Should people stop buying diamonds? “It’s a rare opportunity to actually have an effect,” said Zwick, “because it was awareness that helped bring this process about, and it will be heightened awareness that will help it. And that’s not always the case in the world. But in this particular case, if that awareness is increased than things will get better. So, it’s an individual choice, but it has to be an informed choice.”
"Director Edward Zwick Discusses "Blood Diamond""
-Rebecca Murray
-Rebecca Murray
RAPAPORT... Edward Zwick is an American film producer, director and writer whose career in Hollywood has spanned across four decades. In addition to this year’s “Blood Diamond,” some of his other notable films include: “The Last Samurai,” 2003; “Traffic,” 2000; “Shakespeare in Love,” 1998; “Courage Under Fire,” 1996; “Legends of the Fall,” 1994; and “Glory,” 1989. Zwick runs The Bedford Falls Company, a film production company, with partner Marshall Herskovitz.
Martin Rapaport: Why did you make the “Blood Diamond” movie?
Ed Zwick: The more I learned about what happened in Sierra Leone during the war, the more I was appalled by what I and other people did not know. I realized that in this tiny country [that many could not even find on a map], there existed very big issues that needed to be addressed — issues that would capture the imagination and increase awareness in the world.
MR: Did the NGOs [nongovernmental organizations] get you to do the movie?
EZ: Oh no. I didn’t even meet any of the NGOs until we were well into the preproduction process. The movie came about, as all the things I have done, through detailed research and homework. I looked to NGOs as a source of information just as I looked to members of the diamond industry, ex-mercenaries, victims and journalists. The NGOs were one resource among many.
MR: Is your film entertainment or education?
EZ: I don’t think those things need to be mutually exclusive. There is a very important Hollywood tradition of movies that have a social conscience. If a movie can teach as well as delight, then that enhances the experience of going to the movies.
MR: In the movie, Danny accuses Maddy of being a journalist who is exploiting suffering to get a good story. Are you exploiting the people of Sierra Leone by making money on this movie?
EZ: Any time that you tell a story about the suffering of someone else, you risk exploitation. This is a question about which all of us thought long and hard. I think that at the end of the day, all that one has is one’s intentions. As I began to talk to people in Sierra Leone, it became clear that they had a great desire and need for this story to be told. Sorious Samura, who made the film “Cry Freetown,” told me that he believed the people of Sierra Leone have never forgiven the children for their role as RUF [Revolutionary United Front] terrorists. He felt that by telling the story of this boy and the terrible things that happened to him, those seeing the movie might come to understand — and perhaps reach forgiveness. That goes for an entire country. The whole principle of truth and reconciliation in South Africa suggests that only by being desperately honest about even the most painful things is there any hope of reconciliation.
MR: Did you make this movie for the money or are you a new Hollywood NGO?
EZ: It would have been infinitely easier for me to have made a truly commercial romantic comedy in some sound station in Burbank or in some lovely comfortable circumstance in America. I think that, over time, I have become fortunate enough that the economics of my career are not the driving concern of my career. There are certain stories that need to be told and this was one of them. I think that, increasingly in America, we have to reckon with the implications of what we do, how we use our resources and how we spend our money.
The film is really about the responsibilities of a consumer society and the fact that the purchase of something in one place has implications somewhere else. This place and that place are, in fact, interconnected. By buying something, you’re essentially endorsing the practices that are involved in getting and producing it. That is something that I felt that I could, in the concept of this story, talk about.
MR: Knowing what you do now, would you buy your wife a diamond?
EZ: Martin, I don’t think you want me to answer that question.
MR: Yes, I do.
EZ: I have been married for 25 years and that marriage has existed without benefit of needing diamonds to confer upon it some false notion of eternity. Although to my wife, perhaps, the marriage may have at times felt like an eternity, I find it hard to “empiricise” [put a monetary value on] love and equate an object with a relationship. So that particular kind of purchase has never been of great interest to me. But that’s not new; it’s a personal sensibility that long predates this movie. In any case, I — and the movie — do not suggest that people should stop buying diamonds. The diamond trade is vital to the economies of many African countries.
I do have an idea that might be good for diamonds. It occurs to me that the diamond industry has labored brilliantly and long to equate the eternity of a diamond with a relationship. I think they can do just as well by suggesting that a relationship, by virtue of a diamond, could become conflict free.
MR: Will your movie have an impact on the diamond industry and consumers?
EZ: Yes. It was only with an increase of public awareness that the Kimberley Process came into being and I think the next steps for taking greater responsibility for what happens in Africa will only come with further awareness. If my film can help raise that awareness, then it will not have been in vain. That being said, I am not Pollyannaish enough to believe that a single film changes everything. The most that a film can do is present a set of iconic images to the culture and precipitate thought, debate and conversation that add to a collective consciousness about a problem. Change happens when a rising tide of voices apply themselves and the aggregate of all those voices and concerns reach a tipping point. So this movie is only one very small part of what I hope is a very large concern.
MR: What do you think the diamond industry should do about the problems of Sierra Leone?
EZ: It’s very important to say that I first approached this as a historian, journalist and storyteller. That is to say, I was describing events that happened. I don’t presume to be an industry insider, economist or expert of any kind. The best that I can do is rely on those who have devoted their lives to trying to understand these issues.
Of course, I began to assemble my own point of view. What is clear is that Sierra Leone is a tragedy and that there is complicity in that tragedy on the part of the entire diamond industry. I believe that it is the responsibility of the diamond industry to now act in ways that provide some restitution for that tragedy. It’s obvious that the only hope for countries such as Sierra Leone is some kind of sustainable development.
MR: Were you personally moved by what you learned, saw and experienced?
EZ: To have seen what I have seen over the course of these past two years has to be called life changing. I think that you cannot spend that amount of time confronting the sights, people and circumstances that we have seen and not be moved and not come to understand some implicit connection between what we do here and what is happening there.
MR: There seem to be a lot of movies about Africa. Is African social consciousness the new cool?
EZ: It’s important to realize that a filmmaker is in his own universe. This process began over two years ago. It may be more accurate to suggest that Africa is inescapably in the artistic conscientiousness and the fact that I or others might be drawn to want to write about it is not a coincidence. But it has nothing to do with cool. There is nothing cool about spending six months in downtown Maputo, as compared to other opportunities that exist for filmmakers, actors and crew. You have to be motivated by more than being cool to go to the lengths that we went to.
MR: Would you like to say anything to the diamond industry?
EZ: I believe that, along with the privileges of being a filmmaker, come certain responsibilities about holding up a mirror to the world and, at times, that mirror is unattractive. I have been the beneficiary of extraordinary privilege and bounty by virtue of what I do for a living. So, too, the diamond industry has reaped extraordinary bounty from Africa. Yet Africa has not shared in that bounty. Somehow that situation needs to be addressed.
FACT/FICTION
-Samuel Warburton
Here’s a synopsis of the fact and fiction of the movie. I found this on the website http://www.factbehindfiction.com/index_files/Blood_Diamond.htm
Blood Diamond: Introduction
A blood or conflict diamond is one whose sale has financed war or conflict. Diamonds mined in Africa are prone to being traded in exchange for arms which are used in civil wars, coups and cruel military dictatorships in volatile African states. Of course Africa with its rich and varied mineral wealth is also a target of ‘colonizing’ corporations which are backed up by governments of several developed economies and plundering African politicians. Since the atrocities of wars financed by illegal diamond trade have been publicized the diamond trade has become a heavily albeit imperfectly regulated business.
Synopsis
The movie is set in 1999 in Sierra Leone in West Africa.
Danny Archer is an ex-mercenary from Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), and an independent contractor trading in conflict diamonds. Danny’s former mentor - Colonel Coetzee employs the street smart but recalcitrant ex-mercenary to deliver arms to rebel groups, and to cross over borders into Liberia with contraband diamonds. Like all other fortune hunters - Danny is trying for a big score to escape away from the troubles of Africa and into a life of comfort. In the beginning of the story Danny is caught trying to smuggle diamonds, which are confiscated by the authorities. It becomes his responsibility to repay his principal for the lost diamonds.
Solomon Vandy is a proud father of two and a fisherman in Sierra Leone. His world is turned upside down when his village in attacked by the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) militia and he is separated from his family and taken to mine for diamonds. He doesn't know that his captors have recruited his young son into their army. Theft is rampart in the diamond mines despite punishment upon discovery being fatal. However Solomon manages to hide a rare pink diamond. Before he can think about what to do about it, government forces raid the mine and throw the RUF along with their slave miners into a prison in Freetown (the capital of Sierra Leone), the same prison in which Danny Archer is also cooling his heels. But Captain Poison of the RUF knows Solomon’s secret and lets it out in the prison.
Once out of prison Archer tracks down Solomon and offers a deal but Solomon is only interested in reuniting with his family. After a tough sell he agrees to show Archer where the diamond is but only after he has his family with him.
Archer’s attempts at locating Solomon’s family fail and he has to end up recruiting journalist Maddy Bowen who until recently he tried hard to avoid. He agrees to give her inside scoop on the illegal diamond trade that she is researching if she helps track down Solomon’s family. Maddy is initially unaware of the diamond factor in the deal.
Solomon is quickly reunited with his wife and daughter at a refugee camp, but is driven to rage and depression when he learns of his son’s fate. Determined not to lose his son, he tries all desperate means available to him along the route to the diamond that he must now show Archer. This journey turns out to be an adventure for all as they encounter local tribes, the RUF and Colonel Coetzee - each with a singular objective.
