Hotel Rwanda tells the story of the Rwandan genocide. Darwins’ Nightmare tells the story of the environmental, economic and social impacts of the introduction to Lake Victoria area of Tanzania of the Nile Perch. Hotel Rwanda is a narrative film, Darwin’s Nightmare is a documentary. Both are a part of the trend of “message” movies, those movies that are marketed with an eye to help bring about social justice. And Westerners made both.
The gists of the articles on Hotel Rwanda were: 1. Why would anyone want to watch genocide? And oh my goodness, the relentless downer movies about Africa are creating social justice fatigue among the audience! 2. The film is good but it’s missing a whole lot of context. Here, have a quick history lesson! 3. Some Rwandans do not see Paul Rusesabagina’s real life role in as good a light as the movie puts it.
Hotel Rwanda Trailer
The gists of the articles on Darwin’s Nightmare were: 1. Some Tanzanians were annoyed with the film due to perceived sensationalism and inaccuracies. 2. Can film make change? 3. This Sauper fellow has a real knack for getting close to his subjects, doesn’t he? 4. The intricately connected historical and current reasons why Tanzania is in its present fix.
Darwin's Nightmare Trailer
Useful questions:
1. Is Sauper justified in making accusations that he cannot back up re: the alleged gun smuggling?
2. What WOULD an audience expect to get out of a film about genocide? Triumph of the human spirit? A warning so as to prevent the next one?
3. Narrative film vs documentary film at story telling? One reviewer of Hotel Rwanda said that it was truer than a documentary could be, because it didn’t pretend to encompass the whole truth about the incident. In light of that comment, how do we assess Darwin’s Nightmare? Sauper seems to have an intimate relationship with his subjects. But many people objected to his portrayal. How do we assess “truth” in media that is meant to be non-fiction?
Class discussion:
1. Compare contrast both films with Moolade. Westerners from US and Netherlands vs Sengalese. Authenticity? What stories do Westerners choose to tell about the continent of Africa? What nuances of culture do we miss when we rely on our framing of the continent as only a place of problems and victims? Nevermidn the historical propoganda that we fed ourselves that we are only recently beginning to dig ourselves out of ? What images come to mind when we think of Africa?
2. With both films, there were complaints of inauthenticity. There is a long long LONG tradition of Westerners culturally imperialistic and totally idiotic in the manner in which we portray people from non Westerner countries. Ways and methods to avoid that?
3. And a lot of the problems therein are our fault historically and currently. So many of the docs and narratives seek to make us aware of that. But why is it that we the audience don’t seem to respond by demanding that our leaders fix our foreign policy? Consider Rwanda for instance? Though the Nile Perch was boycotted so that’s definitely affected foreign policy.
4. UN was built to see if we could stop wars after World War 2. Genocide in Rwanda was ignored by UN due to America not wanting to get involved. 10 dead Belgians led to pullout of most of UN troops in Rwanda. How much should world peacekeepers be willing to sacrifice to keep the peace while they are under attack? Compare contrast Libya and Kosovo, if class knows anything about it. Can we stop massacres and genocides in other countries? Under what circumstances? Who decides whose worthy of being helped and why? Whose lives are considered valuable enough to save?
5. Are documentaries obliged to give us a roadmap so that we can know how to help?
6. Nile Perch and other invasive species, a world wide problem. Thoughts?
7. Nile Perch, economic benefits vs cost. Export-oriented economies lead to workers in their own country not being able to benefit from their resources. Boycotts are not a simple solution to the problem, because then people don’t get work. How to solve complicated problem?
Analysis:
Hotel Rwanda and Darwin’s Nightmare share several similarities. Both movies deal with complicated problems caused in part by the effects of colonialism. Both of them were made in the interest of social justice, trying to inform and enlighten and thus encourage a fixing of problems and a warning about history. Both of them are not movies that I want to watch ever again. And both movies made by westerners, both criticized by subject populations for perceived inaccuracies.
Non- Africans make the majority of films about Africa that Westerners know about. Heck the general impression of Africa held by people outside of the continent are shaped by Westerners. And Westerners have used their power many times for evil in that respect. Which is why, while I was struck by the intimacy that seems to exist between Sauper and the people he interviewed, there is that niggling sense of discomfort, a certain lack of trust. Did he get the story right? What did he miss? How would a Tanzanian have told the tale of Darwin's Nightmare? How would several Tanzanians have told different versions of that tale?
Hotel Rwanda was marketed as a fiction film so I expected stuff to be changed. But still, when that film is the mainstream world wide representative of a deeply hurtful period of Rwandan life, I wonder how it makes Rwandans feel? What nuances did the movie miss or misinterpret? What was changed, what was switched what was chopped to make the story work? How would a Rwandan have made that film? What stories would different Rwandans tell?? What would they have considered important? Consider for example the Holocaust, and the many different stories that have been told about this atrocity. Many of the tellers were themselves Jews. Many different facets of the tragedy were explored. The people who suffered the tragedy got to tell the stories, their ways. Many people in the West therefore, have access to some sort of nuanced idea of the atrocity. But usually, the stories of Africans are not told by themselves. Their voices are edited into the singular Western narrative of war and starvation and tribes and corruption and dictatorship and trouble and these stories advance stereotypes and misunderstandings that were created deliberately by colonial forces. Nuanced understanding is in very short supply, because the issues are raised once or twice in documentary or film, and then never heard of again until the next atrocity prompts another bleeding heart. In short, Africans need way more control over their stories and images. Luckily, some steps toward that have been in the works like this : New Hot Docs fund to nuture African films
On The Hot Docs Canadian International Documentary Festival and newly-established Canadian prodco Blue Ice Film are teaming up for a CDN$1 million production fund that will provide financial support to independent documentary filmmakers based in developing African countries.
The Hot Docs-Blue Ice Film Documentary Fund aims to increase the quality and quantity of social, cultural and political documentaries produced in the region and to that end, will issue six to 10 grants per year over the next five years in amounts ranging from $10,000 to $40,000.
The initiative will also provide valuable resources and industry contacts for recipients, including a mentorship program that will allow selected African producers to work with international production partners in order to projects to international markets, festivals and broadcasters.MORE
New Hot Docs Fund to administer fund geared towards African filmmaking
Organizers of Toronto’s Hot Docs Festival will administer a $1-million documentary production fund geared toward nurturing emerging African filmmakers.
Hot Docs executive director Chris McDonald announced the new fund, backed by Toronto-based Blue Ice Film, on Wednesday.
“We’re seeing so many films that are set in Africa, but we’re not seeing many that are made by Africans,” he told CBC News. “We’re trying to address that.”
A volunteer selection committee of five, including African members, will decide who gets the six to 10 grants a year from the fund. One criterion will be that the money go to filmmakers based in developing countries in Africa.
‘It is this idea that we want to see local storytellers represented. There is such a rich culture, fascinating history, evolving political situation’—Chris McDonald of Hot Docs
“We will team up the African production community with a Canadian producer who will help oversee the project, playing a mentoring role, sort of,” McDonald said.A volunteer selection committee of 5, including African members, will decide who contains the six to 10 grants 12 months from the fund. One criterion will probably be that the money head to filmmakers based in developing countries in developing countries in Africa.
‘It is this idea that we want to see local storytellers represented. There is such a rich culture, fascinating history, evolving political situation’—Chris McDonald of Hot Docs
“We will team up the African production community with a Canadian producer who will help oversee the project, playing a mentoring role, sort of,” McDonald said.A volunteer selection committee of 5, including African members, will decide who contains the six to 10 grants 12 months from the fund. One criterion will probably be that the money head to filmmakers based in developing countries in Africa. ‘It is this idea that we want to see local storytellers represented. There is such a rich culture, fascinating history, evolving political situation’—Chris McDonald of Hot Docs
“We will team up the African production community with a Canadian producer who will help oversee the project, playing a mentoring role, sort of,” McDonald said.A volunteer selection committee of 5, including African members, will decideMORE
Hopefully, the fruits of their labour will be coming to my theatre, soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment