The film industry is arguably one of the most potent forces in American popular culture. One needs to only turn on the television or walk past a supermarket news stand in order to understand the extent which movies capture the attention and imagination of the American people. It has long been understood that the media is one of the most powerful socializing and opinion forming sources within our society. We are all too aware of debates centering around the responsibility of filmmakers to their audiences: for example, the effect of violent imagery on the behavior of children. However, there are other issues. This paper will address Arab stereotypes in contemporary American cinema, particularly those that portray Arabs as violent irrational murderers and as terrorists, in the film Rules of Engagement. This film dehumanizes and vilifies the Arab people in a manner that can warp Americans' perception of the Arab world. This film utilizes many visual and emotional devices to represent the Yemeni people as foreign and extreme. These devices remove the audience's ability or desire to sympathize with the Arab characters, and therefore are dangerous in their implications.

Rules of Engagement was greeted with financial success and the number one box office position upon its release in April of 2000. The film is reported to have grossed $15 million in revenues during its first weekend run alone (Shaheen 404). Within the days following the film's release, protest erupted from around the world in response to the injurious manner in which the film portrays the Arab people. The Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee described it as, "the most vicious anti-Arab racist film ever made by a major Hollywood studio" (Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee).

The movie centers around Colonel Terry Childers (Samuel L. Jackson), a prestigious marine, a veteran, and a decorated officer. He is described by his colleagues as a "warrior's warrior", a true American hero. The Colonel is given orders to diffuse tension caused by a crowd of Arab protestors outside the American Embassy in Sana'a, Yemen. The situation turns horrifically violent when snipers take to the rooftops and begin to fire upon the Embassy. Colonel Childers arrives and following the heroic rescue of the American Ambassador and his family, he makes the decision to open fire into the apparently unarmed crowd to prevent the further deaths of his fellow marines. His order results in the slaughter of eighty-three Yemeni citizens including women and children. International reports of the event cause a worldwide scandal and consequently Childers receives a court martial from the United States government on charges of murder with the possible penalty of death. The remainder of the film is a military court drama led by Childers' war veteran buddy, and defending attorney, Colonel Hodges (Tommy Lee Jones). The audience is led to believe throughout the first half of the movie that Childers massacred innocent protesters but the film's ending reveals that all the Arab protestors, including the women and children, were armed terrorists on a mission of Islamic Jihad with the goal to kill all Americans. Childers is portrayed as a true American hero, a man whose only aim was to serve his country honorably.

The embassy protest scene, which begins the film, is by far one of the more disconcerting. The opening shot displays the unruly Yemeni crowd waving banners in the air, chanting, and lifting their fists to the sky. The flag of Yemen is waved alongside banners with Anti-American slogans written in Arabic (Shaheen 404). Within the next few seconds the crowd initiates an unprovoked attack on the embassy. It is interesting to note how the camera pans wildly, allowing the audience only glimpses of the protestors. The camera only pauses briefly to show toothless and ragged Arab men smiling ecstatically as they assault the building's edifice with rocks and Molotov cocktails. The crowd erupts into a display of senseless violence; cars are set ablaze and the sound of gunfire fills the air as the people continue to chant passionately. This scene is upsetting for many reasons. Not only does the crowd enact horrible feats of violence but they also seem to be enjoying the act. Even the young children in the crowd smile victoriously, and show no signs of fear despite the surrounding chaos and violence. Throughout this entire sequence no reason, not even an implied one, is given for the crowd's angry displays. No characters are established, no motivations are given, the crowd is nothing more than a mass of stock villains.

After Childers loses three American soldiers to the conflict, he gives his orders to fire upon the crowd, "Waste the motherfuckers!" he says. The audience is assaulted by close-up shots of women with bullets ripping through their faces, blood drenching the Yemeni flag, and children collapsing into piles of gore and dust. When the smoke clears, women in black niqabs rise from amongst the corpses screaming in grief, their faces turned toward the sky. There are disturbing reports of American audiences who cheered at the sight of the Arab mob being massacred (Shaheen 404). Why would this scene elicit such a response? The answer may lie in associations derived from news and other media. Images of violence enacted by individuals from Arab society flood the contemporary news media at an sensationalist level. Even though the individuals that enact these crimes represent an incredibly small sliver of Arab society, they are the images with which the American people have become overly familiarized.

Another interesting element of the Embassy scene is the dress worn by the Arab characters. Many have questioned why Yemen was chosen as a location for this film, but one reason may be the traditional dress of the country. As a general rule Yemeni society is devoutly religious and as a result Yemen is one the most conservative Arab nations in relation to modest religious dress. Virtually all the women in the embassy scene are shown wearing the niqab. Although the niqab is a sign of deep personal religious devotion, it often is misunderstood by Western cultures. Though racially enlightened individuals have long ago realized that ethnocentric notions are destructive, people still fear and dismiss what they don't understand. A possible reason for choosing Yemen may be that the nation's culture contrasts with American customs, and removing such cultural "reference points" makes the Yemeni seem alien. The attire worn by actors in the film also performs a similar function. Male characters wear kuffiyehs, turbans and some are equipped with daggers. These are other cultural elements that are foreign to many Americans and therefore serve to further draw the line between the familiar and foreign. Also, no Arab characters, with exception of the doctor and the little girl, are seen in Western dress (now common in the Arab world because of cultural diffusion). The filmmakers seem aware that an Arab terrorist in blue jeans in a t-shirt is not as effective as one wearing a turban with a dagger. Thus, the use of exclusively traditional dress is used as tool to convey a sense of  "us" versus "them," or America contrasted with "other."

