In her 1966 book Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand made a statement about evil: “The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. Whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles” (163). Rand’s statement relates to Sierra Leone’s absence of the Rule of Law,” as depicted by director Edward Zwick in his movie Blood Diamond. The “Rule of Law” states that no one is above the law and written laws protect a population from totalitarian or mob rule. Zwick portrays this constant tension between good and evil through protagonist Danny Archer as he interacts with various characters and situations in his beloved Africa.
Evil in a vacuum exists when chaos rules. In Sierra Leone, the Rule of Law” has broken down or never existed. The ruling government is corrupt and does not protect its citizens. Guerilla bands and militias, known as the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) in Blood Diamond, roam the countryside carrying weapons and killing, torturing, and kidnapping citizens to inflict fear and advance their agenda of evil and oppression.
Sierra Leone is a country stricken by poverty and civil war. Its citizens are left to fend for themselves in a hand-to-mouth subsistence. This wretched way of life contrasts with the richness of the land blessed with diamonds. The RUF militia often kidnaps villagers forcing them to mine for diamonds in remote jungle rivers and pits.
The mined diamonds are then sold to agents who use the money to fund atrocious activities of these rebels. The precious stone is thus called “Blood Diamond” because African miners often pay for it with their lives while receiving nothing in return; instead, it funds killings in Sierra Leone.
In the movie Blood Diamond, Solomon Vandy is one such kidnapped slave who discovers a rare diamond but hides it before one rebel suspects him doing so. Solomon unequivocally portrays “good,” while RUF rebels clearly portray “evil.” The director places Danny Archer between these two extremes that make the film interesting as he navigates his duality.
Evil is situational and not inherent. To truly understand a person’s actions, one must first understand their history and the forces that have pushed them to the edge. The characters in Blood Diamond are a perfect subject for Burke’s Dramatism. Danny Archer witnessed evil at a young age with the brutal murder of his parents. He recounts this tragedy to Maddy, saying, That’s a polite way of putting it, ja. Mum was raped and shot and uh… Dad was decapitated and hung from a hook in the barn. I was nine… boo-hoo right?”
As a young man, Archer joined Colonel Coetzee’s mercenary group called 32 Battalion. Coetzee is an opportunist who has no morals other than personal gain; he will take any side as long as he gets paid well enough for it. He has no loyalty to anyone – not his employer nor his soldiers nor his former associates.
Archer grew up exposed to killing, greed, and opportunistic behavior under Coetzee’s tutelage; he was trained to be unfeeling in war and selfish in order to protect himself.
Solomon is the foil to this system of belief as he is willing to risk everything for his son while Maddy Bowen fans the flame of goodness in Archer by seeking an end to violence through stopping the trade of blood diamonds.
All these elements come into play defining Danny Archer as innately good but forced into bad decisions due to circumstances beyond his control – making him an agent whose actions are justified by framing them within the context of his tragic past.
Is Danny Archer a man of morals, or is he driven by pure greed? Throughout the majority of the film, it seems that Archer’s motivation is to obtain the big diamond that Solomon found and use it to escape Africa forever and start a new life. He trades arms with the RUF in exchange for diamonds and uses his connections to free Solomon from prison upon hearing of a possible big diamond find. In exchange for the diamond, he promises Solomon that he will help his family and get his son back. However, Archer is not above killing, lying, stealing, or using people to advance his own selfish interests.
He lies to Solomon about wanting to help him save his son and lies to Colonel Coetzee about helping him get the diamond. He does not hesitate at killing people in order to achieve what he wants. Archer’s actions define him as a selfish man with evil motivations; greed being his main driving force even when faced with uncertain survival.
Archer leverages Solomon’s goodness and devotion towards his family and uses it as an opportunity for him to reveal the location of the diamond. In one instance, he lured Coetzee with the diamond so that he could use Coetzee’s resources in finding it while also forcing Solomon into revealing its location.
Solomon on one hand leverages his knowledge of where the diamond is hidden so that he can get his family out of danger from constant fear as refugees living their lives on edge. While both characters are driven by personal agendas, Archer’s motivation is purely for personal gain while for Solomon it’s about saving lives.
