MovieChat Forums > Shooting Dogs (2006) Discussion > white savior complex yet again

white savior complex yet again

posted 18 years ago by sir_humpslot
31 replies | jump to latest

you name it, all the bad trappings of colonialism and imperialism show themselves throughout the movie. from the entire premise of white people suffering and dealing with their unhappiness at the cost of the lives of the rwanda natives and bad religious themes are all there. unlike "hotel rwanda" that actually had the balls to say the truth ("they don't care because to them you're just Africans, not even n!gg3rs) this movie skips around the issue as nothing more than white people not realizing the truth via the "bad Africans" smothering the white media from doing it's proper job; and as we know the BBC and CNN are the purveyors of truth and unbiased coverage around the world (insert :rolleyes: smiley).

the worst aspect of this movie is the religious aspects; all the bad practices of conversion are shown. the actor who played the father might be a fine one, but the role is about "no food if no church attendance" and how he "sacrifices" himself for the people as a savior of them(:rolleyes:) smacks of religious zealousy and superiority-complex of the christian fundamentals.

and the barffest at the end showing all the background "extraneous people" and crew who were actual rwanda tutsi was just plain revolting. if that ain't exploitation i don't know what is. of course they're going to work on the film if it meant payment and publicity for themselves.

you know why "hotel rwanda" was more widely accepted? it's because it at least try to tell the story from an "African" perspective about a hutu who actually tries to save tutsis. for sure the hutus were evil in what they did, but at the same time don cheadle's character actually balanced out the inhumanity. as i'm sure most of us don't realize the reality of the hutu and tutsi situation before the genocide, but any rational person can't believe that the hutus did what they did simply because they're evil. at least "hotel rwanda" had a sort of balance that this film sorely lacks: it's about the white savior complex of post-colonialism's media imperialism.

[–] brute_fang 18 years ago

I'm not sure the crew from SD would want their movie viewed like you described it.

What I have seen is the reality of a massacre, with its consequences such as people trying to protect themselves under the guard of UN soldiers, then paying with their life the decision of the UN not to intervene and finally, signing the death of these people by operating withdrawing of military forces, for some God knows why reason(s?).

I have seen also an old man, who chose to be a priest like I guess thousands of men throughout the world, but, unlike these thousands, met Mankind in one of its absolute horror. He was cut from his clerical autority, submerged under refugees, moral and logistical chief of the place, he should had have answers about these atrocities, the people who committed it but clearly to me
he was, well, just a man. A man who tried to help them but obviously who wasn't perfect.

I'm a bit shocked when I read about this line "[...]of course they're going to work on the film if it meant payment and publicity for themselves."
You make it sound just like they just wanted to make bread out of the tremendous tragedy they have lived. I don't know for sure what are their feelings but as I have seen and felt about this movie, it seems to me they want to say "Why did you leave us? HOW COULD HAVE YOU LEFT US AT THESE TIMES?!!".
Wouldn't seem to you legitimate for these people to want to denounce the cowardice of UN and their allies, to stay polite?

After this, to me, it's pretty obvious that, if this film as you said it is more widely accepted it's simply because we, as members of the UN, well not even that far, as simple folks, we have learned about it at these times and we simply
did nearly nothing to help ours governements to intervene. We did wake up, work, watch at TV the slow unbearable decays of it then kissed ours kids and go to sleep, again and again. Most of us. I think it is NOT more widely accepted because even nowadays, people are dying, some slowly, others quickly from hunger, civil war, AIDS, earthquake, sweatshops etc... and industrialised countries have the opportunity to help, to ehance, to cure etc... but not the means. We know, we debate, we argue even, sometimes we give some helps but that's it! We do not get actively involve, nor we try to, in the next step generally following directly conscience : ACTION (sorry to you folks if you do take part in this difficult but sooo well, fair process to make this world a better place to be for Evan, 17 years old, USA AND Diabete, 3 years old, Ethiopia). So I see this film not as a demonstration of how bad and evil the cruel Hutus were/are/will be, but a blood-written testament of hundreds of thousands of people who could have been saved, but were not.

You tell your mind, I tell mine. I don't pretend to be more right than you about it, but I can't read you and not react as I have, please don't see it as a personal attack, I'll be happy to see you develope others argument, others fact I'm not aware about to discuss of it more.

Sincerly,

M.R.

