Chahine and Akkad Major Directors 20th Cetury - Doco.
Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 8:45 am
Those interested in the history of film might look at “The Story of Film – An Odyssey” (2011) a UK 15 hour documentary of film across the world currently running on TV in Australia and made for TV 4 in the UK. It has been widely acclaimed. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2044056/
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/01/movie ... .html?_r=0
The documentary regards the Egyptian Chahine as one of the greatest directors of the 20th Century. He is interviewed five years before the revolution and makes a prophecy that there will be a revolution in Egypt and it will be about food, the loss of dignity and the abuse of power. To help the revolution, he makes a sly joke that he will buy large sticks and give them to university students so that they can fight back against the government and not be beaten into submission as in the past.
His masterpieces are The Sparrow (banned for 4 years by Sadat) and Cairo Station (suppressed for 20 years) He also made The Emigrant (censored for depiction of minor religious persons) a documentary on the dam (suppressed for four years because it showed the negative impacts on poor people) and other censorings and suppressions, yet was regarded as getting off lightly because of his fame! He left the country at various time because of political interference. The hot topics he hit on were sex, corruption, fundamentalism, the abandonment of the poor and the fellahin.
He wasn’t only a problem for Egyptian dictators and in 2002 contributed to an omnibus film 11'09"01: September 11, where he ‘floats’ the argument that Islamic militants had the right to kill civilians in the U.S. and Israel — because these are democracies, where the people choose their leaders and thus are responsible for policies that enslave the rest of the world.
The other Arab (Syrian) filmmaker regarded as a major world director in the doco.is Akkad. The Messenger (1976), about the life of Mohammed is his masterpiece. In a sign of how difficult it is to make well intentioned films in the Islamic world about The Prophet, after it was approved by Al Ahzar, it was strongly, an unsurprisingly, opposed/denounced by the Saudis and their religious barking dogs. The cast was strong and included Irene Papas, Rosalie Crutchley and Anthony Quinn with two versions made, one in English and one in Arabic. The shorts I’ve seen are stunning and like Akkad’s hero David Lean. The film was nominated for one Academy award.
Akkad’ stated intention was to show western audiences that Islam is more than violence but, weirdly, violent Islamists in the US seized several buildings in Washington DC and demanded the films destruction. It was also widely suppressed in the Islamic world.
His other Islamist big budget film was Lion of the Desert (1981) based on the life of Omar Mukhtar the tribal leader who opposed the Italian ‘pacification’ of Libya. The historical details are gruesome; over 250,000 locals killed, the probable use of chemical weapons on civilians, mass deaths in concentration camps and all of this in the 1920’s and 30’s. Support for Mukhtar came from Egypt and his family sought asylum there.
Mukhtar was of course captured and killed and (in real life) the Italian general, Graziani, was ennobled by the King but not before he received two other titles: the Butcher of both Fezzan (in Libya) and of Somalia. The film starred Papas, Quinn, Gielgud, Rod Steiger and Oliver Reed (presumably it wasn’t made in a dry country) but had a poor reception in the West because Akkad had taken film funding from the Lunatic of Libya.
Akkad said his purpose was to tell the truth about the Italians in Libya (as well as show Libyan heroism and fighting for freedom) and he probably succeeded because the film was banned in Italy for almost 20 years and that old creepy crook and three times PM, Andreotti, said that it damaged ‘the honor of the Army’. In a volte face the film was suddenly screened for the first time in Italy when it was sucking up to the Lunatic for oil and building contracts and as the Lunatic was to about to make his visit.
Exposing the butcher of Fezzan and 1st Marquis of Neghelli, in the movie was more than setting the history right. The Italians had completely pushed it under the carpet after the war and the only charges he ever faced were collaboration with the Nazis for which he was convicted and sentenced to 19 years but served only 4 months. He died in his bed in 1955 and is proudly memorialized by his village with a new statue. Many Italians are said to still deny any war crimes and feel happy with the Corelli Mandolin myth.
On the other side of the real life story, the now very aged son of the executed Mukhtar was to the fore in recent events in Libya, had opposed the Lunatic, and was regarded as a revered symbol of freedom. Maybe there is poetic justice in the old man helping to bring down Italy’s ‘new best friend’ as payback for his father’s execution and the Italian atrocities against his people. Wonder how many contracts the Italians will get now.
Who says that films don’t’ matter and their stories don’t motivate, enlighten and just plain frighten the life out of people. These two Arab/Islamic/Egyptians directors made a few liars, dogmatists and dictators very angry. A lot of their films are about real life and real politics.
