Julie Navickas

ENG 456: World Literature

Ethnographic Film, Popular Media and Hollywood Spectacle: An Analysis of Blood Diamond as a Representation of Post-colonial African Media

1

Introduction

An ex-mercenary turned smuggler. A Mende fisherman. Amid the explosive civil war overtaking 1999 Sierra Leone, these men join for two desperate missions: recovering a rare pink diamond of immense value and rescuing the fisherman’s son, conscripted as a child solider into the brutal rebel forces ripping a swath of torture and bloodshed across the alternately beautiful and ravaged countryside.

This is the synopsis found on the DVD packaging of the film Blood Diamond (2006).

Flashed alongside are rave third-party reviews and Academy Award nominations. The film

boasts an “A-list” cast and their credentials, including Leonard DiCaprio and his nomination for

best performance by an actor in a leading role and Djimon Hounsou, who was tabbed for a

nomination in the category of best performance by an actor in a supporting role. With the high

praise of “spectacular, exciting and stunningly well made,” by David Denby of The New Yorker

and “an underrated thriller” by Richard Roeper of the Chicago Sun Times, pop culture icons

certainly recommend the general public experience the film for the price of admission.

Online, the Internet Movie Database (IMBD), a popular resource for moviegoers,

summarizes Blood Diamond as “Archer, a man tortured by his roots, has made himself a key

player in the business of conflict diamonds. Political unrest is rampant in Sierra Leone as African

natives fight tooth for tooth.” While the audiences for these synopses may be persuaded to invest

their time and/or money in the film, they may be numb to the gross injustice Blood Diamond

imposed upon the representation of the African culture. Before the viewer even unwraps the

DVD from its plastic prison, the representation of the African culture is forced upon the

consumers’ minds. Depictions about the film’s content immediately portray the African

population as primitive, literally fighting a bloody battle “tooth for tooth.” The espoused

ideology pigeons the African culture, comparing and reducing its population to animals who rip

each other apart with their very teeth. The African land itself is subsequently identified as

2

“alternately beautiful,” firmly imposing the assumption that the Western consumer could not

possibly look at Africa as a land of standalone beauty, unless immediately compared to the

alternative civilized Western nations. A “ravaged countryside” is the simplistic description the

African land is given, nothing more, nothing less.

To be fair and accurate, Blood Diamond is not the first Hollywood creation to degrade the

African culture, or to describe the entire continent as a singular civilization at war. In fact, this

surface depiction has become commonplace. From Stephen Sommers’ The Mummy (1996) to

Richard Haggard’s King Solomon’s Mines (2004), to Terry George’s Hotel Rwanda (2004), the

Hollywood representation of Africa, even during the past two decades, is consistently inaccurate

and asserting of an ever-present division between Western subjectivity and primitive “otherness”

(Rony, 1996).

Hollywood cinema is not the only place today where representations of Africa are

reduced to primitive depictions. Popular culture has the ability to strategically craft images and

provide its consumers with a preconceived notion of the semantically inferior “Third World.”

From the primitive images of popular magazines like National Geographic, to news broadcasts

that strategically utilize the most sensational, jarring, and brutal images taken out of context, to

popular musical artists today, a rushing current directs viewers toward a general belief: Africa is

uncivilized and needs Western civilization to rescue it.

And even in seemingly noble efforts, the message prevails. For example, in 2014 the

popular pop/punk alternative rock band Yellowcard chose to feature a long standing African

crisis related to the Lord’s Resistance Army in their music video “One Bedroom.” While their

goal was likely to educate fans about the crisis and garner critical support, the selected images of

Africa are consistent with negative, violent depictions, resulting in miseducation. While this

3

particular example alone cannot capture the entirety of popular culture representation, it stands to

imply that this preconceived notion that Africa is indeed a nation at eternal war, primitive to the

very core, and unworthy of value is absolutely accurate. It is the purpose of this paper to unpack

and critique the blinders placed on Western society through the lens of Hollywood film.