[–] sir_humpslot 18 years ago

okay, i'm not somebody who's got too much freetime to argue on these internet boards; especially one that's as facist as imdb. (see if they don't "edit" *cough*censor*cough* that one!)

forgive my cynicism, but as somebody who's cynical and can recognize the truth of the situation (at least from my own perspective of truth), just to summarize the main points and see if my arguments are logical and make any sense:

--<did nearly nothing to help ours governements to intervene>

if you are concerned about these situations, look no further than the crisis in the darfur region of sudan right now. thousands of children are dying everyday for a couple of years now; that's much more total than the whole rwanda crisis.

and why was it that the UN intervened in the kosovo/hergrozny/croatia/whatever else that region is known as before it gave us the term "balkanized" back in the day when BBC and CNN showed white people suffering? there was no oil to be found in that region, just as rwanda didn't have any sort of strategic value and yet because the tv showed white people suffering the security council acted on that.

"they're not going to care, because to them you aren't even n!gg3rs. you're just, Africans."

--<I'm not sure the crew from SD would want their movie viewed like you described it>

as far i'm concerned, none of us knew exactly where these people were or what they were doing when the whole crisis happened. it could very well been that they were sipping hot chocolates in switzerland during the whole thing and returned afterwards to take advantage of the situation. these sorts of things have happened before, where somebody else exploited the suffering of others to gain fortunes (iraq and katrina notwithstanding). so, instead of the publicity from this movie, they've could devoted their time to much important causes like campaigns and education efforts with some NGOs to prevent other events like the genocide from happening again.

but nope, they had to work on a movie who's budget could've been put to much better use to help the documented survivors. think about it this way, if the BBC didn't want to follow up the success of "hotel rwanda" they've could've used the movie's budget and actually donated it to organizations dedicated to education and prevention of other crises. not to mention they've could've also shot a movie about the current darfur crises and be original at it...

but no, they had to do another one about rwanda after "hotel rwanda" won acclaims... enough said.

--<I have seen also an old man, who chose to be a priest>

the issue of missionaries (be they christian or muslim for the current geo-political struggles of the two religions and i'm not taking sides) is a complicated one. but given the actions of christian groups with their "relief" efforts as nothing more than coercive conversion tactics, i should think you'd be offended by them as well. it was specifically stated by the priest that for those people if they didn't attend church then they won't get food. this is a well known tactic in crises areas of the world and thru history. they won't give food to the suffering unless they convert to christianity.

here's a proverb from Africa that sums up the situation with missionaries pretty well: "beware the man in black robes; when he arrives he has the book and you have the land, but when he leaves he has the land and you have the book."

obviously, the same tactics are used by muslims to convert people in crises regions in the world as well. they give money and food in order for "recruits" to do nefarious acts... enough said.

--<sorry to you folks if you do take part in this difficult but sooo well, fair process to make this world a better place to be for Evan, 17 years old, USA AND Diabete, 3 years old, Ethiopia>

this is where the cliche "think globally, but act locally" is relevant. there's too much in the world in terms of human suffering to make a difference. however, that doesn't mean within your circle of friends and people you meet and know who are in need of help...

and when you're donating, never donate money as that can be esaily embezzled like the red cross had done many times before. only purchase items and then give those items as donations.

peace!

[–] finlayhjones 18 years ago

you do realise the UN failing to act correctly in the balkans resulted in the srebrenica massacre?
dont go acting as if the UN is racist, it isnt, it just sucks.

[–] HBCod 18 years ago

I have to say that on two key points, many people (including some reviews) seem to miss the point about Shooing Dogs.

Firstly, criticising it for seeing an inherently African story through the eyes of white men – the film is a statement of righteous anger about the role, or lack of it, of the west in the genocide. The film is not a retelling of genocide (no build-up or historical context is given to the events) but at indictment on the UN and west’s role in it. So obviously it’s shot through white people, because it is ‘white people’ who are being held to account.

The teacher (who seems to play the ‘everyman’ role, of the viewer inserted into the film) makes the decision to flee, simply because – ultimately, like the UN soldiers, he has that ability to, when the Tutsi do not. The BBC journalist is not interested in filming in the school before she finds out there are many Europeans there too (as well as the “they’re just dead Africans” line) – a pretty damning indictment of western coverage and interest in the region. And the Priest is not elevated to hero status, I think the film illustrates the futility of his religious instruction when, faced with death, he organises communion for the people – he himself realises that the only reason they come to church is because they’re told to, not because they truly want to or even understand why.

