Some Comments

Rating: 7/10 (31 July 2006)

A lot has already been said about Hotel Rwanda. Don Cheadle stands out as always, because he is one of the greatest actors of his generation - right up there with Jeffrey Wright and John Seymour Hoffman. Therefore, I only have a few points to add.

The name of the movie is a play on Rwanda's other name, the "Land Of A Thousand Hills", or in French, "Pays des Milles Collines". The refugees are housed in the Milles Collines Hotel, or Thousand Hills Hotel. Therefore, Hotel Rwanda.

The cast, although often excellent, is miscast because they are not Rwandans. In fact, half the cast have Zulu/Nguni clan surnames (Dube, Ndlovu, Sithole, Khumalo, etc.). I imagine it was filmed in South Africa? Durban, perhaps? :) This makes the comparison between Hutus and Tutsis a bit irrelevant though. Sophie Okonedo is not a Tutsi, but biracial and Nigerian/English. This is a minor point and not to disparage her acting achievement, but with the repeated statements that Tutsis have 'lighter skin' or 'longer noses' etc., it actually plays into the misconception of the 'difference' between Hutus and Tutsis.

The Hamitic Race Theory, which is at the basis of the original discrimination by Belgian or German authorities is not clearly spelled out. It is not only applicable to Rwanda, but also to the present conflict in Western Sudan (Darfur). The pro-government militias are portrayed as 'white Arabs', horse or camel riding, where the population of Darfur is portrayed as 'Black African', and sometimes even Christian and Animist. This is the revisiting of the once extremely widespread Hamitic Race Theory, the theory that maintained that all culture in not only Africa, but Asia and the Americas should be explained by the diffusion of a mythical white race (which could be Black, Asian or Native American looking whenever it had to be). At one time, anthropologists tried to find the remnants of this race of 'blackened whites'. In some regions like South Africa, this theory is still taught in schools. Any nomadic, tall, cattle herding people (like the Masai, the Dinka or similar people) were classified non-Black and Hamitic and superior to the agricultural population of 'true Negroes'. The fact that 'superior' herders had the worst land, and 'inferior' farmers had the best land, which white settlers coveted, was of course an added bonus and an extra assurance of the popularity of the theory. Masai good, Kikuyu bad. Tutsi good, Hutu bad. Etcetera, because this kind of schism was repeated all over colonial Africa. People with bad land were pronounced to be 'superior', and people with good land were classified 'inferior', without any sense or irony or contradiction. This also has to do with the way colonialism functioned, which was no different than the way the Romans governed their newly gained territories - divide and conquer. A minority was picked out and proclaimed to be 'superior', and they were given privileges (education abroad, positions in local government, they were allowed to keep some land) and used to govern over the majority.

Don't believe everything you hear on TV, but do your own research. The literature is there for all to read.