Blogs > Cliopatria > Hotel Rwanda

Apr 19, 2005

Hotel Rwanda




I finally was able to see Hotel Rwanda over the weekend. While it played briefly here in my little slice of West Texas, it had some rather odd hours – mid-afternoon on weekdays and such. I bought the DVD on Tuesday and finally sat down with it. I was impressed.

The movie received solid reviews – lots of B+ or 7 out of 10, or two thumbs up (but perhaps not way up) or 3.5 stars out of 5. In other words, almost universally critics thought it was good, maybe even great, but perhaps not in that absolute top tier of movies. I have to question that judgment. I thought it was fantastic. I have not yet seen Ray, so obviously I am in no positon to pass judgment, but I have serious doubts if his performance can have been much better than Don Cheadle’s masterful and subtly brilliant depiction of Paul Rusesabagina, the manager of the luxurious Hotel des Mille Collines in Kigali, Rwanda’s capital city.

It is also clear why Sophie Okonedo was nominated for best Supporting Actress. Nick Nolte also deserves kudos for his take as a frustrated and ultimately ineffectual UN general. Perhaps he is intended to depict Romeo Dallaire, the Canadian general whose hands the UN thoroughly tied and who has been one of the most effective and pained spokesmen against what happened in Rwanda ever sense. He has a moment of transcendence in which he wearily tells Rusesabagina that in the minds of the world, “You are not even niggers, you are Africans.” The sneer that he applies to “Africans” somehow makes that last word seem even more vicious and hateful than “niggers.”

By now the story is familiar – Rusesabagina, who prior to 1994 had spent his time catering to the affluent and usually European guests of the Mille Collines suddenly finds himself in the midst of the Hutu genocide of the Tutsis that took place over the course of one hundred days from April to July 1994. Rusesabagina at turns cajoles, flatters, bribes, and flat-out lies to those with the power to do harm to the 1200+ refugees (“cockroaches”) he harbors in the hotel.

The movie is wonderful, but not easy to watch. I could not help but wonder if Hotel Rwanda was not more effective for me as a result of my knowledge of and background work related to modern Africa and Rwandan history. There were points at which I am pretty certain that someone with no background to the conflict might have been confused. But as an evocation of one man’s struggle to save a sliver of the hundreds of thousands slaughtered, most often by machete, the film was first-rate. I will certainly show it in my classes.

Some critics have argued that for once Hollywood actually understated the violence in the film. I tend to agree. In order to garner a PG-13 rating, director Terry George quite purposefully played down depictions of the atrocities. At times we see the bodies, but not the deaths. I can understand this approach and it does not bother me. However given how many purposelessly violent movies there are out at any given time, it seems to me that this was one case where rendering the violence would not have been pointless, where it would have underscored the monstrous undertaking of genocide. I had a tough enough time watching this movie, to be sure, but it may have been useful to show even more clearly just what Rusesabagina was up against, just how truly heroic were his efforts.

Among the extras is a short documentary in which Paul Rusesabagina returns to Rwanda and serves as something of a tour guide of some of the scenes of past atrocities. It is chilling.

Last year, the tenth anniversary of the Rwanda genocide, there was lots of reflection, most of which ended with some variation on the assertion that “never again” should we allow such atrocities to go unchecked. A few thousand soldiers with a mandate to act to prevent murder and violence could have thwarted the genocide in 1994. Instead Madeleine Albright and Bill Clinton danced around definitional questions (Derek’s rule of thumb: if you are debating whether or not genocide is happening, then some pretty damned bad things are happening. Act immediately, and after the fact you can decide whether genocide is a good description of what occurred rather than at the time deciding if it is a good diagnosis for what is happening) and the UN proclaimed that they had no right to use force.

The latest estimates of the genocide in Darfur have 400,000 Africans dead. The graves are filling with each tick of the clock. Tick . . . tock . . . tick . . . tock . . .. Will we be watching Hotel Nyala ten years from now, pretending to learn these same lessons again?



comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:


YJ Lee - 12/5/2005

Thankyou. Your comment was wonderful. I truly felt as if the movie was great too. I was researching on Hotel Rwanda and many critics had something to say about it. I just don't understand. They were comparing it to Schindler's List and that the directory of Hotel Rwanda had no style. Some people... the movie was made to tell people about what happened. Some people really... but your comment made my day. Thankyou.


chris l pettit - 4/19/2005

Sorry if I said something that you werent happy with...I thought DC and I were having a pretty interesting conversation. He makes very good points as always, and is absolutely right to criticise the UN as he does (and the fact that Lybia and Zimbabwe...of all countries are allowed on the HRC). I know him and I have had our disagreements in the past, but this seems to me to be a very productive conversation. Sorry if my own paranoia is getting to me a bit here...

Although I am sure that if you guys are being monitored by some academic institution or the government, distancing yourself from me is probably a pretty good idea...hahaha...

