Muslim portrayal in film shortly after 9/11

[Editors Note]

I wrote this essay myself. It is an original work by me. I feel the need to point this out since I get so much traffic to it from Google (probably because students need an essay on this topic or whatever). I would not have posted it in its entirety if I did not want people to read it. However, I did not include the bibliography or works cited page (I still get them confused) because I don't want out and out theft of this paper. Instead, use it to give yourself a starting point, to get you watching films you didn't know existed, or discussing films or the topics in the paper. A simple google search by an instructor will lead them to this website and many, not all but most, professors will do this basic task. Heck, they have software that does it automatically for them. Ever wonder why they want an electronic version and a hard copy? So, don't be stupid and pass this crappy paper off as your own. Use my quotes, double back on my sources, or, hell, cite me and this dumb website, but don't pretend you did the research and wrote this paper. And, if you want to be a real pal, leave a comment to let me know what you ended up doing with this essay after you found it. Thanks!

The year is 1915 the birth of feature-length cinema. Riots originating from movie theaters engulf Boston and Philadelphia (“The Birth of a Nation”). The twenty-eighth President of the United States, Thomas Woodrow Wilson, sits in a private theater in the White House to screen a new movie (“The Birth of a Nation”). Days later, the film’s promoters start a firestorm campaign claiming Wilson himself endorsed the film as “like writing history with lightning. And my only regret is that it is all so terribly true” (“The Birth of a Nation”). In Lafayette, Indiana, a white man murders a black teenager after viewing the film (“The Birth of a Nation”). This movie is credited with the birth of cinema and the rebirth of the Ku Klux Klan.

Flash-forward twenty years. In Germany, filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl premiers her triumphant film chronicling the 1934 Nazi Party congress at Nuremberg. Her film will become one of the top three most profitable movies in Germany for the year (“Triumph of the Will”). Her country’s leader gave his endorsement, citing the film as an “incomparable glorification of the power and beauty of our Movement” (“Triumph of the Will”). American Frank Capra called the film “a psychological weapon aimed at destroying the will to resist” and remarked that the film’s effectiveness was “just as lethal” (“Triumph of the Will”).

Since the inception of cinema, movies have contained the power to change the world. In the early twentieth century, Birth of a Nation capitalized on the red-scare and economic woes after the Great War, and the film pinned the perils of the country on civil rights and the African American community. Triumph of the Will manipulated a country savaged by a depression and demoralized from a lost war into worshiping a maniacal tyrant. In recent time, the United States created and capitalized on a fear of Muslims to stereotype and revile Arabs and Muslims in film (Akram 68). The United States and its recently jaded history with Muslims reached the zenith on September 11, 2001 when Arab terrorists murdered almost 3000 American citizens. Rather than expand and magnify more Muslim stereotypes in movies, Hollywood filmmakers are finally beginning to provide a more nuanced and temperate approach to Arabs and Muslims in films.

One of the first major waves of anti-Arab films from the United States began in the 1970s. Due in part to the horrendous handling of the oil and gas crisis by President Jimmy Carter, coupled with the Iranian hostage crisis and several airline hijackings, American sentiments to the Middle East began to falter (Semmerling “Introduction”). Several television movies were hastily produced to capitalize on the current political climate (Semmerling “Introduction”). These low budget movies portrayed the Muslim terrorists as mad beings with no discernible motive other than religious fanaticism (Semmerling “Introduction”; Akram 66). This trend continued into the late 1980s when the Soviet Union collapsed (Akram 67-69). Prior to the demise of the Red Empire, films tended to have Russian villains to counter the brave American protagonists (Mandel 20). Faced with the now inevitable, Hollywood needed a new enemy for the United States in films (Mandel 20). Enter the Arabs.

