Shake Hands with the Devil Documentary

There are two Shake Hands with the Devil movies, one documentary filmed ten years after the Rwandan genocide and one feature film that came out thirteen years after the conflict. The documentary was very personal as we followed Romeo Dallaire through the different sites where the genocide had happened. We got to experience his feelings and thoughts about being back in what he called a beautiful country. As well, his wife was there to talk about how he had changed and how his PTSD had affected their home life. Dallaire still blames himself for many of the incidents that happened, and explained why he was so eager and optimistic to stop hell on earth in Rwanda. Dallaire describes the sights, sounds, and smells of the massacre, and how he can still remember specific conflicts to this day. We see just how evil some humans can be, and yet in the midst of all of this evil how one brave man, self-described as not a hero but a humanist, can stay hopeful and just barely stay sane.

Ghosts of Rwanda

Ghosts of Rwanda was a documentary about the Rwandan genocide of 1994. There are scenes from the real sites of massacres by the Hutu extremists, and extensive interviews with UN, United States, and Red Cross officials. It was a very conflicting look at the officials' opinions about their inaction, and as we know, hindsight is 20/20. The fight between humanitarianism and national interests was never more apparent than when the interviews with important officials in the United States Department of Defence. There is a lot of deference to authority when we hear these officials speak. Every single one of them claims that they did not have enough power to effect change, so they did nothing.

As well, we see how different aid organizations responded to the effort, and how much of a difference having support makes. The head of the Red Cross mission to Rwanda was much more calm and did not have any of the negative after-effects that Romeo Dallaire experienced, being backed by the UN. The head of the Red Cross did his job, which was to save lives, and experienced just as much horror if not more than Romeo Dallaire did, being up close and personal with thousands of victims. Even through these experiences, the help that his organization gave him made the difference between coming back from Rwanda shaken but mentally stable, and coming back from Rwanda with post-traumatic stress disorder and suffering from self-blame and suicidal thoughts.

I believe that this documentary provided a lot of professional insight that we did not receive from the Hollywood-produced movies, although they were surprisingly accurate. It may not have been thrilling and moving in the way Hotel Rwanda was, but it carried a lot of weight and was an excellent film in its own right.

Apocalypse Now

“Do you know that ‘if’ is the middle word in life?”

            Apocalypse Now is a remarkable movie directed by Francis Ford Coppola (the director of the Godfather movies), starring Martin Sheen. It is an appropriation of the Joseph Conrad novella Heart of Darkness to the Vietnam war.

            There were many ingenious uses of lighting and contrast in the film. For example, Kurtz’s face was always seen in some semblance of darkness, with only sections of his face illuminated. The only time we saw Kurtz’s face in full (albeit dim) light, it was disguised with camoflague paint. This represents the fractured psyche that Kurtz has and the fact that we only see parts of him, but never a whole man.

            The phrase ‘fog of war’ is used very literally in this film. There seems to always be a coloured haze covering part of the scene. This accompanies sections of the film like the playboy scene where the army men are starved for female attention under the ‘fog of war’, the scene on the boat where Willard’s friends are wary of a Vietnamese boat they suspect is smuggling weapons. As well, the fog of war could apply to the rampant drug problem the soldiers experience in Vietnam. Everyone seems to be under the influence of acid, marijuana, cigarettes, or alcohol during the movie. All of these actions can culminate in bad decisions made while under the thumb of wartime.

            When Kurtz spoke his last words, ‘the horror’, I think he was speaking about not only the horror of the Vietnam war, but also the horror that is thrust upon every soldier that has to fight and for whom killing becomes an everyday action. I think Kurtz is mourning the loss of innocence for these everyday people torn out of their sheltered lives and placed at the front of a battle, as much as he is mourning all of the lives lost in the war.

He is also commenting on the chain of command and the narrow path soldiers are allowed to walk in the army. I see his going rogue as a testament to how repressed the army can be, and I believe this is why he converts every soldier that tries to assassinate him into one of his followers: the soldiers gain a sense of autonomy and freedom if they follow Kurtz. They start to subscribe to the primal instincts of human nature instead of the very orderly, secretive society that is the army.

            As for the discussion about whether this film is pro- or anti-war, I believe that it is primarily an anti-war film. As much as the affiliation with or against war may be irrelevant to the themes shown in the film, I think that the character of Kurtz and his immense accomplishments within the army and his complete separation from his past self in favour of being an unbridled, self-determined man. We also see how dependent people become on the thrill of war, and how they even get used to the feelings they get while out in the field. None of these have positive outcomes, so I would say that Apocalypse Now is an anti-war film.

Forrest Gump

Forrest Gump is one of the most universally well-loved movies of recent times. Its simple storyline and endearing characters, along with an easy to understand version of all of America's recent history make it an instant hit for the general public.

The symbolism of the feather floating in the wind from the beginning to the end of the movie was a cute motif that added depth to the introduction and conclusion of the film. The feather represents Forrest, floating whichever way life takes him, not affected in a positive or negative way by all of his successes, famous encounters, business breakthroughs, or tropical storms. He floats on by while other people are weighed down by multiple presidential assassinations, name-calling, and prejudice. It is his calm acceptance of the tide of life that brings him back to his hometown and the people he loves.

The one constant in Forrest's live is his love for his childhood friend Jenny. He is always thinking about her, he continues to do things for her even though she treats him badly and tells him to stay away from her, and his sole motivation is to find her again and stay with her. This is one of Forrest's characteristics that sets him apart from the other people in the movie, who are interested in money or power. He is only interested in love, and he knows where to find it.

This film is different from every other biography-like film because it has a freshness, an optimism, and an emotional maturity that most people interesting enough to be the focus of a movie are lacking. Most stories we see are about an amazing person who was somehow tortured by their inner demons and now it is taking over their professional life. Here we have someone who can not even comprehend evil, let alone use it to manipulate people around him.

Some people are spoken about as having 'not grown up yet'. If this is what not growing up entails, being innocent and optimistic and pure in heart, then I would love to stay a child.

Shake Hands with the Devil

“We're going to stay to bear witness to what the rest of the world doesn't want to see.”

Shake Hands with the Devil is a realistic tale of Romeo Dallaire’s tireless efforts towards stopping the Rwandan genocide of 1994. Against insurmountable odds, Dallaire and his marginal peacekeeping force did all they could to prevent the mass slaughter of the Tutsi people.

When the UN sent Dallaire in as commanding officer of the UNAMIR force, they believed it was a cheap and easy fix to end the conflict in Rwanda. They entered the country believing this peace treaty was a realistic goal, and that the government was committed to executing this plan, instead of its plan to rid the country of the Tutsi people.

The UN back in New York City were running on a tight budget, and saving a whole ethnic group was apparently out of their price range at this point. As well, international politics and bureaucracy caused certain countries to refuse UN troop requests and to refuse, as well, to call what was happening in Rwanda genocide. Their refusal to call this atrocity a genocide was due to two factors: the confusion (mainly stemming from ignorance) about the fact that there was a civil war going on at the same time, and that all of these deaths were part of the fighting, and that if countries labeled this conflict as a genocide, they would have been forced to act under the Geneva Convention which was established after the Holocaust. This Convention decreed that we would never forget the acts that were committed against the Jews, and that we would not let that level of hatred and horror be repeated. This was fairly useless, as the most simple way to get around this decree was to simply avoid using the term genocide. Of course, this is the kind of bureaucracy that the Convention never accounted for, but has proved to be very detrimental to world issues since.

The brave but unarmed peacekeepers with dwindling supplies stayed to save the few civilians that they could. However, their orders were not to shoot unless shot at, and they were forced to stand by as almost a million people were butchered in 100 days.

This film was very moving, as it followed Dallaire in his efforts to save Rwanda and the terrible aftermath and mental illness he suffered because of his time as commanding officer. In the psychologist’s office, the lighting was very harsh and it conveyed a sense of the separation between his experiences and the rest of the world, including his psychologist. The blue colour of the room represents the immense sadness and depression that Dallaire is going through.

The camera moves with Romeo as he drives past bodies strewn on the road; we get a very documentary-like view of the aftermath of the conflict. As the camera looks from side to side on the road, we realize how it must have felt to be surrounded by this level of conflict and desperation.

The dialogue in this movie is engaging and serves to illustrate the difference in character between many of the UN peacekeepers and Romeo Dallaire. For example, when Tutsi refugees were trying to get into one of the UN stadium area, one of the peacekeepers was obviously confused and did not know how to handle the crowd. When Dallaire arrived, he said ‘they want you to help them. Why don’t you act like it’, and gave these Tutsis refuge in thee stadium controlled by the UN. His force of personality and commanding voice inspired the other peacekeepers to save whoever they could, even if the higher-ups would  not send help.

Hotel Rwanda

“The goal of the film is not only to engage audiences in this story of genocide but also to inspire them to help redress the terrible devastation.” -Director Terry George

April 1994. Kigali, Rwanda. Tensions are high, because the Rwandan president has just been assassinated by Tutsi soldiers. A genocide is stirring.

Meanwhile at des Mille Collines hotel, manager Paul Rusesabagina checks on his powerful and influential guests. He presents them with the very best food and drinks, while outside of the hotel walls hatred and blame are growing, multiplying, and taking over the Hutu extremist population.

