1
The Oriental Voice In Occidental America
A reaction to post 9/11 Islamophobia
Anne-Claire Engels anneclaireengels@outlook.com
Student Number: 6350232
Faculty of Humanities: American Studies Thesis Advisor: Prof. Dr. R.V.A. Janssens
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction
3
2. My Name Is Khan
16
3. Amreeka
26
4. The Citizen
35
5. Conclusion
44
6. Bibliography
51
Title page picture: Still from the film My Name Is Khan. Main character Rizvan Khan, an Indian Muslim, is praying at a busstop somewhere in the United States.
3
INTRODUCTION
Prior to the events of 9/11 the Arab and South Asian American community used to go mostly unnoticed in the United States and was regarded as harmless by society. Even though some persistent stereotypes were already around, these were relatively ‘harmless.’ Ever since 9/11 however, the stereotypes of Arab and South Asian Americans became viliainized and
scrutinized, depicting the Arab and South Asian immigrant as radical and dangerous. Regardless of an individual’s country of origin or religion, a certain physical trademark or a last name can be enough to fall prey to stigmatization and ‘Islamophobia.’
The media are an important example of where this recent tendency has manifested itself. Not only in the news, but also in mass media like films and television series has the ‘Arab’ become a stereotypical villain, a radical terrorist. I believe the media, and mass media in particular, can represent a certain group’s situation or can have a major influence on the public’s feelings, opinions and attitudes towards certain (political) issues and groups in
society.1 From that perspective it is worth taking a closer look at how certain groups represent themselves and others. This thesis will look at how the Arab and South Asian communities in the United States have represented themselves in reaction to post 9/11 Islamophobia.
In order to understand how the ‘West’ and the ‘East’ have represented each other I will engage with theories about ‘Orientalism’ and ‘Occidentalism.’ To explore the ‘Orientalist’ / ‘Occidentalist’ discours set in a modern day environment I will use Edward Said’s concept of ‘Orientalism’ and Ian Buruma’s and Avishai Margalit’s concept of ‘Occidentalism’. Before going into that discours, I will first explain the concept of ‘Islamophobia’ more clearly and lay bare its relation to American society and the Arab/South Asian American community. I will then further explore the ideas of scholars, like Mounira Soliman, Moustafa Bayoumi and Ajay Gehlawat, who look more closely into the Orientalism/Occidentalism discours when it comes to popular media, Arab and South Asian film in particular.
Islamophobia and the Relation Between ‘East’ and West’
‘Islamophobia’ is a complicated term. Not surprisingly it has become a contested term in recent years. Generally a ‘phobia’ is defined as a persistent fear, typically disproportional to
4
the actual danger.2 This means that a phobia is something unfounded and unrealistic. Just like a fear for spiders, heights or water could be labeled as unrealistic. Islamophobia, therefore, would suggest that fear for the Islam is disproportional to the actual danger and therefore unrealistic. It suggests it is a mental condition.
I am however not suggesting that Islamophobia is a medical condition, or something completely unrealistic. In this thesis, Islamophobia must be seen as a form of ‘xenophobia’ in the way sociologist Guide Bolaffi described it in ‘The Dictionary of Race, Ethnicity and
Culture.’ Bolaffi explains how xenophobia is a fear of the unknown by an individual or a
group, which is expressed in two kinds a defensive reactions.
Bolaffi states that the first reaction is ‘at the root of various kinds of nationalism, and is an exaltation of one's own culture, coupled with an effort to banish or even destroy any diverse expressions, ranging from different languages to different ways of eating, in the name of a presumed cultural purity.’3 This means that there is no place for new or strange customs. Each ‘new comer’ or immigrant should completely assimilate to the establishment in order to be accepted. While this could possibly be achieved when talking about language, religion or ‘ways of doing things,’ it gets harder when individuals differ in aspects like skin color.
The second reaction Bolaffi mentions can result in a superficial exaltation of the ‘other’ culture. The culture becomes associated with incorrect, exotic and stereotyped attributes and therefore ‘emptying the culture in question of any depth of meaning.’4 This means that the notion is created that the ‘other’ and his or her values, customs and traditions are worth less than one’s own. Ultimately these reactions interfere with the establishment of a decent peer relationship in which a mutual feeling of equality and respect can be reached.
When using the word Islamophobia I refer to the increased negative attitude towards Arab or Arab looking individuals in American society after 9/11. I agree with Runnymede
Trust director, Robin Richardson, who wrote in his article ‘Islamophobia or anti-Muslim racism – or what? that Islamophobia not only constitutes a fear of a specific religion, it is also
linked to political and economic conflicts and a fear or a strong dislike of individuals with a
2 Edmund J. Bourne, The Anxiety & Phobia Workbook 5th ed. (Oakland: New Harbinger Publications, 2011),
50–51.
3 Guido Bolaffi, Dictionary of Race, Ethnicity and Culture. (Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2003), 332-333. This work is
not an actual dictionary but rather a historical account of how certain problematic terms have been used.
5
different skin color, persons with immigrant status.5 This attitude is often unfounded, for many people affected by Islamophobia are not Muslim to begin with, often not even Arab and least of all radical terrorists.
Edward Said’s ‘Orientalism’ and Ian Buruma & Avishai Margalit’s ‘Occidentalism’
In 1978 Edward Said explained his concept of ‘Orientalism’ in his book of the same name. With the term ‘Orientalism’ Said means ‘several things, all of them interdependent.’6 The first meaning is an academic one, encompassing all of those who study and write about the Orient. Said’s second meaning of ‘Orientalism’ is more an ‘imaginative’ one. It encompasses the general way of thinking about the ontological binary between East (Orient) and West (Occident). The third and final meaning is where the first two meanings interchange; it is ‘Orientalism as a Western style for dominating, restructuring, and having authority over the Orient.’7 Because of this dominant style the Orient is not free in its actions or thoughts. The Orient has no voice in representing itself. Said argues that Orientalism is a powerful and imperialistic Western ideological creation. It is a justification for academics, politicians and governments to colonize and deal with the ‘otherness’ of the Arab.8
This kind of ‘Orientalism’ can be found in Western cultural representations such as TV series and Hollywood films. The theme of the Arab as a villain became especially popular after 9/11. A few examples of these are films like ‘Argo,’ ‘Zero Dark Thirty,’ ‘American Sniper’ and the television series ‘Homeland.’
