Review of "Shake Hands with the Devil"

 The second movie review of the night takes us from the blood soaked fields of Belgium in WWI to the blood soaked fields of Rwanda in 1993. In “Shake Hands with the Devil” Quebecois actor Roy Dupuis plays General Romeo Dallaire, the commander of the ill-fated UN peacekeeping mission to Rwanda. Over the course of 100 days Dallaire and his men bare witness not only to the horrors of organized genocide but also the indifference such events were met with by the world at large. Throughout the massacre Dallaire pleads time and time again for reinforcements to stop the atrocities unfolding around him, only to be met with refusals and troop withdrawals.

The acting here is very good. Dupuis is very convincing as Dallaire, showing the man's transformation from optimism that the ceasefire between Tutsis and Hutus can hold, to frustration with the indifference of the world to the massacres, to finally emotional collapse into PTSD, despair, and a failed suicide attempt. The supporting actors are also quite good and well utilized by the screen writer and director, especially in the scenes where Dallaire is speaking to the therapist treating him after his diagnosis with PTSD. Their presence in the room, while at first a little confusing, becomes a very effective Greek chorus to reflect and explain the events unfolding before us, and oh, what events they are.

As “Shake Hands with the Devil” sits squarely within the genocide film genre it is full of disturbing imagery. Civilians slip on blood before being taken away to be killed, children's bodies lie in the path of UN vehicles and so must be pulled to the side for the convoy's to pass, and perhaps most horribly the sound of machetes hacking into people is never too far away. Through all of this the impotence of the UN to do anything is showcased again and again, with Dallaire's telling one high ranking Hutu officer that “the world will not approve” being met with complete contempt and disdain. In another scene an injured Tutsi woman, her family dead, when being told that the UN cannot use its guns to stop the killings demands of him “well what good are you then?”. While it would be easy for the writer to have slipped an answer in the decision to have no answer at all most accurately shows the value of the mission to the victims of the genocide.

It's this last point that is probably the most painful about this movie, and the one that should provoke some soul searching among those of us watching dramatizations of such events from the safety of our own living rooms. If this movie raises any questions its not “is UN peacekeeping a bad idea?” but rather “why do we spend resources (money and lives) for peacekeeping in countries we don't care about?” As is pointed out in the movie Rwanda, for all its death toll, is a forgotten and ignored operation. Instead it is Bosnia that commands the lion's share of the military, political, and humanitarian resources. When one considers that several peacekeepers lost their lives in Rwanda to accomplish practically nothing it would seem that answering that question is the least we, as citizenry, can do.

As for the victims of this and future genocides, we already have the answer.

 

 

Review of "Shake Hands with the Devil"

 The second movie review of the night takes us from the blood soaked fields of Belgium in WWI to the blood soaked fields of Rwanda in 1993. In “Shake Hands with the Devil” Quebecois actor Roy Dupuis plays General Romeo Dallaire, the commander of the ill-fated UN peacekeeping mission to Rwanda. Over the course of 100 days Dallaire and his men bare witness not only to the horrors of organized genocide but also the indifference such events were met with by the world at large. Throughout the massacre Dallaire pleads time and time again for reinforcements to stop the atrocities unfolding around him, only to be met with refusals and troop withdrawals.

The acting here is very good. Dupuis is very convincing as Dallaire, showing the man's transformation from optimism that the ceasefire between Tutsis and Hutus can hold, to frustration with the indifference of the world to the massacres, to finally emotional collapse into PTSD, despair, and a failed suicide attempt. The supporting actors are also quite good and well utilized by the screen writer and director, especially in the scenes where Dallaire is speaking to the therapist treating him after his diagnosis with PTSD. Their presence in the room, while at first a little confusing, becomes a very effective Greek chorus to reflect and explain the events unfolding before us, and oh, what events they are.

As “Shake Hands with the Devil” sits squarely within the genocide film genre it is full of disturbing imagery. Civilians slip on blood before being taken away to be killed, children's bodies lie in the path of UN vehicles and so must be pulled to the side for the convoy's to pass, and perhaps most horribly the sound of machetes hacking into people is never too far away. Through all of this the impotence of the UN to do anything is showcased again and again, with Dallaire's telling one high ranking Hutu officer that “the world will not approve” being met with complete contempt and disdain. In another scene an injured Tutsi woman, her family dead, when being told that the UN cannot use its guns to stop the killings demands of him “well what good are you then?”. While it would be easy for the writer to have slipped an answer in the decision to have no answer at all most accurately shows the value of the mission to the victims of the genocide.

