Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Blood Diamonds Are Forever

By Sheerly Avni, Truthdig. Posted December 9, 2006.


The new Leonardo DiCaprio-starring movie about African diamond smugglers may be a schizophrenic mess, but it’s also one of the most powerful films you’ll see all year.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Sheerly Avni

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Edward Zwick's socially conscious action thriller Blood Diamond clocks in at two hours, 19 minutes, and it's at least half an hour too long. Set against the backdrop of the 1991-2002 civil war in Sierra Leone, the movie crams in more gore than "Saw" and more sermonizing than a morning at "The 700 Club," all sweetened with a heavy dose of "thirtysomething"-esque tears and epiphany. The movie doesn't know if it wants to be a morality play, political lecture, adrenaline fix, love story, interracial buddy picture or corporate takedown, so it tries for all of the above. "Blood Diamond" is a schizophrenic mess.

It's also, thanks in no small part to the performances of its two male leads, one of the most powerful movies you will see this year.

"Blood Diamond" follows a plotline that echoes at least a dozen films, including The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, Casablanca and the Indiana Jones trilogy. Leonardo DiCaprio plays Danny Archer, a mercenary-turned-diamond-smuggler from Zimbabwe (which he insists on calling Rhodesia), who has botched his most recent delivery. Archer needs his big score -- now -- and when he gets wind of the existence of a rare pink diamond buried in secret near a rebel mining operation, he decides that the diamond will be his ticket out. The only other person who knows its whereabouts is Solomon Vandy (played by Djimon Hounsou -- Gladiator, Amistad), a fisherman whose son has been kidnapped by the rebels. Vandy needs Archer to help find his son, Archer needs Vandy to take him to the diamond. Voila! A team-up is born.

But it's not really a team-up. Through most of the film, Vandy is Archer's virtual prisoner, and he has no time for his captor's phony attempts at camaraderie. "So you're a fisherman," says DiCaprio, trying to make small talk. "What do you catch?"

"Fish," answers Vandy curtly. And the conversation is over.

Just as the buddy movie isn't really a buddy movie, the thriller isn't really a thriller, because the narrow escapes that act as bonding points in the men-on-the-run sub-genre are not exciting so much as grueling. The men do dodge bullets together, but they are escaping slaughter, not fighting battles. It's action movie as horror show, complete with bayonets, bullet-riddled children, chopped limbs and, most chillingly, a harrowing subplot in which we watch Vandy's son, Dia (marvelous newcomer Caruso Kuypers), being slowly indoctrinated into the life of a child soldier.

These are the stakes, not just a boy's body but his soul. Hounsou, a former model from the tiny West African country of Benin, whose almost off-putting beauty has only recently settled into a more manageable handsomeness, commits wholly to the role. It is his performance as a man in search of his son, all the while resisting the smuggler's attempts to manipulate and control him, that almost single-handedly keep Blood Diamond from sailing off into pure cliche.

I say almost single-handedly because DiCaprio does well by Danny Archer. He too has finally outgrown the adolescent prettiness that marred his first attempts at serious roles (it's a pity Gangs of New York isn't being made now, because DiCaprio finally has the gravitas to carry it off), and here he is alternately calculating and cocky, with a killer lurking deep inside his narrowed eyes and a better person lurking deeper still. When Archer recognizes himself in Vandy's son, DiCaprio achieves the impossible: He gets in touch with his wounded inner child without making us hurl.

Jennifer Connelly has a much harder time. As Maddy Bowen, a driven American journalist who alienates her sources by lecturing them, Connelly alternately flirts with Archer and scolds him, interrupting occasionally to rant about the Horror That Is Africa, but mostly she just serves as a softening agent, a Downy to DiCaprio's starch. The more resonant quest is the one that binds the two men, and poor Connelly is left to provide redundant commentary for Eduardo's Serra's magnificent camera work. Serra pans out over a vast carpet of refugees at a camp: "This is what a million homeless people look like," Maddy intones solemnly, as if we couldn't see it ourselves onscreen. It's a thankless role, one that only becomes more so as her interactions with DiCaprio dwindle down into drawn-out silences, lingering looks -- Connelly should begin writing "no concerned gazes" riders into her contracts -- and one particularly desultory cellphone tete-a-tete in which both Bowen and Archer have other things to worry about besides their relationship, like maybe the bullets whizzing through the air around them.

Still, DiCaprio, Hounsou and Connelly commit so wholly to the struggles of their characters that we forgive them the excesses of the film in which they are trapped. Leave it to Maddy, in her American earnestness, to remind us why this movie matters: "People back home wouldn't buy a diamond," she says, "if they knew it cost someone a hand."