Ian Buruma and Avishai Margalit built further on Said’s theory of ‘Orientalism’ in their book ‘Occidentalism; A Short History of Anti-Westernism.’ Where studies of Orientalism focus on a Western gaze upon the East, Occidentalism means the exact opposite; the Eastern, generally negative, gaze upon the West. Buruma and Margalit describe Occidentalism as a set of stereotypes, consisting of simplified ideas about the West and even ‘The dehumanizing picture of the west painted by its enemies.’9
According to Buruma and Margalit, Occidentalism is a reaction to Westernization. First of all it consists of a certain intellectual aversion to the rootlessness and
5 Robin Richardson, “Islamophobia or anti-Muslim racism – or what? – concepts and terms revisited.” Insted
(2012): accessed May 19, 2016, http://www.insted.co.uk/anti-muslim-racism.pdf
6 Edward Said, Orientalism. (New York City: Pantheon Books, 1978), 32. 7 Said, Orientalism, 33.
8 Said, Orientalism, 33.
9 Ian Buruma and Avishai Margalit, Occidentalism: The West in the Eyes of Its Enemies. (London: Penguin
6
cosmopolitanism of the Western ‘city:’ ‘Hostility to the city is an aspect of Occidentalism, which reached a shocking climax on 11 September 2001 in the attack on New York and on what the city stood for, namely trade, capitalism and cosmopolitanism.’10
A second key aspect of Occidentalism, Buruma and Margalit point out, is the condemnation of Western values and characteristics, such as rationalism, arrogance and imperialism, opposed to good and pure ‘Oriental’ values.
Furthermore, Occidentalism stands for a certain hostility towards the faithless. Even though the United States is remarkably religious, in the eyes of the Islam every American is ‘faithless.’ Unlike the Islamic world, the West is seen as materialistic and faithless. When taken to the extreme, the West is sometimes even seen and/or portrayed as ‘savage and barbarous.’11 Buruma and Margalit explain how this leads to ‘Manichean’ thinking, dividing everything in good and bad, light and dark, love and hate. A strong line is drawn between East and West, good and evil, materialism/faithlessness and religion. These ‘dehumanized’
representations by the East can be found in their cultural expressions. One of the main functions of these stereotypes, the represented ‘other,’ is the affirmation of a shared identity of their own.
A point of critique that can be applied to both Said’s Orientalism and Buruma’s and Margalit’s Occidentalism is a lack of attention for either concepts when it comes to popular culture. Other scholars took the opportunity to fill this gap and research the ways in which the discourses of Orientalism and Occidentalism, and the political motives they can contain, in expressions of popular culture; for example, in Bollywood cinema.
Mounira Soliman’s Reverse Orientalism
In her article ‘The (Un)wanted American,’ Mounira Soliman studied Arab cinema to explore how Arab and Muslim Americans voice their grievances against untruthful representations and negative stereotypizations.12 She explains how after 9/11 Arab and Muslim Americans have been experiencing acts of persecution and a feeling of being unwanted in their own country. As writer and lecturer Jack Shaheen described in his book Reel Bad Arabs: How
Hollywood Vilifies a People after 9/11 a new stereotype emerged in the form of the ‘Reel Bad
10 Said, Orientalism, 33. 11 Said, Orientalism, 33.
12 Mounira Soliman, “The (Un)Wanted American: A Visual Reading of Ara and Muslim Americans,” Journal of
7
Arab.’13 The stereotype provides Americans a justification for discriminations against Arabs and Muslims, or Arab looking persons like South Asian immigrants, for the sake of national security.
In return, a completely contrary theme became popular in Arab and South Asian cinema. This was the story of the victimized immigrant, the South Asian, Arab and/or Muslim who left his or her country in pursuit of the ‘American dream,’ only to become disillusioned after a while because of the hostile and intolerant American. These immigrant films try to rectify misconceptions on the one hand, by procuring more positive images of the Arab or South Asian immigrant and often the Islam in their films. On the other hand these films represent more and more Americans, or American society, as the hostile ‘other.’
Because of both the Occident’s and the Orient’s representations of each other, Soliman detects an increase of suspicion and antagonism on both sides. This idea is shared by other scholars as well. For example, Moustafa Bayoumi wrote in his book How Does It Feel To Be
A Problem that before 2001 Arabs and Muslims were a mostly unknown group to most
Americans. The events of 9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq led most Americans to view these groups as ‘communities of suspicion.’14 Ever since, Arabs and Muslims have been misrepresented and stereotyped in American politics, culture and media. The same goes for South Asian immigrants, who are not Arab and often not even Muslim, for their physical appearance or names look Arab/Muslim to many Americans. This increase of negative misrepresentations in American media and film led to an increase of positive representations, proving the exact opposite, in Arab cinema.
Conflicting and Intertwining Eastern and Western Values in Cinema
Apart from the complicated Occidentalist/Orientalist binary there is another shift taking place in Arab and South Asian (American) cinema. A certain tendency towards ‘Westernization’ can be pointed out. Scholar Ajay Gehlawat illustrates this point in his article ‘The Gori in the Story,’ analyzing the South Asian genre of Bollywood: ‘in today’s Bollywood cinema one witnesses the beginnings of a shift in the dynamics of whiteness, in which what was
13 Jack Shaheen, Reel bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People (New York City: Olive Branch Press, 2001) 14 Moustafa Bayoumi, How Does It Feel To Be A Problem? Being Young and Arab in America (New York City:
8
previously framed as essentially Other is now slowly being assimilated into the melting pot.’15 What Gehlawat means with the ‘dynamics of whiteness’ is the way whiteness, implicating ‘Westerness,’ is more and more integrated in Bollywood. Where some elements used to be thought of as essentially ‘white’ (meaning ‘Western’/ ‘other’) such as: pale skin, women in jeans, clubbing and drinking etc, now these are more and more incorporated in the genre.
There are multiple explanations for this shift, as pointed out by certain scholars. The first explanation I would like to discuss is the increase in the seeking to attract a more diasporic audience with these films. Ways of doing this include: the use of both Arab/Hindi and English language; the dubbing or subtitling of the films; broader distribution; and using topics that speak to diasporic audiences like immigration and interracial relationships.
According to literary scholar Patricia O’Neill, after 9/11 there was a new desire for ‘visions of solidarity’ within Arab and South Asian nations, leaving ethnic tensions within the nation behind (such as the frictions between Hindus and Muslims in India).16
A second explanation for embracing Westernization in Arab and South Asian (American) film is the desire to prove the contrary of representations of the ‘evil Arab’ in American popular culture. Like professor in English and literature Mounira Soliman
suggested in her article ‘The (un)Wanted American.’ By expressly including representations of ‘good’ Arabs/South Asians and Muslims, showing the upsides of Arab/South Asian values and religion, viewers will hopefully adjust their image of the South Asian, Arab/Muslim to a more positive one. There even are films that represent characters of religious ‘moderateness’ and in doing so they adapt to what they feel American society accepts and desires from its citizens. The plots of these films often center around conflicts between moderate and fundamentalist Muslims, in which the moderate character ‘wins’ and the fundamentalist character ‘loses.’
Many films however ultimately seem to favor Orient values over Western values. In
‘The Gori in the Story’ theater and film scholar Ajay Gehlawat uses the stereotypical
character of the ‘gori’ to explain this idea. Today, many Arab and South Asian (American) films center around immigrants moving to American cities like New York and San Francisco. These narratives often include topics that deal with Western customs and traditions. Many of these films depict some sort of love triangle in which the male protagonist needs to choose
15 Ajay Gehlawat, “The Gori in the Story. The Shifting Dynamics of Whiteness in the Bollywood film,” TOPIA
26 (2011)
16 Patricia O’Neill, “Imagining Global India: Bollywood’s Transnational Appeal,” Continuum 27 (2013)
9
between the ‘gori’, the American(ized) white woman with Western (loose) values, or the traditional Arab/South Asian woman. While the protagonist chooses the ‘gori’ at first, he always ‘comes to his senses’ towards the end of the story. In the end the male protagonist always chooses the Arab/South Asian woman, thus condemning Western values after briefly having interacted with them and favoring traditional Arab/South Asian values instead.
