Hotel Rwanda

Roberto Cutout. It was released into the United States on December 22, 2004, but it released elsewhere in the world throughout 2005. The three main stars of the movie were Don Cheated, who plays Paul Reassigning the hotel manager, Sophie Conned, who plays Titian Reassigning, Pall's wife, and Nick Molten who plays Colonel Oliver, the United Nations peacekeeper.I watched this movie about a week ago on July 27th with a few of my friends who are also taking this course. The movie is not part of a series, but it is based on a true story. It is inspired by the novel An Ordinary Man by Paul Reassigning and Hotel Rwanda: Bringing the True Story of an African Hero to Film by Keri Pearson and Terry George. In Rwanda, there are two main ethnic groups, the Tutsis and the Huts , who are constantly fighting for power and control of Rwanda. Genocide constantly cleanses Rwanda streets as people turn away in fear.Paul Reassigning is a hotel manager for the Hotel Des Mille Isoclines in Kigali, Rwanda. He being a Hut helps his family and other people they know, most Tutsis like his wife, take refuge from the Hut army in his hotel. Before they even reach the hotel, they get taken by the Huts and Paul has to pay General Beginning one hundred thousand Francs to spare the lives of his Tutsis friends that first took shelter in their home and another ten thousand Francs for his wife and kids' lives.As they try to settle the few amounts of people they have in the hotel already plus the current guests, the Red Cross and other Huts and Tutsis arrive at the hotel taking refuge adding the total from one hundred to over eight hundred Rwanda. As the genocide increases, the Europeans staying at the hotel are flown out of Rwanda by the United Nations and sent back home to avoid the danger. Paul tries to get help from the Belgians and the French after the fighting grows, but the countries refuse to get themselves caught up in Rwanda problems. The U. N. Sakes a list of refugees able to leave the country and attempt to take them on trucks across the border, but Tutsis rebels ambush the trucks forcing them to return to the hotel. Paul and his family later get to escape to a U. N. Refugee camp where they find Titan's nieces, but her brother and sister-in-law nowhere to be found. They end up crossing past the rebel nine and drive to their new home in Tanzania, away from the war. In ten years, one million Rwanda, both Hut and Tutsis, were left for dead because of the genocide and hatred between these two ethnic groups.Which I believe is an unreasonably irrational thing to happen all due to hatred between human beings. The characters in â€Å"Hotel Rwanda† are based on real people and events that actually happened in Rwanda during the sass. Paul Reassigning was a real person that actually took care of hundreds of people in his hotel in Kigali, Rwanda. The people played in the film were accurate as to the real situation in the sass. The dates in the film were also right. So me online people, mostly Rwanda, say that the movie does not tell the story of the genocide correctly as it happened.These sources are not official since they are only people of Rwanda that live there and claim they fully and correctly know the story of the genocide and what happened with Paul Reassigning and his family. The events in the film were based on true events that happened in Rwanda during the sass, ending in 1994. â€Å"Hotel Rwanda† was mainly filmed on the spot in Kigali, Rwanda and Johannesburg, South Africa. The Hotel Des Mille Isoclines set was filmed in South Africa, but the original Hotel Des Mille Isoclines is located in Kigali, Rwanda.The scenes showing the city streets and most fighting scenes are shot in Kigali. The camp scenes along with some road scenes were filmed in South Africa. These locations were shown very accurately since they filmed part of the movie in the actual city where the movie takes place. The movie was filmed during 2004 and it releas ed on December 22, 2004. The wardrobes of the people shown in the film are accurately represented like the Huts, Tutsis, and militias wore during the sass in Rwanda. The ears and clothes of the people were portrayed very well as to how they were back then.The producers did a great Job of showing the time period during the movie Just by the clothes the actors wore. All around this movie was accurately shot and shown as the real actual thing. â€Å"Hotel Rwanda† was a very dampening movie because of the killing of innocent people and children, but it was very good. The actors were great, especially Don Cheated, playing Paul Reassigning, the most important role in the movie. The strongest points in the movie were how real they represented and filmed the Unicode as well as the emotions in the characters throughout each scene.The weakest point in the movie, I believe, is the ending where it ends with the Russianness on the road after