Idriss Chouika's Departure and Film Production Sale
Moroccan director and screenwriter Idriss Chouika has made headlines with his recent declaration to leave Morocco, coinciding with the announcement of his film production company, D&R Productions SARL, being put up for sale. This significant decision follows a lengthy career in the cinematic landscape and comes on the heels of heated discussions regarding the outcomes of film support for the year 2026. Chouika revealed his intentions through a Facebook post, stating clearly that he has decided to leave the country and announced the sale of his production company, which boasts a capital of 300,000 dirhams, along with the requisite licenses for operation and compliance. He emphasized that the company's administrative and financial status is current with tax authorities and the National Social Security Fund.
Critique of the Film Support Committee's Decision
This announcement follows shortly after Chouika sent an open letter to members of the committee responsible for supporting film production. His correspondence was triggered by the rejection of his request for funding for his feature film project, "Sarab Rimal" (Mirage of Sands). In his letter, he vehemently criticized the reasoning behind the committee's decision, as well as the methodology used to evaluate projects and its composition. The film support committee reviewed the "Sarab Rimal" project during meetings held from July 4 to July 12, 2026, ultimately deciding to deny the support request. Their justification was that the narrative structure was not strong enough and that the events required more dramatic credibility.
Chouika acknowledged the committee's right to reject his project but objected to the nature of the justification provided. He described the reasoning as reflective of a "weak professional level" and lacking any analytical, scientific, or objective value. He argued that the phrases used in the report amounted to vague statements devoid of the minimum standards of precision, objectivity, and rationality. The filmmaker noted that this was the fourth consecutive time his project had been rejected, reinforcing his belief that the matter is not merely a matter of artistic evaluation. He expressed, "I have confirmed, for the fourth time, that this rejection did not stem from an artistic conviction derived from objective and rational critical study and analysis, but rather from a knowledge deficiency and a utilitarian dependency."
Chouika focused part of his criticisms on the characterization of his project's dramatic structure as "not strong enough," contending that this description fails to provide precise information regarding the weaknesses identified by the committee. He labeled the judgement that the "dramatic structure is not strong enough" as an "impressionistic and non-methodical assessment," clarifying that evaluating dramatic structure should rely on specific indicators, including the coherence of the main plot, clarity of the central conflict, and the presence of a climax and resolution, along with identifying the dramatic roles of characters and the logical progression of events.
Furthermore, he pointed out a lack of clarity in the report regarding which specific parts of the project the committee deemed weak, questioning whether the flaws pertained to the project's beginning, development, complexity, or conclusion. He maintained that such ambiguity does not allow project creators to identify elements needing revision and improvement, asserting that labeling the dramatic structure as "not strong" remains a mere value judgement unless accompanied by a clear identification of the flaws and their causes. Chouika also took issue with the second part of the committee's justification, which stated that the events required "greater dramatic credibility," arguing that this assertion also needed to specify the scenes or events that the evaluation was based upon. He emphasized that "drama, at its core, does not mean a literal imitation of reality" but is grounded in the "internal logic" of the world created by the writer and artistically and aesthetically treated by the director.
According to Chouika, dramatic credibility is achieved when character motivations align with their actions, and the outcomes logically follow from the premises within the story's context. He remarked that the report did not identify "even a single scene or event" that the committee found illogical or lacking in credibility, nor did it provide indicators detailing how these aspects could be improved. He argued that such justifications do not supply a practical foundation upon which to develop the project, characterizing the statements as "mere ornamental filler indicating the analyst's inability to deconstruct the text into its fundamental building blocks." Chouika insisted that evaluating a cinematic work necessitates breaking down its various components and discussing them in greater detail, noting that analytical film criticism relies on tools and approaches that are verifiable and debatable, including an analysis of dramatic structure, character trajectories, and types of material and psychological conflict, criticizing the absence of such elements in the justification he received.
Moreover, he observed, as mentioned in his letter, that there was an insufficient analysis of dialogue, character development, narrative pacing, and the proposed visual style, concluding that the justification provided resembled the impressions of a casual viewer after watching a film rather than that of an expert tasked with assessing the viability of a high-level artistic project. Chouika's critiques did not stop at the content of the evaluation report; he extended his concerns to the composition of the support committee itself, asserting that most of its members, in his view, lack the requisite experience and expertise to assess the feasibility of cinematic projects. He directly criticized the committee chair, stating that he had "never participated in the production of even a single minute of film" during his entire artistic career, and mentioned the presence of administrative members who he claimed lacked the "artistic, aesthetic, thematic, and technical knowledge necessary to study a cinematic project," while describing the experience of the other members in the field as "limited."
Chouika linked the role of the support committee to the development opportunities its feedback should provide for the projects submitted to it, arguing that the justification he received does not allow him or the screenwriter to identify the necessary modifications. He expressed, "As a screenwriter and director, we cannot enhance the strength of the dramatic structure in hopes of developing it, because we do not understand what is considered strong in your terminology, nor can we elevate credibility based on expressions rooted in empty rhetoric, as we are unaware of which events you deemed lacking in credibility." He concluded that the justification, in his opinion, "is neither analysis nor criticism, but rather a fictitious escape from a clear inability to provide any analysis or critique of the cinematic project under study," firmly rejecting "these justifications in their entirety," while clarifying that he does not demand the committee to reconsider its decision or to prepare a more detailed report, as he fundamentally doubts its ability to provide such professional evaluation.
As reported by al3omk.com.
