Conflict movie

Rating: 9/10 (18 February 2007)

Good introduction to one of our contemporary world's most intriguing issues: how natural resources work as a curse for 'developing' countries, and especially for the population of those countries, where they are discovered.
The topic has a rapidly growing scientific literature which has carefully pointed out that politics-wise it actually isn't all the same whether it be diamonds or oil that is found in a land (even though it may be the same for the ones who have their village on the spot). That is perhaps the only thing, however, that this film overlooks to a degree (as documented in some remarks by the characters), but that's rather insignificant and overall the movie does aim to be a careful recreation of the madness of the civil war in Sierra Leone - the very special madness that had a large number of elements to it that can be explained rationally, even if in a twisted way (such as, for example, the amputation of limbs as deterrence of resistance by a guerrilla force that wants to firmly control a vast stretch of the countryside without enough armed men for a full-out occupation of it).
In taking that approach, the film avoids the mistake of starting from a moralizing perspective, and so it doesn't ignore the structural factors playing into what happened. To give you an example, even brutal RUF commanders have well-outlined characters, speak authentically and don't lack at least an excuse for an ideology - you can hear for instance their famous slogan, 'no more slaves, no more masters', that very distantly reminded me of the similar thing communists promised about putting an end to the exploitation of the working class in Eastern Europe, only to then turn into exploiters themselves. So this again shows that in most parts of the world it is just not enough even if you to wish to be a good person, you may still end up not being one. But usually, of course, there is a bandwagon-ful of people lacking any good intention whatsoever willing to go along with any ideology so long as it takes them to power.
It is from this vicious circle that the whole human drama of the story starts. The RUF fighting for control of the mines so they can buy new weapons so they can continue to fight. A fisherman is taken captive by the rebels and only escapes the brutal chopping of his arms because he looks strong enough to do well as a miner (slave) for the RUF. He has to serve his new masters while not knowing if the rest of his family hasn't, or at least hasn't yet, been subjected to the worst possible torture somewhere. Meanwhile the techno-war rages on, drugs help the RUF get a steady flow of child soldiers hold their own in battle (and, mostly, in village massacres). Watch the movie to find out how, out of this situation, a diamond trader entering the scene at one point can become the provider of a ray of hope for fisherman Solomon Vandy. I could say some negative things about the ending, but I won't, out of respect for a mainstream Hollywood movie that dared give a complex treatment to a sensitive issue. To phrase my critique with similar complexity, things are not black and white here - they are dark gray and light gray. There is still room left for some too-easy distinction between shades of gray and for some heart-bleeding stuff, but then this is drama and not a documentary.
In the latter respect, if you'd like me to liken the end result to some other recently made movie about Africa, I'd say it's in the league of 'Lord of War', though somewhat better than that film. It raises an issue that's worth raising, but doesn't do it with the same touch, in my view, that the makers of 'Hotel Rwanda' or 'The Constant Gardener' had. That shouldn't be interpreted as my judgment about the actors, however. Of the three leads, all great, I'll only mention DiCaprio specifically, because of the 'Titanic' syndrome that still continues to cost him. Feel free to forget 'Titanic' if you don't want to remember it. DiCaprio is great here, and I would say that even if he wouldn't speak in 'Rhodesian' and Krio English in the movie. He is just really weirdly credible as a South African veteran turned freelance diamond trader, knowing the moves in a fight, but also already feeling the effect of too much smoking.
One of the pictures that stayed in my mind for a long time is also connected to DiCaprio. It's him carefully listening to his former commander's words on a South African ranch, looking in many ways different from, but in others similar to, the young Dia, the newly trained child soldier, listening to his RUF commander in Sierra Leone.
To finish by something controversial, I'll point to this bunch of teens who were there in the audience when I saw the movie. They were laughing out loud a lot at the sight of violence. I didn't care so much at that moment, but now, coming to think of it, it's just so easy to imagine them turned into psychotic militiamen. Just a little training, you know. They came to watch the movie to see blood. To see hearts bleed literally. For them this was a 'blood movie'.