Which brings me onto my second points – I’m not a religious person and often get frustrated with various films’ preachy religious messages. I can’t understand why someone would see this as a film promoting Christianity. The priest loses his faith and realises the impotency of his God during the film – the only reason he stays is because his faith will utterly desert him if he leaves. He is clearly a good man, but the film clearly questions the role and value of western religious instruction in areas like Rwanda and doesn’t seem remotely to suggest that only through turning to Jesus can people be saved – rather it highlights the futility of religious theory when faced with genuine human tragedy.

I thought it was generally a very fine film (although the budget constraints are clear in the sense that it does ‘look’ like a TV drama, but this adds to the realism if anything) and, without wanting to denigrate another very good film, a better overall package than Hotel Rwanda. The latter relied on tired Hollywood conventions too much (several protracted games of hide and seek and a single man ‘making a difference’) where as Shooting Dogs brought home the savage realism of the genocide more effectively.

[–] JackieVega 18 years ago

HBCod well said. I totally agree with your post. I was reading the whole thread and losing faith in mankind but you saw it for what it was. A film showing human emotions not a documentary.

I think both HR and SD were excellent films and did more for bringing the horror to the Western world than hours of CNN footage !

[–] lilsurfingdiva 14 years ago

In all honesty, I do not agree with your views on "the futility of religious theory when faced with genuine human tragedy" within this film. Yes, you can see the priest's faith and hope dwindling during the middle of the movie, but he never gives up on God (as we see when the priest talks to Joe at the end). Due to his courage from his faith, he stood his ground and tried to save some of the Tutsis from imminent death. Although I do not think this film is meant to promote Christianity, I can see the strength of faith that it portrays during a horrific tragedy.

God and salvation are very difficult concepts for people to understand, especially if they do not know the faith. However, I can hear and see the beauty in what the priest says when he decides to stay.

[–] JARowlands 14 years ago

Slightly off topic but the one thing that really bothered me was when the white priest delivered the baby. Just because he’s white or a priest doesn’t mean he’s an expert in delivering babies. I suppose they had him do it because he was one of the main characters so it made it more dramatic but it still bothered me. All the Rwandans were looking on like they were helpless while the priest took charge. In an earlier scene, they mentioned there were nurses from the embassy there. I think they would have been the ones delivering the baby or perhaps a midwife or experienced mother from the Rwandans. Small point but it still bothered me.

[–] 8tangerines 10 years ago

I agree, I found it weird too. Many African women are experienced in delivering babies at home, and it had been established that there were medical people there. At least it is possible that an English priest would have some training in childbirth as part of his training as a missionary, but still. At that point in the film I think the baby's birth, its baptism and then the rest of its story are pretty much meant to be symbolic.

[–] davidbelton 18 years ago

It's an interesting point that's raised about the role of the whites in Africa. The reason this storyline was chosen was because whites have had played a long and unpleasant role in Rwanda: it was they who introduced identity cards and they who instigated much of the racism that didn't exist before the twentieth century between Hutu and Tutsi.

And the whites continued to fund the genocide regime and even train the killers up to 1994. Legitimate therefore to address the genocide from a white perspective. Different from Hotel Rwanda but there's plenty of room for more than one perspective on such a terrible piece of international history.

I think the film did address the point the writer makes about whites not caring. A whole scene is devoted to a journalist admitting an unpalatable truth - that covering stories in Bosnia was harder for her because the victims were white and she could relate to them more easily.

The people who worked on the film were delighted the film was made in Rwanda - rather than in South Africa where Hotel Rwanda was made. It was a chance for them to own the story rather than have someone else do that. It was also a wonderful way for them to learn new skills - which have already been put to good use by another film production coming to Rwanda to make their film. Hard currency in the form of a salary to the locals is a direct and highly beneficial way to stimulate growth in Rwanda.

I don't think it's about Hotel Rwanda being more "widely accepted". It's about different films coming from different perspectives. Debate is good - it helps to keep the issue of what we should do next time alive. And film plays an important part in keeping that debate alive.

[–] lauramay1984 18 years ago

this is a reply to Sir Humpslot (which by the way I think is rather an arrogant and stupid name - it's mostly only immature virgins who go on and on about how much sex they've had. You obviously don't have much in your life if the only way you can think to describe yourself is by your (lack of???) sexual conquests)

I DO NOT think that the survivors are exploited in any way in this film. They were there to ensure that the film was entirely accurate, and to pay homage to their dead relatives, who's sacrifice has been so far forgotten by film/TV, these days the best medium to reach the general public.

