2010 Quarter 3/4 - 20th Century World History Film Extra Credit

I watched Hotel Rwanda.
The film talked about the war after the Belgian’s left, and the fighting that they started. When Belgium ruled over Rwanda, they placed the tutsis in power, who were the minority. Then when they left, the hutus took power, because of their majority, and began getting revenge on the tutsis. Prior to Belgium’s colonization, the two groups had gotten along fine, with inter-marriages, and really not difference between them. When Belgium came, they separated them based on nose width and height, and giving the minority (tutsis) power. After Belgium left, hutus didn’t want things going back to the way things were, and started uprising against the “tutsi rebels.” By the time the tutsis finally drove them into Congo, there were over 1 million dead. Hotel Rwanda tells the story of a hotel manager who, after being abandoned by his powerful white friends, decides to turn his hotel into a refuge camp, bringing in orphans, hutus and tutsis. He has to bribe everyone so that his hotel will not be raided, and he has to bribe people to protect his hotel. He becomes so desperate, and hopeless, that he tells his wife that if he dies, she should take the children and jump off the roof. So the elements of 20th century world history are how the imperialistic countries would set emerging countries up for failure by creating separation between groups and then creating a deep hatred for no reason between them.
The film really clarified what exactly was happening during that time. It showed the devastation and destruction happening to almost every family living there. Also, it depicted the amount of innocent people, hutus and tutsis who weren’t involved with the fighting at all, and just wanted peace. If it wasn’t for the political aspect, it doesn’t seem like this would’ve happened at all. I understood a lot more what it would’ve been like to live through this, and the feeling that you probably wouldn’t survive two days. It really made me want to help them right now, even though it’s already ended. Also, the good and bad guys weren’t really clear, because both sides hated each other, the hutus just seemed a little more proactive about it. A lesser percent of either side seemed to actually care about the race difference, with most of them not caring at all.
I thought that the film was SUPER well done! I was almost crying at parts, and the part that probably touched me the most was when he was driving to get food when the car started going over bumps, and Paul though they had gone off the road because he couldn’t see. When he got out, it turned out that there were bodies lined all the way down the road, and that was the bumps they had been rolling over. I absolutely loved the ending, because it was such a joyous reunion, that you couldn’t help but be happy. They found her brothers kids, although they never found her brother. Also, I loved when he found his family in the bath tub, and she was holding the shower handle, and it turned out to be Paul, and then they laughed about what she would’ve done with the shower handle. I felt like they became so much closer because of what they endured together.

Hotel Rwanda
Stephanie Aanenson

Hotel Rwanda is about the tensions between the Hutu and the Tutsi people, which lead to civil war. The main character, Paul Rusesabagnia was the manager of a hotel, he is Hutu and his wife Tatiana is Tutsi. The movie is for the audience, a way to watch the political situations deteriorating. Paul continually throughout the film has to carry favors with people of higher influence to maintain stability and keep his family safe. Refugees come to the hotel at different instances throughout the movie, whether from United Nations camp, the Red Cross, and many children from orphanages. Another part of this movie is the UN peacekeeping forces, led by Colonel Oliver. They can't take action against the violence because they can't legally intervene with genocide. All foreign nationals are evacuated, and they just leave the Rwandans behind because everyone thinks of them as dirt. People are finally being saved, including Paul and his family, when UN convoys come and travel through masses of refugees and militia to reach the safe haven that's behind the Tutsi rebel lines.

The film talked about the war after the Belgians left and the fighting that they started when the Belgians left. When Belgium ruled they placed the Tutsis in power who were the minority, then when the Belgians left, the Hutus took over power with their strong majority over the Tutsi's. Prior to the Belgians colonization, the Hutus and Tutsi's coexisted quite harmoniously, but once the Belgians took power all went down hill from there. The Belgians separated them by nose-width and height, which lead to the hatred between the two groups. Instead of the Hutus and Tutsi's going back to the way things were before the Belgians came in, the Hutus decided to get revenge on the Tutsi's.

It is hard to read about genocide or any kind of mass murdering that happen in history because you cannot fully understand what is going on. This movie allows its audience into what is happening completely. After seeing this I understand more of what was happening during this time, the true genocide that this was. We had talked in class about how the United States would not admit to this being a genocide but simply saying "there are acts of genocide that are going on" but then refused to say anything more. This completely reinforced what we talked about in class, and made me even more angry and irritated that nobody would help these people because everyone thought that they were nothing important at all.

The film was extremely well done. The acting was impeccable and the selflessness that Paul possessed was truly unbelievable. The hardest point in the film to watch was when Paul thought he had pulled off the road because it was so bumpy and so foggy they couldn't see that what they really were driving over were bodies. That scene was the hardest to watch because prior to that, Paul was really the strong man who held everyone together, and that scene really brought him to his knees, and changed his character completely. Although he still stayed as the man who held everything together, you could really see from that scene to the end of the movie, the pain that it was causing him.

I watched 1984.

This movie was with the oppressive, totalitarian government of Oceania controlling every aspect on the lives of its people. It dealt with nationalism in that everyone was expected to believe in the country and support it unquestionably. And because of that, censorship was very present in the nation, so much that one wasn't even allowed to think about something if the government didn't want them to, and had "thought police" to enforce this.

Instead the government had propaganda playing constantly, which the people were expected to believe unquestionably even if it wasn't right or even if the government itself had said something contradictory to what they had said before. All documents and media were changed, even past ones, to make everyone believe in the government.

To exert their power, the government watched all the citizens constantly through televisions. This theme of a "big brother" constantly watching was very powerful and important in this movie.

Should there be political dissent, the government would kidnap the dissident and torture them with their worst fear, which they would know because they watch and observe the citizens all the time.

This government also felt like a communist government because in general people didn't really own much of their own. They ate together, wore these jumpsuits that gave the society a classless feeling, and it just seemed like people were forced to work for the good of the government and not necessarily for personal growth.

This movie reinforced my impression of the negative side of totalitarian, oppressive governments. You can tell by the setting of the movie that the society is very dystopic, poor, and it seems like a terrible place to live. The torture scene at the end, where the government brainwashes the main character who is a dissident, was very disturbing. It showed how the government could crush anybody very easily and gain total support through fear and power, which is very scary. And looking at how history unfolded, it's also very true in the real world. Luckily, for the most part the world has moved past that. For those who haven't, I hope it will soon for the sake of its citizens, who obviously flourish when given freedom and a place to be able to grow.

I had a hard time understanding the dialogue because the people were really soft-spoken, but that also added to the oppressed feel of the movie. The setting was perfect. I had no idea what the movie was about at first, but from the first few moments, with the crumbled buildings, the grey color scheme, the uniform jumpsuits, you could easily get the right idea. They really did a good job setting the picture and the feeling in the beginning, the little plot twist was quite surprising and sad, and the ending torture scene was incredibly powerful and scary. Overall it was a very good movie and I'm glad I watched it.

I watched Reds, which was directed by and starring Warren Beatty. This film was about a Communist American journalist, his wife, and their role in the Revolutions in Russia and around the world during the First World War. Based on the lives of Jack Reed and Louise Bryant, this film effectively showed the impact of this War and the feelings of nationalism and others that were spread because of it. Though many of the main characters of this film were Communist, it did not necessarily put Communism in a good light (or bad). It was very objective and merely presented these events as events, seemingly not advocating any side on them. This film showed another side of the war, one that perhaps not many American are familiar with.

Because of the objectiveness of this film, it did not sway me to one side or another on the issue of Communism, but one of course feels sympathy for the protagonist in his efforts. Reed and his friends were decidedly opposed to the War and their goal was to unite in a Communist party against it. These efforts take Reed to places like Russia, the Middle East, Finland, and more.

This was an extremely well made, well acted, and interesting movie. Though the 195 minutes occasionally dragged, it was overall a great film. I had never been aware of such strong feelings of Communism being present in the U.S. at this time, and was amazed at the size of the role Reed played in Russia, being present at meetings with Lenin, Trotsky and Kerensky. Also, at many points during the film people from this time, many known personally by Reed and Bryant, were interviewed and gave their individual perspectives. It gave many events throughout new layers and invited the audience to think more.

The film was not only about historical events. The love between Jack and Louise depicted by Warren Beatty and Diane Keaton was believable and emotional. Reed’s role in the revolutions, his travels, etc. took a toll on their marriage at many different points throughout. Bryant was not as revolutionary as her husband and wanted him to focus on writing, which he was thought by her to be better at. This brought another layer of emotion to an already very emotional subject.

The movie gave me a piece of history that I was not at all well acquainted with and made it interesting and somewhat easy to follow. Reed and Bryant obviously had exciting lives, taking action, though more so on Reed’s part, against a mindset (Capitalism) and event (World War One) thought by them to be wrong. Though film did not have a very happy ending, it was nonetheless satisfying and of course unalterably true.

I watched The Kite Runner.
This film touched on the history of Pakistan and Afghanistan. It begins with traditional life in Afghanistan and through the eyes of the child of a wealthy business man. The story follows that young boy, Amir, through his childhood and into his adult life. In this time we see the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan followed by the Taliban occupation. The changes are extreme. The traditional way of life and safety of home was taken away and when Amir returns to Kabul at the end of the story he barely recognizes his own home city. None of the smells, sights, or sounds of his childhood remain. All were taken away by the changes of power in government and invasions of the Soviets and the later control of the Taliban.

In The Kite Runner I saw yet another example of how hard life has been and continues to be for people around the world. How uncertainty can govern so much of a person's decisions. In the film religion and tradition played a large role in Amir's life. However I think that religion was downplayed from what it would be in reality. Tradition held strong and this is seen in the way in which Amir interacts with the General whose daughter he later marries. When asking for her hand in marriage his father is the one who must ask and formalities of tradition are strictly followed. I see it but I still cannot believe how it prevails even in our modern society with the fast pace that we live in the world.

I thought that it was a very powerful, well made film. The emotions and struggle of tradition and change is very hard and this can be seen clearly in this film. Amir has always loved stories and writing. It shows a story of friendship and misunderstanding when Amir and his childhood friend Hassan have a falling out. Amir drifts apart from Hassan and the wedge driven between them holds until a now adult Amir finds out that Hassan was his brother. By this time Amir has followed his dream and just made his first book. He returns to Pakistan to visit an old friend of his father who gives him the sad news that Hassan is dead and the surprising reality that Hassan was his brother. Amir is determined to find Hassan's boy and be a father to him just as his father had done. On his journey to find Sohrab, the boy, Amir must face the tradition and strict order of life that he had not seen since childhood. Amir is forced to deal with the Taliban in order to find and save Sohrab.

