in Large-Scale Fictional Hollywood Media

There is no doubt of an existing symbiotic relationship between terrorists and the media, particularly in cases of news media. Terrorists seek to have their voices heard on a platform that extends to a wide audience; the media seeks to "scoop" their stories and improve ratings (Combs 128-129). Given this knowledge, one might speculate whether or not Hollywood has any contribution to, relationship with, or bearing on real-life terrorist events. In the case of movies, the media has practically been given carte blanche by society to fabricate blockbuster stories.

To examine the relationship between Hollywood fictional media and non-fictional events, 16 movies were reviewed for certain characteristics, including the terrorists’ ethnicity, motivation, method, and success rate, as well as whether or not the perpetrators would qualify as "crazy," "criminal," or "crusader" as defined in a book by Cindy Combs. Victims’ ethnicities were also examined. The movies were all released in 1991 or later, and were chosen for their status of box-office and rental favorites as large-scale releases. The movies are: Toy Soldiers (1991), Patriot Games (1992), Passenger 57 (1992), Speed (1993), True Lies (1994), Broken Arrow (1995), Die Hard 3: Die Hard with a Vengeance (1995), Executive Decision (1996), The Rock (1996), Air Force One (1997), The Devil’s Own (1997), The Peacemaker (1997), The Negotiator (1998), The Siege (1998), Arlington Road (1999), and Swordfish (2001). All movies reviewed included the story of a terrorist event or a terrorist’s mission. Some variance was found with respect to accuracy. In some cases, Hollywood movies closely resemble and even parallel terrorist events; in other cases, the movies portray terrorists and terrorism as entities that have no basis in real-life events.

First of all, it is necessary to determine whom the victims represent in each of the movies. In the sample of 16 movies, the victims were Americans in 14 cases, Irish in one case, and British in one case. This portrayal is inaccurate. According to the

CIA, 40% of all global terrorist attacks were pitted against U.S. interests in 1997; this number was actually up from 25% the year before (DCI Counter-terrorist Center, 1). While more attacks target U.S. interests, American victims represent a much smaller proportion than 88%. Also, movies portray terrorist events occurring within the United States most often; exceptions include Patriot Games and movies that involve hijacking international flights aboard American planes. In reality, very few terrorist events actually occur within the United States. In 1996, Europe was the location of more terrorist events than any other region (121 out of 296), and in the same year, no terrorist events took place within the boundaries of North America (U.S. State Department Online). Therefore, Hollywood movies inaccurately portray both the ethnicities of the victims and locations of attacks.

With this in mind, the next question becomes whether or not movies portray the perpetrators of terrorist events accurately; namely, who is most responsible for anti-US attacks, since the victims of most movies are Americans. In the movies reviewed, Americans represented the largest percentage of perpetrators, Middle Eastern and Eastern European represented the second largest ethnicity, and South Americans, Irish, British, and Germans were portrayed in the smallest percentages. In 1996, however, the largest number of anti-U.S. attacks occurred in Latin America, and as mentioned, no attacks took place in the United States. This can be seen in the "Anti-US Attacks, 1996" chart, taken from the U.S. State Department Online. In the movies

reviewed, only one movie (Toy Soldiers) portrayed the perpetrators as being South American. Therefore, the ethnic portrayal of terrorists is, again, inaccurate. Also, the typical motivation of American terrorists in movies is political, personal, or criminal. However, a recent article states that the typical real-life American terrorist is motivated mostly by hate, including racial/ethnic, anti-gay, anti-semitic, and antiabortion motivations ("The American Terrorist," 1).

One interesting comparison can be made between the number of casualties involved in terrorist events in real life and in movies. In movies, almost all terrorist events involve mass casualties; for example, many "extras" were casualties during events in movies like Passenger 57, Speed, Arlington Road, Sword-fish, and Broken Arrow. However, in non-fictional events, most events do not precipitate any casualties, as shown by the chart, also taken from the U.S. State Department Online.

Perhaps the only aspect of terrorism that movies do portray accurately is the common method most terrorists choose. A variety of sources confirm that bombs are the preferred method in real life, while in movies bombs are the weapon of choice 31% of the time, which is more than any other method. Other prevalent methods in movies include hijacking, holding hostages, and nuclear weapons, each at 19%. In non-fictional life, however, only 2 of 296 incidents included hijacking in 1996, and only 28 out of 296 included kidnapping and/or hostages (U.S. State Department Online). More common

real-life methods which are not portrayed in the movies as often include firebombing, arson, and armed attacks. However, the movies do accurately portray the most common method as bombs or the threat of bombs, which is the closest parallel to real life that has been discussed thus far.

