{"id":723,"date":"2006-12-13T19:07:00","date_gmt":"2006-12-13T19:07:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/idolchatter\/2006\/12\/horrific-beauty-of-blood-diamond.html"},"modified":"2006-12-13T19:07:00","modified_gmt":"2006-12-13T19:07:00","slug":"horrific-beauty-of-blood-diamond","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/idolchatter\/2006\/12\/horrific-beauty-of-blood-diamond.html","title":{"rendered":"The Horrific Beauty of “Blood Diamond”"},"content":{"rendered":"

I liked “Blood Diamond<\/a>” for a lot of little reasons and one big one. I liked it because Leonardo DiCaprio seemed more like a man’s man–or at least an adult–than he did as Howard Hughes in “The Aviator” or other adults he’s tried to play. I liked it because I like the inspiring and believable presence Djimon Hounsou has brought to the screen ever since “The Gladiator.” And I liked how Jennifer Connelly, as a white American in a world that was anything but, reminded me of how different so much of the world is. (I should always know it, but I forget.)<\/p>\n

But more than any of those, I really like “Blood Diamond” because we too often live in a world where discussions are about which “side” we’re on, who’s “right,” the “either\/or,” “right” or “left,” “Red” or “Blue.”<\/p>\n

“Blood Diamond” is truly not about the “or” as much as it is about–in author Jim Collins’ words–the genius of the “and”:<\/p>\n