Topic > Tutsi and Hutu: differences and genocide in "Hotel Rwanda" by Terry George

Discrimination of all kinds is a problem. Before Terry George's film Hotel Rwanda was released, many acted as if genocide was taboo. This film helped raise awareness about the Rwandan genocide, which many are calling a “modern-day Holocaust.” Hotel Rwanda was very effective in showing that the genocide was a big deal by not only relating well to accurate historical events, but also communicating the differences between Hutu and Tutsi and showing how badly the soldiers treated the people. It was effective because it was very realistic and showed people accurately what was happening. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The film stayed true to historical events, which helps viewers understand the real event even more. All the people had cards that classified them as Tutsi or Hutu, and the Tutsi people were called “cockroaches”. The film excellently depicted all the events that actually happened. For example, soldiers found evidence of the presence of Tutsis in Paul's van and all the corpses on the streets. When trying to make a treaty, the rebels shoot the president, which causes an even bigger riot than what was already happening. The film not only shows discrimination between the two groups, but also racism between African Americans and Europeans. The soldier telling Paul that it doesn't matter because he is black is a good example and further demonstrates how well the director is making his point. Another scene that shows this racism is when all the Europeans and Caucasians manage to evacuate the country, leaving everyone else to die. One specific moment that stood out is when an African American holds a Caucasian man's umbrella and escorts him out of the hotel to escape. The white man says “I'm so ashamed.” This is a crucial moment in the film because while everyone else is running towards the buses to escape, it shows that some actually care about the horror that is happening in the country. The director did a great job directing the film to accurately depict the true historical events that occurred during the Rwandan genocide. The difference between Hutu and Tutsi is overly emphasized in the film and is clearly the biggest problem in Rwanda. But can some people tell the difference? One particular scene that outlines this point is the men talking at the bar. One wonders what the difference between the two really is. They claim that the Belgians created the division and that the Tutsis are taller and more elegant. Paul says that “unfortunately” is the truth. When the man tries to flirt with the girls and asks who is Tutsi and who is Hutu, he states that they could be twins and cannot tell them apart. The director does a good job explaining how the Belgians made the separation between the two in the first place, but also shows that it doesn't really matter, because in the end most people can't tell the difference. Genocides are not beautiful. The film shows the bloody and bloody truth of what really happened during the genocide. Dead bodies on the streets, people taken from their homes and all these events really happened and were also depicted in the film. The soldiers were not kind to the people of this country, as shown in the scene where they pour beer on the refugees. The film portrays all the true, good and bad things that happened during this time. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay Overall, the movie did a great job proving all its points and the director portrayed the.