Virunga (2014)

Simply A Masterpiece

Absolutely Fantastic

Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

Starting with an introduction to the history of turmoils in Congo this documentary tells the dramatic story of those who are trying to exploit and suck out everything from the country focusing on the Virunga National Park. The undercover footages are much more theatrical than shown in films since we know these are real and the kind of dialogues we hear in movies which we think as an exaggeration for dramatics seem to be much short of what the real villains are capable to churn out.

So I recently got Netflix and scrolling through the available features, I noticed the Oscar nominated Virunga, a documentary about Gorillas in Congo. I assumed that being nominated for an Oscar would mean that it would be a compelling and absorbing documentary offering something new.Unfortunately it was none of these. It seemed to be chock full of seen before and stereo typical, tick box African scenes: Impoverished children running along with a tyre and a stick, women carrying huge loads balanced on their head, armed militia with cumbersome rocket launchers walking through the bush, yawning hippos, sweeping aerial shots of lush vegetation, gorillas looking forlornly at the camera and refugees fleeing along never ending roads.The documentary had very little direction or focus. The guy in charge of the park rangers didn't seem to have much 'presence' about him and the constant assertions that these people were prepared to lay down their lives for the park and the gorillas was all a bit muddled. At one point they are preparing their weapons and supplies for when the rebels roll into town and the next minute, he's saying that when they come, we'll have to leave. Were they prepared to die defending the park/gorillas or simply die alongside them? Were they part of the Congolese army or a privately funded militia? The programme wanted to make out that they were defending the Alamo but he never walked around, and his colleagues never exhibited, an air of heightened battle readiness. Granted it's all about remaining calm but it certainly didn't give the impression of the wild west.Likewise the whole SOCO 'conspiracy' seemed very forced and under-developed. I couldn't work out why a SOCO employee would be so keen to spill the beans about the company, and later on introduce a mercenary to the female reporter, when he knew that she was a journalist. Did he really think she would keep it off the record? What was his motive for telling her everything? It felt strange that the makers were so keen to paint the company based in one of the former colonial powers as the dreadful bad guys but turned an almost blind eye to the Congolese government that gave SOCO the license to begin the oil exploration. What message are they trying to send? That the evil corporations are the puppet masters for the Congolese government? That the Congolese are too stupid or inept to control their own destiny? Surely if it wasn't SOCO, it would be another oil company that would be offered the concession to look for oil? Why is the dirty thought of profit, the exploitation of a countries resources and the invasion/destruction of the national park only being laid at the door of the western business? Is it that the Congolese government can do no wrong or would singling them out for criticism be a lot more uncomfortable than pinning it all on the pantomime British bad guy? Finally, the documentary was a little confusing in what was actually happening and when. M23 were attacking the area and the Congolese army were pulling out but then the army were taking up defensive positions around the park. Did the park fall into their hands? If so, why were M23 happy for it to remain open and have an independent military force existing within its new sphere of influence? It really was one of those documentaries where you realised about half way through that the only decent summation you were going to get, would be at the very end. Although this revealed some blatant corruption and intimidation against the main park commander, it unsurprisingly was made up of responses just from SOCO. I'm intrigued to know what the official responses from the Congolese government were.Although the plight of the Gorillas and the National parks is an important one, I do feel that the makers are trading on the importance of the issue rather than fully raising their game and putting together an excellent documentary to promote the cause.

"You must justify why you are on this earth. Gorillas justify why I am here. They are my life." - André Bauma, Virunga National Park In a world where everyone at some point have been selfish or had an act of narcissistic behavior, how many people can say that? I think everyone should know about it. It showed me selflessness, love that is unconditional despite the race, evil and goodness.I think a movie is good if it creates a sense of doing, acting. A film which makes you want to do something beyond the movie seats, create a reality out of entertainment.People say that is how a film touches one's soul, I say that is how a film creates reality for us. Not everyone has the same privileges we were born with, the same freedom or right. We all came to earth the same way but it does not mean we are able to have the same peace.A film can show us exactly how we are more and how we can help, and this film did just that. It makes you think of what other ways to help.I think everyone should watch it to get to reality, get a realization. A realization that maybe not all men are equal, but all beings are equal.

Virunga does a good job of showing the grave difficulties facing conservationists in Africa. Virunga is about a park in the Congo, but the situation is similar in many African countries. War breaks out frequently, violence is commonplace, corruption is rampant. Perhaps even more serious, many people have an economic incentive to plunder the national parks. Many people live in extreme poverty, so poaching wild animals is not merely a good business deal, it may be the difference between starving and surviving. The same is true of exploiting the minerals in the park. Virunga lays out all that in an unflinching way.Where I fault Virunga is that it somewhat makes a muddle of things, confusing various issues, and it has an unrealistic view of what is going on. An example of the first problem is that Virunga gives the impression that the mineral companies are the root of all evil. They are not. They don't poach elephants, for example. That's a different issue. An example of the second problem is that Virunga gives the impression that the mineral companies are the reason there is corruption. In fact, corruption is rampant throughout Africa and indeed much of the rest of the world (try to get your ferry ticket stamped in Greece without paying the clerk a bribe, for example). If Africa had no minerals, it still would be rife with corruption.Despite the flaws, Virunga is a very good movie, well worth watching.