Tutsi and Hutu Differences and Similarities and the Horrors of Genocide in Hotel Rwanda, a Movie by Terry George

Discrimination of all varieties is an problem. Just before the movie Hotel Rwanda, Terry George’s film, was released, a lot of acted as if genocide was taboo. This film helped raise awareness to the Rwandan Genocide, which a lot of refer to as a “Modern-day Holocaust.” Hotel Rwanda was quite powerful in showing that genocide was a big issue by not only relating properly to correct historical events, but also communicating the variations amongst Hutus and Tutsis, and displaying how poorly the soldiers treated men and women. It was effective simply because it was quite realistic and showed people accurately what was occurring.

The film stayed accurate to historical events, which helps watchers recognize the genuine event even more. All men and women had cards that classified them as Tutsi or Hutu, and Tutsi folks had been referred to “cockroaches.” The film portrayed all the true events excellently. For instance, the soldiers discovering the proof of Tutsi people in Paul’s van, and all of the dead bodies on the streets. When a treaty is attempting to be made, rebels shoot the president, which causes even far more of a riot than what was already happening. Not only does the film display discrimination between the two groups, but also racism amongst African Americans and Europeans. The soldier who tells Paul he does not matter simply because he is black is a great example, and proves further how properly the filmmaker is making his point. Another scene that displays this racism is the scene in which all of the Europeans and Caucasians get to evacuate the country, leaving absolutely everyone else to die. A particular moment that stuck out is when an African American individual is holding the umbrella for a Caucasian man and escorting him out of the hotel to escape. The white man says “I am so ashamed.” This is a pivotal moment in the movie due to the fact while all the other people are rushing to the buses to escape, it shows that some do really care about the horror going on in the nation. The filmmaker did a great job directing the film to accurately depict the accurate historical events that took location throughout the Rwandan genocide.

The distinction among the Hutu and Tutsi folks is overly stressed in the film, and is clearly the most significant issue in Rwanda. But, can some even inform the difference? One specific scene that outlines this point is the men speaking at the bar. One asks what the difference truly is in between the two. They claim that Belgians created the division, and that Tutsi people are taller and more sophisticated. Paul says that is “unfortunately” the truth. When the man tries to flirt with the girls, and asks who is Tutsi and who is Hutu, he claims they could be twins and you can't tell them apart. The filmmaker does a good job initial explaining how the Belgians produced the separation among the two, but also shows that it genuinely does not matter, because in the end, most men and women can not inform the distinction.

Genocides are not pretty. The film shows the gory and bloody truth of what actually occurred in the course of the genocide. Dead bodies on streets, folks becoming taken from their houses, and all of these events genuinely happened and have been portrayed in the film as well. Soldiers had been not nice to the individuals of this nation, as shown in the scene exactly where they pour beer on refugees. The film portrays all the accurate, great, and bad items that happened in this time.

All round, the film did a great job of proving all of its points, and the filmmaker portrayed the Rwandan Genocide genuinely by following the historical timeline, showing the Hutu and Tutsi differences and similarities, and displaying the very good, poor, and ugly of the genocide.