Within the context of the dominant Western civilization African ideology, this paper

provides a working foundation for the representation of ethnographic cinema in Hollywood

spectacle, focusing primarily on the 2006 film Blood Diamond. Specifically, this paper argues

that Blood Diamond not only remains consistent with the previous depictions of Hollywood

cinema’s representations of the African culture and how it is ethnographically documented, but

addresses specifically how films in this genre indulge in overgeneralizations and gloss over

cultural specificities. Drawing primarily from Fatimah Tobing Rony’s (1996) framework on

ethnographic cinema and its ties to indigenous cultures, this paper analyzes Blood Diamond and

offers an in-depth look into the way African culture is represented in Hollywood cinema through

the use of textual analysis, a process employed for interpreting messages manifested across

cultural contexts.

Theoretical Framework

Defining Ethnographic Cinema

Before turning to a review of existing literature, theoretical frameworks, and research

conducted in this area of study, it is imperative to first identify and define the nature of

ethnographic film and its relationship to Hollywood spectacle. Accordingly to Macdougall

(1969), a renowned ethnographic filmmaker and writer on visual anthropology and

documentary cinema, ethnographic film is defined as:

…any film which seeks to reveal one society to another. It may be concerned with the physical life of a people or with the nature of their social experience. Since these are also

4

the subjects of anthropology, we tend to associate ethnographic filmmaking with anthropologists, but the two are not invariably linked.

Similarly, ethnographic film is often closely aligned with documentary film both in its history

and form. Scholars have attempted to differentiate the two by categorizing films as either

“ethnographic documentary” or “anthropologically intended cinema.” The popular categorization

of ethnographic film, from the perspective of Western cultures, is any film about any non-

Western culture, and often seen as “exotic” as critically noted by Ruby (1996). Ruby goes on to

argue for an even stricter definition of ethnographic film than Macdougall, pegging it as

“Limited to productions by individuals with anthropological training, preferably at a professional

level combined with a media production background.”

Rony (1996) furthers this description by not only solidifying the genre’s direct ties to the

field of anthropology, but its role in popular Hollywood cinema. Accordingly to Rony,

ethnography is a development stemmed directly from anthropology. While ethnography is

primarily a written craft, it extends to the silver screen in today’s popular culture. Rony states:

In the popular imagination an “ethnographic film” is akin to a National Geographic special which purports to portray whole cultures within the space of an hour or two. The viewer is presented with an array of subsistence activities, kinship, religion, myth, ceremonial ritual, music and dance, and – in what may be taken as the genre’s defining trope – some form of animal sacrifice. Like a classic ethnography which encapsulates a culture in one volume, an ethnographic film becomes a metonym for an entire culture.

What is particularly revealing about Rony’s assessment and description of an ethnographic film

is its direct relation and implementation of Hollywood spectacle. Rony asserts that through this

particular medium (cinema), the entire concept of ethnography is tied up into a neat little bow of

one to two hours in length and directly solidifies the representation of a particular culture in the

minds’ of its consumers. The time constraints in and of themselves directly impact the message

depicted in the film; moreover, only particular concepts of a culture are revealed, most likely

5

pertaining to the commonplace misunderstandings and misrepresentations of the holistic culture.

Therefore, the danger in ethnographic cinema becomes its overindulgence in sweeping

generalizations and inability (and refusal) to illuminate the innumerable intricacies and nuances

present within and throughout cultures. In today’s 20-seconds or less society, catchy, easily

remembered metonyms secure one’s perception of a brand of mayonnaise, but more dangerously,

one’s summation of cultures and civilizations. Such is that, a native of India is suddenly

perceived as a “slumdog” as derived from depictions in Slumdog Millionaire. Must we forget,

there are approximately one billion individuals living in India speaking more than 120

languages?

Leaving the inherent content of overgeneralizations in the film Blood Diamond aside, it is

also important to note who the film often portrays. Accordingly to visual anthropologist Jay

Ruby (2002), the demographic often focused on defines the subject matter. He explains further

by stating:

The vast majority of films described as ethnographic are concerned with exotic, non-Western people. The subject matter is often concerning dark-skinned individuals regularly referred to as ‘savages’ or ‘primitives.’