they got off the bus. I was curious why they di dn't show the rest of their Journey to their new home in Tanzania and what happens after they get there. Which is most likely due to the length of the movie, which is understandable. It was kind of like a cliff hanger for me, so I did not really like the ending as much as I expected I would. I also enjoyed how the movie rose to a great lima and then stayed at a climax for a while until it dived towards the end once the family reached the U.N. Camp. The movie really kept me on â€Å"the edge of my seat† throughout the whole thing . After watching â€Å"Hotel Rwanda†, I was well aware of what happened with the Hut and Tutsis genocide. I did not realize how much damage was caused in Just one hundred days of the killings. The movie would have been better if it continued on about the Russianness' lives in Tanzania and how they managed to survive. I would definitely recommend â€Å"Hotel Rwanda† to anyone that enjoys watching historic events that keep you on the edge of your seat. Hotel Rwanda Textual Analysis: Hotel Rwanda (Terry George, 2004) The horrible evidence of what Kant variously called the wickedness, corruption and perversity of the human heart is, unfortunately, not encountered only in memory, it is also met with among our current experiences. We are daily obliged to witness fresh atrocities as ethnic and racial hatreds seek to express themselves in the annihilation of their proponents’ enemies. Copjec, 1996;9) The above quote effectively demonstrates that debates on evil are not only still suitable for the issues emerging in a post-modern world, but are perhaps more suitable than ever before. The film which I will be discussing, Hotel Rwanda (2004), relates the true story of Paul Rusesabagina, a man who sheltered over a thousand refugees in the hotel he managed during the Rwandan genocide of 1994.The film is useful as a focus point for the discussion of evil since the situation surrounding the events that took place during those months are often referre d to in terms of evil – not only on the part of the Hutu militia that perpetrated the atrocities, but also of the international community and the UN in particular, which did not intervene to stop the massacre – and it would be useful to analyse a couple of key points in this film more closely.After World War II, it was believed that the genocide perpetrated by the Nazis would never be allowed to happen again, but events in Yugoslavia and Rwanda, to name but two examples, have proven that the potential for acts of evil of this magnitude to occur are not specific to one culture or even to a place in time, but are expressions of – to use the words of Immanuel Kant – ‘a natural propensity to evil’ (1960;20) that is embedded in the human race.It might therefore prove useful to turn to psychoanalysis for a partial explanation with regards to how it is possible for people to change their behaviour in such radical ways, readily adopting new moral max ims that often oppose their previously adopted ones. According to Freud, when in a group situation, ‘the individual gives up his ego ideal and substitutes for it the group ideal as embodied in the leader’ The other members of the group are, according to this theory, ‘carried away with the rest by ‘suggestion’, that is to say, by means of identification’ (1921;161-162).According to this theory, the group – small or large – surrenders its free will to that of the leader, which makes them less likely to make their own moral judgements with regards to their actions and more likely to blindly follow the leader as well as the other members of their group. The issues of identity and legitimisation are also crucial to understanding how the Hutus felt justified in brutally murdering their former friends and neighbours. As is explained in the film, tensions between Tutsis and Hutus were virtually nonexistent prior to the arrival of the Belg ian colonists. The two ethnic groups are actually very similar – they speak the same language, inhabit the same areas and follow the same traditions†¦It was the Belgian colonists who saw Hutus and Tutsis as ‘distinct entities, and even produced identity cards classifying people according to their ethnicity’ (BBC News Website). In other words, there were no violent issues of ethnic difference until the Tutsis were made – to use the definition provided by Richard Kearney – into â€Å"aliens†.For Kearney, this term refers to ‘that experience of alterity associated with selection†¦or sometimes with suspicion’ (2000;101). He goes on to say that ‘Aliens proliferate where anxieties loom as to who we are and how we demarcate ourselves from others (who are not us)’ (2000;102). This means that, in order to legitimise their own identity, groups must necessarily create a group of ‘aliens’ with whom they ca n misidentify. The tendency to use members of this group as scapegoats and perceive them as threats is clearly demonstrated in the build-up to the Rwanda massacre.As the economic situation in the country worsened, Tutsis were used to divert anger from the Hutu government. Subsequently, when the airplane carrying the Rwandan president Juvenal Habyarimana was shot down, the incident was used to make Hutus feel as if they were under attack. As one Hutu – who actively took part in the massacre – later relates; ‘Because the RPF were blamed for the death of President Habyarimana, we thought that they had started with the high-ranking officials and that they were going to end up doing the same to us ordinary people’ (BBC News Website).In other words, ‘When faced with a threatening outsider, the best mode of defence becomes attack’ (Kearney, 2000;104). The other side of evil as portrayed in the film, however, is the international community’s fa ilure to act. The UN soldiers in Rwanda are portrayed as good people who have their hands tied, yet their refusal to go against their orders is portrayed almost as cowardice in that they are failing to ‘do what is right’ and use their weapons in order to save lives.In a scene where the UN convoy – transporting refugees from the hotel to a secure camp – gets stopped at a militia roadblock, the refugees’ lives are in dire peril, and the fact that the soldiers will not shoot the Hutus that are about to kill unarmed men, women and children stands for what is now widely thought of as shameful unwillingness of the Western nations to recognise and stop the genocide. The outcome of this particular scene is that the UN soldiers do not use their weapons but most of the refugees are saved by the belatedly arrived local police force.The outcome of the lack of intervention from Western nations was the death of an estimated 1 million people. The crucial question for the purpose of this paper is whether the actions of those soldiers were evil. It could be argued that if they had used their guns against their explicit orders, many lives could have been saved, but it could also be said, on the other hand, that this act would have give the hostile militias a justification to kill the UN soldiers as well, which would have saved even fewer lives.In determining the evil nature of actions or people, should we consider first and foremost the intention or the consequence of action? It might prove useful at this point to outline a practical definition of morals in contrast to ethics in relation to this particular example. I would argue that morals are result-orientated whilst ethics in the true Kantian sense are interested solely in the consistent obedience of the law, a maxim which once adopted by an individual must be followed for its own sake, regardless of consequence or relative circumstances.Whilst morals must consider a situation in light not o nly of the law, but also taking into account the surrounding circumstances and possible outcomes, ethics dictate that anything short of upholding the law for the law’s sake is evil. Within this framework it is then possible to argue that the soldier’s actions were ethical but not moral. While it would have been impossible for them not to consider the outcome of their action, we could conclude that their decision to uphold the law overrode their need to help the refugees.Operating under a law that dictated that they would not use their weapons to protect the refugees, going against that would be – in Kantian terms – evil, as they would be breaking the law, and even if countless lives were saved as a result of that, Kant’s unforgiving sense of ethics would not spare them in the least, for the outcome of actions simply does not feature in his theoretical framework. By choosing to uphold the law the soldiers fulfil another crucial requirement of Kantia n ethical behaviour (or as he calls it, the ‘moral law’); the categorical imperative.In stating that one should never act except in such a way that they should will that their maxim should become universal law, Kant established that the most important factor of his ethics is consistency, as no double standards can be tolerated. It would seem reasonable to assume that the moral maxim of the soldiers in question is that violence without due procedure and full backing of the law is never justifiable.With that in mind, it could be argued that they would be happy to see that moral maxim adopted as universal law, since a world in which this maxim was universally adopted would most probably not have seen the Rwanda genocide taking place. BIBLIOGRAPHY Copjec, J. (1996) (Ed. ) Radical Evil, Varso Books Freud, S. (1991) Civilization, Society and Religions: ‘Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego’, ‘Future of an Illusion’ and ‘Civilization and its Discontents’ (The Penguin Freud Library) Penguin Books Kant, I. 1960) Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone, New York, Harper Collins Torchbooks, Australia Kearney, R. (2000) ‘Others and Aliens: Between Good and Evil’, in: Geddes, J. (Ed. ) Evil After Postmodernism: Histories, Narratives, and Ethics, Routledge Singer, P. (2004) The President of Good and Evil: Taking George W. Bush Seriously, London, Granta Books ‘Taken Over By Satan’ http://news. bbc. co. uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/3582011. stm Accessed on 14/03/2006 ‘Rwanda: How the genocide happened’ http://news. bbc. co. uk/1/hi/world/africa/1288230. stm Accessed on 17/03/2006 Hotel Rwanda Textual Analysis: Hotel Rwanda (Terry George, 2004) The horrible evidence of what Kant variously called the wickedness, corruption and perversity of the human heart is, unfortunately, not encountered only in memory, it is also met with among our current experiences. We are daily obliged to witness fresh atrocities as ethnic and racial hatreds seek to express themselves in the annihilation of their proponents’ enemies. Copjec, 1996;9) The above quote effectively demonstrates that debates on evil are not only still suitable for the issues emerging in a post-modern world, but are perhaps more suitable than ever before. The film which I will be discussing, Hotel Rwanda (2004), relates the true story of Paul Rusesabagina, a man who sheltered over a thousand refugees in the hotel he managed during the Rwandan genocide of 1994.The film is useful as a focus point for the discussion of evil since the situation surrounding the events that took place during those months are often referre d to in terms of evil – not only on the part of the Hutu militia that perpetrated the atrocities, but also of the international community and the UN in particular, which did not intervene to stop the massacre – and it would be useful to analyse a couple of key points in this film more closely.After World War II, it was believed that the genocide perpetrated by the Nazis would never be allowed to happen again, but events in Yugoslavia and Rwanda, to name but two examples, have proven that the potential for acts of evil of this magnitude to occur are not specific to one culture or even to a place in time, but are expressions of – to use the words of Immanuel Kant – ‘a natural propensity to evil’ (1960;20) that is embedded in the human race.It might therefore prove useful to turn to psychoanalysis for a partial explanation with regards to how it is possible for people to change their behaviour in such radical ways, readily adopting new moral max ims that often oppose their previously adopted ones. According to Freud, when in a group situation, ‘the individual gives up his ego ideal and substitutes for it the group ideal as embodied in the leader’ The other members of the group are, according to this theory, ‘carried away with the rest by ‘suggestion’, that is to say, by means of identification’ (1921;161-162).According to this theory, the group – small or large – surrenders its free will to that of the leader, which makes them less likely to make their own moral judgements with regards to their actions and more likely to blindly follow the leader as well as the other members of their group. The issues of identity and legitimisation are also crucial to understanding how the Hutus felt justified in brutally murdering their former friends and neighbours. As is explained in the film, tensions between Tutsis and Hutus were virtually nonexistent prior to the arrival of the Belg ian colonists. The two ethnic groups are actually very similar – they speak the same language, inhabit the same areas and follow the same traditions†¦It was the Belgian colonists who saw Hutus and Tutsis as ‘distinct entities, and even produced identity cards classifying people according to their ethnicity’ (BBC News Website). In other words, there were no violent issues of ethnic difference until the Tutsis were made – to use the definition provided by Richard Kearney – into â€Å"aliens†.For Kearney, this term refers to ‘that experience of alterity associated with selection†¦or sometimes with suspicion’ (2000;101). He goes on to say that ‘Aliens proliferate where anxieties loom as to who we are and how we demarcate ourselves from others (who are not us)’ (2000;102). This means that, in order to legitimise their own identity, groups must necessarily create a group of ‘aliens’ with whom they ca n misidentify. The tendency to use members of this group as scapegoats and perceive them as threats is clearly demonstrated in the build-up to the Rwanda massacre.As the economic situation in the country worsened, Tutsis were used to divert anger from the Hutu government. Subsequently, when the airplane carrying the Rwandan president Juvenal Habyarimana was shot down, the incident was used to make Hutus feel as if they were under attack. As one Hutu – who actively took part in the massacre – later relates; ‘Because the RPF were blamed for the death of President Habyarimana, we thought that