A Crucial Difference: A Glorified Story v. the Reality of Genocide

By Hilary Chadwick

[1] Paul and Tatiana Rusesabagina stride confidently towards the direction of hope at the conclusion of Hotel Rwanda. This final shot constructs an image of the family at their proudest moment, and although beautiful and uplifting, it does not reflect their real history nor the history of most genocide survivors. In reality, the Rusesabaginas were forced to stay at Kabuga, a ground taken over by the Rwandan Patriotic Front, rather than a well organized UN relief camp, and were eventually guided back to the Milles Collines rather than refuge in a neighboring country of Tanzania. Director Terry George deliberately constructed this ending to preserve and glorify the personal story of Paul Rusesabagina rather than the devastating reality of the genocide. Despite his attempts to educate the audience about the Rwandan genocide, George leaves many of the grim details to be told by books and documentaries. It is essential to distinguish the personal story from that of the genocide to prevent attributing an overly optimistic lens of a family reunited to a blood bath of deaths that left the country 800,000 fewer.

[2] The organized and efficient UN relief camp in the final scene establishes a sense of resolution and calm, yet it is a fictitious creation that does not reflect the Rusesabagina’s actual refuge. In the film, Paul and Tatiana Rusesabagina and their children were escorted to a relief camp by a UN convoy and personally escorted off a truck by Colonel Oliver, who guides them to a bus headed towards Tanzania. The camp is well organized by UN officials in blue helmets neatly escorting the hordes of refugees into awaiting buses. At the camp, there is a well-organized corkboard, with Polaroid photos of missing children neatly stapled to a board with a sign above in French and English announcing “Do you know these Missing Children?” In addition, the Red Cross tents litter the lawn. Each tent is filled with sufficient hospital beds, and an ample supply of relief workers is properly allocated to each needy patient. There are no bloody bodies or malnourished children. Instead, all have wounds and are being attended to by patient workers. This creates an image of a secure safe haven that finally relieves the Rwandans from their struggle for survival.

[3] In reality, however, the location in which the Rusesabaginas landed was far from the organized depiction of George’s UN camp and did not provide relief. Rather than being escorted by UN officials, the Rusesabaginas were taken by the Rwandan Patriotic Front to Kabuga, “which had turned it into a kind of refugee holding area. But it was no camp in the conventional sense. It was a looting zone.” (Rusesabagina 165) There was no organization or UN peacekeeper to feed them or provide relief. There were no buses placed for them to go. Rather than being provided with food, as illustrated in the scene, Paul Rusesabagina was forced to forage for food and raid the deserted shops in the area (Rusesabagina 165). He dug potatoes out of the fields and was reduced to feeling like an animal. If George would have depicted the camp in this light, the Rusesabaginas would have been viewed as desperate, undignified people, scrounging with barely enough to eat. Yet, George wanted to celebrate the survival of Paul through the genocide by placing him in an organized and resourceful area. Nonetheless, the audience gains a much brighter depiction of the camp that was, in fact, not a reality, and the audience does not appreciate the struggle that continued relentlessly. These camps were not ameliorated by the UN or Red Cross Workers -- the Rwandans were forced to survive on their own.

[4] Next, the serendipitous meeting of the Rusesabagina family and their nieces is overdramatized and completely fictional. In the scene, the Rusesabagina family boards the bus, downtrodden that they are still not a complete family without their nieces, brother, and sister-in-law. Yet, suddenly, Matamacha, the loyal and reliable Red Cross relief worker, emerges from the relief tent and tears through lines of Rwandans towards the busses yelling “Hold it please!” to complete the Rusesabagina family. By chance, she runs up to the exact bus and side the Rusesabagina’s are sitting on and immediately recognizes Tatiana, despite the moving van and four feet above her. Paul then rises from his seat and demands they “Stop the bus” to greet his friend. Matamacha leads Tatiana by the hand to the camp of children, none of which are malnourished, some waiting patiently in lines for their food rations, others sitting together peacefully in a group. After searching, Tatiana’s attention is drawn by a group of singing children, and then the camera closes in on the faces of two young girls, well fed, matching in gingham tops.

[5] At the moment of identification, Tatiana’s face changes and she runs over to the group in utter disbelief and surprise, laughing with joy. Calling the attention of Paul, she scoops up Anaise in her arms, then beckons Carine to her other hip, elevating them both in her arms. She is quickly surrounded by Paul, who echoes her laughter and joy. Tatiana touches the heads of her children, now all at her side, overjoyed that all of her family is present and accounted for. She is on her knees, pressing her face into Paul’s waist, kissing him and embracing him -- Paul asking his children, “Do you see your cousins?” This depiction illustrates a joyful reunion that wraps up all loose ends. George focuses on the union of the family rather than the still missing brother and sister-in-law. By ending on this optimistic note, he stimulates a feeling of completion as opposed to the never-ending division and feeling of isolation that left many families separated.

