Shooting Dogs

I watch upwards of 300 movies a year and use IMDb like a fiend, but only this movie has ever compelled me to register and comment. "Shooting Dogs" is a BBC Films/UK Film Council film about the genocide in Rwanda that was ignored whilst the international community pontificated about the language used to describe what was going on (i.e. "Acts of genocide" vs "genocide"). The film focuses on the desperate plight of 2500 Tutsis seeking shelter in a school-cum-UN military compound. It goes some way to explain the history of the situation and the events surrcounding the genocide.

What makes this movie special is that a number of the production crew are survivors of the Rwandan crisis, and are telling their own stories. As macho as i would love to sound, i had tears in my eyes and felt the pain, hopelessness and indignation - and those are things that no director can claim to have brought to life for me in anything i've watched until now (the closest was probably the magnificent "Mysterious Skin"). Nothing is held back, and not should it be. The horror here is not graphic close-ups, but the shocking disregard for life that leads to the slaughter of newborn babies with machetes, the abject impotence of the UN and how tribal loyalties can turn the closest of friends into murderers.

For those who have lived in Africa (as i have), what is portrayed here is all too real. Like is said by one BBC reporter in the movie, in the Balkans the people were white and they could have been your own mother, but in Rwanda its worse than numbness - its just another dead African. Ignore your preconceptions, assumptions and instant reaction to skip to the next title because its not familiar, it wasn't in the cinema and Hotel Rwanda didn't appeal to you much. The impact this movie had on me was that profound, and i'd urge anyone to watch it to understand what happened there.

And when the credits come up and you've had time to think it over and resolve that it should never happen again, i'd say one word to you: Darfur. It just happened again only recently.

I am a judge for the Indianapolis-based Heartland Film Festival. This feature film is a Crystal Heart Award Winner and is eligible to be the Grand Prize Winner in October of 2006. The Heartland Film Festival is a non-profit organization that honors Truly Moving Pictures. A Truly Moving Picture "…explores the human journey by artistically expressing hope and respect for the positive values of life."

As the film starts, I first thought that "Hotel Rwanda" told this story, albeit differently, and there was no reason to do it again. As the story progresses, my next thought was that you can never stop telling this story again and again – 800,000 dead, mostly Tutsis, at the hands of the Hutus, the majority in power. "The Diary of Anne Frank" could not tell the whole story of another genocide 45 years earlier when the Nazis slaughtered many millions of Jews. There was room, and a need for "Schindler's List."

This film revolves around a school in Rwanda in 1994 under siege. Inside of the school are many black Tutsi students, a UN peace-keeping force with a sympathetic Belgium Captain, a dedicated young white teacher, and the school head, a Catholic priest named Christopher, played brilliantly by John Hurt. The school is surrounded by machete-bearing Hutus waiting for the chance to kill any Tutsi they find whether they are a baby, a woman, an old man, simply any Tutsi, who they, the Hutus, derisively call cockroaches. Mans' inhumanity to man could not be displayed in a more ugly fashion.

What does a well meaning, civilized person do when confronted with indescribable savagery? Run for safety or futilely stay and die?

This question is answered differently by different characters. The priest is losing all hope, but is innately courageous and focused on his faith. The UN Captain is sympathetic, but like any soldier feels driven to follow orders even if his superiors are remote and insensitive. The white teacher has great affection for the Tutsis, but is just starting out in life. A BBC reporter leaves the under siege school when first given the chance and states what might be true for most of us: "We're all selfish people in the end."

"Hotel Rwanda" was nominated for three Academy Awards for acting and writing. This film has the same high caliber of acting and writing as well as art direction and directing. It is moving without being exploitive. It is true, compelling storytelling that will haunt you for a long time to come.

The headlines about the genocide in Darfur in the Western Sudan will have a new unsettling meaning for you.

FYI – There is a Truly Moving Pictures web site where you can find a listing of past Crystal Heart Award winners as well as other Truly Moving Picture Award winners that are now either at the theater or available on video.

In 1994 800,000 people were killed in Rwanda. During this time a school comes under siege. How far would you go to help save lives? The atrocities in Rwanda went somewhat unnoticed as the world watched and winced before changing their TV channels. The UN blundered while describing the events as "acts of genocide" as opposed to the genocide it so clearly was. John Hurt and Hugh Dancy star in this powerful and touching story of hope, fear and humanity.

Set in the Ecole Technique Officielle (ETO), a high school in Kigali, John Hurt plays Christopher a priest who has seen his share of tribulations and clings to what hope he has left while Joe (Hugh Dancy) is embroiled in the horrors that unravel at the school as the hope he had begins to slide.

Michael Caton- Jones is a director who has previously delved deeply into relationships in 'This Boy's Life' and 'City by the Sea'. In Shooting Dogs his exposition of humanity is excellently portrayed in what essentially has the make up of a Hollywood horror story. As the Hutu's seize power, Tutsi's and their supporters gradually come under fire as the school is besieged and machetes dictate who lives and dies.

Despite the characters being fictionalized the events took place and what we are presented with is a powerful and truly disturbing picture as no punches are pulled and the true terrors exposed. This acts both as a wake-up call and homage to those who died and those who survived the atrocities.

Father Christopher, played by John Hurt, is the lynch pin in this nightmarish scenario. Having been weathered by a life of strain his last strands of hope are fading as the chaos descends upon his school. As usual Hurt's performances stretch beyond impeccable to a level of authenticity one could only expect from someone who was actually there. As with Joe, whose childlike naivety is broken down gradually until he becomes a shadow of his former self, contrasting Christopher. The director uses a young Tutsi girl, Maria (Claire Hope-Ashley), to introduce and somewhat narrate the proceedings as an unsteady UN-laced serenity is transformed into a time of fear and suffering. (The title comes from the fact the UN were killing dogs that fed on decomposing bodies but could never fire shots against those wielding machetes.) This is a flawless film in its delivery and character portrayal. The cast and crew were made up of survivors and those linked closely to the events so the film has already had the authenticity in its bones. Hotel Rwanda approached the subject matter from a different angle- a story about heroism. This film shares the same theme but it is the basic approach that sharpens the emotions and the human elements that set it apart from other films of this nature.

From the playful opening scenes to the carnage that ensues, the audience cannot help but be enthralled and engrossed by man's potential for good and totally disgusted by his potential for evil.

Shooting Dogs (2005) ****

Many people will compare this to last years "Hotel Rwanda," and say that much of it is just the same thing again, and naturally, they will claim it to be less a film than its predecessor. However, let me state now, this is the movie that 'Hotel Rwanda' wanted to be; was too timid to be; absolutely needed to be and wasn't. I had a problem with 'Hotel Rwanda.' My problem? It didn't do the true events justice, and was too toned down. "Shooting Dogs" does not shy away from the violence; it embraces it and serves it to us as it needed to be. Far too many people know far too little about the Rwandan Genocide because they were too busy watching the OJ Simpson trial. And far too many Americans are unaware of the role their government played in it. They could have stopped it by admitting it was genocide. Instead they danced the verbal line and vetoed the UN.

Here is a rare film that could have had marginal acting and with any other plot been a stinker, and yet because of its powerful message would have gotten a pass from me. Thankfully, everything is in the right place. John Hurt does a great job as Father Christopher, and Hugh Dancy is fantastic as Joe, a young idealistic teacher at the old priest's school. The extras, many of whom were survivors of the genocide, are all very credible as well. Another thing is that this movie was actually shot in Rwanda. This provides that old "voodoo of location" that Werner Herzog is so fond of. The school and the city are not and should not be backgrounds. They are characters in their own right.

As mentioned, the film does not shy away from violence. The violence is horrifying while still not being horror show gory. There is not necessarily much blood here, but there is hacking. Even without the deaths on screen, it still went further than 'Hotel Rwanda' did by showing the bodies everywhere all the time, and was not afraid to show the hacked bodies of children, and even show them dying. Some might say this is too macabre. To those people I say wake up to the ways of the world. Stand up and take notice and stop your moaning. If you ignore it happens then you do nothing productive in preventing it. The film also does something that most films don't do today - show the church in a positive light. This is not a Christian themed movie or anything like that, but it is a film of love. And the priest loves the people in his school, and so says he that even though his children do wrong, God still loves them, and so he suffers with them.

The horror of the Rwandan Genocide is on full display in 'Shooting Dogs.' And while I have hacked on 'Hotel Rwanda' in this review, it is a movie that I still admired very much. It made a compromise according to its makers so that it could be seen by younger viewers. This is admirable, but sometimes when you compromise you weaken your product and this is what I feel happened. 'Shooting Dogs' picks up the slack, and you really should see both films, along with a third, 'Sometimes in April.' This movie is deeply affecting, and has a deeply important message. There is love everywhere in the world, even in chaos. Often you don't realize it is there until conflict arises. 'Shooting Dogs' is one of the best movies of the year, and its unfortunate that so few have seen it.

4/4

There has been an ongoing argument over which is better, "Shooting Dogs" or "Hotel Rwanda." I don't know if there is an answer, but for the record, I've found that being 24 years old, this film appeals to me more than "Hotel Rwanda" did. I think this is largely because it focuses on the "save the world" mentality of youth, when things are not really that easy to explain or resolve. It also offers some light moments and comic relief that ease the burden of such an unpleasant true story. However, friends of mine who are over 40 years old, and who perhaps relate more to the businessman/father/husband character of Don Cheadle in "Hotel," disagree.

Despite all that, the people I know who work in Africa and even parts of Rwanda have said "Shooting Dogs" is a much truer portrayal of the way things really were at that time and that many Rwanadan natives don't share such a pleasant view of the Don Cheadle real-life man.

I think if it moves you to be a better person and stop genocide somewhere in the world, it shouldn't really matter which film is "better." For me, "Shooting Dogs" will never leave my heart or my mind.