I definitely agree with this statement, especially after this heavy historical background and the historical backgrounds we’ve been seeing in Film Spotlights. Really, the most complete picture would begin further back in time, even to the founding of Islam.

I don't really like this wording. Did they really 'wipe it out' or did they just repress them until these groups found a chance to break out and take control – like in Egypt as we have already seen during the Arab Spring.

I feel like this an inherently difficult task for us as an Western audience and part of the point of the films we have watched this semester was to address this discrepancy between western thought and the thought of those who are actually living in the countries that the films are being produced, who so far have often been the targeted audience for these films.

Perhaps a growing secularism sentiment and fleeting religious spirit in the youth urged those in power to reclaim their traditional Islamic roots in an effort to prevent their loss of power. This may explain the sweeping growth of Islamist associations and parties throughout the Middle East all relatively at the same time. I’m sure there can be other explanations for this return to traditional roots, can y’all think of any others? (EDIT: just read onto the next page which addresses practically the same question)

I found it interesting that there is practically no mention at all about religion, or really any particular political movements or leaders. Rather than explicitly mentioning them, there is just a more diffuse sentiment of resistance. The anti-government message is clearly conveyed in the band’s lyrics, but there is no real specific target party, figurehead or anything really that is identified. I think subtle details like telling the audience that these events occur the summer of 2010, months before the start of the Arab Spring helps put this film in some political context, but I think a little more specificity in where the resistance is directed at would have helped. What do you guys think?

I think the similar scene in this film was one of the most powerful. Throughout the film the mother-daughter dynamic between Hayet and Farah was largely very strained, although it had its moments. The entire film up to this point where Farah gets caught by the ‘police’, Farah is trying to seek liberation from this traditional mold that Hayet seemed to symbolize. However, she never realizes that her mother was just like her. This moment not only shifts the focus of the film from Farah to Hayet, but also gives us the other side of the once seemingly always fighting duo. Now they, unfortunately, have this shared trauma that yields a much different relationship between the two. Hayet too was once a youthful free-spirit but the police and government beat that out of her – as we could tell in the first half of the film. However, with this information now, looking back I feel like the mother’s strict/traditional mindset, was more to protect her daughter rather than expressing her actual beliefs. Thinking back to the other parent-son/daughter relationships we’ve seen in other films, how does the Farah-Hayet bond compare or contrast?

While not explicit as in other revolutions in the area, the Egyptian revolution still had its own share of at least ‘perceived’ foreign intervention. Diab makes this quite clear early on in the film – many Egyptians had disdain for the US and the Americans, as evident in how they treat the AP reporter when they find out he is American, although still Egyptian American. I remember seeing a photo on Facebook a few years ago of one of the tear gas canisters with the words on it written “Made in the USA” – fueling some anti-America chants mixed in with some anti-regime chants. I also remember this one famous interview of an Egyptian woman having an message for then President Barack Obama (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPcKqaGGd2A ) and later remixed as a meme among Egyptian youth (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjLh2MzoCU0 ), but the same anti-America sentiment is still there.

I feel as an Egyptian who was not directly involved in the revolution, but still followed it closely and was directly affected by many of the outcomes and events, that a lot of both media and Egyptian people themselves were fixed in the romanticism of revolution as a whole. It’s very scary to think of a military coup as liberation. But many Egyptians believed in the perhaps too idealistic notion that some just some simple and peaceful protests would easily bring the swift action of the good-willed and honorable military to dispose of the former regime (here’s a song from the time to show how highly we praised the military - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dskl5eMNmco ). In contrast, Diab’s film paints a much more real image (at some points uncomfortably so) of the daily scenes on the streets during this revolution time. This could present as a shock to many Egyptians that were still involved in the revolution, but may not have actually been on the streets, per se.

One subject I was surprised that Diab didn’t delve into too much, perhaps because of its sensitivity, is the Christian vs. Muslim dynamic in Egypt, not just the pro-army vs. MB dynamic. What could be considered another factor in the spark of the uprising could be the violent attacks against Coptic Christians that instilled rage in the Christian community in Egypt (especially because of lack of government response or protection) – namely the January 1, 2011 Alexandria church bombing because of its proximity to the first revolution. Diab does slip it in subtly as we see the taboo nature in which the cross tattoo on the soldier’s wrist and then quickly covered up and also when the soldier does the sign of the cross at the end and it appears like people are just staring at him. Perhaps he didn’t go too deep into because of how sensitive and still active this conflict is, just look at the news literally last week for the latest attack on Coptic Christians. However, the problem with an internal conflict like this, as the end of the film shows, no one will win. A house divided against itself cannot stand.

Something I thought about even before the film started was why Diab would choose to present the second (2013) Egyptian revolution rather than the first (2011) at the height of the Arab spring? The two revolutions are much different, the choice was obviously very intentional. The first revolution is often still romanticized, and even in the film, they reminisce about the older revolution as “the good old days.” While the clash in the first revolution may have been the people vs. the regime, the second revolution was much uglier in that it was much more like a civil war. The Egyptian people themselves divided into two – pro-army vs. MB. Using this clash between the people, Diab is able to show a lot more tension between the members in the van. What do you guys think a film like this based on the first revolution might have looked like?

Despite these protests and uprising being exceptional, especially in Egypt and Tunisia, I love how Diab was able to present many of the characters as just normal people in the subtle interactions he chooses to present on screen. Two of them that come to mind, first include the interactions between the Egyptian young men on the pro-army side. At one point one of them even asks if his hair is fine, even through all this calamity, and of course the other friends ruffles his hair up. I feel like this interaction and their constant friendly bickering is a mirror image for many of the real friendships of the viewers. Another scene was when they talk about the soccer rivalry of Al Ahly vs. Zamalek, literally the biggest thing ever in Egypt (We just ask for your name, ID, then Al Ahly or Zamalek, lol) . It felt for a second like everyone, from either side, were just a group of guys sitting around at a bar or coffee shop watching the game. I think reminding viewers the how of a ‘regular Joe’ the people who protesting were, not only makes the movement that much more powerful, but also make the film itself that much more impactful. I know Diab mentioned one of the major MB leaders, the doctor in the other van, but I feel if the film was focused more on the more influential leaders, the audience wouldn’t be able to connect with of the characters and their cause as well. What do you guys think would have changed if Diab chose to focus on these personalities instead?

In many ways like this food crisis was a necessary need that was unmet and became a catalyst for the uprisings, in the film we see the characters’ more than just unmet but rejected by the army men. A many points this film was more about the human condition, the lengths people will take to survive and live. Just look the scenes, when a critical resource becomes available. When the mother gets a bottle of water during the intense heat, everyone swarms around her to get a sip. When it is found out that one of the youth have a cell phone, everyone swarms around him to try to make their own life-saving call for help. And while many of the times, there are clashes, Diab is able to sprinkle in some moments of hope and comradery (although often cut short by some attack or violence – the ‘thriller’ aspect of the film). Overall, Diab is able to investigate these complexities of the human condition, but the intense ending of the film fails to give the audience the reassuring ending they might have wanted that ensured that everyone made it out alive and safe, and were able to make it out of the intense trials in the van. Did you guys notice any other ways, perhaps more subtle in an initial viewing, that Diab was able to delve deeper into the human condition?

Edit: Just saw that lower on the same page, we begin to discuss this.

This seems to much more match the air of freshness that Fanny brings to Simone, although it does start and have its moment in melancholy and conflict. Ultimately, her return revitalizes Simone and allows her to keep her dream alive, a very different type of return than those mentioned before.

It is interesting to see such a recent film address this age-old issue at current time and using modern communication, but even now still show the situation is essentially helpless. This is clearly not the most optimistic of themes, and one would think that there would be any kind of progress of over the years, but this film ultimately serves to deliver the same message as earlier films did, but to a younger generation who might not know about or really care about the Jewish-Moroccan struggle.

It is interesting to see that here and in The Orange People, those people who have the ‘gift’ of some form of magic/dreaming also have some sort of condition that could be used to perhaps medically explain their ‘gift’ – this in this case it is mental disability and in The Orange People it was narcolepsy. To an American audience, if this magic is supposed to represent “Moroccanness” as Chreiteh says above, seeing it presented as a disease or a condition I feel belittles Moroccanness for the outsiders not familiar to this symbolism. Do this hurt or help the messages that are trying to be conveyed by the filmmakers?

I’m not sure if this is just at the surface-level of the film, but in Orange People, we see quite the opposite, something we see more often in popular film – haunting from the past but a promising future. We follow Zohara on multiple, often traumatic, flashbacks to her childhood that continue to haunt her but also explains a lot of her character to the audience. However, this film also has one of the first ‘happy endings’ we’ve seen this year as the camera pans out on the packed “Couscous with Gold, Lulu and Lala’s Restaurant” – indicating there is still a promising future for the rest of the family. Is the haunting coming the past in this film only significant because previous films concerning Moroccan-Jews offer haunting from the future instead?

