Documentary Film the Square, Essay Example

Jehane Noujaim’s 2013 documentary film The Square, which chronicles the events of the Egyptian Revolution which began in 2011 from the perspective of protestors, is not only a film about concrete political demands for change, but also, from the point of view of political geography, demonstrates how a particular site can itself become a key symbolic actor in political upheaval. In the case of the Egyptian Revolution, this is Tahrir Square, where the multitudes of protestors gathered to oppose the dictatorial regime of Mubarak. Whereas Noujaim focuses on the narratives told by participants in the events, such as the film’s protagonist Ahmed, who frames the revolution as a question of social justice, arguably another key protagonist itself is the space of Tahrir Square itself. In so far as the protestors gather in Tahrir Square, which faces the governmental buildings of Egyptian power, the occupation of the Square becomes a kind of counter-point to the geography of institutionalized political buildings. The Square becomes, in this sense, through the gathering of political activists such as Ahmed the vision of an alternative Egypt, one in which the dreams of the protestors are realized. Accordingly, however, the Square becomes a crucial battleground for these two Egypts, to the extent that control of Tahrir Square by governmental forces or by revolutionary forces symbolizes the very possibility of an alternative vision of Egypt.

The film’s narrative unfolds largely from the perspective of Ahmed. Ahmed’s interpretation of the revolution is based on a question of social justice, above all economic inequality. As he clearly states in the film, his motivations for engaging in the ptotests were prompted by a feeling of social injustice: his own autobiography, the difficulties he has experienced, the economic inequality which forced him to work at an early age just so as to receive an education, are the catalysts for joining the protests. For Ahmed, it is the Mubarak dictatorship which represents a hegemonic regime that thrives on such class and social inequality. So long as Mubarak is in power, so to will this social conflict exist. The motivation for joining the protest is thus an attempt to depose Mubarak, an event, which Ahmed believes, will open a space for the possibility of a more egalitarian Egyptian society.

Whereas from Ahmed’s narrative, the viewer understands that the consciousness of social inequality is deeply felt by all Egyptians, the realization of the movement against inequality is only achieved by a physical overtaking of public spaces. This is the crucial role Tahrir Square plays in the film as an alternative to the Egypt of Mubarak. As the revolution begins, it is deeply informed by concepts of social justice: but these concepts only begin to have effects of social change when they are tied to a site of political geography that is given a symbolic significance. For example, at the very outset of the protests it is decided that the unity of the protests require a public demonstration: the Tahrir Square is ideal for this demonstration, since it directly faces institutions of Egyptian power which house the Mubarak regime. The occupation of this space becomes entirely symbiotic with the demands of the protestors. As is stated in the film “We will not leave the Square, until our demands are met.”

The Square, therefore, is invested with the idealistic narratives of social change: the Square, in one sense, becomes the physical and material geographic correspondent to these same ideals. To leave the Square, to leave this space, is to leave the ideals of the revolution behind. It is only by seizing this small space within the context of the greater Mubarak hegemony over Egypt, that a different Egypt may be proposed and articulated.

The symbolic significance of the Square prompts crucial questions about how political ideas may be realized in practice. Namely, without material conditions for a revolution, a revolution only exists as an idea. Ahmed’s narrative about social justice is internalized, to the extent that he understands this injustice, but is unable to act. Certainly, he shares these same sentiments with others. This is why they gather together. But without the concrete geographical area of Tahrir Square, functioning as a support for the protests on a both physical and idealistic level, the Revolution loses its point of focus. In this film, the viewer understands how radical political change can be promoted not only by the force of the ideas, but also by a symbolic investment in a certain space such as Tahrir Square.

The Egyptian government, on the other hand, clearly understood this symbolic significance. The violent actions performed by the security forces loyal to Mubarak, such as the police, attempt to derail the revolution, not merely by attacking intellectual leaders of the Egyptian uprising, but also by attempting to seize the Square itself. Conquering the Square, conquering this geographic area in Cairo, takes on the significance that there is no political alternative to Mubarak’s vision of Egypt.. In this sense, there is not so much a war of ideas, although the revolution and counter-revolution are motivated by distinct visions of Egypt, but also a war of geography, as both sides in the conflict invest symbolic significance to the public space of the Square.

The film thus provides an excellent example of how ideas of political change need concrete correlates in geography. Namely, geography can be an even more effective force for promoting ideas of social change than individuals: individual leaders, for example, can be jailed or arrested. But by physically occupying a crucial geographic location, this location becomes itself equivalent to the ideas of the masses – this is precisely what is at stake in the symbolism of Tahrir Square for the Egyptian Revolution, as Noujaim’s documentary so skillfully and meticulously demonstrates.