May also be considered a film analysis.
cul·ture (klchr)
n.
The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns,
arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought.
These patterns, traits, and products considered as the
expression of a particular period, class, community, or population: Edwardian culture; Japanese culture; the culture of poverty.
These patterns, traits, and products considered with
respect to a particular category, such as a field, subject, or mode of
expression: religious culture in the Middle Ages; musical culture; oral culture.
The predominating attitudes and behavior that characterize
the functioning of a group or organization.
Our task in this unit is to perform cultural
analysis. That is, to look at and
analyze an event with an awareness of (or through the lens of) cultural
difference and interaction. That's a
pretty broad assignment. More
specifically, then, you'll be analyzing culture with respect to a film of your
choice. Still pretty broad. Okay, I want you to analyze a film (or part
of a film, or character in a film, etc.) keeping in the forefront of your
discussion questions such as: what cultures are being portrayed, how they are
being portrayed, what stereotypes they are fulfilling or breaking, whose
stereotypes are these, where do they come from, what subcultures exist within
the cultures, why do they exist, what does the film seem to be saying when viewed
through a lens of cultural interaction?
Most of these questions apply to the world created within the film. I also want you to take an intellectual step
outside the film and answer questions about it, not just as its own world--its
own reality--but also as an artifact of the culture that created it. If you're working with a Hollywood movie,
what does it say about U.S. culture, L.A., or California culture? What's the genre, how does it fit into or
break the conventions of the genre, and what is that genre's place within the
culture that produced it? How was the
movie received by audiences; what did they respond to and why; what does that
say about the culture that received it?
NOTE: It's very important that your analysis keeps the
world of the movie and the world that created the movie separate. They may have many similarities, but be
aware that the movie, even if it's portraying true or possible events, is a
portrayal.
The assignment is still quite broad. Let me give you a few examples of approaches
you might take, keeping Three Kings
in mind.
Analyze Three Kings through
the theoretical lens of Edward Said's concept of Orientalism. Think about the portrayal of Arabs in the
film; the portrayal of Islam. How is
Russell (the director) conforming to American stereotypes of Muslims in the
movie; how is he breaking them? (And I
think he's definitely doing both: his film certainly give a more complex
portrayal of Islam than we're used to seeing in Hollywood movies, but it also
backs a number of the stereotypes mentioned by Said. Think of the white vs. Arab body count by the end of the movie,
for instance.) Marchetti's analysis of
the action-adventure genre could certainly play into this discussion.
Analyze Three Kings
in terms of Parshall's concept (based on that of Joseph Campbell) of the
American hero. We have at least three
heroes in the movie--all Americans; all representing different aspects of
American culture. Analyze those
different aspects of American culture, then analyze what happens when those
different cultures come together under one flag in the face of a vastly
different culture. How does this lead
to heroism? Whose version of a hero are
we talking about? Does Russel question
the concept of a hero; how?
(Marchetti's discussion could also be helpful here.)
Oliver Stone talks about why he provokes--why he upsets
the viewer's expectations. Talk about
the ways that the viewer's expectations are provoked or upset by Three Kings. You're obviously going to have to make some assumptions about the
"viewers" for this discussion; do so in the most well-informed way
possible. Try to find out how the movie
was received by critics, by the masses; here, in other countries. What does the reception of the film say
about the culture that watched it? How
do you know when your expectations as a viewer are being upset; why; what does
that say about your culture?
|
In her essay, Jacqueline Greer Dorfman applies some of
Edward Said’s ideas about Orientalism to the film “Three Kings.” She
focuses her analysis on cross-cultural interaction between Arab and
American characters in the movie and makes a comparison between Three
Kings and the classic adventure film, Indiana Jones and the Raiders
of the Lost Ark. |
Orientalist Musings and their
Applicability to Three Kings
The concept of Orientalism is one in
which Edward Said, a renowned intellectual with a solid background in the field
of Arab study, is particularly knowledgeable.
If the concepts surrounding Orientalism are broken down into specific
elemental degrees, then Said portrays the American conception of Arabic
entities and their inhabitants with a plethora of stereotypes that generate a
false depiction of the Arabic culture.
This, of course, is only an extremely small portion of the grandiose
Orientalist dilemma that is currently quite prevalent in modern day society.
Yet, for this paper’s ultimate purpose, this sector will be the sole
focus. As Said intimates, the lens that
the Americans utilize in order to acquire information about Arabs is one that
reflects perceptions falsely. This lens
is skewed in order to protect and support certain interests, whether they be
American or western based. Movies,
particularly when generated through the Hollywood action- based genre, have an
false generalization of the way in which an Arabic people are. In some respects, the Hollywood produced
movie, Three Kings, is a pertinent acknowledgment of the former. In many portions of the film, the enumerated
antics may cause for a feeling of disdain toward the Arab nation. Yet, compared to the majority of the typical
Hollywood action-based films, Three Kings manages to break away from
these abhorrent stereotypes and provide a more than average acknowledgment of
the sheer complexity of the Arab people as individual, separate from Saddam
Hussein. Therefore, Said’s primary
proposed conception of Orientalism is challenged and the Arab is depicted as a
person trying to fight Hussein.
