Winter of Discontent - More than just the 18 day uprising

If ever there were doubts about the brutality of the Mubarak regime and why it had to go, they are completely dispelled by Ibrahim El-Batout’s latest masterpiece Winter of Discontent.

The movie outlines with dedicated care the utter brutality and impunity with which the State Security apparatus operated. The utter helplessness of its victims and their families who had no one to turn to when they disappeared is suffocating to watch. The torture scenes reflected extreme ruthlessness without exaggeration.

The movie centres around the life of an activist, Amr (Amr Waked), in January 2009 and 2011, and focuses on the characters of Farah (Farah Youssef), a TV presenter and Adel (Salah ElHanafy) a high ranking state security officer. The movie does more than tell the story of Egypt’s uprising. It tells a story of Egypt’s past, present and possibly future.

It is difficult write an impassive review of a movie so close to the events of the 2011 uprising.  In a way watching the movie is not about the characters in the film, but stories we experienced or heard about. As the movie premiered, a host of recognized revolutionary figures present could be heard whispering as they related their own stories or those of people they knew.

Waked’s performance holds everything together. We see how he breaks and rises. We see what makes him heal. It is a fairy tale of sorts, but one that has happened over and over again on account of the events of January 2011.  Farah Youssef is a TV presenter who also finds redemption, at times her return is over the top. Perhaps surprising was the part played by new comer ElHanafy as the state security officer which was both written and executed with refined subtlety. The depiction is unorthodox yet entirely convincing. A wide spectrum of emotions palpable in the details and the performance, yet expressed so reservedly.

El-Batout’s imagery is mesmerizing, his camera never in a rush to catch up with what is happening but rather moving slowly as if reflecting on what it captures. The film set meticulously chosen, whether it is the run down quarters of state security, or the refined, lavish home of the state security officer.  The scenes are dark yet painting like, with copious shades of black and blue filling the screen as if they were the film’s posters - memorable cinematography from Victor Credi the director of photography. Ahmed Mostafa Saleh’s music in the background is mostly subtle and minimalist complementing the picture beautifully.

A movie that recounts the details of the 18 day uprising in 2011 was long awaited and with regards to accuracy and authenticity, Winter of Discontent does not disappoint. There is no climax, just a slow transition that the revolution did to a great number of people. It does not tackle what people did in Tahrir, but rather what Tahrir did to other places.

Whatever it may be as a movie is overshadowed by sincerity in telling the tale. The attention to detail, whether in conversation, mood or sound, is transporting to the 18 days. One such example is chants heard in the background of ‘Bread, freedom’ followed by the long forgotten ‘human dignity’, now replaced by ‘social justice’. Such were the chants that shook Cairo. ‘Do you think they’ll be able to do anything?’ asked Amr’s neighbor in one of the scenes as the protests marched by. A simple statement that reflects the hope people in their homes had for any sort of change that would better their lives.

For many who have witnessed some of these events, it is an incredibly moving picture that captures the spirit of the events; a whirlwind of emotions about fear, hope and defiance. To hope again when hope was lost is not easy to do, even when everything around you asks you to.

The story is about a nation who sought justice but found it absolutely nowhere but themselves having searched so hard. In a way it tells the story of a continuing revolution, from reasons it had started to reasons it cannot but continue. It tells the story of hopes and dreams and the ability to rise from beneath the dirt. Yet with all that it holds, it is a deeply saddening tale, because it is a story of an on-going discontentment, a continuing struggle, one that has not yet been resolved, one that has not yet been won.

The Mubarak Trial: A Theatrical Review

The Mubarak trial, while significant politically must be analyzed by an art critic rather than a political analyst. The spectacle viewed by millions deserves a better review with all the show that’s been put in place for the people. The true nature of the Mubarak trial is that of a stage play and must be evaluated on its theatrical rather than political merits.

Let’s start with the writing. This play has been granted a large amount time for writing. The writing conditions may have been stressful; the protests in May could have attached a sense of urgency, and the 8 July sit-in may have expedited the execution. Yet, this script has been in the kitchen for quite some time so there can be no excuse for the quality of work produced.

The results have not been catastrophic. The script may not be air tight, but was adequate for all intended purposes. The true challenge came with the execution which I dare say, fell below the mark.

That’s not to say that some of the elements of the performance weren’t well executed. The set design, for example, was impeccable. The hall looked like a real court room and the cage within was built with great attention given to the tiniest details such as the spacing between the wires. The costume design was one of the elements to be marveled at. The white track suits were well designed and a perfect fit (at least in one of the episodes). Audio was clear and the picture contained much realism.

Choreography was believable and not forced. Various actors danced their part. However, as any choreographer would tell you, the moves are only half of it, the other half is the dancers themselves. Unfortunately, the dancers were a true disaster.  

Besides a few other minor glitches, acting was the real failing in the whole production. Setting aside the fact that the accused was brought in on a stretcher instead of a wheel chair, the deposed president had too much vigor for someone rumored to be in and out of comas all the time. His strong voice gave way, as if he were reluctantly playing the part. He also fidgeted around in his bed too much for someone being brought in on a stretcher. His movements were numerous, impatient and showed signed of strength that should have been absent. He acted more like a healthy child confined to his bed by protective parents, aching to be released from the clutches of his bed and to go outside and play with his friends.

The ex-president’s sons didn’t do a fine job either. Their faces were healthy and smug and their entire appearance was unconvincing. To make matters worse, Alaa, in a moment of improvisation, broke out of character and revealed his true identity by ordering a camera to stop filming with much authority.

Supporting actors did not help either. The execution was not convincing enough. Characters forgot their roles and saluted the prisoners in a gesture that completely betrayed the authenticity of the entire play. On the one hand, one might defend them by claiming they are not professional actors, but on the other hand, it should not be much of an effort for them considering that this is their real job and the role should be executed with ease.

That’s not to say the play was not an overall success, it was and it was viewed by tens of millions who at the very least appreciated the effort and thought put into this production. It is only that these little glitches that deter a viewer from fully being immersed in the drama and makes the whole story less believable. Here are a few things that would have made the production better.

Had the SCAF not been a dictatorship meddling with the judiciary system, the likelihood of believing this was a real trial would have increased greatly. This is compounded with their reluctance to try Mubarak for a very long time and the constant rumors about his ailing health that was once one of the country’s taboos. Had Mubarak been brought in on a wheel chair rather than a stretcher and had he acted the part, the play would have been more believable.

