(Sorry–I know what you meant.)

Ah, Clive Owen, why did you stoop to such lows?

Yeah–you can’t really fault the implication there, since one of the biggest criticisms leveled at the UN, the US, and various other “Western” global powers since the Rwandan genocide has been their failure to respond. Ditto on Darfur.

We can’t have it both ways. We can’t claim that the UN and the global community, many of whom are white, need to intervene to stop atrocities in Third World countries, and then turn around and complain that the movies depict the white bastion of the UN as necessary to creating peace in those regions.

Which is not to undermine the very good point made in the article (which I didn’t read, so I’m going off of your summary here). You know what movie is *particularly* bad for all of this? Angelina Jolie’s Beyond Borders. The movie meant well. It really did. But it was *so* cliched–the wealthy white woman buys two truckloads of food and drives them into Ethiopia during the famine! She saves Cambodian children! She’s killed by landmines…somewhere where there are landmines! (Bosnia, maybe?) All while she remains in a loveless marriage and falls passionately in love with Clive Owen!

Jarhead also had John Krasinski in it, didn’t it? I haven’t seen it either, but that’s what I’ve heard.

Oh, wait–I did see Hotel Rwanda, which does get a brief mention. I thought it was well done, though I’ve seen lots of stuff since about how Rusesabagina wasn’t really that much of a hero. Oh well–it’s film, and it needs a story with memorable characters. And at least he’s not white. Though, when I come to think of it, Hotel Rwanda does kind of imply that the only way to stop the Rwandan slaughter was to get white folks and the U.N. to respond. I can’t entirely blame movies for suggesting that, though, as that is sort of one of the current injustices of how the world works.

I mean, I haven’t seen The Constant Gardener…but when I read the brief about the article that was the first film that came to mind.

One cannot completely avoid the story-type if that’s the story you’re telling, but I thought The Interpreter did some nice spin on the cliches. Even if Nicole was her adorable pale self. I watched it for Nicole, being almost 100% loyal… but was pleased with the little film’s differences (not a romance in any fashion, the main character was African–white, but culturally not American–, the main woman was seeking diplomacy as her means to impact her home country not as a diplomat but rather as serving on a low level function as interpreter…) Okay, *chuckles* I’m not really going to defend the film am I?

I suppose the curious thing for me is that… even if Hollywood is trying to make the public ‘aware’ of certain events, they’re going to get put down for how they do it? I guess so. How do you make a film that’s real, yet artistic, accurate… yet going to get more than the die-hard advocates to watch? Honestly, as much as I’d like to be up to speed on my current events… the only potentially political film that I’ve watched and enjoyed was Jarhead. And that was because it struck me as a fan of T.S. Eliot’s poetry or through the artistic imaginings characteristic of Jillian. I’m not going to watch a film that isn’t creative… even if it is unique or particularly factual. Which is why I watch Battlestar Galactica. Sci-fi is the best way to bludgeon me with political opinions.

Tricky. Tricky. It’ll be interesting to see if Hollywood’s on a learning curve or if it’ll settle for the lowest common denomonator.