دستور نيوز
In the borders of Moroccan cinema, where anxious questions intersect with images searching for their meaning, the name of director Hisham Al-Asri rises as an uncompromising voice, as an eye that sees beyond the visible, and as a cinematic body that tests its limits in every new experience. His films are not just stories to be told; they are fragments of a tense consciousness, ranging between black sarcasm and absurdity, between aesthetic tension and the desire to dismantle the world. Here, the title becomes not only a threshold, but a declaration of confrontation, where the narrative does not turn into a straight line, but rather into a maze in which possibilities, readings, and interpretations multiply, and in which the meaning turns into an open question that cannot be closed.
In the “Hespress” interview, we are not only trying to approach the experience of a director who rebels against the idea of habit, as much as we are touching on a cinematic project based on adventure, rebellion, anxiety, breaking the usual stereotypes, and rethinking the essence of the image itself. Hisham Al-Asri’s cinema is not just watched, it resists style, stereotyping, and flatness, resists simplification, and resists that tendency toward reassuring narration that comforts the recipient rather than confuses him.
It is a cinema that favors beautiful disturbance, creating that miserable awareness of things, and that anxiety that makes viewing an intellectual and sensory act at the same time, and cinema is a mode of thinking, understanding, self-criticism, and dissecting situations. It is the cinema of disturbance, the dismantling of narratives, and the construction of creative chaos.
What makes this cinema a different experience within the Moroccan scene? Is it her rebellion against the traditional narrative, or her bias towards characters on the margins, who are vibrant despite their fragility? Or is it the constant tension between the real and the imagined, between the political and the existential, where politics is no longer a direct speech, but creeps like a dense shadow into the story, like an open wound in the characters’ bodies? In Al-Asri’s films, questions are not asked for the sake of answering, but in order to deepen the mystery, and in order to push the recipient to reconsider his certainties. It is cinema to create doubt.
Here, the image becomes a space for experimentation, and a field for reshaping time, to dismantle its linearity, and to reconstruct it according to an internal rhythm closer to memory than to reality. Time in this cinema does not represent a sequential act, but rather fragmentation on the narrative and emotional levels. As for the characters, they do not establish a classic hero in the traditional sense, but rather are creatures in crisis, living on the brink of collapse, searching for meaning in a world that is corroding from within. They are characters who resist, not to win, but they are stubborn characters, who have the ability and immunity to act and to continue doing it…
In this context, Hisham Al-Asri’s cinema poses its biggest bets: How can cinema remain an art in a time of consumption? How can the image retain its ability to amaze in a world of excessive images? How can a director be true to his voice, without falling into the temptation of repetition or satisfying expectations or favoritism? These are the questions that creep between the lines of this dialogue, on “Hespress” newspaper, questions that reveal a cinema that does not search for a place within the current, or within the circle of habit and psychological stability, but rather creates its own trend, and goes with it, with all the torrents of risk, beauty, multiple and intense confrontations it brings, and betting on a different cinema that does not submit to ready-made templates and prejudices and believes deep down in difference, freedom, and broader areas of criticism.
Dialogue text:
The titles of your films constitute introductions to the cinema of Hisham Al-Asri and refer to provocative formulas derived from a Moroccan dialect that is characterized by cruelty and is somewhat characterized by violence and intensity. Why this choice?
I think there is a clear misunderstanding, as people think that the titles are provocative, while I see them as entries or chapters. For me, every film is a chapter of a book I am trying to write. Each film deals with a specific idea. When I called my first film “The End,” I was talking about the end of the era of the late King Hassan II, and the beginning of a new phase. In the movie “They Are the Dogs,” the title is inspired by a phrase and poetry by Ahmed Matar, and it has a symbolic meaning linked to the character.
As for the movie “The Pre-Islamic Time,” it talks about the pre-consciousness stage, as if it were returning to our current time. In the movie “Expelled from the Mercy of God,” the title is inspired by the Qur’an, which is another name for Satan, and has a deep dialectical and dramatic relationship within the story.
For me, the title must be an introduction that carries a controversial dimension and has an intimate relationship with the film. I am primarily a writer, and I believe that every word has its place, and that writing has an inner music; Cinema, although it is an art, must arouse the curiosity of the audience. When the viewer asks questions about the title, this means that we have succeeded in pushing him towards reading the film.
Your cinema is described as rebellious and different. How do you view the concept of rebellion in cinema? Is it an aesthetic position or an existential necessity?
