MILLIA DASGUPTA
Image Courtesy: Creative Commons
It was Oscar Wilde who said, “I regard the theatre as the greatest of all art forms, the most immediate way in which a human being can share with another the sense of what it is to be a human being”, and many believe the same can be said about cinema. Coloured with a past of colonial influence, turmoil and struggle, the history of the Syrian cinema industry is an interesting story.
The first-ever film screened in Syria was at a café in Aleppo. Eight years after the first screening, the Ottoman administration built the first film theatre in Damascus. It was burnt down one month after its inauguration. The French, in 1932, assumed trusteeship over Syria through the ‘Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon’, a League of Nations Mandate and built multiple theatres in Damascus which showcased French-produced cinema. The first Syrian film to hit theatres was ‘Al Muttaham al-Baree’ (The Innocent Suspect), a black and white silent film that depicted the real-life events of a bunch of thieves who wreaked havoc across Damascus.
The film, to this date, is seen as an attempt to defy French colonial influence over cinema. The team involved in production and direction soon went on to form the first Syrian film production company, Hermon Films. While the film struggled to compete with multiple French productions, it was a commercial success and was accepted with euphoria from the general public. The second release from this company, ‘Tahta Sama’ Dimashq’ (1934) (Under the Damascus Sky) was unable to match Egyptian produced cinema and was a commercial flop. Soon Egyptian productions conquered the Syrian cinema industry. ‘Tahta Sama’ Dimashq’ (1934) was banned by French authorities for exceeding budget allowance, and the production company was slapped with a penalty fee for copyright music. This was part and parcel of the French administration trying to crush the Syrian film industry as they wished to remain the sole provider of entertainment in cinema halls and retain their soft power.
The success of Arab Egyptian cinema and the collective common consciousness of Arab countries led them to see Egyptian cinema as a representation of their world and using it to combat European colonial influence. Syrian talent, unable to earn much profit from the waning industry, travelled to Cairo and integrated themselves into Egyptian film productions.
In 1947, a year after Syrian Independence, Nazih Shahbander established his film production studio and went to produce the first-ever Syrian talkie, ‘Nur wa Thalam’ (1948) (Light and Darkness). The cast of the film (stars such as Anwar el-Baba, Rafiq Shukri and Yvette Feghali) would later make their name in the film industry. Local production started to take off in the mid-1950s. These films were commercial in nature and tried to emulate the success of their Egyptian counterparts. However, profits were unstable as the distribution of the film was an issue. In the 1960s, the Syrian film industry gained fame with the growing popularity of the comedic duo Doreid Lahham and Nuhad al-Qala‘i. They went on to produce various films which were mainly burlesque comedies, such as 'Aqd al-Lulu’ (1965) (Necklace of Pearls).
In 1963, the Al-Mu’assassah al-‘Ammah li al-Sinamah, or the National Film Organization, an independent arm of the Ministry of Cinema was established to oversee the production, export and import of Syrian films. This was done primarily because of the prevailing ideologies of the party in power, the Ba‘ath Arab Socialist Party who wished to foster a national identity for Syrian films. The organization brought back a few Syrian talents who had migrated to Cairo and summoned fellow Arabic states to help them in their endeavours.
Despite their intentions, the organization has been criticized for doing more harm to the Syrian film industry than good. In 1969, The National Film Organization was granted a monopoly over the film industry and private ventures soon became non-existent. The world had been polarized by the Cold War and after the humiliation of the defeat of Arab armies against Israel and the loss of territory to Israeli occupation, the Syrian government was invested in changing the political discourse that had plagued Syria. But despite the criticism of the control that the organisation had established over Syria, they opened up opportunities to Syrian and Arab directors to ask for funding for their films. This led to the golden era of Syrian film production from the late ’60s to the ’80s.
In order to understand Syrian film culture, we must understand that Syrian films for a long time were never made to entertain, but to crystallize the aspirations of the people and to represent their struggles. The Arab world was in the clutches of revolution and was influenced by pan-Arab nationalism and local nationalism. The loss of Palestine and the defeat of the Arab armies in 1948 and 1967 fuelled revolutionary sentiments. The defeat of 1967 or the ‘Naksa’ made Palestinians refugees overnight and these Syrian state-sponsored films documented the plight of these Palestinians.
