January 07, 2007

Blood Diamond

When you have a child that is less than one-year old, you don’t have that many opportunities to go to the movies. And when you do get to go, you usually want to see something light-hearted and fun since you are probably exhausted and just happy to have a couple of hours with no responsibilities. Thus, it was somewhat of a tough sell to get my wife to agree to see Blood Diamond last weekend even with Leo headlining.

But we went and I couldn’t help but agree midway through when she turned to me and said, “We should’ve seen Happy Feet.” It wasn’t that Blood Diamond isn’t a good movie, it was just that we are parents and rather than two hours without responsibility, Blood Diamond provided two hours of unrelenting intensity that made us think critically about the world we live in. That, of course under normal circumstances, is a good thing. And even for exhausted parents, I must admit, Blood Diamond was a worthwhile experience.

I was struck by several aspects of the movie. First, without giving too much away, the movie puts the viewer smack in the middle of a civil war in Africa, complete with images of atrocities – villages destroyed, innocents maimed. I always appreciate the ability of movies to bring these scenes to the average American viewer who may know vaguely that there are wars in Africa, but who does not appreciate the horror such wars cause for the majority of the populations there.

While Blood Diamond clearly depicts some of the warring African factions in a negative light, it presents a very strong indictment of the viewers themselves by bringing attention to the messy underbelly of the global diamond industry. If this indictment awakens the conscience of 1% of those who see the movie, it will have achieved its apparent goal.

Perhaps most interesting to me, the character played by Jennifer Connelly, a western journalist tracking the diamond industry in Africa, raises many questions about the role of western activists in foreign settings. Writing about the conflict, she feels a personal empowerment, but harbors no illusions that her words will really stop anything. She laments that perhaps her stories may induce a few sympathetic (and guilt-ridden?) westerners to write a check or two to an organization working in Africa, but that it is not possible to spark any real outrage. Discussing her own dissatisfaction with her western life and her inability to keep a boyfriend, she wonders if something is wrong with her, but concludes, “Maybe I just give a shit.” The implication, of course, is that the rest of us do not. And maybe she is right. How can one truly “give a shit” about the kind of terrible things we all know happen in Africa and go on with a normal American life? Unfortunately, this kind of attitude discourages those who care, but are not willing to put their life/family/career on the line to confront crises elsewhere, from acting at all. Certainly, there must be room in the activist community for those of us who “give a shit,” but on a less committed level. If activists cannot accept this reality, they threaten to make themselves irrelevant.

Based on this review, you may think Blood Diamond is simply a preachy plea to help Africa. What makes the movie so enjoyable, however, is an incredibly compelling story acted magnificently by Leonardo DiCaprio and Djimon Honsou. This is either a wonderful movie hidden inside an important message or an important message hidden inside a wonderful movie. Either way, Blood Diamond is a fine example of movies at their best – the art of telling a story while revealing a new perspective on the world such that the viewer must think about the world he returns to outside the theatre.

1 comment:

janis kiel said...

Daniel--After reading your review of "Blood Diamond" I can't wait to see it. I only hope it moves me and others to care more about what is happening in other countries. Thank you so much for the insight and for the compassion you have for others.
Love-
Mom