(13): TV-show review: Tyrant; Tyranny in Middle East or Islamic politics from the view of western elitism.

-Background:

“Political drama” is a very popular genre amongst TV-series fanatics. Perhaps due to the importance the theme bears upon the large audience of global watching folk. It usually goes without saying, but by semantically dramatizing politics in either form of fiction or nonfiction, or the combination of the two, the audience becomes larger and would even accommodate other class of watchers who are not keen on fantasy, crime, etc. Therefore such thematic works do not only quench the thirst of watchers, it also offer other interesting phenomena which I'll mention in this review. In addition to that, flowering the theme with proper storyline, befitting character assignment, excellent dialogues, plot twists, and say, even some ideological message, would only add more pulling power to the already most talked about aspect of human coexistence. Politics is important as it's ubiquitous. So long as any TV-series would bear the theme of politics , it has already pass the importance test, among other tests. We've learnt that assertion from TV-series that have had similar theme such as Designated survivor, The West Wing, Borgen, Boss, Jack and Bobby, The Bold Ones: The Senator, Commander in Chief, House of Cards (UK and US versions), Madam Secretary, Spin, Ingobernable and Scandal. And there's no doubt that they're all important in their own right. But the other questions that need to be asked are, since the show is already important, how good is it from the angle or cinematography any? How informative it's, relative to the theme it's trying to elucidate? Does it offer an escapist destination to the watcher or is it more real than it's a myth? What importance it posses? About Tyrant - American TV show, here is what I think. 

-Plot:

Tyrant is a political-cum-family drama that features the story of Bassam "Barry" Al-Fayeed, the youngest of the two sons to middle-eastern Tyrant, who has been running away from his past 20 years. Now settled in the United States making a living out of medical profession with a wife and two children, Bassam has no any desire of going back to his home country - Abuddin (a fictional country). However, after been bored by the lamentations of his wife who was very eager to meet his family, and the inner guilt that would bother him if he opted against  not attending his nephew's wedding, which was set to take place at the time, Bassam decided to finally go back home. And his return thrown him into a mouthwatering political dilemma, after his father died amidst the rising revolution against the ruling family - the Al-Fayeeds. Bassam must now use the influence he has on his brother, the new leader, Jamal, to guide him out of his cruel attitude, misguided approach and unstable behavior, and help avert the bloody conduct in the institution, as well as assist in finding the political solution that'll seal the peaceful, foreseeable existence of Abuddin. And from there, so many things kicked off; dramatic family affair, power struggle starts, ideological controversy and international conspiracy.  

President Jamal, Bassam's older brother, has a wife, Laila, who secretly happened to be Bassam's ex-girlfriend. Unknown to all but the former lovers, they had an affair which lead to pregnancy. And the pregnancy survived through Laila's marriage with Jamal, to produce a chubby-looking proud Youngman. And with the remaining memories of their affair undeleted, Laila was still mad at the reason that kept Bassam away from marrying her, forcing her to live with a savage she had never loved. And that incubated a bad blood between the two inside the ruling family. 

Bassam, now in agreement with the thought to salvage the future of Abuddin away from cruelty and tyranny, serves as an intermediary between the revolutionist group and the ruling family in search for a consensus. And along the line, a biological attack scandal against protesters was uncovered, which was later learnt it was plotted by the country's military general. In Bassam's search for a lasting political solution, he got lost in a power struggle that cost the general his life, and increased the animosity between him and Laila. A coup d’état was planned, sadly, Jamal - the president - become conscious of Bassam's actions. Courtesy he intercepted the plot. Anyone involved got executed, including Bassam, who was sentenced to death by hanging. Their mother become heartbroken of the fact that power divided her children, and even cost one of them his head. While the people of Abuddin, and the revolutionists who believed in Bassam's idea of liberating them, lost their hope of gaining freedom on a silver platter, or finding any acceptable consensus with the tyrants. Opening a new page for a more bloody political tantrum. 

