Africa is burning, and for what reason?

Rating: 8/10 (2 February 2007)

An abandoned village burns, the vibrant flames lighting the darkness of the night and children and young adults dance to heavy music in and around the flames, firing there weapons into the night as if to celebrate victory.
In recent years, African nations have become fertile ground for Hollywood to exploit(?) for cinematic, and thus financial purposes, in spite of the necessity for film to tell powerful narratives of issues and conflicts still pertinent to the contemporary world. So, although these films, including The Constant Gardener, Blood Diamond, Hotel Rwanda and The Last King of Scotland tell stories simultaneously inspirational, horrific, despicable, shaming, compelling and unique, they also are produced to make profit, and in retrospective analysis, are quite successful in doing so. Blood Diamond is certainly no exception, and ironically, money is one of the predominant themes (among others) of the film.
The story centres around a smuggler, Danny Archer (DiCaprio), a journalist, Maddy Bowen (Connelly) and a fisherman, Solomon Vandy (Hounsou), each with their own motives (freedom, truth and justice respectively). Thus, in both subtle and overt ways, each uses the others for their own benefit, and the benefit of each other. As a result, the three central characters form a framework of trust and dependency, for better or worse.
Of the 'worse' are the events of the African conflict diamond trade, and the rebel force, the RUF. The film does not hold back in this respect, portraying to the audience the despicable acts this force carry out, and many rebel/ militia forces still carry out today, and that is to do with child soldiers. Bringing shame to such an act, we see children being taken from their parents, their families and tribes, and being bribed and manipulated, corrupted, into loyal troops for the rebel force - and thus we also see the horrific acts these children and then carry out, and with such unrelenting glee, and unrelenting loyalty.
The performances are all excellent. Leonardo DiCaprio is indeed a fine actor, although his accent for the first hour of the film seemed to fluctuate between Australian, British, French, and Afrikaans. Jennifer Connelly, as always is excellent (and bears close resemblance to Tea Leoni - in voice and appearance) and the supporting cast is also good. The only actor I'm troubled by is Djimon Hounsou. He is a great actor, which I will not deny at all, however, I found his character in this film to be slightly cliché, as if to say we've scene his character elsewhere many times, and this screen presence also doesn't change. But overall, the performative and emotional intensity from all actors reaches beyond the standard level.
It is here that I would like to digress a little and make some general comments about factual films. While I find that these stories, historical facts, must be brought to screen, and make compelling films, I am equally concerned about the cinematic imperatives that must be considered for the commercial success of the film. For example, in Blood Diamond, it is true that the context and 'A' storyline about the diamond trade and conflict between rebel and government forces occurred. It is also very likely that events that happen in the film to Hounsou's character also occurred to real people. However, the nature of film is to tell narratives, and narratives have a beginning, middle, and end, all of which must conform to an overarching template, and Blood Diamond is no different.
That is to say, the camera has the ability (both intentional and unintentional) to distort reality. That is to say, scenes may be included in the film because they make powerful cinema. This may be by entertaining the audience, or equally by shocking the audience - either way, the audience is responding to the film, and any response to a film, is paramount to not feeling anything. This is a major strength of Blood Diamond and, like Hotel Rwanda and The Constant Gardener, why it is highly recommended.
Ultimately, this conflict was about money. Money from the sale of conflict diamonds, filtered into the market with diamonds mined without conflict. Hence the title 'Blood Diamond' - diamonds traded in the market at the hands of human life. The question the film wants us to ask ourselves, is "How much blood was spilt for these diamonds to be released in to the market?" So, returning to the beginning, Africa is indeed burning, and we must ask ourselves, why?