Fatal Assistance Film Difficulty Ranking: 3
You’ve probably heard about the 2010 Haiti Earthquake and you may have even donated some money via one of the many fundraising initiatives, but have you got any idea about how all the funds raised were put to use? Fatal Assistance investigates the recovery attempts after the earthquake and will get you questioning whether we need to reform how we donate and how charities work.
Why Watch Fatal Assistance?
- Learn about the devastation caused by the 2010 earthquake in Haiti
- Analyse the effectiveness of disaster relief charities
- Watch a film from Haiti from Haiti’s minister for culture, Raoul Peck (who you may know from his other great documentary: I Am Not Your Negro)
- Find out if there are any solutions for the future
The Breakdown
Fatal Assistance starts with a first hand account of the 2010 Haitian Earthquake. You’ll see footage of people falling to the ground under the tremors and buildings shaking and crumbling. However, unlike the big disaster fiction films, this film is a documentary and focuses on the earthquake’s aftermath.
The destruction of the earthquake was massive. It made 1.5 million people homeless and caused 24 times as much debris as 9/11. Loads of celebrities and people around the world raised millions to help Haiti’s recovery. As a result, the country was full of hope despite being ravaged by disaster. There was enough money to change the country, for it it recover from the earthquake and lift it out of poverty.
However, you can tell that the hope is not going to be fulfilled. The letters that are narrated throughout the film seem to come from the future and feel full of regret.
The lack of hope is personified in the zombie-esque appearance of former U.S. President Bill Clinton who is in charge of the Interim Haiti Reconstruction Commission. The IHRC was part of a ‘dictatorship of aid’ which consumed all of the money without actually solving anything. All the charities involved in the relief effort only offered temporary solutions, arguably to ensure they continued to exist and receive funding instead of actually solving the problem they were created for.
Conclusion
The result is a pretty negative view of the IHRC and Haitian recovery effort. Whilst the documentary doesn’t outwardly point fingers, it’s quite clear who Peck thinks is to blame. It’s worth watching to debate the effectiveness of relief charities (see GiveWell for a one solution) and for a quick lowdown on Haiti in the 2000s.