CP


Tom Bruscino - 4/19/2005

Just in case this is not clear...

For the record, we at Rebunk are not responsible and are in no way beholden to the comments from readers on our weblog. The opinions of readers are solely their own. If we choose not to engage with every reader comment, it should not be assumed that silence on the part of any one of us indicates that we as individuals or as a group in any way agree with the comment.


Derek Charles Catsam - 4/19/2005

Chris --
Short answer to a complex and fair question -- I'd be more than willing to blame the US and other nations in part for the UN's failure and fecklessness. I think things hit their nadir only after jesse helms and company decided to try to withhold US monies from the UN in what can best be called a childish fit of pique. But UN peacekeepers watched (or had to watch) Rwandans get hacked to death, Libya sits on the human rights commission, and dictatorships sit in judgment of democracies. the UN may not be as important as baseball (what is?) but that's three pretty huge strikes against it.
dc


chris l pettit - 4/19/2005

Before you get to the stage that you think the UN will not work anymore, don't you have to determine why the UN does not work? If you want to say that it does not and then blame the independent power nations, that is fine, but to me it seems like you are putting the cart before the horse. You can equally well blame the powerful states for the failure of the UN to act in that particular situation, and for forming the structure of the UN in such a way that the powerful states can veto anything censuring them or their allies, and making it so that the Security Council has nothing to do with the Charter or international law, but turns every situation into a game of politics and negotiation instead of implementation of the UN Charter and the rule of law. For me it would have to be...powerful states screwed up the srtucture and used vetos and power politics to bring about a situation where the UN is nearly powerless...so it would not respond to situations such as Rwanda...so we can then blame the power states for not acting unilaterally. You then run into the problem of the power states ruining the UN so that they can act out their own unilateral interests, and scholars such as yourself can focus on the problems of the UN and then can then claim that we need unilateral action, and then blames states for not taking unilateral action. That stance eliminates international law and returns us to self interested states acting in a legal vacuum where power dictates the rules (might makes right). Doesn't it make more sense to return to the source and reform the UN in ways that, again, apply universally to every nation and make sure that the powerful states are not able to ruin the UN? One can complain about the dictatorial tyrant states, but they are in the General Assembly, not the Security Council...and the power in the SC lies with the P5 anyway, if one wants to try and bring Syria into the discussion (currently on the SC if I remember...or was recently). As you like to often point out, the SC is the only body that can issue legally binding resolutions (not entirely true...but we will go with this postulate for the time being)...and the SC is ALWAYS dependent upon the lack of a veto and the power negotiations of the P5 to make a decision. How many times have we heard of the US or someone witholding aid or diplomatic privileges if a nation does not agree to support them? For an example outside of the SC in an area we both know well...the US witheld $18.5 million in aid from South Africa because the government here would not sign a bi-lateral agreement giving immunity to US troops before the ICC. Mbeki couldn't sign it because it would have been immediately declared unconstitutional in the Constitutional Court since the RSA constitution has provisions stating that the rule of law, international law, and human rights must be respected. States do the same things in the SC...it isn't a body that follows the rule of law or upholds it...for the most part it represents the interests of the P5. That is what needs to be changed in the UN...not doing away with it or enhancing the power of the P5.

Another example...the human rights commission. I have said many times before that if we only allow nations that respect human rights, we will have no nations on the Commission, or we would have permanent members of the Nordic states and a couple of island nations because there are so few. If you want to take the position that no nations respect human rights, great...I fully support putting leading legal authorities on the commission and making them able to issue legally binding decisions. The fact is that, at this moment, it does not matter who is on the Commission, the US and many other states will not follow it because of the hypocrisy of the US and powerful states, and the hypocrisy of the tyrant states. if you want to say that only "democracies" are allowed, you run into two problems. First, democracies commit human rights violations as much as tyrants do...the US should not be allowed anywhere near the Commission due to its actions all over the globe in the past few decades and its blatant refusal to follow ICJ decisions on its illegal actions. Second, if you want to say that democracies are the only allowable nations, you are simply inserting your own definition of democracy and setting your own perameters according to your interests. you end up putting democracies almost above the law and allowing them to define human rights interms of their own interests. in other words, there is no human rights law, there is the self interested politics of democracies masquerading as human rights rhetoric. So we return to power politics and human rights law disappears. You know my dislike for the nation-state, and you also can ascertain why I would put the commission in the hands of the leading international law authorities and allow them to have strong legally binding decisions that would compel the SC into action. but that would not be very good for the US and several others, would it?

