I've seen Schiendler's List, but it was when I was young. It's on my Blockbuster Queue. :wink:

I want to see Hotel Rwanda more and more now

Having recently seen the movie Hotel Rwanda, and it got me thinking: Why didn't Israel intervene in the 1994 Rwandan genocide? Almost 1 million people were slaughtered for belonging to a different "tribe" - not that different from the European Jews in the 1930's and 40's.

Sure, they are only one of the countries which turned their backs on this tragic massacre, but you would think that with their own recent history of the holocaust in WWII which left 6 million dead, that they might be at the forefront of proactive intervention in other countries where genocide is taking place.

Any thoughts on this?

For some reason, I don't think Israel cared enough. If they did, they wouldn't be killing Palestinians in their own conflict. The fact that America won the land of Israel for the Jews makes them think that it's okay to kill others. That's just my opinion. I don't think they really wanted to help. If anything, Belgium should have done something about the problem. If they didn't come in and claim tutsis as the dominant tribe in Rwanda, the hutus would not have hated tutsis so much.

Well Israel can't really do anything. First and foremost its a nation of 6 million I belive. There army isn't big enough to make independant decisions, that would be a suicide wish. Second, they get too much support from the U.S. (arms, funding, etc). The U.S. actively dissuaded intervention and biting the hand that feeds you is pretty dumb (at this time). Israel has been very giving as far as other situation, and has sent the greatest recovery and identification team to work in Tsunami areas, but that is the kind of support it is known for, not military per se. As to Jews identifiying the trends one could pretty much ask any country that had ethnic, religious, or political persectution why they didn't see the signs and jump in? It still just comes down to the broader question of why anyone didn't intervene, not why any one particular country didn't. It's tricky, it was considered a Civil War or sorts, and who jumps in on a Civil War? As far as I know (and am probably wrong) the split was not along religious or ethnic lines (did the movie not say the Belgiums pretty much "created" two peoples so that one could be a ruling class over the other?) So its wasn't ethnic cleansing, it wasn't religious persecution, it did include class warfare and many other elements I clearly don't recognize, but that's part of the complications that were probably manipulated as an excuse to not enter.

I think were was a section in the film were Phoenix (cameraman) learns about Belgian selection of Tutsis and it was pretty random. In an overly explicit section Phoenix asks those two women which they are, and one was Hutu and one was Tutsi and he cracked a joke they could be sisters. Its more complicated than that, but I'm citing the movie to demonstrate my aove point that it wasn't ethnic cleansing per se.

I'll probably see this one this weekend. That is, if the snow storm isn't too bad and we aren't on some kind of emergency. The trailer looks excellent, and I've been playing "Million Voices" over and over. I love that song!

I'm getting hit by the storm too. It's about time we got some snow. :razz:

I'll finally be seeing it this weekend. I'm really excited.

Did you see it yet?

No. My friends flaked out on me last night which left me at home posting Skeletor pictures on this very message board.

Maybe tonight, though.

Well, I saw it last night and I thought it was fantastic. Don Cheadle did a fine job, as did Sophie Okonedo. I'm split on whether to give this an A or A- though... While is is an excellent film, it has its flaws. I'll give it an A- for now.

It's biggest flaw is Nick Nolte.

OH MY GOD is he bad in this.

And the shot at the end with the children *puke*

I saw it last weekend and it was good. Don Cheadle is the best thing about it,plus it has a great score and a wonderful song. Sophie gives a very underrated performance.

B+

I was a small bit disappointed in Terry George's HOTEL RWANDA. Cheadle and Okonedo were fantastic, although I'm unsure if Okonedo is Academy Award-worthy, and I appreciated the small performances by Joaquin Phoenix, Jean Reno, and Nick Nolte, but the film, IMHO, seemed afraid to fully recognize the horrors of genocide with "PG-13" rating and unfitting "uplifting" ending. Perhaps I missed the point and I do recognize the performances are excellent and the fact that the film sheds light on an undertelevised incident in world history, but, in the end, its a tad overrated.

