Tussen kunst en politiek: de voorspelling van Johan van der Keuken

Is het toeval dat de Arabische Lente precies daar begint waar Johan van der Keuken in 1979 besloot De Meester en de Reus (1980) op te nemen, een film over het onrechtvaardige wereldwijde economische systeem, dat de wereld regeert en beschikt over ons leven en onze toekomst?
Het kan geen toeval zijn geweest, want Johan van der Keuken was intens bezorgd over het lot der mensheid als een ondeelbaar geheel. Zoals zijn distributeur Pierre-Olivier Bardet opmerkt: “In zijn werk heeft de documentaire, hoezeer ook doorspekt van sociale en politieke vooroordelen en een radicale, kritische houding tegenover Noord-Zuidrelaties, zijn plaats in het centrum van de filmkunst herontdekt en de barrières geslecht tussen de verschillende onderwerpen van de militante film: het milieu, vrouwenemancipatie, de arbeidersstrijd, etc.” In de film wordt een verband gelegd tussen een Tunesische boer in de woestijn en een Noord-Europese (Nederlandse) burger uit de middenklasse die kampt met werkloosheid en belastingen. Al heel vroeg en met diepgaande visionaire perceptie zag Van der Keuken in dat er geen dichotomie bestond tussen Noord en Zuid, maar tussen de neokapitalisten, degenen die geld verdienen over de ruggen van de anderen, en de ‘subalterns’, degenen die zijn uitgesloten van welvaart en macht.

Inderdaad, dit is nog steeds een actuele film. Ten eerste omdat de Nederlandse filmmaker een genie was die in staat was de historische ontwikkelingen te analyseren. Dat was omdat hij voldoende menselijkheid en openheid bezat naar de Ander toe om veeleer te geloven in menselijke verbondenheid dan in de boosaardigheid van de mens, maar vooral omdat hij zo’n intense scherpzinnigheid aan de dag legde in de manier waarop hij de werkelijkheid beschouwde, dat hij in staat was de symptomen te herkennen van datgene waar we vandaag de dag mee worden geconfronteerd: we vallen van de ene crisis in de andere en handelen steeds naar die crises. Sterker nog, sinds 2008 staat de politiek in het teken van de strijd tegen de financiële recessie.
Laten we niet vergeten dat in deze tweeëndertig jaar oude film het amalgaam is van het visionaire talent van de regisseur en de analyse van de Canadese econoom Claude Ménard. De film is gestoeld op twee belangrijke gedachten: de greep die het kapitalisme heeft op de westerse samenleving met inbegrip van de migrantengemeenschappen enerzijds, en de overexploitatie van de natuur voor industriële doeleinden anderzijds. Door het gebruik van een zeer intelligent montageproces wisselt Van der Keuken fictieve scènes waarin hij het onmenselijke gezicht van een belastinginspecteur laat zien, af met andere, uiterst poëtische scènes waarin welpen, bomen en de wind in gesprek gaan, en tot slot met scènes van het archaïsche leven in een klein dorp in het zuiden van Tunesië. Op dat moment is de hoofdgedachte van de film dat ons leven steeds artificiëler wordt en het risico steeds groter wordt dat het zijn betekenis verliest. Migratie wordt vanuit dat uiterst eenvoudige standpunt bekeken: migranten zijn, wanneer zij hun oorspronkelijke manier van leven verlaten, gevangen in hun droom van noordelijke welvaart. De tegenstelling tussen de twee manieren van leven laat een duidelijke voorkeur zien voor de pittoreske nabijheid van de mens tot de natuur in het kleine dorpje op de grens van de Afrikaanse woestijn.

´De film krijgt als we er met de blik van nu naar kijken inderdaad een nieuw leven: hij wijst haarfijn op het verband tussen de zogenoemde Arabische Lente en de instabiliteit van de wereldeconomie.´
De film, opgenomen in 1979, is een poëtisch pamflet tegen de toenemende macht van de banken over het leven van mensen. Vanuit dat gezichtspunt voorspelden de regisseur en de econoom datgene waar we nu mee worden geconfronteerd. De film krijgt als we er met de blik van nu naar kijken inderdaad een nieuw leven: hij wijst haarfijn op het verband tussen de zogenoemde Arabische Lente en de instabiliteit van de wereldeconomie. Sinds een aantal jaar zien we een scheidslijn in de geschiedenis van de mens: 11 september, klimaatverandering, de financiële crisis, fluctuerende olieprijzen, spectaculaire groei van Aziatische economieën, de Arabische Lente, de recessie in Zuid-Europa en onzekerheid over de Euro en de Dollar, de Occupy-beweging, het bezuinigingsbeleid, etc.. Het lijkt erop dat we de recessie van 1929, de oliecrisis van 1973 en de culturele revolutie van mei 1968 ineen meemaken.
Men zou een opnieuw moeten kijken naar de manier waarop de maker in het begin van De Weg naar het Zuiden (1981), een andere film waarin hij zijn tijd vooruit was, Nederlandse krakers en Marokkaanse migranten op zeer eloquente wijze naast elkaar zet. De ene groep vecht voor het recht op een woning en bezet lege gebouwen en luxeappartementen in de Amsterdamse Kinkerstraat. De andere groep bezet een kerk als protest tegen een besluit van de overheid hen terug te sturen naar hun land van herkomst. Door een eigenaardig toeval eindigt deze film in Egypte, het tweede land waarin de Arabische Lente uitbrak. Van der Keuken besteedt bijzondere aandacht aan de ellendigen van Egypte, die buiten de economische stromen vielen en vallen en een jaar geleden de bezetting van het Tahrirplein initieerden. Het kan geen toeval zijn dat de filmmaker deze twee landen bezocht om een verhaal te vertellen dat vandaag de dag nog steeds relevant is: het onrecht van de economische wereldorde.
Als we het verband tussen de zogenoemde Arabische Lente en de zogenoemde economische crisis eens goed onder de loep nemen, zien we dat de manier waarop de Ander werd bezien weleens aan verandering onderhevig zou kunnen zijn. Sommige politieke partijen herzien hun programma’s om ze menselijker te maken; sommige hebben het zelfs over compassie en de verrijkende rol van immigratie. De krakerdiscussie is nu voorbij, of althans gemarginaliseerd, maar het immigratiethema bezorgt politici nog steeds hoofdbrekens. De voornaamste reden daarvoor is dat het nooit werd bekeken vanuit een ander standpunt dan vanuit het beperkte, vooringenomen en onrechtvaardige beleid dat de belangen diende van beurzen, handelaren en multinationale banken. Natuurlijk is er geen ruimte om de zaken te bezien vanuit een menselijk of cultureel standpunt. Nog niet, nog niet genoeg.
´Een uitspraak als de voornoemde is niet te verenigen met de geest van het zogeheten ‘Oude Continent’, het continent van de mensenrechten en de Verlichting, om het maar zo te zeggen. Toch is die geest van het ‘Oude Continent’ nog steeds te vinden, en wel binnen het domein van Europese kunst en cultuur.´
Wat voor kunst en cultuur relevant is, is dat meestal niet voor de politiek, en dat is zeker zo als het gaat om migratie. De laatste jaren werd er in de Europese politiek gesteld dat het integratiebeleid is mislukt. Die uitspraak is meer dan discutabel; hij is bedoeld om migranten in diskrediet te brengen, terwijl hij eerst en vooral zou moeten worden begrepen als een bekentenis van de politici zelf dat ze hebben gefaald – als er überhaupt al sprake was van falen. Als het integratieproces is mislukt, dan komt dat doordat politici niet de juiste oplossingen en het juiste beleid wilden of wisten te vinden. Migranten werden en worden door politici altijd beschouwd als een buitenlandse entiteit die niet zozeer omwille van zichzelf wordt geaccepteerd, maar alleen voor zover dat voor de gastsamenleving van belang is en wanneer die op de een of andere manier in een politieke behoefte voorzien. Dit betekent dat ook de uitspraak over de mislukte integratie is gedaan vanuit een monolithische visie, een denkwijze vanuit pragmatische doelen en rationele strategieën, die simpelweg onderdeel uitmaken van heersende opvattingen. Dat is de reden dat als de fysieke aanwezigheid van deze entiteit groter wordt dan de behoefte van de lokale gemeenschap, ze wordt gestigmatiseerd als de bron van al het kwaad. Die laatste attitude heeft de opkomst van extreem-rechtse partijen tot gevolg.
Wat ik hier zeg over politiekstaat mijns inziens in scherp contrast met kunst en cultuur. En dat is precies wat iemand als Johan van der Keuken meer dan dertig jaar geleden al probeerde te zeggen. Een uitspraak als de voornoemde is niet te verenigen met de geest van het zogeheten ‘Oude Continent’, het continent van de mensenrechten en de Verlichting, om het maar zo te zeggen. Toch is die geest van het ‘Oude Continent’ nog steeds te vinden, en wel binnen het domein van Europese kunst en cultuur. Er vindt een verschuiving plaats van het pragmatische en egoïstische argument van direct nut en assimilatie naar een complexe en verrijkende, werkelijke interactie met de Ander over ideeën over en het benoemen van schoonheid, authenticiteit en humanisme. Integratie krijgt dan een andere betekenis en wordt daardoor mogelijk.

