"Bury the bodies, Not the truth"

We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will be Killed with Our Families: Stories from Rwanda by Philip Gourevitch……..

This book was written from the point of view of a reporter Philip, after the days of the Genocide. He focused on getting the story from select Tutsis that remained alive during the Genocide and their gut-retching story of how they accomplished such a feat.
While telling their stories, the books also gives the reader a History lesson of what was going on in the world around Rwanda. It educates the reader on countries that helped, which ones didn’t, and who didn’t give a damn. I was very impressed with the amount of facts that were in the book, most of which I never heard and schools didn’t want to teach. Being twelve at the time, my life consisted of the trivial matters of a sixth grader. Yes, I remember hearing about genocide on the news, and my parents did the best they could to explain it, but couldn't wrap their heads around it either. The school system choose to act as if it were not happening rather than having to explain genocide and why the U.S. was doing nothing to stop it. This book was a major eye-opener for me and a great education. I had no idea about many of the events and issues that had taken place during this time in my life. It was strange to look back on living your life at the same time that something of this magnitude was happening and not really remembering it as a big deal….

Thankful I read the book before watching the film. The book set the stage and explained in more detail about the politics and government structures that were involved or the lack there of. I felt it helped me have a better grasp on the situation leading into the film than if I had watched the film first.

Odette and Jean Baptist were main characters in the book, and Paul, all be it important to their survival was a secondary character. In no way am I saying their family makes for a better film, but I feel more of it could have been told. Odette and Jean, both educated physicians who went through their own miraculous struggles to arrive at the hotel was overlooked in the film. When they waded through the marshes and hid in the tall grasses to find one of their children had been captured was a very moving part of the book. I feel the film left out a large part of the story when it chose not to show what lengths many of the refugees went through to arrive at what they perceived to be a safe haven.

President Clinton received many faxes and did nothing. Even his staff chose to dance around the definition of "genocide". Great! Webster now has a definition, but people were still dying. I am sure the Tutsis found comfort in knowing their situation had been defined. This should have been portrayed in the film. Even as Americans, we need to admit when we failed as a Nation.

The book also talked about the consistent betrayal of the church and its priests. These men served no God when they stood aside and allowed an entire congregation of refugees to be slaughtered in the floor of the church. Most of the Tutsis had been assured the church was safe, only to find they had been corralled into a slaughter house. This moment impressed itself upon Philip in an important way. It also taught us, the reader, that even the church turned its back on these people to save their own lives.
The film left out the story of Thomas Kamilindi; who worked at Radio Rwanda, and was also hunted by the guards. He dodged many attempts on his life because he refused to speak the language of Hutu power. Like Paul he had to think on his feet in order to remain alive.
It seems hardly possible, but the book paints a more graphic and gruesome picture than the film shows. I realize that the film had to censor a bit in order to get a PG-13 rating for a larger viewership. However, I feel that what happened in Rwanda was gruesome and graphic and in order to understand the magnitude of the situation, maybe viewers needed to be visually shocked and the truth burned into their memories.

The book took the time to describe in detail the Church that later became a memorial to the unburied dead. A church full of bodies was more than Philip could take, but it was something that he didn’t regret seeing, and was later glad he was exposed to such travesties.
All throughout the film I would hear names I recognized from the book. I found it strange; such compelling stories would be cut out. But I do understand that if most of the book was in the film it would be nearly eight hours long. Maybe that was the answer? Make the film into a three or four part series. No matter what was left out of Hotel Rwanda, the movie got the point across. Millions of people were slaughtered in cold blood and the world did nothing….

Revoke Nomination of Paradise Now...Now!

After reading the reviews and the petition to Revoke the Oscar nomination of Paradise Now, I agree with the petition. With that said, I enjoyed the movie and was very taken in by it.

My reasoning for agreeing with those that called for the Oscar nomination to be revoked is because I too feel that it did not go to the extent to show what a travesty suicide bombing and terrorist acts is for both sides. I feel the act of suicide bombers was handled to softly. It seemed that watching the film, viewers would tend to favor the two Said and Kahled and thus be less upset by their potential actions. I found myself feeling sorry for them and their naive views of the world. They are promised a transition to heaven led by angles and promised virgins, etc. Suicide bombers are radicals who not only take their own life, but lives of innocent people and soldiers as well. Yes, they are brain washed and are lied to about what to expect once they are dead. In the film when Kahled asks one of the organizers what will happen after they complete the mission, it seemed that Kahled caught him off guard. The organizer had to search through his thoughts for a second and blurted out that they will be picked up by two angles seemingly to satisfy Kahled and avoid further questioning. Kahled bought this explanation with no hesitation. But, do we coddle them because they are naive and are not predisposed to question, but only to follow. No.

During the final scene were Said was on the bus, he was focused on carrying out the mission. He took no time to look around. There were several soldiers, but also many women, children, fathers, brothers, sons, grandparents, wives, etc. He was only focused on what this would do for him and his family. To me this was very selfish and it made my blood curdle. The thought that someone would kill themselves but also kill a bus full of unsuspecting innocent people should be received with disdain from all viewers. Suicide bombers again are radical terrorist and I do not feel the film showed them in a negative light at all. The film made them likable, made us feel for them and not for those around them.

I don't believe that we should allow censorship based on whether or not a topic is offensive or controversial, but I do think that we need to start drawing a line when it comes to glorifying certain behaviors. If we continue to glorify dangerous behavior then we cannot be surprised when these cruel acts continue to happen. Some may start to lean towards drawing this line when it is one of their innocent unsuspecting loved ones caught in such a situation. If you disagree look up the facts on serial killers and where many of them got their sadistic ideas and learned to evade capture..........

Unit 5:optional, Vietnam (Casualty of War)

Sadly enough I passed up the chance to have a valid excuse to watch Full Metal Jacket again. This film is a right of passage for every college student and not many people have made it to adulthood without quoting it or making a lude comment about a five dollar bill. With that I chose to broaden my horizons and watch Casualty of War again. Having seen this film as a kid (I don't know what that says about my raising) I had to watch it again to freshen my memory and maybe take something new from it.

Casualty of War is a gripping realty that was the Vietnam war. At first glance you want to charge the four guilty men on the spot and peg them as monsters. Upon further review, I couldn't help but go back to the beginning of the movie when Micheal J. Fox was telling his platoon that he had only been in Vietnam for three weeks. They had apparently been there much longer, and proceeded to rag him for such a comment. This resonated with me during the scene at the hooch as they carried out their premeditated rape. I couldn't help but think these boys didn't arrive there with such lifeless souls. This is when I had a realization that maybe this was a direct correlation with how much time they had spent in the bush, although in no way a valid excuse. They had killed and seen brothers killed. They had worked to save natives that turned and aided the Vietcong. They had been witnesses to such travesties that many of us thanks to them will never have to. I guess all of this has a way of twisting the mind and fading the line of right and wrong. They stopped seeing human life as precious and only saw American life as valuable. They put a scarlet letter on every native and forgot their purpose for being there was to help these people. However, when you don't know who to help or who to kill, you start treating all of them like animals and in turn become one yourself. This is just my pour attempt to understand a horrid act, or what may have happened to the inner Psyche of these men/boys. Given the fact that their inner conscience was dead, the fifth member of the platoon was there to breath life back into it, and they chose not to accept.

Indochine: French Fad???

Unit 5:

Panivong Norindr: "Critical and popular acclaim notwithstanding, Wargnier’s representation of Indochina exerts a dangerous fascination precisely because it brings visual pleasure without questioning or subverting any preconceived ideas about French colonial rule in Southeast Asia. Indochine merely displays beautiful images and should only be remembered as a symptom of the current French fad for things exotic." Do you agree? Why or why not?

I do agree with Norindr. I found the movie Indochine full of visual pleasure. I was hypnotized by the landscape, beautiful images, and cast. I had not idea how mystical rubber forests could be, or how pleasant the workers were who harvested them. The plantation owner was breathtaking and her handsome lover was unstoppable.

With a preconceived notion that a French film may or may not show France in a true or negative light, I was prepared to take this film with a grain of salt. The only scene that made me "feel" was the scene when Camille noticed that Sao had been killed with at least one of her children. This made me set up and take notice that the French were doing Indochine no "real" favors. Other than this scene, I was left with no real idea of the true extent of the French rule. This is why I agree with Norindr in that Indochine should be regarded as "displays of beautiful images and a symptom of a current French fad for things exotic".

