In the first few months after the uprising began in March 2011, some Syrian documentary films were in the process of being filmed, and some filmmakers also began shooting their projects. For example, in June (about three months after the revolution started), the film Smuggling 23 Minutes of Revolution was shot, produced by The Street Foundation for Media and Development (according to the foundation's description, it is a non-profit media organization that works to defend media freedoms through various media tools. It has produced a number of documentaries and short films during its years of work, which began in 2010). This film was one of the first to capture the protests in Syria, and it was later shown on Al-Arabiya channel, as well as in several European cities.
Shortly after that, many films of this kind began to appear and were shown in various cities around the world. Perhaps the most famous of these were the films produced by the Abounaddara collective. (According to an article published in The New Arab in 2014, the Abounaddara group is a collective founded in 2010 by young Syrian filmmakers who decided from the start not to reveal their identities. Since the start of the Syrian revolution, the group’s founders have strived to release a short film on a weekly basis, serving as a commentary on an urgent event in the current Syrian context or an image of its realities.)
The world's interest in what is happening in Syria and their desire to understand the events taking place there led people to engage with Syrian cinema in its various forms—documentary, narrative, and experimental. Cinemas in many cities around the world were filled with viewers of different nationalities, some of whom were watching Syrian films for the first time. Syrian films were screened in places ranging from cafés in Upper Egypt to bars in Berlin, and even at international festivals. Notably, the films The Cave (2020) and Last Men in Aleppo (2018) by Feras Fayyad, Of Fathers and Sons (2019) by Talal Derki, as well as For Sama (2020) by Waad Al-Kateab and Edward Watts, were nominated for the Academy Award for Best Documentary, in addition to being showcased in global theaters, international festivals, and receiving prestigious international awards.
This led to Syrian cinema reaching new spaces and gaining a broad, engaged audience. These new films addressed topics that were previously unfamiliar to Syrian cinema—political, human rights-related, humanitarian, and societal issues. Syrian filmmakers introduced their films using innovative methods, incorporating new filming, editing, and screening techniques.
What is a Syrian film?
Since we are focusing on Syrian films produced outside Syria, it can be said that most Syrian documentaries made during this period (2011-2021) were produced in European countries. Technically, a film’s nationality is determined by the country of production, which means that most Syrian films are considered European productions with Syrian stories, from the perspective of marketing and profit. However, the honorary nationality of these films is often defined by the nationality of the filmmakers themselves.
In cases of exile, such as the Syrian case, the nationality of a film is determined by different factors, as the legal condition for production ceases to exist. Thus, other "honorary" factors define a film's identity, such as its story, the time and place of its events, the characters, and its creators.
These new films addressed topics that were previously unfamiliar to Syrian cinema—political, human rights-related, humanitarian, and societal issues.
For example, if a Syrian director living in Germany works on a film with a German subject and the production is funded by a German company, the film is considered purely German and has no connection to Syria, even if the director is Syrian. However, if the film’s subject is Syrian, then it would be German in terms of marketing but Syrian in an honorary sense.
Some exceptions to these classifications include a few Syrian films like The Return to Homs directed by Talal Derki and Silvered Water directed by Ossama Mohammed and Simav Bedirxan. These are registered as Syrian films because they were produced by "Proaction Film," a company registered in Syria that had existed prior to the popular uprising in March 2011.
For example, if a Dutch production company makes a film about Syria with a Dutch director, the film is considered purely Dutch in all senses—marketing, honorary, and otherwise, even though the story is Syrian.
Are Syrian films produced for a Western audience? And do Syrians watch their own films?
The first answer that comes to mind is yes; the Syrian documentaries produced between 2011 and 2021 were made with the intention of being presented to a European or American audience. This is evident from the recurring themes in many films, the editing style, and the narrative approaches, largely influenced by European production companies. If the European and American audiences were not the primary targets, the intended audience remains unclear due to the disconnect between the Syrian audience and its films.
