10 films that saved their franchise
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Sign up
Find movies you'll love

Reel Thoughts

Blood Diamond Lacks Karats

Under discussion:

Blood Diamond  (2006)

Courtesy of my weekly red envelope, my next rented viewing pleasure centered on a very pink diamond and a civil war in Sierra Leone.  I watched Blood Diamond because it was a 2006 Oscar nominee, as Leonardo DiCaprio was nominated for Best Actor and Djimon Hounsou was nominated for Best Supporting Actor.  I also know a smattering of people who really dig this flick, so my interest was somewhat piqued.  My interest did not stay piqued, unfortunately.

Solomon Vandy (Hounsou) loses everything when insurgents in Sierra Leone, circa 1999, attack and burn his village.  His family flees, but he is captured and forced to work in mining camps where diamonds are harvested to finance the civil war overwhelming the country - since selling the illegal diamonds to international dealers helps the rebels and terrorists buy weapons.  The diamonds are trafficked by paid mercernaries, such as Danny Archer (DiCaprio).  Solomon, while in the camp, finds a rare and very large pink diamond that the camp foreman (never caught his name) glimpses before Solomon buries the diamond, the camp is overrun by government troops, and the workers and soldiers alike are imprisoned.  Archer, who was caught smuggling diamonds into Liberia (by hiding them in the hides of live goats!), overhears the tete-a-tete between Solomon and the camp foreman concerning the large diamond when they are brought to his prison.  He then makes it his mission to convince Solomon to show him where he hid the diamond; however, there are two complications.  First, Archer needs credentials to scour refugee camps for Solomon's family, his main point of persuasion; it's a lucky thing he met plucky and passionate American journalist Maddy Bowen (Jennifer Connelly) at a bar some days before.  Archer convinces her to come along for the ride, offering her a story about the diamond trade and exploitation of Sierra Leone's resources, and a human interest story about Solomon, in exchange for her access.  Second, the camp foreman, in part as revenge and in part for greed, kidnaps Solomon's son Dia and trains him as a child solider, of which the rebel army is largely composed.  Dia is brainwashed into being an indiscriminate killing machine and becomes Solomon's priority.  These three unlikely compatriots--Danny, Solomon, and Maddy--join forces, though each is interested in his or her own aims, and all are after the diamond or, at least, what the diamond represents.

I have to say, this film really was nothing to write home about.  I, again, watched it in two parts because the film felt very flat for the first half and then seemed to gel and find its footing in the second half.  I don't know why the past three films I've watched have followed this pattern - maybe it was just the year they were all made (2006).  In any event, I found this film to be a messy and haphazard construction and meshing of several concepts into one largely boring film.  On the one hand, it wanted to be a didactic docudrama, offering the background of the illegal diamond trade, which, though at its peak in 1999, continues today, and also painting the plight of some of the more severe conditions plaguing African nations, including the particularly brutal civil war in Sierra Leone.  On the other hand, It wanted to be a tragic love story, pairing Danny and Maddy in a "will-they-make-it-against-the-odds?" kind of romance.  On still another hand, it wanted to be the story of a man on a sort of hero's journey, becoming an unwitting poster child for the plight of his nation.  On yet another hand, it wanted to be a story about the exploitation of children in third world countries.  On more hands, it wanted to be a story of redemption, as Archer comes to terms with his lot and his deeds of the past, working for a corrupt military operation just as interested in the diamonds as the rebels.

Clearly, the problem is that this convolution of wanting to give the viewer all of these levels, though admirable, created a scattered focus that left the film a little bloated and a bit too preachy.  BIts and pieces resonated but lost their power as the film's focus jerkily shifted from element to element.  The pacing was very uneven, so the intensity in some scenes never sustained, and the comic relief - what there was of it - felt like an underwhelming, even stale, aftertaste.  Most disturbingly, this picture, as messy as it is, did not actually incite me to care about what it wanted me to care about.

That's not to say that it did not have its good points.  Djimon Hounsou gave a very good performance - not quite to the level of his breakthrough in Amistad - but a very emotional performance that felt real.  DiCaprio was also good, though I'm not sad he did not win the Oscar.  He has had better performances, such as in The Departed the same year. I think he got the nomination because he effected a convincing South African accent, but it was still hard to suspend disbelief even with that accent, whether that was Leo's or the director's fault.  Leo felt a little miscast, but leave it to him to take on a challenge.  And Edward Zwick is clearly no Martin Scorsese.

Also, of all of the stories I was supposed to care about, the one that really got me in the gut in the end was the story of the exploitation of children and Solomon's quest to save his son, not only from the rebels but from himself.  The ending was predictable but ultimately satisfying because the story of the diamond and the story of saving Dia coalesced into one appreciable tale and journey of redemption.  Unfortunately, the film then descended into the "message" ending and turned the emotional resonance into something that was again didactic and even manipulative in feel.  Ultimately, Blood Diamond pretended to be a message movie, but it was never sure about its message until the last minute, and by then, the message was beyond at least this viewer's ability to receive and accept graciously.

