‘The Road to Guantanamo’. Reshaping belief on Orientals.

1

George Uta, Cultural Studies, Stockholm University

‘The Road to Guantanamo’. Reshaping belief on Orientals.

Table of Content

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 2

Literature review ........................................................................................................................................... 3

Research question ......................................................................................................................................... 4

Method ......................................................................................................................................................... 5

Discussion...................................................................................................................................................... 5

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 11

References .................................................................................................................................................. 12

2

‘The Road to Guantanamo’. Reshaping belief on Orientals.

Introduction

Not long ago, during my online surfing I stumbled across the much discussed declassified American

Senate Select Committee Report on CIA tortures in various prison camps, with special consideration to

the Guantanamo Bay (American Senate Committee Report 2014). This of course has outraged me (even

though I have read only the Executive Summary) and has spark interest in me trying to find out more.

Who were those people conducting the tortures? Who were the subjects? And how the release of such

report will affect the popular beliefs?

Of course, the above questions may not have an answer for now, but is worthy taking a retrospective

look and see on whether, in the public sphere there were any signs of such reality being manifested.

9/11. A day deeply impregnated in the minds of masses as the image of falling Twin Towers was very

much circulated in all sorts of media during the event and for long after. A day filled in controversy and

disbelief. A new enemy using unprecedented means to infer terror was to be fought with. Was such

enemy that ‘new’ (my quotations)?

It was not long after that in the public discourse, the responsible one was to be identify not with a

person (though Bin Laden was pretty much the interface of it all), but with an entity lacking and exact

personification. This entity would be categorized as the ‘evil’, ‘radicalized Muslims’, ‘terrorist’ and so on.

The very same entity would come to be the target of American nation. Just so I make myself

understandable, here is an excerpt of President Bush Press Conference: ‘‘And make no mistake about it.

This is good versus evil. These are evildoers…The only motivation is evil.’’ (Bush 2001, in Schopp and Hill

2009: 18). The invasion in Afghanistan soon followed and so did the invasion in Iraq. Until 2006, no

proven responsibility was to be found. But up to that year, it was pretty much a thing of popular belief

to associate 9/11 with ‘Muslim terrorists’ or ‘evil’ (my quotations) trained in the Middle East, or

otherwise known as the Near Orient.

The reason for providing a short historical account post-9/11 is because the public discourse of those in

power with regards to the Near Orient has been transposed in cultural artefacts like books DeLillo’s

‘Falling man’, Spiegelman’s ‘In the shadow of No Towers’, Picciotto’s ‘Last man down: A firefighter’s

story of survival and escape from the World Trade Center’; movies like Oliver Stone’s 2006 ‘World Trade

Center’, Paul Greengrass’s 2006 ‘United 93’, or Bigelow’s 2012 ‘Zero Dark Thirty’ as well as

documentaries and other kind of media products relating on the both tragedy and heroism manifested

in the respective day and time after.

3

While most of the mainstream productions (in terms of reaching audiences at large) have seemed to be

in line with the public discourse and general perceptions on who is to be blamed, some niche

productions surfaced in form of cultural artefacts such docu-films like Michael Moore’s 2004 ‘Farenheit

9/11’ ; documentaries such Franco Fracassi’s 2008 ‘Zero: An investigation into 9/11’; TV series such

Dylan Avery’s 2005 ‘Loose change 911: An American coup’; as well as the creation of so-called

conspiracy theory group heading radio shows and TV debates with some mention of Alex Jones, Jesse

Ventura. What these productions have in common is the questioning of the official version of 9/11 as

well as the idea of the Middle East and Muslims being used as scapegoats to justify US foreign policy and

conduct. The most complex and interesting of them all seemed to be Michael Winterbottom’s 2006

docudrama called ‘The Road to Guantanamo’; this will be the focus of this research.

So what is the Orient and people in it? How is it to be defined? And by whom? How to portray it to the

masses? In short, who is the ‘evil’ (my quotations) inhabiting the Orient?