8/10

Hotel Rwanda is an important film. It's just not an amazing one. As always, Don Cheadle amazes, and hopefully will finally get the recognition he deserves (an Oscar nomination is a start, time for him to get some pull too!). However, the supporting cast is surprisingly weak. As said, Nick Nolte is very weak in this movie, and I have no idea how Sophie Okenado (sp?) got an Oscar nomination. She was decent, but didn't hold a candle to Cheadle. Though the build up was very good and the film depicts the incident well, it just felt like it never really had much of a climax, it just got to the truck scene, we breathed a sigh of relief, then it just slowed down until it rolled to a stop (and with the freeze the screen and fade out gag too... *sigh*). I don't want it to look like the genocide in Rwanda wasn't a huge tragedy, but the film just seemed to play it a bit too safe and schmaltzy and never really went anywhere. Fantastic acting by Cheadle though, and I was very into it until after the trucks returned to the hotel. B+/B

That's about half the article, the entire article is in the Feb. 28th issue and can be read online. It goes more into personal stories, and also a screening of the film they had in the hotel recently.

makeshift...

Any luck yet?

Anyone else seen it yet? :wink:

Heh, my school made Hotel Rwanda part of the 10th grade curriculum. I've been watching it all week.

It has been released here a couple of weeks ago. I'll try to check it out soon.

I'm going to see it NOW.

One big question. What's the difference between a Hutu and a Tutsi (?) ??

Ha! Good question mate! I suppose that one could also ask what the difference is between the Serbians and the Albanians at Kosovo and it's surrounding areas were when they experienced their ethnic cleansing campaign? Or, you could also ask what the difference between the Arabs and the Jews are that keep them locked in a bitter blood battle to this very day. Physically speaking, many of us on the outside looking in cannot really see any true surface difference. Many of the peoples 'look' as though the belong to the same group, despite other 'learned' traits. But, we all know that from the start of our existence, humans have always sought to find the differences in each other to separate themselves from another and/or make themselves appear to be worthier or more unique/superior than the orther. It is and will always be an age old misconception. The fact remains there will always be some to carry this cursed torch and pass it onto the next generation and so on. That is the saddest part and our futility will always come into question as long as this happens. Is there still hope? Yes, but perhaps not in our lifetimes, or the ones that preceed it. Alas, I have yet again gone of course from your main question.

The Hutu and the Tutsi are tribes that reside in Rwanda and share the same language, culture, and religious beliefs. The Hutu, the greatest of the tribes make up about 85pc of the population in Rwanda. The Tutsi make up the other 14pc and a tribe known as the Twa make up the remaining 1pc of the people. The Hutu and the Tutsi also have smaller contingents in other African states, in Europe and in North America. Their total world populations ranges in at about 14 million peoples. Their greatest concentration however is in Rwanda where their total is about 7 to 8 million. All three tribes have been living together side by side in the region since about 900 A.D. Almost every word to describe the differences between the tribes have been a travesty of humanity. All has been based in misrepresentation. The Hutu are described as small, thick in stature, deep-brown farmers whilst the Tutsi are oft described as tall, slim, and very dark cattle drivers whose forefathers conquered the Hutu several centuries before. The two peoples have lived as nobles and serfs ever since. This is a huge misconception but many believe it to be true. (Kind of reminds me of the rift betwteen Elf and Dwarf in Tolkiens literature. Perhaps examples such as these gave him some of the foundation to show the frailties of the mindset about race, etc.) In the end, physical characteristics are unreliable to distinguish the Hutu from the Tutsi. The minor differences are not particularlly illuminating as it isn't for many other groups who claim difference. The overlying premise here is that one group greatly out-numbers the other, jealousy rears up and one group asserts their dominance over the other in all aspects of life. War then often becomes inevitable. Sad isn't it?

So again, what is the 'real' difference between a Hutu and a Tutsi?

The answer:


Nothing.






Everything.

Weird. That makes it even more shocking. I really can't understand it.

Ethnic Profiling/Cleansing has never really been about logic.