In September, during the CineFest Miskolc in Hungary, the International Federation of Film Critics (FIPRESCI) elected Egyptian critic and programmer Ahmed Shawky as its new president for two years.
The federation, which selects and manages some 80 critics’ juries at international festivals around the world, will celebrate its 100th anniversary in 2025, a year Shawky and his team are preparing for. As the first Middle Eastern and African critic to be in this position, Shawky aspires for more diversity and inclusion, as well as extending the group’s support to colleagues marginalized geographically or financially in East Asia and Latin America.
He also heads the CineGouna SpringBoard, one of the industry arms of the El Gouna Film Festival, which has chosen 19 projects this round: 12 in development and 7 in post-production. Winners will be granted up to U.S. $290,000 in cash and service prizes offered by the festival, its sponsors and partners.
The Film Verdict: Can you tell me how you got to be elected President of the International Federation of Film Critics (FIPRESCI)? What were the steps?
Ahmed Shawky: I have been part of the board of FIPRESCI since 2018 and responsible for activities in the Arab world and Africa. In 2021, I ran for vice president position and got it. None of these positions have ever been occupied by critics from the Arab world, Africa, or the third world in general. They were filled by Westerners — Europeans mainly and sometimes Americans. I was supposed to continue in the position of vice president for two years from 2023 till 2025, but at the same time the president Isabelle Danel ended her term of four years. And the Federation was looking for someone dynamic, with communication skills, flexibility; a frequent traveler who is aware of the industries of festival and film criticism. Whoever is president has to be aware of the dynamics of the 80 juries that tour the world and understand that every festival is different. I was asked to run for the position, and there were no competitors, so I won the elections which took place at Miskolc in September during the federation’s board meeting. The term is for two years, and can be extended another two years.
What is crucial now is to work in the coming period on FIPRESCI’s 100th anniversary, which will be in 2025. There will be several activities and events which will be announced soon.
TFV: You raised the point that you are the first critic from the Arab world and Africa to fill these positions in FIPRESCI, including the presidency. Having been raised and having worked in this part of the world, what are your goals as president? And outside the Arab world, what other pressing issues are there on the FIPRESCI table?
Shawky: Interacting with the international film community, sometimes I get shocked by how some basic information can be lacking from the knowledge of pure-hearted and educated individuals. They are not racist nor do they look down upon others, they are critics with decades of years of experience in the film industry, but it’s possible they don’t know basic differences between Arab countries; for example, that Egypt and Tunisia are in Africa. The majority of people in the film industry are open-minded, invested in learning and knowing about others and the world, but it’s possible that some are affected by the culture they grew up in, as well as the centrism of European cinema/festivals and that of the American mainstream industry. Everyone is invested in changing this, but we need people to assist in the change. FIPRESCI, for example, started in the last six years to adapt more diverse approaches. Until 2018, there were only two juries in the Arab world, in Cairo and Carthage. Now in 2023, we have juries in Cairo, Gouna, Luxor, Ismailia, Amman, Rabat, and Carthage. And similarly, the number of jury members has grown from Cameroon, Niger, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. And we have expanded to include and accept individual critics as members from countries that do not have local federations or associations such as Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria.
However, it is important to say that I am not only a president for Arab and African critics, but also for other countries. Hence I have a responsibility towards critics from other regions who are also marginalized, for example, because of the travel costs. If you are stationed in the Arab world, you have more access to festivals than critics in East Asia or Latin America. These are two big issues we are addressing and working on, for FIPRESCI to become more active in these two regions and to help critics from these areas participate in more activities in Europe and other continents.
TFV: Many, if not the majority, of critics in MENA (Middle East – North Africa), Africa, Latin America, Asia, and even East Europe have to work two or three or more jobs in order to earn a living. As a federation for critics who work in the film industry, how do you see this?
This has to do with one’s lifestyle and most importantly how to secure a living. What we are used to, and what colleagues in western Europe are discovering, is that it is very difficult to sustain a living from only writing criticism. Some colleagues started their careers at a time when employment dynamics were different and where a critic could be employed by a newspaper or radio station, providing them a decent income and covering their traveling costs to foreign festivals. We can roughly say that only 1% can do this now. Currently, critics engage in academia, festival organization, or any activity partially related to film as a way to secure a living. Personally, I wish I could write articles and get paid for them and be able sustain myself and my family, but this is challenging.