In the end Amir and Sohrab return to the United States. The story comes full circle. As young boys Hassan and Amir flew kites with other young boys in Kabul. They were a great team. Hassam was a forever faithful friend to Amir even though that was not fully returned and the movie ends with Amir and Sohrab, Hassam's son, flying a kite and cutting other kites just as he had done with Hassam years before. While many traditions are hard to keep and even harder to keep with so much changing in the world, the traditions that are kept give meaning to those who keep them. Everything has its time to go but memories, friendship and commitment live on forever.

I watched Hotel Rwanda. The movie takes place right after Belgium left Rwanda with no preparation to run itself and complete political stability. The reason for the political instability was because, when Belgium left Rwanda, they decided that it would be best if the minority controlled the majority. So they left the Tutsis in charge of the Hutu majority. As the film clarified to me, being Tutsi does not run through blood, but it was based off of what the Belgians thought to be better qualities, such as height or even Nose width. However, when Belgium left, as many would assume with a Hutu majority, the Hutu’s voted a president of their own into power. This is how the movie started off. You are introduced to the conflict by a Hutu radio, trying to raise anger against the Tutsi’s. They tell Hutu’s to watch their neighbors, wives, and all Tutsi’s they know, diminishing the Tutsis as “cockroaches”. We then meet the protagonist of the movie, Paul, a Hutu hotel manager, who had a Tutsi wife and family. When the Hutu president’s plane was shot down, everything boiled over when the Hutu’s pointed fingers at the Tutsis. The Hutus went into a killing rage, killing all Tutsis in sight, as well as the Hutus who protected their Tutsi friends. Amazingly, Paul managed to save his family and friends and put them in his hotel to help protect them. Before he knew it, his Hotel became a refugee for the Hutus and Tutsis being attacked. Then, Paul’s focus becomes asking a Belgian UN member in the hotel to get Europe to interfere with the Hutu’s goal. Europe offers their help, but only in helping the Europeans currently in Rwanda. The biggest conflict in the movie was when a Hutu working at the hotel helped many Hutus get into the hotel, and nearly all of them were killed when the Rwandan rebellion army settled them down. Then the Hutus were let into refugee camps, and thankfully, the movie ends on a happy note as Paul and his family move to Europe to live a peaceful life with their nieces, as their parents were killed by the Hutus.
I really like this film. It was a powerful, depressing movie that really helped you feel anger at the Hutus and Europe’s inability to help, and a great deal of sympathy for the dying Tutsis. It definitely made me feel as if I lived a privileged life and made me feel very lucky to live in a stable society. Ultimately, this movie helped reinforce my understanding of the terrible happenings in Rwanda, but helped me realize how powerful this movement was and Europe’s ignorance for the genocide going on.

I watched the movie Enemy at the Gates.

Enemy at the Gates gives perspective to the Battle of Stalingrad which lasted throughout 1942 and which was a turning point in the war for the Red Army.This movie follows the path of two Russian Soldiers. The first is Private Vassili Zaitsev (played by Jude Law), who is a green soldier thrust into a fierce massacre. The second soldier,Commisar Danilov (played by Joseph Fiennes) is a higher ranking officer in the Red Army.

During the first months of the siege of Stalingrad, it soon became known that the German war machine was far superior to the Russians. Therefore, the Russian Commanders would send soldiers rushing into the teeth of German defenses in wild hopes of a glorious fight. The first fight really shows the brutality of the Russian commanders, because even as the Red Army is torn to pieces in the charge, they are shot as they try to retreat.

Vassili earns his name at Russian HQ as a symbol of hope throughout the Red Army after expertly killing 5 German Officers. Danilov is given the task of glorifying his name, and as the kill number grows, so does Vassili's fame. In response to Vassili's fame, the Nazis dispatch their finest Sniper to take care of Vassili. After a love dispute separates Danilov and Vassili, Vassili is on his own to play the deadly game of skill and patience with the German professional.

I really liked this movie because of the brutality and bravery that it showed from both sides of the war. It displayed truly Hellish place Stalingrad was during the battle. It also showed the cruelty of the German Army, as a young boy is hung publicly in the streets for the Reds to see. Another thing I really liked about Enemy at the Gates was the sense of triumph and pride the viewer gets with each passing scene. It showed that a man can win a war with his will. However, the only part of the movie I didn't like was the ending, which was very anti-climactic.

I would highly recommend this movie to anyone who is confused about the battle and the situations those men were thrown into. It was a very gripping story, and showed the hard conditions the world was facing at the time.

Hotel Rwanda Extra Credit
Arjun Sridhar

Movie: Hotel Rwanda

Brief Summary- Hotel Rwanda is about a manager of a Rwandan hotel and his quest to turn his hotel into a refugee camp by housing Tutsis. Since he was a Hutu, he ends up bribing the Hutu rebels with money, alcohol, and jewelry so that his hotel would not be raided. In the end, the Tutsi rebels fight off the Hutu, the hotel manager relocates his family, and the genocide ends with about one million deaths.

Before I watched this movie, I was thinking it was going to be a typical Hollywood film. Surprisingly, it was the complete opposite and this amazed and excited me. There were several elements of 20th century “world history” that was touched in the film. “Hotel Rwanda” depicted the rising conflict between the Hutus and Tutsis. When Belgium controlled Rwanda, the Tutsis held power. But Belgium handed over power to the Hutu as they left. This movie showed the current power of the Tutsi and the dominant control the Hutu had over the country in 1994. The film also touched on the assassination of the president of Rwanda and its major effect in sparking genocide. Hotel Rwanda also shows an accurate depiction of the destruction of Rwanda after the Belgians left the country. It also shows how irrational some of the Hutus were by blaming the Tutsis on the murder of the president, and eventually killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Tutsis. Hotel Rwanda shows an accurate depiction of the countries’ state. There are many scenes that show the streets of Rwanda struck by poverty and war. The main hotel in this movie is made to look like a modern place where tourists stayed. This was in complete contrast to what was happening outside. A major point stressed in “Hotel Rwanda” was the ineffectiveness of the United Nations and other countries throughout the world. Even though there were some U.N. troops, that was not sufficient and many countries did not help nor did they recognize the situation as genocide. The Tutsis were constantly told by the hotel manager to spread the word about what was happening to them so the world would recognize the situation for what it was, a tragic genocide.
Hotel Rwanda changed my understanding of what the Tutsis were going through at the time. At the beginning of the movie, Tutsis were not necessarily being killed but rather they were being harassed. As the movie progresses, the audience knows how fearful every Tutsi feels. Many times throughout the movie, the refugees of the hotel had to hide in bathrooms just so they would not be killed. This made me realize that the Hutu would kill without mercy, and unless they were bribed they would kill everyone indiscriminately. So if they even thought someone was a Tutsi, they would be killed on the spot. Hotel Rwanda also changed my understanding of the way other countries thought of the Rwandan people. This was shown in the movie when the U.N. general confessed to the hotel manager by saying one of the reasons they had to leave was because they were not willing to help a third world country and they thought less of Rwandan people. This changed my understanding of what exactly the U.N. thought of Rwandan people and their lack of effort to help. It is unfortunate the lack of help was granted in the 1994 genocide, and the world should have learned from their mistakes and focus on helping third world countries to grow and be successful in the future.
After I watched this movie, I thought that the 2-½ hours was well spent, as the story was an appropriate way to engage and show the viewers the brutal reality of genocide. Overall, I really liked this movie and it made me reflect on how many lives could have been saved if countries like the U.S. had stepped in and fought the brutal Hutu rebels. This movie really touched me because of the heroic deeds done by the Hotel Manager and his commitment to do the right thing. The Hotel Manager went so far by staying at the Hotel while his family was being evacuated just so he could help the refugees staying in his hotel. The tone of the film was very sad and it made me think of how fortunate I am to live in the U.S. The most moving part to me was when the Hotel Manager realized that the road was covered with rows and rows of dead bodies after he got lost in the middle of the night. Another scene in the movie that was very moving and showed the overall nature of the Hotel Manager was when he told his wife to jump off the hotel roof if the Hutu raided the hotel. The hotel manager told her wife this because he wanted his family to die any way other than by the machete of a Hutu rebel. Overall this movie accomplished the goal of teaching the viewer of the Rwanda Genocide and it was also very fascinating and inspiring.

Black Hawk Down

While watching Black Hawk Down it reminded me a lot of North and South Korea conflict that the United States had to intervene and separate the two sides from civil war. Black Hawk Down was a movie about a mission in Somalia on October 3, 1993 where nearly 100 U.S. Army Rangers were dropped by helicopter deep into the capital city of Mogadishu to capture two top lieutenants of a Somali warlord. These two people played a big role in the civil war of Somalia. The mission was only supposed to take 1 hour but since the warlords and civilians were armed with AK-47’s and RPG’s the mission took 15 hours and the destruction of two U.S. Black Hawk helicopters in Mogadishu. The mission soon turned from capturing the two warlords to rescuing the wounded U.S. soldiers in the helicopter crash. The reason this reminds me of North and South Korea is because both in North and South Korea and Somalia there was different beliefs and eventually war. Eventually the United States had to go into both of these countries and help with the War. In the Koreas they were on the South’s side and in Somalia they were on the civilians side.
Black Hawk Down changed my understanding of Somalia in the 1990’s completely. I was not aware that there was a civil war in Somalia and that so many innocent people were dying because of starvation. One thing I was very surprised about how the warlords controlled everything. When the United States would bring food aid into the cities the warlords would steal all of the food away from the people that need it. One scene that changed my understanding completely was when the little kid shot his father on accident and ended up killing him. This just shows that even from a very young age kids are trained to believe these horrible ways and how they are trained to use weapons.
Overall I really appreciated the movie. It gave me a greater understanding for the conflict that went on in Somalia during the 1990’s. Some of the things I really liked about the movie was I was always on the edge of my seat. Having the guys all dressed in their gear with their weapons made me feel like I was there and seeing all the Somalia’s with their weapons. The movie just made me excited and nervous at the same time. Black Hawk Down also had a funny side to it. I really liked the guy that became deaf from all the guns. He was funny because he could never hear people talk and when he talked he talked really loud.

Black Hawk Down

Danny Englebretson

I watched the movie Black Hawk Down, which starred Josh Hartnett, Ewan McGregor, Eric Bana and many other very well known actors. This movie was originally a book and the movie was directed by Ken Nolan. Here's a brief summary of the movie: So a little more than 100 soldiers were dropped in Somalia to take two top lieutenants warlords. This evidentially led to the name "Black Hawk Down" where Somali gunmen shot down two Black Hawk helicopters. The rest of the movie goes on about a few different squads trying to reach the helicopters and any remaining me. Two very skilled snipers drop down as a rescue stall or attempt and end up holding back Somali mobs, ending up in their demise. These men gave their lives to save this one last survivor and were granted the Medal of Honor. In the end of the movie they end up destroying the remains of the helicopter and make their way back to the base.

