Movie Review - Hotel Rwanda

“Genocide blockbuster” is definitely not the easiest tagline to sell, especially for a film released during the packed holiday film season. It has been accomplished before—by Schindler’s List (1993) and, The Pianist (2002)—with both financial and critical success. Both of these Holocaust films depicted an atrocity with which general audiences felt vindicated and comfortable in their nation’s victorious intervention.

The reception or rejection of Hotel Rwanda, a new film by director Terry George (Hart’s War) portraying the Rwandan genocide of 1994, will test whether Americans can watch a movie about a massecre their country could probably have prevented by intervening.

Between April and June 1994, an estimated 800,000 Rwandans were killed in the space of 100 days. The genocide, of the Tutsi minority by the Hutu majority, was the culmination of long-simmering tensions between two ethnic groups whose differences were exacerbated by Belgian colonists in the early twentieth century. Following the assassination of a Hutu president, the Tutsi became the targets of a reactionary attempt at organized ethnic cleansing.

George ambitiously attempts to document the complicated history of the genocide through the true story of one courageous and little-known hero. Don Cheadle plays Paul Rusesabagina, a Hutu hotelier, who turns his hotel into a refugee camp for both Tutsi and Hutu refugees. One man’s courage in the face of extreme evil should ideally inspire audiences, but George’s blend of documentary, biopic and pseudo-political commentary is ultimately too heavy-handed to stir indolent viewers.

Cheadle is poorly suited to act as the vehicle for conveying this inspirational message. He plays the lead role with a disappointing lack of character development and a feeble African accent, appearing at times more like a dramatic re-enactor than an Oscar-nominated actor.

George becomes far too enchanted with the real-life heroics of the Ruesesabagina family, failing to construct characters to whom an audience can relate. Rusesabagina does not demonstrate a profound shift in moral composition: he is constantly good.

Frustratingly, George never takes a stand about the United States’ failure to react to the genocide. He only tacitly implies his disconten“Genocide blockbuster” is definitely not the easiest tagline to sell, especially for a film released during the packed holiday film season. It has been accomplished before—by Schindler’s List (1993) and, The Pianist (2002)—with both financial and critical success. Both of these Holocaust films depicted an atrocity with which general audiences felt vindicated and comfortable in their nation’s victorious intervention.

The reception or rejection of Hotel Rwanda, a new film by director Terry George (Hart’s War) portraying the Rwandan genocide of 1994, will test whether Americans can watch a movie about a massecre their country could probably have prevented by intervening.

Between April and June 1994, an estimated 800,000 Rwandans were killed in the space of 100 days. The genocide, of the Tutsi minority by the Hutu majority, was the culmination of long-simmering tensions between two ethnic groups whose differences were exacerbated by Belgian colonists in the early twentieth century. Following the assassination of a Hutu president, the Tutsi became the targets of a reactionary attempt at organized ethnic cleansing.

George ambitiously attempts to document the complicated history of the genocide through the true story of one courageous and little-known hero. Don Cheadle plays Paul Rusesabagina, a Hutu hotelier, who turns his hotel into a refugee camp for both Tutsi and Hutu refugees. One man’s courage in the face of extreme evil should ideally inspire audiences, but George’s blend of documentary, biopic and pseudo-political commentary is ultimately too heavy-handed to stir indolent viewers.

Cheadle is poorly suited to act as the vehicle for conveying this inspirational message. He plays the lead role with a disappointing lack of character development and a feeble African accent, appearing at times more like a dramatic re-enactor than an Oscar-nominated actor.

George becomes far too enchanted with the real-life heroics of the Ruesesabagina family, failing to construct characters to whom an audience can relate. Rusesabagina does not demonstrate a profound shift in moral composition: he is constantly good.

Frustratingly, George never takes a stand about the United States’ failure to react to the genocide. He only tacitly implies his discontent through a background image of Bill Clinton’s face on the cover of Time Magazine as “Man of the Year” and in the nonplussed voice of State Department spokeswoman Christine Shelly, broadcast over state radio.

The film is strongest at it is most brutal and real. The terrifyingly cruel Hutu militia, repeated images of sobbing Rwandan children literally pulled off of the evacuated Caucasians and scenes littered with corpses create an emotional context for the movie in the absence of captivating characters.

Joaquin Phoenix—taking on the ineffective guilt-ridden Westerner cameo—does raise a worthwhile point. In response to Rusesabagina’s question, “How can they not intervene when they see such atrocities?” he replies, “I think people will see, say ‘Oh my god, that’s horrible,’ and go on eating their dinners.”

Perhaps George’s intent with Hotel Rwanda is to stimulate audiences to turn towards the current genocide in Darfur where the U.S. may end up repeating the mistakes it made in Rwanda. How disappointing, then, that the film’s good intentions ultimately fall victim to its own underwhelming quality.

—Kristina M. Moore t through a background image of Bill Clinton’s face on the cover of Time Magazine as “Man of the Year” and in the nonplussed voice of State Department spokeswoman Christine Shelly, broadcast over state radio.

The film is strongest at it is most brutal and real. The terrifyingly cruel Hutu militia, repeated images of sobbing Rwandan children literally pulled off of the evacuated Caucasians and scenes littered with corpses create an emotional context for the movie in the absence of captivating characters.

Joaquin Phoenix—taking on the ineffective guilt-ridden Westerner cameo—does raise a worthwhile point. In response to Rusesabagina’s question, “How can they not intervene when they see such atrocities?” he replies, “I think people will see, say ‘Oh my god, that’s horrible,’ and go on eating their dinners.”

Perhaps George’s intent with Hotel Rwanda is to stimulate audiences to turn towards the current genocide in Darfur where the U.S. may end up repeating the mistakes it made in Rwanda. How disappointing, then, that the film’s good intentions ultimately fall victim to its own underwhelming quality.