This article was downloaded by:[Dodds, Klaus] On: 12 July 2008 Access Details: [subscription number 794912894] Publisher:

Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Critical Studies on Terrorism

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t780786797

Screening terror: Hollywood, the United States and the construction of danger
Klaus Dodds a a Department of Geography, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, UK Online Publication Date: 01 August 2008 To cite this Article: Dodds, Klaus (2008) 'Screening terror: Hollywood, the United States and the construction of danger', Critical Studies on Terrorism, 1:2, 227 243 To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/17539150802184629 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17539150802184629

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Critical Studies on Terrorism Vol. 1, No. 2, August 2008, 227243

Downloaded By: [Dodds, Klaus] At: 18:18 12 July 2008

ARTICLE
Critical 1753-9161 1753-9153 RTER Studies on Terrorism Vol. 1, No. 2, Jul 2008: pp. 00 Terrorism,

Screening terror: Hollywood, the United States and the construction of danger
Klaus Dodds*
K. Dodds Critical Studies on Terrorism

Department of Geography, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, UK (Received 20 October 2007; final form 12 March 2008) This paper is concerned with how and with what consequences Hollywood studios have approached the issue of terrorism. By drawing on the literatures of critical terrorism studies and critical geopolitics, a number of films are analysed for the purpose of considering the nature and motivation of terrorists, the objects of their assaults, the geographical location of the actual dramas, and the responses deemed necessary in the face of such apparent dangers. Finally, the paper briefly considers how one segment of film audiences, namely, participants (usually avid fans) who engage via online forums such as the Internet Movie Data Base (IMDb), engage and contest the movies themselves. The movie Rendition (2007) provides a brief example of how fans respond to a film explicitly concerned with terrorism and torture. This is important for considering how people make sense of films above and beyond their role as a highly successful form of entertainment. Keywords: critical terrorism studies; geopolitics; Hollywood; film

Introduction Critical terrorism studies (CTS) needs to take popular culture seriously. While the genesis of this new intellectual field is recent, it is striking that the existing CTS literature has comparatively little to say about the role that visual culture might play in representing and interpreting either acts of terrorism or sustaining particular understandings of terrorism. More specifically, this paper considers the role that Hollywood film plays in making and circulating images of terrorism for ostensibly commercial purposes. Although this paper cannot offer an exhaustive survey of Hollywoods filmic engagement with terrorism, it can highlight some themes that are germane not only to the continued development of CTS but also to our understanding of contemporary representations of terrorism. First, we can consider how and with what consequences Hollywood has addressed the subject matter of terrorism. If terrorism is a politically contested category, then the role of cultural industries like Hollywood are important because many people rely on the mass media (including film) to inform, educate, and entertain them about contemporary political issues. Second, Hollywood has produced films which are increasingly shaped by particular commercial realities, such as the growing importance of non-domestic (i.e. outside North America) markets. For some analysts, this trend has encouraged the development of so-called blockbuster films that emphasise spectacular action, fast paced storylines, and minimal attention to political and cultural context. Third, the role of audiences and the manner in which they engage with film is of interest because
*Email: K.Dodds@rhul.ac.uk
ISSN 1753-9153 print/ISSN 1753-9161 online 2008 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/17539150802184629 http://www.informaworld.com

228

K. Dodds

we should not assume that audiences are incapable of making sophisticated judgements about terrorism, even if the films in question provide little guiding contextual material. In addition, the role of genre is significant, because it has important implications for the way films are made and marketed to audiences. Generic cinema such as the action-thriller follows certain conventions and are invested with particular expectations so that audiences know in advance what type of movie it is likely to be. For instance, the Die Hard series of films were commercially successful in part because audiences could take a certain pleasure in knowing that the lead character, police officer John McClain (played by Bruce Willis), would prevail against a series of adversaries including East German terrorists (Die Hard), mercenaries (Die Harder), East German terrorists again (Die Hard 3) and, lastly, a disgruntled homeland security expert (Die Hard 4.0 also known as Live Free or Die Hard). Similarly, the western genre has been interpreted as culturally significant in terms of US national identity and the manner in which Hollywood has or has not critically encountered foundational myths involving the frontier, captivity narratives, and the importance of redemptive battles such as the show-down (Slotkin 1992). Given the highly charged atmosphere surrounding 11 September 2001, many sections of the entertainment industry, as well as the print and visual media, were anxious to demonstrate their loyalty to the Commander in Chief.1 In the face of losses totalling nearly 3000 lives, Hollywood studios were extremely sensitive to possible adverse public reaction and a number of films, including Collateral Damage (2001) starring Arnold Schwarzenegger and a plot involving Columbian terrorists, had its release delayed because it was judged to be insensitive (Young 2003). Other productions such as Buffalo Soldiers (2003), a story involving army personnel in late Cold War Berlin engaging in dubious extracurricular activities, were similarly delayed. Films that dealt with military adventures (Black Hawk Down 2001, Tears of the Sun 2003), historical fantasy (300 2007), and spy intrigue (The Spy Game 2001, Casino Royale 2006), on the other hand, appeared to be far more popular with American audiences, as measured by box office receipts. As an industry that places a great deal of store on audience reception, these kinds of trends, especially in the first few years of the post-9/11 era, were keenly noted (Giglio 2005). Nevertheless, we should resist the temptation to draw a sharp distinction between Hollywood cinema pre- and post-9/11. While much has been made of the attempts by the Bush administration to encourage the entertainment industry to support the administrations War on Terror,2 the relationship between the two parties has long been close and mutually beneficial. On the one hand, one could point to a whole series of tax advantages, subsidies, and the aggressive protection of intellectual property rights provided to Hollywood by the government; and on the other hand, there is the role of government in physically supporting the filming process (Lewis et al. 2002). From the Second World War onwards Hollywood has had a long and profitable relationship with various government bodies, including the Department of Defense and intelligence agencies such as the CIA and NSA. A whole series of films, including The Longest Day (1961), Top Gun (1986) and Independence Day (1996), may never have been produced without the cooperation of various military branches. Given that for many people outside the US, Hollywood films are their first and possibly only exposure to the country in some form or other, it matters greatly how such productions materialise in the first place. As other producers have found (e.g. Courage Under Fire 1996, The Thin Red Line 2000), it is very difficult if not impossible to secure access to military equipment and bases if the relevant authorities disapprove of the intended script (Robb 2004). As a consequence, those films that tend to secure the support of the US military are often politically conservative, state-centric, and generally portray a positive image of the military. This paper considers some of the films made ostensibly about terrorism pre- and post-9/11. It does so for two distinct but overlapping reasons. First, this intervention is designed to contribute further to the development of critical terrorism studies and a related field within human geography

