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
share