MovieChat Forums > The Wild Geese (1978) Discussion > 'Political inocrrectness' in The Wild Ge...

'Political inocrrectness' in The Wild Geese


Reading the promotional material for the film, and some supporting martial with the DVD i.e. accompanying booklet, DVD commentary, it is clear that the people who made it have tried to spin it as if TWG was a reform-minded and forward looking film which explicitly rejected racism and looked with sympathy on the plight of the people of Africa.

I'm no bleeding heart, but i can see why some people would disagree with this view. For instance, black people, for whom the credit sequence purports to show concern, are basically cannon fodder in this film, who can't shoot straight and simply get mowed down running at the enemy. The main black character, Limbani, is symbolically carried around the bush on the back of a white Afrikaner. The only other black character, Jesse, seems to be a token gesture, and certainly John Kani does not seem to have been selected for the role purely based on his acting.

Then there's the gay medic who seems rather out of place, like he belongs ina carryy on film, not some serious business like this.

But I thought the strangest part of pretence, which undermined the film's claim to be supportive of the black cause, was the hurried and uncomfortable way in which the Hardy Kruger chacater, a middle-aged Afrikaner racist, changes his entire mindset with regard to blacks after hearing a few platitudes from the exiled President Limbani. This is passed off as 'character development' and a revelation tp Pieter of the power of togetherness and unity, but his conversion if far less convinving than his cahracter's original views on the state of Africa, i.e.

"you're living on forieng aid, screaming about outside oppression while you'rekilling each other in great big bleeding batches. Now when you hav esomething better to offer, come to talk to us on the white side"

For me, purely the way that passage is written and delivered seem for more in line whit the character and the film, than his later conversion to non-racism.

We also see the standard British/American/South African use of Cubans and East Germans controlling Africans, suggesting that blacks are dummies to be moulded into whatever form those Commies like, and that no way could black Africans even come close to touching Faulkener's band of heros if the red devils weren't there to point the way. Blacks in the film seem incompetant - falling asleep in guard towers, taking a pee on guard duty, not being sharp enough to stop their base getting overrun by a vastly numerically inferior force etc.

The attitude towards women is also important: only two have speaking parts, and both 2female leads" are related to the producer (his wife and daughter). One is generally portrayed as a middle aged fuss pot who wants to live in pece and make the tea, the other is a bimbo who is gallant enough to take a beating for her serial philandering boyfriend, saying "it was a pleaseure to have served...isn't he a love?" - and this is while she is waiting for an ambulance to take her to hospital (and the dentist i guess), while he goes off on a three month trip to Africa immediately. The only other women we see are two more bimbos in Sonny's beroom, the way he dismissed them when he sees Shawn reminds me of the butslap, 'man talk' moment between Bond and Dink in Goldfinger.


Don't get me wrong, I'm not attacking the film for these sentiments, I am mere trying to chrnoicle and document instances of what some people would deride as 'political incorrectness', so that when this film's sentiments are discussed, we know what we are talking about.

"He's a bit of a rough diamond but his heart's in the right place."

reply

[deleted]

And using "fagg*t" as an insult is for bigots.

reply

correct. And also used as an insult by the immature and stupid.

reply

Do you expect an oldschool RSM to be a PC wuss?

reply

This is one of my favorite movies. This movie is far from a PC movie. PC has NO place in war! Look at the situation today in Iraq. This movie showed the situation in post-colonial Africa very truthfully. The part about Hardy Krueger carrying Limbani is actually very important. When Krueger's character is approached about the mission, he showed how he didn't approve of his country's (the Republic of South Africa) treatment of black Africans. He, Krueger, called Limbani "Kaffa" at first. This is the Africanaas translation of *beep* After their conversation, Krueger pointed out that he was just as much of an African as Limbani. And Limbani pointed out that if the racial tension didn't stop, there wouldn't be an Africa left for anyone. This is when Krueger called Limbani, "bloke." My favorite since in the entire film is when he and Limbani are hit and Krueger dies saying "please don't die" to Limbani. For a white South African to do something like this to a black African in that period would be considered the worst of sins.