As a result, European countries occupy the largest share of the market for producing, screening, and distributing Syrian documentaries. This dominance is attributed to the concentration of various financial support sources for documentaries and the presence of significant festivals that pave the way for films into the marketplace. Additionally, television stations may produce or purchase broadcasting rights for these films.
Upon deeper exploration, we find that the answer is more complex than the simplification we provided so far. The response to such questions pertains to each film individually; there is no universal answer due to the significant differences in how these films are produced. Some films present a simplistic, Eurocentric, and Orientalist perspective, relying on common stereotypes, while others offer varied and politically and socially critical viewpoints that understand the complexities of Syrian society and the diverse narratives of the conflict.
But also, some Syrians do watch their films, whether they are in refugee countries or on online platforms. However, it is difficult to determine this audience and their preferences due to the geographical dispersion of Syrians, the lack of cinema screening venues in Syria, and the absence of magazines, websites, newspapers, studies, and research focused on Syrian cinema, except in rare instances.
On the other hand, it seems that the number of Syrians who consistently watch Syrian films is quite limited due to the financial difficulties faced in refugee countries. These challenges prevent refugees from accessing cinema theaters. Additionally, the hardships of Syrian life over the past decade have made cinema and films a secondary concern for them in their daily struggle to secure the basic necessities of a normal life.
This exception applies to films that have gained international recognition, which are very few and can be limited to those that made it to the Oscar shortlist, as well as Still Recording and perhaps a couple of other films. These films have been pirated and viewed on various online platforms, as well as screened in numerous locations where Syrians are present.
The reactions of Syrians (who watched these films) differed from their responses to other films, as these works tell their stories and reflect their contemporary experiences. They critically examined, analyzed, and either loved or harshly criticized them, demonstrating extreme reactions—either praise or criticism—based on personal observations and subjective assessments, as we consistently follow discussions related to Syrian cinema.
How are Syrian films produced?
The question of producing Syrian documentaries between 2011 and 2021 is closely tied to the question of audience. How are Syrian films produced? For whom are these films made? What themes do they explore? What are the points of critique directed at Syrian documentary cinema from a production standpoint? And other similar questions…
There is no doubt that the timeframe for producing documentary films was very narrow, and the production of Syrian documentaries became a race against time. We are talking about only ten years, starting with the onset of the Syrian revolution, which later escalated into an open war. Films became a means to express these events in their various forms. Filmmakers did not have enough time to observe from a distance, analyze the events, deconstruct them, and then reconstruct them into a film. Instead, filmmakers attempted to "capture a moment of life before life itself dies," as expressed by the poet and director Hala Mohammed.
Due to the control of the General Organization for Cinema over film production in Syria, as a government institution affiliated with the Syrian regime, those in the Syrian film industry had no choice but to turn to European producers to bring their films to light. The European producers aimed to create films about the ongoing situation in Syria, which was featured daily in news broadcasts and discussed globally during those years. Consequently, European producers intervened in the stories of most of these films and in their production methods, from writing and filming to editing and distribution. This does not apply to some very low-budget films, for which the creators bore all the production costs themselves.
"European producers wanted Syrian films, but they wanted films that could enter the market," says Italian film critic and researcher Donatella Della Ratta in a conversation with me in March 2022. "They wanted films that would be screened at festivals and on platforms like Netflix and Amazon, and that would be shown in cinemas and sold to television channels. Therefore, they altered the management of the raw materials (the footage shot in Syria) and added a producer or editor to the film projects to ensure the production of sellable films."
It is difficult to determine this audience and their preferences due to the geographical dispersion of Syrians, the lack of cinema screening venues in Syria, and the absence of magazines, websites, newspapers, studies, and research focused on Syrian cinema, except in rare instances.
We have seen, for example, successful films both in media and commercially, such as Of Fathers and Sons by Talal Derki, which had a European editor and European producers. The same applies to the successful films of Feras Fayyad, such as The Cave and Last Men in Aleppo. In the film For Sama, the co-director was British and the production entity was also British.
