|
WSWS : Arts
Review : Film
Reviews
Film on African catastrophe conceals more
than it reveals
By Peter Daniels
25 January 2005
Use
this version to print
| Send this
link by email | Email
the author
Hotel Rwanda, directed by Terry George, written by Keir
Pearson and Terry George
Hotel Rwanda aims to tell the story, through the experience
of the manager of a luxury hotel in the Rwandan capital of Kigali,
of the horrific genocide that took the lives of as many as 1 million
people, mostly Tutsi, who were slaughtered by Hutu militias in
the central African country within a three-month period in 1994.
Don Cheadle plays the role of Paul Rusesabagina, the Hutu manager
of the Belgian-owned Hotel des Milles Collines. Rusesabagina leads
a relatively privileged life, but he is married to a Tutsi, and
is both personally threatened and politically horrified by the
nationalist frenzy, in which Hutu radio announcers call for the
crushing of the Tutsi cockroaches. He later escaped
the slaughter with his family, and lives in Belgium today. Rusesabagina
is the central character in this story, and he assisted director
and screenwriter Terry George with the screenplay.
The job of hotel manager brings Rusesabagina into contact with
the local ruling elite as well as European officials and businessmen.
He uses his first-hand knowledge and connections to save his family,
and also to shelter about 1,200 refugees, mostly Tutsis, along
with Hutus who oppose the ethnic killing. These people have been
lucky enough to find refuge in the hotel, where they await their
fate under conditions of severe overcrowding, limited supplies
and above all overwhelming fear, while the genocide continues
just outside.
The film traces the development of the genocide over a number
of weeks. The signal for the attacks is the radios call
to cut down the tall trees, announced after the plane
carrying Rwandan President Juvenal Habyarimana is shot down as
he is returning from Tanzania, where he has signed a peace agreement
with the rebel Tutsi-dominated Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF).
The parties responsible for downing the Presidents plane
have never been determined, and it is possible that Hutu ethnic
extremists may have taken the opportunity to remove him while
also providing a convenient excuse for launching the mass killing.
Over the next days and weeks there are, not unexpectedly, a
number of very narrow escapes, both for Rusesabagina as well as
his guests. In the end, a combination of quick thinking
and tactical maneuvers by the hotel manager, along with sheer
good luck, enable him to prevail.
There are a number of scenes that ring true. Rusesabagina buys
time by bribing a powerful Hutu general with liquor, Cuban cigars
and cash. At the most desperate moment, as the general is about
to unleash the Hutu militia in the hotel, the manager gambles
that this military gangster can be intimidated by the threat of
possible war crimes trials. Rusesabagina warns him that he will
not be around to testify for the general if he is killed.
A film on the subject of the Rwandan events cannot simply deal
with the subject as a tale of horror and suspense, however, with
a happy ending for some 1,200 people, including the central character.
Here is where Hotel Rwanda falls far short. Despite apparently
good intentions on the part of director and co-screenwriter Terry
George, the films approach omits far too much, and consequently
leaves a misleading impression.
George has made several films dealing with the conflict in
Northern Ireland, including In the Name of the Father (1993),
based on the true story of man falsely convicted in connection
with an IRA bombing who spent 14 years in prison. Hotel Rwanda
also deals with the legacy of imperialism and colonialism, and
the film alludes to imperialisms role. There is brief mention
of the role of Belgium as the colonial ruler a century ago, in
pitting Tutsi against Hutu and installing the minority Tutsi in
power.
More than allusions are required, however. In fact, mere allusions
can be quite misleading. At one point, for instance, UN peacekeeper
Col. Oliver (Nick Nolte) bitterly explains to Rusesabagina that
the genocide will not be stopped because the Western powers are
not interested in Africa. The supposed indifference is ascribed
to racism.
In fact, the rival imperialist powers were not simply indifferent
to the Rwandan tragedy. They were and are indifferent when it
comes to the misery and suffering of the African masses, but they
have also intervened for their own geopolitical advantage. Revelations
after the 1994 genocide showed how the rival powers, principally
France and the United States, jockeyed for advantage in the midst
of the carnage, backing the Hutu government or the Tutsi-dominated
Rwandan Patriotic Front, and thus contributing to the genocide.
Above all, the horrific events of 1994 cannot be understood
apart from the history of Rwanda and of sub-Saharan Africa as
a whole. That does not mean that the film must deal at length
with this whole history; that would be virtually impossible. Nevertheless,
ways can be found, within the framework of the documentary style
adopted by the filmmaker, to trace the origins of the disaster
that led to the murder of perhaps 10 percent of the countrys
8 million population. The role of growing poverty, of imperialism,
of the neo-colonial exploitation that has made a mockery of African
independence in the nearly half-century since formal
ties were cut with the former European rulersall of this
could and needs to be brought home. Only in this context can the
growth of ethnic tensions and their utilization by the rival military-based
cliques be understood.
In this film of two hours, however, only a few minutes are
devoted to dialogue that draws out some of the root causes of
the tragedy. These are lost in the accumulated images of fear
and killing. The performances, particularly by Cheadle and Nolte,
are fine, but they do not redeem the film. The viewer is left
with the impression that the events of 1994 represent an outbreak
of insanity, as one character declares. The only thing
that can be done is to try to save as many lives as possible,
and Rusesabagina becomes the symbol of this dedication.
To the extent that it discusses responsibility for the Rwandan
genocide, moreover, Hotel Rwanda suggests that we
are all guilty. A Western television journalist, played
by Joaquin Phoenix, tells Rusesabagina that television footage
of the slaughter wont lead to any aid. If people see
this footage, theyll say, Oh my God, thats terrible,
and theyll go on eating their dinners, he declares.
This dialogue, implying that all members of society are equally
guilty, merely feeds the conception that pressure should be applied
on the great powers to put a stop to conditions for which they
themselves are responsible. There is no substitute for the full
historical truth in dealing with subjects like the Rwandan genocide.
See Also:
Rwanda10 years
since the genocide
[3 May 2004]
New evidence
on the role of the US and France: Who is responsible for the genocide
in Rwanda?
[29 April 1998]
Imperialism
and the Rwandan catastrophe
[29 July 1994]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |