An Analysis of A Distinct Society by Kareem Fahmy

Before diving into analytical thinking of any form of art, especially literature, it is important to do research on the author, artist, or in this case, the playwright. Kareem Fahmy (website

here) is a Canadian born playwright, screen writer, and director based in NYC. As stated on his website,

“Kareem has received commissions from Audible, Colt Coeur, Artists Repertory Theatre, Ensemble Studio Theatre/Sloan, and is the inaugural recipient of The Next Forever Commission from The Civilians & Princeton University.

Winner of the Woodward/Newman Playwriting Award, longlisted for the Bruntwood Prize and recipient of MacDowell, Yaddo, and Sundance Fellowships.

He co-founded the Middle Eastern American Writers Lab, created the BIPOC Director Database, and was named a Rising Leader of Color by Theatre Communications Group.”

This is all important information to note when diving into Fahmy’s work. It gives explanation for the setting, given he grew up relatively close to where the play takes place. Fahmy explains in a sit down interview with Pioneer Theater Company, PTC, that this show is his first professional work at this level (Video Linked here).

Before you start reading the script, there is a page with two blocks of text. One cites Executive Order 13769, from January 27, 2017, also coined “the Muslim ban.” More on this in a moment.

“The United States must be vigilant during the visa issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend harm to Americans.”

The other block of text cites The Charter of the French Language, from August 26, 1977.

“WHEREAS the French language, the distinctive language of a people that is in the majority French-speaking, is the instrument by which that people has articulated its identity;

Whereas the National Assembly intends to pursue this objective in a spirit of fairness and openmindedness, respectful of the institutions of the English-speaking community of Quebec, and to the development of Quebec, it readily acknowledges.

Whereas the observations and intentions are in keeping with a new perception of the worth of national cultures in all parts of the earth, and of the obligation of every people to contribute in its special way to the international community.”

I’m going to be honest that I can never truly understand political jargon and, especially with the Charter wording, had to do more research as to what it really meant, and figure out why it is important in the context of this script.

Without turning this review into a huge DBQ-esque ( a la AP World or US history) discussion on political rulings and bills, it is important to note that, in short (and extremely brief, not at all written by a poli-sci major), made French the official language of Quebec. On the surface, this doesn’t seem to be such an issue as many places have official languages, but after reading up on it, the exodus of non-French speakers out of Quebec caused a dip in the economy for many reasons. English-focused schools closed down, and along with that, people left for jobs in other provinces where the could speak their native language (and teach, advertise, converse, etc.) without being reprimanded or potentially fined up to $7,000 for use of English (or other languages) in their advertisements.

And when put in laymen’s terms, I understood immediately why this was important.

Jumping back to the US Executive Order, it is important to note the similarities and differences of these two legislative literatures. They both focus on “othering” groups of people who don’t fit into the mold of what the countries want their prime citizens to look like. Being from the US, I’m very familiar with the underlying systemic racism in all parts of life here. It’s hard to see it happen in real time, most recently with the political attack ads paid for by billionaires (in part to support Cuomo) against Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, and for some people to refuse to call this out. These ads, for example, were photos that darkened Mamdani’s complexion and lengthened his beard to hopefully push this narrative of the 90s ideology of the “Middle Eastern Terrorist” to the post 9/11 xenophobia of any person who might “fit this look” in hopes to sway voters (subconsciously, and primarily targeted towards older generations) away from voting for Mamdani. This is just an example of course, and while we could talk about the implications of this for days, weeks, or even years, this is not a political advertisement dissection post.

When talking about this in context of the script, we must note how these two bills have had many negative effects on countless lives. This is where we begin our analysis.

The play follows a father, Peyman Gilani (pronounced Pay-mawn Gee-lawn-ee) who is a cardiac surgeon from Tehran, Iran that is not allowed to travel to the US due to his born circumstance of being from Iran, as he is trying to meet his daughter, a med student in the US, after not seeing her for over a year. They are meeting as this library because it is the only “open -access” places for them to see each other due to the “Muslim ban” set forth by the first Trump administration (this is not stated, but given the EO was from 2017, and the show takes place in 2018, it is a given that we are still in Trump’s first term.)

We also meet three other individuals that have varying degrees of life circumstances (which I will discuss why this is so important to me in a well written play, but more on that later.)

Declan, an Irish immigrant teenager, Bruce, a black US boarder patrol agent, and Manon, a bilingual librarian who acts as an anchor between Declan and Bruce, and as an easy character for our brains to step into.

It is to be noted that there is a “Note on Tone” before the script. It states:

“This play is not a ‘drama.’ All of the characters are simply trying their best even when they say and do terrible things. None are fully good or bad, they are only trying to navigate a system determined to keep them apart.”

I did not read this note before I read script, so to read it after finishing it while diving into the analysis felt like a mental win for myself (yes, I am giving myself a gold star here because why not) for really grasping on to this on the first read. I am really applauding Fahmy on how nuanced and human his characters are that any normal person should be able to pick up on this without the note, but we also live in a world where people don’t like to pay respects to nuances if it means that it kills their argument.

