The series "Kingdoms of Fire" .. Is counterfeiting history a point of view?

On a vast hill, surrounded by a strong tree, the sons of Sultan Bayezid II gathered around their sheikh, the world, as he recounted to them the history of their great-grandfather Artgrel, an atmosphere stained by the dew of the past and the glory of the ancestors interrupted by a sarcastic laugh from Selim I. He was a boy, not older than twelve, who laughed lightly at what the sheikh said: "A wonderful story, but it is difficult to believe." Selim argued his sheikh and his brothers cunningly with his insistence that what they hear is sheer lies, and that their great grandfather Artgrel did not fight wars according to a passing chance to support the weak, but that the deception is the rug that the grandfather laid to pave his way to establish the Ottoman Empire, and that this blood-rug is the best way to establish states There is no place mentioned in the history books.

The previous scene opens the sixth episode of the series "Kingdoms of Fire", the latest productions of the Emirati Genomedia company, starring Khaled Al Nabawi and Mahmoud Nasr and directed by British Peter Weber and written by Muhammad Sulaiman Abdul Malik and Ahmed Nada. The series flies in the spaces of the past and spreads its first thresholds upon the death of Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror in 1481 AH, passing through the journey of sitting on the throne of the Ottoman Sultanate from son Bayezid II to the grandson of Selim I who completes the march and is fighting one of the most important wars in the Ottoman-Mamluk conflict in Egypt with Sultan Qansuh al-Ghouri And after him Prince Tuman Bay. The historical drama that brings back history in time, evokes the shadows of a history that we have not witnessed, so we can examine it again with more feelings and sympathy, but will the "kingdoms of fire" tell us a fair historical story? Or does it cause us to look through the glass tainted by darkness and false shadows?

Dull shades

Ibn Khaldun informs us in his introduction of the definition of history: "On its face there is no more than the news of days and states, and the precedents from the first centuries, in which the sayings grow, and the parables are struck in them, and the case of creation leads to us how conditions fluctuated ... and in the interior is a vision, investigation, and explanation of beings and their principles , And know the facts and the deep causes. Ibn Khaldun concludes with the origins of history, denies his confinement in writing the accounts of the first two, earns him investigation and reflection, and adds philosophy and methodology to him. On the social networking site "Facebook", one of the followers of the series "Kingdoms of Fire" wrote that history is not written in history books, but in dramas. It stopped me a lot. Is what the public really requests to replace history with artworks? And does the drama look for a good look behind history, or does it close its eyes to what contradicts its goals?

We talked in " Meydan " with the American scriptwriter and writer "Skip Press" about his opinion about the nature of the relationship between drama and history, and the limits on which each side stands on the other. "There are no strict writing rules that require the writer to commit to history in building his dramatic work," he said. But personally, I detest someone’s historical mistakes in movies to present a narrative that contradicts reality. For example, in the movie “Gladiator,” the philosopher Marcus Aurelius is killed by his son Commodus in Germanic wars, and this never happened in reality. The filmmakers should have read more about Marcus and H's work Oualata. In general I see something stupid but prevalent here in Hollywood that spoil the facts of history through the book ignorant of the exact details. "

Scape may disagree with a number of writers and filmmakers who find fictional shades of history in their works a brilliant dimension. Returning to talk about "kingdoms of fire," the question astonishes us about the history for which the book relied on in drawing the lines of their dramatic world and the spaces of imagination in which reality combined with fiction. In the statements of the author of the series, Mohamed Suleiman Abdel-Malek, he states that the goal of the series is to "reveal historical facts that the makers of Turkish drama are trying to falsify" [1], and that his main reliance on writing the series was built on the books "Badaa Al-Zuhur in Waqe'at Al-Dahur" by Ibn Iyas, and "The incident of Sultan Al-Ghuri with Salim Al-Othmani, by Ibn Zanbal Al-Remal, and also the book “Rijal Marj Dabiq” by Salah Issa [2], which are certainly a few sources, but did the “kingdoms” of fire appear to make sense in narrating a historical novel from one side that overlooks a number of historical writings on that stage And her characters? Did Abd al-Malik's imagination add dull shadows to the facts of history in an attempt to distort the Ottomans and present a brilliant, unreal image of the Mamluks?

