“Hotel Rwanda” (2004) is a film based on the true story of Paul Rusesabagina, who ran a fancy hotel in the middle of the Rwandan genocide that killed 800,000 Tutsis. With courage, brains, luck and the hotel he saved 1268 lives. A sort of Rwandan “Schindler’s List” (1993).
Don Cheadle plays Rusesabagina, Sophie Okonedo his wife, who was Tutsi unlike him, and Nick Nolte plays a United Nations general. It was directed by Terry George, who comes from a place not unlike Rwanda: Northern Ireland.
At the Oscars, Cheadle was nominated for Best Actor and Okonedo for Best Supporting Actress. Jamie Foxx in “Ray” beat out Cheadle, which is reasonable, but Okonedo lost to Cate Blanchett in the forgettable film “The Aviator”.
It is rated PG-13, meaning that it is something 13-year-olds can watch. So most of the violence and killing and blood takes place offstage. Dead bodies are shown at a distance or in the darkness.
You do not notice how PG-13 it is because it is told from the point of view of a hotel manager – and what you do see is shocking enough, like dead bodies laying in front of nice, middle-class homes. But when you compare it to the two other famous genocide films, “Schindler’s List” and “The Killing Fields” (1984), you do see how the PG-13 rating cost the film much of its shock value.
But with a man trying to save more than 1200 lives in the middle of a genocide, it has a built-in hero and plenty of built-in suspense.
I was so, so glad it was not a Mighty Whitey film – no white person comes to save the day or becomes the point-of-view character.
In one scene all the white guests at the hotel are on buses waiting to leave the country under the protection of Western troops. A white woman on the bus looks at the black people being left behind while she pets her dog. The life of a dog of a white woman is more valued by the West than the people of Rwanda.
Rusesabagina thought there was no way the world would stand by and let so many innocent people get killed. But later we hear Hillary Clinton on the radio saying “acts of genocide have occurred” to avoid calling it a genocide straight out, which would require America to act under international law.
I loved that. I mean, it was terrible but it was the truth – unlike what all these Mighty Whitey films would have us believe about the nature of white people.
I also liked how Rusesabagina was able to stay human throughout even as his world was falling apart. He is a true hero.
The film was not good at showing the roots of the genocide. It seemed like the whole country had simply gone mad. We never understood the hatred Hutus had for Tutsi – even though it set off the deadliest war since Hitler. Which lets people assume that blacks are just violent savages deep down.
See also:
- Don Cheadle films
- Sophie Okonedo films
- Mighty Whitey
- genocide
- Romona Moore: a Missing Black Woman
I remember when this horrible war started, I was 10 years old at the time… it was when they shoot down president Juvenal Habyarimana plane in 1994 after coming from visiting my country. At the time I didn’t understand anything but I remember my dad and a lot of people being very saddened by his death because he said he was a good and respectable president and politician and that his death was something that was prepared, a sort of conspiration and that is what provoke the war and genocide in Rwanda.
i met rusesabagina and read his book. the movie left alot of stuff out, like his wife was actually severely injured in reality, that was taken out of the movie entirely. In the end of his book, rusesabagina writes about losing his faith in God, but his wife’s faith remains. It was a good book, sad but good. He is a good man, a good public speaker.
If you watch the film “sometimes in april,” w/ idris elba you get a slightly different perspective and it does go into MORE details about the history between the tutsi/hutu and how the genocide started…
Living with the Enemy argues against reconciliation.
I always thought about that movie but I never noticed that glaring flaw. I have since read much more about Africa and the effect colonialism has had on the continent
This is a great movie. It’s so hard to believe that this occured in 1994.
That closing statement just completely ruined the fim and my perception of it for me.
I remember distinctly one line from (I think) a white UN worker “You’re not even a Nigger. You’re an African“
I liked it, I also like Last King of Scotland, but that was a TOTAL Mighty Whitey film.
A good solid film and Cheadle is once again great. Jamie Foxx was good in his role, but still for my money it should’ve been Cheadle as well as Sophie Okonedo, but ultimately I think they lost because this film is not singing praises for anybody. It is too real. Not that Cate Blanchet was bad in hers (wasn’t that sensational either), but Sophie has done so much great roles (albeit mostly in tv) that she could have this one.