They were there to show just how REAL the film was, so that on no account can we saw "aww, it's just a film, it probably wasn't that bad". By seeing that the survivors were there, we know it WAS real, which makes us want to make sure this never happens again.

Lastly, your comments white imperialism or whatever rubbish you said is entirely ignorant. There WERE white priests in Africa then, there WERE teachers from the UK and still are. People in the west who are privileged to a fine education / university etc etc go there to help out. The film is just being accurate.

And you are just being ignorant. Go and jerk off, Sir Humpslot

[–] legionaugusta 18 years ago

If I may, after reading the various posts offer some insight into this discussion.

When do do a film about the genocide of Rwanda, and whell out Tutsi survivors, not hutu's not YTwa, but only the Tutsi survivors, they are being wheelled out like those poor kids in Sally Struthers "feed a child for a week for only $2.00 a week."...Poeple may not like that, but thats whats happening...

There seems to be a misunderstanding about the world not doing anything in 1994 Rwanda, the Tutsi’s were killed by the Hutu’s white saviors, and etc., etc., .Sudan, Darfur….so let me write the facts as it relates to these movies. Feel free to research archives, books, transcripts or what have you, what I’m going to write is verifiable and the day a movie is filmed that shows everything will be a real eye opener…

1) Tutsis and Hutu were both victims of the genocide. Members of the Rwandan army and the militias killed Hutu’s that supported a coalition government with Kagame and his Tutsi-dominated army.

2) Paul Kagames army killed Hutu civilians, not members of the army or militia. The total killed by Kagames army stands at 40,000. He has done everything he could to prevent investigation into that.

3) In Hotel Rwanda, Cheadle’s character did not save just Tutsis. His main concern was people that had money. Many Tutsi’s that were in the hotel in hiding because if they found them and they had no money, he threw them out. He did not care if you were Hutu or Tutsi. Many people (many of them Tutsi) who were in that hotel have testified to this.

4) The reason many people are critical of these movies is because each and everyone shows the Tutsis as victims;, Hutus as killers, the international community are cowards.

Where do I begin? Lets start with the International community.

5) What you do not see in these films is that the UN, two weeks into the genocide assembled to vote under Boutros-Boutros to send a massive peace-enforces force to Rwanda. Kagame got word of this via Britain and he sent two gentleman to Washington D.C to tell the Clinton administration that if any western troops come to Rwanda to stop the genocide will not get cooperation from Kagames army. These same two men then went to the UN to tell then that if the UN sends troops to Rwanda to stop the genocide that they (Kagames army) wouldn’t cooperate with them, that they (Kagames army) would fight the UN. This is documented, this is also something not mentioned when people ask whey the UN didn’t come in.

6) Americans had troops in Burundi, they were ready to come in, but they couldn’t stop the genocide while fighting Kagame’s army. This is all documented but never mentioned in the movies. The reason is that Rwandan current government wants the global audience to have battered wives syndrome like it was their fault. The Rwanda army didn’t want a political solution, they wanted total military victory. The Tutsi community feels that Kagame sacrificed them so that he could return to Rwanda nearly 700,000 Tutsis refugees and exiles in Uganda.

7) The Canadian Commander who was stationed in Rwanda, General Dillaire (sp?) questioned why they genocide took 3 month’s to stop when the Rwanda army fled into eastern Congo a month earlier. That is documented.

Now, the question is why didn’t Uganda help stop the genocide? They were right there. They knew what was going on. There is a reason why they didn’t do anything. So please stop the “International community didn’t do anything” chant that is only helping people get killed in eastern Congo.

Please, what is happening in Darfur, is nothing compared to what had been happening in Eastern Congo since 1996 that is committed by the same people that blame the international community for 1994 Rwanda.

8) When SHOOTING DOG comes out, it’s going to tell the same story: the Hutus killed the Tutsis. Will they point out the underlining reason for the genocide? And I would be surprise if it points out that Kagame is indicted in Europe for shooting the plane down that started the genocide.

That’s all for now…

[–] clemenceforester 18 years ago

I'd like to say how enlightening it is for me to experience a person who is willing to give facts that are deeply neccessary in the debate about a historical and emotional subject such as is trying to be portrayed in 'Shootin Dogs' as well as 'Hotel Rwanda'.
I often become inspired by an emotionally charged film such as either of these two and explore the facts. After having seen both films I must say that I was left with a feeling of great sadness but also a tremendous confusion and a kind of confounded idea of the situation that left me hankering after facts. The reason for this, I feel, is that considering the films exist for money, also for bringing 'information' about an incredibly complex incident in history, it still has the shallow 'value' of entertainment. Over ten years after the event people still only see Machetes when they think about the genocide of '94, this was greatly thematic in 'Shooting...' when a man's entire purpose became clear only if a Machete lay in his hand. People, excuse my generalision, WESTERN people for whom these films are made are interested in seeing the dramatic angle, which itself resides in a spectacular simplification of a truly complicated political coup in which many a person, Tutsi, Hutu, Western, Killer, Victim can be held responsible for brutality of some form.
People forget that shock factor is great in both films and so it is easy for the Hutus to be seen as the 'Nazis' and the Tutsis the 'Jews', in fact, if I remember correctly that very reference is made in both films; this is the fault of the modern mind above all.
We also enjoy seeing the non-victim figures extending a hand to the the helpless, as with the 'angelic' German officer in 'The Pianist', Don Cheadles Hutu character in 'Hotel...' and 'Jo' and 'Christopher' in 'Shooting...', that is what 'we' want to see so don't shoot the messanger.
I admit that I enjoyed 'Hotel Rwanda' more than the latter, I found the behavior of the White people who were allowed status of 'protagonists' in 'Shootin Dogs' difficult to stomach especially being a 'White Westerner' myself, I was presented with my own shame at the portrayal of a revoltingly colonised nation, but it is still a film, it is still inaccurate, they are both inaccurate because sadly, everyone wants to see the good side of the nightmare, and film-makers dig deep to find their audience fodder.
One great thing about these films is the effect that they have had on some to research the subject, to learn more of the truth because they are not satisfied with 'entertainment', that is also how I myself found out about the Darfur situation on the internet.
I found it sad that the first message on this board Mr, Humps or whatever, found the need to compare the Rwandan Genocide with that which is current in the Sudan. Comparing such incidents is vulgar, as if, by numbers, one must outweigh the other in severity, this is grotesque, I wonder if Mr. Humps or whatever has used his comparative method of argument conscerning all those who died in the Twin towers? that the death toll since the 50s in the Israel-Palestine conflict far outweights the western version of terrorism, suicide bombings there have occured weekly and even daily for so long that you could build towers the height of the World Trade Centre from the corpses, so using Humps' argument the Twin Towers is not tragic enough... perhaps the bounty for Bin Laden should be decreased and the money spent on better living for billions of trigger happy, racially challenged Americans? Just a thought, with no intention of getting as viscious as I just did I'm sure my point has been made.
One thing resounds with me on this subject is that the West lend a 'hand' to countries who they may steal resourses from. Belgium followed its comtemporary 'Empire Makers' into the heart of Africa simply because it felt it was such a pathetically small and powerless country, the Westerner conquered the birthplace of man out of greed and pride, enforcing a 'God' on the indigenous peoples, a 'God' who abhors both 'pride' and 'greed' as mortals sins, and after the Slave trade was abolished for good and oil became more valuable than diamonds Africa had nothing left for the Westerners, so they shipped out leaving Prejudice, Poverty and Greed in their wake.

[–] legionaugusta 18 years ago

Thank you for the compliment Corinalaszlo…I just want people to know the behind the scenes of the events relating to 1994 Rwanda so that they can see these movies with a better understanding… I am in no way justifying the mass killings, but I will say that, as you pointed out, its wrong for the Hutus to be portrayed as the Nazi’s and the Tutsi’s as the Jews (or any similar comparison)….

I love the insight that you gave, had me thinking…Great insight. I lke the "Prejudie, Poverty and Greed" . Like you said, death is death, and you made some great points...

For me its like this, the same people that didn't understand why LA (right or wrong) exploded into a riot after the Rodney King verdict as the same people that don't understand why Rwanda exploded after Kagame shot the plan down. The tension was building up for years all over the place both in LA and Rwanda. Uganda’s military officers didn't like the fact that around 700,000 Tutsis refuges/exiles and the children of both) from 1959 were not only still in southern Uganda but more so many of the Tutsi men held high positions in the Uganda army (Kagame was chief of Uganda Intelligence). It got so bad that Musevani met Rwandans Habyirimana in Congo asking the Rwanda president to take the refugees back, but Habyirimana said he couldn't, that “there wasn’t any room”---this is all documented.

