No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin, or his background, or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite.
– Nelson Mandela 3
Introduction
It has been over 30 years since I published an article “Amr Goes to Hollywood,” 4 recounting my first hands-on experience with ugly Arab and Muslim stereotypes in film and television as an artist. The original article retells my experience and reaction to being cast in an absurdly racist feature film while I was ‘dabbling’ in acting shortly after graduating from college in the spring of 1990.
Unfortunately, that experience would not be my only encounter with such destructive images as an artist. After a 20-year career as an international corporate lawyer, I decided to pursue my longtime dream of being an actor in earnest, and studied in London and New York. I have since been working as an actor and voice-over artist for over ten years.
Despite my ongoing commitment to pursue acting as an artistic and progressive endeavor (rather than a hollow pursuit of ‘fame and fortune’), and to avoid perpetuating demeaning depictions and contexts of Arabs and Muslims (or any other group of people for that matter), I have encountered these stereotypes regularly as an artist (let alone as one of the hundreds of millions of film and television viewers worldwide).
What has struck me over the years is not only how these one-dimensional negative stereotypes have remained alive and well, but have also hybridized into more subtle, but equally destructive, forms of dehumanizing Arabs and Muslims in film and television that I have been exposed to as an artist.
The purpose of this article is to summarize the evolution of Arab and Muslim stereotypes as a primary tool in “learning to hate,” and to directly link them to economic, political, colonial, and military realities. This evolution is intrinsically linked to the course of world events that have occurred since I wrote “Amr Goes to Hollywood.” Finally, I will also share a few of my own experiences with blatant and more subtle forms of stereotypes, propaganda tools and reductionist narratives to highlight this ongoing evolution, and to serve as a reference for those who are committed to combating the negative and unfounded depiction of any particular group of people in film, television and beyond.
A. Stereotypes: What Are They and Why Are They?
1. Stereotypes: What Are They?
According to Merriam-Webster, a ‘stereotype’ is:
a standardized mental picture that is held in common by members of a group and that represents an oversimplified opinion, prejudiced attitude, or uncritical judgment. 5
The power of film and television to shape the opinion, attitude, or judgment of members of a viewership through oversimplification, prejudice, or lack of criticism has been remarkable. American political theorist Benjamin Barber states:
It is time to recognize that the true tutors of our children are not schoolteachers or university professors but filmmakers … Disney does more than Duke; Spielberg outweighs Stanford. 6
Of course, Arab and Muslim stereotypes did not evolve in a vacuum. “Learning to hate” a broad range of ethnic and religious groups through brutal stereotypes in film and television has a decades’ long history in the United States (a potent subset of the centuries’ long history of “learning to hate” outside the context of film and television).
The sociologist Nancy Wang Yuen writes in her book, Reel Inequality: Hollywood Actors and Racism:
Racism, in the form of job exclusion and racially stereotyped roles, has defined the Hollywood film industry since its birth in the early 1900s. 7
To name just a few of the 19th- and 20th-century precursors to present-day Arab and Muslim stereotypes, toxic and pervasive images of the Bloodthirsty Native American, the Jewish Shylock, the Irish Drunk, the African American Pimp or Subservient Maid, the Incoherent or Submissive Asian, and the Lazy Mexican Bandito often served (and continue to serve) as a rationale for oppression of the “others” (i.e., anyone other than a white, Protestant male). These precursors (or counterparts) also served (and continue to serve) as an effective mechanism of fear-mongering to pit minority groups against each other and to seed self-hatred – an ensemble cast of cruel and hateful “divide and conquer” tactics, if you will.
To highlight just one example, according to an article on history.com regarding the arrival of Irish refugees to the US during the 19th century:
The refugees seeking haven in America were poor and disease-ridden. They threatened to take jobs away from Americans and strain welfare budgets. They practiced an alien religion and pledged allegiance to a foreign leader. They were bringing with them crime. They were accused of being rapists. And, worst of all, these undesirables were Irish. 8
Not surprisingly, early films reinforced such jingoistic sentiments by depicting the Irish generally through:
crude Irish stereotypes such as the ham-fisted Irish female domestic servant, drunken Irish men, buffoonish Irish labourers and womanising Irish cops. 9
Arab and Muslim stereotypes had their own evolution during the 20th and 21st centuries, starting with the exoticized and lustful Casanova-type with decadent and abundant harems, to the subservient local middleman facilitator of the superior colonist, to the rich oil sheikh.
I can vividly recall encountering many of these repulsive depictions while growing up as a child in East Lansing, Michigan, including the disgusting “Hassan Chop!” character on Bugs Bunny 10 and the decadent, forbidden world of Ahab the Arab on the radio complete with “emeralds and rubies just drippin off ‘a him’ and his secret meet-ups with ‘Fatima of the Seven Veils,’ swingingest grade A number one US choice dancer in the sultan’s whole harem.” 11 Nothing remotely similar to what I experienced during my annual visits to the Arab World growing up.
