Film triggers a devil of a controversy

By Nadia Abul-Magd

Ismail had taken Tantawi to task for "allowing" the movie to be screened. Tantawi responded by saying he did not have the power to stop the screening of a movie, unless Al-Azhar's view is solicited in advance by censors -- which did not happen with The Devil's Advocate.

The campaign against the film began two weeks ago with a scathing attack by journalist George Fahim in the opposition newspaper Al-Wafd. He urged authorities to "stop the screening of atheism and blasphemy" and put on trial those who allowed the film to be shown. "Where is Al-Azhar? Where is the Church?" Fahim questioned.

Yassin Serageddin, a Wafdist member of parliament, took the cue. He sent a telegram to Prime Minister Kamal El-Ganzouri demanding that the screening of the film be stopped. He also submitted a parliamentary question to Culture Minister Farouk Hosni. Serageddin inquired how "this scandal was allowed and how a movie that insults God and portrays the Devil as the one who controls people's destiny was approved."

Serageddin added that censors had conceded their "crime" because there were no Arabic subtitles for the blasphemous dialogue in the film.

In this hair-raising film, actor Al Pacino plays the Devil, who flings the doors of success wide open before a young lawyer, played by Keanu Reeves, by allowing him to join his New York law firm. The lawyer moves from success to success, although his private life becomes a shamble.

However, following a heated debate, in which the Devil asks the lawyer to have an incestuous relationship with his half-sister, the lawyer refuses to obey the Devil. In an indication of the triumph of the lawyer's free will, he commits suicide and the Devil burns.

Last week, another opposition daily, Al-Ahrar, dedicated a page to an onslaught on the film under the title, "The American Devil's Advocate insults God in the country of Al-Azhar."

Sheikh Ismail wrote: "Where is Al-Azhar? And where is the Sheikh of Al-Azhar? Unfortunately, he is too busy destroying Al-Azhar" -- a reference to Tantawi's decision to reduce the four-year education programme at Al-Azhar's secondary schools by one year.

Ismail also demanded that Tantawi be put on trial "because he dissolved the Front, which used to deal with such issues."

Tantawi did not take the attack lying down. He filed two complaints with the prosecutor-general against Ismail and Al-Ahrar, accusing them of libel.

Tantawi was quoted by the weekly magazine Rose El-Youssef as saying: "Am I supposed to leave my office and go to cinemas to watch the movies they are showing? This is the job of censors, not ours."

Rose El-Youssef described the dispute between the two sheikhs as a battle between the supporters and opponents of enlightenment.

But Ismail told Al-Ahram Weekly: "If insulting God, promoting sin, encouraging people to commit the worst of sins, which is incest, if all that is enlightenment, what is criminal behaviour then?"

Neither Ismail nor Tantawi have watched the film, but the tension in their relationship is not new. Ismail, a professor of Islamic theology for the past 25 years, strongly criticised Tantawi last December for meeting with an Israeli rabbi. Ismail and other members of the Front also strongly opposed Tantawi's decision to scale down the education programme at Azharite secondary schools.

Chief censor Ali Abu Shadi had no regrets about allowing the screening of the film. "This is a religious film because in it, man defeats the devil and good prevails over evil," he told Al-Ahram Weekly. "I am very bitter because all those who are attacking the film and making this fuss did not see it. If they watch and understand it, I'm sure they will come to thank me for showing it."

Asked about the blasphemous dialogue, Abu Shadi said: "This is dramatic dialogue. Should we expect the Devil to praise God?"