Literature review

Starting from here, I will proceed in reviewing the previous literature on Orient. It is worth mentioning

that beliefs on Orient and Orientals as threatening to the West have long been preached and given the

status of hegemon US enjoys nowadays, the discourse on Orientals has been kept intact, without much

changes except that after 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Orient, and thus Orientals have very much been

reduced to the Arab world, with special focus on Middle East. I must also mention that the study of

Orient and the way to produce a certain image off Orientals consumable for the masses, has long

tradition, and one of the most important figures to have written on the study of Orient, hence

Orientalism is Edward Said. In his 2003 re-printed version of ‘Orientalism’, Said defines the Orient or

better say Orientalism (West approach to the East) as something that since old times (at least back to

Biblical Times as one discovers through the book) ‘‘vacillates between the West’s contempt for what is

familiar and is shivers of delight in- or fear of- novelty’’ (Said 2003:60) ; Orient is not something to pin

point on a map, but an image created by cultural leadership, ‘‘or what Gramci has identify as

hegemony’’ (Said 2003:8), an ideological project which functions on the logic of binary oppositions with

the imaginative East on one side and imaginative West on the other. This ideological project is carried

out through discourses, which in turn are disseminated at the societal level, in the very strata of cultural

realm, in forms of writings, movies, academic teachings and so on. A ‘man-made’ (Said 2003:6) project

based on a clear-cut antagonism in between West and Orient, ‘‘a relationship of power, of domination,

of varying degrees of a complex hegemony’’ (Said 2003:6), with the former having always the dominant

and authoritative status at the expense of the latter.

Thus, the geographical Orient is ‘‘Orientalized, a process that not only marks the Orient as the province

of the Orientalist, but also forces the un-initiated Western reader to accept Orientalist codification’’

(Said 2003:68) The more successful Orientalism becomes internalized in the cultural repertoire of the

masses, the more strength is to be achieved for the perpetrators of such project. Orient is thus a subject

matter whereby ‘we’, the powerful attribute to it characteristics and not vice-versa. Orient, in the

colonial times meant also some kind of ‘’bizarre jouissance’’ as Flaubert puts it (Flaubert 1850 in Said

2003:105); an exotic place where spectacle of different kind was to amaze the curious Westerner.

4

But who are the Orientals in the eyes of Westerners? Said argues that those designing the Orientalist

project, hence representation of the Orient in the West, have long pursued the general public

perception of Orientals (or for sake of this writing, Middle Easterners) as one of backwardness, or to put

it in Sania Hamady’s words ‘’The Arabs so far have demonstrated an incapacity for disciplined and

abiding unity…They show lack of coordination and harmony in organization and function, nor they

revealed and ability for cooperation. Any collective action for common benefit or mutual profit is alien

to them.’’ (Hamady 1960 in Said 2003:310).

What about their religion? In his Afterword section of ‘Orientalism’, Edward Said comprises all too well

the perception of Orientals and Islam such ‘‘In this kind of discourse, based mainly upon the assumption

that Islam is monolithic and unchanging…neither Muslims nor Arabs nor any of the other dehumanized

lesser peoples recognize themselves as human beings…’’ (Said 2003:349). But this is all wrong, a result

of well-defined and preserved authoritative discourses since ‘’the terrible reductive conflicts that herd

people under falsely unifying rubrics like ‘’America’’, ‘’The West’’ or ‘’Islam’’ and invent collective

identities for large number of individuals who are actually quite diverse …must be opposed…’’ because

‘’their murderous effectiveness’’ is ‘’vastly reduced in influence and power’’ (Said 2003:xxiii, Preface).

It seems pretty obvious that Orientalism (West’s approach to Orient) is an ideological project, for the

ideas propagated about the ‘subject matter’ (my quotations) are serving the interests of those designing

these ideas, hence the cultural leadership in West, and not the interests of those subjected by such a

doctrine. For, ideology (or the aim of an ideological project) aims at producing a distorted image of the

reality, a worldview imposed on masses from above. This is done through disseminated information in

different forms of cultural artefacts ‘‘in which texts (television fiction, pop songs, novels, feature films,

etc.) always present a particular image of the world’’ (Storrey 2012:3).

Having found out what the Orient and its inhabitants appear in the eyes of the Westerners, I will now

move on in discussing ‘The Road to Guantanamo’, its message and the way through which the film’s

director constructs and deconstructs the image of the Middle Easterners.

Research question

Thus, my research question is ‘‘How is the identity of Middle Easterners as ‘evil’ constructed and

deconstructed in ‘The Road to Guantanamo’?’’

Obviously, what I am preoccupied with is how the text (or images) help in representation of Middle

Easterners as ‘‘lesser peoples’’ (Said 2003:349) and how such representation is challenged throughout

the movie, hence how the Orientals become ‘neo-Orientals’ in Winterbottom work. I will also try to

prove that film’s director conducts in fact an ideological project based on an ideological position aimed

at challenging the popular beliefs towards Middle Easterners as personification of ‘evil’ (my quotations).

5

Method

In order to find answers to the research question, I will use the analytical tools specific to semiology. I

will focus on specific key-moments (images) in the movie in order to sustain my argument, hence their

connotative and denotative meanings. For ‘‘Semiology is the attempt to explain how things mean what

they mean and the various ways in which things mean what they do’’ (Long and Wall 2012:50). The

meaning is of interest here and the rhetoric per se, so for that I will employ semiotic analysis as a

method of research.

Discussion Before the proper analysis of the key-moments in the movie, I would proceed with a short summary of

it. Thus, ‘The Road to Guantanamo’ is a 2006 docu-drama, directed by Michael Winterbottom, telling

the real story of four Arab youngsters (Asif, Ruhel, Shaqif and Monir) raised in Tipton, UK travelling to

Pakistan just weeks after 2001 9/11 attacks, attending the wedding of Asif. While in Pakistan, the group

decides to take a short trip in Kabul, Afghanistan just so to feel the real taste of it all. During their stay

there, the group is forced by the context (US bombing raids) to turn back to Pakistan, but in their way

(taking the wrong bus), the group ends up in Kunduz, the heart of Taliban resistance, and soon discover

that they were to be enrolled as fighters for the Afghan cause. Disillusioned, the group is caught in the

mist of Taliban fighting and chased by the American troops. Monir is lost in the fight. Fearing for their

safety, the group (known as the Tipton Three) chooses to surrender to American troops, but soon they

will discover that, while in captivity, they being falsely accused of terrorist plotting and held captive in

prison camps such Kandahar and Guantanamo Bay for some 3 years. Subjected to constant mockery,

humiliation, repetitive interrogation and torture, they are thereafter released without any charges.

To help with building up a sense of ‘real’, throughout the movie, the director uses both real news report

footage of the time, confessional segments by the ‘real’ Tipton Three, and re-enactment of the story

with actors. This serves to give the movie an authoritative sense, the appearance of an objective

approach being manifested.

In terms of reviews, NY Times regards the movie in terms of ‘‘in its most effective moments it provokes

strong feelings of helplessness and dread. But by far the scariest thing about this movie is that, for too

many people in this country and elsewhere, it may already have lost the power to shock.’’ (New York

Times 2006); The Guardian in terms of ‘’The Road to Guantánamo, co-directed by Michael

Winterbottom and Mat Whitecross, is a ferocious, partisan, and moving account of how three young

men from Tipton, in the Midlands, ended up in the world's most notorious prison.’’ (The Guardian 2006).

The movie itself is an ideological project whereby, Michael Winterbottom attempts at the construction

of Orientals in harmony with the public discourse at the time (War on Terror discourse), as well as

deconstruction of such identity, through the detailed accounts and re-enactment segments of the

torture methods being used against innocent individuals and de-humanized treatment they are

subjected to throughout their captivity. Winterbottom, as we shall see bellow, adopts a role of an

educator, programming the viewership into a certain worldview. Thus, by the end of the movie, one

discovers that the public discourse of the time, hence Middle Easterners involved in Taliban fighting, and

people held in Guantanamo are ‘evildoers’; is challenged, put under scrutiny and ultimately contested.

6

Orientals are not at all just a homogenous mass of terrorists or radicalized Muslims, but there are

innocent individuals of Islamic faith and Arab origin being subjected to gross injustices. It is the War on

Terror discourse that draws a ‘’dichotomy between the benevolent, civilized and moral masculinity of

the West and the backward, barbaric oppressive, deviant masculinity of the ‘brown man’…These

gendered orientalist representations … employ gendered and racialized hierarchies’’ (Khalid 2011:20)

The movie, in term of a cycle, appears to be a three part story, with a momentum leading to another.

