Aside from the cinematographic environment, few people knew Nadia El Fani before January 14, 2011. It was his documentary film “Neither Allah ni Master” broadcast in favor of the post -revolutionary euphoria which takes it from anonymity. If the film did not arouse any reaction during its projection in the context of “Doc à Tunis” last April, a few weeks later its programming in the Africart cinema hall triggered acts of violence carried out by a group of Salafists scandalized by a film which constitutes, in their eyes, an attack on Muslim faith. A controversy followed on freedom of creation.
The opinions diverge between those who support artistic creativity in the name of secularism and freedom of expression, and those who without being extremists consider this kind of eminently provocative film and devoid of any interest.
Probably aware of her controversial character likely to tarnish the sensitivity of believers, Nadia El Fani renamed her film. It is therefore under the new title “Laïcité Inch’Allah” that the filmmaker offers her documentary, recently rewarded in France by the Laïcité République committee.
Even if this international prize is intended to support “secularism which is not contradictory with religion”, according to Patrick Kessel, president of the League in question, it is necessary to recall that the film of Nadia El Fani constitutes at the bottom of a personal position not on secularism, but rather on his right to express his atheism. The nuance is size. Indeed, the documentary of the Tunisian filmmaker, shot in the middle of Ramadan months preceding the revolution, evokes the theme of the freedom not to observe the fast. Without going into details, some aspects of the film are likely to scratch the religious fiber. Nadia El Fani may emphasize her intention not to want to stigmatize Islam, the fact remains that her desire to claim her atheism is like a kind of proselytism. Proselytism is never good. Everything happens as if one could put on an equal footing the profession of religious faith and atheism in a predominantly Muslim country.
If it should in no case be to endorse the violence and the threats of those who are hostile to Nadia El Fani, it must be clarified the unnecessary risk taken by the filmmaker to treat a subject that could not be more sensitive and delicate. In some Western countries where democracy and secularism are a tradition, such subjects are very often the subject of controversy, what consequently say of a Tunisia freshly initiated to freedom of expression and which is in no way used to the debates of ideas and even less to that inherent in religion.
There is no question of denying Nadia El Fani the freedom to create, but only to wonder if her work comes from a work of art. Nothing is less certain. Because artistic creation is less the prosaic and raw expression of reality than a subtle way of dealing with the established order.
Because it should be remembered ultimately that the prize which rewards the film of Nadia El Fani is not awarded by her peers, but by a body with a political vocation. This is all the symbolism of the reward.
