I’ve always loved Oscar season. Don’t get me wrong — I understand how frivolous it may seem to some: Rich, famous people giving little gold statues to other rich, famous people. But to me, I see it as a celebration of an art form and the people who work to understand and explain the human condition through cinema.
Movies are an opportunity to explore the lives and areas of the world otherwise not easily available to the audience. They can be passports to a better understanding of the human experience and in turn can fight preconceptions or overgeneralization.
However, in this award cycle, two movies completely reject these possibilities. “Argo” and “Zero Dark Thirty,” both nominated for Best Picture, demonize a race of people, their religion and their culture.
Both movies are set in the Middle East and are based on true stories centered around American characters. “Argo,” directed by Ben Affleck, is the story of the CIA’s effort to extract six fugitive Americans from Iran during the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis. The entire movie focuses on how the hapless American bureaucrats can escape the country without being recognized by the mobs of bearded Persian men.
In the movie, there is only a single Iranian character who does not seem intent on capturing and torturing the fugitives (Sahar, the housekeeper at the Canadian ambassador’s house). Otherwise, an entire race of people is made to look like a crazed mob, inherently dangerous to the lives of Americans.
“Zero Dark Thirty” is guilty of the same crime. In the movie, which chronicles the hunt for and assassination of Osama bin Laden, all Arabs are suspect. Again, there is a single Arab man who is “good” and appears on screen for less than a minute. But his small role does not counteract the negative typification of the rest of his race.
In one scene, “Zero Dark Thirty” even demonizes the full-length black abayas that are sometimes worn by Muslim women. CIA agents don the abayas as disguises to kill a suspected terrorist, but when the firefight begins, it becomes increasingly difficult to tell who is on which side. While these men in abayas do end up being on “our side,” they nonetheless continue the idea that Muslim women’s coverings are suspicious and are hiding places for violence.
Some may argue these generalization is necessary: Most movies need a clearly defined bad guy. While this may be true in the world of film, the specific typification of Arab and Persian Muslims as gun-toting terrorists has deeper ramifications in the world where the struggle between American troops and terrorists is very real.
The effect these movies have can be seen in the Twitter conversations about them. For example, tweets like “Zero Dark Thirty makes me want to shoot at Arabs with assault rifles” or “That awkward moment when you’re sitting in the movie theater for Zero Dark Thirty and the back two rows are filled with Arabs #DontKillMe” clearly demonstrate how the movie affected some viewers.
Instead of creating a discussion about the nuanced relations between the U.S. and the Arab world, these movies create hate and mistrust toward it. Notice the two tweets do not mention anything about mistrusting terrorists but instead are aimed at the Arab race as a whole.
“Zero Dark Thirty” and “Argo” are not alone: They are part of a larger trend that has been occurring for decades. Hollywood has been mixing the words “Arab,” “Muslim” and “violence” together for many years. The writers and executives have forgotten those words are mutually exclusive – just because one word applies to a character does not mean the others must also apply.
Actor Bashar Daas has been in Los Angeles for many years attempting to break into the film industry. Though he has been successful, the stereotyping in the movies frustrates him and makes it hard to find good roles.
"If it is really a good film, then it is always a terrorist role,” Daas told Reuters. “But I did not go to America to stab my people in the back.”
The movies have trained audiences to assume an Arab man with a gun is automatically a Muslim extremist bent on the destruction of America. Though typecasting is a shortcut to developing characters in movies, it soon becomes a shortcut to developing prejudice in the minds of audience members.
This award season, do not allow movies that create racism and stereotyping to triumph. Champion movies, instead, that explore other ways of life without condemning and generalizing.
Hopefully someday Hollywood will produce a movie that shows the other side of the Middle East. Maybe someday Hollywood will make a movie that emphasizes the peaceful side of Islam, the large majority practicing a faith that reflects this quote from the Koran: "…whosoever killeth a human being...it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind."
Post a comment
Start a discussion
Concurrence or rebuttal, if you have a strong opinion, let's hear it. The Maneater Forum seeks to publish a diversity of opinions and foster meaningful decision. Readers are encouraged to actively contribute to and develop new discussions. Add to ours, or make your own point.


Article comments
at 5:55 a.m.
Craig K.: Thank you for a thoughtful article. Hollywood has long been accused of sterotyping other cultures and remains behind the times for having us understand what is Middle East today. Middle East is not a monolithic culture. People of Middle East have now begun to stand up their dictators and are forcing change. For Hollywood to ignore this new wave and keep feeding us the old line is anachronistic. Continuous negative stereotyping is especially disappointing because we have so much invested in the Middle East and need the American people to also be exposed to the other side so we can make up our own mind rather than being fed the same line. Despite the boldness of Midde Easterners to take charge of their future, American people remain confused about the Middle East. If there is enough mud thrown on the wall, some of it just sticks. Hollywood should know this.
at 4:08 p.m.
Carl: The author should know that Tehran in 1979 was indeed hostage to a crazed and violent mob - not only against Americans, but even other non-Islamist groups that helped overthrow the Shah were then purged by the Islamists. About women's abayas being used as cover - its a commonly seen tactic across all theaters of violence - where men dress up in women's veils to spring a nasty surprise. The author cannot let common facts be eclipsed by her need for political correctness.
at 4:41 p.m.
Jake M: This article is extremely well written, but also very flawed. For one, Iranians are not Arab; they are Persian. Which to some, might point out a rather large flaw in an article that attempts to expose the racism in the movie industry, while simultaneously lumping two distinct ethnic groups into the same title as "Arab". Furthermore, the article uses "tweets" as a very reliable source of information on the cultural ethos. Though this should go without saying, the reliance upon a social network that also allows people to post such genius "How can I watch the Olympics if I am in America?", seems like pseudo journalism at best. I enjoyed other articles, however found this one very disappointing. Keep doing what you're doing.
at 1:33 a.m.
DAS: Very naive article. The writer looks like she was born sometimes after the Iranian hostage nightmare in the 70s.