In America, our version of a popular blockbuster movie usually
contains wholesome images: a cute little monkey with a penchant for
exploring, two gay cowboys nuzzling on the open range, or the baby
sitter of an affluent family being chased by a bloodthirsty
murderer.
These tranquil images are a stark contrast to the latest
record-breaking flick overseas: “Valley of the WolvesÂ:
Iraq.”
This film hit portrays American soldiers as the stereotypical
movie bad guys ““ they murder innocent people, use small
children as protection from enemies, and of course, harvest
people’s organs to send to Israel.
The movie has been a huge hit, with tickets selling out even
before its premiere. This warm reception abroad has many Americans
fretting about how this film will influence perceptions of the
United States abroad. Even the Pentagon is concerned, advising
American soldiers to avoid theaters showing the movie for safety
reasons.
The American actors portraying the lead antagonists, Gary Busey
and Billy Zane, have been targets of Americans’ anger. They
are accused of promoting negative stereotypes of Americans through
their roles.
Instead of focusing on the actors, though, shouldn’t we
first wonder why such anger against our country exists in the first
place?
No! Hurling nasty insults and accusations at B-movie actors is
so much more fun.
William Donahue, president of the Catholic League, offered a
very mature and well-thought-out explanation of the actors’
motivations on an episode of “Scarborough Country” on
MSNBC.
Some actors are just “harlots,” he said. “If
you asked them to sodomize their own mother in a movie, they would
… with a smile on their face.” Oh. Makes sense.
Joe Scarborough later implied that the movie would lead to
attacks and the subsequent deaths of American soldiers, fatalities
for which the actors are “responsible.”
Yes, after reviewing the horrible mismanagement of intelligence
that got us into the war in Iraq, we can safely take the blame for
American casualties off the shoulders of the bumbling Bush
administration and place it squarely upon two actors most of us
have never even heard of.
Maybe auditioning for those roles wasn’t the best decision
of their lives, but blaming the actors for American deaths and
comparing their choices to incest? It just seems a little
brash.
Perhaps the movie had such a positive response because, for many
in Turkey, it portrayed a scenario they feel is quite close to
reality. “It’s not exaggeration at all,” one
viewer told the press.
It is for this disturbing reason that the U.S. does not need to
worry about a violent reaction ““ in the opinions of viewers,
this movie adds no new reasons for its audiences to dislike
America. It is, after all, just a movie, not a documentary.
According to a U.S. diplomat interviewed by Reuters, the film is
little more than “entertainment.” “Everyone knows
the Americans have a good side,” Turkish model Nefise Karatay
said after the movie’s premiere. “That’s not what
this is about.”
Yet instead of considering what unpleasant topics it might be
“about” ““ such as widespread discontent with
American policies ““ pundits pretend it’s the unfairness
of it all that really matters.
It’s remarkable how much whining pollutes the airwaves
when Americans are portrayed negatively, but no one bats an eyelash
at the Muslim stereotypes that abound in American films.
In “Rules of Engagement,” Yemenese citizens
slaughter American troops. In the 1996 film “Executive
Decision,” a Muslim terrorist is shown carrying a bomb in one
hand and the Koran in the other, right before he murders a hotel
full of innocent Londoners. These are only two examples of
many.
Maybe it’s the unpleasantness of swallowing some of our
own medicine. Maybe we just don’t want to consider that
perhaps our actions haven’t been communicating the most
positive messages to foreigners.
Our desire to avoid facing any unpleasant facts about ourselves
is at the root of the anger toward the film and its actors, rather
than our supposed unflinching dedication to accuracy and truth.
It’s worrisome that after all the terrible blunders
we’ve made in foreign politics, a movie is what makes people
begin to worry about our perception and safety overseas. And even
then, the problems and questions the film raises are avoided and
covered up by bashing the actors as being anti-American.
First-year psychology major Michael Burnias said that, although
“America already has enough publicity to last us,” the
movie’s implications should still be discussed. He noted that
if the film merited any change or better understanding, then he
“would applaud (the actors) for attempting to shed
light” on these issues. Mature analysis could lead us to
positive changes in our foreign policy and improve the way we deal
with the world.
Yes, we might just have to admit that our government is not
perfect, but that cost is small when what we have to gain ““
better foreign relations ““ is our reward.
Unfortunately, the current in-depth discussions involve little
more than childish name-calling and outlandish accusations. Our
image overseas influences the way people treat us, our ability to
travel safely, and the circumstances under which our government
deals with other countries.
If we don’t begin a constructive conversation at the
citizen level, those asserting to speak for us will be the only
voices heard, and these stereotypes will flourish.
If you think that Busey really would sodomize his own
mother, let Strickland know at kstrickland@media.ucla.edu. Send
general comments to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.