Tags
I’ve taken to avoiding documentaries when they pop up on streaming. There are a couple of reasons that I do this but among them is not a dislike of documentaries. I do like them – when they are done right.
The biggest reason for my distrust of the category is that there is a whole pile of shoddy work out there. Cable TV seems to have created a market for History Channel –style offerings and the streaming services are taking that market and running with it. For the distributor, a documentary costs little to create and therefore can drive large profit margins. That margin is not as big as the “reality show” format, but the concept is similar. Cost can be further kept down by being a combination of repetitive and vacuous. In some cases, I complain about the production-level shortcomings even if the series as a whole was worthwhile, based on the subject and the educational value.
This has led me to a situation where, on streaming, I reject documentaries as a matter of principle. Even the better ones are part of a plan to charge me, the streaming customer, more money while giving me less of what I want. There are a handful of documentaries on my list to watch but a combination of the above factors push them lower to my queue.
The fact is, there are some really great documentaries out there. Some are entertaining in their own right, independent of subject matter. The grunge documentary Hype! springs to mind as an example from this category, even if it is probably not the best one. Other films might be praised for their educational value – offering a unique understanding about an important topic. I might imagine Ken Burn’s The Civil War in this category. The series was hardly rollicking entertainment but I felt I genuinely learned a lot about its subject while also enjoying its presentation. Then there are documentaries whose quality is judged on the importance of their subject.
The Square commands respect from within this last territory.
This is not to denigrate the movie in any way. This is, objectively, not an entertaining subject. The film is about the “Arab Spring” revolution in Egypt starting in 2011. Many lost their lives while survivors were left feeling robbed of the freedoms which they had given so much to earn. It is hardly a “feel good” subject, even if it might be inspirational. Likewise, its educational value is also hampered by other factors – an observation I need to explain a little closer.
What is most remarkable about this film is that the footage (almost exclusively) is taken at and around Tahrir Square as events were occurring. It is not an investigation or exploration of an event that took place in the past, as all my above examples of documentaries are. The filmmaker had to be there ahead of time and, to at least some extent, actively participate in history as it was being created so as to get it on film. Because of this, it is a challenge for the film to fully capture the big picture.
Again, this is not intended as criticism or meant to warn you away from this picture. The decision was made to create the film from footage of the participants in the events as they were participating. That choice precludes certain other opportunities to present the subject matter. It also creates a more powerful presentation.
That choice seems to have been the right one. The film boasts resounding critical acclaim both from the professional media and from viewer ranking. It has earned awards in festivals and nominations in the major award ceremonies. It gets 8.0 from my, now, go-to IMDb metric.
The saddest part about this film is the reality as it stands today. The footage was captured over the 2011-2013 time frame when hopes were repeatedly raised and dashed. The toppling of Hosni Mubarak was lauded world-wide as proof that freedom could come to and rule the Middle East. At each stage of the movement, the promise of success was dashed by the reality of realpolitik.
The film wraps in 2013 with the army’s intervention to remove President Mohamed Morsi, one year after his installation by The Muslim Brotherhood. The film was released before his replacement with the Minister of Defense that led that last coup, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. The latter remains in power today and, at least by my reading of today’s headlines, Egypt has yet to find liberty. The film ends on an optimistic note even while acknowledging that the journey down the path to freedom must continue for decades to come.
Being a documentary, one dwells not on the work but rather on the subject. The Egyptian coup was something I knew about mostly through soundbites and headlines. This is the real value of this film – to provide some depth and some context to this international event at the human, individual level.
First and foremost, the film really sold Egypt to me as a culture and as a nation. All of the West sees ancient Egypt as part of what makes us who we are but we tend to disconnect this foundation from the Egypt of today. When I hear “Egypt” in a modern context I would tend to think first about its role in the Cold War and in the Arab Israeli conflicts. It’s a poor nation, struggling with civil strife, crime, and violence. As such, it blends in with hundreds of other countries in the same boat. Yet it is also the place from which civilization sprung and was once one of the world’s greatest empires. Before turning to Islam, it was a center for Christianity and Judaism, not to mention the pantheon of deities for whom the pyramids were raised. Modern Egyptians live every day immersed in this vast history, even as (like all of us) they struggle with their daily lives.
I know this is a place I’d love to visit – not just to experience it as a vast museum but also to see for myself the country that Egypt is today.
The Square also is an interesting case study amid all the predictions for impending Civil War within our own society. Egypt lived through a major protest (if you think the term “revolution” oversells what actually happened) which succeeded in toppling its government through extra-constitutional means. There was violence, death, and disappointment. What there was not, however, was warfare or societal collapse or a crumbling of the nation or the culture. If anything (and I’m relying entirely on The Square here), the sense of nationhood and collective pride was reinforced.
I have to contrast the culture in Egypt with that in these United States. That contrast was highlighted in a scene from the film which shows the “Revolutionaries” searching their own people as they arrive at Tahrir Square for a major rally/protest. Jurisdictions where guns are heavily regulated aside, an American activist would bristle at (if not outright refuse) a pat-down search conducted by fellow activists, particularly concerning the Constitutionally-guaranteed right to keep and bear arms. There is no way that a major anti-government protest (outside of the big, blue coastal states) would not see the number of civilian-carried firearms dwarf, in number, those brought by law enforcement.
This difference became even more clear when The Square showed footage of violence against unarmed protesters. Given the situation above, it is unimaginable that an American army (or a police force) would send men out to beat protesters who were peacefully assembled. The likelihood that such violence would remain one-sided would be enough to cause the government-aligned perpetrators to rethink their strategy.
I have my own suspicion that, had the film focused more on the Muslim Brotherhood rather than the idealistic “one nation” revolutionaries, we might have seen less of this one-sided threat/application of force. In retrospect, I am glad we did not. The righteousness of the Arab Spring cause was helped by the fact that the Revolutionaries remained peaceful in their revolution, in the face of whatever the government threw at them. If they had fought back with deadly force, they might not have been the heroes as shown in this film.
Of course, you have to wonder… if they had fought back with deadly force, might they not now still be wondering when, if ever, their sacrifices will bear fruit?