While this is obviously a conflict that doesn’t have an element of war, the struggle here is similarly based on a long history with many complexities like many of the other conflicts addressed in the other films we have watched so far. Many of the other conflicts we have looked at are relatively well known and acknowledged by those familiar with the region, but this the first time I’ve heard of the Jewish Moroccan struggle, which is especially interesting since it has a rich history already but doesn’t get its due attention.

While I don’t think Azoulay-Hasfari does much to show that the family is Jewish Morrocan, well except a few mundane scenes, such as Simone carrying a menorah, I did notice that was not much interaction between members of the family and others, unless they were customers. Could this be due to them being viewed as outsiders, because they are Jewish Moroccans, or could it be because of the nature of Zohara’s job as dreamer and many people just disregarded fortune tellers and thought of them a cons? Could being Jewish Moroccan influenced the route of Zohara’s ‘job’ as a dreamer – being an outsider by ethnicity led her to live isolated on the beach and have this ‘outsider’ job?

6) I really enjoyed how Sulieman was able to show how accustomed the Nazarenes were to the constant violence and presence of Israeli soldiers, often through mundane comical scenes. Perhaps my favorite example, is the need for a fully armored tank with the turret closely following a man as he is simply throwing his trash away. Even as he is about to enter back into his house, he turns around to answer his phone and so does the turret goes back and forth in following him just doing his daily routine – unphased.

It is interesting here that Sulieman is able to not only consider the differing POV of the Palestinians rather than Israelis in the conflict, but is also able to demonstrate the difference in POV between the young and the old. By seeing the influence of modernization in the form of the “young wise guys” but the change of how the same actions done by the same characters at different points in time are given a new context. Was there any other POV dichotomies, others noticed? I didn’t particularly notice a male vs. female contrast we might have seen in earlier films, but am still interested to see if someone picked up on anything else.

I think the importance of this event cannot be understated. Nasser was one of the most influential Arab figureheads of the 20th century and was extremely popular, not only in Egypt, but throughout the Arabic world (when he resigned for some time, there were protests for his reinstatement). He was a symbol of pan-Arab unity at the time. Following his sudden death due to a heart attack (still controversial), many people were shocked and his funeral was one of the most attended ones in history. In the film, you see how far his impact stretched, with the children and teachers at the school depressed and news being spread on almost every TV in the middle east.

I feel like this breaking into four sections actually works very well in this film. Moreover, having this longitudinal narrative, going through Elia’s life, make the audience feel much more invested throughout the film to see fates of the mother, father, and the boy that we watch grow into a man. I noticed that in the first two pauses into darkness to signal the next point of time, the transition begins with Fuad’s fate uncertain – whether it was being beaten by Israeli troops in that countryside or being escorted out of his house to the station. This plays into the idea that is really his father’s, rather than Elia’s, narrative for at least the first half of the film. After the blackness fades, in both occasions Elia’s mother is writing to family in Jordan, which allows the audience to get more information through this ‘dialogue’ without Sulieman actually having to use real dialogue, which was barely used, especially by the main characters in his style. The last pause, transitioning into the present, follows a very different tone, with Elia returning home and no update on Fuad, who assumingly passed away.

I love how Sulieman showed the Palestinian POV, both literally and figuratively. There was clearly just the Israeli side dictating the order. Although they are awaiting the mayor, once he arrives he waits to receive his summons from the Israeli side, hardly appearing like a figure that holds any sort of power. While I understand Sulieman’s point of demonstrating that the Israeli forces came in practically bullying the mayor of Nazareth into signing the terms of surrender, but I feel like Sulieman portrays the mayor as being way too weak of a figurehead. He shows almost no sort of resistance at all, reflecting poorly on his state, while the Palestinian public seem to be the only ones taking action and resisting, as seen in the conflicts on the streets against the Israeli troops. Unless there a disparity or conflict between the public and the higher ups in government, leading the public to not respect their mayor (and thus this depiction of the mayor may be correct in the public’s POV), I feel like this hurts the nationalistic cause that we see in other areas of the film. What do you guys think? Would a different portrayal of the mayor, perhaps as stronger or more resistant or is this just one of Sulieman’s many satirical elements?

