Frank 1
This thesis has been approved by
The Honors Tutorial College and the Department of Political Science
______
Dr. Nukhet Sandal
Professor, Political Science
Thesis Adviser
______
Dr. James Mosher
Director of Studies, Political Science
______
Dr. Cary Frith
Interim Dean, Honors Tutorial College
Frank 2
Terrorism, Boundaries, and Belonging in American and British Cinema
______
A Thesis Presented to
The Honors Tutorial College of
Ohio University
______
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Graduation
from the Honors Tutorial College
with the degree of
Bachelor of Arts in Political Science
______
by
Zakary Frank
April 27, 2018 Frank 3
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction Page 4
Previous Research Page 6
Methodology Page 27
Chapter 2: American Films
Arab & Muslim Extremists in American Film Page 29
Non-Arab or Muslim Terrorism in American Film Page 52
Discussion Page 74
Chapter 3: British Films
Arab & Muslim Extremists in British Film Page 89
Non-Arab or Muslim Terrorism in British Film Page 109
Discussion Page 129
Chapter 4: Conclusion Page 144
Works Cited Page 159
Film Citations Page 165
Frank 4
Chapter 1: Introduction
“Italian novelist Umberto Eco once claimed that 70 percent of our knowledge derives from watching Hollywood movies” (Riegler, 2010). Eco’s point is further emphasized by the work of scholars like Jack Shaheen, Hafiz Qasir Abbas, Fatima Tuz Zohra, and Abu Sadat
Nurullah who state that television and film have a direct impact on how people view the world around them. The impact that film has on ideology is not inherently problematic until one looks at the various ways that media stereotypes and dehumanizes various “suspect communities”
(Hickman et al., 2011). Generally, film will depict these “suspect communities” as the “other” and portray the values of these groups as being in direct contrast to that of the general population. For example, American and British cinema have had a long history of portraying
Arabs and Muslims in a negative light. Shaheen states that many films depict Arabs as “brute murderers, sleazy rapists, religious fanatics, oil-rich dimwits, and abusers of women” (Shaheen,
2001, 2). The negative depiction of Arabs and Muslims in cinema has a direct impact on how society as a whole views this community.
It is especially important that we pay attention to the portrayals of groups, like Arabs and
Muslims that are consistently depicted as terrorists in film, because the western world is engaged in a “War on Terror”. In his article, The War on Terror in American Grand Strategy Michael
Boyle discusses how the post 9/11 world has “constituted the single most ambitious reordering of
America's foreign policy objectives since the Second World War” (Boyle, 2008, 191). He states that September 11th reshuffled “the alliance system that had served as the foundation of US foreign policy since 1945 and [made] the defeat of terrorism the chief object of American power” (Boyle, 2008, 191). The restructuring of policy is important, because it has made the world more aware of terrorism. As a result, those groups whom are often associated with Frank 5 extremism in film, i.e. Arabs and Muslims, are more likely to be discriminated against due to international anxieties.
This comparative study conducts research similar to that of Jack Shaheen and Noura
Alalawi in order to analyze how terrorism is portrayed in film following September 11th. My research is specifically interested in analyzing how the United States and United Kingdom portray terrorists in film and how these depictions impact the citizenship and sense of belonging of groups portrayed as extremists. My thesis will contribute to the discipline of political science and media studies by providing a critical examination of the cinematic portrayal of terrorism and
“suspect communities” (Hickman et al., 2011). So far in my research I have not found any articles that make the connection between portrayal in film, belonging and citizenship. Most of these articles simply state that American and British cinema portray groups like Muslims in a negative way and that this leads to the development of stereotypes. I have not yet seen a study that takes the next step and analyzes how these stereotypes directly impact an individual’s claims to belonging or citizenship in a community. Therefore, my research will help scholars take the next step in understanding the power that cinema has over understandings of citizenship and belonging.
The following section discusses previous research surrounding film, social/ethnic boundary making, and suspect communities (Hickman et al., 2011). It starts by discussing how film is an impactful tool for educating individuals around the world and how this tool is sometimes utilized to promote harmful stereotypes. Next, the research discusses how terrorism is often portrayed in film and more specifically how Arabs and Muslims are depicted. The research then transitions into discussing social/ethnic boundary making mechanisms and how these might lead to the creation of suspect communities (Hickman et al., 2011). Lastly, the previous research Frank 6 will focus on suspect communities and how they negatively impact an individual’s citizenship and sense of belonging in a community.
Previous Research
When attempting to understand how film impacts the citizenship and belonging of those depicted as extremists it is important to first understand how film impacts the perceptions of people in the real world. According to Henry Giroux (2011, 687), “films do more than entertain; they offer up subject positions, mobilize desires, influence us unconsciously and help to construct the landscape of our culture”. This is easily illustrated by the estimate that “a successful film is seen by 10,000,000 people in theaters” (Giroux, 2011, 691). Millions of people are consuming cultural and political messages that are often depicted in film. Giroux (2011) believes that, because films are so widely consumed they act as a perfect medium for public pedagogy. He also states that film is particularly impactful as an educational tool, because it helps link personal experiences of the audience to the politics illustrated in film. This enables viewers to connect with film in a way that Giroux believes is not possible with other educational mediums. In this vein, the use of film as an educational tool can be useful when trying to promote positive messages through cinema. However, film’s impact on education can also be problematic if it depicts specific groups or ideas in a negative or overly simplified manner. This could lead to stereotypes or misinformation being spread widely throughout society.
A similar study led by Karin Wilkins is interested in how media can be used to impact the way that people perceive the world. She conducted a study on 120 participants that was developed to test how action-adventure films impacted an individual’s interpretations of the world (Wilkins, 2009, 566-568). During the study, Wilkins found that Arab Americans were
“quite critical” of films that featured Middle Eastern scenes. These individuals wanted films to Frank 7 present the Middle East in a more “realistic” way and have more “complex situations” pertaining to the region. Wilkins (2009, 59) mentions that “the Middle Eastern setting appeared to them as unnecessarily backward and foreign, dark and mysterious”.
Individuals from other ethnic groups are recorded as seeing “an advantage in accentuating the exotic aspect” of the Middle East. Wilkins (2009, 569-570) even mentions that some individuals felt that these “exotic” representations were “realistic”. Her study also found that non-Arab participants often showed a fear of the Middle East. When asked “what countries they would like to avoid when traveling”, many participants gave answers centered on this region (Wilkins, 2009, 570). Some participants specifically mentioned that “Islamic terrorists” were a central factor in their disdain for the Middle East. Others suggested that traveling in this region would endanger their life in some way. On the other hand, Arab American participants constructed “a world relatively open for travel” (Wilkins, 2009, 570). When answers were given,
Arab Americans would often mention Israel of Iraq as countries to avoid. However, Arab
Americans did not share the same anxieties about the Middle East stated by non-Arab participants (Wilkins, 2009, 571). Ultimately, Wilkins’ study does seem to suggest that media can impact an individual’s interpretations of specific regions around the world.
As mentioned, films can be a great medium for educating people about the world, but if this education promotes false information problems can occur. Samuel Peleg is a scholar who is particularly invested in eliminating false depictions of terrorism in film. He argues that terrorism is a complex topic that deserves to be properly portrayed in cinema. Peleg (2003) states that there are 10 components of terrorism, which help illustrate the complexity of the phenomenon. The ten components are that terrorism is “purposeful and rational”, “primarily a political act”, “mostly about change”, a “form of political participation”, a “weapon of the weak”, “challenges order Frank 8 and confronts the government”, a “collective undertaking”, “communal deprivations”, “guided by ideology”, and “espouses a messianic aura”. Peleg (2003, 84) notes that “all the[se] features of political terrorism mentioned above are conspicuously missing from American movies dealing with this issue, while European films accentuate characteristics and speculate them as the center of their cinematic endeavor”. Peleg believes that European films feature characters who commit terrorist acts, but are also compelling and have logical reasoning behind their actions. American films, on the other hand, depict terrorists as irrational actors, which makes it nearly impossible for viewers to feel compassion for them (Peleg, 2003). With this representation, the audience may associate the lack of rationality displayed in the film as a realistic characteristic of various groups, which can lead to harmful stereotypes.
Following the work of Peleg many studies have actually analyzed the portrayal of terrorism in film. Klaus Dodds’ article, “Screening terror: Hollywood, the United States and the construction of danger explores the portrayal of terrorism in American film”, while talking about the power of mass media in informing populations of people. In his opinion, critical terrorism studies or CTS needs to pay more attention to the ways that popular media impacts civilian understanding of terrorism (Dodds, 2008, 227). Dodds (2008, 277) mentions that “many people rely on mass media (including film) to inform, educate, and entertain them about contemporary political issues”. Therefore, understanding how audiences analyze these films is important when trying to understand the social impacts of film. Even with forums where people discuss movies publically, there has been no academic attempt to analyze how audiences talk about film (Dodds,
2008, 238). Dodds also briefly discusses how influential government institutions can be within
Hollywood. According to him, the “military-industrial-media-entertainment complex” requires groups like the CIA and NSA to have influence over the film industry (Dodds, 2008, 232). This Frank 9 is because film can have a large impact on how specific government institutions are seen by the public. Therefore, it is beneficial for government institutions to help in the production of films like Top Gun (1986) and Independence Day (1996) (Dodds, 2008, 228).
Jerrod McFarlane has also studied the representation of terrorism in American cinema.
His study focuses on how terrorist groups are portrayed in superhero films. McFarlane believes that these movies are particularly important to analyze, because superheroes are “symbols of
American culture and . . . reflect and influence American values (McFarlane, 2014, 447). He goes on to state that “the current depiction of terrorism in superhero films can best be seen as a reflection of broader narratives of terrorism in the American political and ethical consciousness, eschewing complexity and miscasting the nature of combat between legitimate and illegitimate actors” (McFarlane, 2014, 447). For example, films like the Iron Man portray terrorists as puppets who have no defining characteristics except that they look Arab and are in the desert.
The Dark Knight Rises, on the other hand constructs its terrorists as being “essentially barbaric” by stripping them of any meaningful ideological cause. According to McFarlane (2014, 450), these films fail to show terrorists as “rational and political actors”. To make matters worse, superhero films promote a sense of exceptionality in which the hero is able to “act illiberally and anti-democratically in order to defeat” evil (McFarlane, 2014, 451). This exceptionality is problematic, because it sets a double standard in which the “good guy” is forgiven for his bad actions, because they are deemed necessary to stop the “bad guy” (McFarlane, 2014, 450-452).
Rubina Ramji also critiques the way that terrorism is portrayed in American films, but her article focuses on how Arab extremists are depicted. Ramji (2005, 3) argues that American films “regularly link the Islamic faith with male supremacy, holy war, and acts of terror, depicting Arab Muslims as hostile alien intruders, and as lecherous, oily sheikh’s intent on using Frank 10 nuclear weapons”. This portrayal of Muslims as terrorists is problematic, because “films . . . have the potential to reinforce . . . religious perspectives, ideological assumptions, and fundamental values” (Ramji, 2005, 1). Therefore when American films consistently depict Arabs as
“murderer[s], rapist[s], religious fanatic[s], oil-rich and ignorant, and abuser of women” they start to reinforce a negative stereotype about the group (Ramji, 2005, 1). Ramji (2005, 5) also finds it problematic that the media fails to portray Islam accurately and that it also has failed “to show how Muslim people around the world perceive their own fate and faith”. As a result, the media is “muting” the diversity of Islam as a faith and making it impossible for people around the world to obtain an effective grasp of what the religion represents. Ramji claims that those who watch films about terrorism and Islam are actually “unlearning” about the religion, because these films are based on fantasy.
Many studies have also found that non-extremist Arabs and Muslims are depicted in a similar way to terrorists. Noura Alalawi’s (2015) study of American cinema found that as early as the 1970s, Arabs were being depicted as “uncultured” and “barbaric”. This suggests that the negative depictions of Muslims and Arabs in film were not created post 9/11. Alalawi (2015) states that 9/11 only further reinforced the stereotypes present in film before 2001. The rest of
Alalawi’s article is devoted to the analysis of The Kingdom and Rendition, two films that deal with Islamic terrorism. Out of the two movies, The Kingdom was the most problematic, because it consistently depicted Muslims as violent and savage people. In her article Alalawi (2015, 60) even states that the stereotype of the “savage” Muslim “is still very much alive as demonstrated excellently in the scenes in ‘The Kingdom’”. Alalawi (2015) also states that The Kingdom also does a good job of relating Muslim symbols to extremists within the film, essentially drawing the comparison between Islam and terrorism. Even the film Rendition was problematic, because Frank 11 even though the main character, who was a Muslim, was depicted in a positive way, the other
Muslim characters “were depicted to be terrorists, cruel, interrogator, ignorant” among other negative characteristics (Alalawi, 2015, 61).
As mentioned, Alalawi suggested that Muslims were being depicted poorly in American media since as early as the 1970s. Thomas Riegler, another professor studying terrorism in
American cinema, found that Muslims were not frequently being depicted as terrorists until the
1980s. Riegler (2010) suggests that perhaps the “Iranian Hostage Crisis (1979), the American involvement in the Lebanese civil war (1983), and the resulting confrontation with Shi’ite extremism” may have led to the development of Muslims as terrorists. Before the 1980s, Riegler found that American film displayed most terrorists as “lone wolves” who were suffering from some form of mental illness, which caused them to act irrationally. These films also took inspiration from foreign events since the United States had not had to deal directly and systematically with domestic terrorism. For example, Alfred Hitchcock’s Saboteur (1942) was based on the “hijacking of jetliners orchestrated by Palestinian groups” (Riegler, 2010). Riegler
(2010), like Alalawi, also found that Muslims started to be associated with terrorism more in film after 9/11. This association could be problematic, Riegler posits, because of the film industry’s influence over American culture. If Riegler (2010) is correct and “70 percent of our knowledge derives from watching Hollywood movies,” than the misrepresentation of groups like Muslims in film could be problematic and have direct implications for perceptions of insiders and outsiders within the American society.
A recent CBS News article (2017) also looked at the portrayal of terrorists in film throughout the lifetime of American cinema. In general, this article suggests that two major groups have been targeted as the proponents of terrorism in the American film industry: Russians Frank 12 and Arabs. It should come as no surprise that communists and Russians have been featured frequently in film due to the Cold War (Morgan, 2017). Arabs do not feature as terrorists in the
American movies until the 1970s. Interestingly, the number of movies depicting Arabs and
Muslims as terrorists seems to decrease following the 5 years after 9/11 (Morgan, 2017). In around 2006, movies begin to depict Arabs and Muslims as terrorists again. After 9/11, it also appears that films featuring terrorism frequently make reference to the Middle East even if the terrorist in the film is not Arab/Muslim (Morgan, 2017).
In 2001, Jack Shaheen published a comprehensive investigation of Arabs in American movies. His book, Reel Bad Arabs, looks at how 900 Hollywood movies have depicted Arabs over the course of American cinema history. Shaheen (2001, 2) states that “from 1896 until today, filmmakers have collectively indicted all Arabs as public enemy #1 – brutal, heartless, uncivilized religious fanatics and money-mad cultural ‘others’ bent on terrorizing civilized
Westerners”. He states that the repetition of Arabs in film as “others” and terrorists has a highly negative impact on how this community is seen in the western world. Shaheen (2001, 30-35) concedes that some movies show more favorable depictions of Arabs. Films such as The Thief of
Baghdad (1924) and Sahara (1943) are stated to depict Arabs not as villains, but as normal people. These films, therefore, go against the contemporary stereotypes shown in American film.
In 2008, Shaheen wrote another book titled Guilty: Hollywood’s Verdict on Arabs after
9/11. This study explores how Arabs are being portrayed in the post 9/11 world. Shaheen finds that many American films are still portraying harmful stereotypes of Arabs. For example, movies like Black Hawk Down (2002) and American Dreamz (2006) portray Middle Easterners as violent and threatening to westerners (Shaheen, 2008, 1-10). Shaheen (2008, 1-10) argues that many of these negative stereotypes are still being portrayed, because of the political climate Frank 13 following 9/11. He references various American politicians that have promoted hateful rhetoric against Arabs and Muslims to illustrate his point. Tom Tancredo, a representative from
Colorado, illustrates Shaheen’s point with his statement that the threat of terrorism is imminent and that the US can only prevent it by “tak[ing] out Islam’s holiest cities, Medina and Mecca”
(Shaheen, 2008, 4). Shaheen (2008, 30-37) states that more Hollywood movies are starting to move away from harmful stereotypes and developing more complex, evenhanded portrayals of
Arabs. Films such as The Final Cut (2004) and The Sentinel (2006) portray charismatic Arabs.
Ultimately, Shaheen believes that the portrayal of Arabs in film will eventually become less stereotypical and more evenhanded.
Karin Wilkins and John Downing’s (2002) article, “Mediating terrorism: text and protest in interpretations of The Siege”, illustrates that it is not only academics who view American film as problematic. Prior to the release of The Siege in 1998, organizations like the ADC and CAIR developed various strategies to protest its release. These groups felt that the film promoted the
“characterization of Muslim and Arab characters as terrorists” (Wilkins & Downing, 2002, 428-
429). Even after the launch of the movie, Arab Americans around the country continued to protest the negative depictions within The Siege. Wilkins and Downing mention that protestors received moderate support from some news outlets. However, other news sources defended the film’s stereotypes. Those that defended the film stated that the stereotypes displayed in it were realistic and therefore acceptable. The director, Edward Zwick, stated that “I didn’t invent the world… I’m merely an artist looking at the world” (Wilkins & Downing, 2002, 430). Ultimately, this study of The Siege illustrates how difficult it can be to fight historical stereotypes that are utilized in Hollywood films. Frank 14
Issues with the portrayal of Muslims are not unique to American cinema. Hafiz Qasir
Abbas and Fatima Tuz Zohra (2013) conducted a study looking into the portrayal of Kashmiri
Muslims in Indian movies. The study analyzed three Bollywood films that focused on depicting
Kashmiri Muslims. Then the researchers gave out surveys discussing these movies to a random sample of students at Punjab University. Through these surveys Abbas and Zohra (2013, 37) found that out of 150 respondents 93% felt that Indian movies present Kashmiri Muslims as terrorists (2013, 37). 91% of those surveyed felt that Indian movies present Kashmiri Muslims as aggressors. In another question, 90% of surveyed students felt that Indian movies portrayed
Kashmiri Muslims in a negative way (Abbas & Zohra, 2013, 37). In the end, the authors (2013,
38) conclude that the Indian film industry is using entertainment to “set an agenda in the world where they are trying to establish a reality that all peace and law and order in Kashmir is due to
Indian presence there”.
Egypt is another case where religious Muslims are portrayed in a negative light in media.
According to Lina Khatib (2006), western countries are not the only places where Islamic fundamentalism gets portrayed in a negative light. Khatib (2006, 65) argues that Egyptian film depicts Islamic fundamentalists as the “other”, because it helps the government validate
“Egyptian national identity and agendas”. This stance against Islamic fundamentalism is ultimately due to the negative relationship between the Egyptian government and fundamentalists. Khatib (2006, 70-72) states that Egyptian films differentiate fundamentalists from regular Egyptians by portraying them as corrupt and hypocritical. Khatib (2006, 73) also writes that “Islamic fundamentalism is . . . portrayed as a threat to basic freedoms, such as freedom of expression and religion”. Frank 15
Movies are not the only media of entertainment that promote a problematic image of certain communities in regards to terrorism and counterterrorism. Elspeth Van Veeren (2009) studied TV show titled 24, which has had an impact on how Americans view terrorism. The show follows Agent Bauer as he does whatever is necessary to protect Los Angeles from various terrorist threats. Ultimately, the show is hugely popular “averaging 11 million views a week in the United States” (Veeren, 2009, 361). The show tries to show terrorism and counterterrorism in a realistic way by consulting with the CIA to try and create an accurate depiction (Veeren, 2009,
362). In this way, 24 “draw[s] on elements of ‘reality’ (realities) . . . so that their plausibility is accepted to a greater or lesser degree” (Veeren, 2009, 365). This is problematic, because much of the television series is also fiction. Van Veeren (2009, 384) believes that the mixing of “reality” and “fiction” can be problematic, because viewers have trouble differentiating between the two.
This can lead to a situation where the audience begins to believe in “fictional” portrayals of terrorism and associate these characteristics with the minority groups portraying extremist
(Veeren, 2009, 384).
Abu Sadat Nurullah expands on the issues mentioned by Van Veeran in his article discussing 24. Nurullah (2010, 1042) states that the show utilizes Orientalism to make Middle
Eastern groups appear as the “other”. He also states that in 24 “Arabs or Arab-Americans have been the show’s primary villains in three of its seven seasons”. The show has come under fire for
“its portrayal of Arabs as stereotypical crazy terrorists and Arab-Americans as not altogether trustworthy and insufficiently patriotic” (Nurullah, 2010, 1042). The show also promotes the stereotype that Muslim terrorists commit horrific acts by showing them torture innocent people and at one point “poisoning a teenage girl to death” (Nurullah, 2010, 1042). In the end, Nurullah states that the U.S. media uses shows like 24 to link Islam and Arabs to terrorism as well as Frank 16 violence. He finds this especially frustrating considering that only about 12% of the worlds
Muslims are Arab (Nurullah, 2010, 1044).
Nurullah also talks about how language used in film might work as metaphors that dehumanize specific groups of people. For example, some films have used the phrases “camel- dicks, pigs, [and] rats” to refer to Arabs or Muslims (Nurullah, 2010, 1029). Comparing other people to animals or vermin has often been used as a tactic to gain support against a specific group. People find it easier to commit acts of violence against those that are dehumanized in this way. Ultimately, the use of such language in western film is problematic because it dehumanizes groups like Muslims in front of a larger audience.
The controversy surrounding another American show depicting Arabs and Muslims, this time as regular American citizens, further shows issues related to stereotyping Muslim American citizens in the United States. A show on TLC known as All American Muslim received considerable backlash due to its “misrepresentation” of Muslims. The series attempted to show the everyday life of Muslims in Dearborn, Michigan. For example, one Muslim featured on the show is a football coach and overall average American (Huffington Post, 2012). The show received a lot of support from various Christian and Muslim groups as showing an accurate depiction of life in America for Muslims. This support did not stop the show from losing advertising from the hardware store, Lowe’s, and ultimately being canceled after one season.
Sadly, the controversy surrounding this show seems to suggest that realistic portrayals of Arabs and Muslims as everyday law-abiding citizens are not well received by a segment of the public in the United States (Huffington Post, 2012).
Muniba Saleem and Craig Anderson have even conducted studies that suggest the video games can play a large role in how Americans perceive Arabs and Muslims. Their 2013 study Frank 17 found that “widely played commercial violent video games increased the players’ negative implicit and explicit attitudes, stereotypic perceptions, and negative affect toward Arabs in general” (Saleem & Anderson, 2013, 96). They specifically learned that games that focused on terrorism elicited more negative opinions of Arabs and Muslims than games that focused on non- terrorist related violence. As a result, Saleem and Anderson state that there is likely a cognitive connection between terrorism and Arabs in the players mind. Their study also noted that terrorist games featuring Arabs would elicit a negative response from the player (Saleem & Anderson,
2013, 95-96). This is problematic, because according to the general aggression model (GAM)
‘our memories, thoughts, and decisions are based on complex associative
networks of nodes representing cognitions and emotions. One’s experience (real
or virtual) influences development of links and associations between concepts.
Concepts that are frequently activated simultaneously become interconnected over
time, forming highly accessible knowledge structures’ (Saleem & Anderson, 85).
This means that the more times a player sees a stereotypical Arab or Muslim in a video game the more likely they are to believe that stereotype. The same can be said about the stereotypes that are shown in other forms of media like television and film (Saleem & Anderson, 2013, 85).
Similarly to the general aggression model, film is able to influence society by promoting stereotypes and depictions of specific social/ethnic groups that strengthen social/ethnic boundary making mechanisms. In “Elementary strategies of ethnic boundary making”, sociologist Andreas
Wimmer discusses a wide variety of boundary making mechanisms such as expansion and contraction. These two forms of social boundary making refer to the process of making a social/ethnic group more or less inclusive (Wimmer, 2008, 1027). He mentions that expansion is often referred to as fusion, while contraction can be referred to as fission. Fusion is a mechanism Frank 18 that makes social/ethnic groups more inclusive by reducing the number of categories required to be part of a specific group. Fission on the other hand, “adds [new categories] and thus contracts previous boundaries” (2008, 1027). Wimmer also discusses strategies like transvaluation, positional move, and blurring however fall under the column of modifying boundaries. This is because these strategies “do not aim at changing the topography of boundaries . . . but rather . . .
[modify] their meaning and implication for a person’s own life” (Wimmer, 2008, 1037).
In a similar article, Charles Tilly discusses other mechanisms of ethnic/social boundary change. Tilly (2004, 211) states that there are two sets of mechanisms at play during this process
“those that precipitate boundary change and those that constitute boundary change”. He goes on to explain that encounter, imposition, borrowing, conversation and incentive shift are all mechanisms that precipitate a boundary change. On the other hand, inscription, erasure, activation, deactivation, site transfer and relocation are all mechanisms that constitute the change
(Tilly, 2004, 211). It is important to mention that mechanisms that cause boundary change must occur before mechanisms constituting this change can take place. However, even if mechanisms like encounter, imposition, or borrowing occur there is no guarantee that it will lead to the development of mechanisms that constitute the change (Tilly, 2004, 215-216). The remainder of
Tilly’s article consists of him explaining how each of these mechanisms function via historical examples. Tilly (2004, 222-226) states that it is imperative that scholars understand how these mechanisms function in order to understand how and why social boundary change occurs. At the end of the article, Tilly (2004, 226-232) also discusses some of the consequences that might occur due to social boundary changes.
When discussing the creation of ethnic/social communities it is important to realize that many individuals have membership within multiple communities. It would be easy to assume Frank 19 that individuals with membership in multiple groups would also be more inclusive, because they have access to a wider diversity of opinions. However, Marilynn Brewer and Kathleen Pierce
(2005) suggest that this might not be the case. They argue that “it is not simply the number of different group identities that an individual has but how they are subjectively represented and combined that determines the level of inclusiveness of one’s subjective in-group membership”
(Brewer & Pierce, 2005, 435). For example, and individual might belong to multiple groups, but define “the in-group as the intersection of all his or her group identities”, thus creating a highly exclusive single identity (Brewer & Pierce, 2005, 428). The authors refer to these individuals as having low social identity complexity. Individuals with high social identity complexity belong to multiple groups and “recognize that each of his or her group memberships incorporates a different set of people as in-group members” (Brewer & Pierce, 2005, 428). High social identity complexity is generally associated with inclusiveness and tolerance. The authors also found evidence that education, age and political orientation had an impact on an individual’s social identity complexity. Those who are older, better educated, and liberal tend to have higher complexities than those who are not for example (Brewer & Pierce, 2005, 433).
Membership in a community can also be determined by religion. As a result, some scholars have started to analyze the way that religion impacts meaning making as well as boundary formation. In their article, “Religion in Meaning Making and Boundary Work”, Janine
Dahinden and Tania Zittoun (2013, 4) state that “religious elements are used as means to create meaning – to render the world, self, others and one’s actions readable, valuable and manageable”. They discuss how religion can help people make meaning of ruptures of disruptions in the status quo. For example, religion can be used to help people overcome traumatic events like 9/11 (Dahinden & Zittoun, 2013, 6-7). The authors then discuss religions Frank 20 role in boundary making. In many ways, religious boundary mechanism function similarly to ethnic and social boundary mechanisms. Religious groups generally consist of individuals who share enough commonalities that they form a community. Membership in this community is then defined by the commonalities shared among members.
Dahinden and Zittoun also discuss how religious identities are sometimes constructed by out-groups. The stereotypes surrounding the Muslim community are a good example of how an out-group defines and labels what it means to be Muslim (Dahinden & Zittoun, 2013, 2-3).
Individuals are then labeled as members of this group by members of the out-group. Lastly the authors discuss how “assigning a label or meaning to a group, thus distinguishing it from another one, inevitably creates feeling of self-definition, belonging and exclusion” (Dahinden & Zittoun,
2013, 17). This means that “any creation of a meaning A implies another, complementary non-A meaning” (Dahinden & Zittoun, 2013, 18). This ultimately means that during the process of social, ethnic or religious boundary formation at least two distinct groups are being formed, the in and out group (Dahinden & Zittoun, 2013, 18).
When analyzing films depicting terrorists from the Middle East it is important to understand the concept of orientalism. Historically, orientalism has been used as a social/ethnic boundary making tool that helped develop a binary system between the occident and the orient.
Edward Said’s book, Orientalism, explains the development of orientalism and its impact on western thought. Ultimately, orientalism is a social/ethnic boundary mechanism that was developed by European nations to help differentiate the West, occident, from the East, orient.
Said (1978, 31-36) mentions that orientalism was developed as a field of study by Europeans so that they could better understand the East. Individuals labeled as orientalists would study the law, Frank 21 politics, religion, and culture of regions that were located outside the “civilized” West. These scholars would eventually create a system of knowledge that would be the basis for European understanding of the Orient (Said, 1978).
This system would eventually promote the idea that “there are Westerners, and there are
Orientals. The former dominate; the latter must be dominated” (Said, 1978, 36). Orientalism also started to portray the Orient as the “other” when compared to the West. For example, everything that defined the West was contrasted by the Orient. “The Orient is irrational, depraved, (fallen), childlike, ‘different’; thus the European is rational, virtuous, mature, ‘normal’” (Said, 1978, 40).
Ultimately, Said states that “Orientalism was . . . a political vision of reality whose, structure promoted the difference between the familiar (Europe, the West, ‘us’) and the strange (the
Orient, the East, ‘them’)” (Said, 1978, 43). Orientalism divided into two separate groups with contrasting characteristics.
According to Said, Henry Kissinger’s essay “Domestic Structure and Foreign Policy” creates a more contemporary version of a similar binary. Kissinger’s article essentially divided the world into developed countries (the West) and developing countries (the East) (Said, 1978,
46-49). He then begins to discuss “what linguists call binary opposition: that is, he shows that there are two styles of foreign policy; two types of technique, two periods, and so forth” (Said,
1978, 46). Kissinger makes this differentiation between foreign policy, technique and period all based on whether a nation has undergone a Newtonian Revolution (Said, 1978, 47). Those nations that were influenced by such a revolution fell under the label of developed, while the rest became developing (Said, 1978, 47-48). Depending on the label a nation was given, it received the appropriate style of policies. Ultimately, Kissinger’s theory could be used much like
Orientalism to promote an “us” versus “them” mentality in which developing nations contrast Frank 22 their counterparts. This of course can lead to issues as entire populations get labeled as the
“other” (Said, 1978, 48-49).
As mentioned, one of the issues associated with binary systems like Orientalism is that it creates a system of superiority. Said illustrates this idea with his reference to Arthur James
Balfour. Balfour believed that the orient was once full of great civilizations that accomplished many great tasks, but that over the years these nations had fallen into an uncivilized state (Said,
1978, 31-36). It was therefore, the job of westerners to help Orientals reobtain their greatness.
Said (1978, 31-36) also mentions that Balfour felt that England could occupy countries like
Egypt, because they had the power of knowledge on their side. English scholars knew all about
Egyptian history because they had studied it for years and therefore they knew what was best for the region. Westerners, like Balfour, used their knowledge about Oriental history to suggest that
Eastern nations would never develop self-government and that without western influence these nations would return to despotism (Said, 1978, 33). Similar Orientalist logic was used within
Western governments to promote the imperialism of Eastern nations around the world.
Jane Park and Karin Wilkins expand on the idea of Orientalism in their article,
“Reorienting the Orientalist Gaze”. In the article, Park and Wilkins (2005, 1) argue that
Orientalism is dangerous because it can lead to “discrimination, abuse, and misunderstandings”.
Orientalism can be problematic to individuals in the US, because it enhances “ignorance of important cultural histories” and can lead to “global situations with direct domestic implications”
(Park & Wilkins, 2005, 1). The authors mirror a lot of the language used by Said when discussing the concept of Orientalism. Specifically, they focus on the “relationship between the
Occident, in its capacity of media production, and the Orient, as a subject of that production” Frank 23
(Park & Wilkins, 2005, 2). They state that this relationship is based on power and how the
Occident can portray the Orient in a subordinate way.