Each momentum is built up in the logic of binary opposition (for example: in the first momentum the

viewer is accustomed with the image of a very weak and suffering ‘good’ American nation entering a

justifiable vengeance against the strong ‘evil’ Middle Easterner; in the second momentum the roles are

switched with the strong, ‘evil’ Westerner on one side, and the weak, ’good’ Middle Easterner on the

other side). Thus, in the first part, the viewer is presented with a narrative of Orientals (Middle

Easterners) reflecting the public discourse (more simply put, the Arabs as perceived just after 9/11) and

this section is the one where identity of Orientals, in accordance with Orientalist tradition, as evildoers is

constructed and sustained; the second part delves into the capture and captivity of the Tipton Three,

with a detailed account of different torture methods being used, the emotional state of the three while

in property of American troops and the injustice being at placed, and this section is where the previous

identity is deconstructed, characteristic of the both parts are switched from one another. And finally the

third part is preoccupied with the portrayal of the Tipton Three as the neo-Orientals, being awarded

heroic position, given authoritative posture in contesting the public discourse them and people of their

background have been subjected to.

Now I will proceed in discussing the key-moments in the first part and their denotative and connotative

meanings (what is seen and what is implied).

The opening scene in the movie is an actual news report footage, accompanied by somber sound in the

background. US President George W. Bush is seen in a conjoint press conference with British PM Blair.

Bush states that ‘the only thing I know for certain is that these are bad people …’ The scene is switched

to a young looking Asif (interpreted by an actor), and followed by a confessional segment whereby the

real Asif is depicted as a dark skin bearded man recalling his personal background as part of a Pakistani

immigrant family to UK, a youngster looking forward to his travel back home in the search of a wife. The

two images built on each other in a connotative way. The audience is programmed as to what they are

about to see. The using of ‘real’ footage of conjoint conference is to set the discourse on how the

spectator is to perceive the movie subjects (as ‘bad people’). The viewer is also pursued in finding signs

of familiarity into the characters; Asif appears to be naturalized into the British society, he has a British

accent, but still he is to be positioned in the group of ‘bad people’ who sometimes are in the very heart

of our society, the immigrants.

The scene switches to the travel of Asif in Pakistan. This is an important scene, on the screen appears a

note of the day, 28 September 2001. The viewer is informed about the context of it all, not long after

9/11 attacks. A less urbanized Pakistani village is shown, revealing ‘the exotic’ side of the Orient, lack of

cosmopolitan life, in the same logic of Orientalist discourse, the idea of backwardness in the Orient is

very much emphasized in the beginning. Emphasized is as well, at the connotative level (with the help of

sequence of scenes) the fact that those responsible for 9/11 are less developed people.

7

In the next scenes introduce the other characters, through a mix of confessional segments and re-

enactment sequences. Shakif and Ruhel recall their background story while in the re-enacted scenes, the

viewer is familiarized with Monir. Interestingly enough, through the mixing of sequences, the young

actors are depicted as ordinary youngsters (no beards or Islamic dress such Thobe) while the real Tipton

Three are depicted as bearded men in the confessional sections (denotes difference in identities, the

viewers are thus presented with two imageries). This detail is of importance, because in the next couple

of scenes, while arriving in Pakistan, the group is housed in Binori mosque, Karachi. Here, the group is

depicted (through re-enactment scenes) as all wearing a Thobe, at times engaged in the morning prayer

(Salat al-Fajr) with a thematic sound in the background (the moments of prayers are presented

throughout the first part). Again, the director plays very much on the stereotypes, the kind of intense

religious conduct the Orientals are associated with.

News report footage is to follow with protest from Karachi ‘organized by Islamic parties, supporters of

Talibans’. Again, the reliance on viewer’s cultural repertoire is obvious. In the same piece of report, the

viewer is informed on the political turmoil in the region due to the American invasion in Afghanistan.

This scene is juxtaposed with the previous one in order to assimilate Islam to the state of affairs of the

period.

Some moments later in the movie, the viewer is again informed of the context, with a note of the day,

11 October 2001. Asif goes to Karachi (notice the somber sound in the background) where he attends

(together with his friends) a ceremony. The preacher advices the four to go and help with the Afghani

cause, with the real Asif adding (in the confessional segment) ‘but we also wanted to see how

Afghanistan really was’. Here, the image of the four as Taliban sympathizers (associated with al-Qaeda

terrorist network) is defined. The viewer is re-assured about the group’s identity, in line with the

viewer’s prior knowledge of the context (2001 Taliban fighting in Afghanistan against American troops).

