Captain Phillips: A Critical Discourse Analysis

America versus Somalia

There is an evident difference between the illustrations of the US and Somalia in the film. The US is portrayed as organised, powerful, and safe, whereas Somalia is framed as violent, poor and dangerous.

Safe versus Dangerous

We can already see this in the first scenes of the film when the hometowns of the American and Somali Captains are shown. The scene of the American neighbourhood shows a family house, but the Somali opening scenes shows young boys holding weapons. The American scene develops in cars driving on a highway, the American captain and his wife ‘chit-chatting’. In contrast, the scene of Somalia shows warlords entering the Somali village while shooting and shouting.

The danger of Somalia is also verbally stated by Captain Phillips when the container ship leaves on its journey. In the scene below, Phillips wants his crew to prepare for the danger of the Horn of Africa.

Organised versus Chaos

Another contradiction presented in the film is that America is organised and powerful, whereas Somalia is chaotic and backwards. This is evident through the organisation and sophistication of the crew. On the American ship, every crew member knows what to do and they have modern technologies available. Meanwhile, the Somali crew is quickly created through a random selection process where the men shout and barter for a place in the crew. Additionally, the Somali crew only have an old boat and broken engines at their disposal.

The powerful America is also demonstrated through the presence of the Navy and their stronger reinforcements, the SEALs after Captain Phillips is abducted. Both again demonstrate an organised crew utilising modern technologies.

The chaotic Somalia is not only portrayed as such, but it is infantilised as well. The American characters treat the Somali characters as if they are children, which is visible in the two scenes below. The Somali characters even state this themselves, saying that the Americans are “treating us like children”.

A Tale of Two Captains

This misrepresentation of Somalia in the eyes of the West is epitomised in a comparison of the two Captains that feature in the film and their character development. The film opens with a nuclear family, white-picket fence, American-dream family to introduce American Captain Phillips. Whereas when the film flips to Somali Captain Muse’s opening scene, his life is pictured as poor and mess with him oversleeping in a crumbling shack. 

This binary continues through the trajectory of their differing paths throughout the film. Captain Phillips is seen as a hero and selfless throughout the film. From saving his ship and to being congratulated once he was saved, the credits then state that within a few months Captain Phillips was back out on the high seas he is framed as brave and unstoppable. Yet the film fails to mention how in real life, the ship Phillips captained was subsequently sued by 11 of the crew for disregard of their safety (Child 2013). However, with the final scene being extremely emotional and the Captain famously crying out “that’s not my blood”, he is shown in a sympathetic human light as someone who has heroically survived this awful ordeal.

As you can see in the video above as well as in the images below, the Somali Captain Muse follows an opposing discourse. Throughout the film he talks of how after this hijacking he will go to America and buy a car. This belittles his character, to connect the idea of having a car as only achievable in the West. Further later in the film in defence of piracy, he argues to Captain Phillips that this is all they can do to make money, that ‘maybe’ there are other opportunities in America. Finally, as Captain Muse is tricked by the SEALs and chained up, he is ironically informed ‘you’re going to America’. After mentioning Phillips' heroic return to the seas, the film describes Muse’s 33-year sentence in a US prison. Therefore, the opposing trajectory of the film features Philips as a victim and hero, and Muse is represented as a pure criminal with no sympathy or investigation into why he was led to piracy.

America-Somali relations

The relationship between Somalia and the US is represented within the film as unequal with the dominating all-powerful rich state having the power over Somalia. This quote demonstrates that the Americans are unbeatable and in comparison, to a group of individuals from Somalia, they have unlimited resources and endless opportunities to overpower this group. Yet most telling for the Somali-US relationship is that this all-powerful strong country like the US ‘cannot risk being beaten by Somalis’ due to international repercussions. This suggests even in combat the Somali-US relationship is not equal but rather the shame for the Navy of America to be beaten by a group of Somali pirates is a much greater threat for their reputation and their country in their international sphere, the West, than the pirate attack itself.

Captain Phillips to Captain Muse:

The Navy won’t let you win. They can’t let you win.

