This Is Africa...

Blood Diamond with its scenes of child soldiers gunning down women and children in their villages brings attention to what goes on in Africa. If anything, the movie increases awareness of the many human rights violations that take place in Africa and how they are connected. Rebels need guns and people to use them. So, they raid villages and capture young boys. These boys either mine for diamonds or become soldiers. The rebels sell the diamonds they find to smugglers, who then sell the rebels the guns they need. The diamonds then go to whoever the smugglers sell them to, both providing the buyer company with an unfair advantage of a cheaper source and the easy way out of claiming ignorance of how the smugglers acquired the diamonds. The movie also brings forth the idea that the consequences and motives from colonialism is still present. Colonies were established to acquire resources whether it be for industry, military, or in this case, luxury. Now, even though the western superpowers have handed over the keys to the (mostly corrupt) locals, the demand for those resources is still present. So, people still bleed the land of its resources for the westerners, and violence over who controls the resources still follows. Honestly, there is little difference from French or British soldiers oppressing the natives than rebel militia groups. Violence is still violence and the demand for these blood diamonds remains even though the situation has changed. Blood Diamond shows that even though the colonial system is a thing of the past, the new governments and power structures have left Africa facing the same problems that came with European explorers. The only difference now is the western governments are no longer directly responsible for the sufferings taking place.

Telling the "Real" Story

There are many movies that focus on historical events, but not all of them tell the "actual" story. This brings up the question, what responsibilities do films or other popular media have in terms of representing "real" historical or political events? The first time I thought about this question was after I saw the movies Inglorious Bastards and Valkyrie around the same time. Both are movies set in World War Two, but Valkyrie is historically correct while Inglorious Bastards is not. Another important thing to note is both movies have a similar message: not all Germans in WWII were bad people. This is explicitly shown in Valkyrie where high ranking officers in the German Army plot to kill Hitler, while in Inglorious Bastards, Colonel Hans Landa "the Jew Hunter" is a man of his word whereas Lt. Aldo Raine (the "good" guy) is a backstabber who cannot be trusted.  Despite the factual shortcomings, I wouldn't say Inglorious Bastards does wrong to WWII history. Although it isn't factual like Valkyrie, the story in Inglorious Bastards seems plausible and could have very well been true. After all, with all of the assassination attempts on Hitler, one easily could have been similar to what was depicted in Inglorious Bastards and worked. My point is, even though the story in Inglorious Bastards isn't factual, it doesn't offend those passionate about WWII history because it is clear that it isn't factual although it could have happened that way. I am personally fascinated with "what if?" scenarios like the one presented in Inglorious Bastards or if the assassination attempt in Valkyrie paid off. Therefore, I say that the responsibilities films and other media have is to tell a good story albeit true or false. Of course, so long as they do not claim something false as true. As applied to this example, what makes a movie a good WWII movie is that it makes sense in the context of WWII, not necessarily that it actually happened in WWII.

The Battle is Won but the War Continues

Zero Dark Thirty ends with Maya, the protagonist, boarding a C-130 when the pilot asks her where he needs to fly her. The movie ends before she responds. This gives the audience two messages to take away from the movie's ending. The first deals directly with Maya. Before the raid begins, another CIA official asks Maya if she worked on any projects before Bin Laden. The answer was her life's work was hunting down the terrorist leader. So, once Bin Laden is killed, her life's mission fulfilled, but also no clear direction of where to go next. She doesn't have a family to go home to, the only friends we know of are her co-workers, a few of whom die earlier in the film, but she is still young and just getting started as a CIA agent. Regardless of where Maya goes after the final scene, we can all agree that it should involve some awards and praise.
On a similar note to Maya, the final scene also sends a message about the War on Terror. As it has been said many times, what makes the War on Terror different and difficult is the type of enemy America is facing. We are fighting organizations and individuals, not nations and armies. Our enemy's goal is not for them to win, but for us to lose and there are no front lines. It is very hard to determine when we win because of how unconventional a war this is. Zero Dark Thirty portrays what is the largest, but not final, victory in the War on Terror. When Bin Laden died, the face for terrorism died with him. There are still many terrorists operating throughout the world, and Al-Qaeda still exists, but the man many Americans see as the enemy is defeated. The troops have almost entirely pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan. The "War" is over, but the enemy is not defeated. That is where the final scene comes in. Just like how Maya doesn't know where to go with her life, the death of Bin Laden has no clear next step for the War on Terror. What do we do next? What can we do next? Although killing Bin Laden may have given many Americans closure on the War on Terror, the fight is not over. The War on Terror might very well be our generation's Cold War. Even if there isn't a traditional "war" going on, the military, CIA, and similar government institutions need to stay on their toes to protect the American people.