Inequality in the Film Blood Diamond - Movie Review Example

Blood Diamond – Ways in Which it Offers a Critical Analysis of Racial inequality and the Notion of the West as a Saviour of Third World Countries Table of Contents 1. Introduction 3 2. Significance of Contemporary Cinema as a Voice of Global Critique 3 3. Conflict Diamonds and Correlation with the Film 4 4. Critical Analysis 6 4.1. Post-Colonialism and Eurocentric Themes 6 4.2. Racial Stereotyping and Representation 8 4.3. The Silencing of Solomon Vandy 10 5. Discussion and Conclusion 11 References 13 1. Introduction Blood Diamond, a 2006 political war thriller directed by Edward Zwick presents a charming story of war-torn Sierra Leone and the truth about conflict diamonds. Interestingly, this film as do many other films such as Heart of Darkness whose stories run at the backdrop of Africa have many post-colonial underpinnings and racial references. Through a critical analysis of Blood Diamond, this paper attempts to understand how Hollywood cinema represents global inequalities and the issues of the developing world to explore the possibilities and limits of popular filmmaking as a voice of global critique. To accomplish this, the paper will discuss how contemporary cinema, with examples from Blood Diamond and other popular feature films, offers a critical analysis of an aspect of the present. The chosen aspect is racial inequality and how the west thinks it is a savior of the Third World. 2. Significance of Contemporary Cinema as a Voice of Global Critique Films, even if solely made for entertainment purposes, have a lasting and often subconscious impact on individual perceptions. As Appadurai (1996) puts it, a growing body of evidence indicates that the consumption of mass media across the world provokes selectivity, irony, resistance and in general “agency” (p. 7). He gives the examples of housewives who read soap operas and romances to bring excitement into their own lives and terrorists who present themselves as Rambo-like figures to prove how the media influences people around the world. People are not just silent and passive spectators of electronic media but rather they are actively responsive to it. Appadurai rightly states that these media “compel the transformation of everyday discourse” while at the same time being “resources for experiments with self-making in all sorts of societies, for all sorts of persons” (1996, p. 3). It is thus vital to critically analyze what is presented by the media and how, because the line between fiction and reality is blurred as audiences tend to take fictional representations in films to be real. Although films are merely representations, they do have real effects worldwide, such as the mobilization induced for Ku Klux Klan by racist films or the initiation of retrograde social policy as a result of the impact caused by films (Stam 1994). Especially in films that are based on real life prototypes or events, the right to judgment on questions related to realism comes into play (Stam 1994). This is because people have the right to be aware of the reality and wrong representations of events in films can greatly influence how the audience perceives the truth. For instance, the film Mississippi Burning presented originally racist FBI agents as the film’s heroes and the African-Americans who went through harsh treatment by the FBI were shown as passive victims who were waiting for rescue by white heroes. The film Blood Diamond is a fictional story set in real-life civil war in Sierra Leone and ends with the Kimberly Conference, a real conference which was held in May 2000 that led to the introduction of the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme. Thus the representations made in the film of Whites as ‘the rescuers’ and Blacks and ‘the rescued’ could be mistaken by people as the sole truth. As Bakhtin (cited in Stam 1994) argues, literature and also cinema rather than “reflecting the real” is a “refraction of a refraction”, which is a mediated version of an “already textualized and discursivised socioideological world” (p. 180). What Bakhtin implies with this statement is that cinema presents a distorted or incomplete version of reality and not the correct reality itself. Thus the representations in cinema are limited by the narrative and the bias of the presenters. It is also essential to critically analyze transnational cinema because the social information that emerges as a result of films influences people by making them to draw generalizations and inferences that are ultimately learned and retained on a long-term basis (Friedman 1991). To understand the influence of such stereotyping, one can see how Hollywood has exploited cultures and races by creating prototypes such as the Inscrutable Oriental, the Latin Lover, the Suave Sophisticated Frenchman, the Primitive/Savage Indian, the Happy Slave, the Lazy Mexican or the Stuffy Englishman (Friedman 1991). Thus, films play a major role as a global voice and what is presented by them is of utmost importance. 