Personally I wasn't very clear/sure what events were taking place in Somali, but when I watched this movie it kind of gave a basic understandable look of what was going on. To me it showed and touched on the 20th century history. I saw how war-torn and crazed it was living there. It made me realize how hectic it was. It really helped me know what the basics of the civil war and how the sides would go to length to win like put weapons for children to use.

This helped me change a lot about my view on these events going, I didn't know about the war between sides and how we went into take down these highly powered lieutenant warlords. It shocked me when the scene of the women was speaking something in Somalian and then picked up a gun and tried killing these American soldiers. To me it seemed like they forced everyone to fight for a devastating war and seemed to cause a lot of grief.

I really enjoyed this film and it was created wonderfully. I think it reflected the events going on in Somalia very well and portrayed what the life was like and what the American soldiers were doing. The action scenes were awesome and had me interested through start to finish. I would gladly recommend this to anyone who would want to watch it. I even did my own research about what happened to the captured pilot that was never resolved during the movie. Once again this movie was very well done and did a great job to help inform me on the situation going on in the 1990's.

Hotel Rwanda

I watched this movie because my family it was very worth it even though at times was very hard to watch. This movie was started when the Belgium left, and started the whole Hutu and Tutsis. The origin of the Hutu and Tutsi hatred started when the Belgians left, and made the Tutsis in charge, since they collaborated with the Belgians. The Hutu majority felt disgraced and cheated. Thus the hatred and violence started. Before Belgium invaded the Hutus and Tutsis got a long fine. The Belgians messed everything up and thousands suffer for it. Once Belgium left, Hutus wanted their “rightful” lands and power. The rebel Tutsis were the opposition and still had power. These show the 20th century history due to the unexplainable and excess hatred between Hutus and Tutsis. Also touches base with the faults of the imperialistic ages, creating tribal wars.

The story is based on a hotel owner who is a Hutu. He felt as though the division of Hutu and tutsis shouldn’t lead to violence, why can’t they live like prior Belgian influence. After losing many powerful acquaintances, he turns his hotel in to a refugee camp to shelter Hutus and Tutsis. Bribing and weaseling his way out of tricky predicaments he finally survives the rebel intrusion and is saved by the UN.

This film helped me get a real understanding of the Rwanda genocide. I had a slight idea, I learned more in class but still I wanted to learn and feel more in depth knowledge of this incredible and devastating event. The slight difference has led to 1 million dead people. It almost seems unreal and unlikely, and yet it’s the truth. It baffles me.

I thought this film was really really well done. I thought the power and idea was one in a lifetime. I thought this was well deserving of the recognition it got. This is definitely a powerful, moving and amazing film, due to the idea, creation, casting and history behind this world dilemma.

Cry Freedom

I watched 'Cry Freedom', a movie about the racial struggles in South Africa. While I was watching it I began to recall the differences in land ownership and population ratio's that we learned about in 3rd quarter. There were many images of black slums and white people living on huge estates with swimming pools and other luxuries. It also showed how white south africans could just arrest black south africans without just cause. There were many racial tensions portrayed in this film that helped my visualize more than just facts in a history book.

I thought the relationship between Donald Woods and Steve Biko represented the idea that two people can become friends regardless of skin color or social situation. The movie was full of powerful imagery and the filming was great. One of my favorite parts of the movie was Woods met Biko. The first time he saw him, Biko was standing behind a sheet of leafs [perhaps from a weeping willow tree or something like that] and all Woods knew of him was his voice when Biko called for him to follow after him into a hut. Somehow I know this must represent something, but I'm not sure what. Maybe they were trying to convey that Woods had to listen to the message Biko was trying to tell him instead of being focused in by his outward appearance and skin color.

* What film did you watch?

I watched "Kite Runner".
* What elements of 20th century "World History" was touched on by the film?

Kite Runner explores events in and around Afghanistan from 1979 to current times. The two main characters are Amir, the son of a wealthy man in Kabul and Hassan, the son of Amir's father's servant. Hassan is from the Hazara ethnic group, which was (and is) historically discriminated against in Afghanistan. The movie shows the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan as well was the semi-current, Taliban controlled Afghanistan.
* How did the film reinforce and/or change your understanding of that history?

The film really helped personify a huge historical event in a way that helped explain the situation but also make it easier to identify with. It also sowed more of the conflicts and events between the Soviet invasion and the Talliban's seizure of control. (Amir spends this time in Pakistan.)
* What did you think of the film? (Comment on whatever you would like.)

Well, before I'd watched the movie, I thought that The Kite Runner was about two children on different sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict who became friends. So I was a bit confused for the beginning of the movie. I was surprised by how brutal the childhood of Hassan seemed to be. After researching what exactly Hazara meant, it became easier to at least understand the motivation behind the children who bullied him. That being said, Amir's betrayal and abandoning of Hassan was shocking considering they were best friends.

The film really helped me understand more about Afghan/ Middle East life prior to the Taliban.

Erich Beckert.
• What film did you watch?
Movie - Enemy at the Gates.

• What elements of 20th century "World History" was touched on by the film?
The siege at Stalingrad.
Enemy at the Gates is about the siege of Stalingrad, and one sniper, Vassili Zaitsev (Jude Law), and how he came to be an icon of hope for the Red Army. The movie takes place in 1942.

In it, Zaitsev meets Commisar Danilov (Joseph Fiennes) and takes a rifle from him. He then proceeds to snipe five German soldiers. Later on, Danilov suggests that Zaitsev should become an icon of hope to the Russians. This idea is wildly popular, and thus his name and picture become instantly recognizable everywhere. Danilov is the one who writes the artivles about Vassili. As Vassili kills more people, he becomes more popular, and his name is widely spread. As a response, the Germans deploy their best snipe to kill Vassili.

Meanwhile, Vassili and Danilov fight over a fellow female soldier. This causes Danilov to distance himself from Vassili. Vassili goes out alone to take care of the sniper, and is almost killed. When he returns 'from the dead', he decides to take care of the problem of the German sniper once and for all.

• How did the film reinforce and/or change your understanding of that history?
ASDF. This movie changed my understanding of that time, because I did not realize how bad living conditions were for the Russians. I also saw, in the very beginning, how brutal the Russian commanders were, as they had soldiers open fire on their own retreating Russian soldiers.

• What did you think of the film? (Comment on whatever you would like.)
I thought this movie was awesome. It seemed to be, from what I understand of the time, very realistic. It was also based on a true story, which I thought made it all the more engaging. The movie was not lacking in action, which made in interesting and exciting to watch all at the same time. I highly recommend it.

So I tried to submit this earlier...but now I see that it says submission error. So heres try number two:

Movie: Hotel Rwanda

Even though everyone seemed to be planning on watching this movie, I decided to watch it anyway because it was about the topic which probably most interested me amongst the movie choices. It was an excellent movie in my opinion.

It basically told the story of the Hutu and Tutsi conflict in Rwanda in the early 1990s. Although Belgium left the power to the Tutsis, the Hutus took over once the Belgians pulled out since they were the majority. It showed when it was announced that it was supposedly a Tutsi who killed the president, even though he had just agreed to a peace agreement with them. This was obviously a way to wind up the Hutus further and give them an excuse to keep fighting. In the film, the Mille Collines became a safe home for hundreds of Tutsi refugees. When the white people whom Paul had called to the hotel for help arrived, and to his surprise only to help take the tourists and any other white people out of Rwanda, I thought the film did an excellent job portraying two things: first, the utter disappointment, surprise, and even horror of the Rwandans when they realized that they were to receive no aid; and second: how ineffective and ignorant (probably by choice) the UN was during the genocide. So many lives could have been saved if the UN or other countries would have simply intervened, and yet no one acted soon enough.

The film reinforced my understanding in a way I had not expected. I understood the basic idea, Hutus vs. Tutsis in Rwanda. But the imagery in the film was stunning. It was so well done that the viewer begins to feel as though they know the characters, and are struggling with them. It helped me understand some of the Hutus' excuses for killing so many Tutsis. It also showed me in what manner all the killing was being done. Because I have never experienced a genocide, it is difficult for me to wrap my mind around what a tremendous amount of people being killed in such a short time and such brutal ways is actually like. It also shined a light on the UN's attitude to the situation. I could see that they really just wanted the tourists and other white people out of Rwanda. In the scene where the UN troops are pulling doctors and priests from the people they are trying to help, they yell and thrash and try to escape the troops' grips. It shows that the UN really had no interest at all in helping, since they were forcing even the willing helpers to leave the country. In addition, the fact that the UN found Paul less important simply because he was black shows again that really the UN only seemed to care about white people.

I thought the movie was excellent. The acting was very good, and the actors received two rightly earned oscars for the parts. I admire the real Paul (whom this movie was partially about, since it was a true story) and his unbelievable and to me incomprehensible ability to stand up for what is right and help everyone, no matter his own circumstances. I felt like I wanted to reach out and help the genocide victims, and felt angry with the UN when they refused to help. It was an inspiring movie, and I hope that maybe it will inspire viewers to reach out and do the most that they can if another event happens like the Rwandan genocide in the near future.

I watched The Last Emperor. The movie chronicled the life of China's final Emperor, who assumed the throne when he was a toddler. The larger part of the film is a flashback to the Emperor's life up to the point where he was captured as a prisoner of war by China's Red Army. The beginning shows all of the bizarre rituals carried out in the Forbidden City for the young emperor, and how the emperor could have anything he wanted but was still very much like a prisoner. He grows up and you see him learn from a tutor (played by Peter O'Toole), and his strange marital arrangement where he ends up having two wives. All of a sudden, China becomes a republic, and Puyi (the emperor) finds himself the emperor of nothing. The former Emperor finds himself unsure of how to act in the outside world, desperately seeking a way to rule again. HIs secondary wife leaves him, and his primary wife becomes an opium addict. What led to his imprisonment was leading a Japanese puppet state in Manchuria called Manchukuo. He is captured and sent to a POW camp. After serving his time there, he exits into 1960's China, when the cultural revolution is underway, and red guards parade down the street. He dies soon after.

I had no idea of much of Chinese history during World War II and after, aside from the basics, before viewing this movie. I learned a lot about this part of the world and I began to understand more of the politics of the area. I really liked this film. I think it is very artistically done, and I really liked the ending metaphor with the cricket and the emperor disappearing from the throne. I also greatly enjoyed another movie I saw about WWII China, called "Empire of the Sun."