In correlation with Said’s Orientalist
argument, American film portrays the Arab as the enemy, but in Three Kings
this concept is challenged. Typically,
by the end of an American film, there
are a significantly greater number of
Arab bodies than that of the superpower, in this case the United States of
America. To a greater extent, Three
Kings plays around with this typical film-like mentality. In the film, when the men are stranded and
are looking for some way to escape from the village and rescue their man Troy,
George Clooney states, “we are not supposed to be involved with this, we killed
Iraqi soldiers, violated the peace accord, and a plane will not come for
us.” Conclusively, based on this
statement, it is known that Iraqis were killed. First off, this displays the power of the US Army. Yet, the American soldiers are not free from
harm’s way themselves. They are still
in a position of extreme danger, and these killings hardly quelled the status
they possess being located in such vitally harsh whereabouts. In this case, Iraqis were killed in a manner
of self-defense. Instead of the
Americans looking all-mighty and powerful, they look fairly vulnerable because
these killings could be looked at as a necessity facilitated in order to
sustain life. This is the case as oppose to the American military men solely
participating in a recreational killing-spree. The fact that Americans had to
kill for internal protection is more than a slight alteration in the manner in
which a typical Arab vs. American
situation is depicted. In addition, after the soldiers killed Arabs, they were still
not entirely free from the danger that surrounded them.
Contrary to the occurrences in most
other Hollywood based action movies, the Americans do not escape from their
surroundings scott-free. Their man, Conrad, is killed trying to acquire the
gold. Furthermore, he is not depicted as an intelligent and stalwart individual
like most American films portray a typical American. Usually, these
characteristics associated with positive appeal are utilized in a
juxtapositional attempt toward the negative depiction of an Arab, in order to
facilitate a feeling of American supremacy amongst filmgoers. Instead, Conrad is seen as a member of the
greater nation’s “white trash” community.
The film has this ability to fuse some of the stereotypes associated
with an American with those associated with an Arab. Through these means, a comedial approach is used in formulating
an apt depiction of Conrad’s white trash background. In the movie’s
introduction, when all of the other men are shown in their places of employment
hard at work, Conrad is shown in the middle of the “sticks” hunting for
survival. What does this say about the film? Well, it displays the ability of
the film makers’ to move away from stereotyping other cultures, notably those
of Arabic origin, and begin to do to us what we have done to them for so long,
a brave attempt on the film maker’s
part.
Furthermore, American vulnerability is
shown when, early on, when Conrad instructs the Iraqi people to stand back and
that, “the US military is in charge here,” by the way in which he says this. During
this scene, elements of Conrad’s personality and background (i.e. his “white
trash” neighborhood) are incorporated in order to facilitate an underlying
comedial scheme within the overall drama of the film. A humorous undertone is audible, due to the fact that Conrad says
“ the US military is in charge here,” in a rather meager tone. His voice is high-pitched and his body
language creates the opposite image of a man with authority. Moreover, this parody of US power
demonstrates that Conrad was unable to quell the Iraqi passions, and
facilitates for an alteration in the American conception of power, in
general. Thus, the Iraqis possessed the
majority of the jurisdiction over Conrad who was left helpless, and ultimately
dead, in the wake of such commotion.
Although the Iraqis killed Conrad, he believed very strongly in their
religious practices.
Before
his own death, Conrad became mesmerized by the way in which the Iraqi’s
conducted a ceremonial praying session for one of their own men, breaking the Orientalist
Concept that Arabic religious practices have gone awry. Later, through his own interpretation of the
situation at hand, he felt that he was to go to Hell. This foreign yet invasive praying practice had a strong impact on
Conrad so much so, that he desired to be buried in a shrine similar to the ones
utilized by the Iraqi’s when it was his time to pass-on. When looked at through an Orientalist
perspective, the Arabs are generally depicted as cold, ruthless people. By showing this praying session and that an
American admired this practice, enables the viewer to break through this
segment of the Orientalist mentality.
The fact that Conrad and not one of the other men, were awe-struck by
these religious practices is fitting and makes an even greater impact to the
theme of the movie.
Conrad might be somewhat of a vapid
being in the intellectual sense, yet, in many other ways he is one of the most
compassionate of the group. He has a
rather childlike mystique to him, and this innocence is utilized for the good
of the group. He keeps the men laughing
and vibrant. As loyal as he is, he
still was not afraid to voice his admiration for the shrine-like practices of
the enemy. The other men realize that
these Arab practices are not at all wrong, or evil, just entirely different
from mainstream American ways. The men
acknowledge that this is O.K. In
addition, for the good of their deceased Conrad, they even go as far as to send
him for burial in a shrine as he so requested.
When analyzed further, this event can
be considered part of an Orientalist- based phenomena- savagely taking from
other cultures, raping them from what is rightfully theirs at the expense of
their people, for our own good. This is
something America has done for several years now. For instance, since the beginning of time, the Europeans stole
the concept of corn from the Indians and then savagely infested their blankets
with smallpox. This prime example has a
correlatory basis in that of the adoption of Arab religious practices. Conrad and his fellow Americans took from
the Arabs because they did not know any better, or chose to disregard any
apprehension they may have subconsciously sequestered due to the fact that they
were US citizens and felt entitled.
