BY ZAIDOON ALKENDI.
(To explore how Middle Eastern and Western viewers see East-West culture clash movies, F&F contributor G. Connor Salter asked several Muslim writers for their perspectives on the 1975 adventure movie The Wind and the Lion. Zaidoon Alkendi kindly offered this review, and Salter added some notes on the movie’s historical context.)
The Basics
The Wind and the Lion is an adventure movie directed by John Milius in 1975. Its timeframe is set in the early twentieth century—specifically in 1904, during Theodore Roosevelt’s presidency. The film takes creative liberties with history in a loose and caricatured manner, making it an entertaining watch for those who can appreciate the humor and overlook the clear Orientalist stereotypes that are part of the movie’s comedy. The movie begins with the kidnapping of a wealthy American woman and her two children, William and Jennifer, by so-called Berber pirates or desperados (I will return to this term later) in Morocco. The Berber chief is Mulay Ahmed el-Raisuli (portrayed by Sean Connery), and the U.S. government becomes involved in rescuing its citizens.
The Setting
The film explores various themes, mainly focusing on cultural differences and the complexities of diplomatic relations between nations. The film’s main setting is 1904 Morocco, and the characters are loosely based on the 1904 incident involving Ion Hanford Perdicaris, a Greek-American who, along with his stepson, Cromwell Varley, was kidnapped by el-Raisuli.[1]
Raisuni was an intriguing and peculiar nobleman, considered to be one of the last Barbary Pirates. Both the central government and foreigners saw him as a dangerous man, labeling him a bandit and pirate, while the common people, especially those in the Jebala clan confederacy he led, viewed him as a hero and the rightful heir to the Moroccan throne.
The movie takes liberties with historical accuracy to enhance the dramatic effect; Ion Hanford Perdicaris is replaced by a woman named Eden and her two children, but the story remains similar in its portrayal of the geopolitical tensions that arose because of the kidnapping. Morocco is portrayed as a place where different powers, such as the British, Germans, and French, seek influence. Mulai Ahmed el-Raisuli opposes both Sultan Abdelaziz and his uncle, who has strong ties with Western powers and is seen as one of the main enemies el-Raisuli is fighting against.
Mulai Ahmed was known to be a womanizer and of handsome features, earning him the nickname the “Eagle of Zinat.” One of the most significant incidents in his life was when he was imprisoned by his own cousin (his brother in the movie) for four years and tortured in the dungeon of Mogador, where he was chained to a wall throughout his imprisonment. He was released during the reign of Sultan Abdelaziz, whom he later fought against and was seen as a staunch enemy of el-Raisuli.
Two Sides of the Same Coin
The movie is significant in its use of different symbols to explain civilizational tensions, particularly through the characters of Mulai Ahmed el-Raisuli and President Theodore Roosevelt.
Both Roosevelt and el-Raisuli are strong leaders and warriors, admired by their people. El-Raisuli, both in the movie and in real life, was a formidable threat to his enemies, while Roosevelt was one of the Rough Riders cavalrymen during the Spanish-American War and was sent to fight in Cuba and also a very strong man in the political arena.
The depiction of the strong and energetic “Teddy” Roosevelt (played by Brian Keith) is evident throughout the movie and illustrates the naive arrogance typical of American dealings with the world. In contrast, el-Raisuli is portrayed with different layers, emphasizing the mystical element of the oriental man, especially through the romantic flirtation between he and Eden Perdicaris, which deepens our understanding of the mindset of this tribal chieftain and leader.
El-Raisuli demands a huge ransom for the kidnapped Americans and seeks to embarrass the sultan internationally, while Roosevelt uses this crisis to help secure his re-election. At the film’s beginning, when Teddy Roosevelt decides to send the Atlantic Squadron to Morocco, his Secretary of State, John Hay (portrayed by John Huston), points out that it is illegal. Roosevelt responds, “Why spoil the beauty of the thing with legality?” This line reflects the politics of American adventurism, which is both interventionist and assertive on the international stage, mirroring Roosevelt’s real-life belief in American exceptionalism.