In 1990, There were free and fair elections in Northwest Rwanda. Kagames party lost, and because of that election loss, Kagames army slaughtered thousands of Hutus and the Tutsi’s that supported them. Sound familiar?

It was then that he decided to invade Rwanda and portions of Congo. Congo went into Rwanda for a year to defend the Rwandan government from the Kagame led/Uganda supported invasion. After that election, Kagame knew that the Arusha (Tanzania) peace treaties creating a coalition army and that would open the doors for free elections would not bring him political victory. In a country were the Tutsi are a 15% minority, and English-speaking Tutsis like Kagame are a even smaller minority, he wouldn't win the presidential elections. So it was decided that a military option was the only choices.

People either forget or don't know that the UN had a peacekeeping force on Rwanda's border with Uganda, but Musevani helped the rebels get arms around the UN force--all documented.

I only write this to point out that the more each film comes out that vilifies the Hutu majority in Rwanda, the more it creates the same resentment towards the Tutsi-dominated government, and in turn the minority. The seeds for what happened in 1994 have again been planted. The Hutus are resenting the Tutsis, the Tutsi's that lived under the late president Habyirimana deeply resent the Tutsi that came back during the genocide because that Tutsi’s that came back during the 1994 genocide are running the country and look down on the Tutsi that lived under the old president’s seeing them as collaborators... I don't expect one movie to reveal all of this, but it would be nice if the films shed some light on it. When this movies is played in the stadium in Kigali, who do you think it will benefit the most? Who do you think will keep quiet? Why do you think th Paul Kagame endorsed (see the closing credits) SOMETIMES IN APRIL, a film that condemned Hutus, allowing it to also film in Rwanda, yet Paul Kagame didn’t endorse HOTLE RWANDA, which had to film in parts of South Africa?

Now people will say, “that doesn’t excuse the killing of innocent people”. No it doesn’t, but lets get deeper into this because two important events happened both before and after the genocide. Before the genocide, Burundi held a democratic election and a person form the majority Hutu ethnic group one the election. Fearing that the Hutu’s would now be in a position to jeopardize the status of Tutsis, Tutsi-paratroopers form the Tutsi-dominated army assassinated the newly elected president and two of his government officers.

Habyirimana saw this, and fearing that that would happen to him, and not having a big enough army to defend himself in case the Tutsi-dominated army helped the Tutsi-dominated rebel army of Paul Kagame, Habyirimana created a civil defense force called The Interhamwe. Remember that Congo helped defend Rwanda for over a year against the 1990 invasion of Kagames army into eastern Congo.

After the Rwanda genocide, in 1996, When Paul Kagame invaded Congo, as part of the deal he was allowed to hunt down and kill the Rwanda refugees that fled into Congo after the 1994 genocide. His army killed 250,000 Rwanda Hutu refugees--all documented--(see the film Kisangani Diary). The sad thing is that instead of hunting down the Interhamwe and ex-Rwanda army, once Kagame saw how rich Congo was he went into business with the INterhamwe adn ex-Rwanda army---all documented---. Kagame basically said, “you plunder over there, we’ll plunder over here.” Suddenly, Rwanda, that has no gold in its country was a gold exporter, and at one pint was looting approximately $240 million dollars between 1998-2001 (give or take a year).

This movies do a great job of reminding people of what happened, and I will not excuse what the colonials did or the western powers did (or didn’t do). Nevertheless, to not know of the continuous manipulation of the genocide card that the current government of Rwanda is doing with the aid of these movies is frightening. The Hutus for those didn’t know, called the Tutsi’s “cockroaches” because in a much earlier times , Tutsi’ rebels said that “they would rise like cockroaches” from under the boot of Hutu oppression” (something like that)….

How would you feel as a majority race if your people were portrayed as killer with machetes and that your evil? Even though you yourself lost family members in the genocide…

Should be interesting movie “Shooting Dogs”…Now people have some more facts when they see films relating to the Rwanda genocide…

[–] dacfrazer 18 years ago

On a point of information, I've read that Hotel Rwanda was filmed in South Africa because the Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa (a government-owned investment company) co-funded the film on condition that it was made there. Also, the producers were concerned that staging genocide scenes in Rwanda might be offensive and traumatic to survivors. (They may also have decided that filming in Rwanda with imported equipment and technicians would be too expensive.) Some second unit filming (establishing shots and the hotel minibus driving through streets) took place on location in Kigali.