3. Conflict Diamonds and Correlation with the Film The film Blood Diamond touches on the sensitive issue of conflict diamonds. Diamonds are a universal symbol of love and cannot imaginably be associated with blood, destruction, violence and hate. The film draws on the fact that diamonds are in fact closely and directly associated with violence in third world countries and that the actual price of a diamond is not thousands of dollars but thousands of lives. The film is intended to be a socially conscious effort to make people aware of the truth behind diamonds and the tribulations of the third world through a highly compelling story. While most diamonds are mined from peaceful regions such as Canada and Australia, by the end of the 1990s it was believed that the real diamond trade came from regions such as Sierra Leone, Liberia and Angola which are marred by rebel movements (Siegel 2009). Reports on traumatized civilians and rape victims shown in the media led to widespread public concern. Slowly, diamonds came to be associated with conflict and the trade proceedings were found to be funding civil wars. Blood Diamond is set in this historical backdrop, where the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) was waging a war against the government in Sierra Leone in West Africa. These rebel fighters terrorized the civilians by capturing them, forcing them to work as slaves in diamond mines, and physically torturing them through rape and amputation. The mined diamonds were smuggled out of Sierra Leone through the neighboring nation of Liberia. This trade was the major source of funds for the insurgents. The film is set in 1999, a year before the Kimberly Conference of 2000. Danny Archer, a white ex-mercenary originating from Zimbabwe is the central subject of the film. The film begins with the capture of a Black fisherman, Solomon Vandy. Solomon is enslaved by the RUF, separated from his family and forced to work in the diamond mines. The rebel force also captured his son, brainwashed him and turned him into a child soldier working for the RUF (IMDb 2006). Solomon discovers a pink diamond that he discreetly buries but is seen by a rebel leader Captain Poison. The film through various twists and turns ends up with the rescue of Solomon. His son also leaves the RUF and comes back to him. Solomon sells the diamond and becomes rich. Danny dies at the end and his death is depicted heroically. Maddy Bowen, an American journalist publishes the truth behind the conflict diamonds and unveils the diamond trade to the world. The film closes with a scene of the Kimberly Conference in which Solomon is asked to speak. 4. Critical Analysis 4.1. Post-Colonialism and Eurocentric Themes Blood Diamond although appears as a socially conscious film, narrates the story through a postcolonialist lens. Postcolonialist theory critically analyses the effects and aftereffects of colonization. It claims that all people in this world have the right to the same cultural and material well-being as the West (Jasen and Nayar 2010). With the expansion of the European empires as colonialists in the 19th century following the colonial and imperial rule, anthropological theories portrayed the inhabitants of the colonized countries as “inferior, childlike or feminine, incapable of looking after themselves” and “requiring the paternal rule of the west for their own best interests” (Young 2003, p. 2). Race formed the basis of such theories and white culture is considered as the only one with the ability for legitimate and superior government, economics, language, science, literature, etc. In other words, as stated by Anne McClintock (cited in Sharp 2008), postcolonialism “confers on colonialism the prestige of history proper…the world’s multitudinous cultures are marked, not positively by what distinguishes them, but by subordinate, retrospective relation to linear, European time” (p. 5). Narrations in today’s postcolonialist texts and cinema are largely Eurocentric. This is because they indicate the superiority of the west and the helplessness of the east. As Stam (1994) puts it, Hollywood cinema prefers big budget blockbusters and that it is not just classic but Eurocentric, “in effect if not in explicit intention” (p. 184). For instance, Blood Diamond shows Africans as savages to be rescued by white heroes. This can be deduced from the way Solomon is shown in the film as an animalistic savage African with bared teeth killing Captain Poison with a shovel, although other deaths in the film are caused by bullets. Although Captain Poison is the only man killed by him (unlike Danny who killed many), he is shown visually as a barbaric and savage killer. Blood Diamond positions Africa as a war torn country where people kill each other mindlessly. This is evidenced from the statement made by Danny saying, “People here kill each other as a way of life…It’s always been like that”, with the rest of the film showing shots of Africans killing each other. The film also indicates that Danny and Maddy are pursuing their own motives, Danny’s motive being diamond smuggling and Maddy’s motive being the search for a story to publish about Africa. While both the white characters have their own selfish motives, they are visually shown as the heroes who save the nation and not as those who exploit the victim position of the Africans for the achievement of their own motives. The journalist, Maddy, appears to be uninterested in the history or politics of the people. She is rather interested in unearthing a story on the diamond trade. She assumes that simply by exposing the truth behind the conflict diamonds to the western world (who are the major consumers of diamonds) she could end