The Imperial Imaginary
By Ella Shohat & Robert Stam
Web guide by Elizabeth Cox, Nathan Johansen, Tim Samford, and Savannah Solomon
The cinema has played a key role in the shaping of national identity. This article examines the close relationship between the development of film and the development of imperialst/colonialst ideas in film. Since film and imperialism both caught popularity around the same time, the two would use each other to gain momentum. The film industry began to make a common motif of the imperial/colonial feelings of the time in the Western world. This motif soon included a degrading view of the non-western people that were being conquered. Even in non-colonial movies, the same racism towards non-whites echoed the imperialist view. This article looks at this motif through all stages of the development of film and all genres of film that include this motif.
The Shaping of National Identity
Cinema, newspapers, and novels have helped shape national identity. In fact, film encouraged people to identify with the racial solidarity of imperialism. Going to the cinema helped the upper class associate with its community; for example, there were mass viewings of "imperial filmic fictions." Overall, the cinema glorified the image of the empire and thereby transformed the European spectators into armchair travelers that were able conquest countries and gain power.
Cinema as Science and Spectacle
The films were able to capture exciting new scenes, yet the view was only through the eyes photographer. They never asked the opinion of the natives about how they felt their homeland should be viewed. Numerous uses for the camera emerged including filming excavations, representing alien topographies, and documenting exotic plants and animals. Eventually, race issues emerged giving way to supremacist ideology. Many were put on exhibition at Freak Shows in attempt to make them seem less human. The perpetual usage of nudity to display primitiveness was also evident. Slowly, this concept was taken further to create pornography.
Projecting the Empire
Cinema introduced a new, more vivid way to show colonialism from the point of view of the colonizer, whether through a trip to the moon or a journey through Africa. Films portrayed non-Europeans as savage and inhuman, degrading them to the point that not even their nationality mattered so long as the color of their skin was not white. The “more superior” Europeans are shown trying to wipe away ignorance, disease, and tyranny. At least, this is how their actions are justified, and they emphasize the incivility of the native state, the practical endorsement of the conquering from the natives, and the Europeans higher ability to rule. The British even made rules regarding the portrayal of European and non-European interaction, censoring anything that may degrade the white man. The imperial viewpoint continues even today, especially in sci-fi films, as alien creatures who are either evil and irrational or servile and less intelligent bend to the power of the Euro-American hero.
The Western as Paradigm
On a more national level, imperialism is displayed in America through stories of the western frontier. Native Americans are never shown as they were before the Europeans came because their day to day life that was interrupted might make the “un-American-ness” of the white settlers too apparent. Instead, films tell the story of the American journey into the “Promised Land” of the West and present Indians as savage people, attacking unprovoked, thus justifying their eventual elimination. Our frontiersmen heroes and the history of moving through the Indian Territory resonate through our society even today, as comparisons between now and then are often made.
The Late Imperial Film
Imperialist attitudes have been a part of recent movies as well as in the classical age of film. Even television in such shows as Gilligan’s Island from 1986, the Caucasian settled island of the castaways is surrounded by wild tribes of natives. Racism and imperialism were major overtones of many later movies that glorified the white man while still giving a façade of racial acceptance. In The Wild Geese from 1978, Andrew McLaglen’s creates a tale of white mercenaries carrying out a mission where hundreds of Africans are killed. The white heroes of the film captivate the audience with their personalities as to mask the slaughter. Cinematic techniques are used to bolster the view of the whites in this film. In the eighties and nineties, both imperial or frontier narratives and narratives about the closing of the imperial age were popular. Often, the colonial images were conveyed in a more playful manner than in the past. The series of movies of Indiana Jones resembles many of the older heroic films for boys from the first half of the century. The third world is used as a playground for the adventures of Indy, and the people of these lands reflect the imperialist attitude. The older, non-western characters typically are the evil and unwilling to change while the children and younger characters seem pro-western and eager for change. The underlying imperialist theme has been alive in the recent film industry just as the early film industry.
Postmodern War
· The Imperial attitude and media tendencies still exist.
o The Persian Gulf War, with the media blitz, proves this, according to the authors.
· Operation names carry undertones of the Crusades and medieval religious conflicts.
· Media portrayed a sense of an inevitable, if not the desire for, conflict with their advertisement graphics.
· Television provides “a kind of narcissistic voyeurism” (126).
o Television is quicker than film.
o Easier to get the view of the globe from TV than film.
o Narcissistic voyeurism in the sense that the TV gives viewers a feeling of seeing without being see, along with a sense of power from the military footage.
· Viewers were given the perspective of the military in this war.
o Military footage and simulations.
o Footage from smart bombs.
o Feelings of omnipotence for viewers.