Writing on chessboard

"Kingdoms of Fire" follows the first two parallel journeys, the first in Turkey, and the second in Circassia, for two children of two close ages, the first is Prince Selim the first son of Bayezid the second, and the second is Toman Bey, the last of the Circassian Mamluk sultans in Egypt. The parallel narration of the Ottoman and Mamluk sides prompts us to eavesdrop on the scenes of power on both sides, and over the course of the two journeys intentionally cultivates hatred and hostility to Salim in exchange for an overwhelming love for Tuman Bay, so that at the end of the series we arrive at the upcoming meeting between the two, and to re-talk about history and its position from it . In the last episode, Selim I of Tumanbay says: “You are nothing but defeated, and your name will always be like this.” Tumanbay says to Selim: “History will record that you put poison to your father, and killed your brothers.”

In the context of our talk about drama and history, the late scriptwriter Mahfouz Abdel Rahman said: “Whoever writes historical drama does not write history, he writes a kind of art that is required to reach people, but how does he choose it?” [3]. This question of choices pushes us to shed light on the bewildering memory in the “kingdoms of fire” that cut thorns to plant poisonous flowers that lead to human monsters.

Unusually the kingdoms of fire begin by introducing the enemies, not the heroes, "a bloody law ruling an empire ... and it became a curse chasing them", an initiation that carries a blood-stained carpet that tells us that Muhammad al-Fateh's dynasty built its throne rules on killing, and that Selim I was a reflection of the pleasure of his pioneering grandfather in killing , Which will happen later to kill his father, Bayezid, his brothers, and their children. The series folds the page of Muhammad al-Fatih that he was killed by his son Bayezid II, which is explicitly contrary to what was written in history about the death of al-Fateh, who preceded him and a health problem he did not celebrate [4], with suspicions circulating that the gun sent a traitor to poison him, and that Bayezid was Ascetic in judgment, and that he was pursuing a peaceful policy [5]. The series insists on confirming the killing’s characteristic of the dynasty, Selim I infiltrated his father’s room to kill him also, this time we see the entire scene between the son and his murdered father, and hatred reigns towards Selim again, which is a new violation of what was reported that Bayezid abandoned the throne to his son Selim and that he died about after that Forty days or more [6].

The voice of the knowledgeable narrator was concerned with accompanying us at the beginning of the series to recount slanderous facts, and on the other hand, he ignored to tell us about the conditions on the Mamluk side. Any objection to his Gansu Gansu to oppress the people and impose taxes, but has anything changed? Why did we not see the ruggedness of the Mamluks as the events inundated us in the "ruggedness of the Ottomans"?

Snakes hymns

Against the background of fist-like music that flaunt the crows, a masked group dominated by darker black appears, which we know is a secret group called "Jahardia" led by al-Kamil. That group is based on prophecies and the practice of enchantment, and we follow its leads throughout the events until it is met with Selim I, to start a secret deal that provides him with a hand in his war with the Arabs and then completes their desire for Selim to fight wars with Venice, Rome and Castile. I searched long in the writings of history, but I did not find the effect of the jihadism for its traceability. He interviewed the " Square " of Muhammad Shaaban Ayoub, a researcher in Islamic history and heritage, and we asked him about the jihadism and its historical origins, and he answered: "There is no such thing in history as the jihadism, and there are no secret groups that Salim met Or contact with her just before his war with the Mamluks. I do not follow the series, but the exploitation of the drama of lies and historical fabrication is not objective and impractical and distorting the Arab awareness that absorbs the drama more than it absorbs it in books and historical research that are not seen by the general public and the ordinary viewer. ”

Salim I kills the leader of the Jahardia after entering Egypt, the march of this underground group ends and we are not convinced even of the dramatic reason for their appearance, as Selim I did not need a strong need to fight the war with the Mamluks through a mythical prophecy telling him to crawl his armies towards the Mamluks, as is the case in the emergence of many secondary personalities Whose appearance did not carry a real dramatic goal like the girl who split from the jihadis to join the ranks of the Mamluks, if they were taken from the events we would not notice any effect.

"The only thing that can save any book and gain the sympathy of readers is flesh and blood figures, with credible qualities and motives."

