Imaginative cinema is classified into two major categories: stereotypical (classical) cinema and non-stereotypical cinema.1 It is evident that the non-classical category is the one that defies the established formulas and deep structures of conventional experiments in creation. It becomes the dominant element that imposes its vision and transforms it into a standard by which we distinguish the “sound” from the rest. Therefore, we consider it a rebellious element.2
In order to identify the distinctive elements of this non-classical cinema, we must recall a certain constant factor that characterizes classical cinema and forms its dramatic foundation.3 This factor is the imposition of the dramatic plot, the unity of the subject, the interconnectedness of events based on causality, and the distribution of narrative elements according to a hierarchical structure that responds to specific conditions of the beginning, middle, and end. It also makes the conflict the core of the succession of events or the relationship between the protagonist and the antagonist.4
Each style has different factors that impose its dominance. One of the factors that contributed to shaping dramatic cinema, primarily Hollywood, and made its deep structure a model followed by other films, is the influence of distant and inherited experiences in shaping drama. The tripartite structure, branching into a beginning, middle, and end, is equivalent to the three units of a tragic play.5 The arrangement of events and characters according to a plot that ignites the conflict between opposing poles and ends with the punishment of the sinful character is not devoid of the purifying function that Aristotle made a distinctive feature of this theater.6 The reason for this is that classical films initially relied on ancient Greek influences to shape their deep structure.
The economic aspect also undoubtedly has its impact, as in cinema, industry and investment go hand in hand with creativity. Therefore, the classical style tends to transform films into consumable and enjoyable products that lure viewers to the box office. It relies on thrilling adventures and effects that stir emotions. This cinema simplifies its dominance, especially in countries where the population forms a significant film market and the production system encourages investment in culture, such as Hollywood (American cinema), Bollywood (Indian cinema), Nollywood (Nigerian cinema), or attempts to establish a market named Sollywood, dedicated to Saudi Arabia.
This stereotypical cinema has not always been revered by the elite. Throughout its history, which now spans over a century and a quarter, it has witnessed numerous opposing movements that attempted to break the imposed pattern. These include pure cinema, avant-garde cinema, experimental cinema, expressive cinema, poetic cinema, surreal cinema, auteur cinema, and abstract cinema. Despite the intersections, overlaps, and blends between these directions, they are collectively classified under the category of nonconformist cinema, sharing opposition to its style that tends to exhaust the viewer’s emotions through suspenseful narratives and relies on organic plots and melodramatic situations that elicit sympathy for the characters instead of contemplating the deep reasons that lead them to their outcome. It presents the world as final and fixed, governed by an external authority that humans are not capable of rebelling against.
On the other hand, counter-cinema, which is referred to as non-conformist cinema, rebels against its standards in terms of style and thought. It strives to be a barrier that breaks away from consumerism and works towards raising collective consciousness. It resists cultural invasion and contributes to establishing a national culture that roots citizens in their identity without shying away from addressing uncomfortable or existential questions. However, cinema is an expensive art form due to the involvement of many stakeholders, and it is an investment that often results in losses for those seeking direct financial returns. Therefore, this cinema remains dependent on internal support provided by local institutions or external funding provided by primarily European funds. This exposes its major weakness and undermines its credibility, as its goal is to condemn the dominant party while relying on funds to produce its films. Often, the condemned party responds to funding requests under attractive titles such as “developing Southern cinema and supporting its struggles,” “supporting women’s rights,” or “advocating for free ideas until they reach the screens.” It is worth noting that directors and producers affirm that donor agencies respect the right to free creativity and do not impose specific opinions or direct them to adopt certain ideologies.
There is no doubt that what the directors of these non-stereotypical films and their producers say is true, but we are also convinced that they intentionally conceal a falsehood. Experience has shown that this support creates new problems that deeply affect the content and aesthetic choices of films. All those beautiful values, such as respecting freedom of expression and supporting emerging cinemas, remain deceptive titles. It is natural for these countries not to support these films except after reading their scripts and selecting only those that align with their policies and conform to their stereotypical perception of Arab societies and sub-Saharan countries.
Returning to films supported by Europe clearly reveals this “harmony” between the creators’ ideas and the expectations of the supporting parties. The person from the South in this cinema becomes a victim of his “backward culture,” based on violence and oppression, which often leads to an imbalance in his psychological and social well-being. Children become displaced victims of violence, and women are deprived of enjoying their bodies, subjected to male-dominated societies. Society is reduced to folkloric images that perpetuate its backwardness and its involvement in the world of crime and drugs. As for minorities, they are persecuted in an intolerant society that struggles to accept otherness and suffers from homophobia.
It is true that creativity, in one of its important definitions, delves into the harmonious aspects of individuals’ or communities’ lives at the superficial level to explore the deformed and suppressed aspects at the deeper layers in an attempt to rectify them. However, this cinema indulges in this excavation to the point where it becomes a destructive skin for the self, an arbitrary act against society, and a frustrated criticism incapable of building the positive models that avant-garde cinema aspires to create. Therefore, different trends of this non-conformist cinema often end up as a mirror that declares its resistance to alienation and conformity, embodying them in their most miserable forms, becoming a reality. We will discuss this further in our subsequent discussions as we present examples and currents of this cinema, examining its aesthetic and intellectual backgrounds and discussing the ambiguities accompanying its classification.