//

Interview: Jehane Noujaim and Karim Amer on The Square

We chatted with the director and exec producer of The Square about their forlorn, harrowing study of dissent.

Interview: Jehane Noujaim and Karim Amer on The Square
Photo: Noujaim Films

Egyptian-American filmmaker Jehane Noujaim’s brilliant new documentary, The Square, charts the Egyptian revolution’s initial spasms in 2011, but more so the excruciating growth of the country’s tortured body politic in the years since. Noujaim and her crew—who were as much participants in the action as witnesses, having been arrested multiple times—craft their narrative around three very different Egyptians: the young, wisecracking secularist Ahmed Hassan, the Muslim Brotherhood supporter (and family man) Magdy Ashour, and U.K.-raised Kite Runner star Khalid Abdalla. The Square interrogates Tahrir’s ability to turn strangers into allies (and friends) even as the power structure tears ever-further between militarism and Islam. Using fluid, almost hallucinatory tilt-shift camerawork to cushion her characters against unpredictable and often violent rallies, Noujaim is neither self-congratulatory about the revolution nor entirely pessimistic. The result is a forlorn, harrowing study of dissent sure to be intensely revisited in years to come. I was honored to meet with Noujaim and executive producer Karim Amer ahead of the film’s New York release on October 25th.

Can you talk a little bit about the look of the film? What’s it like trying to construct cinematic images while you’re also in Tahrir Square, running for your life?

Jehane Noujaim: So the DSLR was a necessity because our cameras would have gotten confiscated if they weren’t the Canon cameras. DSLRs weren’t getting confiscated, because the police and the army thought they were just for taking still photographs. At a certain point—maybe six months in?—they finally started confiscating them. And then we met Muhammad Hamdy in the square.

Karim Amer: He’s our DP.

JN: The entire team first met in the square, actually.

KA: So he taught all of us how to use these cameras, and a lot of people had never used them before. The tilt-shift is his signature. He uses architectural lenses, not traditional film lenses. That’s where you get the feeling of the background around the characters being as zoomed-in as it is.

The Square premiered at Sundance in January, but the version being released on October 25th runs as late in its chronology as August 2013. At what point can you say you’ve conclusively finished a film like this? Or are you still planning on further edits?

JN: The first time we allowed it to “end” was when a president was elected. That’s the political ending, right? But it’s not the emotional ending. The characters still wanted to change the system, still wanted to change the people on the ground, and how they were fighting for change. So as we were on the way to Sundance, two weeks before we left Cairo, there were massive demonstrations in the streets. All of our “characters” were back in the streets, basically, because Morsi had started to take dictatorial powers. And so we watched this happening and said, there’s no way this could end, it’s a much more interesting, much deeper story. And it’s what this film is actually about: the fight against oppression and fascism, whatever face it may take. Whether it’s Mubarak, or the military, or the Muslim Brotherhood. Before we went to Sundance, we had an office continuing to film, and we knew we would be back editing again.

How important was Magdy’s character at that point? Was his role expanded given the different crackdowns?

Advertisement

JN: He had a large role during the entire filming process, because he’s the example of…he’s a foot soldier of the Muslim Brotherhood. He’s been loyal to them for 25 years. And his story was very interesting to watch; you could see how even though he had loyalties to them, he felt these loyalties were more religious. What he felt politically was much more in line with the protesters. He gained great friendships in the square, and he became quite torn, especially when his son went and was a much more loyal Brotherhood than even he is.

KA: His son was in the Brotherhood cadres, who were sent in as people were protesting against Morsi. He was in one of the groups that went in to destroy the tents where protesters camped out, kind of attacked people, and so Magdy was shocked. You know, it’s like the roles had been reversed. They had gone from the oppressed to becoming oppressors. I think it made him very disillusioned.

As a character, Magdy is a torn person, you know, and I think that’s what makes him very interesting for most audiences. We’ve gotten really interesting reactions; just the other day, there was a prominent LGBT activist who said, “I thought I was gonna hate Magdy. I really liked him as a person. I felt his conflict more than anything else.” And that person was from a Mormon background. So in the end I think that it’s Jehane’s decision to follow characters, even though it’s difficult to get swept into events, to stick with those characters over the course of two years. It was a really challenging task but we had a great team that came together, believed in her vision.

The movie hits its stride, emotionally, surrounding Magdy and Ahmed’s friendship, and how it gets challenged; Ahmed is crushed at the idea of a Brotherhood government. When you’re documenting two people who disagree like that, how do you keep them “honest”?

JN: Well, I’ve dealt with this actually in Startup.com, where two guys are on opposite sides of a business deal. It’s the same thing each time you tell the story; it’s basically that you follow the emotional ups and downs of that character and you try to be as true to their experience as you can be. You stay close to them, you spend as much time as you can with them, and often times we would have a camera following each.

Shooters following specific people, regardless of what happens.

KA: Yeah. The friendships that grow between the team and the characters is what allows you that kind of intimate access.

JN: The trust is the most important thing. When you slept next to somebody in the square, and followed them through battles, and risked your own life—with Magdy we were arrested together, and spent eight hours in a big truck where he basically sang songs to me to get me through it. You develop a friendship with somebody, and a trust with somebody, that’s very important to telling a story like this.

KA: Their friendship is represented as kind of how the philosophical coming together that the country felt in the beginning, and the crumbling of that, and the return to it on a human level. That’s what they attempt to do, regardless of the kind of political factions.

Advertisement

They have a kind of rapprochement.

KA: Yeah, but in the end, I think what Ahmed’s trying to get at is, despite the country being torn by different sides, they are representative of the same thing. Which is the people. And that it’s the human identity that’s going to persevere. And the political identities that are still developing; they’re not going to necessarily lead the way. So in the end any political identity that tries to overcome the will of the people, control the stakes in Egypt, has fallen. I think that’s what Ahmed feels, Magdy feels. That’s the thread that unites their group together.

President Mubarak appears only on screen briefly. It appears that you pointed the camera at a television, and then it happens with Morsi and then finally for the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces, for General Sisi. All these leaders are probably in the movie for about 10 cumulative minutes.

JN: That’s a choice. To make it from the perspective of the characters. Now, if I had gotten access inside Tora prison to follow Mubarak, that would be another film—and I wouldn’t say no! But with this film, and the same with Control Room, it was really from the perspective of the characters—what they’re seeing.

KA: Stylistically, it made a lot of sense to have these leaders represented that way, because that’s also how our characters see them. How the bulk of people see them, really. As these kind of figures that are distant, that are not accessible. I think that was one of the reasons why the film would work for us.

It seems like there’s a stronger presence of military guys earlier in the film, at the beginning of the revolution, and they taper off. Were you denied access, or did you decide their perspectives weren’t as valuable? They’re almost comical at first, trying to make sense of the situation.

JN: I mean, the film is really about two betrayals. First after Mubarak steps down, it’s about the betrayal of the military to the people, and then it’s about the betrayal of the Brotherhood. So when they took over, the military receded into the background.

KA: The narrative changed, in terms of the outrage and the feeling of what was happening. I think when Morsi was elected, the military was no longer the power structure. The main thing the revolution and the film both follow is the idea: “The people demand the removal of the regime.” The regime is whoever sits on the chair of power and refuses to adhere to the new social contract that Egyptians are trying to write.

That’s why I think the film had to have that shift, and that’s one of the complications of the Sundance cut: Before we went there, the story was still very much more about the military. And then that shifted and we had to make this decision: Do we make a better film for Sundance, or do we go back and continue? It was very difficult. We almost pulled out of the festival. One of our executive producers was like, “Are you crazy?” But this was more important. This is the story of our country.

