US foreign policy
in Hollywood
Name: Marina García Jiménez
Student number: 1685967
Specialization: Concept Design (English)
Teacher: Rob van den Idsert
Format: Seminar/presentation
“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to
strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very
lively debate within that spectrum”
Noam Chomsky
We form our opinion about the world’s issues and events
through all the information we receive everyday from the
media: newspapers, internet, television, radio, cinema and
other kinds.
But, what if the media does not provide us with an objective
point of view of the reality and they are being used to influence us with only one version of the world affairs?
This research will be focused to question the objectivity of
the media and to analyse them as a tool used by government
institutions to influence people’s opinion in order to satisfy
their political objectives.
1
Table of contents
Introduction3
US foreign policy and Hollywood
4
US foreign policy 4
Media and the US foreign policy 4
Research6
Plot 6
Research questions7
Analysis of the films8
Results 11
Conclusions 19
Sources 20
2
Introduction
I’ve always been trying to find answers about the truth of the
world we live in. Analyzing the role of the media in society is one
of the most interesting ways to understand how we act, feel and
think. The media is not a simple way of getting information about
what is happening in the world, we have to understand them as a
complex tool of indoctrinating society, politically, and culturally.
For that reason, I’ve always been interested in trying to find out what is the purpose the media has behind the messages we receive from them every day.
In the last months I’ve been especially curious about how the
media inform us about one of the biggest issues that occidental societies deals with in the last years: the US foreign policy
in the Middle Eastern countries. I’ve been paying attention in
how the media represents terrorism in favor of western perceptions and perspectives: Why the media have omitted to
us a lot of relevant information to understand the war that is
happening in the Middle Eastern countries? Why they are repeating constantly the same message in order to create a collective thought about the Middle Eastern population? What
are the tools they have used to create this collective image?
In order to analyze this topic I find it interesting to focus my
attention on how the Hollywood industry is used to transmit
an ideology or opinion to the occidental population. Cinema
is thought of as an entertainment media to make people enjoy
or think, but is not thought by many people as a tool of indoctrination and creation of stereotypes. For that reason, I believe
is very interesting to question and judge the purpose behind
the message that the Hollywood industry have used for explaining the US foreign policy in the Middle Eastern countries.
3
US foreign policy
and Hollywood
US foreign policy
One of the most controversial topics in the last few years has
been the role of USA in their foreign operations in the Middle Eastern countries. These operations, which started on 2001
in response to the attacks on New York and Washington of
9/11, were called by the Bush administration “war on terror”.
As a result, in the last few years the US foreign policy has been based on military operations in the Middle Eastern countries in order to work for their national security. However, critics declare
that the “war on terror” is an “ideology of fear and repression that
creates enemies and promotes violence rather than mitigating
acts of terror and strengthening security” (Global policy forum).
Moreover, the “war on terror” is not only a political concept; it has also an
ideological dimension: terrorism has been linked to Muslims and Islam,
and as a result, it has been built a new ideology based on the connection between the Middle Eastern countries and terrorism, fear and hate.
Media and the US foreign policy
Media has played a crucial role in developing the narrative of the
US foreign policy. A lot of studies that analyse the representations of the US foreign policy in the Western media demonstrate
that the narratives that are being used in television, films or newspapers have helped to influence the occidental society to build
a western perspective of the war in the Middle Eastern countries.
That means that western media legitimate the acts of terrorism from
the CIA and other western institutions as a form of national security,
but on the other hand, they condemn the acts of terrorism from the
Middle Eastern countries as a threat to the western security. As a result, Western media discourse has worked in justifying the US foreign
policy and to legitimize their response: identifying the sources of violence and instability across the Arab world, reproducing negative stereotypes of Muslim populations or victimizing the American society.
4
.
One
of the most influential media being used for building the western perspective of the Middle Eastern conflict in western society is cinema, concretely the Hollywood industry. Boyd-Barret,
Herrera and Baumann (2012) in their recent study “Hollywood,
the CIA and the war on terror” underlined the important contribution of the world’s most famous entertainment industry to the
normalization of the “war on terror” on screen and the justification of espionage and cover operations in foreign nations. In their
analysis, they demonstrated that the narratives of CIA-themed
movies represent an imperial vision of contemporary conflicts.
