All the while this is going on, Western Civilization turns it's head, ignoring the deaths and cries of thousands of our African brothers and sisters. There seemed to be an air of "See no evil" in the way that the white guests boarded the buses and turned their backs on the Rwandan people. Helplessness floated through the air as one by one, day by day, the Tutsi's were murdered and/ or displaced and captured from their homes. Some were held prisoners, while others lifeless bodies were left to rot in the streets. One particularly gut wrenching scene for me was when upon hitting bumps in the road, Paul gets out of the hotel van to find the bumps are human bodies. As they are backing up, the silence settles into the pit of your stomach allowing you to feel the same nauseating pain that he feels.
While I understood that the film was based on a true story, and that some of the characters and events might be fictional, I couldn't help but to be drawn in and convinced that everything Terry George was telling me in this film was true. He did an exceptional job of connecting you with the characters and making you ride the emotional roller coaster scene for scene, word by word. I too felt a lump in my throat as Paul's wife cried, reaching out for her husband over the tailgate of the refugees escape truck.
I liked the way Leshu Torchin described the film as "Transforming the story of genocide, a story where hundreds of thousands of people died, into a story of those who survived." I feel as if that line was very accurate. George took a story that was so hopeless and negative, and brought it light.
Often people shy away from negativity because the body and mind can only process so much pain, guilt, remorse etc... Eventually our minds become numb and we block things out so we don't have to deal with them. I felt like George did a good job of building that connection and forcing the audience to become involved in the lives of Paul and his family. I feel like that is the work of a true genius, and that the movie should be perceived as just that.
After watching Hotel Rwanda, I became extremely interested in what affect that film had in America so I did a little research. In our packet alone, it mentioned that the U.S President had requested to see the film not once, but twice. Did it touch as many people across our nation, the way it did him?
"All told, I’m glad the stars aligned so that this film could be brought to a larger audience, but in many ways, it’s yet another tale of atrocity and victim-hood that may elicit tears for a moment, but will be filed away as the world inevitably produces more barbarism in the years to come. " This was the post left on Ruthless Reviews, a film critiquing website. "Rwanda lacked money, oil, and strategic importance, so we turned a blind eye because in the end, humanitarianism remains a conditional enterprise — if you can’t do anything for us, we’ll sit the whole thing out." I feel like this post had a very intereseting perspective. One that I strongly believe is correct. We discussed in class how many people and countrys will donate a small, or lump some of money, yet when it's asked to get up and take action, many people (especially in western civilizations) will turn their backs in order to prop them comfortably up in their La-Z-Boy lifestyles.
A nation who has become so spoiled, always questioning what they can have in return stood by as thousands of people were murdered for no reason other than the ethnic stereotype forced upon them by the germans, and later the belgians. In the end all people are created equal, and had those children been born in America, versus Africa, they might have had a better chance for not only an easier life, but also for survival. Instead, the two groups were forced into division in order to maintain control of Rwanda from the Belgian perspective.
Another article I read pointed out something I also found to be very interesting. As I said before, the discrimination between the hutu's and the Tutsi's seems to have been created and pushed by the Belgian's, which is referred to in the article as White Power, then it goes on to discuss how in America as well, often African's fight amongst each other via gangs or crew's trying to maintain their lifestyles, feed their families, or protect their territory. What is it the creates this idea of inequality due to race. It dates back as far as slave trade amongst America and some European countries.
I feel as if the Western countries, while ignoring the situation for so long, sat back and watched as Rwanda experienced a more efficient, modern day holocaust, and then after a lot of the fighting was over, supplies had vanished, and both sides had begun to falter, W. Civilization stepped in and said, "Oh what a tradgedy this is, here, let the world know that we as caring people were the first to help." And did it as publicly as possible, so as to appear fair and just. Who gets to determine the quality of a life? Who says whether or not it is beneficial to save someone else, or if we can afford to let them die, and when are we held responsible and considered an accomplice, for turning our heads?
No comments:
Post a Comment