Not surprisingly, I was asked how many camels and oil wells my family has in Egypt numerous times in high school, sometimes jokingly, but oftentimes not. Luckily, I had well-educated, socially progressive parents to counter-balance this nonsense. Otherwise, I might have turned out to be quite the complicated self-hating, Egyptian, Arab-American Muslim, and probably would have changed my name to “Andy.”
American films and television programs borrowed heavily from their European colonial counterparts in reinforcing these depictions. In Reel Bad Arabs – How Hollywood Vilifies a People, a comprehensive and meticulously researched summary and analysis of the evolution of Arab and Muslim stereotypes in film and television, by the late scholar, Dr. Jack Shaheen who concisely summarizes this European colonial depiction:
European artists and writers helped reduce the region to a colony. They presented images of desolate deserts, corrupt palaces and slimy souks inhabited by the cultural “other” – the lazy, bearded heathen Arab Muslim. The writers’ stereotypical tales were inhabited with cheating vendors and exotic concubines held hostage in slave markets. These fictional renditions of wild foreigners subjugating harem maidens were accepted as valid, they became an indelible part of European popular culture. 12
These unseemly images were the precursors to the present-day “masterpiece” that began to rear its ugly head in the late 1970s: the religious fanatic Arab/Muslim terrorist, as analyzed by anthropologist Dr. Soheir Morsy. 13 Although the reader is highly unlikely to be unfamiliar with this bloodthirsty, crazed, often bomb-laden image, a thorough account and analysis of this pervasive stereotype can always be found in Dr. Shaheen’s book and Dr. Morsy’s paper.
Ms. Pamela Paul, the author of a recent op-ed piece in the New York Times might disagree with my use of the term “present-day” in describing the terrorist stereotype of Arabs and Muslims. According to Ms. Paul:
Hollywood has wisely moved on from the offensive extremes of blackface and Shylock stereotypes, “queeny” stock gay characters and Mickey Rooney’s embarrassing turn as a Japanese landlord in “Breakfast at Tiffany’s.” 14
Well, not entirely. Consider whether the roles that I have been asked to audition for in the very recent past presented below (in Section B.1. The Terrorist: An Almost Exclusively Negative Depiction) qualify as “offensive extremes.” I submit that the vast majority of roles for Arabs and Muslims remain almost entirely one-dimensional, and function to perpetuate an image of Arabs and Muslims as extremist, backward, violent, and threatening. If the reader does not believe that this constitutes an “offensive extreme,” then I ask you to imagine whether consistently experiencing the depiction of your own national, cultural and/or religious heritage(s) in such a way within a very limited context would result in offending you.
Of course, there are many recent examples of positive or “mainstream” depictions of Arabs and Muslims in film and television, such as the new Muslim “Ms. Marvel” character and the Muslim Egyptian family depicted in the Hulu series “Ramy,” or where artists of Arab and/or Muslim descent play roles that are “mainstream” and not Arab or Muslim per se, such as Tony Shaloub, Alia Shawkat, and Ramy Malek.
However, I maintain that the terrorist stereotype and the subtle hybrids of stereotypes and propaganda that I have encountered as an artist, as highlighted in section B below, are prominent representations that are alive and well. I also note that depictions need not be “extreme” to be offensive. “Subtle” racism is still racism.
There is a negative counterpart to the ugly Arab and Muslim stereotypes, which is the absence of Arab and/or Muslim artists in mainstream productions of stories that themselves originate from Arab or Muslim culture. Somehow, Arab and Muslim artists must be confined to the stereotypical roles, and not be included in their own stories – a lose–lose reality.
This absence has been criticized as it applied to recent productions of Aladdin 15 and The Gods of Egypt. 16
The primary issue being addressed in Ms. Paul’s New York Times piece cited above is whether actors portraying a character of a particular ethnic or religious background should have that same (or a similar) background. The argument goes: Why is there an uproar when white actors play characters that are of non-white origin, but not a similar criticism when black artists play characters that are white (such as black actor Adrian Lester’s recent portrayal of Emanuel Lehman, a white German, in the play The Lehman Trilogy)? Just let actors do what they do.
While I agree with the notion that actors should be able to play any role regardless of the ethnicity of the character (and I encourage my students to do so in their in-class scene work), Ms. Paul’s comparison is myopic in that it utterly fails to consider the long history of excluding non-white artists and characters from film, television, and theater performances with the exception of including the ugly stereotypes summarized above, or the occasional “token” character. It is argued that somehow a handful of black artists playing white roles in recent productions has balanced out decades of discrimination and misrepresentation and has eliminated any basis for criticism of white artists playing non-white roles, which has the ring of a hollow and decontextualized “reverse discrimination” argument.