This unequal relationship is demonstrated as the Somalis are seen to depend upon the Americans. This is evidenced through the provision of aid and goods that the American ship is holding, at a basic level showcases Somali as a receiver and as reliant on the West to feed ‘the starving people of Africa’. This usage of this grouping within the script demonstrates that these Americans see a group of suffering people with this their main identifier, the aspect of their need. Whilst this notion of rich countries exemplifies how this sits within the larger discussion of the West saving Africa reinforcing the West as dominant and Africa as the dependent. Muse’s reply is critical as it shows the Somalis' awareness of their continual place within the Africa-West relationship as needing to be saved, rather than being seen as equal.

In considering the production process of the film, this analysis will discuss the novel the film is based on, the backgrounds of the producers as well as their intentions with the film. 

Production Process

One of the large differences between the storyline in the book, A Captain's Duty: Somali Pirates, Navy SEALs, and Dangerous Days at Sea, and the film’s storyline, is that (the real-life) Richard Phillips did not go into depth on the backgrounds of the Somali pirates nor their motives (Danoff, 2017). This can be understood as the Captain was abducted by the pirates. However, in his book he strikingly states that the pirates’ reason for the hijack and abduction was not that they could no longer be fishermen due to foreign fishing fleets and toxic-waste dumping, as he contradicts this with his claim;

 “I’d seen schools of mackerel, tuna, and other fish every time I’d gone down the coast of Somalia. There was a living to be made out there. I believed the Somalis had simply found easier work: piracy.” (Phillips & Talty, 2010, p.65)

The story on which the film was based focused on the brave Captain Phillips and his rescue by the great American forces rather than exploring the story from other perspectives (Danoff, 2017). In evaluating this as a starting point of the film, we can see that the original narrative is very much written from an American perspective. 

The director, Paul Greengrass, indicated that it was one of his major aims of the film to add the Somali perspective. To examine the young Somali men and their environment, and to demonstrate their reasons for becoming pirates (The Guardian, 2013). According to Greengrass, as well as screenwriter Billy Ray, the Somali pirates are living in a hopeless society, where there is only corruption, violence, and poverty; men with nothing to lose (The Guardian, 2013; Film4, 2013; Danoff, 2017). Ray said the following about the Somali Captain Muse:

Muse cannot just wake up in the morning and ... apply for work at a Wal-Mart, because there are just two businesses in Somalia - piracy and the sale of khat [drug]... We're talking about a place with zero economic opportunity, a failed state that has no Navy, no real coast guard and no police. It's a mess, and Muse wakes up every day in the middle of it. I'm not trying to justify piracy, but we needed to open a lens and show viewers what it looks like in Eyl [Somalia], so that you can understand the pirates as human beings. (Danoff, 2017, p.41)

Greengrass confirmed this, expressing his aim not to romanticise pirates, nor demonise them, but rather show the complex reasons for crime (The Guardian, 2013; Film4, 2013). Although he states that his film is “ ultimately is a crime story, it’s a story of a crime and its consequences. The crime is the stealing of a ship and later the kidnap of the captain” (Film4, 2013). Moreover, he stated that he wanted the film to be as authentic and realistic as possible as if it was a documentary. Greengrass believed optimal authenticity is achieved mostly by the correct casting: “it was absolutely imperative that you had Somali actors and it makes a difference, because it makes the entire picture feel authentic.” (Film4, 2013) 

The way in which the screenwriter and director talk about Somali pirates, already demonstrates that they have a particular view of Somali pirates and Somalia. Even though they claim that they want to show the story behind the pirates, they merely succeed in a superficial portrayal of Somalia as poor, violent, and beyond-saving. They acknowledge the impact that foreign companies have had on the original income of the Somali people - fishing - however, they believe that the pirates are in the wrong because they are still exhibited as criminals. Greengrass’s aims were to show that who the victim and aggressor in crime might not always be clear-cut, that societies in which crimes take place are complex, and therefore the reality of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ is similarly complex and inseparable. Greengrass claimed that “I wanted to show that these were desperate young men with no chance of employment, and that they generally culturally worship America (Banoff, 42)”. Yet in doing so, as he does through Muse’s aspiration of “going to New York, buy a car” (see Dimension 1: A Tale of Two Captains), he generalises and infantilises Muse. Despite the filmmakers’ more neutral and critical aims, his film still showcases Somalia, Africa and the Somalia people in a very generalised and simplified illustration. 

