“Sometimes in April is a 2005 historical drama television film about the Rwandan Genocide of 1994, written and directed by the Haitian filmmaker Raoul Peck. The ensemble cast includes Idris Elba, Oris Erhuero, Carole Karemera, and Debra Winger.
The story centers on two brothers: Honoré Butera, working for the tribalist Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines, and Augustin Muganza, a captain in the Rwandan army (who was married to a Tutsi woman, Jeanne, and had three children with her: Anne-Marie, Yves-André, and Marcus), who bear witness to the killing of close to 800,000 people in 100 days while becoming divided by politics and losing some of their own family. The film depicts the attitudes and circumstances leading up to the outbreak of brutal violence, the intertwining stories of people struggling to survive the genocide, and the aftermath as the people try to find justice and reconciliation.”
Personally, I prefer walking into great films blind–without having seen trailers or read reviews…which obviously lends itself to disappointing fishing expeditions…although the discovery of gems is then that much sweeter. Below is the generic sense of a favourable review before the meaty bits..to which I’ll link to beneath. – rudhro
“This is a film best seen in the Cinema, and not like Avatar or Sucker Punch or some other rubbish. Blame should be seen in a Cinema because it deserves your full attention. The best Australian films don’t try to wow us with wild effects on a shoestring budget, or use every zany filter post-production can provide to dazzle away shonkily conceived images. The best ones are carefully plotted, painstakingly written, and always mindful of their potential limitations while simultaneously overcoming them.
Happily, Blame is one such film.” – written by Elizabeth Lamb / AUSTRALIAN FILM REVIEW
The reason why “Guns don’t kill people, People kill people” doesn’t work is because ‘People’ get drunk, ‘People’ get high, ‘People’ get emotional, ‘People’ get scared or ‘People’ get insane. (Or all of the above simultaneously) This leads to slaughter, carnage and pain (as well as many many many accidents). From my perspective, it seems that those standing on the right, or standing on a God Book, seem to be in denial of the above fact, and presume everyone to be somehow completely functional, all of the time, and somehow completely perfectional, all of the time. A society based on this flawed logic is distrustful and frightening. (and tragic from a Humanist perspective)
Irritated today by a radio interview I heard about the stupid Rihanna/Brown thing.
I can’t stand them, and am disappointed by how so many people are talking about them as though they matter…
But what really got my goat was the discussion NOT mentioning that Chris Brown is mentally ill.
The ‘expert’ went on about his “unfortunate lack of contrition”…
It sounded inane…like observing the lack of contrition of a schizophrenic.
And in the same vein…battered women are ILL TOO!
Why is this not more commonly observed?
Sane women, when punched in the face the first time…LEAVE.
CALL THE COPS.
SHOOT A GUN.
Do something, and seek recourse…take umbrage.
Insane women, seek that masochistic thrill over and over and over.
It’s been studied and reported on so many times in my life.
I am surprised that this whole episode is being discussed as though it were the 1950s or 1550s and not 2012, when we KNOW that..both parties to (chronic) Domestic Abuse are basically insane.
[And here, of course I am not looking to ‘blame the victim’, by any means…but observe a scientific reality]
I am not surprised, and am saddened that I am even babbling over this in this post.
I do not expect them, these “stars” to behave normally, nor do I expect people we may know, who are not celebrities, to behave normally .
Women who find themselves in a series of abusive relationships NEED HELP.
It is not easy, actually, to find the men who WILL actually punch you in the face, kick you when you’re down, and bruise you so it isn’t publicly visible…jesus.
You have to hunt for them.
This is the same reason I get infuriated when Honour Killing is quickly labelled, without thought, ‘Domestic Abuse’.
Honour Killing is Socially Sanctioned. It is a COMMUNITY CONSPIRACY.
Domestic Abuse, on the other hand involves the insanity of one, and more than usually, two.
We can not analyze behaviours to seek normal reactions of (victim) escape, (perpetrator) contrition, etc.
The expert on the radio actually compared Brown with Michael Virk–the dude who abused DOGS (and is now apparently very contrite and making public service appearances).
Hurting a DOG is obviously different from hurting a human life partner. (and I never like placing animals as lesser than humans, but in domestic abuse situations, I must–you don’t have sex with your dog, you don’t have children with your dog, you don’t have the complexities of an adult human relationship with a dog)
I hate when the media fails to spread knowledge, but merely perpetuates further ignorance.
I don’t have high expectations of the likes of Oprah, but this was CBC Radio.
I think in almost all circumstances both partners ought to be held on mental health legislation, for professional intervention and addressing underlying causal conditions.
I really enjoyed this film. Having been recently ruminating once more on the sociological pathology of Honour Killings and the necessity to control the chastity of young females in most patriarchical societies, this film made me wonder whether it was indeed the birth of the Austrian-‘Jewish’ school of psychoanalysis which led to the advent of the liberation of female sexuality in Western society. This may be obvious to some, but I find the potential of this quite intriguing. Especially in light of my introduction to Otto Gross from this movie. He actually deserves a separate post on his own (soon). I think psychoanalysis may be owed a great debt by the Western Society generally, a society which today is quite distinct from its Victorian Era incarnation, having had so many taboos and inter-related psychic truths brought out of closets into the public to be acknowledged and dealt with. The writing in this film is quite erudite, making one almost want to take notes at times. Such as the questioning of WHY humans, while such sexual animals, have this overwhelming need to repress this sexuality at the same time. This of course, is what the foundation of psychoanalysis was all about–the search for an understanding of this unfortunate duality…which inevitably leads to emotional baggage in a great number of humanoids. This film is recommended for neurotic uber-ruminators. Perhaps as a elementary introduction to the history of psychoanalysis. Also do read The Interpretation of Murder.