Hollywood seemed blessed that within a few years of the end of the Soviet Union, a war with Iraq was started and terrorists from the Middle East attempted to blow up the World Trade Center. Replacing the icons of Cossacks with thick accents, Hollywood melded Arabs into a faceless people from an unknown part of the world hellbent on destroying the way of life of Americans into the new archenemies of American heroes in films (Semmerling “Introduction”; Mandel 20). Considering many Americans knew little about the Middle East, Hollywood was able to capitalize on this ignorance to instill fear (Akram 67). What mattered to Americans, and what Hollywood played up, was that Arabs did not speak english, followed a different religion alien to the vast majority of the United States, and featured a wholly different culture not readily found in America (Semmerling “Introduction”). Hollywood was able to create a mythology of about Arabs and Muslims out of the void of American ignorance (Shaheen “Introduction”). By creating a basic template for Arabs and Muslims as generic villains, Hollywood could easily and readily intersperse Arabs and Muslims into any film that needed an antagonist, even those that didn’t require such a villain (Shaheen “Introduction”). Countless movies have been constructed in this manner, from Father of the Bride 2 to Back to the Future (Shaheen 193, 83). Even films that featured terrorists, and by Hollywood’s standard thereby required Arabs and Muslims, such as True Lies, Arabs and Muslims were not essential; the film The Sum of All Fears was originally going to star Arab and Muslim terrorists until pressure caused the director to switch to neoNazis as the main villains (Shaheen 500).

What seems unfortunately ironic is that the 1998 film The Siege attempted to undo many of these fears and provide a dialogue for Muslim-American relations, but instead compounded stereotypes and further degradation the image of Muslims in the eyes of Americans (Wilkins 419; Mandel 24). The film chronicles an outbreak of terrorist attacks in New York City through the eyes of Anthony Hubbard, the head of the FBI’s counter-terrorism unit. In the film, terrorists from an unknown Middle Eastern country hijack and destroy a bus full of the elderly, bomb an opera hall, and nearly blow up a school filled with children. The United States is trying to stop the terrorists by any means; the army is ordered to corral all American-Arabs into internment camps until the terrorism outbreak is cured. In the end, all of the terrorists are killed and America prevails.

The chief complaints lobbied against the film are that it continues to present Muslims in films as terrorists, gives no layered motivation for the terrorists, and it shows the United States as the morally righteous, even when breaking the rules for its own advantage (Wilkins 420; Muravchik 57). Tony Shalhoub plays muslim FBI agent Frank Haddad, partner to Denzel Washinton’s Anthony Hubbard. Other than Haddad, the other Muslims in the film are terrorists (Wilkins 423; Mandel 23). Furthermore, the terrorists in the film aren’t even given a country of origin (Wilkins 425). This detachment of the terrorists from a native country serves several purposes. The first purpose of denying the terrorists a home country is to play on the ignorance of the audience. It can be assumed that the average movie audience does not have a firm understanding of the Middle East well enough to know the countries and the precise customs found in each (Jones 17; Ebert). It should be noted that the movie was released in 1998, long before CNN and other news outlets plastered maps of Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and the region after 9/11 and the Afghan/ Iraq war. Film critic Roger Ebert remarked that the audience, who is so thoroughly uninformed or uninterested, “may even be a little restless” (Ebert). By keeping the audience figuratively in the dark, the movie is able to project whatever it desires for the homeland of the terrorists. Moreover, the lack of homeland removes possible motives for the terrorists’ actions. If the terrorists are provided a homeland, the terrorists may claim that their homeland is being threatened and should be defended. This could sway the audience into finding the actions of the terrorists to be just. The audience is never privy to the homeland of the terrorists, yet all of the major traits of Brooklyn and americana are found in the busy New York streets (Wilkins 425-426).

Religion, and the disdain to the American culture, are the sole motives of the terrorists in the film as well (Jones 17). The red herring lays with the kidnapping of a prominent Sheik by the hands of American military. The Sheik is being detained by U.S. officials somewhere in the United States, unbeknown to Hubbard and the rest of the FBI. The “demand” given to the FBI initially is to “free him”, but at the conclusion of the film, the screenplay states that the motive all along was that the United States “must learn the consequences of trying to tell the world how to live” while preaching of the virtue of martyrdom (“Siege”). Hubbard retorts “if there is a God, he weeps at the crimes we commit in his name,” which demoralizes the religious claim the terrorist was attempting to communicate (“Siege”). The scene allows the agent of the United States to win the moral argument, asserting America’s, and presumably Christian, religious fortitude. This moral high ground extends to the lone wolf Colonel who ordered the internment of the Arabs in New York City (Muravchik 58). Reminiscent to the closing of A Few Good Men, the audience may be inclined, though halfheartedly told not to, agree with the methods of the army in the pursuit of securing America, by any means necessary (Muravchik 58). Yet, it seems that this safe method of constructing Arab enemies in film would become more secure in the aftermath of September 11. In actuality, the earnest attempt of The Siege is expanding and becoming more honest. Examining the film Syriana, some of the problems that were prevalent in The Siege are addressed and corrected; Syriana provides specific locations within the Middle East, contextualizes the motives of the people in the Middle East in nuance, and gives moral ambiguity to both the terrorists and the Americans in the film (Mandel 27).