[–] legionaugusta 18 years ago

Thanks for the info! I'm wondering, do you have any idea what they wouldn't let Hotel Rwanda shoot in Kigali for the stated reasons but let Shooting Dogs shoot there? There's more terror in this one, implied at least. We though about shooting in South Africa, but haven't been given any help what-so-ever...

[–] dacfrazer 18 years ago

Well, as I said, Hotel Rwanda chose to film mostly outside Rwanda to avoid causing distress to survivors, and also for complicated financial reasons. As far as I know, the Rwandan government did not object to the film or try to obstruct it. Shooting Dogs, on the other hand, chose to film in Rwanda in the interests of authenticity. I haven't seen the film, and I don't know how the producers dealt with the question of massacre scenes causing distress or offence to survivors. Perhaps they were able to film those scenes on private property where random passers-by would not see them.

[–] Emle_b 18 years ago

The film crew cleared the set for half a mile in each direction during the scenes which involved sensitive matter or the hate chants, this was done to prevent upset or bringing back too many fresh and painful memories. The chanting and shouting of the hate slurs are incredibly emotional and they have a powerful impact even when you don't fully understand them.
They filmed in the school during the holidays so not to upset any of the schoolchildren. Using local actors and tech crew was really beneficial to the community, a days pay as an extra could be up to one or two months salary for some of the Rwandans. The money spent during the filming was practically all invested locally. I think that is it amazing that film crews can go back there just ten years later.
I don't think that Dancy was used as a 'White Male Protagonist' or whatever the label used is. He is the first one to admit he isn't perfect, and does what any person would do, (or I hope would do) in the same situation.
Also about the Missionary comment, Rwanda has been deeply Christian for a long while, and I don't quite see how Christopher was being selfish in anyway.
However, just my view (On what I think is an INCREDIBLE film)

[–] legionaugusta 18 years ago

are you sure that you dind't work on the film :-) Thank you for the info Eml_B. I can see the point about the "missionary comment" based on remembering how the missionaires intereacted with the population. There were many, many occasions of clergy in Central Africa holding back food if the people didn't go to church. Happened to a few of my relatives. So to me, it has a different meaning than someone that didn't grow up in that environment. Just my POV. Its a strong film, my only beef is that its another film, yes its based on a true story, but it doesn't explain the events that created the genocide and puts all theblame on one group of people.....okay, its back to the set (yes, I'm writing this on location!)

[–] legionaugusta 18 years ago

Talking to a friend of mine in South Africa, he said as you said that it was more economic than anything...thanks for the insght dacfrazer...

[–] vanillainflux 18 years ago

that's a pretty...naive way of thinking. have you never heard of the term imperialism? do you even fathom the concept of white imperialism, colonisation, and all that? he's saying hotel rwanda was a great film that already said it all and this film offers nothing but a biased/subjective view of what happened. he never said what happened, didn't happen.
it's so surprising when someone gives their opinion, never insulting anyone, and some irrelevant new poster comes along and start attacking his nickname for no particular reason except that they disagree with his opinion.
it's not like he said "THIS MOVIE SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX" and gave no reason.
white people especially europeans screwed up the world. let's just assume some responsibility for once in our lives.
i'm with you sir humpalot, even if i wouldn't have picked this nickname personally. and if you're american, twice bravo.

it's a dirty world Reich, say what you want

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] vanillainflux 18 years ago

no i think it was the white man who brought in the disease to latin america/america/africa not the contrary.
and well even if they were in an "uncivilized" state, at least they ruled themselves.
no on second thoughts i agree. we're great us white europeans. going around, exploiting natural resources for our own economy, supressing people, and making them adopt everything that is right [i.e everything we say]
go go!

it's a dirty world Reich, say what you want

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] vanillainflux 18 years ago

the blacks??
wow. ok.

it's a dirty world Reich, say what you want

[–] legionaugusta 18 years ago

The blacks? Incapable of "adopting" anything that is 'right'?

Ladies and gentleman, James Rhodes "Manifest Destiny" is alive and well...