The relationship between US foreign policy and Hollywood is not a
simple coincidence. Bush administration has used the dramatic stories of the Hollywood industry as an invisible tool to broadcast their
ideas in order to make people support their foreign policy (Malalana,
2014). As the Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon commented: “If we
can have television shows and movies that show the excitement and
importance of military life, they can help generate a favorable atmosphere for recruiting.” But, how can the government control the content of the Hollywood films? The CIA entertainment department “in
exchange for handing over some editorial control, the production and
direction from a film are able to shoot location, use government personnel as extras, avail of stock footage, use expensive equipment etc.
without the costs appearing in the production budget” (Kupar, 2014)
5
Research
Not all the CIA-themed Hollywood films have a direct influence from
the government; some of them have critical messages against the US
foreign policy in the Middle Eastern countries. For that reason, in this
research I will observe the difference between a film which has the CIA
implication in the direction and the production of the film (The Kingdom (2007)) and a film which hasn’t the CIA implication and also has
a critical point of view of the US foreign policy (Green Zone (2010)).
Plot
The Kingdom
After a terrorist attack on an American housing compound in Riyadh,
Saudi Arabia, where families and FBI Agent Francis Manner are murdered, FBI agent Ronald Fleury blackmails the Saudi Arabian consul
to get five days of investigation in the location. He travels with agent
Grant Sykes, Janet Mayes and Adam Leavitt to avenge their friend and
try to find those responsible for the bombing. The agents find all sorts
of difficulties in their investigation, but they are supported by Colonel
Faris Al Ghazi that advises the team how to act in a hostile environment.
Green Zone
Following the American invasion of Iraq in 2003 Chief Warrant Officer Roy Miller and his men are charged with finding the so-called
weapons of mass destruction, whose existence justified American
involvement, according to the Pentagon and their man in Baghdad, Poundstone. Veteran CIA operative Marty tells Miller that there are no weapons, it is a deception to allow the Americans to take
over the country and install a puppet leader. Also suspicious of
Poundstone is Wall Street Journal reporter Lawrie Dayne, who lets
slip to Miller that Poundstone told her he had secret talks in Jordan with an important Iraqi, code-named Magellan, who told him
about the weapons, though it now seems likely Magellan’s true
information was to the contrary. So begins a hunt for the truth.
6
For the analysis of this research, both films will be simplified in the
following structure:
Green Zone
The Kingdom
Research questions
The research questions from this seminar are the following:
Which is the difference in the portait of USA foreign policy in the
Middle Eastern countries in the films Green Zone (2010) and The
Kingdom (2007)?
Q (1) Which aspects from the US foreign policy do the films support
or critique?
Q (2) How is the CIA/US Army being portrayed in these movies?
Q (3) How are Muslims being portrayed in these movies?
7
Analysis of the films
Firstly, for answer the first research question “Q (1) Which aspects
from the US foreign policy do the films support or critique?” I will
observe, using a table of content, how each film portraits the different features of the official discourse of the US foreign policy from
the US government (Crenshaw, 2006). For observe it, I will focus on
the four most important aspects from the US foreign policy: The reasons that the US government have for intervene the Middle Eastern
countries and their point of view about the US intervention of the
Middle Eastern countries, the violence from the US Army (FBI or CIA)
and from the Islamic and Muslims, and the victims of this conflicts.
According to the official discourse from the US government (Crenshaw, 2006):
-The reasons that the US government have for intervene the Middle Eastern countries are: Fight against Islamic extremist terrorism and avoid the possession of
weapons of mass destruction by irresponsible states.
-
The point of view about the US intervention of the Middle Eastern countries is that Middle Eastern countries need the US
government’s help in order to bring peace, hope and democracy to countries that have been dominated by extremist ideology.
-
US government needs to fight against their nation’s security enemies: Assassin movement who has an ideology based
on oppression, hate and violence and wants to impose a totalitarian regime around the world and eradicate the worldwide peace and democracy. These security enemies are Muslims and Islam who represent the fanaticism and the irrational violence.