Downloaded By: [Dodds, Klaus] At: 18:18 12 July 2008

Critical Studies on Terrorism

229

Downloaded By: [Dodds, Klaus] At: 18:18 12 July 2008

called critical geopolitics which has devoted a great deal of time and attention to the popular geopolitical representations of global politics (Dodds 2007, Tuathail 1996). Second, the paper does not assume that films made about terrorism in the aftermath of 9/11 occurred in a historical vacuum. If anything I want to give more attention to some films made before the attacks because they have helped develop some generic traditions which later films emulated. Productions such as Die Hard (1988), True Lies (1995), Air Force One (1997), The Siege (1998), The Patriot (2000) and Rules of Engagement (2000), for example, have all played their part in determining the nature of later terrorism-based movies. As highlighted above, it is important to recognise the importance of genre, especially in the context of the action-thriller and disaster movie, because it not only helps Hollywood differentiate movies but also assists audiences in knowing what to expect in terms of content and denouement (Maltby 1995, p. 107, also Keane 2001). Finally, the paper will consider audience reactions and use the interventions of fans via online forums to provide some insights into how terrorism is socially constructed by viewers themselves. Critical terrorism studies, popular culture and the social construction of terrorism It is something of a truism to claim that academic and cultural interest in terrorism has grown greatly in the years following the 11 September 2001 attacks. As Jackson (2007a) has noted, it is now one of the fastest expanding areas of research in the Western academic world (p. 225). Notwithstanding this growth, a number of scholars have expressed their misgivings about the state of what might be termed orthodox terrorism studies (Jackson 2007b). Using the distinction drawn by Cox (1981) between problem-solving theory and critical theory, it has been suggested that much of the existing literature on terrorism is overly preoccupied with responding to state-centric agendas and policy contexts (also Gunning 2007). In other words, concern has been expressed that there is a need not only to explore further the contours of this particular academic field, but also to articulate new intellectual agendas with associated epistemological and political agendas. It is axiomatic to this new field of CTS that terms such as terrorism should not be taken for granted, but instead need to be understood as historically and geographically contingent. That is, the meaning and significance attached to terrorism has changed over time and space and the power to define who or what is a terrorist needs careful contextualisation. There is a striking resemblance between CTS and critical geopolitics, which for the last two decades has sought to explore and challenge the existing ideas and practices associated with geopolitics. Critical geopolitics has proposed that geopolitics can be studied at three different levels. First, there is a formal geopolitics, which is concerned with the academic development of the intellectual field and which is produced and circulated within universities, think tanks, and other scholarly organisations. Second, a practical geopolitics exists which refers to the routine use of geopolitical language by political leaders when describing the varied geographies of local, regional, and global politics. This would include the use and mobilisation of highly significant and enduring geographical templates such as the iron curtain, but also more contemporary descriptions such as axis of evil, old and new Europe, outposts of tyranny, and homeland (Kaplan 2003). Finally, there is also a popular geopolitics that refers to the role of the mass media in producing and circulating representations of international politics to a range of audiences. Popular geopolitical research has thus far embraced a wide variety of sources from cartoons, comic books, radio, film, and the Internet (Dittmer 2005, Sharp 2000). A simple table is used here to illustrate these three types of geopolitics and the way they interact with one another (Figure 1). As with geopolitics, terrorism is considered to be a discourse and practice, rather than an ideology or form of politics which is neutral and value-free. It is important to recognise that the label of terrorist does not possess a fixed quality. In other words, the ontological instability of

230

K. Dodds

Downloaded By: [Dodds, Klaus] At: 18:18 12 July 2008

Figure 1.

Formal, practical and popular geopolitics.

the term needs to be recognised and the temptation to assume that only certain groups or individuals are capable of using terrorism must be resisted. This means, for instance, that CTS scholars consider seriously the role of state-sanctioned terror and the associated politics of representation how are labels such as terrorist mobilised and circulated and what political and social consequences do such representations have? While the nature and politics of representation is already a key focus of CTS, there should also be an appraisal of the way terrorism is represented not only within the academy and government departments, but also within popular culture. Most people gain information about the world from various forms of media. Depending on geographical location, an individuals media signature will vary; for example, radio might be more important to listeners in Sub-Saharan Africa due to the low levels of connectivity to the Internet and television. For those living in Europe and North America, television and newspapers are highly significant in terms of informing public audiences about current affairs. For many young people, cable television, alongside film, is an important aspect of everyday life and provides sources of news (Giroux 2002). In addition, as noted above, governments, including the Bush administration, have frequently turned to the movie and television industries during times of war and crisis to enlist their support in public education of threats and danger. During the Second World War for example, filmmakers such as Frank Capra produced the influential Why We Fight Series in order to educate viewers about the threats facing the country. During the Cold War, intelligence agencies such as the CIA linked up with film producers to ensure that movies such as Animal Farm (1954) were released to audiences so that they could comprehend better the threat posed by the Soviet Union (Shaw 2001). In the post-Cold War era, Hollywood has arguably had more opportunity to explore different kinds of threats and dangers and terrorism has featured in a number of big budget productions (Valantin 2005). Understanding how ideas and representations of terrorism circulate within a popular cultural context is an important development for CTS. As scholars in international relations (IR) have

Critical Studies on Terrorism

231

Downloaded By: [Dodds, Klaus] At: 18:18 12 July 2008

recognised, films can be used to consider not only how certain myths about the international system are perpetuated on the widescreen, but also in this case to think about how certain individuals and regions are considered to be terrorist in name and substance (Weber 2001, 2005). As Lacy (2003) has helpfully noted:
The cinema becomes a space where common sense ideas about global politics and history are (re) produced and where stories about what is acceptable behaviour from states and individuals are naturalised and legitimated. It is a space where myths about history and the origins of the state are told to a populist audience. One can think of contemporary war films such as U571 and We Were Soldiers that rewrite history into one where historical and moral ambiguity are replaced with certainty. (p. 614)

Similarly, as Carruthers (2003) concluded with reference to war films such as We Were Soldiers (2002), their appeal to post-9/11 audiences rests as much with the contemporary zeitgeist as it does with their narration of the Vietnam conflict: Revisiting past conflicts while America waged a new one, they appear as much about the US after 9/11 as Vietnam and Somalia [in the case of Black Hawk Down 2001], their historical and geographical locales (Carruthers 2003, p. 168). Films, moreover, provide audio-visual cues as to how an audience should feel and respond to terrorist threats; particular genres such as the action-thriller and the disaster movie have developed distinct plot lines, character developments, and denouements, which allow audiences to expect and anticipate particular endings (Altman 1999). For example, the James Bond series, have considered the role of terror-based groups such as SPECTRE in the 1960s, and they work for audiences in part because they know what to expect. Taking this agenda a little further, we might consider how CTS scholars, in developing this specific intellectual field, might study popular film. It is important to bear in mind that many Hollywood films use linear narratives (although this is being challenged by the blockbuster movie) and dramatise particular events, even if they touch upon political issues in a general rather than a concrete manner (Lisle and Pepper 2005). In part, this is because studios are concerned to avoid alienating key demographic audiences such as young people. As a consequence, when a political topic such as terrorism and the threat facing the US is addressed, it does so in ways that emphasise fast-paced action, striking visuals, and sound that frequently marginalises any sense of geopolitical and historical context. In the case of a film such as The Kingdom (2007) for example, which addresses USSaudi relations, the historical context of this bilateral cooperation is addressed in the first four minutes. Thereafter, the potential radical intent of the film is blunted as the generic conventions of the action-thriller take over. As McCrisken and Pepper (2005) have noted:
Their form tells a different story: that is, their reliance on spectacular action sequences, their provision of trite shocks and constant reassurance, and their insistence that audiences succumb to the easy stimuli and sensation provided by computer-generated images of over-determined historical events robbed of their particular significance, means that they are just as intelligible and also appealing to audiences in Hong Kong as in Houston. (p. 203)