Gehlawat argues that even though plot lines include Western customs and traditions like dating, going out in clubs, dressing in Western clothing, drinking alcohol and Western music, in the end the narrative always gives away a strong preference for traditional
Arab/South Asian customs and values. This type of film speaks to diasporic communities who recognize these immigrant situations the characters get involved in, but it also provides them with a strong sense of solidarity and national identity.
Orientalism and Occidentalism in Film Today
A lot has been said and written about the West’s representations of Oriental ‘others,’ for example in Edward Said’s book Orientalism which I discussed before. This thesis will engage with the exact opposite point of view. I will research the way Arab/South Asian Americans represent both themselves and white Americans in mass media products of their own making. My research will show how the Orientalism/Occidentalism discours has developed recently by looking at immigrant films. I have chosen to analyze both Arab and South Asian mass media products, even though they are quite different from each other. Both communities deal with the same issues, for in the eyes of many Americans they are one and the same. I wanted to find out what messages Arab and South Asian (American) films convey to their own
community and to American society. Furthermore, I wanted to see how these film relate to the present-day Orientalism vs. Occidentalism discours. Do they affirm the established
perspectives on Orientalism and Occidentalism as scholars like Edward Said and Ian Buruma and Avishai Margalit described them? Or are there new tendencies to be spotted in these films? The main research question this thesis will answer therefore is: How has the
Arab/South Asian American community represented itself and society around itself in film in light of modern day Islamophobia?
Other questions that are intrinsically linked to this questions include: How does the Arab American / South Asian American community represent itself? How has the Arab American / South Asian American represent white Americans? Do these films try to close the gap between American society and the Arab immigrant community? Or, do these films
10
contribute in maintaining the binary between ‘Occident’ and ‘Orient?’ How do these films relate to the present-day Orientalism/Occidentalism discours? It will turn out that there is a contradiction in the way the Arab and South Asian community has been representing itself and American society. In comparing three different movies I will point out noteworthy differences and similarities to find out how these films relate to the Orietalism and Occidentalism points of view.
Throughout this thesis I will argue that two contradicting tendencies are at work. On the one hand, through film, the Arab/South Asian American community tries to offer the Occident a more positive image of themselves as ‘normal’ human beings, instead of all being terrorists. This way they try to be accepted in American society and integrate more easyily. On the other hand these films often lapse into the same stereotypizations Western media use, depicting White Americans and their values as evil or ‘bad,’ while depicting Arab/South Asian Americans and their values as heroes and ‘good.’
Therefore, ultimately the binary between ‘East’ and ‘West,’ the ‘Orient’ and the ‘Occident’ is maintained. The only difference is that now the West is not the only one with a particular ‘gaze’ on the Oriental other. The Orient community now has its own ‘gaze’ on the Occident community. Where the Oriental other used to be ‘voiceless’ in the past, now their voices are more and more to be heard and in these a direct ‘reverse Orientalism’ or
‘Occidentalism’ can be made out.
These are both remarkable tendencies that seem to take place simultaneously in Arab and South Asian American cinema. The ‘Westernization’ of the genre on the one hand is cleary present while the sharpening of the binary between ‘East’ and ‘West’ on the other is too. This thesis will research the ways Arab and South Asian American self-representation and representation of Islomophobia has developed after the events of 9/11. By analyzing three specific films this thesis will zoom in on representations of American Islamophobia and a sharpened East/West binary on one side and tendencies of ‘Westernization’ and ‘integration’ on the other side. In doing so I will show that the ‘Oriental other’ has a desire to become more ‘Westernized,’ to prove itself against Orientalist prejudice. Meanwhile the Orientalist gaze is reversed through Occidentalism, which sharpens the binary between the ‘Orient’ and
‘Occident,’ to fulfill a certain need of the Arab American and South Asian American community for representations of cultural and ethnic solidarity and identity.
I feel this topic is important because Islamophobia is still a major issue in America. Tensions between ‘Western’ and ‘Eastern’ communities seem to have increased over the last
11
several years. Furthermore, I believe looking into expressions of popular culture, like these immigrant films, offer insights into what popular belief upholds. It reflects how people feel, while simultaneously these films shape the way people should or must feel about certain topics and peoples.
Case Studies
I will support my argument with the help of three cases studies, or rather three Arab and South Asian (American) films I have selected for my research. In order to illustrate my argument and to keep it managable I have selected three specific films out of many other possible films. In all of the films17 I have seen, basically the same principles and phenomena can be detected. The three films used in this thesis form a comprehensible representation of the wider genre of Arab and South Asian immigrant film.
I have chosen to study three relatively recent films. The films were all, in their own way, successful, for example at international film festivals. Each of the selected films is set in the United States and revolves around themes of immigration, American Islamophobia, religious intolerance and hostility towards Arabs and Muslims (and Arab looking individuals like South Asian immigrants) after the events of 9/11. An in-depth analysis will show that each film clearly shows signs in favor of integration and ‘Westernization’ on the one hand and a hardening in the binary of ‘us’ versus ‘them’ on the other hand. There are however, slight differences amongst the selected films such as their perspectives on the future, or the cause of the existing prejudices. Also, they each offer different solutions to the problem. Where one film professes ‘moderateness’ and integration, another professes solidarity amongst ethnic, racial and religious minorities opposed to the white American majority.
‘My Name Is Khan’ by Indian American director Karan Johar was a huge success, both in India and abroad. The movie was screened at the Berlin International Film Festival, it has won 21 awards around the globe and it was nominated for many more. The plotline centers around Rizvan Khan, a Muslim Indian man with Asperger’s syndrome. After he moves to the United States, he marries a Hindi American girl named Mandira. Not long after the wedding, the events of 9/11 take place and the narrative shows how Americans around them slowly turn against them. The film is interesting for it is the most unnuanced in
17 Other interesting films dealing with themes of Islamophobia, immigration and the Arab and/or South Asian
community in the United States are:‘Kurbaan,’ ‘New York,’ ‘American East,’ ‘Detroit Unleaded,’ Hope and a Little Sugar,’ ‘The Visitor.’
12
comparison with the other film. It bluntly represents Americans as villains, in the form of government officials, school teachers, neighbours and the media. The film, being a modern Bollywood, is very dramatic and uses many clichés. It is the most traditional, or most loyal to ‘Oriental’ traditions in its message in comparison to the other films. My Name Is Khan is the most clear example of a ‘reverse Orientalism.’ It strictly poses the Orient in opposition to the Occident.
In the film there is no room for reconciliation between the United States and the
immigrant. Morevore, this film is interesting because the director, Karan Johar, professed how he tried to bring across a message of goodness and humanity. As one of the characters
proclaimed in the beginning of the film: ‘Remember one thing, son. There are only two kinds of people in this world. Good people who do good deeds. And bad people who do bad. That's the only difference in human beings. There's no other difference. Understood?’ While this is true for the Hindus, Muslims and other minorities in the story, it is not for the Americans in the story. White Americans remain hostile and intolerant.