[–] clemenceforester 18 years ago

Poppie
'if you are concerned about these situations, look no further than the crisis in the darfur region of sudan right now. thousands of children are dying everyday for a couple of years now; that's much more total than the whole rwanda crisis.' - Sir Humpsalot

This is the line that pissed me off madam, and, along with the shoddy nickname, was what urged me to attack some of the man's opinions. My post was much to do with film impact, which may be a different take compared to the more political debate ensuing about the film, but certainly not irrelevant, my post was also mainly aimed in reply to an informative poster whom I appreciated. Your cause to call me irrelevant strikes me as a bit 'Mighty Whitey' and Imperialist itself, congratulations, follow the angry sheep who bleat but do nothing, pretend to be different, act the 'black sheep' but remain white as snow and sweater ready material.
And yes, what a stupid nickname.
I agree, assume some responsibilty. And, if you're both American... then twice 'here we go again'.
What? do Americans get a round of applause now for NOT being gun toting, racist, conquering heroes?
I DO disagree with drawing comparison between one Genocide and another and calling one more serious than the other, and that IS a particular reason.
Learn to read.

[–] vanillainflux 18 years ago

that post is just a huge regurgitation of insults and written in a really disagreeable tone.
how am i supposed to react to that?
tell you thanks?
good grief.
and yes it's quite sad isnt it, when we now have to congratulate americans who are not pro-meddle-in-world-affairs-for-personal-benefit...
you want imperialist white attitude? read CannaeMan's post on this same board:

<<Unfortunately they are 100% proven to be incapable of 'adopting' anything that is 'right'. They cannot manufacture anything and as a consequence dont participate in the global economy and just get poorer every year despite the massive western aid. The blacks are very good at turning working farms into wastelands and profitable industries into bankrupt husks. >>

i think we should be working together to stop people from thinking like this. what i was essentially saying to you, was tone down the aggression a little towards humpalot, he's entitled to his opinions, no matter what his nickname is, but whatever, i guess i came across as hoity toity myself.

it's a dirty world Reich, say what you want

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jujungo 18 years ago

thoughts:

yup, its an imperialist, colonial viewpoint; but surely cos thats the dominant western conception of africa, and much as we might dislike it, affects all western views of the continent..

you could take a reading of the movie that says - dont seek shelter in 'western' religion or white armed force cause its likely to fail you...

yes people in africa do join churches for food, but the priest/minister/reverend/preacher is more than likely to also be African...

the running girl is the main focus for the story, the priest and teacher are just devices for getting her story through to us, the westerners. doubtless it simplifies a complex civil war, but i for one would have only partially identified with a purely african interpretation of that war. despite its obvious (honest?) bias and simplification i felt moved enough to find out more, and welcome the informative posts above..

crediting Western colonial power with the ability to control foreign countries reaffirms that cliche of western dominance..in reality , as it says in the movie, six deaths was enough to have the yanks withdraw from somaliland, iraq is in civil (genocidic?) war, cote d'ivoire unprofitable, Osama uncaught, the UN largely ineffectual

seems we have the ability to destroy and make short term profit from foriegn countries but if we had the ability to truly colonise them we'd be doing it outright...western power just isnt as powerful as we like to feel...

[–] rosncranz 17 years ago

Okay 400,000 in Darfur dead, 2.3 million are refuguees. 800,000 dead in Rwanda. Just to get the facts straight.

Further, the reason the UN did not intervene is because Rwanda held no interest to them. The Brits pulled out and convinced many other countries to pull out as well, the US, being one of them. With these countries withdrawl the UN was useless. The Hutu's and Tutsi's were violent toward eachother-fact. After the Hutu President was killed in a plane crash (it is still not known if it was Tutsi rebels or the Hutu's) the Hutu's put into action the plan they had been devising for some time (they made all Tutsi's register and had ID's and everything, as well as importing massive amounts of machetes for an obvious purpose) when the Hutu Pres. was killed they began their GENOCIDE it is defined as a genocide. The Hutu's surrounded the PM's house and killed her, she was a Tutsi. Leaving no leader so naturally a Hutu took power.

Also US Marines did come in and get all the remnants of the military out, this was while the genocide was going on. They did nothing.

The Hutu have said many times that the propaganda they heard on the radio all day every day convinced them to kill the "cockroaches" this and fear of what might happen to them if they did not.

Play it how you want. The Hutu's were the ones doing the horrible things, and the Tutsi's were the victims.

[–] silesius-1 16 years ago

Yes, this was a Christian film, and yes, this is a good thing. It sometimes really is.

And I don't remember, as one of the first posts claims, that the priest said the people would only get food if they attended church. The teacher says to him, the people needed water and nourishment, the preacher answers something like: This is why the should come to church. Because for him the church provides a different kind of nourishment.