To absolutely nobody's knowledge, Jamal didn't execute Bassam. The guilt would have been too heavy to bear. So instead, he flight with him on a helicopter and went to the deepest depth of middle-eastern hot desert and abandoned him there to pay for his actions. Bassam narrowly survived after being rescued by an old Bedouin who took him to his village and treated him. During which time Bassam developed an affection for the old man's young wife. Bassam's wife and children, who have already left Abuddin without Bassam when they grew tired of the lifestyle, were put in a difficult position emotionally upon hearing about his execution. Until later when it was realized he was alive, and has created an independent revolutionary group that fight the established revolutionists - who have turned into terrorists - where Bassam's son joined him - when he came back to Abuddin looking for his gay lover.

Bassam successfully got the seat of caretaker presidency at the expense of Jamal who is now in Coma - who later got killed by his son, Ahmed, who had always been Bassam's son from his affair with Laila. When the time for election comes, Bassam refuses to step down. Giving rise to a more deadly agitation against the Al-Fayeeds, than the one left by Jamal. 

Takeaways and critique:

1. To many watchers who have never been to middle east, and only knew tyranny in theory rather than practice, Tyrant was an eye opener. The TV-show wasn't only a political drama, it was a form of political drama that wasn't very well-known and experienced amongst the majority of the watching folk, unlike other political dramas that would always show something relatable no matter how little. Which makes it unique and interesting. Although it develops a little boring testimonial from watchers who were exclusively after an end-to-end political thriller, with it's showcasing of teenage idiosyncrasies that involves clubbing, drinking, gay relationships and overly-irritating disputes between a man and his family.

Tyrant exclusively introduced the cruelty of tyranny in style, and the scary demigod-ness of a tyrant, which portrays Jamal as a leader who is accountable and answerable to no one but the God he worships. And that almost irrelevant - for Jamal didn't act anywhere like a Muslim bar when it's time for prayer - the lack of accountability gassed him into the most heart-wrecking rulership-cum-human infidelity. An energetic barbarism that didn't escape even his own family. What he did to the bride of his son, Nusrat, for goodness sake, has kept many watchers awake at night. And that brought one of my observations; was the fictional role of Jamal really saying something about the tyrannical rulership in middle-east. Was the TV-show emphasizing the nature of individual Muslim leaders by portraying Jamal in such way - which arguably is a popular consensus in the west - so are now using Jamal as an example to downgrade or say, blackmail the theology. Or was his villainous role just being over-flogged to extract and produce the most wowing form of crude tyrannical ruler? 

Answer to this question would solve the dilemma surrounding the TV show whose portrayal many seen as a blackmail to a Muslim society. Or prove it's just an excellent cinematography uncovering something totally strange to the world. The distinction between practicing and non-practicing Muslim was also  very clear in the TV-show. With the liberals in the TV-show being portrayed to have respect for religion only where identity is concern, rather than an indisputable, unwavering mechanism that defines and determines the totality of their existence. And liberalism being a western idea only qualifies that narration to be a belief of western ideological elitists.

2. The TV-show also taught us that nobody escapes the shady temptations of power, especially in a non-democratic society where there's special linkage to it through blood-line lineage. Even where democracy is concern, leaders, sometimes become entitled to execute their greed, let alone in a setup that's determined by the line of succession. Not only that, the urge, persistence and perseverance in the pursuit of power usually isn't what determines the strength of a leader. And mostly, that doesn't get uncovered until the power agitators fulfill their wishes. That's when their true colors show. The popular saying: "if you want to see man's true colors give him power" can't be more cogent in this regard. Bassam Al-Fayeed, despite his relatively liberal upbringing in the United States, couldn't resist becoming another tyrant after Jamal was deleted out of the picture. And the revolution fighters indifferent, had they assumed the presidency, they'll have been worse than Bassam - the conduct of their power struggle among themselves was evident. 

