19 - 25 September 2002 Issue No. 604 Chronicles	Current issue Previous issue Site map
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875		Recommend this page

Al-Ahram: A Diwan of contemporary life (460)

The state of play

The effects of the global economic crisis of 1929 to 1930 extended to all aspects of life in Egypt. Although extensive studies have dwelled on the repercussions of this crisis, they tended to ignore their impact on artistic life in Egypt and specifically the theatre. Professor Yunan Labib Rizk* helps fill the void

---

The credit for raising the issue of the theatre on the pages of Al-Ahram goes to Zaki Tulaimat, a drama school graduate recently returned from France. Undoubtedly exultant over his educational experience in the City of Light or, at least, keen to boast his credentials, Tulaimat signed his articles, "Graduate of the Odeon Theatre, Paris".

In the spring of 1930, Tulaimat opens with a brief history of Egyptian theatre, from the first Syrian theatre troupes that came to Egypt in the latter half of the 19th century to the rise of Egyptian playwrights and theatrical productions companies. In the 1920s, Youssef Wahbi and Fatma Rushdi represented the extension of this development in the dramatic arts in Egypt. Progressing in tandem was a musical comedy tradition of more solid Egyptian roots. Associated with such names as Naguib El-Rihani, Ali El-Kassar and Amin Sidqi, this type of theatre was "instrumental in spreading this art among the bourgeoisie".

Tulaimat's judgement on the state of Arabic theatre as a whole was harsh. "We do not have an inherited tradition in this art; nor has it yet become a branch of modern Arabic literature. The drive towards this end has not extended beyond the efforts of a handful of individuals to define and disseminate this art." In his opinion, to use the word nahda -- revival -- to describe these efforts was excessive; indeed, it represented a gross distortion of the meaning of the word.

And this was only the beginning. In a subsequent article, Tulaimat declared that the art of theatre in Egypt, only recently introduced into the country, "still lacks a message, a plan and a goal". It must also have taken no small amount of courage to contend that the country's actors and actresses "come from environments meagre in education and culture and do not take up this profession out of the conviction in the importance of this art and its contribution to intellectual refinement".

The drama school graduate then attempts to identify the flaws in the theatre establishment that were responsible for the poor standard of dramatic arts in Egypt. Firstly, he charges that directors of theatre companies were reluctant to encourage plays written by Egyptians and instead pushed "Arabised foreign plays". True, he admits, because the art was relatively new, plays by Egyptian writers were still relatively few. "However, such productions would not be so limited were theatre company owners persuaded that the ultimate aim of their efforts is to create an authentic Egyptian theatre. If we asked the famed Egyptian playwrights, such as Ibrahim Ramzi and Lutfi Gomaa, why they have stopped furnishing plays to existing companies they would tell us that company owners do not reward the playwright for his efforts. Instead, they pin their aspirations on translated works, so long as they can find a cheap translator."

While Egyptian actors possessed considerable talent and were eager to show off their skills, their talents still required considerable honing. Similarly, directors were not up to scruff. "The director is that creative conductor of the theatre who projects the play beyond the actor into the minds of the spectators. He breathes life between its lines, seeking towards this end inspiration from a fertile imagination, an erudite mind and thorough knowledge of the inner workings of the human soul." Evidently, stage directors in Egypt fell far short of this definition.

At the same time, theatre in Egypt lacked a sufficiently large audience to encourage its development. The primary cause for this, in Tulaimat's opinion, resided in the lack of attention to education in the arts in the national school system. However, Egyptian theatre companies were also at fault for failing to adopt a plan to educate the public in their art.

Another major problem with the theatre was described as "the ills of the capitalist leadership in the management of theatre companies". The possession of money and position, rather than talent, were the factors that produced this leadership. "The leader of the troupe in Egypt is the man who has the money. By virtue of this material right he becomes its star actor and monopolises the most important roles. He cannot stand an actor in his company that would rival him in garnering the praise of critics and the admiration of the public. This has given rise to a system that fails to create the climate conducive to bringing true talent to the fore."

