CHRIS-VINCENT Writes: ‘Beasts of No Nation’ Criticism: | It’s Time Africans Face the Truth No Matter How Bitter It Tastes

I expected the ‘Beasts of No Nation’ narrative to upset certain Africans—on the grounds that Hollywood only picks on the war narratives, presenting Africa on the big screen as though it’s an absolute war jungle.

Though ‘Beasts of No Nation’ is based on a book written by Nigerian-American writer- Uzodinma Iweala, the critics who claim to be tired of Hollywood’s imbalance depiction of Africa, still think Hollywood had a tall list of  ‘positive’ African books—and yet decided to fall on ‘Beasts of No Nation’ because of its interest in perpetuating war and child soldiers as synonymous to Africa.

Africans seem to have a problem with foreigners highlighting our flaws—even if these flaws are obvious. And even though the entire continent of Africa is not engulfed in war, we sure did have and still do have pockets of civil wars and tension all over the continent.

Of course the original book-‘Beasts of No Nation’ is not a true story, but you cannot reasonable deny the fact that the writer’s direction and outlook originate from tales and happenings on the continent, in many of its civil war zones.

And the film adds nothing new to the narrative; rather, it gives the narrative a moving spirit and brings to our table (if we’ve forgotten) the problems hovering over the continent.

Africa has unending streams of goodness all over; we also have shocking atrocities and the problem of child soldiers, militia groups raping women under deranged situations and civil conflicts which easily graduate to become civil wars with civilians running the wheel of injustice as rebels or self-appointed soldiers.

The film highlights Africa in two folds: the brutalities of war on the continent and subtly it somewhat showcases the beauty of Africans even under unhinged conditions.

It’s a war theme movie which has gotten some Africans throwing jabs once again at Hollywood but its seems in the rush to criticize Hollywood for ‘Beasts of No Nation’, they failed to acknowledge how the narrative also entrenches the integrity/goodness of Africans even in times of war.

For instance, the movie opens with Abraham Attah and his friend(s) who had not become anything beyond what normal children are supposed to be—even when their country was in war. The beauty of the African family ties even when things were difficult was also highlighted—when the camera followed Abraham into his home.

Beyond the portrayal of the warmness of the African family, the film touched on community hospitality—we saw the villagers opening their lands up and taking refugees, with Abraham Attah’s father playing a central role in ensuring that those fleeing conflicts had pieces of the village land to settle on. No where did the film position all Africans as brutish.

The above may have been faint but at least Hollywood did not completely miss them. That was not all, the aftermath of the war for Abraham Attah seemed uncertain as far as connecting with his mother and sister was concerned, but the film once again showed the availability of help for even those who had fought as child soldiers. We had other Africans working to restore the lives which were shattered by the war.

The film places Africans at the wheel of affairs—both the good and the bad. We had those Africans who extended helping hands to Abraham Attah and the many affected individuals. And we had those who were causing the chaos, raping and killing.

So how can we say Hollywood was unfair with this particular narrative? Perhaps, we need to look for the subtle and yet rich enviable attributes of Africans which the film showcased, especially when the environment seemed to have degraded into a “state of nature”.

Moreover, the film showed African peacekeepers which the critics have totally ignored. If the film had brought white UN peacekeepers into the unnamed country in Africa working to stabilize it, that would have been noted as Hollywood placing whites as saviours of an African problem.

Yet, when we had other Africans working within the confines of decency and the law to achieve peace, those with bad taste in their mouth about the narrative fail to spot the positive portrayal in this area: the fact that Africans also fight hard to fix their own problems.

It’s a war theme film, something Hollywood is obsessed with, irrespective of where it’s happening. But it did not import any far-fetched situations and scenarios which we’ve not heard of as having taken place in many of the civil wars on the continent.

According to reports, since 1998 “there have been armed conflicts involving child soldiers in at least 36 countries” and Africa features significantly.

War Child states that there “are an estimated 250,000 child soldiers in the world today.” So how does a movie set in Africa, a continent which has “over 9 million refugees and internally displaced people” because of conflicts and features a strong child soldier becomes irrelevant to the conversation or a misrepresentation?

In fact, it is believed that if the scale of destruction and fighting happening in Africa “was in Europe, then people would be calling it World War III”—that is how bad things are and yet we don’t want anyone including Hollywood to talk about it?

In 2011, more than 200 women were raped by rebels in Congo just miles away from UN Peacekeepers’ base. Raping of women by rebels was a key atrocious tool in the Central African Republic conflict—and these two examples are not borne out of cherry picking, wars in Africa just as in everywhere have rape as a distasteful ingredient.

So where did the book or film go wrong with this?

It’s a bitter truth which we hate to see in the mirror and even that, the film did not completely depict Africa has a monstrous continent but it still managed to highlight the beauty of the people, their values, culture and more importantly, their aspirations.

READ ALSO: ‘Beasts of No Nation’ Review: Captivating Art Out of the Brutalities of War

It’s difficult and sometimes hurting to see your weakness being frequently picked on by ‘strangers’ but that does not make the conversation irrelevant or false.

We have a huge number of brilliant African film-makers on the continent and if we feel Hollywood’s constant hammering of Africa’s misery and instability distorts the conversation, why don’t our film-makers tell the other side of the story to create that balance? And if they are already doing this, then what’s wrong with Hollywood showcasing the other side—that’s if indeed we want a balance and not a cover up.