Ik zal hier niet spreken over de vele Europese politici en zakenlieden die deel uitmaken van de Europese elite en ook migranten zijn, en ook spreek ik niet over de vele voetballers of sporters die Europese vlaggen verdedigen in internationale toernooien; blijkbaar worden zij niet talrijk genoeg geacht om te spreken over succesvolle integratie. Maar een dergelijke redenering kan ook leiden tot een ander extreem: kunnen we ons een nationaal voetbalteam voorstellen met daarin tien spelers die tweede- of derdegeneratie-immigrant zijn? Dat is binnen het extreem-rechtse gedachtegoed ondenkbaar .
Wat ik wel wil benadrukken is de opkomst van immigranten-kunstenaars: een Marokkaanse acteur die wordt genomineerd voor beste Nederlandse acteur zou voor puristische nationalisten al een bron zijn van grote ergernis, maar als hij dan ook nog wint is de ergernis natuurlijk nog groter; dan kun je die bijzonder eloquente zin te horen krijgen, gericht aan politici die niet geloven in integratie: ‘Ik ben Nederlander en ik ben trots op mijn Marokkaans bloed.’ Dat zei Nasrdin Dchar enkele maanden geleden toen hij zijn Gouden Kalf kreeg uitgereikt, en met deze uitspraak richtte hij zich tot een aantal rechtse partijleiders; een artistieke repliek op een politieke uitspraak. Dchar sprak namens de hele filmsector en richtte zich tot de politici; de jury sprak, door hem de prijs toe te kennen, namens de beroepsgroep. In een dergelijke context gelden andere regels dan die door politici worden bedacht tijdens vergaderingen waarin ze manieren bespreken om van de immigranten af te komen; hier woedt geen discussie over belastingen, bezuinigingen of criminaliteit; wat hier ter discussie staat is Schoonheid en wat telt is het talent van de acteur, niet het bloed dat door zijn aderen stroomt.
Dchar staat niet op zichzelf; veel andere acteurs en filmmakers dragen bij aan de eer en glorie van de Nederlandse filmindustrie, zoals elke immigrant bijdraagt aan de welvaart en economie van een land. Ik noem acteurs als Hakim Traidia (Nederlands-Algerijns), Sabri Saad el-Hamus (Nederlands-Egyptisch); ik noem ook filmmakers als de Nederlands-Peruviaanse Heddy Honigman, Hani Abou Assaad van Palestijnse afkomst, Mohamed Al-Darraji die oorspronkelijk uit Irak afkomstig is en de in Algerije geboren Karim Traidia. Ik kan ook vele namen noemen van gelijksoortige talenten in Frankrijk, Duitsland, Engeland en andere Europese landen: Fatih Akin, Abdellatif Kechiche, Rabah Ameur-Zaimech, Mahamet-Saleh Haroun. Staan deze mensen symbool voor de mislukte integratie? Wanneer kunnen we dan zeggen dat de integratie wel is geslaagd? Hoeveel getalenteerde filmmakers hebben we nodig om te kunnen zeggen dat immigratie heeft bijgedragen aan de verrijking van de Europese film? Wanneer uit een gemeenschap van twee miljoen immigranten een paar uiterst creatieve kunstenaars kunnen voortkomen, betekent dat dat er nog tien anderen zijn die minder goed zijn of niet de kans hebben gekregen naar buiten te treden. En hoeveel briljante filmmakers hebben wij binnen onze autochtone gemeenschap van zeventien miljoen? Niet bijzonder veel, aangezien genialiteit, zoals iedereen wel weet, per definitie schaars is.
´Kunstenaars en immigranten delen de subalterne positie, zou de postkoloniale filosoof Homi Bhabha zeggen; zij worden niet beschouwd als onderdeel van de heersende macht, maar toch heeft die macht hen nodig en worden ze door die macht gebruikt. Daardoor zijn zij altijd gedwongen daar weerstand aan te bieden.´
Door de economische crisis heeft de cultuursector sinds 2011 te lijden onder bezuinigingen. In diezelfde periode zijn Europese regeringen een serieuze discussie begonnen over nieuwe immigratiewetten, met als doel de immigratie zoveel mogelijk te beperken, dit in het kader van een nieuw algemeen sociaal beleid. Terwijl Barack Obama een stap terug moest doen wat betreft zijn plannen voor een sociaal zorgstelsel, waren in Nederland de bezuinigingen in de gezondheidszorg het onderwerp van verhitte discussie, waarbij subsidies voor gehandicapten onder vuur lagen en de cultuurbegroting werd gehalveerd. Tegelijkertijd worden maatregelen getroffen om het aantal immigranten, inclusief asielzoekers, tot een minimum terug te brengen. Kort gezegd worden de gevolgen van de economische crisis op de schouders van de kunstenaars, immigranten en andere minderheden en zwakken in de samenleving afgeschoven. Zij betalen de prijs voor de crisis, terwijl zij nooit degenen zijn geweest die profiteerden van de economische welvaart. Kunstenaars en immigranten delen de subalterne positie, zou de postkoloniale filosoof Homi Bhabha zeggen; zij worden niet beschouwd als onderdeel van de heersende macht, maar toch heeft die macht hen nodig en worden ze door die macht gebruikt. Daardoor zijn zij altijd gedwongen daar weerstand aan te bieden. De bewieroking van een kunstenaar van buitenlandse afkomst is een dubbele subalterne aanspraak: als immigrant en als kunstenaar.
Waar Jean Paul Sartre vroeger het proletariaat aller landen opriep zich te verenigen, de arbeiders uit het Noorden en de boeren uit het Zuiden, is het nu misschien tijd voor een nieuwe vorm van vereniging: van iedereen die tegen de heersende machthebbers is. Emigranten en kunstenaars zouden zich dan aan moeten sluiten bij een andere vorm van verzet die we eind 2011 zagen opkomen: Occupy. Het lijkt alsof er binnen een steeds breder wordende contrasoevereine samenleving een bepaald bewustzijn ontstaat. We staan op een nieuw keerpunt in de geschiedenis. Volgens Bhabha waren de subalterne sociale groepen vroeger een onderdrukte minderheid. De neoliberale globalisatie heeft echter zo’n toenemende ongelijkheid voortgebracht, dat deze groep almaar groter wordt. De macht ligt niet meer bij de democratische meerderheid, maar is in handen van kleine groepen die de wereldfinanciën bepalen.
Veel traditionele ideeën zijn niet langer relevant. De notie dat in een democratie de meerderheid de macht heeft wordt niet weerspiegeld door de slogan van de occupy-beweging (1%=/=99%). De wereld wordt geregeerd door een klein aantal mensen die tot de rijkste van de wereld behoren, en 99 procent wordt steeds armer omdat ze de prijs betalen voor de welvaart van die 1 procent. Onderdrukking heeft nog steeds te maken met het marginaliseren van de minderheid zoals Gramsci bedoelde met het idee van ‘subalterniteit’, maar in onze tijd betekent het ook economische discriminatie van de meerderheid ten behoeve van een zeer kleine, maar zeer machtige en heersende minderheid.
Wat we zien bij de Arabische Lente, bij de Occupy-beweging en in anderen tekenen van verzet tegen de mysterieuze machten die de wereld regeren en hun humbug (zie J. P. Sartre), is een vorm van ‘subaltern bewustzijn’; mensen willen niet langer worden uitgebuit en worden uitgesloten van welvaart of macht. Het probleem is echter de verdeling; zolang de ‘subalternen’ zijn verdeeld in Noord/Zuid, autochtoon/immigrant en welke andere dichotomieën dan ook, zal er nooit sprake zijn van een daadwerkelijk bewustzijn. Een deel van de ontevredenen is er bovendien niet op uit de heersende macht te breken, maar wil ook een graantje meepikken. Hun aanspraken bevinden zich tot nu toe binnen de heersende dialoog en zijn dus nooit subversief genoeg om een wezenlijke verandering te bewerkstelligen in een krankzinnige relatie tussen sociale groepen die is gestoeld op grenzen, beperkingen en tegenstellingen.
Dit was wat Johan van der Keuken in 1980 al riep (en het is ook al aanwezig in zijn eerdere films uit de jaren zestig). Hij geloofde in het genereus delen van de wereld tot voordeel van allen; zijn helden waren altijd de ellendigen der aarde, zou Franz Fanon zeggen. Voor Van der Keuken is deze categorie echter breder is dan de gekoloniseerden bij Fanon: een blinde jongen, immigranten, arbeiders, werklozen, dat zijn de ellendigen in zijn films. Zelfs in zijn werk als filmmaker was het zijn filosofie om terug te geven en te delen. Dat is misschien de les die sommige politici nu eindelijk beginnen te leren wanneer ze iets verder kijken dan de cijfers en hun veel te veel op economie gebaseerde overwegingen. Linkse partijen worden weer zelfverzekerd omdat de mensen beginnen in te zien hoe ver de politiek omwille van bezuinigingen die voorbijgaan aan de essentie van het menselijke verwijderd kan raken van zijn menselijke basis .
Ik las het nieuws met in het achterhoofd wat Johan van der Keuken vroeger geloofde en zei, en ik kan mij maar niet aan de gedachte onttrekken dat, op de een of andere manier, de kunst de politiek weer op de goede weg kan helpen: Dus je probeert, zegt Johan van der Keuken tegen zijn zoon – hij heeft het over film, maar het lijkt alsof hij tegen een politicus spreekt – om heel dichtbij mensen te komen. Niet alleen hun werk, ook hun kwetsbaarheid, (…) Maar je kunt als filmmaker ook teruggeven, vind ik, in de manier waarop we filmen. Niet als een verhaal, niet als een parel die je van de buitenkant bewondert, wat natuurlijk ook mooi kan zijn. Maar we moeten naar binnen gaan, daar met onze camera’s fysiek aanwezig zijn, en dat moeten we ook laten zien. Voor mij is dat een fundamentele vorm van oprechtheid. Dat is de praktijk van het filmen. Ik heb er altijd van genoten de grenzen ervan op te zoeken.
Aldus sprak een genie.

[1] Johan van der Keuken, Het complete oeuvre (2006) door Total Film.
[2] Bhabha, Homi K. “The Voice of the Dom,” [Subaltern Studies IX The Present History of West Bengal] TLS, The Times Literary Supplement no. 4923 (8 Augustus 1997)
[3] Gramsci, Antonio, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, Londen: Lawrence en Wishart, 1973.


also http://www.eutopiainstitute.org/2012/02/tussen-kunst-en-politiek-de-voorspelling-van-johan-van-der-keuken/

Between art and politics; the Johan van der Keuken Guess

Is it a coincidence that the Arab spring starts precisely where Johan van der Keuken in 1979 decided to shoot The Master and the Giant (De Meester en de Reus, 1980), a film about the unfair global economic system running the world and deciding for our life and our future? It was surely not a coincidence because Van der Keuken used to feel deeply concerned by the human destiny as an indivisible whole, as witnesses his distributor, Pierre-Olivier Bardet: “In his work, the documentary, however infused with social and political preoccupations and a radical questioning of North-South relationships, rediscovered its place at the heart of the cinematic art, breaking down barriers between categories of militant cinema: the environment, women’s liberation, workers’ struggle, etc.” The film makes a link between the Tunisian peasant living in the desert and the North European (Dutch) middle class citizen facing unemployment and the grasp of taxes. Very early, and in a deep visionary perception, he saw that there wss no dichotomy between North and South but between the neo-capitalists; those who make money on the backs of the others, the “Subalterns”; those who are evicted from wealth and power.

Indeed, this is still a topical film. First of all because the Dutch filmmaker was a genius who was able to analyse the way human history is working. It is also because he had enough humanism and openness toward the Other that he believed in human unity in front of evil. But it is primarily because he had such deep perspicacity in the way he looked at reality that he could see the symptoms of what we are facing today: falling from a crisis into another one, acting according to the crisis. In fact, politics since 2008 at least, is made on the emergency of the fight against financial recession.
Let’s not forget that this 32 years old film is the combination of the director’s visionary talent and the analyses of the Canadian economist Claude Ménard. It is based on two important ideas: the grasp of capitalism on western society including the migrants communities on one hand and the overexploitation of nature for industrial purposes on the other hand. Using a very intelligent editing process, Van der Keuken alternates fictional scenes showing the inhuman face of a tax collector, other very poetic ones engaging a conversation between cubs, trees and the wind, and finally documentary scenes of the archaic life in a small village in the south of Tunisia. At that time the main idea of the film is that our life is getting more and more artificial and the risk that it loses its meaning is bigger and bigger. The emigration is considered from that very simple statement: immigrants are trapped by their dream of the northern wealth when they leave their original way of living. The opposition of the two lifestyles is clearly in favour of the picturesque proximity of man to nature in the small village lost at the doors of the African desert.