Largely, it's hardly for people to let go of the mode of distribution that gives birth to them. That's why even after the fall of Jamal, Abuddin struggles to fulfills the dream of liberating it's teeming population. All the candidates hoping to salvage the country have not shown enough justifiable ruthlessness to make an observer think otherwise. And the practical example that comes close to that is the leadership situation in Africa - the continent that suffers the worst structural leadership, conduct and performance in the world. Because most of the leaders were produced during the peak of dictatorship, and hence, dictatorial attitude becomes subconsciously inherent to their way of thinking many years after the demise of dictatorship and of course, advent of democracy. Sinking the continent into an unthinkable angle in the ocean of mediocrity along the line. 

Such weakness was epitomized by Bassam, which largely hurted his character development. The dominant impressions did not show any sign that it may develop that way. Unlike his brother who was a proper tyrant and unapologetic toxic masculine in every definition of the words and performance, from the beginning till the end. Bassam's character didn't fulfill the role expected of a calm, silent and strong life changer. A revolutionist who was meant to turn the mythical projections of western liberalism into the reality. His was a very dull, in development like proven to be null hypothesis. 

3. What message is the TV-show exactly trying to send? It's obvious that Tyrant is about an extremely tyrannical government. About exhausted followers who finally resisted the journey leading to their personal and collective dishonour. About freedom fighters who chose a gravely path to freedom, and along the line only hurted the country and themselves rather than fulfill it's ideal objectives. A broken ruling family which masterminded  it's own downfall. And a rotten Muslim society that betrays every principle it tells the world it was built upon. Among many others. But how could it be determined that there's any meaningful message engraved in all of the mentioned? Certainly regarding politics, the TV-show has showed what disconnection between leadership and rulership could do to a country. However, any solution that may finally stabilize the country - which was expected to be in place at the beginning of the TV-show, was crippled by the storyline. Which violates the basic law suggesting the inevitable emergence of change as the chaos intensifies. Unless the producer had it in mind for USA to take over, which is a fact that goes without mentioning, from the way the plot shows how the powerful country has been plotting most of the conflicts in the Abuddin. And while the future of politics in Abuddin is narrowed down to United States' conspiracy, the conduct of the ruling family and the whole society at large, which is Islam, was mainly left to the comprehension of watcher, which basically would be ruled by the rotting acts of the Muslims in the TV-show. Was Tyrant only telling the watcher about the power of America towards implementing it's foreign agenda, and that Muslims and Islam are fake, their Shari'ah Law incubating tyrannical leaders, therefore the show was only showing their true colors?  That may be a valid hypothesis, because any other alternative thought is null. The producer himself didn't provide us with any good alternative. It's indeed possible to credit the scramble for power as the reason that messed up everyone and everything in the show, including religion. And that the conduct of Jamal and other Al-Fayeeds was only Arab culture. But the producer should have done better with that. It's no wonder that the producers were forced to come up with a fictional name for the country, because no Muslim country would allow that level of blackmail and theological disgrace to it's name. Even if it's true, attaching any religion to that would be outrageous.

Verdict:

Tyrant is a very well-composed TV-show from the judgement of cinematography. The not-very high in contrast nature of the pictures was only abiding by the geographical nature of the region upon which the TV-show was showing it has come from. The movement of scenes was prolific, even though some of them were boring and was trying to dull the sharpness of the watcher. The characters did very fine, even though some were affected by the dead end of the storyline. The story itself scores very high as a fiction. Yet very little in terms of cutting edge, relevance and purpose. It was a TV show meant to provide the watcher with an escapist stand in the event the desire for opining on middle-east pops up, rather than a realistic definition of any society in question. It was a take-on, which would be very difficult to be meaningfully completed. No wonder the producers cancelled the series after three seasons. Even though an idea to salvage the series my come up again, warranting it's completion sometime in the future. With that being said, it gets a whopping 7/10 rating from me. 

Reviewed by:

Muhammad Ahmad Iliasu,

Kano State, Nigeria.