MovieChat Forums > Shooting Dogs (2006) Discussion > The crocodile tears of middle class hypo...

The crocodile tears of middle class hypocrites


I was perplexed to see how many people came out of the cinema in tears. Now don't get me wrong, this was a moving and thought-provoking piece of work, but it didn't make me cry. Am I therefore a heartless bastard? Perhaps. But I wonder, how many of those in the audience went out of their way to take action back in 1994 when it could have made a difference? How many cried back then? How many bothered to donate the £5 they spent an that evening's "entertainment" to aid the refugees? Probably not many. I mean, Shooting Dogs didn't tell me anything I didn't already know. Those of us who are old enough all saw the slaughtering on TV. We all just sighed and shook our heads and went back to worry about our own little problems. After all, to quote the best line in the film, they were just a bunch of dead Africans. It's a hard thing to admit, isn't it? But for most of us it's the truth. Those tears are just as worthless as the tears shed over "Titanic".

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

You are 100% right. But this seems to be the only way these days to wake up the world. By showing the past we try to prevent the future to happen. It's not by showing the future that we would scare people. Making movies like this is the only option we have to wake up the people.

reply

I don't think making movies about this will teach people anything.
Humans are violent creatures. They are very friendly and caring when they are happy and safe.
If they are unhappy or feel violated, they become monsters.
It's by the nature. You can't expect a cheetah to have mercy on a zebra.

No human will cry for the little fishes eaten by the big ones in the ocean.
These movies are made for money. Their primary purpose is selling. The `humanity` side is just a side effect.

Your government will do the dirty job and ignore all the evil in this world if it doesn't harm you. You may feel sorry for it but trust me if you were in charge, and responsible for the sake of your country, I'm sure you'd also let those Tutsi die, even invade more mandates, and even massacre more people.

All those `civilized` wealthy nations that are advanced in tech, culture etc have once consumed many `Tutsi` lives to be the `modern` and `wealthy` nations of today.

People are cruel. They used to be cruel, and will be cruel. There is no other way.
If you are living in peace, there always will be people out there somewhere suffering for your `peace`.

reply

I agree wholeheartedly. As a "so-called african american" myself, I did not take these events very serious. At that time, the understanding and portrayal of Africa in general was that it was riled with violence and savage regimes. As I try to recollect, what was I doing, what was I thinking, what events preoccupied my time so much that I become so callous as to shake-off this brutality. In all honesty, I don't have a good answer. So what if the media down played it, so what if Pres. Clinton choosed politics over fighting-the-right-cause, so what if I had personal issues.... all of these do not suffice.

Now as we so often do in modern societies, we look back and shake our heads, cry at movie theaters, write to message boards, etc...

I dont wish to introduce politics in here. But, judging by our current values, we are primed and setup for our next Rwanda. I don't wish to indict one leader or persons, but this phenomenom of "ignoring issues as long as they dont directly effect me" is a societal problem (and I am NOT just referring to the American society either). This phenomemom continues to plagues US.

reply

>>"This phenomemom continues to plagues US. "

intervention is a double edged sword.

oh, and I think you are living proof that if you are black and born in America you are NOT "African" American, you are just "American". Otherwise, you'd be a bit more righteous about it.

reply

[deleted]

I agree, showing emotion for something so stupid.

reply

Well, I'll admit it. I cried like a little girl for half the movie. I found it very sad and as much as I would have liked to make a difference when I was 7 years old (1994), I was too busy learning to multiply.

reply

by - Aidan_Mclaren (Sat Jun 10 2006 13:58:25 )

I agree, showing emotion for something so stupid.


I REALLY hope that's sarcasm...

reply

I must agree.I am from Bosnia and I lived through all of this,and to tell you the truth,no one in the world cried for us during the war.It was only after the war that the WEST realized some things.Every time I see this movie and Hotel Rwanda i remember Srebrenica...

reply

Well i'm 18, and in 1994 i couln't have done a thing. Nowadays, I do my bit for charity, i raise money for oxfam and amnestey international. Theres only so much I, myself can do. And yeh, i cried at the film, about 3 times. I do not under any circumstance call myself a middle class hypocrite, i'm just a student and i live a student life. Endof.

reply

[deleted]

This is the same for all the conflicts. What happened in Rwanda really left a paw in my mind, because of all the images we were seeing on the news. I think, unless we've been shocked at the time it happened or we lived similar experiences, we can't be touched by this movie.

Making a bunch of movies about the genocide is pointless, because the countries that had the power to stop the mess,are not feeling guilty about anything until today. The UN never said they admited they handled poorly the situation, Belgium never admitted it was their fault either. Yet european are quick at making us remember about the jews that have been killed or about the armenians.

I'm all for people to know about what happened in some places, but if it's just to satisfy voyeurism & then say "I thank God for living in a democratic country", I don't see the point.

