When the film “American Sniper” hit theaters in early
January 2015, it was a box office success. As it is described in the media, “American Sniper” is the
story of Navy SEAL sniper Chris Kyle’s “pinpoint accuracy saves countless lives
on the battlefield and turns him into a legend. Back home to his wife and kids
after four tours of duty, however, Chris finds that it is the war he can’t
leave behind.” While many have
praised the film as being a gripping portrayal of the lives of our American
Veterans abroad and the struggles they deal with once they come home from war,
critics have argued that it perpetuates the historically dominant stereotypes
of Arabs and Muslims as barbaric, heartless people who are the constant targets
of American violence.
Therefore, when the University of Michigan decided to host a
viewing of the film at a University sponsored event for students, it is no
surprise that it drew debate and controversy both on and off campus. After a student petition circulated
around campus garnering around 300 signatures to cancel the film screening, the
University promptly responded by cancelling the film screening. However, this was met with much
contention and following a petition to reinstate the film screening, the
University again decided to show the film, stating “It was a mistake to cancel
the showing of the movie ‘American Sniper’ on campus as part of a social event
for students”.
Proponents of showing the film on campus argue two main
issues: 1) that the right of free speech gives the University the right to show
any movie they so choose, and 2) that showing movies like “American Sniper”
create dialogue on campus.
Historically, it has been the role of academia and higher
learning to question and critically discuss the status quo. However, showing this film without
discussion or round table dialogue claims and labels the film as truth. We see in films like this the constant use of tropes such as the terrorist threat and savage
war. Showing this film adds to the repertory
of images that add to the dangers of a “single story” discussed by
Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie. When
there is no counter narrative or counter
hegemonic representations in popular, blockbuster hits, the single story is
taken as truth. This very idea can be seen in the
plethora of tweets and racist responses towards Arabs and Arab-Americans after
seeing the film.
Portraying Arabs in the film as binary opposites perpetuates the single story we have seen
throughout history. Through a Eurocentric lens, the film is not a
complex representation of Arabs but just adds to the stereotypes we have seen a
million times over. With
mainstream media’s support of the University showing the film, both the
filmmakers and mainstream media act as ideological
state apparatuses, supporting the state and the war that it has continued
to sponsor.
We have seen through this class how dialogue can be helpful
in critically thinking about the films we watch. However, this can be done with planned discussion and
healthy debate. Showing this film
without such discussion claims it as truth
and does the very opposite of creating dialogue on campus.
Sources:
No comments:
Post a Comment