However the gravest of all flaws lies in the script itself which is devoid of any mystery. The way the case has been built, with evidence stacked very poorly against the deposed president gives away the ending. There has been no effort to stack the evidence in a believable manner to create any form of suspense as to how the play will end. The laws of the country have been set up by the perpetrators themselves to give them protection at any time. The SCAF’s refusal to alter any of these laws undermines the entire show. If there is no conviction, the play will extend as long as the crowd is willing to endure.

Fish Tank

Fish Tank is a story through the eyes of Mia (Katie Jarvis), a 15 year old girl from the slums of Essex. Mia is living with her mother and her sister in a neighborhood infested with poverty. Her mother is jobless and an almost hopeless individual. However, her mother manages to find herself a decent and gentle boyfriend, Connor. In a way, he’s all that anyone could ever hope for. He treats the girls gently and their mother with respect.

Mia is aware of how trapped she is. She sees herself in all the animals bound by chains. On one occasion she tries to free a horse that’s bound inside private property. When she gets caught, the result is one of the most frightening scenarios imaginable. She is seized by two of the owners with an imminent threat of rape. They let her go after what seemed like ages of agony both to Mia and the viewers.

The film brilliantly portrays the complex relationship between Mia and Connor. For a great portion of the film it is unclear whether their relationship is paternal or erotic. The sexual tension is palpable in all of their scenes together, but since we see things through Mia’s eyes, we are unable to determine if his actions are sexual or if he is a fatherly character. That dynamic is a result of great performances and very well timed shots from director Andrea Arnold.

Michael Fassbender (300, Inglorious Basterds) plays Connor who maintains a fishy sort of goodness. His calmness and easiness is out of place in a stress ridden family and yet it seems to provide a much sought after tranquility. His confident presence in the family gives them a sense of serenity and comfort, yet Connor is too unhinged, too level-headed for a family whose members erupt to full blast at the slightest opportunity. His life seems mysterious but less so as Mia tries to invade it.

Perhaps one of the most reflective scenes of the dynamic between Connor and Mia’s family is when he takes them to a pond. With patience and gentleness catches a fish with his bare hands. As the fish is dying, gasping for air, he inserts a stick into its mouth through its body as this is the more humane thing to do.

The movie is captivating in showing a profoundly dire situation of poverty and a set of dysfunctional relationships that have formed in such a place. Mia seems to have a knack for severing good ties she has. Part of her doesn’t want to believe in any goodness that might be presented to her. She’s right to suspect everything, for in her world nothing can go right. Oddly enough after the harrowing threat of rape, she fearlessly returns to the scene to look for the bag she left behind.

The movie never ceases to show us the world through Mia’s eyes, taking its time to do so. There is something bleak about the outlook with which we are provided with for 122 minutes. We slowly uncover the reality of her world at her own pace. In the end we have a riveting story and we see is what it’s like to be a fish inside a tank.

Fish Tank won 18 awards including the BAFTA award for Outstanding British Film in 2010 and was nominated to win 15 more awards including the Golden Palm in Cannes.

Taken

Spoiler warning: If you're one of the 3 people who read these posts, then it's better if you have either seen the movie or do not intend on seeing it. 

On another note, I really recommend this movie, it's very intense, if it's a choice between reading and watching, don't read at all.

Taken is a gripping movie. The word gripping has been overused and is now benign. The truth is that gripping is a very intense word, and if that word has not been overused so much it would have sufficed to have left things with the very first sentence. The intensity of this picture is in how quick everything happens. You can feel that there's not a second to lose. You feel the tension; you feel engulfed by the events. It's gripping. It grips your attention and your emotions.

 

When I had finished watching Taken, I didn't know what it was that left me mesmerized. Sure enough it was an action flick, like many others. The plot didn't particularly stand out. If anything it was predictable save for a few interesting investigative techniques. The real power of this movie was just how raw it was. It was raw, unadulterated and authentic. Liam Neeson gives one of his best performances ever with an intensity and authenticity that captivates you, perfectly portraying a character that walked in on the movie rather than have been created by a script; Subtle, deliberate, strong and vulnerable.

 

I hate giving away plots but it's useless not to. Liam Neeson plays Bryan Mills, a loving father who has left the business of being a 'preventer' to live close to his daughter. A 'preventer' of course is just another form of spy who prevents bad things from happening with 'special skills acquired over the years'. He is sincere in his love for his daughter whom he had been away from for years on account of his job.

 

The movie starts with realism to those unfilmed years after a hero of other movies decides he had neglected his family long enough and has to make it up to them. He is not in the state of despair and hopelessness, and neither is everything like a fairy tale. His daughter loves him, but he cannot manage to be close to her. Time fractured their relationship and not in the usual way where the only feelings were that of bitterness. It was a little better and a little sadder, the feelings were poisoned by pleasant distance. The daughter chose remoteness and amiability rather than closeness and love. There was little else Bryan could do but accept that. His image as a down and out father is heart breaking. His love is subtle, silent, reserved and practical. There is nothing in the world he wouldn't do, he would give up what he loves best, and he would change his attitude and he did. It seems that he will never tire from making it up to her.

 

But Bryan isn't just a father; he's a 'preventer'. That's why he manages to remain calm and talk to his daughter giving her instructions as she is being taken. He is a man who has seen the world, he deals with the event of his daughter being taken as a doctor would deal with a patient being brought in, to him this is the life he knows. This is perhaps why he is reserved and calm in his love for his child, able to take different forms of rejection. That is what the real world has taught him. His daughter asks if his job was the reason he was paranoid, he replies that it is the reason he is more aware. He is aware of world that's evil and dangerous and yet the true balance in his character was his concurrent awareness of values like friendship and love. He has not lost faith in the world, but he is wary of its ways.

 

That same character finds himself in an impossible situation of having to save his daughter with all his strength and all his skills. This is where the movie excels actually. The words in the script don't try too hard. There is no debate about what he's feeling or what he's doing. He is someone determined to get his daughter back. The movie does not waste a second to debate morals or ethics, despite how intricate they are to the movie and to real life. In fact, the questions that this movie could pose if you caught your breath were about the intricacies of life. There are no pauses. Bryan mercilessly hunts down those who have kidnapped his daughter. It's all very simple, he investigates and he kills all those he has to within the 96 hour window he has to find her.

