-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
Exploiting racism has been a profitable strategy in Hollywood since the dawn of filmmaking: 111 years ago, D.W. Griffith’s film “The Birth of a Nation” was incredibly popular and influential, while also being so racist that it was considered controversial even in its own day.
The industry saw immediately just how lucrative fear could be. More than a century later, there is always someone in the entertainment media willing to trade in racist tropes for money, as well as an audience ready to receive them.
Two new films, “Citizen Vigilante” and “Run, Fight, Hide: Infidels,” demonstrate that streaming platforms and social media no longer simply distribute controversial content but in fact thrive on content that provokes, polarizes and sustains attention, regardless of the social cost.
Both of these xenophobic and Islamophobic films are being pushed as “anti-woke” vehicles, deliberately engineered to bypass traditional critical reception and capitalize on a fractured media ecosystem. “Citizen Vigilante,” which features an American protagonist killing dark-skinned immigrants and Muslims in an unnamed European setting, was denied a rating certificate by the German government for inciting violence. Yet despite that determination, the film secured global reach through decentralized digital distribution and high-profile promotion from Elon Musk.
Similarly, “Run, Fight, Hide: Infidels” — a campus siege narrative evoking 1980s action film nostalgia that leans heavily into outdated, post-9/11 anxieties — relies on a built-in conservative media apparatus to guarantee financial returns. The film is produced by the conservative media figure Ben Shapiro and the Daily Wire, which he co-founded. It is a sequel to a 2020 film that was their film company’s premiere.
But while promoters of such films frame their work as a brave rebellion, the reality is much more sinister: rehashing 40-year-old tropes while invoking conspiracy theories of Muslims bringing sharia law to America, because outrage is cheap to produce and easy to monetize.
Stories matter. Stories shape how we see one another. They influence what we love, what we celebrate, whom we trust, whom we understand and whom we fear.
Since January, the Muslim Public Affairs Council has documented a sharp escalation in threats and attacks targeting Muslims and Islamic institutions across the United States, including vandalism, shootings, bomb threats, attempted assassinations and physical assaults. These are not isolated incidents. They reflect a broader climate in which dehumanizing representation increasingly manifests as real-world violence.
Entertainment and politics increasingly employ the same tactic as one another, recycling narratives of fear and “otherness” to mobilize audiences, voters and consumers. When political leaders encourage those narratives, as President Trump recently did by amplifying and commenting on a photo of young Muslim American students in hijab, they further normalize the same stereotypes that entertainment companies have learned to monetize.
Yet while the social costs continue to mount, the economic incentives remain firmly intact. “Citizen Vigilante” earned a 93% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes despite receiving just a 6% critics’ score. More tellingly, it quickly climbed to the top of Amazon’s and Apple TV’s paid video-on-demand charts.
And this isn’t just a Muslim and immigrant issue — and it’s not only about who is portrayed on screens, but also who is not. Representation has been backsliding, and audiences are left with fewer opportunities to see the reality and humanity of diverse communities, making them more vulnerable to fear-based narratives.
According to a 2026 report from the nonprofit Define American, which tracks representation across television and film, Latinos account for only 23% of immigrant characters represented on screen, even though they make up more than 40% of the immigrant population in the United States. In 2020, 50% of immigrants on screen were Latino.
The industry’s defense is that whitewashed and xenophobic films reflect audience demand. But the recent research by Define American challenges this assumption. Data show that nuanced, multidimensional storytelling, in which immigrants and minority characters are woven into the fabric of everyday narratives rather than tokenized or villainized, actually leads to greater audience engagement and deeper systemic understanding.
Entertainment doesn’t simply reflect culture; it teaches us who belongs within it. Studios, distributors, streaming platforms and filmmakers all have a responsibility to reject narratives that portray immigrants as enemies and instead embrace stories that reflect the diversity and complexity of our world. At the same time — as with voters — the power ultimately rests with consumers. The choice to demand storytelling that challenges prejudice rather than profits from it belongs to all of us.