Rony (1996) continues the description of ethnographic films by asserting that these types of

Hollywood films are consistently racially defined. Individuals showcased in film are represented

as exotic in nature and predominantly of an earlier evolutionally phase in the progress of

mankind’s development. In fact, through this delineation, film subjects are often depicted as

individuals without their own personal history, not possessing the ability to read, write, behave in

a “civilized” manner, and of course, they would not have knowledge or access to modern

technology. In other words, Rony describes these film subjects as inherently “ethnographiable.”

6

While Rony makes the argument that these film classifications are by and large racially

defined, the consumers of the media may in fact not be consciously aware of this employed

tactic. In fact, it is fair to argue that the Western audience believes that these films objectively

capture authentic non-Western cultures. Therein appears to be a willful indifference by the

audience, and/or a cultural conditioning. More simplistically, the audience is “willfully ignorant”

to how these films are very much racially defined. Wakeham (2008) adds an interesting thought

to the by and large “willfully ignorant” argument, offering the concept of “unseen cinema.”

According to Wakeham, this idea implicitly entices audiences with the possibility of seeing the

unseen. The desire of human nature to want to see what has never been seen before renders the

object of study accessible to the ethnographic gaze. While Wakeham applies this concept to her

work on taxidermy, the main assertion applies very much to ethnographic cinema. Consumers of

media often seek the visual representation of the foreign culture, therefore fundamentally

believing in the material they see. If the culture is documented in cinema, it inherently must be a

representation of truth.

Furthermore, it is also important to note the appropriate title associated with ethnographic

film. Rony (1996) makes it clear that her choice in title is purposeful and direct. She chooses the

word “cinema” rather than “film or footage” for a variety of reasons:

I couple “ethnographic” with the word “cinema” rather than with “footage” or “films” because I wish to stress the institutional matrix in which the images are embedded. Cinema is not only a technology; it is a social practice with conventions that profoundly shape its forms. Cinema has been a primary means through which race and gender are visualized as natural categories; cinema has been the site of intersection between anthropology, popular culture, and the constructions of nation and empire.

Cinema tends to bring the past into the present, while the field of anthropology often implies that

indigenous peoples are remnants of an earlier age. Therefore, it is safe to make the claim that

Hollywood itself, through the use of today’s popular culture and cinema, may in fact be the cause

7

of this direct and unwavering injustice associated with indigenous cultures and their

representation in today’s media. While this particular assumption by itself is worthy of additional

study, it does inform the inherent argument detailed throughout this paper. In fact, Rony (1996)

makes the claim that scholars have largely overlooked the way in which standard ethnographic

film is linked to popular media entertainments and Hollywood spectacle. Thus, this specifically

will be evaluated and addressed through the analysis of the film Blood Diamond (2006).

The History of Cinematic Ethnography

Before delving into the analysis of this film, it is important to first understand the history

of this genre and recognize the noted film ethnographers in the field. The first cinematic

ethnography is credited to Robert Flahery for his film Nanook of the North in 1922. Similarly,

Felix-Louis Regnault is recognized as an influential contributor to the genre for his work that

was published in 1895. It was only after Nanook of the North was released that Regnault was

credited for his contribution of the “crossed cultural study of movement” in the genre. Other

significant credited ethnographers include Gregory Bateson and Margaret Mead in the 1930’s

and the work of John Marshall, which spans from the 1950’s to the early 2000’s. However, no

other individual has been acknowledged as more influential to the genre than Jean Rouch, a

French anthropologist who inaugurated the genre of ethnographic film and was dubbed ‘the

father of Nigerian cinema’ (Loizos, 1993).

Without the acclaimed work of Jean Rouch, the field would essentially be non-existent.

Rouch’s work mimics to an extent what anthropologist Jay Ruby claims in that the primary goal

of ethnographic film has become communicating ethnographic knowledge. There is almost an

entire industry built around the critique of Rouch’s films. Many of the ethnographic films

produced in the colonial era by Jean Rouch were rejected by African filmmakers because in their

8

view they distorted African realities. Therefore, it is with Rouch’s films in which the relations

between Africa and the West emerge that is of interest here with regard to ethical considerations

and questions of representation (Cooper, 2006).

Rouch’s work was primarily influenced by literature, painting and photography and his

own perception of reality and how it shaped the methods he used, such as a mobile camera, wide

angle filming and innovative sound recording techniques. The dominant image of Rouch that

emerged was that of an anthropologist who created narrative films that progressively freed

themselves of structure of the event they represented. Deeply influenced by the people he filmed,

Rouch incorporated their way of thinking into his films, but also into his own way of being.

Scholars agree that Rouch’s greatest contribution to the field of ethnographic cinema was the

intense process of exchange between himself, his actors, and his audience. Through

“anthropology in the first person,” Rouch drew both from his subject and the spectator into his

subjective responses to the people and situations of his films, revealing beliefs, realities and ways

of thinking that would otherwise not be obvious to the typical eye (Collins, 2006). While many

have contributed to what the genre is known for today, Rauch appears to be the primary driver

behind the existing ideologies of ethnographic cinema, especially when looking at the depiction

of the African culture.

Analysis of Blood Diamond

After defining ethnographic cinema, identifying where the genre emerged from, and

understanding the implications of how this genre of film impacts Western civilization, the

problematic representations of the African culture can be easily identified and exemplified in the

2006 film Blood Diamond. As such, Blood Diamond delivers a Westernized representation of

Africa through the use of three key themes: the inherent depictions of African cultures and the

9

civilization as a whole, how Western civilization and the white culture are portrayed, and of

course, how the African race and cultures are effectively degraded time after time.

Depictions of the African Culture & Civilization

The film opens with a playful scene between Solomon Vandy and his son Dia, who are

sweetly bickering over the importance of school and education. As viewers, we see Solomon

desiring his son to become a doctor and do more with his life than mend fishing nets. Beautiful

images of the African sunrise over the water visually appear and a calming sense of peace

comforts the viewer through the use of soothing music. However, only moments later we hear

the thundering rap music of the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) soldiers approaching and

what was initially calm and soothing becomes a heart pounding, blood pumping, intense

depiction of Solomon and Dia tearing barefoot back to their village to save their family from the

coming invasion. Within the first minutes of the film, blood spatters the scene with violent

murders of the villagers by the RUF soldiers, culminating in a sickening act where we watch the

very hands of children being hacked off with a blunt machete. Solomon himself waits in line for

the impending mutilation, but is spared from this fate because the leader of the RUF identifies

him as a man built for work and someone who can contribute to the conflict diamond industry.

His physical build, therefore, is what saves him from the loss of his hands. From the very first

scene, something so simplistic is inherently engrained in the minds of the viewers as we

collectively make the assumption that Solomon’s life is worth no more than forced slave labor.

As if the opening sequence isn’t enough to jar a viewer and instantly impose a bloody,

violent image of the African land, we are treated to a variety of additional visual and auditory

representations of what Africa is. Even secondary characters, such as M’Ed the bartender, are

awarded the opportunity to implicitly state that colonialism is imbedded in the African way of

10

life and is something all must suffer through. In his opening conversation with Danny Archer, he

states “We were here long before you came and we will be here long after you go.” Even the

simplicity of this statement is enough to establish the understanding that Africans simply tolerate

the imposition of hosting the Western civilization and have no choice but to let it play out. In the

same scene, as Danny Archer is speaking to Maddie Bowen for the first time, he makes the

statement “People here kill each other like it’s a way of life.” From the onset, the viewer is

taught to understand that the violence in Africa is commonplace and should not be questioned

because it is an inherent part of this culture.

As stated previously, Hollywood is known for over generalizations and tends to gloss

over cultural specificities. Maddie Bowen demonstrates this concept to its fullest potential by

making blanket statements that are intended to apply to the mass population of Africa. While

Danny Archer is attempting to recruit Maddie in helping to locate Solomon’s family, she argues

that “The whole country is at war…why should [she] help just one person?” The simplicity of

this statement is what arguably makes the notion of overgeneralizations quite clear. She also

follows up by inhumanly making a comment about how she is tired of writing the victim story

about “Little black babies with swollen bellies and flies in their eyes. It’s like a God-damn

infomercial.” As a viewer, we identify with Maddie as a “good” character and understand that

she is attempting to uncover the truth behind the conflict diamond industry. Nevertheless, the

statement overgeneralizes the African population through a character with whom Western

civilization is intended to identify with. Thus, the viewer may also reduce black babies to solely

swollen bellies with flies in their eyes; reinforcing a visual image displayed disproportionately to

Western civilization.

11

We also see the degradation of the African land through the very voice of our main

character Danny Archer, as he screams at Solomon that “This diamond is [his] ticket off of this

‘God-forsaken’ continent.” Initially as viewers, we are enraged with Danny’s actions toward

Solomon, but eventually bend to sympathize with this white character. We learn that Danny is an

ex-mercenary turned smuggler in the diamond industry. He was born in Zimbabwe and we come

to understand that his life has been directly tied to the violent wars that to this day still ravage the

countryside. At the age of nine, he watched his mother be raped and murdered and his father

decapitated and hung up on a hook in a bar. His character continuously evokes sympathy from

the viewers as we witness Colonel Coetzee tell Danny “This red earth, it’s in our skin. The

Shona say the color comes from all the blood that’s been spilled fighting over the land. This is

home. You’ll never leave Africa.” As the predominantly white character in the film, the Western

audience naturally sympathizes with his desire to leave Africa. In fact, Captain Poison reinforces

this white desire when he asserts that Africa is hell. When he demands that Solomon locate the

diamond on his behalf, he states “You think I am a devil…but only because I have lived in hell. I

want to get out. You’ll help me.”

The desire to leave Africa from the white characters is key. Even the notion that God

himself wanted to be removed from this country is stated. As Danny Archer is relaying his past

trauma to Maddie, he asks her “Will God ever forgive us for what we’ve done to each other?”

When she doesn’t answer, he continues with “Never mind…God left this place a long time ago.”

The fact that the white characters are even having this conversation in the first place is

problematic and inherently demonizes the African civilization, reducing their culture to nothing

more than a wasteland that God is no longer concerned with. This notion is even reinforced

through the words of Solomon. As Solomon is confiding in Danny, he states “I understand why

12

white people want our diamonds, but why would my own people do this to each other?” He then

tells Danny his belief that “There is something wrong with us…something inside our black

skin.” The simplicity of this statement is of course absurd, but the inherent negativity it carries

for entire civilizations of Africans is even more appalling.

Representations of Western Civilization & Culture

While the film evidently spends an inordinate amount of time demonstrating that Africa

is a nation unworthy of Westernized attention, it spends even more time depicting Westernized

civilization and white culture and the influence they have on this land. Within the first twenty

minutes of the film, we meet Maddie Bowen, an American journalist who has been in Africa for

three months. We learn that Maddie is there to get the story on the illegal conflict diamond trade

and seeks out Archer to help her do just that. When we meet Maddie, we initially attach

ourselves to her character and understand her to be genuinely concerned with the wellbeing of

Africa’s population. As she meets Danny, she references the fact that Bill Clinton’s sexual

escapades are headline news and are being broadcast to the African population. Meanwhile, we

know that over two million Africans are homeless refugees because of the war. She enables the

audience to sympathize with her passion when she states that “Over one million people…this is

the second largest refugee camp in Africa right now…it might make an appearance on CNN in

between sports and weather.” Even though Maddie is calling to our attention the significance of

the crisis, the fact that she has to point this out at all is problematic to say the least.

