Having now viewed this movie twice, I was particularly fascinated by the resourcefulness and cunning of Paul. He used all of the resources at his disposal to save others, whether that be through bribes of contacts (international, military, etc.). Even when he seemed to have little to no hope of survival, he continued to take actions that maximized chances of survival. This tenacity, and occasionally, shear stubbornness, was incredible. Negotiating successful with killers under such pressure seems nearly miraculous, especially doing so multiple times.
I also felt that the movie meshed very well with our Gourevitch reading. It was intriguing to see Paul’s story featured in both. It would be interesting to consider whether or not the movie would have been made without the publication of the book. Was it the book that brought attention to his story (which was prominently featured)? Perhaps the book was the gateway that allowed this story to be dramatized. This in itself is particularly fascinating since, in many cases, this is the sole exposure ordinary people of the Western world have had to the Rwandan genocide. I know watching this movie was the first time the genocide was truly presented to me, and perhaps this is true for others.
Finally, it is my belief that films such as this demonstrate some of the best that the movie industry offers. Dramatizations of historical events and figures is one of the greatest advantages of this medium. Unfortunately, much of history is too abstract for humans to truly imagine and comprehend. What does a million deaths look like? To many, it’s just a number. But providing a tangible story, with characters one can identify with, provides a means by which to evoke strong emotions in an audience. This is how one can bring a sense of injustice to the masses, explaining historical situations in ways people can understand, relate to, and absorb.