I went to this film with high expectations. It is
touted as a part of the growing genre of socially conscious Hollywood
productions that have a positive message. In this case the message
is that our frivolous attachment to the world’s most expensive gems
is one that fuels violence and friction in desperate and impoverished
African countries like Sierra Leone. That good message however,
is loudly drowned out by the many bad ones. And the bad messages
are not about the diamonds but about the people of Africa. I walked
away from this
movie with the thundering of non-stop explosions and gunfire still
ringing in my head but feeling that I had just seen a dressed-up,
high tech Tarzan flick with Leonardo DiCaprio as a modern-day Johnny
Weissmuller. In scene after scene the African population serves
as backdrop for the main story about love and ambition involving
two white protagonists, a young liberal reporter (Jennifer Connely)
and a tough ruthless diamond smuggler and former mercenary (DiCaprio).
In a recent review in the New Yorker, David Denby actually praised
the movie because it did not make westerners (aka whites) feel guilty
about the problems of Africa. That’s because it blames ruthless
bloodthirsty black ‘rebels’ who prey upon helpless, voiceless black
peasants.
DiCaprio, a bitter racist who clings fondly to good
old days of pre-independence Zimbabwe, where he grew up, is the
hero of the movie. He calls himself Rhodesian in open defiance
of black majority rule that came with the end of the Apartheid-like
system in Rhodesia (renamed Zimbabwe) in 1980. And in a fit of
rage he lashes out at his reluctant black collaborator, Djimon Hounsou,
as a “kaffir,” the African equivalent of the n-word. His goal in
life is to steal, swindle or otherwise procure enough diamonds
to buy his way out of Africa, a place he sees as God-forsaken and
doomed. When there is no other way out, he finally redeems himself
in a gesture of generosity at the end.
Of course, good fictional characters, like real people,
are always complex so I don’t have an issue with Danny Archer, DiCaprio’s
character, and DiCaprio’s acting is phenomenal. What is absolutely
indefensible, however, is the simplistic one-dimensional portrayal
of almost every single black character. Each and every one is either
a blood-thirsty mindless killer and pillager or a childlike noble
savage and feeble victim. The talented Hounsou is the later. He
is cast as hapless, helpless and clueless in the land of his birth.
He is a big innocent good guy who would not know whether to run
toward or away from the gunfire if DiCaprio did not pull him in
the right direction. OK, he is a rural fisherman so perhaps he
would not know how to navigate the city streets of Sierra Leone’s
capital, but in the rugged terrain of the jungle he is equally naïve
and perpetually confused. In a classic scene that captures the
contradictions of the movie, Hounsou puts his and DiCaprio’s lives
in danger by acting with the impulse of a two-year old in the face
of armed opponents. Moreover, there are no black women in Africa
that utter more than two sentences, either “help me, help me,” as
one is being kidnapped or a proposition to offer sexual services
to the “big white man who is all alone” in the city. There is no
black agency in this film, except for one school master who tries
to rehabilitate child soldiers only to be shot by one of them five
minutes after he appears on screen. Viewers are left to conclude
the age-old racist stereotype that Africa is lost without European
sympathy, know-how and might.
This genre of film advertises itself as something
more than banal entertainment. It promises to raise awareness and
consciousness about serious problems in the world. At the end of
the credits there are a set of statistics that drive home that the
subject of the film is real and serious. The narrative and storyline,
however, distorts more than it illuminates the real players involved.
For every child soldier and blood-thirsty rebel there are compassionate
social workers and reformers, intellectuals, writers, and opposition
politicians. There are Africans who are tough and tender, savvy
and sinister and the whole range of personalities and motivations
that we see in any other group. Among blacks in Africa, 90% of
the continent of sub-Saharan Africa, we see more diversity than
among the handful of whites. Hounsou’s character however does not
show the intelligence and creativity that so many Africans have
exhibited in response to inhumane conditions. Real people who have
fought to save their country from violence and internal chaos like
human rights activist FannyAnn Eddy who was tortured and killed
in 2004 for her outspoken actions on behalf of lesbians, gays and
women. But that tradition of African self-help and self-determination
does not appear in this movie. This producer and director, Edward
Zwick could not somehow see beyond the one-dimensional types and
simple binaries we have been fed through television for generations.
After African Queen, The Constant Gardener, the Interpreter, and
now Blood Diamond, and with the notable exception of Hotel Rwanda,
when will Hollywood be able to make a movie about Africa that actually
acknowledges the full humanity of black African people?
BC Editorial Board member Dr. Barbara Ransby,
PhD is an Historian, writer, and longtime political activist. Dr.
Ransby is currently an associate professor at the University of
Illinois at Chicago in the Departments of African American Studies
and History. Click
here to contact Dr. Ransby. |