The remainder of the text focuses on discussing how Orientalism also has a direct impact on East Asia and not only on the Middle East. The authors mention that Said’s text focuses on the Middle East as its subject matter, but that the same ideas can be applied to Asia as well. Park and Wilkins (2005, 11) mention that “US media offer as problematic a sense of East Asia as they do of the Middle East, in that diversity within these regions is obscured, in favor of more generalized composite images of these settings”. Orientalism relates to British and American cinema, because it is a social/ethnic boundary making mechanism that leads to problematic depictions of minority groups in film. Minorities like Asians or Arabs are often stereotyped through and orientalist lens and turned into exotic caricatures. These caricatures are often culturally insensitive and portray these groups in a negative manner (Khatib, 2006, 64-66).
Ultimately, social/ethnic boundary making mechanisms lead to the creation of social/ethnic groups. These same boundary mechanisms can also lead to the creation of stereotypes and labeling that develop entire suspect communities (Hickman et al., 2011). A 2011 study conducted by the City University of London discusses what suspect communities entail and how they were created in Britain. The article analyzed how Irish and Muslims are treated and labeled due to their ethnic attachment to “suspect communities” (Hickman et al., 2011). This article uses Paddy Hillyard’s understanding of the concept to explain “suspect communities”:
‘a person who is drawn into the criminal justice system under the PTA is not a
suspect in the normal sense of the word. In other words, they are not believed to
be involved in or guilty of some illegal act […] people are suspect primarily Frank 24
because they are Irish and once they are in the police station they are often
labelled an Irish suspect, presumably as part of some classification system. In
practice, they are being held because they belong to a suspect community’
(Hillyard, 1993, 7)
The article states that individuals within a “suspect community” are seen “as victims, partners and threats” (Hickman et al., 2011, 14). Individuals in suspect communities are simultaneously understood as “allies in the struggle against ‘extremists’”, “victims of terrorists’ violence” and potential sympathizers or supporters of extremists (Hickman et al., 2011, 3). The problem with seeing communities as suspect is that governments should be targeting criminalities and not communities. Associating specific communities with illegal activities will lead to unfair bias and discrimination.
This study also concluded that the terms “moderate Muslim” and “innocent Irish” further illustrate the problematic portrayal of these communities. The article states “that the mere fact of referring to the innocent Irish implicitly constructs the Irish as a potential threat, and contains an inbuilt presumption that while many are innocent, others are guilty (Hickman et al., 2011, 17).
The same logic follows for referring to people as “moderate Muslims”. Even the media play a role in the construction of suspect communities. For example when discussing Islamic terrorism,
British news headlines use the words Muslim/s, Islam and Islamic at a higher frequency than they use the name of Islamic radical groups like al-Qaeda. These “headlines suggest that . . . terrorism is associated with Muslims in general” and not with any specific organization
(Hickman et al., 2011, 16). Therefore, these headlines only further promote the idea that
Muslims are “suspect” to violence. Frank 25
Marie Breen-Smyth expands upon some of the issues facing those placed within suspect communities in her article. Breen-Smyth (2014, 223) argues that the suspicion placed upon suspects “silences, marginalizes and prevents the democratic participation . . . thus alienating them from democratic processes and undermining the possibility of a peaceful politics”. She also notes that this suspicion “renders ‘suspects’, who may be innocent, and liable to be targets of a range of punitive measures” (Breen-Smyth, 2014, 223). The author discusses the case of Harry
Stanley as well as Jean Charles de Menezes, two men who were shot by British police who mistook them for IRA and Al Qaeda members respectively. Ultimately, these two men were mistaken for terrorists, because of racial characteristics that made them “look” like members of each of these radical organizations (Breen-Smyth, 2014, 225-227).
Individuals within “suspect communities” also have social limitations placed on their freedom of speech. For example, Muslims can find it difficult to be critical of Western foreign policy, because such critique could be taken as radicalism. This effectively silences many
Muslims who do not want to be seen as supporters of terrorism or radicalism. In some cases, individuals within “suspect” groups will even try to pass as other ethnic or religious groups “out of shame and . . . to avoid bigotry and discrimination” (Breen-Smyth, 2014, 236). Qualitative research has also found that individuals within these communities are also subject to physical attack and verbal abuse (Breen-Smyth, 2014, 233).
A study by Steven Salaita also discusses how freedom of speech can be limited for those who are suspect citizens. In his study Salaita makes reference to “imperative patriotism”, which
“assumes (or demands) that dissent in matters of governance and foreign affairs is unpatriotic and therefore unsavory” (2005, 154). He states that the idea that dissent is unpatriotic is problematic when an entire group of people, such as Arab Americans, are not having their views Frank 26 represented by the United States government. Normally, Arab Americans would protest or show their dissent for the policies of the United States, but following 9/11 such actions place this group under suspicion. This results in a system where an entire segment of society does not have the opportunity to express themselves through government without being suspect to investigation
(Salaita, 2005, 164-165).
Tariq Modood illustrates even more issues facing Muslims in suspect communities.
Modood states that many of the 15 million Muslims living in the EU consistently deal with issues pertaining to discrimination and citizenship. Modood (2003, 101) mentions that in the UK,
Muslims are “disproportionately among the lowest-paid, unemployed and under-employed”.
Modood (2003, 101) draws attention to how Muslims have become “vulnerable to the anti- refugee mood and policies in the EU today”. This has led to situations were British Muslims report being victims of abuse and harassment. Historically, Britain has had no legal mechanisms for dealing with religious discrimination against Muslims. As late as 2003, “it [was] lawful to discriminate against Muslims qua Muslims because the courts [did] not accept that Muslims
[were] an ethnic group” (Modood, 2003, 103-104). Oddly enough, Britain does define both Jews and Sikhs as ethnic groups.
Another issue in Britain is that Muslims have been under-represented in both “prestigious jobs and public office” (Modood, 2003, 104). According to Modood, this is problematic because
“participation in the public or national culture is necessary for the effective exercise of citizenship” (Modood, 2003, 105). The fact the Muslims are being under-represented and discriminated against therefore threatens their role as citizens. As a result, many groups of
Muslims, like the Forum Against Islamophobia and Racism (FAIR), have demanded that the UK improve its laws pertaining to religious discrimination. This includes setting up safety nets that Frank 27 keep employers from discriminating against employees based on their religion (Modood, 2003,
106-109).
Methodology
This study analyzes depictions of terrorism in 16 films that were released following 9/11 in 2001. No films before 9/11 were selected, because this study was only interested in understanding contemporary depictions of terrorism. September 11th was an effective cutoff date for differentiating between contemporary films depicting extremism and older depictions of the topic. This study focuses on 16 films, because it was the highest number of films that could be analyzed within the given timeframe of the study. It was also important to have as many movies analyzed as possible, because it gives the study the most possible data points to analyze. Of these
16 films, 8 were selected from the United States and 8 were selected from the United Kingdom.
These films were then divided again into two separate groups. 4 American films would feature
Arab and Muslim terrorists as the main antagonists, while the other 4 films would depict non-
Arab or Muslim extremists. The same division was applied to British films, so that 4 films would focus on Arab and Muslim extremists, while the other 4 would focus on other terrorist groups.
To make the analysis of terrorism in film more concrete, not all of the films should feature Arab or Muslim extremism. Having a wider variety of terrorists depicted in these films makes sure that the analysis can determine similarities in the depictions of extremism between different groups. It also enables this study to determine how Arabs and Muslims are illustrated differently in film than other extremist groups. For these reasons, the study analyzes 8 films with
Arab and Muslim extremists and 8 that focus on other terrorist organization. The chart below breaks down the films that were analyzed during this study into their respective groups. Frank 28
Description Number of Movies
British films featuring Arab & Muslim Four Lions (2010), Cleanskin (2012), Eye in
terrorists the Sky (2016), Road to Guantanamo (2006)
American films featuring Arab & Muslim Iron Man (2008), Rendition (2007), The
terrorists Kingdom (2007), Zero Dark Thirty (2012)
British films featuring non-Arab or Muslim 71 (2014), Omagh (2004), Fifty Dead Men
terrorists Walking (2008), The Foreigner (2017)
American films featuring non-Arab or Olympus has Fallen (2013), Collateral
Muslim terrorists Damage (2002), Live Free or Die Hard
(2007), Source Code (2011)
After the films were selected for this study, methods for analyzing the films were borrowed from both Jack Shaheen and Noura Alalawi (2001; 2015). Both of these studies analyze the depiction of Arabs and Muslims in film. These authors suggest that when analyzing film it is important to pay attention to how everyone is being depicted. Therefore, while watching each film meticulous notes were taken on those being portrayed as terrorists as well as those being portrayed as the “good guys”. Additionally, my notes focused on the depictions of minority groups within each film. For example, if Arabs or Irish were portrayed as terrorists, I noted how non-extremist Arabs and Irish were depicted. In his article, Shaheen also mentions the importance of paying attention to uses of Orientalism in American film. Following Shaheen’s advice, I analyzed how Orientalism was utilized in British and American film. Before writing down the depictions of terrorism in each film, I watched each movie at least two times. During the first play through of each film, my notes focused around looking at the depiction of terrorists Frank 29 and orientalism in each film. The general plot and summary of the film was also noted. The second play through of the film was done to ensure that all depictions of terrorists were noted. It was during the second play through that I collected the notes pertaining to non-terrorists.
Chapter: American Films
Arab & Muslim Extremists in American Film
The Kingdom follows FBI agent Ronald Fleury as he attempts to learn who committed a massive terrorist attack against an American oil housing compound in Saudi Arabia. In the attack, Fleury’s friend Francis Manner is killed and Fleury is determined to find those responsible. Therefore, Fleury blackmails a Saudi consul into letting him take an FBI team into
Saudi Arabia to find those responsible. For this mission, Fleury brings Grant Sykes, Janet Mayes, and Adam Leavitt. Soon upon reaching Saudi Arabia, the team meets Colonel Faris Al Ghazi who has been tasked with keeping the Americans safe. This leads to him initially hindering their investigation into the attacks, which frustrates the agents. The agents soon befriend Al Ghazi and work together to hunt down the terrorists. Eventually, terrorists attack the group and kidnap
Adam Leavitt, thus forcing the team into a car chase that ends by an apartment building.
Following the chase, a gun fight breaks out as the agents and Al Ghazi search the apartment complex for Leavitt. Leavitt is eventually freed and the team ends up finding Abu Hamza, the leader of the terrorist group. This leads to another firefight in which Hamza is killed along with
Al Ghazi. In the end, the Americans go home safe and are congratulated on their victory. That said most of them are still saddened by the death of Al Ghazi.
Terrorists depicted within The Kingdom are stereotypical Islamic extremists who are interested in promoting Jihad. The film illustrates this point when Abu Hamza, the leader of the Frank 30 terrorist cell says “glory to Allah”, in Arabic, after having his men slaughter Americans inside the oil housing compound. Other scenes in the movie show Abu Hamza praying to Allah along with his followers. After the FBI agents arrive in Saudi Arabia, it quickly becomes apparent that
Hamza wants to kill as many of the agents as possible in order to make a statement against
America. Throughout the film, Hamza and his followers are shown wearing clothing like keffiyehs, taqiyah, and thawbs. Other members are shown wearing black face masks with black clothing that helps obscure their identity. Interestingly enough, not all terrorists depicted in this film are adult males. Most of the men involved are young adults, but there are also some teenage boys involved in the organization. These teenagers are generally shown being taught lessons about radical Islam or helping create IEDs.
This film also promotes stereotypes used in other movies depicting terrorism. The stereotype of terrorists being coldhearted killers is strongly illustrated in this film, because there are multiple scenes were the terrorists actively kill or injure large amounts of people without any remorse. During the opening scene, two terrorists drive a truck around the oil compound and shoot civilians attending a baseball game. The scene shows as extremists use M-16s to kill women and children. As stated by Nurullah (2010), depictions like these further emphasize the idea that Muslim terrorists are capable of horrific violence. These terrorists continue to kill until they are themselves shot by Saudi Police forces. As if the initial attack was not bad enough, the terrorists then detonate a bomb hidden on an ambulance to kill the EMTs and injured victims attempting to recover from the initial attack. Ultimately, the use of the ambulance illustrates just how “coldhearted” and “ruthless” the extremists in this film are.
It also illustrates Nurullah’s (2010) point that Muslim terrorists are depicted as being capable of horrific violence. More bloodshed occurs later on in the film when terrorists detonate Frank 31 a car on the highway. This explosion leads to multiple accidents, which result in cars flipping over one another. The attack impacts both the FBI agents and Saudi civilians. Towards the end of the film, there is yet another scene where terrorists start a firefight with the FBI agents inside a
Saudi neighborhood. During the fight, terrorists utilize RPGs and end up blowing up various buildings. The complete carelessness associated with using a rocket launcher in an urban area seems to only further suggest that the terrorists of this film are not concerned about human life.
One interesting element in the film is that the terrorists following Abu Hamza are constantly using camera equipment to film their attacks. The terrorists depicted in this film are ultimately trying to create propaganda pieces like the ones created by Al Qaeda or ISIS. This is interesting, because many of films depicting terrorism do not illustrate the media element that can be involved with extremism. Ultimately, the best scene illustrating this aspect of the film is when Abu Hamza captures agent Leavitt. The reason that he captures Leavitt is because he wants to broadcast the execution of the FBI agent in order to send a message to the rest of the world. In the film, we see a man holding a large knife up the Leavitt’s neck as a camera man films the scene. This sequence directly parallels a lot of the killing tapes that have been released by extremist Islamic groups, thus linking the terrorists in the film to groups in the real world.
Before discussing the depictions of non-radical characters in the film, it is important to examine Abu Hamza. Even though Hamza is the leader of the terrorist cell in this film, he barely appears on screen. One could argue that this character was developed to represent Osama bin
Laden in the film. Like bin Laden, Hamza is an older man who is fed up with American involvement in the Middle East. He is generally shown wearing similar Middle Eastern clothing to that of bin Laden as well. According to US intelligence, Hamza’s bombing of the oil housing compound was initiated, because of American involvement in Middle Eastern politics. Frank 32
The FBI also states that Abu Hamza is a man who “preaches extreme violence” and even
“brainwashes” people into joining his cause (18:56). This description seems to link Hamza with bin Laden, another terrorist who preached a violent version of Islam and many might argue brainwashed hundreds of people. The film actually shows scenes of Hamza teaching teenage boys about radical Islam. Ultimately, The Kingdom depicts Abu Hamza as a man who deeply hates America and the West. For example, right as Hamza is about to be captured by Al Ghazi, he pulls out an AK-47 he was hiding behind his back. Hamza tries to kill Al Ghazi and the FBI agents, but is shot before he can pull the trigger. As he lays on the ground dying, Hamza whispers into his granddaughter’s ear “don’t fear them, my child. We are going to kill them all”
(1:43:58). This last statement by Hamza shows that even in death he is passionate about Jihad.
In general, Saudi Security forces are portrayed as being incompetent at their jobs. This is illustrated by the poor leadership of General Al Abdulmalik, who has no experience in investigating terrorist attacks. His lack of experience hinders the productivity of the investigation. For example, he keeps the FBI specialists from effectively investigating the attack, which only prolongs the investigation. Al Abdulmalik also falsely accuses one of his men for aiding the terrorists. This man is then beaten, while being interrogated. The beatings only stop when Faris Al Ghazi proves that the police officer is innocent. The brutal interrogation of this innocent man negatively portrays Arabs as “barbaric”, which supports Alalawi’s (2015) statement that American cinema depicts Arabs in a negative light. Al Abdulmalik’s security personnel also come off as incompetent. This is illustrated by how confused they look when being given directions by the FBI agents. These scenes make it appear as though the men have never conducted an investigation before in their life. In some scenes, Special Agents Grant Sykes even talks down to the Saudi men under him. He often uses broken simplified English when Frank 33 giving them instructions. The use of this language further promotes the idea that these men are dumb or incompetent.
Colonel Faris Al Ghazi is the only Saudi officer who is not portrayed as being incompetent. Once his character takes over the investigation he allows the Americans to look into the attack. This choice leads to the elimination of a terrorist cell that was actively making suicide vests. Al Ghazi is also one of the few security officers who realized that Al Abdulmalik is incompetent at investigating the attack. The film also makes sure to make Al Ghazi a relatable and sympathetic character. He is shown to be a dedicated father to his children and a caring husband to his wife. Al Ghazi also frequently talks about wanting to kill those responsible for the horrific attack and seems to have a real drive to see justice is enacted. In combination, these two things help make Al Ghazi a sympathetic character, because he shares similar values to the audience viewing the film. Other scenes show him connecting with Special Agent Ronald
Fleury. In these scenes, the two men talk about American pop culture and joke around. These conversations strengthen the friendship between these two characters and also make Al Ghazi more relatable to Western viewers. Ultimately, the Colonel is made out to be the one “good”
Saudi in the film who stands out from the crowd.
The four FBI agents are illustrated as being the complete opposite of the Saudi security forces. Unlike the Saudi forces, the FBI agents are shown to be good at their jobs. This is shown when Special Agent Fleury is finally able to investigate the attack. He almost instantly discovers useful information that leads to the discovery of a terrorist cell. Similarly, agent Grant Sykes conducts an investigation and learns that the terrorists utilized an ambulance car bomb to kill victims during the attack. Without these agents, the Saudi government would never have been able to solve this investigation. Each of the agents is also shown to have a disdain for the Middle Frank 34
East. This is shown by their dialogue in the film. One agent says that Saudi Arabia is like
“Mars”, while another agent jokes about Saudi Arabia not being safe during the day or night.
These comments help to set the country apart from the West. These comments are also generally negative and thus reflect negatively on the region. Viewers may also be more inclined to listen to the opinions of these characters, because they are Americans. Therefore, western viewers are more likely to trust them and respect their opinions. Each of the agents is also shown to be generally good people. None of them are saints, but they are each interested in enacting justice for the innocent lives that were taken during the attack.
Rendition is an American film that follows Anwar El-Ibrahimi and Douglas Freeman.
The movie mostly takes place in an unnamed country located somewhere in North Africa. It is here that Douglas is stationed as a CIA agent responsible for observing the interrogation of
Anwar. Anwar is a chemical engineer who is detained and illegally sent to a prison in North
Africa, because the US government suspects he is involved with an Islamic extremist named
Rashid. As a result, he is interrogated and tortured by Abasi Fawal, a high-ranking police official in North Africa. Anwar insists that he is innocent and has no connection to Rashid, but Abasi only tortures him more whenever he refuses involvement with terrorists. Corrine Whitman, an
American politician, makes matters worse when she insists that the continued torture of Anwar is pivotal to learning the location of Rashid. Douglas seems certain that he has no connection to terrorists, but his opinion is continuously ignored.
Eventually, Anwar does admit to interacting with Rashid and extremists. He also tells
Abasi about various men that help Rashid create explosives. However, Douglas does not buy
Anwar’s intel and discovers that the names of the people given during the interrogation were all people on Egypt’s soccer team. This convinces him that Anwar is innocent and that the torture is Frank 35 useless. As a result, Douglas goes against the wishes of his superiors and releases El-Ibrahimi from prison. He also calls various newspapers and tells them about the illegal imprisonment of
Anwar. This gets Corrine Whitman into a lot of political turmoil and potentially ruins her career.
Eventually, Anwar returns home to his wife and son.
While the main plot of the movie is developing, there are two side plots that develop as well. One of the plots surrounds Isabella El-Ibrahimi’s journey to learn what happened to her husband, Anwar. Her friend Alan Smith uses his political connections to help her learn that
Anwar was illegally detained and imprisoned after returning to the United States. He also tells her about Corrine Whitman’s involvement in the imprisonment of her husband. The second sub- plot follows Fatima Fawal, Abasi’s daughter, and Khalid El-Emin. Their story develops as the two of them fall in love after Fatima flees from her father. She leaves, because her father is trying to arrange her marriage, but she wants to choose the man who she marries. After living with Khalid for a few days, Fatima learns that he is associated with Rashid and Islamic extremism. She also learns that Rashid’s organization is targeting her father as a target for assassination. Ultimately, this leads to a scene where Fatima attempts to stop Khalid from detonating a bomb vest within a populated city square. Unfortunately, Rashid and his men kill
Khalid, thus setting off the bomb. During this scene, the viewer realizes that Khalid was the bomber from the beginning of the movie and that the film does not follow a linear timeline.
In Rendition, all of the terrorists are depicted as Islamic extremists. Unlike, The Kingdom no young children are shown taking part in terrorist activities. Most of the terrorists shown in this film are of college age. The film illustrates this point by having many of Fatima’s male classmates also take part in Islamic extremism. For example, the viewer can see multiple people who attended Rashid’s talk about Jihad during the college protest scene. In Rendition, Islamic Frank 36 extremists are shown wearing taqiyahs and thawbs, like in The Kingdom. This further solidifies the idea that these articles of clothing are associated with Islamic extremism. Not all of the extremists wear this traditional Muslim attire. Many of these men also have beards. The men who act as guards to Rashid’s “Mosque” wear clothing associated with more traditional paramilitaries. These individuals are shown carrying AK-47s around. In stereotypical terrorist style, the extremists in this film also use IED vests as their main mode of causing destruction.
The vests have a specialized trigger that detonates the bomb when the user releases the button. It is stated in the film that extremists will often shoot individuals wearing suicide vests if that individual tries to back out of the attack. Shooting the wearer will kill them and ultimately lead to them releasing the trigger and detonating the bomb. In this way, terrorists ensure that suicide bombers are always somewhat effective.
Rashid is the leader of the extremist group depicted in the film. Rendition depicts him as a devout radical Muslim who preaches to younger Muslims about Jihad and the struggle against the West. He is shown in multiple scenes giving religious speeches about the glory of martyrdom. Rashid also talks about how all Muslims should oppose Zionists and crusaders who come into the Middle East and meddle in the regions affairs. His speech is particularly interesting, because it seems to be a mix of military and religious rhetoric. This is shown by him telling his disciples to go out and partake in what could be considered “military” campaigns, while simultaneously talking about the greatness of Allah. Rashid also encourages his followers to chant in unison praising Allah and Jihad. Towards the end of the film, he strongly encourages
Khalid to partake in martyrdom, by trying to kill Abasi with a suicide vest. When Khalid tries to back out of the bombing, Rashid has him shot and killed. This causes the vest to detonate, which kills women and children all around the square. After committing this heinous act, he flees the Frank 37 scene without shedding a tear. His actions during this scene seem to portray him as a cold hearted killer, who targets innocent women and children. The willingness to kill is often a trait shared by terrorists in both film and television. Terrorists in The Kingdom also exhibited this coldhearted killer mentality.
Khalid is a slightly more complex character than Rashid mostly because his backstory is better developed. The film strongly hints that Khalid became a terrorist, because of his older brother. For example, there are pictures of him with his older brother holding AK-47s and wearing paramilitary clothing. This seems to suggest Khalid joined the extremist group to be like his brother. Rendition also hints at him having issues with Western imperialism and influence in the Middle East. This is implied by his participation in a peaceful protest against US involvement in his country. It is likely that Khalid views extremism as a means of countering western imperialism. His brother was also killed while fighting for Jihad, so Khalid has a strong sense of vengeance that he wishes to take out against western sympathizers. However, even with these strong feelings against the West he still manages to feel remorse for attempting to bomb the city square. It is for this reason that he does not detonate the device. His sense of regret is particularly interesting, because it goes against the stereotype that terrorists are blood thirsty killers. His choice at the end shows that extremists do have morals and that they are not all okay with murder. Unfortunately, Khalid’s choice to not go through with the attack came too late and he is killed before he can leave the heavily populated area, thus setting off the bomb.
Many of the Arab characters depicted in this film have more dynamic portrayals and are not made out to be stereotypes. One such character is Anwar El-Irbrahimi, the husband of
Isabella. He is also the character whom the US government utilizes extraordinary rendition on. In general, Anwar is made out to be a good husband and respectable man. This is shown by how Frank 38 affectionate he is over the phone with his wife and son. The fact his wife cares deeply for his safety also illustrates that they probably have a healthy relationship. Anwar is also generally polite and proper when addressing the various state officials who interrogate him. He does break down at times, but this can be expected from a man who has been falsely accused of terrorism.
At times, the film does try to make the viewer question Anwar’s innocence, but ultimately the evidence is shown to be falsified. This makes it seem as though these moments are only in the film to place some ambiguity into the narrative of the film. By the end of the film, Anwar becomes a shell of the man he once was. The change in his personality shows how much imprisonment and torture can break someone down. His weakness is illustrated by his silence and shriveled body language.
Fatima and her aunt also stand out against traditional Arab stereotypes of women. Her aunt, for example, is seen wearing a women’s suite. This clothing is not particularly revealing, but it does contradict the stereotype of Muslim/Arab women always wearing hijabs. These two women also stand out because they are generally shown to be a strong female presence. For example, Fatima’s aunt stands up to Abasi, Fatima’s father, by letting Fatima hide at her apartment. She is doing this so that Fatima can avoid being forced into a marriage by her father.
Fatima’s strength is shown by how she pursues her own happiness and stands up to both her father and boyfriend, Khalid. In particular, Fatima tells Khalid that she disagrees with jihad and tries to stop him from killing innocent people. Her bravery to place her life on the line to stop
Khalid ultimately gets her killed, but it does show the strength of her character. It also illustrates that she cares about innocent people and should be seen as a moralistic character.
Abasi Fawal on the other hand exhibits many of the stereotypical traits associated with
Arab men. In general, he is depicted as being a brutish and stubborn man. This is illustrated by Frank 39 how critical he is of criticism given by Douglas and by how easily he is willing to resort to violence while interrogating Anwar. He is also shown beating and torturing Anwar in various scenes throughout the movie. The relationship between himself and his wife is also stereotypical.
Rendition depicts his wife as being quiet and timid, while he is shown to be the head of the household. Even his relationship with Fatima suggests that he is controlling of his daughters and their future. For example, he tries to force her into a marriage with a man she does not love. The film does make sure to show that Abasi is a caring man as well. This is illustrated by how devastated he is following the death of Fatima. He is also shown having positive interactions with his youngest daughter at the kitchen table. Therefore, the film does not completely demonize Abasi, but does not depict him as a nice man.
With the exception of Isabella’s friend Alan, most of the American politicians in this film receive a negative portrayal. The best example of this is Corrine Whitman who is responsible for
Anwar’s extraordinary rendition. Throughout the film, this character is bombarded with information that suggests that Anwar is innocent, yet she continues to pursue a confession. For example, when she is told that Anwar’s polygraph test showed he wasn’t lying about not being involved with terrorists she states “polygraph doesn’t mean diddly” (22:00). One of her informants then remarks that polygraphs do matter when the lead to convictions, which only angers Whitman. Even when confronted directly by Isabella about the innocence of Anwar,
Corrine is stubborn and refuses to relent in her pursuit of convict him. Admittedly, she is trying to seek justice for Americans who lost their lives, but her unwillingness to look at the facts makes her look ignorant and only demonizes her. It also makes her look corrupt, since she is abusing an innocent man for a conviction. Frank 40
Senator Hawkins is also portrayed in a relatively negative light, because he gives up on pursuing justice for Anwar when he learns that it might lose him the election. He tells Alan that there are ultimately too many variables and that he is not willing to risk his career. His unwillingness to pursue the truth harms his depiction, because most of the evidence given to him suggests that Anwar is innocent. However, Senator Hawkins is too selfish to save a man who is being illegally detained by the government.
Contrary to the depiction of the politicians, Douglas Freeman, the protagonist of the film, is generally shown to be a good guy. At the start of the film, he can come off as being a little uncaring, since he watches Abasi torture Anwar without objection, but eventually he does start to develop into a positive character. This is shown by how he starts to object to the brutal tactics that Abasi uses to try and extract information. Eventually, Douglas figures out that Anwar truly knows nothing about the terrorist attack and has only confessed to the crime, because he is rewarded for confession. Realizing that Anwar is innocent and that the torture is pointless,
Douglas manages to find a way to help him escape. He then helps Anwar get back home to his family in the United States. Douglas’ willingness to risk his own career to help a man return to his family positively reflects on his character. His ability to realize that Anwar is innocent and the various flaws with torture as a method of information extraction also help him appear to be competent. Douglas never comes off as a particularly warm character, but he is shown to be a good guy who is willing to protect those who are innocent.
Movie critics from both the Guardian and New York Times have stated that Rendition tries its best to create a complex discussing the US practice of “extraordinary rendition”. A. Scott
(2007) from the New York Times states that the film is clearly “against torture, kidnapping and other abuses” and that “everyone in the movie . . . receives a sympathetic hearing”. Scott argues Frank 41 that even characters like Abasi Fawal, Corrine Whitman and Khalid El-Emin are given sympathetic reasons for acting villainously. Scott (2007) also states that the film “tries to be thoughtful and respectful of the complexity” of the topic at hand. Peter Bradshaw at the
Guardian shared a similar opinion. Bradshaw (2007) states that the film does tries to attempt to explain the issues with “extraordinary rendition”. Bradshaw also mentions that the film tries to illustrate that the actions taken by the United States have a clear impact on families in other countries. Perhaps, the biggest criticism he has of the film is that it is never stated “whether the
CIA’s phone-record evidence against Anwar is sound or not” (Bradshaw, 2007). Therefore, it is unclear whether he is connected to a terrorist cell or not. Neither critic stated that the film illustrated bias against Islam or Muslims. They seem to believe the film represented all characters fairly.
Zero Dark Thirty is an American film that follows CIA agent Maya’s search for Osama bin Laden. Starting in 2003, she spends her time in Pakistan working with CIA intelligence officers, like Dan, who torture terrorists to attempt and gain information on bin Laden. In several situations, Maya herself conducts interrogations of prisoners. The film also depicts various terrorist attacks in Pakistan and England. Maya even finds herself being the target of various attacks during the film. Many of her fellow CIA operatives are killed by suicide bombers during the film. This only fuels her passion to find bin Laden. Maya finally catches a break in 2009 when she learns about the true identity of Abu Ahmed, an important courier for Osama bin
Laden. This leads Maya and her team to the location of bin Laden’s compound. It takes the CIA years to get approval to storm the compound, but finally the send in a SEAL team to raid the compound. During the raid, the SEALs kill all men within the compound and capture Osama bin
Laden. Frank 42
Terrorists are depicted in multiple different ways within Zero Dark Thirty. Many of the unnamed terrorists in the film are shown to be younger Middle Eastern men wielding AK-47s or utilizing explosives. These individuals are also generally shown wearing normal civilian clothing and not religious garb. The terrorists that attack the hotel in Khobar, Saudi Arabia and shoot at
Maya in front of her home fit this description. Many of these younger extremists are also shown to have beards, thus promoting the stereotypes of Muslim terrorists. Interestingly enough, David
Buckley (2013, 167) also suggests that the individuals most likely to radicalize are younger members of the Muslim population. If the findings from Buckley’s study are sound, then the film is realistic in showing younger individuals as extremists.
The unnamed terrorists in this film are also generally portrayed as violent and adamantly against the West. For example, the attack on the Hotel in Khobar and in Islamabad are called
“targeted attacks” against Westerners and foreigners. During both of these scenes, innocent civilians are shown injured or killed by the violent efforts of the terrorists. There are no scenes in the film that suggest that any of the men involved in the attacks feel remorse or reservations about their actions against civilians. These one dimensional depictions of terrorists support
Samuel Peleg’s point that American films have the tendency to overly simplify the motives of terrorist groups. As a result, the viewer does not see the terrorism is a more complex issue than what is good and what is evil (Peleg, 2003). Utilizing more developed side characters would help avoid the shallow development of terrorism in this film, while enabling the audience to learn more about complex political topics.
Named terrorists, like Ammar and Faraj, are also generally depicted in a negative light.