Tulaimat then turns to specific examples of poor management. The Youssef Wahbi and Fatma Rushdi companies had a most peculiar practice, which was to stage a new play every week. "This time is not sufficient if we consider the time and effort it takes to produce a play properly. In addition, it does not allow the actor sufficient opportunity to memorise his lines and to study his part with any depth." In view of this, the performance of these two companies failed to comply with "the principles of the art". It further made a mockery of the art of acting, reducing it to little more than "a distorted recitation of their lines, thereby obstructing the public's access to the sources of aesthetic appreciation in the play". The upshot of this situation was that "the vast majority of the theatre-going public attends Arabic theatre houses, not to view a truly artistic performance, but rather to gawk at a spectacle. This is the most trivial experience one can gain from theatre."

With these criticisms the young drama expert stuck his hand in a hornets nest. The first to respond was Ismail Wahbi, "lawyer and advocate for actors syndicate", and brother of Youssef Wahbi, owner of the Ramsis Theatre Company. At the outset of his letter, he makes clear why it was he, instead of his brother or Fatma Rushdi, who answered. Referring to Tulaimat, Ismail Wahbi writes, "He knows that those he has sought to denigrate are currently out of Egypt, working to promote its reputation in our sister countries, while he works here to attack them and undermine their efforts."

Ismail Wahbi then proceeds to refute Tulaimat's claims. The people engaged in the field of theatre were not ignorant and crude; they were not from "environments meagre in education and culture". "Permit me to ask, here, whether the environment that he comes from or is currently living in is so much superior to their environments."

Nor was it the case that the managers of Egyptian theatre companies were remiss in promoting authentic Egyptian plays. Last year alone, Ismail wrote that his brother's company accepted the scripts of four Egyptian plays, three of which were presented in the current year and the fourth, by Suleiman Naguib, was deferred until the following year. "Now, would Mr Zaki Tulaimat kindly name one author with a play meriting presentation on the stage whom the owner of the Ramsis Theatre Company turned down? Why else would Zaki Tulaimat concoct such information if not towards some private purpose, which is to build his personal glory on the ruins of the existing theatre which he is striving to destroy?"

It appears that Ismail Wahbi agreed with Tulaimat that the government in Egypt failed to accord sufficient attention to education and training in the art of the theatre. He added, however, that this was in large part due to "the likes of Tulaimat who persist in their campaigns against those engaged in the Egyptian theatre".

That Tulaimat vented his anger against Youssef Wahbi and Fatma Rushdi in particular had a diabolical logic. "Youssef Wahbi is the only spectre on the Egyptian stage that frightens him (Tulaimat) and Fatma Rushdi has eclipsed all other actresses." Tulaimat had further timed his attack to coincide with the budgetary deliberations that were then in progress in parliament. Clearly, Ismail Wahbi claimed, Tulaimat hoped that parliament would resolve to allocate the funds it would normally grant to support theatre companies to the drama institute he intended to direct. Regardless of his schemes, Tulaimat would never attain the fame of the likes of Hassan Riyad, Ahmed Allam, Bishara Wakim, Mukhtar Othman, Futtuh Nashati, Hussein El-Baroudi or Abbas Faris -- "and the stage will prove this."

The critic who recently returned from France greeted this first salvo with an element of mirth. In Al-Ahram of 3 May 1930, he expressed his surprise that "the son of Abdallah Wahbi Pasha" should seek recourse to the methods of his profession in defending a case that did not exist in the first place. The lawyer had no reason to resort to such crude invective when Tulaimat's sole intent was to address the state of Egyptian theatre with a certain degree of candor. In so doing, he was not intimidated by any "spectre". At the same time, he did not have cause to throw stones at glass houses.

Nor had it been his intention to cause offence when he said that the majority of actors and actresses came from educationally and culturally deprived backgrounds. Although there were some quite cultured individuals in the profession, "there are still actors and actresses who barely know how to write their names, let alone read a newspaper. I have heard of instances of performers who have not even read their scripts and of actors whose day time jobs involve a manual craft or running a cold drinks or medicinal herbs stall. I would ask the honourable Ismail Wahbi, advocate of the Actors Syndicate, to inform us how many actors have completed so much as an elementary school education."

