In parallel, as the movie “Naida… She Grows Too Young” by its director Saeed Al-Nasiri continues to garner thousands of views daily, exceeding 17 million views on the “YouTube” platform, the controversy it raises continues to rise in turn, especially after a portion of viewers and film critics insist that the film “ “saturated with stereotyping and populism,” due to his presenting “social problems of importance and relevance in forms that lack cinematic creativity, and with a discourse similar to… That which is circulated among people, the viewers themselves, without providing additions or solutions.”
This critical view, which a film critic who spoke to Hespress seemed to share, “does not pose a problem” for Saeed Al-Nasiri, the film’s director, who said, “Taking the film as populist does not bother me. It is normal because the nature of “Naida” and its characters are essentially populist,” before adding. He wondered, “Should we have used classical Arabic and the language of wood in order to show the film’s characters as cultured and sophisticated?”
Al-Nasiri highlighted, in a statement to Hespress, that “the film’s dialogue was written in popular vocabulary, and its characters are the people of Al-Darb and Al-Karyan, meaning they are popular,” adding, “On the other hand, the dialogue for the ministers in the film used their own discourse in reality, and brought up obstacles.” Which stands before them in achieving a number of achievements.” He continued, saying: “They (in Nayda) speak in a very elegant manner.”
Al-Nasseri explained that if what is meant by populism is “the way personalities deal or the language used by them, then the matter is very normal; We cannot bring Saeed and Siham from a popular area and force them to speak as if they were guests of a respectable cultural program.”
Some of those who commented on the film saw that it represents nothing more than “a recycling of popular discourse,” and as proof of this, a portion of them pointed to “the scene of a woman recommending to the film’s hero, Saeed, that he offer 50 dirhams to obtain a chair to admit his mother to the hospital,” which Al-Nasri responded to by drawing attention. Until “the guard did not ask Saeed for this bribe in the end, but rather responded to his good talk by promising to give him a waiting number.”
The director and producer of “Nayda” said that he took into consideration “the necessity of not accusing the character in question (the hospital security guard) of receiving a bribe,” adding, “If he had asked for it directly, then we would have been faced with a truly populist (scene) formula.”
“Commitment and formula”
In this context, film critic Idris Al-Qari considered “Naida” to be one of the box office films that makes major concessions to the audience not for its own sake, but only for the sake of gain,” adding that “the audiences of these films are usually thirsty to see national identity and see themselves on the screen.”
In a statement to Hespress, El-Garri recalled “the expansion of Moroccan achievements at the political and diplomatic levels, and Morocco’s ability to strengthen its infrastructure and enhance its energy sovereignty, in parallel with the anticipation of it hosting continental and global demonstrations such as the African Cup and the World Cup,” highlighting that “this tide strengthened the national feeling, so the contents grew.” The digital format and promotion of what is called “Temgrabit”, in a way that touches on simple and simplistic awareness “For the general public.”
He added, “Amidst this momentum we find the film ‘Naida’ and several similar films,” noting that “in the Moroccan film industry and audiovisual content in general, it is required to take the general public into consideration because they are the real and basic engine for any modernization and development.” He continued, saying: “When it comes to art, the director must choose between two things: making (industry) cinema or non-cinema. In the latter case, no matter how good our intentions are and how patriotic we are, our speech will only be disastrous because it empties national identity of its content, and returns it to a series of folkloric symbols empty of content. We are faced with a hybrid structure that is not linked to the country’s noble and profound human values, and we are creating empty and hollow idols.” He stressed, “This matter is very dangerous, as it raises generations on simple and superficial national feelings that lack roots and depth, so they do not bear responsibility and the duty of diligence in archaeological digging, knowledge, and deep knowledge of history.”
The same film critic recorded that “the issues of minorities, marginalization, weak purchasing power, high prices, and tax justice (some of which the film addresses) are raised in Morocco as well as the world, and even official institutions criticize them,” adding, “In the film we are talking about, I do not call the methods of this a commitment on the part of the artist (director). “.
He continued, saying: “The artist’s commitment must be sublime and symbolic, and be expressed in amazing forms that elevate the viewer and elevate his awareness and depth. And not by flirting with this viewer or recycling the same discourse, which is being promoted in front of him in reality without creativity or high cinematic craftsmanship.”
He highlighted that “the real goal in the situation we are dealing with is profit at the expense of those whose feelings are being tickled and a kind of enthusiasm and criticism stirred up through hollow psychological flirtation and struggle in them.”
“Practice corrects mistakes”
Interacting with the same topic, film critic Mustafa Alwani said, “The existence of films that are open to public opinion, and that deal with the well-known social problems in which the simple and ordinary citizen finds himself, is a normal matter that should not pose a problem at all,” noting that “the film was distinguished by a kind of boldness.” He depicted the reality of the “Karians,” and pointed his finger at some of the social phenomena that are prevalent in Morocco, and the behaviors that the citizen criticizes in the ministerial official.”
According to Alwani, “the combination of open popular subject matter methods and focused cinematic style was not at the desired level, but with practice and with the passage of time, the errors that require this can be corrected.”
He explained, in a statement to Hespress, that “Naida films, that is, box office films, ultimately aim to attract audiences, by raising populist issues and in people’s familiar language, and they strike a chord with the masses,” adding, “These films do not appeal to me.” But that does not mean that I reject its existence or that I do not give it constructive criticism, and I only welcome films that respond to my tastes.”
The same film critic explained that “accusing Saeed Al-Nasiri of intruding on cinema, and lying when he said that the film was banned from showing, does not involve criticism, but rather an attempt to cancel the existence to which this artist has full right,” highlighting that “the goal of criticism must be to advance cinema.” Moroccanism is moving toward popular topics that are close to public taste and to humanity, while being careful to improve the cinematic style and refine the spoken language.”
Related News :