![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Hotel Rwanda
Apr. 21st, 2005 10:35 amToday, I watched Hotel Rwanda, which manages to be that rare thing, a film tackling genocide which doesn't sell the enormity of the horror short, and yet does not resort to excessive gore to do so. It takes its cue from old-style horror films in this regard. We don't see the slaughter itself, we hear snatches, we see the aftermath, and that makes it far more terrifying. At one point, the main character finds his son covered in blood. It's not his son's blood. The boy can't speak anymore for the rest of the film. And works far more efficiently than if we had scene whatever slaughter the child was witness to.
Hotel Rwanda has been compared with Schindler's List, and it shares the quintessential trait of making a story about genocide bearable by concentrating on the survivors and the man who helped rescue them. But it is fueled by a moral indignation and a fury that is quite un-Spielbergian and more the territory of filmmakers like Sidney Lumet. Because make no mistake, this is a J'Accuse of a film. About a third into the movie, Paul Rusesabagina (Don Cheadle), our main character, expresses the conviction that once the world sees the pictures a journalist has just taken of the slaughter, they'll intervene. No, replies the journalist (cameo by Joaquin Phoenix), they'll just say "how terrible" and go back to dinner.
Belgian colonialism of the past causing the Hutu/ Tutsi enmity to begin with, US disinterest in helping (and painfully avoiding the term "genocide"), European disinterest in helping (with a name check of France indeed having armed the Hutu before), the UN soldiers having orders not to use their weapons - the moral responsibility (and failure) of the West is placed soundly on everyone's shoulders. There also isn't, a la Biko, a white pov character - Hollywood take notice, this isn't necessary. Cheadle blends in with the (excellent) African cast and gives a great understated performance as Paul, going from not wanting to get involved when his neighbour gets beaten up to saving over a thousand people.
The most striking sequence ( has spoilers )
Another thing: before the first (harmless and idyllic) pictures of pre-genocide Kigala are shown in this movie, we hear a voice, a radio broadcast spewing hate and propaganda. This radio broadcast goes on throughout the film. This, too, heightens the realism; because genocide needs its planners and propagandists as much as its executioners. There isn't any main villain in this film, no face you can blame what is going on for (though there are several minor characters showing contributing and/or profiting from it); there is a voice. And that is a more effective depiction of evil than any I've seen in a long while.
Hotel Rwanda has been compared with Schindler's List, and it shares the quintessential trait of making a story about genocide bearable by concentrating on the survivors and the man who helped rescue them. But it is fueled by a moral indignation and a fury that is quite un-Spielbergian and more the territory of filmmakers like Sidney Lumet. Because make no mistake, this is a J'Accuse of a film. About a third into the movie, Paul Rusesabagina (Don Cheadle), our main character, expresses the conviction that once the world sees the pictures a journalist has just taken of the slaughter, they'll intervene. No, replies the journalist (cameo by Joaquin Phoenix), they'll just say "how terrible" and go back to dinner.
Belgian colonialism of the past causing the Hutu/ Tutsi enmity to begin with, US disinterest in helping (and painfully avoiding the term "genocide"), European disinterest in helping (with a name check of France indeed having armed the Hutu before), the UN soldiers having orders not to use their weapons - the moral responsibility (and failure) of the West is placed soundly on everyone's shoulders. There also isn't, a la Biko, a white pov character - Hollywood take notice, this isn't necessary. Cheadle blends in with the (excellent) African cast and gives a great understated performance as Paul, going from not wanting to get involved when his neighbour gets beaten up to saving over a thousand people.
The most striking sequence ( has spoilers )
Another thing: before the first (harmless and idyllic) pictures of pre-genocide Kigala are shown in this movie, we hear a voice, a radio broadcast spewing hate and propaganda. This radio broadcast goes on throughout the film. This, too, heightens the realism; because genocide needs its planners and propagandists as much as its executioners. There isn't any main villain in this film, no face you can blame what is going on for (though there are several minor characters showing contributing and/or profiting from it); there is a voice. And that is a more effective depiction of evil than any I've seen in a long while.