As referenced above, Maddie introduces the concept of conflict diamonds to the audience

and acts to uncover the truth behind the illegal trade. Throughout the film we learn that Rudolph

Van de Kaap, a diamond buyer and manufacturer in London, has denied any involvement in the

illegal trade of blood diamonds. He prominently aligns himself with Western civilization and

13

pretends to be a proponent of the Kimberly Process Certification Scheme (KPCS) to regulate the

commercial sale of diamonds. While we know that Van de Kaap is corrupt, it does call attention

to the reason the trade exists in the first place. As Danny and Maddie discuss the illegal

activities, Danny validates the reason the conflict diamond crisis exists in the first place by

stereotypically drawing attention to the fact that “American girls want their big fancy, storybook

wedding…and a big shiny rock.” Thus, Van de Kaap purchases the illegal blood diamonds from

smugglers like Danny and buries them in an underground vault to control the supply and increase

the demand, and by default, keep the price high for Americans.

On another note, throughout the film, we see traces of how Westernized characters

ultimately play the hero and act to perpetually come to the rescue of lesser characters. We see

this often between Danny Archer and Solomon Vandy. After Solomon finds himself in prison, it

is ultimately Danny Archer who awards him his freedom. However, freedom for Solomon comes

at a price. When Cape Town is under siege from the RUF, Danny asserts that Solomon “Needs

his help whether he wants it or not.” When Solomon doesn’t respond immediately, Danny

follows up with “Without me, you’re just another black man in Africa.” These words pierce the

core of the argument demonstrated within colonialism in Africa. While Danny Archer often

makes the statement “TIA…this is Africa,” it only further identifies that this land is unworthy of

fighting their own battles because they will only end in blood shed. It is the civilized, Western

demographic that ultimately must save Africa from itself.

As a fundamental trait of ethnographic cinema, particularly when looking at Africa, it is

inherently the white male that often saves the day. This can be easily identified twice in Blood

Diamond, both involving Danny saving Solomon. The most obvious example comes from one of

the final scenes where an airstrike is taking out the RUF soldiers, one of whom is Solomon’s son,

14

Dia. While Solomon is fighting for his life with the captain of the RUF, as viewers we see a

scared Dia covering his ears and cowering like a small child in the middle of the battle. Always

the hero, Danny comes rushing in to save the day and ultimately saves the child’s life by carrying

him out of harm’s way. As the story then progresses, we sympathize with Danny after he is shot

in the chest while recovering the pink diamond Solomon hid at the beginning of film. He bravely

secures the diamond and simultaneously leads Solomon and Dia to the top of a cliff where he has

arranged for his pilot to take them all to safety. As Danny climbs the cliff, he realizes he will

never make it and sends Solomon off with both the diamond and his son with instructions to get

out alive. He heroically sacrifices himself for the Vandy family to live. While this scene instills

love and compassion for the Danny character, his final words irrevocably instigate the most

problematic lines of the entire film. As Danny lays dying, he phones Maddie to ask that she

assist Solomon in London and the deal with Van de Kaap and ends the call by stating that “It’s a

real story now.” These simple words carry an intense weight. The very thought that because our

white male hero is dying in some way now enables her story to be worthy for others to read.

These words simultaneously reinforce the stereotypically while male hero and imply that the

very core of the crisis was unworthy of attention until a white male dies. Now that he has nobly

died, the story can be considered “real,” negating the fact that thousands, maybe millions, of

Africans have already lost their lives to the war concerning conflict diamonds.

The notion that a white male had to die for the story to validate itself arguably backs up

the question Solomon asks of Maddie when they’re traveling in the van together. Maddie

explains to Solomon that her role as a journalist is to write about the crisis Africa is facing.

Solomon thanks her for her help and then asks “When people in your country read this story, will

they come and help?” She sadly responds with “Probably not.” Her response ultimately implies

15

that no matter how much attention is called to the blood diamond trade, Westernized civilization

has no desire to act, intervene, or assist in anyway. If the current war over blood diamonds is not

enough for Western civilization to act upon, perhaps another scarce commodity will. This is

eluded to by the villager Solomon speaks to while they’re tracking the RUF. He states “Let’s

hope they don’t discover that we have oil here. Then we’d really have problems.” While this

statement is meant as comic relief in the film, it also provides a valid point. The West will only

intervene if they have something to gain from it.