In this final dimension of using Setiawan’s method, we explore how Captain Phillips and the discourses represented within the film relate to public debates at the time of production and how it fits within political, cultural and economic systems of the milieu. The film hit the box office in 2013, with the rise of piracy within the Western 24hr news culture in the late 2000s/early 2010s, this phenomenon felt like a threat due to its prevalence in Western media (Collins 2012, Way 2013). Yet as seen in Collin’s chart below, piracy was over-exaggerated as a threat by the media (2012, 116), which the film monopolises upon and further exasperates.

Collins (2012), p.116

Beyond this, the film fails to explain the political-economical system in which piracy exists. Whilst there is an ongoing debate over the causes of piracy, there are three main debates. Firstly, piracy exists due to poverty, a lack of state government and as an opportunity to ameliorate life chances (Elmi et al. 2015, 158, Carafono et al. 2009, Lennox 2008, Way 2014). Secondly, piracy exists as a form of defence and protection of resources (Elmi et al. 2015). Thirdly, Samatar et al. claim that ‘resource piracy’ is when piracy occurs in reaction to the often-illegal overfishing and toxic-waste dumping by large commercial boats leading fishermen to turn to piracy (2010, p.1379). Although the film mentions some of these causes, returning to our analysis of the second dimension, the problem is that these causes are brushed over with the criminality of the Somali men as pirates being focused upon by Greengrass’ direction instead.

Beyond this public media debate where Somalis with a lack of other incomes turn to piracy are continually viewed as a threat there can be a further investigation of the international capitalist system in which the aforementioned unequal relationship between Somalia and America exists. Somalia at the height of this ‘piracy’ endemic was situated as the perfect example within ‘the failed state discourse’ (Rothe and Collins 2011, and Samatar et al. 2010). A failed state refers to a country with a lack of legal system, government, police, army and bureaucratic institutions (Glück 2011, p.83-88, Samatar et al. 2010, p.1377-8). Without a government, a state cannot enforce taxes internally or externally, and without a ‘monopoly on violence’ and state military, there is no way to enforce protection of maritime areas (Glück 2011, p.83-88) Hence there is a lack of funding for jobs, security and poverty alleviation. Thus when Captain Muse argues that his piracy is for ‘tax’, his act of maritime piracy is in lieu of government support. Although it must be noted that the ‘failed state discourse’ is highly problematic as it is seen to constrain society to a Westphalian ideal and a Western conception of government and state (Hagmann and Hoehne 2009, Hill 2005). However this does explain the Western-dominated discourse and audience which the film both appeals to and contributes to.

Captain Muse to Captain Phillips:

Irish, it’s taxes. This money, taking you, that’s all it is. You come to our waters, you got to pay

From the perspective of the failed state discourse, one can argue that without a government, states cannot protect their waters or punish foreign states who vandalise their land/sea. Therefore as Bueger notes, ‘pirates’ replace states in protecting against toxic-waste dumping, overfishing and invasion of maritime borders (2013). Hence the Somali men in the film fight against the exploitation of the vulnerable condition of Somalia at the time through piracy - which is framed in the West as criminal - without exploring how the West contributes to Somalia’s vulnerability. It could be further argued that, following a World Systems view (Wallerstein 1974), states at the core of the world’s economy, such as those of the rich West including the US, extract and maintain their core position in the international system through their exploitation of Somalia, a peripheral state in the international capitalist economy. In other words, due to the international capitalist system, the US profits from Somalia’s state of ruin through illegal overfishing and toxic waste dumping, so for Somali people, piracy is a form of agency and taxes used in order to avoid destitution as they have no strong government to fight for them. 

Yet in Captain Phillips we simply see aggressive pirates and heroic strong Americans under threat. 

In conclusion, the film presents a simplification of the true political and economic milieu in which Somalis were living at the time. Through focusing on the heroism of America it dehumanises, misrepresents and criminalises the struggle of the Somali people as violent and poor ‘pirates’, and continues a narrative where Somalis are both reliant upon and dominated by the West.