TFV: The war in Gaza has affected the stand of many festivals in the Arab region, and it is expected to affect festivals in Europe where polarisation is at its peak, with vocal supporters of both sides of the conflict. Having members from all over the world, how is FIPRESCI following this?
As a federation, we have not announced a stand regarding the current situation. Our communications in the last two months have been functional, dealing with the cancellation of Cairo and Carthage for example, or other change of plans. We are scheduled to meet and discuss this extensively, especially as it is expected to be brought up in different film events, so we have to have a clear stand.
Personally, I am for the rights of all oppressed people worldwide, and of course an immediate non-conditional ceasefire to protect the lives of men, women and children. The situation has radically escalated and cannot be accepted in any humane aspect.
TFV: What do you think of the cancellations of some Arab festivals since October?
Shawky: I am proud of my profession, and I see it has an important role in mobilizing public opinion and declaring positions on current events. That is why I was not supportive of any festival’s decision to cancel their edition in the Arab world. No one asks a doctor, banker, or a shopkeeper not to go to work because of the war. Those who see cinema, discussions, films, and festivals only as sources of entertainment with no role to play in times of crises, unintentionally look down on their work, and may believe that they are practicing a job that is not decent or important. I am lucky that the festival I am working with, El Gouna, is one which will be held.
Since its first edition, El Gouna’s slogan has been “Cinema for humanity”. The festival had to make a stand amid the current events. The stand is shedding light on Palestinian cinema with the Window on Palestine programme and including a panel discussion on Palestinian cinema as well as the impact of film in similar times. This is a commitment that all the festivals were clear and united about, keeping in mind that we are an industry-focused festival, not a politicised festival.
TFV: As part of your work in the CineGouna SpringBoard, how many submissions have you received? And how many were chosen?
Shawky: We received more than 160 submissions, either in development or in post production. This is the biggest number of submissions we have received since the establishment of our festival, which implies an increasing amount of Arabic projects being developed. In two stages, 19 projects were chosen, 12 in development and 7 in post production. With the previously planned October edition, the total number of awards was going to surpass $400,000 but now, with changes and the cancellation of some sponsors, the awards will be around $290,000, which will also be the highest in the history of the festival.
TFV: Now 12 years after the Arab Spring, are you seeing changes in the narratives of the projects presented from the Arab world? Why do you think Middle Eastern films in international festivals are limited to certain genres?
Shawky: Filmmakers, festival decision makers, programmers are part of society. Current events and public discourse affect them one way or another. It is understandable that if the media and the public care about a certain issue, the chance this topic will be selected in a festival will increase. The majority of Arab films are funded by cultural institutions which support certain causes such as diversity, racial and gender equality and political freedoms. So it is reasonable that this produces a compass that guides the selection of projects. For example, after the Arab Spring, Egypt was at the center of interest; then it was Syria, then Sudan. I assume a rebound in Palestine topics will take place. This happens in an organic manner, but affects films negatively: encouraging filmmakers to change their interests and favor narratives that might get funded, rather than working freely in a romantic or action genre, for example.
TFV: And how do you think Arab filmmakers can break free from this cycle?
Shawky: The presence of a strong local market and industry. As long as films do not have a strong domestic market and depend on being selected by Cannes, Berlin, or Venice and finding a European distributor to screen it in seven or eight theatres, we will continue to be at the mercy of this cycle. For example, the South Korean, Japanese, and Chinese filmmakers are able to be more liberal with genres than their Middle Eastern counterparts. This is not a DNA thing. They [South Korean, Japanese, and Chinese filmmakers| are able to make horror, action and comedy because they have strong domestic markets that cover their costs and allow them to profit. For them, the success of their film in a European festival is a positive thing, but it doesn’t affect their success and their solid filmographies. Any attempt to break free from Western capital and its effect on Arab narratives starts from establishing a local popular fanbase.