The four travel by a bus to Afghanistan, 12 October 2001 (as a note of the day appears on the screen;

again contextualizing is of importance). Moments later the group is depicted in Kandahar witnessing

American bombing raids; the youngsters are depicted as terrified disoriented. The scene is switched to a

real news report footage of the time (accompanied by a somber sound in the background, it helps to

build the momentum). In the news report footage the viewer is informed about Kandahar as ‘the heart

of Taliban land’; groups of Talibans are depicted, with one of them shouting towards the camera ‘Long

live Osama bin Laden’. The mixing up of re-enactment scenes and news footage is of help in both

contextualizing and sustaining the identity of the group as Taliban sympathizers (or what US called ‘evil

doers). From here the group head off to Kabul.

16 October 2001 (note of the day on the screen, contextualizing). Real news report footage on US

bombing raids against Taliban trenches in Northern Kabul. A re-enactment scene follows with a

disillusioned group with the life in Kabul heading back to Pakistan. In the wrong bus, the group ends up

in Kunduz province. Soon would they realize they have been trapped into a situation where they more

or less been enrolled in the Taliban fight against the occupation. Again, the identity of the group is

sustained.

Bombing raids begin soon. Here the first momentum is ended.

The second momentum (minute 22:40) starts off with a chaotic scene, one can’t distinguish who is who

in the depths of darkness, the now fugitives are reduced to the image frightened individuals, scared of

8

the bombings around. Some are lost in the shed. This scene is really important. The director infantilizes

the group through a scene where the now fugitives, under the heavy bombing are depicted in fetal

position, seeking some kind of protection, like a baby in the womb. For ‘’infantilization is the

representation of certain political actors/communities as vulnerable, helpless and backward children’’

(Nayak 2006: 48) provoked by the powerful. At the connotative level, the fetal position the group is

depicted is to suggest vulnerability which is in stark contrast with what the viewer was presented just

moments before. The identity of the three is slowly deconstructed.

The next scene helps at that deconstruction with the three exhausted men left behind (Monir is dead),

walking around (accompanied by somber sound in the background) and observing the macabre

surroundings (people digging graves for the cadavers). The human sufferance is at the center of the

stage, mixed up with reminders that in fact, innocent people might well been lost to the fight.

It is worth to mention that the director, through news reports and re-enactments, puts heavy emphasis

on the spectacle of war, as form of jouissance.

Moments after real news report on the massive surrender of Talibans to the counterpart. The three are

amongst them. A pile of people, undistinguished one from another awaiting merciful treatment in their

imprisonment are taken into custody. The scene switches to a confessional segment of a certain

dramatism with Shafiq describing that while being walked through the area, he could observe bodies

being thrown in mass graves, with some still being alive but badly injured. The group of captives being

walked towards imprisonment. Perhaps the scene looks familiar to some, maybe a reminder of Jesus

Christ road to Golgotha as Ruhel, interpreted by an actor, is depicted as a man with long hair and bear,

hopelessly submissive in his walk, falling at times and being rushed back into the group by soldiers.

Some scenes later, the captives (or subject matter) are embarked into the trucks, transported to Mazar-

e-Sharif. They are locked into a gigantic container and at times guards shoot towards the container,

many inside die. Again, the re-enactment is supported by the confessionals of the three (building up the

sense of ‘real’). The doors are opened, those still alive are transported to Sheberghan Prison. Such scene

is then followed by a real news report footage of the time informing on the danger posed by the

Talibans inside the prison. Some moments later, through re-enactment a Western journalist taking

close-up pictures of the ‘subject matter’ (bearded man) is depicted. Such scenes are not without a

purpose, the director implies that there were many injustices being made in the respective time and the

lack of a fair and humane treatment is obvious. Again a binary (this time switched) opposition is

observed with the weak, helpless Arabs at the mercy of powerful American troops.

The Tipton Three, after a brief interrogation, are transported to in Kandahar airbase prison (as one finds

out from the news report being inserted in between the cross cuts, a prison housing some of ‘al-Qaeda

most dangerous fighters’). They are obviously subjected to a position of a lesser human (at the

connotative level), bread being thrown through the fences, images of hungry detainees rushing to get a

piece of food; while soldiers engage in mocking the captives.

Here it is worthy to mention the ‘hypermasculinity’ manifested by the soldiers in their conduct towards

the subjects, a sentiment that ‘’arises when agents of hegemonic masculinity feel threatened or

undermined, thereby needing to inflate, exaggerate or otherwise distort their traditional masculinity’’

(Ashis Nandy 2004 in Nayak 2006:43) .

