Leila and the Wolves is a 1984 docu-drama that took over half a decade to make, premiering at the Mannheim-Heidelberg International Film Festival in West Germany and then going underground for decades at a time. It got a re-release in the U.K. twenty-four years later at an event called “Women’s Cinema from Tangiers to Tehran” in 2008, then disappeared again for some time after that before popping up in various European festivals before getting proper stateside screenings this year with limited releases in the U.S. and Canada. Ten years prior to its first release, the film’s Lebanese director Heiny Srour (Leila has no credited writer, as many of the stories of which it is comprised were real experiences Srour collected) was the first Arab woman to have a film considered at Cannes, with her 1974 documentary The Hour of Liberation Has Arrived. Leila tackles a similar subject matter, focusing on the forgotten/erased role of women in the liberation movements of Lebanon and Palestine in the twentieth century.
The film isn’t invested in recounting the broader history prior to the 1920 British occupation, and some familiarity with the region is helpful. Prior to its dissolution in 1922, the Ottoman Empire controlled portions of the Middle East that are now occupied, in whole or in part, by Iraq, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt. Beginning in 1915, the government of the U.K., represented by Britain’s senior ambassador to Egypt, Henry McMahon, and Hussein bin Ali of the Kingdom of Hejaz (the western coast of the Arabian Peninsula which is now partitioned into parts of Saudi Arabia and Jordan) exchanged a series of letters. Called the McMahon–Hussein correspondence, this exchange committed Britain to recognition of an independent Arab state in the Middle East in exchange for assistance in fighting the Ottomans as part of the Middle Eastern theatre of WWI. This prompted the Arab Revolt (1916-1918), which ultimately led to the end of Ottoman control of the area; in combination with the Turkish War of Independence (1919-1923), the Ottoman Empire was, as they say, history.
Britain, as it is wont to do, reneged on this promise, and secretly signed the Sykes–Picot Agreement with the French Third Republic, which set forth the terms under which Britain and France would partition the remains of the Ottoman Empire. This led to the League of Nations’ Mandate for Palestine, which placed Palestine (and an area called Transjordan which now comprises parts of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq) under British rule, meaning that the Palestinians had essentially assisted in their liberation from one foreign power only to be stabbed in the back by their supposed allies, who became their new occupiers in 1920. “Mandatory Palestine” existed as a geopolitical extension of British rule for just shy of three decades, until 1948. If you’ve paid attention to the news at all during the time that you’ve been alive, then you know the rest.
In Leila and the Wolves, Nabila Zeitouni is Leila, a modern Lebanese woman currently residing in London. Her friend, a man played by Rafik Ali Ahmad, is planning a showcase of photographs depicting various acts of resistance against Western occupying forces. Leila protests that all of the photographs depict only what the men of the region did to resist occupation, asking where the evidence of women’s contribution to the efforts are. Her friend laughs her off, saying that women “weren’t involved with politics at the time.” Following this, Leila goes on an extended out of body experience/astral journey through and into the photographs and the events depicted therein. After encountering a group of women in black burqas and niqab in a semicircle on a beach, watching men splash about in the surf without a care in the world, Leila moves through time, with mostly newly shot recreations but also incorporating archive footage where available.
In a photo of men resisting British soldiers (in their ridiculous little imperial uniform shorts) and driving them down an alley, we pan out to see the women in the adjacent homes standing on their balconies, ready to pour boiling water down on the retreating occupiers. In a time of greater lockdown and restriction, the resistance takes advantage of the fact that women planning a wedding will be regarded as being beneath suspicion to use them as information couriers to organize activity (humorously, in this sequence, Ali Ahmad plays a quisling translator for the Brits, consciously intertwining this role with that of the dismissive curator). Later still, women are more actively engaged in the fighting, including participation in the exchange of gunfire. We also travel through Leila’s subconscious as well, as there are a few overt fantasy sequences. The first sees Leila as she might be if she accepts the narrative of female pacificity and political disengagement, a glimpse into an imagined future in which she sits in a room surrounded by her daughters and their daughters’ daughters. The questions that she asks of them are banal and concerned only about familial relations. Which daughter are you? Married? Kids yet? Only one? Are you my granddaughter? Are you married yet? Towards the film’s end, Leila finds herself in another fantasy sequence amidst the wreckage of ancient buildings, dancing with nearly a dozen skeletons in black garb.
Across the spectrum of reviews I read, I don’t think I ever saw any of them connect the film to what stands out to me the most about it, which is its punk sensibility. Leila is clearly anti-establishment in its views, as there’s never a question about the film’s certitude of the morality of resisting foreign occupation, and it instead focuses on the necessity of remembering all the fallen. During my viewing, I was struck by the way that there was a disjointedness to the narrative; this is not entirely to its detriment, as this made the experience somewhat trancelike and thus all the more immersive, but it’s not what one would call seamless. In this way, it brought to mind one of Brandon’s favorites, Born in Flames, which can also be characterized by its piecemeal construction, but which, to quote him, is a “work of radical politics that transcends its jumbled narrative.” Because our discussion of it on the podcast was so fresh in my mind, I also kept thinking of how he described the punk ethos of Times Square as well; I think that it’s the DIY effect of the film’s use of recreations, although this one is also technically impressive in all that it accomplishes in ways that most punk films are not. Regardless, it’s an important and informative document of its past and our present, connected across time and as relevant as ever.
-Mark “Boomer” Redmond
Swampflix 