The film also showed the senseless brutality of the rebels in these countries. This was shown in later films such as "Tears of the Sun" and "Blackhawk Down." Political Correctess tells us that these people are no different than people else where in the world. PC denies the truth. Just look at what happened in Somalia in 1993. I lost friends there. A few words won't change centuries of tribal warfare. They killed Americans that were trying to feed them! These people do not have a love of life like we do in the west. The simple exchange between Limbani and Kreuger was monumental

reply

I'll say it aloud-I'm Politically Incorrect and I'm Proud! The Reds demonstrated against this film when it came out.I think it was right about Africa-the hard fact is that they were better off with us in charge.Look at Rhodesia then and Zimbabwe now-then scream "racist" all you like.

reply

There ain't a damn thing wrong with being what you call "politically correct" like another poster said, it's about not disrespecting people because of their race/gender---what the hell is so difficult about that? Yeah, well, I believe Africa would have advanced nicely into the modern age on its own if the Europeans (and Americans,too) hadn't come in,took over its countries and basically drained virtually all of the continent's resources for their own uses, and on top of that just exploiting the native citizens of those countries as cheap labor to get those resources. Also, I haven't seen this film, but I have seen others like it, and it's obviously biased from a British point of view--believe me,if it was shown from a black African point of view, you'd get a whole different story there.

And that "they were better off with us in charge" is just the same old racist colonial imperialist bullls**t to justify Britain's having invaded Africa and every other non-white country it felt like to make itself into an empire. That's why it kills me when I read about how Britain is worried about all these foreigners taking over their country and freaking out about the population turning less than white in the future, because it didn't think twice about invading the countries of those same foreigners to get whatever the hell it wanted out of them, and barinwashing the same poeple to believe that the British Way of Life was better than their own supposedly inferior culture. Oh well--you reap what you sow, is all I've got to say.

reply

If we hadn't taken Africa,most of them would never have been born and the rest wouldn't have advanced anything like as much.The natives had ASfrica,America,Australia,NZ for centuries and what did they do with it?Where were their science,cities,learning,civilisation?

reply

The natives had ASfrica,America,Australia,NZ for centuries and what did they do with it?Where were their science,cities,learning,civilisation?



Do you even understand how *beep* stupid that sounds like.

If europeans wouldn't have gone to Africa and mix up their territories and different countries, "putting these tribes there and those tribes here" so to say, most of the African countries wouldn't have civil wars right now.

Also what makes you think that destroying nature and inventing all sorts of *beep* is the point of our existance?

Saying that the indian tribes who still live in South America, Africa and Papua don't deserve to live in isolation because they don't have big cities and high crime rates and other *beep* is just retarted, and that's basically what you are saying.

reply

Simple test - Name me 10 Black scientists , inventors , nobel prize winners who have advanced our civilisation in medicine, technology whatever - If you can do this then you have proved your point.

If you cant you have proved Marks point.

What dont you understand about humans - its like the animal kingdom - the most intelligent will survive not the fittest - brains wins over brawn every time.

Look at South Africa now since the blacks took it back for an example or Rhodesia since all the whites were murdered and left. Bread basket of Africa its now the poorest of Africa.
You use your heart dude but its logic that counts.

reply

I haven't seen this film


But you thought you'd come here spouting bullsh!t anway.

if it was shown from a black African point of view


Which black Africans?

The poor ones or the rich ones who leave the poor ones to suffer.

Hardy Kruger's character was spot on with his speech in this movie.

reply

Typical action film bad guys are allways cannon fodder. At least they dident send one guy in half naked armed with a knife taking on a whole army.

reply

Well said!!!

Yes just look at Africa now 1 trillion pounds of aid and its worse than it was 50 years ago.

Some people are just too scared to say the truth because they have been browbeaten into political correctness hence why there are Muslim paedophile rape gangs in every city in every country in the world now.

And no one can see the end is coming if those with guts dont stand up now.

reply

Most of that "tribal war" is instigated by the West. The problem with so-called Political Incorrectness is that, as the name explicitly states, it represents incorrectness. The politically "incorrect" portrayal of people is offensive because it is shallow, narrow and just plain wrong.

reply

You should perhaps take off those "politically correct" glasses every time you view a movie, comrade.

"For instance, black people, for whom the credit sequence purports to show concern, are basically cannon fodder in this film, who can't shoot straight and simply get mowed down running at the enemy."

Also: "Blacks in the film seem incompetant - falling asleep in guard towers, taking a pee on guard duty, not being sharp enough to stop their base getting overrun by a vastly numerically inferior force etc."



I'm afraid whether you like it or not, many 3rd world armies are just that. It's not their fault as individuals, they are just badly trained and badly led. Showing them in this way might offend those who are overly sensitive to such things, but it is in fact quite authentic. To make up for the lack of leadership, training and tactical learning, they are employed in human waves. A less trained professional force would be intimidated by this and would flee.
Also repetitive guard duty would be boring for any army and is usually given to lesser trained troops. The guard lazily taking a pee and being taken by surprise is perfectly realistic. I would be the same with me.