The second film this thesis will look into is ‘Amreeka,’ an independent film from 2009 directed by the Palestinian American film maker Cherien Dabis. This film specifically is interesting for it illustrates perfectly how Americans supposedly see a threat in every person with an ‘Oriental’ appearance, name or home country. In this film a Christian family is the victim of Islamophobia, just because they look Arab, and thus Muslim, in the eyes of
Americans. The film illistrutes a lack of knowledge and a lack of a willingness to understand on the side of the ‘Occidental oppressor.’
The plot centers around Muna, a Christian single mother living in Palastine with her son, Fadi. After winning the United States green card lottery they move to Chicago, Illinois where Muna’s sister, Raghda, and her family already live. Life in the United States used to be good for them until the events of 9/11. The plot shows how Muna and her family struggle to overcome hostility and discrimination. The film’s narrative doesn’t really have a beginning or an end, it focusses on the quotidian aspects of life. Making the characters a-political and easy to relate to. Ultimately, in this film there is no happy ending or solution to the family’s problems. The film seems a little bit more nuanced then My Name Is Khan, partly perhaps because the narrative is less dramatic.
It is a little bit harder to determine the message of this film than that of ‘My Name Is Khan.’ There are some aspects that strongly suggest Dabis tries to offer the viewer a more postive image of the Arab as a ‘normal’ human being, with the same daily struggles
13
Americans deal with, this way countering misrepresentation and underrepresentation. Trying to prove the opposite of what society believes about a certain group would suggest a desire of this group to fit into this society. However, by portraying white Americans as inherently evil and hostile, lacking proper values and by portraying Arabs as inherently good with decent values, the traditional binary between ‘Occident’ and ‘Orient’ is maintained. By portraying individuals belonging to other specific minorities as being ‘good’ too, the film suggests that white Americans are incapable of understanding and accepting the Oriental ‘other.’ This way, the film maker does not put forth a solution to the current problem. She only depicts the current situation, wherein the Arab community is the victim and has no agency, laying the ball in America’s court.
The final film I will discuss is The Citizen (2009) directed by Syrian American film maker Sam Khadi. Just like the other two films, the narrative centers around an Arab immigrating to the United States. The character of Ibrahim Jarrah wins the United States green card lottery and moves from Lebanon to New York City the day before 9/11. Just like in the other movies, the character struggles with hostility, discrimation and Islamophobia while trying to integrate in the United States in order to start a new life and chase the American dream. I have chosen this film specifically, because it is the most nuanced in its message. There are certain elements in this film, that the other films lack, which give the viewer an image of a better future in which both cultures are peacefully integrated.
Although the film contains some of the same anti-American aspects as My Name Is
Khan and Amreeka, it is clearly more nuanced. It does portray most white Americans as
hostile and Islamophobic, but there is also room for tolerant white Americans. This film too, depicts solidarity amongst minorities, but these individuals can also be flawed. Just like other Arab immigrants Ibrahim encouters in this film. For example, Ibrahims Arab love interest, Baha, who expresses her discontent with her current situation and ultimately moves back to the Middle East. By having Ibrahim and Diane marry at the end of the film, Sam Khadi metaphorically marries Arab and Western values. It can be seen as a message to the Arab American society to keep try to integrate in American society, just as it can be seen as a message to the white American society to embrace Arab values in their community.
Chapter Outline
This thesis consists of three chapters, each one exploring one of the films mentioned earlier;
14
Orientalist/Occidentalist discours plays out, determining if the film leans more towards integration or more towards anti-Americanism.
I will research the way the Arab and South Asian community represents itself in film, what it tries to profess in doing so and the way the Arab and South Asian community
represents the white American and their relation to them. The first chapther about My Name Is
Khan will focus mostly on the concept of Occidentalism and reverse Orientalism. The second
chapter, Amreeka, will illustrate how through film, sympathy is generated for the immigrant community. Moreover, it illustrates ignorance and unwillingness on American society’s side. The last chapter, The Citizen, illustrates how films in this genre can also portray how
reconciliation between the Orient and the Occident can be reached. Each film this thesis discusses may seem to differ in its cinematography, narrative or its particular message.
However, in the conclusion I will bring all of them together comparing certain elements. I will demonstrate how all three of them both express a desire to become more ‘Westernized,’ be accepted by the West and to prove American prejudice wrong, while at the same time they sharpen the binary between the Orient and the Occident, maintaining the traditional paradigm.
Limitations
I realize that what is portrayed in film is not always congruous with reality. Often, plotlines are exaggerated. Either in order to make the film more attractive, or to prove a certain point. Therefore I cannot claim that the three films I have studies represent the feelings of every individual belonging to the Arab and South Asian immigrant community. These films should be seen as personal statements by the film makers, portraying their own sentiment, their experiences regarding Islamophobia and their own outlooks on, or wishes for, the future. By comparing the films and pointing out similarities and differences I will try to demonstrate what can be said about the immigrant community’s self-representation in film.
Secondly, I know that there are many more films to be seen and studied. In order to remain within the boundries of this thesis I had to make a selection. I realize that by studying more films, and perhaps including tv shows, (fan) reviews, (fiction) books or magazines a more complete conclusion could be reached about representation in the media.
Finally, I consciously chose to look at products from film makers with different backgrounds. (One Syrian, one Christian Palestinian and one Hindu Indian). In doing so, a clear picture can be drawn of the way many immigrant groups feel treated in the United
15
States. Even though their cultures differ in many ways, they share their experiences of immigration to the United States, discrimination and Islamophobia.
16 CHAPTER 1 My Name Is Khan
The Bollywood film My Name Is Khan (2010) was directed by Karan Johar. In line with the Bollywood genre the film is quite dramatic in its narrative and cinematography. Therefore a certain (political) opinion or message is easily distracted from the film. The film is not very subtle in condemning the West and its values, while praising the Oriental immigrant and its values and actions. Director Karan Johar depicts how he believes American society has changed its attitude towards Muslims, and all those who are Arab-looking, in a post 9/11 environment. In this particular film the situation is represented from the perspective of the South Asian American community. There is a stark contradiction in the attitude from Americans towards Middle Eastern/South Asian immigrants before and after the attacks on 9/11. Right at the start of the film the protagonist’s voice-over declares: ‘In the Western world, history is marked simply by BC and AD. But now there is a third distinction: 9/11.’
