HOTEL RWANDA film - I'm interested in what people think about this?

Question

film as an accurate representation of what went on in Rwanda?

I ask as I have just recently returned from a 2 month trip there and was very surprised by what I learnt having spoken to a large number of people.. to be honest there are really not many people who have not been affected by the 1994 Genocide but I'll explain why I'm interested after a few responses....

The film was "watered" down a whole lot. In fact in Rwanda they refer to it as "The Disney version". The film was actually shot in South Africa and the real Milles Collines Hotel was not used in the film. The real hotel is a lot larger [I stayed there for a few nights].

Kezz I would have to say that people should use this film as a starting point but for a truer representation watch "Sometimes in April" which was actually filmed in Rwanda using Rwandeses people and also the real Milles Collines and real locations.

The difficulty with Hotel Rwanda is that as well as being watered down, the hotel Manager is not widely respected in Rwanda which surprised me. It really was not as straight forward as him protecting over 1000 Rwandese from genocide. In any event if you go to any genocide memorial in Rwanda it mentions the hundreds of people who sheltered others from possible slaughter but the hotel manager Paul Rusesabagina is not mentioned in any of the memorials.
The memorials in this country are stark - a church where many thousands were killed in Nyamata - betrayed by their priest... it remains as it was on the day they were killed... a school where people were gathered to be slaughtered Murambi.. their preserved remains still lie in the church

MaryAnn actually Hotel Rwanda is not based on fact.. the genocide aspect of it is correct to a point but the assistance offered by the Hotel Manager is widely disputed.

The final problem with this film is that it gives the impression that the origins of the resentments between Hutus and Tutsis was longstanding. Hutus and Tutsis had lived together unproblematically for many, many years until Belgain colonisation when the Belgians created the unscientific divisions between the groups based on psuedo genetics. They elevated the Tutsi minority above the Hutu majority .This is well documented. By the time Rwanda became independent in 1962 the divisions remained and had intensified to boiling point...

Answer 1

Another thing we have to keep in mind here, is who lives in Rwanda now? Over a million refugees came back to Rwanda after the war. These are people who had left during the long gone wars in the country, 1959 and 1973. They don't even speak French. They mainly speak English. The country before and after the war is completely different. So much so that Rwandans that had lived there all their lives, until April 1994, find it hard to fit in. The culture changed drastically for them.

As for the film, before the genocide, hotel managers were respected in Rwanda, they were considered to be learned people. I suppose you might also like to look at the actors in the film, mostly South Africans, can't even speak a word of French, and don't even know what Kinyarwanda is. I say so because I am a South African and I know. Even the song at the beginning of the film is South African, in isiZulu, by Yvonne Chaka Chaka, a South African musician. Then you have to think at the cost of putting the movie together in a dilapidated country like Rwanda. It would have cost the film makers even more. One has to be business-wise when getting into these types of projects.

Though the movie is as you put, 'watered down'. It served its purpose. There are a lot of people who didn't have a clue 'why those Africans were killing each other'. And through it, they began to learn and sought more info. There are books that people have ended up reading to find out more about the genocide. eg.. Left To Tell by Immaculee Ilibagiza; Shake Hands With the Devil: The Journey of Roméo Dallaire.

We won't always find all the information we need from films at times we need to search deeper. Also the film was a Tutsi-side of the story, wouldn't it be interesting to know what happened to the Hutus during this time?

Answer 2

Hotel Rwanda was a drama based on fact, not a documentary. Don't compare it to actual events because that's not a fair way to assess its value as a film. Yeah, calling it the Disney version is probably a fair comparison because we can't accurately depict the horrors of genocide on film and call it entertainment. That would be barbaric.

The purpose of the film was to provoke thought, emotion, interest, concern, and a desire to know more about atrocities that take place in parts of our world but are received quietly in our own neighborhoods. It's not meant to docoment the holocaust. It's meant to make people aware of it.

The film did just that.

Pirates of the Caribbean is not a documentary. It's a pirate movie.
Titanic is not a documentary. It's a disaster movie.
United 93 is not a documentary. Its a terrorism movie.
Hotel Rwanda is not a documentary. It's a genocide movie.

Some films are more fact than fiction. Others are more fiction than fact. Bottom line. You cannot compare a documentary to anything BUT a documentary.

Hotel Rwanda is what it is.

Answer 3

Sounds like it's going to be a lousy book. I recommend 'Shake Hands With the Devil' by Gen. Romeo Dallaire, or 'The Lion, the Fox, and the Eagle' by Carol Off. By the way, Colonel Bagosara's Hutu extremists were also Christians. Hell, they even had much of the local clergy working with them.

Answer 4

I think the movie is a grim reality of what goes on all over the world every single day. Sadly people are just not interested at all of what goes on until they see a movie like this or about something else that involves the same subject matter. I happen to be intrested in world affairs and all its badness because they are all signs that we are living in the last days of this present system.

Answer 5

The film is of course watered down a lot. The actual owner of the hotel was used as a point of reference for the film.

Answer 6

regardless of its flaws i think the movie was good in bringing the plight of these ppl to the masses. Many people in america have never even heard of the event especially the younger generations. my college showed this movie for free about a yr back and many of my fellow classmates were both interested and horrified at the event. even in its "watered down" form i think it spread knowledge which is always a good thing. if anything the film sparked an interest for individuals to do their own research as obviously you did.

Answer 7

This movie is so touching! Even if it does not portray the acurate truth about genocide and stuff it still shows you the real truth about what is going on in other places in the world. The movie made me sooooo sad! It's really good though.

Answer 8

I found your question really interesting. I've seen this movie 3 times and couldn't stop thinking about it for ages afterwards. It was horrific, and I'm shocked that this is a watered down version of events. Everyone should see this movie at least once.

Answer 9

this movie really showed the true horror's of the genocide that occurred in Rwanda...
and that's what makes it a good movie because it didn't hide or re-tell the story in any way.

Answer 10

Uhm, yes there were a lot of people affected by the genocide.. Did you also go to Germany and not talk to anyone affected by that genocide?