Sue Obeidi is the senior vice president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council Hollywood Bureau. Jose Antonio Vargas is the founder of Define American.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
The article argues that Hollywood has a long history of turning racism into a lucrative storytelling strategy, tracing a line from early films that glorified white supremacy to contemporary works that repeatedly cast Arabs, Muslims and immigrants as violent threats or “others,” a pattern scholars and critics have documented across hundreds of American films and television series since 9/11.[10]
It contends that recent projects such as “Citizen Vigilante” and “Run, Fight, Hide: Infidels” exemplify a modern “anti‑woke” business model: xenophobic and Islamophobic narratives are packaged as rebellious, anti‑establishment entertainment, then pushed through streaming platforms and social media to maximize attention and profit, mirroring reporting that describes “Citizen Vigilante” as a far‑right revenge fantasy in which a white American vigilante kills migrants and Muslims while conservative figures boost the film online.[14][15]
The piece maintains that decentralized digital distribution and the promotional power of high‑profile accounts allow such films to bypass traditional gatekeepers and reach large audiences even when regulators raise alarms, aligning with coverage that notes Germany refused “Citizen Vigilante” an age rating for inciting violence against migrants, yet the film still found global viewership after being streamed in full and aggressively promoted.[15]
It argues that these portrayals contribute to a broader climate in which dehumanizing depictions of Muslims and immigrants help normalize hostility and can translate into real‑world threats and attacks, echoing research showing that frequent exposure to biased news and entertainment coverage of Muslims is associated with higher levels of anti‑Muslim prejudice, support for civil restrictions targeting Muslim Americans and backing for punitive policies abroad.[5][7][9]
The article links entertainment narratives to political rhetoric, asserting that both recycle fear‑based stories of “otherness” to mobilize voters and consumers; this view resonates with analyses of films, television and pseudo‑documentaries that describe how repeated images of Muslims as “evil” or dangerous feed Islamophobia and anti‑Muslim racism and provide ideological justification for exclusionary or militarized policies.[3][4][13][17]
It further argues that harm stems not only from who is demonized on screen but from whose ordinary humanity is missing, noting that immigrants and Muslims are often reduced to stereotypes or erased entirely; studies of mainstream movies have found that Muslims rarely appear in speaking roles and, when they do, are frequently portrayed as foreign, violent or targets of xenophobia, rather than as complex neighbors or colleagues.[1][4][6]
The piece challenges the industry’s claim that whitewashed or xenophobic films are simply “giving audiences what they want,” pointing to research indicating that audiences respond strongly to nuanced, multidimensional portrayals in which immigrants and minority characters are woven into everyday stories rather than tokenized or villainized; advocacy and academic work similarly argue that moving beyond monolithic, fear‑driven narratives toward authentic Muslim and immigrant characters can foster empathy and deeper understanding.[1][4][5][16]
Finally, the article calls on studios, streaming services and filmmakers to accept responsibility for the social impact of their stories and to reject narratives that frame immigrants as enemies, while insisting that consumers ultimately hold the power to demand better: initiatives such as Riz Ahmed’s “Blueprint for Muslim Inclusion” likewise urge companies to sunset terror tropes, partner with Muslim creators and invest in storytelling that reflects the diversity and complexity of real communities.[1][12][16]
Different views on the topic
In contrast to the article’s emphasis on Hollywood backsliding, some coverage highlights that the industry has begun to address decades of harmful portrayals of Muslims and immigrants, pointing to recent successes such as “Ramy,” “Mo” and “Muslim Matchmaker” that center Muslim characters as ordinary, flawed and multidimensional; these pieces contend that while stereotypes remain entrenched, a growing wave of projects is “slowly working to rectify” past misrepresentation and signals meaningful, if uneven, progress.[8][11][16]
Whereas the article frames certain films and platforms as primarily vehicles for racism, some commentators and industry observers stress that Hollywood is heavily driven by market forces, arguing that studios respond to audience demand for genres like action thrillers and provocative political stories; reporting on “Citizen Vigilante” notes that Musk and other conservatives have energetically promoted the film to their followers, presenting it as aligned with their movement and sharing it widely, which supporters describe as a reflection of audience interest rather than an effort to foment hate.[14][15]
The piece suggests a strong link between media narratives and real‑world violence, but some analyses of extremism and media effects position entertainment as only one factor among many, emphasizing that prejudice and attacks on Muslims emerge from a mix of historical, geopolitical and social conditions; these works acknowledge that biased coverage can reinforce existing fears, yet they also caution that media operate within broader structures of Orientalism, racialization and political discourse, rather than acting as a single, direct cause.[2][3][5][18]
While the article urges studios and platforms to reject xenophobic narratives outright, some voices raise concerns about censorship and artistic freedom in debates over controversial films, arguing that banning or restricting works like “Citizen Vigilante” risks limiting creative expression and that audiences should be able to assess contentious material themselves; coverage of the film’s streaming and its resulting controversy notes that the episode has reignited wider arguments over free speech, online distribution and where to draw the line on offensive content.[14]
In contrast to calls for audiences to shoulder primary responsibility by “demanding better,” certain advocacy and research perspectives focus more on institutional change, arguing that real progress requires structural shifts in hiring, funding and decision‑making inside media companies; these pieces stress building pipelines for Muslim and immigrant creators, expanding newsroom diversity and reforming sourcing practices so that marginalized communities can tell their own stories, thereby challenging the notion that consumer choices alone can transform entrenched industry norms.[1][4][5][12][16]
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
Senator Allen has put his money on fire mitigation and bringing stakeholders together in communities up and down the state to reduce their risk and stay insured. In this episode, Host Kate Cagle speaks with Allen about his plans.
The Hillside Strangler murders terrorized Los Angeles in the late 1970s. The killers were a pair of sadistic cousins. One confessed. The other was set to stand trial—until L.A. prosecutors flinched.
Modern LA earned its first smoggy nickname 450 years ago, as the “bay of smokes.” At the La Brea tar pits, we take a short walk through a long history with curator Regan Dunn, who explains how and why the first Angelenos would have set fires that filled the broad bowl of LA and foretold the curse of smog.
