The manifestation of Orientalism in Hollywood cinema: Perspective Lawrence of Arabia

Source image

Western colonial regimes have long ruled the East and the Middle East directly. The history of this period is not very pleasant for the locals here. Because the colonial ruling class never sees their occupants in the eyes of the 'people'.

The history of colonialism has always been a history of oppression and exploitation. This exploitation and oppression stops only when the exploited have no choice but to turn around and put up extreme resistance.

But has the attitude of the rulers ever changed? Has the racism and aristocracy that ruled the subcontinent for two hundred years been born among the westerners and its remnants have been completely erased even at this time?

The answer to this question is debatable, but the fact that the West still sees the East, Asia and the Middle East in a seemingly negative light, is proved by their literary, cultural, etc. creative work on these regions.

Orientalism is to look at the East, and the Middle East in this unimportant, negative, petty perspective in Western education and culture. Edward Saeed, a proponent of Orientalism. He also wrote a book by this name in 1986.

Today's discussion is about movies, but it is not a movie review. Rather, it attempts to highlight how various elements of Orientalism are embedded in the Hollywood movie Lawrence of Arabia. It is advisable to watch the movie before reading this article.

Hollywood cinema is one of the first aquatic examples in the context of Orientalism. From this tendency to portray the East, especially the Middle East, as inferior, no matter how average Hollywood makers, from great directors like Katherine Bigelow or Steven Spielberg - no less.

In the eyes of the West, Muslims are always 'different', 'dangerous', 'external', 'indebted'. The Western world has shouldered the responsibility of 'rescuing' these so-called Orients. It will be clear if we take some samples from the movie-

Source image

The British are fighting for the independence of the Arabs (Lawrence of Arabia, 1962),
The U.S. military is working hard to rescue the people of Somalia from the tyranny of the dictatorship (Black Hawk Down, 2001).
In Afghanistan, ten- to twelve-year-olds carry Kalashnikov rifles on their shoulders (Lone Survivor, 2013).
Iraqi mother uses her child in warfare (American Sniper, 2014)
Or the saints of Colonial India kill people in their worship, put their hands on the chests of living people and tear their hearts out (Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, 1984).
Examples of such bhuri bhuri orientalist films can be found in Hollywood or the British film industry. The fact of the matter is that the films that Hollywood has made so far in the Middle East will not have Orientalist elements, which is almost unbelievable.

Due to the US dominance in Iraq and Syria, there are a lot of delicacies to make movies here, so the directors also jumped on the bandwagon to make movies based on Yankee sentiment. Because these war-based Orientalist movies are a great tool to fuel this sentiment.

That's why we see that even though Michael Bay Pearl Harbor (2001) was made into a piece of history, the American audience did not seem to be very upset about it. That is why by pointing the finger at the truth of history, he has raised capital only on the strength of Orientalism and American sentiment.

Not only the Middle East, Arabs or Muslims, but any country in Asia is distorted in these Orientalist Hollywood films. For example, when the White House is attacked, a North Korean terrorist or a US spy has to confront him.
....................!

Thanks for Reading.......