I havn'tseen this film but found a site on the sinternet that claimed it was racist and showed the arab world in a bad light.
Is this true?
I need a film to comment on for my media coursework. It has to have been released 2003 onweards. My title is the representation of arabs in the media.
Any help would be great!
I havn'tseen this film but found a site on the sinternet that claimed it was racist and showed the arab world in a bad light.
Is this true?
Yes.
That's good. Go on. Read some more. —Warren G. Harding
I agree completely with the statement that this film is racist towards Arabs.
Firstly, there's no such thing as "Arabs". It's like saying "Europeans" or "people living in the Americas". Arabs are from totally different countries, with different cultures, different languages (an arab from Morocco is unable to understand the arabic spoken by an arab from Lebanon), different foods, different nation histories.
To understand how this movie is racist you have to know that Muslim Arabs are the enemy number one of the American Government right now. The reason behind that is of course an immense farce: the american people needs an enemy and will always need one as long as it is an immature and young nation. Before Arabs, you had Nicaraguans who were slaughtered massively by CIA covert operations (and the USA lost in an international court of justice for crimes against humanity), and also drugs (remember, the War on Drugs).
So Arabs is the enemy number one in the US. What a better occasion than this story of a horse winning a race against pure-bred arabian horses to spit in the face of the "Arab" people (as if there was one). Let's produce a cheap movie with a bunch of second-rate actors that will portray arabs as a bunch of cheaters, evil, immoral, criminals, and, worst of all, losers.
The only "nice" character in this movie is a women who is being mistreated by everyone else. There is not one single Arab who shows great qualities throughout the movie. At one point one of them saves the life of the american charactor, but that's only because his life was saved by that man instants before.
It's a disgusting movie and Omar Sharif should be ashamed to have played in it.
Shame on you Omar!!!
Regards,
Melkiades
It's racist against Brits! Once again we have the stereotyped roles of bufoon and villain.
All these people who claim that films pick on blacks, arabs, germans, wookies are missing the true victims in Hollywood, us anglo-saxons. We're almost always the baddies whether we're burning churches in the Patriot or opressing those good Irish lads in the wind that shakes the barley. Hell, if you only had Hollywood to go on you'd think the Nazis were not German but British. They're either always played by them (Fiennes in Schindler's list, Mckellen in apt pupil) or even played with an English accent (about every war film where they didn't bother with a hammy german accent).
So next time someone complains about an 8th century Irish set love story being racist for not having enough black characters or that there's no positive roles for Gungans in Hollywood, spare a thought for the truly oppressed!
;)
Truly Oppressed! The Nation that exploited(raw materials,engaged in enslaving humans) several countries for a duration of 200 -250 years calls itself "The TRULY OPPRESSED". The Nation that caused genocide in a few countries that it ruled, that killed many innocent women and children by machine guns on purpose and then left the wounded children(with machine gun bullets in them) to suffer to death. The Nation that stole the most precious and largest diamond(till date) , the Kohinoor from India has the audacity to call itself truly oppressed!. These are just a few of the atrocities inflicted by you( the english) and you're crying because of having too many english people portaying ugly characters in cinema ! You know what we tell people like you in India who talk negatively about others despite possessing various negative elements ? We tell them to shut the *beep* up, sit in a corner and mind their own business.
shareFirst, you have no sense of humour. Second, you're just spouting propoganda.
How do you like them apples?
Woah, take a few deep breaths and relax. The post about racism toward the Brits in Hollywood movies was a joke. Although, a perceptive joke, as that really is how most Brits ARE portrayed in Hollywood movies. But alas, darth's post was meant to be a joke.
It's pretty widespread knowledge that the Brits weren't exactly saints when it comes to the empire they used to have, whether in regards to India or Ireland or elsewhere, but that's a whole different discussion.
---
[DON'T PANIC]
British colonialism but almost nothing but good to the host peoples. India would be a schismatic *beep* if not for Britain, instead it is a world power precisely because of inherited British governmental structure and ideas. Y'all were backwards losers before the British forced their superior ideas upon you. Don't like it? Would you rather live in abject ignorance and irrelevance?
Not STFU and sit in a corner. We should have left your kind to continue to simmer in abject ignorance and live your ugly lives so that you could not today possess the skills to agitate the inheritors of the British efforts with your mindless ignorant ramblings.