The personalities of terrorists in movies are far easier to analyze than those of terrorists in society. However, the true question is how accurately fictional terrorists resemble non-fictional terrorists in terms of personality. Frederick Hacker, as cited by Cindy Combs, has defined three categories of terrorists: crazies, criminals, and crusaders. Crazies are "emotionally disturbed individuals who are driven to commit terrorism ‘by reasons of their own that often do not make sense to anybody else’" (49). Criminals only perform terrorist acts for personal gains, and their goals are clear. Crusaders, however, "commit terrorism for reasons that are often unclear both to themselves and to those witnessing the acts" (49). They are ideologically-driven, and usually cannot be negotiated with because they are working for a higher cause. Hacker claims that very few terrorists can be identified as having traits characteristic of purely one category. However, in the movies, fictional terrorists can easily be labeled. For example, the perpetrating terrorists in Toy Soldiers are clearly criminals. Out of the movies reviewed, two movies contain "crazy" terrorists, four contain "criminal" terrorists, and the rest portray the terrorists as crusaders. According to Hacker, this is actually accurate, since most real-life terrorists are, in fact, mostly crusaders. Therefore, movies tend to be accurate in portraying both methods and personalities of terrorists.

Movies have been both acclaimed and criticized for their portrayals of terrorists and terrorist missions. One movie that has received both acclaim and criticism as far as these portrayals is The Devil’s Own. James Berardinelli claims that the film approaches IRA issues "in a non-judgmental, evenhanded fashion by depicting good and evil on both sides. The most interesting facet of the political side of the script is how Irish views are easily distorted in America, an ocean away from the strife and violence" (2). However, the same movie has been criticized because of its unrealistic take on the terrorist activities of the IRA, and hardly discusses the background of the IRA’s struggle.

Of more concern to society is the portrayal of Middle Eastern values and beliefs, particularly to Arab-Americans. Mary F. Pols of the Contra Costa Times wrote:

In "Air Force One: The Cinematic Erasure of Central Asia," Dr. Anthony R. Bichel argues that certain movies explicitly addressed concerns of U.S. foreign policy-makers. Among the four movies he named as directly relating to the United States’ concern that Middle Eastern terrorists were attempting to get access to nuclear weapons were True Lies and Broken Arrow (1). Bichel’s opinion is that Central Asia has been painted with generalizations, such as the general population’s greed for nuclear weapons, in Hollywood films, particularly those films that deal with terrorism.

One website cites two examples of media irresponsibility in the portrayal of a cultural group of people as terrorists. In True Lies, the Arab terrorists are "portrayed as religious fanatics bent on destroying the world, and were also sexist, racist, and idiotic … In 1998’s The Siege, Arabs are portrayed as having a ‘weird faith,’ and it is implied that being Arab equals being Muslim, and thus equals being a terrorist" (1-2). While the assertion made about True Lies may be true, the point of The Siege was actually to prevent a sort of racist ideal from developing, should a Muslim group ever terrorize the United States. Edward Zwick, The Siege’s Director, commented on the September 11^th attacks in a recent interview with The Boston Globe:

However, more than one reviewer has been of the opinion that The Siege irresponsibly portrayed Muslims; Kiki Petrosino of The Cavalier Daily claimed that The Siege "[f]rom its opening frame … capitalizes on the exoticism of Islam," and the film links religious ritual too closely to terrorism (1). In fact, upon the film’s release, several interest groups went to local movie theaters to pass out leaflets criticizing Zwick. The main complaint of films’ portrayals of terrorism, however, has been the dehumanizing characteristics of terrorists who belong to non-fictional organizations. While Brad Pitt’s character in The Devil’s Own is followed from an early age, usually the audience only knows a terrorist’s name, and perhaps a bit of background information on what is typically portrayed as a deranged villain. Most Middle Eastern terrorists in movies are never even assigned organizations, as if just being Middle Eastern or of Middle Eastern descent is enough to make a terrorist.

While ethnic groups of people are generalized in movies about terrorism, counterterrorism activities are also typically portrayed. These individuals or groups of people are depicted as noble, characterizing the epitome of integrity and will stop-at-nothing to weed out "the bad guy." Examples of movies where this occurs include Broken Arrow, Patriot Games, The Devil’s Own, Arlington Road, and the majority of movies about terrorism, particularly the movies in which Americans are victimized. The movie Swordfish, however, looks at counterterrorism from a different perspective; the "Black Cell" organization established by the CIA as a counterterrorism effort is portrayed as ruthless, cunning, and impenetrable. The American government, which at times seems to support the organization, is portrayed as weak, with an appetite for spying on its citizens. The Black Cell in the film is clearly the villainous establishment; interestingly enough, Swordfish is also one of the only fictional movies about terrorism in which the terrorists (or counterterrorists) are successful. The only other movie included in the study in which this occurs is Arlington Road, a movie that features disgruntled American citizens striking back at the FBI for crimes committed against humanity in the past.