Shot in 1979, the film is a poetic pamphlet against the growing power of banks on men’s life. From that point of view, the two men guessed what we are now confronted with. Indeed, the film has a new soul if we look at it through the prism of actuality: it pinpoints the link between the so-called Arab Spring and the shakiness world’s economic. Since a few years we witness a watershed in the history of mankind: 9/11, global warming, financial crisis, fluctuation of oil prices, spectacular growth of Asian Economies, Arab Spring, recession in southern European countries, insecurity of the Euro and the Dollar, the occupy movement, the budget cuts policy, etc. It looks like we have the 1929 recession, the 1973 oil crisis and the cultural revolution of may 1968 in one.
Here one should take a new look at the way the auteur of The Way South (De Weg naar het Zuiden, 1981) puts Dutch squatters and Moroccan emigrants in a very eloquent parallelism at the beginning of this other precocious film. The ones fight for their right to have a house and occupy empty buildings and luxurious apartments in the Kinkerstraat. The others occupy a Church as a sign of protest against the government’s decision to send them back to their country. By a strange coincidence also this film ends in Egypt, the second country of the Arab Spring. Van der Keuken pays special attention to the Egyptian wretches, those who stand out of the economical flow and who one year ago initiated the Tahrir Square sit-in. It cannot be by chance that the filmmaker went in these two countries to tell a story which remains still relevant in our times: the injustice of the world economic order.
When we look closely to the connection between the so-called Arab Spring and the also so-called Economic Crisis, we come easily to the idea that the way the other was seen is perhaps changing. Some political parties are reviewing their programs to be more human; some even talk about compassion and the enriching role of emigration. The discussion about the squat is over nowadays, or let’s say marginalized, but the theme of emigration is like a Chinese puzzle for any politician. The main reason is that it was never considered out of the tight and biased angle of unfair policy serving the interests of the bourses, the traders and the multinational banks. Of course there is no way then to consider things from a human point of view nor a cultural one. Not yet, not enough.
What is relevant for art and culture is, most of the time, not valid for politics. This is particularly true when it comes to emigration. The last couple of years, it was admitted in the European political spheres that integration’s policy failed. Such statement is more than disputable. It is intended to discredit migrants while it should be understood, first of all, as a confession of failure of the politicians themselves, if ever there is a failure. If the process of integration failed, it is because politicians could never, or did never, want to find the right answer and the appropriate policy. Migrants were and are always considered by politicians as a foreign entity which is accepted only as far as it is needed for the host society not necessarily for itself and merely not when it is somehow an answer to its own need. This means that the statement over the failure of integration or not is made according to a monolithic vision, a way of thinking according to pragmatic goals and rational strategies which are simply the component of hegemonic attitudes. That’s why, when the physical presence of this entity overpasses the need of the local society, it is stigmatized as the source of all evil. This latest attitude leads to the rise of extreme right parties.

What I am saying here about politics seems to me in a deep contradiction with art and culture. And this is precisely what someone like Johan van der Keuken tried to say more than thirty years ago. Such statement cannot be in coherence with the spirit of the so-called “Old Continent”, the continent of the human rights and the Aufklärung, to say it in a couple of words. However, this spirit of the “Old Continent” is still to be found in the realm of European culture and art. From the pragmatic and egoistic argument of the direct use and assimilation of the Other, we shift to a complex and enriching real interaction with it on the name of ideas of beauty, authenticity and humanism. Integration gets then another meaning and hence becomes possible.
Here I pass over the number of European politicians and businessmen from the immigration who are part of the European elite. I neither talk neither about the number of soccer players or sportsmen who are defending European flags in international tournaments. Unless they are considered not numerous enough so that we can talk about successful politics of integration. But such a reasoning can lead to another extreme; can you imagine a national soccer team with ten players from second or third generations of immigrants ? Inconceivable for the extreme right wings way of thinking.
What I want to stress is the emergence of artists in the context of immigration. A Moroccan actor who is nominated for the best Dutch actor will annoy purist nationalists, but if he wins it makes it worse; they would be exacerbated. Then you can get a very eloquent sentence addressed to politicians who don’t believe in integration : “ I am Dutch and I am proud of my Moroccan blood”, said Nasrdin Dchar when he got the Golden Calf few months ago. He would then address a couple of right wing parties leaders. This is the kind of artistic replica to the political statement. Dshar stands for the whole film sector and addresses politicians. The jury by attributing him the price speaks on the name of the profession. Here there are other rules than what politicians decide in the meetings in which they discuss how to get rid of immigrants. Here there is no discussion about taxes, budget cuts, criminality. What is discussed here is Beauty and what counts is the talent of the actor, not the blood in his veins.
Dchar is not an isolated case. Many other actors and filmmaker contribute to the glory of the Dutch film scene like every emigrant contributes to the wealth of the country’s economy. I would mention actors like Hakim Traidia (Dutch Algerian), Sabri Said (Dutch Egyptian). I would also mention filmmakers such as the Dutch Peruvian Heddy Honigman, Hani Abou Assaad from Palestinian origins, Mohamed Al-Darraji originally from Irak and the Algerian born Karim Traidia. I would mention also many names from that kind of talents in France, Germnay, England en other European countries : Fatih Akin, Abdellatif Kechiche, Rabah Ameur-Zaimech, Mahamet-Saleh Haroun,… Are these people symbols of a failed integration? Then when would we say that integration succeeded ? How many talented filmmakers do we need to say that immigration contributed to enrich the European film galaxy ? If a couple of real creative artists can emerge of two millions of immigrants community, that means that there are tens of others who are not very good or who didn’t get their chance to emerge. And how many brilliant filmmakers do we have in an autochthon community of 17 million? Quite not so many as genius, everybody knows, is by definition rare.
Since 2011 cultural sectors started to suffer from budget cuts because of the economical crisis. At the same time, European governments started to discuss seriously new migration regulations in order to limit the phenomenon as more as possible. This is happening in the frame of a new general social policy. If the American president Barack Obama had to step back in his plan of social health care project, short cuts in the health sector was a subject of a tempestuous debate about subsidies of handicapped persons and the budget of the cultural sectors had to be halved. At the same time new measures are decided to reduce to the minimum the number of migrants and among them the asylum seekers.
In a nutshell, the responsibility of the economical crisis is put on the shoulders of artists, migrants and other kinds of minorities and weak members of society. They are paying the price of the crisis while they were never the ones who profited from it. Artists and emigrants share the position of Subaltern, would the postcolonial philosopher Homi Bhabha say. They are never considered as part of the hegemonic power. This latter even though needs and uses them. Hence they are always forced to resist it. That’s why the consecration of an artist from emigrant origin is a double subaltern claim : as an emigrant and as an artist.
If Jean Paul Sartre used to call for the unity of the proletariat of the whole world- the workers of the North and peasants of the South-, it is time perhaps for a new kind of unity: whatever and whoever is against those who have hegemonic power. Emigrants and artists then join another form of resistance that we saw at the end of 2011, the one of occupy. It seems that there is a kind of consciousness which is developing within a broader and broader counter-hegemonic community. We are at a new turning point of history. The subaltern social groups according to Bhabha used to be the oppressed minority. The neoliberal globalization produced such a growing inequality that this group is becoming bigger and bigger. The power is no more in the hands of the democratic majority, but in the hands of minor groups commanding the worlds finances.
A lot of traditional concepts are not relevant anymore. The idea that in a democracy the majority has the power cannot stand in front of the slogan of the occupy movement (1%=/=99%). The world is run by the very small number of people among the richest. 99% is getting poorer and poorer because they are paying the prize of the wealth of the 1%. The oppression is nevermore synonym of marginalizing the minority, what Gramsci means by the concept of “Subalternity”, but in our time it means economic discrimination of the majority for the benefit of the very small but very powerful and hegemonic minority.
What we witness in the Arab Spring, in the Occupy movement or any other signs of resistance against the mysterious powers running the world and deciding of its mumbo-jumbo, dixit J. P. Sartre, is a kind of “subaltern awareness”. People don’t want to be exploited anymore, neither excluded from the wealth nor the power. The problem is however, the division. As far as subalterns are divided in North / South, autochthon / emigrant and any other dichotomies - it will never be a real awareness. A part of the unhappy people is not aiming to destroy the hegemonic power but to “have a piece of the pie”. Its claim is, until now, made within the hegemonic discourse and hence never subversive enough to achieve categorical rupture with an insane relationship between social groups built on boundaries, limits and antagonisms.
This was the call of Johan van der Keuken since 1980 (also already present in his previous films from the 60ies). He used to believe in sharing the world generously in the benefit of everybody. His heroes were always the Wretches of the earth, would Franz Fanon say. It is only that for Van der Keuken this category is broader than the colonised in Fanon’s text: a blind Kid, emigrants, workers, unemployed, ... these are the kind of wretches in his cinema. Even in his work as a filmmaker his philosophy was to give back and share. This is perhaps the lesson some politicians finally started to understand when they look a little bit more beyond the numbers and the too much economical considerations. Leftist parties are regaining confidence because the people started to see how politics can go very far from its human basis on the name of budget cuts ignoring the essence of human life.
I read the news having in memory what Johan van der Keuken used to believe and say. And I can’t stop thinking that, somehow, art can help politics to find the right way: So you try – says Johan van der Keuken to his son learning cinema but it is as if he talks to a politician– to get very close to people. Not just the work, the vulnerability too, … But you can also give back, I believe, as a film maker, in the way we film. Not as a story, not as a pearl that you admire from outside, which also can be beautiful, of course. But we have to go in there, physically be there with our cameras and we have to show that as well. That seems to me a fundamental kind of sincerity. That is the practice of filming. I have always liked exploring the boundaries of it.”
So spoke a genius.



* http://www.eutopiainstitute.org/2012/02/between-art-and-politics-the-johan-van-der-keuken-prediction/

Lawrence of Arabia: een legende nieuw leven ingeblazen

Wat een idee om een film als Lawrence of Arabia (David Lean, VK, 1962) uit te zenden in de eerste dagen van 2012. De vijftig jaar oude film toont inderdaad meer dan een oppervlakkige gelijkenis tussen de biografie van de Britse officier die verwikkeld raakt in de vijandigheden tussen Arabieren en Turken tijdens een cruciale periode aan het in de Eerste Wereldoorlog in het Midden-Oosten en de gebeurtenissen die nu al een jaar voortduren in die regio. Het uitzenden van deze film op dit moment lijkt ofwel een slechte grap, of een ongelukkige poging een verband te leggen tussen de NAVO-interventie in Libië, enkele maanden geleden, en de rol die een jonge Britse luitenant speelde in de Arabische opstand tegen de Turkse bezetters aan het begin van de vorige eeuw.

Het is veel te gemakkelijk een parallel te trekken tussen de Arabische Lente in 2011 als een opstand (Hirak) tegen dictators en de Arabische Opstand (1916-1918) tegen een buitenlandse bezetter, en Nicolas Sarkozy, David Cameron en Bernard-Henri Lévy kunnen nooit worden vergeleken met de legendarische Thomas Edward Lawrence (1888-1935). Ten eerste omdat de laatste geen leider was en niet handelde volgens het internationaal recht. Zijn acties, hoewel die binnen het kader vielen van de plannen van het Britse leger, waren niet wat de generaals werkelijk wilden. En zijn handelen naar zijn persoonlijke overtuiging veroordeelt juist zowel het hele hegmonistisch dispositief van het kolonialisme van een eeuw geleden als het neo-imperialisme van onze tijd.

Laten we teruggaan naar de historische context. Aan het eind van de Eerste Wereldoorlog waren de Turken, bondgenoten van de Duitsers, door de Arabische Sahara in de Shamregio (nu Syrië, Jordanië en Palestina) op weg naar het zuiden in de richting van het Suez Kanaal. Onderweg moesten ze zich ontdoen van alle recalcitrante Arabische stammen. De Arabieren, onder leiding van Prins Faysal, verdedigden hun land en begonnen wat de Arabische Opstand werd genoemd. De Britse militaire inlichtingendienst in Cairo wilde voorkomen dat deze opstand in het voordeel zou werken van de vijand en stuurde T. E. Lawrence, een specialist van de Arabische nationalistische bewegingen in de Turkse provincies, ernaartoe om te onderhandelen over een coalitie met de “Bedoeïenen”.

Wat hij deed was meer dan zijn superieuren hadden verwacht, en voor een groot deel wat ze nooit hadden gewild: hij verenigde de Arabische stammen tegen de gezamenlijke vijand. Volgens de film begon Lawrence met de Arabieren te helpen in hun strijd tegen de Turken, maar verdedigde hij hen vervolgens ook tegen iedere heerschappij van buitenaf. Dat druiste in tegen het Britse koloniale beleid in de regio, dus dat ging te ver.

Het grote verschil tussen T.E. Lawrence en degenen die nu interveniëren in de zogenoemde Arabische Lente, is dat hij een dichter was, terwijl het nu enkel politici zijn die het neokapitalisme dienen. Lawrence werd erop uit gestuurd om te onderhandelen over een coalitie, maar mettertijd werd hij verliefd op de woestijn en het land. Hij begon te geloven dat het noch aan de Turken, noch aan de Britten, maar aan zichzelf toebehoorde. Hij handelde niet uit naam van zijn trouw aan de Kroon als Britse officier, maar uit naam van wat hij geloofde dat juist was: de strijd tegen kolonialisme en hegemonie. Op de vraag van Prins Faysal : ‘Bent u niet trouw aan de Kroon?’, antwoordt hij: ‘Aan de Kroon en aan andere zaken.’

Lawrence had al geleerd, zoals elke Engelsman die bij Kargemisj (in het huidige Irak) werkte, hoe hij Arabische boeren en dorpelingen kon motiveren om archeologische opgravingen te verrichten zonder militaire discipline of koloniale autoriteit in te hoeven roepen. Daarom kon hij, toen hij eenmaal geloofde het recht van iedereen om zijn eigen land te bezitten, niet anders dan zijn overtuiging te volgen zonder één enkele concessie te doen. Na de oorlog, in 1919, ging hij naar de conferentie van Parijs om de zaak van de Arabische onafhankelijkheid te bepleiten. Dit valt echter buiten het bereik van de film, en het is waarschijnlijk ook niet de boodschap die de televisiezender wil uitdragen door hem uit te zenden.

Lawrence of Arabia was geen strijder zoals de strijders van nu: een vuurwapenmachine. Hij was een poëet wiens liefde voor een land de strijd voor vrijheid inspireerde. Zijn fysiognomie is niet die van iemand van daden, en dat was ook de indruk die hij wekte bij zijn superieuren. Maar toen hij de woestijn van Nefudh (tegenwoordig tussen Jordanië en Saoedi-Arabië) overstak om Akaba te bevrijden van de Turkse kolonisator, begreep hij dat zo’n land met die hitte en dat zand, niet kon toebehoren aan een man van zijn herkomst. Hij zag toen De Waarheid, als een mystieke openbaring: het onrecht van de ene man die het land van een ander bezet. Hij werd aan zichzelf getoond als mens, terwijl hij niet meer was dan een radertje in de grote kolonialisatiemachine.

Nog een ander verschil tussen Lawrences daden en de interventie in Libië, en waarschijnlijk ook die in Syrië, en die van het Britse leger in de Arabische opstand, is het ideaal dat de interventie is bedoeld als verdediging. Het Britse imperialistisch leger handelde uit naam van de verdediging van Arabische stammen tegen de Turkse invasie; de NAVO handelde in Libië onder de wettelijke bescherming van de VN-resolutie, die erop was gericht de burgers van Benghazi te beschermen tegen Khaddafi’s huurlingen. Geen van deze beide acties volgden de letterlijke betekenis van de missie. Achter de zichtbare waren er verborgen agenda’s.

Maar voor Lawrence heeft Trouw geen betekenis als het in tegenspraak is met de Waarheid. Net als Dostojevski’s Idioot, een fanaticus van de waarheid die hypocrisie afzweert, hield hij zich aan de letterlijke betekenis van woorden en maakte hij geen onderscheid tussen de Turkse hegemonie en die van de Britten. Als het eropaan komt te strijden tegen onrecht, doet het er niet toe wie erachter zit. Als de Turkse bezetting van de regio slecht was, dan was de bezetting door het Britse koninkrijk ook slecht. En als Khaddafi, Ben Ali en Moebarak corrupte dictators waren, dan zullen degenen die de NAVO van plan is aan te stellen, niet minder corrupt zijn. De missie van al deze pionnen is altijd dezelfde: het grote monster van het kapitaal te dienen.

Lawrence of Arabia: a rejuvenated legend

What an idea to broadcast a film like Lawrence of Arabia (David Lean, UK, 1962) the first days of 2012. The fifty-year-old film has indeed more than a similarity between the biography of the British officer who got involved in the hostilities opposing the Arabs and the Turks during a key episode of World War I on the eastern front and the current events going on in the region for one year already. Broadcasting the film right now seems to be a bad joke or an unhappy thought trying to make a link between the intervention of NATO in Libya a few months ago and the role played by a young British Lieutenant in the Arab uprising against the Turkish invaders at the beginning of the last century.
It is much too easy to find a parallel between the Arab Spring in 2011 as an uprising (Hirak) against dictators and the Arab Revolt (1916-1918) against a foreign invader. Nicolas Sakozy, David Cameron and Bernard Henry Levy can never be compared to the legendary Thomas Edward Lawrence (1888-1935). First of all because the latter was not a leader and didn’t act according to international law. His action, even though it was in the frame of British Army plans, was not what the generals really wanted. Acting according to his personal convictions condemns the hole hegemonic dispositive of colonialism one century ago and neo-imperialism in our times.
Let’s go back to the historical context. At the end of WWI the Turks, allies of the Germans, where heading south across the Arabian Sahara in the region of Sham (now Syria, Jordan, Palestine) in the direction of the Suez Canal. On their way they had to get rid of all the recalcitrant Arab tribes. The Arabs, lead by Prince Faysal, defended their lands and went into what was called the Arab Revolt. The British Military Intelligence Department in Cairo, willing to prevent this big advantage to the enemy, sent T. E. Lawrence, a specialist in Arab nationalist movements in the Turkish provinces, to negotiate coalition with the “Bedouins”.
What he did was more than what his superiors expected and mainly what they never wanted: he unified the Arab Tribes against their common enemy. What the film says is that, starting with helping the Arabs in their fight against the Turks, Lawrence went on to defend their rights against any hegemony; that is even against the British policy of colonisation in the region. But this has gone too far.
The big difference between T.E. Lawrence and those who now intervene in the so-called “Arab Spring” is that he was a poet while they are only politicians serving neo-capitalism. Lawrence was sent to negotiate the coalition. Meanwhile he fell in love with the desert and the land. He got the faith that it has to belong neither to the Turks nor to the British but to itself. He acted not in the name of his loyalty as a British officer to the crown, but in the name of what he felt and believed the right thing to do: fight colonialism and hegemony. To the question of Prince Faysal : Are you not loyal to the crown? He answers: To the crown and to other things.
Already, like every Englishman working in the British Empire at Carchemish (in present Iraq), he learned how to motivate Arab peasants and villagers digging archaeological sites with no help from military discipline or colonial authority. That’s why once he believed in this right for anybody to be in possession of his own land, he had to follow his belief without any concession. After the war, in 1919, he went to the conference of Paris with the duty to defend the cause of Arab independence. But this is not in the film, and also probably not what the TV channel by broadcasting it wants to say.
Lawrence of Arabia was not a warrior, unlike those of our times: a gun machine. He was a poet whose love of a land inspired the fight for its freedom. His physiognomy is not of someone of action. This was the impression he inspired in his superiors. But when he crossed the desert of Nefudh (between Jordan and Saudi Arabia currently) to liberate Akaba from the Turkish coloniser, he understood that such a land with its heat and its sand, cannot belong to a man of his own provenance. Then he saw The Truth, like a mystic revelation: the injustice of a man occupying another man’s land. He was revealed to himself as a human being while he was nothing else but a screw in a huge machine called colonisation.
One more difference again between Lawrence’s action and the intervention in Libya, and probably in Syria, and the one of the British Army in the Arab Revolt, is the ideal that the intervention is supposed to defend. The British Imperial Army acted in the name of the apparent reason of the protection of Arab tribes against the Turkish invasion. NATO acted in Libya under the legal coverage of the UN resolution whose aim was to protect the civilians of Ben Ghazi against Gaddafi’s mercenaries. Both of these actions didn’t follow the literal meaning of the mission. They had other agendas behind the apparent ones.
But for Lawrence Loyalty has no sense when it is in contradiction with the Truth. Like Dostoievski’s Idiot, a fanatic of truth who denounces hypocrisy, he stuck to the literal meaning of words and didn’t make any difference between the Turkish hegemony and the British. When it comes to fight an injustice it doesn’t matter who is behind it. If the Turkish domination of the region was bad, the one of the British Empire was also bad. And if `Gaddafi, Ben Ali, Mubarak’ were corrupted dictators, those whom NATO is planning to appoint will not be less corrupt. The mission of all these pawns is always the same: serve the big beast of capital.

And more on: http://www.eutopiainstitute.org/2012/01/lawrence-of-arabia-a-rejuvenated-legend/

You will harm regardless your good feelings

The culture of the so-called MENA region has never been so visible in Europe like it was during this year, 2011. Of course the reason is now admitted as nothing else but the “Arab Spring”. All festivals are programming films from Tunisia, Egypt, and Syria… All cultural organizations are organizing debates, symposiums and exhibitions. However, this phenomenon looks somehow ambiguous. That the world focuses on the culture of a region is certainly worthwhile whatever the reason is. But the fact that this same region is presented that way shows also how it was unfairly neglected. Very often there is a lot of arrogance in the behaviour of those who, without any authentic interest neither in culture nor in the region, are using its tragedy by walking on its corpses. Even worse, most of the time, these scavengers contribute to a historical misreading of events.
In a time of cultural budget cuts, a cultural program dealing with the Arab spring is a very relevant argument for fundraisers. Not only the policy of a lot of funds is to stick to the actuality, but it is also a fact that there is a real public expectation and curiosity awakend by the medias brainwashing during weeks and months. Use such a context to say the half of the truth or even to mislead and misinform the public is a moral and historical responsibility, if not an intellectual crime. A lot of people, even among activists, seem not to be really aware of it.
The work of a filmmaker who fought for each one of his films and paid of his blood nerves and even his life the price of his art cannot be presented to the public just for fun. If you don’t give a work of art the respect it deserves, you punish the artist for the second time. Syrian filmmakers like Omar Amiralay, Osama Mohammed or Mohammed Malas who were recently presented in the Netherlands are among the best filmmakers in the region. They suffered twice for their work. Their regime denied them any freedom and any decent material conditions to express their artistic talents. To the first frustration we should add that they were ignored outside their country, except perhaps for some circles of elites and cinephiles in the Maghreb or for some marginal European film venues.
To show these kinds of films now in Europe as a very special event, whether we are aware of it or not, is of some perversity unless we show them the respect they deserve. A film needs to be considered first as a work of art not as a pretext to talk about something else. A twenty year old film deserves to be screened in a film museum or in a retrospective in a film event. You don’t screen Battleship Potemkin (Sergeï Eisenstein, 1925) because you want to talk about the recent problematic elections in Russia. You don’t screen Scarface (Howard Hawks, 1932) because you want to analyze how Wall Street is pushing the worlds’ economy to collapse. Tunisian, Egyptian and Syrian filmmakers were denied their freedom under the dictatorship and their artistic status by the world’s mainstream. To show them now after months of uprisings and thousands of direct victims, not to mention those indirect, is unfair and inappropriate. The audience expects them to talk about the actual reality of their countries. Or their films are produced in a complete different context and talk about another reality. They used to talk in place of their people, now this latter is talking by itself, so it’s completely different.
This unfairness has different layers. The film is not considered as such but as a complementary element for a discussion with a guest who has nothing to do with films, like a politician, diplomat, economist, activist and so on… Moreover when the debate is hosted by a non specialist in film, the conversation shifts to anything but the reason why the film was made. It is also confusing for the audience who is invited to a discussion with a guest about the actual sufferings of the people not about the film. The other layer is that everybody is talking about the people while the latter is once again not given the possibility to talk for itself. In a way the world goes on not listening to the right voice at the right moment. Who listened to these filmmakers when they were fighting? The people are developing other ways of talking and claiming, but these ways are not given the possibility to meet the audience. We are missing the time and the space as well. The debate is biased in many ways.
In a debate about the revolution in Tunisia and Egypt, some organizers would embellish the evening by inviting some artists from Morocco, Lebanon and Jordan. Most of the times they are based in Europe or in the US. When they come from the Netherlands it is perfect; there is a discussion about the revolution with a lot of “gezelligheid” and nobody gets bored. The audience is happy to meet a Jordanian choreographer even though he (or she) is not directly concerned by the events and never lived under the repression in Jordan and has probably never been in any of the countries where the riots take place. The only fact that he has a connection with a so-called Arab origin is enough to put him in a discussion about the revolution. Don’t be surprised then when the animator of the discussion asks him whether his art prepared the uprising in his county. He would laugh and say: “Oh! I don’t know but it is nice that you ask the question”.
These are couple a few examples of how cultural organizations in Europe are dealing with the actuality of definitely the biggest geopolitical change in contemporary history after the fall of the Soviet Union and the Berlin wall. They are perversely part of an omniscient complot against any claim of freedom in the world. Or they are not aware of this and they are then victims of a very strong manipulation. In both cases they sell free conscience to the world at a very low price. It is not because some film programs, exhibitions and debates are organized that the world can relieve its soul and feel free of the guilt for what is happening not only for a few months but since the world decided to give all powers to a beast called capitalism which is deciding for everything; not only in the southern part of the globe but everywhere. Hélas not everybody is Jean-Paul Sartre or Franz Fanon aware that the fight of the African peasant is the same as the one who called to fight neo-capitalism and occupy its symbols: Wall Street and het Beurs Plein.

Cordoba, new host city of the African Film Festival-FCAT

Cordoba, December 19th, 2011. The city of Cordoba and Al Tarab, NGO behind the African Film Festival-FCAT, announce changes in both the host city and the dates. The festival was organized since 2004 during the spring in Tarifa, Spain, and will now take place every autumn in Córdoba, a UNESCO World Heritage Site with 2,000 years of history, cradle of civilizations and cultures. The 9th FCAT Córdoba 2012 will take place 13th - 21st October.

Cordoue acceuillera le Festival de Cinéma Africain-FCAT
Cordoue, le 19 octobre 2011. La Municipalité de Cordoue et le Centre de Divulgation Culturelle du Détroit Al Tarab, association organisatrice du Festival de Cinéma Africain – FCAT, annonce qu’à partir de 2012 le festival changera de ville et de dates.Le 9º FCAT Cordoue 2012 aura lieu du 13 au 21 octobre 2012. Le nouveau siège du festival est la ville andalouse, unique, déclarée Patrimoine de l’Humanité par l’UNESCO, berceau de cultures et de civilisations, d’une histoire de plus de deux millénaires.L’engagement de Cordoue pour la culture est clair. Le FCAT Cordoue est un évènement culturel consolidé, qui, lors de ses huit ans de trajectoire, a démontré le pouvoir du cinéma pour unir les gens.
--
Filip Hruby
International Press Officer
African Film Festival FCAT Cordoba
Mobile: +420/775011550

A hundred years of bombing: what has it done to us? by Paul Gilroy | Eutopia Institute

A hundred years of bombing: what has it done to us? by Paul Gilroy | Eutopia Institute

Lezing door Abdel Bari Atwan over de Arabische Lente

El Hizjra organiseert op de avond van 16 December een lezing met het thema ‘Conflict Journalism’. De internationaal gerenommeerde journalist Abdel Bari Atwan geeft de lezing. Hij zal spreken over de ontwikkelingen in de Arabische lente.

Hij is sinds 1989 Editor-In-Chief is van de onafhankelijke pan-Arabische krant Al Quds Al-Arabi. Bovendien heeft Abdel Bari Atwan Osama Bin Laden geïnterviewd met de overtuiging dat je terrorisme alleen kunt bestrijden door degenen die het uitoefenen te begrijpen.
Zijn controversiële standpunten worden regelmatig door journalisten over de hele wereld geciteerd. Hij heeft tevens grote naamsbekendheid verworven met zijn gepassioneerde manier van debatteren.
Margot Dijkgraaf zal Abdel Bari Atwan introduceren en interviewen. Zij is sinds 1988 als literair criticus werkzaam bij het NRC Handelsblad.
Entree: 7,50 euro (5,- voor studenten)
Programma
19.15 inloop met thee en Koffie
19.30 introductie door Margot Dijkgraaf
19.45 lezing door Abdel Bari Atwan
21.00 discussie met een drankje
Locatie El Hizjra, Singel 300A
Wij stellen zeer op prijs als jullie dit bericht , inclusief flyer, doormailen naar de leden en wanneer mogelijk aankondigen op de website.

El Hizjra
Stichting voor Arabische Kunst en Cultuur

Singel 300 A
1016 AD Amsterdam
020-4200568
www.elhizjra.nl
info@elhizjra.nl
K.v.K. 41207125

Waiting for Robin Hood

At the end of a screening at the International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam (IDFA) a lady took the microphone and invited people to buy plastic bottles which were for sale right at the exit of the theatre. It was an initiative of an NGO working in the field of improving access to drinking water in Africa. The goal was to raise money to supply a village in South Sudan with clean water. I try to imagine the reaction of the audience. Some must have thought: yet another charity for our poor friends in Africa. Isn’t it enough that the government pays millions every year from our taxes helping aid to the third world countries? Others probably thought it would be a noble deed to let wealthy Europeans pay a few Euros and give hundreds of families access to the liquid of life. In the end the first ones will walk away indifferently and the second will buy some bottles. And this happens a lot at festivals. But whether it will really bring any change to the world or to what extent that change may be, nobody knows.

You could see this on the occasion of the screening of Hinterland, a documentary made by the Dutch director Albert Elings. He followed a former Sudanese child soldier, who came to the Netherlands 11 years ago as an asylum seeker, visiting his home country. Hence the full title of the film ,Hinterland-A Child Soldier’s Road back to South Sudan. The production properly began in 2002. Kon Kelei was then starring in Tussenland (Between countries) a feature film by Dutch filmmaker Eugenie Jansen who won one of the three Tiger Awards at the International Film Festival Rotterdam. At that time, documentary maker Albert Elings started to follow the expatriate. After the the country’s independence and the peace agreement between Khartoum and Juba, Kon Kelei returns home. The film follows him on this first trip to his birthplace where he has plans to open a school and insure drinking water for his community. It tells one of those stories we hear more and more in our time and which are the dream of millions of young people in the South, but at the same time they are a nightmare to the Western world.

Kon fled the Sudan more than a decade ago when he was recruited by the rebels as a child soldier. After a long journey on a containership he ended up in the harbour of Rotterdam. From that moment on his life would never be the same again. As a refugee in one of the asylum camps in the Netherlands, he could go to school and graduate in international law. Now he is back with a master in his pocket and a lot of dreams and plans to develop his new independent country South Sudan. The documentary follows the metamorphosis of the young man during almost ten years, from the moment he enters the asylum camp until he returns to his motherland. The film shows Kon Kelei in the camp, then during his graduating ceremony at the university of law in Nijmegen, and finally when he goes back to his family and his village in the deep inlands of South Sudan. It is nothing more than the story of a young refugee who grabbed the chance of success.

However, unconsciously, the film points out the gap between two worlds. Following Kon on his journey you see two ways of life; on the one hand there is the life he lived all those years in exile and on the other hand there is the life his family lives, which is, of course, the life he would have lived if he had not run away. This is when you see how absurd difference is in chance and unjustice between two worlds. This feeling is felt much deeper in the Netherlands, where the naive and optimistic message of the film is in complete contrast with the actual debate about the policy regarding underdeveloped countries. European countries are indeed facing a terrible economic crisis. In addition to budget cuts in fields such as culture and public services, they find the solution in reducing budgets for international development, which means retrenchment in the policy of sustaining the weak economies.

At the same time the recent case of the young Angolan Mauro Manuel, opened a highly animated debate about the decision to send him back to Luanda after ten years of exile, even though he has no more family in the African city. The fact is that Mauro is a very special case and far too complex for an emigration law that reduces human beings to numbers. The eighteen year old man came to the Netherlands as an eight year old boy. His mother put him on an airplane to save him from poverty, misery and civil war. In the Netherlands he was taken in by a family who tried to adopt him twice, without success. Still, the kid grew up in Dutch society quite like any other young boy: going to school, playing in the courtyards and hanging around in the parks. Now that he is and adult, this very rational society wants him to fit in somewhere. A case like this cannot be predicted by law. The boy went through the Dutch school system for ten years, he speaks the Dutch language like his mother tongue, he has Dutch friends and dreams of making a living in the only society he knows.


Whereas Mauro Manuel is still young (only eighteen), Kon Kelei is more grown up. He finished his master’s degree, and the young expert in international law has a brilliant future ahead of him. He is teaching at the newly founded university of law and will probably embrace a political career. The film shows many other south Sudanese young people like him, who are still in the process of getting their degrees. They are the incarnation of the dream of many young African men: go to the North, learn, make money and go back to serve the family, the tribe and the country. This brings us back to the sixties and seventies when African students were sent to Europe to graduate in different fields and take care of their people, once they got back home. Can we ever forget that this strategy led to all kinds of post-colonial regimes? The dictators that the people of Tunisia, Egypt and other African countries are now struggling against, are all well educated and graduated in Europe and the USA. All African ruling elite learned how to govern their people in Europe whether they physically went there or not.

From that point of view there is a very naive idea about the way the North is giving back something to Africa. One could not watch this film without thinking about the political and economic background of the refugee phenomenon. Such a film, even when it is clearly made with all good intentions, is then part of a widespread practice in the western world, which aims to ease people’s conscience: As you leave the film, you can buy a plastic bottle from a humanitarian organization which is raising money to develop drinking water in South Sudan. For a few Euros, people get the opportunity to ease their conscience and feel spiritually at peace. At the same time they let their governments send asylum seekers and immigrants back to the misery which they create with their unfair policy.

Worse still is that there is a huge dilemma in these kinds of situations. If you participate in the humanitarian effort you are an accomplice to a certain neo-capitalist system which you support indirectly. If you do nothing, you will not help the situation of millions of people improve or, at least, not worsen. That is how the neo-liberalist rulers of the world, by a perverse effect, use humanist values of solidarity and trap citizens in order to use their need for spiritual peace and mercifulness to save themselves from the obligation to fulfil their duty.

In these kinds of situations the nice mythical figure of Robin Hood comes to mind. The NGO is taking money from the rich to give to the poor. That is not a bad thing, one could say. But there are two counterarguments to this naive configuration. Firstly, NGOs are not steeling. Secondly, the people buying the plastic bottles are mostly not really the rich of the western world. Those who are steeling and the modern aristocrats profiting from the privileges of the neo-liberalism are the multinationals and the banks. At least one could see in the young former refugee an incarnation of the modern Robin Hood for whom the wealth he made thanks to his exile, could be seen, by way of a very subtle metaphor as a tax imposed on the rich, which he uses to help his poor people. The latter were robbed by the imperialist western companies and rulers.

Unfortunately this idea cannot be found in this film, nor in another, The Sacrifice (Yoole). This is a documentary by Moussa Sene Absa from Senegal, who points out the illegal migration on the coast of the Atlantic ocean. Asylum seekers or illegal migrants may be seen as the Robin Hoods of our time. Their plan is in fact to take the money from the rich and give it to the poor. But it in the legend of Robin Hood, the hero is of aristocratic blood. That is why I see more of the legend of the good thief in these European filmmakers who make a stand against the injustice of the neo-liberal machine crushing everybody and everything in its path; the poor would then be the Asian and the African peasants as well as the workers and the petit bourgeois in the wealthy European societies. But the workings of this kind of rollercoaster are more obvious on continents like Africa, where the absurd contradictions can be easily verified. That is why even if African cinema is not well represented at western festivals, African subjects are the subject ofmany documentaries made by directors in the North.

The 24th International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam opened with The Ambassador, a film about the Central African Republic, made by Danish filmmaker and journalist Mads Brügger. Even before the kick-off of the festival and the screening of the film, a polemic had started between the filmmaker and one of the protagonists, the Dutch businessman Willem Tijssen, who asked the festival (through a letter) to withdraw the film. Tijssen runs a company called Diplomatic Services Africa and he helped the filmmaker acquire a Liberian passport. For that service he was paid a modicum sum of 50,000 US dollar. Three quarters of the amount was used to pay off corrupt African officers, the man admitted, while the entire payment was supposed to amount to 135,000 US dollars. It was not explicitly said whether he was contesting the way he was depicted in the film or whether he was not disgruntled because he had not been paid the rest of the money promised to him.

The journalist went to explore the world of diamond trafficking in the Central African Republic. This is one of the most secretive businesses in the world into which it would be impossible for an African filmmaker to enter. It is not enough to find the diamonds. The most difficult part is to succeed in taking them out of the country. The only safe way is to be a diplomat and therefore to be sure not to be searched by customs when you leave the country with soem diamonds in your Samsonite suitcase. As it is not possible for the journalist, a blond and tall Danish man,to become a western diplomat, he enters the central African territories as a Liberian official. After a number of adventures and dirty dealings he establishes his business. The whole process is filmed by a minuscule hidden camera. This way we enter a world of corrupt officials in the high and dark realms of Euro-African diplomacy.

There is a lot to learn from these images. We are taught for example that after the fight for control of minerals in the seventies, these days France and China are working together to spoil the African soil. We learn how French secret services were involved in the provocation of central African rebellion(s). We are told that the Liberian president Ellen Johnson Sirleaf and her minister for foreign affairs were on a black list of people not allowed to hold any high official position because of their involvement in the civil war. We see how many European diplomats form a corrupt network, serving as intermediaries in the illegal trade of diamonds. They put you in touch with officials who will provide the false diplomatic passport, and with the local officials who will help you infiltrate whichever market you want. At the end of the film we come to the conclusion that the tall white people are earning hundreds of millions of dollars through the mines and the labour of the poor and small pygmies. The filmmaker doesn’t hesitate to show himself at all times standing beside his two local pygmies whom he took as assistants. In doing this he cynically visualizes the relationship of power and spoliation that weighs so heavily on Africans.

This documentary is part of a whole tradition of successful films on Africa. The same festival opened in 2008 with a film about the Congo called Enjoy Poverty by Dutch video-maker Renzo Martins, who explored the insane networks of foreign organizations working in this country. He showed how United Nations’ and Humanitarian NGO’s work in an area where the lives of the Congolese are wasted while westerners are making their fortunes by selling anything and everything: photos of corpses to newspapers and press agencies, medicines to sick malnourished children, diamonds and minerals to international traders, development plans to politicians. A couple of years earlier, Austrian filmmaker Hubert Sauper investigated the business of Nile perch fish in the Tanzanian Lake Victoria. He depicts the impact of hyper-production on the life of the locals, while the tasty fish dishes end up on the plates of European consumers. Can these filmmakers be associated with the image of Robin Hood ?

This brings me to another question, in fact: Is it an African destiny to always be spoken about, but never to speak itself? The weak, the subaltern of our time, is the one who is not able to talk, to represent himself. That is the philosophy upon which the policy of hegemony has been built for ages. Taking away the other person’s right to speak is a part of the strategy to dominate and despoil. But if the subaltern cannot represent itself, it must be represented. That is where many European filmmakers can play an interesting role: give back the rightful owner something that has been unfairly taken from him. Unfortunately in this case filmmakers can do nothing to bring back all the diamonds and minerals stolen by the westerners. What they can restore is an image of what is happening. From that point of view they operate in the field of media and representation of the other person. Hopefully the films will somehow help to denounce the inhumane practice and hence reduce the suffering of millions who cannot not do so for themselves.

To what extent can European filmmakers substitute their colleagues from the South? Not everybody can be Robin Hood, only those who have the wealth, the blood, the know-how and the education. In a word and in our modern context, one needs to be rich enough to be able to raise his/her voice. As a matter of fact, production circumstances can be so hard that Africans can be less free than European filmmakers. Hence it is not always obvious that an African filmmaker will be better suited to speak about his/her continent than a non-African. She/He would never be able to do what the Danish director did. Not only because it is a huge financial operation, but also because an African diplomat who is blond, is such an unexpected ironic situation that it is the most eloquent one to show how absurd the African context is, and how far the “White” can go in the process of dispossession of the other from its most primordial identity.

Our world is definitely a tragedy and doesn’t fit with the legend of Robin Hood which is more like a fairytale, ending happily in reestablishment of the good prince to the joy of the people. None of the 1% of human beings will dare espouse the cause of the other 99%. The latter now perhaps occupy the squares as the legendary thieves once hid in the woods. But the good prince who will lead them to fight the injustice is unfortunately from another time and will probably never come back, as long as we don’t consider that filmmakers are dreaming of changing the world by helping the poor and denouncing the real thieves as modern avatars of Don Quixote fighting windmills.

AfryKamera 2011

Call For Applications 2012

Fundacja FilmGramm would like to announce it call for applications for the 2012 African Film Festival "

". The main theme for AfryKamera in 2012 is “MADE IN AFRICA”.

If you are interested in submitting your movie to AfryKamera, please contact selection@afrykamera.pl or call +48 515 085 282 for further information.

ALL ENTRIES ARE TO BE SENT TO TOGETHER WITH THIS SHORT ENTRY FORM:
AfryKamera
FILMGRAMM FOUNDATION
ul. Swietlana 7 m. 6-7
02-427 Warsaw
Poland


INTRODUCTION
The first AfryKamera Film Festival was organized by FilmGramm Foundation in cooperation with the South African Embassy during the months of April-June 2006. It aimed to use cinematography to bring Africa to the attention of the Polish public. The 1st AfryKamera premiered in Warsaw and also ran in Krakow, Poznan, Lodz, Torun and Konin. The strong media interest and good ticket sales during the first festival in 2006 confirmed our belief that Africa is a theme of immense interest to a growing number of people. Since the very 1st edition, AfryKamera has been well covered in the Polish media, which confirms the great marketing potential of such an event for Africa in general, as well as, for sponsors and patrons.

AfryKamera intends to be a stable and important part of the festival landscape of Poland, not only in regards to cinematography, but also in other cultural areas. We intend to achieve this by:

• Creating an important Award in the region of Central-Eastern Europe for African films created in the last few years.
• Presenting the most interesting movies from the classics to modern films
• Promotion of other aspects of African culture by organizing adjacent events.

Note: All films are screened in Warsaw with select screenings made in other cities (with due consultation with the rightsholders).

1. General Film Guidelines

All feature films, short films and documentaries which satisfy the below conditions are eligible for the general programme:
• Films must satisfy at least two of the below conditions:
- the film must be set in Africa;
- the director of the film must be of African origin (this includes members of the African diaspora);
- the film must relate to issues, which directly or indirectly concern the historical or current social, economic or cultural situation in Africa or the African diaspora.
• Films must not have been screened in previous editions of AfryKamera.
• Production dates for the movie are no older than 2007.
• Films should be submitted in DVD or VHS format for preview screening. Final screening format is 35mm, HDCAM, DV, DVD, Bluray, exceptionally BETA od DigiBETA.

2. Entry to the Festival

Deadline for entry is 28th February.
All screeners (DVD/VHS) must be sent to the below address:

AfryKamera
FILMGRAMM FOUNDATION
ul. Swietlana 7 m. 6-7
02-427 Warsaw
Poland

Entering the film to the Festival does in no way hinder the producer's or distributor's right to a screening fee.

3. Film Competition

All feature films selected are eligible for the Jury Award and the Audience Award. The Awards are honorary and no prizes are foreseen.

4. Screening DVD/VHS

Preview cassette tapes/dvd's are to be sent at entrants' expense and these will not be returned unless specifically requested (at the expense of the festival organiser). VHS cassettes/dvd's retained by the festival will be used for non-circulating reference in its archive. Optionally non-downloadable online streaming version can be submitted with the appropriate internet link and (if applicable) access code.

5. Scheduling of Screenings

Scheduling the screening of films is the responsibility of the festival management. The dates, times and venues of exhibition of films shall be at the discretion of the festival. No film, once programmed, may be withdrawn from the festival.

6. Dispatch and Return of Copies

Dispatch of prints to and from the festival and related expenses are the responsibilty of organisers. However should a screening product come from another festival, the prior festival should be responsible for shipping and postal expenses.

9. Acceptance of regulations

Entry and participation of films will be taken as acceptance of the above regulations.


