The Shifting Censors of Syrian Cinema

Syria’s film industry was once a mouthpiece of the Ba’athist state. Now under threat from Islamist factions and social conservatism, its future remains uncertain

For more than half a century, Syrian cinema has operated under competing forces of control—first through the ideological machinery of Ba’athist authoritarianism, and now in the shadow of religious extremism. Filmmaking in Syria has rarely been a neutral or independent pursuit; it has been conscripted into larger narratives about identity, loyalty, and power. Artists have long been forced to navigate not just technical or financial obstacles, but the deeper constraints of what can be publicly imagined, questioned, or remembered.

For decades, the Syrian state under Hafez al-Assad, and later his son Bashar, mastered the art of spectacle. While the regime loudly proclaimed its allegiance to unity, freedom, and socialism, its actual project was one of total ideological capture. Nowhere was this contradiction more vivid than in the cinema.

The Ministry of Culture, through its National Film Organization, exerted firm control over the screen. All film production had to serve the interests of the state. Ba’athist ideals—pan-Arab nationalism, anti-imperialism, and unwavering loyalty to the regime—were not themes to explore, but mandates to obey. Under Hafez, the image of the ideal Syrian was constructed: a soldier in the service of the state, a socialist peasant in the grip of collectivism, a citizen whose existence was defined by devotion.

Yet, film, like all great arts, has a tendency to slip through the cracks.

Within this tightly controlled ecosystem, a cadre of filmmakers managed to craft works of startling insight and subtle rebellion. Through allegory, fragmented narratives, and stark realism, they told stories not of state glory but of human struggle and moral ambiguity:

• Omar Amiralay, once a supporter of the regime, became one of its most incisive critics. In The Chickens (1977), he used a seemingly simple story about agricultural reform to expose bureaucratic absurdities. His later work, A Flood in Baath Country (2003), offered a devastating post-mortem on the Ba’athist experiment, so pointed that it was effectively banned.

• Mohammad Malas, whose Dreams of the City (1984) and The Night (1992) excavated personal and collective trauma, used the coming-of-age narrative to depict life under repression without ever naming the system explicitly.

• Ossama Mohammed’s Stars in Broad Daylight (1988) was a furious, hallucinatory portrait of a society gripped by violence and conformity—a film so confrontational it was never screened in Syria.

• Abdellatif Abdelhamid, with works like Nights of the Jackals (1992), depicted rural Syria with poetic realism, subtly exploring the fractures beneath the surface of state-imposed order.

These directors did not defy censorship directly; they outwitted it. But such clever subversions were always at risk, subject to being misread or punished. The cost of dissent was high. Exile, blacklisting, or silence became the price of truth telling.

When Syria’s uprising began in 2011, there was hope that a new cultural renaissance might rise from the ashes of dictatorship. But the collapse of state control did not automatically translate into creative freedom. In fact, the vacuum left by the state was quickly filled—not by liberal democracy, but by competing visions of domination.

In areas controlled by Islamist factions, a different kind of censorship has emerged, one rooted not in nationalism but in religious dogma. Filmmakers report facing pressure to conform to Islamic codes of morality, avoid images or themes deemed "blasphemous," and submit to local clerical authority. The once iron-fisted grip of Ba’athist propaganda has been replaced, in some places, by the veiled fist of religious orthodoxy.

Cultural expression is now subject to the judgment of sheikhs instead of ministers. The threat has changed costume but not character.

This raises a troubling question: Is Syrian cinema simply trading one form of repression for another?

Under Ba’athist ideology, the camera was meant to glorify the state. Under rising religious conservatism, it may now be expected to glorify virtue, modesty, or piety. In both cases, cinema is reduced to a tool of compliance rather than a medium of challenge.

For artists, the danger is not just censorship—it is the narrowing of the imagination. When what is permissible becomes a function of what is ideologically or theologically acceptable, the capacity to dream diminishes. And when a nation can no longer dream freely, it cannot truly heal.

Many Syrian filmmakers now work in exile—in Beirut, Berlin, Istanbul, and Paris. There, they find greater freedom to tell the stories that are unwelcome at home. Films like Silvered Water, Syria Self-Portrait (2014), co-directed by Ossama Mohammed and Wiam Simav Bedirxan, offer raw, unsparing accounts of the Syrian civil war, smuggled out of the country and assembled in diaspora.

This cinema of exile is a cinema of witness—testifying not only to the atrocities committed, but to the resilience of a people trying to reclaim their voice.

The ultimate question Syrian filmmakers now face is not just what they can show, but who gets to define the national narrative. Is it the state? The mosque? Or the artist?

Cinema is more than entertainment; it is a mirror, a battleground, and sometimes, a blueprint for the future. If Syria is to become a society that embraces pluralism and freedom, its filmmakers must be allowed to imagine it so. Not just in private, and not just from exile, but openly and unapologetically.

The battle over Syrian cinema is, at heart, a battle over who gets to tell Syria’s story. Until that story can be told in full without fear, coercion, or compromise, the revolution remains unfinished.

Middle East Uncovered is powered by Ideas Beyond Borders. The views expressed in Middle East Uncovered are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Ideas Beyond Borders.