One huge issue in this film is the black market weapon trading. We get some foreshadowing of the consequences to come when a crate falls to Paul's feet and dozens of machetes tumble out. The man selling them to Africans and Hutu militia, who appeared to be Paul's friend in the beginning, claimed that he got them from China for ten cents a piece. We know that later in the movie, the Hutu are using weapons like these to massacre the Tutsi men, women, and even children. How does one regulate the selling of weapons when money is the ultimate and quickest goal to reach?
The issue of racial equality is also prevalent. The American and European guests staying at the Hotel des Mille Collines, French for "a thousand hills" and another name for Rwanda, are evacuated out of the area and relocated to a safe location. The horror in this is that the local Rwandans are not allowed to leave, even the orphans and other children are refused. What I found heartbreaking was that Jack, the photographer with the reporter, had to leave with orders from the UN. It becomes obvious that he has had some sort of relationship with a Tutsi woman he met in the bar of the hotel, as he tries to press money into her hands. What he does not realize, however, is that this paper money is useless to the people in this situation. After throwing money towards the hopeless situation, Jack walks to the luxury bus where the other white evacuees are waiting. A Rwandan hotel employee attempts to hold an umbrella over him as he walks. Even as these people are abandoning the dangerous location, the locals are still servicing them. It seems ridiculous, but that is generally how it goes. Jack tells the man not to, and mumbles something about "shame", but who wouldn't feel ashamed in his place? Throwing money at something is what we have been told to do, that it will help everything work out in the end. But problems go much deeper than not having money. I liked that Manohla Dargis pointed out in her article that, "white characters are peripheral, just as they were during the genocide." I did like that the main hero of the story was black, and part of the culture going through the attack. Of course, there were "good" white characters, such as the UN colonel who helped evacuate the refugees, as well as the woman who ran the orphanage and found Paul's nieces. But this is not a story of white countries diving in to help, this is a story of what would happen in a realistic world, one where people watch the horrors on TV, "say that's terrible, and go on eating their dinners."
On a note relating to this last statement, does a movie like this have any difference on what people think and do? Sure, everyone feels sympathy and shame while watching from a comfortable location, but what do they do once it is over? As Dargis confesses in her article that the Hollywood version of the story, "doesn't rouse me to action: it stirs horror, pity, sometimes repulsion, sentiments that linger uneasily until the action starts up again to sweep away the empathy with another explosion, gunfight or rousing chase." People might not be quick to admit it, but Dargis probably had the same experience as the rest of the audience. People want to be entertained, and sadly people want horror and tragedy the most. Lesha Torchin's article urges us to think about the "high public demand for images of atrocity. 'If it bleeds, it leads.' as the saying goes." Paul believes that the news footage of Rwandans being murdered in groups will stir the emotions of people who can send help, but on the contrary, these people are so desensitized from videos like these that it will not make any difference. To them, "Rwanda is a country- small, economically unimportant, of no significance to the rest of the world-" as Anthony Daniels says. The problems in Rwanda are not supposed to concern us.
It is not necessarily that the Hutus want riches, but that they are after power and revenge. As Anthere Nzabatsinda points out in his article, in a historical context the Hutu and Tutsi were not ethnically separate groups. Instead, the Hutus were originally the farmers and agriculturalists, and the Tutsi were the cattle raisers. The distinction was mainly economic. The Tutsi were the minority, and generally the wealthier of the two. It was not until the Belgian colonization that the ethnic divisions were drawn, and identity cards administered. This means that whites instituted the very means by which the Hutu could identify who to slaughter in the 1994 genocide, only perpetuating the conflict. As one scene in the movie points out, physical appearance does not always indicate what group someone belongs to. Two women at the hotel bar say when asked that one is Hutu and the other is Tutsi. Jack then says, "They could be twins."
This film cannot help but remind me of Darwin's Nightmare. Of course, we just watched it last week, but I mean the content is so eerily similar. While one is a documentary and the other is a dramatized account of a true story, they both contain the same elements. The problems with weapon trading, scarcity of food and supplies, racial equality, and economic turmoil all come up in both films. While they take place in different countries in Africa, the issues are shared and help is denied in both situations. Should we keep making films like these to share the story in the hopes that people will finally listen? Or will it simply make people less sensitive to the horrors of the world? Either way, it does not change the fact that this is taking place. I think it all comes down to individual decisions, everything starts with one person.
New Terminology:
Capricious: given to sudden or unaccountable changes in mood or behavior
Expatriate: a person who lives outside their native country
Salacious: treating sexual manners in an indecent way and typically conveying undue interest in or enjoyment of the subject
Prevarication: speak or act in an evasive way
Catharsis: the process of releasing, and thereby providing relief from, strong or repressed emotions
Sophistry: the use of fallacious arguments
No comments:
Post a Comment