For all enquiries (English, French, Arabic):
selection@afrykamera.pl

De Balie, Art of the Revolution (9,10, 11december 2011)

Tunesië: democratie onder de microscoop
We zijn bijna een jaar na de eerste tekenen van de Arabische lente. Vorig jaar december, toen de jonge Mohammed Bouazizi zichzelf offerde, kon niemand geloven dat de paar woedekreten van een gemarginaliseerde gemeenschap in het binnenland van Tunesië het begin zouden zijn van vele omwentelingen. De Jasmijnrevolutie werd groter en heette opeens de Arabische lente. Landen als Egypte, Libië, Syrië en Jemen roken ook de vrijheid. Wij stellen voor terug te blikken op het afgelopen jaar. Met behulp van korte documentaires kijken we binnen bij een volk dat een veranderingsproces ondergaat.
In een jaar tijd, is er heel veel gebeurd. Op 14 januari ging Ben Ali op de vlucht, na een dictatuur van 23 jaar. Er volgde een periode van chaos die de aangekondigde verkiezingen van juli verhinderde. Ze vonden een paar maanden later plaats, op 23 oktober. Inmiddels is een grondwetgevende vergadering aan de slag gegaan om een nieuwe en democratische grondwet voor het land te schrijven. De leden moeten luisteren naar de wil van het volk.
Het afgelopen jaar zijn ook kunstenaars en filmmakers aan het werk gegaan om de dromen en toekomstverwachtingen van hun landgenoten te formuleren. Samen met De Balie willen we deze energie laten zien en ook duiden. We kijken naar beelden van de eerste dagen na de val van het regime (lente), en beelden van een paar maanden later als de rust lijkt teruggekeerd (zomer). Tenslotte zal dit filmprogramma ons helpen om een analyse te maken van de verkiezingsuitslag (herfst).
De cirkel is rond. Maar zal het allemaal levensvatbaar blijken? En wordt Tunesië een echte democratie? Of is het slechts een vicieuze cirkel? En is het land op weg naar een nieuwe dictatuur?

Aanwezig zijn :
Ridha Tlili is een belangrijke exponent van de jonge generatie Tunesische filmmakers. Al voor de revolutie nam hij met een groep collega’s deel aan het debat over de vernieuwing van de Tunesische cinema. Dat deed hij via de Vereniging Aktie voor de Cinema. Na de val van de dictatuur, richtte hij het Festival van de Revolutie op. De eerst editie vond afgelopen juli plaats. Revolution under 5’, zijn eerst lange documentaire, is momenteel op vele Europese festivals te zien.
Hassouna Mansouri is filmcriticus en onderzoeker culturele studies. Hij levert regelmatig bijdragen aan kranten en tijdschriften in het Arabisch, Frans en Engels. Hij is actief in internationale filmorganisaties, zoals de internationale organisatie FIPRESCI. Hij publiceerde eerder het essay: ‘De identiteit, of een neiging van de Afrikaanse cinema’. Zijn tweede boek is ‘Het geconfisqueerde Beeld’, en een derde is in voorbereiding: ‘Zij zullen zichzelf niet
vertegenwoordigen’. Als academicus is hij geïnteresseerd in theorieën van interpretatie en de kwestie van ‘anders-zijn’.

Erkan Yigit is werkzaam als adviseur. Hij heeft in Frankrijk sociologie afgestudeerd. In Amsterdam heeft hij verschillende projecten opgesticht (participatief theater) en advies takken gevoerd (allochtoonondernemingschap).

Africa in Motion 2011

Africa in Motion 2011: It's a (very successful) wrap!
http://www.africa-in-motion.org.uk/photo-galleries/africa-in-motion-2011/

Now that the curtains have closed on the 6th edition of the Africa in Motion Film Festival - which focussed on Children and Youth in Africa - we would like to thank our audience, partners, supporters, funders, and everyone who, one way or the other, collaborated with AiM for their participation, contribution, interaction and feedback, all of which created the wonderful environment in which we were able to implement this year's festival programme.

Throughout the 5 days of the festival, we welcomed almost one and a half thousand people to Africa in Motion, registered high attendance levels in our screenings, and had numerous sold-out events. This year, AiM received some of the best media coverage our festival has had; obtained a very positive response to the quality, diversity and contents of the films we programmed, and our film introductions and post-screening discussions were described as inspiring and poignant. In addition, guests/collaborators such as Nigerian filmmaker Obi Emelonye, French/Burkinabe journalist Claire Diao, Professor Jolyon Mitchell from the School of Divinity (Ed. Uni), or scholar Gerhard Anders from the Centre for African Studies (Ed. Uni) assured our festival continued to provide a platform for African films to not only be seen but also contextualized, questioned, discussed and reflected upon.

Amongst the outstanding highlights of this year's festival were the (now legendary) AiM launch party, our guest filmmaker Nigerian director/producer Obi Emelonye, the AiM annual short film competition, a boisterous and eventful Children's Day, numerous compelling discussions, and a glorious closing party.


We kicked off the festival with a stunning (and sold-out) screening of Tunisian film, Bab'Aziz: The Prince Who Contemplated His Soul (Nacer Khemir: 2005) and a roaring party to signal the beginning of another wonderful festival. This included a menu of tantalising Kenyan canapés, South African wine and an outstanding performance by Zimbabwean jazz singer, Cynthia Gentle and her band, The True Tones. Commenting on the opening event, dancer Jennifer Ba stated: "The AiM festival is well known in Edinburgh and the opening nights are renowned for providing excellent entertainment - it was a great experience!"


The following day, we were delighted to be joined by Nigerian filmmaker Obi Emelonye. During his time with the festival he engaged in an insightful seminar that discussed the production and distribution of Nollywood films. This was one of many opportunities to discuss the film programme with leading practitioners and academics of African cinema. Throughout the duration of the festival, post-screening discussions highlighted and explored many of the poignant issues within the programmed films. These discussions covered topics of disability and domestic abuse and children's issues.

This year we presented the 4th edition of the Africa in Motion Short Film Competition and once again, the quality of the films has raised to a truly outstanding level. On Friday evening we screened the 7 shortlisted films and later announced Umkhungo (dir. Matthew Jankes, South Africa) as the deserving winner of the competition.

Another highlight of the festival and an undoubtable success was our Children's Day Programme. The day started with a hugely successful Storytelling session led by Mara Menzies, from Toto Tales. To a cinema full of half-pint sized 2-legged animals, Mara told fantastical tales of 4-legged and winged animals, weaving the engaged audience into the stories themselves. This was followed by sold-out screening of children's films: a stellar selection of short, colourful films aimed at the youth. Demanding more energy still (as only children would be able to provide), the day ended with a fantastic set of drumming and dancing workshops where children were able to learn the basic rhythms on the Djembe drums and accompanied dance moves. A wonderfully vibrant finale to the day!

The festival was brought to a close in exquisite style with the screening of a FESPACO award winning film 'Un pas en avant, les dessous de la corruption; (One Step Forward: The Inside of Corruption) followed by a mesmerising performance by Sengalese kora player, Soriba Kanout. Soriba provided us all with a much needed sense of calm and reassurance at the end of a wonderfully exciting and relentless festival. We were cordially transported to serenity via Senegal, where we will remain until the chaos recommences next year. We would like to thank all our partners and sponsors who contributed an incredible amount to the shape and execution of the festival. We look forward to working with you again in the future, and similarly, we hope to see all of our audience members again next year!

"The sheer variety of films shown at AiM reminds us that there is no single 'African' cinema, but a whole world to explore within a continent of diverse cultures and histories... I cant wait to see what else AiM has in store in the future. I'll certainly be returning to find out"
Kieran Hanson, MA Granada Centre for Visual Anthropology, University of Manchester

Until next year!
Africa in Motion Management Team

NOTE: Photos by Michael Marten and Antonio Sanchez. To see more photos of this year's festival go to AiM 2011 Photo Gallery on our website.

Luxor African Film Festival

Call for Submissions: Luxor African Film Festival, First Edition February 2012 - Deadline: December 15, 2011

The political conditions experienced by Egypt during the four decades preceding the revolution of January 25 removed Egypt from its strategic African depth on all levels - cultural, economic and social for different reasons. After the revolution, the space was open again and each responsible individual felt they can really make a difference and turn their ideas into a reality. From here, Script writer, Sayed Fouad, thought of implementing the project that has been haunting him for years – An Annual African Film Festival in Egypt to establish the African links.

Independent Shabab Foundation (I-Shabab), an Egyptian non governmental, and non-profit organization, was selected to run the festival due to its belief in the importance of "Luxor African Film Festival" in linking up and networking with others in general and with Africa in particular.

The team thought of Luxor to encourage decentralization of cultural events to move a bit away from Cairo and Alexandria, which are piling up with different festivals, and finally, to contribute to the promotion of tourism to the city of Luxor at this critical time that Egypt’s experiencing after revolution.

The festival has given itself the mission, to support and encourage African film productions and partnerships between the countries of the continent through strengthening the humanitarian and political ties between the peoples of Africa in general and African artists in particular.

AfricAvenir International, Arterial Network, Independent Shabab Foundation, the Egyptian Ministry of Culture, Ministry of Tourism, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Information, Ministry of Civil Aviation, the Luxor Governate, the Syndicate of Egyptian Filmmakers, and Nile Thematic TV Channels have been won as official partners and sponsors.

Dear African filmmakers, dear producers, dear distributors,

Please find for download:

|+| The Conditions & Criteria including the Submission Forms

If you have further questions, please dont hesitate to contact:
Azza El Hosseiny
Executive Director
Luxor African Film Festival
independentshabab(at)yahoo.com
luxoraff(at)gmail.com
Since the website is underconstruction, at a later stage also:
Azza.elhosseiny(at)luxoraff.com
33 Haroun st., Dokki,Cairo
Telefax:02-37622407
Mobile: 01003212160
www.luxorafricanfilmfestival.com

Wishing for a lot of new and brilliant films from all of Africa and the diaspora to be entered and selected,

considering azza.elhosseiny(at)luxoraff.com it will be activated after a while and i will inform you when that happens.

