You can check out but you can never leave...

Hotel Rwanda is about a hotel manager who becomes a hero when he saves the lives of 1200-plus Rwandan refugees during the genocide of 1994. It is a fictional film based on the true story of Paul Rusesabagina, who allowed hundreds of people into his hotel after the Western world “evacuates” (abandons) the country. Paul bribes, lies, and flatters his way to survival, saving not only the lives of himself and his family but also the rest of the refugees in his hotel.

One big discussion that I have always come across in the film world is the idea of a film based on a true story, as is the case with Hotel Rwanda. A fiction film changes the story to make it more dramatically appealing. For example, the article “‘Never Again,’ That Time” by Anthony Daniels mentions several instances in the film that differ from the account given by the real Paul Rusesabagina. In the film, the previous manager of the Hôtel des Mille Collines leaves the hotel and appoints Paul to the position of head manager; in Paul’s report, he became manager on government orders. This event changes the impact of the event slightly because to have been appointed by government orders would mean that Paul had previously been in the government’s confidence. In another part of the film, Paul is woken by a gun against his head and an officer ordering him to evacuate the guests; in reality, Paul said he was woken by a telephone (the article refers to it as “a less cinematic awakening”). The film is restricted both by a time limit—it would take hours upon hours to watch a film documenting the entire conflict in Rwanda—and the rating system—director Terry George wanted to stick with a PG-13 rating, which prevented him from showing more graphic details of the killings.

According to the article from the Wall Street Journal, after Hotel Rwanda was released, Paul became a hero in the United States. He was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President George Bush; he published an autobiography called An Ordinary Man; and he went on a speaking tour in the U.S. However, the Rwandan government was less than pleased, specifically after Paul began criticizing their involvement (or lack of) in the genocide. They referred to him as “a dirty political animal” and claim that the film greatly exaggerated his role in the events. There have been criminal charges brought against Paul, and attempts have been made on his life; he refuses to even return to Rwanda because he fears for his life, and he travels to his speaking engagements with police escorts.

So what are the concerns about this issue being portrayed in a fiction film? The Cineaste article seems to think that one of the bigger concerns is the melodrama of the action scenes; one of the main points of the film is to emphasize the apathy of the Western world, to get people angry, but “this narrative pattern of danger followed by salvation risks promoting the very complacency that George seeks to unsettle.” Joaquin Phoenix’s character tells Paul at one point, “If people see this footage, they’ll say, ‘Oh my God, that’s terrible,’ and they’ll go on eating their dinners.” Cineaste adopts this language when referring to the action scenes: people will say “Whew, that was close,” and go on eating their popcorn. Another problem the film seems to have is the fact that some of the characters only function as explanatory objects. Phoenix’s character, a photojournalist, is there to learn a brief history of the dispute and to inform Paul of the world’s apathy. Cineaste also seems to think that telling the story of one man who saved many lives risks turning the story from one about the genocide into one about survival.

The ultimate question boils down to this: is it fair to base a film on a true story, even if there’s a disclaimer at the beginning of the film? A lot of people will say no, due to the singular fact that the film fictionalizes certain aspect of the story. But this is the distinction between a narrative film based on a true story and a documentary film; a documentary (usually) tells the story as it happened, with little to no creative liberties. This is what the general audience expects of a documentary anyway; what people don’t seem to realize all that often is that documentaries sometimes use editing in creative ways to “manipulate” a story, by changing the timeline of events, using certain facial expressions, or taking quotes out of context. There is also the fact that sometimes people base their knowledge of the situation on what they see in the narrative film and take what they see on screen as truth; they don’t bother to research the actual story and therefore have an inaccurate knowledge of the events. So some people would argue that a documentary is the best way to go regarding social issues because they portray ultimately fact-based information.

So then comes the inevitable question: Which is more effective, a documentary film or a narrative film based on a true story? How about a list of pros and cons for each?

Narrative Pros:
• The creative liberties allowed to a narrative film keep people entertained long enough for them to learn about the issue
• People (usually) know to expect fiction aspect from a fiction film, so there are no surprises
• A narrative film can present a person who is comfortable onscreen by using actors, instead of being “stuck” with someone who may be camera shy
• Narrative films have more “access” to the events than a documentary because they can just make things up

Narrative Cons:
• Making the film could have negative effects on the “hero” of the story, as in Paul’s case
• People base their knowledge on what is depicted in the film and learn inaccurate information
• The creative liberties could change the focus of the story

Documentary Pros:
• They tell a story much closer to the truth
• They can get the point of view of the real-life hero of the story to avoid the issue of “making things up” or exaggerating the hero’s participation
• A documentary film is more likely to bring about social change (because of the two above points, audiences are more likely to trust the filmmaker)

Documentary Cons:
• If the filmmakers can’t get access, they can’t tell the story they want to tell
• People sometimes get caught up in discrepancies about documentary filmmaking to focus on the story (for example, the use of reenactments, manipulation through editing, etc.)
• There is a stigma on documentary films with a general audience

So…which one is more effective? My opinion: both types of films are completely different mediums, and there is no accurate measuring system for determining which is more effective. There are positives and negatives of each, but ultimately the choice is down to the audience. I think that narrative films based on true stories are completely acceptable; people should be able to distinguish between a true story and one that says, “based on a true story” in the opening credits. “Based on a true story” can mean anything from “we kept the main character’s name and occupation the same” to “even the real people play themselves, the only thing we took liberties with is the dialogue.” I feel like there should be no trouble with a narrative film like this as long as people are made aware that it is only based on a true story, not claiming to be a true story. I think that ultimately, unless they have the proper influence of someone who knows and loves documentary films, general audiences are more likely to choose a narrative over a documentary when presented with both options; however, as long as they are being made aware of the issue, is there any harm being done by viewing a narrative film instead of a documentary?

New Terminology:

Subsumed: include or absorb (something) in something else (often “be subsumed”)

Immutability: [immutable] unchanging over time or unable to be changed

Estheticization: ACTUALLY SPELLED AESTHETIC-ization, to make aesthetic, or pleasing in appearance; of or related to art or beauty

Exculpatory: [exculpate] show or declare that (someone) is not guilty of wrongdoing

Mawkishness: [mawkish] sentimental is a feeble or sickly way

Buttress: a source of defense or support

Sophistry: the use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving