Bradbury: Hotel Rwanda

The movie Hotel Rwanda starring on Cheadle is an interesting take on the events that occurred during the three month genocide of the tutsis by the hutus.  As far as I know, the facts of what happened in terms of the genocide are accurately depicted in the film. The whole aspect of the hotel is apparently based on real events but I think it is safe to say that it is a loosely based interpretation. Most movies based on real events are dramatized because real life is always less interesting than what can potentially be put on camera. Since I do not know what actually took place however, I will write this blog solely from what I saw in the film, under the knowingly false impression that it is accurate. So I begin: The events circulating Don Cheadle's hotel are extremely sad. The movie makes a point to show that the rest of the world did not care about Rwanda. One statement by a U.S. official was that the United States was not sure if the risk to American lives and dollars was worth the cost of intervening. I think this statement is completely inaccurate. Going off of the movie, I saw an army of disorganized men, most of whom did not have firearms. I do not think that small groups of men with machetes could pose much of a threat to the United States military. The real reason I believe the Americans or any other major country did not intercept this slaughter was because they would of had nothing to gain from it. Unlike the middle east, Rwanda has no resources. It also posed no threat to our economy like communism did which prompted s to help South Vietnam. All in all, the film does not paint the world in a good light. The only man that actually helps Cheadle is his boss and I am willing to bet it was because he was both guilted into it and did not need the negative publicity surrounding his hotel. The U.N. pretended to help but did not want to get their hands dirty. The only time one of them fires a shot was in his own defense. On the radio, the tutsis heard reports that the world was covering up this catastrophe by stating that acts of genocide were happening instead of all out genocide, which was the case. I think that the movie does a good job of doing what Don Cheadle advised the tutsis to do: guilt people into caring.

Bradbury: Ides of March

This is the first still picture from the Ides of March that I would like to discuss. The movie surrounds a campaign to win the state of Ohio's delegate votes in the presidential election. The movie, from what I saw, seemed fairly accurate to how a real election would happen. This scene depicts a speech by Morris (played by George Clooney) announcing that the man directly to his right supports his run for presidency. This scene in the film shows just how ruthless politics can be. That man has much pull amongst the delegates and was planning on supporting another delegate. All of a sudden, another candidate promised him more power (a cabinet seat) and he switches his support. Is there any idealism left in politics? Does anybody run for the sake of the people. When the movie starts out, the audience is lead to believe that both George Clooney and Ryan Gosling's characters are idealistic. As Clooney's true form unveils itself, Gosling's grasp on ideology is shattered, and he results to blackmail and back-room dealing to stay in control. He ends up betraying his good friend and the audience does not even know if it was worth it because it is never discovered who wins. I do not think winning is the point however. The moral of the story (if I may be so cliché) is that everyone in politics is corrupted. You can see that Clooney has brought his wife and young daughter on the stage with him. This as merely a device used to make him appear like a family man and acquire more votes.

This picture I find interesting because the face is split between Clooney and Gosling's characters. They are juxtaposed in the sense that one is an idealistic youngster and the other is merely a face that masks the true politician behind it. The two are dopplegangers of one another. As the movie progresses the audience learns that the two men are not much different: they both want to win and they both will do whatever it takes. This is what Clooney the director is trying to say in this film.

Bradbury: Human Trafficking

The film "Human Trafficking" deals with a modern form of slavery: forced prostitution. This hushed up illegal activity takes place today right here in America. Women are lured by attractive men into getting passports and then the girls are whisked away to foreign places to be used as items of sexual pleasure. The women are essentially turned into a product, to be owned, sold, and bought. Most of them come from the former Soviet Union, a place where work is scarce and hard times abound. Sex is an everlasting resource. Although young girls and attractive women are the prime target of these malicious predators, oftentimes little boys are kidnapped as well, as portrayed in the film.
Why do few women ever live to tell their tale? The threat that keeps them to stay is not necessarily one of a physical nature. Their families are threatened to be killed or physically harmed and this threat keeps the sex slaves in line. While there are divisions of America's police force that investigate illegals in the states that are forced into prostitution, many young women are never found.  The American government, in my opinion, should be able to better prevent abductions into human trafficking rings, simply because of their access to advanced technology.  ICE (US Immigration and Customs Enforcement) is a division of the US government that's goals include targeting human trafficking rings and sex slavery.  According to their website, most of their recent investigations have been domestic, not international.  They state on their website that they are "serious about ending human trafficking".  Hopefully in the near future, their efforts will start proving more effective, and in the future, may even eradicate sex slavery completely.

If one of my close friends or relatives were abducted into a human trafficking ring, my first reaction would be to try to find them, or at least to find someone who could.  Liam Neeson's character in "Taken" comes to mind for me; this is the type of person I would try to contact if necessary, someone who would almost literally go to the ends of the world to save the victim.  Knowing the low statistics of women found after abduction, I would employ anyone possible in addition to the Federal government in hopes of increasing the chances.  I would probably pay any amount of money desired.