Documentaries and films which were produced during this time would change the Syrian film industry forever. Documentaries such as ‘Bai‘dan ‘an al-Watan’ ( 1970) (Far from their Country) and ‘Shahadat al-Filastinyyin fi Zaman al-Harb’ (1972) (Testimonies of Palestinians in the Time of War) which talked about the lives of Palestinian children and the impact of 1960 on their parents, became popular films in the Arab world. Fictional films such as ‘Al-yazerli’ (1974) portrayed the woes of the common man. This film conveyed the story of a family of a migrant who had to fend for himself in a big city. In their pursuit to capture the political turmoil in Palestine, Syrian cinema saw the birth of a new hero in cinema culture, the freedom fighter or the fida’i. He was a common person and an unsung hero who was different from the urban elites who lead the national struggle for liberation.
The National Film Organization started to invest in talent development and offered scholarships to study in the Soviet Union. Filmmakers such as Mohammad Males, Samir Zikras, Oussama Mohammad and Abdellatif, who studied under this programme would bring upon the second wave of Syrian cinema. They became iconoclasts who are revered in Syrian Cinema. Their films did not concentrate on big national victories but on the tragic effects of war on everyday people. The permanent state of war between Syria and Israel was a heavy influence over cinema. Syrian films would also engage in the criticism of the patriarch and absolute rule. In ‘Khutwa Khutwa’ (1978) (Step by Step) and ‘Nights of the Jackals’ (1988), the patriarch has direct ties to the military and his absolute rule can be connected to the discipline of the army.
Despite playing its part in the inception of stellar films, the National Film Organization did a disservice to the Syrian film industry in many ways. Due to limited resources, they could only produce two full feature films every year along with a few short films. Its steel grip of censorship and bureaucratic procedure suffocated scriptwriters and directors. They had to go through multiple stages of approval and revision before even making it onto the list for a second screening. Screenings would take place in front of high-ranking officials of the Ba’ath and other distinguished officials who had the authority to give the final seal of approval.
Many films that were censored by the organisation earned awards outside the Syrian border. Omar Amiralay who is a pioneer in documentary making, had his film “al-Hayat al Yaomiyyah fi Qarya Suriyya” (Everyday Life in A Syrian Village) banned. The film was critical of the policies of the regime and denounced them. Other films of his have also been censored and he has worked independently from Syrian funding. In a 2008 interview, Amiralay criticized the organisation for being behind the fall of Syrian cinema and accused its director, Mohammed Al-Ahmad of being highly critical towards authors and writers of Syrian cinema. This was a known fact as the director would frequently conduct bitter campaigns against film directors and writers.
In today’s age, Syrian documentaries have gained global interest and funding due to the world wanting to know the story of the Syrian people. According to director Ziad Kalthoum, the Syrian audience can be split into those who are pro-revolution and pro-regime. A majority of Syrian films are documentaries. For many artists, the death of Hafez al-Assad in 2000 that led Bashar into power sparked hope for a more democratic future and the liberalization of the National Film Organization. However, multiple activists and artists have been imprisoned and filmmakers who wish for change have been neutralized. The pro-democratic movement in 2011 and the Syrian Civil war forever changed the way Syrians look at their own political discourse and the regime. This has led to a new generation of directors such as Mohamed Abdel Aziz, Vidal Debs and Reem Ali. Pro-regime films are usually showcased to the general public, while those critical of the regime are only showcased to a selected audience and at film festivals.
As the political discourse around Syria continues to evolve, so will its cinematic discourse. Cinema has always played an important part in expressing Syria’s political developments. Despite Syria’s plight being very foreign to most of us, cinema has breached that gap and shall continue to do so.
References
Salti, Rasha. “Critical Nationals: The Paradoxes of Syrian Cinema .” Kosmorama , 2006.
Bezreh, Aman. “The Syrian Public and Its Cinema: A Tale of Estrangement - Part I.” OpenDemocracy, 28 Nov. 2019, https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/north-africa-west-asia
The views expressed and suggestions made in the articles are solely of the authors in their personal capacity and the Center for Middle East Studies and O.P. Jindal Global University do not endorse the same.