In The Siege, one of the rare moments where a location in the Middle East is named is the home country of Hassad, which happens to be Lebanon. In Syriana, numerous countries are mentioned, and not in passing. The film notes Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other places. Moreover, and more importantly, the film depicts these locations in detail. The film opens in Iran during an investigation conducted by a CIA agent Bob Baer. The streets of the the city, the people, are presented in a naturalist manner. Contrasting the opening of The Siege, which shows goat herders, Syriana is strikingly different. Moreover, the film takes the time to show the neighborhoods of the people in the Middle East. The audience watches characters go to mosques, the market, and other habitual activities. The living barracks of the Muslim workers are shown, the surrounding environment, where they play soccer, climb an electrical tower, talk about women and comic books, where they go to school, and the radical mosque where they are indoctrinated with anti-Western, anti-Islamic religious dogma. Rather than give only passing mention to these places, or not at all, the film allows the audience to linger on these locales in a hope of providing context and history of the Muslims.

The film also gives context for the motives of the Muslims other than religious ideology. In The Siege, the primary and only substantial cause of the terrorists is strict interpretation of the Koran (Mandel 27). The terrorist preaches before his death on the virtues of martyrdom, how the Western countries are corrupt, and that death in the name of God is glory. Syriana does this to an extent, but beneath the words of the religious leaders is the economic situation that causes the Muslims to turn to terrorism and other violent activity. The future terrorists live in a work camp and are subjected to beatings by the Arab and Muslim guards who are working for rich Arabs and Americans. Capitalizing on their broken spirits, members of the terrorist organizations descend to indoctrinate the unemployed with talks of Paradise and the love of God. They are coerced to join the religious group, and only after do the religious talks become more radical, more antiWestern, and more violent. Within the religious groups that are already fractured from the mainstream do smaller groups form: the groups that will produce terrorists. In the film, there are no crazed Muslims waving guns in the air praising Allah as they are about to blow themselves into millions of pieces. The terrorists doubt and question their religion and their mission, and many moderate religious Muslims are shown in the film. The tone of religion, and its use as a motives, are very different than that in The Siege.

The moral certitude of the film Syriana is perhaps the most strikingly different than that of The Siege. In The Siege, Hubbard and the United States, sans the army Colonel, are presented as the moral beings in the movie. The United States in Syriana is just one group that is morally ambiguous. As already discussed, the eventual terrorists in Syriana are allowed to be given multiple causes and development for their motives. Economic, as well as social and religious, reasons provide context for their actions. While the audience may not agree or empathize with their plight, the movie at least gives a more earnest attempt at letting the terrorists have real motives. Moreover, the United States has several motives as well, sometimes conflicting. Rather than just being the shining light of moral example for the world to follow, much of the film shows the economic riches for the United States in the region. Economic concerns, the quest for more money, are a driving force for the Americans, and the moral compromising that encompasses this lust for wealth is presented unflinchingly. In one scene, an American’s son dies at the party of a wealthy Saudi investor. This tragedy occurs after the Saudi decided against an investment, much to the dismay of the American. Later, the Saudi changes his mind on the investment, and the American believes that it is a result of his son’s death. Knowing this reason why the Saudi changed his position on the deal, the American uses his son’s death as a gambit in new negotiations. Syriana doesn’t characterize the moment like The Siege does with the army Colonel.

