Who is presented as the protaganist of each story?
I would say that the protaganists in the documentary are the red cross people, the lone American who stayed, and perhaps even the General. All these people were doing what they could in their limited power to help the Rwandans and to stop the genocide. The Red cross were the only people who were able to go from group to group and travel to help the victims, but they were not without casualties themselves. Their bravery, and the bravery of the mission worker undoubtedly saved hundreds of lives. The General seemed to try and do what he could for the people. He had almost no power to use the weapons or men at his disposal, but he really tried to use what he could in a way that would help the Tutsis.
The protaganist in the movie was Paul. In the movie he is portrayed as the man who has everything together. He uses his contacts in high places, (including high HUTU places) to help the 1200+ refugees that were in his hotel. He repeatedly uses his wits and resources to save the lives of those around him, often at the expense of his own safety.
Who or what was most responsible for the genocide?
I think that this is a diffucult question. You could look at it so many different ways, it is somewhat hard to begin. The division started with the colonization of Rwanda by the Belgiums. They originally divided the Rwandans up into Hutus and Tutsis. They put the Tutsis in power, and what followed was a cycle of persecution by one tribe or another. This all exploded into the hatred and genocide that we have been studying. So is it the Belgiums' fault? The Rwandans' fault, for letting the hysteria affect so many? Or is it the fault of the west, for not intervening when we could have? I definitely think that the a little fault lies with the developed countries. We could at least have stopped it before letting it get so far, and saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
How is Canadian General Romeo Dallaire presented differently in each film?
In the documentary he is not "presented" in any way at all. Instead they interviewed him, and let him tell his story in his own words, how he wanted to be presented. Which, I think, is exactly how a documentary should be. In the documentary he seems to be a broken man. He is deeply scarred by what happened. He explains how he tried to do what was right in a diffucult situation. He explains how he had limited resources and trys to make you understand why he failed. In the movie, he is not presented as much of a "person". You don't see his humanity like you do in the documentary. In the movie you just see a hard-hearted general who is doing what he needs to do for his men, and doesn't much care about helping the Rwandans. You see a man who will do something for them, if it doesn't inconvienence him.
How concerned with historical accuracy do you think the creators of each film was?
I think that the historical accuracy of the documentary would have to be very high. As a documentary, it is expected that they present things in an unbiased way. They also present a lot of statistics, which need to be thoroughly researched and cited. Also, the movie Hotel Rwanda is "based on true stories" which means that they can exaggerate or distort things to make the story more dramatic or appealing to the public. After all, they point of a movie is partly to make money. The point of a documentary is to get a point across, or get the news out there. So they are definitely held to different standards.
I would say that the protaganists in the documentary are the red cross people, the lone American who stayed, and perhaps even the General. All these people were doing what they could in their limited power to help the Rwandans and to stop the genocide. The Red cross were the only people who were able to go from group to group and travel to help the victims, but they were not without casualties themselves. Their bravery, and the bravery of the mission worker undoubtedly saved hundreds of lives. The General seemed to try and do what he could for the people. He had almost no power to use the weapons or men at his disposal, but he really tried to use what he could in a way that would help the Tutsis.
The protaganist in the movie was Paul. In the movie he is portrayed as the man who has everything together. He uses his contacts in high places, (including high HUTU places) to help the 1200+ refugees that were in his hotel. He repeatedly uses his wits and resources to save the lives of those around him, often at the expense of his own safety.
Who or what was most responsible for the genocide?
I think that this is a diffucult question. You could look at it so many different ways, it is somewhat hard to begin. The division started with the colonization of Rwanda by the Belgiums. They originally divided the Rwandans up into Hutus and Tutsis. They put the Tutsis in power, and what followed was a cycle of persecution by one tribe or another. This all exploded into the hatred and genocide that we have been studying. So is it the Belgiums' fault? The Rwandans' fault, for letting the hysteria affect so many? Or is it the fault of the west, for not intervening when we could have? I definitely think that the a little fault lies with the developed countries. We could at least have stopped it before letting it get so far, and saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
How is Canadian General Romeo Dallaire presented differently in each film?
In the documentary he is not "presented" in any way at all. Instead they interviewed him, and let him tell his story in his own words, how he wanted to be presented. Which, I think, is exactly how a documentary should be. In the documentary he seems to be a broken man. He is deeply scarred by what happened. He explains how he tried to do what was right in a diffucult situation. He explains how he had limited resources and trys to make you understand why he failed. In the movie, he is not presented as much of a "person". You don't see his humanity like you do in the documentary. In the movie you just see a hard-hearted general who is doing what he needs to do for his men, and doesn't much care about helping the Rwandans. You see a man who will do something for them, if it doesn't inconvienence him.
How concerned with historical accuracy do you think the creators of each film was?
I think that the historical accuracy of the documentary would have to be very high. As a documentary, it is expected that they present things in an unbiased way. They also present a lot of statistics, which need to be thoroughly researched and cited. Also, the movie Hotel Rwanda is "based on true stories" which means that they can exaggerate or distort things to make the story more dramatic or appealing to the public. After all, they point of a movie is partly to make money. The point of a documentary is to get a point across, or get the news out there. So they are definitely held to different standards.
RSS Feed