The film can be interpreted as a firm critique on Islamophobia and religious
intolerance in modern day America. As Karan Johar declared in an interview with Collider: ‘The entire idea started off with us correcting the world’s misconceptions about Islam.’ Johar’s words are interesting for what he says to have wanted to achieve does not completely coincide with what a deeper analysis of the film reveals. Johar claims to have tried to project on a small scale, through film, the real life situation. Johar explains:
In fact, what we show on a micro level is what the world goes through on a macro level. We, of course, internalize the film which is about a family and what they go through. But, the beats of what they go through within a country like America is what so many people have been through or are going through — that kind of subjugation, racial slaughtering… It was not the larger incidents that bothered people. It wasn’t the slap on the face or the burning of a car or more external projections of violence that bothered people. It was a silent look at a tube station. It was the turnaround or look at a food market. It was the little extra bit of a stare at a restaurant. It was those little moments that bothered people the most, that made them feel like complete outsiders of the system. So, what we tried to show
17
on a tiny level mirrors the way that society and the world thinks on a certain level of the religion and the people.18
Besides from trying to realistically portray the immigrant experience in the United States and countering negative prejudices, the director aims to convey another message. Johar says to convey a message of harmony, supposedly making no distinctions between people based on religion, class or gender. Johar wishes that his audience will take from the movie a sense of:
The power of humanity, this power of goodness that we seem to have forgotten, because this truly is the story of a super hero with just one power: humanity. And that’s all. It doesn’t matter whether you take Islam from it or you take the
perception of religion from it or the subjugation of a community from it’. 19
Johar claims he wishes people to look beyond differences in religion, ethnicity, class or gender and for large parts the film seems to be saying just that. A perfect example of how this ideology is professed in the film is when the protagonist’s mother tells her little boy:
‘Remember one thing, son. There are only two kinds of people in this world. Good people who do good deeds. And bad people who do bad. That's the only difference in human beings. There's no other difference. Understood?’
Many parts of the film, however, are not in line with this message. By looking at the representation of Americans compared to the representation of immigrants, it becomes clear that Johar has a very clear view of who is ‘bad’ and who is ‘good.’ Unlike its supposed message of ‘humanity,’ in this film a message of ‘Occidentalism’ seems more evident. Americans are generally portrayed in a negative way. Oriental individuals are generally portrayed in a positive way.
This chapter will focus on the film’s strong Occidentalist perspective. It will show how the film is a critique on Orientalism, but also how at the same time a certain ‘reversed Orientalism’ is adopted to convey a certain message. This way harmony and reconciliation between what is Occidental and what is Oriental is discouraged. There is no room for
integration or a hopeful outlook on the future. This discouragement is in direct contradiction with what the director has said about what he wanted to achieve. I do not believe it is relevant
18 Sheila Roberts, “Director Karan Johar Exclusive Intereview MY NAME IS KHAN,” Collider, May 7, 2010.
http://collider.com/director-karan-johar-interview-my-name-is-khan/
19 Sheila Roberts, “Director Karan Johar Exclusive Intereview MY NAME IS KHAN,” Collider, May 7, 2010.
18
to find out if the director was ‘lying’ as it were or if this contradiction came in the film ‘unconsciously.’ I believe it is interesting to look at how the film can be interpreted as a viewer for that is where opions are formed on the side and depicted on the other side.
This film is a good example of the ‘Manichean thinking’ Buruma and Margalit talk about in Occidentalism. Individuals either belong to Western society or they belong to an Oriental minority. These categories consequently determine if you’re good or bad, if you’re the oppressed or the oppressor, if you’re religious or faithless. As previously mentioned, there is no room for a middleground. As becomes clear in My Name Is Khan, no reconciliation can take place between the two.
Plot Overview
In order to get a better understanding of the deeper messages hidden in this film, I will give an overview of the film’s narrative. In My Name Is Khan, the viewer gets a Bollywood version of the Forrest Gump character. Rizvan Khan, is an Indian Muslim with Asperger’s syndrome. After the death of his mother, Rizvan has to move to San Fransisco where his brother lives. From the start, Rizvan has to deal with hostility from Americans. Upon arrival at the airport, Rizvan is picked out immediately and immigration officials interrogate him thoroughly. They clearly don’t care about his mental disorder.
Trying to build up a life in the United States, Rizvan starts looking for a job. As this is impossible to do, his brother hires him to sell beauty products from door to door. That’s when Rizvan, meets Mandira. A beautiful, traditional Indian girl who works in a beauty salon. They bond instantly and she shows him around town. It doesn’t take long for the two to fall in love and they decide to get married. At first, Rizvan’s brother is against the marriage, for their family is Mulsim and Mandira is Hindu. However, when he sees how happy the two are, he gives them his blessing.
Everything seems to be going well. Rizvan, Mandira and her son (from her previous marriage) live happily in a suburb. They get along well with their neighbours and Sameer, Mandira’s son, is best friends with their son. However, everything starts to change after the attacks on 9/11. One by one, friends and neighbours turn their backs on Rizvan and his new family. The hostilities lead up to the death of Sameer. A few white high school boys beat him to death. Sameer’s death leads to tentions between Mandira and Rizvan. Mandira blame’s Rizvan for Sameer’s death because he had Rizvan’s Muslim surname ‘Khan.’ Rizvan has trouble understanding Mandira’s anger and when she tells him: “Tell everyone in America,
19
“I’m not a terrorist” . . . Can you do that? Can you? No, you can’t. Why don’t you tell the president of the United States? Mr. President, my name is Khan, and I’m not a terrorist,” he takes it literally. Rizvan sets out on a journey to try and meet the president. During his journey he meets all kinds of people, most of them hostile Americans. At one point, however, he finds himself in the small Southern town of ‘Wilhelmina.’ There he befriends the local, Afro American, community. A ‘big mama’ stereotyped Afro American woman called ‘mama Jenny’ and her son, ‘Crazy Hair Joel,’ take Rizvan in. They immediately bond and share stories about the family members they have lost. The next day Rizvan joins them to their church to attend the ceremony to commemorate the soldiers lost in the Middle-East. Together they sing ‘We Shall Overcome,’ a song both associated with the Civil Rights Movement and the Bangladesh War of Independence.
A little while after Rizvan leaves Wilhelmina he finds out about a rally where the president will be present. Standing in the crowd, Rizvan starts screaming when he sees the president: ‘Mr. President! Mr. President! My name is Khan and I am not a terrorist.’
Bystanders however, only hear the words ‘I am a terrorist.’ Rizvan is arrested immediately by the FBI and detained for weeks and weeks. It is only by the efforts by a couple of Muslim journalists, who get his story in the media, that he is released for a lack of evidence.
Immediately after his release, Rivzan travels back to Wilhelmina when he learns that the town has been hit by hurricane. He worries about the lives of his friends, for the
government is not taking any action to help the people there. Rizvan, saving many lives in Wilhelmina, is featured in the media again. After a while, more and more people (all of them non-white American) come to Wilhelmina, inspired by Rizvan, to help the local community. Mandira and Rizvan are reunited, the murdercase of Sameer is solved and the new Afro American predisent, who has been elected by that time, agrees to meet Rizvan. Finally Rizvan gets to tell the president that his name is Khan and that he is not a terrorist. The Afro
American president acknowledges his statement, shakes his hand and the entire audience, all of them non-white, applaud the scene.
Opposing Orientalism, Employing Occidentalism
In My Name Is Khan, Karan Johar clearly engages with the Orientalism/Occidentalism discours. Orientalism is a way for the West to control the Orient and of the means to accomplish this are the media. The media is responsible for the image the West receives of Oriental others. As Karan Johar shows in his film, this is generally a negative image.
