An African holocaust

Rating: 8/10 (16 March 2005)

As one can probably imagine, a film with an 8,5 out of 10 (with 4.356 votes) ranking at number 130 of the IMDb's top 250 has few naysayers. There are some there however and I've taken the trouble to read them. What I think is sort of funny, is that many of the critique that is placed is utterly stupid. One person actually goes so far as to say that the film:
"doesn't manage to escape the formulaic Hollywood feel-good story of the hero who wins out in the end. This typical treatment may be fine for other topics, but Rwanda was a real genocide, and this tragedy should not be treated as the playground of 'based on a true story' movies."
This is I feel a very feeble critique. This is not a film about the Rwandan genocide as is was, but a film about the events Paul Rusesabagina witnessed. He cannot help the fact that he didn't get to see much of the genocide and that he and his family survived in the end. Or maybe flat6 (the writer) thinks they should have just killed Rusesabagina off in the film, which certainly would have been more dramatic, but much less true. Also, doesn't this criticism mean that Schindler's List is a bad film as well?
Another writer, imdb-45 states that:
"The film gives no treatment as to the reason for the hatred between the two sects of African black people and concentrates virtually on a man's heroic attempt to save people in a hotel, many of which are would-be victims of the genocide."
If I'm not mistaken, the reason for the hatred is actually clearly outline in a conversation between Paul Rusesabagina (Don Cheadle), Jack (Joaquin Phoenix) and a local African journalist. I mean I am no expert on the subject, but it seemed pretty clear to me (if that was the whole of it). Basically it was just like WW 2, based on race, an African holocaust so to speak (although less organized and without the concentration camps as far as I know).
The same author states that:
"there is an awkward product plug for Volkswagon that ruins a genuinely amusing moment. There are product plugs for several different alcohol beverages that don't quite feel right."
Well, sorry but in reality people use product and brand names on a daily basis. So why not in a film? Because than it is advertising? If you recommend a brand of beer to your friends it is also advertising in a way, although on a much smaller scale.
Someone else, fooltank77, states that the film doesn't say what happened after the genocide. While that is true, it isn't a flaw. This is the story of Paul Rusesabagina and his family and what happened tot hem during the genocide. The rest is nothing of the films concern. Also, everybody who watches the news occasionally or reads the paper knows that it is far from peaceful down there even now. Do you need to have everything presented to you? Personally I felt that this was a very impressing and good film. The performances and the directing were great and despite the fact that the film didn't show much of the slaughter, it was emotionally unsettling enough. I was especially astounded by the fact that the UN did so little to help. I knew that there wasn't much interference, but the fact that there was virtually no help at all just goes to show that Africa is just too far away for the rich and distant countries to worry. I daresay that the events in the film made me almost ashamed to be living in one of those rich UN countries.
I feel that if you actually go to see this film and expect it to be an individual tale within a massive cultural slaughter, you will come to accept that this film has it's boundaries and doesn't show everything that happened before , during or after the genocide. Demanding that and claiming the film is bad because it doesn't give you everything there is, would be like saying Schindler's list is bad, because it didn't show the political situation in Germany in the beginning of the 1930's, how Hitler gained his power, what happened in Stalingrad, what Dr.Mengele did during medical experiments on Jews or the killing of the moffen-hoeren (women who had sex with Germans during WW 2) in the Netherlands after the war. My point here is that a film like Schindler's list doesn't actually have as much background info as is demanded of this film by some viewers. It is just that we (in the western world) now much more about WW 2 than we do of a distant African genocide. Also there is so much suffering when something like this occurs and one film can not show it all. All it can do is show us parts of the tragedy and maybe inspire viewers to try and find out more about it. Giving a complete picture of such a tragedy is like completing a puzzle. Bear in mind that this is only the first piecehopefully.
8 out of 10