Virunga (2014)

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.

This salient ant-war, anti-business exploration, pro-conservation documentary touched me and made me feel something special. It effortlessly brings us in and causes us to care for the workers of this national park and their deep mission to preserve it at all costs. And it also makes it indisputable that what they are doing is right for such a beautiful park. War is a terrible thing when in the face of such majesty. This movie is gorgeously shot and wonderfully paced.It becomes obvious how right the mission of the main characters in the movie is. Everyone so bravely fights for this park and does whatever they can to expose corrupt business and government officials who seek to undermine it for their own benefit. The terrible consequences of war in this often unstable region on thousands of citizens is also unflinchingly portrayed. Finally, you get an intimate portrayal of the gorillas our protagonists so bravely protect with their lives, if need be. It was simply amazing, which makes this film a must see.

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.

Certainly, there's a lot of moving scenes in this. It's real life, trying to save the wilderness and some part of our world that is alive and in danger. That alone makes it hard to not wring some emotion out of us. But the problem is that the film's focus seems to shift at times. Truthfully, it doesn't in the sense of its themes, but the sort of meandering narrative does feel like it shifts a little too much. The cinematography is beautiful though, that's to be sure of. It has a really dazed sort of tone, one that seems to really make an impact in what it's trying to do and what it's trying to evoke in the audience in terms of their feelings. In that way, it's very much a success, I just wish it had been better