Advertisement

JN: Now, what Sundance gave us in terms of a boost, and the audience appreciation—we were given the Audience Award—you have to understand, this is an unfunded film, where people were basically operating on fumes for two years. So that vote of confidence motivated people to be able to continue, putting their lives on the line, working for nothing, and making the film independently. So it was really important that we went.

KA: It made people feel that our efforts, something that we captured, had made it to audiences who had never been to Egypt, knew nothing about it.

JN: Magdy, I mean, if you look at Josh Rushing, the American guy who changes in Control Room

Who ended up working for Al-Jazeera, right?

JN: Yeah. It’s that shift. And what most of these documentary arcs follow is a shift one way. With Magdy it was a shift and then it was a shift back. So, story-wise, I was like, okay, this is bigger than anything I’ve ever done. In terms of making sure this works. Of course, I had to go back and watch the new cut, and I’d say, “Whoa, I don’t know if I like Magdy as much anymore.” Because he shifts back to the Brotherhood. But I think that we managed to portray his struggle and his conflict in a way, and that was really the work of Pedro Kos, the editor who came in and transformed the Sundance cut to what is going to be shown now, in theaters. His sensitivity and focus on character, he’s a brilliant editor. We were able to show that even though Magdy switches back again, he’s a conflicted guy but still very principled guy.

One “bit player,” Mona Anis, appears on screen and essentially predicts what ended up happening last summer—the military’s seizure of executive power—like a year ahead of time. How conspiratorial were people toward the military following Mubarak’s ouster? Observing from abroad, the military coup was by no means a foregone conclusion.

KA: I think there have always been elements of suspicion…

JN: Against everybody. That’s what happens when you grow up in a country where, your entire life, the leadership has lied to you.

KA: Yeah, where your rights aren’t clear. I think that that’s been the environment. But I think that people did have hope with Morsi. Despite being from the Muslim Brotherhood. “You know what, he wasn’t our top choice, but we need to come together because the economy’s tanking, and the country needs to move forward.” A lot of people tried to give him a chance. But his story is like Greek tragedy, his hubris is just outta control. And I think they just, it’s like the Muslim Brotherhood wanted to take all power, from every realm of the country, all at once: the police, the judiciaries. They went to war against everybody.

Advertisement

JN: It was shocking because in the beginning that they weren’t gonna have anybody run for president. And that’s what they told the country, their whole playbook is, “We take the long view.”

Because they’ve been repressed by the state for so long, right?

KA: Right. And then the coup, here’s the issue that most Egyptians have with the “coup,” as it’s viewed from a Western perspective. The coup didn’t happen this last summer. If you wanna talk about the coup against the revolution, and I think when people watch the film they’ll start to see a little more, it started happening shortly after Mubarak left.

In the “power vacuum,” between leaders.

KA: Yeah. That’s when the real coup against the revolution started happening. And the silence toward that is what allowed for us to be in this situation. So a month after Mubarak has been ousted, in this new revolutionary Egypt, the singer of the revolution, Ramy, is taken in and tortured, and that’s a huge red light for us. Five months later, people are being run over with tanks. Nothing happens. The international community is silent.

So now when we fast-forward, two-and-a-half years later, this past summer, when a thousand people are killed by the military, it’s like, what do you expect? When you allow that kind of machine to continue to oppress people, it knows that it’s unstoppable. You know? They just get a little slap on the wrist. And so now even when we comment on what’s happening, with the U.S. aid being removed or not, it’s really negligible. In the perspective of…

JN: The Egyptian street.

KA: That’s right. The Egyptian street isn’t waiting any more to see whether America is going to step in, cut the aid or not. It doesn’t—it’s actually having a reverse effect.

I believe Saudi Arabia has offered to make up for any cuts in U.S. aid anyway. Would it have made a difference if Obama had chosen to cut aid to the military immediately after the worst of the crackdowns this past August, like people were calling for? At this point it seems like too little too late.

