User reviews

Set in an un-named African country in the immediate aftermath of a lengthy, bloody civil war, this taut tale takes place on a 'day of reconciliation' where the president, the leader of the opposition and their spouses meet to celebrate the end of hostilities. But after atrocities on both sides and lingering ethnic tensions, can there really be peace? From the beginning the tension between members of the two sides is palpable and as the film continues, the atmosphere of menace grows as the leaders struggle to cement a lasting peace but old wounds remain fresh.

The director is the first female director of a feature film in sub-Saharan Africa, and is inspired in part by her own experiences. It can be a little too theatrical in parts, but if you take it as it is meant, as a moral fable rather than a docudrama, it is a striking and poignant work.

The Night of Truth refers to a peace accord between government and rebel troops who are joining at the camp of the rebels to celebrate peace at the end of a civil war. But terrible atrocities have been committed by both sides, and animosity threatens the peace. Taking place in one day, this little gem really engages right from the start and is a terrific tribute to peace and forgiveness, a common theme with Dry Season, also set in Africa.

The film quickly builds tension with a believable sense of mutual mistrust between the parties. The leaders of each side are committed to the peace process and each faces obstacles within their respective ranks who do not share that faith. Some have agendas of their own that threaten to derail the process. This is an impressive debut by Fanta Régina Nacro. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the end was disappointing, but it wasn't quite able to maintain the same level of believability as the first two acts. An excellent story with universal and current themes, good performances and good visuals make this well-worth seeing.

I saw this film at a Melbourne International Film Festival screening.

Unfortunately and ironically, the tone of this sometimes powerful but ultimately over the top cinematic study of the hysteria of war falls victim to the very frenzy it is examining. In the process credibility is the main victim as it is simply not believable, to this viewer at least, that a peace treaty between two warring tribes can be completely and utterly shattered in the course of an evening's feasting in celebration of said treaty. However, there is no denying the ability of director Fanta Regina Nacro to create an atmosphere of impending doom shot through with mordant humor as personified by the Everyman kitchen helper Tomoto (braised snake w. cricket chaser, anyone?) Give it a B minus.

African cinema is not generally the most widely seen. You've probably never heard of Fanta Régina Nacro. However, if "La nuit de la vérité" ("The Night of Truth" in English) is any indication, she is an impressive director. Set in an unidentified African country, the movie depicts an attempted reconciliation between the ethnic groups who have been at war for ten years. However, wounds continue to fester.

I got the feeling that the movie was alluding to the Rwandan Genocide. I understand that the one saving grace of that infamous chapter in world history is that the Rwandans decided to never again view each other as Hutu or Tutsi, just as Rwandans, and a number of the people who participated in the genocide publicly apologized to each other. Similarly, Nelson Mandela established the Truth and Reconciliation Committee in South Africa to help both sides deal with the memory of apartheid. As Nacro's movie shows, reconciliation isn't necessarily that simple. These issues are the remaining effects of colonialism in the continent.

Another thing that I like about these movies are that they show us cultures that we don't often see. Indeed, I had never even heard of the Dyula language and people until I saw this movie. It's amazing what you can learn by avoiding Michael Bay movies. I recommend the movie.

I just returned from a screening and Q&A on this film and am frankly speechless. The film is incredible, beautiful and brutal all at the same time. What's more even more unbelievable is that there are only 4 professional actors in this film! Can you guess which ones? You won't be able to - the performances are that honest.

The violence is graphic and your mouth will fall open in shock but the suspense is so well done that you will not be able to look away.

I'd also have to say that memory plays a very important role in this film, in fact it is pretty much a character in the film. Just as developed, complex as the actors.

Look out for Fanta Regina Nacro. She is a genius.

A great war film, as well as a great anti-war film. The war is "over" and reconciliation is to begin in an unnamed West African nation's civil war. The leaders of both sides and their entourages meet at a village/compound to sign the paper. There are many axes to grind in this savage world that is to be left behind. The word Shakespearean comes up over and over again in regard to this film. As a huge fan of the Bard, I will affirm that those words are well placed. The story was built around a point in time where people's attitudes and behavior toward each other were expected to change instantly. It showed the harsh realities that people were going to have to live with in order to live in peace. The hate filled and vengeful obstacles that arise made me more aware of the particularly cruel nature of civil wars. I would recommend pairing this film with a very different film in a similar vein "Si le vent soulève les sables", set on the opposite side of the continent and the characters are from other side of the power spectrum. War is savage.

Satire is the unlikely but true definition that comes to mind after seeing this film. The third world civil war situation seems to be ridiculed, in the sense that the whole third world society is accused of being ridiculously immature and unable to even know what war means.

War here is portrayed as something nobody knows about. Just as politics are. Politics are even shown as almost intellectually non existing. And yet, they all seem to take each other so seriously. Even the man with some of his wits gone seems to be as serious as the others, and this becomes very clear in the prologue, when he freely speaks to his captain. You'll have to see yourself why that is.

But is war is portrayed as ridiculous, the peace talks are portrayed as even more ridiculous. It seems these two sides really had nothing to talk about, but as long as they exist, there will always be such a war. Peace won't last because there will always be someone strong enough to command the poor and hungry that it's somebody else's fault.

It does get lengthy, though. The climax of the dinner party occupies half of the film and moves at slug's speed. But perhaps that's what the director wanted, to make the whole thing look uncomfortable. Though this works, it is to some extent, because it doesn't seem to be working on a narrative and viewer to plot point of view.

Satire is the word that comes to mind. A bitter and monstrous satire that unfolds the onion like layers of a ridiculous civil war that can be only a half fictitious example for the many ridiculous civil wars that are going on today but that nobody ever hears much of.

WATCH FOR THE MOMENT - The mad man brings in a drum into the peace celebration. The tension crops up, as the beating of a drum can ruin the whole peace process.