Film review: Blood Diamond

[selenak]

Back in Bad Wiessee, where there is finally snow, but alas, not for long. Well, that's better for work, I suppose.

I saw Blood Diamond before leaving Munich. It's been called Howard Hawks inspired by our local movie critic, and I can see why - di Caprio has essentially the Bogart role, and Jennifer Connelly is the Rosalind Russell type. (No Hawks precedent for Djimon Hounsou's character, who is actually the heart and moral center of the movie.) I'd have gone with John Huston rather than Hawks with my comparison, though - and there is definitely something old Hollywood, adventure movie about the film, which isn't a bad thing. On the other hand, it's also unrelentingly present day, and unabashedly accusing in its message. "I'm tired of writing sensitive, useless pieces about African victims," says Connelly's journalist at one point, and proceeds to explain that what she wants is a story that actually has the power to change things, and she can get that only by writing about the perpetrators as well as the victims, to show just how the system works. It's pretty much meta about the movie itself. Hence di Caprio as mercenary and diamond smuggler Danny Archer, without whom Solomon Vandy (Hounsou), who wants his family back, would not be able to reach that goal.

Given the white/black constellation, there is a potential and obvious problem here, and the movie wisely doesn't pretend not to see it, on the contrary, it ups the stakes by making Danny Archer not just white but a white African, a Rhodesian, and letting that explode between him and Solomon at one point. All the African issues here get personal rather than theoretical; most harrowing in the sequences that deal with Solomon Vandy's son, who over the course of the movie gets transformed into a child soldier by the R.U.F., Sierra Leone's Revolutionary United Front. The film goes for the emotional jugular there, and those are the scenes I found most terrible to watch, though I had read articles about the methods to transform children via drugs, booze, guns and brainwashing into joyous killers before. The question soon isn't "can Solomon find his son" but "can Solomon bring his son back from this if he finds him?" And then, once a bit of Archer's past is revealed, you realize that in a way, Archer foreshadows what can become of the boy if Solomon doesn't manage this.

Excellent performances by all three leads. It was a bit odd to see Michael Sheen (aka Tony Blair in "The Deal" and "The Queen") in a minor bad guy role as a higher-up in the Organzation Which The Film Doesn't Call De Beers Which Didn't Stop De Beers From Panicking); the script manages to do a J'accuse without sparing anyone, but its conclusion isn't cynicism but a cautious hope that at least some changes are possible.

Comments

[resolute.livejournal.com]

Huh. Calling it a Howard Hawkes film, or even a John Huston, makes me want to see it. Despite the fact that DiCaprio mostly makes me want to claw my eyes out.

I shall have to rent this . . .

[selenak.livejournal.com]

See, I think I was lucky in regards to DiCaprio because I never watched "Titanic". I first saw him in "What's Eating Gilbert Grape", where he was fantastic as an autistic boy (and managed to steal the move from Johnny Depp, no mean feat), which was years pre-Titanic; and the post-Titanic roles I saw him, such as Howard Hughes in The Aviator or more recently the undercover cop in The Departed, were great, too.

In any case, though, you don't have to like DiCaprio to enjoy this movie. Which goes to some lengths to ensure we don't see his character as a cynic with a heart of gold just bursting to get through - he's more Avon than Han Solo, to borrow sci fi archetypes. But yes, definitely echoes of Hawks and Huston in the best way...

[likeadeuce.livejournal.com]

You hit on great points about the movie, especially how Maddie's comments about the story work as meta for the film.

I have seen some complaints about the plot contrivance in the film (and also calling the parts with the child soldiers unrealistic, which saddened me because it shows how much people ignore anything they don't want to believe -- not that I have any idea how strictly accurate those scenes were). Anyway, I think that just shows people really don't understand classic Hollywood storytelling OR realism. But anyway --

It's a hard film to watch in a lot of ways but I was very impressed.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

and also calling the parts with the child soldiers unrealistic, which saddened me because it shows how much people ignore anything they don't want to believe -- not that I have any idea how strictly accurate those scenes were

The Süddeutsche Zeitung, which is our version of the New York Times in terms of reputation and reporting, did a series of articles about two years ago, written by Michael Bitala, about the child soldiers. And believe me, not only were those scenes accurate, they could have been even worse. I remembered various bits from the articles when I watched, like the names the children give themselves or the drugs given with the "this will make you immune to bullets" story.

I also thought they treated Danny Archer in a credible way. Would he have given the diamond back to Solomon if he hadn't died? Doubtful, and the film never pretends otherwise. Probably not. But once he knew he was dying, it was ic for him to do so.

It's a hard film to watch in a lot of ways but I was very impressed.

Same here!