the terrorism in Sierra Leone (Gberie 2007). This proves the lack of need for the character of Maddy in the film as it only appears as a forceful addition of a western heroine who would help in saving Africa. Like other narratives and racist cultural Eurocentric imagination, Blood Diamond shows Africa as a chaotic and problematic place, a “hell” where a sensible person cannot live. This is clear from Danny’s statement in the film who says that Africa is a “god-forsaken” continent. He adds that he sometimes wondered if God would ever forgive them for what they have done to each other. He also says that when he looks around, he realizes that “God left this place a long time ago”. By saying that god left the place a long time ago, the film indirectly shows that god was there before, probably pointing out to the time of its colonization. This could be an indication that God was here during colonization and left the place with the colonizers. Africa is indicated to have been better off during colonization. Towards the end, the film shows Danny’s death by an enemy bullet. However, his death is depicted more as a sacrifice rather than as a result of events. He is aware that he will die and hands over Solomon’s diamond back, which is again shown as a sacrifice, although he only returned to Solomon what was already his. Danny also calls Maddy to help rescue Solomon and his son via airlift and to arrange for the sale of the diamond, which Maddy does and uses as a story for her journalistic pursuit. This is also however shown in a heroic light, as if Maddy actually saved Solomon and his son. Danny died in Africa and could not leave it as he had intended to. Before dying in Africa, he told Maddy that he is exactly where he is “supposed to be”, indicating that he belonged to Africa. This shows he gave up on his hope of leaving Africa and died there in peace. This scene and also the scene of the Kimberly Conference makes the audience feel good as if they are heroes themselves because they could now responsibility choose to buy conflict free diamonds and make sacrifices for the third world like Danny did. The audience would feel that they are helping these war-torn and suffering third world countries. Right from the beginning, the film positions the foreigners Danny and Maddy as heroes in Africa. This suggests that the film’s intended audience is the westerners although it is a transnational film meant for a global audience. Contemporary cinema, by using westerners as heroes in films portraying the third world, promotes the post-colonialist Eurocentric thinking that westerners are saviors of third world countries. Armes (1987) states that North American or European films do not present a true rendition of the realities of third world countries. He adds that just like European traders who sought to exploit raw materials and agricultural produce from the colonies in imperial rule, and as reporters hunted for marketable stories on famines, riots, etc., western film makers sought exploitable landscapes, deserts and exotic mountains in third world countries. A bulk of the film production in western countries that are ex-colonial powers centralized the narration around European-born heroes that are depicted as sacrificing or dedicating their lives for the good of Africans or Asians (Armes 1987). Thus, mainstream Hollywood cinema plays a key role in cultural imperialism, dominating other film cultures and maintaining its hegemonic influence (Ezra 2006). 4.2. Racial Stereotyping and Representation Contemporary films such as Blood Diamond indirectly purport the notion of the racial superiority of westerners. As stated earlier, since the beginning of the film Danny, a foreigner, is in the central position implying that the audience of the film is the white race of the west. The origin of the narrative is extremely crucial because the narrative always tends to bias reality in its own interests. As Edward Said argues, “nations themselves are narrations” and the “power to narrate” or to “block other narratives from forming and emerging” is crucial to culture and imperialism (1993, p. xiii). All films, whether Mexican melodramas or Hindu mythologicals, or third world epics, present their own national imaginaries (Shohat and Stam 2003). However, Hollywood filmmakers appear to float over “petty nationalist concerns”, touching upon issues of other nations of the world (Shohat and Stam 2003, p. 10). The makers of Blood Diamond too rise above nationalistic concerns and project white heroes in a transnational film doing good for an African Nation. The whites would identify and relate to the white protagonist and consider themselves as the saviors of the third world. In some shots of the film, Danny is unfairly shown to be more superior to Solomon, a black native. For instance, Danny is the one who leads Solomon through the bush to the safety of Kono although Solomon being a native was supposed to be comparatively more knowledgeable about the place. The film also makes blacks appear as unintelligent beings in need of help with qualities of being slaves while the whites are more intellectual, intelligent and with the qualities of being masters who can rule the world and keep if free from disorder. Reflecting this idea, Stam states that white superiority is asserted and assumed, whites consider themselves to be the “objective ones, the