MovieChat Forums > Hotel Rwanda (2005) Discussion > Is Hotel Rwanda a True contemporary Repr...

Is Hotel Rwanda a True contemporary Representation of Africa?


or does this film represent Rwanda and hence Africa as a continent full of rogue states?
Africa has traditionally been "othered" by the western media (Africa has been shown to be different, orientalised by the western world). Most representations of Africa by the western media since the 19th century have been produced based on assumptions rather than reality. Does this film reinforce traditional "othering" notions or is it a true representation of Africa?

reply

I would say that in many ways this film is a true representation of Africa, as after all this film is based on true events that occurred. From documentaries I have watched the harrowing nature of the events is in my opinion well mirrored in the film. Although I would say that Sometimes in April is a more realistic representation of the Genocide.
At the same time though I would agree that the film, because it represents Africa so differently to the western world does reinforce "othering" notions. This film represents Africa as a continent in need of help from the western world. It portrays Africa to be so different from the western world, with child soldiers, mass murder, killing your neighbours etc. Therefore it can be seen to reinforce othering notions. Certainly after watching this film did not give me any desires to jump on the next plane to Rwanda. Well in fact it did not give me any desires to jump on the next plane to the Congo, where this conflict still persists with little concern from the western media.

reply

As somebody who has never before visited Africa, Hotel Rwanda was a film which did shock me. However I do not know whether it is fair to say that the film is a fair representation of contemporary Africa. It might well be a fair representation of Africa in a state of civil war, yet during wars it can be argued that no place is how it would be during peacetime.
The film definitely displays notions of ‘othering’, I felt this was most strongly displayed in the Hutu propaganda and broadcasts that referred to the Tutsi’s as cockroaches and the consequences that this entailed. I also feel to a large extent that ‘othering’ was portrayed by the film makers when displaying the Western responses to the Genocide. One of the most poignant moments in the film for me was when the broadcaster when talking to Paul informs him that those in the West will be shocked by the footage of Genocide, yet will just go back to their dinners rather than act upon what they had seen. This to me is a true example of how the West views Africa as a world apart from their own and in a sense the ‘other’, whose suffering may shock yet doesn’t provoke action.

reply

As somebody who has never before visited Africa, Hotel Rwanda was a film which did shock me. However I do not know whether it is fair to say that the film is a fair representation of contemporary Africa. It might well be a fair representation of Africa in a state of civil war, yet during wars it can be argued that no place is how it would be during peacetime.
The film definitely displays notions of ‘othering’, I felt this was most strongly displayed in the Hutu propaganda and broadcasts that referred to the Tutsi’s as cockroaches and the consequences that this entailed. I also feel to a large extent that ‘othering’ was portrayed by the film makers when displaying the Western responses to the Genocide. One of the most poignant moments in the film for me was when the broadcaster when talking to Paul informs him that those in the West will be shocked by the footage of Genocide, yet will just go back to their dinners rather than act upon what they had seen. This to me is a true example of how the West views Africa as a world apart from their own and in a sense the ‘other’, whose suffering may shock yet doesn’t provoke action.

reply

I do feel that Rwanda is represented in a correct way. Although I was not present during genocide, I agree with Schmutz by the fact that it was based on true events so must have some realism to the story and representation of Africa.
Additionally, Africa as a society is very different to the western world, holding different cultural and religious beliefs, so the contrast to our world is very blatant and obvious.

Since the 19th century Africa has been represented in very different manner to western society, due to poverty and illness that is not present in our society. However, I believe that this is a true representation of how Africa is. Although I have never been myself, I recently watched a documentary where Samantha Womack (Ronnie from Eastenders) and Lenny Henry visited poverty stricken africa. This programmes tugged at my heartstrings and just solidified in my mind that Africa have a completely different way of life to us.
Also, the recent drama in Libya concerning Colonel Gadaffi and Dictatorship only further portrays that the events in the film were based on reality as similar events are happening today and have been throughout history. The western society is a changed world and hopefully Africa will soon follow suit and change from being a war riddled world to a happier and more peaceful place.

reply

The idea that Jack brought forth of similar current situations of unrest in Africa, such as in Libya, is very true. Though it does not quite reach the magnitude and is not considered a genocide, such political unrest suggests that Hotel Rwanda could represent contemporary Africa.
However when looking at countries in north Africa we can see that they are extremely different in culture, religion, aesthetic and politics. In this way then to say that hotel rwanda is an accurate representation of Africa is a sweeping generalisation. It would perhaps be more appropriate to say that Hotel Rwanda is a true contemporary representation of Africa when in turmoil. To say that one country experiencing a genocide is representative of a whole continent is ridiculous, it would be like saying all 1940's Europeans were Nazis, it simply isn't true. As I said before however, the film does not make me want to go to Africa proving at least in some way that I have subconsciously picked up it must have presented all of Africa to be similar. Or at least did nothing to suggest it wasn't.
With regards to 'othering' I believe it should be noted that when the west is shown in the film, such as scenes in Belgium, the view that we get of the west is very narrow. All we see is men in suits in large expensive buildings. We see no poverty or unrest even though this is present in Europe. Understandably this may not be relevant to the film, hence it is not present, yet it still portrays the difference between Europe and African to be vast.

reply

After watching the film for a second time last night I thought I would revisit the discussion.
Schmutz is clearly correct in his statement that the film must be a true contemporary representation of Africa because these events actually happened. However it is worth noting that Hotel Rwanda is ultimately a motion picture that targets a mass audience. It could be criticised for not being graphic enough in it's portrayal of a civil war and genocide in the attempt of keeping the age rating low. Surely as a result of this it is a milder representation of the conflict that went on.

I would disagree that the fim represents Africa as a continent of rogue states, it merely represents a war torn country that just happens to be in a continent that is stereotyped by the west as somewhat rogue. One must not forget that although the West distance themselves from the goings on in Rwanda, there was a Holocaust in Europe only some sixty years previously. Surely the West and the UN must have wanted to intervene to try and put a stop to the persecution of innocents. However I guess the notion of othering is confirmed by their refusal to intervene because they do not care that the Rwandans were being killed, whereas if it were on European or American soil the situation would have been completely different.

reply

"whereas if it were on European or American soil the situation would have been completely different."

Thats not strictly true. Europe stood by and let genocide occur in Bosnia. During the Srebrenitsa massacure UN troops (dutch I think) were unable to prevent the slaughter. Which echos what happened in Rowanda.

reply

[deleted]

"Ghana", sure... For you Ghana and Rwanda may be interchangeable, so why not Mexico and the US.

reply

[deleted]

I think it's representative of a time and place in Africa, maybe not the whole continent. It showed the best and worst of people and there have been genocides and wars all over the world that bring out people's hate and love. I don't know. I think it's more representative of just being being human because it shows the best and worst in us.

reply