Return to Main Page

REEL BAD ARABS

 

Step 4: Read Shaheen's description of Rules of Engagement (2000), which he also includes on his all-time Worst List for its negative portrayal of Arabs, then read the anonymous online review, the article about the film from the Virginian-Pilot, the text of the letter sent by Hussein Ibish, Communications Director of the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), to Paramount Pictures, and, finally, the Action Alert of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

 

Rules of Engagement

Tommy Lee Jones


"Rules Of Engagement" (2000).  Analysis by Shaheen, Reel Bad Arabs, pp. 404-6.

Samuel L. Jackson, Tommy Lee Jones, Ben Kingsley. Screenplay: Stephen Gaghan. Director: William Friedkin. Filmed in Morocco, in cooperation with the Moroccan government. This movie, one of the most blatantly anti-Arab scenarios of all time, is based on a story by former Secretary of the Navy James Webb. It was produced in cooperation with the US Department of Defense (DOD) and the US Marine Corps. The film, a gross defamation of the Yemeni, encourages viewers to hate Arab Muslims. Audiences embraced "Rules of Engagement"; it was number one over the opening weekend (7-9 April 2000), grossing $15 million. In some theaters viewers cheered as the marines gunned down the Yemeni. 

Scene: On screen: "San'a, [sic] Yemen" (the correct spelling is actually Sana'a). Ten minutes into the film, the camera reveals scores of violent Yemeni demonstrators outside the American embassy. A chanting mob of veiled women, bearded kuffiyeh-clad men with missing teeth, and unruly children toss rocks, throw firebombs, and brandish anti-US banners, written in Arabic. All raise their fists. Positioned away from the crowd of protestors, some Yemeni snipers appear on rooftops; they fire away at the Americans trapped inside the embassy; bullets narrowly miss the US ambassador (Kingsley). To the rescue, Marine Colonel Childers (Jackson). Three helicopters deliver the marines to the embassy compound. Abruptly, Yemeni snipers begin firing. Three marines are fatally shot&mdashthe camera displays the bloodied marine casualties. Incessant firing from the Yemeni endangers the rescue mission. As Childers and his men are pinned down, the colonel orders his marines to open fire. Questions a captain, "Are you ordering me to fire into the crowd?" Affirms Childers, "Yes. Waste the mother-fuckers!" Bodies of 83 dead Yemeni fill the screen. As several rooftop Yemeni snipers fire at the marines and riddle the American flag, viewers assume the snipers killed three marines, and that the angry civilian demonstrators were unarmed, innocent victims. This scene lasts 15 minutes.

Note: No such violence directed at American marines has ever occurred at a US embassy in Yemen, a nation with whom the US has had diplomatic relations for decades. Yemen, population 16 million, sits on the southeastern tip of the Arabian Peninsula....

 

Since 1980, the US Department of Defense has been actively involved with motion pictures vilifying Arabs. What's happening, here? Assuming that screenplays are given to the military in advance are there any guidelines that enable those reading the scripts to approve/disapprove movies that denigrate peoples?       

 


Anonymous Online Review from "The Reel McCoy"
... This movie does deal with "no man's land" and how our armed forces (in this case, the Marines) must make tough decisions in the heat of battle....I guess what I really came away from this movie with is this: I am quite relieved that I have never been in such a situation where the life or death of someone (or a group of people) was in question. Some situations are so complicated that any decision made could easily be condemned, and not even hindsight could make the picture any clearer. And yet, some people have to make decisions like this in a split second while under immense pressure. Hence, we have the "Rules of Engagement," which are used to train, guide, and prepare those who must face such circumstances. And, we also learn, they are also used to judge those very same people after such a decision is made.

... [The film] paints for us not just one, but two, combat situations in which questionable (to say the least) decisions are made. I have already heard some complaints about this movie, however, in that it does not pass judgment decisively enough on the characters in this film. I have no idea what they are talking about. First of all, this movie involves a trial, and a decision is made by the jury. Secondly, I feel that movies which blindly lead you into taking one standpoint against the other in a controversial subject matter are annoying, simplistic, and bad movies. Personally, I prefer to think things over for myself, form my own opinion, and then discuss it with my friends. . . . I don't know what it was, but I don't think that I would watch this movie a second time... However, to contradict myself, I absolutely loved one particular scene of the movie. It was a fight scene. But not just any fight scene. We get to see Tommy Lee Jones and Samuel L. Jackson beat the crap out of each other. And what is great is that they do not have fists of steel nor the endurance of marathon runners. They are pathetic middle-aged men beating themselves up. It was awesome and refreshingly real.