experts, the uncontroversial ones, those who cause no problems, those who judge, those “at home” in the world, whose prerogative it is to create laws in the face of alien disorder” (1994, p. 200). Throughout the film, Danny commands Solomon for various actions while indicating it is for his own good and any refusal from Solomon would incite frustration in Danny. By ending the film with the death of Danny, the film purports that it takes a white man to redeem the blacks, falsely depicting the death of Danny as a Christ-like sacrifice. The only major roles for Blacks in the film are that of Solomon and Captain Poison. Solomon does not say much in the film nor does he discuss or criticize what was happening around him, and lacks power and wit to do so. He is merely handed over from one white character (Danny) to another (Maddy) to save him. Another crucial aspect of the film is the dichotomy of the blacks, as bad black men and good black men. Captain Poison, a nationalist who hates whites is a brutal figure, a bad black man, and on the other hand, Solomon who wishes to send his son to an English school is a good black man. This is suggestive that Solomon who wants his son to learn English, the language of the colonizers, as a way to individual development, is an ideal black man. Contemporary cinema is thus limited to the perceived racial superiority of the whites and people of other races who support the white race are shown as good people. Said points out a similitude in Conrad’s novel, Nostromo, which as Said states “embodies this paternalistic arrogance of imperialism”, where westerners will decide who is a good or a bad native as all natives “have sufficient existence” by virtue of the westerners’ recognition (1993, p. xx). Like Blood Diamond, films such as Apocalypse Now, Missing and Salvador and novels like Nostromo and The Quiet American argue that the west is the source of the whole world’s significant life and action, and westerners are at liberty to visit their philanthropies and fantasies upon the third world countries that are unintelligent. In this respect, they purport that the world apart from the west has no history, life or culture and no integrity or independence that is worth representing without the intervention and charity of the west (Said 1993). 4.3. The Silencing of Solomon Vandy At the end of the film, the transformation of Solomon from that of a savage African to a civilized man in an expensive suit is shown. Solomon who sold the diamond by striking a deal is now rich. While attending the Kimberly Conference as a special guest, he is introduced to the spectators by an ambassador stating that “the third world is not a world apart, and the witness you hear today speaks on its behalf”. He adds, “let us hear that voice…let us learn from it and let us ignore it no more, ladies and gentlemen…Mr. Solomon Vandy”. As is clear from this introduction, the ambassador in the film wants the world to hear this voice. However, ironically, the film ends without letting the viewers hear Solomon. This silencing of Solomon while contradictorily asking the world to hear his voice places a question over the motives of the film, which by the end appears as wanting to promote the heroics of the western world as a savior rather than bringing the attention of the audience to the voice and plight of the natives. As in the case of Blood Diamond, many other Hollywood films on third world use European or Euro-American characters as a bridge between the natives and other cultures. First world journalists in films such as The Year of Living Dangerously (1983), Under Fire (1983) and Salvador (1986), and Blood Diamond (2006; in which Maddy is an American Journalist) play the ‘in-between’ role of the colonial traveler or anthropologist, the ones who initiate the audience into these native third world communities, implying that the third world people are “incapable of speaking for themselves” (Stam 1994, p. 205). In Blood Diamond, Maddy plays the role of the ‘in-betweener’ who presents the plight of the people of Sierra Leone in front of the world. It is assumed that people in the third world do not have a voice and even though the makers of the film ask us to hear their voice, they do not find it necessary to retain that voice as a part of the film. 5. Discussion and Conclusion Blood Diamond exposes the truth of conflict diamonds to an international audience. However, this cinema, although being transnational, projects white men as global heroes. By asking viewers not to purchase diamonds from conflict zones, the film makes the audience (which it intends to be largely western) feel good about themselves, showing that the viewers will help Africa by being more responsible during such purchases. It takes the responsibility of showing the world why people in Sierra Leone and other such conflict areas are victimized and that boycott activism will help in saving these victims. As the journalist Maddy in the film states, “People back home wouldnt buy a ring if they knew it cost someone else their hands”. The film however presents a negative stereotype of the African people, with a black man (Solomon) himself saying about whites (“the good people”), “I know good people who say there is something wrong with us, besides our black skin, that we were better off when the white men ruled”, indicating the prejudice of the whites