As I asked over on Cliopatria, why does the SC refuse to acknowledge the findings of several commissions staffed by the leading authorities in the field (WHO, High Commissioner for Human RIghts, Refugee Commissioner, etc) and take steps accordingly? The US would have been forced to acknowledge global warming and sign Kyoto if that was the case. World poverty and the right to clean water and adequate standards of living would have to be addressed and "free market" economics would be greatly curtailed...in other words, nation states would lose a lot of their soverein power. I wonder why they don't pay attention and insist on ignoring international law in favor of power politics (note the sarcasm)? It is why I favor a strong independent judiciary, the demise of the nation-state, and the hope that someday we will actually start listening to the acknowledged global authorities on human rights and international law issues...since we don't why even keep up the pretense? They should just admit that there is no interest other than their self interest and that international law and law in general don't really exist except as fabrications used to try and justify purely power political self interested actions.

CP


Derek Charles Catsam - 4/19/2005

Chris --
According to international alw you may well be right that calling what is happening in Darfur genocide might simplify it, and since "crimes against hiumanity" to me calls for intervention, I'm ok with that. One other factor is that the 400,000 figure comes after the 2 million+ dead in the series of civil conflicts in the Sudan in the last two decades. I'd still call it genocide because of the magnitude of the body count, and that once you get to, I don't know, 100,000 or so something has to happen.
I apportion more blame per se to countries such as the US if only because I do not expect the UN to be effective on these fornat any more. What is amazing in hotel Rwanda is that even as we sat on our hands invoking the US was quite powerful. It was what berkeley describes in his masteful "The Graves are Not Yet Full" as "white man's juju," the special status that "wazungu" have in Africa. I've seen it first hand; I'm sure you have too. That carries with it a certain amount of guilt too, but not enough to make up for the self-preservation that comes from using it when necessary.
Dellaire's story is a remarkable one. You've seen him speak, so you know how much this pains him, and how absolutely frustrating it has been for him to have to live with this legacy. The video "A Good Man in hell," a 13 minute production of the holocaust museum captures his angst in miniature.

dc


chris l pettit - 4/18/2005

I also appreciated the movie. Having been able to hear Dellaire speak, having traveled through Rwanda and been to the Tribunal in Arusha, and knowing the history as you do...powerful stuff. Ironic, isn't it, that we can identify a movie that we think might have needed more violence to prove the point? Why is it that Blackhawk Down could be so graphic, yet Hotel Rwanda plays it down? Artistic preference, yes, but which movie will have the greater impact on miseducated and misinformed Americans...the one with the 'Merican boys being shot down even though their actions were illegal and in contravention of UN resolutions and international law...or the one with the "poor Africans" being slaughtered? I saw a documentary recently on Liberia and Cote d'Ivorie where they smuggled cameras into centers where they were chopping off limbs and "marking" individuals...horrific stuff...made you sick to your stomach...but induced the type of powerful compassion that made you want to stop ALL such instances of crimes against humanity and abuses by the powerful.

I just need to remind those reading that the majority of the blame for the foot dragging can be placed squarely at the feet of the US. I know the UN bashers will seize on your UN statement and I just needed to clarify that it was the US holding up the Security Council (with a little help from France...but not as much as one would think). This can be seen in Madeline Albright's autobiography if you are interested...she calls it her greatest regret. While there is cause for complaint...it is due to the structure of the UN...structure and procedure that is not being torn down, but rather enhanced by the latest "improvements" that are being offered (and some demanded by the US). What cannot be claimed is that the UN did not want to do anything...the majority of the UN did. It is the powerful states on the Security Council that did the damage. In other words, it wasn;t the charter or the international community that is to be blamed, it is the powerful states (which I might remind people are the ones who set up this convoluted power structure in the first place to protect their interests).

I would just be careful with your use of genocide...define it, thats all. Having been there, it is tricky to place this in the category of genocide for a variety of reasons. I know the reason to do it is that the Convention requires action to prevent in the case of genocide, but what is happening is really crimes against humanity, and does not meet the strict definition of genocide that people want to use when they interpret the COnvention. The definition you would use would mean that US action in Vietnam and others (you know the examples) could be construed. Just asking for consistency and precise definition...not looking to pick an argument...especially since I share the sentiments expressed. What you state is basically that genocide is just as important as any crime against humanity...not more, not less (which is absolutely correct)...and that we should have a duty to prevent in any case of crimes against humanity and should take immediate action. The other option is an expansive definition of genocide...which basically puts us in the same spot. I support that fullheartedly...but we have to apply it universally...which includes US action among several others (and again you know which I will bring up). If you take this stance, can we apply it in a universal manner...or do we then descend into the power relationships that make these statements meaningless and return us to "it is this when I say it is?" It is here that I feel as though I ask the real hard questions of your position DC...I really don't mean to stir things up, as you know I fully agree with you on Zim, Sudan, DRC, and many others...but if you take this position I feel it has to be universal. The genocide position has to be consistent, the prevention of crimes against humanity, etc, has to be consistent...I just want to ask the hard questions...thats all.

CP

The Africans comment was fabulous...it really details the way the international community looks at Africa...sad...