-
American society are the victims from the conflict.
8
Table 1: Table of content for research question 1
And secondly, for answer the second and thirth research questions “Q
(2) How is the CIA/US Army being portrayed in these movies?” and “Q
(3) How are Muslims being portrayed in these movies?” I will take into
account three aspects from the main characters of both films: Which
are the main features of the character, how each character supports
or critiques the US foreign policy and how the violence done by each
character is threat.
Table 2: Table of content for research questions 2 and 3.
9
Table 3: Table of content for research questions 2 and 3.
Table 4: Table of content for research questions 2 and 3.
10
Results
Q (1) Which aspects from the US foreign policy do the
films support or critique?
Table 5: Table of content for research question 1.
As we can observe in the following table, each film has a
clear position in relation to the US foreign policy: The Kingdom supports the official discourse from the US government whereas Green Zone has a critical point of view of it.
In relation to the first research question, I would like
to underline some relevant aspects from both films:
Firstly, Green Zone criticizes the interrogation torture techniques
done by the US Army whereas The Kingdom does not threat that topic.
Secondly, Green Zone also criticizes the lack of transparency of the US
Intelligence. In the film, the US intelligence is portrayed as the main
institution whose orders can not be questioned from the US Army.
This fact can be observed specially in one sentence from the character
Martin Brown: “It’s better not to chance authority. Washinghton don’t
like to hear that. They only want something they can show to the CNN”.
And thirdly, The Kingdom emphasizes the colonial idea that people
of colour are not able to fight against terrorism for themselves and
need the help from western society. This fact can be observed when
the Saudi State police is portrayed as close mind people whose strict
ideas from their religion do not allow them to carry out a regular investigation; or when the Saudi State police had no authority towards FBI,
and their only role in the investigation is to follow the orders from them.
11
Q (2) How is the CIA/US Army being portrayed in these
movies?
The Kingdom
Table 6: Table of content for research question 2.
Table 7: Table of content for research question 2.
12
Table 8: Table of content for research question 2.
Green Zone
Table 9: Table of content for research question 2.
13
Table 10: Table of content for research question 2.
Table 11: Table of content for research question 2.
As we can observe in the following tables, the CIA/US Army/FBI
is being portrayed differently in The Kingdom than in Green Zone:
In Green Zone we can observe two different kind of characters:
those who support the US foreign policy (Clark Poundstone, Major brings and the army members), and those who criticizes or
questions the US foreign policy (Roy Miller and Martin Brown).
The characters who support the US foreign policy are portrayed as the
antagonists of the story, and in the film it is being criticized their aggressive disposition and racist attitue towards Middle Eastern population.
On the other hand, those characters who criticize the US foreign policy are portrayed as the protagonists of the story who try to investigate the truth behind the official discourse from the government.
These two types of characters are on constant confrontation during all the film: the ones who support the US foreign policy tried
14
to cover the truth behind the Weapons of Mass Destruction programs whereas the ones who do not support the US foreign policy tried to reveal the truth of the reasons for going to the war.
Nevertheless, in The Kingdom all the CIA/US Army/FBI characters are
portrayed with the same features: intelligence, patriotism and a great
example of heroes of the nation who will fight against immoral and
violent people. An as a consequence, there is no ideological confrontation between these characters.
In tables 8 and 11, we can observe how each film threats the acts
of aggression from the CIA/FBI/US Army characters. In The Kingdom, all the acts of aggression are justified; they only kill others
for self-defence. On the other hand, in Green Zone, all characters commit unjustified and justified acts of aggression against
others: for example, they realized they have killed innocent people when they discovered that the place they had attacked was
a toilet factory instead of a store of weapons of mass destruction.
And finally, The Kingdom emphasizes the image of the FBI as a united team working together for the same objective. However, Green
Zone criticizes this point of view showing the disagreements between the different members from the US Army. That fact can be
observed in the dialogue between Roy Miller and Martin Brown:
R: “I thought we all were from the same side” M: “Don’t be naive”.
Q (3) How are Muslims being portrayed in these movies?