 

But Bryan is no superman. He's lucky, but not completely unbeatable. He is prepared, determined and ruthless. He does not spend time negotiating, he does not pause to think. He is a man used to killing, his emotion exists but does not interfere with him going about his tasks. There is a mention to Rambo in the beginning of the film because of his ability to take on anything thrown at him. Yet the killings are not absurd or humorous like in a Schwarzenegger movie, they are real and serious, there is no remoteness in them. His perseverance and dedication is beyond words.His true ability is to be able to think straight under the most extreme pressure. The whole movie bears witness to this.

 

Perhaps one of the most shocking scene is when he is with his old friend and his wife during dinner. He asks him if he is complicit and involved with turning a blind eye to all the human trafficking. His friend doesn't really care for Bryan's daughter. At this point Bryan uses his gun to shoot his friend's wife in the arm; a sudden and shocking action that catches everyone off guard, the viewer, the friend and even the wife. The next one will be between her eyes he warns. Bryan is not bluffing, he is not a good guy threatening to kill to get information. We do not imagine that he will not do it. He will kill her, there is no moral question, no hesitation. There is no idleness in his threat. The drive to find his daughter is so compelling that you can only think about this much later, perhaps after the movie has ended. The values of family, corruption, business and the world are so well entwined without the attempt to make a statement. It is enough to observe and weigh things out, the director never giving us eloquent thoughts to think about but purely intense circumstances.

 

I write this take on the movie without much analysis, just jotting down my reactions to a very intense movie that gave me more joy to feel than analyze. 

Body of Lies

"So what do you prefer to eat?" Di Caprio asks two young Iranian children living in Jordan. They answer, "Burgers and Spaghetti." In the film theatre, both of my friends on either side cringe at the same time after hearing the answer; it's so like Hollywood they say when I ask them later. I didn't understand what's too Hollywood exactly, the film or our lives.

For some reason or another I was the only one who saw this as a reflection of reality. The irony is that both my friends are ardent fans of reality being represented accurately in movies; I'm not dead set on it. It really got me wondering why two of the biggest fans of reality rejected it. Did they not really think it was a real answer or was there something more to it?

In all my life around the Arab world, I've found that this statement about burgers and spaghetti almost always true. This is what young kids love; this is what I loved as a child, they just simply taste good. Obviously there's more to cringing than a matter of taste.

The disdain was most likely at America trying to force its values, its culture and its tastes down our throats, and while this may have been true in the past, what my friends may have chosen to ignore is that it has now become a reality. America is very alive in the Arab world with its burgers and its vision.

But the only real problem with America is that it's loved and hated at the same time. In the movie Body of Lies this sentiment is accurately portrayed. One of the terrorists has got a PhD and speaks five languages; he wants to go to America, that's reality.

America is a land that enables you to succeed based on your skills and hard work, that's why it is loved.  But as the terrorist tries to bargain, the CIA agent cuts him loose to see who'll kill him. To Americans we're no longer people, we're no longer the needy and poor whom they had invited to join them, they've closed their doors, and turned their backs on the world and that's why we hate them.

Our love comes from wanting to have a place like America to live in, a place that has all its virtues. Our hate comes from our anger at their ignorance and rejection of the entire world; it's at their self absorption. Russel Crowe is an epitome of what America has become, a loving father and a kind family man who takes care of his own and attends their soccer matches and tries to spend time with them in a superficially loving manner, but when dealing with families thousands of miles away he is a completely different man, both ruthless and hurtful. He has shut down his sympathy and compassion for others and everyone is a tool or a pawn in the game he plays.

Di Caprio tells him, "Be careful about calling yourself America." But he is America, in all its intelligence and splendor, in all its deceit and indifference, in all its greed and power thirst. Crowe is a charming and yet spiteful man. He's charming because he's Russel Crowe, but we have an inner desire to love him and forgive him if only his actions would meet his charm… but till that happens (and it never will) it's love and hate.

Crowe sits from his base of operations, remote and disconnected from what's going on, only understanding what his modern technology brings him. He cannot understand that sometimes you can do nothing but wait, and that sometimes you cannot buy your way, or torture your way into success.

There is some value in the movie that chose not just to make the same old statement about a useless war with very hurtful strategy, it chose to describe a piece of reality in a more updated fashion. Perhaps it will never match any reality we know of, but considering that less than 2% of Americans have ventured outside their own state, it has brought an image of the Middle East that's a little closer to reality from what the majority would see in other movies or their largely biased Fox news.

There are a few things that appealed to me about the movie and perhaps being a simple minded Arab, they appeared to be real. When portraying an Iraqi working with Di Caprio, the young man barely had an accent. That was particularly interesting considering that all Arabs in the past have were made to have an accent even if they spoke English fluently. To have an Arab working with the Americans who showed no traces of an Arabic accent was very bold and yet so accurate. Consider the multitude of Egyptians who can speak English without an accent, there are so many of them and yet, without the accent you couldn't be an Arabic speaker. This is a shift in paradigm, just like when they decided that Egyptians could be portrayed without the need for a desert, the pyramid and camels.

There were many other items of authenticity in the movie, one of which was the cyclone club in Dubai that was visited by people on their business visits and making use of its prostitutes. There was also the fact that the American's weren't necessarily always the smartest, they were surpassed by the head of Jordanian intelligence played brilliantly by Mark Strong. There was also the values of friendships and personal relationships that were highlighted, and a rejection of technology that cancelled out these inter personal relations.

The portrayal of several events seems to have been well researched and it marks a change in the way Hollywood approaches the Middle East. There's an attempt, albeit just an attempt, to find out more about what's really going on, what Arabs are like and how in-over-their-heads Americans really are.

Why then did my friends dislike this movie? The simple fact is that anything associated with America's foreign policy and operations is hateful. There's just too much American crap around us now and America is still at it, trying to keep pushing the lie till it becomes true. My friends seemed to think that the movie was pro American in some way or the other because the hero was American, but looking back there wasn't a single good point about the Americans that was portrayed. Americans were remote, ruthless and did not comprehend the world they've forced themselves into. They were in over their heads and they didn't give a damn about the Arab world. They were incompetent and outsmarted and eventually taught a thing or two.