Archer’s morals, like most of us, are shaped by his environment. As the agent in charge, he acts according to the scene around him (Burke & Gusfield 135). He grew up in a war-torn land where death and dying were commonplace. Under an opportunistic mercenary, he became a formidable soldier. From Archer’s perspective, his search for conflict diamonds is not necessarily immoral because it allows him to survive in an abandoned land. However, he fails to see or acknowledge the far-reaching consequences of trading arms for diamonds.
When describing Africa, Archer says: Sometimes I wonder… will God ever forgive us for what we’ve done to each other? Then I look around and realize… God left this place a long time ago.” In a lawless land like this one, there is no room for moral compunctions. Goodness and God cannot exist where evil reigns supreme and survival is the only thing that matters above all else.
Archer grew up in this forsaken land where he yearns for something better but knows that he is powerless to do anything about it. Therefore, he gives into the lawless nature of his surroundings.
However, upon deeper analysis and as the movie progresses, it becomes clear that Solomon and Bowen are starting to have an impact on Archer. Despite his seemingly indestructible armor of indifference and selfishness, the love that Solomon has for his family and the idealism of Bowen begin to chip away at him. Archer even reveals to Bowen the real secret trade routes of conflict diamonds when he could have easily made up something equally convincing. The element of redemption is placed within a war-torn land that has suffered for far too long (Jasinski 188).
Although Archer’s character remains selfish and opportunistic throughout most of the film, there is a definitive change at the apex of fighting over the blood diamond after Captain Poison and Colonel Coetzee are killed. This change is catalyzed by Solomon finding his son Dia, while Archer gets shot over the diamond. His shift in attitude can be attributed to realizing that although he has a valuable diamond in hand, it holds no value because he has been mortally wounded.
Archer comes to terms with this realization as they make their way towards an airplane rendezvous with Solomon carrying him on his back. He insists on seeing the diamond at one point; however, upon looking at it, his face seems lit by an unflinching sense of clarity and purpose as if all tragedies from his life melted away in that moment.
He then gives the diamond to Solomon telling them both to go without him so they can escape safely while he stays behind holding off coming rebels in order to protect them both ensuring their escape. At one point during this scene, Archer calls Bowen asking for help for Solomon’s family before saying goodbye peacefully dying while gazing upon Africa – a land which he loves.
In the end, Archer realizes that he has found the one big diamond that would change his life. Pursuing it led him to redemption. He sacrificed his life to protect Solomon and his son, freeing himself from an empty and selfish existence. His death caused more good than he expected. Bowen’s story about Archer and Solomon, as well as her expose on the trade of conflict diamonds, gripped the world and ended this costly and tragic trade.
Blood Diamond is a compelling study of the concepts of good” and “evil,” and the many of us who fall somewhere in between. In the end, Archer becomes a martyr; he dies on that mountain in Africa without achieving his selfish goal, but ensuring that Solomon and his family will have a better life. By providing valuable information to Maddy Bowen, he goes even further and improves conditions in his native Africa, a land that he both despised and loved desperately.
In the end, Archer’s duality is resolved, and his selfish nature is revised. With one act of noble sacrifice, Archer becomes an unwitting hero not only to Solomon and his family but also to millions in his war-torn land. His story as told by Bowen brings an end to the civil war and strife that shaped Archer’s character in the first place.
Danny comes full circle by committing an act of selfless sacrifice at a time when it matters most. This act redeems him from the guilt that has haunted him all his life.
All of the elements of Burke’s Dramatism can be seen in Blood Diamond. Danny acts as the agent, responding to each scene and situation with either selfish or selfless acts, depending on what is most appropriate or convenient. He weighs his options and decides on the best course of action. Ultimately, all of Danny’s actions lead towards redemption – not only for himself but also for the beloved land that he inherently symbolizes; a land where lawlessness, beauty, and goodness can still triumph in the end.
References
Burke, Kenneth and Gusfield, Joseph (1989) wrote a book titled On Symbols and Society,” which was published by the University of Chicago Press.
Rand, Ayn. Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. Signet, 1986.
Jasinski, James. Sourcebook on Rhetoric: Key Concepts in Contemporary Rhetorical Studies. SAGE, 2001.
