Buy posters from this movie

It’s important to understand the history of the Rwandan conflict, much of which is explained in the film. When the Belgians ruled the area that became Rwanda, the Tutsi minority was in power, and assisted the Belgians in their colonialist oppression of most of the nation. Shortly before Rwanda gained independence in 1959, the Hutu majority overthrew the Tutsi king, and drove a number of Tutsis out of the country. The children of those Tutsis eventually became the Rwandan Patriotic Front, a rebel group which attacked the country on October 1, 1990.

The Hutu government was losing popularity at the time, leading the president and his associates to work to strengthen the previously-existing ethnic divide. Events came to a head on April 6, 1994, when the plane carrying the president was shot down. The army and militia leaped into action, carrying out systematic execution both of Tutsis and of Hutu political opponents.

45 minutes into Hotel Rwanda, it seems as though everything is all right. The European powers have sent a force into the country which, it is assumed, will restore the peace. It was not to be, however; the European force came in, retrieved every Western citizen willing to leave (which was nearly all of them), and was out as quickly as it had arrived. The false hope and ultimate tragedy of this event is depicted with heart-rending clarity – as Colonel Oliver (Nick Nolte) tells Paul (Don Cheadle), the West simply didn’t care about the African angle, just about getting its own people home safe. A scene in which soldiers explain to a white priest that he can leave but that the dozens of Tutsi orphans he cares for must stay in the country is shattering.

Of course, is it any surprise that the West didn’t care about the conflict, at least not enough to stop it? Just 80 years before, there were only two states in Africa that weren’t under colonial rule – Liberia and Ethiopia. The rest of the continent was carved up like a turkey. The Europeans had no regard for existing tribal boundaries; divisions were made based on geography or resources, or simply on who arrived where first. Colonial powers viewed Africa exclusively as a commodity, and all commodities eventually outlive their usefulness; as soon as Africa decided it had had enough of colonial rule, there was a mass exodus – virtually every state in sub-Saharan Africa gained independence between 1955 and 1975. Africa had become more trouble than it was worth.

So it was in 1994. As soon as it became clear that the peace the UN was there to broker was not likely to happen, the UN pretty much pulled out. And so goes most of the second half of Hotel Rwanda, in which the unbelievably courageous hotel manager Paul Rusesabagina does everything he can – an astonishing amount – to save the lives not only of his wife and family but of more than 1200 other Tutsis and moderate Hutus who have taken refuge at the hotel, which with the UN gone is really no longer a safe spot of any kind.

If it seems like I’ve spent a lot of time discussing the context of the film and not so much the film itself, it’s because a film like this is nothing without its context. As with Oskar Schindler, Rusesabagina’s heroics become more impressive when weighed against the scale on which the genocide was carried out. You could argue against the narrowness of focus all day, but when 800,000 Tutsis and Hutu moderates were killed in the span of three months, the idea that a single man – a hotel manager with a few powerful contacts – could save well over a thousand is nothing if not amazing.

Besides, the film doesn’t gloss over the atrocities just because it shows them through Paul’s eyes. If anything, what we see is strengthened by this. Paul is Hutu but his wife and many of their friends are Tutsi, and Paul has no desire to be involved in the divisive politics of the Hutu government. He is an embodiment of the idea that ethnicity really means very little, and yet through what he sees, we know that it can mean everything in a climate of fear and hatred.

What is important about Hotel Rwanda is not that the story of Paul is being told, but that the story of Rwanda itself is being told. It’s easy to dismiss the film by charging it with being manipulative – and it can be quite manipulative at times, but that’s well beside the point. At one point in the film, Joaquin Phoenix’s American cameraman character tells Paul what he expects reaction to massacre footage he took will be: “They’ll say ‘Oh my God, that’s horrible,’ and then go on eating their dinners.” Clearly, mere depiction is not good enough to get people to notice things like this; if it takes a few knowingly-placed music cues, is that really such a bad thing? Some stories are important enough to deserve it. Do we see a lot of big-eyed children looking sad? Yes, but what makes anyone think that’s a phony detail when the most extreme of the Hutus wanted to wipe out the Tutsi children first so as to cut off the next generation?

I almost got through this whole review without discussing Cheadle’s performance, which is masterful. He is asked to carry the film on his back and does so, throughout calm, mayhem, and emotional highs and lows. A man who can serve as the linchpin for a film this powerful and never once falter deserves recognition, and I sincerely hope that Cheadle is at the very least nominated at the Oscars; the Golden Globe nod is a good start.

Powerful, chilling, moving and unforgettable, Hotel Rwanda may not be the best film released this year when all is said and done, but it has the inside track – and it is unquestionably the most affecting. I have never cried at a movie as much as I did at this one, and I don’t feel the least bit ashamed for it – trying to contemplate the film’s context is enough to make one want to scream out loud. If people weren’t willing to take notice of Rwanda as it happened, at least now they can see what fools they were.

link directly to this review at https://www.efilmcritic.com/review.php?movie=10461&reviewer=385
originally posted: 01/07/05 14:43:35
 printer-friendly format