빈 방

Hotel Rwanda Review:
Africa should not be left to itself anymore
Lee, Haesoo

What happens in the African continent was a faraway issue to me. I was only vaguely aware of it as an uncharted vast land where various types of wildlife lived, and where I could only see on a documentary. Through Hotel Rwanda, a movie which was directed by Terry George, however, I realized that political corruption has been rampant, and horrible wars among a lot of countries have continued in the continent. Ashitaka (2007) said that the movie is basically about tensions between the Hutu and Tutsi people who led to a war in Rwanda. It criticizes people who are desensitized to violence. With the summary of the movie, my analysis will focus on Paul Rusesabaginna who is the hero in the movie, the problems with western-viewpoints pointed out by other reviewers, and also my view on the implied meaning in the film clips and lines.

This film captures the unimaginable violence of genocide which takes place in Rwanda located in the central part of Africa. The story is told by Paul Rusesabagina, the main character in the movie. He is a Hutu and manager of The Hotel Mille Collines located in Rwanda’s capital city of Kigali. On April 6th 1994, it was discovered that Rwanda’s Hutu president had been assassinated by Tutsi soldiers. The rumor caused that the Hutu army and the militia immediately set about systematically slaughtering the minority Tutsi. Because Tatiana Rusesabagina, who was the wife of Paul, was a Tutsi, this forced him to gather his family into their vehicles and flee to the hotel. During the tensions, Paul put his own life on the line by protecting not only his wife and children but also other Tutsi refugees from being killed. Although United Nations troops were dispatched, they were only permitted to use their weapons in self-defense. While the rest of the world closed its eyes, Paul opened his heart and proved that one good man can make a difference. In the end, he sheltered 1268 Tutsi and Hutu refugees at the hotel.

Paul Rusesabagina and Don Cheadle (Characteristics of Paul Rusesabgina)

Paul is a very wise man who plays many different roles throughout the film. According to Roger Ebert (2004), "Paul is the kind of man who knows how things work in the real world; he uses his skills of bribery, flattery, apology and deception to save these lives which have come into his care." From this script, Hwang (2011) analyzed that the main character values the principles of capitalism as being more important than nationalism because he knows that it is silly to take part in the genocide with trivial feelings of anger. However, I think otherwise. The reason why he bribes with money and gifts to gentry is always to protect his family, neighbors, and his country, not to buy favor with flattery. It is evidenced through some of the scenes; the people staying in his hotel follow his direction to lead them to survive, even when his family gets the exit visa to leave the country safely, he stays behind to watch over those who are left at his hotel.

Hutu and Tutsi genocide in Rewanda

The movie is very highly regarded for its realistic image showing the problems with the view of the imperialists toward the natives. A review by Lee and Gu (2007) criticized the movie in that it repeats a partial point of view: Hutus as assailants, Tutsis as victims.  Like their review, it is apparent that Hutus committed random rape, slaughter, and their army is corrupt in this movie without consideration to their historical background. They were also repressed by Tutsi during Belgian colonial rule. The Belgian government supported Tutsis political power because they have lighter skin than Hutus. As a result of this, Europeans came to believe that Tutsis had Caucasian ancestry, and were thus superior to Hutus. After Rwanda was decolonized by European powers, Hutus started to excite riots in order to work off a grudge. in the movie They are portrayed as a cruel ethnic group out of this historical context.

Why are western people often shown as heroes in movies?

Park (2006) pointed out that western people are shown as humanitarians in the movie: an American volunteer who stood against Hutu militia, A UN colonel who insisted on staying until the bitter situation’s end. These characters come from the chauvinistic viewpoints of western people. However, I retort upon his comment. The movie appears to describe them as saviors overall, but I think that the movie director seems to indirectly criticize their lackadaisical attitude through some scenes and scripts. When the colonel explained why the world does not intervene, he said “Hutu and Tutsi are black, not even niggers. They are Africans.” He helped to get only his nationals out. Moreover, the colonel told reporters that his troops were ‘peace-keepers’, not ‘peace-makers’. These scripts imply that the western people assumed the attitude of an onlooker about the war. Through Paul’s lines, the critical tone is clearly evident. “There will be no rescue, no intervention force. We can only save ourselves. You must call influential people abroad. Let them know that if they let go of that hand, you will die” He also stated, “We must shame them into sending help” (Paul, 2004). As the movie is watched by people in the world as well as western people, it awakened people to feelings of guilt from  ignoring and looking on with folded arms about the Rwandan war.

The movie was created by stirring of hatred on two ethnic groups after the Western colonial era for Africa. Moreover, it implies that Africa should not be left to itself anymore. In a magazine interview director Terry George (2004) said that he wanted cinema audiences to feel a collective shame about how the world has treated Rwandans and abandoned them. He added “Apathy is also a sin” (The behind story of Hotel Rwanda, para.8). I reflected deeply because I am one of the people who said they are horrible and continued eating my dinner, watching a lot of bloody conflicts on TV; I paid no attention to terrible scenes including the 9/11 collapse of the World Trade Center andMuammar Gaddafi’s corpse left to rot in an old meat store. These are things that seemed surreal to me until I watched ‘Hotel Rwanda’. It represents my insensitiveness about violence. The movie tapped into my moral sense.

토론토 어학연수 중 기억에 남았던 'Young Urban Farmers' 자원봉사활동. 많은 나라들이 'Green City'를 정책과제로 내세우듯 캐나다에서도 도시인들도 자연과 어우러져 만족스럽게 살만한 공간을 늘려나가는 운동을 벌이고 있다. 싱가포르에서 곳곳에 숲을 만들고 빌딩 옥상에 작은 공원을 가꾸는 'Green Way System' 과 비슷한 지역커뮤니티 활동으로, 내가 가꾼 채소는 지역사회 사람들에게 나누어져 돌아간다. 나는 우리집과 청년 농부들과 텃밭도 가꾸면서 우리의 활동을 뉴스레터를 통해 알리는 역할을 했다.

아래는 작성했던 기사들 중 일부ㅡ

We Should Let Korean Rivers Wind Naturally:
Bitter Controversies over Four-River Project
Lee, Haesoo

A Korean novelist, Kyeong-lee Park, used to welcome Seoul's CheonggyeCheon, the creek in the core of the city, Restoration Project. She thought the historic site would be restored by Myeong-park Lee, the Seoul mayor. However, she showed regrets and anger that cultural properties was damaged and buried at the creek and. “I feel deeply ashamed of myself as one of the people who were in favour of the project.” she said. The mayor became the Korean president, and he wanted to extend his river construction nationally, likening cultural properties to rocks in the creek. It is called the Four-Rivers Project. The four major rivers are the Han, Geum, Nakdong, and Yeongsan rivers. The rivers have been dammed, forced into concrete channels, or otherwise re-engineered by successive governments. 10m dams were built, and the river bottom was dug up. Sand and gravel grounds were turned into bike lanes, golf links, racetracks, and other recreational facilities as well.

The government aims for the Four-Rivers Project in following. There has been a gradual decline in the quality of the rivers, so the water needs to purify by building the embankments. Dams are for preparing against the risks of floods and droughts. The government also expects that the project can offer a comprehensive benefits package. However, the pretext has no rational justification. Firstly, Germany and the U.S.A. demolished dams rather than keeping them in order to solve water pollution. Streamlet has to be preserved from near city’s wastewater. Secondly, dams, which are ready for both floods and droughts are unprecedented. Although many experts were concerned about the world's first project, Mr. Lee pressed ahead with it quickly. Thirdly, to raise funds to cover the budget of the project, the government cut welfare that people really need. It is contradictory to the concept of welfare works. Above all, it has caused ecological catastrophes such as the imbalance of river landforms and an algae outbreak.