Yours in Film,
AfricAvenir

Africa opens prestigious documentary festival in Amsterdam

The 24th edition of the International Documentary Festival Amsterdam (IDFA) opened Wednesday November 16th with a film about Africa: The Ambassador by Danish filmmaker and journalist Mads Brügger. This is the most important festival dedicated to documentaries in the world.
It is disappointing to notice one more time that such festivals don’t open with films from Africa but about it. Anyway it is still somehow an African presence that otherwise would not be possible.
Already a polemic is going around the film. One of the protagonists, the Dutch businessman Willem Tijssen, asked the festival (via letter) to withdraw the film from its program. The Ambassador remains however the opening film of the festival, the press officer confirmed in a press release..
Tijssen is running a company called Diplomatic Services Africa and helped the filmmaker to get a Liberian passport and got paid for that service a modicum sum of 50.000 US dollar. 3/4th of the amount was used to corrupt African officers, admitted the man.
The journalist went to explore the milieu of diamond traffic in Central African Republic. This is one of the most mysterious businesses in the world to which it will be impossible for an African filmmaker to enter.
To do this it is not enough to find diamonds. The most difficult is to be able to take them out of the country. Or the only safe way is to be a diplomat. Then you are sure not to be searched by customers when you are leaving the territory with few diamonds in your Samsonite hand suitcase.
Because it is not possible to be a western diplomat the journalist, a blond and tall Danish man, enters the central African territories as a Liberian official. After some adventures and dealings he establishes his business.
The whole process is filmed by a minuscule hidden camera. That’s how we enter a world of corrupted officials in the high spheres of euro-African diplomacy.
We learn for example that after the fight about the control of minerals in the 70ies, France and China are nowadays working together to spoil African soil.
We learn how French secret services were involved in the provocation of central African rebellion.
We are told that Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, Liberian president and her minister of foreign affairs were in a black list of persons not allowed to hold any high official position because of their involvement in the civil war.
We are taught how European diplomats are a corrupted network serving as intermediaries in the illegal commerce of diamond. They bring you in touch with officials who will provide the false diplomatic passport, and with the local officials who will help you infiltrate the market of whatever you want.
At the end we will come to the conclusion that the big white people are earning hundreds of millions of dollars using the mines and the work of the poor and short height pygmies.
The filmmaker shows himself always standing with his two locals whom he took as assistants. Therefore he visualizes the relationship of power and spoliation that weighs too much on Africans.
This documentary is part of a whole tradition of successful films about Africa. The same festival opened in 2008 with a film about Congo called Enjoy Poverty by Dutch video-maker Renzo Martins who explored the insane networks of foreign organizations working in this country.
Couple of years earlier, Austrian filmmaker investigated the business of Nile perch fish in the Tanzanian’s Lake Victoria and the impact of hyper-production on the life of.
All these films got big success. This brings back the eternal question about what prevents African filmmakers to be on such stages.
Is it an African destiny to be always something to talk about never something that talks?
Still it is not always obvious that an African filmmaker will talk about his/her continent better than a non African. Production circumstances can be so heavy that Africans can be less free than a European filmmaker for instance.
An African filmmaker would never be able to do what the Danish did. Not only because it is a huge financial operation, but also because an African diplomat who is blond is so unexpected situation that is the most eloquent one to show how African context is absurd.
In this festival there are few African participations like Tahrir 2011 by Egyptian trio Amr Salama, Ayten Amin and Tamer Ezzat who tell the story of the Egyptian uprising.
Very acclaimed Senegalese filmmaker Moussa Sene Absa will be also presenting his new documentary Yoole, the sacrifice in the Slide Show parallel section. The filmmakers addresses the tragedy of young Senegalese migrants challenging the death in the Atlantic ocean because of their dream of a better life.

See also : http://www.africareview.com/Arts+and+Culture/A+telling+story+from+Africa+screens+at+Amsterdam+fete/-/979194/1273330/-/taw6h8z/-/index.html

African cinema under the spotlight in Abu Dhabi

In Abu Dhabi International Film Festival not only North African films are celebrated because they have an Arab cultural connection, but also South Africans do have a chance to be awarded. This is what the fifth edition held from October 13th to 22nd showed this year.
Last October 21st, two winners of this big Arab film venue were South Africans. Jayashree Basavaraj was awarded the price of the Best Actress ($20,000) for her performance in n Lucky, directed by Avie Luthra. While Skeem by Tim Greene got the Audience Choice Award, a modicum sum of ($50,000).
The first price is not surprising. It was given by a jury made of professionals. The second is really unexpected. The public of Emirates is not especially familiar with African stories. Not to mention that the audience in this festival is mainly made of festival guests and foreigners.
The most probable explanation of this price is the existence of a big Indian community in this Arab country. The South African actress, who is from Indian origins, should have had a particular attraction on the Indian public who attended the screening.
Out of this surprising success of South African films, the northern ones were not so lucky. Except Asmaa by Egyptian Amr Salama who left with a nice amount of three awards: Best Director from the Arab World, Best Actor, et Best Producer.
It was not the case of Tunisian participation. Only veteran Ridha Bahi got the price of best producer for his film, Always Brando. The Moroccan also got only one price. It was the one of the best director in the international competition.
The Moroccan participants were deeply disappointed. Not only because one single price is not enough for an emergent film industry but also for political reasons. They contested the price of best actress attributed to Memona Mohamed in Tears of Sand directed by Pedro Pérez Rosado from Spain.
The reason is that the actress is from the Western Sahara and the film is shot in the camps of Tindouf in Algeria. It tells the story of a woman who is not allowed to visit her family in the camps neither in the territory of the Sahara which is under the Moroccan control.
Couple of days earlier, the delegation threatened the organization of a collective withdrawing if the film is not put out of the festival. The Moroccan participation is most important Arab one this year. It is made of five features, few shorts and many journalists. Ismail Ferroukhi was awarded the price of the Best Director ($50,000) for his film called Free Men.
Moroccans found that the purpose of the film is against the interest of their country. Showing the bad conditions of the life in the refugee camp in the desert of Algeria and absurd statu quo situation of a whole society, the film is pamphlet against the Moroccan policy in the region. It was then unacceptable that in addition to that, the actress gets any price.
It seems that the organization of the festival had accepted the objection of the delegation, but the jury had another point of view. By sticking to its sovereignty, it expresses the wish not let politics decide for cinema.

Egyptian stories in big film festivals

The biggest film festivals in the world are programming films from Tunisia and Egypt. It is nice. Never before was it possible to have this chance. But only films about the revolution are programmed. After Cannes and Locarno, Venice and Toronto joined the club of festivals giving an honor to the so-called the Arab Spring through the cinema of the region. The two festivals selected the same film, Tahrir 2011, the good, the bad and the politician, at the same time. The documentary is made by three filmmakers: Tamer Izzat, Ayten Amine and Amr Salema. The three of them were running from a continent to another to meet the public. We called them when they were in Toronto and have the following a chat with two of them.
To the question about the reason of this sudden enthusiasm of festivals for Tunisia and Egyptian films Tamer Izzat thinks that it is more than a mood for the revolution. He admits that the fact that the film is talking about the revolution is an important argument for its selection.
“ But the reaction of the public is in general positive. (He adds) If I see the reviews and the reaction of the public in Venice and here in Toronto, the film is very positively welcomed. What is nice also is that people feel that we are not exploiting the revolution or using it as pretext but we are trying to make a real film.”
This was in Toronto. In Venice also the reaction was very positive according to Ayten who told us about a big ovation before she explains: “I think people could see how things where really going in the revolution. They can see in the film the feelings of the people and what really happened in the streets. This is logic in fact because the three of us participated to the events so we tell story from inside.”
For Ayten, the revolution gave Egyptian films a wonderful chance to be seen. “Egypt, she explains, is not very often present in big film festival. And this is nice for art house films that we are making. This is a documentary film and the producer wants to release it commercially so this is going to be a new experience in Egypt.”
Even though for her, the problem is not only to show films from Egypt and Tunisia, but to make nice films : “ It is not enough, she thinks, that the world sees us but it is also the idea that you have the possibility to make the kind of films you want to make. A lot of films are made about the revolution, but the most important thing is which films deserve to be seen.”
Films of cinema, indeed, should give an image which is closer to the reality than the one showed by media and TV’s. And Tamer Izzat experienced this in the recent years of his own life.
“Ten years ago I was in New York in 9/11 and made a film about the Arabs in USA. There is a prejudice that we see in the world media giving an image of propaganda of the Arabs showing them as violent people.”
According to him films can help looking differently to the Arabs. If films while they are going around can help change this stigmatizing idea even for a little bit, it will be enough and will be already a success.
But things are still not so easy, he likes to comment. “Festivals are special areas and they are not like media. But the revolution in Tunisia and in Egypt and the big interest that this brought to the two countries helped films to be selected and to show something different.”
In his film, Tamer Izzat deals with characters that are not presented by medias as heroes. They are kind of normal people not heroes. He focuses more on spontaneous individuals who participated to uprising.
He follows in this, the idea that the revolution is an event made by everybody. He himself was personally in the Tahrir square and saw that it was not the work of some political activists.
For him it was “the revolution of the people who suddenly felt able to make the change following what happened in Tunisia. I even, he added, chose not to give names to my characters. I wanted to show them with the same spontaneous feeling of the street at that moment. I wish I could have more time and put more characters and give the possibility to everyone to tell his/her own story from the position where s/he was standing in the square or the streets leading to the square.”
To the question about the shooting because some images seem to be taken during the event and others shot after, Tamer and Ayten were in the same situation they told us that during the revolution it was not possible for him to shoot because he was participating to the sit-in like everybody.
In fact images of the event was collected by another filmmaker called Ahmad Abdallah who created a kind of media centre in the square to collect video clips from people who spontaneously made some shooting with cameras, mobiles etc.
Tamer Izzat likes even this experience and considers it a: “very special experience because (he says) I was not in control of the shooting since the beginning. My role was to put together all these images and try to show as authentic as possible the drama that we were facing at that moment.”
The question then is how was the coordination with the two other parts of the film? This was the role of the producer Mohammed Hefdhy who came with the idea of the production already during the sit-in and suggested the concept of the three parts film following the famous western film The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.
Ayten was asked to do the part about the police which seems to be especially interesting for her but at the same time a strange experience. “Police officers in Egypt, she explains, communicate neither in the television, nor in newspapers. This makes things worse because I think that if they could talk, even if we would not agree with them, it would be much better. We could at least have a dialogue but the fact that they are forbidden to talk is very frustrating. That’s why we don’t know anything about them. This was for me the first time I talk to police officers and therefore it was a very strange experience to enter a complete unknown world.”
Indeed the idea of her film is the security forces which are the touch stone of any dictatorial regime. But she didn’t want show them from only one side and give them a human face even though she doesn’t agree definitely with them about a lot of things.
She shows how their situation is complex during the interviews: One of the officers she reports, told me at a certain moment that he also was dreaming of the fall of the regime.”
Then she explained how these people are educated in a way to make them not equilibrated psychologically. They are also frustrated because they are used all the time by others. During the interviews she noticed that sometimes they look very nervous.
She concluded that “They where only educated to look at people who are demonstrating in the street as a danger and a source of trouble in terms of security and they have to do whatever to disperse them even with violence. That’s what they learned at school. So when you are in front of hundreds of thousands of people, you see and know that they are demonstrating peacefully and you have orders to disperse them or even to shoot them, I think that this is a very difficult situation that nobody can judge easily.”
The revolution gave a lot of filmmaker the opportunity to make films and to be selected in big festivals. The question stays if this will be more than a mood or a way to look for sensational images profiting from the actuality.
These filmmakers worked in a very independent way. Will they end up by entering the main stream and commercial cinema? Nothing is sure according to the two filmmakers.
“Commercial cinema in Egypt has a strange construction, says Ayten who prefers to be optimist. I think we are a bit out of it. And still we don’t know how it is going to be in the future. Let’s hope that the revolution will bring a nice change and give more opportunity to everybody.”
Is this going to happen? Nobody really knows.

Director's Bio
Tamer Ezzat studied at the American University in Cairo. He directed the documentaries MakanEsmo el Watan (06), The Place ICall Home (08) and the feature The Ring Road (10). Tahrir 2011 (segment, 11) is his latest film.
Ayten Amin was a second assistant director on the films Zay el naharda (08) and Basra (08). She directed the short film Spring 89 (09). Tahrir 2011 (segment, 11) is her latest film.
Amr Salama was born in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. He is a writer, director, editor and actor. He directed the films Zay El Naharda (08) and Tahrir 2011 (segment, 11).