For instance, in the film Of Fathers and Sons by Talal Derki, the viewer feels that this film is a European production. The film's perspective on the Islamic situation in Syria is entirely Eurocentric, and it lacks a clear explanation of the context of the Syrian revolution/crisis/war. This does not imply that every film must explain the Syrian situation, but Of Fathers and Sons fails to clarify the events' context. It appears to the viewer that the film's producers aimed to create a film about the Islamists in Syria, who were a topic of global discussion at the time of production. They needed someone who could access Islamist circles, which was a unique advantage that Talal Derki possessed, leading to the creation of the film. Therefore, we can say that Of Fathers and Sons is a film for the producer rather than a film for the director.
However, other films, such as Houses Without Doors by Avo Kaprealian, did not achieve the same commercial success because it is an experimental film produced by the Bidayat Foundation, a company founded and managed by Syrians, registered in Beirut and operating from the Lebanese capital. The director portrays the life of an Armenian family and filmed the al-Midan neighborhood in Aleppo from his home's balcony. The viewer may notice the film's production weaknesses, such as poor sound quality; nevertheless, the film remains authentic and reflects reality, avoiding the tourist perspective on events in Syria that some European producers adopt.
Mohammed Ali Al-Atassi, the co-founder of Bidayat Foundation, explains how Bidayat operates, stating that "the network of directors we collaborated with was limited to their first films only. Nevertheless, our choices were not always objective and unfortunately remained constrained by our physical presence in Beirut, the circle of beneficiaries from training courses, our network of relationships, and the restrictions imposed by working in a highly challenging legal and security environment. For instance, today at Bidayat, we no longer receive funding from any donors. We are trying to continue with the little we can secure through production grants for the films we produce or co-produce. I don’t know how long we can continue like this, assuming we decide to keep going!"
A significant number of Syrian documentary films relied on "raw material" sourced from videos filmed in Syria, showcasing scenes of war, death, destruction, and displacement. The filmmakers worked with European producers and editors, many of whom did not want their stories to be part of the film. However, Western producers decided to create films based on emotions rather than political narratives. These films do not adopt a historical narrative or help viewers understand what happened before the spark of the revolution; they lack context, depth, and aim to play with the viewers' emotions, making them easier to market.
On the other hand, Syrian filmmakers were constrained by European production practices, festivals, and institutions that possessed the financial and marketing power to create specific models. Consequently, many were compelled to operate within the conditions of these models; otherwise, obtaining the necessary funding to produce their films and reach audiences would be challenging.
The entities producing Syrian documentary films, primarily European, seek to create some empathy for the film's characters, with the goal of marketing and selling the film. European producers are not interested in generating a global political opinion related to the Syrian revolution, for example, or in raising any questions about the complex struggles on national, sectarian, and combat levels, such as those seen in Syria. Thus, it becomes evident from observing European-Syrian documentary productions that they tend to simplify the intricate story of Syria for the European audience.
For example, in Talal Derki's film Of Fathers and Sons, the Syrian narrative in the film appears to be a conflict between Jabhat al-Nusra and the Assad regime, without any context to clarify the matter. In the film For Sama by Waad Al-Kateab and Edward Watts, the story of a pregnant mother and later the mother with her newborn, living under heavy bombardment in a devastated city, creates a strong sense of empathy for the main character in the film (Waad Al-Kateab).
Orwa Al-Muqadd states in his article that many Syrian documentary films feature characters that "struggle within a bloody war, and we only know about this war through key headlines recognized by all Syrians opposed to the regime. These characters fight for victory without touching on any of the fundamental issues they face. Addressing these issues would present the audience with complex questions that might confuse them, so production entities avoid these questions and simplify them into a straightforward equation (the hero is an individual or individuals facing death). The only value they focus on is the courage of the hero in (confronting) the absurdity and ambiguity of what is happening."
