written in the Bible and the Quran about Jesus.” A 1976 film, “The Message,” about the Muslim prophet Muhammad, remains banned in Egypt, according to Darwish. Mustafa Akkad, the film’s Syrian producer-director (and executive producer of many of the “Halloween” films), died in a 2005 terrorist attack in Amman, Jordan. Egypt’s censors, a shadowy group, have long been part of filmmakers’ and critics’ lives. “In 1954 and ’55,” Darwish said, “(American director) Cecil B. DeMille came to Egypt for the movie ‘The Ten Commandments.’ The crossing of the Red Sea, where the Egyptian army drowned and the Israelis crossed – all that was filmed in Egypt. We gave them our army (to film it).” But some Egyptians claimed the film was used as Zionist propaganda, playing in New York just days after Israel’s invasion of the Egyptian Sinai in 1956. “So we banned it, and until now it is banned. See? Made in Egypt, and banned in Egypt,” he said, shaking his head. “The Devil’s Advocate,” starring Al Pacino, played in Cairo theaters briefly in 1997, according to film critic Awad. But Pacino’s final climactic speech as the devil was not subtitled in Arabic, and the film was soon banned. Mel Gibson’s controversial “Passion of the Christ” (2004) hit screens here only after Egyptian Christians pressured the film’s local distributor to pass it by censors, he said. Last year’s “Kingdom of Heaven,” a portrayal of the Crusades and the battle for Jerusalem, played here to favorable reviews. Darwish explains the lines of reasoning weighing against “Da Vinci” opening in Egypt: “One is that the film will be sent here after the agents are sure it will be approved by the censors. Two, the producers decided not to send it here because the agent advised that it could be banned. … Basically, it is self-censorship.” Government censorship director Ali Abu Shadi insisted censors have not seen the film, adding: “We cannot ban it if a copy hasn’t come to us.” Allied Film Distributors, the film’s local agent, removed movie trailers and publicity material from Cairo theaters. “The company in America has to decide whether we are going to offer it or not because of a 90 percent chance it will be banned,” said Allied spokeswoman Nevene Refaat. Awad thinks “Da Vinci” could earn $350,000 to $520,000 in Egypt, calling that “big money” for a foreign film. Ticket prices here typically range from $1 to $4. For now, Bahrain, Israel, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates are the only Middle Eastern countries scheduled to show “Da Vinci” upon its release. “The only thing to fear is fear itself,” Darwish said, quoting Franklin Roosevelt. “Here in the Middle East, there is more fear than ever.”

Betsy Hiel – Middle East correspondent for the Pittsburgh Tribune

أفلام الإنتاج المشترك.. مشاركة في التمويل أم فرض وجهات نظر؟

الناقد مصطفى درويش رئيس الرقابة على المصنفات الفنية الأسبق يقول: ليس هناك دولة في العالم تقوم بالانتاج المشترك مع دولة اخرى لتقدم فيلما ضد مصالحها فهي تريد تحقيق رسالة معينة، وعندما قدم يوسف شاهين فيلمه «وداعا بونابرت» طلب من بعض الكتاب المصريين ان يطرحوا افكارا حول فترة حكم نابليون وتحدث في ذلك مع لطفي الخولي الذي اقترح عليه ان يقدم فيلما عن سليمان الحلبي الذي قتل كليبر القائد العسكري الفرنسي فرد عليه يوسف شاهين بأن الفرنسيين لن يمولوا فيلما يمجد قاتل قائد فرنسي وجاء فيلمه ليقول ان الفرنسيين جاءوا بحملتهم الى مصر بالحضارة.

كما ان فيلما مثل «اليوم السادس» ليوسف شاهين فرض فيه الجانب الفرنسي المطربة داليدا للقيام بدور البطولة وتجسد شخصية فلاحة مصرية رغم وجود ممثلات مصريات كثيرات افضل منها، وتجارب الانتاج المشترك مع فرنسا لم تكن ناجحة ودائماً تكون من خلال الرؤية الفرنسية للواقع المصري.

ويضيف مصطفى درويش: أنا مع أي شيء يفيد السينما المصرية ولكن من خلال الفهم السليم لوضع السينما من الناحية الاقتصادية وان نستفيد من السينما العالمية وهناك بعض المخرجين في ايران استطاعوا ان يستفيدوا من تجارب الانتاج المشترك.

