Tim and I recently watched the movie Sometimes in April, which deals with the Rwandan genocide. We follow the story of Augustin, a moderate Hutu married to a Tutsi, Jeanne. Augustin is a soldier, but leaves the military as the slaughter begins in order to protect Jeanne and their children. Augustin entrusts his family to his brother Honore, hoping that Honore’s vocal support of the slaughter will help him to move Jeanne and the children to safety. Augustin then begins his own struggle to find safety and winds up at the Mille Collines (the hotel from Hotel Rwanda fame).
The movie shows action during two time frames – during the 100 days of the 1994 genocide and to a time 10 years later, when we see Augustin as a teacher and with a girlfriend, Martine. In 2004, Augustin travels to the United Nations tribunal in Arusha to witness the trial of his brother, Honore. Eventually, Augustin and Honore are able to visit, and Augustin discovers what happened to Jeanne and his children (they perished during their attempted escape and its aftermath).
Of course, this movie makes you feel sad and angry. There is a sub-plot following an American Undersecretary of State who is trying to get the United States to take more decisive action in Rwanda, but who, of course, is met with resistance. You can actually hear the collective sighs of relief from the American officials when the 100-day slaughter seems to abate, a “well, we did the best we could do given the circumstances and our lack of national interest in this area – glad it didn’t last any longer or else we might have had to actually act.” However, I think this movie was more effective then, for example, Hotel Rwanda, because it seemed more personal and because we get an understanding of the aftermath of the genocide on Rwandans.
This was the first film I saw on this genocide that spread the blame to many. Unlike in past films, which may have been designed to provoke Western audiences and make Westerners feel guilty for their indifference, this film showed how the individual killers have to be held responsible as well. Yes, America, the United Nations, and the world should have done something, anything to help, but what causes a person to open fire on a group of twenty girls hiding in a convent? How has this perpetrator’s soul been decimated, what can make a person chop up his neighbor with a machete? This film does cast a spotlight on the indifference of the world, but also exposes the passionate hatred of individuals.
I also liked how we see Augustin ten years later as he tries to rebuild his life knowing his beloved family is dead but not understanding how or why. We see snippets of the UN trials, which Augustin finds somewhat useless until he speaks with a plaintiff, a woman who was forcibly and repetitively raped by rampaging Hutus. This woman is scarred, but she feels proud and somewhat healed by facing her accusers and telling her story. We also see glimpses of local tribunals, run by leaders of villages. These seem more effective in healing than the austere courtroom proceedings of the UN. Any interested parties gather around a tree in the local village. An official calls out the accused’s name and asks the crowd if anyone can bear witness against this man. People stand and tell their stories to their neighbors, their friends, their countrymen. It seems an effective way to try to heal, to come to a collective and national understanding of the truth behind this massacre. This is important: I remember a salient point from my reading of Gulag that, because no one discusses the Soviet past, accepts that people were unjustly imprisoned, or works to right this injustice, that Russians have no qualms with current repressive policies. Will genocide happen again in Rwanda? I don’t know, but in Sometimes in April, although it shows numerous horrors, we feel that it will not. And not because outsiders will be watching and acting (because we won’t) but because the nation has started to heal itself.