This massive blind spot in Ms. Paul’s comparison did not go unnoticed by Lisa S. Brenner, Professor of Theater at Drew University, who wrote:
Characters from marginalized groups being portrayed by actors from dominant groups evokes a longstanding practice in which those with power have used the stage and screen to control the narrative of those with less power. 17
There is an additional counterpart to the ugly Arab and Muslim stereotype that is even broader than the absence of Arab or Muslim artists in stories about their own history and culture, and that is the absence (or very limited number) of characters of Arab or Muslim origin in film and television productions overall. According to a June 10, 2021 article in Deadline, the study:
“Missing & Maligned: The Reality of Muslims in Popular Global Movies,” paints a dark picture of the “erasure” of Muslims from 200 popular films released during those years in four countries – the US, the UK, Australia and New Zealand – [citing that across 200 popular films from 2017–2019, 1.6% of 8,965 speaking characters were Muslim, whereas 24% of the global population is Muslim.] 18
With a few limited exceptions, it appears that both Arab or Muslim artists and characters can only appear as a distorted stereotype that serves a specific narrative.
2. Stereotypes: Why Are They?
The next important question, then, is what purposes do these negative portrayals of Arab and Muslims serve? In other words, what is the dynamic between these portrayals and events in the real world? The following is a useful analysis:
“The representation of Muslims on screen feeds the policies that get enacted, the people that get killed, the countries that get invaded,” said Riz Ahmed, the Oscar-nominated Sound of Metal and Emmy-winning The Night Of actor who lent his support to the [“Missing & Maligned”: The Reality of Muslims in Popular Global Movies, a USC Annenberg Inclusion Initiative Report]. “The data doesn’t lie. This study shows us the scale of the problem in popular film, and its cost is measured in lost potential and lost lives.” 19
Quite a stark but accurate assessment by Mr. Ahmed, although I would add that there is more of a two-way street in that the representation feeds the policies and the policies feed the representation, and so on and so forth. Negative depictions (in the context of film and television and otherwise) of the “other” (whether it is race or religion) consistently grease the wheel of large-scale economic, colonial, and military objectives, through fear-mongering, marginalization, dehumanizing, or outright erasure or denial of existence of the “other” in an ongoing “chicken and egg” dynamic.
Racism is an ugly mixture of co-dependent components: arrogance (based on unfounded notions of superiority, the will to wield power and oppress, and greed) and ignorance (based on fear of the unknown, misinformation and disinformation). One cannot exist without the other.
According to anthropologist Ashley Montagu:
The idea of race was, in fact, the deliberate creation of an exploiting class seeking to maintain and defend its privileges against what was profitably regarded as an inferior social caste. 20
More on the “why” of demonizing through stereotypes comes from Michelle Alexander, Author of “The New Jim Crow”:
The political strategy of divide, demonize and conquer has worked for centuries in the United States – since the days of slavery – to keep poor and working people angry at (and fearful of) one another rather than uniting to challenge unjust political and economic systems. 21
Oppression (whether through enslavement, colonization, military aggression, theft, murder, or economic marginalization) requires a rationale to grease the wheels of its racist/superior mechanism. If people do not exist or are marginalized and dehumanized to the point of being “other” and, therefore, “lesser,” “uncivilized,” and/or “savages,” then it stands to reason that oppressing them is valid, so the rationale goes. Negative stereotypes and propaganda are essential tools for maintaining this mechanism.
A prominent example of simply denying the existence of a people in advance of slaughtering or violently displacing them is the Zionist slogan:
Palestine is a country without a people; the Jews are a people without a country. 22
Both describing (and later depicting in film and television) Native Americans as lesser, uncivilized “savages” was a fundamental basis for the attempted (but impossible) rationale of their massacre, displacement and destruction.
Similarly, a walk through the racist memorabilia display at the National Museum of African American History and Culture in Washington DC presents a shocking and extensive record of dehumanizing images of African-Americans as clown-like or animal-like beings. Dehumanization was essential in the centuries’ long enslavement, mass torture and murder of African-Americans as vividly recounted in Isabel Wilkerson’s book Caste.
Noam Chomsky provides another classic example of the dehumanization technique:
In 1919, Winston Churchill was enthusiastic about the prospects of “using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes” – Kurds and Afghans – and authorized the RAF Middle East command to use chemical weapons “against recalcitrant Arabs as experiment,” dismissing objections by the India office as “unreasonable” and deploring the “squeamishness about the use of gas.” 23
[Note: while encouraged and authorized by Churchill, it appears they were not actually used in this case, although according to Wikipedia: “Practical difficulties prevented its use rather than any moral inhibitions”]. 24
After “realizing” that there were in fact people in the land of Palestine prior to the Zionist colonization, denying their existence had to be replaced with the dehumanization technique. Ramzy Baroud provides a summary of the preferred terminology used in this process:
Also worth remembering are the equally systematic attempts at dehumanising Palestinians and denying them any rights. When Ehud Barak, Prime Minister of Israel at the time, compared Palestinians in a Jerusalem Post interview (August 2000) to “crocodiles, the more you give them meat, they want more,” he was hardly diverting from a consistent Zionist tradition that equated Palestinians with animals and vermin. Another Prime Minister, Menachem Begin referred to Palestinians in a Knesset speech as “beasts walking on two legs.” They have also been described as “grasshoppers,” “cockroaches” and more by famed Israeli statesmen. 25
Ugly Arab and Muslim stereotypes were certainly pervasive when I wrote “Amr Goes to Hollywood” in 1990 given the need for them up to that point to support European colonialist aims, United States Government foreign policies, and the ongoing Zionist colonization of Palestine. However, the events in the Middle East and the 9/11 terrorist attacks since then catalyzed a quantum leap in the intensity and dissemination of these stereotypes.
