
SUVs belonging to Hani and the American Embassy which
speed through the streets of Amman or race along the Jor-
danian desert with a cloudless sky and bare mountain ranges
in the background. However, they prove almost useless in a
war zone. While they might look stylish, they are also an
obvious target for potential attackers; by contrast, the used
cars and dilapidated vans favored by the extremists provide
an effective way of moving people around without attract-
ing attention.
While Body of Lies ends happily with Ferris leaving the
CIA and rejoining his Arab girlfriend Aisha (GOLSHIFTEH
FARAHANI), it is perhaps the most pessimistic of Scott’s
FILMS AFTER 9/11. It suggests that the “war on terror” will
never be won so long as a “body of lies” persists, preventing
people of different cultures from collaborating with one
another. Hani tells Ferris in no uncertain terms that he has
“only one rule if we are to cooperate, my dear. Never lie to
me.” However, Ferris deliberately ignores that dictum as he
tries and fails to create a fake terrorist network. Hani
returns the favor by using Ferris as the fall guy to entrap Al-
Saleem himself. The scheme nearly goes wrong, as Hani’s
forces rescue Ferris in the nick of time just before Al-Saleem
kills him. Monahan’s original script shows the two men—
Ferris and Hani—at loggerheads, each blaming the other
for their deceit. Hani sarcastically describes Ferris as a hero,
but considers himself truly heroic, having captured Al-
Saleem. The implication is obvious: both men put personal
gain ahead of their responsibilities to their respective coun-
tries. The same also applies to people of the same culture:
Hoffman never informs Ferris about the true nature of his
plans, and thereby prevents the agent from undertaking his
duties efficiently, or establishing effective communication
with the Jordanians.
Body of Lies reveals the shortcomings of the so-called
“New Patriotism” that emerged from The Patriot (2000), We
Were Soldiers (2002), and Black Hawk Down. Frank J. Wetta
and Martin A. Novelli argue that these films celebrate “the
bond of brotherhood forged under fire.” In Body of Lies that
bond no longer exists; rather, it depicts a world that (as
James Der Derian observes) is dominated by “a new imbal-
ance of terror based on a mimetic fear and an asymmetrical
willingness and capacity to destroy the other without the
formalities of war.”
James Castonguay’s article “Conglomeration, New
Media and the Cultural Production of the ‘War on Terror’”
suggests that films showing America involved in foreign con-
flicts enable spectators to “participate vicariously in the US
imperial project as a mediated and exotic spectacle ...the
complicity between US media conglomerates, the govern-
ment, and the military created a context of reception with
limited possibilities for oppositional or politically progres-
sive readings.” This might be true for American audiences;
but box office figures show that films like Body of Lies were
more popular outside, rather than inside, the United States.
Perhaps some filmgoers constructed “oppositional or polit-
ically progressive readings.” The implications of the so-called
“war on terror” have been explored by Rosalind C. Morris,
focusing in particular on how “the Woman Question and the
Eastern Question came to substitute for one another,
securing different patriarchies in their awful complicity
and ensuring that technology of the highest and lowest sort
be used for a war that neither declares itself nor imagines
the possibility of its termination.” In contrast, Catherine
Elsworth’s article for the Daily Telegraph argues that Hol-
lywood misjudged the mood of the times, with films
such as Lions for Lambs, Rendition, In the Valley of Elah,
Redacted, Grace Is Gone (all 2007), and Stop-Loss (2008)—
all of which took the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as
subjects—performing badly at the box office. She quotes
one journalist who observes that “Hollywood and the left
have generally misread this discontent [with the Bush
administration] thinking there’s a mandate for their trite
Vietnam-era nostalgia for mass protest and Joan Baez spec-
ifying.” Ridley Scott himself was quoted as saying in an
interview with Digital Spy in late 2008 that many of the
films flopped due to public anger over the war.
References
Nigel Andrews,“Impaired Vision and Blind Panic,” Financial Times,
20 November 2008, www.ft.com/cms/s/2/e365e700-b648-11dd-
89dd-0000779fd18c.html?nclick_check=1 (accessed 17 February
2009); Roger Clarke, “Body of Lies,” Sight and Sound,December
2008, www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/review/4558 (accessed 17
February 2009); James Castonguay, “Conglomeration, New Media
and the Cultural Production of the ‘War on Terror,’” Cinema Jour-
nal 43, no.4 (Summer 2004): 106; James der Derian, “Imaging Ter-
ror: Logos, Pathos and Ethos,” Third World Quarterly 26, no.1
(2005): 23; Roger Ebert, “Body of Lies,” Chicago Sun-Times,8 Octo-
ber 2008, http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID
=/20081008/REVIEWS/810089997/1023 (accessed 17 February
2009); Catherine Elsworth, “Hollywood Misreads Response to War
on Terror,” Daily Telegraph, 12 November 2007, www.telegraph
.co.uk/culture/film/starsandstories/3669211/Hollywood-misreads-
response-to-war-on-terror.html (accessed 19 February 2009);
Philip French, “Body of Lies,” The Observer (London), 23 Novem-
ber 2008, www.guardian.co.uk/film/2008/nov/23/body-of-lies-
review (accessed 27 February 2009); Charles Gant, “Body of Lies
Takes a Blow from My Best Friend’s Girl,” The Guardian,25
November 2008, www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2008/nov/
25/uk-box-office-body-of-lies (accessed 17 February 2009); Jeff
Giles, “DVD Review: Body of Lies,” http://popdose.com/dvd-review-
body-of-lies/#more-12672 (accessed 19 February 2009); Mick
LaSalle, “Muddled Body of Lies,” San Francisco Chronicle, 10 Octo-
ber 2008, E1; Rosalind C. Morris, “Theses on the Questions of War:
52
■
BODY OF LIES