Both Ammar and Faraj are represented as violent and uncooperative men. To an extent this portrayal makes sense considering both men are being tortured by CIA agents, but nevertheless Frank 43 their portrayals are negative. In one scene, Ammar states that agent Dan is a “garbage man” and later he mentions that he supported Al-Qaeda “to kill Americans” (25:00). Faraj on the other hand mocks Maya and the other agents interrogating him and makes no attempt at being cooperative. The film also strengthens these men’s connection with terrorism and Islam by having characters like agent Dan say “your Jihad is over” (8:58). Lines like this further promote the idea that all Arab terrorists have strong ties to radical Islam. Although the film does deal with
Muslim extremism, it is important to realize that not all Arab terrorists have ties to radical ideologies.
Ammar’s personality does change over the course of the film, but this is largely due to prolonged torture. For example, Ammar starts to become more vulnerable and even cries for help in various scenes. At one point, Ammar even gives Maya and Dan useful information about Abu
Ahmed, Bin Laden’s courier. This particular scene could be interpreted as being problematic, because it suggests that prolonged torture is a valid anti-terrorism technique. However, data suggests that torture is not an effective means of extracting information from terrorists and that in many situations it leads to the acquisition of false intelligence (O’Mara, 2015).
Not all of the radicals shown in this film are depicted in a negative manner. The key financier for Al-Qaeda is a prime example of this. In one scene, Maya interrogates the elderly man and he willingly tells her all of the information that he knows about the terrorist organization. He mentions that he is being compliant, because he does not want to be tortured.
Maya also states that she spared him from torture, because he was not a violent man. The usage of the character in this film seems to promote the idea that not everyone that supports Al-Qaeda is personally violent. It is never stated why this man supports extremists, but the fact that he is not violent and still helps the group is interesting. In no way is this man portrayed as a “good Frank 44 guy”, but the fact that he is not represented as a killer definitely adds a little bit of depth to the portrayal of Arabs in the film.
Arabs are not the only subjects that are portrayed in a potentially problematic manner throughout this film. The Middle East itself falls victim to being portrayed through an Orientalist lens. In one scene, camels can be clearly seen inside a busy oriental market. The stereotypical oriental market scene is actually used multiple times throughout the film. These scenes generally portray markets that are full of exotic animals and people wearing ethnic clothing. For example, many of the Middle Eastern women depicted in these scenes wear hijabs or other stereotypical items. Scenes like these are problematic, because they portray the Middle East as part of the
Orient or the “other”, which stands in contrast with the Occident or the West. When questioned about her opinion of Pakistan, the films protagonist, Maya, states that “it’s kind of fucked up”
(12:00). This quote helps illustrate the idea that Pakistan is a backward and distorted place. As mentioned by Said, these differences between the Orient and Occident are constructed to create an “us” versus “them” mentality. This mentality has historically been used to promote the idea that western nations like the United States have the right and responsibility to “tame” the exotic
Orient (Said, 1978, 43). Therefore, it is easy to understand why such imagery could be considered problematic in a film dealing with the Middle East and terrorism. In many ways,
Orientalism works like the concept of contraction from Andreas Wimmer’s article. This is because Orientalism, like contraction, works to exclude certain groups from a social or ethnic group by illustrating the differences between two societies (Wimmer, 2008, 1031-1037).
The most negatively portrayed group other than the terrorists is the unnamed CIA agents.
These men are generally only shown in scenes where they are beating or torturing suspected terrorists. What makes their depiction particularly disturbing is how easily they humiliate and Frank 45 torture other human beings. None of these men show any ounce of mercy or remorse for their violent actions. As an example, these men are responsible for frequently beating and waterboarding Ammar throughout the film. The men show no restraint when it comes to dealing out punishment to those who will not cooperate. Additionally, these men are always shown wearing black masks and military clothing that covers their entire body. This outfit dehumanizes them in many ways by making them less relatable. Ultimately, these characters would come off as more human or trustworthy if they wore less clothing or at least did not cover their faces.
Alternatively, the US soldiers and Navy SEALS shown in this film are portrayed in a more positive light. For one, we actually see the faces of these characters and watch them interact with the protagonists. This makes the characters more relatable and therefore they come off in a positive light. They are also portrayed as not being bloodthirsty killers. During the raid on bin Laden’s compound, the SEALS try their best to not injure any of the women or children in the building. They do accidently kill one women, but the film makes it clear that she died on accident. It is also interesting to note that during the raid, the terrorists are the first group to start the gun fight. The SEALS only start to use their weapons after being fired upon.
According to Philip French (2013) at the Guardian, Maya is depicted as a strong female protagonist trying to survive in a “man’s world”. This is illustrated by how vigorously she tracks down bin Laden. Throughout the film, her male counterparts try to shut down her search for Al-
Qaeda’s leader, but Maya never lets them get in her way. In one scene, she even directly confronts and yells at her boss for not helping her pursue a lead on Osama’s compound. The movie also shows her as someone who is willing to do whatever it takes to accomplish her goals.
Her passion only increases when many of her friends are killed in terrorist attacks. The death of her friends seems to only embolden her desire to kill bin Laden and his followers. Though her Frank 46 passion and determination could be interpreted as a positive trait, it can also be looked at in a negative light. Towards the end of the film, Maya’s desire to find bin Laden makes her appear obsessive and violent. For example, she becomes more comfortable with the idea of torturing prisoners to extract information. At the beginning of the film, Maya is uncomfortable with the torture of Ammar, but by the middle she threatens to torture prisoners. One review in the New
York Times, goes so far as to suggest that Maya never has an aversion to torture (Dargis, 2012).
If this is true, she definitely begins to take part in the process of torture more as the film continues. Therefore, she seems to normalize violence more as her obsession with tracking bin
Laden grows. Ultimately, Maya does not fully relax until she sees bin Laden’s dead body at the end of the film.
CIA intelligence officer Dan’s depiction in this film is particularly interesting to analyze, because of the stark transition he undergoes. At the start of the movie, Dan is shown to be brutish and comes off as cold. These traits are illustrated by how he can easily torture and abuse suspected terrorists without any sign of remorse. For example, Dan frequently interrogates
Ammar at the beginning of the film by utilizing waterboarding and physical beatings. He comes across as cold because during these scenes he never shows restraint and is always willing to escalate torture if it helps him “break” Ammar’s will. However, Dan does show some signs of emotion when interacting with Maya at the start of the film. The two characters start to form a friendship and it becomes clear that Dan is interested in helping Maya succeed. Towards the middle of the film, Dan goes through his biggest transition. This is when he decides he no longer wants to work in the Middle East and that he wants to return home to the United States. When talking to Maya, he states that he is done torturing people and that he wants to go back to a normal job. This scene implies that Dan is done with the emotionally taxing job of torturing Frank 47 other people and that he does not enjoy interrogating people. Following his departure from
Pakistan, Dan’s character starts to show more emotion and does not seem as cold as initially depicted. He also manages to retain his close friendship with Maya and helps her obtain vital information that leads to Osama bin Laden’s compound. By the end of the film, Dan’s depiction is solidified as a relatable and charismatic person.
Iron Man is an American superhero film that follows the origins of Tony Stark. Tony is the owner of Stark Industries, a major international weapons manufacturer and developer. During a trip to Afghanistan, Stark’s military escort is attacked and he is kidnapped by the terrorist group, the Ten Rings. He learns that this group has been using Stark Industry weapons to kill innocent civilians and gain control in the Middle East. The terrorists demand that Tony build them a Jericho missile, but instead of building the missile Stark builds himself an exo-suit. He uses this “Iron Man” suit to help him escape the terrorist compound and return home. Once in the
U.S., Tony states that Stark Industries will no longer develop weapons and will instead move towards a peaceful alternative. Obadiah Stane, Stark’s second in command at the company, objects to this new direction until Tony tells him more about the potential of arc-reactor technology. During this time, Tony perfects his “Iron Man” suit and uses it to stop a terrorist attack in Gulmira. Stark also learns that Obadiah has been selling weapons under the table to groups like the Ten Rings. The audience also learns that it was Obadiah that paid the terrorists to try and assassinate Tony. While Stark is developing his suit, Stane spends his time trying to make his own exo-suit and develop a small arc-reactor capable of powering it. Ultimately,
Obadiah fails to develop his own reactor and steals the one keeping Tony alive. Stane then leaves
Tony for dead and goes to test out his suit. Stark manages to replace his arc-reactor and uses his
“Iron Man” suit to confront Stane. This leads to a battle between them where they both use their Frank 48 exo-suits. Tony manages to kill Obadiah during this final confrontation, thus preventing the development of more “iron soldiers”. At the end of the movie, Tony admits to being “Iron Man” during a press conference.
The terrorist group featured in Iron Man is called the Ten Rings. This organization consists of individuals from multiple cultural backgrounds, but the majority of its members appear to be of Middle Eastern descent. For example, the majority of them speak either Arabic or
Urdu throughout the film. The one exception is an individual who speaks Hungarian. It is also important to mention that most of the members belonging to this group have an olive colored complexion, which can be associated with Middle Easterners. Even the group’s flag has two scimitars overlapping one another. Mcfarlane mentions in his article that the terrorists in this film have no defining characteristics except that they look Arab and are in the desert (2014, 450). It is true that all scenes featuring the Ten Rings take place in the deserts of Afghanistan, which only reinforces the groups association with the Middle East.
Even the appearance of the terrorists themselves seems to parallel stereotypical imagery of groups like ISIS or Al-Qaeda. In one scene, members can be seen standing around a beaten
Tony Stark with guns pointed at his head. This scene seems to evoke the imagery from the execution tapes that ISIS and Al-Qaeda produce and publicize. The scene even shows the camera that is being used by the terrorists to create this propaganda piece. Aside from the imagery of this scene, the terrorists also wear stereotypical headscarfs and black facemasks. Unlike films featuring Islamic terrorism, the Arabs in this film do not wear clothing associated within Islam.
Instead these terrorists dress more like members of a paramilitary group. Many of the Arab terrorists featured in this film do have stereotypical features, which have come to be associated with radical Arab men. For example, Abu Bakaar, the second in command for the Ten Rings, is Frank 49 depicted as a perverted obese Arab man with an unkempt beard. Rubina Ramji (2005) suggests that obesity, unkempt beards and sexual deviancy are all characteristics stereotypically associated with Arab men. It is likely that the usage of these stereotypical images is due to the process of directors borrowing familiar imagery from popular culture. Much like the process of borrowing discussed in Charles Tilly’s (2004, 219) article, these directors are emulating images that are already visible in other forms of American media In this way, directors are only further promoting the idea that Arab men are unkempt obese sexual deviants by borrowing media tropes.
Similar to Rendition, Iron Man portrays its terrorists as overly violent and bloodthirsty.
This is shown in the scene where the Ten Rings attack a small village called Gulmira. During this scene, terrorists are shown breaking into homes and shooting or blowing up the individuals inside. The group specifically targets male civilians and lines them up for execution by firing squad. All of the women and children within the village are shown being forced into transports and taken away as slaves. Ultimately, this scene illustrates the stereotypical savagery and violence that is frequently associated with terrorism in American film (Ramji, 2005). Another stereotype promoted by this film is the idea that terrorist organizations have access to high tech weaponry. In Iron Man, the terrorists not only have access to ballistic missiles, but also high tech machine guns. The group is also shown to have access to 50 caliber machine guns as well as military transport vehicles.
Raza is the leader of the Ten Rings and the only real character that stands out within the organization. His motivation for leading the group is to acquire access to high grade weaponry and use these weapons to create his own empire. Ultimately, his motivation is not well developed and his character mostly comes across as being a power hungry ego-maniac. Raza’s shallow motivations reinforce Samuel Peleg’s (2003) opinion that American cinema does not do a good Frank 50 job of creating complex terrorist characters. Nothing about Raza’s character makes him relatable.
In fact the film seems to make no attempt to depict him as anything, but evil. For example, Raza almost kills and tortures Yinsen with a molten piece of metal. Later on, it is also implied that
Raza was the one who shot Yinsen during Tony’s escape from the terrorist compound. There is not a single scene in the film where Raza shows an ounce of humanity of sympathy for any character. Therefore, Raza is a perfect example of how American films can fail to develop complex and relatable extremist characters.
Though not depicted as a terrorist in the film, Obadiah Stane is the primary antagonist.
He is shown to be a ruthless businessman who is not afraid to eliminate anyone who gets in his way. This is illustrated by the fact that he tries to kill Tony Stark, his best friend’s son, three separate times. It quickly becomes clear that Obadiah’s main goal is to become the CEO of Stark
Industries and get rich from selling weapons. Stane is even willing to sell weapons to and work with terrorist organizations. As noted in McFarlane’s article, he is also depicted as the puppet master pulling the strings of Raza and the Ten Rings (2014, 450). Symbolically, his control over this Middle Eastern group could be seen as a statement that Arab groups are not capable of success on their own and that they require help from Westerners to succeed. In the film, Stane mocks Middle Easterners as he kills Raza using a high tech sonic device. He states “technology has always been your Achilles heel in this part of the world” (1:27:50). This statement seems to imply that Middle Easterners are not as developed or intelligent as Western nations, since they have “issues” with technology. Obadiah’s betrayal of Raza and the Ten Rings also further illustrates how little Stane values that life of others and that he is willing to double-cross his
“friends”. Frank 51
Tony Stark’s depiction in this film is much more nuanced and complex than that of either
Raza or Stane. Stark begins the film as a million dollar playboy who could care less about the fact that his company creates weapons that kill thousands of people. One reporter in the film refers to him initially as the “merchant of death”. This nickname seems to have little impact on
Tony who states that “peace means having a bigger stick than the other guy” (8:26). However, after being kidnapped by the Ten Rings and witnessing the death created by his devices, Tony’s personality changes. He begins to promote his company as a developer of arc-reactors, which could be used to solve the power crisis around the world. Stark also begins to develop the Iron
Man suit which he uses to fight terrorism around the world. This character transformation is much more compelling and interesting to watch than the motivations of Stane or Raza. It is clear that more time was put into developing the character behind Tony Stark, than was spent on any of the antagonistic characters. However, Tony Stark could also be viewed as a problematic symbol of Western imperialism against the oriental Middle East. This is because Tony is portrayed as the only one who can stop the Ten Rings from wreaking havoc in Afghanistan. His position in the film as a western defender of the Middle East could be interpreted as the West stating that developing countries require the protection of developed nations. This in turn promotes the narrative that it is the responsibility of Western countries to intervene in the developing world in order to ensure peace. Many developing nations are strongly opposed to this narrative, because they are not interested in Western countries interfering with local politics.
Yinsen is the only developed Arab character that is portrayed in a positive light. He is shown to be an intelligent engineer and scientist who is capable of making impressive high tech devices. Yinsen is also the man who saves Tony Stark’s life on two separate occasions. The first time he creates an electromagnetic device that keeps shrapnel from entering Tony’s heart and the Frank 52 second time he sacrifices his own life to enable Tony to escape. Yinsen is also not portrayed as having any of the stereotypical features associated with Arab men. He is clean shaven and wears a large pair of glasses. Instead of wearing a stereotypical keffiyah, taqiyah or thawb, Yinsen wears a collared shirt with a tie. The film does its best to depict Yinsen as an intellectual and avoids making him look like an extremist. Unfortunately, the film does not give the audience much backstory into his motivations, which makes him a relatively shallow supporting character.
However, Yinsen does stand out due to his selfless nature and kind heart.
Unlike Obadiah Stane, Colonel Rhodes and Pepper Potts are shown to be loyal friends to
Tony Stark throughout the film. Both individuals put their lives on the line to save Tony and are willing to speak their mind about his reckless decision making. Unfortunately, they suffer a similar fate as Yinsen, since their backgrounds and motivations are not particularly well developed. Colonel Rhodes or “Rhodey” falls under the stereotypical best friend trope, while
Pepper Potts mostly falls under the trope of being Tony’s love interest. Both characters strongly embody positive moral characteristics, which make them more like symbolic effigies of good rather than real people. However, these characters do manage to be original enough to avoid being overdone Hollywood stereotypes.
Non-Arab or Muslim Terrorism in American Film
Olympus has Fallen is a film that follows former army ranger and secret service agent
Mike Banning as he attempts to infiltrate the White House and save the President from a group of North Korean terrorists. Along the way he must fight and kill his way to the presidential bunker where the President is being held captive by Kang Yeonsak, the leader of the Koreans for
United Freedom (KUF). Banning discovers that Kang is planning on eliminating the United
States as a threat against North Korea by detonating all US nuclear weapons within their bomb Frank 53 silos. This would inevitably lead to a high number of casualties around the United States.
Eventually, Banning manages to reach the President and kill Kang, thus saving the country from a nuclear disaster.
This film depicts terrorists as being members of a radical paramilitary group known as the KUF. As best as we can tell, the KUF consists entirely of Korean men and women. The one exception to this is the Dave Forbes, who is a former secret service agent that betrays the United
States for political reasons. Forbes never claims to be a member of the KUF and he betrays them before he is killed by Banning. Given the current state of political tension between the United
States and North Korea, it is not surprising that North Koreans are being depicted as terrorists in this film. The KUF’s main goal in this film is to hold members of the American government hostage until they agree to disband American forces in the Korean peninsula. Ultimately, they hope that reduced American support in the region will enable North Korea to annex South Korea.
Additionally, the group is interested in detonating nuclear missiles located around the United
States. To do this, they try and retrieve the Cerberus nuclear launch codes from the President of the United States. As hinted by Thomas Riegler (2010), Hollywood has the tendency to frame specific groups negatively if they are at odds with the United States. This can be shown by the negative portrayals of Arabs in film following the Iranian Hostage Crisis and Lebanese Civil
War (Riegler, 2010). It is likely that the current political climate informed the decision to make
North Koreans the enemy within this film.
Initially, members of the KUF are depicted as civilians and tourists. They are dressed in civilian clothing and many of them can be seen exiting a large tour bus. This image quickly changes in around 29 minutes when two Korean tourists are revealed to be suicide bombers and blow their way into the White House’s lawn. It is at this moment that the Asian tourists depicted Frank 54 earlier in the film dawn face masks and pull assault rifles from their luggage. Presumably the choice to disguise terrorists as civilians was used to explain how the KUF caught the US off guard, but the depiction of terrorists as normal Korean civilians could be problematic. Depicting civilian Koreans as disguised terrorists has the potential to promote the idea that even normal
Koreans might have violent tendencies against the United States. The use of suicide bombs by the KUF is also interesting, because it draws a connection between the KUF and other terrorist organizations, which have employed this particular method. In general, people associate suicide bombings with groups like ISIS or Al-Qaeda, therefore the use of such methods further solidifies the idea that the KUF is a terrorist threat that should be taken seriously.
The film also promotes the stereotype of terrorists having access to high-grade military equipment. This is particularly interesting, because the film never mentions that the KUF receives funding from North Korea or any large government body. However, they have access to an AC-130, RPGs, M16s and smoke grenades. Ultimately, the KUF is more reminiscent of a military force than what would be traditionally associated with terrorist groups. It is also important to mention the Kang, the leader of the KUF, is presented to the viewer as a tactical genius. In one scene, Kang mentions that he planned to take the White House in under 15 minutes, because it takes 15 minutes for the military to mobilize against a threat. Kang boasts that he managed to take the White House in just 13 minutes, thus showing how effective he is as a strategist. The KUF is depicted as being well equipped and tactically astute, because it makes them an effective “villain” in this film. The premise supports the idea that terrorists groups are well equipped and tactically adept enough to hold large scale military operations.
In reality, most terrorist groups are not nearly as well funded or tactically effective as the one depicted in Olympus has Fallen. This statement is supported by Juliette Kayyem, the acting Frank 55
Executive Director of Research at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and the
JFK School of Government. In a panel discussing, terrorism and weapons of mass destruction in
Washington D.C., Kayyem states that terrorists “don’t have the capabilities to do the kind of
WMD or nuclear attack that we all live in fear about” (Carter et. al., 2005). She states that terrorists have the drive to commit these attacks, but sense such attacks have not been carried out they likely do not have the capability (Carter et. al., 2005). Even an article by CNN states that no scenarios of terrorists utilizing WMDs “are remotely realistic outside the world of Hollywood”
(Bergen, 2008). This all suggests that it is unrealistic to portray extremists as having access to such high tech weaponry and that perhaps the use of such weaponry in film is supposed to make them appear as more of a threat to the viewer.
Lastly, the KUF is depicted as a group of brutal and heartless murderers. 27 minutes into the film two KUF pilots can be seen flying an AC-130 above DC and targeting civilians with the plane’s machine guns. The film shows as hundreds of civilians are gunned down by the AC-130 until it finally crashes. More of this brutality is seen when the KUF storms the White House and attacks security forces. During these scenes, terrorists injure many of the security forces before running up and shooting them repeatedly in the chest. Even once KUF forces have secured the
White House, they continue to go from room to room shooting the corpses of security personnel.
Neither the two pilots nor the normal KUF soldiers show any remorse for killing either civilians or security forces in these scenes. KUF leader, Kang, also embodies brutality and heartlessness in many of the scenes where he is seen directly torturing or executing members of the President’s cabinet. In these scenes, Kang smiles and seems to enjoy the pain that he is inflicting upon
American politicians. Jack Shaheen (2001) would likely be concerned with this portrayal of
Koreans, because it could lead to the creation of a new stereotypes. Frank 56
Unlike the terrorists depicted in this film, none of the remaining cast of characters are
Korean. The one exception to this rule is Lee Tae-Woo, the prime minister of South Korea, who is quickly assassinated and taken out of the movie. Most of the other characters in this film are either white or black with little other variation. Specifically, most of the secret service agents shown in this film are large bodied white men. Agent Jones is the only non-white secret service agent shown and he only appears in a few scenes. The film does a decent job of allocating high value positions to non-white characters. For example, the speaker of the house, Allan Trumbull and the Lynne Jacobs, the director of the secret service are both black characters.
These characters are also generally portrayed as being charismatic. Mike Banning for example, cares deeply for his friend and current president Benjamin Asher. He is hurt by the death of Asher’s wife, which he feels guilty about. The film also shows that Banning cares deeply for Asher’s son, Connor, who he ends up saving from the attack on the White House.
President Asher is also shown as being a caring individual. Asher cares deeply for his son and wants to make sure that their relationship remains unsullied by the death of his wife. Ultimately,
Asher tries his best to manage his responsibilities as President with his desire to be a good father to Connor. More of his caring personality can be seen as his cabinet members are tortured by
Kang. When both Admiral Hoenig and Ruth McMillan are tortured for their Cerberus nuclear codes the President demands that they both give Kang the codes so that they avoid further bodily harm. He ensures the two of them that he will never give Kang his code, so it is okay for them to avoid torture.
Another common characteristic among non-terrorists in this film is patriotism. Even Dave
Forbes, who betrays the President early on in the movie, eventually turns on the KUF in order to save America. Other characters like Admiral Hoenig and Ruth McMillan refuse to give away Frank 57 their nuclear launch codes even when being beaten and tortured by Kang. Ultimately, these characters feel that it is better to die or be beaten then betray their country. Security forces are also shown as having a strong sense of patriotism. During the initial battle for the White House, security forces stand their ground against well-equipped terrorists. Even though most of these men are only equipped with pistols, they still fight to protect the President and the White House.
Perhaps the most stereotypical sign of patriotism and “holding a strong ground against terrorism” is shown by President Asher when he states “The United States of America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists” (52:52). Mike Banning also shares this sense of patriotism, because of his consistent desire to protect the President. In the movie, ever since being reassigned to the
Treasury headquarters after Asher’s wife’s death, Banning has desired to return to the White
House. Early on in the movie he makes it clear to Lynne Jacobs that he wants to protect the president again.
Collateral Damage is a film following Gordon Brewer, a firefighter whose family is killed in a terrorist bombing. After the bombing, Gordy is set on tracking down and killing the man responsible for the attack. The culprit, Claudio Perrini, flees from the United States and back into Columbia. As a result, Gordon is forced to conduct research on how to enter the country. Eventually, Gordy is able to enter Colombia and he starts to track down Claudio. This leads him through various violent encounters with Columbian drug dealers and rebels. At one point he is even imprisoned by Colombian police for illegally entering the country. He manages to escape this prison and eventually gain access to the camp where Claudio is hiding. Gordon sets up a bomb outside of Claudio’s room and waits for it to go off. Just before the bomb detonates, Gordon sees a women and her child within the blast radius. He quickly screams and runs to save the two civilians. The scream alerts Claudio who manages to not only avoid the Frank 58 bomb, but find Gordon as well. Claudio’s men then capture Gordon and tie him up inside a building where he is beaten by rebels. Fortunately, the woman that Gordon saved from the bomb happens to be Claudio’s wife, Selena.
Selena shows her gratitude by caring for Gordon’s injuries and keeping her husband from killing him. Later, she agrees to help him escape from the rebel compound and stop her husband from committing another terrorist attack in the United States. Gordon and Selena are soon found by CIA forces that take them to Washington D.C. where the next attack is supposed to occur.
Selena tries to help them find her husband by identifying which building he plans on bombing.
That said Gordon soon realizes that Selena is working alongside Claudio in an effort to bomb the
State Department. Selena flees the building as Gordon chases after her. She meets up with her husband and they try to escape via an underground passageway. Gordon stops them from escaping and a fight ensues. Gordon manages to kill both Selena and Claudio, thus ending terrorist threat in the capital. At the end of the film, he is rewarded with the Presidential Medal of
Freedom.
Colombian rebels are portrayed as the central antagonist in this film. This group uses their stance against the government to argue that they are “freedom fighters” and not “terrorists”.
However, they simultaneously support the terrorist bombings of Claudio Perrini. The group claims that these bombings are an “act of defense against American war criminals” and are an attempt to get the United States to stop its oppression in Colombia. Ultimately, the rebels want the United States to stop supporting the Colombian government and too evacuate all CIA operatives within the country. It is also important to note that the rebels have a connection to the production of cocaine within the Colombia. The movie suggests that the rebels work with drug lords to ensure they can continue to fund their war effort against the government. Frank 59
The appearance of individuals within this group varies depending on what role they perform. At military camps the rebels wear matching paramilitary uniforms and are armed with assault rifles, but in more urban settings they wear civilian clothing. In one scene, a group of three rebels tries to drug and kidnap Gordon in a crowded Colombian city. It is easy for them to get close to him because they are dressed like the civilians around them. Another scene has a group of rebels guarding a roadblock in the middle of the jungle. These individuals also wear more casual civilian clothing instead of military uniforms. Ultimately, the fact that these rebels can hide in plain sight promotes the idea that extremists can be hiding anywhere within the crowded cities of Colombia. Therefore, it reinforces anxieties about kidnappers and murderers being prevalent within South American cities. This point is strengthened by the various comments made by the character Ed Coonts, an ex-military advisor in Colombia. Coonts tells
Gordon, that once he is in Colombia there will be swarms of kidnappers or murderers looking to harm an American. All of these comments only reinforce the idea that Colombia is an exotic and dangerous place to live.
One important distinction about this rebel/guerilla group is that they are portrayed much more as a paramilitary organization than as terrorists. This is illustrated by them having actual military bases with stockpiles of weapons and ammunition. Unlike, the terrorist groups in
Rendition or The Kingdom this group functions much more like the army. These rebels still share some of the common cinematic stereotypes associated with terrorists groups. For example, the film goes out of its way to show that these guerillas are violent and capable of killing without regret. In one scene, Gordon takes a boat down a narrow river filled with the dead corpses of civilians that were executed by rebels. Another scene depicts rebels chasing after Gordon and a Frank 60 group of civilians. As they pursue the group, they carelessly fire into the jungle hoping to injure or kill.
Claudio Perrini is the central villain of the film and a man responsible for 7 different terrorist bombings. He utilizes these attacks as a bargaining tool against the United States to keep them from interfering in Colombia. Claudio claims that he will continue to bomb US cities until the country stops their “oppression” of Columbia. For the most part, Collateral Damage portrays him as a violent extremist who is willing to do whatever is necessary to achieve his goals. This is illustrated by him killing 9 civilians and injuring another 2 dozen during his bombing in Los
Angeles. Following the attack, Claudio shows no remorse for his actions. In another scene,
Claudio tortures and kills one of his soldiers for failing to capture Gordon. He does this by forcibly shoving a poisonous snake down the man’s throat. The brutality of this scene only reinforces the image of Claudio being a savage murderer. However, the film does eventually provide the audience with an explanation for why he became a terrorist. According to Claudio’s wife, Selena, he was not always as obsessed with violence. She states that he was once a peaceful school teacher working in a small local village. This all changed when US military forces invaded the town. In the cross fire between US forces and rebels, Claudio’s biological child was killed and this death led to his radicalization. This small amount of backstory helps make
Claudio a slightly more relatable and complex villain than someone like Raza from Iron Man.
Selena Perrini is initially portrayed as an innocent and relatable mother stuck in a war torn country with a violent husband. Initially, she states that she is saddened by her husband’s violent actions, but that he is too far gone to help at this point. Her story about how he was once a great man only further makes the audience sympathize with her character. Selena’s willingness to care for and protect Gordon also made her appear to be sincere. In the end however, Selena is Frank 61 just as violent and intent on revenge as her husband. The audience even learns that she was involved with the bombing that killed Gordon’s wife and child in Los Angeles. Her claim that she wanted to help the FBI stop her husband was just a ploy to sneak a bomb into the State
Department. Ultimately, Selena’s transformation at the end of the film is narratively engaging, but it could also be interpreted as being problematic. Other than random civilians that help
Gordon traverse Columbia, Selena is the only Colombian character that is portrayed as being a
“good” person. Therefore, the realization that she was secretly a terrorist all along promotes the idea that Colombians should not be trusted. It also reinforces the idea of terrorists being capable of manipulating “good” people in order to obtain what they want. If this were true, it would be difficult to differentiate between an innocent civilian and an extremist.
Interestingly enough, this film demonizes the CIA a considerable amount. This is partially done through the character of CIA agent Peter Brandt. At the beginning of the film, the audience learns that agent Brandt was trying to conduct an unauthorized attack on the Columbian rebels. This unauthorized plan led to the terrorist bombing in Los Angeles, because Claudio was trying to assassinate those involved with the deal. Thus Brandt’s rash actions led to the death or injury of multiple American civilians. Even after being given 72 hours to withdrawal all CIA forces from Colombia, Brandt’s desire to exterminate Colombian rebels keeps him from removing his troops. Instead, he tries even harder to discover the location of Claudio. This portrayal of Claudio makes him look obsessive and untrustworthy.
The film also demonizes the CIA by showing them ruthlessly attacking a Colombian town where rebels are stationed. In this scene, CIA forces use missiles and helicopters to blow up houses and other structures in the town. Many of these missiles are shown destroying homes were innocent civilians are hiding from the crossfire. Admittedly, the targets of this attack were Frank 62 the Colombian rebels, but CIA forces make no attempt to limit civilian casualties. Following the
CIA attack, Gordon confronts Brandt about the careless use of violence. Brandt responds by saying that he “fights terrorists with terror”, thus showing he has no remorse for his actions. The depiction of the CIA in this film does give some merit to Claudio’s claim that US military forces are “oppressing” Colombia.
Unlike the CIA, the FBI is not portrayed negatively. The two main FBI agents Dray and
Phipps are portrayed as being caring and trustworthy characters. For example, they both spend time at the beginning of the film trying to help Gordon overcome the loss of his family. Both agents also make a sincere promise to catch the Wolf and bring him to justice. Unfortunately, the
FBI was not able to effectively follow through on the promise, because the CIA refused to share information on Claudio. As a result, Claudio was able to flee the United States. Another example of the FBI’s positive depiction comes at the end of the film when Selena and her adopted son
Mauro are inside the State Department. During this scene, FBI agents play with Mauro and talk compassionately with Selena about the situation regarding her husband. The actions of these agents make the FBI look more compassionate and empathetic.
Gordon, the protagonist of the film, is portrayed as a compassionate and caring husband.
For example, the audience sees him lovingly playing with his son and helping his wife with routine chores. Another scene shows Gordon on duty as a firefighter saving the life of a woman trapped in a burning building. He is even portrayed as an American patriot, because he is shown drinking from an American flag coffee mug. Scenes like this at the beginning of the film immediately set Gordon up as a heroic figure. It is not until his wife and child are killed that we see a more vengeful side of his character. Frank 63
Following the bombing, Gordon begins to obsessively research the man responsible for the attack and makes a plan to kill him. He does this because he believes that neither the CIA nor the FBI is capable of bringing his family justice. Therefore, Gordon takes it upon himself kill
Claudio Perrini. It is at this point that parallels between Claudio and Gordon start to form.
