Discrimination in all its forms is a problem. Before the release of Hotel Rwanda, the Terry George film, many acted as if genocide was taboo. This film helped raise awareness of the Rwandan genocide, which many refer to as the "modern-day Holocaust." Hotel Rwanda was very effective in showing that the genocide was a major problem, not only by relating well to specific historical events, but also by communicating the differences between Hutus and Tutsis and showing how poorly the soldiers treated the people . It was effective because it was very realistic and showed people accurately what was happening. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get Original Essay The film has remained faithful to historical events, which helps viewers understand the real event better. All the people had cards that classified them as Tutsi or Hutu, and Tutsis were called “cockroaches.” The film portrayed all the real events perfectly. For example, the soldiers who found evidence of the presence of Tutsis in Paul's van and of all the corpses in the streets. When a treaty attempts to be made, the rebels shoot the president, causing even more riots than were already occurring. The film not only shows the discrimination between the two groups, but also the racism between African Americans and Europeans. The soldier who tells Paul that he doesn't matter because he's black is a good example of this and once again proves how well the filmmaker makes his point. Another scene that illustrates this racism is the scene in which all the Europeans and Caucasians evacuate the country, leaving everyone else to die. One specific moment that stands out is when an African American man holds a white man's umbrella and escorts him out of the hotel to escape. The white man said, “I’m so ashamed.” » This is a pivotal moment in the film because while everyone else is rushing to the buses to escape, it shows that some truly care about the horror unfolding in the country. The filmmaker did an excellent job in making the film to accurately depict the true historical events that took place during the Rwandan genocide. The difference between the Hutu and Tutsi people is overemphasized in the film and is clearly the biggest problem in Rwanda. But can some even tell the difference? One particular scene that illustrates this point is the men talking at the bar. We wonder what the difference really is between the two. They claim that it was the Belgians who created the division and that the Tutsi were taller and more elegant. Paul says this is “unfortunately” the truth. When the man tries to flirt with the girls and asks who is Tutsi and who is Hutu, he claims that they could be twins and that they cannot be told apart. The filmmaker does a good job of first explaining how the Belgians made the separation between the two, but also shows that it really doesn't matter, because in the end, most people can't tell the difference . Genocides are not pretty. The film shows the bloody and bloody truth of what really happened during the genocide. Dead bodies in the streets, people taken from their homes, and all these events actually happened and were also depicted in the film. The soldiers were not nice to the people of this country, as shown in the scene where they pour beer on the refugees. The film depicts all the true, good and bad things that happened during that time. Keep..