He goes on to refute Ismail Wahbi's claim that his brother's theatre company was dedicated to promoting Egyptian plays. Out of the 113 plays presented by that company since 1923, only 11 were by Egyptian playwrights. "Among these were six attributed to Youssef Wahbi, of which five did not even have Egyptian themes." With the exception of three, the others were by unknown authors, which led Tulaimat to ask why were the major Egyptian playwrights reluctant to submit their works to Youssef Wahbi's company, to which he answers, "Because they have no confidence in it and because they feel it does not provide a calm atmosphere in which they can present their plays authentically, without distortion or amendment."

Tulaimat resented Wahbi's claim that he sought to monopolise government subsidies to the dramatic arts. On the contrary, he wrote, he wanted the government to aid theatre company owners but on the condition that it supervises how the money is spent so as to ensure the advancement of the artistic and literary aspects of the Egyptian theatre.

Evidently, Tulaimat's pleas did not fall on deaf ears. On 4 May, Al-Ahram reports that the minister of education formed a committee for the advancement of Arab theatre. In addition to the famous poet, Ahmed Shawqi, the committee included two British professors in the Faculty of Letters, as well as Abbas El- Aqqad, Tawfiq Diab, Khalil Matran, George Abyad and Zaki Tulaimat himself.

The committee was assigned three tasks. The first two were to draw up a list of foreign plays that could be adapted into Arabic for presentation in Egypt and to search for Arabic plays the production of which the ministry could sponsor. The third was to draw up recommendations for ways of promoting the dramatic arts in Egypt, "whether through funding, training actors or advancing the art of directing".

Tulaimat was encouraged by what he must have perceived as a victory, for his articles in Al-Ahram continued. Indeed, in his next article, he discusses the government's role in promoting the dramatic arts. In 1925, he wrote, the government allocated LE2,000 to the cause, creating two LE1,000 trust funds -- one for playwrights and the other for actors and actresses. Tulaimat adds that he personally benefited from the trust, as it made possible his study mission in France. Unfortunately, part of that trust came under assault in the press, in which most critics concurred that they could find no justification for handing out "gifts".

He then proceeds to lay out an urgent plan for raising the standard of Egyptian theatre. It called for study missions to Europe for talented youths to acquire the principles of the art of acting, creating an institute for the dramatic arts in Egypt and organising theatre and music activities in all public schools.

It also urged the creation of a national theatre company, a subject that was the cause of some controversy at the time. In support of the idea, he argued that competition would not produce excellence unless those competing have had the proper formation. "The history of theatre troupes in Egypt records numerous examples to prove that the vitality of theatre troupes improves and their presentations flourish whenever they rally under the command of two or three leaders in the dramatic arts. The George Abyad troupe only met success when it associated itself with Abdel-Rahman Rushdi, Aziz Eid and other such prominent actors." He further argued that after the drama institute he hoped to create meets the staffing needs of the proposed national theatre company, the other graduates will found other theatre companies which will compete with the national company. "At that point, there will be true competition, as is the case in France between the two government-sponsored companies: La Comédie Française and the Odeon, and all the other privately-owned theatre companies."

A third advantage of a national theatre company was that it would encourage public approval of the dramatic arts. "The Egyptian public has an exceedingly high opinion of every institution the government establishes," he writes. Public approval, in turn, would encourage new sectors of educated youth to take up professions in this art. It would help ensure that the Egyptian theatre would be properly equipped, "for the first time," to stage theatrical productions "in accordance with the principles of the art". Thirdly, it would further the advancement of "Egyptian plays".

In the context of the latter point, Tulaimat returns to the issue of competition. Until then, the government's practice had been to sponsor play-writing contests. Tulaimat's opinion, however, was that such contests were not commensurate to the ultimate aim, for "regardless of the bulwarks that are put in place to ensure integrity, they are not sufficient to guarantee a sound judgement on the value of a play."

He then picks up again on the thorny issue of government subsidies to the dramatic arts. He maintained that two-thirds of government allocations should go to the new national troupe and the remaining third to support comedy and musical troupes. Evidently, the privately-owned troupes that staged "literary" plays -- the Youssef Wahbi and Fatma Rushdi companies -- were not eligible for such aid, in his opinion.