I will do my best to critique without spoiling, because I know I would like to read a good review that points me to a show, book, etc, without the ending being spoiled.  The first character I really want to discuss is Declan. I know it’s probably not shocking that I, a white gender non-conforming person from the Midwest, would pick up on more nuances in this character than any others, but this is the kind of thing that I know, and Fahmy captured the essence of the people I grew up around. There are many arguments to be made about the closemindedness of small town people, and while that is a whole other discussion and, yes there are bad/evil people everywhere, 99% of them aren’t bad people, and in fact, I like to think they have good hearts and good intentions most of the time. Whether or not that makes me naïve, I couldn’t care less. Fahmy truly shows this in Declan’s character. Teenage boys are…a very interesting class or people. Especially white teenage boys, and yes, that is a very important thing for me to note because every system that is used today is set up for them to succeed, but they are fed this programing by the “manoshpere” (great article link here) that everyone around them, especially women, want them to fail. (Again, a whole separate discussion.) We slowly start to see them falling behind and falling down the Alt-Right/Right Extremist pipeline, and before it’s too late, they are thinking and making decisions that might not be inline with who they were as a “sweet, innocent boy who just wanted to do the right thing.” (The normal headlines that try to acquit grown ass men from their grown ass choices.) Now, we don’t see Declan fall that far down the hole in the show, just due to the nature of the timeline, but we do get to see him slowly make choices that fall in line with those political affiliations, and thus bringing our show to a climax. I felt so much anger when reading that scene (that is all I will say about said scene) because I knew the implications of what was done, but I couldn’t stop it from happening, and it felt like watching a car crash. What Fahmy does through his writing, is allow Declan (and all of the characters) to make their choices, and then deal with those consequences. (I use consequences in a neutral way.)

Each character has their own journey in a similar way. They receive new information, make a choice that they truly believe is the right choice, and then must deal with the repercussions. This sounds like a simple writing tactic, and in conversation it is, but most writers, especially playwrights, fall flat in this act. It’s easier when writing characters in a novel, because you can share their train of thought most of the time, and contemporary authors still tend to fall flat in creating human characters. It is especially challenging to do this as a playwright, because you are not writing for the purpose of someone to read your work (alone), but for others to bring your characters to life (many times in ways you didn’t think they would). For Fahmy to create five whole, human, and true people and to twist their lives so well together is a feat that most writers dream of doing.

Manon, the librarian, truly wants to help Peyman and his daughter, Shirin. One scene in the beginning shows this simply through the gesture of letting Peyman hold onto the food he cooked for his daughter, when you’re not supposed to have food or drink in the library. Food in any culture is a symbol of love. The act of making it for someone conveys a sense of community that Shirin has been missing out on while in med school, thus, prompting her father to have the idea (after Shirin’s roommate had told him she had fainted a few times from not eating enough) to travel to another country and find the only Persian grocery story he could (which I believe was in a different province than Quebec) to create a homecooked meal that felt, smelled, looked, and tasted just like home.

Now, we see Manon regret this decision after Bruce accidently bumps into Peyman, causing him to take a tumble and spill the food. This is truly where we see the conflict of ethics in characters, and what they believe to be the “right thing.” See, Bruce, a black border patrol officer, believes doing the correct thing means “just following orders.” (Nuremburg trials, amiright folxs) While, to him, asking Peyman for his passport and making comments about where he’s from once he sees the “Islamic Republic of Iran,” seems like a normal and “good” thing to do. We find out that he has been given orders to limit any meetings of family members to no more than 5 minutes, and nothing can be exchanged between family members, and them must keep somewhat of a distance from each other (to deter any “hidden exchanges”.) To the reader, we know the implications behind certain comments about food, culture, and dress, that seem harmless on the surface of course, but have more sinister undertones to them when dissected further. A lot of the times, people who perpetuate these comments are just parroting what they heard others say, for so long, that most people who make these comments truly don’t understand the racist undertones that go with them, and trying to explain them can be a very tricky task. You want to believe they really don’t understand, but how do you start a conversation with someone about it without either person becoming defensive at some point. (I’m a believer of feigned ignorance is just as harmful, if not more, than outright verbal racism, but that is also a larger conversation for another day.)

Each choice made by these characters leads to choices being made by the others in response. (Wow) I know that sounds so smart of me to bring up, but I’ve read many not so great plays that don’t allow the characters, or their actions and reactions, to breathe into the life of the play.

As the play progresses, we see this time and time again, and it is hard not to fall in love with the humanness of the characters, while cursing their decisions that lead to terrible consequences. (Keep in mind, this is not a “drama.”) All of this for me to come to the conclusion, this is just life. Actions and Reactions, and consequences (neutral).  Of course, I applaud Fahmy on the plot, and the characters, and the themes, but most importantly, I want to applaud him on the “life” aspect of the show. The idea that people really are doing their best most of the time, and while from an outside perspective, I can say certain choices that characters made at different point were “bad,” but those thoughts come from my point of view. I am not living in those worlds and through their experiences that led them to believe the choices they made were “good.” I think it is a feat to write the human experience so well, in a play that is about 95 min long. I believe that people can learn to do almost anything, but I have a hard time believing that you can learn to emulate the human experience the way Fahmy has with this script. This feels as a natural ability that is something I hope to inject into my writing. I look forward to continuing to read and analyze Fahmy’s works.

Buy Script Here