America with all its evils does not realize that the world is waiting for a chance to love it again because of the good it had advocated in the past. In both world wars it has been important for the triumph of a good side and has preached some of the greatest values. The problem is that America falls short on implementing any of its values and all that they have preached has become a body of lies. They are fading into oblivion and even that remote desire to forgive America for all the hate it has spread is turning or has turned into an unfriendly ghost that no one wants to be haunted by.

Why So Serious?

Never before has Batman ventured outside the fictitious borders of Gotham city into our reality in order to fight evil. In The Dark Knight he does. He goes to Hong Kong to bring a criminal to justice and in effect he tells us that this Batman is not confined to the remote boundaries of fiction anymore, the dark hero has crossed over to our reality. Batman has left the imaginary realm of Gotham city or more accurately has tried to bring both the city and himself closer to us.

This dark knight is far from being an entirely fantastical superhero inside a Hollywood movie. He has broken away from fantasy and visited upon topics that are very close to us; topics that reflect the world we live in. Chris Nolan gives Gotham city what no one before him has dared to give; Normalcy.

There's more to the Dark Knight than just a battle of good versus evil, there's a question of what one must do to fight evil. How dark you must go in order to fight evil and not loose your goodness. Batman is faced with the troubles that are not in our law books or clearly defined in our general ethics. Bruce Wayne is ever so present in this movie and he realized that he's not a hero and neither is his alter ego. He is someone who must do what it takes to fight darkness even if it is to lose himself entirely.

Perhaps this is why there's an emphasis in the entire movie that he is not just another superhero, he's a vigilante and all the criticism that applies to someone who takes the law into his own hands applies to Batman. He is not all about taking the right way, but he is about taking the necessary way, even if it renders him an immoral criminal. He is the man who must make the difficult decisions that nobody dares to make at the expense of his image. The whole movie has treaded forcefully on many borders of morality, and the image of Batman as a hero is compromised.

In case you haven't followed yet, the last two Batman movies are not extensions to the Batman superhero created by Tim Burton in 1989, the first of both gave us a message so clear that we don't want to believe, Batman 'Begins'… Chris Nolan writes off all previous Batman movies and declares that a new Batman begins.

"Why do we fall?" asked in Batman Begins. "So we can learn to pick ourselves up," is the answer. The Batman with Clooney was certainly the biggest fall and I think The Dark Knight has picked himself up again with this one.

I've always liked the Batman concept but despised the movies, most of them anyway. It was as if the movies camouflaged Batman or made up for his normalcy to give him the superhero effect. What I mean is that out of all the superheroes, Batman has no special powers, he only relies on gadgets and the likes. Most other movies have dehumanized Bruce Wayne and turned him into a clear cut action hero who knows how to choose what is right. His alter ego makes very little mistakes with respect to morality and is never presented with a task too great.

Directors were trying so hard to create a magical mystical image of Gotham that would transport us to a comic book hero's world and cover up for the fact that Batman has no special abilities. The result was a certain remoteness from all that was happening and disconnection from all who Batman was and he was about.

In this movie, Batman and Bruce Wayne melt, they complete one another and they're far from perfect. Their morality and their capabilities are questioned. Batman acknowledges that if things change, Gotham will not need a Batman, and he is contrasted by the White Knight, Harvey Dent, who is in fact a hero and does things the right way. Wayne believed it was Dent's time to rise to the occasion, just as much as Dent believed that Batman was just the right vehicle leading up to the change.

The characters in old Gotham city were previously one dimensional and the plot was so thin decorated by theatrics and lunacy. Never has commissioner Gordon been so real as he was brought to life by the outstanding Gary Oldman. Commissioner Gordon rose in ranks due to his integrity and his valor, a kind of valor reserved only for our masked hero in previous films. He managed to take a bullet and even managed to save Batman's life. Gordon has choices as well, to let the truth disappear and to lie in hope of attaining a greater good.


The new Gotham is a more terrifying place than the crazy one that we were presented with earlier. It's not that the old Gotham was less dangerous, on the contrary, it was a sad scary place, it's just that there was no one in it worth caring for to start with and nothing in it that Batman alone can't handle. This contrast is evident between the films when in 'Batman Forever' the riddler and two face present Batman with a choice to save the woman he loves or his sidekick. He manages to save them both. The joker presents the new Batman with the same choice, but this time it's done right, Batman can't save them both. They're both the same and he's not an idealist, he chose the woman he loved.

Batman isn't enough for the new Gotham City. There's just too much work for one man even if he is a super hero. That's what makes it scary, because villains are smarter and people are multi dimensional and can be cared for. In the old Gotham people didn't have the will to fight back, in the new one, people have the will but lack the power. The terrifying thing is Batman's need for people, he needs them more than his gadgets and his darkness.

Batman is more real because he's more human. He needs his life to be saved and his identity protected. Bruce Wayne does not magically disappear into his alter ego, he's the man beneath the mask and the movie makes sure we're painfully aware of this fact. The caped hero is aware of his need for others. Batman, Gordon and Dent are involved together in doing what's right, it needs them all. It's not a one way street for a change, each of them has an opinion which is quite a change from past movies.

With all characters in Gotham brought to life, it is only natural that the transformation of the Joker to be something entirely grotesque and scary. The joker is not funny, he takes his chaos seriously. He is clever and entirely immoral. The manifestation of evil of the old joker into Chris Nolan's joker reminds me of Jim Carrey's Mask when it was worn by the villain, his evil was magnified around a thousand times and his capabilities amplified. It was as if Ledger has found this mask and with it found a way to elucidate evil and madness and present them too us vividly.

A lot has been said about the Joker, both as a character and as a performance. To repeat what has been already said would serve him no justice. It is entirely shocking what Ledger has done. It was as if the joker's make up has covered both the identity of the joker and its performer.

"Excessively spontaneous yet focused and calculated, Ledger as Joker is an unpredictable, gripping beast," says the daily news.

The Joker is real, he tells us that evil is something that we should be scared of, that even our heroes cannot fight alone. He is extremely charming and appealing as is most evil, but his ends is utter destruction.

The Joker is the movie, and at the end, the Joker won. Everyone of the trio standing up in the face of evil has had to sway from the path of absolute right in order to combat the Joker. In the end regardless of whether they stopped the Joker or not, they've all lost. But to be fair, the Joker lost as well, though I doubt he cared.

In our world there's no absolute right and no absolute truth and we do the best we can. It's not the act itself that's good or evil, but our intentions, but images must be kept. The world expects goodness without any sacrifice, but those who must provide it have had to make these sacrifices. This is what we're told.