In the end Solomon is reunited with his brainwashed son, whose experiences and actions in battle have left him scarred. And with the help of Archer, Maddy gets her inside scoop on the blood diamond trade, leading to the incrimination of a top businessman.
Fact Behind Fiction
The movie is set against the backdrop of civil war in Sierra Leone which lasted from 1991 up to 2000 between the government and the RUF over control of the nation’s diamond mines. Conflict with the RUF arose because multinational organizations operating in Sierra Leone were not ploughing their profits into the local economy, thereby starving it of development. However subsequently the RUF came to terrorize the local population, especially in rural areas. The RUF were notorious for amputating villagers and recruiting young boys as soldiers.
For a view contrarian to the film’s check out http://www.theempireinafrica.com. The site is the home page for Philippe Diaz’ documentary by the same name of the exploitation of Sierra Leone and Africa.
The story reflects all the problems associated with illegal diamond mining and the proceeds which finance insurgencies against governments and harm civilian population.
The issue is magnified in poor African nations which are unable to enforce the law because of ineffective administration, corruption, poorly paid officials who are susceptible to bribery etc. This situation coupled with the presence of significant national mineral wealth gives opportunity to war-profiteers, who easily access arms from an underground black market.
The method somewhat adopted is as follows. Diamond mines are located and the area around in occupied by insurgents. The insurgents get access to the area because:
1. Remoteness of location
2. Widespread poverty among the local population, making them vulnerable to employment in high risk jobs.
3. Untrained and unskilled labor can be employed to mine for diamonds, as no particular equipment or learning is required.
4. Absence of any real ‘law’ because of poorly paid civil servants who are easily bribed.
Diamonds that are mined are sold to middlemen (diamond merchants, mercenaries, smugglers, any one desperate enough). Ultimately the diamond ends up on a lady. But the money paid for the diamond ends up financing the war (buying guns and ammo, recruiting soldiers, the good life for top government officials etc). This war is waged for control over more mineral and natural wealth - either diamonds themselves or rare resources like gold, oil and timber. The money doesn't reach the local population who the warlords claim to represent. Instead the money lines the pockets of corrupt officials and ends up in unaccounted bank accounts hidden from official sight.
This plundering of natural mineral wealth leaves the nation poor and bereft of benefits it would otherwise enjoy. This type of conflict against the governments of African states like Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Sierra Leone have kept the nations in poverty.
Why are diamonds used by insurgents?
1. Diamonds are small in size but command a high commercial value
2. Their origin cannot be easily ascertained.
3. The worldwide market for diamonds is massive. ($56 billion, 1999)
This trade in blood diamonds has given rebel groups immense financial clout. They are able to keep in reserve cash earned in foreign currencies along with diamonds which can be sold when the need for finances arises. In effect they are able to establish a parallel economy and government in their country or operation.
Professional mercenaries provide an essential service in the politics of Africa, bringing a degree of sophistication to the conflict. Like Danny Archer, they originate from crack guerrilla units trained and armed by colonizing nations. A wealth of military knowledge and experience coupled with technologically advanced arms give these soldiers an edge over local troops, whose superstitions and fears have given them a bad name.
Mercenaries are better paid than native soldiers and professional military or mercenary firms like Executive Outcomes and Sand line emerged as powerhouses in Africa.
Executive Outcomes is a South African mercenary firm which was employed by the Sierra Leone government under Captain Valentine Strasser in 1995 to push back the RUF rebels who were coming dangerously close to the capital city of Freetown. The RUF were effectively pushed back into hiding in the interiors and Executive Outcomes was paid in diamond mining concessions.
President Kabbah of Sierra Leone (in exile since 1997) negotiated with a Thai businessman to finance a coup d'état to restore him to power, in exchange for diamond mining rights. The military operation was carried out bySandline.
A Contrarian View
Philippe Diaz and his documentary The Empire in Africa acknowledge the plight of the people in Sierra Leone, but blame the makers of the movie Blood Diamond of following the official view on the conflict. The RUF that came into existence in 1991 was born out of anger at their natural resources and wealth being used by western multinational companies. The profits made out of these commercial operations were exported and not put into local communities or for the welfare of the people of Sierra Leone, leaving the locals in poverty and starving. The motto of the RUF was ‘No more slaves, no more masters. Power and wealth to the people.’
The RUF turned their attention to the diamond mines to finance their rebellion because the international community was certainly not going to finance them. Philippe Diaz who visited Sierra Leone said ‘the one thing we never saw was rich rebels’. As for the amputations of soldiers carried out by the rebels, the strategy was adopted against the regular army’s practice of simply killing captured rebels. The cutting off of limbs was a message to the community at large - ‘You don't hold your weapon against your brother’. This act was tactically employed by the regular army who would of course blame the rebels. In this manner more villagers were maimed, more outrage against the rebels was developed and more international aid was raised.
No comments:
Post a Comment