The main character is no Hollywood type of hero, he just happens to find himself in the middle of terrible situation and does what he can. He has no special powers, he is no tuff guy, he is not a trained commando nor he is somekind of super genious with superb knowledge of something. Just a regular guy who does what he can and becomes a hero while doing it. I also liked the fact that he is scared and does not know what to do automatically all the time.
Ofcourse one has to remember that while it is based on true events it is still a movie. It is not a documentary but a story based on a reality so there are some changes and tiny bits of Hollywood thrown in, but a good movie still. The real thing was tens of thousands more terrible.
I also like that this movie is openly political, it critises UN, international politics, brings out the belgian and french connections to the whole mess, and does not give any excuses for anybody. But it does it not overtly but as it is in our lives: we are not thinking our lives in political terms but still we are surrounded by and influenced by politics. And I also like that it does not claim to be the ultimate describtion of the tragedy. It is what it is.
One good thing about this movie is the fact that even though it is highly critical and does not spear anybody, it does not have arch villain. Meaning there is no evil black Dr.No lurking in the shadows or the usual suspects, some asshole CIA executives hoppin in and out from helicopters like in so many other movies. It just shows how the thing was from the perspective of a man who finds himself in very, very dangerous situation.
I recommend this to anyone.
That movie with Idris Elba is also good one. These two should be watched together.
I’ve seen this film. Loved every minute of it.
I’m from Congo and we also had a terrible Genocide that is still going on this very day, particularly on our east.
This is almost not talked about as there are many western countries involved in the stealing of our ressources… this is sad, because nobody is talking about it as the Rwanda genocide is talked about.
Also, what is kind of funny in this movie is that most of the actors, especially second roles doesn’t even look like real Hutu and Tutsis, and some of them also were not speaking swahili or other languages from the Rwanda. Instead, they were talking lingala which is a language mainly talked in Congo and Angola.
@maluson: well, I’ve seen american movies were finns were talking swedish sounding jibberish and/or swedes were talking danish etc.
One of the most challenging aspects of this film for probably alot of African Americans is that, even though the roots of the conflict lie squarely with Imperialism, the actual atrocities were committed and mainly propogated by Africans against oither Africans with hardly any white people involved.
I think coming to grips with this is a huge part of the process of humanizing blackness, something that I think we as Africasn Americans still don’t get completely. Meaning, many of us are still unwiling to acknowledge that black people are people, and people will do messed up things to one another at a societal level, not just at an individual level.
Let’s not even mention Hollywood’s take on Brazil, where apparently everyone speaks Spanish.
It’s a decent film but to my taste still too much Hollywood. Some of the characters, especially the UN general (Nolte) are somewhat one-dimensional. Although it’s based on an amazing true story it feels like it’s lacking some realism. Anyway, Don Cheadle and Sophie Okonedo are excellent. They have always been way underrated.
Sometimes in April is really good. I had never seen it before. Thanks Peanut for the youtube link.
For those interested and who understand French I recommend “Lignes de front”. It came out a few months ago – there may be an English subtitled version available. The film is rather gritty and disturbing although the story stays within limits to not let it degenerate into voyeurism. It also goes more into political details but especially the role of the media amidst a genocide.
Merci, Abagond. So good to know it’s not a Mighty Whitey.
A Rwanda survivor who got famous
“many of us are still unwiling to acknowledge that black people are people, and people will do messed up things to one another at a societal level, not just at an individual level.”
good points I find myself seeing alot. We either try to be a “model minorities” or get carried away thining Black means “ghetto”. I find the latter alot with younger African Americans who confuse black with ghetto when ppl point out they dont speak in black slang. I have to remind them what they are trying to do is be ghetto, they are already black . Its a wierd place to be in.
“many of us are still unwiling to acknowledge that black people are people, and people will do messed up things to one another at a societal level, not just at an individual level.”
Ah – the Human condition. I think all societies in some form or another have succumbed to the phenomenon of “mob mentality” in some form or another.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_behavior
Its the individual that do not conform to this condition that are intriguing.
I’m reading Philip Gourevitch’s book, We wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families and it hits me…
The holocaust did away with 10 million people while the Hutus only killed around a million. But the Holocaust took THREE YEARS while the vast majority of the Rwanda massacre took place in something like two months. In other words, if the Hutus had kept it up for as long as the Germans, they have killed almost twice as many people!
