JohnQuixote
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2004
- Messages
- 5,212
On Dec 8 the movie Blood Diamond opens. It has been predicted to raise questions among consumers about the provenance of diamonds they purchase this holiday season, and into the new year. My lady and I were able to see a screening this weekend. I wrote these thoughts and impressions while they were fresh.
*** NO SPOILER BELOW ***
But this post describes some of the premise and graphic content of the movie.
If you want to remain completely antiseptic, page on back.
As far as the diamond industry goes:
Some in the trade were concerned that no temporal context would be given, but there was wording at the front of the film placing it in 1999 Sierra Leone. For that matter one bar scene showed TV news featuring the Clinton/Lewinsky story, just in case you were getting that $12 popcorn and soda during the opening credits. Close to the beginning is a portrayal of the 12/99 G8 Summit in Antwerp to provide background for the audience. This is artfully juxtaposed with action happening in the story line. A point of contention could be the percentage of world rough affected by illicit trade at the issue's zenith in the late 1990s. The film gives the figure as 15% (from NGO Global Witness) where industry sources have put it considerably lower, reduced to under 1% now.
The movie’s diamond industry bad guys are the all-powerful Van Der Kaap cartel (a DeBeers parody). Scrappy arms dealers take illicit rough as payment from rebels and smuggle it to neighboring Liberia. The Van Der Kaap cartel knowingly looks the other way and lets these conflict diamonds be sorted in with legitimate rough. Why? So that they acquire all available diamonds and store them in secret underground vaults in London. This way they control market prices (where have we heard this before?). Greed even drives officers in the legitimate government military, who overrun rebel-held diamond fields and make their own deals with the cartel. Though portrayed as a corrupt entity, Van Der Kaap remains faceless. The movie actually revolves around the plight of its two main actors, who have entirely different motivations for fanatically pursuing the 100 ct pink “Blood Diamond.”
As the film ends it states that the Kimberly Process came into being as a result of the conditions described. There is the caution that “it is still up to the consumer to insist that a diamond is conflict-free. The movie closes by citing that there are still 200,000 child soldiers in Africa. There is discussion about Apartheid and references are made to similar military actions in Africa revolving around ivory, oil, gold and rubber. It is strongly implied that if the greed didn’t revolve around diamonds it would be something else.
I think this movie can raise awareness about the scope of these issues in the 1990s and help people understand that such conditions still exist. Those who held no opinion before seeing it may want to find out more about the issues - and what they can do to help.
How was the movie?
In a word? Graphic. My lady has a high threshold for violence, but she put her face into my arm an unprecedented five times (due to violence involving children).
The storyline seems secondary to assuring that viewers are shocked by violence and chaos. It earns every bit of its R rating and the violence sometimes reminded me of my first viewing of Saving Private Ryan. I imagine the conditions being replicated are realistic, but I’ll tell my brother to keep my pre-teen nieces at home for this one. A recurring theme is speeding jeeps loaded with guys wielding AK-47s who blast around killing anyone and everyone in the open. There is sustained random slaying of women and children, and gun-toting children doing the slaying. It’s not shoot first, ask questions later, it’s shoot and keep shooting until nothing moves. When jeeps stop people are jumping out to kill stragglers, cut off limbs and force people to labor camps. Young boys are abducted, told their parents are dead and brainwashed into becoming child soldiers. This is one focal point of the movie. Some of ‘rites of passage’ we see are these children naked and beaten, forced to fight each other, shooting prisoners while blindfolded, advancing side by side with AK-47s slaughtering a yard full of fleeing women and being injected with heroin. The worst siege is a RUF incursion into Freetown, where the now-familiar high-speed jeep attack is accompanied by torching buildings with surface to surface missiles, people thrown from balconies, a prisoner being jeep-dragged in chains and innocents shot by impromptu firing squads of 10-year old boys.
I predict the DVD version will test your sound system. Not five minutes goes by in the first hour without extended running, gunfire, explosions, shouting and screaming.