The information gathered relative to movies about terrorism can be applied to today’s situation in many different ways; not only do movies offer criticism of contemporary society, but they also offer stereotypical views of how society feels about terrorist acts. Most importantly, several movies bear parallels to events that occurred after their release or filming. The Siege is perhaps the film that most closely parallels the events of September 11^th, 2001. First of all, early in the film, there is a shot of the Khobar tower ground zero, which Osama bin Laden was hired to rebuild in real life. Also, the film includes a terrorist who comes to the United States three days before participating in a terrorist attack in New York City with a student visa by way of Germany; the story is similar to that of Mohammed Atta. In fact, The Siege’s sequel, titled Athens, was supposed to open with a group of Muslim terrorists bombing the World Trade Center- the script is currently being rewritten. In a moment of distinct eeriness, one quote from The Siege stands out above all others as a government officials attempts to appease Americans’ needs for revenge after the attacks: "Make no mistake- we will hunt down the enemy, we will find the enemy, and we will kill the enemy" ("A Blockbuster Mourning," 2).

The Siege, however, has far more impact than simply a parallel to September 11^th events. The film, accurate in its prediction of future events, may also have some bearing on how terrorist events may cause America to turn on its own citizens. In the film, terrorist suspects are narrowed down to a few thousand young men within New York City; these men are placed in internment camps and are all, not surprisingly, Arab-American. In fact, martial law is declared in New York City following a rash of terrorist events in the film. On September 24^th, 2001, a poll of NYC residents found that approximately one-third of the city’s population favored internment camps for those who may have been linked to the WTC attacks. This film in particular is important because it addresses unanswered questions about how the nation’s population would be treated if a continuing rash of terrorist events took place in any American city. By hearing about films like Collateral Damage, a film about a terrorist threat on a Los Angeles skyscraper, Big Trouble, involving a story about a bomb making its way to an airplane, and Jackie Chan’s next film that was supposed to be about a WTC window washer getting involved with a terrorist plan to blow up the statue of liberty, one may think Hollywood knows more about what is going to happen next than Washington. One source stated that "Afghanistan may have been the breeding ground for [September’s] attacks, but Hollywood served as a source of inspiration … ‘The movies set the pattern, and these people have copied the movies’" ("Critic Says Films Inspire Terrorism," 1). For these reasons, it is important to pay close attention to movies and their commentaries on potential terrorist events. Perhaps the general public’s willingness and need to be prepared would explain why rentals of movies like Die Hard and The Siege have risen dramatically since the terrorist events ("Rated ‘T’ for Terrorism," 1).

However, a November 19^th article stated that "the majority of people (60 percent) said Hollywood should stop making action movies involving terrorists as a sign of respect for victims of the recent attacks" (Elvin 1). Film companies are doing their share of work in the wake of the September 11^th attacks. Not only have the aforementioned and many other films been delayed or scrapped, but there have also been alterations to films that feature scenes of the WTC towers ("Not Like the Movies, 1). Controversially, Blockbuster decided to label Swordfish as a movie that features disturbing scenes. Specifically, there was a card placed on the shelves with the movies until the end of 2001 that stated: "In light of the events of September 11, please note this product contains scenes that may be considered disturbing to some viewers" ("Rated ‘T’ for Terrorism," 1). However, only Swordfish was marked by these warnings, while many other films in the chain’s stores (including The Siege) have no labels. Originally, Blockbuster wanted to delay release of the home videos and DVD’s (Sweeting, 1), but Warner Brothers decided to go ahead and release the video. The label was a compromise. Blockbuster’s chairman stated that "we [Blockbuster] do not want to pull product from our stores. We see that as playing right into the hands of the people who would like to curtail our freedoms in this country" ("Blockbuster to Post Warning Labels," 1).

However accurate, inaccurate, responsible, or irresponsible films may be in portraying terrorists or terrorist events, there is no doubt that these action films bear predictive power. Perhaps this is why Hollywood executives have recently been meeting with military officials. In an interview with Bob Edwards for National Public Radio’s Morning Edition, Richard Lindhelm of the Institute for Creative Technologies discussed these events more in depth:

Lindhelm went on to state that "fortunately or unfortunately, art has often led the way to reality, and art and writers and motion pictures and ideas coming from writers have often been the inspiration for reality" (2). One might imagine that it could also be the other way around; however, some of the best military and artistic minds have agreed with Lindhelm.

Coincidental or not, movies can parallel real life and vice versa, especially terrorist movies. However, the important thing to remember is that real life is much more multi-faceted than the movies. As Carl Hoover of the Waco Tribune-Herald said regarding the September 11^th attacks, "it was like a movie, but it wasn’t. This nightmare didn’t end after two hours or after the channel was turned. Raw grief, shock and anger in reaction to the terrorist attacks, reactions viewed on television, tugged at the gut and let us know this was real." Hoover also voiced the opinion of Hollywood and other critics when he said, "some blamed the movies for what a nation witnessed Tuesday [September 11^th]. The violence of film and television created a culture in which terrorism could flourish, some said. All those action films of terrorist attacks – where else do you think those guys got the ideas for their attacks?" (1). Whereas some aspects of terrorism movies have bearing on real life and others do not, the movies discussed in this paper and elsewhere require attention based on their parallels with and predictive value for past, present, and future world events.

Bibliography