And this was basically done with clubs and machetes: no gas chambers, no death camps, no industrialization at all. Just pure old fashioned butchery.
When you think about it in those terms, the slaughter is absolutely chilling. Think about the sheer amount of organization and wrok that is necessary to kill a million people, basically by hand, in two months time.
I liked this movie abagond, but have you seen “sometimes in april?” I thought that was a better take on the genocide.
Sometimes in April is better. I also enjoyed “Shake Hands with the Devil”, though its center of focus was the white Canadian Coronel Roméo Dallaire.
Probably the best anti-”mighty whitey” take on the genocide out there. Seeing Dallaire just bearly claw his way back from suicide and homelessness is chilling. Especially when he claims, with total sincerity, that he felt he had literally shook hands with a man possessed by the spirit of evil incarnate.
Abagond says:
The limits of historical film-making aside — there is a cultural context here which makes sets it up so that Africa is traditionally depicted as a backward economic and political failure in need of “our” help, and Africans are seen as culturally monolithic, yet, somehow bent on something called “tribal violence”…
Imo, the necessary historical components of Africa’s problems sometimes point to sources closer to home than the white West wants to face, and this will be avoided.
I don’t know whether there are other films about this event in Rwanda’s history that points to the German colonizers of East Africa, first, and then the Belgium’s King Leopold, second, for fomenting the hatred between Hutu and Tutsi.
To the best of my small historical knowledge about this region of Africa, the Tutsi and Hutu had the same language, the same belief systems, intermarried, and it was even possible for one’s identity to change from one group to the other during their lifetime. However, their government was a centralized administration under a Tutsi monarchy and aristocracy, and this had been so for centuries — with relative stability. The European rulers — who declared themselves owners of the territory after deciding that Africa should be under their stewardship — had other plans.
The Germans employed divide and conquer methods,
But when the Belgians took over Rwanda, they wanted to organize their new land, and control its population. To achieved this by creating a census, officially categorizing the identities of the Africans.
So: out came the calipers, measuring tapes and scales to measure the Africans’ skulls and rib-cages! All in order that each could be issued with an identity card, so that every Hutu and Tutsi was required to carry and produce this mark of their ethnicity at all times..
If the situation arose, in which a person physical characteristics were not distinct enough to determine proper race, the Belgians simply counted those earning 10 or more cattle as Tutsi!
The result? The creation of a firmly entrenched ruling Tutsi class, with an unequal access to education, wealth, and positions of power.
http://www.preventgenocide.org/edu/pastgenocides/rwanda/indangamuntu.htm
It may have been just a matter of time for tensions to boil over. Especially in the waves of Independence.
What strikes me about this crucial factor is that although:
A. the difference between the 2 groups was apparently enough to warrant the wholesale slaughter of one at the other’s hands,
B. it was not enough for those wielding the machetes and the clubs to tell who was who without first looking at their identification cards (the same identification cards that had been in use since the Belgian era)!!!!!!!!!!!
I can imagine the sick scene:
machete in one hand, checking ID with the other….
The ‘incomprehension’ that seems to characterize atrocities of this kind in Africa is nevertheless familiar. As discussed before on other threads, bad news comes out of African, as dark things happen in dark places.
When I first heard about what was happening in Rwanda, it was classed as a “tribal conflict”. But no real explanation was given. Why? Because somehow, what no one was whispering at the time, this was attributable to…. an African predisposition towards violence.
This genocide was not a result of separate cultural groups, people been thrown together by artificial borders made by far away governors, with eyes on resources and no understanding of, and no care for, the welfare of native inhabitants.
No explanation, only catchwords like “political instability”, “tribal conflict” kept appearing. What could one conclude from this terrible outcome?
That this genocide was an outgrowth of innate inability to govern?
If one didn’t dig further that was the easy ‘answer’, shrouded in darkness.
The news of the time, when using words such as:
*sub-Saharan Africa
*tribes/tribal
*genocide
I think as a viewer/listener, I associated the words with “savagery” and “backwardness” because that is what has happened over the years when Africa has been the subject – rather than rational explanations and historical sequences.
I feel this is why it took so long for the events in Rwanda took so long to be perceived as an inexorable outcome of once separate groups forced to compete with one another for control of a system that was incapable of serving the system of both.