Ultimately, both men desire vengeance for the death of their family members and are willing to go through great lengths to get revenge. At one point in the movie, Claudio even asks Gordon
“what’s the difference between you and I?” (1:07:17). Gordon states that the difference is that he, unlike Claudio, will only kill the man responsible for killing his family. He has no intention of taking out his vengeance on all of Colombian society. This point is particularly interesting, because it implies that Claudio is a terrorist not for seeking vengeance for his child’s death, but because he is killing those not directly responsible. Gordon on the other hand is “not” a terrorist, because he is only killing the person directly responsible for killing his family. The film further glorifies Gordon when he risks being captured in order to save Selena and Mauro from a bomb he planted to kill Claudio. This scene illustrates that even though he wants to kill Claudio he does not want to harm any innocent lives.
Source Code is an American film following the experiences of Captain Colver Stevens, a helicopter pilot for the US army, within the Source Code, an experimental counter-terrorist device. The basic premise of the movie is that a train heading to downtown Chicago is blown up as it passes another train filled with gasoline. This bombing kills everyone on board the train. A government program known as Beleaguered Castle is charged with finding out who bombed the train and to do that they utilize the Source Code, which is a device that enables Captain Stevens to take on the identity of Sean Fentress, a man who died in the train explosion. Essentially,
Stevens is able to take on the identity of Sean and relive the last 8 minutes of his life before the Frank 64 train explodes. Stevens must use these 8 minutes to figure out who bombed the train before the terrorist utilizes another bomb to kill hundreds of civilians in downtown Chicago. It takes him awhile, but eventually Stevens is able to determine that the bomber is a man named Derek Frost.
This information is shared with the US government who then arrest Frost and keep the other bomb from detonating. The film ends with Captain Stevens urging Goodwin, a women working for Beleaguered Castle, to let him enter the Source Code one last time and save all of the people within the train before the bomb goes off. Goodwin states that none of his actions in the Source
Code will save lives in the real world, but she still allows him to attempt to save everyone.
Immediately, Source Code separates itself from many other films dealing with terrorism, because minorities do not play the role of terrorists. The main “bad guy” in Source Code is a man by the name of Derek Frost. What is interesting about Derek is that he is portrayed as a typical white male. He wears blue jeans and a nice fall jacket just like every other average
American. This traditional middle class American outfit is not normally associated with violence or extremism. Even Derek’s face is well groomed and maintained. Instead of a beard or long unruly hair, he has a clean shaven face with a comb over. His character in the film is also very reserved and passive only speaking to other characters when being addressed. If anything, the most suspicious aspect of Derek’s character is how “ordinary” he is in the film. This interpretation of a terrorist differs from the depiction often portrayed, because it focuses less of stereotypes often associated with terrorism. Contrary to the image of the Hollywood “terrorists”,
Derek does not appear violent and does not allude frequently to religious fanaticism.
Although Derek does not look like a stereotypical terrorist, he does utilize some of the more stereotypical weapons associated with terrorism. His two main weapons are two large cell phone activated bombs. During his confrontation with Captain Stevens, Derek claims that he made the Frank 65 bomb that blew up the passenger train and that he was also smart enough to make the nuclear device in his van. The idea of a terrorist constructing a nuclear device and threatening to use it against civilians is a common trope within American media. This point can be illustrated by the movie Olympus has Fallen and the TV show 24, which both feature plots where terrorists threaten the US with nuclear weapons. Derek’s arsenal of weaponry is not as complex as the
KUF’s in Olympus has Fallen, but his depiction in Source Code still promotes the idea that terrorists have access to highly destructive weaponry. The idea that terrorists have the capabilities to make nuclear weapons has largely been sensationalized by television and film, which is problematic because it helps distract from the reality of the situation (Carter et. al.,
2005; Bergen, 2008).
Another significant aspect of how Derek is depicted in the film comes in the form of his ideology. Ultimately, Derek is pretty quiet about why he is planning on killing thousands of people. His only real explanation occurs around 1 hour into the film. He states he is killing people “because the world is hell. But we have a chance to start over in the rubble. But first there has to be rubble” (1:01). This quote is vague, but seems to suggest that he believes the world is corrupt in some way and must be rebuilt anew upon the ashes of the “old world”. The idea of cleansing a corrupt world draws parallels with religious stories like Noah’s Arch where God flooded the earth to have it essentially start anew. This connection to religion also seems to draw parallels between Derek and groups like ISIS or Al Qaeda that utilize religious ideals to promote their violence. It also promotes the idea that Derek’s motives are irrational. Looking at his motives as being irrational further promotes the idea that terrorist are lunatics that act irrationally
(Peleg, 2003). Frank 66
Derek’s depiction is made worse when we realize how heartless he is. This is shown whenever Derek kills someone and shows little to no remorse. For example, his response to
Captain Stevens when he kills Christina is “I think I killed your girlfriend” (1:01). During this statement, Derek’s voice and body language indicate that he could not care less about murdering people. His actions in this film further promote the image of terrorists as relentless killers who effortlessly kill civilians (Peleg, 2003). It is also interesting to note that Derek is a lone psychopath who is working alone. Even though he is portrayed as being mentally deranged,
Derek is also depicted as being a genius since he was able to create a nuclear device all by himself. Arab and Muslim extremists are rarely, if ever, depicted as being lone wolf extremists.
In general, Arabs and Muslims are shown to be committing acts of terrorism in conjunction with other Arab or Muslim extremists. This point is illustrated when you look at films like The
Kingdom or Rendition where Arabs and Muslims are shown working together to commit acts of terror.
Before talking about how some of the other main characters are depicted in this film, I would like to discuss how the two Arab characters are represented. Max Denoff, the first Middle
Eastern character we meet is portrayed as being rude and a bit of a sexual deviant. During his first scene, Max is rude to the elderly train conductor and makes unwanted sexual advances on
Christina. At one point, Captain Stevens even suspects that he is the terrorist, but this theory is quickly disproven. Ultimately, our first introduction to Max is not overwhelmingly positive. In some ways, his representation is problematic, because he fits some common stereotypes associated with Arab men and the audience is initially led to believe that he is the villain, because of who he is. This portrayal of Arab men as “perverts” appears so frequently in media that it has started to impact how people look at actual men of this ethnicity (Ramji, 2005). In the Frank 67 film Max is dressed like any other American. There was also no connection made between his character and Islam, which is interesting because many American films associate all Arabs with
Muslims.
The second Arab character Hazmi is also dressed like an average American. He does not have a turban or unkempt beard like many other cinematic depictions of Arabs. Hazmi does manage to attract suspicion, because he exits the bathroom where the bomb was planted on the train. This makes Captain Stevens and the audience believe that he might be the culprit behind the attack. Eventually, Captain Stevens learns that Hazmi is innocent, but only after he beats him up trying to grab a briefcase.
One consistent trait among most of the main characters in the film is compassion. The main characters that exhibit compassion are Captain Stevens, Christina Warren and Captain Colleen
Goodwin. For example, Christina Warren at one point sees Captain Stevens jump off the train as he is pursuing Derek. Seeing that Stevens is injured from the jump she orders the train to stop moving and runs after him. This sequence ultimately leads to her death as Derek shoots her, but her compassion for others shows in this scene. Similarly Captain Goodwin shows compassion for
Stevens when she disobeys her supervisor and turns off the life support keeping the Captain within the Source Code. This is significant, because she had promised Stevens that she would let him die after the mission and she followed through with her promise even at the cost of her job.
Lastly, Stevens shows his compassion by making it his main goal to try and save all of the people on the train within the Source Code. The Captain mentions that even though these people might just be a simulation it is still important to at least try and save them. This pursuit to save lives shows just how much he cares for others. Frank 68
However, Captain Stevens is also shown to be impulsive and quick to use physical force.
For example, he seems quick to assume that those of Middle Eastern decent are behind the terrorist attacks, while placing less suspicion on non-Arab passengers. This is illustrated by how quickly he interrogates both Max Denoff and Hazmi. Of these two men, only Hazmi was remotely suspicious and even then his only “connection” to the bomb is he used the bathroom in which it was hidden. Stevens had no hard evidence to suggest that either Denoff or Hazmi were behind the bombing yet he spends time interrogating both of them. His interrogations ultimately escalating to a verbal dispute with Denoff and a physical altercation with Hazmi. Stevens is also quick to engage in physical altercations with train security after they try to keep him from taking a pistol from the trains vault. His impulsive decision to use force ends with him being tased and passing out.
Live Free or Die Hard follows the story of detective John McClane as he attempts to stop a cyber-terrorist attack against the United States. The cyberattack occurred, because a domestic terrorist group was able to hack into various security systems across the United States. Access to these systems enabled the group to disrupt public transportation as well as the stock market. In order to stop the chaos, McClane partners with young hacker, Matthew Farrell, and the two of them travel the country trying to stop the terrorist attack led by Thomas Gabriel. To do this,
Farrell and McClane must fight and outsmart terrorist thugs, while trying to track down the exact location of Gabriel. This leads to Gabriel kidnapping McClane’s daughter and holding her hostage along with Farrell whom he captures later in the film. Eventually, McClane learns where
Gabriel is hiding and informs the FBI of his whereabouts. McClane then storms the base and enters into a gunfight with Gabriel. In the end, Thomas Gabriel dies of a gun wound. The FBI then shows up and fully shut down the terrorist operation. Frank 69
The best way to break down the terrorists in this film is into two different categories, the brains and the brawn. For example, a large portion of the terrorist group consists of hackers who infiltrate US government systems and manipulate them to help the group achieve their goals.
This subsection of the organization mostly consists of white males. These hackers are shown throughout the film in typical business casual outfit. During a couple scenes, hackers within the terrorist group do show hesitation towards creating chaos. One such scene occurs when Gabriel orders his hackers to reroute traffic into each other in an attempt to kill McClane and Farrell in a tunnel. Some of the men hesitate, because they know that rerouting traffic will cause a massive amount of car crashes and potentially casualties. After being reprimanded for their hesitation, the hackers follow through with their orders.
On the other hand, the muscles of the operation are also white men, but these individuals stand out for a couple reasons. First, most of them speak French. This is interesting, because the
French are not stereotypically associated with terrorism. The fact that the hitmen/muscle for this terrorist group seem to be French nationals seems to suggest that Gabriel is paying for their services and that they are perhaps not a formal part of the organization. Another reason that these individuals stand out is because they are dressed in more typical paramilitary gear and have access to weapons. These hitmen also do not show restraint or hesitation when it comes to killing. In multiple scenes, these men kill either civilians or police officers and show no remorse for their actions.
Thomas Gabriel and Mai Linh are the two main terrorist characters in the film, so analyzing them is important when looking at the depiction of terrorism. In the film, Gabriel is depicted as a tactical genius who is able to outsmart the US government with falsified anthrax alarms as well as strategic infiltrations of government systems. He uses these tools to lead government agents in Frank 70 circles as he continues his plan to create chaos. Gabriel also shows no remorse for those who die as a result of his actions. For example, he consistently has people hack into transportation systems and cause accidents across the nation. It is also apparent that he views most of his team as disposable, because he consistently kills his hackers once they are no longer useful. Not once does Gabriel show any kind of remorse towards killing. Interestingly enough, even though
Gabriel is responsible for the death or injury of hundreds of people, he insists in the film that he is the “good guy”. The one person that Gabriel seems to value is Mai. The film suggests that Mai is his girlfriend, because the two characters kiss and Gabriel becomes very emotional when he learns Mai was killed.
Mai Linh is the second main terrorist in the film. She is also the only member of Gabriel’s team who is Asian. Ultimately, the film does seem to play on the stereotype of the “exotic” and attractive foreign woman who seduces people into helping her achieve her goals. This can be shown during one of the first scenes in the film when she is speaking with Matthew Farrell over a microphone. Farrell comments on how Mai sounds attractive and asks “is there anything I can do to you”. McClane consistently objectifies Mai when he refers to her as Gabriel’s “little Asian chick” or “kung fu bitch”. This seems to promote the idea that Gabriel owns Mai in some way and diminishes her agency. Mai is also placed in a submissive position when compared to
Gabriel. Throughout the film, she follows all of his orders and never questions his authority.
Oddly enough, even though she is the second most recognizable terrorist from the film, she is very poorly developed character wise. For example, we never fully know what her relationship with Gabriel is or why she is even in the organization. Ultimately, the film seems to depict Mai more as a weapon than an actual person. Frank 71
Like the terrorists from Olympus has Fallen, this group also has access to military grade weaponry and is also well-armed. This can be shown by some of the weapons used by the hitmen throughout the film. For example, some of the terrorists use M16s, a fully automatic rifle, as well as submachine guns with specialized sights when trying to assassinate Matthew Farrell. At the beginning of the film, the terrorists also utilize C-4 explosives planted on computers as a means of assassinating various targets. The group also has access to high-grade hardware and software that enable them to hack into government databases, while not being able to be tracked. Access to this kind of technology is necessary for this organization, because their goal is to use cyber terrorism to bring America to its knees. Ultimately, the use of such advanced weaponry and technology in this film promotes the cinema trope of terrorists having access to weapons of mass destruction that have the capability to threaten countries.
Ultimately, the motivations of the terrorist organization depicted in this film stem from the desires of the group’s leader, Thomas Gabriel. Gabriel’s desire is to hack into both government and commercial computers/systems across the United States. Once hacked into these devices, he wants to disrupt the flow of goods and services in the country, so the United States government cannot effectively deliver support to its citizens. He believes that this will cause the United States to crumble and thus lead to improvements in cyber security. Another motivation behind the attack is Gabriel’s negative attitude towards the US government. Following 9/11, Gabriel proposed enhancing cyber security to protect the US from cyber terrorism. After making this statement, he was ridiculed by various politicians who ultimately cast him out of government.
Part of the reason that Gabriel planned this cyberattack was, because he wanted to get back at the politicians who ruined his career. Frank 72
Most of the characters depicted in this film that are not terrorists are members of some government organization like the FBI or Homeland Security. These individuals are generally portrayed as being incompetent throughout the majority of the film. This is because they consistently fall for the tricks set up by Thomas Gabriel. One example of this is when they evacuate government facilities, because of a fake anthrax alert that Gabriel initiates. Since the facilities are evacuated, Gabriel can easily hack into the government systems or have people infiltrate government buildings. These characters are also consistently arguing about who has clearance for what information and various other political issues. This argument effectively leads to these characters not helping to push the plot forward at all. Virtually all of the counter-terrorist work done in this film comes from John McClane and Matthew Farrell. The government employees offer virtually no assistance to either of the main characters. In fact, these side characters actually hinder the work being done by McClane and Farrell. This point is illustrated by a scene where the US government sends a fighter jet after Gabriel’s getaway vehicle. During this chase Gabriel hacks into the jet pilot’s communication channel and tells him to attack the semi-truck being driven by McClane. The fighter pilot falls for the trick and begins to attack
McClane, thus effectively hindering him from catching Gabriel.
The protagonist of the film, John McLane, is generally shown to be a caring individual. This is illustrated by his selfless actions that risk his own life to ensure that others are okay. In one scene, McClane recklessly drives a car into Mai Linh in order to save Matthew Farrell. This stunt nearly costs him his life, but is just one of the many reckless stunts he pulls in the film to save people’s lives. In another scene, McClane drives a car off a ramp and into a terrorist filled helicopter. McClane is also shown to be caring through some of his less extreme actions in the film. During one scene following a massive car crash, McClane leaves his vehicle to check on Frank 73 the drivers near him. He quickly gives them advice on how to avoid injury and gets help before moving on with his mission. John also falls into the trope of being an overly protective father, which is illustrated by him spying on his daughter and threatening her boyfriend. This leads to tension between him and his daughter, but continues to show that he does care about other people.
Even though McClane is generally shown as a caring guy, the film tries its best to ensure that he is always depicted as “tough and masculine”. For example, McClane never really shows any signs of emotional or physical weakness throughout the film. Instead, his biggest character weakness is that he is easy to agitate and overly willing to utilize physical force to solve his problems. These points are illustrated by various interactions he has with characters in the film.
When first meeting Matthew Farrell, McClane loses his composure when Matthew is not willing to let a detective into his home. This results in John pulling his gun out on Matthew and threatening him. This reaction also illustrates that John is quick to use force when trying to solve his issues. Other scenes depict McClane getting quickly agitated at other characters and calling them names. During one scene, he gets mad at Matthew Farrell and calls him a “hack boy”, while in another he angrily refers to Mia Linh as a “kung fu shit”. Ultimately, John McClane’s issues with anger management and his use of physical force only seem to bolster the stereotypical “tough guy” motif the film seems to focus around his character. These characteristics also help cover up the some of the more charismatic characteristics of John’s character.
In many ways, Matthew Farrell’s characteristics are opposite that of McClane’s. Farrell is generally shown to be more willing to show fear or weakness. He is also more willing to be pushed around by other characters like Mia Linh, especially when his life is at risk. These traits Frank 74 generally result in him making less life threatening decisions throughout the film. That said
Matthew plays an important role in the film as the tech guy or the “boy genius”. Farrell is ultimately the person from whom the audience learns information about coding and terms like
“fire sale”. Without his character, those viewing the film would have more trouble understanding some of the film’s narrative. Matthew’s ability to talk about complex coding topics with relative ease makes his character look intelligent. Farrell’s knowledge also comes in handy as he helps
John track down Thomas Gabriel and his team of cyber terrorists. This character also develops quite a bit throughout the film. In the beginning, Matthew is less cooperative with McClane and less sympathetic towards those impacted by the “fire sale”. It is clear at the start of the film that
Farrell is only helping McClane in order to protect his own interests. However, as the movie continues he becomes closer to John and quickly begins helping him without question. Farrell also starts to sympathize with those who have suffered due to Thomas Gabriel’s actions. By the end of the film, Matthew risks his life to help save McClane’s daughter and stop Gabriel’s cyber terrorism.
Discussion
Out of the four American films depicting Arab terrorists, only Iron Man had no connection to the Islamic faith. The Kingdom, Rendition, and Zero Dark Thirty all feature Arab terrorists with connections to Islamic extremism. This supports the claims by Rubina Ramji
(2005, 3) that American films often link the Islamic faith to “acts of terror” and “holy war”.
Immediately these three films link Islam with extremism by having the terrorists wear religious garb. For example, the extremists in The Kingdom and Rendition wear clothes like keffiyehs, taqiyahs, and thawbs. These religious articles of clothing immediately connect the Islamic faith with the radical ideals promoted by the terrorists that wear them. Frank 75
Aside from the clothing, these films also feature scenes where radicals can be seen praying to Allah. The Kingdom features multiple scenes where Abu Hamza and his followers are seen praying on the floor. Similarly, Rendition features various moments where the radical prophet Rashid prays to Allah with his many young recruits. These scenes of prayer help illustrate another commonality between these films. All of the films with the exception of Iron
Man feature radical Muslim Prophets who radicalize young Muslim men. The Kingdom’s Abu
Hamza, Rendition’s Rashid, and Zero Dark Thirty’s Osama bin Laden are all religious figures who preach extremist views. Abu Hamza and Rashid are specifically shown in various scenes giving religious speeches pertaining to martyrdom and Jihad. The audience see these men proclaiming “glory to Allah” in Arabic, while promoting military campaigns against the
“crusaders” and “Zionists”. As mentioned by Jack Shaheen, these kinds of scenes link Arabs to
“religious fanaticism”, while also making Islamic extremism come off as an “irrational”
(Shaheen, 2001, 2). This portrayal is problematic, because as Samuel Peleg states, terrorism of all forms is “purposeful and rational” (Peleg, 2003, 84). Just because the Westerners do not understand the complexity of the topic does not mean that terrorists act irrationally. Ultimately, the use of the radical prophets in these films does not help expand upon the complexity of terrorism. It instead provides American audiences with a vague and poorly developed understanding of Islamic extremism just as Peleg suggests.
The motivations for most of the acts of terrorism depicted in these four films has to do with Jihad and eliminating Western influence in the Middle East. Iron Man stands out as the only film whose Arab antagonist, Raza, has no interest in religious conquest. He is instead interested in acquiring high tech military equipment and using these weapons to create his own empire. His motivations and character development are pretty shallow, but they are void of religious Frank 76 significance. In the other films however, the terrorists groups all promote Jihad. The speeches of
Abu Hamza and Rashid make it clear that their intent is to rid the world of Allah’s enemies.
There are also slight political motivations surrounding each terrorist group. For example, Abu
Hamza is also vehemently opposed to the United States being involved with the oil trade in the
Middle East. Khalid in Rendition becomes an extremist to oppose Western imperialism and influence in the Middle East. One terrorist in Zero Dark Thirty claims he joined Al-Qaeda simply
“to kill Americans” (25:00).
In the end, all of these motivations are pretty shallow and under developed. The film does not adequately develop these motivations and as a result the audience is left wondering why the terrorists are so strongly motivated by these goals. This only further makes these extremists look
“irrational” and undermines the reality surrounding terrorism. As mentioned by Peleg, American films generally depict terrorists as irrational actors, which makes it hard for the audience to relate with them. If these characters had more compelling and logical reasoning behind their motivations, it would help illustrate the complexity of terrorism as a topic (Peleg, 2003). Jerrod
McFarlane further expands upon this point when he states that Iron Man’s terrorists have no defining characteristics except that they look Arab and are in the desert. Alone these characteristics make the terrorists look shallow and underdeveloped (McFarlane, 2014, 450). Out of the characters mentioned, Khalid has the most compelling reason to become a terrorist, because his beloved brother died fighting for Islam. Therefore, he has an emotional connection to extremism, which leads him down his path. Also he is well educated and adamantly opposed to
Western involvement in the Middle East.
The one major commonality between all four of these American films is that they depict terrorists as heartless and bloodthirsty killers. This is illustrated by the horrific actions taken by Frank 77 the radicals in each of the films. In The Kingdom, terrorists kill innocent civilians attending a baseball game with the use of suicide bombers and assault rifles. They also detonate a 20-30 pound bomb located inside an ambulance killing injured civilians and medical workers.
Rendition’s extremists kill 19 civilians and injure another 75 when Khalid’s suicide vest goes off in the town square. Zero Dark Thirty features terrorist attacks on hotels in Khobar and
Islamabad. Both attacks feature terrorists specifically targeting Westerners and foreigners.
Extremists utilized a 2,000 pound explosive in their attack on the Islamabad hotel. Lastly, Iron
Man’s terrorist organization known as the Ten Rings is shown throwing grenades into civilian homes and lining men up for execution in the town of Gulmira.
All of these attacks feature terrorists willingly injuring or killing innocent people. To make matters worse, the people carrying out these violent attacks show no real regret for their violent actions. They are never shown having a difficult time killing or regretting the choices that they have made. Noura Alalawi states that these depictions of Arab terrorists make Arabs look like “violent” and “savage” people. She specifically calls out The Kingdom and Rendition for having a cast of Arab characters who are depicted as being “cruel” and “ignorant” (Alalawi,
2015, 61). The depictions of Arab terrorists in these films also supports Abu Sadat Nurullah’s claim that American television and cinema tend to portray Arab terrorists are being particularly capable of horrific violence (2010, 1042). Khalid from Rendition is the only Arab terrorists in any of the films that shows any ounce of regret for his actions. Before he is shot and killed by
Rashid’s men, he is confronted by Fatima who gets him to realize he does not want to murder innocent people. Unfortunately, he realizes this too late and he gets shot for not immediately detonating the bomb. Frank 78
Most of the weapons utilized by these terrorists are assault rifles, suicide vests, and other forms of improvised explosive devices (IEDs). In particular, the AK-47 is shown as the weapon of choice for many of the terrorists in the film. This assault rifle is shown being used in
Rendition as well as The Kingdom. Suicide vests are utilized by terrorists in all of the films with the exception of Iron Man. As a result, the theme of terrorism and martyrdom is common within most of these films. This links the idea of Arabs being related to the religious practice of martyrdom via suicide bombing. Naturally, this connection could promote the idea that Arabs are
“brutal, heartless” and “uncivilized” as stated by Jack Shaheen (2001, 2). Iron Man stands out when compared to the other three films, because the Ten Rings have access to high tech weaponry from Stark Industries. None of the other American films featuring Arab terrorists have their extremists wielding missile launchers or anti-aircraft weaponry. It is likely that these terrorists are armed with this high tech weaponry, because it makes them more of a threat to Iron
Man. However, it is important to note that most terrorist groups are not nearly as well equipped.
It is also interesting to mention that none of the Arab terrorists in Iron Man utilize suicide vests or even mention martyrdom.
These four American films also show a relatively negative portrayal of the Middle East in general. In all four of these films, the region is depicted through an Orientalist’s lens, which defines the entire area as the “other”. As mentioned by Said (1978, 40), the Orient is generally depicted as being “irrational, depraved, childlike, ‘different’”, which contrasts the general depiction of the Occident (the West) which is “rational, virtuous, mature, ‘normal’”. The films illustrate these distinctions through the various scenes showing the Orient within each of the films. Zero Dark Thirty and Rendition for example, show various market place scenes, which Frank 79 depict crowded and unorganized bazaars that are full of exotic foods and clothing. These scenes are also full of women covered in hijabs or other clothing that covers most of their body.
All four of the American movies featuring Arab terrorism have scenes that focus on the deserts of the Middle East. Interestingly enough, these movies never focus on any of the other landscapes within the region. These images of exotic markets and landscapes place the Orient as being different from the Occident. According to Said, this causes a binary system in which the
Occident is placed in a position of power over the Orient. This binary also means that the
Occident is everything the Orient is not and vice versa. As a result, the Orient becomes the
“other”. According to Jane Park and Karin Wilkins (2005, 1) the creation of this Orientalist dynamic is dangerous, because it can lead to “discrimination, abuse, and misunderstandings”.
They also mention that it is problematic since it enhances “ignorance of important cultural histories”, thus making Westerners less informed about the reality of the regions past. Though these exotic scenes featuring the Middle East may seem innocent, they ultimately set up a negative portrayal of the region.
The depiction of the Middle East is made even worse via some of the dialogue spoken by western characters in each of these films. The Kingdom’s CIA protagonists for example have multiple lines of dialogue that undermine the image of the region. Characters are heard comparing Saudi Arabia to “Mars” or joking about how the country is not safe during the day or at night. The protagonist of Zero Dark Thirty states that the Middle East is “kind of f**cked up” when asked how she likes the region so far (12:00). Even in Iron Man the region is undermined when Obadiah Stane states that “technology has always been your issue in this part of the world”, while he is referring to the Middle East’s lack of technological advancement (1:27:50).
Statements like these coming from western characters could be particularly problematic, because Frank 80 it could further influence the audience’s opinion of the region. It is possible that hearing white westerners speak negatively about the Middle East could promote a negative depiction, because western audiences are likely to trust these characters interpretations of the world. This is especially true since the audience likely has a lot more in common with these westerners than the
Middle Eastern characters.
Ultimately, negative comments like these play into the Orientalist dynamic of these films by portraying the regions as more uncivilized and developed than the West (Said, 1978, 40).
These quotes also support the findings of Karin Wilkin, who interviewed Arab Americans about their opinions on western films depicting the Middle East. Many of these individuals felt that the region was depicted as being “unnecessarily backward and foreign, dark and mysterious”
(Wilkins, 2009, 59). The quotes from above and the use of Orientalism in these films would certainly promote this kind of depiction of the Middle East. Wilkins also found that many non-
Arab participants in her study were afraid of traveling to the region. These individuals felt that traveling to the Middle East might endanger their life in some way (Wilkins, 2009, 570). It is not hard to believe that negative portrayals of the region in film could help foster this fear of the region in audiences around the world.
Arab terrorists are not the only Arabs that are negatively portrayed in these films. Many of these films also feature stereotypical Arabs who are portrayed as being incompetent, ignorant and controlling of women. These features fit the stereotypes mentioned by individuals like
Shaheen and Alalawi. For example, the Arabs in The Kingdom are all depicted as being incompetent at their jobs and constantly getting in the way of the terrorist investigation. It is not until the CIA agents arrive and start investigating the scene that work starts to get done. These
CIA agents also talk down to their Arab co-workers as though they were teaching children how Frank 81 to do their job. Agent Grant Sykes in particular talks down to the Arabs working with him. The portrayal of Abasi Fawal in Rendition is also problematic, but for other reasons. Abasi is depicted as being a stereotypical Arab in the sense that he is easily made violent and that he is controlling of the women in his family. Various scenes in the movie show Abasi controlling the women in his wife like his two daughters and his wife. An example of this, is that he tries to force his daughter Fatima to marry a man she does not love. Abasi’s wife is also stereotypical in that she covers all of her body and is very submissive around her husband. All that said Abasi is not completely demonized in the film, because there are various scenes that show him as a caring father. However, his character still embodies many of the harmful stereotypes that are promoted about Arab men. Many of these stereotypes are the same ones discussed by Alalai and Shaheen in their articles discussing the portrayal of Arabs and Muslims in American cinema.
There were also many Arab characters that did not exhibit stereotypes. Colonel Faris Al
Ghazi from The Kingdom and Anwar El-Ibrahimi from Rendition are both shown as supportive fathers. Each film also shows them caring for their children and being invested in the wellbeing of their families. Even Alalawi (2015, 61) mentions in her article that Anwar’s depiction in the film was actually fairly positive. Both men are also shown as being intelligent. Faris for example has well developed investigative skills, while Anwar has a doctorate degree from an American university. Faris is also specifically shown to be interested in various elements of American pop culture, which helps him make a connection with western audiences. He is also shown to share many of the same values as westerners. Yinsen from Iron Man is portrayed in a similar way to
Anwar in that he is an academic from the Middle East. He uses intelligent vocabulary and is shown to be a caring man when he saves Tony Stark’s life. Ultimately, none of the male Frank 82 characters above are shown to be “savage”, “violent” or “coldhearted”. This makes them immediately stand out from other Arabs shown in these films.
Interestingly enough, none of these characters wear religious clothing either even though some of them are practicing Muslims. Lastly, Fatima and her aunt from Rendition also stand out.
This is because these two women are shown to be relatively strong female characters. This is shown when Fatima and her aunt stand up to her father Abasi. Fatima does this by refusing to marry the man he wants her to and by running away to live with her aunt. Her aunt shows her strength by letting her niece stay at her home even though she knows her brother will be upset.
Additionally, she is also shown wearing a business suit instead of covering up her entire body.
This non-stereotypical choice of clothing makes Fatima’s aunt look more powerful and commanding. Fatima is also shown standing up to her boyfriend Khalid in an attempt to stop him from bombing a city square. This feat of courage ultimately leads to her dying in the explosion.
The four films that looked at non-Arab or Muslim terrorists had a much more diverse cast of extremists. Two of the films Olympus has Fallen and Collateral Damage both depict minority groups as the terrorists. Olympus has Fallen’s terrorist organization, Koreans for United
Freedom, consists solely of North Koreans. Collateral Damage on the other hand features
Columbian rebels who support the terrorist actions of Claudio Perrini. As a result, these two films have a generally negative portrayal of both Asians and Hispanics. Another interesting point is that in neither of these movies are there any real positive portrayals of minorities within either of these groups. Initially, it appears that the Hispanic character Selena Perrini is a positive portrayal, but it turns out that she too is an extremist. The only remotely positive Asian character in Olympus has Fallen is Lee Tae-Woo, the prime minister of South Korea, but he is quickly killed by the KUF. Live Free or Die Hard as well as Source Code feature extremists who are not Frank 83 from a minority group. Both Derek Frost (Source Code) and Thomas Gabriel (Live Free or Die
Hard) are white males who are actually from the United States. Even most of Gabriel’s team consists of white male Americans. The two exceptions to this are the French hitmen that he has hired and his partner Mai Linh who is Asian. Of these four films, Source Code is the only film that does not depict a terrorist organization that functions as a paramilitary group. It is likely that historical conflicts with both Columbians and North Koreans inform the negative portrayals they receive in their respective films. As stated by Thomas Riegler, historical events like the Iranian
Hostage Crisis and America’s involvement in the Lebanese Civil War tend to inform the biases of film. Riegler mentions that the two events above led to an increase in the amount of films depicting Arabs in a negative light (2010). Using this logic it would make since that American tensions with North Korea during the 21st century and US counterdrug efforts in Columbia during the 1990s would lead to the negative depictions of these groups in cinema.