[7] In reality, however, the Rusesabagina’s reunion with their nieces was less climactic and did not resemble a choreographed picture-perfect reunion. “We [Tatiana and Paul Rusesabagina] spotted the children of my wife’s brother” rather than being tipped off by a Red Cross relief worker (Rusesabagina 167). The young girls were not being cared for by the relief workers; “they were being taken care of by our housemaid, who had managed to struggle into the camp” (Rusesabagina 167). In contrast to the sweet healthy cheeks that produced smiles on their faces, “[b]oth of the children were covered in dirt and appeared to be starving and barely alive. They had been living for months on ground-up chicken feed” (Rusesabagina 167). The actresses in the film, however were far from mal-nourished, although slightly dirty, certainly not covered in dirt, and in good company with many other children survivors singly gaily in a circle of friends. However, if George were to have focused on these aspects of the reunion, two young girls near death, this would not have been a hopeful ending for Paul or his family. Their future would have been uncertain.

[8] Paul describes in his autobiography that reunions and revelations of missing and dead family were common around camp, yet their occurrences were not as optimistic as portrayed as the film. “Weeping filled the air…Wives came to understand that they would never see their missing husbands again…It took a tremendous force of will to keep your own heart together in this unending grief” (Rusesabagina 167). Many of these reunions did not follow the positive and uplifting reaction that George depicts; often they were devastating and were more destructive than hopeful. This scene, however, may cause audience members to have a constructed image in which all families are reunited in a peaceful camp, rather than indefinitely displaced. This is an illusion. George did not focus on this unending grief but the joy of the reunion.

[9] The final images of the film portray a purposeful and hopeful message of Paul and his family moving toward a new chapter of hope. After their reunion, the camera pans across the scenery that captures Rwandans amidst rising fog. The camera captures Tatiana emerging from the fog, confidently striding with her niece on her hip. She reveals her smile, and Paul arrives next to her, mirroring her image with a child on his hip and matching smile. Matamacha, the Red Cross Relief worker is at Paul’s other side and states, “They say there wasn’t any room,” revealing her skepticism. Then Paul reveals his unrelenting optimism, looks at her and states, “There’s always room.” He then looks directly at the camera with a confident smile, protecting the child in his arms. He is led by a group of children, all walking in front of him, joined by their clasped hands. The other daughter is holding a child in her arms like the mother, and the children are all holding hands creating a net of safety refuge carrying forward. The Red Cross worker is seen walking with them with the Peace Keepers in the background to the left. The scene freezes in this image and fades to black. This direct camera position is a strong way to conclude the film and establishes a direct message. This final image represents the new and hopeful youthful generation that will lead the people out of the genocide, which was made real in part by Paul Rusesabagina’s effort to save the people of his nation.

[10] Again, in reality, this is not what really happened. After surviving in the RPF grounds, the Rusesabagina’s were taken back to the Hotel Milles Collins to resume order and refurbish the hotel that had been vandalized since their departure. They did not leave together, arm in arm, on a dirt path, resembling the yellow brick road. Instead, they were taken back to the hotel where they experienced the genocide and catered to the western guests who would conveniently arrive after the conclusion of the genocide to survey the land. Yet, if George had covered this in the scene, Paul might have been seen as a failure cowering back to his home rather than moving on to a new light and a new future on an unmarked road leading to hope. This was not George’s mission, however; he wanted to bring a face to the personal story, and it wasn’t his priority to accurately display the genocide.

[11] Director Terry George’s mission was to illuminate a personal story to transmit the knowledge of an event to an uninformed population.

The best way to tell a story...of historic events to an audience [is] through the eyes of one ordinary person and that person becomes the audience themselves, becomes the eyes and the ears of the audience, and so you can take an event like the Rwandan Genocide… and through the events that befall this ordinary person allow the audience to go inside that event itself and give people a 360 degree view of it and an experience of it I think that is quite unique. (Terry George)

George’s approach is to focus on an individual to allow the audience to connect and empathize with this individual, to allow them to take on the issue otherwise deemed insignificant or irrelevant. He wants the audience to become personally involved with the conflict, the issue, the drama. This is his method of storytelling. However, this method has many pitfalls that can distort reality. By appealing to a personal story, the genocide takes on the characteristics of an individual that has feelings, romantic relationships, and a family seeking reunion. However, the genocide is anything but an individual with feelings. The genocide in Rwanda was carried out by a group of Hutu extremists that dehumanized themselves to massacre people of Tutsi ethnicity. These killings are devoid of empathetic response, they are absent of feeling, and if anything relish in the vulnerability of human death. The aftermath was gruesome and lead women to lead lives infected by HIV, children dead by malnutrition, and a generation of men dead with the genocide. It is true that in the midst of the horror, the brilliant and schematic acts of Paul Rusesabagina saved 1268 lives, yet this does not explain the entire genocide.

[12] It is important to distinguish the entertainment value of this final scene and its ability to construct an overly optimistic conclusion to the audience’s view of the genocide. If this is the only exposure the audience has to the genocide, they might walk away thinking everything was resolved. This lack of reality of the genocide illustrated in the final scene should not take away from Paul Rusesabagina’s accomplishments, however it beckons the challenge to construct accurate, yet entertaining depictions of both of these events. Paul Rusesabagina himself is proud of the film and states, “There were a few dramatic embellishments [in Hotel Rwanda], but I know that’s typical for Hollywood movies, and the story was very close to the truth” (Rusesabagina 189). Thus, Paul Rusesabagina understands the distinction between reality and Hollywood, yet not all do. Terry George wanted his audience to leave with tears of pride in a human story welling up in their eyes rather than a flood leading to uncontrollable hysteria. The film is powerful in constructing this inspiration, yet it does not do justice to the survivors.