9

The three are then transported to Guantanamo Bay Naval Station in Cuba. They, amongst others are

depicted in orange suits, with their heads covered in black bags. At the connotative level, the identity is

being erased, individuality is being lost.

The re-enactment scenes go on into interrogation moments and sequences of de-humanizing treatment

inmates are subjected to. The scenes involving mockery on the part of the soldiers and bread throwing

through the fences are shown yet again; with the group depicted with their hands standing in a position

suggesting rather begging.

The torture methods are described by the three in confessional segments accompanied by re-

enactments. Shafiq reflects on how every hour they were woke up, made to stay in line and checked up

for their numbers. They are again ‘lesser humans’, reduced to numbers.

The viewer is informed throughout the second momentum of the quality of the captives. They are

‘subjects’ awaiting their faith to be decided upon by their masters. They are victims of the War on Terror

discourse; subjects of an ideological project to which they are to be obedient. For ‘‘ideological subjects

are produced by acts of ‘hailing’ or ‘interpellation’’ (Storrey 2012:81). Such interpellation is observed in

several scenes as for example, during one interrogation, the interrogator tells to Asif, ‘‘you’re al-Qaeda’’,

to which the ‘subject’ replies by negation (sustaining his innocence). In turn he is punched by the

soldiers several time, asked again, and then punched again. At the connotative level, the subject is being

forced into admitting his identity as a terrorist, an identity designated by the interrogator. The viewer,

through such scenes, is pursued to collide with the subject, with the latter being unjustly abused.

A scene of particular significance follows soon with the three transported into a room, their heads

shaved (lesser human), covered in black bags; and subjected to humiliating torture. They are stripped

naked, head covered, rushed by soldiers, screamed at and barked at. Via Guantanamo, as informed by

the news report insert, ‘more al-Qaeda and Taliban prisoners arriving today in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Despite International criticism, Americans insist that the conditions inside the Camp X-Ray are humane’.

For more effect, and perhaps outlining the subtle irony of it all, President Bush is shown as stating that

‘remember, those in Guantanamo Bay are killers, they don’t share the same values we share’. The

juxtaposed scene are in contrast with the scenes opening the film, characteristics of the counterparts

are inversed.

Scene from inside the Camp X-ray follow, with the captain informing the inmates of their status as the

‘property of the US Marine Corp’, their ‘final destination’; yet another example of interpellation.

Prisoners are depicted as being kept not in cells but in cages under the open sky, without possibility to

talk to one another, permanently in sitting position; being given two cans, one for water and the other

for depositing excrements. This scene, at the connotative level, is to inform (yet again) the viewer on the

level of injustice being manifested. Innocent prisoners are not only kept in custody under false

accusations but are stripped away from their status as humans, treated as ‘lesser humans’, as animals.

The close connection in between Islam and Terrorism can be observed in several scenes as for example

when soldiers, in several occasions, spot Shafiq and others praying, they shout ‘hey…quit praying’; or

when a soldier mocks Ruhel ‘what are you doing? You praying like a Muslim? I thought you’re a Brit’.

Here one finds another sign of binary opposition since at the connotative level, Britain (one of the

powerful Western nations) is opposed to Islam (the dominant religion in Arab world).

10

Another example of Islam being mocked as a religion is to follow in the scene when a soldier is depicted

stepping on and then throwing away a book of Quran one of the prisoners was reading from.

Quran, at the connotative level, is to serve as a refuge for the prisoners, some form of escapism from

their misfortune.

After several re-enactments of interrogation moments, the three are placed in isolation cell for almost 4

months. Torture methods are used. Heavy metal music running for hours, the subject is put in stress

position; shouted at and forced to stay awake. Breakdown is pursued and eventually achieved, the three

‘admit’ to their identity as Taliban fighters and al-Qaeda affiliates. At the denotative level, the three are

forced into accepting being subjects of interpellation, to which they are finally responsive. They accept

their status as Orientalized (in the logic of War on Terror discourse). This is the end of the second

momentum. Innocence proven, roles switched; the oppressor becomes the oppressed and vice-versa;

the ‘evil’ turns into ‘good’ and vice-versa; the ‘terrorist’ turns into ‘terrorized’ and vice-versa.