I think that the idea of “Rebellion” came from a simple principle: the most important thing in cinema is uniqueness. It must provide images and stories that cannot be reproduced. Today we see a lot of repetition, and films that are copied from others, which makes them lose their value. For example, some comedies are borrowed from Egyptian cinema, and these in turn are adapted from American cinema, so we arrive at a copy of a duplicate.
I find this unfortunate, because making a film requires a lot of effort, and in the end the product is weak. There are those who seek only profit, but these are consumer films that add nothing. For me, cinema is not just entertainment, it is art. Art requires research, awareness, and an attempt to understand oneself. I don’t want to create a stereotypical, repetitive image.
Cinema should resemble us and ask questions, not provide ready-made answers. A good movie is one that makes you think, and perhaps re-watch it more than once. Moreover, the capabilities are not always material, as they are also intellectual. What is important is the boldness in presenting.
Do you think that cinema should reflect reality as it is, and have a realistic bent?
Cinema should be close to us and express us, but without fear of bold poses or difficult questions. I do not like cinema that presents society as a victim only, or that sells a miserable image of it. The best character is the “anti-hero,” who is marginalized but resists, dreams, and does not give up.
I also refuse to let our films be used against us from abroad. Yes, we criticize our reality, but from within our own vision, not in order to satisfy an external view.
It seems that you do not compromise the traditional film narrative, and seek to deconstruct it. Why?
Because cinema is a personal experience for me. When I started, I wrote traditional screenplays, but I couldn’t find myself in them. I preferred a freer cinema, close to what is called “post-cinema,” where the narrative is not necessarily linear.
She was influenced by directors like Chris Marker and Jean-Luc Godard, who broke the rules of narrative. The idea is not only in the story, but in how it is presented, and it can start from the end or from the middle. What is important is creating an intellectual and aesthetic experience.
How do you define cinema from your point of view?
I give it several definitions. First, a film that can be understood without watching it is just a television work, not a cinematic one. Cinema requires visual presence and full attention.
Secondly, cinema is not only for understanding, but for feeling. There are films that affect the body and feelings, and this is what I call “sensual cinema.”
Third, a good movie is one that unsettles you a little, makes you wonder. You don’t have to love it, but it must leave an impact on you.
In your latest film, “Expelled from the Mercy of God,” the image appears more harsh and abstract. Is this an aesthetic shift in your filmmaking?
On the contrary, I tried to present in this film a relatively clearer narrative, close to “film noir” cinema, where we follow a character on a certain path, but from a visual standpoint, I worked on colors and space differently.
I believe that the public today is intelligent, and everything should not be simplified for them, as much as their ability to understand should be respected, spaces for interpretation should be left, and their intelligence should be respected.
What is the nature of the relationship between cinema and politics in your work?
Every film carries a position and is therefore political in some way, but not in a partisan sense. We cannot talk about the world without having moral and political positions.
I refuse to have my country portrayed negatively from abroad, but at the same time, I have the right as an artist to criticize and ask questions. The important thing is that this stems from an internal conviction.
How do you see the reality of Moroccan cinema today?
I see that there are directors, but there is no real cinematic movement that includes interaction and dialogue. There are commercial films that are consumed quickly, and others are artistic that do not find an audience locally.
But on the other hand, there is an audience that seeks difference, especially across platforms. The problem is not the absence of an audience, but rather how to reach it. By saying, we have Moroccan films, but we do not have Moroccan cinema.
Cinema is not just an instant. There are films that are understood years later. What is important is honesty with oneself, and for the artist to remain true to his vision, far from pleasing everyone.
We have stopped at the relationship between politics and cinema in your experience. Let us move on to your latest film, “Expelled from the Mercy of God.” What did you want to deconstruct in it? Is it the concept of authority, imposition, or the idea of salvation?
The first idea from which the film started was to take a real-life event, such as the fatwa issued against Salman Rushdie, and try to reformulate it into a cinematic work of the “noir film” type, where a crime is about to occur, but what interested me was understanding how extremism is formed.
I do not believe that extremism always comes from pure religious conviction. It is often the result of other factors, such as manipulation of minds or interests. When we look at experiences such as extremist groups or even historical wars such as the Crusades… we find that the issue was not purely ideological, as it is related to power and influence.
In the film, I tried to build a main character that has nothing to do with religion, but she finds herself forced to carry out an act related to a fatwa, just because of her financial situation. Here begins the journey of decline, as the idea turns into an absurd path that reveals the fragility of the premises on which it was built.