20
Throughout the film, shots are used with a ‘camera frame’ around it. This suggests, that this is the exact lens the West looks through. Every time the viewer sees this frame, it is clear that Rizvan is trying to do something ‘good,’ but it is also evident that the West, through the lens of the media, will perceive it as ‘bad.’ The image below is a perfect illustration by Johar to show how this works.
Throughout the film there is a motif of camera’s. Whener this motif occurs it relates directly to the Orientalist or Occidentalist gaze. The shot above illustrates the Orientalist gaze. The camera frame is the lens through which the West looks at Oriental others. However, knowing more about the character of Rizvan and his intentions, the viewer already knows that he is innocent and the Orientalist gaze is mistaken and wrong. This evokes a certain emotion against the way the West regards the Orient. Therefore, the use of this motif can be seen as an expression of Occidentalism. By illustrating negative sides of the Occident, the film is
evoking negative sentiments regarding the Occident. In doing so, the director draws a strong line between the Occident and the Orient.
Besides from this illustrated ‘wrong’ Orientalist perspective, there are more ways in which the director plays with the camera motif. Perhaps the most important one is Rizvan’s use of a handheld camera everywhere he goes. The way Rizvan uses his camera can be seen as a metaphor for how people, perhaps Oriental people in specific, should see American society and the Oriental body in it. Firstly, Rizvan uses his camera to observe the beautiful Mandira. The focus of the lens is on the traditional Oriental girl, including all her good actions and values. This suggests that the immigrant’s focus should be on what is traditional and thus ‘good.’ Secondly, Rizvan uses his camera to feel more comfortable on the street and to keep a distance between himself and the world around him. Being in a new situation can
21
sometimes frighten Rizvan and by looking through a camera a certain distance is maintained and therefore the situation can be dealt with. Metaphorically speaking, the distance
maintained by looking through a camera suggests that immigrants should maintain a certain distance from American society by looking through their Oriental lens. Again, a clear
example of the Occidentalism in this film. A device is literally used to keep the Oriental apart from the Occidental.
The final moment I would like to discuss in which a specific gaze plays an important role is the scene in which Rizvan is released from his detainment by the FBI. Upon his release, Rizvan’s interrogator signals him that he will be watching him. In response, Rizvan signals that he will do the exact same thing. This scene shows how Johar is aware of the Orientalist gaze and that he wishes to oppose it directly. It also proves that the Orient is no longer voiceless, or that it has no agency in represententing itself like Said argued in Orientalism many years ago. Indeed, the Orient not only has a voice in representing itself, it also has a voice in representing others, such as the Occident.
22
A Representation of Solidarity Amongst Minorities
In My Name Is Khan some strong parallels are drawn between the experiences of individuals from different minorities. As different as some ethnicities can be, within American society they share same kind of hostility, discrimination and xenophobia. A particular emphasis is put on the parallels between the Afro American community and the (Indian) Muslim community. As a methophor for these two groups in American society, Rizvan represents the (Indian) Muslim community and Mama Jenny and her son ‘Crazy Hair Joel,’ the Afro American community. Before getting into shared hardships I would like to point out some obvious stereotypizations in the depiction of the Afro American community. For example Mama Jenny, she is the perfect example of the ‘Mammy archetype.’ She is quite corpulent, she can be rough in her actions and words, but she is loving, caring and good of nature. She and her son live in a shabby wooden cabin, as if it were still the ‘old South.’ These stereotypical factors indicate that different minority communities know little about each other, except for some typical cliché’s. However, this does not obstruct individuals from these minorities from recognizing and acknowledging each others struggles and hardships and therefore a certain solidarity is created and promoted.
In this particular scene, Rizvan and Mama Jenny find out that they have both lost a loved one. Mama Jenny has lost her son to the war in Iraque. Mama Jenny cannot understand why her son had to die for someone else’s war. Indirectly the American government sent her son to his death. Rizvan’s (step)son also became the victim of American society. Rizvan attends the
23
commemoration ceremony in the church of the Afro American community. When Big Hair Joel starts to sing ‘We Shall Overcome,’ Rizvan joins in singing the Indian version of the song. The song is related to movements from both minorities, the Civil Rights Movement and the Bangladesh War of Independence. The singing together of the song implies direct
solidarity amongst different minorities, sharing the same hardships by the same oppressor. This way Johar is vilifies this white American oppressor, another sign of the Occidentalism in
My Name Is Khan.
The Occidentalism I am talking about is not only evident in way solidarity amongst minorities is depicted, but also in the way white American citizens directly treat Arab (looking)
individuals. The films shows many instances of Islamophobia after the events of 9/11. Examples of these moments are when Rizvan’s sister-in-law is harassed by an unvisible man who jerks the jihab off her head, when neighbours and people on the street throw dirty looks at the Arab looking characters in the film, when stores owned by Arab (looking) individuals are robbed and trashed, when an Arab (looking) father and his little girl are being followed and threatened by a car in the street, and when previously befriended individuals distance themselves from Arab (looking) characters as happens with Sameer and his best (white) friend.
Not only citizens take part in Islamophobic acts. Maybe even more important, official institutes take part in Islamophobic behavior. In the film the school is shown as an institute that teaches its students only about the dangers and violence of the Islam.
24
The ultimate depiction of the Islamophobia in American society is the death of Sameer. Islamophobia has reached such a level that even (innocent) children become victims of, or participate in, ethnical hostility. Through this event a critique on several institutions in society is expressed. Firstly, the school which teaches the children false things about Islam and which does not try to create harmony amongst its students. Secondly the police, who do not seem to be making an effort to find out who killed Sameer. Futhermore, the doctors who have to treat Sameer, don’t really seem to care if he survives or not. Sameer’s death illustrates how
Islamophobia has penetrated every facet of society, from Government to citizen, from adults to children.
This film is the first indication of the contradiction in the representation of one’s own identity and the other’s. Karan Johar clearly makes an effort to offer his viewers an extremely positive image of (Arab looking) immigrants as opposed to the negative image most white Americans get from the media. As the most important line of the film indicates ‘My name is Khan, and I am not a terrorist,’ Johar wants to convince his audience that not every Muslim (or Arab looking individual) is terrorist. On the contrary, they are generally purely good people. This suggests that he hopes to change the general opinion about (Arab looking) immigrants. It also suggests that he tries to make it easier for these immigrants to accepted by American society and to integrate more easily. These efforts go directly against the pervasive Orientalist perspective.
However, Johar portrays white Americans as pure villains. This seems to conflict with Johar’s statement about professing ‘humanity,’ disregarding religion and ethnicity. The ‘humanity’ message does seem to apply to other minorities, like the Afro American community as shown by Rizvans engaging with ‘Mama Jenny’ and ‘Crazy Hair Joel.’ Solidarity amongst minorities is created by shared experiences with American xenophobia. Another aspect of the Occidentalist perspective in this film. Every time a white American character appears in the film, it is in a negative way. Even towards the end of the film, no reconciliation takes place. The white American remains ‘bad.’ The portrayal of negative images of white Americans is a clear example of Occidentalism. Through negative depictions, Western values are condemned as ‘less’ than Oriental values. This way, reconciliation
between what is Occidental and what is Oriental and integration is not encouraged. What remains is a paradox of the Oriental community trying to offer a more positive image of itself
25
to American society, while simultaneously portraying American society as ‘bad,’ thus counteracting reconciliation and integration.
26 CHAPTER 2
Amreeka
The previous chapter has demonstrated how a film can clearly draw a line between what is right and wrong. Between the Orient and the Occident. Between the innocent and the oppressor. Moreover, how traditional Orientalism can be critiqued, but how Occidentalism can be used at the same time, which might seem contradictory. This chapter will demonstrate how film as a medium can be used to portray a more nuanced sitation, focusing more on the quotidian than the political.
The second case study this thesis will explore is the 2009 film Amreeka by Cherien Dabis, a Palestinian American filmmaker with a Christian background. Just like My Name Is
Khan, Amreeka is a story about the (Arab/Muslim) immigrant experience in the United States.
The main themes that are represented in these films are the post 9/11 immigrant experience, increased Islamophobia and certain prejudices that came along with it. For example, that people will see you as a radical, violent terrorist if you look Arab, even if you’re a Christian, as is the case with Cherien Dabis and the main character in her film.
The film tells the story of a single mother who moves with her teenage son, from the West Bank to the United States, and the problems they encounter in a post 9/11 environment. The film was meant to offer a counter representation of Arab (looking) and/or Muslim (looking) immigrants in the United States. In an interview with the Huffington Post, Cherien Dabis explained why she wanted to make this film:
So I decided to become a storyteller. I don’t know if it was as conscious a decision as that, but I always knew that I wanted to do something that would change the way the media related to Arabs, to change the way we were represented. To also change the fact that we are underrepresented. I simply wanted to get our stories out there because we have so many and I thought if people could see it from our point of view they would realize how funny and absurd it is.20
Not only does she want to make an argument against the misrepresentation of Arabs, she also wants to change the fact that Arabs are underrepresented. In its attempt to offer a counter representation of Arabs, the film uses some of the same tools as ‘My Name Is Khan.’ The
20 Melissa Silverstein, “Sundance Interview: Cherien Dabis, Director of Amreeka.” Huffington Post, May 25,
27
analysis in this chapter will show that the characters which are ‘good,’ are either Arab, or Arab looking, or part of some other minority. The characters in the film which represent Islamophobia, religious intolerance and discrimination are white Americans. The question that arises is whether this film, by offering an alternative, a more positive, image of Arab immigrants, professes harmony amongst its viewers, the immigrants and Americans, creating a shift in the traditional Orientalist East/West paradigm, or whether this film does not move away from Orientalism, by maintaining a strong ‘us’ versus ‘them’ binary.
Ultimately this analysis will determine in how far the film lives up to Cherien Dabis’ supposed goal. In an interview with the Huffington Post Dabis declares what makes a good character in a film, saying that falling back on stereotypes should be avoided:
People can be lazy in their storytelling and then characters become one dimensional and easy to villanize. Then it becomes the story of good vs. evil rather than people are people. I think it is much more difficult to create characters that are complex, rich and multidimensional and it’s easy to fall back on the formulaic stereotypes.21
She states that she wants to offer something different than a ‘good vs. evil’ story, but an anlysis of the films suggests something different.
Plot Overview
In ‘Amreeka’ we follow the character of Muna, a Christian Palestinian single mother who lives in Bethlehem. From the very beginning it is clear life in the West Bank is not easy for her and her family. It takes Muna two hours, instead of twenty minutes like before, to get to her work, because of all the checkpoints she has to pass, not to mention the harassments she and her son have to endure at these checkpoints daily. Apart from her not being able to find a job fit to her education, she fears for the safety of her son.
Until one day she receives a letter that she has won an American green card through the lottery. She and her son, Fadi, immediately decide to move the United States. Upon their arrival at the airport of Chicago, they encounter their first instances of racial and religious intolerance. They get picked out by airport security, who question their motives for moving to the United States, suspecting they might have terrorist affiliations. After a while, not being
21 Melissa Silverstein, “Sundance Interview: Cherien Dabis, Director of Amreeka.” Huffington Post, May 25,
28
able to find anything, they are let through, and they are welcomed by Muna’s sister and her family.
Even though Muna and Fadi can stay with her sister’s family, she immediately starts looking for a job to be able to provide for herself and her son. However, she soon finds out that finding a job is not so easy, even with her two college degrees. During each and every interview it is obvious that the employers are disappointed when they find out Muna is an Arab, and thus in their eyes, Muslim, woman. Muna, however, will not give up the search for a job and she finally accepts a job at ‘White Castle,’ a fast food restaurant. Out of
embarrassment she tells her son and the rest of the family she was hired for a job at the bank next door to White Castle.
While Muna tries her best at her new job, she and her son find out more and more about the Islamophobic environment they and their family live in. Muna’s sister and her husband receive threat mail and the medical practice he runs, which always used to be very successful, keeps losing patients. Fadi and his cousins experience discrimination in school. Kids bully them by calling them terrorists and they constantly get in fights. On one of these occasions Muna is called into school because Fadi got in another fight. Surprisingly, Muna and the high school principal get on very well. It turns out mr. Novatski is the son of Polish Jewish immigrants, and he knows what it is like to be discriminated. Not long after, the same high school bullies harass Muna at her work. While trying to get them to leave, she is
seriously injured when she falls flat on her back. Her colleagues decide to call her family and this way they discover Muna’s secret. They all praise her for her courage and say how they don’t mind where she works. A little while after, Fadi, wanting to take his revenge on the bullies, gets into another fight. He is arrested by the police for no clear reason. They refuse to let him go, without a doubt a result of their prejudice and Islamophobic attitude. Mr.
Novatski, who sympathizes with Fadi and Muna and presumably has a crush on her, goes to the police station to demand Fadi’s release. The film ends with the entire family and mr. Novatski going to an Arab restaurant to have dinner.
Shifting the East/West Paradigm?
Even though it feels like an happy end, because Muna can stop lying about her job and the harmony within the family is restored, there hasn’t come a solution to their problem. They
29
will have to learn to cope with the Islamophobia around them. After seeing the film it doesn’t feel like there is a possible solution to the problem. White Americans will stay hostile
towards immigrants. The only people who will accept and associate with Arab immigrants, are people from other (immigrant) minorities. For example, mr. Novatski who is part of a suppressed minority himself. This enables him to sympathize with the Arab immigrants. White Americans who have not been in the situation of being part of a minority,
misunderstood and misrepresented, will never be able to relate to the immigrant situation and thus behave hostile towards them.
While at first it may seem as if white Americans and Arab immigrants are getting along, this is not the case. It turns out mr. Novatski is part of a minority himself. Thus, the ‘us’ versus ‘them’ binary is maintained. There is the white American population on one side and all other minorities on the other side. Mounira Soliman adds in her article ‘The
(Un)Wanted American; A Visual Reading of Arab and Muslim Americans:’ Again as much as Mr. Novatski identifies with Muna and her son, the whole country, and the small community they live in, insists on ostracizing them. In the end, Mr. Novatski fails to change the American mindset, leaving Muna caught up in the same struggle of Us versus Them.22
Even though mr. Novatski is a white, presumably American, male, he alone is unable to oppose Islamophobia, or hostility towards immigrants more generally. Just as minorities as a whole are unable to make a difference in American society when it comes to discrimination.
