Worthy film may be too painful
So what can we say about a movie such as “Finding Oscar,” a documentary that deserves to be seen, that deals with an important subject, that is intelligently and conscientiously made, and yet will give no pleasure to those who watch it? This film is, to say the least, disturbing, and that’s even if you close your eyes for some of it.
It tells the story of a 1982 massacre in Guatemala. In a small village called Dos Erres, government troops came in and killed everybody — men, women, little children, babies. It was a civil war, and the military rulers were wiping out supposedly leftist opposition, though it’s hard to see how babies can be communists. It turns out this was one of 600 or so massacres that took place during a conflict that lasted decades.
It’s heartrending and can make you despair for humanity. It’s a cliche to say it, only because the world provides too many opportunities, but what is wrong with people? At one point in the film, the surviving relatives go in and start excavating the well where the bodies were dumped. They come back with bags and bags of bones. For the cameras, a bag of male bones is dumped onto the ground, then female bones, and then child bones. How does one process a horror such as this?
One man, a survivor — he happened to be away from the village when the soldiers came — had his entire family wiped out, his wife and six kids. He has a huge, rough nose, the mottled nose of an alcoholic. He says, “I tried to drown my troubles in alcohol. But my troubles learned to swim.”
That man turns out to have a living son, which is the second part of the “Finding Oscar” story. Apparently, a 3-year-old boy survived. He was adopted by one of the soldiers who helped to kill his family, but he had no recollection of his origins. He
was contacted almost 30 years later and told his true identity.
Now this is the part that’s really interesting: He was contacted not only as a personal gesture. The authorities investigating the massacre needed his DNA. If his DNA matched the bones of any of the victims, it would, in effect, identify the dead family and make it easier to prosecute the murders.
So this is a worthy film, with lots of human moments, such as when the father and son reunite after many years apart. But it’s also a film with horrific shots of open graves. By all means see it if you have the inclination, but do be aware of the experience you’re letting yourself in for.
Mick LaSalle is The San Francisco Chronicle’s movie critic. Email: mlasalle@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @MickLaSalle