Lumumba

This movie was intended to explore the powers that resisted and ultimately ended Lumumba's political movement in the Congo with historical accuracy. Although it goes to great lengths to meet that end, it falls horribly short in two major ways. One, the CIA is mentioned just one time. Two, JFK is portrayed as though he authorized Mubutu's "offer" of a military takeover. This is despite the fact that Lumumba was killed three days before JFK became president! With the information now available (read JFK: Ordeal in Africa by Richard Mahoney), there is no doubt that the Dulles brothers using the CIA were chiefly responsible for Lumumba's assassination. Kennedy was heartbroken by the news and understood and advocated for a united Congo much like Lumumba did, opposing Eisenhower and the CIA. Not to mention the Belgians and British. Although one could argue these points do not have a major impact on the movie, they are critical to understanding not just the Congo during that period, but the intense internal conflict in the United States between large interests (Wall Street represented by CIA) and JFK's vision for the world (third world independence and development, anti-imperialism).

Wow. What a fabulous film. The artists are to be congratulated and thanked for making this whole era come to life.

Should you go to this movie? Well, my wife didn't want to go because she guessed that it would be upsetting. She was correct: It IS deeply upsetting to see cruelty, treachery, panic, wobbly social institutions, etc.

On the other hand, there's nothing like a strong dose of the truth. I don't know enough Congolese history to have an opinion on the accuracy of this tale, but the movie certainly had an emotional truth to it.

In fact, it reminded me of something Meryl Streep once said. She mentioned that the purpose of a movie is to tell you what it felt like to be there -- wherever "there" might happen to be. By that standard, this movie succeeded. The film showed me -- a white guy from an American suburb -- what it means to have guts and commitment to high ideals during the most chaotic of times.

If that sounds intriguing to you, go see "Lumumba"!

I just saw this movie last night, 2/21/02, on HBO TV in New York and noticed a fascinating and rare bit of censorship within it. In one late scene in the movie when Congo politicians and 1-2 Americans meet around table and vote whether Lumumba is to be captured/killed, the apparent American, perhaps a CIA officer, is addressed by Gen. Mobutu and asked how he wants to vote. But the American's name uttered by Mobutu is bleeped out in the televised version I saw and heard. Then in the film's final credits, this same character's name is masked over and appears only as "Mr......" played by actor Dennis Thatcher. So what IS the name of the mysterious man, no doubt too accurately identified, in this movie, airing on American TV some 2 years after it was made.

This movie is the best movie I have seen in a long time. It is also the best movie seen that uses a drama to tell history, without going to speculation such as with JFK,Nixon or Hoffa. It deftly depicts the clutches that Belgium had on the Congo. It also teases out easily for us the European and American forces that were behind the power the inflict the Congo today. The film was sure to specifically implicate the U.S., rightly so, in the murder of Lumumba. This film could never be made in the U.S. for U.S. film rarely criticizes itself in acts of imperialism and murder. (Save Stone's JFK) It also lets us in on the problems that were present with the inner conflict of the Congo, between Lumumba, Mobutu and Katanga. We can see how precarious countries sit in establishing new governments when their history is one of colonization and those who were the colonizers continue to pull the strings of power and force. The film is excellently shot with Eriq Ebouaney an excellent Lumumba. The cast is great and they really draw you into the feeling of the climate in the Congo during that time.

Again, this is a must see for those who love drama with a correct historical background. See my notes on Quilombo.

I liked this film but to like it, you must know more about the history of Congo. You must also know some more about Belgians and their disrespect (and that is a metaphore!) of the Congolese state.

Lumumba and the Congolese people didn't deserve this as he was right. We Belgians did exploit them for decades. But just because Lumumba reacted not so friendly to Bwana Kitoko (the king was called this way by the Congolese in a previous visit, he was hailed as a great leader) they had to further destabilize Congo and assassinate Lumumba. So he called for the help of the USSR, that was his only option as everybody else was against him. For the Congolese people the US didn't do anything like they did for us with the Marshall Plan. They did support Mobutu's cruel dictatorial rule with lots of money. What good did that do for the average Congolese?

And the trouble didn't stop with the flight of Mubutu. In modern sociological terms, Congo is considered a failed state. And that has it's reasons (and we Belgians are responsible for a large part of those). I hope that Lumuba's dream will still come true and that the Congolese peace process will last so peace and a way of living that is accepted by all Congolese may finally come for them.

Back to the film: You can't expect to understand the complex situation the new independent Congo was put in just by watching this film. That's like thinking the film Enemy at the Gates will explain me everything about the battle of Stalingrad. The film is restricted in many ways and the viewer must understand that. first: It's a film, not a documentary. Some of the scenes are interpretations but they are needed for the plot. second: The main character is Lumumba. Not everything about the troubles in Katanga or elsewhere is told, neither is everything about Mobutu told. It would have been an endless film that way. third: The film is an African film, let them create their own ways of telling this story. White people shouldn't tell them how to tell a story. But I'm glad that some funded this film that tell some people more about an unclear history. It might encourage them to find out more about Lumumba or various other things after the credits roll away and that is a good thing.