Intense film of bravery in the face of horror is a must-see
Hate radiates off the screen in "Hotel Rwanda"; it burns with its intensity, its unrelenting implacability; the hate is palpable and sentient, pushing itself into your consciousness, demanding a response.
Don Cheadle delivers a stunning performance as an ordinary man called to acts of extraordinary courage in Terry George's must-see film, 'Hotel Rwanda.'
Don't misunderstand: the film is not hateful. I think, rather, that it is ultimately optimistic, and even though it is merciless in its depiction of a hate so enormous it defies belief, the filmmakers reserve their harshest judgement for the nations of the world who might have done something to stop it, but instead stood by and watched.
The film chronicles a long-brewing conflict between the Hutu and Tutsi tribes which, in 1994, broke into a full-scale war of genocide. Hundreds of thousands of Tutsis were slaughtered, literally hacked to death with machetes in a bargain-basement "cleansing"; guns and bullets are expensive, death camps too slow, but machetes are cheap and can be used over and over and over again. In a mad frenzy of killing, men women and children were chopped down, murdered, flesh torn open in raw, gaping wounds — Cowards! The cowardice of someone who could do such a thing: despicable.
It's difficult not to let anger take over this film review. The hate — the cruel willful denial of whatever is within humans that normally prevents us from hacking each other apart as a matter of policy — is so staggeringly powerful in the film that there seems no sane response other than to instinctively counter it with an equal vehemence. The early part of the film is as frightening as any horror film I've ever seen. As the film's hero, Paul, drives home early in the movie, the radio crackles with malignant reports that reminded me of Kurtz's dispatches from the jungle in "Apocalypse Now." A voice as cold and Orwellian as anything you could imagine urges listeners to commit mass murder, act without mercy, stomp them out, wipe them out, leave not one alive. Watching the impending nightmare close in around the city, I had no trouble imagining that I was just as much in danger as the lead characters. I think I'm still in fight or flight mode.
But I am lucky; I only have to figure out a solution to the dilemma sufficient enough to keep this review on track. Faced with the actual genocide, Paul Rusesabagina, acting manager of a luxury hotel, had to figure out a way of countering the hate long enough to keep his family alive. The fact that he does so — Paul is a Hutu married to a Tutsi — is a miracle. The fact that he was able to shield more than a thousand other Tutsis and moderate Hutus as well is almost unbelievable. In the heart of the killing zone, with no weapons at his disposal and a dwindling supply of goods he can barter, Paul was able to keep the Hutu forces at bay with nothing more than his superior intellect, his powers of personal persuasion and trading-in years of accumulated favors.
Even so, Paul and his impromptu refugee camp are in constant danger of being annihilated, and at times the tension is so great just watching the film that it boggles the mind trying to conceive actually living through it. I was reminded of a scene in Roland Joffe's 1984 film "The Killing Fields" in which a young Cambodian couple at a "reeducation camp," unable to endure the pure bullshit piling up all around them, essentially volunteer to be executed. Chances were they would have eventually been executed anyway, and the two simply couldn't seem to stand the suspense anymore. I wondered if any of the people Paul was sheltering ever were possessed of a mad urge to dash out of the compound, just to get it over with, and possibly, even, if they were lucky, to take a couple of the cowardly murderers with them.
I think perhaps not, the human instinct for self-preservation would most likely drive them to keep as low a profile as possible.
Don Cheadle, as Paul, delivers a powerful performance, conveying both the constant fear Paul was living as well as his dogged bravery and resourcefulness. His character must walk a very narrow line; the situation calls for a crazy kind of courage, but he must hide any trace of bravado or swagger from his dealings with the people who hold his and the refugees lives in their hands. Long known to filmgoers for a series of memorable acting turns, Cheadle steps into the starring role with confident ease. After 20 years working as an actor, will this be the part that finally makes him a star? I hope he will take it the right way when I say I hope not. He's too good an actor to be just a movie star.
What I do hope is that he will have the freedom to pursue a wider latitude of roles. What good is stardom if you can't take a juicy bit part from time to time, as Bruce Willis has done on several occasions.
Cheadle is also a good choice physically. He has a charismatic screen presence, but he is not physically imposing; other actors, from Denzel Washington to Will Smith, were discussed for the role, but this casting would have been unfortunate because at some point in the film Paul's heroism would have become in some part about physical prowess: "of course he's the leader; just look at how big and strong he looks!" But Cheadle — as did the real Paul, who is not a big man either — must rely on his brain as his only weapon.
There's a beautifully understated shot very early in the film where Paul opens a hotel safe and you see all his chess pieces, so to speak, lined up on a shelf: a wad of money, a box of jewelry, and other items; considering what is coming, it's a pitifully poor stock.
The shot is repeated a few minutes later as he enters a storeroom and you think, this is it. Those few lousy bottles of Scotch have to go a helluva long way. Since Cheadle's character rarely says what it is he is thinking directly, Cheadle's performance is very much in his eyes; He's constantly thinking, keeping constant track of his bribe inventory and political favors, and how much of it to spend, and where and when. I swear you can see him tallying it up, the mental adding tape curling up behind his eyes, constantly alert. It's clear that if Paul lets his guard down for even a moment, the tide of hate will surge over the hotel to wipe it clean of the Hutu "traitors" and Tutsi "cock-a-roaches."
If "Hotel Rwanda" has a flaw as a movie, it comes from the fact that director Terry George ("In The Name of the Father") wants to make his message abundantly clear. There is no ambiguity in his art, here, nor do I think there should be. If we live in a world where the slaughter of one million people can be so easily shrugged off by the rest of the world, then why does anybody bother to make cheap-ass horror movie remakes like "The Amityville Horror?" What could be more horrible than the reality of what happened in Rwanda? "One million people slaughtered? I don't like movies like that. But in Amityville? you know the scene I'm talking about? where the cat jumps out? I swear to God, you guys, I screamed so loud, I'm not kidding. It was, like, way just too intense."
George obviously doesn't sit well with that, and the film continually brings some of the blame home and places it on the audience's doorstep where it can't be ignored. It's true that the mass murder sprang from places most people in the west probably can't understand — there is a brief history lesson near the start of the film, but it doesn't serve to explain the depth of the hatred — and I couldn't tell a bit of difference, physically, between a Hutu and a Tutsi, nor do I care. But if you can honestly sit through the scene where Paul, desperately needing some good news, turns on the radio, only to hear a White House spokesperson trying to explain how "acts of genocide" don't necessarily add up to genocide — if you can listen to that and not feel a sense of shame, then... I don't know what to say. You've left me speechless. I just hope that the person beneath the falling machete won't someday be you; I wonder if even then you will be able to see the connection.
And for you right-wingers out there who are smirking about all this happening during a Clinton White House, shut up. One word for you: Darfur.
But now I've lost control of this review again. Besides, I really don't have much more to say about "Hotel Rwanda" other than to recommend it without reservation, except for younger viewers who might find the suspense too terrifying.
"Hotel Rwanda" is not a "downer" movie; it points up the old adage that evil (unfortunately a word that has been cheapened in the past few years) prevails more from the inaction of good people rather than the actions of others. Paul Rusesabagina was only one person, but his personal determination was enough to checkmate a vast amount of insanity. Who's to say how many more good persons might have been able to stop it altogether. The number required might actually be quite low, and therein would lie the greatest tragedy of all.
So what is the response to all that hate I mentioned at the start? Well, I'm not in the lovey-dovey crowd, if that is what you are thinking. I don't feel obligated to love the person who is chopping me with a machete. I don't feel obligated to love a person who could do such a thing.
Faced with overwhelming, terrifying, unthinking hatred, Paul counters it not with "love" — which would typically be considered the opposite of hate — but with a determined insistence on rationality and reason, which, in the film, is a form of love. Paul, in several scenes, can barely contain how appalled he is by the people he is dealing with, and he never attempts to appeal to their better nature; he knows that time has passed. But with courage, intelligence, and determination he was able, briefly (and sometimes briefly is long enough) to utterly baffle the forces of stupidity and cowardice who never were able to completely grasp what he was up to.
Further reading:
Frontline: Rwanda Chronology
"Hotel Rwanda" Portrays Hero Who Fought Genocide
FilmForce: Interview: Don Cheadle and Paul Rusesabagina