In his explication of what
constitutes documentary, Bill Nichols notes four arenas that have changed (and are continuing to change) our
understanding of the term, one of which is institutions. Among the effects of an institutional
framework is a set of limits, or conventions, that we usually see as a
presentation of both sides of a question in an attempt at “reportorial balance,
in the sense of not openly taking sides” (17).
Jehane Noujaim’s The Square seemingly meets audience expectations of balance—the “it goes without
[saying-ness]”—by telling the stories of diverse protesters in opposition to
the Mubarak regime. Though it introduces
more than a dozen characters, it mostly focuses on three:
Khalid Abdalla
Magdy Ashour
And Ahmed Saleh
Despite differences among these men,
they maintain a unique friendship during the span of the narrative, Magdy and
Ahmed, especially—the former a conflicted member/apologist of the Muslim
Brotherhood, the latter a young Egyptian everyman who dreams of a country not
divided by sectarianism. Even if The Square’s assortment of characters
were limited to these two, the question of who is being represented would be
valid. Is this Magdy’s story or is it
Ahmed’s? Is it Khalid’s or someone
else’s? Each character—and notably the
characters that appear more complex—adds a different fold to the story, but
identifiability plays an important role in determining which character
seemingly represents the average, or better, ideal, protestor.
At the risk of oversimplifying their work and
influence in the movement, I will summarize the roles of Khalid, Magdy, and
Ahmed in the film. Khalid is the
celebrity face of the protests, different from most of his companions because
of his recognizability. It is he who
appears on Anderson Cooper and other networks; he is also the character who has
to defend his involvement the most, as he struggles to explain the endgame of
protesting to his bed-ridden father.
Magdy is the face of the Muslim Brotherhood, though he is not what the
audience might expect (which is kind of the point). His casting likely succeeds in portraying a
more nuanced sympathizer, if not member, of the Muslim Brotherhood. While his inclusion provides a somewhat
relatable character to Western audiences, can he be said to represent the group
with which he affiliates?
Ahmed
stands out as The Square’s
representative of protestor. Unlike Khalid,
he is a regular civilian, not a celebrity.
His motive for protesting is not rooted in religion; in fact, as the
protests drag on, he (along with others) admits that he does not have a
solution to the problems; he simply believes in free speech. At one point, he states, “as long as there’s
a camera, the revolution will continue;” he is the documentarian of the
struggle, a proxy of Noujaim who, in a reflexive moment of the film, calls
attention to the medium that allows for his story to be told. That The
Square most clearly presents these events through Ahmed’s point of view
calls into question the effectiveness of the other characters’ stories: are we
getting a balanced story, or the appearance of balance?
It seems like you're saying the Square sees itself as presenting both sides--am I understanding you correctly? Can you talk more about how it does or doesn't work within that institutional framework?
ReplyDeleteThanks for asking these questions; I don't think I articulated very well the point I was trying to get at in the original post. It's not so much that The Square sees itself as presenting both sides of a story; Ahmed--arguably the film's most ideal representative of protestor--says something early on that implies which side's story is being told/represented. He says (not verbatim) that the struggle preceding the protests was one felt by all Egyptian people, not just Muslims or Christians. Anyone who experienced the oppressiveness of the Mubarak regime has the same story in some regards, if not the same reason to protest. In that sense, the suffering Magdy experienced is not really different than that experienced by Ahmed or any other character of undetermined sect. He is first and foremost presented as an Egyptian, not a member of the Muslim Brotherhood.
ReplyDeleteThat he is never presented as a hardline member of the Muslim Brotherhood makes it unlikely that any viewer would believe he is meant to represent their side. However, he is the only character with Brotherhood affiliations that gets any significant attention/dialogue, so for better or worse he is a de facto representative. Because the audience might approach this documentary with an institutional framework in mind, they might have expectations of seeing multiple sides presented. It doesn't help that villains in the movie change from Mubarak/Military to Military/Muslim Brotherhood, thus shifting Magdy's role of Egyptian citizen who is Muslim during the first half of the film to the only main character who at time sympathizes with the enemy during the second half of the film. The Square doesn't attempt to present both sides (meaning the Egyptian people and the Brotherhood, and even the Military) so much as the audience might look to categorize characters as belonging to this group or that group.