Tunisian director Taher Issa, director of the theatrical show “Show Off,” winner of the “Best Director” award at the 33rd session of the “Cairo International Festival of Experimental Theater,” said that his choice of the world of fashion as an entry point for the show came as “a blatant manifestation of the mechanisms of the contemporary capitalist system,” explaining that it is no longer just fashion or passing fads, but has become a structure that imposes public taste, directs behavior toward consumption, and reshapes a person’s identity and value according to what he consumes.
Al-Taher added in an interview with Asharq Al-Awsat that the title “No Fashion - Show Off” reflects the state of cultural interpenetration that contemporary people are experiencing, explaining that the phrase “No Fashion” carries a critical stance that rejects consumer stereotypes and dependency, just as “Show Off” refers to the culture of display and ostentation imposed by globalization, and the combination of the two expressions embodies the struggle of the self between its local roots and cross-border networks of cultural and marketing dominance.
The idea of the work revolves around a person within a world governed by fashion, consumption and display. The image turns into an essential part of daily existence, and the individual is constantly required to present a certain version of himself in front of others. Through movement, physical performance, dance, circus, and digital media, the show puts people in front of a system that pushes them toward repetition and similarity, and raises a question about the space that is still available to them to be themselves, away from market pressure and image.
Al-Taher Issa pointed out that social media expanded the concept of showmanship to become a “daily existential condition,” so that the modern person began documenting his life not to live it, but to show it off to others. He pointed out that this virtual realism affected his directorial vision and prompted the dismantling of the relationship between “man and machine,” after technology and networks became part of a system that frames the human being and turns him at the same time into a producer and consumer.
He stressed that his goal was not to present a direct speech or a moral sermon about consumption, but rather to dismantle its mechanisms through image and performance, explaining that the show raises questions with multiple connotations, reveals contradictions on stage, and then leaves the viewer the freedom to read and discover his position for himself, by betting on involving the recipient in the experience, instead of imposing a specific directorial vision on him or providing ready-made answers.
He added that physical performance was necessary to express the state of psychological fragmentation and pressure imposed by the consumer system, explaining that the body in its critical state can express oppression, domestication, and mechanical repetition, in a way that is difficult for words to reach.
He pointed out that “the show initially deliberately presented its world as a strange spectacle far from the viewer, before gradually revealing that the recipient himself is part of this system,” stressing that the bet was on creating a surprising artistic image, during which the audience moves from the position of the neutral viewer to the position of the partner who discovers that he is practicing the same consumer mechanisms in his daily life, so that the spectacle turns into self-questioning.
Issa believes that theatrical experimentation should not turn into a formal show; Because true experimentation is a continuous search for new forms of expression, and linking art with man and history. Pointing out that experimentation becomes an empty goal when it is satisfied with formalities or the free use of techniques and media, without artistic or intellectual necessity.
He stressed that experimental theater is capable of reaching a wide audience if it possesses aesthetic sincerity and semantic clarity, considering that the separation between experimental theater and mass theater is not inevitable. Because true experimentation directly addresses human consciousness and senses. The success of the presentation in communicating with the audience is linked to its ability to create a live interactive situation that touches on the recipient’s issues, in addition to having appropriate tools to communicate with them.
He said that this work - compared to his previous works - took a greater risk in breaking the traditional dramatic structure and testing post-dramatic theatre, while trying to achieve a balance between artistic rigor and communication with the audience, which made it an important station in his creative path.
He added that the issue of commodification and consumption transcends geographical borders. Because it touches contemporary people in different societies, considering that the Egyptian audience’s reception proved the show’s ability to move from its Tunisian specificity to a broader human question.
He pointed out that participating in the Cairo International Festival for Experimental Theater provided the show with the opportunity to interact with international theatrical experiences from several countries, including Switzerland, Spain, Belarus, and France. He explained that this diversity allowed him to compare his artistic tools with different experiences, pointing out that the festival was not only a space for performance, but also provided an environment for artistic and cognitive communication, and re-reading the experience within a broader theatrical context.
He stressed that receiving the Best Director award represents a tribute to the path of artistic research he went through with the show, but it does not change the essence of the experience, which was essentially completed through interaction with the audience. He considered that the award doubles his creative responsibility and gives him motivation to continue research and innovation, warning at the same time that success will turn into a stereotype that limits artistic adventure.
He explained that the specificity of the Tunisian show appeared through the bodies of the actors, their rhythm, and the performance memory linked to their environment, while the intellectual and media presentation opened up to humanitarian issues that transcend borders.
He said that starting from the local was not an obstacle to reaching the global level; Rather, it was a means to reach it; Because true experimentation - from his point of view - does not eliminate identity, but rather invests it in asking questions related to contemporary man.
