Saturday, March 12, 2005

MOVIES : Hotel Rawanda

I am currently reading the book 'Collapse' by Jarred Diamond in which he investigates the falls of a number of civilizations, and tries to argue for a particular thesis about the major causes for such a failure. I had just finished all the 'historic' investigations and was about to read the chapter on the disaster in Rawanda when I heard the JJJ review of this movie. They liked it so I thought I'd get some pre-Jarred Rawanda information.
The film is the true-life story of a Hutu (the majority who performed the largest acts of genocide) who runs a very upmarket hotel. He is a very proud man, and has acheived a lot so is somewhat justified in this feeling, though he dismisses people's concerns about the impending disaster because he can't believe it would happen.
It's not until his family is attacked that he finally realisies the poo is flying, and so retreats to his hotel. The hotel starts to turn into a refugee camp in the middle of town, but is largely kept safe by the 2 assigned UN troopers (who can't shoot...), the pretense that the hotel is still a high-class establishment for the entertainment of international delegates, and plenty of bribes to the generals largely running the show.
From then on the story revolves about his attempts to keep the people in the hotel safe, even when the West totally abandons him (them) and he realises that he's "not even a nigger" to them - just dirt.
In fact, that was the most moving part of the film for me; the UN arrive to take all the whites out and leave only 400 soldiers in the whole country. The whites are all reluctantly leaving (including journalists etc) because there is nothing a journalist/tourist can do to change anything by staying, but they are all horrified and disgusted at the Western countries' giving up upon all the citizens of Rawanda. A wonderful scene where emotions on everyone's faces are beautifully played out; relief, terror, shame.
As an actual movie it was quite good, didn't feel too pushed in the way it exsposed the information that the movie creators wanted. The lead man was excellent, as were most of the black actors. Nick Nolte was aweful, and the white nurse woman was pretty pathetic as well. Jean Luc's 15 seconds of fame was quite well done.
The script was, in the main, excellent, only let down by 3/4 totally pathetic scenes that climaxed in horrendous single lines of dialog - mostly said by the white actors. Truely awful stuff which took minutes to recover from and get back into the film.
I think the soundtrack was excellent - what felt like authentic african music the whole way through, which set up some wonderful incongruities in some of the more harrowing scenes.
Mum and Dad, you should definitely see this so you can tell me how the feel compares to Nigeria (the feel of the people and so on, not the violence of course)
So what does one learn from this film? That all humans suck is a big one. But then there are some wonderful people, like the lead man, who risk everything. That an individual is incapable of acheiving real change. But then there are some, like the lead man, who save some 1100 peoples lives. That humans have an impossible ability to perform impossible acts of hatered, and love.
That a Hutu can look exactly the same as a Tutsi, to the point that you have to look in their identification papers before you can slaughter them.

So then I went home, and read the chapter by Jarred Diamond. Keep in mind he is looking at all of this from a historical perspective, attempting to promote his thesis.
At the time of the genocide Rawanda was the 6th or so most densly populated country in the world. The people had a typical farmer culture, inefficient because they couldn't afford western techniques, and getting more and more inefficient as land was split between children into smaller and smaller parcels. Large land owners had something around 2 acres each, while small land owners had something around 0.6 acres. This was to support the whole household AND be sold for profit.
Jarred looks particularly at one region in the North (?) of the country where there were almost no Tutsi (only 1 known one from one particular village) and yet 5% of the population was still culled (In Tutsi areas it was around 11%, for a total of about 800,000 people). He ends up arguing that a large part of the reason for the genocide was resource constraint, with the self-interest of the rascist 'big men' causing the tip into chaos.
It was good to see this well made film, and read an interesting alternate view (with more hard numbers) about such a horrendous, yet sadly typical, human tragedy.
The West, yet again, should be ashamed.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home