The movie puts all the good people against insurmountable odds, constantly, until they give way. This is evident when Batman asks Lucious Fox to spy on people and asks Commissioner Gordon to lie to people. However, despite their moral bends, the Joker is beaten by the people. There's a subtle difference between bending our morals and breaking them. It's evident with Harvey who had given himself no choice but the right way until he broke. Individuals can make mistakes but the general morality in Gotham is not completely lost. No normal person would be so devoid of morals even if it is a prisoner on death row, only a lunatic like the Joker can smile in the face of chaos.

Sea of Crap

Stars sink in the Sea of Stars

After attending the premiere of Bahr El Negoom, I pondered over how one could possibly write an honest review about this movie without being offensive. I decided it wasn't possible…not when a movie is this bad. And why should I be tactful in pointing out the horridness of this movie when its makers were so blatant in their offence to the audience while making it? No effort was made to spare us the torture of having to watch an extended, mindless and poorly implemented advertisement.

Had it not been an invitation I received with the knowledge that the stars would be present, I would not have attended, and even with all that I do regret wasting my time with this movie. Haifa was present at the premiere and I was almost stampeded by people charging at her. Had it not been for 'Gigantor' her body guard, she would have been dead meat. What's all the fuss about a talent-less Barbie doll? I'm talking about artistic talent of course, but we've come to realize that people are just looking for other kinds of 'talents'. I suppose that's what the producers were thinking of and counting on while making this movie.

It's not so much that the movie was bad, it's just that it was so damn ugly and embarrassing. It was ugly in a way that can almost scar the human soul. It was called Bahr El Negoom or Sea of Stars, and rightly so, for it is like a sea where its stars have sunk. Unfortunately for the stars, who were probably paid a hefty amount to sell their souls to the devil, the movie did nothing to increase their stardom, but in effect the little they may have had plummeted to the depth of the sea on account of this movie. I'm sure that all the fans will not take well to being tortured by their favorite artists. Even worse, Pepsi, the sponsoring company might have affected its image negatively, for after the movie, the mere sight of the Pepsi can brought back memories of this torture and made me want to puke.

I never regarded the silliness of making music videos till I saw this movie. When watching a music channel you can ignore the silly moves done by the singers and dancers in the context of watching a song, but when it's within a movie, the absurdity really shines because of all the silliness embedded in reality. All the sexiness of Haifa with her come to bed moves has been lost in the context of a real life; the nervous twitch that Wael Kafoury that looks like interesting camera work in close-ups just doesn't seem that attractive when he's talking in medium shots rather than singing. Carol Samaha was out to prove that she's capable of competing with Haifa's seductive powers, wearing a sexy skirt and top and moving her body to the music, but no amount of shape, curves nor clothes could have camouflaged the monkey dance she delivered. Lotfy Labib, while usually giving performances that I enjoyed very much has really managed to annoy me, but then again it was fitting of this movie.

The pain while watching this movie was so intense that I was worried if I shall be able to retain what remains of my manhood after completing its viewing. But instead of just relaying the pain I felt watching this movie, let me try to present analyze the movie more objectively.

At the very start of the movie, we can see a young boy, Youssef (Karim Mahmoud AbdelAziz), narrating that his story is about 'love'. Apart from the cheesiness of this start, and the fact that his story had nothing to do with love, and the irrelevance of the starting lines with the rest of the story, never has a word been so cheapened as the word 'love' in the start of this movie. There should have been a warning that this movie was not to be viewed for those under twelve, and even then I think the remaining audience would have launched some complaints.

It seems that the corporate producers were given a late tip that 'love' is a key word to lure the young teenagers in, and so perhaps after the lousy screenplay had been completed they had to insert it and found no other place but the start of the movie. The word was even more cheapened with most of the songs being about love, and during the course of the movie, after a singer would sing passionately about love, they'd just switch to the usual and practical bitch mode hence nullifying every feeling they might have tried to put across with the love song.

Youssef's parents had a restaurant that they would lose if they don't pay off their bank loan on time. In order to help them he has to revive an old music festival organized by his grandfather and another famous producer. The festival was called 'Bahr El Negoom' (surprise surprise). He moves on from one star to the other, trying to convince them to sing in the festival and is rejected, five times!! It is so apparent that all the stars will say no, but we had to endure the torture of each dull rejection scene so that each star can get his 5 minutes of poor acting on screen. Now why doesn't Youssef change the way he presents the idea to the stars, five times, just saying the same lame old crap and we have to see the actors rejecting it? Why do we have to endure this nonsense till we're finally offended by the smugness and idiocy of Ahmed El Sherif while he's rejecting the offer?

Anyway, in order to get the stars interested, he makes up two lies on a radio show; the first about a famous producer organizing the show, the second about Pepsi sponsoring the show. The Pepsi contact was apparently unaware that Pepsi was the sponsor, and he had to go to great lengths to find out that the famous producer thing was a lie. Why the great lengths? He was supposedly working in the sponsoring company, wasn't it enough for him to know that they were not sponsoring the event to figure out that all of it was a lie? Supposedly, this young man who was in his thirties it seems knew that famous producer, who had vanished 20 years ago!! No comment. It's not worth the time to point out holes in the plot, for if truth be told, it was not a movie at all.

If all the filming was outside Egypt and almost all the actors were not capable of delivering their lines with an Egyptian accent, then why on earth should you bother to do the movie in Egyptian? The actors were pathetic and I almost felt sorry for them. It's not just their poor delivery of their Egyptian lines, it's their inability to surpass an amateur level performance. The better question of course would be why do this movie when none of the actors in the movie could act for crap? But the answer to that is simple, this movie is an extended corporate ad, with infinite product placement so blatant it has reached a new all time low.

The movie is so shallow and sinister in its intent that one could go back in time to the cheap commercial eighties movies (Aflam Al Moqawalaat) and salute them for not having sunk that low. There was a masturbation of Pepsi throughout the movie and on the one occasion that a character was sipping a hot drink, there was a huge Pepsi logo overshadowing the entire shot.

Advertisements can sometimes be well made and entertaining, sometimes there are ideas that can exist for thirty seconds that make it bearable to finish watching an ad, but not on this occasion, this was the most boring advertisement and not even Haifa's feline looks and curves could change that. With advertisements at home, even though they're forced on you while watching your favorite television show, you can still switch the channel … but not in this movie, there's just no escaping it.

The movie epitomizes this day and age in one sense. It's the celebration of superficiality and consumerism. It represents a battle in the Egyptian Armageddon against bad art. The idea that a soda drink company actually produces a movie is unprecedented and incensing. It is going further down than we've ever been in the artistically void pit we've been in, and trying to get out of, for so long.

Bahr el Negoom sets a dangerous precedent; the malignancy of film making merely for profit seems benign in light of what this movie sets out to accomplish, for there something more sinister than just making money here, it's the disfigurement of art for the sake of consumerism.

Hassan & Morkos

Very heavy on the symbols, this much is true… it's what makes this movie drift so far from reality, yet in effect reflecting it. The movie had one of two choices, to elegantly move over items of our daily lives pointing to them in a suave, elegant manner, or bring down the hammer over the points we see every day and blow them up to reflect what's hidden in our society. It chose the latter, probably because of how difficult it is to do the former. In effect, the movie is a not at all elegant, insisting on delivering messages through pounding dramatic effect and repetition, mostly to the masses who prefer their movie messages delivered in this manner.

Abstractly though, the scenes when stripped of their need to reflect reality drive home very directly a message that has tried to be sincere. Its conclusion is delivered through the movie's final scene. It says yes, we do not know each other, yes there are problems, yes there is even hatred and yes we are not one and the same. We're different and we're in chaos and that will not be denied. The lines that separate us have been drawn but worse, the lines prevent us from knowing one another any further. We become our clan, and we're just a bundle of blind resentment.

We're in this battle we've found ourselves in with no hope of a mass salvation. Our masses are doomed and are in chaos due to prejudices and bad history. There is only room for personal and individual salvation. Like the six entwined together in what looks like an average road from hell in the movie's final scene, we cannot fight to change all that's around us, but we need to hang on to each other to get through it. Our salvation is through personal knowledge and through love of one another.

We are not one, but we can intertwine and we can go through the roads of hell together. Amidst this impersonal chaos we can still have each other. There's some elements of human love that transcend religion, for religion should only lead us to those elements. We can survive the violence around us knowing what know about each other.

This was expressed in the final scene that was built up by the movie. It was heavy on allegory and physically distant from reality in a seemingly surreal fantastical kind of way. (Although the choice of Alexandria where such violence took place can defend the aspect of reality) In the remainder of the movie, Hassan we Morkos reflects a hidden prejudice that has become stealthily inherent in our community. They are prejudices based on superficial labels and nothing can be as superficial as the labels presented in the movie. We have a non practicing Christian and beardless and ignorant Sheikh.

These are people under a thin cover. The cover is simply a label, a tag and unfortunately this has reflected that no one cares about anything except that tag. Some of us are labeled one way or another through our names and that serves as all the basis needed for prejudices and discrimination. Some of us with neutral names can really see the discrimination as soon as our labels are discovered. Even Hassan and Morkos, or rather their underlying characters, who epitomize religion, end up judging one another superficially. They warm up to each other based on religion and are discriminated against based on how they appear.

Hassan we Morkos is a funny comedy that has not fully grown into its potential black. Not all points were discussed and there were references to hidden opinions from both sides that rang so true that you couldn't help but laugh. The absurdity of accusations of one party to another was comical to see on screen and yet behind the comedy there was so much truth.

The whole movie of course is based on an improbable plan set forth by the government and while the actual plan of the government was fictitious, the consequences were not. The government has helped to orchestrate the atmosphere for this kind of tension in reality, and perhaps it has in fact hidden who we are from each other. At the end of the day we're left with the ugly situation expressed in the usual cheesy crowd chants but reflecting a reality that's impossible to ignore nonetheless.

The scenes that took place in the south of Egypt were comical to say the least, not reflecting at all the prejudices that exist down there. To talk about these dogmatic prejudices and discriminations would leave no room for comedy as people’s lives are destroyed because of their religion. The movie had no choice but to skip these bitter stories. Over here in the big city, we Cairenes are quick to say, there’s nothing of that sort, there’s no prejudice and there’s no hatred. In Cairo, we’re distant from all that happens elsewhere.

Whether this movie can move any prejudice an inch is not something for me to say or that can even be foretold, although, like everything else, it will just pass as entertainment. For we love our stars on the silver screen, Omar and Adel, but we don't usually extend that love to our loud or obnoxious neighbors. That is why things may fade out as does the music with the ending credits. In real life there's no Yasser Abdel Rahman's inspirational score to move our hearts. There is no camera on us to judge us and there are no lovable stars to love. We're left with one another and that may not be enough.


We need the familiar, our usual stars to love, our usual music and lighting and most of all our same kind. The only way out is through personal knowledge as the movie suggests and the only way towards this is by allowing ourselves to trust. We need to open the door we've locked ourselves in and allow love to salvage us from the utter chaos we've found ourselves in.

There's no camera to watch us but we forget that a label was never a window to the soul. I suppose it's only fair to say that there are so many who have actually moved past all these prejudices that were forced throughout our present day culture. There are some who have fought the dogma of tribalism with the logic of love. There are some whose human bonds are even stronger than that of blood, and transcend the labels that lead us to those sought after pure human qualities. So let us walk in their footsteps and put aside our slogans and hypocrisy and see each other as humans with a choice. As long as we have no choice about our prejudices, we'll always be enslaved.

Ezzo

The best ending award goes to Yetraba fi 3ezzo. Of all the Ramadan series, it hasn't been the most spectacular, but I dare say that it had the most spectacular ending. Despite the force fed message and the unlikelihood of dramatic change and the Egyptian effort to always tie up loose ends very neatly, it has managed to remain spectacular nonetheless. This is owed to mostly the great performance of Yehia El Fakharani and the intensity of the situation which brought about his change. The truth of the matter is that this ending is a culmination of all the good change that can be brought about by a slap in the face.

We've had to endure an obnoxious, uncaring and selfish Hamada for the whole of Ramadan. The problem of course being that the character was close to reality and it hit a nerve. Nothing would stand in the face of his selfishness and his blindness. The annoyance of having to watch him for over twenty episodes go down the usual path of self centered actions was unbearable and yet it was worth it to watch those excruciating 28 episodes not for the change that he underwent but for the mere satisfaction of seeing him finally realize what he has been doing. It is worth it to see that he finally woke up to see who he is and to recognize the hurt he's left on all those around him. The change itself is an idealistic ending that should not be expected, but when we meet people who are in total disregard for all those around them the most we can ever hope for is that they open their eyes and that can be their punishment and it's not usual to look for atonement.