It is very rare to find films that, for instance, explore the role of the US in sponsoring either terror-like operations in Central America and Afghanistan during the Cold War (e.g. Salvador 1986, Charlie Wilsons War 2008) or acknowledge the role of the country in supporting terrorlike overthrows of democratically elected governments (e.g. Missing 1982). Where terror-like threats are represented territorially, Arabs and the Middle East frequently loom large in any assessment of Hollywoods post-1945 mappings of danger. As Khatib (2006) has contended:

232

K. Dodds

Downloaded By: [Dodds, Klaus] At: 18:18 12 July 2008

Hollywood tends to blur not only Arab countries, but also Islamic fundamentalism and Islam as a religion within those countries and others in the Middle East region (namely Iran, as seen in The Delta Force) Hollywood also portrays terrorists speaking Arabic (The Delta Force, Hostage, Executive Decision), associates Islamic prayer ritual hand-washing with preparation for terrorist acts (The Siege [we could also now add United 93], and gives the terrorists groups names such as The Holy Freedom Party of Allah (Hostage). (p. 175)

While this clearly does not exhaust Hollywoods post-1945 engagement with the subject-matter of terrorism, few other regions or communities are subject to quite the same kind of blurring. Finally, we need to remain mindful of the changing contours of the militaryindustrial mediaentertainment complex and consider how the entertainment industry, including film production and computer games companies, is closely aligned with government departments and mass media outlets. Lisle and Pepper have noted with specific reference to Black Hawk Down (2001) that there is a growing trend towards cross-fertilising the fast-paced spectacular film with video game development (Lisle and Pepper 2005, p. 172, also Giroux 2004, Power 2007). The emphasis in both media forms is to recreate the experience of being a US Ranger for example, rather than providing any kind of contextual detail regarding the US mission in Somalia in the early 1990s. With the cooperation of the Pentagon, equipment was lent to the film production company to contribute further to an atmosphere of combat realism. Narrative coherence and political relevance are downplayed deliberately and while the film was successful in the US and Australia, other audiences in France, Germany, and Japan were apparently less impressed securing a limited first run release (Lisle and Pepper 2005, p. 176). In short, this paper is intended as an intervention that calls for further examination of popular representations of terrorism. It does not assume that audiences have similar emotional engagements to particular films or other forms of media. Some viewers may be moved more than others (or in fundamentally different ways) and indeed, the final section of the paper attempts to illustrate how that might be so. Some critics reported that when films such as Terms of Engagement (2000) were screened in the cinema, some people clapped and even laughed when the Marines machine-gunned a crowd assaulting the fictional American Embassy in the Yemen. Others would not have found a scene involving a massacre remotely amusing. Methodologically, it will highlight the need for a range of other methods above and beyond online forums, including offline ethnography, interviews, and focus groups, to be deployed if we are to better understand how representations of terrorism circulate through public cultures and the consequences that follow. This paper can only be, in that regard, a modest starting point. Hollywood and terrorism For the purpose of making the case for a popular cultural dimension to the CTS project, four themes have been identified which will allow us to explore further popular representations of terrorism.3 First, the nature and motivations of terrorists need to be considered because there are a number of examples we could point to where film makers have considered how people and groups are empowered to commit acts of terrorist violence. Second, the object of the attack is important to contemplate, because before 9/11 many Americans were prepared to watch movies which showed iconic buildings such as the White House and skyscrapers being destroyed by individuals, groups, and even extraterrestrial forces. Third, the use of geographical location to locate and even explain why terrorism happens is significant. What kind of villains or terrorists routinely feature in Hollywood films? Why for example, was Albania selected as a source of terrorism in the 1997 film Wag the Dog? Finally, the responses deemed necessary to respond to acts of terrorism is important in the sense that action-thrillers and other generic types such as westerns frequently reinforce the states right (or the right of sanctioned individuals) to use

Critical Studies on Terrorism

233

extreme violence. Each theme will also be elucidated by an explicit consideration of genre and generic conventions pertinent to the discussion at hand. For some movie critics and film scholars, the terrorism film dates from the early to mid1980s (Palmer 1993). The timing is worthy of comment because it coincides with the onset of the Second Cold War and a renewed period of tension between the superpowers. As a number of cultural commentators such as Jeffords (1994) have noted, Reagans America was characterised by a strong militaristic foreign policy and a domestic economy animated by a set of conservative values associated with fatherhood and robust masculinity (p. 13). Films such as Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) and Top Gun (1986) are illustrations of this concern with rugged masculinity and the celebration of American military prowess. Where Hollywood does produce films that tackle political themes such as terrorism, the action-thriller has been particularly important. Films such as Die Hard (1988) were significant in shaping a sub-genre in which an individual confronts extraordinary circumstances, and where the moral interplay between good and evil is played out and ultimately settled by force.4 In the case of Die Hard and its three sequels, Bruce Willis character is, in the first film, forced to tackle East German terrorists determined to extract monies from a Japanese corporation based in Los Angeles. What is interesting about the film is the way in which the motivations and techniques of the terrorists are considered alongside their actions. In terms of motivations, the film suggests that despite their demands for the release of other terrorists (or freedom fighters) around the world, they are really intent on stealing money. In one scene, the Japanese executive Joseph Tagaki (James Shigeta) asks What kinds of terrorists are you? The leader, Hans Gruber, played by Alan Rickman, replies Who said we were terrorists? After announcing his ultimatum to the Los Angeles Police Department regarding the release of other terrorists around the world, he quips to a fellow group member that he read about them in the business magazine Forbes. In terms of techniques, one of the most important scenes of the film involves an over-confident trader called Ellis who attempts to negotiate with the terrorists. Despite pleadings from Williss character not to negotiate with the group, Ellis attempts to persuade him to surrender to the terrorists so that they can finish their money grabbing operation and leave the building. Ultimately, Elliss over-confidence (Hey babe, I negotiate million dollar deals for breakfast. I think I can handle this Euro-trash) in his negotiating abilities costs him his life and the decision to attempt a peaceful resolution to the stand off is shown as flawed, given that the terrorists were intent on assassinating the remaining members of the Nakatomi Corporation before their departure. Elliss murder, alongside the earlier killing of the head of the Japanese corporation, provides further visual and textual justification for Williss character to kill off the remaining terrorists.5 His partner outside the building, an African-American cop (Sergeant Al Powell) who has not pulled a gun on anyone since slaying a young person, provides a dramatic conclusion as he shoots the final surviving terrorist, Karl. The release of Die Hard (1988) coincided with the final years of the Reagan administration and the beginning of a shift in American culture and society. With the emergence of President Bill Clinton in 1993, it has been suggested that the politics of masculinity decisively shifted away from hard bodies to a more conflicted masculinity (Malin 2005, p. 7). As Jeffords (1994) noted, there was evidence of a shift in cultural values which emphasised how it might be possible for a hero to transform himself from the hardened muscle bum of domineering man of the eighties into the considerate, loving, self-sacrificing man of the nineties (p. 153). In Clintons America it was allegedly possible to be both hyper-masculine and sensitive, strong yet vulnerable. In that vein, a film worth considering is the action-thriller True Lies (1995), starring Arnold Schwarzenegger. Schwarzenegger plays a spy called Harry Tasker who unbeknownst to his wife (Jamie Lee Curtis) is actively tracking terror suspects around the world. As the plot develops, a