Black Hawk Down

The main elements were war and genocide. In January of 1991, the President of Somalia was overthrown by the United Somali Congress. After the revolution, the group split. One of the leaders, Ali Mahdi Muhammad, became the president. The other was the warlord Mohammed Farah Aidid. These two groups fought with four opposing groups until a ceasefire was agreed to, but broken soon after. The new president became Abdel-Rahman Ahmed Ali. Fighting erupted in Mogadishu. Much of the agriculture was destroyed. Other countries responded by sending in food to the people in need, only to be taken local clan leaders to exchange the food with other countries for weapons. 50 UN observers were sent in the watch the distribution of the food. US troops were soon deployed to airlift and distribute food.
In the movie, the soldiers thought they were going to be in and out of the battlefield within thirty minutes. Instead they experienced many difficulties and had to stay and fight throughout the night, and managed to escape in the morning. The Americans in charge of the operation clearly underestimated the fighting ability of their opponents. An American was even taken hostage for eleven days. About one thousand Somalis and nineteen American soldiers died fighting. At the end of the film, when the American soldiers jogged away from the site and many Somali people cheered them on, it made me take a step back and look at the situation again. It made me realize how much the people had truly been affected by the genocide, and how welcoming they were to the help they had received from the US. Since I had never learned much about the Battle of Mogadishu before, I didn’t have much of an opinion on it before. But the bravery the US soldiers displayed in that battle was remarkable.
At first, I was not too interested in the movie considering I didn’t know much about the situation in Somalia at that time. But after I visited the never failing source, Wikipedia, and brushed up on my history, it was easier to follow along. It also made the film more enjoyable, and interesting to watch. As I said, the bravery displayed in “Black Hawk Down” was unbelievable, and the film very well showed the hardships the soldiers had to overcome.

I watched Hotel Rwanda, which revolved around the Hutu/Tutsi war, or, genocide, in 1994 in Rwanda. Before watching the film, I thought that the Hutu, who had been under the Tutsi's control for years by decree of the Dutch, decided to punish the Tutsi for years of oppression once Rwanda was granted independence from the Dutch. A Tutsi extremist assassinated the Hutu leader, who was working towards peace, and the Hutu responded with machetes, and slayed about one million Tutsi people. First they came and killed in the night, but later the cover of darkness it was not necessary as the murders were no longer secret. The film really showed the fear of everyone. The Tutsi of course fought back against the Hutu, which made no civilian non-rebel safe, essentially. The United Nations that came in saved the white people from their vacationing hotels, but left the refugees behind. There was a definite exposé of the white attitude towards black people. In one memorable scene at Paul, the hotel owner's bar, Nick Nolte's character expressed his disappointment in the UN and superpower countries. He said the belief was that black people are dirt, less than dirt, and do not matter - that a genocide involving blacks is not worth intervening in, since the lives lost are worth nothing anyway. The refusal of the countries with the power to intervene in the genocide was appalling. I guess I always thought that the United Nations was a superhero, who swooped down on every poor struggling country and helped it become a country of democracy and moderate peacefulness. The UN response to the Rwandan genocide as displayed in this film really helped me to see how cowardly people still are. It's interesting how little changes. No one learns anything from history, as it seems - how could The Holocaust in Europe in which the Nazi party murdered 6 million Jews and 5 million non-aryans not show the world that cultural genocide is a serious monster that requires outside help, and lots of it? A radio promoting Hutu violence was a big part of the film, showing the effects of propaganda. Hitler used propaganda. The film caused me to lose a great amount of respect for the leaders of the world who fear involvement to save their own men, as if an American life is worth more than a Rwandan life. A life is a life, and all men are equal here - a sense of despair came over me as I realized how disappointing people still are. Darfur is not getting true intervention, for whatever reason, and people are being massacred. I thought that the Rwandan genocide was awful, but I now see just how awful it was. And am inspired. A Jewish phrase that goes along with the holocaust is "The Shoa (The name given to The Holocaust, in Hebrew) - Never Again." And yet it seems to happen all the time. The repeat of history makes me so ill - this movie is definitely worth watching, and is very inspiring. I saw no serious bias in the film. And, the story of Paul was a true story.

What film did you watch?
-I watched Enemy at the Gates.

What elements of 20th century "World History" was touched on by the film?
-Many different elements of World War II were touched in this movie including aspects form both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. The entire movie takes place in the Russian city of Stalingrad (except for the opening and ending scenes) while a stalemate is occurring between the Nazi’s and the Russians. This is what we studied as the Battle of Stalingrad. Nikita Khrushchev was the main political force on the side of the Russians and was pretty much acted how I thought he would. Also, Russian Propaganda was another driving theme in the movie, which made me remember all of the aspects of a totalitarian society. In one scene, a whole room filled with prominent political rulers took time to just stare (in pride) at the mural of Stalin. Also, the main character has to deal with propaganda directed towards him that praises him as a hero he doesn’t think he is (the propaganda actually starts out as a ‘blog’ of [looks like vergin has something in common with the Russians] sorts but turns into false promises). Stalin was not in the film but was brought up a number of times in conversation and was praised a couple of times in the movie also. The freezing Russian winter that helped to turn the tides of the battle of Stalingrad was also depicted. Now that I think of it, not much history was shown about the germans besides the fact that they clearly had a more advanced army and transportation system. Lastly, the movie showed how soldiers crossing the lake into Stalingrad received just six bullets.

How did the film reinforce and/or change your understanding of that history?
-The film definitely enforced my views of propaganda in Russia during World War I. It also enforced my views of what the Battle of Stalingrad was like. The filmmakers really do a great job on showing how much of a pit hole Stalingrad is during the war, it is pretty much a huge pile of rubble with some halfway standing factories and office buildings. A part of this movie that changed my understanding of World War II in Russia occurred in the second scene and continued throughout the rest of the film. I’m not sure how historically correct these depictions are, but when Russian soldiers would retreat from battle, their own Russian generals would murder the retreating soldiers. This was incredibly disturbing and I was not expecting it for we had not learned about it in class. Another scene where this occurs is when new soldiers are in boats trying to get across the lake connecting to Stalingrad when a mass of German airplanes unload with bombs and machine guns on the soldier-filled boats. A few of the soldiers jump out of one of the boats from pure fear. When Russian generals on the boat see this, they mow down the frightened soldiers who are now swimming towards shore.

What did you think of the film? (Comment on whatever you would like.)
-As I already stated, there were many intense graphic scenes, (especially since the two battling snipers only shot people in the head and sometimes eye socket) and it was an overall amusing and entertaining movie. In my opinion, the only problem was that the movie dragged on a little bit too long for my liking. Also some of the dialogue scenes dragged on a little too long as well. Overall the acting was solid, not great but not bad. I would give the movie 4/5 stars, but in 2001 I’m sure I would have liked it more because the special effects and filming would have been even MORE realistic.

Enemies at the Gate

In this film many elements of 20th century world history are present, this includes totalitarianism, the idea of total war, World War II, new pushes in technology, and the struggle over economic issues. These issues are present in many ways. For example, throughout the movie one can see pictures of Stalin in every base, camp or even bunker. When Nikita Krushchev is trying to fire up his generals for battle, he tells them that "the boss" or Stalin is always looking down on them and for this reason they must always be performing at their very best. This movie takes place in Stalingrad, which is arguably the turning point of the eastern front. But do not be fooled, this victory does not feel so happy and joyous. The city of Stalingrad is all but destroyed, and every day more and more Russian die. This is because of another 20th century element, economic struggles. In the movie it shows the main character receiving his 6 bullets, except he is not given a rifle. He along with hundreds run straight into the German line with no gun. This is the struggle of Russia. With millions of soldiers and no guns, they have to send men in with nothing because it is all they can do. This movie includes many gruesome scenes of russian cruelty, like the killing of all russians who retreat, even though the retreat had just been sounded by their own general. Also anyone who jumped off the boats on the way over to Stalingrad were killed, even during German air-strikes.

This film really enforced my understanding of how the battle of Stalingrad was fought. There were no rules, no main fronts, just Germans and Russians throughout the city. In one scene, the German leaders are showering and meeting in a destroyed building just after they kill another wave of Russians. They all end up being killed by the main character but it just shows how they were forced to live. The Russian civilians were not allowed to leave the city, and lived in hidden underground homes. All of the fighting between the 2 countries occurs in building or in small alley ways. Another thing that this film really enforced was the importance and usage of propaganda. The main characters friend writes about the heroics of his companion, and creates a new persona for the Russian people to believe in. This persona is a hero, a killer and more importantly a figure of communism and compliance. It is said throughout the movie that one must be "loyal to the motherland." This idea is stated multiple times, and I believe it is left over of Lenins slogan of "Peace Land Bread." The people are mainly loyal to the ruler, Stalin, but also to their land and country.

I thought the film was very interesting, and was actually a fun way to spend my sunday night. Nick and I talked throughout the film to each other about what we expected and what surprised us and I think we were both surprised with the amount of character development and the relationships the director creates. Obviously we spent most of our time discussing the war and the events that occur, but the character relationships were very interesting. One thing I noticed is that from October 21st-23rd it goes from warm and sunny, to the freexing Russian tundra that we are so familiar with here in Minnesota. This makes me wonder if it really could change that quickly? Did they have trouble filming the scenes due to the weather and decide to get the movie going along faster? It was a very good movie though, I would give it a 8/10 simply because it was very long and some of the scenes were unnecessary. The special effects were truly spectacular and my favorite part of the movie is the German soldier getting shot in the eye. Just saying... that was really cool.

Kyra

I watched The Killing Fields, starring Sam Waterson as Sydney Schanberg, the New York Times journalist who won a Pulitzer for his coverage of the civil war in Cambodia. Based on Sydney Schanberg's memoirs, this movie was nominated for seven Oscars and won three: Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing and Best Supporting Actor (for Ngor). This story chronicles the civil war in Cambodia through the eyes of Sydney Schanberg, a foreign journalist and through the eyes of his interpreter, Dith Pran (played by Haing S. Ngor).

For anyone who does not know or have a good idea of what happened in Cambodia, this is a good jumping off point. The movie, although centered on the lives of two individuals, does a great job of showing how the civil war came to be, what it was like to live in Cambodia during the civil war and of course, the kind of monstrosities the Khmer Rouge committed. It shows the American failings in managing the war and the horrific results of what happened when the US decided to pull out. It also sheds light on American politics during that time. For example, when America pulled out of the war and basically decided to just ignore what was happening in Southeast Asia.

This film really enhanced my understanding of the Cambodian civil war. It not only deepened my understanding of how brutal the Khmer Rouge was but also taught me what role the United States played in the war. Also, the amazing visuals that the movie provided allowed me to understand just how much Cambodia changed during the rule of the Khmer Rouge. For example, I knew that the Khmer Rouge had forced its people to return to an agriculture based economy, but I had had no visual image to show me the enormous scale of that move until I watched this movie.