In his book Winning Modern Wars, 26 published in 2003, and a related interview, 27 US General Wesley Clark shared his experience of getting a sneak peek into the game plan for US military aggression in the Middle East.
Since 1990, we have witnessed (just to name a few) the US invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan (purportedly premised on the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in the hands of a CIA-backed dictator, and revenge for the terrorist attacks of 9/11 funded and primarily orchestrated by Saudi Arabia and a formerly CIA-backed mastermind, respectively), the invasion of Syria under the guise of a so-called civil war, the invasion of Libya, ongoing tensions with Iran (stemming from covert and overt US incursions dating back to the 1950s) and, of course, the continued, ever brutal, Israeli oppression of Palestinians. Dehumanization of Arabs and Muslims through negative stereotypes needed an upgrade and increased volume to keep up with the “rationalizations” for this increased illegal military aggression and the new “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” rhetoric.
Perhaps the most outrageous example of the dehumanization of Arabs and Muslims came from Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in a May 1996 interview with Lesley Stahl on 60 Minutes regarding the impact of US Sanctions on Iraq:
Stahl: We have heard that a half a million children have died. I mean that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?
Albright: I think this a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it. 28
The “logic” seems to argue that if they are “lesser” or “uncivilized” or “sub-human” children, then the price is apparently worth it. However, had the question been posed in the context of American children, Dutch children, or British children, the response would have sent legal, moral, and ethical shockwaves throughout the world. Such a heinous belief would only dare to be uttered in the context of decades of vicious depictions of Arabs and Muslims and the senseless propaganda that goes with it.
Not surprisingly, my own search of the word “Arab” on the Dictionary.com thesaurus in 2004 provided the following:
bum; derelict, ragamuffin; tramp; traveler; urchin; vagabond, vendor. 29
Murder and starvation of a people that are by definition lesser seems more palpable to those blinded by the lessons of ingrained racism and prejudice.
More recently, we experienced a classic example of fear-mongering involving Muslims, which undeniably would have been impossible in the absence of a long history of ugly stereotypes: a ban on entry into the United States for citizens of numerous countries that are predominantly Muslim entitled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States. 30
As part of the lead-up to this barbaric Executive Order, then-presidential candidate Donald Trump told Fox Business on March 22, 2016:
We’re having problems with the Muslims, and we’re having problems with Muslims coming into the country … You have to deal with the mosques, whether we like it or not, I mean, you know, these attacks aren’t coming out of – they’re not done by Swedish people. 31
And so, the cycle of delusional white supremacist arrogance and ignorance perpetuates itself again in an absurd portrayal of approximately 1.9 billion human beings, or approximately a quarter of the world’s population.
The current Russian invasion of Ukraine has demonstrated just how inherent the notion of white and/or northern European superiority to the people of the “lesser,” “third world,” and/or “shithole country” parts of the world is ingrained in the fabric of US and northern European discourse, rhetoric and so-called journalism.
In a March 2, 2022, article in the Guardian entitled “They are ‘Civilised’ and ‘Look Like Us’: The Racist Coverage of Ukraine,” Mostafa Bayoumi asks “Are Ukrainians more deserving of sympathy than Afghans and Iraqis?,” and quotes CBS News senior foreign correspondent Charlie D’Agata’s on-air statement that Ukraine:
isn’t a place, with all due respect, like Iraq or Afghanistan, that has seen conflict raging for decades. This is a relatively civilized, relatively European – I have to choose those words carefully, too – city, one where you wouldn’t expect that, or hope that it’s going to happen. 32
Bayoumi provides several similar quotes that all smack of the same racist and unfounded superiority, never mind D’Agata’s absurd and amnesiac reference to the “conflict raging for decades” in Iraq or Afghanistan that has directly resulted from illegal military assaults by US armed forces.
Somehow the clearly established international legal standards on the use of force set forth in the Geneva Conventions do not apply when a war is in the name of “liberation,” “democracy,” and/or “nation-building” and results in the death, displacement, and torture of a lesser “other.” Yet, these same international norms are invoked when an illegal military invasion is initiated by a US adversary against a people that are deemed to be “civilized.” If a proper, objective standard is consistently applied, the illegal invasion of Ukraine would be denounced as vehemently as the illegal invasions of Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights defines all human beings as equal with fundamental human rights that cannot be applied selectively. Those who purport to be advocates of human rights cannot treat these principles like a salad bar, where they pick and choose the rights to declare support for based on their specific tastes and interests. Oppression of Haitians as a result of the ongoing economic stranglehold originated by French colonialism and the displacement of Ukrainians by Russian forces are human rights issues that demand the same level of scrutiny.