Degrading the African Race

While the film spends most of its time demonstrating that Africa is depicted as a land

always at war, forsaken by God himself, and ultimately in a bloody battle to simply survive, it

also takes the time to capitalize on Western civilization involvement and prove once more that

Western culture is superior and always saves the day. In fact, Blood Diamond takes it one step

further and degrades the African race on multiple accounts.

While Danny is attempting to explain the complex situation to Solomon about his

involvement with the hidden pink diamond, he utilizes the word “conundrum.” When Solomon

does not initially respond, Danny assumes that Solomon does not understand the word and

proceeds to explain to him exactly what it means. This simple exchange of dialogue degrades the

African race by automatically assuming that the education of Solomon is below the grade level

where the definition of this word is taught. Furthermore, we often hear Solomon Vandy refer to

Danny Archer as “boss” or “boss man,” implying that Danny holds the power in the relationship,

when in reality, they both need each other equally. While the relationship dynamic is equal,

Danny demands Solomon to feel inferior. During a heated argument between the two, Solomon

tells Danny “You are not my master!” Danny then simply states “That’s exactly what I am.”

16

Perhaps without the intention behind these words, the film ultimately implies that the power

dynamic between white and black is never equal. While both are born in Africa, have lived there

their entire lives, simply because of the color of their skin, the power dynamic is there and

Solomon is as a result, “lesser than.”

Conclusion

In sum, Hollywood cinema has remained true to form with the film Blood Diamond.

While remaining consistent with previous depictions of Hollywood cinema’s representations of

the African culture and how it is ethnographically documented, Blood Diamond indulges greatly

in overgeneralizations and glosses over cultural specificities. From the first scene to the very last,

viewers witness an untrue representation of the African land and are brutally pulled into a world

where the depictions of primitive people are fighting “tooth for tooth” in a world dominated by

an illegal trade. The white male acts the hero and enables the underdog to win the fight as he

heroically dies on the battlefield. If films were judged solely by their good intentions, this one

would be best in show. Instead, gilded in money and dripping with sanctimony, culturally

confused and consistently contradictory, the film is a textbook example of how easily

commercialism can trump more complete, thoughtful depictions of cultures outside Western

civilizations, particularly in Hollywood. In this way, Blood Diamond is “a real story now.” And

ironically, it motivates no action outside the proliferation of misguided perceptions and

Hollywood’s consumer votes.

Within this context, we are simultaneously creating and reinforcing popular cultural

beliefs in our actions and “willful ignorance” as a society. While education can help us critique

these depictions in film, and consumerism in general, there seems to be no real value to most in

bringing forth a perception that is outside popular culture. There is little money in it, and there is

17

little desire to break inertia to get the ball rolling on becoming more well-rounded, informed

global citizens. Thus, individuals will continue to accept what is thrust in front of them, and

reinforce this miseducation among their family, peers, and all acquaintances. We are all carriers.

18

References

Cooper, S. (2006). Selfless cinema?: Ethics and French documentary. Legenda: Oxford

University Press.

Fairclough, N. (2003). Analyzing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. New York:

Routledge.

Loizos, P. (1993). Innovation in ethnographic film: From innocence to self-consciousness.

University of Chicago Press.

Macdougall, D. (1969). Prospects of the ethnographic film. Film Quarterly (23) 2. University of

California Press.

Rony, F. T. (1996). The third eye: Race, cinema and ethnographic spectacle. Film Quarterly (48)

3. Duke University Press.

Ruby, J. (1996). Visual anthropology. Encyclopedia of cultural anthropology. New York: Henry

Holt.

Ruby, J. (2002). The professionalization of visual anthropology in the United States: The 1960’s

– 1970’s. Visual Anthropology Review (17)2.

Wakeham, P. (2008). Taxidermic signs: Reconstructing aboriginality. University of Minnesota

Press. Minneapolis: MN.