There are only two Arab characters, a doctor and a young girl,  with whom the audience is granted any connection. Colonel Hays Hodges encounters both of these characters on his trip to Sana'a where he goes to collect evidence to exonerate his friend. He first encounters the little girl as she passes by the ruins of the Embassy feebly carrying  herself on crutches. She was one of the children at the Embassy massacre, and when she is introduced to us she has had one of her legs amputated as a result. The audience is prompted to sympathize with her, until the ending reveals that at five or six years old, she also had a gun and was firing upon the Embassy. The implications are horrific, as not only are Arabs portrayed in this film solely as terrorists, but even Arab children are depicted as murderous and cruel. Further, a doctor at an impoverished hospital is another character who undergoes such a reversal. His connection to Islamic Jihad is exposed and he commits perjury at Childers' trial. He first appears to be assistive and compassionate but later we find he is no better than the others who attempted an attack against America. The notable fact about these two characters is that they are the only ones who possess what could be deemed "American" or "Western" qualities. The doctor is the only Yemeni character that can speak English and is not wearing traditional dress. Instead, he wears a white doctor's coat. He represents the familiar for American film audiences, and is therefore portrayed as a "good guy" until the movie reveals a twist. The same applies to the girl. She is clothed in a disheveled purple sundress instead of traditional dress as the other characters are. These devices are used to gain the audiences trust and sympathy by using familiar reference points so that the ending has more impact when their "betrayal" is revealed.

Another disturbing dimension of Rules of Engagement is that there is not a single Arab character, not even a token character, that is not involved in the Anti-American conspiracy. When Colonel Hodges conducts his investigation in Yemen, every single individual he encounters lies to him. Even those holding positions of prestige in the Yemeni police and military lie to him. We later discover that no one, not a single soul, was exempt from the nefarious plot. During his investigation he finds propaganda tapes, calling for Jihad, in every corner of Yemen, in the hospital, the Embassy, and on the desks of the local police and military officials. The tape declares, "We call on every Muslim who believes in God and hopes for a reward to obey God's command: To kill Americans and their allies and plunder their possessions wherever he finds them. To kill all Americans both civil and military is the duty of every Muslim who is able" (Rules of Engagement). When this tape is played at the court hearing the audience realizes their foolishness and how ignorant they have been to morn the massacre of the Arab men, women, and children. We are told they were all just murderous dogs: inhuman, base, irrational, and Anti-American. In the film's conclusion Colonel Childers is found innocent and is charged with conduct unbecoming of a soldier; the military equivalent of a slap on the wrist. He proudly leaves the courtroom with his head held high, portrayed in all the glory deserving of an "American hero." So what is it that this film teaches us? That Arabs are liars? That the duty of all of Muslims is to kill Americans? Or that any price, including 83 human lives, is worth protecting American interests? This explains in part why the film was greeted with such outrage in addition to its popular successes.

Yet one could say it's just fiction. What bearing does this film have on the real world? Plenty. Imagine for example the surprise of the Yemeni government upon this film's release. Abdulwahab Alhajjri, Yemen's Ambassador to America, expressed deep concern stating that "audiences will not realize the story is fictional. Even people who have been to Yemen are asking me 'When did it happen?" He continued by saying, "The disclaimer, that it's all fiction, comes at the very end. Nobody stays in the cinema for that" (Whitaker). The political implications of this film are by far too vast to cover in this examination but it is important to know that this film was made with the support of the United States Department of Defense and the Military Corps. No statements have been made by the government to explain their support of a film that blatantly incriminates and soils the image of Yemen, a nation that has historically offered cooperation and friendship to the United States. Furthermore, author and activist Jack Shaheen has observed that, "more than fourteen films, all of which show Americans killing Arabs, credit the DOD for providing needed equipment, personnel, and technical assistance. Sadly, the Pentagon seems to condone these Arab-bashing ventures" (Shaheen 15). It is easy then, in one's mind, to assert that such films function as knowingly constructed political propaganda.

Just as the political proportions are difficult to encapsulate so are the causes for the existence of racial prejudice against Arabs.  This tension stems from conflicts over religious ideology, as well as political issues and foreign policy. We cannot, however, neglect the role that films like Rules of Engagement play in forming and perpetuating racist notions. The existence of these prejudices is an intricate issue that cannot be easily boiled down to what Hollywood would have us believe, an issue of an "us" versus a "them." Evaluations of cultural texts may prove helpful in understanding the ways in which gross misunderstandings are formed and defamatory myths are created. It is our responsibility to recognize these injustices and speak out against them, and possibly more important, it is our duty to understand and educate others and ourselves to recognize them. Much research has been dedicated to this area, and many noble individuals and organizations are involved in the mission to abolish these injustices and discriminatory practices. These groups deserve our support, and these issues deserve our attention and careful evaluation. Especially considering that we, the citizens of the world, long ago entered an age where our actions, ideas, and futures are so closely intertwined.

           

Works Cited

Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee. 4 Dec. 2003. <http://www.adc.org/action/2000/18april2000.htm>

Rules of Engagement. Dir. William Friedkin, writ. Stephen Gaghan and James Webb. DVD. Paramount, 2000.

Shaheen, Jack G. Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People. New York: Interlink Pub Group, 2001.

Whitaker, Brian. "The 'Towelheads' Take on Hollywood." Guardian Unlimited. 11 Aug. 2000. The Guardian News Group. 15 Nov. 2003. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,355880,00.html>