Earlier this week, I received an e-mail from PetMeds (an online service from which I order medicine for my charcoal Labrador retriever) that boldly declared that “PetMeds stands with Ukraine!,” which in isolation is not objectionable per se. However, the selective rush to “stand with the people of Ukraine” here in the US and elsewhere, sharply contrasts with the absence of equally passionate declarations of support for numerous countries experiencing similar suffering that is often times funded with our very own tax dollars. Perhaps one day I will receive an e-mail from Fresh Direct that declares its solidarity with the victims of collective punishment in Gaza at the hands of the Israeli Defense Forces or an e-mail from Amazon stating that they stand in solidarity with the people of Southeast Washington DC because of the daily economic marginalization that they suffer? Without a consistent reaction to oppression of and atrocities against any group of human beings, a salad bar approach to respecting human beings will remain vacuous.
So long as white and Eurocentric delusions of superiority to “others” are maintained through dehumanization and propaganda, no objective international standard is sustainable, and the glaring contradictions and lack of credibility will remain.
In its June 12, 2022, edition, the New York Times Magazine described the following slip of the tongue by former President George W. Bush when speaking of Russian president Vladimir Putin’s suppression of dissent as a “faux pas that told uncomfortable truths”:
The result is an absence of checks and balances in Russia. And the decision of one man to launch a wholly unjustified and brutal invasion of Iraq, I mean – of Ukraine. Iraq too. Anyway. 33
B. My Own Experience as an Artist with Stereotypes, Propaganda, and Reductionist Narratives: From Blatant Depictions to More Subtle Techniques
I will now share very recent examples of some of the roles and projects that I have encountered in my own experience with stereotypes, propaganda, and reductionist narratives as an artist that misrepresent and distort images of Arabs and Muslims and their circumstances.
My objective is not to provide a comprehensive summary of the various roles that currently depict Arab and Muslim characters. Rather, I aim to illustrate the ongoing presence of the ugly terrorist stereotype in film and television, and present the more subtle hybrids thereof (normally with propagandist narratives) to serve as more easily identifiable references.
These are actual roles/projects that I have been asked to audition for within the last few years. I note that my agents are aware of my unwillingness to perpetuate ugly stereotypes, propaganda, and reductionist narratives in my work, and, therefore, the examples below have already passed through that filter, so to speak.
I must also note that because I am not an A-list actor at this phase of my career, I am usually provided with only the specific scenes that I am asked to audition for rather than the entire script. This somewhat limits my ability to discern the context of the scene(s) and the character that I am reading for. However, oftentimes the character description and/or the audition scene typically suffices in helping me determine if auditioning for the role is a go or no-go for me.
1. The Terrorist: An Almost Exclusively Negative Depiction
I refuse to audition for a role that portrays the classic ugly stereotype of an Arab or Muslim as terrorist and/or extremist. The reason I had confirmed my interest in auditioning for the role of Caliph in HBO’s the New Pope (excerpted scene below) before asking for more details in advance was that it was to be directed by Paolo Sorrentino, one of my favorite filmmakers. Naively, I assumed that any project that he would be a part of could not possibly utilize blatant, one-dimensional negative stereotypes of Arabs and Muslims, such as the classic suicide bomber/child murderer. As the scene below demonstrates, I was sorely mistaken, and declined to audition for the role after receiving the corresponding scene.
Major Network TV Mini-Series (The New Pope, HBO) 34
Lenny Belard: I think it is fair to conclude that, as far as our ideas of God go, neither of us has budged so much as an inch.
Caliph: I agree. And thus, we will continue to blow ourselves up in places of Christian worship.
…
Lenny Belard: So what is it you want?
Caliph: Your total and unconditional surrender. Followed immediately by your full withdrawal from public life. Otherwise I will kill the children …
This next role, another blatant, one-dimensional negative stereotype, was a clear no-go to audition for me. I trust that the reasons are self-explanatory.
Major Studio Film (Peril of a Godsend) 35
LEAD. ARABIC MAN IN HIS 40S WHO WAS RAISED BY THE TALIBAN, A VICIOUS AND CALCULATING EXTREMIST WHO IS DEVISING A PLOT TO BOMB KEY LOCATIONS USING KIDNAPPED CHILD SUICIDE BOMBERS. A CONVINCING AND MANIPULATIVE LEADER, HE MAKES EVERYONE BELIEVE THAT THEIR CAUSE IS FOR THE GREATER GOOD.
My next two examples reflect a more recent, ever so slight, tweak in the character of a one-dimensional Arab or Muslim evil-doer: a vacuous attempt to “balance” the pure terrorist character with a touch of his “human side” by giving him a connection with a member of his family member. Although the addition is nominal given the overall viciousness of the character, I titled this section “The Terrorist: An Almost Exclusively Negative Depiction,” although my first two examples above serve as examples of exclusively negative depictions, at least on the face of it. Regardless, the slight “humanized” touch is a feeble attempt to project “balance” in the portrayal. I believe most viewers would not be swayed by the idea that evil-doer “Abdul” aiming to destroy Western civilization is any less menacing because he will kill millions all for his love of Daddy’s sweet little girl, “Laila.”
