Lumumba

I was a pre-teen when news of Lumumba's assassination hit the news so I very vaguely recall at the time it was sad a leader who tried to shuck the reigns of colonialization was killed for efforts towards independence.

There is woefully insufficient time in a 2 hour movie to completely explain the whos whys and wherefores of a political assassination. Suffice to say the victors write the history and even if the truth were portrayed adequately, who's truth would it be? As the character Lumumba says in the movie, he came 50 years too early.

I found the story fast paced with good production values. It mirrored the all too brief time in power for a promising African leader, and there is a dearth of them lately. That continent still suffers a vacuum in its leadership, a state that will take another century to rectify. The film and life of Lumumba is a lesson of how badly things can go wrong in a climate of conflicting objectives and numerous parties and forces acting in a volatile setting. Congo had just gained independence and tribal rivalry reared its head very quickly. It is suggested for example that Lumumba seek sanctuary in the province of Katanga, where months before he had been refused landing rights in a flight to visit the troubled area. Politics makes strange bedfellows.

The time of the 1960s was the height of the cold war and Lumumba's courting of Soviet aid to fast track his country did not win any favours. No doubt the superpower USA had at least some hand in his death, much the same as Ngo Dhin Diem in Vietnam around the same time. Attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro at that time are also well documented so it may be some measure of just desserts that Kennedy met his end with an assassin's bullet.

Read up on that period of history then watch the movie to get additional value for the time you invest, and then you will be prepared to better understand contemporary events in far off places when national interests are at stake. Oil, diamonds, bauxite, coffee, whatever; liberty always seems to take a back seat when these interests get the ear of the powers that be.

Realism in the film is reinforced with the french dialog. I also understood the subtleties having studied military coups in university under a black professor who came from Nigeria.

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"!

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).

Congo is a sad country which started with massive disadvantages (King Leopold used it as his private route to personal wealth) and never recovered.

The Belgians made little provision for independence, but that is not unusual in Africa and other countries have managed OK despite a bad start. Congo never did.

A combination of tribal and ethnic conflicts, underhand colonial behaviour and Cold War politics meant that failure was inevitable. Lumumba was brutally murdered by his own countrymen with America and Belgium cheering from the sidelines.

Lumumba never had a chance and he made it worse for himself by delivering an un-programmed and fiercely anti-colonial speech on Independence Day. This is not made too clear in the film - you have to listen really hard to know that that is what was happening. As a result of that unwise speech, he destroyed his relations with the Belgians and gave the Congolese people hopes and expectations that could never be realised.

He also made an enemy of the leader of the Katanga region.

He was thus regarded by his own people as having reneged on promises after an impossibly short time in Government and then, having been publicly and privately brutalised by Congolese troops, finally murdered by the Congolese leader in Katanga, who ordered two Belgian policemen to dig up and destroy the body. All true and faithfully, if gruesomely, repeated in the film.

Everyone comes out badly in the film - which is only right and proper. Belgians for practising apartheid before the word was invented to cover the Boers in SA. How could anyone operate a system where, as a native, you had to be assessed to see if you had developed (`evolved' - shades of Darwin) sufficiently to be licensed to have wine in your house?

The Americans come out rather lightly in the film. Maybe it was not known at the time the film was made that the CIA station chief (Devlin, not Carlucci) was sent poisoned toothpaste to introduce into Lumumba's bathroom cabinet (he didn't). By order of Eisenhower.

The Congolese come out worst of all, appropriately, since in the long term they are the ones who also suffered (and continue to suffer) the most as a result of not being able to act together irrespective of tribal origin.

There is still in reality no country that is Congo. It remains a collection of tribal and ethnic groupings. And therefore weak and poor and ready to be exploited. All this is accurately foreshadowed in this excellent film.

A film that is horrific and unsettling, but real. Excellent.

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!