All in all, Blood Diamond lacked punch, and since that was what the film, I think, was consummately aiming for, the movie itself was disappointing.  As to personal ratings, I think it's worth about 6.5 karats, between "cute/mediocre" and "shaky/entertaining."  I felt somewhat entertained by the end, and the film did find its stride in the back half, even if the struggle to do so mirrored the painful insurrection being depicted.  It, thusly, does not pass the test.  It was an interesting film, as to its subject, but not one I could watch more than once or even reasonably recommend.  Blood Diamond is kind of a lightweight in terms of message films and, unfortunately, failed to sparkle in my eyes.

posted on Friday, October 10, 2008 4:59 PM by pippin06


Was this review helpful?
Yeah Yeah Nope Nope



Comment    Email me new comments.


pippin06
Posted Saturday, October 11, 2008 3:37 PM

Hi Jim. Thanks for your comment. I appreciate you reading my perspicacious reviews lol (can't say it wasn't the first time that word has been connected with anything communicated by me :-) ). I also appreciate your response to my take on Blood Diamond, even if you, obviously, fundamentally disagree. With that said, I have a few responses, naturally. it's important to note that all critiques--or, in this case, blogs--are exactly the product of the viewer and the viewer's response. The viewer in question just shares his/her opinions with a wider audience. Blood Diamond was generally critically acclaimed but has been received in a very mixed way by even just people I know. My dad, for example, loved it. My mom kind of hated it (and prefers to discuss why The Departed was far superior on every level). I walked into it with an open mind, prepared to evaluate the movie on its own merits based on my reactions, and the facts are these. Just as the strands in Blood Diamond do ultimately unite--in the second half of the movie, which I noted above, though not in those words--the three complaints I had also unite (and now I'm revealing the method to the madness of my perspicacity). Of course all of the five strands connect, but their presentation/introduction were messy. The first half of the movie laid down all of these pieces; it wasn't the number of the pieces, but the way they were presented, that left me feeling disengaged. The pacing, the storytelling, the character development, all of it was, I don't know, inconsistent? All over the place? I used the word "jerkily" in describing the way they were introduced, which is why I felt it was a film that lacked focus, at least to start. Perhaps I did not articulate that properly, but that was my honest thought... yet invalid? That's a tough call when your viewer response is equally subjective. Also, preachy, didactic, and manipulative are all three different things - I used all three different, non-synonymous words because the movie exhibited each quality in my eyes. It's trying to teach you something (didactic), but it does so in a rather pedantic, morality-type way (preachy) and uses all of these pieces and connections (manipulative) to drive home its point in a way that left a slightly bitter taste in my mouth. Although, saying that the message part of the movie clobbers you over the head is a more succinct way of putting it, perhaps. I can only approach a film from my honest response, and this is honestly how I felt. Actually, all of my reviews follow the same pattern: I try to identify what I liked, what I didn't like, what was entertaining, what I thought was artistic, what worked, what didn't, and how I think the elusive "other' might see it, whether that be the Academy of Motion Pictures, Arts, and Sciences, or Joe Q Everyman. I just had a stronger, possibly more negative reaction to Blood Diamond, with which you might take exception, but as you said, your viewer response would probably be quite different from mine, whether watching this or something else. I really enjoy Talledega Nights, for example, but I know at least 10 people who hate it. That's the minefield we travel in writing and reading critics' reviews. Even legitimate critics who don't hide behind apples - I remember reading the New York Times reviews of a few films. I thought I was really going to hate the films after reading those acid articles, but when I watched them, I had a very different reaction. The bottom line is that we all have our opinions, and Blood Diamond notwithstanding, no film is going to please everyone - and while I may have missed the boat this time, as you say, I don't think I'll be standing on the docks for too long because there's always a next film. Thanks again!
JimBell
Posted Saturday, October 11, 2008 4:21 AM

Pippin, my apple, I have enjoyed your perspicacious reviews, but you have missed the boat on Blood Diamond. Of your three complaints about the film, only the last is valid—and it is an interesting one. Your first complaint is that the film is messy and haphazard, jumping among five different strands or whatever. But these strands naturally unit. A portrait of Danny Archer as possible hero in the illicit diamond trade (1 strand) is integrally connected with his redemption (2 strand) and his romance (3 strand). The docudrama about the illicit diamond trade (4 strand) and the exploitation of children (5 strand) are less directly linked but linked none the less because the diamond trade and child soldiers support the same corrupt regimes. But are these two major strands linked? Well, every story needs a setting, and if a semi-corrupt mercenary was ever to turn the corner, why not in a diamond setting instead of an urban corruption setting or a brothel setting or a drug cartel setting. The protagonist’s portrait and his redemption only have meaning in a corrupt setting such as illicit diamonds. Your second complaint is that the film is “preachy,” “didactic,” and “manipulative.” Actually, these are all different, but I try to take your gist: The film clobbers you over the head that the international illicit diamond trade is evil. Isn’t it? Your third complaint is that the film did not engage you. This the most interesting. This goes directly to the criticism theory called “reader response,” or, here, “viewer response.” The cardinal rules seem to be that a) you identify your own response honestly (which I assume you’ve done and expressed), and b) you explain why—this having as much to do with you as with the movie. For example, why did I think the third-rate movie Running Dogs was excellent? It is perfectly legit to think that a lousy film such as Running Dogs was enjoyable. It is perfectly legit to feel that an excellent movie like Blood Diamond was unengaging. But in both cases, the viewer response probably has more to do with the viewer than the movie. JIMBELL