"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..........