Director: Terry George
Writer: Keir Pearson, Terry George
Producer: Terry George
Year: 2004
Starring: Don Cheadle, Sophie Okonedo, Joaquin Phoenix, Nick Nolte
Genre: Drama; Historical
Format: Digital
I teach 9th grade World Geography, this is part of our curriculum, and we have a block schedule. Which means I watched Hotel Rwanda six times in two days.
I can practically tell you this movie shot-for-shot, and all of the dialogue.
But out of all the movies I could’ve watched six times in two days, I think this was a pretty darn good one. The acting was superb, the writing was great, and the social commentary is extremely important.
In case you haven’t watched this movie and don’t know what it’s about — Hotel Rwanda takes place during the (real-life) 1994 genocide in Rwanda, and is based on the real-life, incredible story of Paul Rusesabagina, a Hutu with a Tutsi family. This isn’t a problem until the Hutus (one group of people in Rwanda) start killing the Tutsis (the other group of people).
Paul works as the manager of a very high-class, important hotel in the city of Kigali. He uses his business smarts to gain lots of connections and build bridges with people of power, just in case he ever needs those favors in the future for his family. Paul is involved in multiple opposing worlds — both the Hutu and the Tutsi, and the West and Rwanda. For most of the story he has an unwavering faith in the West, that they will protect Tutsis from being killed by the Hutus.
[SPOILER] As you might guess, the West leave the Tutsis high-and-dry, even though they know exactly what is going on in Rwanda [END SPOILER].
It is an incredible story, and, like I said, the social commentary is crucial. It asks the question, essentially, “When is it the international community’s responsibility to get involved when genocide is occurring?”
The United States, and the rest of the West, knew that genocide was occurring in Rwanda, but we didn’t even have the gall to call it what it was — genocide.
Radio plays a unique storytelling role in the movie, and it’s fantastic. We hear news reports, court proceedings/hearings, and propaganda. During a presumed Capitol Hill hearing (though there was a guy with a British accent, so maybe it was for the UN?), a woman, probably an American, kept saying “acts of genocide,” and the British guy asks her why she always prefaces the word “genocide” with “acts of,” and also asks how many acts of genocide you need before you call it genocide. That’s a profound statement.
In my class, we mostly focused on this element. We had a discussion about when we, the US, should get involved with something like genocide when we know it’s happening. Obviously I got answers that were all across the board, ranging from “when an American gets killed” to “when we know innocent people are being killed” to “it’s not our business,” and everything in between.
I think that’s the point of the movie. Besides the fact that it’s about courage and standing up for what’s right, it’s also scrutinizing, and shaming, the international community for not doing the right thing, like Paul did. (In addition to that, you might say a major point of this movie is the long-lasting impact of colonization and/or the abandonment by the West when it is inconvenient for them.)
I did have one big question about this movie, and nobody has been able to answer it to my satisfaction. At around the 1 hour, 45 minute mark there is a UN convoy headed towards the refugee camp. A huge crowd of refugees heads towards the convoy, meaning the people on foot are headed away from the refugee camp.
Here’s the thing — between the convoy and this sea of refugees is some of the Hutu militia, the ones committing the genocide. Where the militia meet the refugees, they are killing the refugees, which is making them run away from the militia, and the militia are between the refugees and the refugee camp. Sorry if this is confusing.
The people that I’ve talked to about this say that because the militia are moving in, the Tutsi refugees are forced to move away from the camp. However, it does not seem like the refugees are in a hurry, as you would be if you knew you were being chased by homicidal maniacs with machetes.
I think the whole sea-of-refugees thing looked cool, powerful, and cinematic, but I think it was a mistake. Yes, I see that they wanted to show the Tutsi rebels killing some of the Hutu militia so the UN convoy could get through, but I think it was kind of a mess that they could have done better. It just didn’t make any sense for the refugees to be going the wrong way, away from the refugee camp.
Overall, though, it’s a somewhat forgivable mistake, considering the rest of it’s a fantastic piece that everyone should see.
Verdict: Cinema
Cinema or Enema 