Could have been a good movie without the propaganda

Rating: 2/10 (19 April 2005)

First, the good. It was an inspirational film both in demonstrating the personal heroism and humanity of the reluctant heroes and the deep and abiding love between the hotel manager and his family.
Unfortunately the film was apparently intended as a piece of political propaganda. Anyone familiar with the issues involved will find some of the points put forth by the film ridiculous and an insult to their intelligence.
The horror of war was, if anything, thoroughly sanitized. Over a million people were killed in the real war, and Kigali as the largest city was the center of much of the violence. Yet we see a few hundred corpses scattered about with no closeups, and few if any people actually being killed. This is not to demand a gore-fest, but if thousands were hacked to death by machete wielding tribesmen, why not grudgingly give into the reality and show how cruelly disgusting it was?
While the violence was clearly and overwhelmingly African on African, much of the moral outrage expressed in the movie is directed at the Europeans. And, of course, the Americans. As if it were our responsibility to save the Africans from themselves. Kipling would have been in full accord with the "white man's burden" concept underlying the moral themes of the movie.
This is furthered by an interesting piece of history presented on the origin of the Hutus and Tutsi. Guess who's fault all this is? Why, the Belgians of course. Never mind the fact that the area was originally held by the Twa who were conquered by the Hutus a thousand years ago and then taken over by the Tutsis probably 500 years ago, long before there were any Belgians around to muck things up. The film delivers the preposterous concept that all was love and Kumbaya until the Evil Europeans showed their faces and separated them intro tribes. Utter balderdash.
Then we have the UN. Forget the fact that UN peacekeeping forces on this planet have been found to be regularly engaged in the sex trade for children and common bribery. The UN troops in the movie are all Sir Galahad's from another planet, riding here and there to the rescue who's sole problem is that they are hopelessly outnumbered. I practically expected a "Donate the the UN Support Group" phone bank number to flash on the screen every time Nolte appeared.
While there is plenty of moral bashing against Europe and America there is no attempt whatsoever to ask the counterpoint -- why should it have been the responsibility of Europe and America to intervene in the middle of a massive tribal war? One can debate the point, and certainly good people can draw conclusions on either side of this issue. But the issue is simply never raised. It's all about how cowardly America and the French are for not sending in the Marines. And now that you mention it, why America and not China, Egypt, South Africa, Japan, Russia, or Germany? Belgium may have had historic interests there by certainly the US never had African colonies. How did we somehow become part of the select group of the guilty?
Overall, it was worth seeing, but only if you open your eyes and see the baloney sandwich you are being served, and hold your nose when you smell it. A major disappointment.