Review By: Farouq Abdul-Aziz
KUWAIT TIMES, MONDAY DECEMBER 9, 1985
TONIGHT’S presentation is the latest production of the Egyptian filmmaker Youssef Chahine, the Franco-Egyptian Adieu Bonaparte (100 minutes). The film had received its world pre¬miere a few months ago as the Egyptian entry in the official competition in Cannes Film Fes¬tival last May.
I’ve already introduced Cha¬hine extensively on presenting his excellent film Cairo Station (1958). And once more on show¬ing An Egyptian Story last year.
Adieu Bonaparte has stirred waves of controversy, at least in the two co-producing countries, of course, controversy is wel¬comed.
Though the “Bonaparte” con¬troversy has centered, from the very outset of the production, around the film’s ideology, yet, it should all come, in my consid¬eration, on the second item of the agenda. We’ll see about this later.
Showing the film in Cannes has, reportedly, resulted in Madam Dupris’s refusal, as the mayor of the city, to see it complaining it was “anti- French.” The right-wing French press fanned the controversy publishing that it should have never been financed with French money, much less money from the leftist French Government. Left-wing French critics claimed that the film purports an “un¬clear” message,* intentionally done to please the Imperialist history. Egyptian critics accused the film of pro-French “favourit¬ism” while distorting the face of the Egyptian resistance to the Napoleonic invasion in 1798.
In the aura of controversy, write Allen Kopec has quoted a French policeman who said, “There are three things one must never touch on in France: Edith Piaf, De Gaulle and Napoleon.” His point is made.
Tonight’s film spans the events starting on July the 2nd, 1978, with the Napoleonic troops storming Alexandria to reach the 27th of April, 1799, on the eve of the death of General Caffarelli, the film’s main protagonist.
Who is Caffarelli?
A military engineer and a sci¬entist.
When Bonaparte began creat¬ing an army to accompany him on the Egyptian expedition, he summoned Caffarelli and made him a brigadier general and put him in charge of the engineering corps.
From the outset of the cam¬paign, the new general contri¬buted in a large measure to the successes scored by the French forces: Thereafter he played an active role in the military and scientific feats of the Egyptian expedition.
The army loved him dearly, and soldiers were so familiar with his wooden leg (the Arabs called him Abou-Khachab, “Papa-the-Crutch”) that during the frequent periods when morale was low, they would point to him and remark, “He doesn’t mind being here, he still has one foot in France!” and with this, spirits were im¬mediately revived.
On his death during the siege of Saint-Jean d’Acre he was sorely missed by all ranks of the army, and Bonaparte declared, “The army has lost one of its most valourous leaders, Egypt has lost one of its lawmakers, France has lost one of its finest citizens, and science has lost a man who has made innumerable and outstanding contributions.”
His name is engraved in bronze in the Palace of Versail¬les.
Caffarelli, the exponent scien¬tist, according to Chahine, and the leader of a team of 167 other scientist and civilians, is played by France’s remarkable actor Michel Piccoli.
Who is Mohammed Karim the governor of Alexandria, played here by Egyptian actor Seif El- Din?
He was the first rebel who led a political and military move¬ment to fight the invaders. Be¬cause of his unyielding action, he was tried by the French, con¬victed, and sent to exile. Back to resistance, Mohammed Karim was executed and beheaded. His head was carried all over the streets of Cairo to frighten resist¬ance forces.
What does Chahine want through films?
“In every one of my films I have some political comment to make. And a political comment if exposed in a film at the right time is of value. What is it I wanted to say? I wanted to ask — what is the basic ground for dialogue?” said Chahine.
“Dialogue involves dignity and that basic mechanism is shown throughout the film. If you don’t discuss things on a totally equal footing, if you threaten me, you don’t have dialogue. Napoleon was not coming to Egypt for dialogue. He was not coming to save us and all that rubbish which is talked about in French history books. He came to conquer.”
These are only three questions to start with. Others will have to be asked soon after watching this multi-million dollar production, according to Egyptian film industry standards the cost of U.S. $2.7 million is a hell of a lot of money.
I wonder how does this show on celluloid!
Identifying his role, Chahine once said “My main job,” he continued, “as a director is to perturb you. You are not supposed to walk out of a cinema just satisfied with looking at attractive women. I use cinema to transmit truths as much as I believe they are truths. If that truth disturbs you — good.”
Nice words! Much nicer are his words on dialogue and the Napoleonic invasion.
But “words” are different, as you know, from “deeds.” The film-maker’s action is his film.
If I don’t get a message, a clear message, throughout the whole film then what’s left of the “truths” supposed to be trans¬mitted.
Let’s start, without trying an extensive commentary this time, with some of the “perturbing” facts about Chahine’s films themselves.
His filmography includes 28 titles (1950-1985). No more than 10 could be approached as hav¬ing any political comment. 18 films are pure commercials and full of “beautiful women.”
Moreover, one notes, the “best” of Chahine’s films (like Cairo Station and The Earth is thus mainly because of the excel¬lent scripts written by profes¬sionals.
Since the early Seventies, he has been involved directly in writing his own scripts packed with “political comments.” One observes the clear distance be¬tween the “words” and the “deeds.” What we have on the screen is an unsaturated image, unuseful and constant screaming, chaotic display, breathless sequ¬ences and a totally unclear mes¬sage.
In Bonaparte, the final produc¬tion quality doesn’t stand up to the original promise. At times it harbors an explicit naivety.
Cinema, one should always bear in mind, is the industry of creating illusions, transmitting truths, but through art that in¬structs and entertains as well.
Entertaining doesn’t neces¬sarily mean filling in beautiful women. It is the entertainment afforded by the art that helps lifting life up the level of its mediocrity and improving our taste of the visual.
The “talk” of a film-maker, however, impressive and elo¬quent, doesn’t help to make his cinematic message any clearer.
The trouble with Chahine, which I’ve tackled on presenting his venture An Egyptian Story, could be summed up, watching his films over the last 15 years, is his wish to say too much in one film.
The result is badly-made films. This doesn’t meant that Chahine is not a professional director. He is when he doesn’t play the “auteur.” But his self- awareness of this issue is so shallow.
How did we see Caffarelli, the “factual” personality I intro¬duced, in his “fictitious” repre¬sentation?
We saw a highly respected engineer and a scientist whose main concern was to hunt for the satisfaction of his lustful de¬sires… Screaming as well!
And how, according to Cha¬hine, one would initiate any “di¬alogue” with an “invader?” Ah and Yehia did, contradicting all Egyptian, and even French, books on the campaign.
How did we see Mohammed Karim the first resistance lead¬er?
What we saw of him doesn’t exceed one minute of pure illegi¬ble screaming with a funny thing on top of his head!
Couldn’t Chahine find a rep¬resentative slightly better than Ali, the “lover” of the French girls to conduct the “dialogue?”
Couldn’t he find a better fami¬ly than a fleeing one, from Alex¬andria to Cairo and back (we never know why?) guided by a father who justifies cooperating with the “invaders” by simply saying: “It is bad not to work!”
Is this the veritable and honest representation of the two Cairo uprisings?
And is it sufficient to ridicule Napoleon, to make Caffarelli look better?
Lots of questions could be asked, really lamenting the wasted talents consumed in this “nerve-stirring,” naive, and screaming film.
What is left is a sheer hope to regain Chahine’s talent back in well-made films.