Portuguese director Edgar Pira said that the book “Guerrilla War on the Asphalt... The FP-25 Group and the Portuguese Time,” by writer and former member of the organization Manuel Ricardo de Sousa, formed the starting point for his new film “Guerrilla War on the Asphalt.” However, the project took a different path as it developed, transforming from a treatment of historical facts into a film that mixes personal memory, politics, and cinema.
Pera added, in an interview with Asharq Al-Awsat via Zoom, that the work has become for him a journey through more than 4 decades of his life and his films, not just a retrieval of an event that occurred in the past, stressing that what concerns him today is not recounting the history of the organization and D’Souza’s experience within it, but rather asking questions about the present and the future through the cinematic image.
He explained that the project began many years ago, and did not come in response to current political events, as some might think, indicating that the idea had been on his mind since he read the book in the early nineties, while the actual step came during the “Corona” pandemic, when he wrote the script with the work team, and succeeded in obtaining the necessary funding to complete the film.
The director added that producer Rodrigo Arias played a pivotal role in expanding the vision of the project; He suggested that the work not be limited to telling the story of the armed organization, but that it should also turn into a reflection on Bera’s personal journey with cinema, and on the concept of “guerrilla cinema,” which he continued to believe in throughout his career.
The events of “Guerrilla War on the Asphalt,” which was shown at the Locarno Film Festival, take place in Portugal in the early 1980s. The film is based on real facts, but presents them in a form that mixes reality and fiction. It tells the story of a quiet university student who finds himself involved in a radical organization, before his journey ends tragically following a bank robbery, when he is killed by police bullets, and then his body is subjected to abuse by the crowd.
The director highlights Manuel Ricardo de Souza’s experience within the armed organization, and combines it with his personal journey in filmmaking according to the “guerrilla cinema” style. Thus, the two stories are intertwined in a work that blurs the boundaries between history and biography, between political struggle and artistic rebellion.
Berra said that he was careful from the beginning that the film would not turn into a work that regurgitates past traumas, explaining that he told his producer, from the early stages, that he wanted to make a film that looked to the future more than it was preoccupied with the past.
He added that this trend prompted the project to gradually change. It is no longer just a treatment of the story of a political organization, but rather a multi-layered film, presenting different points of view on contemporary reality and cinema itself, as one of the tools through which the world can be understood and re-questioned.
He explained that the film also deals with the meaning of independence in the film industry, stressing that this issue has become, for him, no less important than the political topic that the work addresses. He pointed out that the real question was not how to narrate the events of the 1980s, but rather how the artist today maintains his intellectual and creative independence in a world where commercial and ideological pressures are increasing. For him, cinema is not just a way to tell, but a way to think and test ideas.
He added that the most difficult thing he faced while making the film was not converting the book into a screenplay; Because literary adaptation, in his opinion, remains an issue that can be dealt with artistically, but the real challenge began when the project turned into a journey in his personal life.
He said that he had to return to an archive that spans more than 40 years, and includes photos, audio tapes, and footage that he took since his beginnings, along with family memories and personal experiences related to friends and events that left a profound impact on his life. Which made the writing process much more complicated than he expected.
He stressed that the scenario was not actually completed except inside the editing room; He re-watched this huge amount of archival material, and chose from it what served his final vision. He pointed out that he spent more than a year viewing his personal archive, before he began building the final form of the film.
He believed that this stage was the most difficult on the psychological level. Because it forced him to confront his past with all its happy and painful moments at the same time, but he was convinced that this confrontation was necessary for the film to be honest with itself and with its audience.
Pera stressed that he was not concerned with presenting the film's characters as heroes or villains, but rather as people who fell under the influence of different ideas and ideologies. He explained that everything he presents is his point of view, along with other points of view, including what the media presented about that stage, so that the public can form its own judgment. He stressed that he does not want to take the place of the judge, but rather that “the viewer is the jury” that reaches its own conclusions.
He explained that the only aspect in which he adopts a clear position within the film relates to the method of filmmaking itself; It compares two different models in dealing with cinematic material. He pointed out that one of them represents the cinema that is made according to the requirements of major platforms and huge productions, while the other represents the cinema that he believes in, which depends on the portable camera and working freely in the street, away from production restrictions.
He added that this is the only position he clearly adopts within the film; Because he believes that the independence of film making is no less important than the independence of the idea itself.
He pointed out that the film will continue to generate new readings even years later. Because what he poses is not related to a specific historical event, but rather to questions that are renewed with time. He explained that he might watch the film in a different way 10 years later, but he believes that the feeling it carries will remain the same. Because the issues he discusses go beyond the time of the story itself.
Berra concluded his speech by stressing that freedom will remain the issue that preoccupies him in all of his films, whether it manifests itself in politics, art, or the way cinema is made. He considered that the film, despite starting from a historical incident, does not ultimately talk about an armed organization or a specific political stage, but rather about the human being, his choices, and his responsibility to defend the independence of thought, in a world where attempts to impose certainty and eliminate doubt are increasing.
