Representations of the

Rwandan Genocide:
Reliving the horrific events as Kyle Jeffrey explores the tricks and
techniques to successful manipulation to condemn the U.N.

uman
emotions
and
interactions,
dialogue, shot construction, lighting,
props, sound effects, music these are
just a few of the many techniques that are
meticulously planned to ensure that the film delivers
the
maximum
But which type of film is
impact to the
more manipulating a
audience: you! We
documentary or a feature
all have that one
film?
time here and
there, where we
experience
the
just got something in my eye moment when watching
a dramatically enriched film. Stop being stupid. Pull
yourself together and stop crying, is what we all think
to ourselves, never comprehending why. Why do films
affect us so much, flooding us with emotions,
inevitably breaking us into a river of tears?
Manipulation is the underlying purpose of any film. It
is the

directors main goal. Two techniques in particular are

cleverly used to position the viewer on the Rwandan
massacre: playing on a persons emotions or stirring up
controversy; to appeal to the adult humanitarians of the
audience.

Quick Information
The Rwandan genocide has an estimated final death
toll of 800, 000 slaughtered souls; a combination of
both Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killedi. On
April 7, after the death of Rwandan President
Juvnal Habyarimana, a heavy feeling of unrest was
in the air. Prompted by local radio stations and lead by
the malicious militia group the Interahamwe, an era of
blood had begun.

Failure to react
Ghosts of Rwanda, released on April 1st, 2004 and
directed by Greg Parker, documents the worst
atrocities of the Rwandan genocide; as the film marks
the tenth anniversary of the event. This documentary
revisits the key issues that had arisen at the time,
primarily reflecting upon the abandonment of U.N.
support and intervention. Alternatively, Terry Georges
rendition of the genocide, first shown on the 4th of
February, 2005, details the events experienced by Paul
Rusesabagina (Don Cheadle) in the movie Hotel

Rwanda. Whilst George explores the true story of Paul

(the hotel manager for the Hotel des Mille Collines
whose efforts help to save possibly a thousand or more
Tutsis), he lacks the depth of properly prosecuting the
UN for their actions, instead plainly focussing on the
genocide and the overplayed interactions between
Paul. Parkers skilful portrayal of the United Nations
failure is more manipulative than Georges as it better
plays on the empathy and emotions of the audience.
The fundamental premise is that the truth has a higher
impact than any film. He successfully positions
viewers to condemn the actions and management of
the U.N. in the genocide as cowardly and shameful; for
failing to act and intervene.
In the opening sequence of the documentary, Philippe
Gillard, head of the ICRCs delegation in Rwanda,
juxtaposes the U.N. Ambassador Madeleine Albrights
statement, at the time, what was happening in
Rwanda, the situation was unclear. Gillard says, with
a tone of disgust, They cannot tell me that they didnt
know. Everybody knew what was happening! This is
accompanied by two unaltered, archival pictures used
to emphasize his point: one picture zooming out to
encompass a mass carnage of Tutsis; another image,
zooming in to detail the specifics of another faceless
victim left in the mud. Parker cleverly uses this
specific
contrast
to
convey
bureaucratic
irresponsibility within the UN. The raw photos

contradict Albrights statement and appeal to the

audiences emotions, bombarding the screen with
tragedy and despair. The audience is subsequently
enraged when finding out that help from the United
Nations was kept to a minimum.

Bar Scene, Hotel

Rwanda

Remains found at the Nyamata Memorial of the victims of the Rwandan Genocideii

Monique Mujawamariya, Human Rights Activist,

shares her experiences of
the disaster and the
inauspicious conversation
she shared with an African
congressional official. He
explained,

the United
States
has
no
friends;
the
United States has
interest. And in
the United States, there is no
interest in Rwanda. And we are not
interested
in
sending
young
American marines, to bring them
back in coffins!

