Darfur Now Opens

When a film is made on an important topic in need of greater attention, but fails in its execution, it is particularly disappointing. Such is the case with Theodore Braun’s documentary Darfur Now opening in New York today.

As detailed in a previous post DN actually whitewashes the genocide of Christians and Animists in the 1990’s, basically giving the regime a free pass for crimes committed during “a period of civil war.” The Islamist nature of the Sudanese government is also glossed over and its history of sheltering Bin Laden and Al Qaeda is evidently not considered relevant. What we see all too much of is Hollywood celebrity worship run amok, which really undercuts the film’s integrity.

DN follows six individuals identified for doing something to “make a difference” in Darfur. Only two are actually Sudanese. Ahmed Mohammed Akakar is a former pillar of his Darfur village, now trying to hold his community together in a refuge camp. Hejewa Adam is a grieving mother who joined the rebels in response to the murder of her son. Their stories are clearly compelling, but are the least developed in the film.

Conversely, the face shown most often is that of student-activist Adam Sterling, spearheading a campaign to divest California’s pension funds from companies doing business with Sudan. It is a good cause, which frankly ought to be expanded to all countries which sponsor terrorism. However, the often over-wrought Sterling’s dramatics border on embarrassing. It is interesting to see him get a political education though. When meeting with the legislative director of the California NAACP, Sterling finds himself grilled as to whether his palm cards were printed in a union shop, revealing the true priorities of his supposed ally.

Another subject seen too frequently is co-producer Don Cheadle. DN seems to have a new age philosophy of empowerment through activism, and Cheadle is its chief proponent. We see him at book signings earnestly urging people to “get involved.” At times it seems DN views Darfur as important not as a human tragedy, but primarily as a venue for activism, which leaves one increasingly uncomfortable. As for scenes of Cheadle writing speeches for rallies, they would be better left to Hollywood gossip shows, rather than a serious documentary.

Perhaps the most interesting characters are those involved with multi-national organizations. Pablo Recalde runs convoys of food into Darfur for the World Food Program, the importance of which is unquestionable. Also note-worthy is the work of Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor for crimes in Darfur. It is fascinating to see him build a case for genocide, and his idealistic belief in justice is laudable, but ultimately he is undone by the nature of the ICC. Despite handing down two provisional indictments after a year and a half of investigating, Ocampo has yet to see any of the perpetrators in the ICC’s docket.

Though well intentioned, ultimately DN is distracted from the real story in Darfur by its New Age empowerment philosophy. We hear too many extortions to the effect of: “don’t ask what you can do, tell us what you can do.” To its credit, it is non-partisan. In fact, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) comes across best of all politicians who appear in the film. He is well informed and genuinely seems to care about Darfur when seen meeting with Cheadle. The music is also effective, with Graeme Revell’s score employing musicians from Darfur, as does the nice recasting of Stevie Wonder’s “Love’s in Need of Love Today” from Songs in the Key of Life, as a duet for Wonder and Bono.

Unfortunately, DN does little to substantially increase the general understanding of events in Darfur with what it presents on film, shying away from graphic examinations of the nature of the atrocities in Darfur. DN just gives too little attention to the full historical and political context of the genocide, and too much screen time to Hollywood activists, like Cheadle and George Clooney, who are a world away from the events in Darfur.

Coming Soon: Darfur Now

Which describes your feelings about the genocide in Darfur? A: It is a vast human tragedy perpetrated by an intolerant Islamist regime. B: It is a very sad thing that deeply touched celebrities like Don Cheadle and George Clooney. If you answered A, you will be profoundly disappointed in Darfur Now. If you answered B, this is the film for you.

Darfur Now opens November 2nd, and a full review will be posted then. Despite its unquestioned good intentions, DN is undone by its poor historical context and questionable celebrity worship. Written and directed by Theodore Braun, DN provides precious little context into why the genocide is happening. While the filmmakers do explain Sudan is ruled by the National Islamic Front, they do not mention NIF’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, the international jihadist organization. The NIF established Sharia law and embarked on an ethnic cleansing campaign against Christians and animists in the south, but DN does not think these facts are relevant, glossing over the 1990’s as a period of “civil war.”

Darfur Now’s reason for being is to raise consciousness of genocide in Darfur, yet ignores past genocide itself. The trailer makes this clear, explicitly dating the beginning of the genocide at 2003. Conservatives have criticized Hollywood activists for turning a blind eye to Sudan’s genocidal campaign against Christians, only belatedly stirring to action when the Wahhabist government began its mass murder of the moderate Sunni Muslims of the south. Unfortunately, DN will further support that argument.

While DN’s grasp of history might be lacking, its coverage of celebrity activism is slavishly comprehensive. DN follows six main characters, identified for their efforts to bring positive changes to Darfur. Naturally, co-producer Don Cheadle is one on them. We get to see riveting scenes of Cheadle writing speeches for rallies. More embarrassing, are the home movies shot by Cheadle of his amateur diplomatic trips to China and Egypt with George Clooney on behalf of Darfur. This is basically Entertainment Tonight level stuff.

Of the six primary characters, only two are native to Darfur, but viewers see them the least. Probably the most screen time is given to Adam Sterling, a college student spearheading a campaign for California’s divestiture from Sudan. His budding idealism is admirable, but not great cinema.

Perhaps the most compelling character is Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the International Criminal Court’s prosecutor assigned to crimes against humanity and war crimes in Darfur. After a year and a half investigation, he brought provisional indictments against a high-ranking Sudanese official and a leader of the Islamic Janjaweed militia. In a telling scene, one of Ocampo’s lieutenants asks if Sudan will actually turn over anyone they indict. Another answers with words to the effect of: “of course, eventually they will have to.” Here’s a spoiler: six months after the indictments, it has not happened yet. In fact, one, Ahmad Muhammad Harun, is currently the government official in charge of Darfur refugee camps.

The timing for this film will be interesting. It will be released a week after Jonathan Demme’s hero-worshipping Jimmy Carter Man from Plains documentary hits screens. Of course, Carter recently announced to the world that what is happening in Darfur does not qualify as genocide, just really bad luck. At least, DN’s intentions are noble. Despite the film’s blind spots and weaknesses, it deserves some credit for raising awareness of the very real ongoing tragedy in Darfur. One just wishes this film had been made years earlier, and done better.