The motion picture has been use as a tool for communicating historical events either by fictionalizing the events or by compiling a documentary that involves real scenarios or witnesses. The Rwanda genocide is one of the major historical events that have inspired various productions to address the atrocities. This essay aims at reviewing the movie titled Hotel Rwanda, alongside the PBS documentary titled Ghost of Rwanda and highlight where the two productions either compare or contrast. The study will further attempt to reveal which production presents the genocide more accurately.
Hotel Rwanda, to begin with, is a 2004 historical film that is a work of fiction that serves as a reminder of the atrocities committed to the Tutsi tribe by the Hutus. Told from the perspective of a hotel proprietor, it gives accounts of the corruption, ethnicity and the rising political tensions in the Eastern African nation. According to the film, the assassination of the Rwandese president is the trigger for the genocide. The Hutus indulged in ethnic cleansing that wiped out half of the Tutsi population. They carried out the killing in conviction that the Tutsis had hoarded the national wealth and the genocide would bring economic balance in Rwanda.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Ghosts of Rwanda, on the other hand is a documentary that uses a journalistic approach to address the massacre of 800,000 Tutsis and the role of the international community in the issue. It involves among others footage of the affected areas and factual evidence of the murdered people. It also incorporates the interviews of those involved and the affected especially the first hand witnesses of the atrocities. The documentary also highlights the factors that led to the laxity of the outside players who would otherwise have stopped the killings before they had escalated.
There are various instances that the two productions seem to compare despite the differences in their making. To begin with, they both seek to bring to the light the happenings of the 1994 crisis. The role of the Hutu as the extremist is well covered in the fiction film as well as the documentary. Both films are also quick to point out that the United Nations failed to act in time to avert the genocide. All that mattered to them was the evacuation of the foreign nationals while the natives begged to be saved from the attacking mobs.
The two productions also compare in that they are not able to get into the root of the Hutu-Tutsi conflict. It is apparent that the genocide was sparked by the assassination of the president of Rwanda. However, historical facts reveal that bad blood between the two tribes started several decades before with the ethnic cleansing happening several times before the 1994 genocide. It would have been more accurate if the productions had pointed out that the president’s assassination only served in escalating the prevailing tensions and was not the root cause of the ethnic divide.
There are other instances where the productions tend to differ especially when it comes to factual reporting. Hotel Rwanda, to begin with, covers the genocide from a fictional perspective with intention to highlight the key players in the crisis and how the events unfolded. Through Paul, the protagonist, the viewer is able to understand the position of Tutsis as the upper class society that is under threat by the lower class Hutus. Through bribery, the Tutsis have to negotiate with the security forces in order to be allowed to pass various checkpoints as they run to safety. The film also ends without a promise that things would get better although the afflicted Tutsis are able to reach safer locations.
Ghosts of Rwanda, on the other hand draws from the facts that the journalists involved were able to collect in relation to the genocide. The documentary features the remains of actual people who died as a result of the unrest. It further brings out the fact that the international community was not allowed enough information that would have enabled them to hamper the killings. It is highlighted that they were allowed into the Rwandese soil on condition that they do not interfere with the internal affairs of the nation. This is the explanation given for the laxity by the United Nations’ forces.
It is also notable that the documentary aims at assessing the genocide in relation to other related crises while Hotel Rwanda solely covers the Rwanda case. Through interviews with the various players in the global peace process, the documentary compares the genocide to Holocaust and the Cambodia crisis during the days of Pol Pot. In this light, it is apparent that Rwanda is not as exclusive case where the international community steps aside as mass killings are being carried out in the name of internal affairs. More so, the documentary is quick to note that there is a probability that such occurrences may recur shedding the light that respect for internal affairs will always be a setback to peace.
In conclusion, the Rwanda genocide has been subject for fiction film as well as documentaries with both productions comparing at some point and differing in others. While they both address a historical event, Hotel Rwanda merely provides a recreation of the events while the documentary involves the real events and the players involved including witnesses. All the same, they do not get to the root of the Hutu-Tutsi enmity and while Hotel Rwanda exclusively addresses the issues in Rwanda, Ghosts of Rwanda compares the crisis to other global unrests.