Yes, there are diamonds in the story but with so much stuff blowing up you rarely see them. A couple of moments do occur: As Leonardo DiCaprio explains how illicit diamonds come into the cartel’s control we see alternating scenes of a couple buying diamonds in what looks like an American or European jewelry store. A similar moment occurs late in the film when one of the film's characters examines diamonds in a London window display.
Positives
When the shooting stops I thought the acting was good, especially from DiCaprio who learned a consistent if not completely authentic accent. Djimon Hounsou is very believable. The other cast members support the two main guys just fine, mostly by shooting at them. Maybe Jennifer Connelly could have done more with her role, maybe not…my ears were ringing. The visual effects are Hollywood-great, even with the violent, life-is-cheap angle on steroids. Or maybe I’m just showing my age. Some action video games I see on Playstation have crazy-violent sensory input too… I think the women and children angle shook me up.
A few memorable lines
“TIA” (meaning ‘this is Africa,’ a phrase used to explain-away the chaos occurring there).
“Governments only want to stay in power until they’ve stolen enough to go somewhere else.”
“People back home wouldn’t buy a ring if they knew it cost somebody their hand.”
“Let’s hope they don’t discover oil here. Then we’d have real problems.”
Thoughts
I hope many people will see the movie. It will help professionals and enthusiasts spread understanding that "conflict-free" just scratches the surface.
The industry works hard to ensure conflict-free provenance for the end-user and for many consumers that is enough. The only drawback is that it overlooks the real issue which is those who still suffer in parts of Africa. As jewelry companies and consumers we may not be able to change governments or politics, but we can create commerce and benevolence to help those people. Spread the word that UNICEF is active in Africa. Development diamond initiatives like Rapaport's are evolving.
When family and friends see the movie I intend to pass on that buying “conflict-free” is an important step, but only a start. There is more we can do.
Finally
This post is not intended to reignite discussion we’ve already had.
Still, the movie will be seen by consumers and consumers like to ask questions.
Neil Beaty wrote an excellent journal article with good fundamental answers here:
http://journal.pricescope.com/Articles/39/1/How-to-avoid-Conflict-Diamonds.aspx
*** NO SPOILER BELOW ***
But this post describes some of the premise and graphic content of the movie.
If you want to remain completely antiseptic, page on back.
As far as the diamond industry goes:
Some in the trade were concerned that no temporal context would be given, but there was wording at the front of the film placing it in 1999 Sierra Leone. For that matter one bar scene showed TV news featuring the Clinton/Lewinsky story, just in case you were getting that $12 popcorn and soda during the opening credits. Close to the beginning is a portrayal of the 12/99 G8 Summit in Antwerp to provide background for the audience. This is artfully juxtaposed with action happening in the story line. A point of contention could be the percentage of world rough affected by illicit trade at the issue's zenith in the late 1990s. The film gives the figure as 15% (from NGO Global Witness) where industry sources have put it considerably lower, reduced to under 1% now.
The movie’s diamond industry bad guys are the all-powerful Van Der Kaap cartel (a DeBeers parody). Scrappy arms dealers take illicit rough as payment from rebels and smuggle it to neighboring Liberia. The Van Der Kaap cartel knowingly looks the other way and lets these conflict diamonds be sorted in with legitimate rough. Why? So that they acquire all available diamonds and store them in secret underground vaults in London. This way they control market prices (where have we heard this before?). Greed even drives officers in the legitimate government military, who overrun rebel-held diamond fields and make their own deals with the cartel. Though portrayed as a corrupt entity, Van Der Kaap remains faceless. The movie actually revolves around the plight of its two main actors, who have entirely different motivations for fanatically pursuing the 100 ct pink “Blood Diamond.”
As the film ends it states that the Kimberly Process came into being as a result of the conditions described. There is the caution that “it is still up to the consumer to insist that a diamond is conflict-free. The movie closes by citing that there are still 200,000 child soldiers in Africa. There is discussion about Apartheid and references are made to similar military actions in Africa revolving around ivory, oil, gold and rubber. It is strongly implied that if the greed didn’t revolve around diamonds it would be something else.
