Sexuality, Eroticism & Obscenity

Tags

audience, Books, censorship, cinema, conservative, critics, culture, Daily News Egypt, drawing, Egypt, Film, filmmaker, foul, Ghada Amer, liberal, literary scene, literature, novels, paintings, respect, sarah el sirgany, sensual, sex and art, sexy, sirgany, viewers

For some, these three words are synonymous, for others they couldn’t be more different. Is it the culture that dictates the difference/similarity? Is it the subject at hand? Are the lines generally blurred?

We recently had this discussion at Daily News Egypt, prior to publishing this story: Guns, wars and chadors: the art of Ghada Amer.

Our culture editor Joseph Fahim sent me the two pictures that ran with this story with a note to check them first and tell him if they are fit for print. He said he didn’t see anything wrong with them, but wanted us to give them a closer look.

I looked, I couldn’t find anything unprintable. If you go to the article and scroll down, you’ll find that in the second picture, the multi layered drawing explores the female form, but the sexual connotation might be lost on anyone who doesn’t give it a closer look. But google “Ghada Amer” and you’ll see more of her in-your-face work available online.

She probes the female form, explores its sexuality, and challenges any form of (self) censorship.

But how would you describe her work? Sexual? Erotic? Obscene?

During the discussion, DNE Editor Rania Al-Malky correctly pointed out that ‘erotic’ is a description, while ‘obscene’ is a judgment, citing literary debates. But in our culture, would such distinction hold?

Many see sexual as erotic and in turn consider both obscene. And it’s not just the conservatism in our culture. Traces of similar attitudes can be seen — to a much lesser degree — in literary venues in more liberal societies. Even though writers like the respected and established novelist and essayist Zadie Smith have written or edited erotic stories (she edited a an anthology of erotic short stories according to her Wikipedia page), many literary journals and consumer magazines in the US and the UK that publish short stories, poems and novel excerpts have the “we don’t accept erotica” label on their publishing guidelines. The genre is often dismissed as lower or cheaper form of literature, even though the word “erotica”  implies art as opposed to mere pornography.

Yet “sexual” scenes in literature are not dismissed or considered demeaning of any good piece of literature. Many classics and reputable contemporary bestsellers freely describe heterosexual and homosexual encounters without fear of denigration.

This distinction between sex-centered work and work that happens to include sex is for the most part non-existent here. Take Ehsan Abdel-Quodous for example. His work, famous for its critique of societal hypocrisies and women-centered narratives, was labeled as “Adab El Ferash” back in the 60s. It literally means “the literature of the mattresses” and was used as a derogatory term in reference to more intimate scenes in his short stories and novels.

Back then the existence of lines between sexuality, eroticism and obscenity was not even acknowledged. Forward 40 years, and the situation isn’t that different. When Alaa El-Aswany first released his sophomore novel “Chicago” in a series in El-Dostor, the tone of readers’ letters got a bit more aggressive as two of the protagonists’ relationship turned physical. The novel as a whole got the criticism of “too much sex”. Needless to say, the phrase itself is used as an insult, implying that the author is using sex to sell his literature.

But in a panel discussion following the release of the novel, Economist Galal Amin came to the rescue. He argued that sex scenes should be viewed through the eyes of the characters involved. If a man sees his daughter having sex, then the emotion shouldn’t be eroticism but the man’s own shock.

Basically, Amin argued for desexualizing the sex scenes, to remove the sexuality, eroticism, and definitely the obscenity that are always associated with similar literary depictions.

Would such endeavor find a lot of welcoming ears here in Egypt?

While it’s more probable to happen in the literary world, other more visual arts might not be as welcoming. I can’t see that the public and the critics would dissociate a local film, for example, from its more intimate scenes. Films that sell through a promise of steamy scenes would be bundled with others of better caliber that happen to include or allude to sex.

And with Ghada Amer’s work, she said she’s not expecting it to be displayed in Egypt any time soon. I’m not holding my breath either.

My love-hate relationship with the Cairo Film Festival

Tags

albert ter heerdt, bousy shalaby, Cairo, Cairo International Film festival, Charlize Theron, criticism, Daily News Egypt, Dunia, Egypt, el bahethat an el horreya, fest, Festival, fight, Film, foreign, fragil, hany abu assad, hid and sike, inas el degheidy, Jocelyne Saab, joseph Fahim, journalist, juanma bajo ulloa, Khaireya El Beshlawy, leilat sequot baghdad, mariam abu ouf, Media, movie, mustafa al akkad, nadwa, Omar Sharif, Pakinam amer, panel discussion, paradise now, praise, press, press conference, Safy Nebbou, sarah el sirgany, scandal, sirgany, sirgo, Susan Sarandon, Tamara yousry, the message, yasmine shehata

This will be my sixth year covering the Cairo International Film Festival and I have to admit, I still feel excited about it. Fully aware of its shortcomings, I’ve had my share of its good moments and blunders.

Even though many critics would say (and I agree) that the selection of films are not the best, it’s still an opportunity to watch a lot of non-commercial non-Hollywood films and meet people passionate about filmmaking — artists not just stars.

But who am I kidding; it’s also an opportunity to rub shoulders with the stars.

Name dropping

It’s there that I interviewed Morgan Freeman, which became the highlight of my life for a year. I had the pleasure to have lunch with him along with Pakinam Amer, Tamara Yousry, Yasmine Shehata and Mariam Abu Ouf. He struck us all as a man with the spirit and passion of a 20-something, not the veteran actor in his late 60s.

It’s there that I met Mustafa Al-Akkad (director/producer of The Message and Omar El Mokhtar), one year before he died in Jordan’s 2005 bombings.

It’s there that I saw Omar Sharif for the first time in real life. I interviewed him later on.

And I briefly met Hany Abu-Assad (Paradise Now), during the premiere of Leilat Sequot Baghdad (a personal favorite).

I’ve also attended press conferences for Susan Sarandon and Charlize Theron.

Susan Sarandon in Cairo. By Sarah El Sirgany

A female reporter gave Thero a gift at this press conference and went out and hugged her. -By Sarah El Sirgany

During this year, a young Egyptian actor was relentlessly hitting on the stars (there’s no other way to describe his comments and questions to them at press conferences). I think he also told Theron at the press conference that she’s cute or something along these lines. And Alicia Silverstone eventually told him “I’m married.”

This actor and others like him aside, I’ve met a host of filmmakers from all around the world, passionate about what they do. Some swore never to come back — director Juanma Bajo Ulloa of the brilliant film Fragil is one of them — and others like French director Safy Nebbou, who I met in 2004, came back last year to win another prize.

Criticism from participating filmmakers range from lack of organization to allegations that the winning films are known way before the closing ceremony. Concerning that one of those winning filmmakers told me, award in hand, that he had received a call a couple of days before the closing telling him to travel to Egypt and he’ll find a pleasant surprise, this proposition isn’t that far fetched.

There’s a consensus in criticism that the local press are only interested in covering Egyptian and Arab films, leaving the screenings of beautiful foreign films relatively empty. (Foreign press is largely absent). One Indian producer/director approached me a couple of years ago, asking if I could help him invite more journalists to his morning screening. I did, but still, my film contacts at the time couldn’t fill the hall.

Live Scandals

I’ve also watched a lot scandals unfold. An Egyptian producer and a critic took the ‘discussion’  to a whole new level, and if it weren’t for the stage separating the two, the fight would have definitely got physical.

Aside from how they described each other when interviewed later (‘Ostaz eh, da combarss,’ the producer told us), it turned out that the reason for the fight wasn’t the film as we thought. A knowledgeable source from the industry claimed that this specific critic was criticizing the performance of one new actress, who was secretly married to this producer, who didn’t want anyone badmouthing his trophy wife. But that was unconfirmed.

In the screening of Dunia (officially translated as “Don’t Kiss Me in the Eye”), Lebanese director Jocelyne Saab and Egyptian film critic Khaireya El Beshlawy were also inches away from physically attacking each others after yet another scandalous press conference, with each calling the other crazy in later interviews.

Hala Khalil’s Cut and Paste’s screening wasn’t scandalous but it was full of theatricals.

The screening of Inas El-Degheidy’s El Bahethat An El Horreya (Freedom Seekers) should be credited for uniting the feminists female critics with the all-mucho male critics, as both camps struggled to hold their laughs during and after the screening. Some laughed out loud though. And they all joked about its absurdity and bad filmmaking in harmonious unison. Bless You Inas.

Lost in Translation?

The problem, which can be blamed for the scandals and the unintelligent comments that plague the post-film discussions, is the labeling: In English-language schedules, it’s referred to as a press conference, but in Arabic-language schedules, it’s referred to as nadwa or a panel discussion.

It leaves room for people, some supposedly established film critics, to take the microphone and share with the rest of us their experience watching film. Aside from the fact that many of them have a lot of space in their newspapers and magazines to do just that, often enough time runs out before more important and relevant questions about the film, its script and production are asked or answered.

Sometimes, the nadwa/press conference moderators feel obliged to either tell off the person with the mic or take the opportunity to share their own experience with the class. Some of those moderators/critics even offer more elaborate and opinionated translations (usually from English to Arabic) of the filmmakers’ answers.

My reaction ranges from bored to embarrassed. My dear friend and colleague Joseph Fahim (Daily News Egypt’s culture editor and film critic and the person to follow in this or any festival) once wrote that my way of coping with these nadwa/conferences is to draw people hanging or shooting themselves. Unfortunately, it’s true.

TV, grrr

But my problems aren’t limited to the questions. Every year I get really close to punching a TV reporter in the face, with ART’s Bousy Shalaby on top of the list. All have a sense of self entitlement to cut off any conversation to grab any director/actor/scriptwriter by the hand and lead them outside the hall. There’s absolutely no regard to the journalist or critic talking to this filmmaker or the others who have been waiting for their turn in the conversation/interview.

They brush off anyone loud criticism with “It’s TV” with a how-can’t-you-understand-you-insignificant-creature look. I have no idea if I should blame the video cameras for fueling this sense of entitlement. But if you ever hear about a journalist beating a TV station’s crew with their own camera, there’s a 90 percent chance it’ll be me.

I’ve met few filmmakers who didn’t allow this to happen, politely telling off people who cut into conversations. Dutch filmmaker Albert ter Heerdt is one of those people.

I’ll still go to this year’s festival, but I like every year I’ll be cautious about blunders. This is however not a professional analysis of the festival or the unconfirmed allegations of financial corruption. Many of the world’s top film critics and publications have wrote detailed studies of its shortcomings and how it can be fixed. But every year, festival organizers choose to ignore that. They don’t even invite those top critics and others like them. And that’s only one of the reason why the festival doesn’t get adequate coverage in international media, that if it get any at all.

Disclaimer: I’ve put too many links here, more than I usually do. This post is readable without those links. But if you a drama addict, some of the stories I linked to document in more detail some of weirdest incidents I’ve witnessed. Unfortunately, some stories are not available online anymore or have been included in online archives that require payment for access. Some of those unavailable stories though were aggregated by other websites and blogs and this is why, some links don’t direct to newspapers/magazine websites.

A round up of last year’s festival:

 

Why not Jimmy and who’s next

Tags

2011, alternative, campaign, change, conference, crackdown, elections, Gamal, Gamal Mubarak, Hosni, Jimmy, kefaya, movement, Mubarak, National Democratic Party, NDP, oppostion, option, Politics, president, presidential, public, regime, sarah el sirgany, scenario, sirgany, speech, threat, tone, united

Gamal Mubarak, or Jimmy, and his posse have exhibited a change in tone throughout the speeches they made during the NDP conference. Their criticism of opposition is not new. But the aggressiveness and bluntness of the criticism is. The anger and the not-so-subtle threats are new to such public speeches.

It’s early, however, to determine whether this change is worrying or healthy. Does it mean they are seriously acknowledging the opposition? Would this signal a crackdown? Or is it all a stunt so people like me would get too occupied with analyzing the change of tone rather than taking the NDP to task for its failures over the past 28 years?

But definitely it isn’t early to start considering the options. The Jimmy Option (JO) and the Unknown Opposition Option (UOO).

Before starting, let’s eliminate one of the annoying questions that has become a staple of such discussions.

The most annoying question/hypothesis is: ‘If it’s not Gamal, then who? There is no one, no other option.’

Aside from the fact that there are a lot of options, a lot of capable people who can lead this country, who ever said Gamal was qualified? Not because he can afford the luxury of exposure or the buzz surrounding his imminent rise to power, would this mean he can lead a country. He’s certainly not more qualified than others who can’t afford to get a camera to follow them around. Those ‘others’ would definitely shine and rise in a more welcoming system. But that’s another story.

So, if you rid yourself from the de facto proposition that it’s only the NDP that can rule — relying of course on the experience of the past 28 years where no other regime came close to power — then you can eliminate the one-and-only-Jimmy hypothesis from the argument. At least until the end of this article.

Plus, Jimmy won’t bring about any change. His existence in, like his rise to, power needs to be protected by a police state. Such a police state feeds on the current corruption, the venomous social structure, the ailing education and whatever else that plague this country. Thus for the younger (seemingly more progressive) Mubarak to remain in power, he has to keep many of the ills of this country intact.

But what can we do? Or to be more accurate, what can the politicians who publicly oppose Jimmy’s rise to power do?

To be realistic — because before answering such utopian question a dose of reality is needed — the NDP does control everything. Even though I would like to think that the presidential elections in 2011 would be a do-or-die battle for opposition and for many of us who hope for change, the fact is there isn’t much hope. At least not for 2011.

This doesn’t mean, however, that there isn’t anything to do. There is. A lot.

It’s never too late.

This will unfortunately bring me back to the annoying question, specifically the part about being no other option.

Opposition has been relatively successful — so far — in meeting in the same room. Politicians representing different ideologies have temporarily let go of these differences to agree on certain principles: The need for change and the rejection of the inheritance of power, i.e. JO.

That’s commendable for sure. But a change in course, in strategy, is indispensible.

The discourse of merely calling for change that worked with the Kefaya Movement years ago has to mature now. The opposition forces that are merely campaigning against the JO are slowly and unknowingly shooting themselves in the foot. It’s because they are united against one thing without providing an alternative, their own option, i.e. UOO.

With two years to go before the elections, the UOO needs to be groomed for power — starting today, if not yesterday. For the public to take the united opposition forces seriously (that if they stay united), they have to be presented with a UOO that would stand in strong comparison with JO. A UOO that the public and the opposition can rally behind.

Even if the UOO doesn’t win (which right now sounds like the plausible scenario), the opposition would have put the wheel of change into motion.