"The spirit is willing, but the flesh is spongy and bruised."
It's funny how you speak english, hell you probably even live in england.
"In this business, we're not men, we're only bullets that can be replaced."
first off you're an idiot. arabs are called arabs because they share the common language of arabic. dialects exist in all languages, but that does not mean they speak a different language. this movie is not racist. look at how islamic societies were in the middle east in that time and you will realize that they're culture is much different from many arabic nations today.
shareRacist to refer to Arabs as Arabs. Made my day. Then going on to say that's it's like referring to people from Europe as Europeans. On what backwards-ass planet is that considered racist? Folk these days just feel left out if they're not offended by something, so they'll be offended by just about anything.
shareMelkaides,
I have yet to see all of the movie but the parts I have seen, and some of the things I know, would contradict some of your analysis.
-The woman wasn't the only one displaying noble qualities, Her father displayed some and he even made friends with the main charactor at the end, which shows that they came to understand each other despite there differences. The charactor who saved the main charactor showed high moral standing, yes he was saved before but he returned that which is a sign of honor.Were he evil or immoral he would not have done that as evil people don't care about returning a life-debt or re-paying kindness. There was a scene I saw where this guy was trying to kill the girl and mortally wounded her guard person who killed his murderer to save her, that is pretty noble.
-Those types of horse races, despite the country they were in, tended to be pretty cut throat, which had nothing to do with ethnic background. As you may recall there was a British lady in the film who was depicted in a very negative light trying to have *beep* killed so her horse would win. There are other horse race movies set even in America that show the same skeems; which from the little background I know on them, it tended to be a common trait that the competitions brought out the worst in people.
-In films intended to mock another race the main charactor clearly belongs to the race thats seen to be better. A multi-racial person could hardly fit that bill, especially a half Native American who in the 1890s ranked lower than an Arab in ethnic classification. {At this time Arabs were counted as white so they could recieve American citizenship, and WASPs saw whites as better than non-whites}Propaganda likes simple classifications to more clearly show its message.
-The movie needs to be taken into context with the time and places of its setting. Things in the 1980's were very different from today, and it would be ignorant to watch a film about events from this time with out reliseing that things won't be tha same as now. In the 1980's women didn't have much rights anywhere in the world, thus the portral of the "nice" woman. Women's lives are not that restritive and subjagative in the Arabian penninsula now, but they still have more restrictions than men.
-When the term Arab is used it means people of Arabian desent, there ancestory goes back to Arabian, for most Middle Eastern people this descent is pretty far back; it is an ethnic, not a national, designation. Not everyone in the Middle East gets this ethnic label: namely the Kurds, Aramineans, Farsi/Persian, ethnic Anatolians, most of the Turks, the Copts and the Israelis.
1890s, not 1980s.
shareIt showed that SOME people are bad... I remember the movie correctly that it was big on tolerance of other cultures and that even the middle easterns in the film helped him and were shown as good.
The film was also very stanced against the white people who slaughtered the native americans. Does that make it also racist then against whites because some whites were bad guys? Of course not.
What the hell is wrong with everyone huh? It's a movie... you guys do realize that don't you? Just because in Die Hard 4 the bad guy is an American it does not offend me. Besides there are what, like five bad guys in Hidalgo. Look at all the other middle eastern people who are portrayed as kind, gentle, and honorable people.
So please, just shut the hell up with this racism crap. Every movie has to have a bad guy, you are the ones making a case of racism about it.
I agree with diomodies.
SassiKatt
""Firstly, there's no such thing as "Arabs". It's like saying "Europeans"""
exactly: and Europeans exist! can say you're not one of them, right? Like the other intelligent guy said here, Arabic is one language! you have no knowledge of linguistics so just shut up. And I'm proud of my Indo-European origins, as in "European", a language family more than half of us Europeans share in common.
And I'm proud of my Indo-European origins, as in "European", a language family more than half of us Europeans share in common.
I agree that Omar Sharif should feel bad about himself, making money with that crap. I couldn't help notice some other oriental looking actors that often pose as the arabian terrorist in some second rate (still widely broadcasted) movies or TV series.
Omar should have made enough cash out of his great acting career, not to have to be complicit of mass manipulation towards arabs.
oh, do you'll rather have an irish actor play a character whose arabic?