On 19 May 1930, the "graduate of the Odeon Theatre in Paris" supplied a fifth article in which he summarised "the elements conducive to the advancement of theatre". Essentially this article presented refinements on ideas argued in previous articles. The study missions to Europe should not merely be confined to acting but also to come out with specialists in set design and directing. Among the aims of his proposed institute of dramatic arts was to hone and refine acting skills. With regard to music and acting activities in the public school system, Tulaimat proposed that students pay monthly or yearly dues to their clubs, that the plays they perform help hone their literary and aesthetic sensibilities without violating the standards of public morals, that younger school children are exposed to such arts as puppet theatre and, fourthly, that school libraries include a section for music and drama.

If Tulaimat thought he had had the last word, he was mistaken. By the time his fifth article appeared, the troupes that he had attacked had returned from abroad, and they had no intention of taking his attacks lying down.

Under the headline, "The Egyptian theatre and Zaki Tulaimat's campaign", Youssef Wahbi himself resumed the battle on behalf of his and other Egyptian theatre companies and their staff. He defended the qualifications of Egyptian actors and actresses, citing names of a number of star talents. He then explained why his and other theatre companies presented a new play every week. "Given the small audiences, if we did not hasten the presentation of another play we would be vulnerable to financial stagnation. If that situation persisted, the theatre would go bankrupt and have to close its doors."

Wahbi denied that the major playwrights Tulaimat mentioned had submitted plays to him that he rejected. Nor was it true, he said, that the company managers monopolised the principle roles, preventing others from exhibiting their talents. "Every competent actor can demonstrate his skills and talents as easily in small parts as in the main roles. In addition, the many plays the theatre companies produce are sufficient to allow the public to form a clear impression about every actor. The proof of this resides in the low popularity of those plays in which the head of the theatre troupe does not appear in the principle role."

Nevertheless, the owner of the Ramsis Theatre Company confessed that Egyptian theatre was undergoing a period of stagnation. The government was not providing sufficient moral and material encouragement, audiences were limited, the economy was suffering, and the upper classes favoured European troupes regardless of their quality. In addition, there were few Egyptian playwrights, effective criticism was lacking and, finally, the spread of cinema had drawn audiences away from the theatre in Egypt and everywhere else in the world.

Apparently, Wahbi had allowed his theatrical imagination to run astray, for Al-Ahram received a number of letters from individuals rejecting some of his claims. Anton Yazbak wrote that Wahbi had not given him a certain amount of money to encourage him to write a new play for the Ramsis company. Rather, the money he had received from him was in remuneration for previous works. Wahbi had once rejected a play by Mohamed Lutfi Gomaa on the grounds that it portrayed the Egyptian civil servant in an offensive manner. Gomaa wrote that the play in question made no mention whatsoever of Egyptian civil servants.

In his article, Wahbi also lashed out with a personal attack against Tulaimat. "What is the true purpose behind these campaigns that you are waging through your wife's magazine against Egyptian actors today? Is it fitting that her colleagues on the stage should be attacked and undermined by her husband who appointed himself to defend the sanctity of the art?" He went on to ask, who did Zaki Tulaimat think he was and what had he ever contributed to the Egyptian theatre.

Tulaimat's answer to Wahbi, which appeared in Al-Ahram on 1 June 1930, constituted the final salvo that drew the curtains on this battle. Naturally, he responded to Wahbi's personal attacks against him and, naturally, too, he took the opportunity to reiterate his programme for the advancement of Egyptian theatre. However, the clincher came when he raised the issue of the government subsidies Wahbi hoped to obtain. Tulaimat declared that however much money Wahbi received from the government, "it will not inspire you to say and present, on your own and in the way you are currently operating, more than you have already said to the public. You have already said all you have to say..." Wahbi's silence, on the pages of Al-Ahram at least, signalled his surrender. One imagines, though, that the famous stage star invoked a hundred curses on Tulaimat in private.

* The author is a professor of history and head of Al-Ahram History Studies Centre.

Send a letter to the Editor Recommend this page

Egypt | Region | International | Economy | Opinion | Letters | Culture Features | Living | Travel | Sports | Profile | People | Time Out | Chronicles | Cartoons | Crossword

ARCHIVES Letter from the Editor Editorial Board Subscription Advertise!

WEEKLY ONLINE: www.ahram.org.eg/weekly Updated every Saturday at 11.00 GMT, 2pm local time weeklyweb@ahram.org.eg

Al-Ahram Organisation