against the blacks and willing acceptance and subjugation of the blacks towards colonialist rule. What this film missed was other facts on how western interests themselves are the villains in these conflict zones. For instance, in his documentary The Empire in Africa, Philippe Diaz (2006) states that the RUF came into being as a result of the pillaging of the country’s natural resources by multinational companies from the west. Since the profits made by these ventures were not put back into the native economy, the nation faced losses and locals were pushed into poverty. He showed that the forces behind these mining interests were “more interested in protecting their investments” rather than changing the economy (Diaz 20006). Hence, while the film showed the rescuing of the natives by westerners, the counter truth could be that it is the westerners who are responsible for this predicament of the native people. Therefore, it can be inferred that films especially because of their postcolonialist Eurocentric narrative and racial stereotyping, do not present a real but rather distorted picture of the truth. Postcolonial issues manifest in cinema in the form of nationalism, history, gender, race and identity (McEwan 2008). Postcolonial cinema offers a critical commentary and insight into the continuous economic, cultural, and political struggle of power (McEwan). Around the world, post-colonial films reveal various aspects of postcoloniality and the experiences of colonized and colonizing peoples. Often, the representations and stereotyping are the same, with imagery of dominant and superior whites and subservient ‘other’ races. In conclusion, the following points can be drawn from the analysis of Blood Diamond with regards to how the film offers a critical analysis of the plight of the third world and of racial inequality: Firstly, it is seen that contemporary cinema, a major part of which is Hollywood, is dominated by cultural imperialism, with its narratives focusing on a white hero. Although the film intended to make audiences aware of conflict diamonds, it actually ended up showing how two white characters heroically saved a nation in crisis. The film has Eurocentric themes showing that inhabitants of colonized countries are unintelligent and in need of western help. The film also negatively stereotypes the black character as a savage man although a good one because he favored English education for his child. In addition, the film shows that the native people had no voice of their own and it took the voice of an American journalist to actually bring the plight of this nation in front of the world. Moreover, the film paradoxically omitted from screening the talk of the black character at Kimberly Conference, merely ending the film by asking audiences to hear his voice. Overall, the film shows racist stereotypes and favoritism towards imperialism. Transnational cinema thus faces limitations as a voice of global critique because the narrations are influenced by the country of origin and the intended audience. There is thus no guarantee that cinema will always present an unbiased truth and will impartially represent the third world. References “Ethics on Film: Discussion of "Blood Diamond"” (n.d.), Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, accessed at http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/education/002/film/reviews/0002.html. Appadurai, A (1996), Modernity At Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Armes, R (1987), Third World Film Making and the West, London: University of California Press. Bush, B (2014), Imperialism and Postcolonialism, Oxon: Routledge. Diaz, P (2006), The Empire In Africa, Documentary Film. Ezra, E (2006), Transnational Cinema: The Film Reader, Oxon: Taylor & Francis. Friedman, LD (1991), Unspeakable Images: Ethnicity and the American Cinema, Illinois: University of Illinois Press. Gberie, L (2007), A Film Review of Blood Diamond, accessed at http://www.africaresource.com/arts-a-culture/reviews/263-a-film-review-of-blood-diamond. Harrow, KW (1999), African Cinema: Postcolonial and Feminist Readings, Africa: Africa World Press. IMDb (2006), Blood Diamond, accessed at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0450259/. Jasen, DA & Nayar, PK (2010), Postcolonialism: A Guide for the Perplexed, New York: A&C Black. McEwan, C (2008), Postcolonialism and Development, New York: Routledge. Ponzanesi, S & Waller, M (2012), Postcolonial Cinema Studies, Oxon: Routledge. Stam, R (1994) "Stereotype, realism and the struggle over representation" from Stam, Robert, Unthinking Eurocentrism : multiculturalism and the media, pp.178-219, New York: Routledge. Said, E (1993) "Introduction " from Said, Edward W., Culture and imperialism, pp.xi-xxxii, London: Chatto & Windus. Sharp, J (2008), Geographies of Postcolonialism, London: SAGE. Sherzer, D (1996), Cinema, Colonialism, Postcolonialism: Perspectives from the French and Francophone Worlds, Texas: University of Texas Press. Shohat, E & Stam, R (2003), Multiculturalism, Postcoloniality, and Transnational Media, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. Siegel, D (2009), The Mazzel Ritual: Culture, Customs and Crime in the Diamond Trade, Netherlands: Springer Science & Business Media. Young, R (2003), Postcolonialism: A Very Short Introduction, New York: Oxford University Press. Read More