Major Studio Series (Lioness. Executive Producer Nicole Kidman) 36
Character portrayed is male, Middle Eastern, 50s. A rags-to-riches billionaire businessman with ties to terrorism, building his own fortune by legitimate means before profiteering off the wars that destroy the Middle East he’s spent decades helping to rebuild. He rationalizes the death, destruction, and bloodshed his seedy business practices leave behind by doing it in the name of honor and love for his family, cherishing no one above his darling daughter …
Major Network TV Show (Jack Ryan, Amazon) 37
SERIES REGULAR. EARLY 40S, A MESSIANIC MUSLIM WHOSE PARENTS WERE KILLED WHEN HE WAS A BOY. A SORBONNE-EDUCATED FINANCIAL GENIUS, HE’S CHARISMATIC – A LEBANESE JFK – WHO WANTS TO PAVE THE WAY FOR HIS SON TO BECOME THE RULER OF A UNITED MUSLIM WORLD.
It is important to note that providing an Arab or Muslim villain with even substantially more “balance” as a character, such as a tragic back story, contradictory feelings about his extremist views, charisma, and/or leadership skills, as reflected in these last two examples, is not the point here. So long as Arabs and Muslims are portrayed (as one-dimensional or multi-dimensional characters) in the context of terrorism, mass destruction, and Crusades-like scenarios, the direct and destructive association between Arabs and Muslims with these evils and as “others” will remain.
2. Another Technique “Balanced” Depictions Through Bad Guy and Good Guy
In an effort to “soften” the vulgar, one-dimensional Arab or Muslim stereotype in film and television, a technique similar to “humanizing” a particular villain, is to maintain the one-dimensional character and “balance” him or her with a “good” Arab or Muslim, thereby sanitizing the presence of the one-dimensional character with a pretext of claiming that the particular film or television show does not portray all Arabs and Muslims as bad.
This technique is concisely described by Professor Evelyn Alsultany in her 2012 book Arabs and Muslims in the Media: Race and Representation after 9/11:
The representational mode that has become standard since 9/11 seeks to balance a negative representation with a positive one, what I refer to… as “simplified complex representations.” This has meant that if an Arab/Muslim terrorist is represented in the story line of a TV drama or film, then a “positive” representation of an Arab Muslim, Arab American or Muslim American is typically included, seemingly to offset the stereotype of the Arab/Muslim terrorist. 38
When recently asked to audition for an episode of the CBS series, FBI, as the character Hassan El Amin, a terrorist suspect, the inclusion of a character in the series, Jubal, who is a Muslim FBI agent, did not sway me into believing that the show was somehow “balanced.” Simply inserting a token character who is “one of them, but our guy” does not in any way diminish the overall context of the episode: yet again, it’s about Arabs or Muslims inextricably linked to terrorism and violence and not linked to the thousands of other potential storylines.
This flimsy illusion of “balance” purporting to appear progressive is in fact, as Professor Alsultany notes: “a new kind of racism, one that purports to be antiracist while perpetrating and justifying racism.” 39
3. Rewriting History
According to Plato: “Those who tell the stories also rule society.” Not surprisingly, I have been asked to audition for roles in film and television productions that seek to “retell” the actual stories of the contemporary US military incursions in the Arab World in a more favorable, sanitized light. As mentioned above, the standard means of deflecting the criminal reality of illegal military incursions is to use stereotypes and propaganda through mass media, political leaders, and film and television to rationalize such ventures through more lofty and noble objectives, such as liberating an oppressed people from a brutal tyrant.
While this deflection oftentimes, if not always, utilizes stereotypes to dehumanize the “other” being subjected to military aggression, it also uses many of the “one of them, but our guy” characters (for example, the local translator for the US military) to legitimize the noble objectives of the incursion. Historical background, context, and certain facts are stripped from the storyline to the extent they contradict this version of the story by the rulers of society.
One particular project that I was offered an audition for that serves as a good example of this attempted rewriting of history was the feature film, the Devil’s Double, based on the story of Saddam Hussein’s body double leading up to the US overthrow of Hussein. To be clear, I did in fact audition for the role of Hussein’s primary henchman based on only being provided with one scene involving this character with no context or other information about the storyline. I thought to myself: “There must have been someone like this character who actually existed. It could be an enjoyable role, but I will ask to see the script first.”
