Twenty-second scene leads to censorship of Bourjeily's ‘Msha'lab'

L'Orient-Le Jour

4 days ago

The sharp snip of censorship from Lebanon's General Security (GS) office falls once more, silencing artistic voices and trampling the constitutional right to freedom of expression.
Just last week, this familiar clampdown echoed again with the banning of Msha'lab (Disordered), a film halted over a brief twenty-second scene portraying young activists preparing a peaceful protest.
In that pivotal sequence, viewers witness a group of youths reviewing footage on their phones — footage capturing security forces violently confronting one of their friends during a nonviolent gathering. The activists exchange a few quiet remarks before the film proper unfolds.
Directed by Lucien Bourjeily, " Msha'lab" is part of an anthology project curated by Bechara Mouzannar and produced by Mouzannar alongside Philippe Jabre. The film stitches together four short films by Bourjeily, Bane Fakih, Wissam Charaf, and Areej Mahmoud. It has already made its mark, screening at Beirut's "Écrans du Sud festival" at the Metropolis cinema, and internationally in Paris, Dubai, Zurich, Washington, and Egypt's Al Gouna Festival — where it won the Audience Award for Cinema for Humanity.
In the first segment directed by Bourjeily, who is unfortunately no stranger to tussles with censors, the film follows a meeting of students organizing their mobilization after witnessing one of their friends violently beaten by Lebanese soldiers. The video in question is authentic: it was filmed live during a demonstration in downtown Beirut, then sent by phone.
One of the characters even comments, "they have no heart." It is precisely this reality that Lebanese censors deem unacceptable, even illegal. GS thus made removal of this sequence, brief as it is, a condition for authorizing the screening, without even conveying this demand in writing to the director or distributor, as is usual procedure. According to Bourjeily, it was a verbal notification, as per common practice, he tells L'Orient-Le Jour.
"The importance of this scene," he explains, "lies in the fact that it is part of a long 22-minute take that ends exactly as it begins: with the same activists watching another video on a phone. It was a directorial choice to create a loop, an effect of being trapped."
Removal or prohibition
Bourjeily was ordered to choose: remove the sequence or see his film banned. A painful choice, and contrary to the principles of creative freedom, he says. Along with the distributor, he agreed to cut the scene so the film could be released, initially slated for July 3 but delayed by one week. The film, scheduled for a two-week run, thus lost some of its artistic impact and visibility.
The censorship cut an essential sequence for understanding the work, causing a narrative imbalance. It also deprived Msha'lab of a week of screenings, resulting in economic and symbolic losses. Bourjeily says he chose not to penalize the three other films in the project.
What angers him most is that this scene depicts a lived reality: he himself was victim to violence in 2015 during a sit-in at the Environment Ministry. "This is a true story, not fiction. Lebanese people have been killed or seriously injured in peaceful demonstrations, some have lost their eyesight, and the perpetrators have never been held accountable. And it is us, the artists, who are punished for having documented these acts of violence and tried to discuss them in a film — not on a battlefield."
A cycle of violence
For Bourjeily, this is a new kind of violence. "Today, I am once again subjected to violence by the system via the censorship office — morally, economically, and artistically. The intent seems to be preventing any criticism, silencing voices that question freedoms, and imposing a single narrative: that of those in power. Such logic only encourages self-censorship among creators."
And he asks: "Where is the responsibility? Why censor this video? To prevent us from remembering? Why do we still have prior censorship? Why are security agents authorized to judge our works? Why isn't there a civilian, specialized commission in charge of evaluating works, without having the power of prohibition?"
He is not surprised to be caught by the censors once again: a scene from the film " Ghada el-Eid" (Heaven Without People) was also censored, his plays" Bte'taa Ma Bte'taa" (It passes or doesn't pass) and "Beirut Syndrome" banned, 27 scenes cut from the play " Habibit albi inti," (my beloved) and a short film he produced, written and directed by Farah al-Shaer, was banned. "Is this really a new era, as they claim?" the director wonders. "Because if you look at actions, not words, nothing has changed."
He adds: "Why am I specifically targeted?" For him, censorship in Lebanon is like an iceberg: "What is reported in the media is not even 5 percent of the problem. Many artists remain silent, fearing reprisals. The system often reacts violently: my passport was confiscated in 2014 because I openly criticized the banning of my play Bte'taa Ma Bte'taa, which had been banned in 2013."
What role for the Culture Ministry?
What of the Culture Ministry's role? Bourjeily, visibly bitter, confides: "I don't even know if Minister Ghassan Salameh was informed. In any case, it currently falls under the Interior Ministry. I do not expect either a statement of support, an official stand by the ministry, or even from the filmmakers' union, of which I am a member." He calls on decision-makers to match words to actions: "Otherwise, as always, reform will remain wishful thinking."
Contacted by L'Orient-Le Jour, Culture Minister Salameh said he "fully supports the right to intellectual and artistic expression," while acknowledging that 'current legislation grants General Security the right of censorship." He added that he would do his best to move legislation toward giving the Culture Ministry 'if not responsibility in these matters, then at least the necessity of a prior opinion.'
The Alliance for Freedom of Expression, expressed solidarity with Bourjeily, denouncing prior censorship as a form of arbitrary interference that stifles creativity and fosters self-censorship, which is destructive for artistic freedom.
Finally, it is worth noting that the censorship power granted to GS is based on a 1947 law with "vague wording and selective enforcement," according to the Alliance. It allows a film to be banned for 'undermining public order, decency, public sentiment, the dignity of public authorities, or the national interest.'