Downloaded By: [Dodds, Klaus] At: 18:18 12 July 2008

234

K. Dodds

Downloaded By: [Dodds, Klaus] At: 18:18 12 July 2008

terror group called Crimson Jihad is identified and Tasker discovers that they are using Persian art to hide nuclear weapons which they are intent on smuggling into the US. In a key scene, the leader of Crimson Jihad, Salim Abu Aziz (Art Malik), is videoed explaining why the group will launch an attack on America. In his denouncement of America, Aziz explains that the country is being punished for its military occupation of the Middle East. As he notes:
You have killed our women and children, bombed our cities from afar like cowards and dare to call us terrorists but now the Oppressed have been given a mighty sword, to strike back at their enemies. Unless the US pulls all military forces out of the Persian Gulf area, immediately and forever Crimson Jihad will rain fire on one major US city each week until our demands are met.

However, the potentially radical intention of the film (given its criticism of contemporary US foreign policy following the 1991 Gulf War and the way in which it echoed some of the demands of Osama bin Laden6) is disrupted by the fact that the person videoing his declaration admits that the battery in his video camera is running low; the leader is forced, much to his annoyance, to rerecord his message. So despite the fact that they manage to detonate an atomic bomb in the Florida Keys, they are depicted as comically disorganised. Given the scale of the threat, it is perhaps unsurprising that Tasker has no apparent option but to eliminate the group violently in its entirety. If we consider this period of seven years between the release of Die Hard (1988) and True Lies (1995), we can see a number of cultural, political, and ideological factors at play. First, as noted above, there is the shifting politics of American masculinity as Reagans America gives way to Clintons post-Cold War conflicted masculinity. If Schwarzenegger is the embodiment of the hyper-masculine hero in films such as Commando (1985) and Predator (1987), in films such as True Lies (1995) and Kindergarten Cop (1990) he is also capable of behaving sensitively, even if the gender politics of True Lies is hardly radical his characters wife has to pretend to be a prostitute and ultimately Schwarzenegger has to rescue her and his daughter from Crimson Jihad. Second, by the mid-1990s, domestic and international terrorism had become a more pressing political issue following the attempted bombing of the World Trade Centre (1993) and the Oklahoma City bombing (1995). Finally, Hollywood was producing a raft of films, including the reinvigorated disaster genre, which placed visual emphasis on spectacular action, fast-paced narratives, and simple character and plot development so that they would be attractive to wider global markets. The second theme to be considered is the object of attack within terrorism-based films. In the examples that follow, Hollywood tends, when it focuses on threats confronting the US, to concentrates it energies on iconic objects, buildings, and cities. The film Air Force One (1997), for example, is largely based on a struggle aboard the presidential plane involving the President (Harrison Ford) and his staff pitted against Kazakh terrorists determined to free their leader captured by American and Russian Special Forces. The motivation for their actions is explained in part via a dialogue between the Presidents wife and the terrorist leader. As the latter exclaims:
You look at me as if I was a monster, but answer me this when your planes bombed the oil fields of Iraq, did you cry for those dark skinned men whose name you do not know and whos faces you will never see? Did you cry for their wives and children? They were people too yes but they were not your people.

The Presidents wife replies, That was war, and in return she is told, So is this. Towards the end of the film the President memorably exclaims to the remaining terrorist Get off my plane! The plane is not only a symbol of his authority but a material manifestation of the US

Critical Studies on Terrorism

235

itself. Although the original plane does not survive, a new Air Force One emerges in the shape of a rescue plane. Terrorism is shown to have been defeated and the US, in the shape of their Commander in Chief, prevails. In disaster movies namely Independence Day (1996) and other terrorism-based films such as The Siege (1998), it is iconic buildings and cities that feature predominantly. Buildings such as the White House and the Capitol Building, alongside cities such as New York (Executive Decision 1996, The Siege 1998) and Los Angeles (Collateral Damage 2001), prefigure, because domestic and international audiences recognize these as landmarks that implicitly help to explain the scale of the threat facing the US. The buildings themselves not only represent symbols of American power, but also values such as liberty, democracy, and freedom. In the case of post-9/11 cinema, it is unsurprising that a number of films have now been produced that concentrate on the devastation inflicted upon New York and Washington. Some, such as World Trade Center (2006), direct attention to the Twin Towers in New York and the struggle of two Port Authority police officers to survive amongst the rubble. Critically, in this movie the action is focused on the two men and their families, rather than the possible motivations for the attacks in the first place (Mendelsohn 2006). In this regard, United 93 (2005) is a far more sophisticated attempt to explore the background and possible motivations of the hijackers, while reaffirming the heroism of those who resisted on United 93. In other words, the mere fact that the US and the city of New York has been attacked is more than sufficient in providing the basis for a storyline which considers the trauma suffered by American as opposed to any other victims. As with many action-thrillers/dramas, the ending offered for World Trade Center (2006) is ultimately uplifting in terms of depicting those individuals rebuilding their lives. As the film credits begin, the fact that individuals from 80 other countries also perished is finally acknowledged. Given that this is revealed at the end of the film rather than at the beginning, it is not intended to disrupt a New York-based storyline involving local American policemen and the attempts by fellow Americans to rescue them. The third area worth considering is the location of the action and the geographical source of the threat. Two examples can be used here. First, the film Wag the Dog (1997) involves the interplay between a Hollywood producer and the Presidential assistant desperate to create a distraction from a presidential sex scandal. The parallels with President Clinton have been much considered, as has the choice of the foreign policy distraction. In an important scene, Robert De Niros character, Conrad Brean, is shown chatting with an assistant about why Albania was being used to manufacture a crisis involving Albanian terrorists threatening the US via Canada. The assistant asks Why Albania? The reply in effect argues that as no one knows anything about Albania, it will seem perfectly plausible to the American public and the media. Geographical ignorance is shown to be critical in terms of generating a false crisis. In this respect, the film echoes in an uncanny sense President Clintons attempts to educate the American public about the complexities posed by Kosovo and South East Europe more generally before the NATO air campaign. Another example much noted by film scholar Jack Shaheen is the use of the Middle East and Arabs specifically as terrorist sources. Shaheen (2001) has noted literally hundreds of Hollywood films in which Arabs (or those identified as such within the script) are shown to be a source of danger and threat. Echoing Edward Saids broader arguments about Oriental representations (Said 1978, also Gregory 2004), Shaheen notes how an array of films in the 1980s and 1990s identified the Middle East as threatening, including Chain of Command (1983), Iron Eagle (1986), Navy SEALS (1990), True Lies (1994), The Siege (1998), and Rules of Engagement (2000). In the worst cases, the (Arab) terrorists are shown to be the embodiment of evil and devoid of human empathy to the suffering of others. This is important in terms of subsequently