Arab reaction to the film The Siege was understandably terse. The Arab-American AntiDiscrimination Committee (ADC) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) both despaired against The Siege (Muravchik 57). The film was rallied as a portrayal of “Arabs and Muslims as a homogeneous, threatening mass” that resorts to only identifying them with terrorists (Muravchik 57). The film targets the audience’s fears of the oriental Muslim customs and religion (Semmerling “Introduction”). Denzel Washington, who starred in the film, remarked that “there are Jewish terrorists but nobody would associate them with their religion,” which seems to suggest an inherent bias against Muslims and their religion (Muravchik 57). Terrorism, which has existed among the Catholics and the Jews from the IRA to Mossad, is only focused on the Arabs and Muslims (Muravchik 57). No massive rallies and public outcry to the level that The Siege received was given to Syriana upon its release in theaters.

It is difficult for this association of terrorism to be broken from Arabs and Muslims. Even in the film Syriana, which strides to rectify many of the faults of The Siege and previous films focusing on Arabs and Muslims, the movie still shows Muslims as terrorists (Mandel 27). Other movies since September 11 still do this as well. The Kingdom focuses on a terrorist bombing of Americans in the Middle East and the difficulties that are associated with investigating the bombing. Munich, which deals with Israeli’s and Palestinians, shows terrorism on both sides, and arrives at a conclusion that the cycle of violence is futile and continuous. The puppet comedy Team America: World Police adds to the terrorist stereotype by having the United States combat Middle Eastern terrorists as well.

Yet, the difference in this new wave of American-made Muslim films is the ultimate treatment of Arabs and Muslims. In The Kingdom, Americans are working alongside a Saudi Colonel to solve the terrorist bombing. In Munich, both Palestinians and Israeils are shown to be culpable in terrorism, as well as critiquing the modern American reaction to terrorism. Even Team America: World Police satirizes American perspectives of terrorists and Muslims through past movie stereotypes, as well as savagely mocking supposed moral superiority of the United States that was found in many films prior to September 11.

Just because terrorism has been closely associated with Arabs and Muslims doesn’t mean the tie must forever be severed (Jones 17). Rather, it may be a necessary transition in film and the perception of Arabs and Muslims that terrorism and its association with Arabs and Muslims be addressed. In the wake of September 11, many americans were angrily chanting the callous choruses of country western songs exuberantly showcasing the United States’ resolve to bringing justice and accountability to the people responsible for the attacks. In less than a decade, the tone of the country has shifted, and the tone of film. As the country has seen the issues of terrorism addressed in film, smaller, more personal films about the Middle East are being produced. The Namesake focuses on an Indian man and his conflicting nature of his family’s heritage when dating a young American woman. No one in that film is a terrorist.

It takes time for decades of film stereotypes to be addressed, resolved, and forgiven. The egregious mistakes of past films, such as The Siege and many others, are appearing to be addressed by important figures in Hollywood, such as the Academy-Award winning screenwriter of Syriana and the much honored Steven Spielberg. Whether or not this shift in the treatment of Arabs and Muslims in film is permanent or not is unknown. There has simply been not enough time, not enough movies made, and not enough scholarly research into this area of film to provide a clear answer as to whether or not a significant change is occurring in film. Films like Syriana, The Kingdom, Charlie Wilson’s War, and others have had little to no analytical thought given into their portrayal of Arabs and Muslims. Moreover, if this does become a permanent change in filmmaking and Hollywood’s attitude toward Arabs and Muslims, the cause of the change is unknown. Rather than being a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11, the filmmakers may be using Arabs and Muslims to create anti-War films about Afghanistan and Iraq or anti-intervention films about the Middle East.

Filmmaking undergoes a natural evolution. Yet, the response works to Birth of a Nation didn’t help end the negative portrayal of African Americans in movies or reverse the damages to civil liberties. And though greatly lessened, African American stereotypes still exist in films today. A Muslim apologist film isn’t needed either. Dances with Wolves, in its noblest attempts, still managed to offend many Native Americans with its central white protagonist and the suggestion of the end of Native Americans at the film’s conclusion. When sympathetic portrayals of Arabs and Muslims are as predominant or more so than the negative stereotypes found in past films, the evidence that a change in Hollywood filmmaking regarding its presentation of Arabs and Muslims will be clear and palpable. The course of the last several years of film suggest that the maturing of American filmmaking toward Arabs and Muslims is genuine and will continue to lessen the negative stereotypes that predominantly existed prior to September 11.