The Accuracy of Blood Diamond

Though it is set a world away in Sierra Leone, the movie Blood Diamond still cannot resist the Hollywood ending. The last scene in the film shows Djimon Hounsou’s character Solomon sitting in front of some sort of international assembly, waiting to give a speech. As he sits, he glances at the story in an American magazine in front of him. It’s his story, the one viewers have just seen, told through the photographs and words of Jennifer Connolly’s journalist Maddy. He remains solemn as an ambassador rises to give him an introduction, saying: “The third world is not a world apart, and the witness you hear today speaks on its behalf.” Solomon rises, and the screen fades to black.

It’s a fine ending to what undoubtedly is an entertaining and tragic film. But it leaves a nagging question in the viewer’s mind – exactly how well does Blood Diamond capture the essence of the violence and political machinations behind something as vast and expansive as the phenomenon of child soldiers and the diamond trade in West Africa? Can Solomon be seen as an ambassador from the third world?

Set in the midst of the Sierra Leone Civil War, the movie begins a raid by the Revolutionary United Front on Solomon’s town. In the fighting, he is separated from his family and made to work dredging a river for diamonds. His young son Dia was captured at the same time, and is taken with several other children to a RUF camp. Solomon finds a massive pink diamond and as he is trying to hide it, the RUF is attacked by government troops. He is able to escape, but has to leave the diamond behind.

In the meantime, his son Dia is undergoing brainwashing at the camp and becomes one of a number of child soldiers in the employ of the RUF. He is made to kill a captive prisoner, take drugs, and stand guard at the camp. Solomon finds the rest of his family, and receives the news that his son is missing. As he sets off to try and find him, he meets Leonardo DiCaprio’s John Archer, a swashbuckling mercenary involved in the diamond trade. Archer gets wind of the massive diamond Solomon has found, and agrees to join him in the search for his son.

Archer’s intentions are constantly under question. Maddy, who weaves in and out of the narrative, accuses him of using Solomon in order to get the diamond. All indications are that this is the case at the beginning, but naturally Archer has a change of heart as the film progresses. The two reach the river where Solomon hid his diamond, an area that the RUF controls again. As he sneaks down to the site, he realizes Dia is one of the guards in the camp. Archer has ordered an air raid from his mercenary allies, and Solomon, now reunited with his son, struggles to get out. The three reach the site where the diamond is buried, only to be held at gunpoint by Dia. Solomon manages to break through to his son, and as the three flee from an attack by the mercenaries who now want the diamond, Archer is shot. He stays behind, telling Solomon to tell his story to Maddy.

A concurrent subplot is going on during all this that bear some weight in any analysis of the film. The RUF is shown to be funded in part by a group of London diamond traders, who, through a series of shell corporations, manage to funnel diamonds out of Sierra Leone for sale abroad. They of course deny any connections, but a commission is being set up to evaluate any European agency in the civil war.

How accurate is the movie? Without a strong background in the history of the conflict in Sierra Leone, it’s difficult to develop an analysis from that perspective. What is more interesting and ultimately more meaningful to analyze is whether the movie does what its ending suggests. Can Solomon’s plight be seen as speaking on behalf of the third world? The obvious answer is no – it’s impossible for any single narrative to “speak on behalf” of something as broad and nebulous as the third world, the continent of Africa as a whole, or even the country of Sierra Leone. That said, the movie does do a surprisingly good job of illustrating some of the themes behind the violence it portrays. It makes clear that the violence in the movie isn’t the product of a senseless, chaotic political environment but that it is calculated and purposeful. Much of the violence in the film, both in its form and its objective, has been paralleled throughout various episodes in Africa’s history.

Shortly after he is captured, Solomon is made to stand in a long line of men to come before the RUF commander, Captain Poison. The man in the front of the line is forced to put his arms on a long log, where he is asked “Short sleeves? Or long sleeves?” before they are chopped off with a machete. It seems like a gory, senseless scene without much of a point until Solomon gets near to the front of the line. Then, Captain Poison makes a brief speech. “Young man, young man, you must understand,” he says. “The government wants you to vote. They tell you that the future is in your hands. We now the future, so we take your hands. No more hands, no more voting. Chop him! And spread the word – the Revolutionary United Front is coming!” The man’s arms are chopped off, and Solomon is only spared because Captain Poison thinks he’s a strong enough worker to go to the river to dredge.