Like in the other films we have watched in this class, the importance of realism cannot be understated. These are not the musical love stories that dominated the middle east in Egypt's golden age of cinema. With this realism, cinema was burdened with another responsibility (not just entertainment to pass time): to not only reflect life as we know it, but also deliver meaningful messages and reflectional material that can truly make a impact on individuals and society as a whole.

The article talks about how important cinema was the national recovery and healing process following the horrors of the civil war and it made me think of how many films even in the last decade or two are of movies based on tragedies. Think of all the 9/11 films, and more recently Patriots Day about the Boston Bombings, and the countless films in development about school shootings. There is sadness and reflection, but also some anxiety and adrenaline rush that comes with these movies. I can’t pinpoint the fascination with making and watching these films, what do you guys think, apart from history-telling and healing, why are people paying money to watch these types of films in theaters?

In psychoanalysis, there area a lot of other considerations when dealing with the unconscious. Our unconscious will use many different defense mechanisms to deal with internal thoughts that a individual is uncomfortable with. Here Khatib explicitly mentions repression, which is what most people think of off the top of their heads, but there are also a slew of other defense mechanism that function to serve the same purpose, including: denial, projection, regression, reaction-formation, sublimation and so many more. I was wondering if any one caught any of these other defense mechanisms in play during the course of the film. If so which one and when?

Doueri also emphasizes the realism and everydayness of the war experience. The war, quite literally seemed to start over night (something I’m sure those living there at the time would agree with) with Tarek at school one day and then in a bomb shelter the next night. He also fashions Tarek as very relatable character, for both the Lebanese audience, especially youth, and even for some Western viewers. His room looked like a teen’s room in the US, with western movie posters hanging and western music playing. He truly seemed like any other teen his age, with his dislike of school and always trying to have fun and somehow getting into trouble.

Annotation based on preface (which was subsequently deleted): Am I the only one who was taken aback how much explicit sexual content was in this film. Maybe it was a different time and culture, but still from Omar and Tarek recording the uncle’s hot wife, to Tarek, still just a kid, ending up at the brothel for a day. Sure, it has meaning, such as the brothel being the only place with some form immunity from the war, until closer to the end of the film or that the kids aren’t living real ‘’childhoods” by being exposed to sex, violence and smoking so early, but even then I feel some people at that time too would be a little disgusted.

I’m glad we have this preface (prior to its deletion), I also know for sure that I haven’t even heard of a Lebanese film that hasn’t been about the civil war. The general public was trying to repress such a painful memory, but waiting for a special piece to truly tackle the issue in a way that’s inviting to the Lebanese public and with characters they could actually identify with. Khatiub says it’s a prophecy of cinema, but I like to think of it as history repeating it self. I think any sort of medium that recognized the history of the war, not just cinema in particular but maybe rather a book or article, could have elicited the same result if it just served to do what everyone at the time wasn’t doing, which was recognizing what happened and trying to digest it. Cinema does a great job and I’m not trying to undermine it. But I feel a really good book or article could have also started the conversation about the war, just as well. What do you guys think?

Like in the other films we have watched in this class, the importance of realism cannot be understated. These are not the musical love stories that dominated the middle east in Egypt's golden age of cinema. With this realism, cinema was burdened with another responsibility (not just entertainment to pass time): to not only reflect life as we know it, but also deliver meaningful messages and reflectional material that can truly make a impact on individuals and society as a whole.

The article talks about how important cinema was the national recovery and healing process following the horrors of the civil war and it made me think of how many films even in the last decade or two are of movies based on tragedies. Think of all the 9/11 films, and more recently Patriots Day about the Boston Bombings, and the countless films in development about school shootings. There is sadness and reflection, but also some anxiety and adrenaline rush that comes with these movies. I can’t pinpoint the fascination with making and watching these films, what do you guys think, apart from history-telling and healing, why are people paying money to watch these types of films in theaters?

In psychoanalysis, there area a lot of other considerations when dealing with the unconscious. Our unconscious will use many different defense mechanisms to deal with internal thoughts that a individual is uncomfortable with. Here Khatib explicitly mentions repression, which is what most people think of off the top of their heads, but there are also a slew of other defense mechanism that function to serve the same purpose, including: denial, projection, regression, reaction-formation, sublimation and so many more. I was wondering if any one caught any of these other defense mechanisms in play during the course of the film. If so which one and when?