· Encirclement strategy employed…
o American pilots and smart bombs – Outer Circle.
o Iraqi Army – Middle Circle.
o Kuwaitis – Inner Circle.
o Media made viewer feel like the outer circle: sense of power endowed.
· The new traveler, scientist heroes
o Anchors and correspondents, along with other figures in the news.
o Lots of secondary identification.
§ Diane Sawyer in a tank.
§ Ted Koppel in a Saudi fighter jet.
§ Correspondents in the region.
o They had the power to show the viewer the war up close and afar, without having the viewer physically there.
o Only real sources of information – i.e. only perspective.
§ Iraq was the enemy.
§ Empathy started with Americans, ended with Iraqis.
§ According to the author, the underlying message of imperialist thought was put out during the war in media coverage: “Third World life has no value a European […] need respect” (128).
§ Vilification of Saddam Hussein
· Helped by U.S. in Iraq-Iran War.
· Vilification “melodramatic.”
§ A Richard Slotkin “savage war” (128).
§ Manichean allegory
· “Massacres” justified by the enemy being who they are.
§ Western ideas
· Hussein = Villain
· Bush = Hero
· Kuwait = Damsel
· Gendered Language
o “Rape” used with Kuwait
· Media created facades of identification, according to the authors
o “Multicultural” army
o Female
o Progressive
· Postmodernist views – Jean Baudrillard
o Inadequate for the situation.
o Declared that “The Gulf War Has Not Taken Place” (131).
“In both cinema and TV, such overarching global points-of-view suture the spectator into the omniscient cosmic perspective of the European master-subject.”
“In essence, the viewer is forced behind the barrel of a repeating rifle and it is from that position, through its gun sights, that he [sic] receives a picture history of western colonialism and imperialism.”
“Narrative models in film are not simply reflective microcosms of historical processes, then, they are also experiential grids or templates through which history can be written and national identity figured.”
“Given the geographically discontinuous nature of empire, cinema helped cement both a national and imperial sense of belonging among many disparate peoples.”
“...the cinema has offered the spectator a mediated relationship with imaged others from diverse cultures.”
“...transforming European spectators into armchair conquistadors, affirming their sense of power while turning the colonies into spectacle for the metropole’s voyeuristic gaze.”
“Thus photographers making the grand oriental tour might record their own subjective visions, but in doing so they also drew clear boundaries between the object being looked at, between the traveler and the ‘traveled upon.’”
“More than a servile scribe, the camera actively popularized imperial imagery, turning it into an exciting participatory activity for those in the mother-land.”
“The desire to expand the frontiers of science became inextricably linked to the desire to expand the frontiers of empire.”
“...the civilized West is threatened by the savage East, but the imperial family ultimately triumphs.”
What is Implied by All of this
Americans and Europeans, as a group, still see the world through age-old imperialist ideas and beliefs.
This is made indefinitely obvious through the careful analysis of films and television.
The “heroes” are idealized based on the standards of the times, but they still remain “superior” to the aggressors.
Racism is alive and well throughout all facets of society.
The imperialist paradigm has not past.
The infamous “us-to-them” death ratio remains.
Postmodern views are not appropriate for highly televised events.
Objectivity is no more.
Perceptions in the West are based in old British censorship rules.
Strain-Seymour, Ellen “Touristic Births: Placing the Tourist.” Private Places: Private Journeys.
o Armchair tourism through pictures. Ethnographic images, world’s fairs.
o Stereotyping of cultures to digestable images.
o Natives as exhibits
· Desmond, Jane “Picturing Hawai’i”
o Social Darwinism
o Whites are the dominant race.
o Singular ideas of other races, peoples
§ Native Americans as savages.
· The Strain-Seymour reading on Jules Verne
o White traveler for secondary identification
o Superior knowledge…. shows hierarchy of races by example.
Do most films and TV shows today perpetuate this imperialistic viewpoint?
What would be considered today’s “Indian Territory” for America?
Do you believe that films today have the same ability to make the audience identify with its empire and go against other nations?
Do present-day films still foster towards the defeat/humiliation of one racial group?
What are some other modern colonial films or novels?
Why were the Indiana Jones movies so popular so long after the imperial age?
Robert Stam - Academic Website
Robert Stam
Professor of Cinema Studies, NYU
Ph.D. 1976 (comparative literature), California (Berkeley); M.A. 1966 (English
literature), Indiana; Certificate 1965, Oxford (England).
Ella Shohat
Professor of Cultural Studies, NYU
Shohat, Ella and Robert Stam. "The Imperial Imaginary." Unthinking Eurocentrism: Multiculturalism and the Media. Routledge: London, 1994.