"But I thought the strangest part of pretence, which undermined the film's claim to be supportive of the black cause, was the hurried and uncomfortable way in which the Hardy Kruger chacater, a middle-aged Afrikaner racist, changes his entire mindset with regard to blacks after hearing a few platitudes from the exiled President Limbani. This is passed off as 'character development' and a revelation tp Pieter of the power of togetherness and unity, but his conversion if far less convinving than his cahracter's original views on the state of Africa, i.e."

I agree with this however. His conversion is rather quick and therefore contrived.

"The attitude towards women is also important: only two have speaking parts, and both 2female leads" are related to the producer (his wife and daughter)...The only other women we see are two more bimbos in Sonny's beroom, the way he dismissed them when he sees Shawn reminds me of the butslap, 'man talk' moment between Bond and Dink in Goldfinger."

Again, you seem to want censorship of realism in order not to upset the guardians of political correctness. Have you ever thought that their sometimes bigoted and perhaps patronising attitude to women in the film is a true reflection of these men's attitudes and not that of the film makers?

This film is about mercenaries and the nasty, bloody world they live in. It also portrays their bond and relationships with each other. As such, it is primarily about men at war. There are no female leads, and it shouldn't have to apologise for this. Today, they would have to include a social quota by dictorial so called 'liberals' that a main female role must be included. Why should that be? It isn't needed, and would detract from the object of the film. Why must film makers adhere to the views of focus groups.

Soon - it is almost here - films will have to pass a political correctness test before being released. Don't you find it ironic that in this supposed enlightened 'liberal' age our society is becoming controlled like in an old Eastern Bloc country.


MAJ




reply

Hey,

I wasn't criticising the film by pointing out faults, I was laying down the points on which OTHER PEOPLE, the "guardians of political correctness" as you call them, would hate it. I personally love TWG, for many of the reasons above - it doesn't flinch at reality by tokenising (except the 'conversion.' It shouldn't feel apologetic at all.

Sorry if my meaning got you confused.

"He's a bit of a rough diamond but his heart's in the right place."

reply

political correctness be damned!!!

If people get bothered by seeing black africans falling asleep on guard duty or any of the other things that you mentioned... it's because these namby-pambies are to ignorant to understand what they are viewing...

Like the other poster said -- this is a good representation of how 3rd world armies behave...

As for the black-african being carried through the bush on a white-man's back... how is that a negative thing??? the man had be in prison for quite some time, he had been abused and was seriously malnurished... How does this paint his character poorly???


and for the record, Kruger was not an South African... he was Rhoadesian... HUGE difference...

reply

No, the Hardy Kruger character is a South African. He worked as a manhunter on the Rhodesia/Zimbabwe border in the military police.

"He's a bit of a rough diamond but his heart's in the right place."

reply

Its been years since ive watched this... thanks... I'll check it out...

reply

I can see your point - but for its day it was a forward thiking piece - an action film with a political point to it.

It was the first movie I ever videod off the TV when I was about 9 years old!

Was chuffed it came out on DVD - not so impressed with the price - that is until I got it for free with a sunday newspaper

Utterly brilliant film that takes me back to my childhood

reply

I had no problem of "political correctness" as you put it. With the guards falling asleep it would never cross my mind that they were portrayed wrongly. I just saw it as what a bloody boring job I would fall asleep too!

And the same as was mentioned a few threads up by the other poster. It's about a war with mercenaries in which there weren't woman so why do they have to have them in there just to be politically correct????

I didn't think Sandy's wife was portrayed bad at all, she had been through it before with obviously worring about her husbands life and she knew Burton showing up could put him at risk again. It's a very honest reaction.

reply

Today's denial of history in the name of political correctness borders upon the fascist.

reply

I think everyone's missed the point here about political correctness. And that point is that this movie was filmed in 1978 when political correctness was some 20-odd years from inception.

Now if it had been filmed in 1988 then it may have been slightly more politically correct, certainly with no referance to fagg**s or ni***rs but still, the PC level would have probably on a scale of 1-10 been at a 3. And of course in 1998 the PC level would have been at 7 or 8 and there would have been a team of PC advisors on hand to make sure the movie fitted into the tough moral standards of today.

