Blood Diamond

Blood Diamond (2006) is about rampant and thoughtless colonialism. Built on the somewhat fragile framework of a plot involving an African man kidnapped by rebels and forced to work in the diamond minds of Sierra Leone, and the white diamond smuggler and American journalist who help reunite him with his family, the film's main purpose is to make us aware of the damage caused by the western presence in Africa over the past two hundred years. That presence in this film is embodied in the blood diamond, stones mined and sold by military and rebel groups to finance war.

Blood Diamond presents frequent scenes of disorder and chaos, corpses in the streets, women and children shot down by boy soldiers, violence, and inhumanity of every sort. Several incredibly brutal scenes in which people are shot down in a wild frenzy of gunfire—girls and boys, women, old people, children--are unsettling in the extreme. They suggest a complete breakdown in the social and moral fabric of humankind, the utter failure of the restraints and values that make it possible for people to live together. More than any others these scenes drive home the object lessons this film seeks to convey.

Most of these scenes are the result of African on African brutality, and Solomon Vandy, the kidnapped African, wonders aloud why his own people can commit such acts on one another, but behind those acts is the heritage of the Western colonial presence, which continues to make itself felt today in the form of a burgeoning and increasingly complex global economy. The diamond smuggler, Danny Archer (Leonardo DiCaprio), a native white South African, first appears on the scene as the worst of colonials, adeptly smuggling diamonds from one country or buyer to another, doing whatever is necessary to succeed at what he does, regardless of the consequences to others. The reporter, Maddy Bowen (Jennifer Connelly), ostensibly wants to write about the horrors and injustices being perpetrated in Africa, though ultimately it comes out the vicarious experience of crises, whether in Africa or Afghanistan, are what turn her on and give her the chance to advance her career. She, however, does have a conscience, while Danny Archer apparently does not.

Danny Archer and Solomon Vandy (Djimon Hounsou) occupy most of our attention in the film. DiCaprio once again proves himself a fine actor. Here he plays a ruthless smuggler who gradually discovers his conscience. It is a not entirely credible transformation that he undergoes, and it is only clear at the end of the film, once his fate is clear, that the change has actually occurred. But the issue of credibility is more the fault of the screenwriters. DiCaprio does as much as he can with the character, and he is excellent. Hounsou, an actor I have not seen before, is equally effective as the simple fishermen torn away from his family. His wife and daughters are held in an internment camp; his young son is kidnapped by rebels and trained to become a child soldier. Solomon, the movie would have us know, is the most civilized and moral character in the film. He is driven solely by his passion to recover his family.

At the center of the film is a large pink diamond Solomon finds and hides while working at a diamond mind. His supervisor sees him hide the diamond but an attack by guerillas prevents him from taking the stone. Gradually word gets out about the diamond, and Danny Archer sets his sights on Solomon as a result. They have an uneasy relationship. Solomon is willing to lead Danny to the diamond because he believes doing so will help him recover his family. Archer is willing (somewhat inconsistently) to help Solomon because he wants the diamond, which he sees as his ticket out of Africa.

One argument with Blood Diamond might be that it is simply one more in a long line of films about Africa seen through the eyes of white characters. The argument certainly carries force, but one must take what one can get. The film is directed towards a predominantly white audience, of course. There is presumption in the idea that white and non-African filmmakers have a basis for presenting the story through the eyes of African characters—what do they know about the experience of Africans, except that which they can infer indirectly—precisely the perspective we have in this film. Solomon Vandy is one of the three main characters in this film, and he is African. Ultimately, while I think it is entirely appropriate to complain about the dearth of commercially available African films by African filmmakers in this country—whatever the reasons for their absence—Blood Diamond tells a story that involves Africans and non-Africans, blacks and whites, Christians and Muslims and others. It is not only or merely an African tale, but instead is about several centuries of history and the cruel heritage of western colonialism.

The De Beers diamond company in the film is named the Van De Kaap conglomerate. It is shown in league with all the other nefarious interests in the film—business interests, diamond merchants, government officials, military officers, rebel soldiers, even American women who long for big impressive wedding rings. Everyone is caught up in the corruption, and the film doesn't draw subtle distinctions. It's a fictional film set in the context of an actual situation. Though it makes broad sweeping generalizations that are valuable in themselves, they don't stand up neatly under close scrutiny. The facts underlying the historical and political situation the film illuminates are probably more complicated and disturbing than even this film would have us know. By calling attention to the problem, and perhaps by stimulating viewers to seek further information, the film does a service.

In the end Solomon (apparently with Maddy's advice) offers to sell the diamond to the Van De Kaap conglomerate only if he is reunited with his family. Shortly thereafter, his family appears, transported in by helicopter, and he sells the stone for two million dollars. In the final scene we see him treated as a hero, though he has used the diamond to get what he wants. Does this mean that he becomes just another version of Danny Archer? The film doesn't draw distinctions that discriminating. But in allowing the audience to feel relieved that Solomon's own personal problems are resolved when he recovers his family and receives payment for the stone, the film manages to leave the situation in Sierra Leone behind and neatly forgotten as the credits roll.

Blood Diamond is set in 1999, and perhaps the speech that Solomon gives at the end is supposed to make us think that he has a role in convincing diamond merchants to adopt the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme, intended to curb the sale of blood diamonds. The success of the Scheme remains under question, and though the scale of the problem as illustrated in the film may have been reduced, it remains an issue.