Agree...Disagree....Which reviewer?

Having read both reviews of the Indian film Earth (Wallia and Ansari), I am leaning more towards agreeing with the review Unforgettable by Zarminae Ansari. However, I do feel that I belong in the middle of the road on this one, I just find myself nodding to Ansari's review more.

Ansari gives Earth a rave review. She discuss the lines that wrapped around the building during its premier. She goes into deep discussion of the film portrayed through Lenny-baby's eyes and the genius of that choice.

Wallia a writer for the India Star denounces the greatness of Earth by shaming it for its lack of historical accuracy. Stating that the film takes a religious side and negatively portrays the Sikhs in particular. He passionately defends them from the film and gives his reader a brief but intense History lesson in an attempt to fortify the view of Sikh's. This was a red flag to me that this review may or may not be unbiased.

Wallia also criticizes the writer and the artistic quality of the film. He states, "The screenplay of Earth, also by Deepa Mehta, tells the story, for the most part, from the viewpoint of Lenny-baby. The viewpoint chosen is too limiting for the subject, but it could be offset by a more skillful writer. However, Mehta's script fails to create dramatic situations that could bring out Lenny Baby's anguished bewilderment of the tragic events of the partition." I feel that Mehta chose to make the view point from Lenny-baby's prospective to give it a different feel. Furthermore, to say its to limiting for the subject was untrue. He goes on to comment on how the torture of the Muslim man was shown by Lenny tearing a stuffed doll apart, and the separation of India is compared to a broken plate was to simplictic for such strong issues. Children tend to deal with stress and unsettling visions differently than adults. Maybe this is the way Mehta wanted Lenny to react to her surroundings, maybe she internalizes events and subtley releases them in small insignificant ways.

It just seemed to me that Wallia was being a hypocirt of sorts. He criticized Mehta's film for being flat and one-sided and poorly written. His review is also one-sided, (being the opposite side)flat, and his generalizations are undeveloped.

Again, I am not saying that I %100 agree with Ansair's review, I do agree with Wallia in terms of some characters could have been rounded out more to help develop the storyline. Also, I feel that the historic significance of each religion and the position on the division could have been further developed as well.

"Before the Rain"

A captivating movie full of symbolism and chronological trickery, Before the Rain will keep you guessing.

Before the Rain was filmed in the amazing but rarely seen landscapes of Macedonia. With its vast breathtaking beauty, there is an underbelly that will not allow you to believe happened in gods country.

Before the Rain is broken down into three segments (Words, Faces, and Pictures) each subtitle gives the viewer insight to foreshadow what terceriary points of symbolism will be made.

Words is the title of Part one, an oxymoron considering it is used to describe a scene where a Monk has taken a vow of silence and cannot communicate by voice. This vow of silence seems to aid in his exile after it is found that he was harboring a female Albanian fugitive. Zamira, a young teen scorned and running from her own family tries to find refuge with Kiril, the silent Monk. Once this is found, both are banished to run the mountains and forge for themselves. This is when the movies takes a harsh turn.

Faces, is when we meet Anne. Shot in a such a way, the viewer may question if both parts are taking place in the same time period. Set in the city, Anne is a chic career woman, who is having an ongoing affair with a photographer, Alex. Anne struggles internally with the aspect of having a new life with Alex or returning to what she knows or familiar faces.

Pictures allows us to see Alex making his way through a war torn town, coming to a house reduced to rubble. Once a place he called home sixteen years earlier, he finds nothing familiar. Alex is trying to cope with a soul sold for pictures, and a lover who died in a taxi.

"Time does not wait and the circle is not round" is a phrase that will resonate through the heart of the viewer. The film literally and figuratively comes full circle. The viewer then realizes that the film began "halfway near the end" so to speak. Powerful and witty, Before the Rain will be a compelling look into a society that screams for reform, but was sentenced to a vow silenced by the world.

Below is a link to another review of Before the Rain, written by Peter Rainer, and Published in the Los Angeles Times in 1995.


http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/reviews/cl-movie960406-269,0,1357682.story