(John Quinn) [7]

In another interview with " Maidan " with the Egyptian novelist and scriptwriter Mohamed El Sayed Abu Rayan about the dramatic opportunities and foundations of the characters in the series "Kingdoms of Fire" and its apparent confinement in the two areas of absolute good and evil, Abu Rayan says at the beginning of his speech: "Dramatic opportunities are generated mainly from the diversity of characters in Its composition, motives and goals, and the wealth of each individual individually with its internal conflicts, discoveries and developments, map of its relations and intersections, and the possibilities of changing the views and hypotheses of the story; this creates a drama full of conflict and paradoxes, full of opportunities. Added to it are factors related to location, environment, geography and pain conditions. Nakh, which may be fundamental factors in the plot. In the case of historical drama, we are faced with many gaps in events that allow infinite spaces of dramatic opportunities to be explored, and this is the principle of “historical imagination.”

Abu Rayan goes on to explain to Meydan : “The story of Kingdoms of Fire and its threads contains many characters (pivotal, major, secondary, and occasional). It was natural for this many to generate dramatic opportunities filled with conflict, paradoxes, suspense, and surprises, yet we saw very few of them. So much so that we reached the middle of the events of the series, we did not see any contact of any kind, directly or indirectly, between the central characters (Selim I and Toman Bey), or between the main characters (Bayezid and Qansu). We saw a focus on the conflicts and arrangements of the Sultanate’s palace on both sides, each of them in isolation. From influencing or influencing the other.

All this is mainly due to shortcomings and haste to draw characters, establish their sides and enrich its components sufficiently in the minimum. Most of them appeared with one overwhelming feature, flattening them as if they were cartoon series characters (either completely bad or completely good), and we were prevented from uniting with them, although there is a relative difference. It is more evident in the care of Ottoman characters than in the Mamluks. Which castrated the fertility of the work and reduced its dramatic opportunities, and did not intercede to improve the dialogue that appeared to the Turkish personalities as if it was (subtitle) translated from the English, while the dialogue with the Mameluke personalities seemed like a clear translation of the current Egyptian colloquial. "

Game of invaders and invaders

The writings of history do not deny the existence of a struggle for the domination of the leadership of the Islamic world between the Ottomans and the Mamluks, and what we cannot ignore also is that Cairo considered the opening of the Ottomans to Constantinople a victory for Muslims, and in contrast the Ottoman rulers recognized the religious and political priority of the Mamluks as leaders of the Islamic world since the time of Murad I, but the first movement In the chessboard, the start of the battle is determined, and what does not differ from his two accounts is that Selim I, the first movement with regard to the Orient, clashed with the Mamluks, and this is why he described his coming as aggressive politics, but the reality also does not deny that the Arabs and Egyptians A They sought salvation from the unjust Mamluk rule and welcomed the flags of the Ottomans that waved at the horizon towards them [8], but their mention in the series came as paid betrayals, which affixes the character of counterfeiting to the state of the people, and it is perhaps a renewed projection of the current reality that describes any opponent of state policy as A customer receives financial support from abroad.

However, towards the history books, it was not underlined on its board that the other side was a fierce enemy who drank blood cups and fed to kill others, day and night, in exchange for a benevolent party that sought peace and justice between people. The game of black and white in "Kingdoms of Fire" added a shallow dim dim to the seeming hollow characters that are not motivated only by absolute goodness or absolute evil, which wasted on the series the opportunity to present an integrated work by making use of the craftsmanship of directing, production and elaborate visual elements. In an interview with the Syrian actor Mahmoud Nasr, who played the first role of Salim in the series, he says: “He was called Salim Al-Raheeb. I loved him as he was, and I did not find any justifications for him.” [9] This statement, even if it seems fleeting, confirms the character's emptiness dramatically. He wrote to him that he is an evil and a murderer since his boyhood in a stereotype of the enemies who wear lions, and the frowns accompany their traits and the reverberations echo in their voices.