There is, however, an argument to be made that opposes this idea. Even though politics play an important role in the course of events in this film, it is only visible in the background. The daily issues the protagonist deals with are personal issues that are
universally understood. Such as raising a teenage kid, struggling with one’s weight, running into your ex-husband’s new girlfriend and finding a well-paid job. By predominantly portraying such ‘little’ personal issues, viewers from all around the world should be able to relate with the protagonist. Generally, Western media portray the Middle-East as a violent, anti-American, radical religious and chaotic place, leading society to think negatively of its peoples. Cherien Dabis offers her viewers an image of Arabs separate from large political
22 Mounira Soliman, “The (Un)Wanted American: A Visual Reading of Ara and Muslim Americans,” Journal of
30
events, instead she puts her characters in very ‘common’ situations. This way, viewers should be able to see Arab immigrants as ‘human,’ as equal to themselves, and as people struggling with the same issues as themselves. In ‘Coming to Amreeka: an interview with Cherien Dabis, Dennis West discusses these issues with the film’s director. West concludes:
Ultimately, by choosing to concentrate on a microcosm built of prosaic everyday experiences--now those of an immigrant, now those of a mother--Dabis is able to underscore a universality that reaches across cultural differences, negative
stereotypes, and unreasonable hostilities in order to provide a common peaceful ground of fundamental human similarities, thus breaking down the distance between “us” and “the other.”23
An recurrent tool to create a sense of equality between Muna and the viewer, is the mirror. Throughout the film, Muna is shown through a mirror which is a clever way to create alignment and identification with the character.
By seeing Muna through a mirror, again and again, it is as if the viewer is looking at him or herself. Muna is our reflection, as it were, for we all deal with the same everyday issues, regardless of our background. Besides from our geographical, political and physical differences, in the end we are all the same as individuals.
23 Dennis West and Joan M. West, "Coming to Amreeka: an interview with Cherien Dabis." Cineaste 35. 2009,
31
Criticizing Stereotypes
The film makes a strong argument against stereotypes and prejudice. Because of Muna’s and Fadi’s appearance, they have dark hair and eyes and a darker skin tone, people automatically assume they are Muslim. Furthermore, assuming they are Muslim, people think they are consequently radical and possibly dangerous. At the very least, they wouldn’t want others to think they associated with Muslims. However, it turns out Muna and her family are
Christians. So, in this case one’s religion doesn’t even matter. Based on your looks or your name you are automatically labeled as an ‘other’ and thus become a victim of post 9/11 Islamophobia.
The examples explored above have shown how Cherien Dabis has tried to offer a different image of Arab immigrants than the one Americans are used to. It is a more positive image, an image of Arabs as ‘normal’ human beings. However, apart from portraying Arabs and their culture as ‘good,’ Dabis also provides her viewer with a specific characterization of white Americans. This way Amreeka is part of the Occidentalism discours as well. In many instances throughout the film, particular Western traits and values are dernounced, while ‘Oriental’ values are praised. Perhaps Dabi’s portrayal of white Americans is more
stereotyped and negative than she would like to admit, especially when taking her statement about one dimensional and villainized characters, mentioned earlier, into account. Overall, the representation of white Americans is not a positive one. Generally, they are portrayed as hostile, prejudiced and superficial. Furthermore, they uphold certain values, or are lacking others that are important in Arabic cultures.
One of the most striking issues portrayed in this film when talking about
Occidentalism and the condemning of Western values, is the ongoing struggle between Muna’s sister, Raghda, and her daughter Salma. Raghda worries that her children are
becoming too American. She condemns the way her children dress, their use of swear words, and their going out with friends, smoking marihuana, drinking alcohol and the provocative music they listen to. One night Salma and Fadi try to sneak into the house after hanging out with friends, but, Salma and Raghda are waiting for them. The conversation between mother and daughter gets heated:
32
Raghda: Where have you been? I don’t want my daughters running around like American girls. Drinking, with drugs, or God knows what Salma: God, is that all you think that people do here?
Raghda: Yes!
Salma: Well, here’s a shocker, mom. We live in America. We’re American!
Raghda: As long as you live in this house, you live in Palestine!
In punishing her children for behaving ‘too American’ she is metaphorically punishing American society and its values for being ‘bad.’ While one could argue that the children represent a new generation, one that is ready to integrate in to American society, in this film that is not the case. In the end they realize they were ‘wrong,’ and they stick to their family and their values.
Another instance where the viewer sees Americans in a negative way is when the schoolteacher asks his students, amongst which are Salma and Fadi, why they believe
terrorism exists. The teacher picks out Fadi to answer the question. Salma, his cousin, mutters with disgust ‘you would ask him.’ The teacher angrily replies: ‘I’m sorry? What? What was that? It seems Salma would rather I refrain from questioning Fadi.’ Some white students mockingly add: ‘Probably because he has got something to hide’ and ‘Yeah, well, maybe he’s planning to blow the school up.’ At that point the teacher tells his students: ‘Hey, that’s enough.’ Salma’s, not surprisingly Afro American, boyfriend tells the white students: ‘That’s so racist’ and Salma adds: ‘What, so you think they taught him to build bombs in the second
33
grade?’ Salma’s boyfriend concludes: ‘Yeah, you people are clueless.’ This scene
demonstrates how children from certain minorities are left to fend for themselves, even in institutions that are supposed to be a safe environment, like schools. Both teachers and students are prejudiced against minorities and the curriculum will not teach them anything different.
Other examples of ‘bad’ Americans are the men at immigration at the airport, who are reluctant to let Muna and Fadi enter the country, the police men at the police station, who keep Fadi locked up for no clear reason, the women at the grocery store, former patients of Raghda’s husbands, who glare at Muna and Raghda, and number of individuals at the local banks who turn down Muna for several jobs. One of the interviewers even says: ‘Don’t blow yourself up, ha ha’ after Muna tells him she is Arabic. Throughout the film, no reconciliation takes place between the immigrants and American society. This way, it seems as though Cherien Dabis is sustaining the ‘us’ versus ‘them’ binary instead of breaking it down.
34
as the embodiment of the immigrant’s disillusionment with the United States and homesickness to their mother country. This disillusionment is a common theme in the immigrant story and it is also a big part of ‘Amreeka.’ From the moment Muna arrives her sister shows signs of homesickness. She sniffs the spices Muna has brought for them in her suitcase, she takes Muna shopping in Arab stores and she tells her sister that there is no place like home, meaning Bethlehem. As previously discussed, she denounces American values and she has not assimilated very well. This disillusionment is a critique on American society, for partly, its values are inferior to the values of the mother country and partly because it will not let its immigrants integrate.
The question remains what the main objective of this film is or if it achieves its preset goals. In representing Arabs in a more positive and ‘realistic’ way, the film represents
Americans in a simplified and villainized manner, thus maintaining the traditional Orientalist East/West, us/them binary. This way, the film becomes a part of the problem it is trying to solve.