Downloaded By: [Dodds, Klaus] At: 18:18 12 July 2008

236

K. Dodds

Downloaded By: [Dodds, Klaus] At: 18:18 12 July 2008

explaining and justifying why the US and its military and intelligence personnel have to employ lethal force. Organisations such as the Arab American Council have complained that these persistent representations of Arabs (and Iranians) as terrorists have very real consequences in terms of how Arabs and Arabic countries are regarded. As Shaheen (2001) notes, Hollywoods motion pictures reach nearly everyone. Cinematic illusions are created, nurtured, and distributed worldwide, reaching more than 100 countries (p. 5). Although Hollywood has in recent times depicted other groups and countries as threatening, including Albania (Wag the Dog 1997), Bosnia (The Peacemaker 1997), and Columbia (Collateral Damage 2001), Arabs and the Middle East have provided far more villains and terrorists than other places and groups. In his survey of 900 films made between 1896 and 2001, Shaheen (2001) concluded that:
The vast majority of villains are notorious sheikhs, maidens, Egyptians and Palestinians . I am not saying that an Arab should never be portrayed as a villain. What I am saying is that almost all Hollywood depictions of Arabs are bad ones. (p. 11)

Another way to consider the issue of geographical representation is to reflect on what does not get portrayed. There are few films made by Hollywood that consider the role of the United States and its key regional allies such as Israel in implementing state-sponsored terror. Cold War era films such as Salvador (1986) are noteworthy precisely because they offer rare critiques of American foreign policy and the consequences of state-supported terror in Central America. The Sum of All Fears (2003) featured a lost Israeli nuclear bomb, but it is ultimately a terrorist syndicate based in Central Europe that is responsible for bombing central Baltimore. A more recent production, Munich (2006), explores the response by Israel to the massacre of Israeli athletes by Palestinian terrorists at the 1972 Summer Olympics. The lead character attached to the Israeli assassination squad is troubled ultimately by the decision of the Israeli government to kill those who carried out or masterminded the attack. While the film does not provide much context for why the Palestinian gunmen carried out their actions in the first place (bar a short piece of dialogue between one Palestinian terrorist and the Israeli team leader), it does consider some of the personal and political costs of counter-terrorism. In contrast, when Hollywood addresses the question of Irish terror groups, it either suggests the violence is understandable because of British colonial violence (for example, The Wind that Shakes the Barley 2006), or it shows it being carried out on non-American targets. In Patriot Games (1992), for example, a British police officer (of Irish descent) tells the captured leader of an IRA gang (Sean Miller) that he understands where the anger comes from and that he cannot quite bring himself to condemn their actions. The film is also quick to reassure viewers that this group of individuals is a splinter group and has nothing to do with Sinn Fin and its US supporters. Indeed, the film shows the CIA analyst Jack Ryan (Harrison Ford) being helped by a Sinn Fin representative as they try to track down Miller and his team. A reason why Hollywood is careful in its depiction of Irish and Israeli terrorism-based films is that the American Jewish and American Irish groups represent powerful communities with access to influential lobby groups in Washington. In other words, it does not make financial sense to alienate those potential viewing segments. Partly as a consequence of these factors, To Hollywood, the Irish struggle is fair; it is closer to resistance than terrorism (Aug 2002). Finally, we might consider the response to the threat of terrorism. As noted, action thrillers like Die Hard (1988) offer audiences an explanation of why well-intentioned individuals have to use murderous violence in the face of the threat to family members and the nation. While the actions of the terrorists are to be condemned, the hero in question is simply responding to extraordinary odds or circumstances. The violence carried out by Mel Gibsons character and

Critical Studies on Terrorism

237

his group against the British military forces in The Patriot (2000) is shown to be understandable and justifiable because of their colonial oppression and the death of family members (McCrisken and Pepper 2005, pp. 2436). While some acts of anti-colonial resistance are deemed legitimate, usually those involving colonial America and Ireland, other countries and communities are not accorded the same cinematic treatment by Hollywood. The use of so-called legitimate violence is deeply significant to CTS scholars because it goes to the heart of the issue of who decides what is terrorism and what is counter-terrorism, for example. There have been many Hollywood films about terrorism before 9/11. As a coterie of thinkers ranging from Judith Butler to Jean Baudrillard have noted, the attacks on the United States changed the political and cultural landscapes of that country. In Butlers (2004) words, the United States lost a certain First World privilege in the sense that citizens were exposed to a level of anxiety and disaster that is usually only imagined by Hollywood but actually experienced in the Global South. In Baudrillards (2003) view, the iconic nature of the Twin Towers, as symbols of US-led economic liberalism alongside the Pentagon (a symbol of American military power), provided a telling illustration of the fragility of global power. A new series of films, produced in the aftermath of 9/11, have not only witnessed a new generation of warrior politics films eager to exploit an upsurge in American patriotism and an interest in the military (e.g. Tears of the Sun 2003), but also productions which deal directly with the US-led War on Terror (Lions for Lambs 2007). It is also worth considering how films dealing with terrorism and anti-colonial violence have been reinterpreted since 11 September 2001. The most notable case is The Battle of Algiers (1966). Intriguingly, the film was screened in the Pentagon in August 2003. The US Directorate for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict who was responsible for the screening advertised the event with the following words:
How to win the battle against terrorism and lose the war of ideas. Children shoot soldiers at pointblank range. Women plant bombs in cafes. Soon the entire Arab population builds to mad fervour. Sound familiar? The French have a plan. It succeeds tactically, but fails strategically. To understand why, come to a rare showing of this film. (Srivastava 2005, p. 97)

Downloaded By: [Dodds, Klaus] At: 18:18 12 July 2008

While officials attached to the Pentagon were seeking insights from the film about French attempts to suppress anti-colonial violence, others were using it to highlight the futility of the American occupation of Iraq. The subsequent scandals involving prisoner abuse, torture, and extraordinary rendition have added poignancy to debates about how terrorism and anti-colonial resistance are defined and challenged. As Stone (2007) concluded:
After 9/11 the moral imagination of most Americans could not conceive of a Pontecorvo-style justification for such acts of terrorism . Since 9/11 we have been following a Pontecorvo script: threatened by Muslim terrorists as the French were in Algeria, we have been caught up in a spontaneous burst of patriotic solidarity. (pp. 155156).