This dismissive argument was continued as a

generalised response further up the lines of power
within the UN. Upsettingly, the president of the USA
(Bill Clinton) also shared this belief at the time. This
interview scene focusses on Moniques befuddled yet
disappointed expression via using a close-up shot to
display her inability to comprehend why no help was
given. Seeing her emotions effectively manipulates
adults by appealing to the empathetic qualities of man;
relating to the aforementioned fundamental premise.
This positions the audience, in Ghosts of Rwanda, to
be infuriated by the utter selfishness governments took
and by their clearly apathetic attitudes.
Furthermore, the director uses chronological order to
his advantage by reiterating the time. A black screen
falls to show the progression of the date. White bold
text appears in centre afterwards. The introductory date
reads, August 1993. This was a time on the brink of
war, waiting for something to tip. The lasts message
states, July 10. It refers to July 10, 1994. The
chronological order structure deceptively depicts
without resistance the extent to which the UN failed
the Tutsi people, by emphasising the expanse of time
that this incident extended to; over 11 months. This
signifies the fact that the entire Western civilisation
had clear knowledge of the barbaric acts that had
commenced.
The interactions between U.N. Colonel Oliver (Nick
Nolte) and Paul, in Hotel Rwanda, present the opinion
white is better as stressed in the bar scene. Oliver,
exasperated by the situation, articulates to Paul,
[explaining why the world will not intervene] They
think youre dirt Youre not even a nigga! Youre an
African. This conveys the notion that racial prejudice
is an underlying factor for the failure to respond by the
U.N, aggravating the audience with this appalling
display of racism. The scene focusses on Olivers face,
via a close-up shot, to highlight that C. Oliver feels as
though he has failed Paul, and dishonoured him.
Whilst this scene has a powerful connotation evoking
the audience to be critical of U.N actions, and
connecting with the empathy Oliver expresses, it
communicates across in a less subtle manner than
many of the apt references used in the documentary.

Photographer Jack Daglish (Joaquin Phoenix) presents

his perspective on the ugly truth. Offering Paul his
opinion, he declares, if people see this footage,
theyll say, Oh my God. Thats horrible, and then go
on eating their dinners. This delivers the invited
reading that the world simply wasnt prepared to
respond to the situation and help. However, compared
to Moniques statement that directly degrades the
United Nations, Jacks response has less impact as it
refers to the general population compared to
specifically the U.N.s failure.
Looking at the plot, in the opening scene of the film,
an Interahamwe parade marches in the local streets of
Kigali. Men and women collectively rush the streets
with war cries. The
director has clearly
They think youre
used this, assisted
dirt Youre not
with the use of
even a nigga! Youre waving sticks and
spears and a large
an African.
banner with Hutu
Power
written
across
it,
to
foreshadow the future violence in the film. The spears
also cleverly symbolise the action of hunting as a form
of sport, presenting the idea of the massacre being a

vindictive form of enjoyment. This cunningly adds to

the suggestion of retaliation and strength provided by
the banner. In addition, Colonel Oliver expresses to
General Bizimunga (Fana Mokoena), The problem is
General, I have information that the Interahamwe
militia will not head the peace agreement. If the U.N.
had information about this prior, why did they not do
anything? These examples effectively indicate the
oncoming violence in the film. This is a less effective
technique as it prepares the audience for the shock of
the malicious acts conducted, compared to the abrupt
and all too graphic images shown at the start of the
documentary.
Both Ghosts of Rwanda and Hotel Rwanda prosecute
the United Nations for their disregard of international
convention against genocide, condemning them for the
actions. However, Parker subtly positions viewers to
accept the invited reading in Ghosts of Rwanda,
compared to Georges straightforward construction of
Hotel Rwanda. Parkers use of film techniques is more
manipulative, playing on the audiences emotions; the
audience being more responsive because they are
aware that it is real life. The fundamental premise is
that the truth has a higher impact than any film. Parker
successfully shames the U.N organisation, presenting
their actions as cowardly for failing to intervene.

i (News Reports, 2013)

ii (The Dilly Lama, 2007)