Chahine is dead from natural causes but Akkad was still living in the fundamentalist and violent present when he and his daughter were killed in an Al Qaeda suicide bombing in a hotel in Amman in 2005. Two of the hotel bombers were a husband and wife, which is a story that might have attracted Akkad, had he been alive. However, to do the film well you would need to get inside the mind of other - no matter how horrific. Can’t see Al Qaeda or the Islamo-fascists regimes in the region making much art or even popular entertainment along these lines but maybe Akkad could have done the job, after all he was the director of all the Halloween horror movies. He could get inside a lot of different heads no matter how horrible they were, as could Chahine.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/01/movie ... .html?_r=0
The documentary regards the Egyptian Chahine as one of the greatest directors of the 20th Century. He is interviewed five years before the revolution and makes a prophecy that there will be a revolution in Egypt and it will be about food, the loss of dignity and the abuse of power. To help the revolution, he makes a sly joke that he will buy large sticks and give them to university students so that they can fight back against the government and not be beaten into submission as in the past.
His masterpieces are The Sparrow (banned for 4 years by Sadat) and Cairo Station (suppressed for 20 years) He also made The Emigrant (censored for depiction of minor religious persons) a documentary on the dam (suppressed for four years because it showed the negative impacts on poor people) and other censorings and suppressions, yet was regarded as getting off lightly because of his fame! He left the country at various time because of political interference. The hot topics he hit on were sex, corruption, fundamentalism, the abandonment of the poor and the fellahin.
He wasn’t only a problem for Egyptian dictators and in 2002 contributed to an omnibus film 11'09"01: September 11, where he ‘floats’ the argument that Islamic militants had the right to kill civilians in the U.S. and Israel — because these are democracies, where the people choose their leaders and thus are responsible for policies that enslave the rest of the world.
The other Arab (Syrian) filmmaker regarded as a major world director in the doco.is Akkad. The Messenger (1976), about the life of Mohammed is his masterpiece. In a sign of how difficult it is to make well intentioned films in the Islamic world about The Prophet, after it was approved by Al Ahzar, it was strongly, an unsurprisingly, opposed/denounced by the Saudis and their religious barking dogs. The cast was strong and included Irene Papas, Rosalie Crutchley and Anthony Quinn with two versions made, one in English and one in Arabic. The shorts I’ve seen are stunning and like Akkad’s hero David Lean. The film was nominated for one Academy award.
Akkad’ stated intention was to show western audiences that Islam is more than violence but, weirdly, violent Islamists in the US seized several buildings in Washington DC and demanded the films destruction. It was also widely suppressed in the Islamic world.
His other Islamist big budget film was Lion of the Desert (1981) based on the life of Omar Mukhtar the tribal leader who opposed the Italian ‘pacification’ of Libya. The historical details are gruesome; over 250,000 locals killed, the probable use of chemical weapons on civilians, mass deaths in concentration camps and all of this in the 1920’s and 30’s. Support for Mukhtar came from Egypt and his family sought asylum there.
Mukhtar was of course captured and killed and (in real life) the Italian general, Graziani, was ennobled by the King but not before he received two other titles: the Butcher of both Fezzan (in Libya) and of Somalia. The film starred Papas, Quinn, Gielgud, Rod Steiger and Oliver Reed (presumably it wasn’t made in a dry country) but had a poor reception in the West because Akkad had taken film funding from the Lunatic of Libya.
Akkad said his purpose was to tell the truth about the Italians in Libya (as well as show Libyan heroism and fighting for freedom) and he probably succeeded because the film was banned in Italy for almost 20 years and that old creepy crook and three times PM, Andreotti, said that it damaged ‘the honor of the Army’. In a volte face the film was suddenly screened for the first time in Italy when it was sucking up to the Lunatic for oil and building contracts and as the Lunatic was to about to make his visit.
Exposing the butcher of Fezzan and 1st Marquis of Neghelli, in the movie was more than setting the history right. The Italians had completely pushed it under the carpet after the war and the only charges he ever faced were collaboration with the Nazis for which he was convicted and sentenced to 19 years but served only 4 months. He died in his bed in 1955 and is proudly memorialized by his village with a new statue. Many Italians are said to still deny any war crimes and feel happy with the Corelli Mandolin myth.
On the other side of the real life story, the now very aged son of the executed Mukhtar was to the fore in recent events in Libya, had opposed the Lunatic, and was regarded as a revered symbol of freedom. Maybe there is poetic justice in the old man helping to bring down Italy’s ‘new best friend’ as payback for his father’s execution and the Italian atrocities against his people. Wonder how many contracts the Italians will get now.
Who says that films don’t’ matter and their stories don’t motivate, enlighten and just plain frighten the life out of people. These two Arab/Islamic/Egyptians directors made a few liars, dogmatists and dictators very angry. A lot of their films are about real life and real politics.
Chahine is dead from natural causes but Akkad was still living in the fundamentalist and violent present when he and his daughter were killed in an Al Qaeda suicide bombing in a hotel in Amman in 2005. Two of the hotel bombers were a husband and wife, which is a story that might have attracted Akkad, had he been alive. However, to do the film well you would need to get inside the mind of other - no matter how horrific. Can’t see Al Qaeda or the Islamo-fascists regimes in the region making much art or even popular entertainment along these lines but maybe Akkad could have done the job, after all he was the director of all the Halloween horror movies. He could get inside a lot of different heads no matter how horrible they were, as could Chahine.