Which brings me to the real draw of this movie: the featured actors. Tommy Lee Jones and Samuel L. Jackson are two of the best, and they remind us of that fact with their superb performances here. ... The only bad thing that I could possibly say about casting Thomas and Sammy is that they look really old in the flashback to 1969 in Vietnam ... As for the courtroom drama aspect of the film, this movie was very entertaining. Thomas L. Jones, even though he was portrayed as somewhat of a hapless loser, couldn't hold back that quick tongue when it came to grilling the head of the NSA....

thumbs up!Good movie. I probably wouldn't rush out to see it again, but I did enjoy seeing it this once.

The Virginian Pilot, April 5, 2000 pE1    COPYRIGHT 2000 The Dialog Corporation

RULES OF ENGAGEMENT. FORMER NAVY SECRETARY WHO WROTE ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY AT FIRST OBJECTED TO FILM VERSION, THEN MADE PEACE WITH IT.  Mal Vincent.

Rules of Engagement: Directives issued by competent military authority which delineate the circumstances and limitations under which United States forces will initiate and/or continue combat engagement with other forces encountered. Department of Defense. Dictionary of Military Terms.

IN A QUITE DIFFERENT world from the Cold War, or any other past war, are we sending young Americans into harm's way with their arms tied? When can they fire back? A new war movie poses the question in a way that has drawn friendly fire even from the man who wrote it and, in the end, emerges as a warning against a foreign policy that requires American armed forces to establish a "presence" as a "peace keeper" even when things go hostile.

Rules of Engagement stars Samuel L. Jackson as a U.S. Marine guard who is court-martialed for allegedly breaking the so-called "rules of engagement" during the siege of an American embassy. The scene is an attack on the U.S. Embassy at Yemen. A 30-year Marine veteran (played by Jackson) is sent in to rescue the U.S. ambassador (played by Ben Kingsley, Oscar winner for "Gandhi"). Things go wrong. Sniper fire threatens the Marines. Feeling that the crowd, most of whom are throwing rocks, are armed, Jackson's character authorizes firing.

A few hours later, the ambassador's safety is secured, but three Marines are dead along with 80 Yemeni men, women and children killed by Marine gunfire. Fearing an expansion of tensions, politicians pull away from the Marine commander, claiming he broke the rules of engagement, which require, among other things, that U.S. forces may fire only when fired upon and, even when firing, may use weapons only equivalent to those of the attackers. Jackson's character seems to have been left out in the political cold.

The film is fictional, but according to former Navy Secretary James Webb, it could happen. He should know. Webb is one of the most highly decorated Marines of the Vietnam War&mdashawarded the Navy Cross, the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts after nine months of continuous combat in Vietnam. ..."This is the only really pro-military movie made since the World War II years," he said when we reached him for comment. "Hollywood has used the military as a whipping boy since World War II. The military, in films, has represented the Establishment, something that it was, and is, popular to rebel against. I include films like Platoon. The Great Santini is the only movie I know of that got it right when it deals with living military. But Rules of Engagement is the first film that explores the idea that we're sending 19-year-old squad leaders out there to make a decision within four seconds that will affect the rest of their lives. These kids are being asked to make decisions that are more important than any head of a modern business empire will ever have to make&mdashand they're in a situation in which they know they may not be backed."

Webb is not totally happy with Rules of Engagement, even though he wrote the original screenplay. In the 10 years it has taken to get it produced, the studio has made changes in order to make it more "dramatic" and "commercial"&mdashtwo words he doesn't like. "I've worn the uniform. I've been wounded a couple of times. That's where my loyalty lies&mdashwith the Marines. I know this is just a film, not a documentary, but there were a few things I knew wouldn't have happened."

When Paramount Studios took over the project from Universal and producer Scott Rudin lost control, the project went to director Billy Friedkin. Another screenwriter was brought in. Eventually Webb took his name off the project, saying there were scenes he couldn't stomach. Now, after changes, he is ready to support the film, although he gets only a "story by" credit while the script itself is credited to Stephen Gaghan.

At issue are two scenes. The film was to open with Jackson's Marine killing a North Vietnamese prisoner in order to stop a Vietnamese commander from issuing an order for attack. The event would never have happened, Webb said. "Marines don't assassinate prisoners." (The scene was eventually edited). The other scene involved a North Vietnamese witness who testifies against Jackson later while living in California. (Webb said a North Vietnamese officer would not be living comfortably among South Vietnamese in California). The address of the Vietnamese officer was omitted....