Perhaps the average film connoisseur would not ingest this scene with
the same analytic processes as this writer.
Most likely, he/she would view it in the sense formally explained in the
last paragraph and therefore have no reservations surrounding an
anti-Orientalist approach when associated with the Three Kings
vernacular.
Through the Orientalist lens, an Arab
is often viewed as possessing an extremely low level of intelligence and/or not
having the innate sense to comprehend what is truly going on to begin
with. A prime example of such
utilization of the Orientalistic perspective would be in the classic film Indiana
Jones, when an Arab starts to motion a sword quite violently and, during
this time, Indiana Jones plainly shoots him in the chest. This portrayed the Arab as being entirely
unaware of the reality that surrounded him.
Three Kings is successful in breaking away from this typical
stereotype associated with the Arabic culture.
In the movie, Three Kings the
type of Orientalist lens depicted in the movie Indiana Jones, is
particularly challenged when George Clooney and the rest of his men are trying
to acquire vehicles in order to make it as efficiently as possible to their
next destination. Originally, the scene
is set up so that the viewer would believe that the American soldiers have the
supreme intelligence over all other Arab forces yet, sooner or later, the
viewer observes otherwise. When George
Clooney told an Arab that George Bush was the one who sent him to take a car
and that it was in the name of George Bush that he was acting as he was, the
Arab acknowledged this, but still did not give him a car. At first, it seemed as if the Arab approved
of George Bush. As if the typical
allusion was created that since America was better, George Bush must know best
for everyone, including the Iraqi nation.
Overall, the Arab saluted Clooney as a way of acknowledging his
recognizance of George Bush but would not surrender his vehicle. Presumably, an element of surprise is
utilized in this scene for the advantages of the film’s overall appeal. Furthermore, a wave of amusement must have
washed over audiences in realizing the “dumb” Arab is smarter than the
Orientalist lens would have one believe.
This scene helps facilitate the breaking of the Orientalist concept that
the US has supreme brainpower over all others, Arabs included. Furthermore, the Arabs are shown as genuine
people, diverting the concepts of mystery and exotica from the viewer.
Although the Orientalist lens may
depict Arabs as being exotic and enchanting, this was broken by the film Three
Kings. Through the eyes of the
American soldiers, the viewer may see that the majority of the Arab people are
like any other. For instance, when Mark
Wahlberg, Troy Barlow, is held hostage by an enraged Iraqi, he realizes that
this man is an outraged man like any other.
It was no coincidence that both Barlow and the Iraqi holding him captive
had young children, the Iraqis being dead from this type of warfare. The Iraqi asked Barlow how he would feel if
they bombed his daughter. All of a
sudden, a introspective expression comes across Barlow’s face and with great
discomfort he summons up the energy to say, “a feeling worse than death.” At this very moment, Barlow himself realizes
that the Iraqi who has his very life in his hands, who he hates more than life
itself, has just as many fears as he does.
This epiphany on Barlow’s part help facilitates an alteration in the
general mentality of the soldiers at hand.
Throughout the story line, the US soldiers begin to make a
transition from disdain toward Arabs to acknowledgment of their very
culture. When the US army makes it to
another camp in their search to find Barlow and take the Iranians back over to
their respective homeland, they encounter many women cheering and yelling
things in their native tongue. Conrad,
unbeknownst to this custom and its significance, starts yelling as well. Once again, the stereotypical “white trash”
unintelligent concept is used as a humor-arouser. At this time, everyone pauses and stares at Conrad. One of the other American soldiers dutifully
explains to him that it is their custom to just allow the women to cheer. Conrad respects this, and the women resume
their jubilant cries. Throughout
integration, the American soldiers have learned to respect these women and the
customs they so graciously represent.
Finally, the most obvious deviation
from the normal Orientals depiction of the Arab, would be through the US Army’s
befriending of an Iraqi man. Early on
in the story, the Iraqis wife is killed, and his young, innocent daughter is
left devastated. This man is part of
the Iraqi resistance. He helps the US
army find the gold, all the while the US soldiers assist in his and other
captives return to their homeland.
Throughout the story, he stands strong and firm to the American
agenda. In essence, this man risks his
own life in order to save that of the captives, an honorable cause. Through their experience with this “good”
Iraqi, the US soldiers become more honorable people themselves, and in the end
of the story, refuse to surrender the gold they have captured until the
refugees are permitted to cross the lines to safety.
For a future of non-violent
suppression of Orientalist sentiment, it is most vital for a people to
comprehend others as they comprehend themselves, as human beings. The challenge remains to be one where a
co-existence in which differences are respected is sustained. The movie Three Kings is a prime
example of how further integration into a foreign society causes people to
really see things for what reality is worth and loose much of the Orientalistic
mentality that was once their sole outlet for comprehension.
Works Cited
Said, Edward W. Orientalism. New
York : Pantheon Books, 1978.