Can this be the most racist film in history?
Taking in account it was made in 21st century.
~~~OK Computer, Kid A, Amnesiac~~~
movie is shockingly sterotypical.
MovieChat Forums > Rules of Engagement (2000) Discussion > Can this be the most racist film in hist...
No, it's not. But how would you have told the story?
shareWell I wouldn't have told the story in the first place since this event never happened. Yemen enjoys rather positive relations with the States and should not have been taken for granted the way this film I'm sure jeopardized
shareIf a fictional movie jeopardizes relations then those relations can't be particularly strong.
That aside, I liked this movie. Its not about whether Yemen harbours terroists or not (Friedkin is convinced they do but doesn't think the whole country is terroists) its about was Childers justified in what he did? Even if he didn't break the Rules Of Engagement, should he have opened fire?
Those who can, do. Those who can't, criticize
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
I don't see how this could be considered racist?
Is the fact that it takes place in the Middle East? Are you saying people from the middle east never rioted or killed people? Because if this is what you are saying, then you are blind. I'm not saying that people from the middle east are the only group that will do that, but its ok to portray them in that way. Just like its ok to portray any other group of people to do the same
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
"as well as numerous holocaust denial films coming out of the Arab world by al-Jazeera"
?
[deleted]
No, of course not. Maybe if you meant "high-budget mainstream American" or something.
To the point, there are much more "racist" films AGAINST Americans (who aren't a race but a nationality, but you know what I mean).
i love that the 10 year old girl missing a leg was in childers flashback in the attacking crowd with a gun LOL
sickening movie.
i agree, very racist movie
it portrays the american officers under fire as terribly incompetent for waiting as long as they did to return fire when they are being wounded and killed...and by extension, it implies that americans are dumb, and there we enter the world of fiction...
it shows the yemenis protestors as imbeciles as they stand their chanting and arm waving when there are men with guns all around them shooting at an embassy? either these people like the sound of gunfire by their heads or were too dumb to realize that someone was gonna shoot back...yemenis, no one in fact, is that dumb
it portrays the american president as a callous and weak man...RACIST...no american president has ever thrown a decorated solider that far under the bus...even macarthur was treated with more respect...
lastly, it portrays the yemenis as horrible shots...the ones that were shooting, well, that wasn't the 1st time they fired a rifle and there were many of them shooting and 80% of their rounds went into walls and the floor?!?!! what is that? what is that?
racism was rampant in this one
it is better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it
it portrays the american president as a callous and weak man.
The American President wasn't portrayed at all in this movie. The only bureaucrats shown were the American Ambassador to Yemen and the National Security Advisor.
As for the shooters missing, I take it you've never been in a firefight before. In the heat of battle, many shots are missed. Even at point blank range. Stop thinking that Dirty Harry movies are indicative of gun fights.
When you steal from Peter and give to Paul, you will always have the support of Paul. share
I don't think it has anything to do with race but more of what actually happens in the heat of combat. the middle east is just the setting because it is the current threat.
Not everyone in the crowd had weapons and obviously the bulk were actually peacefully demonstrating. But terrorist moved into the crowd and started firing, they don't say it but they probably weren't all even from Yemen.
Alot of points in the movie are also overlooked. The part with SLJ explaining how innocent people always die, seeing everyone including children firing weapons in flashbacks, not being able to explain why he didn't just have warning shots fired over the crowd. It is almost like they are trying to show that in the heat of battle it can be more of a reaction than action type scenario and how the mind can play tricks on someone in that situation.
About it being racist though, would it have made any sense whatsoever if it had been canadians, germans or the french?
I think that's the most sensible post I've read so far on this board.
I wish I could review the video-tape scene to see how much of the crowd had guns - I don't recall it being like Childers' recollection where everyone had a gun, but it was tape that exonerated him, not how he remembered things (where everyone seemed to have a gun). (I'm sure it will be aired again and I'll watch it more closely then).
I think it also shows how politicians will reject the truth and hang someone out to dry solely for political reasons.
Was I the only person who found it ironic that seconds after the NSA says we cannot be seen as covering this up, he says the videotape will never see the light of day?
Fighting is never good, but sometimes it is necessary.
I view movies and I see characters - I do not see these characters as being representative of every who has a similar background to them. In this movie, there was Childers and Hodges. Are all Americans just like them? Of course not (as evidenced by posts on this board - and while I'm not blindly assuming all posts here are made by Americans, I bet many of them are).
Then there is the angry mob who thought it was a good idea to bring their kids to a riot. And then there are the snipers who seemed to drop cassettes filled with terrorist propaganda wherever they went.
So, are all Arabs - or all people from the Middle East - or all Muslims supposed to be just like the angry mob or just like the snipers? (Arabs, people from the Middle East and Muslims often get lumped together as if they are some homogeneous set of people that are all alike when in fact they often share more differences than similarities).
And then there are the politicians (the ambassador and the Nat'l Security Adviser). Are all politicians like that? (Well, I'm going to plead the 5th on that lest I reveal one aspect of my thinking which is actually prejudiced.)
BTW, that was a nice touch - the Ambassador hiding under his desk while his wife and young son cowered in another room.
You knew he was not a good person from that point on and his testimony at the court martial proved that.
This movie gives more respect to black people then to Arabs. Explain that. Then all these white people go to tanning salons because they want to have a Mediterranean skin tone like Arabs do. Actually Arabs were thought to be on average more perfectly formed then Europeans but whites are put on a pedestal because of a blond hair blue eyed obsession so white girls became hair dye freaks.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]