It's this last point that is probably the most painful about this movie, and the one that should provoke some soul searching among those of us watching dramatizations of such events from the safety of our own living rooms. If this movie raises any questions its not “is UN peacekeeping a bad idea?” but rather “why do we spend resources (money and lives) for peacekeeping in countries we don't care about?” As is pointed out in the movie Rwanda, for all its death toll, is a forgotten and ignored operation. Instead it is Bosnia that commands the lion's share of the military, political, and humanitarian resources. When one considers that several peacekeepers lost their lives in Rwanda to accomplish practically nothing it would seem that answering that question is the least we, as citizenry, can do.

As for the victims of this and future genocides, we already have the answer.

 

 

Review of "Shake Hands with the Devil"

 The second movie review of the night takes us from the blood soaked fields of Belgium in WWI to the blood soaked fields of Rwanda in 1993. In “Shake Hands with the Devil” Quebecois actor Roy Dupuis plays General Romeo Dallaire, the commander of the ill-fated UN peacekeeping mission to Rwanda. Over the course of 100 days Dallaire and his men bare witness not only to the horrors of organized genocide but also the indifference such events were met with by the world at large. Throughout the massacre Dallaire pleads time and time again for reinforcements to stop the atrocities unfolding around him, only to be met with refusals and troop withdrawals.

The acting here is very good. Dupuis is very convincing as Dallaire, showing the man's transformation from optimism that the ceasefire between Tutsis and Hutus can hold, to frustration with the indifference of the world to the massacres, to finally emotional collapse into PTSD, despair, and a failed suicide attempt. The supporting actors are also quite good and well utilized by the screen writer and director, especially in the scenes where Dallaire is speaking to the therapist treating him after his diagnosis with PTSD. Their presence in the room, while at first a little confusing, becomes a very effective Greek chorus to reflect and explain the events unfolding before us, and oh, what events they are.

As “Shake Hands with the Devil” sits squarely within the genocide film genre it is full of disturbing imagery. Civilians slip on blood before being taken away to be killed, children's bodies lie in the path of UN vehicles and so must be pulled to the side for the convoy's to pass, and perhaps most horribly the sound of machetes hacking into people is never too far away. Through all of this the impotence of the UN to do anything is showcased again and again, with Dallaire's telling one high ranking Hutu officer that “the world will not approve” being met with complete contempt and disdain. In another scene an injured Tutsi woman, her family dead, when being told that the UN cannot use its guns to stop the killings demands of him “well what good are you then?”. While it would be easy for the writer to have slipped an answer in the decision to have no answer at all most accurately shows the value of the mission to the victims of the genocide.

It's this last point that is probably the most painful about this movie, and the one that should provoke some soul searching among those of us watching dramatizations of such events from the safety of our own living rooms. If this movie raises any questions its not “is UN peacekeeping a bad idea?” but rather “why do we spend resources (money and lives) for peacekeeping in countries we don't care about?” As is pointed out in the movie Rwanda, for all its death toll, is a forgotten and ignored operation. Instead it is Bosnia that commands the lion's share of the military, political, and humanitarian resources. When one considers that several peacekeepers lost their lives in Rwanda to accomplish practically nothing it would seem that answering that question is the least we, as citizenry, can do.

As for the victims of this and future genocides, we already have the answer.

 

 

I remember reading somewhere that Russian torpedo fuel makes good hooch, so this sorta makes sense.

Remember those alcoholic energy drinks that are supposedly too dangerous for human consumption? Well apparently some enterprising people have decided that "blackout in a can" need only apply to the nervous system of the average college student, not the power grid. Apparently there are plans afoot to convert them into ethanol to run bio-fuel based cars.

Isn't science wonderful? Here's the text of the article:

Outlawed Four Loko drink could be turned into ethanol fuel

The famously outlawed Four Loko alcoholic energy drink could be turned into ethanol fuel according to a report by the Associated Press.

 

The drink was deemed too dangerous for public consumption by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. As a result, thousands upon thousands of cans of the stuff are going to waste.

 

The good news though is that they can be recycled into ethanol which could be used to power cars. A spokesman for one of the ethanol recycling facilities said they could process up to four trucks, or 8,000 cases per day. Four Loko isn't the only drink of its kind that has been outlawed, so we could see this program go on for several months.

I remember reading somewhere that Russian torpedo fuel makes good hooch, so this sorta makes sense.

Remember those alcoholic energy drinks that are supposedly too dangerous for human consumption? Well apparently some enterprising people have decided that "blackout in a can" need only apply to the nervous system of the average college student, not the power grid. Apparently there are plans afoot to convert them into ethanol to run bio-fuel based cars.