However, we're talking 1978 here - remember this was only 14 years after the American Civil Rights Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964) so PC was definitely not on the agenda - for god's sake, the 'no blacks' signs were probably still being taken down at this point. In 1978, racism, sexism and homophobia were still rife and accepted, both in the US and the UK. You only have to look at UK mainstream comedy in the 70's with shows like 'Mind your language' characters such as 'Alf Garnett' (admitedly a parody of white racist bigotry but most people missed that point) making the top 10.

The previous posts all had good points to make but we must remember what context we're talking in here and that this movie is actually a good snapshot of our (well, I was only 5 then actually) attitudes and morals at that time. And as we watch, let's thank god that we've moved on since then....but hopefully not too far.

reply

You're right although despite the blatant racism sexism and homophobia, it's a rattling good yarn like a last (thank goodness !) hurrah for the gunga din style of hero
Political correctness is no bad thing - it simply avoids stereotyping and thus de-humanising individuals...re-writing history- don't be too naive not to beleive history is written by the victors: what do you think the Nazis would have said about Roosevelt, Churchill or the Jews if they'd won ? They're no differeent to anyone else - Katyn forest massacre, anyone ?

reply



Sexism? Seems to me at the time there weren't all that many women in the combat arms services outside of Israel. Including women in the combat group would have been a real irregularity for the time. And consider who they were up against - severly wounded were shot rather than being left for a hatchet job. In the period depicted, there just wasn't a whole lot of front-line female presence.

Racism? I always get a chuckle when reading assmessments of people raised in one environment by others raised in a much more protected one, like North America. South Africans generally didn't see themselves as racists, but they were living in a world where they were the visible minority. Sorta like the early settlers in the American west, only in South Africa the population never expanded enough to completely displace the indigent population.

As for homophobia, the medic would have been the real exception in the regular forces of just about any country at the time.

The only character in the movie I really had trouble with was the suit, because these are the guys who damn near always walk away from the mess unscathed. And they haven't changed a whole lot over the centuries. It was nice to see him get his just desserts for a change. :-)

Theotime

reply

Remember who "the suit" was? Stewart Granger? Did he not play a merc in the 1962 film Marcia o crepa as the betrayed rather than betrayer?

I am flummoxed by all the "pc" concerns on this post. Most of them seem a bit paranoid. Perhaps Movies like "Top Gun" are more the taste of posters.

reply

[deleted]

All stereotypes are founded in reality.I'm Politically Incorrect and bloody proud of it!

reply

I think a bit much is being made out of the black soldiers being portrayed as inept or unskilled by making it a race issue. They are inept and unskilled, and they are the fodder of the film, not because of their race but because they're the "bad guys" in the movie. They're not even secondary characters on the level of a Star Trek "Red shirt". They are the bad sides gun toting masses and are meant to die in waves. It's like that in every movie, good guys can kill millions of onrushing hordes, usually without ever running out of ammo, and not even get grazed by a stay bullet. I think attaching racism in this regard is just bunk. Say what you will about the international political and racist themes in the movie as a whole or between a few of the characters, but leave it at that. Think about James Bond, or Rambo, or any Schwarzenegger movie. You get the same thing, endless identity void masses, who can't hit the broad side of a barn with their weapons, charging headlong to their death at the hands of the story's lead actor. The only difference here is it's a group of three lead actors. That's been the formula for movies since the old black and white cowboy movies where I suppose you could argue racism against Native Americans, when it's really all just a lame movie formula with no basis in reality used to sell tickets.

I agree with testorca who said "political correctness be damned!!"

Just take this movie for what it is, a movie. It wasn't meant to change the world, just to be a two hour action flick.



reply

Surely if you watch other movies around this time period, this one does not stand out at all as being more un-PC (except for one scene which nobody has yet to mention).

When the Simbas are hacking up the gay medic you clearly hear the sound of excited monkeys playing.

reply

If you were a monkey, and another primate was being butchered before YOUR eyes, what would YOU do? How do you know they were playing? Are you a monkey?

Consider, perhaps they were freaking out with fear? OTOH, maybe monkeys hate medics.

reply

PC is BS.

You are a young person, correct, with no real idea of how things really are.

You've never been in the military, much less in combat, have you?

This movie takes place in a time BEFORE the PC commies thrust their philosophy into the world's conscience.

Although it IS true that countries in Europe have abused the world since the Romans left, native Africans would still be lion bait were it not for colonialism. Many of them still are.

PC cannot gloss over reality, no matter how hard it tries.

reply