"In this business, we're not men, we're only bullets that can be replaced."
[deleted]
"let's produce a cheap movie."
this movie cost $100 million.
[deleted]
I also found this movie to be racist against Ameican and Middle Eastern Indians, Asians, African Americans, Caucasians, etc. In addition, I found it sexist against male and females. I thought bald people got a bad rap. There was a great deal fo cruelty to animals of all ilks. Gays certainly should be
offended, as should be heterosexuals. In all this may have been the Archie Bunker of movies.
"I also found this movie to be racist against Ameican and Middle Eastern Indians, Asians, African Americans, Caucasians, etc. In addition, I found it sexist against male and females. I thought bald people got a bad rap. There was a great deal fo cruelty to animals of all ilks. Gays certainly should be
offended, as should be heterosexuals. In all this may have been the Archie Bunker of movies."
Thank you, amikelhenry. This is the wisest comment posted here.
Thank you, amikelhenry. This is the wisest comment posted here.
>>I havn'tseen this film but found a site on the sinternet that claimed it was racist and showed the arab world in a bad light.
Is this true?<<
No.
Racism is an easy charge to make, and much like child-molestation, it tends to make people want the accused to prove innocence, when the burden of proof clearly rests with the accuser. Don't ask if it's true; ask why someone thinks it's true, then make up your own mind based on the evidence or lack thereof.
"The value of an idea has nothing to do with the honesty of the man expressing it."--Oscar Wilde
Just saw it and didn't think it was racist towards "Arabs".
Of course, there was this young woman struggeling to live her life as she chooses to live it but I mean it's the 19th century and it's fact there were arranged marriages and everything she's struggeling with but I don't think it's racist to just put that into a movie. There wasn't this dishonest portrait of the all- so- tolerant Americans against the oh- so- repressing Middle Easters in my opinion. And as was mentioned before then British lady was by far the worst of tnem all.
And the American good-guy was in fact native American and didn't identify with the "white" Americans or their idea of tolerance well showed in their imprisoning and slaughtering of both the native Americans and their wild horses.
The movie tried very hard to show the similarities in repressing people because of their "colour" and "blood" on both sides, the "white" Americans towards the native Americans and the "Arabs" towards the "black" slaves. It was just a mirror and - to me - trying to achieve political correctness very hard.
I'm "European" by the way. I would say to have a slight idea about Nortehrn American culture but almost none about Middle Eastern or Muslim culture so I won't dare any judgement about elements of tolerance or else in any of them. But I didn't saw a connection between the way Middle Eastern people were portrayed in this movie and the current political situation in America and of America towards the Middle Eastern countries. There will always be many prejudices in the Western countries towards for example the rights of women in the Muslim culture because the appearances are very different. It's not for me to say anything about that because my knowledge simply is so limited. But to mention the struggeling of that young woman with being married to a man she hates as his fifth wife was just a way to make Viggo Mortensen's character look into a mirror of what it means to be treated as a puppet and not living his very own life with it's very own value. It wasn't like "all-the-"Arab"-people-are-treating-their-daughters-or-wives-badly. It was just a comparison to make Mortensen want to find himself even more.
"No one here is exactly what he appears..."
[deleted]
I find this movie is racist against midget eskimoes....there is not a single midget eskimo in this movie.
shareThis movie is no more racist than any other movie produced in the world. My dad's from Al Khobar and I took no offense from this movie.
shareThis movie is in no way racist to any culture.
Just see the movie and enjoy it.
www.InGenOps.com - The #1 Source For Jurassic Park Toys & News!!!
It didn't say much nice about ANY "race." The fact that the majority of the movie takes place in the Middle East may seem to put more emphasis on Arabs as bad guys, but virtually every "race" took a hit.
There is no perfect race. All have baggage and bring it to the table with them.
All stories have a protagonist and antagonist. In this cast, the protagonist is an American Mustang and his rider who happens to be part white and part Native American. The fact that all the rest of the cast are NOT Mustangs or part white - part Native American has little or nothing to do with the story other than to drive the plot in an entertaining manner. I have to believe that the customs, cultures, and behaviors of the different characters, while not always the most flattering, are there to advance the story, not some prejudiced agenda.