Isn't science wonderful? Here's the text of the article:

Outlawed Four Loko drink could be turned into ethanol fuel

The famously outlawed Four Loko alcoholic energy drink could be turned into ethanol fuel according to a report by the Associated Press.

 

The drink was deemed too dangerous for public consumption by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. As a result, thousands upon thousands of cans of the stuff are going to waste.

 

The good news though is that they can be recycled into ethanol which could be used to power cars. A spokesman for one of the ethanol recycling facilities said they could process up to four trucks, or 8,000 cases per day. Four Loko isn't the only drink of its kind that has been outlawed, so we could see this program go on for several months.

I remember reading somewhere that Russian torpedo fuel makes good hooch, so this sorta makes sense.

Remember those alcoholic energy drinks that are supposedly too dangerous for human consumption? Well apparently some enterprising people have decided that "blackout in a can" need only apply to the nervous system of the average college student, not the power grid. Apparently there are plans afoot to convert them into ethanol to run bio-fuel based cars.

Isn't science wonderful? Here's the text of the article:

Outlawed Four Loko drink could be turned into ethanol fuel

The famously outlawed Four Loko alcoholic energy drink could be turned into ethanol fuel according to a report by the Associated Press.

 

The drink was deemed too dangerous for public consumption by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. As a result, thousands upon thousands of cans of the stuff are going to waste.

 

The good news though is that they can be recycled into ethanol which could be used to power cars. A spokesman for one of the ethanol recycling facilities said they could process up to four trucks, or 8,000 cases per day. Four Loko isn't the only drink of its kind that has been outlawed, so we could see this program go on for several months.

Wow. A Congresswoman has been assassinated

I just checked on CNN and apparently Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head at a constituents meeting today. Sadly, it appears that she has died of her wounds.

Since this is literally breaking news as I type this I don't want to get into supposition and rumour creation. I don't know who did this or why. Its possible it was a violent right winger who felt that, as a Democrat, Ms. Giffords wasn't worthy to live but  it could just as easily have been a radical Democrat who felt she hadn't gone far enough. It could have been an act of Al Queda inspired terrorism. It could have been a disgruntled former employee, or a maladjusted student at the local high school. It could also be the work of a person so mentally ill they honestly thought they were shooting aliens invading earth. The fact is at this time we don't know "WHY", we only know that someone has been shot and killed.

And that is bloody tragic, regardless of one's political leanings.



Additional Info:  Apparently CNN is getting conflicting reports so its possible that she is still alive but in surgery. Aside from being hopeful she will survive I think it illustrates why I'm not giving any opinions on who did this and why.

Wow. A Congresswoman has been assassinated

I just checked on CNN and apparently Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head at a constituents meeting today. Sadly, it appears that she has died of her wounds.

Since this is literally breaking news as I type this I don't want to get into supposition and rumour creation. I don't know who did this or why. Its possible it was a violent right winger who felt that, as a Democrat, Ms. Giffords wasn't worthy to live but  it could just as easily have been a radical Democrat who felt she hadn't gone far enough. It could have been an act of Al Queda inspired terrorism. It could have been a disgruntled former employee, or a maladjusted student at the local high school. It could also be the work of a person so mentally ill they honestly thought they were shooting aliens invading earth. The fact is at this time we don't know "WHY", we only know that someone has been shot and killed.

And that is bloody tragic, regardless of one's political leanings.



Additional Info:  Apparently CNN is getting conflicting reports so its possible that she is still alive but in surgery. Aside from being hopeful she will survive I think it illustrates why I'm not giving any opinions on who did this and why.

Wow. A Congresswoman has been assassinated

I just checked on CNN and apparently Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head at a constituents meeting today. Sadly, it appears that she has died of her wounds.

Since this is literally breaking news as I type this I don't want to get into supposition and rumour creation. I don't know who did this or why. Its possible it was a violent right winger who felt that, as a Democrat, Ms. Giffords wasn't worthy to live but  it could just as easily have been a radical Democrat who felt she hadn't gone far enough. It could have been an act of Al Queda inspired terrorism. It could have been a disgruntled former employee, or a maladjusted student at the local high school. It could also be the work of a person so mentally ill they honestly thought they were shooting aliens invading earth. The fact is at this time we don't know "WHY", we only know that someone has been shot and killed.

And that is bloody tragic, regardless of one's political leanings.



Additional Info:  Apparently CNN is getting conflicting reports so its possible that she is still alive but in surgery. Aside from being hopeful she will survive I think it illustrates why I'm not giving any opinions on who did this and why.