In hindsight, it should not have been surprising that the script reflected a classic example of a stripped-down version of actual events. The brutality of Saddam Hussein, his sons, and his henchmen was graphically portrayed. Entirely absent was any indication of the installation of Hussein in 1979 with the support of the CIA, the US Government’s ongoing support of the Hussein regime for over two decades, Hussein’s gassing of the Kurds in Halabjah with US-supplied chemical weapons, the doubling of aid to Iraq by the US Government shortly thereafter, and the entirely fabricated Weapons of Mass Destruction pretext for the illegal invasion of Iraq as parroted by General Colin Powell on the floor of the UN Security Council. The final scene is of US soldiers in a Baghdad square after the “liberation” surrounded by hundreds of Iraqis waving American flags chanting “USA! USA! USA!.”
I would be no part of a project with a false “We are the good guys. They are the bad guys” narrative. I guess that’s why it’s called “fiction.” Nevertheless, the profound impact of these types of propaganda pieces in rewriting history in the mind of the viewer with respect to Arabs and Muslims and their actual circumstances cannot be ignored or minimized.
4. False Equivalence
In addition to projects that included one-dimensional and seemingly muti-dimensional stereotype characters, “good guy” counterbalances to stereotypes and distorted propaganda, I have recently had the opportunity to audition for roles in projects with narratives that very effectively gloss over the ongoing suffering of the Palestinians as a result of living under military occupation by Israeli forces, thereby ignoring the elephant in the room, so to speak.
This type of project typically involves a scenario where Israelis and Palestinians (or other Arabs) are somehow compelled to interact with each other, and manage to get along when they begin to appreciate the “human side” of each other. My version of this narrative is: “We are all just people. We all eat bread, have eyelashes and have children that we love. The same. Equal. Can’t we just put aside our differences and just get along?”
This narrative does not depend on stereotypes per se, as it effectively distorts the plight of the Arab and Muslim (and Christian) Palestinians living under Israeli occupation by simply omitting the gross injustice suffered by Palestinians, and reducing any “disagreement” to a matter that can be hashed out at the individual human level. As in the case of rewriting history, often times not presenting or addressing something at all can be as destructive as presenting a false image of something. In the end, everyone gets along, silly preconceived notions disappear and everyone lives happily ever after.
Two Broadway plays for which I was asked to audition for, but did not, serve as good examples of this type of narrative: The Band’s Visit and Oslo. Unfortunately, many who viewed these productions or their movie version (some of whom are themselves Arab and/or Muslim) were complimentary of how the “human” side of Arabs and Muslims was depicted through various and distinct characters with their own strengths and weaknesses. Perhaps this would be valid if it were not for the glaring decontextualization and denial of the fact that Israel is the oppressor, the continuous violator of basic Palestinian human rights on a daily basis and the primary aggressor in the so-called “Arab Israeli Conflict.” So, in this narrative, Palestinians (or Arabs in general) are no longer “cockroaches” or “vermin,” but have achieved human status, so long as the denial of their rights as newly upgraded humans is not raised, addressed or discussed, because now we are all humans speaking one on one as equals. Quite a “feel good” scenario.
In The Band’s Visit a group of Egyptian musicians are scheduled to perform in a village in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, but take a wrong turn into an Israeli settlement, which by definition under international law is an illegal settlement. After very tense and awkward initial encounters between the musicians and the settlers, somehow a little music, food, and human connection results in the group interacting like the best of friends. All it takes is a little human bonding to solve the world’s problems.
Similarly, the Broadway play Oslo dramatizes the negotiation process between Israeli and Palestinian representatives in the lead-up to the so-called 1994 Peace Accords of the same name. Prior to commencing the first meeting, the Norwegian diplomat who arranged the negotiations tells the speculative representatives of both parties:
In that room when the door is closed, you four will talk, you will disagree, worse, but out here we will share our meals, we will talk of our families, light the fire, because it is only in the sharing of the person [that] we can see each other for who we truly are. 40
Cozy up to the fire with a few tumblers of Johnnie Walker Black Label and make eye-to-eye, real human connections and voila! A lasting peace is imminent. Aw shucks, why was it so elusive in the first place?
Both of these pieces gloss over, ignore and/or minimize the decades’ long injustices and atrocities committed by Israel with a simplistic and distorted “there is good and bad on both sides, so let’s realize that and just move on” narrative. Leaving no room for the glaring and brutal reality described in a 2022 Amnesty International research report. “Israel’s Apartheid Against Palestinians: Cruel System of Domination and Crime Against Humanity” as follows:
Israeli authorities impose a system of domination and oppression against the Palestinian people in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and against Palestinian refugees. Laws, policies and institutional practices all work to expel, fragment and dispossess Palestinians of their land and property, and deprive Palestinians of their human rights. We conclude this treatment amounts to an institutionalized regime of oppression and domination defined as apartheid under international law. 41
True peace and security for all peoples in the region will never be achieved without justice and equality for all. Simply denying the gross injustice and inequality in a sugar-coated and hollow “human” piece like The Band’s Visit or Oslo merely reinforces those inequities through false equivalence. If a problem realized is a problem half solved, then a problem unrealized, denied and materially distorted will never be solved.
