Beyond the Gates (B- or 2.5/4 stars)
African genocide, haven't we seen this movie before? In 'Beyond the Gates', a historical drama directed by Michael Caton-Jones, an elderly Catholic priest, Father Christopher (the impressive John Hurt), and a young idealistic English teacher, Joe (well-acted by Hugh Dancy), find themselves in the middle of Rwanda's 1994 genocide. They must choose to either stay with 2,500 Tutsi refugees or flee to uncertain safety. This film is decent. However, comparisons have to be made to 2004's Hotel Rwanda. 'Beyond the Gates' is earthier & tougher than 'Hotel Rwanda', but inferior in its narrative & execution.
April, 1994: An airplane carrying the President of the new, peaceful Rwanda crashes & the Hutu's extremist militia begin to slaughter the Tutsi population. The once peaceful Ecolo Technique Oddicielle school is now under siege. Before the militia struck, the school had been a haven for Tutsi students, staff, and a UN peace-keeping force, led by a sympathetic Belgian Capt. (a stellar Dominique Horwitz). The grounds are surrounded by Hutus (baring machetes), waiting for the earliest chance to slaughter as many men, women, or children 'cockroaches' as possible. How is it that so many whites (living on or around grounds) were so ignorant to the turmoil of the entire country? Ordered 'not' to attack unless in self-defense, will the UN save the Tutsis, or abandon them?
Father Christopher had been losing more & more hope as the days went on. One of the last straw(s) involved finding his good friends slaughtered at a nearby convent. But although his hope floundered, his courage & faith never did. And when all of the white folk are given an option to 'leave while they can', he is the only one to bravely stay behind; knowing that a torturous death would be imminent. Joe has great affection for the Tutsis, particularly Marie (Claire-Hope Ashitey, of Children of Men), but "he doesn't want to die". His attitude, while nurturing & caring, can be summed up by a fellow BBC reporter, "We're all selfish people in the end". Not bad, but selfish ... it's human nature.
What's nice about the film is that it was actually filmed in Rwanda (unlike 2004's film), & many survivors of the massacre were part of the production crew/actors. This gave the film more of a documentary feel than the superior 2004 Hollywood-esque film. The depiction of the militia roaming the bloodied countryside is a horror to behold. Minutes after the credits rolled, I find myself touched by the human drama of it all. And even though many who watch this may not be Catholic, the positive spin on 'keeping the faith' through the darkest of times is nice to see. But it's all so OVERBEARINGLY depressing. Was there a reason to hear this story all over again? Not really, it's the same story as the 1st film, just told at a different locale with a different set of protagonists.
Aside from the film being so morbid, there are other issues: the script, editing (too many meaningless, extended scenes of cars driving along the red-dirt roads), & acting is lacking. John Hurt is believable, but he doesn't have much to work with or do. Dancy also does well with what he has ... which is to visibly suffer & not do much else. The biggest problem of all (and no, it's not that this is the umpteenth African-based film to focus on the white man's burden) is that we don't get a strong notion of the socio/cultural/political reason(s) why this genocide occurred in the 1st place! The film is worthy of recommendation (perhaps 1 viewing), but it lacks engaging drama. And it's convenient, in-hindsight DISability to acknowledge the origins of the genocide leaves little for us to comprehend.
April, 1994: An airplane carrying the President of the new, peaceful Rwanda crashes & the Hutu's extremist militia begin to slaughter the Tutsi population. The once peaceful Ecolo Technique Oddicielle school is now under siege. Before the militia struck, the school had been a haven for Tutsi students, staff, and a UN peace-keeping force, led by a sympathetic Belgian Capt. (a stellar Dominique Horwitz). The grounds are surrounded by Hutus (baring machetes), waiting for the earliest chance to slaughter as many men, women, or children 'cockroaches' as possible. How is it that so many whites (living on or around grounds) were so ignorant to the turmoil of the entire country? Ordered 'not' to attack unless in self-defense, will the UN save the Tutsis, or abandon them?
Father Christopher had been losing more & more hope as the days went on. One of the last straw(s) involved finding his good friends slaughtered at a nearby convent. But although his hope floundered, his courage & faith never did. And when all of the white folk are given an option to 'leave while they can', he is the only one to bravely stay behind; knowing that a torturous death would be imminent. Joe has great affection for the Tutsis, particularly Marie (Claire-Hope Ashitey, of Children of Men), but "he doesn't want to die". His attitude, while nurturing & caring, can be summed up by a fellow BBC reporter, "We're all selfish people in the end". Not bad, but selfish ... it's human nature.
What's nice about the film is that it was actually filmed in Rwanda (unlike 2004's film), & many survivors of the massacre were part of the production crew/actors. This gave the film more of a documentary feel than the superior 2004 Hollywood-esque film. The depiction of the militia roaming the bloodied countryside is a horror to behold. Minutes after the credits rolled, I find myself touched by the human drama of it all. And even though many who watch this may not be Catholic, the positive spin on 'keeping the faith' through the darkest of times is nice to see. But it's all so OVERBEARINGLY depressing. Was there a reason to hear this story all over again? Not really, it's the same story as the 1st film, just told at a different locale with a different set of protagonists.
Aside from the film being so morbid, there are other issues: the script, editing (too many meaningless, extended scenes of cars driving along the red-dirt roads), & acting is lacking. John Hurt is believable, but he doesn't have much to work with or do. Dancy also does well with what he has ... which is to visibly suffer & not do much else. The biggest problem of all (and no, it's not that this is the umpteenth African-based film to focus on the white man's burden) is that we don't get a strong notion of the socio/cultural/political reason(s) why this genocide occurred in the 1st place! The film is worthy of recommendation (perhaps 1 viewing), but it lacks engaging drama. And it's convenient, in-hindsight DISability to acknowledge the origins of the genocide leaves little for us to comprehend.