A Cairo court rejected a case against the controversial movie Baheb El-Cima, referring it to a specialised court instead. Yasmine El-Rashidi reports Inside a heated Abdin emergency courtroom on Tuesday, a judge declared a petition to ban Baheb El-Cima, and round-up all copies of it from the market, "not of the court's jurisdiction". The case, he said, should be filed in a more appropriate court. The decision had been delayed from Saturday -- when a morning hearing was postponed pending "review". Lawyer Naguib Gabriel -- who filed the case on behalf of a group of angry clerics -- called the decision "a huge disappointment. They could have said this from the beginning," he told Al- Ahram Weekly, "instead of making us wait this long." Gabriel, however, simultaneously praised the report by the judge, whom he said "joined us in his opinion, citing the film as indeed displaying a lack of respect for the [Christian] religion, and its places of worship". Gabriel was also happy that human rights groups, which tried to protest the case against the film, were barred entry into the courtroom by the judge. "It was out of line," Gabriel said. "If they have a problem with our position, they need to file in accordance with the system, just as we have." Ironically, the production, directed by Osama Fawzi, produced by his brother Hani Girgis Fawzi, and written by Hani Fawzi, purportedly seeks to criticise all forms of oppression. The narrator, in his 40s, tells of his childhood in 1966 in the Cairo district of Shubra, speaking of his relationship with his father, his mother's disappointments, and his love for the cinema -- his breathing space amidst a stifling family atmosphere. Although fascinated by the silver screen, the film's central character, a boy named Naeem, is discouraged from pursuing his movie-making dreams by his conservative Christian father, who uses religious arguments to justify his enmity. In a family portrayal that intertwines politics, social grooming and life's passions, the film evolves to share the metamorphosing ideas and worlds that captivate a child's attention. Among the more controversial scenes is one featuring a woman beating the local priest on the head with her slipper, and another of a couple kissing in the church. Critics of the film said that such scenes portray Christians as "morally depraved", and will inspire Muslims to avoid them. The director, meanwhile, said the film was meant to be an artistic work whose moral was that piety does not mean oppressing others. Outside the courtroom on the dates of both hearings, about a hundred demonstrators had gathered to show their support for the film. They were largely contained, chatting only amongst themselves about the proceedings and prospects. Gabriel and his team of priests and lawyers (initially headed by Coptic lawyer Aziz Morcos) had filed the case against the film in the emergency court, on the grounds that Baheb El-Cima poses a great risk to the Egyptian community because of its allegedly demeaning portrayal of Copts, ridiculing of Christian doctrines, and portrayals of religious extremism. "This is clearly extremism," Gabriel told the Weekly. It was also an urgent issue, he said, "given the image it is portraying to the world. The last thing we need at this time in political history is a negative, and false, portrayal of sectarian relations in this part of the world. The director is clearly trying to stir things up in the West -- to create even more antagonism than there already is. The West is ignorant, and would swallow this as fact in an instant." Nabih Ahmed El-Wahsh, a lawyer who joined the plaintiff's team a week ago, said, "even as a Muslim I don't accept this movie. The slamming of any religion is wrong, and we reject it. There is no difference between extremism in Islam, in Christianity, in Judaism. The film reflects a condemnation of Christianity." There have been many such critiques since the movie was released over two months ago. Dozens of Copts and Muslims alike took to the streets several weeks ago in outrage -- protesting Fawzi and the film's crew, as well as popular actress Laila Elwi, who they said should never have accepted such a role. In an interview with the Weekly following the demonstrations, the director argued his movie was simply drama. "When you present a production, you're not attempting to generalise, and you're not attempting to reflect society," he said. "The aim is drama and creativity. And you have to look at the larger context of the work. You can't take a piece of writing and focus on one word. You have to look at its place in the sentence, and the paragraph, and then the chapter and complete work." At the court this week, Fawzi's argument was described as "lies". El-Wahsh said, "if the film had not been filmed in a church, and didn't zoom in on the cross, or on a woman's breasts, and if such demeaning scenes were not filmed inside a place of worship, then perhaps we could have shrugged it off as artistic expression, albeit vulgar." But in a nation whose film history has seldom cast Coptic families or characters in leading roles, this work comes as a first. "It's about many things," Fawzi told the Weekly. "Copts aren't used to seeing themselves on the screen, and are assuming that because this particular family was portrayed in a certain light in the film, then we are saying that all Copts are like this family. You can't look at things that way. Clearly the issue is much greater than that of this film. It's about boundaries and perception and social norms and the extremism and sectarian thought we see strengthening in the country. And in the case of Copts, there is maybe an element of an automatic defensive reaction, which is natural for any minority." According to Fawzi, few of those bashing the production have actually seen it. And indeed, at the court this week, only a handful of those protesting the film acknowledged having viewed it. The director said the furour was a reflection of "worrying aggression and narrow-mindedness. And it reflects an ignorance -- an inability to look at creation, at art, for what it is, which is simply a figment of the creator's imagination, through the combination of both fiction and fact." The defendants, however, insisted that Fawzi's words were hollow. "We blame Fawzi first, but we also blame the minister of culture, and then the minister of interior, for allowing the movie to be released," Gabriel said. "Even if the culture minister supported the showing of the film, it was the interior minister's responsibility to remove it."
