Lumumba

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 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 film has both people that enjoy and people that loathe it. However I was struck by the fact at how many non-Africans had seen and commented on this film. Here we see a massive problem arising.

Firstly: It is a fact that African history was passed along orally and the only real written history in Africa was created with the advent of missionaries on the continent. To this day there are more books written about African history by non-Africans than there have been of Africans. This means that Africa has seldom, if ever, been presented the way it sees itself. "Lumumba" is a film made by an African filmmaker, shot on the African continent with African actors and yet we see Americans and Europeans commenting on it!

The fact is that most of these people have an imagined history of Africa. On user commented that the USA was 'forced' to intervene in Congo, because "Lumumba" called in the USSR to help out his army. What the hell was the USA doing in Africa in the first place? And I answer; they were securing their economic interests. How dare outside powers even allow to excuse their intervention in the African continent, when they are in majority at fault for the situation many African countries find themselves in today.

Secondly: There were a couple of comments on the acting and style that this film was made in. Many people don't realize that the entire world does not exclusively copy the Hollywood model. We see different characters in different environments. "Lumumba" shows a different view on an African hero and even though this view is not entirely accurate, what view ever is.

So don't watch and judge this film according to your standards, because you most likely have no idea what you are talking about. Rather than being prejudiced towards the film, just let it talk to you and present you with its argument...for a change!

I feel very fortunate to have the chance to not only watch this film, but also learn more about this fascinating person and time. Lumumba is an outstanding portrayal, giving a full sense of the story without falling into the usual Hollywood trappings - yes, he is shown with his wife and children, but the essence of the story is his politics and those of the still-emerging independent Congo. The film is brilliantly made, moving along at a pace that is consistently engaging. I look forward to seeing other Raoul Peck films, as well as more from Eric Ebouaney!

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.