This wasn't supposed to be a movie about race, other than a horse race. Well, maybe that's not totally correct. All those other folks were very prejudiced against American Mustangs.
Anybody who is looking at this movie as a message of racial hatred needs to take a real good look in a mirror and check what is in their own hearts.
I don't see it as a racist movie. It did tend to villianize, well, everyone against the mustang and the Native Americans. But then, the proof is there in history that everyone thought the mustangs unpure and the American govt. did tend to demonize then scapegoat the Natives.
I looked at it as a growth movement. The Sheik and the Prince and a good many of the "Arabs" found that will won the day, not blood; and even an inpure horse can have the will to survive. And the American Govt. (at least those few in the end) when they saw that their faithful dispatcher was half Souix, probably re-thought their stance.
There will be people on both sides of the fence on this, and they will toss abck and forth, racism or no... but in the end, it is your own choice and your own perception on history and people that will decide your mind.
I like him he says okeydokey.share
It shows a different culture being...different,ZOMG the PC nazis are on the lose people can not be different not now and not in the past!
Theres might not be "Arabs" now but back then their might have been as people of different cultures tend to lob other people into other groups, if anythign it shows "Arabs" or the Arabian people to be highly traditional stern but fair people.
Once you state burning them race cards you can find "racism" or glaring stereotyping or embarrassing but truthful facts, it all depends on what you are willing to put the spotlight on and shadow everythign else within it.
[deleted]
i find that if people look for racism hard enough, they will find it everything.
sharePeople from other countries ALWAYS accuse Americans to be racist. Since everyone is always making Americans out to be the bad guys in real life, they could at least be the good guys in the movies, since, that's the only time they're "allowed" to be the good guys, and only if they write it. British people are always being discriminated against in movies, and they're always the bad guys? What about James Bond? Besides, America is always bad in British films. Like in 28 days later when the evil Americanos just stand back and let poor Britain be over run with "notzombies". Or in V for Vendetta, where the unruly Americans are in a civil war that's tearing the country apart. Its easy to make ANYBODY the bad guy.
There's nothing funny about a clown in the moon light. :O)
[deleted]
I didn't see any racism in this movie at all. I didn't see the "Arabs" villainised (spelling?) or anybody really. In my humble opinion it was realistic, it showed that some people were reasonable and some weren’t. The Sheik, his Daughter, her Bodyguard, the guy with the falcon, the goat-herder, even the Prince (in the end) were reasonable characters. The sheik’s nephew, his deputy and others were not...But that's the way it is in any culture, some people are reasonable and some aren’t. It showed Arabs as arrogant, but everybody is. Case in point, tell an English person that the French are better that the English or an Ausie the New Zealanders are better, Irish to English, Japanese to Chinese, American to Canadian...and I could go on 'till all the countries in the world are named. That's pride in your country, and your heritage. Really the only ones that should be offend are the American Mustangs (so many slams on those horses), But I don't think they really care.
Oh yeah, darth_insidious, you forgot the biggest Anti-British propaganda movie (or movies, really) in the history of Anti-British propaganda movies, and that being, Star Wars. I mean the Death Star was just full of British actors planning the oppression of the galaxy, and probably sipping tea while doing it. (Sorry, stole a bit of that from Eddie Izzard, see his stand up, if you haven't)
"I find this movie is racist against midget eskimoes....there is not a single midget eskimo in this movie."
Lol.
I don't see this movie as a racist movie. It shows what the world was like in that time. Remember, it's based on a true story.
Also, if it was racist, it would probably be banned.
-sig-
The Irish gave the bagpipes to the Scotts as a joke, but the Scotts haven't seen the joke yet.
holy crap there is no such thing as a racist movie.
ladies and gentlemen, what we have here is someone who lives in front of their television with only cheetos and perhaps a cat for social interaction claiming that hidalgo is racist because it does not accurately portray "arabs" (who apparently dont exist...). in truth, the movie is portraying a very small group of people. the director didn't travel to every north african country and show you people who all look alike, but rather made sure that the costuming fit the time period appropriately. if this film is racist towards "arabs", then it must also be racist towards cowboys, brits, blacks, horses and yes, even midget eskimos.
please remember that racism is a REAL WORLD issue and people who claim that a certain movie is racist are only fueling more of it. thank you.