Liberal Sentimentalism

Parsa Venkateshwar Rao Jr Delhi

Film critics in the US and Europe often rap Hollywood for its lack of taste, for its maudlin sentiments and for its sheer commercialism.  This kind of view echoes the feelings of many of the critics of mainstream, successful Hindi films. But there is a little irony here. Many filmgoers in India find Hollywood trash more credible than Mumbai's Hindi films.

It is in this context that the Edward Zwick-directed Blood Diamond makes for curious viewing in India. The film revolves around the characters of Oliver Archer, played by Leonardo DiCaprio, a politically unrepentant white from Zimbabwe; Maddy Bowen (Jennifer Connelly), an American print journalist who is your typical white liberal, who wants to expose the ruthless games of Western capitalists in Africa; Solomon Wandy (Djimon Hounsou), the African who wants to bring up his family in a peaceful and progressive manner. The three are thrown together in Sierra Leone where ruthless revolutionary and government forces fight the white militias, all of whom are engaged in diamond mining, which is the financial source and cause of the bloody battles.

The animosities and killings are carried out against the ancient and majestic background of the green mountains, forests and plains of Africa. There is a scene where the wild elephants and baboons are shown to exist peaceably, even as human beings fight with all the ferocity and irrationality associated with animals. Human beings emerge as the vilest of animals, though redeemed by sentimentality and a sense of justice.

To make the storyline appealing to the American audiences, the role of Maddy Bowen is at the centre of the plot. But it is the characterization of Archer, the white man who was born and brought up in Africa, which serves as the subtle bonding of the sentimental narrative. Archer and the white militias, despite their racism and cynicism, identify themselves with Africa. Archer tells Bowen in a sentimental moment in the film, that he fought with black people and that he belongs to this continent. Both Archer and Maddy help Solomon to reunite his family and relocate to London. And the good intentions of the white liberals are made clear when Solomon, now in a grey suit, comes to the lectern to speak about the vile and bloody diamond politics of Africa. It can easily be objected that like Roland Joffe's The Killing Fields, the story in Blood Diamond turns on the good turn of the white man, and that the white characters still enjoy a privileged position.

The film still holds good because Hollywood has always respected a sentimental film with a political message thrown in. The message is made palatable through the plot that shows that not all whites are bad and ruthless. It is a legitimate claim made by Hollywood produces, scriptwriters, directors, actors, and actresses because the film has to sell. It is a similar claim made by Hindi filmmakers when they make bold and sensible political statements through their song-and-fight studded films but at which the Indian and Western critics scoff.

There is nothing very extraordinary about Blood Diamond as a film. Leonardo Di Caprio is rather stale with his affected cynicism of an adolescent. Jennifer Connelly is good in her role of a typical American journalist, who means good and is loving but does not hide her sense of self-righteousness. There are some tepid one-liners, which are supposed to be hard and cynical. But it is the sentimental lines that are more moving.  Blood Diamond succeeds because it is sufficiently sentimental and melodramatic. And damn the critics.