حسن أحمد

Matrix undone

Matrix Reloaded, at least for now, is being kept out of Egyptian cinemas,

Matrix Reloaded, the second part of the Matrix trilogy, met with worldwide media hype. In Cairo, though, the hype took a different turn: the Department for Monitoring Artistic Products banned the film. Quite why Matrix Reloaded should have generated so much anxiety, though, remains unclear.

Monitoring Authority Director Madkour Thabet, himself a filmmaker, seeks to maintain positive relations with his colleagues.

“I refuse to be called a censor,” he insists, in classical Arabic. He sees himself rather as a regulator and defender of artistic rights. Most of the so-called censorship problems, he claims, are in fact disputes among filmmaking parties over various artistic rights. And it is true that, during his tenure in office, there have been remarkably few public controversies. Matrix Reloaded is one of only a handful of films to have been summarily banned.

Yet this is hardly a golden age for filmmaking and negative responses to the banning of the film are rife. Critic Mustafa Darwish, who was at one time in charge of censorship himself, is one concerned party who laments the intrusion of the censor on films such as 8 Mile, a recent release so drastically distorted, he says, that moviegoers were repelled. “I was alone in the hall when I went to see it,” Darwish remembers in dismay. Shady Zend, sales manager of United Motion Pictures, agents of Warner Brothers and distributors of Matrix Reloaded, backs up this view: “All I can say is that things are progressing from bad to worse.”

One strategy Thabet has adopted is to rely on the verdict of a group of publically acknowledged intellectuals from different backgrounds. These shura committees, as he calls them, allow for a pool of views that transcends the bureaucracy.

“That in itself is a good thing, because it means that decisions are not totally left to government bureaucrats who don’t know anything about film,” a member of the first committee to view Matrix Reloaded comments. Backed by these committees Thabet, for his part, can confidently off-load criticism of the authority’s decisions.

But shifting the blame from the figure of the Censor to so-called independent experts does not hold water with the likes of Darwish.

“This is the Monitoring Department’s role,” he says, “its responsibility. And it alone is accountable for its decisions.”

It is one thing to arrange screenings for journalists and critics to assess possible reactions, he argues, and quite another to set up a structure like the shura committees. “The name itself has Islamist connotations,” Darwish adds. Nor is it a set committee; a new committee is drawn up every time Thabet receives a controversial report from the censors. And the makeup of each is subject to questioning.

“What do psychology or sociology professors know about film?” Zend protests. And it is true that the final committee advising on Matrix Reloaded was made up mostly of academics, none of whom have an interest in cinema.

The first part of the trilogy, The Matrix, was itself rejected by the department before another, higher committee approved its screening at the beginning of Thabet’s tenure. That it did not cause any controversy then begs the question of the impact of the regional context, at the present historical moment, on committee members’ decision.

“It does of course have an effect. No doubt,” concedes Thabet. In rejecting Matrix Reloaded the committee of intellectuals are rejecting a perceived assault on Arab Muslim culture and values by an American cultural product. And it certainly doesn’t help that the city saved in the film is called Zion. That all the critics I talked to were aware of the significance of Zion in a Christian theological context, some argued this significance would be lost on general audiences who would equate Zion with the state of Israel, an argument to which Thabet subscribes.

“The riqaba (censorship) is always trying to save us from ourselves,” jokes Darwish.

If this were the only objection, though, there would have been ways around it.

“I believe in Lebanon, where they allowed the film, they didn’t translate the word ‘Zion’ in the subtitles,” offers Zend. “And Lebanon is officially at war with Israel.”

Another issue of concern is the theology behind the movie.

The committee found that “despite high artistic and technical levels the film deals explicitly with issues of creation and existence related to the three monotheistic religions we all respect and believe. This includes discussions of the issue of the Creator and the created, the origins of creation, free will and predestination, and other theological issues that have caused controversies and tension.”

The very discourse of the statement is a major set- back, says Darwish. “It is a set-back to involve religious discourse in matters of science fiction. This is a science fiction film. This statement, if it shows anything, shows that the people behind it are like the people of the cave.”

