FiLM ANALySiS: tHE KiNGdOM

Antionette Rodriguez

Film Analysis

             The Kingdom is a fascinating movie that portrays Americans and the Middle East working together and fighting for justice. The movie begins with a brief history of Middle East and United States relations, concluding with Saudi Arabia as the number one oil producer in the world and the United States as the number one consumer in the world.

The video clearly indicates that America has strong motives for its presence in Saudi Arabia, as the movie shows through the Western compounds that were set up. The initial action begins with a suicide bombing at an American baseball game and an even bigger explosion while American officials were investigating the scene. A few Saudis overlook and record the game, while others are shooting Saudi police and American bystanders; terror is associated with all the Middle Eastern characters because the viewer does not know who is good or bad. The scenes alternate between a young Saudi who is being told to watch the attack and an American FBI agent, Agent Fluery, who is at school with his son. There is an interesting contrast between the two boys: the American boy is at school having a show and tell with his father, while the young Saudi is with his grandfather watching Americans being killed for the glory of Allah. Both children live and are brought up in two different worlds, the Saudi is taught that Americans are the enemy and the American boy knows his dad fights “bad people.” This scene foreshadows the ultimate predicament at the end of the movie: who is the enemy?

As the FBI team discusses their options and situation one thing is clear, the Saudis are threatening, dangerous, and killing Americans on a large scale. Even in Saudi Arabia everyone is suspect, one scene shows the Saudi army assaulting one of the Saudi guards for supposedly being involved in the bombing. The enemy could be anyone, but whoever they are the Americans are preparing to bring justice. When the FBI arrives in Saudi Arabia, they are unwelcome and tension occurs when they are told their cooperation is limited. Agent Fluery asks if they could at least question witnesses. When he visits the compound an American witness shouts at the first sight of Faris Al Ghazi, Saudi policeman in command, and accuses him of his wife’s death. The American does not differentiate Middle Eastern people because he only sees one thing, a terrorist. Of course he is traumatized for what happened to his wife, but it just reaffirms America’s quick tendency to blame an entire people for the actions of a few.

However, when Agent Fluery phones his son from Saudi Arabia the scene also shows Al Ghazi and his family coloring and watching television with their kids, another Saudi officer arrives home and helps his father get ready for prayer, it is an intimate moment because unlike the beginning it shows the obvious, not all Muslims are terrorists. There are Muslims in Saudi Arabia who have families, lives and are innocent victims in their country’s struggle for peace and stability. At first, there is tension and discomfort between FBI agents and the Saudi police, but during a car ride, Fluery and Al Ghazi understand that they are on the same side; they both want justice. The movie is unique because it does not rely on common Middle Eastern stereotypes; it presents the differences between Faris and Agent Fluery such as their different lifestyle, religion, customs, and traditions but what unites them is their duty and struggle for justice. The movie makes me think that there is no reason why Muslims and Christians or the West and East cannot live in tolerance. There is “othering” by the Saudi terrorists and American tourists, however Fluery and Faris are above that. They realize their similarities and represent what brings the two sides together. The conclusion of the movie shows how the problem is that “we” are taught to believe “they” are the enemy and vice versa. In both societies, the “other” is created to amplify differences and justify acts of violence. "They" are always going to be there, but "we" can resolve conflicts by putting differences aside and working towards a morally fair society.

As Faris and Fluery work together, the Saudi terrorists continue to plot their attack on the American team. The enemy changes from Saudi Arabia, to an exclusive group of Saudi Arabian Muslims who preach extreme violence. At the end of the movie, the Americans are attacked and one is kidnapped for execution. Unlike the beginning of the movie, the viewer knows the good from the bad. The FBI team and Saudi police work together to retrieve the agent and capture the mastermind behind the attacks. The movie does not fall short of portraying in terrorists in true fashion when they prepare to torture and record the American in order to publicize it on the Internet. After the American is retrieved safely the team searches the building. The building ends up being the residence of Abu Hamza, the leader of the terrorist group. When Faris realizes he is in the presence of Abu Hamza, the viewer clearly feels the terror and pride in Hamza's face. The viewer sees him as a body of evil, not because of his grinning expression, but because we have some background on his actions and what he believes in. He is not just another Middle Eastern face whose role is to terrify the audience, he is in fact a terrorist and the viewer's feelings are vindicated. During the shootout, Abu Hamza, one of his teenage followers, and Al Ghazi are shot dead. As Agent Fluery holds onto Faris for his last moments he rejoices in saying, “We got him. We got him.” There is relief in that their mission was accomplished. 

The concluding scene of the movie is the one that is critical and leaves the viewer in despair. The last words used to console the FBI agents and Abu Hamza’s grandson was, “We are going to kill them all.” Both sides continue to believe that “they” are going to kill “us," whether it is for security or the greater good it is not clear. What is clear it that the violence and innocent deaths are not going to stop. The “other” exists on both sides and as long as "we" are constructed against the "them," peace is impossible.