Using his money and knowledge of people in high places, Paul housed over a thousand Tutsi and Hutu refugees in the hotel while the genocide occurred. With the help of the UN, the people he housed got out of the country safely and he fled to Belgium with his family.

Hotel Rwanda, even though it is an excellent movie with very experienced actors and a large budget, is still a Hollywood movie at its core. The storyline is easily accessible by a wide audience, it focuses on one person in a supremely anomalous situation while not focusing as much on the atrocities that outnumbered the one story of a few lives being saved. We see the atrocious acts of genocide being committed, but then we retreat back to the safety of the hotel, a haven in a dangerous world. The scenes are a temporary unhappiness, a tear in the fabric of our artfully crafted reality, affecting us as deeply as the genocide affected the people around the world while it was occurring.

That being said, Paul Rusesabagina showed a tremendous amount of power and courage in this retelling. He faced the tormentors of his wife's people calmly and rationalized with them. He always displayed a collected and respectful manner, no matter what the situation was like. He also had massive amounts of influence, even over soldiers who used brute force and the threat of guns to get their way. For example, Paul was once woken up at the hotel by a pistol that was nudging his face. He responded in a manner that did not convey how frightened he was internally for his wife and children. Paul calmly offered them a drink downstairs and took time to make himself look presentable, despite the dire situation.

With the exception of one actor (Nick Nolte), I believed that the acting in this movie was excellent. The intensity of the fear and confusion that Tatiana Rusesabagina portrayed and the calm and collected protagonist balanced each other excellently. Paul was a normal person put into a very demanding situation, and this powerful, commanding character blossomed. The journalist and his cameraman also brought a lot of emotions to the film that the viewers can relate to, because they felt shameful and powerless as the powers that be determined they could not help this destitute country.

Overall, Hotel Rwanda is a moving story about how one person can effect change and save many lives in the face of grave danger. However, it focuses much more on Paul Rusesabagina's journey to save the lives of his family, and eventually thousands more people who would otherwise have been killed. The major criticism of this film is that it did not focus enough on the actual genocide. This film was made to appeal to the masses, and once I watch Shake Hands With the Devil, it is possible that I will favour something toned down and more positive.

Godzilla

We all know the horrifying, scaly monster that emerges from the sea and terrorizes Japan. But how well do we know Godzilla? We paint him as the epitome of evil, the embodiment of terror, the very basis of all the horrible things that happened to Japan.

However, this character is largely misunderstood. He does wreak havoc on the land, he is big and terrifying, but all of the fear and destruction is not his fault.

The writers of Godzilla described this character as a beast that has been lying peacefully for millions of years, and was only awakened by the radiation of the atomic bombs dropped on Japan.

With this information, someone must have awakened this murderous, angry Godzilla. And who was that? The Americans, of course. Postwar Japan was rampant with the horrors we see in this film. Destroyed houses and cities and powerlines, people displaced from their homes, health risks and a frightened country of wary civilians. In this day and age, the parallels between Godzilla’s path of destruction and the post-WWII state of Japan are glaringly obvious, but at that time the Americans did not realize the deeper meaning this movie conveyed.

As well, the era in which this movie was made (the mid-1950s) is very obvious when watching. The most apparent characteristic is the gender roles in the film. The women are portrayed as very weak, and constantly going out of their way to help the men in their life. They are very deferential and do not have developed personalities or a high tolerance for conflict. Female actresses in the present take a much more active role in the films they star in.

If we look at Godzilla superficially, we see a movie intended for any sort of audience, especially one that is enthralled by violence and action and destruction. So namely, a younger audience of teenagers. However, if we begin to search deeper into the film for the real, underlying meaning, we see that maybe the intended audience is older and more intelligent, and more aware of world issues so they can fully appreciate the symbolic meaning of Godzilla.

The mood of the film is very fearful. The characters are living in a constant state of worry and the whole nation is in distress over this large, powerful object that they have no control over. As well, the only way they were able to stop this terrorizing madness was to sacrifice one of their own people. This represents the larger need in the country for the Japanese people to sacrifice part of themselves in order to move past the destruction that the US had caused.

The acting in Godzilla was comically exaggerated. This may not have been intentional, but it served to emphasize the horror that the Japanese people were experiencing when Godzilla was terrorizing their towns. The lighting, dialogue, and music were all simple as to not detract from the main character, the giant scaly monster. The special effects were used to demonstrate Godzilla's insane power and the size of the villages and cars and people compared to this scaly horror.

Overall, the film was very well done for its time period. The special effects were quirky and the effort put into them was very cute. It is refreshing to see something that is not computer animated, but rather a real model of a city with toy cars being knocked over.

Godzilla was a well made film that is entertaining while telling us a lot about history through a fresh viewpoint.