The movie “Hotel Rwanda” was intended to make audience feel guilt and sympathy. From the Tutsis’ view point, the movie accuses us, especially western countries in general, for the unconcern and apathy towards the catastrophe. Like other types of mass media, the movie makes dramatic effects and purposely includes and excludes facts to accomplish the intention. The visual effects and lines of the movie were very strong. The scene that shows thousands of dead bodies covering the road shocks the viewer. The audience feels pity for countless vulnerable Tutsis taking refuge from Hutus.
Personally, one of the reporters from the United States in the movie is memorable for the lines he spoken. The reporter speaks to Paul how oblivious we are. When he leaves the hotel with the European troops, he says, “Jesus Christ, I am so ashamed,” which is similar to how the audience might feel while watching this movie.
The movie is criticized by some film critics that the producer exaggerated the reality to trigger the audiences’ mind. I agree to the critics to some point that the movie did make intentional scenes to attract people. However, we should not expect movies to be neutral and objective and the movie did a good job affecting the audience in the way they intended to.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Media Unit - Rwanda
The media handled the tragedy in Rwanda differently from the way the movie “Hotel Rwanda” did. While the movie invoked sympathy by viewing the war from Rwandan perspective, news articles and interviews mostly covered the reaction of U.S. government and U.N. on the catastrophe. The media source I have looked at was the press from the western world such as PBS and Atlantic.com, which is possibly the cause of such viewpoint. Yet, the way each article was biased varied.
There are many scenes in “Hotel Rwanda” which the director intentionally put to dramatize the cold-heartedness of the whites. For example, the audience would get strong impression that the whites do not care the genocide in Rwanda when they see two whites in the bus on the way to escape who are taking pictures of helpless Tutsi. This movie does not analyze the situation but instigates to criticize the UN and western country, which is quite natural because strong one-side view point could attract more people to the box office.
The article “Bystanders to Genocide,” from Atlantic.com, the article criticizes U.S. army and President Clinton for not intervening for Rwandans. It referred to the Clinton’s apology that stated many Americans were not “fully appreciated” about the catastrophe. The sentence that author wrote, “…Clinton wrote with a thick black felt-tip pen beside heavily underlined …..” cynically implies that Clinton must have known about the genocide and that he was lying. The author believes that there is no way President Clinton was not aware of the genocide few weeks after the it started because numerous non governmental organizations and the press exposed videos of killing Tutsis and requested to the government to use the term “genocide” for the catastrophe occurred in Rwanda.
There is another article from PBS that contains an interview of the BBC reporter, Mark Doyle, who stayed in Rwanda during the happening and had the first hand experience of the genocide. The interviewer asked questions related things that the interviewee saw rather than questions that ask the interviewee’s personal opinion. During the interview, Doyle says “it wasn’t clear for several weeks that there were these two parallel wars [regular combat and genocide] going on”. His statement implies that even the westerner who is staying inside Rwanda could not know of the genocide for sure until tens of thousands were killed. Doyle also says that a French soldier did not take any action when Tutsi was attacked (and probably killed) in front of them. But according to Doyle’s description, the French soldier was definitely not enjoying the happening, unlike the two whites who are taking pictures through the window in the bus of the movie “Hotel Rwanda”. This interview article is most faithful to the fact, but does not give deep insight on the nature of the genocide.
The article, “Frontline: ghosts of Rwanda: Responsibility to Protect” also from PBS gives excellent perspective on what western countries should have done in Rwanda. The author says what is important is “the responsibility to protect”, not “the right to intervene”. He says that if someone suffers, and the person who should take care of him does not do his job, then others who are not directly connected to the sufferer should go and protect him. This article tries to put a general guideline that western countries should follow if something similar to the genocide in Rwanda happens. The author says that foreign country should not hesitate to intervene an internal affair of another country if that affair involves severe injustice. On the other hands, this article does not pay much attention on or sympathetic to the particular genocide in Rwanda.
There are many scenes in “Hotel Rwanda” which the director intentionally put to dramatize the cold-heartedness of the whites. For example, the audience would get strong impression that the whites do not care the genocide in Rwanda when they see two whites in the bus on the way to escape who are taking pictures of helpless Tutsi. This movie does not analyze the situation but instigates to criticize the UN and western country, which is quite natural because strong one-side view point could attract more people to the box office.
The article “Bystanders to Genocide,” from Atlantic.com, the article criticizes U.S. army and President Clinton for not intervening for Rwandans. It referred to the Clinton’s apology that stated many Americans were not “fully appreciated” about the catastrophe. The sentence that author wrote, “…Clinton wrote with a thick black felt-tip pen beside heavily underlined …..” cynically implies that Clinton must have known about the genocide and that he was lying. The author believes that there is no way President Clinton was not aware of the genocide few weeks after the it started because numerous non governmental organizations and the press exposed videos of killing Tutsis and requested to the government to use the term “genocide” for the catastrophe occurred in Rwanda.
There is another article from PBS that contains an interview of the BBC reporter, Mark Doyle, who stayed in Rwanda during the happening and had the first hand experience of the genocide. The interviewer asked questions related things that the interviewee saw rather than questions that ask the interviewee’s personal opinion. During the interview, Doyle says “it wasn’t clear for several weeks that there were these two parallel wars [regular combat and genocide] going on”. His statement implies that even the westerner who is staying inside Rwanda could not know of the genocide for sure until tens of thousands were killed. Doyle also says that a French soldier did not take any action when Tutsi was attacked (and probably killed) in front of them. But according to Doyle’s description, the French soldier was definitely not enjoying the happening, unlike the two whites who are taking pictures through the window in the bus of the movie “Hotel Rwanda”. This interview article is most faithful to the fact, but does not give deep insight on the nature of the genocide.
The article, “Frontline: ghosts of Rwanda: Responsibility to Protect” also from PBS gives excellent perspective on what western countries should have done in Rwanda. The author says what is important is “the responsibility to protect”, not “the right to intervene”. He says that if someone suffers, and the person who should take care of him does not do his job, then others who are not directly connected to the sufferer should go and protect him. This article tries to put a general guideline that western countries should follow if something similar to the genocide in Rwanda happens. The author says that foreign country should not hesitate to intervene an internal affair of another country if that affair involves severe injustice. On the other hands, this article does not pay much attention on or sympathetic to the particular genocide in Rwanda.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)