The third momentum (minute 1:22:00) starts with one representative from Secret Services informing

the Tipton Three of their clearance from any kind of accusations (‘Congratulations, you’ve been

cleared’). The scene is followed by a real news footage report in which is related that ‘More than 700

people have been detained in Guantanamo…500 are still there…only 10 have been charged. None have

ever been found guilty of any crime.’ The news report is purposely mixed with re-enactment scenes of

the Tipton Three conducting their daily prayers. It serves in furthering the ideological project pursued

throughout the movie.

Confessional segments follow with Asif’ statement ‘It changed my life, my life is completely different.

The way I look at things, the way I look at what’s happening in the world…It was not a nice place’;

Shafiq’ statement: ‘Looking back…yeah, it was an experience and it has changed my life for me for the

better so I don’t really regret it’; Ruhel’ statement: ‘I haven’t changed a great deal…just that I practice

my religion more than I did before’.

While on their ride to freedom, in the road back from Guantanamo, a soldier is shouting at Ruhel not to

look outside the window and threatens him to be sent back to Guantanamo. The Ruhel’s reply

(accompanied by sarcastic laughing in the bus) is at least interesting and defining for the new identity

the three have acquired after their release. Thus, Ruhel tells to the soldier ‘You know one thing, you

can’t send me back! You don’t fucking own me!’

The reply above is of great significance. It tells the viewer that a new identity is constructed. The weak

Oriental, the subjected Middle Easterner, the silent prisoner, the suppressed Muslim; gains a voice,

gains human agency, gains independence and reasoning capacity. And that’s the ‘neo-Oriental’ being

presented to the viewer in the movie.

The movie closes with the scene from Asif’s wedding.

11

Conclusion

As a conclusion, it is my hope that I have demonstrated how identities are constructed and

deconstructed in ‘The Road to Guantanamo’. It is my hope I have shown how the nowadays War on

Terror discourse has its roots into an old tradition of Orientalism, and how Michael Winterbottom,

acting as educator, carries out an ideological project aimed as shifting popular beliefs about the

Orientals of Islamic faith.

Thus I hope I have provided a justifiable enough answer to my research question in that the identity of

Middle Easterners as ‘evil’ is constructed (and sustained) in the first part of the movie through a

narrative of opposing binaries; and in terms of production by mixing up real news footage (reports on

the American efforts to find the responsible for 9/11 attacks, as well as the military action employed)

with re-enactment scenes of the Arab youngsters portrayed in line with the stereotypes circulated at

societal level (Arabs as fanatic religious men, dressed in Thobe, engaged in the fight against Western

occupation), with confessional segments supporting the respective stereotypes (manners and looks).

The identity of Middle Easterners is deconstructed by a detailed account (during confessional segments)

of life in captivity; re-enactment of the story of three innocent prisoners being subjected to repeated

interrogation, torture and mockery; usage of real news footage from the time of innocent people being

held in Guantanamo Bay and the international criticism against US with regards with the way prisoners

are treated in the prison.

12

References

Long, Paul and Wall, Tim, 2012. Media Studies: Text, Production, Context. Harlow, England. Pearson

Education Limited

Khalid, Maryam, 2011. Gender, orientalism and representations of the ‘Other’ in the War on Terror,

Global Change, Peace & Security. Security & Global Change, 23:1, 15-29.

Nayak, Meghana, 2006. Orientalism and ‘saving’ US state identity after 9/11, International Feminist

Journal of Politics, 8:1, 42-61.

Said, Edward, 2003. Orientalism. London. Penguin

Schopp, Andrew and Hill, Matthew, 2009. The war on terror and American popular culture. Denver,

Massachusetts. Rosemont Publishing &Printing Corp.

Stokes, Jane, 2003. How to do media & cultural studies. London. Sage Publications

Storrey, John. 2012. Cultural Theory and Popular Culture: An Introduction. Harlow, England. Pearson

Education Limited

Online resource: American Senate Select Committee Report, 2014. Committee Study of the Central

Intelligence Agency’s Detention and Interrogation Program.

http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/study2014/sscistudy1.pdf. Date accessed: 23 December 2014

Online resource: Youtube, 2011. The Road to Guantanamo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXCth19kwRw. Date accessed: 21 December 2014

Online resource: The Guardian, 2006. The Road to Guantanamo. Berlin Festival.

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2006/feb/17/festivals.berlinfilmfestival2006. Date accessed: 1

January 2015

Online resource: New York Times, 2006. The Road to Guantanamo.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/23/movies/23guan.html?_r=0. Date accessed: 1 January 2015

13