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: caprio, diamonds

Sheerly Avni is a San Francisco-based writer.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
true
Posted by: rsaxto on Dec 9, 2006 4:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It certainly is true that hands are more valuable than diamonds but the most valuable human quality is the refusal to allow people to deliberately maim and kill people. That's called peace and it is so pitiful that we are so far away from achieving it and are thus surrounded by the immoral people who make weapons and wars, most noteably USA warmongers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Women
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Dec 9, 2006 7:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
can solve this problem VERY easy. Do not pressure your partners to buy you diamonds. The whole thing was a marketing campaign by DeBeers anyway and a 'diamond' does not mean someone loves you, wishes to marry, or appreciates you. If women would stop pressuring men to buy them diamonds the crisis would be over.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Not just women; not just diamonds Posted by: anothername
» RE: Not just women; not just diamonds Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» RE: Not just women; not just diamonds Posted by: MartianBachelor
Schizophrenic?
Posted by: Burch on Dec 9, 2006 11:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It has become way too common in our culture to use the term "schizophrenic" to describe something that structurally or metaphorically seems to have multiple identities or personalities. Anyone with a basic understanding of mental illness knows that schizophrenia is not multiple personality disorder, and to blithely throw the term around (especially in a discussion of pop culture drivel) is to minimize the suffering that those who deal with this condition endure, and promotes a continued social misunderstanding as to the true nature of these mental illnesses. I hope that the author--and other writers as well--will take this into consideration and not continue to conflate poor narrative judgment in the realm of fiction with debilitating and draining mental suffering that occurs in real life.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Schizophrenic? Posted by: theoblivionofnow
Language has its own way
Posted by: dancerkc on Dec 10, 2006 7:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't like that usage either but it probably won't go away. I also protest against the use of "leming" as a suicidal drive. This was a fabrication of Disney. Lemings don't do a swim to suicide, or any other suicide. This was totally fabricated and created by the film makers who threw lemings onto a rotating table to get them to "jump" off the edge which they shot from below and them threw the lemings into the water. I really hate how Disney put that one over on us and how their documentary lies still live.

Anyway, that was longer than I intended. Being "schizo" is not a "split personality" as such but it is unlikely that common usage will want to make that change. Common language doesn't usually change itself for usage, although in the late 60's, early 70's "negro" and "colored" (largely considered respectable terms at the time, especially "negro" and used by both blacks and whites in the USA) were successfully shifted to "black" but that was a whole movement and very determined. (Remember Black Power?)

Also Indian became Native American for a while - mostly by non-natives (us decendants of the original invaders) who wanted to do what we decided was right for Indians (without much consultation). At least it seems to have chucked terms like "redskin" and "injun" and that was good.

Eventually we were told (by decendants the invaded) that they preferred Indian or Native or American Indian or indigenous (as an adjective), not Native American which lumped too much together. It also seemed to be the only thing anyone knew or cared about the many Indian nations. Just look at Indian news publications and websites for their own preferred usage.

Schizophrenia is another of those things we prefer to "know" from a distance - which means we don't know anything other than some lipservice terms to throw around.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Where are all the Hard core Anti-Zionists decrying the wretched...
Posted by: yellow on Dec 10, 2006 3:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
atrocities that the Tel Aviv diamond cutters are promoting. Israel is the world's center for the sale of cut diamonds. The rough stones go straight from the African mines to Tel Aviv to be cut. Diamond cutting is one of Israel's main means of support. I met international diamond dealers when I lived there as a construction laborer. I helped build a huge condo for one such diamond dealer from Holland. It was bi-level and over 3,000 sq. ft. It had heated floors and elevators that let directly into the unit on both floors. I guess it was just a little crash pad for him while he was in Tel Aviv on business while his real crib was in Europe. These guys have some serious cash. Fer REAL!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ALL diamonds are blood-diamonds
Posted by: MartianBachelor on Dec 12, 2006 6:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What's really striking about diamonds is that it's the only commodity bought exclusively by one sex for the other sex.

The sex having to supply this commodity lives six years less than the supplied sex and constitutes about 95% of on-the-job deaths. In order to come up with these diamonds this sex is forced to work all the most dangerous jobs, and it has generally worse health as a result. Not to mention that it commits suicide at five times the rate of the sex receiving the diamonds.

Masculists have been talking about this issue for twenty years (eg, see Warren Farrell's 1988 book "Why Men Are the Way They Are" or Matthew Fitzgerald's mid-90's book "Sex-Ploytation") but it takes some Hollywood movie to put it vaguely on the radar screen. Not that the movie ever touches on the crux of things. (And they say men have all the power...) The diamond industry then comes out and says the problem's been fixed already and so life can now go on as usual... But nothing's changed. We still care more about third world citizens than we do about first world men.

Yes, diamonds are just a symptom of problems with the larger system. Maybe the movie will move the discussion an inch in the needed direction, but we've still got miles to go IMO.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ALL diamonds are blood-diamonds Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: ALL diamonds are blood-diamonds Posted by: MartianBachelor