Shake Hands with the Devil

I had read Dallaire's book a while back, and when I heard that there was a project to put it to film, I was very eager to see the results. Ever since I had seen "Hotel Rwanda", in which the CO of UNAMIR was a fictional character (played by Nick Nolte), I was hoping for a movie in which the real UNAMIR commander would be portrayed.

I wasn't disappointed. This film is a docu-drama that follows the events and the telling of Dallaire's book. No side stories here. Just the facts. The screen writing stuck to the book, as best as it could. Most deviations would be mistakes in interpretation, not artistic licenses. Dallaire, who had been lobbying for the film to be made for a long time, has explained that the producers have toyed with the idea of going to Hollywood to have it produced there. The upside was that the production could have enjoyed a bigger budget, but the idea was dropped because there was too big of a chance that Hollywood would have altered the story.

So the film's premise is very good to start with. The result is also very god. The the film is brilliantly made and directed by Roger Spottiswoode. Roméo Dallaire's character is very well played by Roy Dupuis, especially the scenes with the therapist. The cinematography is high quality, and some scenes are simply breathtaking (it actually makes me want to visit). The score is also of high caliber.

But the movie does have weaknesses.

It's a little too toned down. I know for having read about and seen documentaries about these events, that they were far worse than what is (could be) shown in the film. I understand that it was a delicate matter since the reality was very hard and could have steered away potential viewers. Apart from the church scene, everywhere else you are presented with toned down scenes. The reality was 10 times as big (numerous), much, much bloodier and much more akin' to a carnage. Dallaire and the other UNAMIR characters are pretty clean throughout the film. In reality, they were constantly bloodied. Don't get me wrong: I'm not seeking kicks or anything. I simply feel that the true appalling atmosphere is just not there, and that's unfair.

The civil war is not present. Although it is mentioned, and you realize that Kagame's RFP eventually wins it, the war is mostly absent from the movie. The facts are that UNAMIR operated amid civil war battles, that contributed greatly to its inefficiency. We are told that including battle scenes in the movie would have been too costly for the budget, and that the permissions from Rwanda's authorities were hard to get. Nevertheless, it's an important dimension to the story, and it's profoundly missing from the resulting atmosphere.

Some lines are just dead wrong. When asked by the CNN reporter why UNAMIR wasn't intervening to stop the carnage, Dallaire replies that he would be court martialed if he did. Although it might be the case, I understand that the real Dallaire hasn't - and would never have said anything like that. According to him, a commanding officer would never allude to the possibility of being brought up on charges, to explain his decisions and his actions.

The mission's NY headquarters. Repeatedly, Roméo Dallaire has mentioned that the film isn't true to what the mission's NY headquarters really lived . Maurice Baril, Kofie Annan (and I forget who the third member of what Dallaire called "the triumvirat", was) were much, much more stressed out than what is depicted in the movie.

The Belgian's departure. Although Dallaire was very grateful for the presence of the Belgian's paratroops among UNAMIR, he eventually grew a severe hatred for them when they left the mission, barely 2 weeks after the start of the genocide, leaving Dallaire more short staffed when he actually needed more troops. This doesn't transpire in the film. At all.

All in all, a very good film, with a good disposition for educating the people about UNAMIR's and UN's points of views during the rwandeese genocide of 1994. This was one of Roméo Dallaire's biggest wish. Now, I just hope that this movie is going to be well distributed across the world, so that everyone can have access to it, and hence fulfill it's destiny.

As a Belgian I had a particular interest in watching this movie. I personally know some paracommando's that were there, they told me about the tragedy, about their fustration no to be able to do anything about it, and that mostly due to the incompetence and/or indifference of the decision makers. It's difficult to blame someone specific for this genocide, a genocide that could have been avoid if somebody had some balls to stand up and do something about it. Belgian, French, or American governments should have done something about it, instead they closed their eyes on this tragedy as there is nothing to gain for them in Rwanda, it's a thing that would cost a lot of money and they wouldn't benefit in any way by doing something about it, so letting this genocide happen whilst the whole world was watching is just criminal. Belgium commemorates the ten paracommando's that have been butchered there, they should be ashamed of themselves, how much more hypocritical can a government be? That said the movie is well made, with good acting and solid cinematography. It's a very hard story to watch, almost unbearable when you know what happened there in such a short period. If this would have happened in any other rich country the world would have yelled 'justice' but it's only Rwanda so we close our eyes or look the other way.

This is lesson 2, after lesson 1 (Hotel Rwanda) on the history of a country I know very little about. But that does not matter. Rwanda in 1994 was a stage on which we witnessed the triumph of the dark side of humanity, and the failure of a world body called UN.

As a film, 'Shake Hands with the Devil' was not rated as good as 'Hotel Rwanda' by the film critics. I tend to agree with this assessment. However, it was shot on location in Rwanda with many locals participating in the film. The acting in films was reasonably well done and the overall story telling convincing.

The film moved me enough to make me ponder other scenarios: what if General Dallaire took things into his own hands and started firing his weapons, instead of just passively observing the killing and rape? And what if the UN had a change of heart and decided to get further involved instead of backing out? How many lives could have been saved, and how that would have changed the Rwanda as we know it now?

In short, this film makes me think. And for this reason alone it is well worth my time.

i thought this was was a well done film based on the autobiography of Canadian General Romeo Dallaire,who was tasked with the job of leading UN peacekeeping efforts in Rwanda,in what should have been a routine mission,until civil war breaks out.while the rest of the world turns its back,Dallaire does what he can to save as many innocents as he can while war wages on.the movie show how the ludicrousness of bureaucracy,as well as how cruel and unkind(not to mention hypocritical)our western world can be.this is not a movie i would say is enjoyable,given its subject matter.it is quite graphic and bleak.but is well made and the acting is is superb.for me,Shake Hands With The Devil is an 8/10

This docudrama covers similar territory and the same event as Hotel Rwanda, being the Rwandan genocide that took place in 1993. The movie focuses on Canadian Lieutenant-General Roméo Dallaire (briefly portrayed by Nick Nolte in Hotel Rwanda), sent to Kigali, Rwanada to command a U.N peacekeeping mission. The U.N was overseeing a tenuous cease-fire between two feuding Rwandan ethnic groups, the Hutu majority and the Tusti minority. Ultimately the situation ends up failing and breaking out into violence under his watch.

The movie documents Roméo Dallaire's frustration with the U.N and subsequent guilt by refusing to get involved with what was going on and failing to stop the Rwandan genocide that he was witnessing.

I never heard of the the lead actor, Roy Dupuis, before watching the movie. He's very good in the lead role.

The docudrama took the time to explain what was happening on screen point by point in great detail which helped minimize confusion and clarify a lot of things.