I think this movie can raise awareness about the scope of these issues in the 1990s and help people understand that such conditions still exist. Those who held no opinion before seeing it may want to find out more about the issues - and what they can do to help.
How was the movie?
In a word? Graphic. My lady has a high threshold for violence, but she put her face into my arm an unprecedented five times (due to violence involving children).
The storyline seems secondary to assuring that viewers are shocked by violence and chaos. It earns every bit of its R rating and the violence sometimes reminded me of my first viewing of Saving Private Ryan. I imagine the conditions being replicated are realistic, but I’ll tell my brother to keep my pre-teen nieces at home for this one. A recurring theme is speeding jeeps loaded with guys wielding AK-47s who blast around killing anyone and everyone in the open. There is sustained random slaying of women and children, and gun-toting children doing the slaying. It’s not shoot first, ask questions later, it’s shoot and keep shooting until nothing moves. When jeeps stop people are jumping out to kill stragglers, cut off limbs and force people to labor camps. Young boys are abducted, told their parents are dead and brainwashed into becoming child soldiers. This is one focal point of the movie. Some of ‘rites of passage’ we see are these children naked and beaten, forced to fight each other, shooting prisoners while blindfolded, advancing side by side with AK-47s slaughtering a yard full of fleeing women and being injected with heroin. The worst siege is a RUF incursion into Freetown, where the now-familiar high-speed jeep attack is accompanied by torching buildings with surface to surface missiles, people thrown from balconies, a prisoner being jeep-dragged in chains and innocents shot by impromptu firing squads of 10-year old boys.
I predict the DVD version will test your sound system. Not five minutes goes by in the first hour without extended running, gunfire, explosions, shouting and screaming.
Yes, there are diamonds in the story but with so much stuff blowing up you rarely see them. A couple of moments do occur: As Leonardo DiCaprio explains how illicit diamonds come into the cartel’s control we see alternating scenes of a couple buying diamonds in what looks like an American or European jewelry store. A similar moment occurs late in the film when one of the film's characters examines diamonds in a London window display.
Positives
When the shooting stops I thought the acting was good, especially from DiCaprio who learned a consistent if not completely authentic accent. Djimon Hounsou is very believable. The other cast members support the two main guys just fine, mostly by shooting at them. Maybe Jennifer Connelly could have done more with her role, maybe not…my ears were ringing. The visual effects are Hollywood-great, even with the violent, life-is-cheap angle on steroids. Or maybe I’m just showing my age. Some action video games I see on Playstation have crazy-violent sensory input too… I think the women and children angle shook me up.
A few memorable lines
“TIA” (meaning ‘this is Africa,’ a phrase used to explain-away the chaos occurring there).
“Governments only want to stay in power until they’ve stolen enough to go somewhere else.”
“People back home wouldn’t buy a ring if they knew it cost somebody their hand.”
“Let’s hope they don’t discover oil here. Then we’d have real problems.”
Thoughts
I hope many people will see the movie. It will help professionals and enthusiasts spread understanding that "conflict-free" just scratches the surface.
The industry works hard to ensure conflict-free provenance for the end-user and for many consumers that is enough. The only drawback is that it overlooks the real issue which is those who still suffer in parts of Africa. As jewelry companies and consumers we may not be able to change governments or politics, but we can create commerce and benevolence to help those people. Spread the word that UNICEF is active in Africa. Development diamond initiatives like Rapaport's are evolving.
When family and friends see the movie I intend to pass on that buying “conflict-free” is an important step, but only a start. There is more we can do.
Finally
This post is not intended to reignite discussion we’ve already had.
Still, the movie will be seen by consumers and consumers like to ask questions.
Neil Beaty wrote an excellent journal article with good fundamental answers here:
http://journal.pricescope.com/Articles/39/1/How-to-avoid-Conflict-Diamonds.aspx
I saw this movie this weekend, and my husband and I enjoyed it. I understand that De Beers tried to do some PR against the film.
300x240.png)