However Hamada is a very likable guy and we really hope for a change, we like him and care for him no matter how much we despise his character and perhaps that's why his atonement was something we were waiting for. I suppose that's the difference between Egyptian drama and other sorts, Egyptian drama has to offer punishment and atonement rather than stop at punishment alone. Indeed in most cases real life drama does not offer either and some arts that claim to reflect reality will give us neither.

In any case back to the last two episodes, there was genuine feeling and had Yehia El Fakharany taken upon himself to participate in these series for the last two episodes alone I would certainly not blame him; for very few series offer artists this great challenge of displaying genuine emotions to a somewhat complex character. The build up was a little exaggerated but the swift ending and dramatic change caught us off guard and I'm not sure if those final episodes alone can stand out as brilliant performances but I do know that even with the previous somehow frustrating episodes it was worth it.

To be honest I hadn't expected a great turn around, I felt all roads closed, and I felt the incapacity for the character to change. That's why Yetraba Fi Ezzo had it been done without the dramatic turnaround it still would have been a good reflection of reality that offered no solution. I've always held a firm belief that for everyone there's a certain slap in the face that can bring about dramatic change, we can never imagine where that slap comes from but that's part of why it's the only thing that can bring about change. While change in general is difficult this is the only exit for people trapped in their ugly habits. The thing is that anything less dramatic wouldn't have been believable and in all fairness we see Hamada at the end retaining some of his flamboyant and boyish traits that nothing can erase. This is what makes the ending believable in my opinion.

So that's why the best award goes to Hamada Ezzo for changing the pace along the way. With Yosra, the show had a constant and consistent build up whose ending was inevitable, but with Hamada I was tricked into thinking that nothing could ever change, and in most cases I was right. I won't say that the ending of this dramatic change was a surprise to me, on the contrary, I had expected it from the start. I only expected it to be a gradual change of a man and I wasn't offered that right up to the very end. The reason I discounted a dramatic change is that I wouldn't have believed that a big change can come about so suddenly or in so few episodes.

Okay maybe I'm just writing this after being affected by moving performances by those involved in the show, but I decided it was best to express what I thought. I also like that Yehia El Fakharani works in silence. He doesn't try to add much unneeded propaganda to his show and speaks to us through his work.

We're Fine

She looked at her husband lying on his bed barely able to move after five operations and four days in a coma. He was barely able to move but was aware of everything that was important to him. He was happy to see his wife but he was concerned about his son Hussam who had been in the accident with him. She greeted him with joy in her heart and told him how glad she was that he's doing well. He moved his lips to say Hussam. No sound came out but his lips said it.

His wife looked at him and said, "We're all fine and we're waiting for you to get well."

Again with his lips he asked, "Hussam" and though he said it with no sound it was very audible to her. She replied, "He's fine, he's just a bit shook up from the accident," she put on a smile and went on, "he's just waiting for you to get a bit better and it'll take him some time to get better himself." Her mouth could not hold the smile anymore, "we're all fine," she said, "we're all fine."

She became thoughtful for a moment and stood up and repeated, "we're all fine." She paced about the room still thoughtful and saying as if to herself, "we're all fine," then she looked at him and said, "your daughter gave birth to a boy." She watched his reaction and then said, "we called him Hussam, like his uncle." Her eyes gave her away and she paused and calmly said, "Hussam died." Her broken spirit oozed out of her whole body. "Hussam's died, Hussam died." She kept repeating it and broke into tears as she said it. He stared into her eyes as she looked back at him, his body unable to move. She looked at him with so much love; "Our son died… Our son died."

His face didn't move and tears slowly started dripping from his wide open eyes and slowly covered his sad, sad face. His face muscles hadn't twitched but his face was soaked with sadness nonetheless. She flung herself into his arms while she said, "our son died," and theirs was a long warm but sad and bitter embrace.

There are things between those that are married that are born with them that create a sense of attachment they never thought possible. How do they cope with such a loss, the only way is through each other, and oddly enough they're the source of that loss.

"Our son died." These words were powerful enough to sculpt Everest. That Hussam died was hard enough to hear but to see his wife who had shared with him his entire life share that insurmountable loss was more than he could ever bear. Yet those same words, "Our son died," coming from his wife contained his salvation too; those same words, "Our son"; "Our" was the only thing that could make him imagine that by some miracle he could bear it, because he wasn't going to do it alone.



Sausan Badr has proved to be such a superb actress. This is a scene out of the ramadan series 'Eldaly' where Sausan Badr delivers a very powerful and elegant performance. I haven't been a great fan of Nour Elsherif however in this scene he's done a fabulous job, he expresses himself perfectly with his eyes. It was such a touching scene and I have no idea why I wrote what I wrote except that it moved me. It adds nothing and it's better to be seen with Sausan's tone and expressions. Her performance is very sincere and heartfelt and I could really feel her broken spirit.

Babel

Non Spoiler warning, if you’re looking for a review that tells you what the heck is going on, then you’re not getting it, this is just my reaction to the movie with some observations.

Babel is following the now known mould of movies like Crash, Magnolia and Three Seasons, many characters interconnected and their story slowly unraveling. ‘Slowly’ is a keyword when it comes to Babel. It is a very good story, that’s been told well with all the tools that cinema has to offer, but perhaps its length was an issue. With movies like Crash, Magnolia and Babel, there’s always the dilemma of keeping things short or making them long. When they’re short, you feel you haven’t spent enough time with the characters and that all aspects haven’t been covered, like Crash. When it’s long, it tends to give you more of the characters but it drags, like Magnolia. Babel, was more like Magnolia.

There’s always the problem of keeping the user as interested in the different characters who are all taking major roles, and the switch of story and scene sometimes turns off the hypnosis. In Babel however, I can assert that the scenes were all well made and interesting, though not necessarily pleasing to all tastes.

Director Alejandro González Iñárritu did a great job with 21 grams by cutting it up to pieces that took a bit of time to put together, 21 grams while being a great story, if ordered would be a long dragging tale that would have been harder to follow, if that’s possible. He made the mistake of putting things more together in Babel. The movie still happens in different timelines, but it’s more comprehensible and slightly more predictive since the timeline is not that extended.