The Kingdom
Table 12: Table of content for research question 2.
15
Table 13: Table of content for research question 2.
Table 14: Table of content for research question 2.
Green Zone
Table 15: Table of content for research question 2.
16
Table 16: Table of content for research question 2.
Table 17: Table of content for research question 2.
In both films we can observe two different kind of Middle Eastern characters: “Good” Muslims and “Bad” Muslims.
In The Kingdom, the “Good” Muslims are the Arabia Saudi Army
who helped the FBI to solve the investigation whereas the “Bad”
Muslims are the Islamic terrorists whose objective is to kill innocent
people. So, the message that The Kingdom sends to the audience
is that Middle Eastern population who act and think as the US is
“Good” and people who don’t act and think as them are terrorist.
On the other hand, in Green Zone they do a different division:
“Good” Muslims are represented by Freddy, an Iraqui who helped the US Army as an interpreter but he is not agreeing with all
the decisions and actions made by them. One of the most famous sentences from Freddy in Green Zone is when he told Roy
Miller “Is not for you to decide what happens here”. “Bad” Muslims are portrayed with Al-Rawi character and his followers, who
represents the anger of Iraqui in response to the US occupation.
17
As we can observe in tables 14 and 17, in The Kingdom the acts
of violence from “Good” Muslims and “Bad” Muslims are represented as the same way as the acts of violence from the
FBI: The violence from the Saudi State Police is justified whereas the violence from Al-quaeda members is not justified.
In Green Zone, the acts of aggression from “Good” Muslims and
“Bad” Muslims do not follow a clear structure as in The Kingdom: We
can observe how the violence of “Bad” Muslims is justified and unjustified and how “Bad” Muslims do not commit acts of aggression
against US Army.
18
Conclusions
The aim of this research was to observe the differences between two films that show
two different ways to explain the US intervention in the Middle Eastern countries: The
version from The Kingdom which has been influenced by the CIA and supports the official discourse from the US government and the version from Green Zone which has not
been influenced by the CIA and criticizes the official discourse from the US government.
These two different points of view lead us to the conclusion that the message about the US foreign policy that will be transmitted to the audience depends on the ideology behind the direction and the production of the film.
On the one hand, in The Kingdom the message that wants to be transmited to the
audience is:
The US is a united nation who should interve the Middle Eastern countries as they don’t have enought tools to fight against terrorism for themselves.
The US has a united army team willing to die for eliminate the violence in the
world.
The US fights against one clear enemy: Al-quaeda, a terrorist group who based their irrational violence to the extrem religion.
On the other hand, the message that Green Zone wants to transmit to their audience is:
The US government lies about the programs of weapons of mass destruction and hides relevant information to the American citizens and to the US
army. That means the reasons for going to the war are not known for everyone.
The methods used by the US Army when they interve the Middle Eastern countries are not always moral, and they are seriously questioned. For
example they threat two important topics like the torture and the racism.
The world population should pay more attention to all the Iraq citizens that are suffering the war as the American citizens and US Army.
The main conclusion that this research wants to transmit is that despite we live
in the western countries where the freedom seems to lead our lives, the government’s influence in the media it is a topic that is still present in newspaper, television or cinema. For that reason, we should be more critic with all the opinions and information we receive from the media every day, and try to built
our opinion of the world affairs contrasting information from different media.
19
Sources
Crenshaw, Martha (2006) La guerra contra el terrorismo: ¿Están ganando los Estados Unidos?. Área: Terrorismo International.
Dodds, Klaus. (2008) Hollywood and the popular geopolitics of the war on terror.
Freedman, Des; Kishan, Daya (2012) Media&terrorism global perspectives.
Global Policy Forum. (2011) War on Terrorism. Retrieved 2015-09-06 from: https://www.globalpolicy.org/war-on-terrorism.html
Kumar, Deepa; Kundnani, Arun (2014) Imagining national security: the cia, hollywood, and
the war on terror, vol. 26 issue 2, p72-83. 12p. , database: communication & mass media
complete.
Malalana Ureña, Antonio (2014) La exégesis de la guerra global contra el terrorismo a través
del cine y la televisión.
20
21