In that brief monologue, Captain Poison reveals quite a bit of political savvy. Cutting of the arms of captives is both a functional and symbolic violent act. The functional part is simple – without arms, victims cannot vote or at least will be intimidated not to try. But the symbolic meaning would be a little more abstract if it were not for Captain Poison’s speech. In his analysis of violent acts – The Enigma of Senseless Violence – Anton Blok writes: “Although violence may be primarily directed at the attainment of specific ends, such as wounding or killing an opponent, it is impossible to understand these violent operations in terms of these easily recognizable goals alone. There are often more efficient ways to obtain these results.” Blok believes every violent act has a symbolic purpose as well. Captain Poison states it. By removing victim’s hands, the RUF is symbolizing taking away the power from the government and, to some degree, freedom from the villagers. It’s a cunning and disturbing political act, but one that in no way can be described as.

Dia’s reaction to his indoctrination seems quite realistic as well, especially when compared to emerging narrative from some senseless other violent episodes in African history. In the movie, he is made to shoot a gun at a wall while blindfolded. When he takes off the covering, he sees that the RUF stuck a prisoner in the line of fire, killing him instantly. His reaction is one of shock and horror, and his transformation is swift. He becomes dead to the world, and more susceptible to the messages of Captain Poison. He adopts a new name like many child soldiers do, and seems desensitized and numb to the violence happening around him. When he encounters Solomon right before the movie’s closing scenes, he can’t even recognize him as his father.

Scott Strauss outlines a similar transformation to some Hutu killers during the Rwandan genocide in his book, The Order of Genocide. Many Hutus had no history of violence, and had never even held a weapon before. Yet, they were coerced through a variety of means to kill their Tutsi countrymen. Many told Strauss they had similar reactions as Dia’s: “After having seen what happened, I would say I was no longer a person. My heart was no longer open and I thought that what just happened would also happen to me.” Many Hutus said those who were affected the most psychologically became the worst killers. Straus writes: “Having killed, the most aggressive perpetrators and local leaders hardened and engendered others to do so as they had done, thereby extending and spreading the violence that had already started.” It’s a self-perpetuating cycle.

Blood Diamond accomplishes something important in showing Dia’s transformation, and that is to illustrate that the violent acts the child soldiers commit in the film – and there are many – are the product of something greater. Grown men were affected by violence in a similar way during the Rwandan conflict, so these boys – faced not only with the weight of a murder on their young conscious but also consistent brainwashing by the RUF leaders – stood no chance. Their violent acts weren’t the product of some inherent flaw or societal failure. Their violent acts were tailored by a force stronger than themselves. The viewer feels nothing but pity for Dia and his peers.

While the movie does not do a good job of illustrating the political tensions in Sierra Leone between the rebels and the government, it does do a good job exploring political implications of Western agency in the diamond trade. There are consistent indications throughout the film that the civil war would not happen on the scale it did if it were not for the market created by Western demand. Captain Poison illustrates this point succinctly when he demands the location of the pink diamond from Solomon saying: “You think I am a devil. But only because I have lived in hell. I want to get out. You will help me.” The movie makes clear that Western demand for diamonds makes men like Poison act beyond the scope of what they normally would do. Diamonds mean money, money means freedom, and freedom means doing whatever is necessary.

In this instance, a certain parallel can be drawn to the role of European agency within the African slave trade. Anne C. Bailey writes in her book, Voices of the African Slave Trade, that the slave trade would not have reached the scale it did if not for the overwhelming demand by European traders. Africans may have provided many of the slaves, Bailey writes, but “but they had no direct influence on the engines behind the trade in capital firms, the shipping and insurance companies of Europe and America, or on the plantation system in America.” Many during the slave trade took advantage of the system in place and acted beyond the scope of what they would have done had they been isolated amongst themselves. A modern parallel is being played out in the diamond trade.

Can Solomon’s voice be seen as representative of Africa? No. But his tale does illustrate several timeless and universal lessons about violence. Blood Diamond is chiefly entertainment, but it is entertainment with a certain depth. The movie does not offer violence for violence’s sake. Instead, it shows violence with context. This is rare in movies today. While the film’s voice may not reach as far as its writers may like, it still tells an important story about people and the motivations behind the crimes they commit.

Sources:
Blood Diamond film
Bailey, Anne C. African Voices of the Atlantic Slave Trade. Boston: Beacon Press, 2005.
Blok, Anton. “The Enigma of Senseless Violence.” Aijmer, Goran and Abbink Jon. Meanings of Violence: a Cross-Cultural Perspective. New York: 2000, 2000. 23-38.
Strauss, Scott. The Order of Genocide. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.