Compared to the films depicting Arab and Muslim terrorists, these four films have a much more diverse set of motivations surrounding each extremist. It is also important to note that none of the motivations relate to Jihad or the extermination of the West. Only one of the motivations is even slightly religious, which is the one featured in Source Code. Derek Frost’s only explanation for the violence he inflicts is that “the world is hell, but we have a chance to start over in the rubble, but first there has to be rubble” (1:01:00). This quote seems to suggest that Derek is trying to “cleanse” the world and restart anew. Stories about the cleansing of the world through destruction are traditionally linked to religion, so his use of this language makes his motivations seem slightly religious. However, Derek’s character should be understood as an anarchist, because he is not part of some larger religious organization like ISIS or Al-Qaeda. The use of this quasi-religious language helps to depict Derek as irrational. This depiction of Frank 84 terrorism as “irrational” would frustrate Samuel Peleg, because as he states terrorism is
“purposeful and rational”. Peleg also states that terrorism is a complex topic and that depicting it as “irrational” in film only helps promote a misunderstanding of the subject (2003).
The motivations surrounding the terrorists in the other four films are not as poorly defined or abstract as Derek’s. In fact, most of their motivations can be summed up as political grievances against the United States of American. For example, the Columbian rebels featured in
Collateral Damage support the extremist actions of Claudio Perrini, because the want to stop
CIA and U.S. military involvement in Columbia. Claudio Perrini’s has much more personal reasons for despising the United States. His personal motivation is too seek revenge against the
United States who supported the CIA raid, which led to the death of his only son. Kang Yeonsak and the KUF are interested in eliminating the United States military presence around the Korean
Peninsula. They hope that by eliminating American military influence they can reunite the entire peninsula under North Korea. Kang Yeonsak is also interested in obtaining the nuclear launch codes to Project Cerberus and detonating nuclear bombs all around the United States. Lastly,
Thomas Gabriel wants to conduct a “Fire Sale” against the United States in order to disrupt the flow of goods and services within the country. He then hopes to step into power by offering the cyber security solutions required to ensure that a similar attack never happens again.
Ultimately, Gabriel has a vendetta against the U.S. government after he was shunned from politics following his promotion of better cyber security measures. Therefore, he also wants to get back at the politicians who “laughed” him out of power. Gabriel also believes he is the
“good guy” and that his cyber terrorist attack will only help strengthen America. One thing that
Peleg mentions in his article is that terrorism is “primarily a political act” and that it is a “form of political participation” (2003). Each of the films mentioned above do a decent job of illustrating Frank 85 terrorism as a political act, because the characters have political reasons for their violent actions.
Admittedly, there are also personal motivations behind each terrorists reasoning as well, but the fact that these characters use political reasoning to explain their motivations makes them appear more rational. None of these characters are using religion to justify their violence or are promoting Jihad, therefore it is easier for audiences to at least understand the reasoning behind their actions. As a result, terrorists in these films could appear to be more rational than Arab extremists depicted in American film.
One commonality between the depictions of Arab, Muslim and non-Arab/Muslim terrorists is that they are generally shown to be coldhearted killers who unapologetically take the lives of innocent people. In Collateral Damage Claudio Perrini kills 9 civilians including women and children when he detonates a bomb in downtown Los Angeles. Another 2 dozen civilians are injured during this attack. His brutality also comes out when we see him kill one of his henchman by shoving a poisonous snake down his throat. Abu Sadat Nurullah claim’s that Arabs are generally shown being capable of horrific violence, but this scene seems to suggest other minority groups receive this portrayal as well (Nurullah, 2010, 1042). KUF extremists in
Olympus has Fallen are shown killing civilians with suicide vests as well as gunning them down with an AC-130 airplane. During this scene it is clear that even though the goal of their operation is to secure the White House, they are also interested in killing innocent people. Similarly,
Gabriel and his men do not seem opposed to killing innocent people if it helps them complete their “fire sale”. This is shown as Gabriel’s henchmen use a helicopter to open fire on John
McClane, while he drives down busy city streets.
Perhaps the most coldhearted killer of all these men is Derek Frost, who happily kills tens of people commuting to Chicago on a train. He even develops his own nuclear bomb to set off in Frank 86 downtown Chicago, which if detonated would kill thousands of innocent people. His willingness to kill is only further shown during a conversation he has with Captain Stevens. After shooting
Christina to death, Frost calmly tells Stevens that “I think I killed your girlfriend” (1:01:00). All of these scenes paint the same picture of terrorists as the ones shown in films featuring Arab extremists. These men and women are all depicted as “cruel”, “violent” and “savage” individuals. Therefore, they align with many of the negative traits associated with Arab terrorists that are mentioned by Alalawi (2015), Nurullah (2010) and Shaheen (2001). Neither of the two groups stands out as being any more or less ruthless when it comes to harming innocent people.
Filmmakers seem to be even handed when portraying both sets of terrorists as coldhearted killers.
An interesting distinction between Arab, Muslim and non-Arab/Muslim extremists, is the types of weaponry they are shown using in films. Non-Arab/Muslim extremists are generally depicted to have access to higher-grade weaponry than Arab terrorists. Characters in Olympus has Fallen, Live Free or Die Hard and Collateral Damage are shown to have access to military grade weaponry. The KUF for example has access to heavy-duty weaponry like RPGs and an
AC-130. Similarly, Gabriel’s henchmen are armed with military grade assault rifles and helicopters as well. They are also shown having access to high end hacking software and hardware. Colombian rebels in Collateral Damage also have access to military grade assault rifles and are shown to have massive stockpiles of weaponry. They also have entire military compounds from which they stage their operations. Even Derek Frost somehow was able to build his own nuclear device in a van. When compared to the suicide vests and IEDs of Arab-terrorists, these extremists look much more like an organized military force. It is also interesting to note that in general terrorists do not have the financial support to have the weaponry shown in these Frank 87 films. These depictions of terrorists with access to such high-grade weaponry are likely made to help promote the idea that the antagonists in these films pose a threat to America. However, these depictions can be problematic by teaching audiences that terrorists have access to IBMs as well as nuclear weapons when in reality no extremist organization has this type of weaponry.
One interesting commonality between two of the four films featuring non-Arab/Muslim terrorists is that these films generally portray US government agencies as being incompetent. The
CIA in Collateral Damage for example enables Claudio to escape the United States by not sharing vital information with the FBI. CIA agent Peter Brandt refuses to share this information, because he believes that the FBI does not have clearance for the terrorist investigation. This results in the FBI being unable to track down Claudio, which results in him fleeing the USA.
Additionally, the film features a lot of internal power struggle between the FBI and CIA. These struggles over who has jurisdiction over what aspects of the case lead to issues when it comes to stopping terrorists. A similar struggle happens in Live Free or Die Hard where the FBI and
Department of Homeland Security argue over who has jurisdiction to investigate Gabriel’s attack on the United States. This power struggle enables Gabriel to successfully infiltrate his henchmen into vital infrastructure centers around the United States. It also makes it easier for him to manipulate the government.
Ultimately, the continued power struggle between government agencies also means that
John McClane and Matthew Farrell are the only Americans capable of stopping Gabriel’s cyberattack. These depictions of the CIA, FBI and Department of Homeland Security make the agencies look highly incompetent and ineffective at protecting the United States. Therefore, the films promote the idea that a “vigilante” of sorts is required to carry out justice against terrorists.
As mentioned by McFarlane, these vigilantes are also given exceptionality to act Frank 88 unconstitutionally or break the law if necessary. He states that these “heroes” can “act illiberally and anti-democratically in order to defeat” evil (McFarlane, 2014, 451). This illustration is problematic, because it sets a double standard in which “good guys” can act immorally to defeat the “bad guy”, thus justifying the violent or inappropriate behavior of protagonists.
John McClane, Gordon, and Captain Colver Stevens are all examples of protagonists that act unconstitutionally in order to stop terrorism. Therefore, they all illustrate the double standard mentioned with McFarlane’s article (McFarlane, 2014, 451). Characters like Gordon and Captain
Stevens are shown frequently breaking the law to pursue their goals. In Source Code, Captain
Stevens physically assaults Max Denoff and Hamzi, because he believes they might be involved in a terrorist attack. To make matters worse, he likely profiled these men as being terrorists, because they were both of Middle Eastern decent. Gordon illegally enters into Columbia in
Collateral Damage, so that he can enact his revenge against Claudio. Once in Columbia, Gordon continues to break the law so that he can get into a restricted area of the country. Another interesting distinction between the protagonists of these films and the terrorists is how their violence is depicted. Each of the protagonists listed above kill “bad guys” without showing any remorse for their actions. However unlike their terrorist counterparts, the protagonists of these films are not demonized for their coldhearted killing. Each of these films praises these protagonists for being strong and capable of eliminating the men who threaten the United States.
This difference in depiction relates back to McFarlane’s point on how protagonists are often praised for acting violently, while terrorists are demonized for the same actions (McFarlane,
2014, 451).
In the end, American films expectedly demonize Arab, Muslim and non-Arab/Muslim terrorists, however non-Arab/Muslim terrorists are generally portrayed as being more rational Frank 89 than their Arab or Muslim counterparts. This distinction was ultimately made since films depicting Arab terrorism focus on more religious motivations for extremism. Films depicting non-Arab or Muslim terrorists tend to focus more on the political reasoning behind the terrorist’s motivations. This distinction makes these terrorists appear more rational than their “religiously” motivated counterpart. Another large difference in how these groups were portrayed is that non-
Arab terrorists were portrayed more as paramilitary groups than typical terrorists. This distinction was made because groups like the KUF and Columbian rebels had access to stockpiles of high tech weaponry. Some of these groups even had their own uniforms as well as military camps.
Arab terrorists on the other hand were generally not shown having access to military grade weaponry. These groups were also shown to not have a uniform or a military style base of operations. Arab extremists were instead portrayed as being less organized and as using lower quality weaponry like IEDs or AK-47s. Even with this distinction both groups of extremists were still shown to be coldhearted killers who were capable of using extreme violence to achieve their goals. This is illustrated by how all of them willingly kill innocent people without even thinking twice. In general, terrorists are also shown to be poorly developed in American films. There are a few exceptions to this, but most of the antagonists are poorly developed and therefore it is hard for audiences to sympathize with these characters. Most of the terrorists are clearly made to fill the generic role of being the bad guy in a film about terrorism. It does not appear that a significant amount of effort was placed into developing the extremists into diverse and compelling characters.
Chapter 3: British Film
Arab & Muslim Extremists in British Film Frank 90
Four Lions is a British comedy that follows five British Muslims as they attempt to become Islamic terrorists. The film starts with Omar, his cousin Waj, Barry and Faisal discussing plans to go to the Middle East and train with Al Qaeda in order to learn how to be terrorists.
Ultimately, only Omar and Waj travel to the Al Qaeda-affiliated camp in Pakistan, while Barry and Faisal stay in Britain. It is around this time that Barry recruits a fifth member to the group
Hassan. In Pakistan, Omar and Waj accidently kill Al Qaeda members, while trying to shoot down an American drone. This forces the two of them to return to Britain where they assert their
“training” as a reason for having more authority in the group. Once the five characters are finally back in Britain, they acquire the necessary materials to make an improvised explosive device. It is at this point that the group starts to argue about how to use the bomb. Barry wants to use the bomb on a mosque to attempt to radicalize Muslim moderates. Omar and the others don’t agree with Barry and want to keep looking for a better target.
At the same time, Hassan invites his neighbor into their safe house and the group is forced to flee, thinking that their position has been compromised. While carrying the bombs to a new location, Faisal is killed when he trips and falls over. This leads the group to disband for a short period of time before they all rejoin each other and decide they are going to bomb the
London Marathon. As a result, the four remaining members strap bombs into mascot costumes and attend the race. During the race, Hassan, Omar and Waj start to have second thoughts about bombing innocent people. Barry on the other hand still wants to follow the plan. In the end, all four of the remaining characters die as their bombs go off, however there are minimal casualties caused by the attack.
To start, we will analyze how the Al Qaeda terrorists are depicted in this film. These characters are not in the film for very long, but they show a stark contrast to our main characters. Frank 91
Ultimately, the Al Qaeda members at the training camp are shown as being more competent and intelligent than any of the main five characters. In fact, the individual in charge of the training camp is frequently annoyed with Omar and Waj, because of their incompetence during training.
For example, Al Qaeda members are shown yelling at Waj in one scene, because he was using his phone to record himself during training. The leaders where upset, because Waj was carelessly shooting an AK-47 up into the air as well as using a device that could be tracked. Either of these things could help alert people to the presence of the training camp. In general, the Al Qaeda members in the film were wearing typical paramilitary clothing.
Omar is perhaps the most intelligent member of the five main characters depicted in the film, yet he is still incompetent. For example, Omar is the one who misfires the RPG and hits the camp of Al Qaeda members, thus forcing him and Waj to flee the country. That said Omar still has enough common sense to combat many of Barry’s insane ideas. Visually, Omar looks more like a normal civilian especially when compared to some cinematic depictions of Muslims. He generally wears casual clothing like T-shirts and jeans that would be associated with the western middle class. Omar also has a beard, but unlike some of the more stereotypical depictions of
Muslims his beard is not long. His character also stands out because he seems to be a loving father and husband for his family. In one scene, Omar is seen telling his son a bedtime story about Simba and Mufasa. This scene is supposed to show that he is a caring parent even though he is interested in terrorism. Omar’s scenes with his wife also portray him as being on equal footing with his partner and not in a stereotypical position of power.
During the attempt to bomb the London Marathon, Omar is one of the first group members to feel bad for killing innocent people. After coming to this realization, Omar tries to stop Barry and Waj from blowing themselves up, but is ultimately unable to stop them. Before Frank 92 dying, Omar runs into an empty storefront and blows up so that he does not hurt any innocent civilians.
Waj is almost a tragic character in this film, because it becomes apparent that he likely suffers from a mental disorder. This mental issue is consistently abused throughout the film to make Waj act in very specific ways. For example, Omar and Barry abuse his handicap in order to convince him that bombing civilians at the marathon is a good idea. At times, it also seems like the only reason Waj wants to be a terrorist is, because he follows suit with whatever his cousin does. The film depicts him as someone who easily gives into peer pressure. That said Waj is one of the first characters that comes to the realization that the idea of killing people makes his
“heart” feel bad. This seems to suggest that maybe Waj does really have a pure heart and is just being taken advantage of by other people in the group. Waj is shown in some scenes dressed up as an actual Al Qaeda terrorist, but for most scenes he is wearing pretty typical casual clothing.
Like Omar, Waj has a beard, but it is not long and unkempt.
Barry is one of the more interesting main characters in the film. To start, he is the most radical of the five main characters. His specific views are shown in one scene where he argues to a university audience that Muslims should act like terrorists, because they are treated like terrorists. He also consistently promotes the idea of radicalizing moderate Muslims to violent
Jihad. He is depicted as the most radical and violent, because Barry is a white British man who converted to Islam. It is unclear how much Barry actually knows about the religion. One example that illustrates his lack of knowledge is when Barry does not know which way to pray in order to face Mecca. This lack of knowledge does not stop Barry from attempting to look
Muslim. Throughout the whole film, Barry wears a taqiyah, which can be associated with Islam.
He also has a long an unkempt beard. Frank 93
Barry is also one of the more strange characters in the movie. He consistently insists on eating the sim cards from phones in order to keep the government from tracking your location.
At one point, he even swallows the keys to Omar’s car. By the end of the film, Barry is the most devoted of the five main characters to radical Islam. He does not want Omar to stop him from dying in a suicide bombing, in fact he actively fights Omar so that he can blow up innocent civilians.
Faisal is one of the more quiet characters in the film. He is in some ways just as odd as
Barry. For example, Faisal tries to train suicide bombing crows. His idea is that the group should place explosives on crows and then train the crows to fly into targets before blowing up. He has developed this idea because he does not want to blow himself up in the name of Jihad.
Unsurprisingly, his idea fails, but there is a scene where he tries to get his plan to work. Faisal’s character is generally shown in the film wearing an old and dirty beanie along with a sweater. He also has a more stereotypical “Muslim” beard like Barry does. As mentioned, Faisal ends up dying when he trips and lands on a bag of explosive material.
Hassan is the least devoted radical out of any of the five members. He is generally shown as wearing typical college student clothing and having a clean shaven face. Throughout the film, it is suggested that he is only involving himself with radical Islam, because he thinks it will get him attention or make him cool. During Barry’s university talk for example, Hassan creates a fake suicide bomb vest and sets it off in the audience. When the device goes off, confetti flies everywhere and he has a good laugh. This scene seems to suggest that Hassan is only interested in getting attention and not so much in the actual beliefs of radical Islam. At one point, he even makes a rap music video about being a terrorist and blowing people up. The creation of this video further supports the idea that Hassan thinks being a terrorist is “cool” and will make him Frank 94
“popular”. However, when Hassan has an actual suicide vest strapped onto his body, he starts to panic. During this scene, Hassan runs towards police saying that he has a bomb vest and that he wants help, but before he can get help his bomb detonates. His behavior during this scene seems to suggest that Hassan was okay with being a terrorist when it did not actually mean anything, but when he was actually expected to put his life on the line he bailed.
Even the non-extremist characters within this film receive relatively negative portrayals.
For example, all of the British police and citizens are shown to be gullible. The two British characters shown most frequently in the film, Alice and Matt, are depicted as being particularly dumb. Both characters consistently run into Omar and his friends creating or transporting bombs, yet somehow do not notice. In certain cases, the materials for the bombs are literally laid out in from of these characters and they do not seem to have any reaction. Even when one of them does become suspicious, Omar manages to trick them with a poorly developed lie. British security forces and police are also shown to be incompetent in the film. This is illustrated by how ineffectively they try to stop Omar’s plan to bomb the 5K race. To start, they raid the home of a peaceful group of Muslims and arrest them instead of Omar for planning a terrorist attack.
During the race, matters get even worse when a police sniper accidently kills an innocent civilian instead of shooting one of the actual terrorists. These tactical blunders make the group appear dim witted and incapable of effectively doing their job.
The film also takes a satirical jab at peaceful fundamentalist Muslims, like Omar’s brother. During a scene at Omar’s home, his brother shows up and makes a fool of himself, because he refuses to enter the same room as Omar’s wife, Sofia. He goes so far as to cover his eyes so that he cannot see Sofia nearby. Omar mocks his brother for not entering the room to have a normal conversation, which then leads to him “attacking” his brother with a water pistol. Frank 95
Omar’s brother refuses to “fight” back against the water gun and instead runs out of the room stating that violence is not the answer. On a more positive note, the original reason that Omar’s brother visits the home is to stop Omar from committing a terrorist attack. He suspects that his brother is up to something and wants to confront him. In this way, the film does not represent non-violent Muslims as the enemy.
The New York Times review of Four Lions by A. Scott praises the film for showing that not all terrorists are “diabolically clever”. In fact, Scott makes comments that seem to suggest that he believes most terrorists are stupid. He even states in his review that “terrorism is stupid”
(Scott, 2010). However he does mention that some of the terrorists within the film are not portrayed in a horrible manner. Omar, for example, gains sympathy from the audience. “That he is a regular guy with a job as a security guard, a good-humored wife (Preeya Kalidas) and a young son makes him all the more likable” (Scott, 2010). Scott (2010) does mention that his
“likability makes [Omar’s] commitment to violence especially disturbing”. Lastly, Scott (2010) states that though the film is harshly critical of radical-Muslims, it is equally as critical of “non-
Muslim Britons” and “non-violent Muslims” (Scott, 2010).
Eye in the Sky is a film depicting a British led drone strike on a terrorist cell in Nairobi,
Kenya. Initially, Colonel Katherine Powell is placed in charge of the mission and told to capture
Al-Shabaab leaders Susan Helen Danford and her husband Abdullah Al-Hady. Colonel Powell is being assisted on her mission by American drone pilots Steve Watts and Carrie Gershon. The team is initially tasked with making sure that Danford and her husband are actually present within the predetermined location. To do this, Colonel Powell relies on Major Moses Owiti and his team of undercover Kenyan NIS agents. One of his agents manages to get a camera device into the building were Danford is supposed to be located and the team learns that Abdullah is Frank 96 preparing suicide vests. Colonel Powell immediately suggests that the team should use a hellfire missile to destroy the targets before they have a chance to detonate the explosives. However, she meets resistance from her superiors in London. Lieutenant General Frank Benson tries to urge the politicians to go forward with the strike, but each of them wants to refer up before making a decision. As a result, Colonel Powell’s time sensitive mission is continuously put on pause.
Eventually, Powell receives the go ahead from her superiors and attempts to launch a missile. Unfortunately, before she can do this a little girl begins to sell bread within the targeted area. This further delays the plan as soldiers and politicians bicker about how to deal with estimated casualties from the strike. Powell and her team decide to attack a specific portion of the building that would only have a 45% chance of injuring the girl. The attack is then carried out and the little girl is killed in the blast. In the end, everyone involved in the drone strike succeeded in their mission, but grieves over the death of the girl.
Tom Robey from the Telegraph states that Eye in the Sky does a decent attempt at trying to examine the complexity of drone warfare. He states that the films “serious intent is honourable, and the construction pretty solid” (Robey, 2016). Robey (2016) says that it is obvious the film “wants to humanize a debate which could easily get lost in statistics and probabilities. However, he also mentions that the film does not lead to any further questions about the debate on drones, which disappoints him (Robey, 2016). Steven Holden (2016) at the
New York Times seems less enthusiastic about the film, but does state it does a decent job at analyzing the issues associated with drone warfare. He states that the film has a good mix of military personnel that want to “discharge their duties as efficiently as possible” and those who care more about civilian casualties (Holden, 2016). Ultimately, both critics do not discuss the representation of terrorism in the film or how specific ethnic groups are portrayed. Frank 97
Interestingly enough, this film does not focus too heavily on portraying Al-Shabaab. The organization does have a few named characters, but none of them are really developed or expanded upon. Susan Helen Danford is the best developed character and all we know about her is that she was once a British national who was then radicalized in a west London mosque. We also never hear a real description of what the organization is trying to achieve. Ultimately, Al-
Shabaab is developed as a radical Islamic group who is actively opposed to positive relations between Kenya and the United States. The group is also portrayed as being repressive towards women. One scene depicts an extremist yelling at a little girl for playing with a hula-hoop, because having fun is not something a little girl should be doing. In another scene, a group of armed extremists harass a woman for having clothing that shows her wrists. They continue to harass the women until she agrees to go home. Members of Al-Shabaab are also portrayed as heartless and bloodthirsty. This is illustrated by the news reel that is shown at the beginning of the film. During the reel, the anchor talks about how the organization killed 67 citizens and injured another 175 in a suicide bombing. It is also mentioned that they killed 145 students and teachers at a university in Kenya. The immediate presentation of this knowledge illustrates that
Al-Shabaab is a violent group who is not afraid to kill innocent civilians. This portrayal therefore reflects onto the members of the organization and makes them look negative as a result.
Additionally, the visual representation of the extremists does not help make them look any friendlier. The film shows Al-Shabaab extremists wearing paramilitary gear and patrolling a neighborhood in Nairobi. Each extremist is shown carrying an AK-47, a typical extremist symbol, and some are even shown handling a heavy machine gun on the back of an armored car.
Ultimately, the scenes depicting these terrorists look more like an occupation than anything else.
Extremist can be seen checking citizen’s bags and belongings making sure that no one is a Frank 98
Kenyan spy. The one exception to this visual depiction are the extremists working with Danford and her husband. These individuals can be seen wearing keffiyehs, taqiyah, and thawbs. They can also be seen inside the house praying or performing various rituals. The performance of these prayers could be considered problematic, because it helps further promote the idea that terrorism has a direct correlation to the Islamic faith (Wilkins & Downing, 2002). One thing that stands out when comparing this films terrorists to that of other similar films is that extremists in Eye in the
Sky are from a different ethnic group. For example, Islamic terrorists in films like Four Lions or
Rendition are Arabs, while the terrorists in this film are of African descent. This is especially interesting, because in this film Islam is still being associated with terrorism, while Arabs are not.
Most Kenyan characters in this film do not share the negative traits associated with Al-
Shabaab radicals. Kenyan NIS agents like Moses Owiti, Jama Farah and Damisi are developed in a completely different way than Al-Shabaab members. For example, Moses Owiti is shown to be a charismatic leader, who does not like to risk his agent’s lives unless absolutely necessary. This is shown by his initial hesitation towards having Jama spy on Danford from within the Al-
Shabaab controlled neighborhood. Damisi, Jama’s partner, also gets nervous when her partner is sent into a potentially dangerous situation. The film depicts Jama as being charismatic, because he risks his life trying to save the young girl from the incoming drone strike. Unfortunately, he fails to save the girl, but he tries multiple times to save her life. The little girl’s father is also shown in multiple scenes as being a truly empowering and charismatic figure. In multiple scenes, the father is shown building a hula-hoop for his daughter or helping her learn math. Through his interactions with his daughter, it becomes clear that he truly cares about her having a bright Frank 99 future. It is even more impressive that the father does all of this, because it could potentially get him into trouble with Al-Shabaab who appears to dislike the empowerment of women.
Politicians also play a large role in this film. These characters can be divided into two camps, American and British politicians. American politicians in this film are portrayed as being harsher and less sympathetic to casualties caused by collateral damage. They are more than willing to kill a little girl if it means eliminating three of the most wanted terrorists in the world.
For example, the US Secretary of State is irritated when British officials contact him asking if they can use a drone strike against Danford and her husband. British officials are worried, because if they kill Danford they will also be eliminating an American citizen who is attempting to join Al-Shabaab. The Secretary of State articulates the opinion that this individual is no longer an American citizen. He states that all rights to citizenship were thrown out when the man enlisted with Al-Shabaab. The Secretary also states that he is upset that British officials would waste his time by asking such a “dumb” question. Later in the film, the US National Security
Council Legal Advisor calls the British politicians. She urges them to kill the terrorists even if it means killing the innocent girl. In her opinion, it is better to kill three of the world’s most wanted terrorists and risk the girl’s life than to let them escape.
The British politicians on the other hand are more anxious when it comes to dealing with casualties and collateral damage. For example, the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, the
British Foreign Secretary, and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Africa are all opposed to the idea of harming innocent civilians. Angela Northman, the Parliamentary Under-
Secretary of State, is particularly vehement about her disdain for killing civilians or even the terrorists. She consistently mentions that she would rather have Danford and her colleagues captured instead of assassinated. Eventually, the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and the Frank 100
British Foreign Secretary agree to the drone strike, but this is only after they “refer up” to their superiors. Even after making the decision to approve the strike, they still seem nervous about the ramifications that could develop due to civilian casualties.
The only British politician who continues to argue in support of the strike is Lieutenant
General Frank Benson. Ultimately, Benson supports the strike, because he believes it will help avoid an upcoming terrorist attack. As mentioned, Al-Shabaab is in the process of preparing for a suicide attack, which could kill a lot of innocent civilians. Benson believes that risking this girl’s life is the only way to effectively prevent this upcoming attack. However, Benson does grieve when the young girl is injured at the end of the film. This is shown when Angela Northman criticizes him at the end of the movie for not being sympathetic. Benson retorts “never tell a soldier he does not know the cost of war” before solemnly leaving the room.
Colonel Powell, like Lieutenant General Benson also supports the use of an airstrike against Danford. From the moment that suicide vests are found within the building, Powell suggests that a drone strike is the only thing that can prevent a future attack. She is quickly met with resistance from British politicians. This immediately frustrates Powell who knows that this is a time sensitive issue that needs to be decided upon quickly. Her frustration only grows as individuals like the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs insist on “referring up” to their superiors for advice. Even once the little girl enters the blast radius for the hellfire missile,
Powell insists they need to strike against the terrorists. She, like Benson, believes that it is better to risk the life of a little girl than to risk the lives of multiple innocent civilians.
Eventually, Powell does try her best to save the little girl from the hellfire’s blast. She informs her team that she wants to reduce the risk of the girl being injured to under 50%. The team quickly develops a plan to attack the terrorists in a way that would avoid placing the little Frank 101 girl too deep within the blast radius. They eventually find a way to commence the attack with only a 45% chance of the girl being injured. Seeing this as her only option to eliminate Danford, while giving the girl some chance of survival, Powell commences the drone strike. When the little girl is killed in the blast the film does a great job of illustrating the bittersweet moment for
Colonel Powell. As Powell is congratulated on a successful mission, the viewer can tell she is grieving for the young girl who died.
Drone pilots Steve Watts and Carrie Gershon offer another interesting look into how the film portrays soldiers. Unlike the American politicians, Steve and Carrie have absolutely no interest in killing. Both of them are initially assigned to the mission under the impression that they would be the “eyes in the sky” for the operation. When they are asked to use hellfire missiles to take out Danford, Steve and Carrie quickly become anxious. They both mention they have never had to use the weapons on a drone before. Their opposition to using the missiles only increases when the little girl enters the blast radius. When first being ordered to fire a hellfire missile, Steve goes so far as to demand that Colonel Powell recalculate the collateral damage estimation. He does this so that the young girl has more time to escape the blast radius. Steve is quickly reprimanded by his superiors for talking back to a commanding officer. Carrie mentions that she approves of Steve’s actions. When Carrie and Steve are finally forced to launch two hellfire missiles, the team seems disturbed by the carnage that results. It only gets worse when the team learns that the drone strike killed the little girl. At this moment, both Steve and Carrie become visibly depressed. The film does an excellent job of portraying just how upset these two pilots become when they learn their actions led to the death of an innocent girl.
Cleanskin is a British film that follows the stories of Ewan, a British secret service agent, and Ash, a radicalized Muslim living in Britain. Ewan is tasked with tracking down the terrorist Frank 102 cell that is responsible for stealing a briefcase of Semtex (explosives). This same group uses the stolen Semtex to bomb a café in London. Ash is one of the “homegrown terrorists” who helps to steal the Semtex and bomb the café. As a result, Ewan is trying to find Ash and his superiors before they can harm anymore civilians. Ewan’s superiors partner him up with a man named
Mark and the two men search London for the terrorist cell. The team comb London looking for potential leads. This results in multiple circumstances where Ewan and Mark interrogate and torture suspects in an attempt to find the cell. They even go so far as to kill many of the people they interrogate. At the same time, the movie shows the viewer how Ash was slowly radicalized by the extremist Nabil into becoming a suicide bomber. It follows Ash’s life as he turns his back on the West and turns towards Islamic extremism. In the end, Mark tries to betray Ewan and is killed in the process. Ewan learns that Mark was working with a group of people to facilitate a bombing at a wedding. He goes to the wedding and kills Ash before the bomb can be detonated.
However, another bomb goes off and kills the intended targets. Later, Ewan learns that his handler Charlotte McQueen was behind the bombings as part of a political campaign to gain power in Britain. He kills Charlotte and plants evidence to make it look like a suicide.
This film places a lot of focus on the religious aspect of Muslim terrorism. Many of the extremists in this film like Prophet Nabil, utilize religious language when discussing terrorism against the West. In one scene when talking about Jihad, Nabil states that “what happens on the battlefield is between you and God” (39:54). This quote illustrates that these extremists view terrorism as a religious war against the West. The film further strengthens the connection between Islam and extremism by having multiple scenes that show terrorists praying to Allah.
These factors make it clear that Islam played a large role in the radicalization of these Arab men.
Interestingly enough, many of the members of this cell do not wear religious clothing. Many of Frank 103 the men simply wear typical civilian clothes throughout the film. That said some of them do fall into the stereotype of having unkempt facial hair. The group also utilizes language that dehumanizes Westerners. Members utilize phrases like “western pigs” or “pigs” to describe their
Western enemy. A lot of the language in this film focuses on the idea of “us versus them” and the use of such polarizing language helps illustrate that these extremists are trying to differentiate themselves from Westerners. The main purpose of this extremist cell is to assassinate and bomb
British targets in an attempt to end Western influence in the Middle East. Members of this cell believe that the West’s military and economic influence in the region has only hurt Muslims and
Arabs.