It is absolutely expected that stagnant water is bound to rot. That is why many countries have demolished their dams. According to a report by the Eco-Horizon Institute, the U.S.A. has torn down 467 embankments since 1912. The Main-Donau-Canal was used as a model of Four-River Project in Korea, but the German government has promoted downscaling the canal and nature-restoration. Moreover, we should manage streamlets, not the main 4 rivers if we genuinely want water improvement. The Korean Environmental Office reported that the main cause of water pollution is from streamlet input from factory wastes. In particular, the Nakdong river pollution is noticeable at the confluence with the Geumho brook, which is adjacent to Daegu city and factories. It means that it is urgent to preserve the brooks from waste water before it flows into major rivers. The Korean government has focused the major rivers which do not need to improve. Also, we know sand facilitates the self-purification of streams. There is a lot of sand in the Korean rivers; it is more than a meter in depth. If the area is dug artificially to build a dam, the river will lose its self-cleansing properties, and it could have unforeseeable consequences for the environment.
 
The Korean government claimed to combine two functions in a dam, but it remains controversial how dams have a concurrent function of prevention for floods and droughts because they are totally contrary concepts. The Korean Ministry of Land said that we can find the answer why the new dam is unacceptable through the definition of the two concepts; flood control dams should empty out the water from the river. Droughts dams should secure sustainable water. The government stated that the dams have a trapdoor to prepare for floods, and it must be open at least 6 hours before it starts to rain. However, The Korean Meteorological Office refuted the statement; it is getting harder to adjust water flow due to sudden and unexpected downpours. Finally, four dams burst on the Namhan river during the project last spring. It was a foregone conclusion because Mr. Lee did not listen to many specialized agencies which expressed strong opposition to the plans. 

President Lee argued that the project is a kind of welfare work like the New Deal Policy. However, to raise funds to cover the budget of the project, the government cut welfare that people really needed such as free meals for underprivileged children, an education budget, and other main domestic spending.  It is contradictory to the idea of welfare works. ‘Listen to the City’, an art and architecture magazine reported that Four-River Project brings back the failures of Japanese engineering work in the ’90s. The Japanese government carried out dam construction and guaranteed job creation and revitalization through it. However, the projects caused soaring debts. After 1993, Japanese employment growth declined in the past 15 years (-0.6%). On the other hand, Switzerland, Norway, and Finland achieved business recovery through reforming education and retraining workers around the same time because they knew that expanding education could generate jobs. After 1993, these countries had a growth rate of 43.7%~62.3%, it was the highest rate among OECD countries, and job opportunities increased 15.6%~20.8%. Reflecting the cases, Mr. Lee should consider what really need right away for the whole nation.

The most serious problem of Four-River Project is that it has brought ecological catastrophe. In order to protest the project, Seong-tea Hong, a sociology professor, presented the theory ‘cycle of erosion’ by William Morris Davis from the late 1800s. Its basic concept includes the development of river valleys and the landscape. rivers have a rapid tectonic uplift followed by cessation or erosion of the land. The rivers and streams end up trying to reduce the surface to a level close to sea-level. Mr. Hong said “As the government artificially digs the river bed, the surface will repeat uplift and erosion extremely. Nobody can expect what would happen after the overturn. Reckless destruction of nature by human beings will bring ecological catastrophe.” The Korean Environment Ministry backed up his claim by releasing figures that the fish in the shallows could no longer adapt to the new environment and eventually died off. The Speed of river will slow after building dams, so the water will be bathed in scorching sunlight. It will bring the problem of algae outbreak. The fish will lose their homes. The scientific theory and natural phenomena are evident for all to see why the Korean government should stop the project.

Some of negative impacts will be immediate, and others will emerge in the long run and remain permanent as the rivers and wetlands can no longer function in a natural way. While many countries have started to spend their time and money to soothe the environmental problems and follow the laws of nature, it is ridiculous that president Lee builds the huge concrete dams on the rivers surrounding a lot of fertile sand. Even though a new concept dam which has flood and drought protection functions needs enough time to experiment more, the Korean government pressed ahead with poor construction without design within a short time. The government has wasted money on underproductive investments in Four-River Project, it will speed up landform change and destroy ecosystems as well. The rivers are not owned by the government. We should let rivers wind naturally. Therefore, we should urge the South Korean government to halt the Project immediately and review the current plans of the project in a realistic approach which promotes conservation and sustainable use of water and living resources.