Audiences and popular representations of terrorism Hollywood is in the business of producing movies that are commercially attractive and product placement and sponsorship, for example, matters enormously in terms of generating films and getting them released. It has been estimated by one film scholar, that no more than 10% of the 400 or so films produced annually by Hollywood have overtly political themes, even if a great deal more might promote particular politicaleconomic themes such as the desirability of mass consumption or the need for national security (Giglio 2005). By and large, producers and studios like generic movies because they can be pre-sold to audiences in so far as movie watchers know

238

K. Dodds

in advance what to expect. Some generic themes sell very well, including action thrillers, disaster movies, and as Titanic (1997) demonstrates, romantic dramas. While generic conventions are not stable and can be blurred, action thrillers and disaster movies are popular and often commercially successful because they offer a well-established convention involving plot, character, and themes. An important question is: how do audiences respond to particular films or generic categories such as the action thriller? In film studies, there has been a great deal of attention devoted to the interpretation of film ranging from interest in spectatorship to the importance of the auteur and most recently, to audience research. Different methodologies have been deployed including ethnography, interviews, questionnaires, statistical analysis, and focus groups. However, according to Von Zoonen (2007, p. 533), there is an almost total absence of research about audience reactions to films and series, and about peoples articulations of popular culture and politics in general. While she does not consider terrorist films per se, her work has explored the different ways in which films might help articulate peoples interests, knowledge, attitudes, and behaviour with respect to politics. She and other scholars have investigated online forums such as the Internet Movie Database (IMDb)7 and the ways in which participants express views about films, politics, and their articulations within everyday life. While these forums have their limitations, they do provide one mechanism for exploring audience reactions to film. My own research into audience reactions to the James Bond film Die Another Day (2002) identified a spectrum of responses from those who merely described the content of the films to those who wrote extensively and knowledgeably about film genre and the production and distribution of the James Bond canon (Dodds 2006). What was striking was how few contributors attempted to link the film to real-life events such as the contested geopolitics of the Korean Peninsula. As such, there is a cautionary note that needs to be added here about what these commentaries can tell us about peoples reactions to concrete political issues such as the Korean crisis, the War on Terror, and the occupation of Iraq. To illustrate this theme a little further, I am going to consider a recent film which addresses the issue of terrorism in a concrete manner, namely, Rendition (2007). The material that follows makes no claims to comprehensiveness or to Hollywoods filmic engagement with the War on Terror which is varied and evolving. Rather, I simply aim to discuss a range of audience reactions, as expressed in the IMDb, in the months of October and November 2007. To summarise the plot briefly, Rendition (2007) is the first mainstream film made by Hollywood to consider the CIAs practice of using extraordinary rendition for the purposes of kidnapping suspected terrorists and transporting them to locations where extreme interrogation and even torture might be used for the purpose of obtaining information. In the film, an Egyptian-born chemical engineer, Anwar El-Ibrahimi, is suspected of aiding and abetting a suicide-bombing cell in a country that is vaguely located in North Africa. The cell murder a number of North Africans, alongside an American intelligence agent, and El-Ibrahimi is kidnapped and then taken to a prison cell somewhere in North Africa. The film then develops around the struggles of his Chicago-based American wife to persuade an ambitious Senatorial aide and later an idealistic CIA agent (Douglas Freeman) to halt the torture of El-Ibrahimi and eventually secure his return to the United States. There are two important elements that deserve further reflection. First, the film suggests that a charismatic leader (El-Hazim) uses the madrassa to recruit and select idealistic young men to undertake operations against American and North African state targets. He is seen giving a lecture to his young recruits where he tells them that the Christians and Zionists must be purged, as should apostates. His lecture knowingly replicates bin Ladens denunciations of the United States and its Arab allies. The men are informed that their bodies are weapons. At the same, the film switches to the stripping and humiliation of El-Ibrahimi by the CIAs allies in North Africa.

Downloaded By: [Dodds, Klaus] At: 18:18 12 July 2008

Critical Studies on Terrorism

239

Downloaded By: [Dodds, Klaus] At: 18:18 12 July 2008

If the young mens bodies are weapons, then El-Ibrahimis body is a site for another type of counter-violence. A second key moment of the film deals with the impact of the torture on El-Ibrahimi. After enduring much suffering, El-Ibrahimi eventually confesses that he has received US$40,000 from the terror cell and starts to name his accomplices. Later, after a Google search, the CIA agent (Douglas Freeman) discovers that the engineer earns more than US$200,000 per year and has given his captors the names of the 1990 Egyptian football squad. In other words, it becomes apparent that in his desperation, the captive has offered literally any information in order to stop the torture. The coup de theater, so to say, is provided by the futility of torture and Freemans determination to ensure that the captive is smuggled out of North Africa and back to Chicago. The film ends with the poignant reuniting of the family and the exposure, via the newspapers, of his harrowing experience. It does not consider, however, what happens either to those who ordered the rendition in the first place or whether any compensation or official apology will be forthcoming. Critics on both sides of the Atlantic have been divided about the film, with some praising it for raising troubling issues such as the use of rendition and torture. Others such as The Guardians (London) film critic were critical of its refusal either to contemplate whether acts of torture such as water boarding ever saved lives or to what extent was the CIAs phone-record evidence against El-Ibrahimi sound or not (Bradshaw 2007). Empire magazine (2007) noted how:
The ideological deck is immediately stacked with a suspect who is blatantly innocent. Anwar ElIbrahimi (Metwally) is a nice, thoroughly Americanised Egyptian; a respected engineer with a blonde soccer-mom wife (Reese Witherspoon). It might have been more ethically edgy if hed had a beard or some clue what his tormentors were on about.