Various scenes in the movie also illustrate the ruthless violence that the group is capable of committing. One scene shows the group bombing a café in downtown London and killing over
20 civilians. The depiction gets even worse when the viewer learns that one of the extremists killed the entire family of a British veteran. His whole family was killed as a form of punishment for the veteran taking part in what was deemed anti-Arab activities. These ruthless acts of violence only further demonize the terrorist cell. It also shows that the group is willing to do anything to achieve their goal of defeating Western influence in the Middle East.
Ash’s portrayal in this film is less one-dimensional when compared to the other terrorists.
For example, Ash is a bright law student who is interested in stopping Western exploitation of the Middle East. This opinion puts him at odds with some of his classmates who label him as a radical. Ash also stands out because he falls in love with a British woman named Kate. Unlike the typical depiction of an anti-Western Muslim, Ash actually likes aspects of western society and the love he feels towards Kate helps illustrate that he does not hate the West as a whole. Ash only starts to radicalize, because he meets the Prophet Nabil who convinces him that extremism Frank 104 is the only solution to the issues in the Middle East. It is ultimately Ash’s frustration with the lack of change in Western foreign policy that leads to his radicalization. This becomes especially obvious during the end of the film when he discusses why he became a suicide bomber. During a religious rant, Ash states that he views this violence as the only way to end support for those who are actively abusing the Middle East. He mentions that violence will continue to happen until civilians stop supporting corrupt regimes that abuse regions like the Middle East. Another interesting aspect of Ash’s character is that he actually does not enjoy killing people. During one scene, he actually gets mad at the terrorist who killed a British veteran’s family. He yells at the man stating that they were innocent civilians. Even though Ash does become a suicide bomber, the film does a good job of making him a multi-dimensional character. This makes it easier for the audience to sympathize with Ash or at the very least helps them understand why he acts the way he does.
The protagonist of the film Ewan also receives a complex depiction. He is generally shown to be a pretty cold character who is not willing to show very many emotions. The only thing that really seems to impact him emotionally is his connection to the war in the Middle East.
It is made clear that during this war his friend Pete was killed and other members of his regiment were injured by Muslim extremists. His loss during the conflict has led to him having a strong sense of camaraderie for his fellow soldiers and a disdain for Muslims. This point comes across through various dialogue in the film. The best examples are from a conversation between Ewan and Mark, where Ewan talks about fighting in the Middle East to fight against terrorism. He states “I fought over there to stop this from happening here . . . there not going to stop and neither am I . . . I’m going to find every one of them and send them to the death they pray for” Frank 105
(44:53). This quote effectively illustrates how biased Ewan’s character is against the Middle
Easterners.
Aside from this bias he is also shown to be a violent man. He tortures and beats a prostitute without thinking twice and also burns Hussein Malik, a man framed as being a terrorist, alive. Hussein tries to tell him about his innocence and explain the government conspiracy around the election, but Ewan refuses to listen. These scenes create a depiction of
Ewan that is not particularly positive and make him look like a crazed killer. However, Ewan does attempt to redeem himself at the end of the film after learning about the election conspiracy.
He does this by killing Charlotte for her involvement in the terrorist attacks. Unfortunately, these actions further reinforce the idea that Ewan can only solve his problems through extreme violence. The most redeeming characteristic of Ewan’s character is that he is actively trying to combat terrorist and save innocent lives. It is just problematic that he does this through torture and extreme violence.
Like the politicians featured in Rendition, Cleanskin also features corruption. Charlotte
McQueen is the main culprit of corruption in this film. She along with other members of the secret service orchestrated a set of terrorist attacks to weaken the public’s faith in the British government. They did this so that they could get a new administration into power in the next cycle of elections. This shows that Charlotte was willing to kill innocent people to achieve her goals. It also shows that she cooperated with known terrorists in order to gain a stronger position in government. McQueen also betrays secret service agents Hussein and Ewan by trying to have both of them assassinated. Ultimately, Charlotte is shown to be a self-centered woman who is willing to sacrifice innocent lives for personal gain. The film also illustrates that she is willing to toy with people like Ewan in order to get what she wants. She is then more than willing to Frank 106 dispose of these individuals once they out last their usefulness. All of these characteristics make
Charlotte McQueen one of the most negatively portrayed characters in the film.
Road to Guantanamo is a British film that follows the incarceration of three British citizens, also known as the “Tipton Three”. The movie starts with the three men, Ruhal Ahmed,
Asif Iqbal and Shafiq Rasul, going to Pakistan for Asif’s wedding. After staying in the country for a few days the group decides to take a trip into Afghanistan, which leads them into the middle of a combat zone between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance. Eventually, they are captured by Northern Alliance soldiers. These soldiers eventually give the three men to
American forces, who believing the three men are involved with Al-Qaeda, send them to
Guantanamo Bay. Here the group are imprisoned and tortured for information. The only problem is that these three men have been wrongly imprisoned and are not terrorists. After two years of imprisonment, the three men are finally released from Guantanamo Bay.
The main terrorist organization in this film is the Taliban. For the most part, the Taliban are depicted as paramilitaries throughout the film. They dress in stereotypical Middle Eastern clothing with turbans or wraps around their head. Many scenes also show them carrying around various assault rifles and other military grade weapons. Unlike the American and Northern
Alliance Forces, the Taliban are not shown wearing any solidified uniform that symbolizes unity within the group. Each member seems to wear their own civilian clothing, even during combat.
Interestingly enough, this movie does not have many scenes showing Taliban soldiers killing or attacking other individuals. This is in stark contrast to many other British or American films, which devote significant screen time to showing death and destruction being orchestrated by extremists. Other than voiceovers from various news outlets discussing violent battles with the
Taliban, the film only shows the group in a couple firefights throughout the film. Even during Frank 107 these scenes, Taliban soldiers are shooting at Northern Alliance forces and not innocent people.
Some scenes in this film actually show members of the Taliban helping civilians during
American bombings. That said the film never states that the group is peaceful or rational in any way. It simply does not utilize any imagery that would further demonize the group in the film.
Road to Guantanamo does suffer from some issues with portraying the Middle East through an orientalist lens. This is illustrated by the many scenes that show busy oriental markets filled with exotic foods and clothing. These same markets are generally shown to be impoverished, overcrowded and chaotic. During these scenes, Muslim women appear heavily clothed and Muslim men wear stereotypical clothing like Turbans, caps or head wraps. This imagery is often associated with orientalism has been historically utilized to separate the Orient
(the “other”) from the Occident (“us”). As a result, such imagery can develop social boundaries between Middle Easterners and Westerners due to the perceived differences these movies promote (Said, 1978). In some cases, these social boundaries can solidify into stereotypes, which can have serious impacts on the way that westerners interpret and interact with the world.
Northern Alliance forces are heavily demonized in this film. They are portrayed as cruel and greedy soldiers who are more interested in stealing from their prisoners than doing their job.
This point is illustrated during the scene where they capture the Tipton Three along with a group of Taliban soldiers. Immediately after capturing these men, the Northern Alliance troops force their captives to give up all their valuables. They then tie up their new prisoners and make them march in a line through the desert. During this march, they share no sympathy for any prisoners who have trouble walking or collapse from dehydration or fatigue. After hours of walking, the troops then force their captives into container trucks for transport to a new location. The interior of these trucks quickly become overcrowded and oxygen starts to run low as the humidity rises. Frank 108
Prisoners begin to bang on the wall of the container, but the Northern Alliance offers no aid.
Ultimately, some prisoners die during the transportation process. This whole sequence of inhumane treatment of prisoners completely destroys any chance of a positive representation of the Northern Alliance. Even following this awful sequence of events the film continues to show the soldiers inhuman treatment of their prisoners. It is the Northern Alliances inability to show sympathy or even the slightest amount of humanity that demonizes them the most in this film. In many ways, their representation is far worse in this film than that of the Taliban.
American Forces are also demonized in this film as being inhuman and overly cruel. This point mostly comes across through the representation of Guantanamo Bay. In the prison, suspected terrorists are verbally and physically abused by American soldiers for things such as praying or talking. One scene specifically depicts US troops in riot gear beating a mentally handicapped prisoner for speaking too loudly in his cell. The other prisoners try to tell the guards about the man’s mental condition, but the soldiers ignore them. Other scenes show American intelligence officers fabricating or lying about supposedly incriminating evidence that links the
Tipton Three to Al-Qaeda. As mentioned, the group of men had no terrorist connections, yet these US officer’s continued to try and get the men to admit to being part of a terrorist organization. American officers go so far as to place members of the Tipton Three within solitary confinement in order to try and get a conviction out of them. This plan ultimately fails, but does manage to show how cruel officers could be when trying to obtain information. Even when it is declared that the three men had no connection to Al-Qaeda or any terrorist group the US does not apologize for their mistake or even suggest that any errors were made. They simply release the men from prison. The film also spins some of the American soldiers as being racist towards Frank 109
Arabs. These soldiers chant slurs like “camel jockey” or “pussy boy” at the inmates, while chasing them around the compound with dogs.
In their review of Road to Guantanamo, New York Times critic A. Scott (2006) argues that the film does a decent job of illustrating the issues with Guantanamo Bay. Scott (2006) states that the film “effectively dramatizes a position that has been argued, by principled commentators on the left and the right, for several years now: that the abuse of prisoners, innocent or not, is not only repugnant in its own right”. He also states that the Road to
Guantanamo illustrates a “wrenching and dismaying account of cruelty and bureaucratic indifference”, which ultimately reflects negatively on American counter-terrorist practices
(Scott, 2006). Scott does not mention anything about the film being biased against Islam or
Muslims. David Rose’s critique of the film for the Guardian talked mostly about the actual
Tipton Three and how they felt about the film. When interviewed, they stated that the portrayal of Guantanamo Bay is actually quite accurate (Rose, 2006). It was even mentioned that the movie was a little light on how harsh Guantanamo can be. Ultimately, this film seems to be a fairly accurate dramatization of what the Tipton Three experienced while imprisoned (Rose,
2006).
Non-Arab or Muslim Terrorism in British Film
The Foreigner is a British film following Quan Minh (Jackie Chan) as he tracks down the men responsible for caring out a terrorist attack that kills his daughter. The Authentic IRA, claims responsibility for the event. This leads to Quan tracking down Deputy Minister Liam
Hennessey a previous member of the IRA and a politician for Sinn Fein. He hopes that Liam will give him the names of the men responsible for the attack, but Hennessey claims he does not know who is responsible. Quan is not satisfied with this answer and threatens to harm the Deputy Frank 110
Minister if he does not divulge the names. Ultimately, Liam does not give up information, thus prompting various bombings and attacks from Quan. At the same time that Quan is harassing
Liam, the Deputy Minister is holding his own investigation into who is committing the bombings. Through this investigation the audience learns that Liam Hennessey promoted the bombing of banks in England, because of a political scheme he made to be reelected. That said he did not want any innocent civilians to be injured in the bombing. Unfortunately, Liam does not know who is responsible for the bombings, because Sinn Fein tasked an anonymous group of
IRA youth with committing the attacks. They did this to distance the political organization from terrorist actions should the bombers be discovered.
Eventually, Liam learns who is responsible for the bombings by interrogating Hugh
McGrath, his head enforcer. It is learned that McGrath had worked against Hennessey’s wishes and promoted the bombing as an attempt to reignite the conflict between Northern Ireland and
England. After learning this information, Liam kills McGrath and informs Quan about who is responsible for the bombings. Quan tracks down the terrorist cell and kills all of the members inside. British special forces enter the terrorist cell after Quan leaves and learn about a laptop bomb located in the London airport. Security personnel rush to the airport and stop the bomb from being carried onto the plane and detonated.
The Authentic IRA is the main antagonistic group in this film. Its main goal is to utilize strategic bombings on various civilian populations to get the British out of Northern Ireland.
They hope that after the British with withdraw, Ireland will become a unified nation. Their first attack occurs at a bank in London that killed Quan’s daughter along with 11 other people. Their next bombing was carried out on a double decker bus in London that killed 16 people and injured
32. Frequently, the film references this group as being a rogue IRA cell. Describing this group as Frank 111 such seems to place some of the responsibility for the bombings on the IRA as well as Sinn Fein.
This could be problematic since Sinn Fein is a political party in Northern Ireland and connecting them to terrorism could lead to inappropriate assumptions about the group. The connection is only strengthened when the audience learns that leadership in Sinn Fein did actually promote the initial bombing campaign against financial centers. Ultimately, the association with Sinn Fein and terrorism is problematic, because Northern Ireland is still trying to recover from the ravages of the Troubles. Having a film that promotes one of the major political organizations in Northern
Ireland as a supporter of terrorism has obvious negative implications for real world peace building.
Members of the Authentic IRA are depicted in the film as wearing normal civilian’s clothing. Nothing about these individuals makes them visually stand out as terrorists, like some of the stereotypical clothing worn by cinematic Muslim extremists. The group’s main weaponry consists of pistols and access to the materials required to make explosives. Unlike many of the
Muslim terrorists shown in film, these explosives are detonated via phone and not part of a suicide vest. Therefore, none of the terrorists are sacrificing their lives when bombing their targets. It is also interesting to note that the cell is located in a small London based apartment.
This paired with the fact that they wear normal clothing seems to promote the idea that terrorists could be hiding in plain sight. Though it is realistic to assume that terrorists would dress like normal civilians, the fact that the Authentic IRA can hide so easily in public promotes the idea that terrorists are capable of infiltrating Western society. This point is driven home when Ian
Wood is tricked into carrying a laptop bomb into the London airport. His “romantic” interest, who is actually a member of the Authentic IRA, plants the bomb on his laptop after spending the night at his apartment. Ian unaware of the bomb goes to the airport and almost boards the plane Frank 112 with the explosive. To many viewers, the idea that your friends or those around you could secretly be terrorists is frightening and further promotes the idea that terrorism is a major threat to national security.
Lastly, the Authentic IRA also falls under the common cinematic trope of being depicted as blood-thirsty killers. The film illustrates this point through dialogue. For example, the man responsible for the bank bombing asks “How many? How many I get?” (7:23) after returning to the terrorist cell. This quote is in reference to how many people he killed in the attack and shows that he is not affected by the idea of killing innocent people. In fact, his dialogue suggests that he might even view his attacks like a game where the goal is to kill as many civilians as possible. If this is true, than it is unlikely that members of the Authentic IRA even view civilians as humans.
Ultimately, this depiction makes it nearly impossible for the audience to sympathize with this group.
Hugh McGrath, Liam’s enforcer, and Mary Hennessey, Liam’s wife, are not technically part of the Authentic IRA, but they did help the group form and carry out their violent attacks on
British civilians. These two characters are largely motivated by their desire to start another conflict with Britain. McGrath specifically thinks that the peace accords between Sinn Fein and the British are a sign of weakness. As a result, he constantly pushes Liam Hennessey to regain the violent passion he once had as a militant in the IRA. Mary’s hatred of the peace process is due to the death of her brother at the hands of UVF militants. These militants were never prosecuted, because the trial would have hurt chances at peace between Northern Ireland and
Britain. As a result, the killers served no time in jail. Throughout the film, Mary states that she cannot forgive her husband for not pursuing a conviction against her brother’s killers. This leads to her also believing that Liam’s pursuit of peace is a sign of weakness. Both Mary and McGrath Frank 113 work together to support the Authentic IRA, because they want to reignite the conflict between
Britain and Northern Ireland. They believe that this is the only way that the Northern Irish can unify with the Republic of Ireland and gain true freedom. To achieve this goal, Mary goes so far as to sleep with her nephew, Sean, in order to obtain confidential information from Sinn Fein.
She uses this information to ruin Liam’s plan that would help the British find the Authentic IRA cell. McGrath’s and Mary’s betrayal of Liam depict terrorists in this film as being untrustworthy as well as manipulative.
As mentioned, Sinn Fein is an actual legitimate political organization in Northern Ireland.
Some of the group’s members are former IRA and therefore might have had connections to terrorism in the past. That said, Sinn Fein is by no means a terrorist cell in real life. The
Foreigner on the other hand paints a different picture of the group. For one, the film makes constant connections between Sinn Fein and terrorism. In one scene, Quan Minh states that “IRA politics and terrorism are different ends of the same snake” (24:37). This quote draws a clear connection between IRA politics (Sinn Fein) and terrorism. To make matters worse, the film depicts Sinn Fein leaders promoting the idea of bombing British banks as part of a political move to keep Liam Hennessey in power. The film also depicts the organization as more of a gang of thugs than an actual political party. It shows scenes of Liam Hennessey calling hits in on various people or promoting the violent capture of Quan Minh. Interestingly enough, even though the group is depicted as a gang they do not promote violence against civilians. No members of Sinn
Fein are shown killing innocent civilians or engaging in needless violence. Most members also seem to agree with and support Liam Hennessey’s promotion of the peace accords with Britain.
Liam Hennessey’s portrayal in this film is quite complex, because he comes off as a
“bad” guy at certain times and a “good” guy at others. To start, Liam is a Sinn Fein politician Frank 114 and is genuinely interested in promoting peace. He believes that Northern Ireland has been fighting Britain for too long and peace is the only realistic solution to end the bloodshed. At the same time however, Liam is also a corrupt politician who is interested in reelection. As a result, he asks McGrath to find an anonymous group to stage a bombing against British financial targets. Hennessey wanted to leverage his knowledge of the bombing against the British government in order to receive pardons for various IRA veterans. Receiving these pardons would help Liam win the upcoming election by getting him the popular vote. Unfortunately, the bombing of the bank turns into a situation where 12 civilians are killed and 36 are injured. The harm inflicted on the civilians angers Hennessey who following the bombing becomes devoted to tracking down the Authentic IRA.
Even though Liam wants to promote peace, he is more than willing to use violence to solve his issues. This is shown by him torturing and killing McGrath as well as by his actions against Quan Minh. In many ways, he comes off more as a crime boss than a politician, because he basically has access to his own personal military. His armed guards are more than willing to beat or kill anyone Hennessey suggests is an issue. The film also hints at his past as a member of the IRA and suggests that he once held very radical political views. However whenever this past is mentioned, Hennessey makes sure to illustrate that he no longer is immature enough to hold those opinions anymore. Ultimately, it feels like the film wants the audience to dislike
Hennessey as it tries to paint him in a negative light, but his commitment to peace and avoidance of civilian bloodshed helps make him a likable character.
Quan Minh, the protagonist of the film is generally portrayed in a positive light. The film illustrates him as a father who deeply cares for his daughter Fan. This is especially true considering that all of his other family members are dead. The loss of his wife and other Frank 115 daughters makes him very protective of Fan and helps illustrate that he will do anything to avenge his daughter’s death. For example, he offers all of the money in his bank account
(£20,000) to Commander Bromley in order to obtain the names of the men responsible for killing his daughter. The film uses his role as a grieving father and that he has “nothing else to loose” in an attempt to normalize the violent actions he undertakes. Throughout the film, he can be seen making and detonating bombs in an attempt to intimidate Liam Hennessey. Many of these bombs simply blow up rooms or buildings and do not actually harm anyone, but a couple of the bombs harm Hennessey’s bodyguards.
Ultimately, Quan does not seem phased by the idea of harming Hennessey’s men, because he views them as part of the terrorist problem. In reality however, the men under
Hennessey have nothing to do with the Authentic IRA and are just doing their job trying to protect their boss. These men do act violently against Quan, but this is only because Quan openly attacked Hennessey by detonating a bomb in his office bathroom. Interestingly, the film does not even demonize Quan for his violent actions. His violent actions against Hennessey and members of Sinn Fein are justified through the negative portrayal they receive in the film. Because these individuals are portrayed as side antagonists, it is okay for Quan to harm them. That said it is important to mention that Quan never kills anyone associated with Hennessey. He only physically injures or maims these individuals. The only people that he kills throughout the film are the four members of the Authentic IRA cell.
Another interesting aspect about Quan’s portrayal in the film is how frequently his race and citizenship status is brought up. Various scenes in the film show characters inquiring about his citizenship in England. During these scenes, Quan insists that he is a British citizen. Other scenes feature characters referring to him as a “Chinaman”. This is particularly interesting Frank 116 considering that he is said to be from Vietnam and not China. Therefore, these characters are stereotyping and associating an entire racial group with one country. Some of Liam’s bodyguards also make statements that compare Quan to various animals. For example, one bodyguard compares him to “some f**king monkey”. All of these factors come together and separate Quan from the rest of British society in the film. The use of the phrase “Chinaman” for example, labels
Quan as an immigrant and differentiates him from non-Asian British citizens. It also discredits his citizenship in Britain by placing an emphasis on his race and continent of origin. Ultimately, it is strange how the film tries to have the audience sympathize with the protagonist, while simultaneously making an effort to differentiate him and his actions from Western society.
Commander Richard Bromley is another character in the film that is generally portrayed in a positive manner. As a counter terrorism intelligence officer, Bromley is depicted as a hard worker and is shown to do whatever it takes to get justice. This is illustrated by how vehemently he pursues members of the Authentic IRA. He consistently utilizes his political authority to pressure both Liam Hennessey as well as Sean Morrison into increasing their efforts to catch the terrorist cell. One issue with Commander Bromley’s methods however, is that he promotes the use of torture as a means of extracting information. Towards the end of the film, an anti- terrorism unit tortures an injured member of the Authentic IRA. This interrogation session helps
Bromley learn about the location of a bomb in the London airport. Ultimately, the depiction of torture shown in the film is problematic, because research has shown that torture is not an effective means of extracting information. Therefore, when the film shows torture working as a technique against terrorism it promotes the myth that torture is an efficient way to deal with the issue. Aside from this issue, Commander Bromley is also generally shown to be a trust worthy character as well, because he does not involve himself in some of the shady politics between Frank 117
Northern Ireland and Britain. This separates him from characters like British minister Katherine
Davies, a character who is willing to participate in backroom deals with Liam Hennessey to obtain useful information.
50 Dead Men Walking follows the story of Martin McGartland, a 21 year old living in
Northern Ireland. Martin is recruited by the British Special Branch Interrogation Unit to spy on the IRA. As a result, Martin gets close with Mickey Johnson, an IRA leader, and uses this friendship to infiltrate the group. He then relays information about the IRA to his handler Fergus.
As the film continues, the IRA starts to become suspicious as their plans are foiled by British police. Eventually, Martin is outed as being an informant for the British and the IRA captures him. They then proceed to torture him in an apartment until he jumps out of a window to escape.
Fortunately, Fergus is outside of the building waiting to save Martin. Fergus then takes him into hiding and helps him get healthy again. Martin is then given the tools necessary to escape
Northern Ireland and flee to Canada.
The Irish Republican Army is the main antagonist and terrorist group depicted in this film. Members of this group are generally shown wearing normal civilian’s clothing, which makes them harder to distinguish from other Irish citizens. That said the group is shown to frequently wear black clothing and facemasks when carrying out attacks on British soldiers or dealing out “justice”. The film also makes it clear that the IRA has access to a large supply of military grade weaponry. Some of the weapons shown in this film include car bombs as well as
AK-47s and various other assault rifles. The group is also shown to have a clear leadership structure, which is akin to something like that of the military. At the top of this leadership structure is Mickey Johnson, who leads all of the IRA units. It is also mentioned in the film that the IRA has a Security Department, which helps to expose spies within the Republican Frank 118 community. The presence of these leadership structures help to promote the idea that the IRA are an organized paramilitary group and not a random terrorist cell.
In general, the IRA is demonized pretty heavily in this film. They are generally portrayed as ruthless thugs that claim to have a righteous cause. This is illustrated when members from the
IRA beat a young Catholic boy, Frankie, for having bought a stolen pair of shoes. After beating the boy they proclaim that he committed “crimes against the community” and shoot out his knee caps with a pistol. Frankie is then dropped onto the ground and left there until help arrives. The group also beats up Martin when he tries to stop the group from beating Frankie. They then kidnap Martin and take him to see Mickey Johnson. Other scenes show the IRA planting bombs under the vehicles of British soldiers and then detonating them. These bombs not only kill the soldiers, but also harm innocent civilians nearby. Ultimately, the IRA is shown to be unsympathetic towards the civilians that die as a result of their bombings, because they continue their violent campaign against the British regardless of the collateral damage caused. Their willingness to injure civilians only further demonizes the group. Members of the IRA are also shown torturing various characters throughout the film. During these scenes, the IRA interrogator utilizes a hammer and car battery to torture the suspect. Most of the men tortured by the IRA are then executed after the process is complete. The brutality of these scenes makes it even harder for the audience to sympathize with the IRA.
Members of the IRA are not the only group that gets depicted in a negative light. British soldiers are also shown to abuse their position of power. Twice in the film, British soldiers instigate fights with Martin. Ultimately, these fights are started so that the military can arrest him and try to recruit him as an informant. The fights that break out between Martin and soldiers Frank 119 erupt into riots between soldiers and the Irish Catholic community. Even Northern Irish police forces are shown to abuse their power in the film. Multiple scenes depict police forces storming into Irish Catholic homes and ransacking them in search of hidden weapons. The negative actions of these security forces help to illustrate some of the injustices that Irish Catholics faced during the troubles.
Martin’s handler Fergus is initially portrayed as being a somewhat corrupt and untrustworthy character. This is because he is so obsessed with recruiting Martin as an informant that he orchestrates fights between soldiers and the protagonist. He directly admits to Martin that these fights were set up, because “desperate times call for desperate measures” (21:00). Fergus’ depiction starts to become more positive however as the film continues. The longer that Fergus and Martin work together the closer the two men grow. For example, Fergus attends the birth of
Martin’s son Patrick. He is eventually so invested in Martin that he acts against MI5 and attempts to save him from being tortured by the IRA. This then leads to Fergus helping Martin escape the United Kingdom and flee to Canada. By the end of the film, Fergus is shown to be a charismatic man who is invested in protecting those he cares about. His willingness to risk his own life and career to protect Martin’s life helps solidify his portrayal as a positive figure.
Lara and Martin’s mother are both shown to be compassionate characters throughout the film. They care about Martin’s wellbeing and have a disdain for the violent actions of both the
IRA and the British soldiers. Martin’s mom is especially charismatic since she takes in Lara after she is kicked out of her home for getting pregnant. Later on, she is shown helping Lara take care of Martin’s son. Ultimately, these two women try their best to live normal lives without getting involved with either side in the conflict. Therefore, they get incredibly upset when they learn that Frank 120
Martin has been working with the IRA. They both fear that his involvement with the group will lead to him being beaten or killed. Both Martin’s mother and Lara are Irish Catholics so it is interesting that they do not support the IRA. However, their disconnect from the paramilitary group does make it easier for them to be seen as genuinely positive characters.
Omagh is a British film that follows the Gallagher family and the Omagh Support Group following the 1998 bombing. In the bombing, Michael Gallagher’s son Aiden is killed and he heads the Omagh Support Group in their efforts to prosecute those responsible for the attack. The group soon learns that the RUC knew about the bombing before it was carried out and did nothing about preventing the attack. As a result, Michael persuades the Police Ombudsman into carrying out an investigation into the attack. The Ombudsman discovers that the RUC was aware of the threat posed by the Real IRA and did not take measures to prevent the attack. She then shares this information publically with the Omagh Support Group and states that the Chief
Constable had poor judgment and leadership when dealing with this situation. The film ends with
Michael Gallagher giving a speech about the failure of the government to seek justice for those killed in the event.
The terrorists in Omagh are from the group known as the Real Irish Republican Army.
Though they are not depicted in the film for very long, their portrayal has a huge impact on the viewer. All of the men shown as terrorists in this film are shown in an extremely negative light.
This comes across, because these men knowingly plant a 500 pound car bomb in downtown
Omagh on a busy August day. As the men park the bomb, the film shows children exiting a school bus for a field trip in the town center along with many innocent men and women going about their daily lives. The depiction only gets worse when a member of the RIRA calls into a Frank 121 local news network and reports the bomb threat. He states that the bomb is located next to the town’s courthouse and will detonate in 30 minutes.
However, this is not the real location of the bomb and this false information leads to a situation where security forces usher civilians towards the actual location of the explosives.
Therefore, when the bomb is detonated it injures far more civilians than it would have prior to the bomb threat being issued. It would appear that the ultimate goal of the phone call was to manipulate security forces into ushering more people towards the explosion, thus leading to a higher casualty count. Ultimately, this one event is enough to illustrate that the men involved with the RIRA are heartless and violent. The film makes sure to illustrate that these terrorists knew they would harm innocent civilians and were okay with having that blood on their hands. It is stated in the film that the RIRA’s bomb killed 31 civilians and left another 160 hospitalized.
The sheer volume of casualties that occurred during this bombing helps to further demonize the group.
Other references towards the RIRA in the film do not help make their portrayal any more positive. For example, the RIRA supposedly orchestrated the attack, because they wanted to disrupt the peace process between Northern Ireland and Britain. The film does not go into any detail about the Troubles or the struggles of Irish Republicans, so it is very easy for viewers to assume this is an irrational and immoral goal. No member of the RIRA is really developed or introduced in the film either, which makes it easier for the audience to demonize them.
Members of the RIRA are depicted in this film as looking like normal civilians. They wear typical civilians clothing with no real distinguishing symbols that would mark them as terrorists. Other than the car bomb that is detonated at the beginning of the film, this group is never shown using any guns or other weapons. As mentioned, they are really just shown silently Frank 122 planting the bomb and then driving out of town. None of these characters even interact with civilians or the protagonists during the film.
The protagonist of the film is Michael Gallagher whose son is killed during the bombing in Omagh. Michael’s portrayal in the film is overwhelmingly positive, because he is depicted as a caring father who desperately seeks justice for his son and family. He does this by leading the
Omagh Support Group, which consists of people who lost loved ones in the attack. For the majority of the film Michael is shown talking to people like John White, a former member of the
Gordos National Surviellance Unit, and Kevin Fulton, a former British informant within the IRA.
These men help Michael learn that British security forces knew about the bombing before it happened and also knew who committed the attack. However, British intelligence was not willing to prosecute the men responsible due to fear it would hinder the peace process. Even after receiving this depressing information, Michael continues to push for justice by speaking directly to government officials like the Chief Constable. Over the course of the film, Michael’s pursuit of justice does start to become an obsession, which negatively impacts his family. These issues are mostly resolved by the end of the film. Ultimately, Michael’s extreme determination to pursue justice for all impacted by the RIRA attack helps his positive depiction in this film.
Omagh portrays the chief constable as an untrustworthy and corrupt political figure. This is because he lies directly to the face of multiple members of the Omagh Support Group regarding information about the Omagh bombing case. He also lies about Kevin Fulton being a poor informant for British security forces, even though Fulton was a reliable source. Ultimately, this character is shown to be an impediment to justice and a hindrance to anyone seeking closure following the bombing. It also becomes immediately clear that he is working as part of some larger cover up that was orchestrated by British security forces. As stated by the police Frank 123
Ombudsman in the film, it is obvious that the chief constable utilized “poor judgement and leadership”.
The police ombudsman is one of the few characters in government that helps the Omagh
Support Group receive any sense of closure. She does this by agreeing to look into the bombing and figure out what role security forces played in the event. In the end, she returns to the group with an honest response about how evidence illustrates that security forces knew about the bombing and failed to prosecute those responsible. Her willingness to pursue this information helps depict her in a positive light, because it differentiates her character from the other corrupt politicians shown in the film. The fact that she actually does her job and provides closure to the people of Omagh also improves her depiction in the film.
Angelique Chrisafis’ (2004) review of Omagh mentions that the film is “almost unbearably graphic” and has even led to some viewers having flashbacks. Some individuals have said that the film is “insensitive” for portraying such heavy violence and that the film would
“reopen old wounds”. However, others look at the film with pride, because 99% of the families impacted by the bombing helped with the film. Chrisafis’ also mentions that the film depicts police in a rather negative light. Individuals like the former chief constable and the Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams are often portrayed in a sinister manner.
’71 follows private Gary Hook as he is deployed with his platoon to Belfast in Northern
Ireland. The platoon is deployed to help the police search a house in a Catholic neighborhood.