The film “Expelled from the Mercy of God” deals with violence. How do you view this issue?
Violence is strongly present in the world in which we live. Everywhere we look we find war, oppression, and killing. Therefore, it was necessary to address it, but sometimes in a sarcastic way, revealing its contradictions.
The film does not directly condemn, but rather tells the story of an ordinary person, who has principles, but poverty and need push him to transform. Here I pose the question of human nature: How can a person, in a moment of weakness, justify inhumane actions?
I do not separate a person from his mistakes. Even violence is part of our human makeup, since the story of Cain and Abel. What is important is how we understand this violence, not how we deny it.
Can your cinema be considered an extension of the philosophy of absurdity and black satire?
I do not approach cinema as a means of providing direct lessons. I do not want to provide ready-made information to the viewer, because that turns the film into an educational discourse, and this is against the essence of cinema.
I prefer to put the viewer in front of a situation, an emotional state, and let him interact with it. I use biting satire as a way to maintain the human dimension, especially when I work with marginalized characters. These characters are not victims in the traditional sense, as they have the ability to resist, dream, continue, and be stubborn.
How do you view your screenwriting and screenplay structure?
First, I studied various forms of screenwriting, whether American, French or theatrical, so that I could understand and control them. The scenario is similar to engineering, because it is based on precise construction.
But after that, I moved towards more liberal and experimental forms. Like painting, you cannot be an abstract artist without first mastering realistic drawing. So, when I mastered the rules, I started breaking them.
I tend towards sensual and poetic cinema, which does not explain everything. Because explaining everything kills poetry. Also, a work of art must be felt, not just deconstructed by the mind.
Are you influenced by critics’ opinions and reactions?
In my early days, I was writing criticism to understand cinema. I was analyzing films and trying to build a point of view. I also read a lot of critical writings, and benefited from them in my formation.
But now, I no longer write criticism, because I am no longer neutral. When you become a filmmaker, it is difficult to judge other people’s work with the same distance.
However, I believe that the audience has every right to like or dislike a film. What is important for me is to be honest with myself. If I am convinced of what I have presented, the feedback does not bother me.
There are those who see time in your films as disjointed and non-linear. Is it an aesthetic choice or a narrative necessity?
I try not to repeat myself. I don’t want to find a formula that works and reuse it in every film. Every work should be a new challenge, intellectually and aesthetically.
Nonlinear time is not a goal in itself; it is a result of my way of seeing the world. For me, each film is a different experience, but in the end, there is an internal thread that connects them all.
How important is reading in your career as a director?
Reading is a necessity for me. A person cannot be creative without reading. It gives you depth and knowledge.
Personally, I grew up in an environment that loved books, and I in turn wrote literary works (17 literary works to date). Reading opens new horizons for you and makes you realize that many ideas have been presented before you, so you search for your own angle.
You cannot talk about cinema without knowledge of the works of great directors such as Andrei Tarkovsky, Orson Welles, or Stanley Kubrick… and cinematic trends, as these are basic references.
How do you see the impact of foreign funding on Moroccan cinema?
The problem is not foreign funding per se, but freedom. Sometimes, when you’re looking for a big budget, you have to make compromises, and that can affect the identity of the film.
You can sometimes feel that the film is ostensibly Moroccan, but it is directed to an outside eye. This type of work loses its sincerity.
I believe that cinema should stem from an honest personal vision. You can obtain external funding, but without losing your voice.
How do you describe your relationship with the actors?
I do not deal with the actor as an independent element, but rather as part of the picture. What matters to me is his presence within the space, not just his dialogue performance.
I prefer faces that carry stories, not those that seek only formal beauty. Sometimes I work with non-professional actors, because they give a different honesty.
I also do not focus much on dialogue, but on feeling and presence. For me, if a film can only be understood through words, it is not cinematic enough.
An open word for you:
I hope this conversation is thought-provoking. I believe that art should awaken, not hypnotize. Work that raises questions is better than work that provides ready-made answers.
In the end, I always prefer something that bothers me a little, because it makes me think, rather than something that makes me uncomfortable without question.
#Hisham #AlAsri #Real #cinema #reshapes #image #absurdity #reality #rebellion
Hisham Al-Asri: Real cinema reshapes the image between absurdity, reality and rebellion
– الدستور نيوز
اخبار منوعه – Hisham Al-Asri: Real cinema reshapes the image between absurdity, reality and rebellion
المصدر : www.hespress.com