Language as a Bearer of History
The word “desperado” is used in the movie to describe the Barbary Pirates. When I looked into the meaning and history of this word, I discovered some intriguing symbolism relevant to the movie’s plot. “Desperado,” a Spanish word that developed from “without hope” or “desperate,” has been used in various contexts and acquired a negative connotation in the American West, where it typically referred to a violent outlaw. In Western and American literature, a desperado is someone who operates outside the boundaries of law and norms.[2]
The use of this word for el-Raisuli and his followers shows how the American psyche might project its own understanding of barbarism onto outsiders.[3] I might be overanalyzing, but I found the contradictions quite funny in many scenes, although I’m not sure if it was all planned.[4] One such scene is when Roosevelt criticizes the barbarism of el-Raisuli while surrounded by a large crowd, including Native Americans—a people who suffered greatly because of the American government.
An interesting moment in the movie occurs at the 42-minute mark when one of the characters, speaking about American power, says, “We have men who can do absolutely anything.” This line demonstrates Western optimism about modernity and its confidence in its capabilities from all perspectives, the belief that it can conquer the world and achieve anything. This is something that el-Raisuli seems to want to use to his advantage in a game of thrones where even the wisest cannot foresee all the consequences. He might have thought that since his homeland was already under the influence and ambitions of various European powers, why not use this situation to cause tension between them?
This culminates later in the film, where the reckless nature of American foreign policy in Morocco—a territory where different powers like the Germans and British also sought dominance—nearly triggers a world war.
The movie highlights the various ironies of modernity and the clashes of civilizations within it. From el-Raisuli’s perspective, he and Roosevelt are both strong leaders for their people, but with a fundamental difference. He tells Roosevelt in a message, “You are like the Wind and I like the Lion. You form the Tempest. The sand stings my eyes, and the Ground is parched. I roar in defiance, but you do not hear. But between us, there is a difference. I, like the lion, must remain in my place. While you, like the wind, will never know yours.” This is a very illuminating and interesting quote. As a person from the Islamic world, I see this as a statement that explains how people like el-Raisuli are bound to a land, culture, values, and a civilization. The same can be said about Europeans and many of their conflicts, such as the First World War, which was a melting pot of history and complexity.
In contrast, Americans, due to their geography and nation’s creation, have developed a whole different worldview that might have an advantage over those who live in their own historical context, but at the same time, they will always feel as if they are living in an airport, not knowing who they are or where they are heading.
The End of a Dying World
Throughout the movie, one can see the contrasting worlds represented by Roosevelt and el-Raisuli. Roosevelt represents a nation at the peak of its power, one of the most advanced and powerful “empires” ever to exist. In contrast, el-Raisuli is a warrior of a bygone era, one of the last of his kind in a rapidly changing world. Both el-Raisuli and Roosevelt share similar traits as they defend their nations and reputations. When Roosevelt sends the Atlantic Squadron, it further increases the pressure on the sultan and plays into el-Raisuli’s plans.
In the end, Roosevelt, in a comical twist, once again proves el-Raisuli’s earlier observation correct when he says that the American people decide in the U.S., while he will decide for Morocco.
This movie is a worthwhile watch for anyone interested in history who also enjoys satire, can tolerate some jokes, and has a good sense of humor. It provides a humorous analysis of the state of our world, where both sides are often more alike than they appear at first glance.
For another Muslim perspective on The Wind and the Lion, see Amer Mahmood’s thoughts in “The Wind and the Lion: A Muslim-Christian Movie Review.”
Sources:
“The Square Deal of Theodore Roosevelt” by John Cooper. Encyclopedia Britannica.
Forbes, Rosita. The Sultan of the Mountains: The Life Story of Raisuli. Holt, 1924.
Editor’s Notes
[1] The movie follows the name spelling of early books like Rosita Forbes’ The Sultan of the Mountains: The Life Story of the Raisuli, while contemporary historians usually spell his name er-Raisuni.
[2] Milius wrote various Westerns exploring how American culture can turn outlaws into folk heroes, or the tension of outlaws becoming unconventional lawgivers. Most obviously, the theme appears in his screenplay for the 1972 movie The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean.
[3] Alfio Leotta offers some notes on how Milius explores barbarism in various movies (“‘I love the smell of napalm in the morning’: violence and nostalgia in the cinema of John Milius.” Jump Cut no. 57, fall 2016).
[4] Milius seemed to enjoy creating contradictory heroes who are not that different from their enemies. For example, he contributed to the screenplay for the 1971 movie Dirty Harry and said his main contribution was “the cop being the same as the killer except he has a badge” (“Stoked” by Richard Thompson, Film Comment, Vol. 12, No. 4 [July-August 1976], p. 12).
Fellowship & Fairydust 