Cinema Itself: Cinephobia, Filmic Anxieties, and Ontologies of the Moving Image in Pakistan

Abstract

Anxieties over the particular ontology and materiality of the film image—rather than moral concerns over the co-mingling of bodies in the built and social space of the cinema—have been addressed by two formative figures in the philosophy of Pakistan as a political and religious idea: Muhammad Iqbal and Syed Abul A'la Maududi. Their arguments provide two divergent examples of the ways in which the permissibility of film in Pakistan has been expressed. This essay is driven by such instances in which the epistemology—and in some cases permissibility—of technological objects is negotiated via their very ontology.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank Christopher Pinney for his guidance and comments on an earlier draft, and Abeera Arif-Bashir for her input and encouragement.

Funding

This article was written during the course of doctoral research, supported by the London Arts and Humanities Partnership (LAHP), an initiative of the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) [Grant Number: AH/L503873/1].

Notes

1 Antecedents of this query included that about the permissibility of still photography. Even now, many diatribes on the impermissibility of film or television begin by defining, in techno-material terms and with close reference to the manifestation of the image, the precise constitution of the still image and the mechanics of its movement. While some arguments suggest that a moving image merely reflects lived reality rather than fabricates and makes material a (still) picture by imitating the creative prowess of a monotheistic God, others argue that the appearance of movement is itself an act of construction: “The impression of receiving a complete, moving picture is illusory. In fact, the PICTURE builds itself down the face of the TV screen” [Mujlisul Ulama of South Africa 2007: 9; emphasis in original].

2 It is worth noting that religiously-motivated “cinephobia” is not the sole preserve of Islam. Many of the negative responses to the arrival of film media in the early 20th century can be seen as ideologically functioning within Althusser’s “hyperdermic theory” [Naficy 2012: 5], which argued that films have the ability to change people morally, ethically and ideologically.

3 Looking at the circulatory dynamics of contemporary Nollywood film, Larkin argued that in the colonial era in Nigeria the prerequisite for infrastructural projects from railways to radios was the ability to inspire awe, giving shape to what he called the “colonial sublime.” Yet the sublime and technology are subject to relational ordering, with the consequence that education and training domesticate the ability to replicate the technological sublime, thus effectively destroying it [Larkin 2008: 11].

4 Jamali here is writing in reference to the expansive growth of Gwadar Port as part of the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor development project and its impact on the local fishing industry.

5 See Report of the Indian Cinematograph Committee, 1927-28 [1928: 83]. Not featured in the ICC was discussion of the Rawalpindi riot of 1926, reportedly over the proposed construction of a cinema house next to the Jama Masjid Mosque in Rawalpindi. Featured widely in British gazettes, Bakhshish Singh Nijjar claimed that what actually sparked the riot was a Sikh procession that refused to stop playing music in front of the mosque [Nijjar 1996: 152].

6 As a degree of motivation behind the conduct of the committee rested on finding out spectatorial responses to how white women were depicted on-screen in British and American films, and whether this led to moral anxieties in Indian subjects, a set of questions put to one alim related to the possible depiction of Mughal queens on-screen in accordance with rules of purdah. (See Oral Evidence of Mufti Abdul Latiff, Munsif, Peshawar, on Wednesday the November 30, 1927; in Indian Cinematograph Committee (ICC) [1928].)

7 The question put to Maududi from an anonymous reader, in its entirety, was, “I am a student and have attended Jamaat-e-Islami lectures and followed them in detail. With God’s blessing I have gone through a radical religious change [inquilab] due to these lectures. For a very long time I have an interest in cinematography and for that reason I have obtained a lot of information in that regard. After listening to debates for and against cinematography, my heart’s wish is that if cinematography is permissible we can use it for religious reasons and in the assistance of moral comportment [akhlaqi khidmat]. Could you kindly elaborate on whether or not this art can be used for beneficial reasons? If the answer is in favor of its usage then could you please elaborate whether a woman is allowed to be shown on the curtain of the screen?” [Maududi (1954) 2000: 203]. (This and following quotes from this volume have been translated from Urdu with the assistance of Abeera Arif-Bashir.)

8 Questions on the permissibility of film have remained fairly constant over the last century, whereas a form of consensus has been reached over other questions, such as over the use of loudspeakers in the call to prayer [Khan 2011, citing Shafi 1996]. While Khan manages to trace the extent to which Shafi's text was subsequently referenced and commented upon by Islamic scholars as an authoritative set of fatwas, the slow development of my Urdu skills has slowed my progress in tracking further references to Maududi's ruling on cinema.

9 A quick internet search for fatwas on film’s permissibility turns up an enormous supply of questions and varied responses, across schools of thought and across the Sunni-Shia divide.

10 For further exploration of the popularity of the lenticular print in Indian worship, see Pinney [2017].