|
|
|
Mohamed Sobhy stars in the controversial film series about Zionism & imperialsm, 'A
Knight without a Horse'
|
At
the beginning of this past Ramadan, Egyptians began watching a
multi-part television mini-series entitled A Knight without a
Horse. But even before the series debuted, it had already garnered
harsh criticism – especially in the West – because of its
reliance on a dubious historical document for some of its
plotline.
The
series was meant to be a historical account of Egyptian
adventurous journalist, Hafez Naguib, who was active in his
country’s struggle against imperialism and Zionist encroachment
during the period from the late 19th century to the early 20th
century.
What
has ruffled feathers is the fact that Naguib’s quest against
empire was largely focused on his desire to unravel Zionist
plotting in the Middle East. The blueprint for Naguib’s quest
was the document known as The Protocols of the Learned Elders of
Zion, which conspiracy theorists point to as evidence of a plot
for world Jewish domination. Unfortunately, most serious scholars
and academics have discredited the document as a fabrication
probably created during the period of Czarist Russia as a
justification for Jewish repression and persecution.
With
such foundational flaws, A Knight without a Horse was destined to
run headlong into criticism.
The
leading role of Naguib was given to Mohamed Sobhy, a famous
Egyptian comedian. In the series he dons no less than 14 latex
mask disguises, just as Naguib disguised himself as he went about
his investigations of Zionist activities. Despite the character
changes and intrigue, however, the series comes up lacking from a
dramatic perspective. Action, when it does occur is extremely slow
in developing. As for dramatic complexity, there is none, as
characters are portrayed with simple, stark juxtapositions of good
vs. bad with stereotyping featuring prominently, especially where
the British or other foreigners are concerned.
Had
the film simply been evaluated on its cinematic merits, it would
have amounted to much ado about nothing. But when the American
press entered the fray focusing largely on the issue of the
Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, what was meant to be just
another Ramadan television drama became politicized.
In
America, the Protocols are considered an incendiary document. For
obvious reasons, Israel holds the same view. In Egypt and other
parts of the Muslim world, however, the document does not have the
same immediate impact. This dichotomy was quite evident in the
series, which took somewhat of a lax approach in its treatment of
the time period and the Protocols themselves. An examination of
the series reveals no serious addressing of the historical issues
raised. It was as if dramatizing history means dealing with it
superficially.
However,
as the American press and the U.S. government became increasingly
vocal about the film, the atmosphere surrounding the series began
to change. In Egypt, intellectuals rallied to support the series
against what was perceived as American meddling. This perception
is likely due to the state of current affairs in the Muslim world,
where American foreign policy features prominently.
But
the increased controversy was not entirely unwarranted. In fact,
because of the film’s general content and lack of attention to
historical accuracy, scrutiny should have been expected.
In
one instance during the series there is a scene in which Zionist
leaders in Egypt conspire to prevent the circulation of the Protocols. They are shown with long beards, long hair and wearing
the religious yarmulkes, or skull caps common to religious Jews.
Historically speaking, however, Zionists were not religious at
all; they were decidedly secular. This lack of attention to
historical detail helped add to perceptions that the film was
unprofessional and propagandistic in nature.
Additionally,
there was the issue of conspiratorial paranoia that the film
brought out. It is often easier for people to see the world as a
simple equation where the good guys and the bad guys are clearly
defined. A Knight without a Horse pandered to this tendency by
categorically separating Egypt from its enemies.
Had
the filmmakers wanted to document Zionist atrocities of the past,
they could have done so by making some real effort at research
rather than painting Jews with a broad conspiratorial brush. For
example the relationship between Zionism & Nazism could have
been explored just as the American Jewish author Lenny Brenner did
in his book Zionism in the age of Dictators. But filmmakers
instead opted for a simple black and white portrayal.
In
retrospect, it now becomes clear that A Knight without a Horse
unwittingly provided ammunition for those opposed to Muslim and
Palestinian rights in the fight against Israel and true Zionism.
Put simply, in failing to do an accurate and thorough dramatic
accounting of an important historical period, the filmmakers
succeeded only in creating more animosity than the Muslim world
needs at this delicate point in time.
|