The writer of the series, Mohamed Suleiman Abdel-Malik, says through his personal account on Facebook: “It is very painful to see a sound entry to Cairo in # Kingdoms of Fire in writing and implementation .. Remind me of what I saw on the October Bridge in March 2011, it was a huge banner bearing the image of Erdogan after Weeks of the January revolution .. I realized after that through parliamentary and presidential elections that were tampered with religion that behind every Selim Khair Bey inevitably. The writer demonstrates the clear political projection that he employs in his dramatic work based on history, the series followers interact and engage on a daily basis with the publications of the media sites that have turned into an extended virtual space to narrate the events of the series, personal interpretations of history and interactions with the writer of the series and Khaled Nabawi dealing with His virtual accounts are like the hero Tuman Bay. If you are unaware of the events behind the series, you can search the hashtag of the series on the communication sites to find ready answers, there is no history books here, and there is no room to fill the gaps of the drama, there is an electronic space that is used to complete the drama for three weeks, they are the time of the series’s presentation and completes The image you see with his eyes is not your eyes.

Dramatic manifestations

The quoted dramas offer a reproduction of the self that is reflected in the body of the actors on the screen, and what is meant in our exhibition on “The Kingdoms of Fire” is that we are facing a new revelation of the character of Toman Bey in the body of Khaled Al-Nabawi, and Selim I in the body of Mahmoud Nasr, and this mediation is described by the French philosopher Gil Doulouz in a situation The "ben-ben" [10], that mediating situation puts the viewer in front of a state of dramatic delusion for both characters and leads us to ask: Why Khaled al-Nabawi? And why Mahmoud Nasr?

Khaled al-Nabawi holds a global Arab face, which we saw at the heart of the battle in the American movie "Kingdom of Heaven", and in the films "Fair Game" and "The Citizen", the Prophet attained a degree of acceptance among viewers But it is still in our minds the Egyptian international artist, who is also known for his frank political stance in support of the January 25 revolution and also opposing the Brotherhood during their rule, and he is always a defender of Egypt and its history in most of his media dialogues, which made his dialogues in the series by Tuman Bey any logical and familiar especially when He reiterates the talk about the bounties of Egypt and the loyalty to the country and justice, and the face of the Prophet bears the features of Ten I blame the character of Tuman Bey, as it does not seem like a king coming from Central Asia, but it is appropriate for his features to be an Arab leader, and in every appearance he is accompanied by music Amin with the edge of the clear, interspersed with a degree of soft delight in exchange for the music accompanying Selim I, which appears as playing on the edge of the sword.

This brings us back to looking at Selim the First in the body of Mahmoud Nasr, that the Syrian actor is not well known to the Egyptians, and his previous acting history was confined to romantic or ordinary personalities, so he did not carry a fierce face, and was not confined to the roles of evil before, so his face seemed neutral to the Arab audience, Before we received Mahmoud Nasr, we saw the young actor Moataz Hisham - in the role of Selim in his youth - with his sharp eyes and bloodthirsty eyes, so we did not need much time to read the evil that is stable in the depths of Selim I or Mahmoud Nasr.

On the other hand, the series is reckoned to restore the character of the historically and dramatically oppressed Tuman Bey, the series ends and the scene of the execution of Tuman Bay is the most poetic and cruel, stepping again, opening the Qur’an three times, and in the last recurrence of it with the masses of people wrapped around the location of his execution, he is led to death defeated by an orphaned spirit It resembles Christ before being crucified, and the life of the chosen one before being led to the same fate is a repeated image in which there is no new creativity. We saw Tuman Bey as a friend, lover, jockey, and a fair politician, and Selim I a bloody fierce murderer with protruding eyes, demonic gazes and a loud voice, pale monochromatic personalities without the contradictions of the human soul, black and white like a chessboard.

The matter has changed from a reenactment of history with a critical view to an ideological war aimed at distorting other parties. In this space fraught with suspicion, history will fall and distort bleeding wounds. More questions loom, perhaps we will not reach definitive answers. Cairo is overwhelmed by history, if your feet lead you to wander through its old and busy streets, you will see a crowd of pedestrians and vendors at Bab Zuweila, in Al-Ghoury Palace above the playing of oriental instruments at night, and in the north of Cairo, Al-Tahra Palace is located to its right, Tuman Bay Street, and to its left is Selim I Street.

Here we will leave the questions to the reader and answer history, and what we can finally summon to say to the American writer Robert McKee has a special resonance: “A culture does not arise without an honest and powerful storytelling. Society decays when it repeatedly practices false, empty stories” [11].