Café Regular, Cairo (2012) User Reviews

A Snapshot of a Changing Egypt

[socialmedia-437-956449 · 8/10 · 31 July 2012]

One of the hardest things to do in cinema is hold the interest of the audience for a long dialogue heavy scene. It's why the first scene of Quentin Tarantino's otherwise disappointing "Inglorious Basterds" was so feted. In some ways Ritesh Batra's short film is even more remarkable than Tarantino's opening, because the American director had Melanie Laurent under the floorboards as a third cog in the wheel. Café Regular, Cairo simple has a man and woman sitting at an outside table in a quiet café in Cairo.

It starts with Mai (Mai Abozeed) a young lady clad in headscarf sitting waiting at a table. Her male friend Alaa (Alaa Ezzat) arrives and it's obvious that they are close from the simple handshake they give each other as he sits down. He asks whether she has had a nice trip and she informs him that her sister has got divorced after three years of marriage because her husband hit her. She is clearly worried about the divorce rate climbing in Egypt and talks about how impressionable it was when she met some tourists speaking frankly and intimately with each other on a train.

Batra effortless portrays that this is a changing Egypt where old social codes are being abandoned. The way the conversation rolls from one subject to another over the course of ten minutes has nods to Abbas Kiarostami and Oscar winner Asghar Farhardi as does the refusal to shy away from transgression. Her motives are initially hard to second guess, but become obvious without exposition. This is mostly down to the performances, especially Abozeed and also of good directing, that flits between master shot and close-up effortlessly. Batra is very much a talent to watch.

Find all of our film and festival coverage as well as our education and events at www.DohaFilmInstitute.com. Follow us on Twitter @DohaFilm.

Enjoyably natural even if it doesn't play out quite as cleverly as it thinks it does

[bob the moo · 20 December 2013]

For the most part this is a charmingly frank film that mostly gets by on how very simple it is. A young couple have a discussion at a table in a café in Cairo. They have been together two years but for Mai there are frustrations bottling up and the divorce of her sister and an interaction with some foreigners on a train has brought the subject of sex to the front of her mind – a subject that Alaa is not particularly comfortable discussing in a public place.

That the film is essentially a dialogue scene for 10 minutes means that the challenge is to hold the attention of the viewer and for me this worked really well. The long takes help put you in the scene but also means the actors have to work in longer sections rather than in edited segments. This approach sets the film up for a very natural interaction if the two actors can pull it off. Fortunately they can and both Abozeed and Ezzat are very natural with one another, nervous of those around, taken aback with one another but yet still intimate as a couple. In this regard the film works very well.

For the most part the subject matter works too – mainly because it is a natural discussion, even if it is culturally taboo. The problem comes when the film plays out because the point was not to break all cultural taboos with an act but rather for Mai to test Alaa's dedication to her by asking so much and seeing if he is willing to try to please her. I guess within the context of the culture this makes sense as this would be a big ask (even before the silly detail she asks for) but to me it didn't work because by using sex as the ask it never struck me that she was testing him since offering him sex would not seem like much of a sacrifice for him. It does still work because of the script direction and the nature of the discussion allows to see the desire of the next generation to not be restrained by tradition but at the same time still have the desire to observe it, but by having sex be the central device, it does rather risk the meaning being lost.

That said it was still a very enjoyable little short film thanks to the topic and how naturally it was presented; only the conclusion not being as clever as it thinks it is was a problem for me.

Art for art's sake has never done anything good for poor,hapless viewers.

[FilmCriticLalitRao · 1/10 · 16 September 2015]

In today's modern world, conservative societies do not want to be left alone at all costs. They feel that they also possess the ability to show to the modern societies that they are slowly changing. It is done by selecting a risqué theme and making a pretentious work of art about it. Sex is one good topic which would always be able to attract massive attention either from conservative societies or from their modern counterparts. If one thought that showing sex in cinema was the only way of making a successful film then one is wrong. One can also get critical acclaim by make a film which doesn't show a single sex scene but just talks about it. It can be surmised that this is what led the director from a conservative country (India) to go to another conservative country (Egypt) to make a film about sex, a topic which is taboo for both conservative countries. However, talking nonsense cannot be called cinema even if it involves an 11 minutes long short film which discusses risqué themes for conservative countries namely divorces, sex and virginity etc. This is precisely a crucial juncture where café regular, Cairo fails miserably. Just because there is some talk in a motion picture doesn't mean that any film can be called a great film with Louis Malle's "My dinner with André" being the sole exception. Café regular, Cairo starts in a very banal manner with a trite discussion about divorces. There is hardly anybody who doesn't know that people will continue to get divorced as long as they are getting married. There is also a major casting problem to be witnessed in the film. Two actors who played the roles of lovers don't even look like lovers as the guy was not giving any hints concerning any feelings of love for the girl. The so called 'romantic pair' looked more like college students who were playing hooky at a cheap café. As one continues to watch this film, one fails to understand what was the entire point of a candid discussion about having sex in a conservative country ? Babies are made in all conservatives countries without anybody being gung-ho about sex. Why would one go to the extent of choosing a nondescript café to discuss one's personal plans involving physical intimacy ? This film fails to answer all such questions as it simply wanted a story about sex to be told at all costs regardless of knowing the reasons for telling a story. Finally, this film is a classical example of art for art's sake. It wouldn't be wrong to earmark it for consumption by professionals who relish in appreciating esoteric works of art.