It seems Sylvester Stallone is fixing to grace the silver screen with another installment in his "Rambo" series. (Last time, you may recall, he helped the mujahideen kick the Soviets out of Afghanistan, apparently paving the way for the Taliban to seize power. Nice going, Sly.)
And with all the Islamic terrorism going on around the world, it's obvious who the bad guys are going to be. That's right: White supremacists.
Movie news site Coming Soon! reports:
According to Stallone, the new plotline sees the character of Rambo as having "assimilated into the tapestry of America," living with his family in relative peace for the past fifteen years but still working for the military, when work pressures force him to move his family to the American outback. The Navajo-Indian former Green Beret and his family are then subject to an attack by white supremacists, and Rambo has to risk life and limb in rescuing his 10-year old daughter from being held hostage.Ah, yes, the big threat facing America today: kooky white-power militiamen. I remember when those guys were in the news, about ten years ago.
Actually, the current plot is quite different from what was originally envisaged. An early draft was called RAMBO IV: HOLY WAR. As British production company Alpha1Media, which drafted the original treatment, said in an October, 2004 press release:
The treatment sees the iconic super-soldier first played by actor Sylvester Stallone in 1982's "First Blood" return to the screen as the matured sage; he's married, with an adopted son, influenced by Islamic Sufism and now working as an environmentalist at the United Nations. When the UN Assembly is hijacked by sadistic Islamist terrorists, Rambo tries to take the terrorists down, knowing that his Afghani-adopted son, Tomask, is part of the terrorist mission.You can read the entire original treatment here (pdf format). Apparently, David Morrell, the author of First Blood (which inspired the first Rambo movie), loved it. But somewhere along the line, the story got changed from Islamic terrorists taking over the UN, to crazy militamen hiding out in the heartland. Hmm.
Presumably the filmmakers wanted to avoid the stereotype of the Muslim terrorist. But how can something be a stereotype if no one ever uses it? Die Hard (1988) kicked off the modern terrorist thriller genre almost two decades ago, pitting Bruce Willis against a sinister band of mostly European criminals. Few movies since then have featured Muslim terrorists as the heavies, either. (I'm not counting documentaries or comedies.)
True Lies (1994) featured Arab terrorists, but also conspicuously showcased an Arab good guy for balance. Executive Decision (1996) had a few men of Middle Eastern appearance hijack a plane. And, after the first attack on the World Trade Center, The Siege (1998) explored New York's response to a Muslim terrorist threat, taking pains to hammer home the "not all Arabs are terrorists" message.
So, that's three movies in 17 years. Notably, none were made after 9-11. This is a stereotype?
On the other hand, consider this list of movies about non-Muslim terrorists:
MOVIE Die Hard (1988) Die Hard 2(1990) Under Siege (1992) Speed (1994) Die Hard 3 (1995) Under Siege 2 (1995) The Rock (1996) Air Force One (1997) The Peacekeeper (1997) Speed 2 (1997) Collateral Damage (2002) The Sum of All Fears (2002) xXx (2002) | TERRORISTS European American American American European American American Russian Eastern European American Colombian Eastern European Eastern European |
Things may be starting to change, though, as the latest season of hit television show "24" featured Muslims involved in a terror plot. Predictably, CAIR was outraged. FOX ended up forcing series star Kiefer Sutherland to read the following CAIR-approved statement on the air during the show's February 7 episode:
Hi. My name is Kiefer Sutherland. And I play counter-terrorist agent Jack Bauer on Fox's 24. I would like to take a moment to talk to you about something that I think is very important. Now while terrorism is obviously one of the most critical challenges facing our nation and the world, it is important to recognize that the American Muslim community stands firmly beside their fellow Americans in denouncing and resisting all forms of terrorism. So in watching 24, please, bear that in mind.Why does CAIR raise such a fuss when a television show dares to show Muslims as terrorists? No other group seems to mind when its members play the bad guys. Maybe it's because they can shrug it off as pure fiction. But for CAIR, it seems to hit a little too close to home.
If CAIR wants to stop Muslims from being stereotyped as terrorists, it shouldn't be worrying about American movies and television shows. It should be worrying about Muslim terrorists.
FOLLOW-UP:
Despite casting Islamic terrorists as the villains, the earlier version of Rambo IV wasn't exactly shaping up to be a jingoistic Muslim-bashing extravaganza. From the original treatment:
The film will try to answer why, at the start of the 21st century, the USA's super-military machine has not prevented it from now feeling more vulnerable than ever to outside attack, and why its government's foreign policy history is condemned around the world. In particular, the movie will educate the audience about Islam, a faith shared by 1.5 billion people on earth, and will show the importance of inter-faith tolerance.Yeesh.