Doueri also emphasizes the realism and everydayness of the war experience. The war, quite literally seemed to start over night (something I’m sure those living there at the time would agree with) with Tarek at school one day and then in a bomb shelter the next night. He also fashions Tarek as very relatable character, for both the Lebanese audience, especially youth, and even for some Western viewers. His room looked like a teen’s room in the US, with western movie posters hanging and western music playing. He truly seemed like any other teen his age, with his dislike of school and always trying to have fun and somehow getting into trouble.

I’m glad we have this preface, I also know for sure that I haven’t even heard of a Lebanese film that hasn’t been about the civil war. The general public was trying to repress such a painful memory, but waiting for a special piece to truly tackle the issue in a way that’s inviting to the Lebanese public and with characters they could actually identify with. Khatiub says it’s a prophecy of cinema, but I like to think of it as history repeating it self. I think any sort of medium that recognized the history of the war, not just cinema in particular but maybe rather a book or article, could have elicited the same result if it just served to do what everyone at the time wasn’t doing, which was recognizing what happened and trying to digest it. Cinema does a great job and I’m not trying to undermine it. But I feel a really good book or article could have also started the conversation about the war, just as well. What do you guys think?

Am I the only one who was taken aback how much explicit sexual content was in this film? Maybe it was a different time and culture, but still from Omar and Tarek recording the uncle’s hot wife, to Tarek, still just a kid, ending up at the brothel for a day. Sure, it has meaning, such as the brothel being the only place with some form immunity from the war, until closer to the end of the film or that the kids aren’t living real ‘’childhoods” by being exposed to sex, violence and smoking so early, but even then I feel some people at that time too would be a little disgusted.

Idk if you guys noticed, but there wasn't much in the way of stereotypical Egyptian architecture and landmarks in the film - the only moment I noticed was when Hanouma rejects Qinawi's proposal at the fountain, when Qinawi stands up the statue of Ramses II was towering right behind him for just a second. I'm pretty sure this exclusion was intentional, but did you guys see anything else along the same lines of traditional Egyptian landmarks that I didn't catch?

I’ve personally the disparity between old and new Cairo, but I was wondering if y’all had the chance to visit Cairo for one day, which side would you go see? Would you want to go see more traditional and oriental city with expressive ancient roots or would you want to see the Egyptians’ take on European modernization, which while clearly trying to be reproduced, still has an uniquely Egyptian flair to it?

I personally don't like the strict categorization of art, especially when it comes to unique hybrid works like this movie. While this description is probably a decent way to categorize Chahine's work in-terms of studio genre, I'm not totally satisfied. Could you think of other suggested alternative descriptions/categorizations for this movie?

While this setting obviously made the movie feel much more realistic and like it was staged in the normal hussle and bussle of an average day at the station, it also provided for some memorable visuals (ie, the prologue and the frequent return to the station's clock). Additionally this background allowed for greater contrast and emphasis on the moments when we are not at the station, such as at the warehouse, or when the noise of the trains is shifted to a longer sequence of silence, such as in Qinawi's shack. One of the most profound examples in the movie is perhaps the sudden switch from the busy and loud station to the quiet stare of Qinawi, usually a harbinger for a change of scene or some other significant event that's about to occur.

I feel like the Egyptians' reclaim of their nation after years of colonialism is mirrored by the Abu Sheri vs. Abu Gabur dynamic in the film as well. Abu Gabur being the old leader of the workers at stations symbolizes the colonial powers that used to be in control, but Abu Sheri, who on the flip side represents a younger generation yearning for decolonization, is attempting to rally his co-workers against Abu Gabur's rule and start a union for the betterment of all their jobs. Another aspect of the changing environment at the time, but perhaps with a more patriotic cause.

I personally was disappointed by the lack of character development, especially since we didn't get a back-story for Qinawa and that at the ending his "father" figure was so willing to trick him into the straightjacket without any internal struggle of betraying his "son" - Did you guys similarly feel the same way or did guys think the movie still delivered its message/purpose without such development?

Throughout the movie, I could see a ton of ways that the Egyptians and general audience would really be hostile against a movie like this. Not only does Chahine depart from the conventional movie themes for the time, but he also emphasizes many themes that the mostly traditional Islamic public would be very uncomfortable confronting, such as the rapid growth of Western practices, which one actor in the movie said would "lead straight to Hell," as well as focusing on Qinawi's sexual frustration. It seems like the audience was too comfortable with the storylines and themes in movies from other directors, and that the initial misunderstanding comes from the shock from such a radical change. Let alone, they weren't ready for their country to be presented to the world this way either.