I thought this movie did an excellent job of giving an unbiased view of the war. It didn't hide or highlight the United States' failings but just showed you real events that had taken place and what had happened during those events. The movie is quite long so it is hard to sit through to the end, but that is only because there is a lot to explain and show the audience. I thought it was really interesting that Haing S. Ngor, a Cambodian who had suffered under the rule of the Khmer Rouge himself , played the part of Dith Pran (the translator). I didn't however like Sam Waterson playing the role of Sydney Schanberg. I don't know if that is because of Law and Order, but while watching the movie I just thought that the his acting wasn't very good. My second complaint about the movie is about the music that accompanied it. I thought the music was awful. The only exception would be John Lennon's Imagine during the last scene of the movie. Despite my complaints, I was very happy I had chosen to watch The Killing Fields because it deepened my understanding of the war and gave me an in depth look into the history of the country that I am going to be visiting this summer.

What film did you watch?
I watched Hotel Rwanda

What elements of 20th century the film touched on “World History”?
The film talked about the genocide of an ethnic group of African people, the Tutsis by another group, the Hutu. This happened because when Belgium colonized Rwanda, they took a liking to the Tutsis, who are the minority, and gave them power over the majority, the Hutu. Year after they were given independence, the Hutu were still in anger over how they were treaded by the Tutsis.
It also touched on how the west did nothing to stop it. How even though we knew what was going on, and could have stopped hundreds of people from dyeing we did nothing. The UN had to take care of everything. And even then, they couldn’t help as much as they were needed.

How did the film reinforce and/or change your understanding of that history?
The movie simple reinforced what we learned in class and the reading. It just made it more real because I was able to see it. It sad the even though we said, “never again,” it seems to mean, “again, and again, and again,”

What did you think of the film? (Comment on whatever you would like.)
I loved the movie. I thought it was very well done and the cast was great. The only thing the kept me from getting up and walking away from how sad it was, was my dad kept telling me that the ending was happy.
One part in the movie that freaked me out the most was when the UN convoy was going to bring people from the Hotel to the plane to get them of Rwanda. And one of the people at the hotel, who was Hutu, when and told the person who ran the radio, who told all the Hutus and I though everyone in the trucks was going to die.

I watched “Animal Farm”. The film is based on the book written by George Orwell.

It tells the story of the Russian Revolution. Retelling the story of the emergence and development of Soviet communism in the form of an animal fable, Animal Farm shows the rise to power of the soviets and their dictator Joseph Stalin (played as pigs). Much like the Soviet leaders, the pigs establish themselves as the ruling class in the new society. The animals suffer from their hypocritical and abusive ruler, Stalin. Corruption of the farm’s original values and “commandments” end in catastrophe as Stalin starves and murders his subjects.

I really enjoyed watching this movie. It was very clear to see what animals represented which people. Lenin, Trotsky, and the secret police were all seen in the film. Although some may pre-judge a movie full of talking animals, this movie gives a very accurate and serious portrayal of the Russian Revolution. The angle in which the story is told makes the viewer ache for the animals on the farm as their lives fall to the pig leader, Napoleon (Joseph Stalin). Despite the occasional corny scene, I would recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys political satire, Russian history, or hey, animals that can talk.

I watched Enemy at the Gates.

Enemy at the Gates tells the story of the battle of Stalingrad during WWII. Stalingrad was a turning point in the war for the Red Army, and eventually led to their victory against the Nazis. The movie follows two Russian Soldiers: Private Vassili Zaitsev who is a soldier thrown into a suicide mission and Commisar Danilov who is a political officer.

During the beginning stages of the siege of Stalingrad, the Red Army seems to be no match against the German’s machine guns and artillery. Many men were sent on suicide missions to try and fight back the approaching line of German soldiers. However, they were greatly outnumbered, and outgunned. Many soldiers were killed very quickly. Those who survived would try and retreat, but the Red Army would kill any soldier who tried. Vassili survives his suicide mission, and hides among dead Russian soldiers. There he meets Danilov who is also hiding. Danilov sees five high ranking German soldiers, and tries killing them… he is unable to, so Vassili takes out all five. Vassili earns a name for himself and becomes a symbol of hope throughout the Red Army. He is promoted into the sniper unit. Danilov is given the task of glorifying his name and keeping the hopes of the Red Army up. Vassili’s fame increases as the number of German soldiers and officers he kills increases. People all over Russia learn about him and his accomplishments. But Russians aren’t the only ones hearing about Vassili’s fame. The Germans are frustrated with Vasilli because he is lowering the hopes of the German men. As an attempt to stop Vassili, Nazis dispatch their finest Sniper to take Vassili out. It now becomes a battle between Vassili and Major Erwin König. It seems Vassili is always one step behind Konig, but in their last stand off, Vasilli takes Konig out.
I knew that the battle of Stalingrad was a horrific battle for both sides, but I didn’t really know how bad it was. Enemy at the Gates shows you how much suffering went on for both the Germans and the Russians. It also tells the touching story of how one man can raise the hopes of an entire country crumbling to pieces. The battle scenes in this movie were very intense, and at times hard to imagine that events like that really took place. For example, when the Red Army would kill their own men who tried to retreat, and when a young boy is hanged by the Germans. This is a very gripping story that shows the harsh conditions that these soldiers were thrown into. It shows the brutality of war, but also the bravery of so many men. I would highly recommend this movie to anyone who knows that basic plot of the battle of Stalingrad, but would like more detail. It is a great movie that is very interesting and intense, but also easy enough that anyone can follow it.

What film did you watch?
The Kite Runner

What elements of 20th century "World History" was touched on by the film?

This film touched on the history of Afghanistan. It was basically about a wealthy businessmen and his kid, Amir. It gave a clear description of how life was in Afghanistan before the invasion of the USSR. Also living with the Amir and his father are his servant, and the servants kid, Hassan. Amir and Hassan get along well together and have lots of fun. However, Hassan is a Hazara, who are predominantly shi'ite muslims. They are also ethnically different from the majority of the afghan people. And therefore, Hassan was bullied a lot due to his ethnicity. Eventually, the Soviets invade Afghanistan and Amir and his father are forced to leave. And they end up fleeing for the United States. Eventually Amir returns to Afghanistan after the Soviets have left and is shocked to see what has happened to his home country of Afghanistan. The change has been drastic and the Taliban has changed Afghanistan into a very conservative, and religious place. There is fear every where and their are clear signs of how corrupt the Taliban is.

How did the film reinforce and/or change your understanding of that history?

The Kite Runner really reinforced how hard and dangerous life in Afghanistan was, when the Taliban was in control. Although we've learned about how the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, this movie made me understand the events that happened in Afghanistan on a personal level.

What did you think of the film? (Comment on whatever you would like.)

I really enjoyed this film a lot. I think that it captured all the events that took place in Afghanistan. I also thought that this was a very powerful film. Not only did it capture the events that went on in Afghanistan from the 1970s to now, but it also added a human, and personally aspect which made the film even better. I think that this film also touched on some of the racial tensions that existed in Afghanistan. Like I previously mentioned, Hassan was a hazara, Because of this, even as a child, he faced bullying because of his racial background. And unforntunately, when Hassan grew up and had a family, he and his family were killed by the Taliban most likely because of his racial background. I found that Hassan was a really admirable character because he stood up for what he believed in and didn't back down. He was always helping out Amir and he truly was as good friend. I was really shocked when Amir betrayed Hassan because that was something that i didn't think would happen. I would highly recommend this movie to anyone because it truly gives you a personal look at what happened in Afghanistan in the later half of the 20th century.

I watched "Animal Farm".
This movie was a political satire of the Russian Revolution during Stalin's reign. It told the story of the revolution as if it were dealing with farm animals on a farm. Pigs represented Stalin, Lenin, and Trotsky. There was a secret police of dogs that would "punish" those who didn't support the leader of the "Animal Farm"--Stalin (or his pig name: Napoleon). In this movie one of the pigs would talk with the public (the rest of the farm) and tell them the news in ways that would glorify Napoleon. Propaganda. The cease of power is evident when Napoleon blames an incident on the farm on Snowball (another pig on the farm--his character represents Trotsky). Snowball is sent into exile and from then on the farm goes downhill for the rest of the animals. They are forced to work as hard as they can for almost no rest and no food, the whole time believing they are working for the greater good. Napoleon begins to resemble the human farmer that used to live there (who they drove away in the first place). This film really put into perspective the feeling of the people during the revolution. By simplifying the situation and highlighting the emotion of the animals, it really brought out the hard lifestyle these people had to suffer with. Not only did it bring out the emotion of the people but also it was effective in comparing the Russian leaders to pigs. By the end of the movie I felt like I thought of Napoleon (the pig) as Stalin and Stalin himself as a pig! This movie definitely got its point across.

I really enjoyed this movie. In the beginning I was a little bit skeptical about how seriously I would take this movie because it was about talking animals. But right away it captured my attention, and I forgot all about the fact that it had to do with talking animals. I started viewing them as humans-the way they acted and spoke. I would recommend this movie to an older audience. I think it means so much more once you know the background and what the movie is comparing itself to. There are a lot of symbolic messages in this movie which a younger person might not be able to pick up on. Also it's actually really sad--especially the part about sending the horse (who was devoted to Napoleon-but got hurt working) to the glue factory to be killed! :(
Aside from that part I liked the movie very much.

I watched Black Hawk Down, which was based on a book that recounted real events that took place in Somalia. In 2003 the American Military was sent to Somalia to fight against the local warlord Aidid. The elements of the 20th century “World History” is the situation of a super power army fighting a group of people that are not an organized army but are well armed.
It seems that it should be easy for the army with all their weapons and technology to go capture Aidid. But in fact they got slaughtered. The American Military had so many weapons and technology and yet the other side beat them badly.
At first, I was not sure about the movie because I had no recollection of Somalia and the American Military fighting one another. But I thought I would give it a try. At the beginning of the movie it was very calm. The soldiers made fun of each other and it was upbeat. But then, when their General said that they are going to go and capture Aidid, everything was quiet. The soldiers had to do what they were trained to do which was to fight, but it was clear they were scared. They got everything ready and were off, when they got there the Somali’s were ready for the Americans. This started a big battle. I have to say that there was a lot of the movie was just battle scenes. But overall it was a good movie.

What film did you watch? I watched Enemy at the Gates.

What elements of 20th century "World History" was touched on by the film?

Its about the Siege of Stalingrad and the famous sniper Vassily Zaitsev who accumulated about 500 kills in his army career.

Summary:

He starts out as a small child in a scene where his grandfather is teaching him to shoot a rifle and he fails a test his grandfather set for him to shoot a wolf before it got to a tied-up horse. Some years later when he is a full grown man he joins the Russian Army as a regular soldier. He is sent to Stalingrad where they start an offensive as soon as Vassily’s regiment arrives. All of his regiment is killed either by the Germans or their own officers who machine gun down deserters. After the battle the propaganda officer of the Russian Army drives through the warzone and gets hit by a German explosive; he then crawls away from the wreckage into a plethora of dead Russians and is going to shoot some of the German officers who afterwards would kill him because he would not be able to kill all of them. But he meets Vassily who is hiding amongst the dead bodies; he says he knows how to shoot a rifle a little bit. Vassily then shoots the 2 officers and 3 soldiers in one single encounter. Afterwards the propaganda officer becomes friends with Vassily who is promoted to the Sniper division and makes a hero out of him. The rest of the movies doesn’t have too much plot in it mostly action. It mostly involves Vassily playing a dangerous game of wits with the enemy German sniper and of course meeting the girl he loves.

