So I finally saw “Hotel Rwanda”. I’d put it off, since I couldn’t find anyone to go with me, and when I finally dragged myself to the theater alone on a holiday, I felt like I was putting on a hairshirt to do penance for what part my country had in permitting the atrocities. You know, the old “it’s a great film about a horrible tragedy that will make you cry the whole way through and feel wretched after you leave” thing. I mean, I take this stuff literally. I saw “Butcher Boy” in college (because it featured Sinead O’Connor as a swearing vision of the Virgin Mary) and ended up feeling disturbed and disconnected from society for an entire weekend. So I didn’t go to “Hotel Rwanda” lightly, nor did I go eagerly.
In the end, it was a six-hankie movie, but it was a non-disturbing six-hankie movie. It focused on good people doing brave things in terrible circumstances, which helps you cope with the body count. Plus, it’s not like the genocide isn’t a surprise to the audience. But it was, you know, fantastically acted and written, and I’m really glad I saw it. I wouldn’t mind even seeing it again.
No, “Hotel Rwanda” didn’t disturb me. “Shaun of the Dead” disturbed me.
“Shaun of the Dead” is a quirky, black-humor British movie that spoofs the zombie flick genre, especially, you know, that movie with the similar title. I thought it was going to be funny, and well, it was (once you got used to the actors doing that British fast-talking mumble thing) to a point, but it was also a zombie movie with the usual gore and heartbreak of having to kill your now-zombified friends. Still, though, that wasn’t the disturbing part.
No, the disturbing part was when I realized that “Shaun of the Dead” and “Hotel Rwanda” are pretty much the same movie. Ordinary people in the heroes’ town suddenly (with slight warnings that they ignore) go crazy and start massacring all the non-zombies they can find. The heroes--
Oh, wait. Hold on a second. Here, read this:
****************************************************************************************
Beware!
Basic plot spoilers below that will ruin BOTH MOVIES and YOUR LIFE if you continue reading. Alligators may possibly emerge from the screen to eat you if you read what follows.
Doom.
Doooooommm!
****************************************************************************************
Still with me? Okay, now that that’s out of the way:
The heroes, caught off guard, rescue those they can and hole up in what they think is a safe place to ride it out. But they don’t have weapons or protection worth speaking of, and eventually they give up, expecting to die. Then they are miraculously rescued and reunited with people they had thought were dead, their lives and their societies changed forever.
So, bottom line: Rwanda was a real-life zombie movie. That’s pretty horrifying. I mean, vampires are used as metaphors for drug abuse (among other vices), which is much more scary in real life—compare “Lost Boys” to “Sid and Nancy” for sheer horror value. Gozilla and Frankenstein’s monster (and a billion other cult horror classics) represent the dangers of tampering with science, but honestly, which is scarier, a guy in a rubber suit or shadows of atomized people in Hiroshima? Some monsters deal with the potential for evil within human psychology, but just reading the newspaper scares me a lot more than a werewolf movie or reading Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
Maybe I’m just a sucker for zombies (“Resident Evil” gave me nightmares) but explaining genocide through the evil dead just somehow brings it home so much more than the other monster analogies. I don’t think it’s a metaphor that any zombie movie writer intended (though the Cranberries sure thought of it), but thinking of the Rwandan atrocities in this way was, to me, more horrific than “Hotel Rwanda”. It’s probably something to do with the power of the imagination coupled with our initial response (like, oh…in 1994) to disbelieve what we hear and see on TV. A million civilians killed in a few weeks with clubs and machetes by their neighbors in Africa—you think, well, that’s Africa. Why send troops? They’ll just start killing people for some stupid tribal- or colonial-inspired reason somewhere else tomorrow. And the numbers are probably inflated.
But crazed zombiemen running through the streets and forcing themselves into houses, hacking a million people to death and forcing others to convert to their side or die—in effect, turning others into zombies against their will—the monster analogy brings it home and dispels all reticence to help. How could you stand by while a whole country was ransacked with zombies? It’s just inhuman.
If we had known the full truth, how could we have stood by? And even now, how can we understand the full horror of what happened?
I don’t know about you, but “zombies” pretty much does it for me.