This is a pretty hypocrit world we're living in :(

reply

[deleted]

Well I cried for you. I couldn't sleep, had nightmares when I did, tried psychotherapy, and basically had a hard time dealing with the massacres in Bosnia and official U.S. reaction. All I could think the whole time: the Holocaust is happening again, and no one is doing anything, or even admitting it. There was nothing I could do either. I was somewhat glad when our president finally sent some help, but so many were dead by then. They wouldn't allow the use of the words "genocide" or "massacre" in the media regarding Bosnia, either.

reply

Chtfj21 I couldn't agree more with you! Since I live in a country where the genocide took place at the same time as it happened in Ruanda I completely understand your words. I come from Bosnia and Herzegovina and I know what does it mean when the rest of the world closes its eyes in front of the mass killing. I relly hope that someday we all will be able to learn from the past, learn not to hate and not to live in revenge. But unfortunately there's agin Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan and many more. Therefore I live in a big delusion. :(

reply

If there was oil in Rwanda it woulda been full of US troops not UN Peacekeepers.

A lifelong friend of mine served as a UN Peacekeeper in Bosnia for four years and didn't fire a single round but witnessed some terrible things. Those guys are only allowed to return fire if a member of their unit is seriously wounded. He has even been sent out on patrol in an armoured column without any ordnance in the APCs.

Watch "No man's land" a film about Bosnia where the UN Peacekeepers are so useless and bound by mandate the film becomes a black comedy.

"Even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day"

reply

Yes and what was there to offer in Somalia when Clinton sent hundreds of special forces to stop the genicide? I agree with your point to a certain degree but lets not forget that many wars WWI, WWII, the liberation of Kuwait in 91 and the efforts all be they futile in Somalia were of some worth. The US cannot become involved in disputes under UN jurisdiction because they are under UN jurisdiction. And the UN's crappy mandates that lead to poor peacekeeping in these lands is not the fault of the US. But I would like to agree with Tarikpal. A previous poster used the expression that people were too interested in their own little lives. This is a fair statement if Rwanda were the sole terror going on but it wasn't. Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Israel, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, East Timor, Zaire, Northern Ireland and Checnya were rife with misery. Whom do we consider and to whom do we send our '$5'?

reply

mikeyg24 said:-

And the UN's crappy mandates that lead to poor peacekeeping in these lands is not the fault of the US.

From a U.S. State Dept 'Action Cable', 099440 150430Z:-

"[State] Department has considered the prospect of additional widespread conflict and violence in Rwanda, and the threat that the relative immunity afforded to remaining foreign civilian and military personnel will end on April 15.

Taking these factors into account, Department believes that there is insufficient justification to retain a UN Peacekeeping presence in Rwanda and that the International community must give highest priority to full, orderly withdrawal of all UNAMIR personnel as soon as possible"

and

"The United States believes that the FIRST PRIORITY (my emphasis) of the Security Council is to instruct the Secretary General to implement an orderly withdrawal of all UNAMIR forces from Rwanda...we will oppose any effort at this time to preserve a UNAMIR presence in Rwanda"

Other internal documents released under the (God bless the) Freedom of Information Act make it clear that, despite the dancing of the Press Secretary et al, internally the U.S. government knew this was a genocide.

So, for those who think the U.N. was weak, and blame the Secretary General or his staff, exactly how was he supposed to send troops when the U.S. made it clear they would veto any attempt to do so? The crappy mandate was organised, encouraged and in some cases coerced by the U.S.

reply

Yes, the Rwanda genocide was widely ignored at the time. Yes, this is a terrible thing and people should feel guilt over their lack of action when needed.

However, this film is part of a whole collection of media made to preserve the memory of this event so that we never forget the inaction that allowed this massacre to reach the heights it did.

Therefore, this media pulls on the heartstrings, shocks and of course induces strong emotions.

People cry. It happens. For you to describe these as the crocodile tears of middle class hypocrites is a far stretch from your other, valid, points.

reply

It seems to me to reveal a lack of humanity on the part of an individual who criticises others for crying about a film that deals with such horrific events. True, most of us did nothing at the time, but at least we're responding now. Maybe if we see enough films about what happened in Rwanda, East Timor, etc., we might begin to get wise to the sick games being played by people like Bush and Annan.

I think a comment like this actually tells us more about the individual poster - about their numbness and inability to empathise with people in that situation. If a film makes you cry, then the film makers have probably done a good job. True, there is an issue about sentimentality and Hollywood mawkishness, but I don't think anyone would approach a subject like Rwandan genocide from the Hollywood direction. Shooting Dogs in particular made me feel pretty miserable, and it made me find out a bit more about Rwanda. There's nothing I can do in retrospect, but I now know and care about the country. That's a good thing surely?

And I also think it shows some heavy judgementalism to suggest that everyone leaving a move theatre crying didn't do anything to help in 1994 - did you interview them all? For all you know those people might have given the shirts off their backs to help. They might even have been there.

Get real, the world is full of caring people, most of whom are manipulated by the media. If you want to make a real difference, help to change that - get the 'truth' (whatever that is) to the public, don't blame them for not helping. I think you'll find that most people do care, and would love to help if they had a practical and easy way to do so.

If there's one thing worse than a so-called 'hypocrite', it's the self-righteous preacher, blinded by his/her own righteousness.

reply


BRAVO Martin! \o/




------------
23

reply

Amen!

Exact words I was looking for!

reply

I remember reading Fergal Keanes graphic account (in 1995) of been one of the first journalists on the scene back in 1994, so I was acutely aware of this genocide, after the event. So what action would you have expected the average person in the street to take?

What I want to know is: why didn't some of the other African nations take some sort of action, they must have seen this coming.

reply