Talk:Hotel Rwanda

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-Importance on the importance scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.

	This article is within the scope of the Africa WikiProject, a collaborative effort to build a more detailed guide on Wikipedia's coverage of the continent of Africa. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.	Africa Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.

In a recent quote I saw on Time Magazine's site, it seemed like a Rwanda official contended that this movie was not historically accurate. http://www.time.com/time/quotes/0,26174,1199828,00.html - I don't know much about it, but came here expecting to find a discussion about it. No discussion on the page exists. Is anyone better informed about this? --Ryan Gardner 18:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

i moved "Hotel Rwanda (movie)" to "Hotel Rwanda". "Hotel Rwanda" was only a redirect. There are no other articles about "Hotel Rwanda", so it should not be a redirect. it should be the main article. Kingturtle 00:24, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the slight skin assertion (Hollywood arbitrarily selecting light skinned Tutsi to created racial differences). If you disagree can you please point out some critical reviews that addressed this? Was it not true that skin was a slight difference? Lotsofissues 23:03, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps but it was no primary-difference... nose-form was. In the movie it seems the main difference was skin colour, which is not true. The stuff ive read about this almost never mentions light-skinned vs dark-skinned, only nose-form+height. Other criticism: all the whites in the movie are like good moral people, crying over their memories, but no africans cry, if they shed some tears its because they are scared... Only whites make some comments about the whole thing, its like Africans, who are there, dont know even whats happening... Well well, its a good emotionall drama, no history lesson. Foant 09:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Did you actually watch the whole movie? The Africans are portrayed as knowing very well what is going on, thats why they're so scared? It's not true that none of the characters cry because of what's going on. For example, Paul cries after seeing the bodies. Paul and his wife cry because of the loss of the wife's brother and his wife. There are other instances too. Of course, most of the time, the Africans characters are crying etc because they're scared. That's probably because most of the time they are scared. This is a movie about a bunch of people who's lives are continually in danger. If this movie potrayed their lives after they were no longer in danger, I'm sure they would cry a lot due to their memories about what happened to them and to everyone else. It's true that most of the whites actually seen are potrayed as people who are concerned about what's going on but then the movie makes it clear that the Americans, French etc who you don't see don't care about what's going on. For example, their refusal to send more peace keepers etc. Or when Paul calls up the Sabena airlines CEO/whatever who tells him at the end of their conversation everyone has abandoned them. Or the way the head of the peace keepers tells Paul no one cares about them because they're only Africans. Clearly there is a strong potrayal that there are a lot of whites who don't care about what's going on. The reason why all the whites you see are the ones who care is perhaps because these are the only ones you see? You don't see any whites wo don't care because any that were in Rwanda would have left Rwanda a long time ago and this movie doesn't show many outside Rwanda. As for the skin colour thing, IMHO it's bull. I don't know if it's true the majority of Hutus were potrayed as being darker skin then Tutsis but if you noticed this IMHO you're looking for things which probably don't exist anywhere but your mind and if they did, were very likely unintentional. The only time the difference was mentioned it was potrayed as a largely silly definition poorly founded in actual geneology and mostly based on the nsoe/height difference you mention and created largely by the Belgium colonists which from what I've read is the truth. Also a quick look at the Tutsi article suggests that skin colour is in fact one of the difference which was emphasised by the Belgian colonists who claimed the Tutsis were the superior Hamitic race. I have no idea if this is something Tutsis and Hutus continue to consider today but clearly there is a strong implication that the skin colour difference has been one used previously so even tho the movie never even mentioned this difference, it would appear likely it exists somewhat today given that the this was one of the traits that was used in the creation of this rather flawed (IMHO) seperation of Rwandan people

In the movie Augustin is portrayed as a corrupt and rather horrible person who did nothing to stop the atrocities/genocide but does not appear to suggest that he had any direct involvement in committing or ordering others to commit these crimes. In fact, he is shown to save the characters at various times thanks to the efforts of Paul, who mentioned that he is being potrayed as a war criminal in the west a reputation which is perhaps not totally deserved/meritted. Also, George Rutaganda is potrayed as a brutal cold murdered one of the key agents and advocates of the genocide. There is also the potrayal of the Hutu hotel staffmember who potrays them and of the scene when they trying to leave the hotel. Some discussion of how true all these potrayals are is strongly needed IMHO. I've read that George although clearly a war criminal, was no where near as brutal as the movie potrayed more of someone who got caught up in the rampage and allowed it to happen perhaps offering some support because it enhanced his power rather then being such a strong agent and advocate. 14:20, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) —This unsigned comment was added by 60.234.141.76 (talk • contribs) .

The general, Augustin Bizimungu, has been indicted by the ICTR for genocide in Rwanda. As for myself, I got the impression from the movie that his character was actually involved in the genocide, but that when it came to the hotel, he really didn't much care whether or not the hotel residents were killed along with the rest. --Saforrest 03:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

There must be a mistake concerning the countries wich made the movie, as it has been nominated for 3 oscars and United States is not on the credit list. As far as I'm concerned only American movies are nominated ( exept for foreing films of course). —This unsigned comment was added by Adrien Chatillon (talk • contribs) .

[edit] *AHEM*

Please continue these types of discussion somwhere else. Thank you. Angrynight 07:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terry George

Hi, on a completely unrelated subject - I would like to change "Irish" filmmaker to "Northern Irish" filmmaker, because Terry George is indeed from Co. Down, N. Ireland. Thoughts?