Hotel Rwanda

[HumbleTangerine]

So I'm writing an essay regarding the genocide in Rwanda that occurred in the 90's and figured I'd watch the movie Hotel Rwanda as it takes place amidst its chaos. Now, obviously I know that a movie adaptation isn't going to be a very good source for information but I was in the mood for a film in general and it had gotten really good reviews.

I just finished the movie and am left with several things that don't feel quite right. First of all, there are a few falsehoods every here and there that sometimes serve the very specific purpose of dramatizing things. Whilst leaving out some of the grislier things that actually DID happen, I find it almost resentful that they'd change certain things to heighten the drama and entertainment value of a movie about one of the most gruesome and dehumanizing genocides ever to occur. Out of curiosity I was wondering whether anyone here agrees. I'm not giving you any concrete examples of things that were changed/left out for various reasons, but if you ask for it I'll provide it.

Second of all, I can't help but feel that a lot of movies based around real-life tragedies come off as almost exploitative in their handling of the material. Here we have a very American, very dramatic film adaption of a genocide that makes obvious attempts to raise the sentimental and entertainment value of the movie, whilst making a decent profit in the process. I'm kind of reminded of how Spielberg refused to be paid for Schindler's List. It leaves a sour taste in my mouth knowing that not only:

1. The tragedy of Rwanda is reduced to a typial American tear-jerker that despite maintaining a high quality feels very exploitative.

2. The people who created it received money for their own personal benefit.

I guess some of its redeeming qualities is simply being a good movie, despite the aforementioned flaws, and the way it at least brought some knowledge to its viewers. I just can't help but have these very ambiguous feelings towards it. What do you all think?

[loserguy]

I agree with you but this film as with most was made to make money.
In order to make money the film has to appeal to as wide an audience as possible so that as many people as possible will see it.
Therefore there are always going to be parts which will hit the heart strings and will usually centre around a few characters. Yes, a certain amount of fiction will come into it but the result that the makers aim for is a large audience rather than just an audient lol. That is the reason, I think, that they made it in the manner they did.

Good luck with your essay!

[Pix]

I think that people who make these movies are trying to make a buck, which is fine, they've got some big bills to pay to make it and profits encourage others to do the same. If someone wants to make a video without money (and likely no experts, possibly not even talent) and post it on YT that's their prerogative, and I wish them the best of luck with it, but I doubt even you would've watched it (unless they were surprisingly good).

Of course they change these "(very loosely) based on a true story" movies around to be more entertaining (and thus profitable), and if you don't want that then stick to documentaries. Speaking of which it's when news and documentaries that change things to be more entertaining (or propagandize) that I take offense, but not what is openly about entertainment first and informative second (and hopefully people know to take even the news with a grain of salt, let alone a movie based on it).

[partis]

I agree with what you say and "hotel Rwanda" like "Schindler's list" is storys of humanity in midst of inhumanity and this is what the film makers want here, . The truth is too terrible and not palatable to the wider audience and understandably so. It would be a horror film with no happy ending. Maybe a documentary would be better.

[matty7]

the one thing I do remember about the Rwanda genocide from the live news reports were that either side would murder you but would ask you to pay for the bullet to kill you quick but if you had nothing they would butcher you with a machete ,, they even showed it happening once from a helicopter view point - it was so shocking that I still remember it to this day

[HumbleTangerine]

I guess what most of you have said is correct. I've also realized that I don't really feel the same about WWII, probably because a lot more time has passed. Inglorious Basterds is a pretty great movie.

I guess it sort of bothers me an awful genocide with 500000-1000000 victims, where people were slain regardless of age (mostly with machetes), AIDS and rape were used as weapons, women were genitally mutilated and/or kept as sex slaves, infants were cut out of their mother's wombs and killed, was turned into an Americanized tear-jerker with alterations to make for slightly more pleasant, tear-jerky entertainment only 10 years after the tragedy actually occurred.

I don't know, no matter how I try to see it, I can't help but feel a little uncomfortable.

[partis]

I do feel the same about WWII genocide and 68 years isnt that long. The Rwanda genocide lasted 100 days and there was 1 million victims (max). The nazi holocaust lasted 6 - 7 years and there was 11 million victims (at least) So in 50 years will you feel better about "hotel rwanda"

[BYoNexus]

unfortunately, at the end of the day, films even those based on real events, are made to make money. Based on a True Story is simply that, Based on real events. They might use a lot of the facts in the film, or they will cherry pick some, and add in whatever they think will draw a larger audience.

Documentaries are a little better, but some still conform to the model of embellishing for the audience.