For his script, Webb chose an attack on a U.S. embassy "because it could happen." He chose Yemen "because it is sufficiently remote. ...." The film has two themes Webb said he wants to shine through:

1. Loyalty. "Once in the Marine Corps, it is a lifetime thing. Some of my best friends today are men who were in my unit in Vietnam. If you don't understand this degree of loyalty, you won't understand the position that Samuel L. Jackson took in the film."

2. The rules of engagement. The rules dictate when soldiers may use force against a perceived enemy and when they must hold back, no matter the risk. When the crucial moment arrives, a split-second decision must be made or comrades will die. "This is a way of defining American military response to a hostile environment given a certain situation. It varies according to the political environment. It's not a set group of rules."

"World War II, for example, was a total war. We developed a nuclear weapon and we used it. The goal was to win the war and get it over."... The "rules" in any given situation, he said, "are established by military leaders in committee with political leadership. The question, always, is 'Will this action expand the trouble?'"...

"When we send people into harm's way, they should be allowed to defend themselves. But then, there's the sliding scale of concern. It's like life insurance. If you don't insure yourself in any given crisis, that's the very place something will happen. Containment is the name of the game today." Politicians and Washington are something of the villains in Rules of Engagement, particularly a national security adviser who destroys evidence to be sure Marine Jackson will take the blame for the Yemen deaths rather than U.S. policy.

Webb questions the film's plotting. "Anyone in that position of leadership in Washington would know he couldn't get away with these tactics. He would be caught. The checks and balances are more in place than the movie suggests." Webb, who has made peace with the movie and plans to film his novel Fields of Fire in Vietnam this year, said, "I find Rules of Engagement satisfying emotionally, but maybe not legally. It is, after all, a movie. I wouldn't want Hollywood filming my life story. It's no telling what they'd do with it. But the best thing about this movie is that you will not feel sure of anything when you leave. That's the way it should be. The 'rules' are not certain. That's the entire point."

Woefully, he admitted, "There were times when I ordered my men to shoot back. They knew I'd take the responsibility. That's the way it had to be at that moment. The next moment is different."

FULL TEXT OF ADC COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR HUSSEIN IBISH'S LETTER TO PARAMOUNT PICTURES:

April 11, 2000
Ms. Sherry Lansing
Chair Paramount Motion Pictures Group

Dear Ms. Lansing:
On January 27, 2000, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), the nation's largest Arab-American membership organization, approached Paramount Pictures with serious concerns about "Rules of Engagement," which were raised by images included in trailers for the film which were then available. We reiterated these concerns during numerous telephone conversations with Paramount Executive Vice-President Blaise Noto. Our concerns were never directly addressed, and our repeated requests to view the film were ignored. In spite of this almost total lack of cooperation from Paramount, we continued to hope against hope that "Rules of Engagement" would not be defamatory against Arabs, and showing the utmost restraint, withheld judgment until viewing the movie in a commercial cinema after its general release.

I have just returned from that viewing. Nothing in my 36 years as an Arab-American, and my years as a graduate student studying literature and popular culture at the University of Massachusetts, and my one and a half years as Communications Director of ADC, during which I thought I had seen it all, prepared me for the explosion of hatred that burst through the screen during "Rules of Engagement." The incessant torrent of negative, hateful and harmful images of Arabs, Arab culture and the Arab world in "Rules of Engagement" is unequaled by anything I have previously encountered. I tell you frankly that, as an Arab-American, and a fairly thick-skinned one at that, the experience of watching "Rules of Engagement" was like being physically beaten.

"Rules of Engagement" contains so many negative portrayals of Arabs that it would be quite impossible to list and analyze all of them. On the other hand, sympathetic or positive images of Arabs are easy to list: there are none. Among the objectionable images are:

These images are repeated time and again throughout the movie. For most Americans who see it, "Rules of Engagement" will contain the most "information" about Yemen that they will ever receive in an hour and a half, and possibly in an entire lifetime. Why Paramount chose Yemen for this outrageous exercise in national character assassination and slander, we may never know. But the fact remains that you have done so.

