The documentary film Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People is a courageous and rather shocking illustration of the ways in which Middle Easterners have been portrayed in popular media and film throughout the course of the 20th century. The film features the research of Dr. Jack Shaheen, author of the book of the same name, who, after surveying nearly 1000 films from the past century which featured Arab or Middle Eastern characters, found that of those films, only an incredibly small handful depicted Arabs as anything but crude, villainous, violent, foolish, fanatical, barbaric, and backward. Moviemakers and popular media has been able to rely on the vilification and dehumanization of the face of the Arab world to such an extent that the distortion and misrepresentation of the Middle East has become a normal, accepted, and even expected part of our social and political ideologies. When these ideas reach the subconscious level of our iconic and semiotic processing, fostering and maintaining an open and rational discourse in foreign policy and international relations can become incredibly difficult.
The traditional Arab stereotyped character looks the same in every movie. He is the violent thug, the fat sheik, the crazed terrorist, the religious fanatic, the barbaric, bearded villain. There is always a violent undertone to his actions, and there is always a general antagonism to the West. This character is seen repeatedly in popular movies, and he is always the bad guy. He is seen in several of the Indiana Jones movies, as well as in the Mummy series. He is in True Lies (1994), Death Before Dishonor (1987), Back to the Future (1985), Rules of Engagement (2000), Gladiator (2000), and according to the documentary film, he is also in Disney’s Aladdin (1992).
It is difficult for me to describe the horror I felt when I saw clips from Aladdin, one of my most beloved childhood films, placed on the same level as Arnold Schwarzenegger’s True Lies in the documentary. How could Aladdin- Aladdin- have had the same effect in our society in the promotion of prejudice and racism of Middle Easterners? After all, Aladdin himself, the protagonist of the story, is from the same country as the villains, and clearly, he is not barbaric, backward, or evil. However, after our discussion in class today, I am hard-pressed to identify anything about Aladdin and Jasmine’s character that identifies them as ‘Arab’ other than their names and their complexions. They speak like Americans, they sing like Americans. Even the Genie, a figure completely absent from any Western folklore or American tradition acts and speaks like he was born and bred in the United States. The heroes are clearly set apart from the others in the movie; this is especially evident in the scene when Jasmine nearly has her hand cut off due to her ignorance of the ‘Arabic’ code regarding the punishment for thieves. The heroes are still Westernized, and the villains are still Arabized.
I loved this film as a child, and I admit to still loving it today. I am realizing now, though, that this movie was the only exposure of any kind of ‘Arabland,’ that I had during the early part of my life. The only connection I had to that culture and that part of the world was through Aladdin, and as a result, all of my iconic and semiotic associations concerning any Middle Easterner are more or less limited to the images and messages presented in this movie: dirty men with dark beards, foolish guardsmen, scantily clad women, camels, elephants, thieving monkeys, enormous riches surrounded by cruel poverty, tigers as pets, huge deserts, mysterious music, gleaming palaces, and magic carpets. All of these images are signs, in my mind, of the Middle East; or rather, the Middle East is a sign for all of these images. Clearly, however, they are incredibly false. This semiotic chain has been repetitively reinforced in other popular media as I have grown older, and it seems to have reached the point where I no longer question the connection. I am wondering at this point though if I ever have been in the position to be able to.
The extent to which this iconic imaging has infiltrated my prejudices was made apparent to me during the documentary when it discussed the issues concerning Arab women in these Hollywood films. The basic message of this section was that Hollywood’s depiction of women in the Middle East places them centuries behind the actual, truthful progress they have made in terms of education and equal rights. I am embarrassed to admit this, but I was shocked to see the images in the documentary of Middle Eastern women working as news anchors on television. I catch myself wondering where in the Middle East this news was being broadcasted and how often women are able to fill these positions. I then begin to wonder what percentage of the population in the Middle East even owns a television. Yet there, right before my eyes, is proof that the Middle East does indeed use electricity, and there in front of a camera is, clearly a very normal-looking, capable, well-dressed, respectable, career woman where I was expecting a to see a belly-dancing, veiled, oppressed and downtrodden harem. I apologize for writing so crudely, but in my mind, in my media, the idea of an Arab woman is a sign for oppression and subordination; in this view, my interpretant then becomes either, ‘I am so thankful to be an American, liberated woman,’ or ‘the United States military efforts in the Middle East are justified because we are helping to free Arab women from their backward, cultural repression.’ This final interpretant is the problematic end result of this dialogue; and based on the scenes presented in the documentary, Arab women, at least not these Arab women, are not suffering from any obvious backward, cultural repression.
An added danger in this conversation is revealed when examining the sources of some of these stereotypical promotions. It terrifies me to know that the Department of the Defense has had a role to play in the funding and production of some of these films. This bias can be seen notably in the movie Rules of Engagement, which was written by a man named Jim Webb, former Secretary of the Navy and current United States Senator from Virginia. The movie effectively dehumanizes the Yemen people, including a young girl who is revealed to be a violent terrorist herself. There is also an incredible amount of slant against the Palestinians. The Israeli people, however, are much more likely to be the heroes of their stories, which is convenient, considering American policy concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is not to say that the current foreign policy is wrong or right, or that America has thrown down it glove on a Hollywood whim, but when actual foreign policy mirrors the foreign policy on screen, a more critical persepctive should examine why.
Entertainment media, like music, is more likely to persuade a person of a belief because it operates below reason. There is no political speech or slogan that can communicate ideas as effectively as an image or a song. If an Arab man, or more specifically a Palestinian man is portrayed in movies as always being an extremist, always speaking harshly, always intent on killing all the Jewish people on the Gaza strip, then convincing the American people to go to war with Palestine or other Arab nations is a piece of cake because the sign-object relation between the two already justifies the war. In a movie, the Arab villain is an icon for a terrorist. The interpretant of this is the need for the American hero to destroy the danger and save the day. In international politics, the Arab man has become an icon for a terrorist. The interpretant of this is the need for the American troops to destroy the danger and save the day. It is one in the same; the object and the interpretant are the same, and if we as a nation cannot recognize this discourse and view the situation rationally, our racism and stereotypes will get the best of our reasoning and prevent us from making appropriate and reasoned decisions at a global and a personal level.
No comments:
Post a Comment