FILMS are supposed to provide a fantasy, a world that provides an escape. This should not be taken negatively. It is a necessity to counterbalance the problems of everyday life: we do indeed need an escape. Since Egyptian cinema doesn't provide "out-of-this-world" kinds of fantasies, audiences in the country must rely on the simple differences between them and the characters portrayed on film for the effect of that escape. In the last few years, filmmakers seem to have gotten the impression that they should or at least want to take this concept of the cinema away from the moviegoers, as there has been a movement for showing the "truth" about Egyptian society through film. It's not so much that we can't handle the truth (no pun intended), it's just that we're not sure how much of this "truth" being portrayed is reality, and how much of it is simply bad melodrama (think, for example, of any of Khaled Youssef's films). When it comes to trying to tell the truth on film, it's always just that: "trying". There is a big "just pretend" sign above all these movies …quot; that they are pretending or "trying" …quot; to tell the truth. This does not occur only when retelling actual events, but the "truth" about any type of film, whether dramatic, comedic, or the oh-so laughable actions films. Representing the true nature of a character in type of film is difficult, as there typically is a great lack of character development in films, not just Egyptian films, but mainstream Hollywood films as well. This is why we should thank God for independent cinema; unfortunately, that is something Egyptians don't get to see because it's almost non-existent for the general public. This is not intended to advocate covering up the truth in film, but the problem is that the films that claim to be telling the "truth" should be more truthful, but realistically speaking. Not in a loud, obnoxious way with a glut of cartoonish characters thrown in like in Hina Maysara (When Things Get Better, 2007) or last summer's Ibrahim Al-Abyad. There are real problem there, but they are buried under ridiculous clichés or exaggeration, so that any trace of injustices that they are attempting to highlight is completely eclipsed. This is more of examination about what happens when the thick plot points, the jokes, or the overwhelming illustrations of pain are taken away. The internal explanation seems to indicate that the only way the characters can exist; because this is the "way of society" in Egypt, whatever that means. But how interesting are these characters, in of themselves? This is what is completely neglected in favour of an emphasis on the situations. People are remarkably similar and predictable in the ways they react to a crisis, which means that these reactions tell us almost nothing about the characters themselves. Will they thus presented, still be viewable, or are they only as interesting as what society's throws at them? If we take a look at the film stock characters, the hero, the victim, the villain, the abused wife, the broken old woman, the "sinful woman", the drunk, the sexually curious and confused, and stacked them up next to their real counterparts, then how true will the characters be …quot; are these descriptions of characters, or situations that the characters have been forced into? Wouldn't the villain seem more like an actual person if we see him reading poetry in his spare time instead of just being evil all the time? Or if we knew that the "sinful woman" went to the mosque or church every day to pray? Films only tend to show the traits of a character when it serves the plot of the film. Most of Egyptian films are more plot-driven than they are character-driven. For example, take a film like Bakhet We Adeila, (Bakhet and Adeila) one of the very few Adel Imam films that I found enjoyable for its quirkiness and the casts' comedic timing. If the characters of the film didn't find the suitcase full of money, and would have therefore never met one another, how interesting would these characters really be? Bakhet would have continued being the loser he was, and Adeila would have married her cousin and get stuck in her life's monotonous routine. What sets these characters apart, if of themselves, which we couldn't find in characters in another such film? Some might argue that a person's interesting qualities only show up when faced with a dilemma, or a situation that is bigger than them. But people react to unfamiliar situations in a mostly predictable manner. This is why, in if one looks at any particular genre, they would see that each has its own sets of rules regarding how the plot will or could develop, and how each character will even react to what is going on. The Academy Award winning film American Beauty, (1999) is a compelling drama with black humour that displays its characters' reactions to their seemingly dull life. The movie is so character-driven …quot; there are no explosions, or out-of-thisworld situations …quot; we are just watching these characters deal with what normal life has to offer, and this seems to be more intriguing than what a complex plot can offer by itself. A movie with a complex plot and cardboard cut-out characters actually has only one character: the plot, which means that that you're basically watching pieces being moved around the centre as it develops, not people. Character-driven films, whether all action or plot, are organic; that is, they flow fluidly (or should) from the characters' needs and desires. In the horror film trilogy Scream, the protagonist of the films, Sidney Prescott, played by Neve Campbell, had the masked killer stalk and try to kill her in all of the three films, but the characters were developed enough that she would still have been interesting if she was in any other film. This article is only an introduction to film character examination and its representation in reality. There will be a sort of "standoff" between the film characters that were listed previously and their real life counterparts. Next week The Sinful Woman: the myth and the reality.