As is the norm for IMDb, once a film is released, contributors not only can start particular threads, but also can vote for the film using a scale from 1 to 10. Since its release, Rendition (2007) has generated 9168 votes and secured an average rating of 6.9 out of 10 as of early April 2008. It has generated extensive commentary and interventions. The following commentary, which links the practice of extraordinary rendition to a wider liberal critique of the Bush administrations War on Terror, is fairly typical:
Why arent conservatives willing to talk about Arar?8 They claim they love America, its values, the Constitution yet, as proven by the Arar case, they actually want an America where were all the same, and they are as lawless as they come (remember the DOJ attorney working for Gonzalez who came before Congress but refused to answer questions because, she said, shed sworn an oath to support the President. uhh, no, she swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, and if that conflicts with the President, theyre NOT supposed to support the President) Arar was an innocent man, kidnapped by American operatives, flown to Syria where he was tortured on and off for months. Eventually, people realized he was an innocent man. He was then just dumped in Albania! Welcome to rendition! The Administrations way to piously proclaim We dont torture people, by just kidnapping people and giving them to extremely nasty regimes who are happy to torture for us (in exchange for what?!?! Syria isnt exactly an ally what is Bush promising them, a sponsor of terrorism, in exchange for this personal service?) This era is already going down as one of the most shameful in American history. I only hope we can recover our pride and honor!9

The film, in other words, generated a fairly detailed analysis of how rendition has involved trading liberties and constitutional procedures against security, which has been used to justify incarcerations without trial and abusive interrogation and which led the United States to develop relationships with dubious governments in the Middle East.

240

K. Dodds

The film did not convince other reviewers however, and it was dismissed by some as liberal propaganda:
Downloaded By: [Dodds, Klaus] At: 18:18 12 July 2008

How many people are tortured in the terroristic regimes that are funding and supported the Islamic Jihad? Their torture is national, it is legal and no one will get arrested or the victims compensated. Arar was compensated for this tragic mistake. There is a difference. The difference means something to me, even if it does not to you.10

This was also a common response to the film in the sense that some contributors were distressed or even angry that some sort of moral equivalence was being offered between the United States and its enemies. In other words, the mere fact that compensation was offered to people like Arar was considered to be indicative of the restorative intentions of the United States. Interestingly, for others the movie was judged to be simply inappropriate because of its content:
Im hopeful that the box office receipts will show these moviemakers that we dont want to be entertained by war right now. No matter which side of the war you find yourself, I think its safe to assume that Americans do not want to plunk down 20 bucks to relax with a nice torture flick these days, we are totally satiated. Enough already; The Kingdom, The Valley of Elah and now this. Are any more on the way???11

In other words, for this reviewer, Rendition (2007) is understood in an inter-textual filmic context (whereas the others deploy an inter-textual political context) to criticise the fact that a whole series of films have recently been released that openly question the American-led War on Terror. Since its US release in October 2007, the film has thus far grossed US$9.7 million domestic and US$13 million foreign as of early April 2008. These figures, despite the recent release of the film, appear modest given that Black Hawk Down (2001) accumulated a lifetime gross of US$108 million even though it was not popular in some overseas markets.12 Notwithstanding its low box office take, the IMDb threads demonstrate that films such as Rendition (2007) are capable of generating a series of interventions (some of them ill-tempered) over the US War on Terror and the role of murder, torture, and abuse by both American personnel and Islamic terrorists. It is possible to detect at least three substantive themes germane to audience reactions. First, there are some who felt that the film had raised important issues about the US-led War on Terror and welcomed the fact that high profile actors including Meryl Streep (the senior CIA operative who orders the rendition in the first place) and Jack Gyllenhaal (Douglas Freeman) were involved in this movie. The film considers how some elements of counter-terrorism are made visible and conversely invisible through practices such as rendition. Secondly, another group of contributors resented the portrayal of the US within the film and questioned whether such a film should have been made in the first place, given the traumas of the last six years. This provokes interesting questions about how American films actually are in the era of the blockbuster movie. In the case of Rendition (2007), where the involvement of American agencies is clearly specified, this can lead to some US-based fans expressing dismay at why they should watch such a film in the first place. Finally, there are a group of self-knowing fans that engage with the film in terms of plot development and take great pleasure in exposing shortcomings and inconsistencies. Some then make more concrete political connections to real-life events. As one reviewer noted with reference to the use of CIA phone-tap evidence:
Yeah I agree, things cant always be completely explained. I think that if the CIA looked into most peoples lives there would be some questions, not necessarily terrorism related questions, but weird

Critical Studies on Terrorism

241

Downloaded By: [Dodds, Klaus] At: 18:18 12 July 2008

things happen and if youre put under scrutiny these weird little things suddenly become big problems. Life is full of grey areas and anti-terrorism units dont deal in grey, they deal in black and white. I think this movie is questioning the fact that when it comes to anti-terrorism a suspect is guilty until proven innocent and it is showing that sometimes (probably even more often than not) the innocent get caught in the cross-fire based on circumstantial evidence, ethnicity, family members and/or associates and like Tpe642002 says a little deliberate ambiguity [sic] makes us think about this a lot more life is full of grey areas and where do you draw the line? And then on the other [hand] the movie is asking, if millions of people are at risk, do we really just want to sit around until we have concrete evidence, people could die. Is it so wrong to not uphold the rights of a few people if it means saving millions?13

What this short discussion hopes to illustrate is that the popular consumption of cinematic representations of terrorism requires not only more detailed online coverage of sites such as the IMDb, but also offline research involving ethnography and interviews in order to better understand how people make sense of representations of terrorism. Inevitably, this will include trying to understand the interaction of personal experience, media, and popular wisdom (Gamson 1992). Some viewers, as the IMDb threads demonstrate, are not uncritical and are perfectly willing and capable of engaging thoughtfully with issues such as extraordinary rendition. Contrary to some of the generalised observations about blockbuster films and their audiovisual commitments towards feeling rather than thinking, audiences are not only varied nationally but also hugely differentiated by a range of factors including gender, race, occupation, and education levels. If, for instance, films help us to engage with questions pertaining to terrorism, then they can be interpreted in a variety of ways ranging from expressions of enjoyment to complex readings of narrative, spectacle, and plot development. Critical terrorism studies needs to embrace media such as film as part of its continued commitment to thinking and engaging critically with the production, circulation, and consumption of representations of terrorism.

Conclusion This paper has sought to make the case that critical terrorism studies (CTS) needs to consider how terrorism is represented and understood within popular culture. Complementary literatures in critical international relations and critical geopolitics have already initiated a debate about how understandings of global politics are embedded within comic books, cartoons, film, and other forms of media. More widely, there has been a determined effort to map and interpret the visual cultures of post-9/11 America (Mirzoeff 2005). Films, as Giroux (2002) has contended with reference to the US, provide one of the few mediums left that enables conversations that connects politics, personal experiences, and public life to larger social issues (p. 7). He has been at the forefront of a debate about the way in which film might provide materials for a public dialogue and sets of experiences which might revitalise public spheres in the wake of the War on Terror. While many scholars have begun to review and engage critically with Hollywoods recent war films, there are still opportunities to explore how audiences themselves engage and contest cinematic representations of terrorism and the War on Terror. As the IMDb postings suggest for films such as Rendition (2007), fans are capable of engaging with political and security issues with varying levels of emotional and political acumen. As part of its wider engagements beyond the academy, CTS as an emerging intellectual field should consider further how popular culture plays its part in representing terrorism, as well as how to provide resources for critical engagement. For example, CTS could consider developing teaching and learning resources that focus

242

K. Dodds

Downloaded By: [Dodds, Klaus] At: 18:18 12 July 2008

on popular media and the representational politics surrounding terrorism. This paper has discussed some of the ways in which Hollywood has addressed the question of terrorism and the way in which reactions to films may be studied. If all films are political in some fashion, we might consider further how movies can be used to reflect on a world characterised by unequal access to and distribution of material and cultural resources. Acknowledgements
The author owes a debt of thanks to Richard Jackson and the referees for supportive comments. The usual disclaimers apply, however.

