In his first film in the Arabic-language Cairo trilogy, Swedish-Egyptian director Tarek criticizes pre-revolution political corruption; in his second, the Muslim Brotherhood; with his latest release, the neo-noir political thriller Eagles of the Republic, Tarek is more daring, taking aim at the active ruling Egyptian government. Except, due to sloppy writing and historical inaccuracies, it is not very effective at doing so.
None of the below is meant as an endorsement or justification of the current political system, but my perspective is, while not disliking the film persé, that the film's faults detract from more meaningful structural critique and instead almost fall into self-orientalist territory (note that--understandably given that Tarek is barred from entering the country--the cast consists almost entirely of diverse Arab diaspora, with only two actual Egyptian actors involved, leading to a jarring listening experience to native speakers). Here are some of my notes:
Early in the film, George's new film is criticized by the Egyptian censorship board by three women wearing their hijab in a strictly Orthodox way (e.g., not showing any hair, as is more common in present-day Egyptian society). They claim that a scene between George's character and another woman is too provocative, especially as they are unmarried; and that the scene should be cut. Shortly after, George hears of threats to smear him in public as critical of Islam (which in reality would not nearly be as effective or impactful as the film makes it out to be).
This seems inspired by the widely criticized decision by the actual Egyptian Censorship Authority to ban the film Halawat Rouh, the contents of which were, for what it is worth, significantly more explicit than those of George's new film. Regardless, this took place in the early years of el-Sisi's rule, shortly after the overthrow of the Islamic Brotherhood. The film is set in the early 2020s, as indicated by the development of the new Egyptian capital. By 2015, the Censorship Authority was reformed so as to no longer requiring domestic films to cut or refill scenes and instead operate solely for classifying suitable viewing ages. For all its issues, contemporary Egypt isn't Iran, despite the film seeming to suggest as much.
At one point in the film, the son of the protagonist's neighbor is arrested for posting political criticism online. This minor subplot is immediately resolved as the son is subsequently released through the protagonist George's levering of his connections. This is pretty much the closest it comes to any substantial critique of the crackdown on political dissidents. The remainder instead seems to speak to a dominantly Western liberal audience, illustrating that the regime is authoritarian and therefore in and by itself should be criticized--the depiction of authoritarianism is the criticism.
Maybe this is not completely fair. The premise of the film, after all, is that George, who is generally critical of the system and appears to align more with the politics of Gamal Abdel Nasser, under threat of something happening to his son, is coerced into making a political propaganda film to celebrate the Egyptian president Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, heavily monitored by the character Dr. Mansour (Amr Waked) to ensure positive portrayal. This premise seems to be inspired by two events:
- The portrayal of el-Sisi in the 2020 Ramadan series The Choice (which instead focuses on a military leader consider a national hero, Ahmed Mansi). Although there is no indication that any of the actors involved were coerced for this production, the actor portraying el-Sisi was given political power, directly appointed by el-Sisi to the Senate, afterwards.
- The political persecution of Egyptian actor Amr Waked--starring here as Dr. Mansour and known internationally for co-starring with Gal Gadot in Wonder Woman 1984--after speaking out on Egyptian human right abuses at a U.S. congressional hearing.
This plot point is complicated, however, when it is revealed that this setup was actually orchestrated by members of the military as part of a plan to overthrow the regime. Later in the film, in reference to the assassination of Anwar Sadat during the annual October 6 celebration, George witnesses an attempted coup d'état on the Egyptian president. No mention of this made on television; the perpetrators are thrown out of a helicopter (a practice most common under the former U.S.-backed regimes of Argentina, Chile, and South Africa), and George is forced to confront the wife of the minister of defense to find out whether she was part of the plot.
The problem to me is that, while the initial premise, fictional albeit plausible in terms of corruption and propaganda, is not bad, the immediate reaction in this plot does not appear nonsensical within the context: a nation barely recovered from political instability is not revealing an assassination attempt, and its perpetrators are swiftly dealt with through extrajudicial killings. Ok... Barely even a marker of authoritian regimes as the U.S. and its democratic allies are just as guilty of such actions.
To summarize, to succeed as sociopolitical critique, the writing needs to be tight, grounded in reality, and avoid stereotypical generalizations. Otherwise it risks falling into the same category of propaganda as the recent Reading Lolita in Tehran or Tatami.