"Darfur Now" plays like a movie about historical events of years past, rather like "Hotel Rwanda" (2004) or "Munich" (2005) and utilizes the complex character and plot development of "Crash" (2004).
This is not, however, a summer blockbuster or a star-studded Oscar contender. "Darfur Now" is a documentary that follows six people through the ongoing violent conflict in Darfur.
The six individuals in the film are multidimensional characters whose development, as the plot tears on, is something the viewer comes to care deeply about. The movie engages viewers in their personal stories and, through an emotional attachment that grows during the course of the movie, in the atrocity itself.
One of the six is an International Criminal Court prosecutor who works remotely from The Hague to indict Sudanese officials for war crimes.
Another is actor Don Cheadle who uses his star power to give the issue press while immersing himself in the harrowing process of understanding the genocide.
A grassroots UCLA student, Adam Sterling, lobbies for the California government to divest its interests in the region.
In Africa, a Sudanese woman who lost her child and village to the Janjaweed joins the rebel forces as they hold their ground while waiting for international aid.
An independent aid worker coordinates various convoys to deliver food to the displaced people around Sudan.
At a refugee camp, the head sheikh tries desperately to keep order as the camp swells from continuing floods of new refugees.
Each character's plot is equally engaging and retains the interest of the audience until the very end and it is easy to forget these are true stories unfolding onscreen. The documentary feels so much like a regular movie, and the connections with the characters onscreen become so strong that it is hard not to hope for a "Luke Skywalker" ending - the protagonist escapes mortal danger simply because there has to be another movie. The most terrifying aspect of the film is that this isn't fiction, and losing a main character is a very real and gut-wrenching possibility.
Even though these people are located all over the world, through the camera lens the distance is negligible.
Shots switch seamlessly from the Sudan to Southern California, from New York to the Netherlands. Clever filming techniques erase cultural disparities as easily as they cross oceans. While Sterling seeks support from his friends and his father, Hejewa and her fellow rebel fighters find solace in the prospect of incoming international aid and each other's company. These parallels underscore the message that people are connected, that the human experience is something everyone has in common.
This film is the perfect venue to really galvanize an audience, but unfortunately, its shock value falls short. It has everything that draws interest - star power, compelling characters, revealing insider information - but it's missing that second half of the one-two punch.
The film adheres more to the rules of journalism than those of moviemaking, shying away from images of death or violence. The nuances of violence are mentioned and described in dialogue but not in images. Instead, the magnitude of atrocity is left to the imagination, manifested in the haunting words of survivors in refugee camps and rebel fighters in training.
While this tactic is effective in something like a zombie flick - such as "28 Days Later" (2002), with its minimal zombie feasting but sad revelations about human nature - it's less appropriate in this situation. The things that happen in Darfur are always described as "unfathomable" or "unimaginable," because they are precisely that. "Darfur Now" loses steam as it continues on without showing images of the violence. Viewers don't see it and can't imagine it, so they end up not really feeling it.
This, paired with the overwhelmingly happy Hollywood ending, weakens the film's power. As each character's journey comes to an end, the tone is strangely uplifting considering the subject is an ongoing genocide. Audiences might leave with the wrong impression - that action has already been taken and that the situation is nearing resolution. Here, the film loses its way: Instead of charging audiences with the responsibility to act, it implies that it has been taken care of.
Despite the mixed messages delivered at the end of the film, "Darfur Now" highlights the need for action while displaying and honoring those who have already taken up the cause. If nothing else, the film informs audiences about a conflict that is often misunderstood.
