Saddam Hussein used Oliver Reed and a James Bond director to tell Iraq’s story – but who tells it now?

From the beginning of his brutal reign in Iraq, Saddam Hussein could claim an unusual credit: film producer. After Saddam became president in 1979, his cousin played him in The Long Days. The film dramatised his role in a failed 1959 attempt to assassinate Iraq’s then-prime minister, Abdul-Karim Qasim.

The film presented the new dictator as a hero. A few minutes in, a young Saddam calmly removes a bullet from his leg using a razor blade sterilised with fire. In his 2000 biography of Saddam, journalist Saïd Aburish called the story “an exaggeration of serious proportions”. He cited Saddam’s doctor, who said he had treated him only for superficial injuries.

In the same book, Aburish – who had been a consultant to Iraq’s Ministry of Information at that time – recalled how Saddam went through him to hire Terence Young to edit the production. Young had previously directed the James Bond films Dr No and From Russia with Love.

Clash of Loyalties then came in 1983. Saddam financed the lavish historical epic, which told the story of the 1920 Iraqi revolt against British colonial rule. The project was intended to associate Saddam’s Ba'ath party with the revolutionaries who had fought the British.

The blockbuster budget pulled in Oliver Reed, who played a British intelligence officer. Reed proved such a menace that Iraqi officials wanted him deported. At a Baghdad restaurant, he caused a brawl by urinating into a wine bottle and telling a waiter to take it to another table “with my compliments”.

Co-producer Lateif Jorephani called Saddam’s ambition “Bollywood on Tigris”. The plan was for a state-backed film industry to make at least six patriotic blockbusters for international audiences.

Saddam’s grip on media for domestic audiences was similarly strong. Before he was overthrown in 2003, shortly after the start of the US-led invasion, Iraq had just five newspapers, four radio stations and three television channels. Each of these was controlled by the state.

My interpreter on a recent trip to Iraq, Malik, has disturbing memories of childhood television. He recalls trying to avoid a segment called Lest We Forget, which showed footage from the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war. Skipping it meant missing some of the following 30 minutes of cartoons, including Tom and Jerry.

Changing media landscape

Iraq’s media landscape changed dramatically after Saddam’s fall. Within just one year, around 80 radio stations and 20 television channels were broadcasting. More than 200 newspapers and magazines had also appeared.

Fewer than half of these publications survived 12 months, but the state media monopoly did not return. Iraq now has more than 100 television channels broadcasting in Arabic, Kurdish, Turkmen and Syriac.

Major political parties, religious institutions such as holy shrines and other centres of power, including many of Iraq’s various armed groups, have developed media operations of their own.

In August, I was part of an international group visiting Arbaeen. The Shia Muslim pilgrimage commemorates Hussein ibn Ali, grandson of the Prophet Muhammad. Over 20 million people attend each year, making it the world’s largest peaceful annual assembly.

At Arbaeen, I encountered major Shia religious institutions with substantial media operations. We were invited behind the scenes of some of them. At the media department of the Al-Abbas Holy Shrine in the city of Karbala, I was shown an enormous digital archive of free films, documentaries, talk shows and religious programmes.

One resembled an Iraqi University Challenge, with teams answering questions about the Qur'an. The shrine shares this material online and through live broadcasts. More than 80 television channels use its Arbaeen coverage each year, both inside Iraq and abroad.

The contrast with Malik’s childhood is striking. Under the old system, there were very few choices. The new system operates amid an almost comic abundance.

More media does not necessarily mean more truth or greater press freedom. Iraq currently ranks 162nd out of 180 countries worldwide for press freedom, sandwiched between Sudan and Turkey. The deeper change is the dispersal of media power, which is now spread among many competing centres.

This reflects the wider dispersal of power in Iraq. Ten Iran-aligned armed factions command around 50,000 fighters across the country. Baghdad is struggling to bring such groups under state control. Even as I flew into Baghdad, US and Saudi forces struck such groups inside Iraq.

Some of these armed groups also have television channels. Al-Ahad TV, for example, is controlled by Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq, a major Iran-aligned armed group.

Saddam once held an iron grip over Iraq and its image – even if Oliver Reed was beyond his control. His media monopoly is now gone. In its place is an extraordinary range of competing voices.

These include political parties, religious institutions and armed groups operating media of their own, as well as journalists and independent outlets struggling for space. But this media abundance does not equate to media freedom.

Matthew Alford does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.