This search soon causes a riot as Catholics start to push back against the line of soldiers trying to defend men and women being beaten by police. A result of this riot is that Gary and another soldier Tommo get separated from the group and are abandoned when the military is forced to retreat. Tommo is then shot in the head by a member of the PIRA and Gary runs for his life. The Frank 124 remainder of the film revolves around Gary trying to regroup with his platoon. However, this journey leads to him discovering that the MRF undercover agents are cooperating with the Ulster
Rifles to bomb various IRA targets. As a result, the MRF agents try to track down and kill Gary before he can talk about their involvement with paramilitary groups.
Members of the IRA and PIRA are also searching for Gary. This ultimately leads to a clash between the three groups. In the shootout, all of the PIRA members are killed except for
James Quinn who is released by an MRF agent. Another MRF agent is killed as he tries to strangle Gary to death. Gary is safe by the end of this shootout and he is taken back home to
Britain. However, during a debriefing of his mission he overhears a conversation between his platoon leader, Lt. Armitage, an MRF agent, Cpt. Sandy Browning and a commanding officer.
During this conversation, he overhears Armitage suggesting that an MRF agent tried to kill
Private Hook. Cpt. Browning naturally denies this and the C.O. suggests that the situation must be understood as confused and that Armitage must drop his notion that anything bad had occurred. After this short meeting, Gary returns home to Britain free to live the rest of his life.
In this film, the Irish Republican Army is depicted as the most sympathetic of the various paramilitary groups. This is because they do not promote the killing of British soldiers or even members of the Ulster Rifles. They suggest that such killing will only lead to more negative attention and violence toward the Catholic community. In this film, Boyle plays the leader of the
IRA in the district where the story takes place. He too embodies more positive characteristics than the leaders of the other two groups. Boyle on multiple occasions attempts to stop violence and death. For example, Boyle tries to save Shaun from joining the Provisional IRA, because he thinks it will get him killed. He also tries to save Gary Hook’s life by connecting with the MRF agents, who he thinks will save the injured Private. Boyle is also quick to reprimand any of the Frank 125
PIRA members who commit violent actions. This is shown when he directly threatens James
Quinn, leader of the PIRA, because of his violent attacks against the British or Protestants. Some other important characteristics about the IRA’s depiction in this film is that they are generally shown as older men. In general, all of the IRA members shown in this film are older than any of the PIRA members. It is even stated multiple times in the film that the PIRA is the paramilitary group filled with younger members. The film also depicts members of the IRA as wearing nicer clothing like a dress shirt with a dress coat.
The PIRA is demonized the most in this film out of the two catholic paramilitary groups.
In fact, it is a member from the PIRA who kills Private Tommo, the first person to die in the film. This group is generally shown as being more “radical” and eager to kill than the IRA members. The film shows this by how vigorously the groups tries to find and kill Gary after he escapes from the initial riot. Members of the British army even refer to the PIRA as the
“younger, more radical street-fighting element” (11:17). This group generally wears more typical civilian clothing than those depicted in the IRA, but their leader James Quinn still wears a dress coat. Two of the notable figures within this faction are James Quinn and Shaun Bannon. James is depicted as the ruthless leader who is eager to shed both Protestant and British blood.
He also consistently is shown facing off with Boyle and eventually tries to murder Boyle to gain more control over the Catholic district. James is also shown to be violent towards
Catholics who withhold information from him. This is shown when he threatens to kill Eamon
McCarthy for not disclosing the location of Boyle. Shaun Bannon is the complete opposite of
James. He is shown as being reluctant when it comes to killing people as well as a caring individual. We see this when he spares the life of Gary on multiple occasions throughout the film. Shaun is also the person who ultimately saves Gary’s life from the MRF agent. Ultimately, Frank 126
Shaun is portrayed more as a young man who is being pulled into the PIRA more out of social coercion than actual desire.
The Ulster Rifles are the third paramilitary group shown in the film. This faction is associated with the loyalists in Northern Ireland. ’71 depicts this group rather negatively throughout the whole film. To start, members from this faction consistently use racial slurs to refer to Catholics. For example, the Jack Fullerton’s nephew refers to the Catholics as “Fenian bastard”. Jack Fullerton, the leader of the Ulster Rifles, also dehumanizes Catholics by saying that he and his men will use a bomb to destroy the “Fenian’s nest”. The use of this language seems to suggest that the Ulster Rifles believe the Catholics are an infestation that needs to be eliminated. At one point the nephew states that the “IRA bastards. They’re gonna kill us all”
(34:08). He also mentions that he is happy that the British army is around, because they can “kill these Fenian bastards once and for all” (33:56). The movie makes them look even worse, because members of this group are generally shown being rude or using crude language. In general, this group is shown wearing casual civilian clothing. However, some of the men at the
Ulster Rifle checkpoint are wearing black face masks that would be more associated with paramilitary groups. Not much else is depicted about this group, because the majority of these characters die in an accidental bombing or are never shown again.
In many ways, the Military Reaction Force or MRF could also be depicted as a paramilitary terrorist group in this film. This is because the MRF agents consistently negotiate and backstab each of the paramilitary groups mentioned above. For example, Sandy Browning,
MRF agent, agrees to help Boyle eliminate James Quinn. However, when given the opportunity to kill Quinn, Browning suggests that the MRF and the PIRA should work together. Quinn agrees to the deal and the Captain spares his life. Throughout the film it becomes apparent that Frank 127 the MRF is conducting a fair bit of behind the scenes deals that ultimately lead to increased instability and violence in Belfast. This idea is only further strengthened by the fact that the MRF was trying to help the Ulster Rifles bomb the IRA.
Another reason that this group is depicted so poorly is, because of the scheming they do to try and kill Gary Hook. They plan his murder, because he knows about the British government’s involvement with groups like the Ulster Rifles. Cpt. Browning believes that they must eliminate Private Hook before he can spread information about the MRF’s covert operations. This plan ultimately, leads to one of the MRF agents trying to strangle Private Hook.
Ultimately, it is the MRF’s attempt to kill this innocent Private that makes them look the worst, because it shows that they are willing to kill their own people in order to cover up their mistakes.
What makes matters worse is that individuals like Cpt. Browning show no regret for their actions and the violence that they cause.
The Royal Ulster Constabulary is similar to the MRF in that they are portrayed in a negative light and associated with the British. All of the scenes that feature the RUC make them look like a bunch of thugs. This is mostly, because they are shown breaking into the homes of
Catholics, while looking for hidden weapons. Some of the police offers are also depicted calling
Catholic women “Fenian Bitch”, while interrogating them in front of young children. Other officers are shown beating men with batons in the middle of the street. It is the actions of the
RUC that ultimately seen to anger the Catholic rioters the most. They rioters seem less angry about the actions of the soldiers during the RUC house raiding scene.
Unlike the MRF or RUC, the British soldiers depicted in this film are shown in a positive light. For example, Lt. Armitage wants to help lower the violence between the Catholics and the
Protestants. This is why he suggests that soldiers should not wear riots gear, while they help Frank 128
RUC search homes. Armitage states that “we need to go out there and reassure people. We’re here to protect them” (12:37). During the RUC home searches, the British troops even manage to keep their cool when facing an angry mob of Catholics. Not one of the soldiers shoots at the civilians during this scene. Even as the troops are being pelted with rocks, they stand their ground and do not harm a single Catholic. Only one soldier shoots his gun up into the air and he is quickly reprimanded by Armitage, who makes it clear that no one should be shooting their gun. Eventually, the British soldiers are forced to retreat as some of their men are knocked unconscious by stones, but even as men fall the soldiers do not harm a single civilian. Another positive representation of the army is given when both Armitage and the Corporal ask their superiors for help finding Private Hook. During this scene, it becomes apparent just how much
Armitage and the Corporal care about their men. Even Private Hook’s platoon members are shown morning his loss when the Corporal packs up the Private’s belongings after Hook MIA.
Perhaps the most dynamic group shown in this film are the Irish Catholics. Some individuals in this group are shown as angry rioters, while others are shown as caring by standers. This can be clearly seen during the RUC house raid when Gary and Tommo are separated from their platoon. Once separated some of the Catholics start to beat the two young men. However after a few moments, a middle aged woman steps in and tells the rioters to “get off’em, they’ve had enough” (21:24). She then reprimands a guy named Conor saying “you should be ashamed of yourself. These boys are young enough to be your sons!” (21:28). The woman then tries to help the soldiers before Tommo is shot and killed by the PIRA. In the end, this scene illustrates perfectly how some members of the Irish Catholics are depicted as violent thugs, while others are shown to be compassionate and caring. Even more compassionate
Catholics appear later on in the film when both Eamon and his daughter, Brigid, pick Private Frank 129
Hook up off the street and drag him into their home. Eamon and Brigid then help stich up Gary’s wounds and let him rest. The kindness shown by these two characters helps to illustrate that even though some members of the Catholic community were violent, not all of them were interested in bloodshed.
Discussion
All four of the British films depicting Arab and Muslim extremists draw some kind of a connection between these Arab terrorists and radical Islam. Films like Four Lions and Cleanskin make these connections by having Arab terrorists wear Islamic religious garb. The most common religious items worn by these extremists are keffiyah, taqiyah and thawbs. In Eye in the Sky,
Danford’s husband and his extremist Arab acquaintances are seen wearing thawbs as well as taqiyahs. The radical prophet Nabil in Cleanskin and the less competent radical preacher Barry in
Four Lions are also shown wearing taqiyahs in each of their respective films. As mentioned,
Rubina Ramji, is concerned with these kind of connections made between Islam and extremism.
This is because it promotes the idea that Islam as a religion promotes “holy war” and “acts of terror” (Ramji, 2005, 3). Such accusations can only hinder positive relations between Westerners and Muslims.
Connections between Islam and extremism are only further strengthened by the role that prayer and religious rituals play in many of these films. Eye in the Sky features scenes where
Danford, her husband and other members of Al-Shabaab perform some religious rituals before constructing suicide vests. They are also shown praying together during the construction of these bombs. Other films like Cleanskin, Four Lions, and Road to Guantanamo feature similar scenes where terrorists are scene on their knees praying towards Mecca. Ultimately, these scenes are important because of the symbolic linkage that they draw between Muslims and extremism. Two Frank 130 of these British films also feature the use of extremist prophets. Cleanskin’s prophet Nabil and
Four Lion’s Barry, both act as radical prophets in their respective films. These two characters promote the call of radical Islam and try to recruit people into their ranks. Both men are also seen promoting their ideals to young Arab and Muslim men on University Campuses. This is ultimately how Ash and Hassan are radicalized in their respective films. Even in Eye in the Sky, Danford is said to have been radicalized by her husband before leaving the United Kingdom. These two men use the frustration that these young men feel towards Westerners and manipulate that feeling to promote violent agendas.
They both also use religious language when discussing their goals and motivations. This is illustrated by a quote from a conversation between Nabil and Ash. Nabil states that “what happens on the battlefield is between you and God” (39:54). His quote illustrates that he is utilizing religious rhetoric to promote violent conflict between Muslims and the West. The utilization of this type of language is problematic, because it can promote the idea that Arabs are “religious fanatics”. It can also simultaneously support the idea that Islamic extremism is not “purposeful and rational”, but instead “irrational” (Shaheen, 2001, 2; Peleg, 2003, 84). Ultimately, this depiction is problematic, because most Arabs and Muslims are not “religious fanatics” and because labeling Islamic terrorism as “irrational” does not help explain the very rational motivations behind terrorism.
The motivations of the various terrorist organizations featured in this film mostly stem from tensions with western nations. For example, the terrorists in Al-Shabaab in Eye in the Sky are angry about U.S. relations with the Kenyan government. To stop the continuation of this Alliance,
Al-Shabaab commits terrorist attacks against Kenyan and U.S. civilians. In Four Lions, the terrorists are motivated to end the oppression of Muslims in the West with a specific focus on the Frank 131
United Kingdom. On a similar note the prophet Nabil and his followers, are interested in carrying out attacks against the Britain until the government stops its interference in the Middle East. Even though the Taliban never states their goals in Road to Guantanamo, Americans know enough about the background surrounding the group to understand that they are directly combating America’s presence in Afghanistan. Even though the central motivation surrounding these groups is not to commit Jihad, Jihad is still a central theme in Cleanskin as well as Four Lions. Out of the four films these two have characters that specifically discuss killing non-Muslims for the purpose of
Jihad. In Four Lions, Barry frequently discusses radicalizing moderate Muslims and using the support to overthrow the infidels. Prophet Nabil consistently utilizes divisive rhetoric in Cleanskin in an attempt to separate westerners from Muslims. He does this by utilizing dehumanizing language and calling westerners “western pigs” or just “pigs”. The dehumanization of westerners helps make it easier for terrorists in his cell to commit atrocious acts against innocent people. This
“us” versus “them” rhetoric directly parallels the language of “Muslim” and “infidel” that are often used when discussing Jihad.
Ultimately, many of the motivations listed above represent some of the characteristics of terrorism mentioned by Samuel Peleg. These motivations are shown to be “primarily a political act”, “mostly about change” and a challenge against order that confronts the government (Peleg,
2003, 84). All of the terrorist groups above have a stated political goal of either eliminating western influence in the Middle East or improving the treatment of Muslims in the West. As a result, all of these goals are trying to cause change by challenging western governments through violent confrontation. However, even though these films illustrate many of the characteristics of terrorism mentioned by Peleg, they fall short by not effectively developing these motivations. This results in the motivations of each of these groups being relatively shallow and underdeveloped. The Frank 132 background behind why each of these groups have tensions with the West are not properly developed in most cases, so the audience is left to assume these groups just hate westerners. This shallow understanding of the group’s ideology makes them look “irrational” and does not portray terrorism in the depth that is desired by Peleg.
The underlying theme of Jihad in Four Lions and Cleanskin also help further promote the
“irrationality” of these groups. Jerrod McFarlane’s critique of American film is also partially relevant to British film as well. He feels that American films do a poor job of representing terrorists as “rational and political actors” (McFarlane, 2014, 450). Though these terrorists are clearly acting politically they do come off as irrational due to the lack of depth surrounding each group’s motivations.
Comparatively, Britain does a better job of making more developed Muslim terrorists, some of whom go against the traditional cinema stereotypes. These characters are generally not shown as being the “murderer[s], rapist[s], religious fanatic[s] . . . and abuser of women” depicted in many American films (Ramji, 2005, 1). The best example of this is Ash from Cleanskin. Over the course of the movie the audience watches as he is gradually radicalized by Nabil. During this character arch, Ash is shown to be a charismatic guy who just wants to help fellow Arabs and
Muslims around the world. He is even shown to not hate westerners since his love interest is a
British girl named Kate and many of his friends are also British. Ultimately, Ash radicalizes, because Nabil convinces him that western nations only listen to violence. Therefore, he believes violence is the only way to stop western imperialism.
Other characters like Omar, Waj and Hassan are decently well developed in Four Lions.
Each of these men is not stereotyped as a bloodthirsty radical, but instead as actual people. Omar is shown to be a charismatic husband with a family and some British friends. Waj is depicted as a Frank 133 mentally handicapped man who has been peer pressured into joining a terrorist cell. Hassan is shown to be a college student who is only joining a terrorist cell, because he thinks it will make him cool. None of the three characters mentioned above actually want to harm innocent people once they are given the opportunity. When given the chance to commit a suicide attack each three of these characters are shown to question their decisions.
Even the Taliban in Road to Guantanamo receives a surprisingly non-stereotypical depiction. These individuals are not shown killing innocent civilians, but instead helping Afghan citizens and the protagonists try to escape the battlefield. These more complex depictions of terrorists support Samuel Peleg’s statement that European film generally provides a more thoughtful presentation of terrorists (Peleg, 2003). Such portrayals also make it harder for western audiences to simply label extremists as “irrational fanatics”. Better developed characters are also relatable to the viewer.
Even though some characters are portrayed as having regrets for the violent actions they undertake, Muslim terrorists are still generally depicted as being brutal and coldhearted. In Eye in the Sky, the audience learns that Al-Shabaab is responsible for killing 67 civilians and injuring another 175 in a suicide bombing. It is also stated that they are responsible for killing 145 college students at a university in Kenya. Cleanskin’s terrorists are depicted placing a bomb in a London café and killing 20 civilians as a result. Another seen shows the terrorist Amin brutally beheading
British veteran Glen Conlan. Later, the audience learns this same extremist murdered the Conlan’s wife and children too. Even in Four Lions, Omar and his group plan to use explosive vests, while running in the London marathon. Had the groups plan had gone as anticipated, they would have surely killed and injured a lot of innocent people. With the exception of Ash, Omar, Waj and
Hassan all of the other radicals involved in violent acts against civilians did so without any regret. Frank 134
Amin has no issue brutally killing Conlan and his family, because he feels that no westerner is innocent in the war against the West. Similarly, no member of Al-Shabaab regrets their involvement in the massacre of civilians.
These types of representations support Noura Alalawi’s claim that cinema has the tendency to portray Arab and Muslim terrorists as “uncultured” and “barbaric” (Alalawi, 2015). These depictions also resonate with Jack Shaheen’s observation about American depiction of Arabs. He states that American cinema depicts Arabs as “brutal” and “heartless” (Shaheen, 2001, 2). This illustrates that even British film has similar issues with its depiction of Arab terrorists, because the actions of characters like Amin and various members of Al-Shabaab are easily defined as both brutal as well as heartless. Specifically, the killing of 145 college students at the hands of Al-
Shabaab and the brutal execution of Conlan’s family illustrate Abu Sadat Nurullah’s point that cinema tends to stereotype the idea that Arab terrorists often commit horrific acts of violence
(Nurullah, 2010, 1042).
All of the Muslim and Arab terrorists in these British films are generally shown using the same weaponry. Most of them utilize improvised explosive devices as well as suicide vests as effective means of carrying out their violence. Road to Guantanamo is the only of the four films that does not feature any kind of IED or explosive vest. Other common weapons used by the terrorists include assault rifles like the AK-47 and smaller guns like pistols. Terrorists in both Eye in the Sky and Four Lions are shown to have slightly higher grade weaponry. For example, Al-
Qaeda members shown in Four Lions are shown to have rocket launchers. Members of Al-Shabaab are shown with similar weapons along with weaponized trucks. That said none of the terrorist groups is shown having access to high-grade weaponry like nuclear bombs or intercontinental ballistic missiles. Frank 135
Of the four British films featuring Arab and Muslim terrorists, Road to Guantanamo is the only one that takes place in the Middle East. Its depiction of this region is particularly problematic, because it utilizes an Orientalist lens when showing the area. Many of the scenes show crowded
Middle Eastern markets full of exotic food and clothing. During these scenes, Arab women are also shown to be heavily clothed in hijabs or other veiled garments. Other scenes show vast arid deserts with camels and men with stereotypical headscarfs. Even Eye in the Sky depicts Kenya in a similar way. The audience is shown overcrowded dirty markets full of foreign goods. Women in this film are also covered in similar clothing to that shown in Road to Guantanamo.
As mentioned prior, these kind of scenes are problematic, because they emphasize the differences between the Orient and Occident by making the eastern world appear foreign. This sets up binary understanding of the world where the West and East are separate and therefore opposites of one another (Said, 1978, 40). Edward Said states that this distinction is utilized to promote the superiority of the Occident over the Orient. He also mentions that orientalism was initially created as a tool for westerners to assert their authority over the East (Said, 1978, 43). The use of these scenes in modern British cinema is problematic, because it continues to promote a system of western superiority in which it is the West versus the East. Ultimately, these Orientalist scenes focus on what makes these other regions foreign instead of focusing on the similarities between
East and West. As stated by Jane Park and Karin Wilkins the continuation of Orientalist depictions can lead to social ills like “discrimination, abuse, and misunderstandings” (2005, 1).
In general, British films do a decent job of not stereotyping non-extremist Muslims and
Arabs. The only real stereotyped character featured in the four films is Omar’s brother in Four
Lion. His characteristics mostly seem to be stereotyped, because he is a comedic caricature of fundamentalist Muslims. As a result, he wears religious clothing everywhere he goes and follows Frank 136 the all of the teachings in the Karan. This is illustrated when he will not enter the same room as
Omar’s wife, because it breaks an Islamic rule. The film continues to mock his character for following Islam so strictly, but ultimately Omar’s brother is a pretty decent guy. His main goal during the film is to keep Omar from committing Jihad and harming innocent people. In this way, he is not portrayed as the stereotypical Muslim “savage” or “brute”.
Other Muslim and Arab characters in these films also stand out as opposing many of the cinematic stereotypes associated with these groups. Omar’s wife for example is an independent women who works at a hospital in London. She also does not cover her face with a hijab or dress particularly conservatively. Even her relationship with Omar is positive since they both seem to be on equal footing in their relationship. Never once in the film is she controlled or dominated by her husband. Hussein Malik in Cleanskin is an Arab man who is falsely accused of being a member of Nabil’s terrorist cell. In reality however, Mallik was a member of the British secret service and was working hard to stop a conspiracy against the British government. Initially, the film frames
Malik as a potential terrorist, but by the end of the film the audience learns he was framed. Lastly, the Tipton Three in Road to Guantanamo are three young Muslim Arabs in their 20s who are shown to be pretty typical adults. They don’t associate with radical Islam or with violence. Instead, these friends are shown to care for one another during their imprisonment at Guantanamo Bay.
Initially, these young men even try to work with the U.S. military and CIA to prove their innocence, but unfortunately the U.S. refused to believe their stories. All of the characters discussed above are not labeled as murderers, rapists, or religious fanatics. Therefore, they avoid the negative stereotypes discussed by both Shaheen and Ramji (Shaheen, 2001; Ramji, 2005).
One interesting commonality between these British films were their negative portrayal of government officials. Eye in the Sky takes a jab at American politicians with its portrayal of the Frank 137
U.S. Secretary of State as well as the U.S. National Security Legal Advisor. These two politicians care very little about collateral damage and the loss of innocent civilian life. In their mind, the main objective of Colonel Powell’s mission should be to eliminate the terrorist threat regardless of the cost. Ultimately, these two politicians have no sympathy for the civilians who will be affected in the surrounding area. Road to Guantanamo takes another jab at America with its negative portrayal of the CIA and military personnel at Guantanamo Bay. These individuals are shown to be cruel towards their prisoners. This is illustrated by how they willingly beat or torture prisoners during their time in prison. Other scenes show soldiers verbally abusing the inmates at the prison. CIA personnel are shown to be mischievous and untrustworthy in this film. The movie makes this apparent by showing scenes of CIA agents fabricating pictures and documents to try to incriminate members of the Tipton Three. Even when the three young men are found not guilty of correspondence with the Taliban, U.S. officials are unapologetic about their treatment in prison.
Lastly, Cleanskin portrays the British secret service and politicians as self-interested and corrupt. Charlotte McQueen’s portrayal as a selfish and corrupt leader illustrates this point.
McQueen is willing to sacrifice innocent lives to win political power in the upcoming election.
She even goes so far as to work with terrorists to ensure she and her supporters can obtain more political party in the next election. Out of all of the negative portrayals of government officials,
McQueen receives the worst depiction.
All of the British films that were examined that did not feature Muslim or Arab terrorists, instead focused almost entirely on Irish terrorism. Specifically, most of these films had to do with
“the Troubles” in Northern Ireland and the conflict between British forces and various paramilitary groups. The one exception to this was The Foreigner, which focused on a fictional group called the Authentic IRA. This fictional group of Irish extremists commits terrorist attacks against the Frank 138
United Kingdom during the present day. Unlike The Foreigner, Omagh features the Real IRA during the 1990s. Fifty Dead Men Walking’s main antagonist is the IRA during the late period of
“the Troubles” during the 20th century. Lastly, 71 focuses on multiple extremist paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland. It depicts the Provisional IRA, the IRA, and the Ulster Rifles.
Regardless of the time period, all of these films have Irishmen as the central antagonist of each film. As mentioned by Thomas Riegler (2010), historical events often play an important role in who is depicted as terrorists within film. For Britain, the Troubles were a serious period of tension between Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom. Groups like the IRA and PIRA conducted various paramilitary campaigns against Britain, so it would make sense that they receive a depiction as terrorists in British film.
Since most of these movies feature various versions of the IRA as the central antagonist, they all have similar motivations behind the group’s terrorism. Most of these motivations have to do with using violence to get Britain out of Ireland. For example, the Authentic IRA utilizes strategic bombings against the United Kingdom to try and drive British forces out of Northern
Ireland. They then hope to reunify with the Republic of Ireland in the South. Similarly, the IRA in
Fifty Dead Men Walking are interested in using military violence and tactics to drive Irish Loyalists and British troops out of Northern Ireland. They also claim the want to promote “justice” and protect the Irish Catholic community from “crimes against the community”. 71 features the
Provisional IRA who want to eliminate British influence in Northern Ireland. To do this, they are willing to commit violent actions against anyone who gets in their way. The Real IRA in Omagh is interested in stopping the peace process between the United Kingdom and Britain, since they feel peace will end all hopes of Northern Ireland unifying with the Republic of Ireland. 71 also shows a paramilitary group known as the Ulster Rifles who are interested in killing off all Irish Frank 139
Republicans in Northern Ireland. Therefore, this group is in direct conflict with Irish Republican groups like the PIRA and IRA. All of these Irish extremist groups have very clear political motivations behind their violent actions. These individuals are not interested in promoting violence in the name of religion. Instead, most of these groups are interested in reunifying Ireland under one flag and liberating it from the United Kingdom.
Samuel Peleg (2003:84) mentions that oftentimes terrorism is depicted as being “irrational” and that in reality terrorism is “purposeful and rational”. What makes many of these terrorists look
“irrational” is their attachment to religious motivations. Groups that have more political motivations appear to have more rational motives behind their actions. The audience has an easier time understanding why someone acts politically, but it could be more difficult for them to understand religious motivations (Peleg, 2003). Therefore, audiences might believe that Irish extremists are more rational than their Arab counterparts, because of the political motivations surrounding their actions.
Irish extremists, like Muslim and Arab extremists, are portrayed as coldhearted killers in each of these British films. The Authentic IRA in The Foreigner kills 12 civilians during a bank bombing and another 16 when they place a bomb on a double decker bus. After bombing the bank in London, one of the terrorists excitedly asks his accomplices “How many? How many I get?”
(7:23). This character is referring to how many British civilians he has killed. This quote illustrates how little regret these extremists feel when they harm innocent people. Members of the IRA in
Fifty Dead Men Walking are shown beating and maiming civilians in order to promote their form of “justice”. For example, the IRA beats an Irish boy named Frankie for wearing stolen shoes.
They then push him up against a wall and shoot out his knee caps with a pistol. This brutal street justice illustrates how extreme and coldhearted the IRA acts in this film. IRA members are also Frank 140 shown to be capable of horrific amounts of violence when they utilize a car battery, hammer and other workshop tools to torture a man to death. Abu Nurullah suggests that films stereotype Arab terrorists as being overly capable of committing horrific acts of violence; however the torture scene from this film suggests that Arabs are not the only group targeted by this stereotype (Nurullah,
2010, 1042).
Omagh depicts the RIRA as particularly coldhearted when they deliver a 500 pound car bomb to the center of Omagh. To make matters worse, the driver parks the bomb next to a group of school children. When detonated, 31 people are killed and another 160 civilians are injured.
Members of the RIRA show no remorse for their actions and do not even hesitate to plant the bomb. Lastly, 71’s depiction of the PIRA shows a group of young men who are easily capable of murder. The group is even described as being the “younger, more radical street-fighting element”
(11:17). Members of the PIRA live up to this description when they kill Private Tommo at the beginning of the film. While being beaten by a mob of angry Irish Catholics, Tommo is shot point blank in the head by a member of the PIRA. The young man responsible for the murder seems unfazed by the thought of killing another person.
71 also shows a negative depiction of the Ulster Rifles whose language during the film also makes them appear violent and heartless. The group is heard stating that they want to “kill these
Fenian bastards once and for all” (33:56). They are also show dehumanizing Irish Catholics by stating they need to destroy the “Fenian nest” and making connections between them and vermin.
The film never shows the Ulster Rifles participating in much violence, but through their dialogue the audience can tell they are capable of it. Ultimately, both Arab and Irish extremists are depicted as “cruel” and “violent” individuals. This means that many of the negative traits often associated with Arab characters in film apply to Irish extremists as well. Alalawi (2015), Nurullah (2010)_ Frank 141 and Shaheen (2001) focus a lot of the negative depictions of Arab extremists in their articles, but it is ultimately hard to say that Arab terrorists are portrayed as being anymore “violent” or
“ruthless” than Irish extremists.. In the end, terrorists in general are seen as coldhearted killers and are generally not portrayed sympathetically.
71’s depiction of the IRA is one of the few positive portrayals given to extremists within any of these four British films. Boyle, the leader of the IRA, is shown to be a charismatic man who generally wants to avoid violence if at all possible. Ultimately, he does want to promote the unification of Ireland, but he is less willing to resort to violence in order to achieve his goal. This is illustrated by how he tries to keep young Shaun from joining the PIRA, because he knows that the groups violence will either get the boy killed or cause more trouble than its worth. Boyle also actively tries to save Private Hook from being killed. It is important to mention that Boyle is more than capable of killing those who get in his way since he does threaten James, the leader of the
PIRA, however he chooses to not utilize this kind of force. Shaun is another character from 71 who is officially part of the PIRA, but does not share the same coldhearted depiction. This character has multiple chances in the film to kill Private Hook, but instead of killing him, Shaun lets him live. The movie ultimately portrays Shaun as a young man who does not want to take part in the violence, but is being pressured into it by his peers.
Like their Muslim counterparts, these terrorist groups utilize predominately bombs to carry out their violence. However, unlike Muslim terrorists, these Irish extremists rely more heavily on assault rifles and other firearms. For example, the IRA in Fifty Dead Men Walking and the PIRA in 71 frequently use pistols to commit violent acts. Even the Authentic IRA in The Foreigner use firearms pretty frequently in addition to their various bombings. These extremist groups are also shown to have larger stockpiles of bombs and firearms than their Arab counterparts. Many of these Frank 142 weapons are stored in secret warehouses and compartments in homes. It is not made clear how these extremists are gaining access to all of these weapons, but there is definitely a large supply of them. Another stark difference between Arab-extremists and these Irish terrorists is that the Irish never use suicide vests. Therefore, there is never the promotion of martyrdom in these films.
Members of these paramilitary groups are not generally shown sacrificing their own lives to kill the enemy.
Another difference between these films depicting Irish extremists and the films depicting
Arab extremists is that the films depicting the Irish showed a more positive depiction of the community. Irish civilians were not all demonized as being sympathizers with any radical element.
They were also not stereotyped or treated any differently than other ethnic groups. For example,
Irish Catholics in 71 are shown to be both charismatic and violent. This is shown when British soldiers are brutally beaten by some of the angry Irish citizenry, while other citizens tried to stop their neighbors from harming the soldiers. Individuals like Boyle and Shaun also illustrate how not all Irish Catholics are obsessed with killing the British. Fifty Dead Men Walking has even more positive portrayals of Irish men and women. In particular, Martin’s mom and his fiancé, Lara, are depicted as being loving women who want to see an end to the conflict in Northern Ireland. They both specifically state as well that they are not supporters of the IRA even though they are both
Irish Catholic. Ultimately, the wide-ranging depictions of the Irish in these films are beneficial, because it provides a more realistic portrayal of this ethnic group and avoids stereotyping them.
British films depicting Arabs as terrorists provided a less diverse depiction of Muslims. These films seemed to stereotype Muslims as a group more frequently due to this lack of diversity.
Lastly, it is interesting to note that films depicting Irish terrorists also have frequent depictions of political corruption. Fifty Dead Men Walking, The Foreigner, and 71 all feature Frank 143 forms various forms of corruption. Fifty Dead Men Walking for example has scenes where the
British military purposefully initiate fights with Irish Catholics in order to arrest citizens. The
Foreigner shows politicians like Liam Hennessey who orchestrates bombings against financial centers in the United Kingdom to try and win an election. Additionally, British politicians in this film are shown making questionable deals with extremists. 71 shows the corruption of the British military with its depiction of the Military Reaction Force. This group is ordered by the British government to collude with extremist paramilitary organizations in Northern Ireland. Ultimately, this collusion leads to more conflict between groups like the IRA, PIRA and Ulster Rifles as the
MRF instigates conflicts between them. MRF agents are also demonized, because they try to hunt down and kill Private Hook. They do this because they think Private Hook knows too much about the MRF colluding with the Ulster Rifles. These portrayals of political corruption are similar to those shown in films like Cleanskin and Road to Guantanamo. It is unclear why so many British films featuring terrorism also depict political corruption, but this commonality is interesting to note.
