Shooting Dogs (2004)

Lester Pimentel

Based on a true story and co-written by a BBC journalist who worked in Rwanda during the genocide, the film is an absorbing meditation on what men do in dark times.

Shooting Dogs

Director: Michael Caton-Jones
Cast: John Hurt, Hugh Dancy, Dominique Horwitz, Claire-Hope Ashitey, Dominique Horwitz, Steve Toussaint
MPAA rating: N/A
Studio: Metrodome (UK)
First date: 2005
UK Release Date: 2006-03-31 (Limited release)

Editor's Note: This film was screened at New York's Lincoln Center (Walter Reade Theater) as part of the Human Rights Film Festival in June. As yet, it has no U.S. opening date.

* * *

Films about genocide often force us to put our consciences on trial. What would we do if our neighbors were being murdered because of their race or creed? Would we act heroically or cravenly? The British film Shooting Dogs, based on a true story and co-written by a BBC journalist who worked in Rwanda during the genocide, is an absorbing meditation on what men do in dark times.

Unlike Hotel Rwanda (2004) or Sometimes in April (2005), which also chronicle the mass murder of Tutsis in 1994, Shooting Dogs focuses on the actions of two Westerners, Joe Connor (Hugh Dancy) and Father Christopher (John Hurt). Joe, an idealistic Brit in his early 20s, is an English teacher at the École technique officielle, a Kigali-based Catholic school run by the longtime expatriate English priest. (The film's placement of two white non-Africans at its center reprises the standard method to solicit white, Western audiences.)

Joe is ever the familiar chap. He confesses to having grown up in England with all the standard middle class comforts. His decision to teach in Rwanda stems from a desire to give something back, a sentiment he bashfully shares with Rachel, a jaded television journalist played by Nicola Walker. When the school becomes a sanctuary for Tutsis fleeing machete-wielding genocidares, Joe leaves the United Nations-secured compound in hopes of retrieving Rachel and her cameraman. Innocently, he believes that the slaughter will end if the world is shown images of murdered Africans. Rachel disabuses him of such faith in the media's power when she recalls her experiences covering the grisly civil war in Bosnia. If the world stood idly by as white Europeans were massacred, there is no chance that scenes of Africans hacked to death will galvanize the U.N. Security Council into action.

Like Joe, Father Christopher also trusts the U.N. will intervene as soon as it learns of the atrocities. U.N. Capitaine Charles Delon (Dominique Horwitz) and his small Belgian force are stationed at the school, the only figures standing between frenzied Hutu extremists and the defenseless Tutsis who have flocked there for protection. The very embodiment of an unyielding bureaucrat, Delon is the object of everyone's ire. His mandate, he tells Father Christopher, is to monitor the peace, no more, no less. Of course, there is no peace to monitor. The mandate will not change, either, Delon tells the priest. The reason? Somalia. The murder of U.S. troops during a humanitarian aid mission in 1992 squelched the political "will" for such interventions.

When institutional forces fail to step in, Father Christopher and Joe must decide how far they will go to help others. Will they save themselves by boarding the French Legion trucks that arrive to evacuate Europeans as well as Delon's U.N. force? The fate of those who stay behind is a barbaric death, so unfathomably horrific that a Tutsi community leader, Roland (Steve Toussaint), begs the departing Delon for a final act of mercy, to order his men to fire upon the hundreds of Tutsis in the compound. Execution would be infinitely more humane, he pleads. In the backdrop of this surreal exchange, we see soldiers helping foreigners onto the convoys while at the same time rebuffing desperate Rwandans. The message is clear: a white person’s life is more valuable than that of an African. If weren’t true, we wouldn’t feel such shame.

And shame is the expression on Joe’s face as he sits on the back of a truck transporting him to safety. Five years later, Marie (Clare-Hope Ashitey), a former student of his who survived the genocide, asks Joe, now a teacher at a private school in England, why he left them behind. “I was afraid of dying,” he says. Joe did what most of us would have done. Bringing this sad truth into sharp relief, Shooting Dogs is a lacerating film.


So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.