How did the film reinforce and/or change your understanding of that history?

It shows the destructive power of war and even though it shows one of the heroes it doesn’t glorify him because he recognizes that he isn’t the best and he isn’t blood hungry, also almost all of his companion’s die when he goes out in the battlefield EVERY time he goes out.

What did you think of the film?

I really enjoyed this movie for 3 main reasons 1. I love action movies 2. I really liked the scenery 3. I liked the premise of a sniper fight in war torn Stalingrad. However there are some things I didn’t like the fact that almost every character dies except Vassily and his girlfriend and then it ends with an attempted happy ending with them out of the war together. I thought that also it could of brought up what else was happening during the War during the Siege of Stalingrad.

I watched Hotel Rwanda. The film, starring Don Cheadle and Sophie Okonedo, told the story of the Rwandan genocide of 1994. It centered, as you probably know, around the conflict between the Hutus and the Tutsis. When the Belgians left Rwanda after it achieved independence, they put the minority Tutsis in charge instead of the Hutus, who were the majority. The Hutus let their frustrations simmer for quite a while, but then tensions finally boiled over after the President, a Hutu, was assassinated when his plane was shot down. The film chronicles the massacre/genocide of the Tutsis, what tactics the Hutus used, how both sides were affected by the genocide, and how much involvement outside forces had in the conflict.

The film itself centers around Paul Rusesabagina (played subtly by Cheadle), who is the manager of a fancy hotel in Rwanda. Rusesabagina, a Hutu, was married to a Tutsi (Tatiana, played by Okonedo, who gives an odd but affecting performance). When their neighbors, all Tutsis, get paranoid about what's going on, Paul and Tatiana bring them to the hotel for refuge. Pretty soon, thousands are taking refuge in the hotel, but the Hutus soon find out. (I won't say anything more about what happens next, but I'll just say that the film ends on an uplifting note.)

For me, one of the most interesting parts of the film was to watch how desperately the foreign tourists tried to leave the hotel immediately, while the Tutsi refugees didn't complain at all. It was interesting to see how different the two cultures were. However, it was frustrating to watch when, as the foreign tourists were leaving, all they did was watch out the windows of the bus and take pictures of the refugees standing outside the hotel. Not only did the foreigners make no attempt to help, but the journalists who were there largely were not able to get their footage/stories published in foreign media. The refugees/Tutsis were just stuck, with no outside forces willing or able to help.

Overall, it was a good movie. Most of the performances were quite good (especially Cara Seymour as a friend of Paul's), and it was well-paced and well-shot. The score, featuring music from the Afro Celt Sound System, fit the subject matter quite well. Although I think some parts of the conflict were toned-down for the movie, some parts were unflinching in what it showed the audience. Although the subject matter is quite heavy, Hotel Rwanda is an inspirational movie, one that (hopefully) motivates the audience to do some good after it watches it. For example, Foundation Rwanda (www.foundationrwanda.org) is an organization that provides education for children who were born during the genocide. Hotel Rwanda was an interesting viewing experience, and one that I would recommend to others.

I watched Gallipoli. This movie focused on the Battle of Gallipoli in Turkey during World War I. The movie follows two men and their journey to first is apart of the war. It showed how men get enlisted into the war. When Archy is too young to be in the Australian Army he stops at nothing to be apart of it, and drags Frank along with him, even though he didn’t want to be in the army in the first place. The movie shows how the people enlisted in the army only think of “war as a game," until they actually are caught in the middle of it. After they leave Australia they make their way to Egypt when Archy is apart of the Light Horse and Frank is apart of the infantry. When Archy and Frank meet up in Egypt they convince the commander to let Frank into the Light Horse. They then set off for Gallipoli where they endure the hardships and boredom of the trench warfare. Archy and Frank take part in the charge at the Nek, which is to act as a diversion in support of the British landing at Suvla. Frank is then made the runner for the regiment commander. The 8th and 10th Light Horse's attack in three waves across a narrow stretch of exposed ground defended by Turkish machine guns. Even though the men are all being killed right away the commander makes them keep going. In the third wave Archy goes into battle and killed just like everyone else and that is where the movie ends.
The movie reinforced my understanding of the Battle of Gallipoli and the toll it took on the world. I did not know how brutal war was. When men were being killed left and right the army still had anyone press on, even if that meant killing thousands. I actually enjoyed the movie. I normally don’t like history movies (no offense) but I enjoyed this one. It definitely taught me about Gallipoli and the war and it also had people and their stories, which made the movie that much more interesting. I also enjoyed the music in the movie, at times it made the movie more intense, and other times it made the movie less harsh. Overall, I enjoyed this movie.

I chose to watch Enemy at the Gates. This brilliant movie tells the story of Vassili Zaitsev, a young Russian peasant from the Urals, who becomes a prominent sniper dueling against an aristocratic and highly decorated elite German sniper in the pivotal World War II Battle of Stalingrad. This movie features this dramatic duel, a love triangle, political ideology, propaganda, and persecution of the Jews all seen on a stage of horrific bloodshed at staggering human cost.

This movie is really good at showing how horrible the war was. In the opening scenes, we follow a young soldier from loving glances at a pretty girl on a train, to being forced into a hopeless battle against Nazis with machine guns with only a handful of bullets and no gun. If he does not proceed to death by the Nazis, he will be shot by the Russian officers behind him. I felt there had been a lot of effort in this movie to capture a sense of how grim this battle may have been. In the love triangle, the communist ideals are revealed as flawed due to the inequality of men in gifts and in love. This is a wonderful movie!

Eric Polacek
Black Hawk Down

This is a war film that sets a new standard for war films. Black Hawk Down puts itself in a class of Drama matched only by Saving Private Ryan. This is an example of a film that puts itself in a major conflict that had a big influence on modern US foreign policy and manages not to make a fool of itself. The film does an incredible job of portraying the human side of the characters while maintaining a heavy degree of bad*^^ery. The film maintains a heavy sense of the visceral throughout the duration of the combat scenes while managing to build anticipation for all of them. The score is beautifully composed and remains subtle enough that it is there but not overt and does not interrupt the action. Easily the best war movie ever made.

Dalia & Amanda

Hotel Rwanda

The 1994 genocide in Rwanda. This film depicted the fact that this genocide was one of the worst events in history. It portrayed the fact that the hutus and tutsi refugees were abandoned by the world in a time of need, because it was not called a genocide. It also showed the struggle of Paul Rusesabagina and how he saved 1268 tutsi and hutu refugees.

After watching this movie it was extremely frustrating to think that our history book only had a small maybe 200 word write up on the horrible event. This movie truly showed us what went on between the Tutsi and Hutus and how horrible the hatred of some of the Tutsi left around 1 million people dead lying in the streets.

It was an extremely sad movie. Having to watch these people die while the world including the United States did nothing, was an embarrassment. While watching the 'whites' load the buses leaving the 'blacks' behind was angering. How could we possibly have left those innocent people there to die? How could we have denied the fact that a genocide was occurring? It is really, really embarrassing.

I watched Black Hawk Down, which had an enormous cast that included Josh Hartnett, Tom Sizemore and Ewan McGregor and was directed by Ridley Scott.

It is about the Battle of Mogadishu, in which US soldiers attempted to capture Mohamed Farah Aidid, the cruel military leader of Somalia, and some people that worked with him. Of course there wouldn't be a movie if something didn't go wrong and the mission that was supposed to last for an hour ends up lasting a little more than 12 hours. As the name suggests, two Black Hawk helicopters are hit by RPGs and sent crashing to the ground. The majority of the film follows the rest of the soldiers trying to get to the crash sites and survive as the thousands of Somali militia brutally attack them.

It really showed the power of the brutal leaders in these poor African countries. Aidid severely oppressed his people, even preventing them from taking the food shipments that the US sent and keeping all of the food for himself. One thing that I found very interesting was that when the US soldiers returned from the battle, there were many Somalis cheering for them. This showed how even though there were so many Somalis fighting against the US, there were also many Somalis that really wanted their brutal leader gone and viewed the US as a hero, not an enemy. Another thing that interested me was the sheer number of Somalis that were fighting against the US. It seemed like they were around every corner and I was astounded by the bravery that the US soldiers showed.

I absolutely loved this film. It was basically one huge tension-filled action scene. Think the first 25 minutes of Saving Private Ryan but for 2 and a half hours! I was on the edge of my seat for the whole movie and I felt very emotionally attached to the US soldiers. The only complaint I had about this movie was that when all of the soldiers had their uniforms on, it was very hard to tell who was who unless you memorized all of their names! There were about 25 major characters and it was hard to keep track of who was on the screen at what time. But in any case, I highly recommend this film to anyone that likes a suspenseful military action movie or even anyone that just wants an emotional experience. It was easily one of the best movies I've seen in the past couple of months.

Gandhi

This film portrayed decades of India’s history by telling the story of Mohandas Gandhi’s campaign for India’s independence by using nonviolent methods. However, the film began with the time Gandhi spent in South Africa during apartheid. This provided an appropriate premise for Gandhi’s campaign in India by showing the viewer how Gandhi developed his nonviolent ideology. The film showed apartheid from a different perspective because instead of showing the racial separation between the Africans and Caucasians it showed the separation between the Indians and the Caucasians.

After Gandhi’s efforts in South Africa gained South African Indians more rights he went to India and continued his nonviolent efforts there. Gandhi’s boycott on British cloth was highlighted by depicting many scenes in which Indian’s are using spinning wheels to make their own cloth. The Salt March and Amritsar Massacre both showed the shocking brutality that the British imposed upon protesting Indians and the faith the Indian people had in Gandhi. The frustration of the British was almost comical because they did not know how to react to Gandhi’s unusual techniques. As Gandhi said, “They are not in control; we are. That is the strength of civil disobedience.”

Due to this India gained its independence but tensions between the Muslims and Hindus increased. The Partition of India was portrayed in the film showing the violent monstrosities involved in the relocation. In order to draw attention to and end the violence, Gandhi fasted and proclaimed that he would not eat until the violence ended. This is one of numerous examples in the film that demonstrates Gandhi’s willingness to struggle for peace and stick to his philosophies, a rare and valuable trait.

Gandhi’s tale is a story of success, but fraught with hardships. The film allowed the viewers to grasp how truly amazing Gandhi’s efforts were. Anyone who believes that individuals cannot make a difference has not been educated on Gandhi’s work.

