The film Rules of Engagement (2000) and its director William Friedkin received many critiques and was very poorly received by viewers. The movie was not only criticized for its boring court room scenes, shoddy acting, and unconvincing dialogue, but also criticized for its tremendously unfair portrayal of the Yemeni people and Arabs in general. The movie was even condemned by the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee for being one of the most racist films ever made by Hollywood. Yet, all the critiques made did not do much stop viewers, and the film was still a box office hit. So why did this movie do so well with American viewers? The answer comes from the director himself, ironically, when he said in his in own memoir that Rules of Engagement “was a box office hit but many critics saw it as jingoism” (Friedkin 433). Whether it was intentional or not, the movie was a hit because it simply employed jingoism to easily relate to the irrational fears of the average American.
To discuss how the film employs jingoism, it must first be defined. Simply put jingoism is extreme chauvinism or nationalism marked especially by a belligerent foreign policy. More importantly, jingoism serves to strengthen nationalism through the otherization of another group people. In the movie, this done in a myriad of ways. Right off the bat, not having subtitles for the Yemeni protestors outside of the embassy already makes it difficult to relate to them. Later in the scene, the ambassador’s wife is telling her son that the protesters that they “just want attention” completely devaluing any reason they might have had to protest. If the viewers were informed of what the protesters were saying or why they were protesting in the first place. Furthermore, very few Arabs get to talk in the film except for the Yemeni doctor who spends almost half of his screen time translating a tape demanding all Muslims to kill Americans. Scenes like these depict the Yemeni people, and in turn all Arabs, as less than human. These scenes just further vilify the Arab people and desensitize viewers. In addition, they serve to further justify the slaughtering of 83 people by the soldiers in the movie and to justify the whole of American foreign policy in the Middle East. By doing so, it is easy to convey a distinct sense of nationalism.
Movies like this, of course, tie very much into the narrative proposed by the common orientalist bias of Hollywood. American viewers are expected to see Arabs being bad because most of American films that include Arabs show them as terrorists. The film simply exploits the preexisting jingoistic prejudice and religious bigotry that has been taught in Hollywood (Shaheen 21). There is one Arab character that is portrayed to be innocent of any conflict in Yemen in the film, and through her innocence she “may have broken down our stereotypes, well, she’s no better than those other Yemeni terrorists” (Jhally). Then it is no surprise why this movie was a box office hit in America. Rules of Engagement just says what Americans are already used to hearing a million times in Western art and depiction of the middle east: that Arabs are essentially terrorists (Said).
Works Cited
Friedkin, William. The Friedkin Connection: A Memoir. New York: Harper Collins,
2013. Print
Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People. Dir. Sut Jhally. Perf. Jack
Shaheen. 2006.
Rules of Engagement. Dir. William Friedkin. 2000
Shaheen, Jack G., and William Greider. Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a
People. New York: Olive Branch, 2001.
Said, Edward. “Islam Through Western Eyes.” The Nation 26 April 1980.
Through an Arabic Lens: the Intersection of Film and Culture 