Published on: January 31, 2021
مقالات ذات صلة:
After the Battle: Did Yousry Nasrallah Exonerate the Attackers and Condemn the Revolutionaries?
On February 2, 2011, Tahrir Square witnessed one of the most dramatic events in Egyptian revolutionary history: the Battle of the Camel. Dozens of men on horseback and camels stormed the square in a desperate attempt to disperse peaceful protesters. This shocking scene became etched in the collective memory of Egyptians. A year later, it became the subject of a controversial film: “After the Battle” (2012) by Egyptian director Yousry Nasrallah.
The film posed a bold question: Did Nasrallah sympathize too much with the attackers while casting doubt on the revolutionaries? This debate was explored in depth in an episode of Al Jazeera’s documentary series Kharij al-Nass (Off Script).
A Film Blending Reality and Fiction
“After the Battle” explores the class and cultural divides in post-revolution Egypt. The story follows Reem, a well-educated activist from an affluent background (likely from Zamalek, a wealthy Cairo district), and Mahmoud, a poor man from Nazlet El-Samman, the impoverished neighborhood near the Pyramids, infamous for supplying many of the attackers during the Battle of the Camel.
From the beginning, the stark differences between Reem and Mahmoud are evident—linguistically, socially, and ideologically. But as they interact, these barriers begin to break down. The film highlights the deep contradictions in Egyptian society after Mubarak’s fall:
• The poor, desperate for stability, are willing to believe any promise of order.
• The revolutionaries, while idealistic, often fail to understand the daily struggles of the marginalized.
Through Mahmoud’s interactions with Reem, his wife, and his community, the film paints a panoramic picture of Egypt: the illiterate and misled who saw the revolution as a conspiracy, the hopeful activist who assumed the poor were politically aware, and the gradual realization by both that they had misunderstood each other.
Reem learns that those she called baltagiya (thugs) were often victims of misinformation and state propaganda. Mahmoud, in turn, begins to see that the revolution was not an act of chaos but a call for a better future.
A Polarizing Reception: Did the Film Excuse the Attackers?
Since its premiere at the 2012 Cannes Film Festival, After the Battle has sparked heated debate. As the first major Egyptian film to tackle the January 25 Revolution head-on, particularly such a divisive incident, it naturally became a subject of intense scrutiny.
Critics and audiences were sharply divided:
Supporters of the Film: A Bold, Nuanced Perspective
Some praised Yousry Nasrallah for bravely venturing into this highly sensitive area. They argued that the film presented a complex, necessary perspective, reminding viewers that the revolution was not a simple battle of good versus evil. They saw Nasrallah’s approach as a humanistic attempt to understand the social and economic factors that led some people to fight against the revolution.
• Understanding the attackers does not mean justifying them. The film does not absolve them of guilt but examines why they were susceptible to manipulation.
• A call for national reconciliation. The film subtly suggests that bridging the gap between revolutionaries and the disenfranchised is the only way forward.
• A blend of realism and fiction. Nasrallah incorporated real footage and non-professional actors from Nazlet El-Samman, giving the film a quasi-documentary feel.
For these critics, After the Battle was a necessary artistic intervention that challenged the dominant black-and-white narratives about the revolution.
Criticism: An Unacceptable Attempt at Whitewashing?
However, many—especially those who participated in the revolution—felt betrayed by the film’s sympathetic portrayal of one of the attackers.
• Was the timing inappropriate? In 2012, the wounds of the revolution were still fresh, and many were not ready to see any portrayal of the attackers as victims of circumstance.
• Did the film downplay the brutality? Some viewers felt that softening Mahmoud’s character diluted the reality that the Battle of the Camel was a premeditated, violent attack on peaceful demonstrators.
• A flawed narrative? Some found the relationship between Reem and Mahmoud unrealistic and rushed, weakening the film’s credibility.
• Was Nasrallah trying to please everyone? Some critics argued that the film tried too hard to strike a balance, making it neither a revolutionary film nor an outright critique of the revolution. Instead, it occupied an uneasy middle ground, leaving both sides dissatisfied.
Even the performances faced scrutiny. While Bassem Samra (Mahmoud) was praised for his authenticity, Menna Shalabi (Reem) was criticized for exaggerated reactions in some scenes.
A Film That Refused to Take a Side?
Ultimately, After the Battle remains one of the most controversial cinematic takes on the Egyptian Revolution. Its refusal to adopt a clear-cut revolutionary narrative made it difficult for some to embrace, while others admired its attempt to address the deeper socio-political fractures in Egypt.
Did Nasrallah exonerate the attackers? Not exactly. But he did attempt to humanize them, a choice that was both praised as bold and condemned as insensitive.
At its core, After the Battle challenges viewers to reconsider who the real victims of authoritarian regimes are—the disenfranchised who are manipulated into defending the status quo, or the revolutionaries who miscalculate the readiness of society for change?
