The new Syria is a land of firsts: for the first time many Syrians are openly criticising the authorities, sharing stories of missing relatives and talking about foreign currency in public − all banned under former president Bashar Al Assad.
For creatives, it is their first taste of artistic freedom after years of repression.
Last week, a young and artsy crowd gathered at the Zawaya Art Gallery in Damascus for the first screening in Syria of Stars in Broad Daylight, an iconic 1988 movie by Ossama Mohammed that was banned decades ago by the Assad regime and Baath Party.
The event was organised by the Damascus Film Salon, a new cultural initiative, and was followed by a debate with the director, who has lived in exile for more than 10 years.
“The screening of Ossama Mohammed’s film now is a dream come true,” said Haya Hasani, a young artist at the event. “It symbolises the end of Assad’s Syria and the beginning of a new Syria − the Syria of the people.”
The multi-award-winning film tells the story of two families preparing for a double wedding in a coastal Alawite village – the sect to which the Assad family belongs. The protagonist is a metaphor for Hafez Al Assad, father of Bashar Al Assad and his predecessor as Syrian leader.
The movie character is a patriarchal figure whose authoritarian tendencies lead to the disintegration of his family.
“The reason for organising the salon is to celebrate the end of 46 years of censorship, which began with Hafez,” said George Achkar, one of the organisers. “People are thirsty for real cinema rather than propaganda. The stupid censorship was limiting filmmakers' creativity.”
The packed venue for Stars in Broad Daylight was filled with enthusiastic faces embracing their new-found freedoms, which have blossomed since rebels overthrew more than 50 years of Assad family rule in a lightning offensive last month.
Damascus has long been a cultural hub, with galleries, salons and exhibitions, but these were all tightly controlled in the past, especially for content remotely political.
“If you wanted to get permission to organise cultural events the official way, it was very complicated. You had to know people,” Ms Hasani told The National.
Bypassing official procedures was a risky business. “Doing something outside the Baathist institutions carried the risk of being reported to the security branches,” said Ms Hasani, who was denounced for staging an independent cultural event that was outside the oversight of intelligence services.
“Many informants were within our ranks,” she added.
Red lines
Under Bashar Al Assad, censorship infiltrated every aspect of the creative process. Said Al Hanawi, a playwright, told The National that before they could put on a show, artists needed approval from a “committee of readers” that dictated red lines and imposed amendments.
“But that was not enough. Then there was a second committee in front of which we performed, and which was studying every movement − the music, the lyrics, the acting … And then they would give us the final approval. But it was conditional: there couldn’t be a single sentence outside of the approved text, or they would stop the performance immediately.”
Members of the intelligence services were often present at theatrical shows to ensure compliance, he added. “There were forbidden topics − anything related to politics was off limits, but we could talk about the economic crisis.”
Censorship now appears to have vanished, but Syrian artists remain cautious about the future. Hayat Tahrir Al Sham, the Islamists who lead the new government, were formerly affiliated with Al Qaeda before breaking ties with the group in 2016 and attempting to rebrand as moderates.
“Who knows what might be censored next? For now, we are showing what we want,” said Mr Achkar. “We should remain optimistic but careful, and remain confident that we are smart enough to keep it this way.”
Ms Hasani said she believes the worst is in the past and that Syrians are ready for the challenges that lie ahead.
“The Syrian people who overthrew Assad are capable of overthrowing anyone else, because his was the most violent, inhumane and brutal form of oppression.”