Hotel Rwanda- Lindsay Coleman

I watched the movie Hotel Rwanda. It is about the genocide in Rwanda that took place in 1994. This movie really changed my understanding of Rwanda. Rwanda seemed much more modernized than i thought. They had decent houses and cars, which I would not have expected. I liked how the movie showed the genocide from the Tutsi prospective as well as the U.N. soldiers. The events in the movies seemed very real and were represented in a very realistic way. This movie did a great job of showing what life was like for the people in Rwanda and showing how horrible this genocide was.

I also liked how they explained the history of the Belgians taking over then leaving after separating the the Hutus and the Tutsis. I thought i was interesting how there was a height difference between the two groups. The movie explained how the Tutsi were superior to the Hutu until the Belgians left so the Hutu wanted to take revenge. Over all I really enjoyed this movie. I would recommend it to anyone.

I watched the movie Rommel: The Last Knight. The video described Erwin Rommel’s involvement in WWI and WWII. Rommel was called the last knight because he was a loyal, charismatic, decent and a courageous nationalistic man who blindly fought for a satanic cause. After returning from the Africa Korps, Erwin Rommel wanted to have a truce with the allies. Rommel’s idea of a truce was short lived when he was forced to choose between drinking poison or sending his family to a concentration camp. He chose to drink the poison and was pronounced dead in October, 1944 because of a stroke. I was surprised to discover that Rommel had a vague understanding of Hitler’s genocidal plan yet he obediently followed every one of his orders. Also, it was interesting to learn that Rommel did not have a military background but was believed to have a sixth sense for battle strategies. Rommel’s techniques were armor blitzkrieg in the purest form. He could find a way to defeat an enemy even when he was outnumbered 3 to 1. Rommel could think like an enemy soldier and knew how they would react to different situations. I did not enjoy watching a movie about a Nazi war hero killing Allied Forces, yet I was intrigued to learn about how this man outmaneuvered his foes. Overall, on a historical level I would recommend others to watch the movie.

Hannah Myers

* What film did you watch?
I watched Lawrence of Arabia!
* What elements of 20th century "World History" was touched on by the film?
Well, the beginning of world War I, for sure. It focused on the Turk/Arab feud involving not only those parties but also the British (wanting Arabia, of course): the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Turks. It was a different perspective on the first World War and one man (Lawrence, obviously), which was interesting.
* How did the film reinforce and/or change your understanding of that history?
First of all, it was really nice to see a movie surrounding World War I NOT telling the typical European battle story. I knew basically nothing about that war coming into tenth grade, and while we covered it well in class, I still had a blurry image of the issues taking place outside of Europe. The Turks against the Arabs--such a bloody time for all groups involved, and in a place that faces these EXACT same problems today! I had known nothing of T.E. Lawrence, so this film definitely educated me about him. His involvement with the British army was very interesting, considering all that he did for the Arab people and the Arab Revolt. It was shocking to see such brutal and important (look at what became of the British army's desires for Arabia!) conflicts happening in a place that I hardly think of when World War I is mentioned--new perspective is a plus.
* What did you think of the film?
Very well done! My parents have been telling me I need to see this movie for years because it's one of their personal favorites, and since I agree with my parents' sense in good films, this one was very good. I enjoy old films--I think that while they can be cheesy, overdone, or not informative enough, they can also bring a sense of purity to a plotline (real or fictitious), as was the case with this story. There was enough action for it to be engaging in an adventurous sense, but not too much to spoil the actual issues taking place (and maybe I'm just not one for movies with the amount of gore that, say, 300 displayed). The cast was GREAT--most of these guys I'd heard of at least once, due to other old movies floating around our house, but I'd never actually seen them onscreen, and I feel that this was a wonderful introduction to the talents of Alec Guinness, Anthony Quinn, Claude Rains, and more (I'm not forgetting Omar Sharif--I love him!).

What film did you watch?
The Kite Runner

What elements of 20th century "World History" was touched on by the film?

Throughout the movie The Kite Runner there were many different elements of the 20th century “World History”. In the beginning and throughout the movie there was a strict class structure, for example the Hazara (like Hassan) were discriminated against, beaten and used as servants, and still are. Another element of the 20th century shown in the film was the spread of western culture throughout other countries. This was shown in the movie when Hassan and Amir go to see Western films when they had the allowance for it. Some other events shown are the rebellion against communism that came with the invasion of the Soviets, which is why Amir and his father had to flee to Pakistan because Amir’s father spoke badly against communism. In the conclusion of the movie, the Taliban had come to power when Amir returns to Afghanistan. When he does he has to put on a beard because there was a beard law, the Taliban had many strict laws that meant that there were many killings and stoning. This was shown in the movie when getting stoned to death punished a woman.

How did the film reinforce and/or change your understanding of that history?

The Kite Runner really helped characterize an enormous historical event in a way that helped me understand the horrible situation that the Afghani people had to go through in the turmoil of the soviet invasion and the Taliban rising to power and seizing control. This really reinforced how hard and how dangerous a life in Afghanistan was, when the Taliban took control. It also made the situation more real, that something this horrible could actually happen.

What did you think of the film? (Comment on whatever you would like.)

The film really helped me understand more about Afghanistan/ Middle East life prior to the Taliban. I also really enjoyed this film a lot; it captured all of the events that we had learned about in class for Afghanistan. It was very powerful because it showed more of a personal touch to the history. Unlike a history textbook I was able to see a personal racial tension and the historical events in a different way. It also surprised me a little especially when Amir betrayed Hassan. He was always helping out Amir and he truly was as good friend and I thought Amir could be brave enough to stand up for such a great friend.

World History 10 Extra Credit
Austin Smith

I watched Black Hawk Down, which was about a United States invasion of the Somali capital, Mogadishu. The event took place in October of 1993. The invasion was an attempt to take down powerful warlords in Somalia. The United States Military expected the invasion to be very quick and figured it would not take more than a couple of hours. Unfortunately, the invasion actually took about 12 hours. The invasion started with many US troops storming the capital in trucks and helicopters. But, the Somali’s were able to put up a fight using many RPG’s, which were used to take down US helicopters. After two US helicopters were downed, the mission became more of a rescue mission rather than an invasion. Without the helicopters, the forces on the ground were stranded in Mogadishu, while Somali’s attempted to kill them. This film touched a little on the unit of terrorism. It showed the common trend of how a small group of rebels can control an entire population in a country.
This movie changed my understanding of countries that have warlords in power. In the beginning of the film, I assumed that the US invasion would be very simple. It was an organized army vs. an un-organized warlord army. Throughout the whole movie, the Somali fighters seemed very un-organized and basically just shot RPG’s at everything. But, to my surprise, this tactic actually proved fairly successful. I thought the film was interesting, I liked watching two forces that were very differently trained and had many different tactics correspond in an invasion.

Adam Smith

What film did you watch?

The Kite Runner

What elements of 20th century "World History" was touched on by the film?

The Kite Runner covered much of the troubling times in Afghanistan. It touched on communism and the Soviet invasion. This invasion set the scene for a highly unstable political situation. Following this invasion many fled the country, including the main character and his father. It was obvious that Afghanistan was being influenced by western ideas at the time. There was also some description about the class structure: Mullahs were the wealthy educated class, and the Hazara were the Persian speaking working class. From the political instability and the gap in wealth, the Taliban formed, and became a major player in the on goings of Afghanistan.

How did the film reinforce and/or change your understanding of that history?

The Kite Runner took place during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and then the take over by the Taliban. I realized how abusive and destructive the Soviet Union was to Afghanistan. The Kite Runner also reinforced how difficult and dangerous life in Afghanistan was when the Taliban eventually gained control. Even though I have learned about how the Soviet Union took control of Afghanistan, this movie really helped me understand what this change meant to the people, and how it allowed the country to be over run by groups like the Taliban.

What did you think of the film? (Comment on whatever you would like.)

I thought that it was a very emotional movie; however, it was also very historically accurate. The plot kept me engaged and I also feel that I learned a lot about how Afghanistan got to their present day situation. It really showed the turmoil that ripped through the country after the Soviet Union invaded, and the desperate and dangerous situation that the people of Afghanistan were thrown into. I would definitely recommend this movie to anyone who wants a great story and a lesson in history.

I watched Hotel Rwanda. It is about the Rwandan Genocide in 1994, a result of imperialism by Europeans. The Hutus were killing the Tutsis, who are different groups assigned by the Belgians. They put the Tusis, the minority, in charge of the Hutus, the majority, causing unrest. The Hutus, or at least some of them, decided eliminating the Tutsis would be the "best" solution. The movie is mostly about Paul Rusesabagina, the manager of Des Milles Collines, a hotel in Rwanda. Although he is Hutu, he married a Tutsi woman. His Tutsi neighbours trust him, and turn to him when they are in danger, and he allows them to stay at his hotel. Paul has to deal with protecting his family and neighbours from the danger surrounding them.

This movie helped me see what it would have been like to be living during the genocide. There were people trying to kill other people everywhere, on every street, without limit. It would have been extremely difficult, seeing people you know killing your family and your friends for something they cannot control. Watching this movie, I became very upset with the United Nations and all the other Western countries, as they all appear to be incredibly stupid. All Clinton cared about was getting the US citizens out of Rwanda, without stopping to try and help the Tutsis - the ones who were more in danger. I also wasn't sure why the French were supplying the Hutu army. I thought some of the most powerful lines of the movie were, "They are not here to help us" and "They will say 'Oh my God, that's horrible,' and then go on eating their dinners." The first line was referring to the peacekeeping troops, and the second to everyone else. No one was doing anything. If the movie had been made during the genocide, it would be unlikely that many people would jump out of their seats and board a plane to Rwanda to help. Even know, there is other bad stuff happening, but people don't get up and leave. I thought Hotel Rwanda was very well made, and I would definitely recommend it.

I watched The Killing Fields, directed by Roland Joffé. Like all good war movies, The Killing Fields shows the chaos and fear that comes with war. The brutal takeover of Cambodia by the Khmer Rouge and the brutal rule they imposed upon the country is clearly demonstrated in the film. The movie follows the life of an American journalist, Sydney Schanberg, as he travels around Cambodia with his interpreter companion, Dith Pran, getting stories and experiencing horrible events. When the United States Air Force accidentally drops a bomb on a small town, Sydney is denied access to the town in an obvious U.S. coverup. His anger towards the U.S. propaganda is intensified when the U.S. military presence in Cambodia asks him to report a dumbed-down version of the story. It's impressive how in an age of outstanding media coverage (1973) that things could be covered up so efficiently. It made me realize that such occurrences are probably commonplace today in the media, but I can't be sure. The film continues and the Khmer Rouge take over Cambodia.

Propaganda and the power of the media play huge roles in this movie. It seems that the years in which this movie takes place are really when the media starts to play a major role in politics. The Killing Fields captures the desperation of people in a war-torn country, and the perseverance of people outside the country who want to help.

