Sometimes in April
I just watched Sometimes in April this week, a new movie about the Rwanda genocide. My sisters thought watching that after having already seen Hotel Rwanda was somewhat gratuitous, but I got it because it was a somewhat different angle. Like Hotel Rwanda, the story focused on a family; the father was a Hutu in the army, but his wife was a Tutsi, so basically they were all in danger. His brother is a radio announcer, making broadcasts every day in support of the genocide. The film goes back and forth between Rwanda in 2004 and in 1994, when the radio announcer brother is about to be tried before a war crimes tribunal.
That was one of the most terrible parts of the movie, actually; if the people hadn't been told all day, every day, that they should kill the "cockroaches," the Tutsis, would so many have taken machetes to their neighbors? The other terrible thing, which of course we all know now, is that America (along with other western nations) did absolutely nothing to protect the people of Rwanda. If Americans weren't in danger, there was no real problem. One of the bureaucrats, who'd been fighting for greater involvement, asked at the end, "If they weren't Africans, would we have helped?" It's a scary thing to think about, and I don't know the answer. But I'm guessing to most people, Rwanda just seemed so impossibly far away. What could anyone do? (So often I think that way about things - abortion, for example.)
Anyway, the movie was actually much more graphic than HR was, which was good in a documentary sort of way, but somehow not as effective for breaking your heart. I felt almost sick 20 minutes into HR, and there hadn't really been any violence, on screen. It was emotionally traumatic; Sometimes in April covered so much that you feel a little numb to the end. That said, I think both of these are movies worth watching, not enjoyable by any means, but a lot to think about. SiA really gets into the hows and whys of genocide, and the struggle of recovery after something like that. The ending did seem to be without much resolution, but maybe I was just missing something.
The most moving part of SiA was when a group of schoolgirls refused to separate into Hutu and Tutsi; they refused to give their identities, knowing what would probably happen. They were machine-gunned down for it. Hate forgets all its supposed loyalties in the face of resistance, I guess.
That was one of the most terrible parts of the movie, actually; if the people hadn't been told all day, every day, that they should kill the "cockroaches," the Tutsis, would so many have taken machetes to their neighbors? The other terrible thing, which of course we all know now, is that America (along with other western nations) did absolutely nothing to protect the people of Rwanda. If Americans weren't in danger, there was no real problem. One of the bureaucrats, who'd been fighting for greater involvement, asked at the end, "If they weren't Africans, would we have helped?" It's a scary thing to think about, and I don't know the answer. But I'm guessing to most people, Rwanda just seemed so impossibly far away. What could anyone do? (So often I think that way about things - abortion, for example.)
Anyway, the movie was actually much more graphic than HR was, which was good in a documentary sort of way, but somehow not as effective for breaking your heart. I felt almost sick 20 minutes into HR, and there hadn't really been any violence, on screen. It was emotionally traumatic; Sometimes in April covered so much that you feel a little numb to the end. That said, I think both of these are movies worth watching, not enjoyable by any means, but a lot to think about. SiA really gets into the hows and whys of genocide, and the struggle of recovery after something like that. The ending did seem to be without much resolution, but maybe I was just missing something.
The most moving part of SiA was when a group of schoolgirls refused to separate into Hutu and Tutsi; they refused to give their identities, knowing what would probably happen. They were machine-gunned down for it. Hate forgets all its supposed loyalties in the face of resistance, I guess.
posted by Amanda at
5:32 PM
2 Comments:
Amanda, I just watched Hotel Rwanda and Sometimes in April for a second time over the weekend, because the Bishop of the Anglican Mission in America is Rwandan. He and his wife were visiting our church in Columbia this week.
After watching the movies again, like you Hotel Rwanda emotionally truamatized me without showing much violence. I liked how they showed the heroism of Paul--a Hutu protecting his Tutsi neighbors. However, I did not feel like the movie did justice to what happened to the majority of Tutsis. I felt like there was crisis point after crisis point that were all resolved in favor of the family staying together and no one getting hurt. I am sure that the movie accurately showed what happened to Paul and his family, but that was not the general experience of a moderate Hutu's family.
That is why I liked the perspective that Sometimes in April took--it showed what happened to people who were outside the walls of the Mille de Collines Hotel. And even though it was showing the chaos, I thought it was tasteful (if I can use that word). The movie didn't overwhelem me with graphic images of violence--it showed enough to convey the horror and moved on. I also liked how it showed the man and woman trying to work through their memories related to the genocide. For me, I felt like the movie ended with both of the main characters coming to a point of resolution, where they could forgive those who hurt them and move on with their lives.
I commented briefly on what the Bishop's wife thought of Hotel Rwanda on my blog. If I have time today, I am going to blog about the talk they gave last night. One thing though--I asked them after the talk about the number of people who were killed, because the uniform number I hear from American sources is 800,000. However, Mrs. Sendendya (who lost 12 family members) said in actuality over 1.2 million Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed. She said, if anything, Americans tone what happened in Rwanda down too much.
Anyho, I think the movies balance each other out. I am glad you saw the movies and I liked hearing what you thought! :)
By
ashleigh, at 7:33 AM
Ashleigh, thanks for sharing your thoughts on the two movies - it's nice to be able to talk about them with someone else. I think I'd like to see both of them again at some point (HR soon); there's a lot more than you can get in one sitting, even if they aren't movies you can watch over and over again for enjoyment.
I agree that Somtimes in April shows the more common story, one that needs told still. (Did they decide to make it after Hotel Rwanda because HR only covered part of the story, I wonder?) It was good, I think, to see a woman's experience, too; the movie really did cover such a broad range of people who suffered. Also such a variety of people who made them suffer, like the priest at the school, who thought it was better to just give up the Tutsi girls.
I'm still having a hard time grasping that this happened just 12 years ago. That's one of the reasons I need to see these movies, and to keep up on global news now. Man's nature hasn't changed since then, although the "gospel of peace" is reaching more and more. I guess until Christ returns there's always the real possibility of genocide, and as Christians we have to be ready to stand against it. (Which, as shown in these movies, isn't easy.)
By
Amanda, at 5:26 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home