Notes
1. 2. 3. 4. It is important not to over-generalise, as several high-profile actors such as Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, and Tim Robbins were highly critical of the US attack on Iraq. The Beverley Hills Peninsula Hotel meeting in November 2001 between Bushs advisor Karl Rove and Hollywood producers and scriptwriters elicited much media attention and public interest (Cooper 2001, p. 13). For a review of Hollywood which embraces a variety of films, including those depicting terrorism, see Wood (1986). Die Hard is credited with generating a whole series of movies that deal with such interplays, usually in a geographically confined space, such as Under Siege (1992), Speed (1994), The Rock (1996), and Air Force One (1997). In the case of the first two films, the terrorists in question are disgruntled military personnel; the third involves an embittered police officer. The other interesting dimension of the film involves John McClane assuming the nom de guerre of Roy Rogers (the king of cowboys) and therefore raises the question of whether his use of violence is further familiarised by comparing himself with a lone cowboy operating in a wild, frontier-like environment. Critically, Roy Rogers was seen as the embodiment of core American values and, of course, considered a family-friendly singing and performing cowboy. Osama bin Ladens Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places of 1996 was later to contain a similar geopolitical demand for US forces to leave the Arabian Peninsula (Lawrence 2004). The IMDb was launched in 1990 and acquired by Amazon in 1998. It has around 17 million registered users (http://www.imdb.com). In the autumn of 2002, Maher Arar, a Canadian engineer, was flown on a US-chartered jet to Jordan and driven to Syria, where he was imprisoned for nearly a year. He later testified to the European Parliament in March 2006 that he had been tortured. Posting on the IMDb (15 October 2007; http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0804522/board/nest/87416795). Posting on the IMDb (18 October 2007; http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0804522/board/nest/87416795). Posting on the IMDb (22 October 2007; http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0804522/board/nest/88083612). These figures are available at: http://www.boxofficemojo.com (accessed on 6 March 2008). Posting on the IMDb (17 November 2007; http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0804522/board/nest/89512396).

5.

6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

References
Altman, R., 1999. Film/genre. London: BFI Publ. Aug, E., 2002. Hollywood movies: terrorism 101. Cercles, 5, 147163. Baudrillard, J., 2003. The spirit of terrorism. London: Verso. Bradshaw, P., 2007. The pain and the gain. The Guardian, 19 October. Butler, J., 2004. Precarious life. London: Verso. Carruthers, S., 2003. Bringing it all back home: Hollywood returns to war. Small wars and insurgencies, 14, 167182. Cooper, M., 2001. Lights! Cameras! Attack! Hollywood enlists. The Nation, 10 December. Cox, R., 1981. Social forces, states and world orders. Millennium, 10, 123126. Dittmer, J., 2005. Captain Americas empire: reflections on identity, popular culture and geopolitics. Annals of the association of American geographers, 95, 626643.

Critical Studies on Terrorism

243

Dodds, K., 2006. Popular geopolitics and audience dispositions: James Bond and the Internet Movie Data Base (IMDb). Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 31, 116130. Dodds, K., 2007. Geopolitics: a very short introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Empire, 2007. Rendition. Empire, October. Available from: http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/ reviewcomplete.asp?FID=134020/. Gamson, W., 1992. Talking politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Giglio, E., 2005. Heres looking at you: Hollywood, film and politics. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Giroux, H., 2002. Breaking into the movies. Oxford: Blackwell. Giroux, H., 2004. The war on terror: the militarization of public space and culture in the US. Third Text, 18, 211221. Gregory, D., 2004. The colonial present. Oxford: Blackwell. Gunning, J., 2007. The case for critical terrorism studies? Government and Opposition, 42, 394426. Jackson, R., 2007a. Introduction: The case for critical terrorism studies. European Political Science, 6 (3), 225227. Jackson, R., 2007b. The core commitments of critical terrorism studies. European Political Science, 6 (3), 244251. Jeffords, S., 1994. Hard bodies. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Kaplan, A., 2003. Homeland insecurities: reflections on language and space. Radical History Review, 85, 8293. Keane, S., 2001. Disaster movies. London: Wallflower. Khatib, L., 2006. Filming the modern Middle East. London: I. B. Tauris. Lacy, M., 2003. War, cinema and moral anxiety. Alternatives, 28, 611636. Lawrence, B., ed., 2004. Messages to the world. London: Verso. Lewis, J., Maxwell, R. and Miller, T., 2002. Editorial 9/11. Television and New Media, 3, 125131. Lisle, D. and Pepper, A., 2005. The new face of global Hollywood: Black Hawk Down and the politics of meta-sovereignty. Cultural Politics, 1, 165192. Malin, B., 2005. American masculinity under Clinton. London: Lang. Maltby, R., 1995. Hollywood cinema. Oxford: Blackwell. McCrisken, T. and Pepper, A., 2005. American history and contemporary Hollywood film. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Mendelsohn, D., 2006. September 11 at the movies. New York Review of Books, 21 September. Mirzoeff, N., 2005. Watching Babylon. London: Routledge. Palmer, W., 1993. The films of the eighties. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Power, M., 2007. Digitized virtuosity: video war games and post-9/11 cyber-deterrence. Security Dialogue, 38, 271288. Robb, D., 2004. Operation Hollywood. New York, NY: Prometheus. Said, E., 1978. Orientalism. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Shaheen, 2001. Reel bad Arabs. New York, NY: Olive Branch. Sharp, J., 2000. Condensing the cold war. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Shaw, T., 2001. British cinema and the cold war. London: I. B. Tauris. Slotkin, R., 1992. Gunfighter nation. New York, NY: Atheneum. Srivastava, N., 2005. Anti-colonial violence and the dictatorship of truth in the films of Gillo Pontecorvo. Interventions, 7, 97106. Stone, A., 2007. Movies and the moral adventure of life. Boston, MA: Boston Review Book. Tuathail, G.O., 1996. Critical geopolitics. London: Routledge. Valantin, J., 2005. Hollywood, the Pentagon and Washington. London: Anthem. Von Zoonen, L., 2007. Audience reactions to Hollywood politics. Media, Culture and Society, 29, 531547. Weber, C., 2001. International relations theory. London: Routledge. Weber, C., 2005. Imagining America at war. London: Routledge. Wood, R., 1986. Hollywood from Vietnam to Reagan. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Young, M., 2003. In the combat zone. Radical History Review, 85, 253264.

Downloaded By: [Dodds, Klaus] At: 18:18 12 July 2008