If you go to the end of this article http://www.ukwatch.net/article/britain_and_the_rwanda_genocide , Linda Melvern talks about why she doesn't like this film. She's written two books about the Rwandan genocide.
I've seen this film twice. I didn't notice the BBC in it, and didn't know that the BBC was involved in making the film.
the journalist and cameraman who joe brought to the school were from the BBC.
i can see why linda melvern would be angered by the factual inaccuracies in the film, but film is never 100% accurate and surely it is more important that the film was made at all.
if it's true that there were no british nationals at the ETO, the fact that the film shows an english priest and teacher there suggests that maybe the bbc thought the white public wouldn't be interested in watching a film entirely about africans, which i think is disgusting and an insult to both the rwandans and to the empathy and intelligence of the white british viewers. however, that's not necessarily the reason (or at least, the entire reason) for this deviation from the facts - the presence of the priest in the film presents a stark contrast with the UN and shows how we should have reacted, thus reinforcing melvern's point about needing to question the role of the UK government.
also, the bbc may not have used the word "genocide" in public broadcasts, but it doesn't mean that non of its reporters did.
and it's not even like the bbc tries to use this film to totally excuse themselves - joe is clearly disgusted by the way the journalists film the bodies they find at the side of the road with no consideration for the dignity or privacy of the dead; and the reporter tells joe that while she got emotionally involved in bosnia, she hadn't cried at all in rwanda because they were just "dead africans" - clearly not presenting the BBC in the best light.
i also think it's important to remember that many of the crew of the films were survivors of the war. surely if they felt the film was so inaccurate as to be insulting, they would not have been involved.
It's no secret that the BBC acted shamefully during this crises. But that's really nothing new. The BBC has been nothing short of complicit in Britain's new phase of global intervention (post-1945). For an excellent book on this subject, read Mark Curtis' "Web of Deceit." Or just read the synopsis online:
http://www.human-nature.com/reason/01/curtis.html
How many potentially good/great movies have ended up on the cutting floor?
You can't critisize actors/crew for being in a movie when they won't know what the final cut will be.
By the way, this film was cut/butchered for the middle and upper classes sensibilities.
We wouldn't want to upset them now would we.
I was pretty upset by it. It wasn't exactly a day at the park. Was it laugh out loud entertainment for you trailinghome?
shareNo film can depict the full horror of the genocide that was taking place.
Its that man again!!