In all honesty, I never thought that a film produced in the present day United States could be this unabashedly racist. Mr. Noto's letter of March 30, the only formal communication ADC has received from Paramount during our long months of fruitless effort to engage in a constructive dialogue, claims "'Rules of Engagement' is not anti-Arabic, anti-Moroccan or anti-Yemenite but rather anti-extremist. ... This film is not a negative portrayal of any government or people," Mr. Noto writes. In fact, "Rules of Engagement" does not really belong in the same category with most films that include negative or racist portrayals of Arabs. The film does not focus on a terrorist group or band of fanatics, but casts its aspersions far wider by explicitly and directly defaming a whole culture and society. "Rules of Engagement" can only be considered in the same light as other films whose raison d'etre is to deliberately and systematically vilify an entire people. The spirit of raw hatred that animated films such as "Birth of a Nation" and "The Eternal Jew" once again dances across the screen in "Rules of Engagement."

In retrospect, it is easy to understand why Paramount stonewalled all our attempts at dialogue and refused even the elementary courtesy of a pre-release screening. It is because this movie is absolutely indefensible in its portrayal of Arabs and Arab culture. These are the images that define the Arab as the quintessential "other" in contemporary American culture, that depict all Arabs, men, women and children, as the inherent, irrational and implacable terrorist enemy of the United States. As "Rules of Engagement" so charmingly puts it, these are "motherfuckers" who should be "wasted." These are indeed the images that lead to the high incidence of hate crimes against Arab Americans, that produce airport profiling, that have led to the use of secret evidence in American courts, that make the everyday lives of Arabs in the United States that much more difficult and dangerous.

No apology can undo the damage done by "Rules of Engagement." Sadly Paramount's name will be forever associated with this truly appalling film.

Yours,
Hussein Ibish
Communications Director, ADC

ACTION ALERT of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) on Rules of Engagement

Rules of Engagement stereotypes Muslims
(Washington, DC, 4/11/2000)

CAIR today called on Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen to amend his department's policy so that the Pentagon does not associate itself with anti-Muslim stereotyping in the film industry. That call came in response to many complaints CAIR received from concerned Muslim moviegoers about the recently released Paramount Pictures film Rules of Engagement. ...

In a letter to Secretary Cohen, CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad wrote:

"This film, which was produced with the cooperation of the Department of Defense, seems to justify the killing of Muslim men, women and even children. (In a recent screening of the film, audience members cheered and laughed when the American troops opened fire on the crowd of demonstrators.) It also offers a very negative and inaccurate image of Muslims and Islamic beliefs. Many media outlets seem to agree with this assessment.

"CNN movie critic Paul Clinton called the film 'blatantly racist, using Arabs as cartoon-cutout bad guys, and unrealistic in its depiction of a conflict in the Middle East.'

"According to the Austin American-Statesman (4/7/2000): 'Seems the Yemenis are upset about the U.S. presence in the Persian Gulf. That's all we know, and director William Friedkin and screenwriter Stephen Gaghan seem to believe that that's all we need to know, since, you know, we're talking about Arabs here. The words 'terrorists' and 'jihad' are tossed in to reinforce the stereotype.'

"The Desert News (4/9/2000) said the film shows the Yemeni people as 'American-hating terrorists, including a scene that shows a small child aiming a weapon at U.S. Marines.'...

"Mr. Secretary, the average moviegoer who sees this film could come away with the impression that Muslims are a dirty and barbaric people who have a 'duty' to kill Americans whenever possible. This is offensive in the extreme and will inevitably have a negative impact on the lives of ordinary American Muslims who are an integral part of this society. Also, the perception of the Defense Department's association with anti-Muslim stereotyping does not serve American interests in and relations with the Islamic world.

"Rules of Engagement is not the first film produced in cooperation with the Defense Department that stereotyped Muslims and Arabs. In recent years we have seen films such as True Lies and Executive Decision portray Muslims and Arabs as irrational terrorists who only wish to kill innocent Americans.

"While movie producers have the right to produce films with bigoted and stereotypical content, I believe it is inappropriate that our government and American taxpayers participate in these productions through use of military equipment, advisers and locations.

"I would therefore respectfully request that the Department of Defense amend its policies on cooperation with film producers to mandate screening of requests for religious and ethnic stereotyping. A multicultural civilian advisory committee could assist this screening process."

CAIR Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper added, "We are not in favor of censorship. In fact, it is the movie industry that engages in censorship every time it fails to show the reality of the Muslim experience and instead offers a narrow and distorted view of Islam."

Step 4 (cont'd): Now view these three scenes from the film.

 

Launch Videos:

 

arrowGO TO STEP 5

 

Return to Steps 1-2

Return to Step 3

Return to Main Page