Reviews of the Past: Blood Diamond Lacks Karats

From October 10, 2008:

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.