The central difference in how Muslim and Irish extremists are depicted in British film, is that Muslims are generally shown with more religiously motivated goals than the Irish. As mentioned, religious motivations are generally depicted as being less rational than political motivations. This results in groups like the IRA, PIRA, RIRA and AIRA having motivations that at least appear more logical. Religion plays no real role in the motivations of the Irish extremists groups. These groups instead focus on their political interest of kicking British influence out of
Ireland. Similarly, films featuring Muslim extremists were the only ones that involved suicide vests. The theme of martyrdom is never presented in any of the films depicting Irish extremists.
This topic is only mentioned or hinted to in films about Muslim extremism. Martyrdom is often Frank 144 depicted as being religious in these films as well, which adds to the depiction of Muslim extremists being “irrational” actors. Other forms of weaponry, like bombs and various guns, are present in films that depicting Muslim or Irish extremists.
Both groups of terrorists are also generally depicted as being coldhearted killers. Neither one of the groups is really shown to be more violent or brutal than the other, because terrorists within both categories show little remorse for their violent actions. However, there are some exceptions to this rule like Ash from Cleanskin and Boyle from 71. Another interesting thematic similarity between Arab and Irish extremists were that both groups were shown engaged in corruption with political leaders. The Authentic IRA in The Foreigner and the radical prophet
Nabil in Cleanskin both collaborate with government officials. Ultimately, both categories of
British film also do a decent job of not demonizing those who are depicted as non-radical Muslims or Irish. However, there is definitely a wider and more diverse variety of Irish characters represented in British film than there are Muslims.
Chapter 4: Conclusion
Now that all films have been discussed this study will compare and contrast the depictions of terrorism within the United States and Britain. American film focusing on the Muslim and Arab extremists generally focuses on these characters having more religious motivations than those featured in British cinema. Jihad and religion are certainly motivations for Muslim extremists in both American and British film, but America’s depictions of Arab and Islamic terrorism focuses on it more. Films like Zero Dark Thirty and The Kingdom focus much more heavily on having terrorists that are mostly interested in killing Westerners. International politics play part of a role in the motivations of these groups, but generally Jihad takes over. Some terrorists in British film are motivated by religion and Jihad, but they also talk about how they want to end Western Frank 145 persecution of Arabs and Muslims. These characters focus more on the idea of eliminating Western influence in Middle Eastern or South Asian politics. The additional focus placed on political motivations makes it easier to see Muslim and Arab extremists in British film as more rational actors than those portrayed in America.
Arab and Muslim extremists in British film are also more developed than their American counterparts. Characters like Ash from Cleanskin or Omar from Four Lions are drastically more developed than Khalid from Rendition. Part of the reason for this difference is that British film spends more time developing these characters, so they do not come off as a symbol of “evil”.
British cinema also has a higher quantity of Muslim and Arab extremists who are shown to have a diverse and in many cases non-stereotypical depiction. These extremists are shown to not always be coldhearted killers or enemies of the Western world. Many of the named Muslim or Arab radicals are uncomfortable with killing innocent people and even show regret for their actions.
Such depictions would be rare in American cinema where many Muslim or Arab terrorists are shown to be violent fanatical killers.
Similarly, Irish terrorists depicted in British film are better developed than the non-Muslim or Arab terrorists of American cinema. Both groups are shown to have political motivations behind their agendas, but American films fail to properly develop the motivations of their antagonists. As a result, the terrorists of American film become a proxy for “evil” and fail to have any complexity or depth. It is hard for audiences to sympathize with these extremists, because they have no relatable characteristics or solid character development. Many of the Irish extremists are shown to be better developed characters. Characters like Boyle and Shaun from 71 are complex characters who are not solely interested in taking the lives of innocent people. There are still some British characters that could fill the role of a proxy for “evil”, like the RIRA in Omagh, but generally Irish Frank 146 extremists receive developed characterizations in British cinema. These findings ultimately support Peleg’s argument that European film does a better job than American film at depicting the complexity of terrorism (Peleg, 2003, 84). Even though Britain does a better job at depicting terrorism, it still has the tendency to depict many terrorists as coldhearted killers. It is true that
British film features more characters that feel guilt or regret, but the majority of people shown to be extremist happily kill and maim civilians. Therefore, a common issue with both American and
British film is that they portray the majority of terrorists as coldhearted killers, thus failing to show the entire complexity of the topic.
American film also differs from British, because many terrorist groups are shown having access to high grade weaponry. In extreme cases, groups like the KUF had access to nuclear weapons and an AC-140 airplane. Even Derek in Source Code was somehow able to build his own nuclear device that could destroy all of downtown Chicago. None of the British films depicted terrorists with the same arsenal of weapons as those depicted in Olympus has Fallen, Source Code, or Iron Man. The groups shown in these American films have weapons that could threaten the national security of thousands of people. Most of the extremist shown in British film only have the means of carrying out small scale bomb campaigns. None of them have access to weapons of mass destruction, which could literally level entire cities. This difference seems to suggest that American films like to increase the perceived threat posed by terrorism. Elspeth Van Veeren’s study of
American television seems to suggest this same information. He stated in his article that the TV show 24 often has the protagonist combating terrorists with access to weapons of mass destruction.
Van Veeren (2009) comments on how a lot of American media likes to portray the idea that terrorists have the capability to completely devastate urban areas with massive terrorist attacks.
These fictional representations of terrorism as an extreme threat to thousands of lives in the Frank 147
Western world only further feeds into an irrationally heightened fear of extremism (Carter et al.,
2005; Bergen, 2008).
Another pivotal difference between films in these two countries is that British cinema does a better job of depicting non-radical individuals who belong to the same ethnic/social groups as the extremists. This means that these films feature more Muslim (Arab, African or South Asian) and Irish characters who have no connection to extremism. These characters are also generally given a decent representation and are not overly stereotyped. Having a high representation of Arabs and Irish in their films, helps film in the UK avoid stereotyping entire communities. This is because these films illustrate enough diverse representations of people within each of these communities it becomes difficult to place them all under one label. The Irish do receive a better representation in
British cinema, because a wider range of diverse Irish characters are shown in these films.
American film on the other hand has little to no positive representation when it comes to depicting individuals from the same social/ethnic groups as terrorists. In general, Muslim characters are stereotyped heavily in American film as being either violent womanizing men or as obedient timid women. These characters even wear stereotypical Muslim or Middle Eastern clothing, which is seen with much less frequency in British films. In films depicting non-Arab or
Muslim extremists, like the North Koreans in Olympus has Fallen or the Columbians in Collateral
Damage, American cinema still fails to give a portrayal of an innocent Asian or Hispanic person.
Both these movies lack a diverse range of Asian or Hispanic characters. Most of the characters that belong to either of these ethnic groups are portrayed as extremists or as supporters of extremism
Now that British and American depictions of terrorism in film have been compared, it is important to look at how these depictions impact citizenship. To better understand how British and Frank 148
American cinema can have an impact on the citizenship and belonging of those depicted as extremists, it is important to understand how ethnic/social boundary making lead to the creation of suspect communities (Hickman et al., 2011). According to Charles Tilly (2004, 214), social and ethnic boundaries can be defined as mechanisms that “interrupt, divide, circumscribe, or segregate distributions of population or activity within social fields”. Therefore, these mechanisms lead to the creation of various ethnic and social groups in society.
As stated by Andreas Wimmer (2008, 1027), it is important to realize that these groups are not “predefined” or “fixed-groups” and that they can be reconstituted and reconfigured through boundary making mechanisms. For example, throughout history minority groups have often been created through the “incorporation of various previously independent tribes and other local communities into larger entities” (Wimmer, 2008, 1034). According to Tilly, authorities frequently utilize imposition to force various groups of ethnically different people into one single category.
They do this in an “attempt to create new systems of top-down control” (Tilly, 2004, 218). The best example of this is how many individuals from Asia would prefer to be referred to as the nationality of their country, but often times they are associated as being part of the “Asian” ethnicity. Like Asians, imposition has also forced all Arabs into a single ethnic/social category.
This is problematic, because there is a large amount of social and ethnic diversity in the Middle
East, so defining all people in the region as a single group does not effectively illustrate the diversity in the region.
There are many types of social/ethnic boundary making mechanisms, but the two that are most important when discussing the creation of suspect communities are expansion and contraction. Expansion is the process by which ethnic/social groups are made more inclusive by reducing the number of categories required to be part of a specific group. Wimmer also refers to Frank 149 this mechanism as fusion. Wimmer talks about the importance of contraction or fission, “which adds [new categories] and thus contracts previous boundaries” (2008, 1027). When suspect communities are created, the process of fission or contraction generally takes place, because specific members of society are being excluded from the main social/ethnic group. This is because new categories of belonging are being created that exclude specific people from being associated with the majority. As a result, a binary system is created which promotes an “us” versus “them” mentality. It is ultimately contraction and fission that have led to the creation of suspect communities around the Irish. Irish were excluded from being considered part of the
“white” ethnic group and therefore made into a minority. This was because new categories were created that made it more difficult for people of Irish decent to be defined as “white”. Similarly, western society has created additional categories that make it difficult for Arabs and Muslims to be a member of this social group.
Orientalism is one of the best historical examples of contraction/fission, because it has been utilized over hundreds of years to differentiate the Occident and the Orient. As mentioned by Said (1978, 36), Orientalism as a social/ethnic boundary mechanism was developed by the
Europeans in an attempt to learn from Eastern society. This system eventually developed into a means of rationalizing the Wests domination of the East and promoting colonization of Eastern nations. Orientalism is a form of contraction, because the process separates members of Eastern nations from being part of the Occident.
It also establishes social and ethnic categories that exclude Eastern populations. In this way through the use of fission, Orientalism establishes a binary system in which every category that defines the Occident is directly opposite to those which define the Orient. Such binary systems are likely to lead to situations in which the “other” is established as being in direct Frank 150 confrontation with “us” (Said, 1978, 43). Perceived conceptions of competition can lead to conflictual relationships between differing social/ethnic groups. These perceived conflicts help feed into the stigmas that lead to the creation of suspect communities in Western nations.
Interestingly enough, one could also argue that imposition was utilized by Western authorities during the development of Orientalism. This is because individuals living in extremely diverse countries ranging from Iran to China have all been categorized as Orientals. As argued by Tilly, this mass categorization of minorities into one group could have been an attempt by western powers to better control members of Eastern society.
Suspect communities are formed when a specific social or ethnic group is stereotyped by the majority as being a threat to society. A study from the City University of London stated that both Irish and Muslims were placed into suspect communities due to their ethnicity. Historically, the Irish and Muslim ethnicities have been associated with terrorism and therefore established as being suspect. What is interesting is that members within these communities are seen “allies in the struggle against ‘extremists’”, “victims of terrorists’ violence” and potential sympathizers or supporters of terrorism (Hickman et al., 2011, 3). These individuals are only seen as potential supporters of extremism, because of the ethnic similarity between themselves and extremists.
One of the main issues with suspect communities is that governments should be targeting criminalities not ethnic communities. In the end, ethnic/social boundary making mechanisms help with the creation of suspect communities, because they lead to the formation of the ethnic groups that are stigmatized. Without the creation of these large ethnic groups it would be less likely that all peoples from the Middle East would be associated with extremism, because there would be a wider diversity of ethnic groups. Frank 151
Additionally, mechanisms like contraction enable the majority to limit membership in their own group and thus create outgroups. As mentioned when discussing Orientalism, these outgroups are often portrayed as the “other” and seen as having opposing interests to the majority. Therefore, it is easier to believe that these outgroups pose a potential threat to society.
Imposition is another boundary making mechanism that is utilized in the formation of suspect communities, because entire ethnic groups are labeled as being part of a suspicious
“organization” (Hickman et al., 2011). This imposed social group helps the government or majority control the actions of those deemed suspect.
The main issue with the formation of suspect communities is that it can have negative impact on those deemed to be suspect citizens (Hickman et al., 2011). At its most extreme, being labeled as a member of these communities can actually endanger an individual’s life. Harry
Stanley and Jean Charles de Menezes were shot and killed by British police who thought that the two men were part of the IRA and Al-Qaeda respectively. What is interesting is that neither of these men were either Irish or Middle Eastern, but because they looked like they belonged to those suspect groups they were ultimately killed (Breen-Smyth, 2014, 225-227). These two men were also not affiliated with any extremist organization. The deaths of Stanley and de Menezes supports the idea that if you are deemed a member of a suspect community, law enforcement could even infringe on your right to life (Hickman et al., 2011). Members of suspect communities are also frequently the victim of discrimination and stereotyping. Marie Breen
Smyth (2014) mentions that Muslims in the United Kingdom often face verbal and physical abuse from British citizens, because of their race. Suspect citizens like Muslims and the Irish often face this abuse, because they are stereotyped as being terrorists and therefore a threat to society. Frank 152
The City University of London’s study on suspect communities, also found that Irish and
Muslims faced similar amounts of abuse due to them being situated as suspect. Additionally, being a member of a suspect community limits your rights as a citizen within a country
(Hickman et al., 2011). The most common example of this is how the freedom of speech is often limited for Muslim citizens. Many of the Muslims interviewed by Breen-Smyth (2014) feel that they cannot be critical of western governments without coming off as an extremist. They mention that the best way to appear as a “moderate Muslim” is to not question the actions of western governments. Due to a fear of being labeled as a radical, many of these people do not participate in meaningful political dialogue. Ultimately, Breen-Smyth (2014, 223) believes that suspect communities silence, marginalize and prevent the democratic participation of those deemed to be suspect citizens, “thus alienating them from democratic processes and undermining the possibility of a peaceful politics”.
Tariq Modood (2003, 105) expands on this idea when he states that “participation in the public or national culture is necessary for the effective exercise of citizenship”. This basically means that in order for suspect citizens to be considered effective citizens they need to be able to effectively participate in politics. However, suspect communities limit the ability of certain individuals to participate, because it places limitation on their freedoms (Hickman et al., 2011).
This infringement of freedoms and rights is especially problematic when you realize the countries like the United Kingdom have more than 15 million Muslims (Modood, 2003, 101). As a result, at least 15 million people are at risk of having their freedoms and rights to citizenship limited thanks to the creation of suspect communities (Hickman et al., 2011).
Film comes into the picture, because it is a medium that reflects portrayals of suspect communities (Hickman et al., 2011). As mentioned in the discussion sections, both British and Frank 153
American films utilize stereotypes when depicting Arabs and Muslims. Many of the male
Muslims are shown to be dominating of their wives as well as violent. Women on the other hand are generally shown to be covered up and obedient to the males around them. The portrayal of these stereotypes promotes the image that Easterners are “backward” and share different values than those in the western world. This is especially problematic since this imagery in cinema does not do an accurate job of representing the majority of the Arab or Muslim communities. Films instead choose to depict a very small portion of the group and make it appear as though that minority represents the majority of Arabs and Muslims. Additionally, portraying groups, like
Arabs and Muslims, as being drastically different to westerners makes these groups more threatening and puts them at odds with the western world. As a result, it is easier for such groups to be placed into a suspect community, because of their social or ethnic connections. The fact that all terrorists are generally shown to be coldhearted and violent killers also does not help those depicted as extremists appear any less suspect. If anything, the generally poorly developed motivations and violent portrayal of terrorists in film, makes those social/ethnic groups that are portrayed as extremists appear even more suspect to audiences.
To make matters worse, multiple studies have shown that film can have an impact on educating audiences. This means that if films are reflecting stereotypes that promote suspect communities, they are educating people about false information that could have a drastic impact on certain people’s lives. Klaus Dodds (2008, 227) states that “many people rely on mass media
(including film) to inform, educate, and entertain them about contemporary political issues”.
Karin Wilkins’ study on the impact of film on audiences supports this evidence, since she found that American action-adventure films depicting the Middle East had an impact on those viewing them. These films generally portrayed the region as being “exotic” and “dangerous”. When Frank 154 interviewing 120 participants many of the non-Arab viewers discussed their opinions of the
Middle East and suggested that they felt the films fictional portrayal of the region was accurate
(Wilkins, 2009, 570).
This evidence suggests that film helps educate audiences about the world and illustrates the importance of educating people with accurate information about terrorism and those associated with it. It also hits on a point made by Samuel Peleg (2003, 84) where he states that terrorism is a complex topic and because of this it deserves a complex representation in film. It is true that British film does a slightly better job of representing extremism, but both the US and
UK need to offer more complex depictions on this subject. Without these depictions citizens will continue to be taught misinformation on such an important topic. Similarly, the general aggression model (GAM) discussed by Saleem and Anderson (2013, 95-96), suggests that the more viewers see stereotypes of terrorists within film the more likely they are to adopt these beliefs. Their study on the depictions of Arabs and Muslims in video games found that the more players saw negative stereotypes in games the more likely they were to have a negative response to these ethnic/social groups. Since film is a similar medium to video games it would not be unreasonable to assume that GAM could have an influence over movie audiences as well, thus promoting the adoption of stereotypes within society.
In the end, social/ethnic boundary mechanisms, suspect communities and film all work together to create a cyclical process in which each of these components strengthens one another.
Social/ethnic boundary mechanisms, like contraction and imposition, help lead to the creation of suspect communities around various ethnic/social groups. These suspect communities are then reflected in mass media in the form of things like film. Film then reinforces social/ethnic boundary mechanisms by promoting stereotypes and depictions of groups that promote the Frank 155 creation of the suspect community. Strengthened by these cinematic portrayals, boundary making mechanisms have more influence over society and therefore can further reinforce the creation of suspect communities. Ultimately, this cycle of self-reinforcement will continue until one of the links is changed or broken. The cycle also means that film has a direct impact on the citizenship and belonging of those depicted as extremists. Since film helps strengthen and in some ways create suspect communities, it is also responsible for the negative impacts that these communities have on people. The limitations placed on the rights and freedoms of suspect citizens are partially due to the negative portrayals they receive in film. As a result, these suspect citizens cannot participate effectively in government or society. It is also likely to make people from these suspect communities feel disenfranchised and frustrated.
Additionally, films featuring negative depictions of Muslim or Irish communities only help rationalize the physical and verbal abuse that individuals from these communities experience. With the potential for films to reach more than 100,000,000 people in theaters alone, it is important to understand how cinema can reinforce negative stereotypes and beliefs that can have large impacts on suspect citizens (Giroux, 2011, 691). Therefore, it is important for filmmakers to better educate themselves on the impact of cinema on society and to better understand how stereotyping in film can lead to social ills.
There are multiple ways that American and British cinema can be improved that would reduce the negative impact they have on society. The first improvement pertains to Samuel
Peleg’s suggestion that films do a better job of illustrating the complexity of terrorism as a topic.
If films could attempt to better depict the complex nature surrounding the motivations of extremists, it would help combat the idea that terrorism is “irrational”. Screenwriters and directors should read more academic articles, like the one written by Peleg, in order to better Frank 156 understand the complexity of the topic. Films also need to stop making terrorists with poorly developed motivations. They should start making antagonists with more complex backgrounds, like that of Ash from Cleanskin. Reading academic articles on extremism should help moviemakers develop more realistic characters and motivations that properly educate audiences instead of teaching them false information. On a related note, films should stop borrowing stereotypical depictions of terrorism from other popular media. When films continue to borrow similar depictions of characters, like Muslims/Arabs, from one another they only help create stereotypes surrounding these groups. If more films were creative with developing their antagonists and did not rely on media tropes, like the Muslim extremist or the Russian bad guy, films would reinforce stereotypes less.
In general, films could afford to stereotype minority groups less as well. Many of the films watched for this study had stereotypical depictions of minority groups. The main group stereotyped in these films were Muslims, but Asians and Hispanic were also depicted poorly in some of them. Depictions like Arab men being violent and abusive of women should ultimately be used less in film and the depiction of the obedient Muslim women should also be avoided.
The less these kinds of stereotypes appear in film, the more likely positive depictions of these groups can start to be created. Cinema could also do a better job of creating antagonistic terrorists that were less coldhearted and bloodthirsty. These stereotypical depictions of terrorists ignore the complexity of the topic and the fact that many extremists probably are not coldhearted killers. Even extremists are likely to have regrets and show remorse for their actions, so illustrating this in film would help combat stereotypes, while providing a more realistic representation. Frank 157
Lastly, having more representations of minority groups, like Arabs and Muslims, Asians and Hispanics, would help reduce the likelihood of stereotypes forming around these ethnic communities. This is because if films have more diverse representations of a specific group of people, the film is less likely to portray an entire group as a stereotype. For example, white people are shown so frequently in film with such a wide array of personalities and representations that it is difficult to stereotype them. Similarly, Irish citizens portrayed in British cinema receive a pretty diverse amount of representation, so when compared to Arabs and
Muslims it is harder to stereotype them into one category. Having more representations of minorities would help normalize these groups as being diverse and avoid placing them into specific categories. This can be done by giving members of these social/ethnic communities differing personalities, occupations, and aspirations in life. Instead of depicting, Muslims and
Arabs as extremists, show them in government positions or as police officers.
This study is just the first in a long line of research that should be committed to better understanding how media, like cinema, can have a real impact on the citizenship of various ethnic/social groups. There has been a decent amount of research that suggests that film has a very real impact on educating the population, but this research rarely investigates how this
“education” impacts how certain groups are treated in the real world. It would be beneficial to have a quantitative study focused on finding more evidence of the impact that film has on suspect communities around the world. If enough data pertaining to this topic could be found, perhaps significant changes could occur within the film industry that helped promote a fair representation of all social/ethnic groups. Additionally, a comparative study analyzing terrorist films from more than just the US and UK would be beneficial in further determining how terrorism is depicted around the world. Understanding the global depiction of terrorism in film Frank 158 could help scholars better understand how to combat stereotypes about the topic and therefore come up with better ways to inform citizens about extremism. Film has the potential to reach a huge global audience, so it is incredibly important to understand its impact on society. The evidence from this study suggests that film can have a very real impact on the citizenship and belonging for those within suspect communities. Therefore, it is imperative that scholars continue to analyze this topic and develop a better understanding of the political impact of film in the real world.
Frank 159
Works Cited
Abbas, H., & Zohra, F. (2013). Construction of Differences Through Movies: A Case Study of
Portrayal of Kashmiri Muslims in Indian Movies. Cross-Cultural Communication, 9, 35-
39.
Alalawi, N. (2015). How does Hollywood Movies Portray Muslims and Arabs after 9/11?
“Content Analysis of The Kingdom and Rendition Movies. Cross-Cultural
Communication, 11, 58-62.
Angelique, C. (2004). Omagh film stirs up pain of atrocity. The Guardian. Retrieved from
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/may/11/broadcasting.politicsandthearts
Bergen, P. (2008). Commentary: WMD terrorism fears are overblown. CNN Politics. Retrieved
from http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/05/bergen.wmd/
Boyle, M. (2008). The War on Terror in American Grand Strategy. International Affairs, 84,
191-209).
Bradshaw, P. (2006). United 93. The Guardian. Retrieved from
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2006/jun/02/1
Bradshaw, P. (2007). Rendition. The Guardian. Retrieved from
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2007/oct/19/thriller
Breen-Smyth, M. (2013). Theorising the “suspect community”: counterterrorism, security
practices and the public imagination. Critical Studies on Terrorism, 7, 223-240.
Brewer, M., & Pierce, K. (2005). Social Identity Complexity and Outgroup Tolerance.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 428-437. Frank 160
Carter, A., & Juliette, K., & Timothy, R., & Nunn, S., & Leonard, S., Brill, S. (2005). Terrorism
and Weapons of Mass Destruction. Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.
Retrieved from https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/terrorism-and-weapons-mass-
destruction
Chrisafis, A. (2004). Omagh film stirs up pain of atrocity. The Guardian. Retrieved from
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/may/11/broadcasting.politicsandthearts
Dargis, M. (2006). Defiance Under Fire: Paul Greengrass’s Harrowing ‘United 93’. The New
York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/28/movies/defiance-under-
fire-paul-greengrasss-harrowing-united-93.html
Dargis M. (2012). By Any Means Necessary. The New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/movies/jessica-chastain-in-zero-dark-thirty.html
Dargis, M. (2013). Dreams Are Lost in the Melting Pot. The New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/26/movies/the-reluctant-fundamentalist-directed-by-
mira-nair.html
Dodds, K. (2007). Screening terror: Hollywood, the United States and the construction of danger.
Critical Studies on Terrorism, 1, 227 – 243.
French, P. (2013). Zero Dark Thirty – review. The Guardian. Retrieved from
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/jan/27/zero-dark-thirty-bigelow-review
Giroux, H. (2011). Breaking into the Movies: public pedagogy and the politics of film. Policy
Futures in Education, 9, 686 – 695. Frank 161
Hickman, M., Thomas, L., Silvestri, S. & Nickels, H. (2011). "Suspect Communities?" Counter-
terrorism policy, the press, and the impact on Irish and Muslim communities in Britain.
London: London Metropolitan University, 1-39.
Hillyard, P. (1993) Suspect Community: People’s Experience of the Prevention of Terrorism
Acts in Britain. London: Pluto Press in association with Liberty.
Holden, S. (2016). Review: ‘Eye in the Sky,’ Drone Precision vs. Human Failings. The New York
Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/11/movies/review-eye-in-the-
sky-drone-precision-vs-human-failings.html
Huffington Post. (2012). All American Muslim Cancelled: TLC Cancels Controversial Series.
Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/07/all-
american-muslim-cancelled_n_1327264.html
Khatib, L. (2006). Nationalism and Otherness: The representation of Islamic fundamentalism in
Egyptian cinema. Cultural Studies, 9, 65-80.
Laustsen, C., & Waever, O. (2000). In Defense of Religion: Sacred Referent Objects for
Securitization. Millennium: Journal of International Studies, 29, 705-739.
McFarlane, J. (2014). Desperate times and desperate measures: false-representation and
distortion of terrorism in post-9/11 superhero films. Critical Studies on Terrorism, 7,
446-455.
Modood, T. (2003). Muslims and the Political of Difference. The Political Quaterly Publishing
Co. Ltd., 100-114. Frank 162
Morgan, D. (2017). Terrorism in Movies, pre and post-9/11. CBS News. Retrieved from
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/terrorism-in-movies-pre-and-post-9-11/
Nurullah, A. (2010). Portrayal of Muslims in the media: “24” and the ‘Othering’ process.
International Journal of Human Sciences, 7, 1021-1046.
O’Mara, S. (2015). The neuroscience of interrogation: Why torture doesn’t work. New Scientist.
Retrieved from https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22830471-200-torture-doesnt-
work-says-science-why-are-we-still-doing-it/
O’Sullivan, M. (2013). ‘The Reluctant Fundamentalist’ movie review. The Washington Post.
Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/goingoutguide/the-reluctant-
fundamentalist-movie-review/2013/05/01/cf4d1750-b1b8-11e2-baf7-
5bc2a9dc6f44_story.html?utm_term=.4f8740bd3f2f
Park, J. & Wilkins, K. (2005). Reorienting the Orientalist Gaze. Global Media Journal, 4¸1-15.
Peleg, S. (2003). One’s Terrorist is Another’s Blockbuster: Political Terrorism in America versus
European Films. Tel Aviv University, 81-107.
Ramji, R. (2005). From Navy Seals to The Siege: Getting to Know the Muslim Terrorist,
Hollywood Style. Journal of Religion & Film, 9, 1-39.
Rich, P. (2013). Understanding Terror, Terrorism, and Their Representations in Media and
Culture. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 36, 255-277.
Riegler, T. (2010). Through the Lenses of Hollywood: depictions of Terrorism in American
Movies. Perspectives on Terrorism, 4. Frank 163
Robey, T. (2016). Helen Mirren and Alan Rickman join the drones debate – Eye in the Sky
review. The Telegraph. Retrieved from
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/2016/04/15/helen-mirren-and-alan-rickman-join-the-
drones-debate---eye-in-th/
Rose, D. (2006). Using Terror to fight terror. The Guardian. Retrieved from
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2006/feb/26/features.review
Said, E. (1978). Orientalism. New York: Random House, Inc.
Salaita, S. (2005). Ethnic Identity and Imperative Patriotism: Arab Americans before and after
9/11. College Literature, 32, 146-168.
Saleem, M., & Anderson, C. (2013). Arabs as Terrorists: Effects of Stereotypes Within Violent
Contexts on Attitudes, Perceptions, and Affect. Psychology of Violence,3, 84-99.
Scott, A. (2006). ‘The Road to Gauntanamo’ Offers Grim Chronicles That Anger and Stir. The
New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/movies/23guan.html
Scott, A. (2007). When a Single Story Has a Thousand Sides. New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/movies/19rend.html
Scott, A. (2010). Harebrained Plans by Half-Wits. The New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/05/movies/05four.html
Shaheen, J. (2001). Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People. New York: Interlink
Publishing Group, Inc. Frank 164
Shaheen, J. (2008). Guilty: Hollywood’s Verdict on Arabs after 9/11. Northampton: Interlink
Publishing Group, Inc.
Steuter, E., & Wills, D. (2008). At War with Metaphor: Media, Propaganda, and Racism in the
War on Terror. Lexington Books.
Tilly, C. (2004). Social Boundary Mechanisms. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 34, 211-236.
Van Veeren, E. (2009). Interrogating 24: Making Sense of US Counter-terrorism in the Global
War on Terrorism. New Political Science, 361-384.
Wilkins, K. (2009). Mapping Fear and Danger in Global Space: Arab Americans’ and Others’
Engagement with Action-Adventure Film. The International Communication Gazette, 71,
561-576.
Wilkins, K., & Downing, J. (2002). Mediating terrorism: text and protest in interpretations of
The Siege. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 19, 419-437.
Wimmer, A. (2008). Elementary strategies of ethnic boundary making. Ethnic and Racial
Studies, 31, 1025-1055.
Frank 165
Film Citations
Arab, A. (Producer), & Favreau, J. (Director). (2008). Iron Man [Motion Picture]. United States:
Paramount Pictures
Bigelow, K. (Producer), Bigelow, K. (Director). (2012). Zero Dark Thirty [Motion Picture].
United States: Columbia Pictures
Chan, J. (Producer), & Campbell, M. (Director). (2017). The Foreigner [Motion Picture]. United
Kingdom: STX Entertainment
Doherty, G. (Producer) & Hood, G. (Director). (2016). Eye in the Sky [Motion Picture]. United
Kingdom: Raindog Films
Fottrell, M. (Producer), & Wiseman, L. (Director). (2007). Live Free or Die Hard [Motion
Picture]. United States: Twentieth Century Fox
Fuqua, A. (Producer), & Fuqua, A. (Director). (2013). Olympus has Fallen [Motion Picture].
United States: Millennium Films
Golin, S. (Producer), & Hood, G. (Director). (2007). Rendition [Motion Picture]. United States:
Anonymous Content
Gordon, M. (Producer), & Jones, D. (Director). (2011). Source Code [Motion Picture]. United
States: Summit Entertainment
Greengrass, P. (Producer), & Travis, P. (Director). (2004). Omagh [Motion Picture]. United
Kingdom: Tiger Aspect Productions
Hajaig, H. (Producer). & Hajaig, H. (Director). (2012). Cleanskin [Motion Picture]. United
Kingdom: UK Film Studio Frank 166
Hawk, K. (Producer), & Davis, A. (Director). (2002). Collateral Damage [Motions Picture].
United States: Warner Bros.
Herbert, M. (Producer), Morris, C. (Director). (2010). Four Lions [Motion Picture]. United
Kingdom: Film4
Lamont, A. (Producer), & Demange, Y. (Director). (2014). 71 [Motion Picture]. United
Kingdom: Warp Films
Mann, M. (Producer), & Berg, P. (Director). (2007). The Kingdom [Motion Picture]. United
States: Universal Pictures
Skogland, K. (Producer), & Skogland, K. (Director). (2008). Fifty Dead Men Walking [Motion
Picture]. United Kingdom: Handmade International
Winterbottom, M. (Producer). Winterbottom, M. (Director). (2006). Road to Guantanamo
[Motion Picture]. United Kingdom: Film4