I thought the movie was wonderful, yet horrifying. I like that it took a perspective of someone with a low level of influence but enormous passion. The protagonists seemed honorable and it made me sympathize with them. John Lennon's "Imagine" makes the movie even better.

I watched Hotel Rwanda. It was about the Rwandan genocide in 1994 where the Hutus were targeting the Tutsis because they were favored by the Belgians before they left. In one scene it is mentioned that they were trying to kill children to wipe out the next generation of Tutsis. This particular movie is about Paul Rusesabagina and how the hotel he was assistant manager at turned into kind of a refugee camp for Tutsis and Hutus. Even though he himself was a Hutu, making him "safe", his wife and most other people he knew were Tutsis. He protected them by working with the U.N. for protection and many times bribing the Hutus for their lives. While he starts off not wanting to take in refugees because his hotel is already full, he realizes it is his personal duty to protect them, even leaving his family. At the end, they finally get behind the Rebel lines and are safe there where they take their family and other children to Tanzania.

I really liked this movie. I thought it got the point across without being too graphic, although the actual genocide was much much worse. I thought Don Cheadle's performance was very believable, because he wasn't sure of himself all the time. He wasn't playing the hero; he wanted to make sure his family was safe above all and he didn't even want to take in refugees at the beginning. That makes him even more of a hero because despite all that he still saved more than a thousand people. I liked the performance of the relationship between him and his wife; it makes the movie more powerful.

This movie made it easier to understand how other nations could let this happen. It's easy to think, "How could they ever not intervene?" but really why aren't we helping other nations in trouble right now? Their use of children is especially powerful; there's a scene where a priest tries to get children on a U.S. bus and the man tells him they can't take any Rwandans. Also a woman describing the murder of children at an orphanage was very hard to hear but opened my eyes to what happened. Overall I really liked this movie and would probably watch it again.

I watched Cry, Beloved Country. This film talked about the apartheid in South Africa. It was a story which showed the segregation and hard feelings between the blacks and the whites. At first the movie was confusing because it was telling two different stories about two very different people (one white and one black). In the end though it tied into one story. The film made me understand more of the tensions between the blacks and the whites, and even some whites to whites, and blacks between blacks. I liked how it showed that not all sides were strictly segregated. In the movie there was a white man who was fighting for black rights.
Every time I think about these apartheids, it makes me so angry and frustrated! How can people think this way? Why would they not like someone just because of the color of their skin? They can't just go into their towns and cities and take over, making people move away from the places they've lived their whole entire lives. Unfortunately, not many people think this way. Another thing that actually made me cry during the movie (no joke. There were actual tears) was the feeling of helplessness. The blacks had no power in their own country. In the movie the main guy's son (who was black) "accidentally" kills the other main guy's son (who was white) while breaking into his house. Little did he know though, the son of the white man was extraordinary in the sense that he was fighting for black rights. And he gets murdered! The black man eventually gets hanged because of his crime. He couldn't do anything - there was no hope. There was a famous line in the movie said by a reverend that really made me think. He said, "My one great fear is that when the white man turns to loving, we (the black people) will turn to hating." What he says is true, and is a good question/fear. Do you think that what he said has happened? (dun dun dun)

Matthew Chambers

What film did you watch?
I watched the movie Gallipoli, which portrayed a historical version of the events that took place during the battle of the Nek at Gallipoli during the First World War, and more broadly, the enlistment of Australian troops in the Allied forces throughout.

What elements of 20th century "World History" did the film touch on?

The most important elements of 20th century “World History” that appeared in the film emanated from a wide variety of topics: World War One and the involvement of previously British colonies, racism, xenophobia, the different perspectives of war, the usage of new military technologies and strategies were only a few of the topics described. First and foremost, this movie did a good job of explaining the views of the Australians quite accurately. Their motives for entering the war were actually unfocused and illogical. The only evidence that one of the main characters could give in the name of fighting was that if the Germans defeated the Allies in Europe, what would stop them getting to Australia, but even that’s farfetched. Racism also played an extensive role in the movie s some of the officers made note of how the Egyptians had darker skin (also the Australian servant), thus drawing attention to their physical differences and their so-called inferior characteristics. Another element described in this movie was an underlying theme of xenophobia, particularly towards the locals of Egypt and other trading ports on the way to Gallipoli. The army generals spoke a lot of how the locals could not be trusted for they were dangerous and unpredictable. Lastly, the effects of a newly introduced, successfully utilized weapon in combat were also evident. As the Australians climbed over the trench walls, they were mowed down by Turkish machine-gun fire, something relatively new to warfare, as the Allies were largely unprepared for what they encountered.

How did the film reinforce and/or change your understanding of that history?
It, like the last movie, gave me more of a detailed, personal look into REAL history, the emotions behind the words written in some textbook. I could’ve never imagined the destruction many of the Australians faced on the front lines in Gallipoli, but with the aid of this movie, I was able to experience what might of never been possible. This movie reinforced my idea that multimedia in relation to the presentation of historical facts can be extremely influential in someone’s ability to absorb the information. Pictures leave more of an imprint than words and videos, even more so. I felt that history deserves being filled out by first-hand accounts and accurate recreations, as history is a lot more than statistics and the technicalities of events non-important. History is a process of making inferences from the past and applying them to the future. I felt that Gallipoli did a very nice job of filling in the facts with some emotion and visual aids that made the struggle over the Dardanelles a little more important.

What did you think of the film? (Comment on whatever you would like.)

I felt like that without the background of World War One that we covered in class, this movie would be too vague to portray much of the important information and thus I didn’t rate it very highly. It didn’t describe any of what was happening and it made everything very confusing for the viewer. It still does, however, do a good job of showing the world many of the Australians’ defining character traits and their response to World War One itself. Overall, I was heartbroken that the main character died in the end but It gave rise to a very clear ending and the whole philosophy that no matter how good someone does in life, in both leisure and work, they still may be affected by chance risk. When it comes down to war, it doesn’t matter if a good man lives or dies, it depends of whether or not the man was lucky that day. It’s just how earth works. Life’s unfair, but we just have to deal with it.

* What film did you watch?

I watch Black Hawk Down, starring Josh Hartnett, Tom Sizemore and Ewan McGregor and was directed by Ridley Scott.

* What elements of 20th century "World History" was touched on by the film?

The movie was about the Battle of Mogadishu. A small group of elite US soldiers from the Delta Force and Army Rangers went in to Mogadishu, Somalia to try and capture important political figures including the military leader Mohamed Farah Aidid. The soldiers went on a mission that was supposed to take less than thirty minutes but ended up getting attacked by thousands of Somalian Militia and two blackhawk helicopters ended up getting shot down by Somalian RPGs.

* How did the film reinforce and/or change your understanding of that history?

The film really made me realize how horrible some of the living conditions were if you were not an important person. I also realized how hard it is to fight in urban areas like that when you can't tell who your enemies are or where they are coming from.

* What did you think of the film? (Comment on whatever you would like.)

It was definitely a well put together film. I'm sure some things were changed just to make it more pleasing to the public and to gain money but for the most part it seemed to be historically accurate.

Extra credit movie - Laurel Winsor

The movie i watch was "The Kite Runner," it touched on the history of Pakistan and Afghanistan, with the Soviet invasion and the Taliban. The movie was about a young boy Amir whos father was a business man that had power, but when the Soviets invade Afghanistan they fled the country to Pakistan to remain safe. This film reinforced for me how the governments change so much from one government to they other. And just how unsafe the country was. Because when Amir returns to his country it is totally different it actually smells different and looked extremely different from what he remembers it being. The times have changed so much. The governments have actually banned kite flying in Afghanistan. I thought that the movie was a great movie it really shows a story that people should see, it puts things in to perspective that horrible things are happening in other parts of the world and how hard it is for people that it effect directly and just what they have to do to survive and how strong they are. So i think this was a good movie because it showed the struggle really well.

What film did you watch?
The Killing Fields

What elements of 20th century "World History" was touched on by the film?
The U.S.’s secret bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam war.

How did the film reinforce and/or change your understanding of that history?
I never knew that the U.S. bombed Cambodia. I was sickened by the damage and death caused by the “mistakes” in the air raids. I also did not really know that much about the Khmer Rouge. It was surprising to see their ideas and I was incredibly surprised about the different groups of Khmer Rouge fighting and killing each other. At first I did not understand why the French embassy was a safe haven but I learned that the Khmer Rouge liked the French enough to let them stay. This movie was set in a time when the U.S. government kept too many secrets.

What did you think of the film? (Comment on whatever you would like.)
I thought that it was well done. Some of the music was a little crazy but the camera was easy to follow. The story was well presented and powerful and I liked the happy ending.

I watched an RPG shot down BLACK HAWK DOWN it was about a mission in Somalia by the United States a black hawk. The mission was a food mission for civilians in Somalia. Somalia warlord pretty much ran the country and controlled the people within the country. They were the ones who shot down the helicopter. Delta squad saves the solders that were trapped in a building bogged down by Somalian gunfire. Delta saved them and brought them back. 19 total solders died in the mission. This was not meant to be a war.

What film did you watch?

I just watched "Animal Farm", the 1999 version.

What elements of "World History" was touched on by the film?

"Animal Farm" is a story about a farm where the oppressed animals rebel against their owner, Mr. Jones and take over the farm. Doing so, they establish Animal Farm with a society of equal animals, fulfilling the late pig Old Major's dream. With leadership from the pigs, the animals try to stay alive, be successful, and spread the message of Animalism. The elements of World History touched on by this movie were all about Communism and the Russian Revolution and author George Orwell's interpretation of it (and the movie-maker's). Animal Farm is all about Communism and the Russian Revolution, with most of the characters representing real historical figures from the Russian Revolution. For example, Old Major, the inventor of Animalism represented the inventor of Communism, Karl Marx, while the exiled Snowball represented Leon Trotsky with Napoleon as the more corrupt Stalin. Many characters represent the different types of people in Russia at the time, such as hardworking but naive, selfish, skeptical, secret police, and blind followers. The dog Jessie in the film had a main role in the movie, but really no role other than the mother of the puppies in the book, and doesn't really represent anyone I know of.

How did the film reinforce and/or change your understanding of that history?

I've read the book Animal Farm and seen the play last fall, so this movie as well just added to my comprehension and memory of the flawed system of Communism/Animalism and the course of the Russian Revolution. I understand the roles of the characters with greater depth, and enjoyed the slightly different take on the story with the dog Jessie narrating.

What did you think of the film? (Comment on whatever you would like.)

I kind of liked it, probably less than the book and the play, but it was almost amazingly still entertaining after being so Animal Farmed-out. I liked the addition of the Napoleon propaganda video, it was funny. The story was, like the book, play, and recounting of the real Russian Revolution, still a sad one