These ideas are not revolutionary and have been discussed in films before. “The Matrix was originally based on comic books, like Super Man. Are they going to ban Super Man too?” asks Zend, not too-rhetorically. “Besides,” he continues, “other Arab countries, Lebanon, the Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar and Jordan are allowing the film. Do we have more faith than them or are we more ignorant?”

“Yes, Egypt is different,” insists Thabet. “Sometimes it is necessary to send a message. And when an action is repeated several times the message does get across to filmmakers.”

Which is exactly the point that critics of the ban make. At a time when Arab regimes are under tremendous pressure, especially since 11 September, actions such as banning a high profile American production are reported as evidence of how oppressive our societies are.

“By making such decisions we are affirming such misconceptions about us, that we and our ideas are a threat to humanity. This is scandalous. Egypt is now being perceived as a beacon of reactionary thought,” argues Darwish. “We’re sending the wrong message at the wrong time,” laments one historian who was on the first committee and who recommended screening the film.

Though the ideas behind the matrix are not new, they did provide opportunities for philosophical discussion and, inevitably, publications and games all over the world. The references to religion in the form of the characters Neo and Trinity were not lost on audiences abroad but have not been taken too seriously. In fact Matrix Reloaded itself is not being taken too seriously by critics. That Neo is also a Saviour and therefore could be interpreted as a deity as well, was cause for concern by critics here. Should the character be interpreted as an embodiment of the Almighty, that would be seen as not only as heresy but outright apostasy by extremist viewers. These viewers might be driven to violence. And this itself concerns many intellectuals.

Many see this threat as far- fetched. “What audience is going to resort to violence? What are they talking about? A movie ticket now costs LE20,” says Darwish. “We all remember what happened with controversies such A Banquet for Seaweed, don’t we?” says a scriptwriter who was on the committee and who favoured screening with cuts.

On one level, perhaps, Matrix Reloaded is being sacrificed in order to preserve an already embattled artistic field from further incursions. But a sacrifice to whom? A compromise to whom? Are intellectuals compromising with virtual or real ghosts?

That a film is bad, that its ideas are controversial, should not keep it out of movie houses. The film could very well be screened and receive negative criticism. Why should the apprehension of negative critical reviews be a reason to ban a film?

“So what if critics attack it in newspapers?” asks Darwish.

Another concern mentioned in the censorship statement was the level of violence.

“The films’ overall structure includes many long violent scenes that are beyond limit at a time when we are trying to resist the phenomena of violence in all its forms to ensure social harmony and affirm concepts of internal and external peace. Screening such a film could cause harm to social peace and affirm the concept of the culture of violence,” the statement reads in part.

Which is perhaps one of the statement’s most glaringly hypocritical aspects, given the kind of fare, Egyptian and foreign, regularly screened.

Critics of the ban point out that such decisions appear out of tune with the times, given advances in technology.

“There are many contradictions in their decisions, frankly. On the one hand the Ministry of Information is inaugurating new satellite channels, and on the other we’re still banning movies. What is this? Do you know that pirated copies of the film are already on sale downtown? They shot up from LE10 to LE30 after the ban. We expected this movie to make a minimum of LE1 million at the box offices in Egypt. That would have given the government at least LE200,000 in taxes, in addition to a comparable sum in taxes from the movie theatres. This is wasted money. Movie theatres were looking forward to a big hit to make up for the losses of the past few months, when box-office receipts fell during the war on Iraq and then the exam season. Instead people are going to buy pirated copies on CD and DVD or else watch the film eventually, uncut and with Arabic subtitles, on satellite television,” says a by-now furious Zend.

This may not be the end of the matter, however. The decision will be reviewed by the Complaints Committee which might overturn the Monitoring Department. Critics are not very optimistic since the Complaints Committee includes representatives of the Monitoring Department, the State Council and the various arts syndicates.

No doubt there are genuine concerns behind both the committee and the Monitoring Department’s decision. But at the end of the day we are left with a cumulative effect that lowers the ceiling of freedom in this country, regardless of the film in question.

“And it is,” warns Darwish, “extremely disturbing.”

Amina Elbendary  – Published in Al-Ahram Weekly