they had started with the high-ranking officials and that they were going to end up doing the same to us ordinary people’ (BBC News Website).In other words, ‘When faced with a threatening outsider, the best mode of defence becomes attack’ (Kearney, 2000;104). The other side of evil as portrayed in the film, however, is the international community’s fa ilure to act. The UN soldiers in Rwanda are portrayed as good people who have their hands tied, yet their refusal to go against their orders is portrayed almost as cowardice in that they are failing to ‘do what is right’ and use their weapons in order to save lives.In a scene where the UN convoy – transporting refugees from the hotel to a secure camp – gets stopped at a militia roadblock, the refugees’ lives are in dire peril, and the fact that the soldiers will not shoot the Hutus that are about to kill unarmed men, women and children stands for what is now widely thought of as shameful unwillingness of the Western nations to recognise and stop the genocide. The outcome of this particular scene is that the UN soldiers do not use their weapons but most of the refugees are saved by the belatedly arrived local police force.The outcome of the lack of intervention from Western nations was the death of an estimated 1 million people. The crucial question for the purpose of this paper is whether the actions of those soldiers were evil. It could be argued that if they had used their guns against their explicit orders, many lives could have been saved, but it could also be said, on the other hand, that this act would have give the hostile militias a justification to kill the UN soldiers as well, which would have saved even fewer lives.In determining the evil nature of actions or people, should we consider first and foremost the intention or the consequence of action? It might prove useful at this point to outline a practical definition of morals in contrast to ethics in relation to this particular example. I would argue that morals are result-orientated whilst ethics in the true Kantian sense are interested solely in the consistent obedience of the law, a maxim which once adopted by an individual must be followed for its own sake, regardless of consequence or relative circumstances.Whilst morals must consider a situation in light not o nly of the law, but also taking into account the surrounding circumstances and possible outcomes, ethics dictate that anything short of upholding the law for the law’s sake is evil. Within this framework it is then possible to argue that the soldier’s actions were ethical but not moral. While it would have been impossible for them not to consider the outcome of their action, we could conclude that their decision to uphold the law overrode their need to help the refugees.Operating under a law that dictated that they would not use their weapons to protect the refugees, going against that would be – in Kantian terms – evil, as they would be breaking the law, and even if countless lives were saved as a result of that, Kant’s unforgiving sense of ethics would not spare them in the least, for the outcome of actions simply does not feature in his theoretical framework. By choosing to uphold the law the soldiers fulfil another crucial requirement of Kantia n ethical behaviour (or as he calls it, the ‘moral law’); the categorical imperative.In stating that one should never act except in such a way that they should will that their maxim should become universal law, Kant established that the most important factor of his ethics is consistency, as no double standards can be tolerated. It would seem reasonable to assume that the moral maxim of the soldiers in question is that violence without due procedure and full backing of the law is never justifiable.With that in mind, it could be argued that they would be happy to see that moral maxim adopted as universal law, since a world in which this maxim was universally adopted would most probably not have seen the Rwanda genocide taking place. BIBLIOGRAPHY Copjec, J. (1996) (Ed. ) Radical Evil, Varso Books Freud, S. (1991) Civilization, Society and Religions: ‘Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego’, ‘Future of an Illusion’ and ‘Civilization and its Discontents’ (The Penguin Freud Library) Penguin Books Kant, I. 1960) Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone, New York, Harper Collins Torchbooks, Australia Kearney, R. (2000) ‘Others and Aliens: Between Good and Evil’, in: Geddes, J. (Ed. ) Evil After Postmodernism: Histories, Narratives, and Ethics, Routledge Singer, P. (2004) The President of Good and Evil: Taking George W. Bush Seriously, London, Granta Books ‘Taken Over By Satan’ http://news. bbc. co. uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/3582011. stm Accessed on 14/03/2006 ‘Rwanda: How the genocide happened’ http://news. bbc. co. uk/1/hi/world/africa/1288230. stm Accessed on 17/03/2006