Despite this, many Syrian filmmakers have tried to resist the imposed production conditions. Consequently, many followers of this cinema have had to look "beyond the frame," seeking the backgrounds of Syrian stories and attempting to understand the complex Syrian contexts, producing clear and authentic films that are not subject to production constraints.
These films were certainly shot away from the control and censorship of the Syrian regime and were built differently, perhaps influenced by the cinema of Omar Amiralay, Mohammed Malas, and Osama Mohammed, which provided Syrian cinema with a different dimension since the 1970s. Many created their films with modest means, "which makes aesthetics less important than the ethical dimension."
This situation, according to researcher Nicolas Appelt, raises the question of how individuals are portrayed and presented, considering that this question forms a fundamental aspect of documentary filmmaking. The personal safety of individuals has influenced the aesthetic structure of the film, as filmmakers have sought to keep their identities concealed. Consequently, in many films, we see only eyes, hands, and details that prevent recognition of the film's characters. For instance, Basel Shehadeh filmed the characters in his last work Princes of Bees in this manner, using details of the room or parts of the characters' bodies, or employing specific lighting techniques to obscure their features.
Did these films form a cinematic wave?
In circles interested in Syrian cinema, questions often arise about the similarities among Syrian documentary films and whether their creators belong to a shared experience. The question is frequently posed: do the Syrian documentary films produced after 2011 constitute what can be called a single cinematic wave?
We believe that we cannot conclude this article without attempting to answer this question. We think it is not possible, in any way, to generalize all Syrian documentary films, as there are numerous cinematic styles and forms present in Syrian cinema that cannot be confined to a single description. If we must describe it, we would say that the Syrian documentary films produced between 2011 and 2021 primarily relied on two intertwined pillars: the first is Syria and what is happening within it, and the second is the personal and self-referential stories of the filmmakers.
The personal safety of individuals has influenced the aesthetic structure of the film, as filmmakers have sought to keep their identities concealed.
Thus, the primary commonality among these films is the issue, the movement, and the uprising that later transformed into an open war, along with the crimes, destruction, and arrests, among other things. They were similar in that regard; however, the rest was different in every aspect, including production methods, as mentioned earlier.
The general criteria of a cinematic wave do not apply to Syrian films produced during this period, but there are projects like those produced by the Bidayat Foundation that share a common direction. We argue that the term "wave" is too grand to describe Syrian films; however, there is a common ground and shared narratives that could form "what resembles a wave." This similarity arises not because filmmakers agreed on specific themes, but due to the circumstances and environment they faced, such as the necessity of using portable cameras or mobile phones at the beginning. This resulted in shaky, unclear images imbued with deep emotion, becoming a hallmark of cinema born out of the political and revolutionary conditions in the country. The films of these years did not emerge from a comfortable situation; instead, they came to tell a bloody story unfolding in Syria. There was a need for cinema that reflects political issues and addresses human rights.
These circumstances are not unique to Syria; we have seen similar trends in Lebanese and Palestinian cinema before. There is a resemblance regarding the formation of images and the questions that these films seek to explore, especially concerning identity. Perhaps we can say that there is a Middle Eastern cinematic wave that began in the early 2000s, and exploring this hypothesis requires extensive research papers and studies.
However, we reiterate that after 2011, a new generation of Syrian filmmakers emerged, undertaking individual projects to express their perspectives and create narratives and meanings regarding what has happened. This is primarily a political perspective aimed at understanding the events occurring in Syria, rather than just an artistic viewpoint. They created films to articulate their stance on the revolution, war, and displacement in Syria, making their cinema a form of free expression and a stance against repression and censorship.
Thus, we see that many of these films share numerous similarities because they rely on a first-person narrative to understand what is happening in Syria. Some of them draw from elements of personal memory, which later contribute to an awareness of the tragedy that Syria is experiencing.
There is no single Syrian cinema; rather, there are various classifications and directions. The richness of Syrian cinema lies in its diversity and the different voices and perspectives it encompasses. To borrow the words of poet and filmmaker Hala Mohammed, "No one has produced a film in such circumstances except to say something."
