Heart of the Congo

A clear-eyed examination of humanitarian aid in action.

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Heart of the Congo is a clear-eyed examination of humanitarian aid in action. In the aftermath of the five-year civil war that killed 3.5 million people, filmmaker Tom Weidlinger traveled to eastern Congo last spring to shadow a team of European and Congolese aid workers trying to create a measure of stability in a region that’s been rocked by a century of exploitation, corruption, and bloodshed. It’s a tall order, to say the least, and their success is measured in modest victories: opening a health clinic, saving an infant from dehydration, drawing a bucket of clean water from a new well.

The film centers on a couple of scruffy, chain-smoking aid workers with the French NGO Action Against Hunger: Mariona, an engineer, and David, a nurse. Though the pair are deeply sympathetic, Heart of the Congo does not depict them or their fellow expats as saviors. When French nurses publicly dress down their Congolese colleagues, Weidlinger astutely observes that they’re following a colonial “script that was written long before they were born.”

As a documentarian, Weidlinger also honestly examines his own inability to connect with the destitute Congolese who sit in front of his camera. As he zooms in on their gaunt faces, they wonder why this rich Westerner doesn’t offer them anything in return. And when he falls ill with malaria, the filmmaker is airlifted out. It’s a reminder of what really divides the Congolese from their Western partners: When the going gets tough, the First Worlders always have the luxury of escape.

A burst of violence confirms the fragility of the aid workers’ accomplishments, but Heart of the Congo manages to close on a less-than-dire note. As another round of rebuilding begins, David reflects, “I tend to react to all this like the Congolese…. If you have to go backwards, you back up and go forward again. If you stop and think about it too much, you can’t move forward.” There are no quick fixes here, just slow, necessary steps toward a more hopeful future.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend