Yippie-Kay-Yay, Indeed

It’s one of the joys, no doubt, for an actor like Cliff Curtis, a New Zealander of Maori descent, that “dark skin, dark hair, dark eyes” is sufficient for him to play any number of ethnic minorities in U.S. films… according to IMDB, he has played characters described as Arab, Colombian, Latino, and “ambiguous ethnicity”.

I wonder… Did Fumento sit through “Whale Rider” fretting over why the girl’s father looked like an Arab? Did he experience similar confusion when watching Curtis in Collateral Damage or Blow (”Why does Pablo Escobar look like an Arab?“)

I might also note that, within the present context, Fumento should remember “The Siege”, but I think it is unfair to expect anybody to remember that film. Nonetheless, it does have Arab villains as well as Bruce Willis playing a character reminiscent of John McCain Jack Bauer.

Two more for the “if I’m mistaken” list: “Team America” and “Executive Decision.” Admittedly the former featured marionette Islamic terrorists, not the “real” kind, while the latter was as forgettable as most Steven Seagal movies, which is probably why Condi Rice (then our National Security Advisor) believed that the notion of terrorists crashing planes into buildings was “unthinkable” prior to 9/11.

Don’t forget the really bad Delta Force and Navy Seals. And the ambiguous Under Siege.

oops, that should be The Siege.

Fumento makes some exceptions in his first paragraph. He’s talking about post-9/11, non-WTC related movies.

While we can disagree with Fumento on the particulars, his general drift is correct. Hollywood these days never dares to take a punch at Muslims the way they do Christians, and especially Catholics, and certainly not without a lot of hemming and hawing about the villains being “unrepresentative”, “radical”, etc., etc. Or if the foot soldiers are Islamic, then it turns out that they’re being manipulated by evil white men in Washington, as you see in shows like Jericho, or the latest Die Hard.

Some of this is due to pure physical cowardice. No one wants to become the subject of a fatwa, and then there’s the sociopolitical side of things. Criticizing Islam means you have to deal with the usual suspects trooping up to scream about “racism” and “bigotry.”

I’ll admit to having some difficulty thinking of films with Catholic villains analogous to “Arab terrorists”. The rogue priests of The Da Vinci Code? Not so much. Also, pretty much any Hollywood movie which could be described as “taking punches” at Christians does so in anticipation of amusing an audience that is principally Christian.

I recognize why certain right-wingers want more Arab villains in movies - it plays into a stereotype they wish to perpetuate. But cries of “political correctness” aside, how many movies can you watch where the villains are stamped out with the same cookie cutter. It gets boring. Fast. Further, do these people truly believe that others won’t be aware of the realities of terrorism if they don’t see Arabs depicted as villains in enough action films?

The Order, Stigmata, and Godfather III come to mind. There are others, like the Magdalene Sisters, too. Now, some of these deal with valid topics, like the priest abuse issue, but many are blatant exploitation flicks.

“I recognize why certain right-wingers want more Arab villains in movies - it plays into a stereotype they wish to perpetuate.”

Sure, it’s all about false right-wing stereotypes, because, as we all know, behind any act of Islamic terrorism there’s an evil corporation or rogue agent at work, right? Or the neo-nazis? Let’s not forget them.

We don’t need them to be Snidely Whiplashes, but they could reflect something of the real world. Okay, let’s do without the “Tojo” or “Herman zee German” equivalents, but why don’t we give Muslim villains a bit of credit for doing their own work instead of being the foolish pawns of some caricature of Dick Cheney? Yes, the jingo films of the Second World War could be ridiculous, but they at least reflected some of the reality going on in the world.

The Order (2003), Stigmata (1999) and Godfather III (1990) are your best examples of the frequency or infrequency of this problem? I’ll confess that, like a lot of other people, I haven’t seen any of those films.

Your comment on stereotypes is entirely nonresponsive. Nobody suggested that right-wingers who want more Arab villains are happy with Hollywood’s present choices of villain. If they were, they wouldn’t be complaining. And sorry, no, “Die Hard” does not represent the “real world”.

I rattled off three from the top of my head. Here’s a few more: Agnes of God, Priest, Last Rites, Nasty Habits, Pan’s Labyrinthe (foreign, but lauded by the usual suspects), Elizabeth, and Dogma. How many times have we seen the vicious nun at Catholic school routine? If I had more time, we could fill the blog with with movies that use the Catholic Church and Catholics as their foils. That you can’t acknowledge this, quite frankly, calls your skills of observation (or, worse, your honesty) into serious question.

Your comment on stereotypes is entirely nonresponsive.

No, it’s entirely responsive to the foolishness of raising the red herring in the first place. The fact is Muslims commit most of the terrorism in the world, and they have targeted the U.S. and American interests. That’s not “stereotyping.” That’s a fact. The typical response from Hollywood to this fact is to either ignore it altogether or to ameliorate it by pinning the ultimate responsibility on some shadowy western ueber-villain. Apparently, some stereotypes are more equal than others.

Casino Royale is another egregious example of this sort of thing that comes to mind. The foot soldiers, in Africa, are shown to be Christian. The mid-level financier is an Albanian of indeterminate faith, and his big man is some wealthy Englishman. This is par for the course.

And sorry, no, “Die Hard” does not represent the “real world”.

Well, obviously not, but we’re talking about more than Die Hard. We’re talking about a general trend, of which a movie like the latest Die Hard is an example.

BTW, In the interest of fairness, Tears of the Sun did feature Muslim baddies.

There’s absolutely no need for personal attacks. Such attacks suggest desperation in the face of an inability to defend one’s position on the facts.

Your list of petty offenses (many of which you concede raise valid issues) is duly noted, but you are effectively conceding my original point. Pan’s Labyrinth as anti-Catholic? If you’ve seen the film, you have to know that you’re (at best) grasping at straws. As for the rest, with all due respect for your apparent wish to see Arabs demonized in more films, I’ve already addressed that.

Given the list I’ve come up with, your continuing denials need to be called out for what they are: obfuscation and evasion. I’ve given a list of films. You only address one (which includes a stock clerical villain), utterly ignoring several others I’ve listed. If anyone is having trouble with the facts, it’s you, my friend.

Yes, I agree that SOME of these films deal with valid topics, but we don’t see this kind of aggressive confrontation when it comes to the more protected Religion of Peace. I would certainly think Muslim intolerance and violence would be as valid an issue as any Catholic abuse.

And no one has said anything about “demonizing Arabs” except you. In fact, I haven’t mentioned “Arabs”, who can be Christian as well as Muslim. I’ve been discussing Islam and its connection to terrorism. The fact remains, pretty much undisputed by you, that Hollywood either sticks its head in the ground on this issue, or tries to deflect it by throwing the ultimate blame on another more powerful source–the unspoken assumption behind this trick being that the Muslims are such naive children they could never carry off fiendish plots on their ownsome.

Did you miss what I wrote about personal attacks? And to the extent that you are offended that I drew reasonable inferences from your comments, or you missed the “Arab” context created by the original post and article it referenced, so sorry. Your last sentence is absurd, and unworthy of reply.

Blog commentors talking past each other in flame war at its best.