5. Selective Viewpoints
One other type of production that does not necessarily utilize stereotypes, but can serve to divert the public eye, is the story that fully conforms with the propaganda of contemporary US foreign policy, oftentimes with no counterpart story that criticizes or exposes the crimes and devastation resulting from some US foreign policies.
I was recently asked to audition for several roles in the new Broadway production of The Kite Runner based on the book by Khaled Hosseini, which tells the story of Amir, who must flee Kabul to the United States after the Soviet invasion, and must return to save his half-brother years later during the Taliban regime.
Sometimes my “no-go” standards for accepting an audition get put to the test. After all, I am an artist and I want to work. At first glance, my sense was that this story is not clearly objectionable. After all, I had read the book and seen the film adaptation years ago and did not find either to be particularly objectionable relative to other stories about Muslims and Arabs. On the face of it, it is a story about a character who experienced real events both as a child and an adult and sought to adapt to them.
Perhaps because of my experience as an artist with the evolution of how Arabs and Muslims are being portrayed, I decided to “sleep on it” as my father often recommends. The next day, I watched the film version again. I noticed a few themes that hadn’t seemed so pronounced when I first read the book and saw the film almost 15 years ago. The brutality of the occupying Soviet forces and then the Taliban regime are on full display, not to say that it is not valid to portray this. Also, the main character flees to the San Francisco Bay Area, which is depicted as an idyllic haven. So, what struck me is how the narrative of this film fits perfectly with those labeled by US foreign policy as “bad guys,” and to escape them one can only escape to the home of the “good guys.”
I then discussed my hesitation with being a part of this production with my mother, who as a medical anthropologist can always provide insightful analysis. What we concluded is that my hesitation was not so much doing a piece that conformed with the often inconsistently applied official rhetoric. Rather, it was the timing of this production just after the official withdrawal of US forces after a two-decades-long, illegal invasion and occupation touted as a “nation-building” exercise that amounted to nothing more than an over 2 trillion-dollar junket for the military-industrial complex funded by US taxpayer dollars. An ironic choice for a Broadway production, especially from a timing standpoint.
Broadway didn’t seem to be planning any productions that exposed the deadly impact and devastation that resulted from this US military occupation, including the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians, journalists, and humanitarian aid workers. Somehow it is more of a priority to depict the brutality of the forces and regime in Afghanistan before the illegal invasion and occupation of Afghanistan by US forces.
Again, it often helps to consider what perspectives, stories and opinions are not being presented and the context of that absence along with what is “on the page” in determining whether one wishes to be a part of presenting a story that selectively includes and omits certain narratives and realities.
Conclusion
Any analysis of the negative depiction of Arabs and Muslims (or any other ethnicity or religion) in film and television (or any other media, such as literature and opera) must be in the context of historical and contemporary realities.
In this article, I have sought to present my own recent experience with depictions of Arabs and Muslims as an artist as a means of identifying the present-day techniques of negative depictions, whether through stereotypes, propaganda, misinformation or disinformation in the context of inconsistent foreign policies, as well as domestic fear-mongering.
As I stated in my conclusion in my original “Amr Goes to Hollywood” article, these negative portrayals must be combated consistently and aggressively through grass-roots community activism. To this end, I continue to support and participate in activities of civil and human rights organizations, such as the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, 42 which recently launched a new Media Research Project with the primary objective of researching, tracking, and documenting Anti-Arab and Islamophobic bias in the media, public discourse, and from public officials. 43
Negative depictions will not disappear quickly or without a struggle (notwithstanding some recent progress). Hollywood will not make an abrupt change in its long history of negative depictions of “others.” Increasing more “mainstream” Arab and Muslim roles will only come to the extent that there is a clear economic reason for Hollywood to do so.
In fact, I am often asked by many young Arab and Muslim artists when I give presentations about Arab and Muslim stereotypes on how to make a film that will “sell” in Hollywood. My answer is always: “Don’t.” Instead, I encourage them to tell their own stories, develop their own characters, share their own worlds. I also share the advice of independent filmmaker and Professor, Haile Gerima: “You have no excuse not to write your story.”
Arabs and Muslims are a vastly diverse people with rich histories, cultures, and traditions over many centuries. There is no need to create your art so that it fits any perceived expectation of Hollywood, including the narrowly pre-designated topics for Arab and Muslim creators to tell stories about a terrorist in the family or the wearing of a veil. The possibilities are infinite.
Given the numerous “no-go” roles highlighted above that I have had the opportunity to pursue, but chose not to, I have strived to practice what I preach by making short films that (and working with other filmmakers who) present unique perspectives and stories that are not made at the expense of unrealistic or distorted depictions of others.
Examples of my short films include: “Our Food,” a short documentary film that presents food as a metaphor for Egyptian national identity; “Hot Towels,” a short live-action film that parodies ugly Arab and Muslim stereotypes and false equivalence regarding the impact of people’s misconceptions of others; “What the … Cluck?!!,” a short animation film about the power of false narratives and doublespeak; and “CloseCall,” a short animation film based on my own real-life near miss on 9/11. My next project will be an animation short based on the content of this article.