Advertisement

KA: I think it’s bigger than that. I think the issue is, Egyptians feel that the outside world defining what’s happening in Egypt is what’s troubling. In the sense of, remember, Mubarak didn’t leave without a gun to his head essentially, and millions of people in the street. Now the idea of calling that a “revolution,” and calling the same thing that happened in the beginning of the summer a “coup.” Obviously, what happened right after when they started killing people, that’s different. But that’s what angers people in Egypt, the notion that the West is going to decide.

Very specific “turning points,” you mean. Oversimplified.

KA: Yes. Calling this a revolution or this a coup, and this idea that the outside is defining, by a word, what’s actually happening in the country. I think people take it as a kind of disrespect to the hegemony of that country, and that people. What the aid and the policies should signal, toward this overall Arab Spring experience, from the American government is this: America needs to reinvent its foreign policy, to create one that focuses on process, and not on winners. The winner is short term and the process stays in place.

What’s happening in Egypt is the establishment of a foundation. A founding period, not a transition period. That’s what a lot of people have failed to understand, and the failure to understand that results in a constant disappointment. I remember American representatives would come and ask us these questions in the square, about what we wanted. It’s not about that.

From the embassy?

KA: No, people who had been sent by…like, ex-congressmen. Task forces.

JN: Assistants to senators, for example. [laughs] We had many discussions with Americans in tents.

Advertisement

KA: They came to visit the square, asking, “So, if we’d get a list of demands, and if we’d get all these things, would everyone go back home?” And we’re like, “No!” Because it’s not even that simple. What people are fighting for isn’t just one or two demands. It’s a feeling. It’s a feeling of dignity, respect, of hope.

JN: Sometimes it is hard to define though. Me as a Westerner, you know, I’m both: I would often sit in those tents and say, “Okay, c’mon guys, what’s tangible here?” You know, we couldn’t just be fighting for a feeling. But then it’s so basic, when tanks are allowed to just run over people, and secret police is allowed to come in and convince families that they shouldn’t do autopsies, bringing in priests to convince them. You know, you realize…

KA: And the media doesn’t report any of it. So people say, okay, I have to take this into my own hands.

I don’t mean to use those points—revolution happened “here,” coup happened “here”—reductively. The Western perspective is, and was, narrow-minded like that toward these uprisings. The film goes out of its way to explain that for Egypt, the revolution is ongoing.

KA: There’s a need to define.

JN: If you think about the civil rights movement here in the U.S., any kind of movement, it just takes time. We’re still working on the laws that should have come out of the civil rights movement.

One of the most striking phrases captured in the film is from Khalid’s father, who’s an expatriate. Over Skype he says, “The rich don’t want freedom because they already have it.”

KA: That’s actually my favorite line in the film. Because it’s so universal, to me. A lot of times, you know, we focus on the politics and we don’t look at the economics. We’re in the midst of a kind of paradigm shift, globally, where you have this serious struggle. It’s not new, it’s happened before, but in key moments between the haves and the have-nots. That’s this growing fight that’s happening across the world, where there’s a lot of frustration at income inequality. Egypt happens to be at the epicenter of a lot of these ills that are happening, whether it’s income inequality, whether it’s the environment—we have a horrible environmental situation. Whether it’s health care, whether it’s a food security issue…

A lot of the problems plaguing different parts of the world happen to come in up Egypt as well, and so, until we start to see that it’s interconnected, Khalid’s father also feels that there’s still not full awareness in England, and in Egypt, and in Athens, and in Moscow, and Rio. It’s happening in a sense, between disorganized social movements versus organized fascist movements. But until world policy starts to also understand that these events are interconnected, that their successes and failures effect the overall human development space that we’re in, we’re not going to be able to resolve these situations. Because we still treat it as an isolated situation: Remove this leader, get rid of that leader. Problem solved. We’re still not looking at the systemic variables that result in this boiling situation.

Steve Macfarlane

Steve Macfarlane is a film curator and writer from Seattle, Washington. His writing has appeared in BOMB, Cinema Scope, Hyperallergic, The Brooklyn Rail, and other publications.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.