That’s not to say that Babel is not a good movie, it tells a particular story very well. The scenes seem to have been made patiently and a lot of work has gone into making every shot special. The music is non invasive and brings across the right feelings for the scenes and the moods. There are so many cultures brought to the screen and they come across as genuine. The stories are reflective of the cultures they represent, the despair and triumph for Americans, sorrow and depression for the Japs, oppression and death for the Arabs and fleeing and undermining for the Mexicans.

The problem isn’t that the story isn’t told well, but that the story was overtold. Despite great scenes, it seems as if the director wanted us to wait for his story to unfold and instead of adding more events, he stuffed it with artistic scenes that shifted the focus from the main areas of concern. Independently the scenes are great, but they hinder an already slowly moving rhythm.

It seems that there is a trend of telling more than one story of one person. In books about writing books it’s always advised against writing with a God view. But it seems that these days the story of one person isn’t enough, people are more concerned with the big picture. Books and movies alike are turning towards telling more stories about more people, such as Alaa El Aswany who keeps taking us from character to character and movies such as these. I’m not sure if people are now concerning themselves with the ‘greater’ good where greater refers to a greater number of people, or if their intellect has absorbed all kinds of singular stories that they’re looking for more brain food through a multitude of stories rather than one.

Babel is well made and has some very compelling scenes. At the very start it looks like a foreign movie (as opposed to American) because of the focus is on characters that are stereotyped usually and are of no concern to Americans, and it does well to combine that authenticity with the more modern scenes in Japan.

If you’ve seen the movie, you don’t need to read this and if you haven’t, you probably haven’t understood what I’m going on about, I should have included this in the warning.

Helio Flat

Semi spoiler warning: If you're one of the 3 people who read these posts, then it's better if you have either seen the movie or do not intend on seeing it. Because in all likelihood you won't know what the heck I'm going on about and while it may not be ruined completely upon reading this, there is a chance that it can be ruined while watching the movie.

On another note, this isn't much of a review, just ranting and stating things that are very obvious in the movie.

Fi She2et Masr El Gedeeda (In the Heliopolis Flat) is a very simple story about 2 people falling in love coming from entirely different worlds. They are surrounded by very kind people who are helpful and do not have malicious intent. The simple story line is certainly not the movie’s finest point, for if the story itself is examined it is displaced from reality and is closer to fantasy.

It does have some realistic elements but it would suffice to say that reality is not its strongest point. Its strongest point, however is the bag of symbols that are presented throughout the story’s simple plot that revolve around life’s most outstanding quality, love. Though I hate narrating story plots, it’s is necessary that I do so for the purpose of pointing out symbols. Nagaat (Ghada Adel) is a woman from El Menya in search of her teacher and friend Tahany who used to live in a flat in heliopolis. Instead she finds Yehia (Khaled Abou El Naga) who lives in that flat instead of Tahany. Tahany has apparently vanished without warning and nobody knows whether she is alive or dead. The movie revolves around finding out if she’s alive and well and where she lives.

Yehia gets daily visits from a divorcee called Dalia and enjoys the casual pleasures of physical intimacy. With a racing bike and a great job as a stock broker he seems to have it all made. Nagaat keeps missing her train to take her back to Menya, as though fate is intervening (in bizarre manners every time). She meets a taxi driver who is called Eid Milaad and he takes her to a place to stay in with a woman called 7ayaat. And so the story goes, taking us through various circumstances that bring Yehya and Nouga together.

Tahany is obviously a symbol for love that has vanished for a while and whether love is dead or alive in this world we do not know. There are always people who are searching for it and those that believe it’s dead. There are signs of its existence but they’re all very shady signs that are open to interpretation, just like Tahany. The crux of the movie is evidently in the line spoken by Shafeeq (the incredible Youssef Dawood) when he says “She Exists!!!” an obvious symbol to the fact that love exists.

Yehia and Nougat are representatives of most people, either those who have lost hope in love or those desperately in search for true love, in both cases they’re confused and what they believe about the matter is irrelevant since eventually love conquers them. In Yehia’s life the divorcee, Dalia, represents the transactional side of a relationship, she’s there because it is pleasurable to have physical contact with Yehia, and when she realizes she can have children, after having thought she was barren, she decides that she wants to marry Yehia for a child rather than love. In the reality of the world we live in, there is no real love of the romantic kind she argues.

Nagaat knocks on Yehia’s door three times and every time is symbolic of how she has invaded his life. The first time she knocks she arrives so much later than Dalia leaves the apartment, the next time she comes just as Dalia is leaving, the time after that, she arrives much before Dalia leaves. She is evidently invading the space and control Dalia has over Yehia, he is being invaded by love that kicks out any transaction.

Yehia’s job as a stock broker also plays a symbolic role. Even though his sole role is transactions he displays his judgment and refuses to sell some stock until the stock closes. He is afraid that he made a bad judgement by trusting his gut and is in a state of confusion. At the same time when he realizes that it was a correct decision and that the stock prices have gone up, he starts to realize his feelings for Nagaat. Love has triumphed over soulless transactions.

Interestingly enough Nagaat’s taxi driver Eid Milad has has two daughters fajr and shorook (dawn and sunrise) and is a symbol for second chances and rebirth. He is kind, supportive and caring. He hooks her up with 7ayaat, whose literal translation is life. 7ayaat is a survivor and she has an evident crush on Eid Milaad. She doesn’t dare make a move, she just wants to live on, and the part that just wants to survive does not wish to take a risk.

All in all the film is full of symbolism that conveys the message of love and chance in the movie. Modes of transport and even the elevator in the building are symbols whose actions go analogously with the events that take place. The movie has been masterfully made and there is not one bad scene except when they’re playing snooker incompetently. The movie takes us to a fantasy world through symbolic helpful characters that conspire to make life work. It seems that all those working in the movie shared the vision and belief in the making of this movie and that is why the amount of details in each shot is taken care of. Even Yehia’s wounded lip remained wounded till the end.

The director of photography has done a great job bringing to us a certain fantastical mood. The sound has been gratifying as well specially with the sounds of a man singing in an echoey appartment. From an artistic point of view the movie is beautiful, in its scenes and symbols (although it may be one too many symbols at the cost of reality) but whether you believe in the message or not is entirely up to you. After all, we haven't had a good look at Tahany, and one can still wonder if she’s real, even if she does exist.