...The topic of Islamic terrorism vs American unilateralism fought at the seat of world government will be highly educational and topical: neither can emerge the victor.
18 comments:
Great post. It's like having a movie about the NBA where most of the players are 5'2" white guys.
Posted by jwbrown1969
I didn't hear CAIR denounce anything to do with 9/11 or any other terrorist action (such as the beheadings of several Americans).
Thanks for the informative post.
Posted by gecko
Actually, CAIR does have a condemnation of the 9-11 attacks on its website, although you have to hunt around to find it.
Posted by GaijinBiker
The terrorists in Back to the Future were middle eastern-looking, weren't they?
Posted by Chompsky
True. I think they were supposed to be Libyans. But BTTF was not exactly a movie about terrorism, or a hardcore action flick. I'll classify it under my comedy exemption.
Posted by GaijinBiker
Does the name Timothy McVeigh ring a bell to any of you?
Posted by bunkerbuster
Also, Chompsky, BTTF (1985) preceded Die Hard, so it's not in the time period under consideration (1988 to present). Hah!
Posted by GaijinBiker
there were around 224 people killed in 24 this year.
Posted by cube
There were terrorists in Back to the Future??? I mean, I remember the terrorists in Sixteen Candles and Krush Groove, but not Back to the Future.
Posted by Bojack
Doc Brown gets the plutonium from some Libyans, who later gun him down in the parking lot where he sent Marty back to 1955. But since he got the message Marty sent him from 1955, he wears a bullet-proof vest in 1985 and survives. Link
Marty: Doc, you don't just walk into a store and ask for plutonium! Did you rip this off?
Doc: Of course, from a group of Libyan Nationalists. They wanted me to build them a bomb, so I took their plutonium and in turn gave them a shiny bomb case full of used pinball machine parts!
Then again, maybe they're just "militants", since we don't see them attacking anyone except Doc Brown, who did after all cheat them in a business deal.
Posted by GaijinBiker
BoJack, I think the terrorists in Sixteen Candles weren't Middle Eastern, but Peruvian. Members of the Shining Path...
Posted by Chompsky
jeez, and some of you folks wonder why Muslims distrust the U.S. It's because they know you people demand movies that stereotype them as terrorists. What would it take to satisfy your craving for demonization of the ``enemy?''
Posted by bunkerbuster
When the armchair-torturer faction of the right isn't insisting that the Iraq war is against terrorism, not Islam, it is complaining about any U.S. movie that portrays terrorists as something other than muslims. go figure...
Posted by bunkerbuster
Let's not forget all those rich Europeans who make up the cadre of Bond villains!
Timothy McVeigh: the exception that proves the rule. (And maybe not even an exception, given rumors of a mysterious Arab co-conspirator.)
We don't need every movie terrorist to be Islamic, but it would help if people didn't object to every portrayal of Islamic terrorists. And there's certainly no reason to change Tom Clancy's choice of villains, just like there was no reason to swap the children's ages in Jurassic Park
Posted by Greg
There's a campaign of hate against Arabs/Muslims. Are you going to join it, oppose it or pretend it doesn't exist?
Posted by bunkerbuster
Campaign of hate? Not in this politically-correct nation.
Posted by Dave
I see Dave has signed up with the "pretend it doesn't exist" camp.
Apparently, he hasn't heard of Ann Coulter, Col. "God's on my side" Boykin and Rush "Torture is Fun'' Limbaugh. What's even stranger: apparently, he hasn't read this forum, where people tellingly complain that too few movies portray Middle Easterners as terrorists.
The campaign of hate can grow partly because of the steady increase in ambient nationalist insecurity, a mentality dramatically represented by the kind of movies being discussed here.
That, in itself, isn't necessarily sinister or a product of conspiracy. It does partly reflect the rise of chauvanism in America, but, more important, it feeds cultural assumptions that allow a campaign of hate to grow.
I will proceed to provide examples of the campaign, starting with Coulter's hateful ravings.
Posted by bunkerbuster
Bunkerbuster, as I suggested previously, when you find yourself needing to post multiple long comments in a row, that's really a sign you should be posting to your own personal blog.
Posted by GaijinBiker
Post a Comment