No movie is "utterly non-political." At the absolute minimum, a film is influenced by the attitudes and opinions of its creators. Obviously, some films are designed to be more overt than others, but there's no such thing as a "neutral" movie.
And, in all seriousness, the problem with "The Gods Must Be Crazy" is not that it's "a mere vehicle for white-supremacist propaganda." If that were true, there would be no debate. And I'm personally willing to accept that Mr. Uys intended no harm. But the film openly traffics in the very stereotypes that were at the heart of apartheid: namely, the idea that African and European ("civilized") society are worlds apart. Even though it inverts them to some extent by satirizing "civilization," by accepting the stereotypes in the first place the film perpetuates them.
Look at this way: if I went up to someone and told him he was stupid, he'd be offended. I could go on to say that stupidity was, ultimately, a virtue: maybe he was an idiot savant, or maybe his lack of formal education allowed him to understand things that a more educated man could not. But, most likely, the man would not want to be perceived as stupid, and my waxing poetic on the virtues of ignorance would probably not change that.
Now, imagine that everyone in town had been calling him stupid for all of his life. And had argued that, because he was stupid, he shouldn't be allowed to go out in public among smart people. Or have the same rights that smart people have. The ideology of apartheid argued that blacks were uncivilized, and, ultimately, incapable of becoming civilized. Blacks, obviously, spent years trying to counter that argument. "The Gods Must Be Crazy" embraces it. It doesn't matter whether or not it argues that civilization is overrated, or pokes fun at everyone. "Civilized" whites generally weren't being systematically discriminated against for the reasons Mr. Uys satirizes. Blacks were. And that's why the film is racist.
Personally, I'm ambivalent towards the film. I think it's well-produced and entertaining, and I don't begrudge anyone for enjoying it. That said, it bothers me how many people are willing to whitewash (ahem...) the problems it poses. I don't think we need to hate everything with certain racist tendencies, but I do think it's important to recognize those tendencies in order to avoid being taken in by them.
reply
share
ric4ard
17 years ago
So every "gansta" movie - e.g. Boyz in the Hood - is racist because it portrays blacks is the U.S. as ghetto-dwelling thugs, rather than showing them as the educated equals they are? That John Singleton, man, I'm sure he meant no harm, but because he chooses to make a movie which perpetuates the status quo - that means he's racist.
If God has made us in his image, we have returned him the favor. --Voltaire
reply
share
seancdaug
17 years ago
Both "The Gods Must Be Crazy" and "Boyz in the Hood" deal with, shall we say, sensitive concepts. That, in and of itself, does not guarantee racism. The difference between the two films is that Singleton's film grounds itself in fact and reality. Uys's film plays to a false stereotype with a history of being used as support for the racist ideology of apartheid.
Again, context is essential. A large part of the battle against apartheid involved dislodging the false and racist stereotypes that were being used to justify the system. A movie illustrating how native blacks are unable to comprehend European-style "civilization" at a time when those same blacks are trying to be accepted as equal partners in society is damaging. The comparison would be appropriate if Singleton's film argued that black ghetto communities existed because blacks were inherently thuggish and unable to cope within more affluent neighborhoods. And I'd be genuinely interested to see any interpretation of "Boys n the Hood" that supports that, since that seems to me to be exactly the opposite of the point of the movie. There's a difference between acknowledging and perpetuating the status quo.
And, to be absolutely clear, I'm deliberately avoiding calling Mr. Uys himself a racist. What concerns me is not the man himself, but his film. It's hard enough to draw conclusions about a person from his or her work, and that problem is compounded when dealing with film, which has numerous creators and contributors. And I don't think it's worth the effort, frankly: "The Gods Must be Crazy" has almost certainly had a larger degree of influence on a larger number of people than Jamie Uys has had in person. That's true of almost any filmmaker, I would think.
reply
share
ric4ard
17 years ago
I don't see how Uys' film is not doing the same thing. TGMBC is also grounded in reality, in that there were and are "natives" who were and are almost completely untouched by "civilization" and the film is simply a case study of what might happen when two cultures collide like that. I don't recall anywhere in the film where Xixo is "unable to comprehend" or "unable to cope with" civilization, except for the fact the everything seemed new to him and would, of course, be bewildering to someone in that situation.
This, of course, sets up the satire of the movie - we see "civilization" through Xixo's eyes - but that's not unrealistic. If the movie had been made about a black person living in Soweto who was unable to understand white society because s/he was too "backward", then, of course, that would be a racist assumption to base a movie on. That's entirely different from native San who actually live in the desert and may go through life never seeing a white man.
I think you must have had some preconceived notions about race and South Africa before watching this to read all that into it.
If God has made us in his image, we have returned him the favor. --Voltaire
reply
share
seancdaug
17 years ago
No, that's exactly the problem: the indigenous people of the Kalahari "who were... almost completely untouched by 'civilization'" were nothing of the sort. Insofar as tribes like Xi's were isolated from "civilization," it was largely because they were deliberately excluded. Again, there's a long and disputed history of relations there that are, intentionally or unintentionally, glossed over by TGMBC.
It's not the cultural collision aspect of the film that's problematic, really. There's nothing wrong, for instance, with satirizing civilization and elevating closeness with the natural world. The problem comes in because of the stereotypes it uses in telling that story. Which is really why the movie such a difficult one to come to terms with: the central satire is certainly valid, but the presentation leaves a lot to be desired, IMO.
reply
share
ric4ard
17 years ago
Er... not sure about that. I think the San prefer their nomadic lifestyle, although of course the ones who did have contact with western civiliation were hardly made to feel welcome by it, no doubt. But they live in the desert because they choose the lifestyle of their ancestors, not because there is/was racism in Southern Africa. Didn't see them come flocking out of the Kalahari when Madela was released nor when SA had their first democratic elections in '94.
So you're saying that every single movie made in SA during those years featuring at least one white person and one person of colour has to address the issue of apartheid otherwise it's unintentionally racist?
If God has made us in his image, we have returned him the favor. --Voltaire
reply
share
mobile707
17 years ago
While we clearly have differing opinions about the nature of this particular movie-- and, I suspect, differing opinions about the nature of film as a medium, and how that medium relates to "politics"-- I do appreciate your willingness to disagree without being disagreeable. How I wish that more people could learn from your example.
Be well.
reply
share
erw49
17 years ago
I agree with alot that you say. However, I see this movie as a product of its time. I frequently watch old movies on TCM and hate the way African Americans are depicted in many movies prior to the 60s. I still can appreciate the movie and do my best to overlook it. But I still am reminded of the racism of those films, which reflect the time.
Gods Must Be Crazy is over 25 years old. If it were made today, I would be join the protests. But in its context, I think I could still enjoy it (I don't think I've seen it in 20 years) but always be aware.
reply
share
rogcbrand
16 years ago
Well, I consider those who see racism in everything to be racist themselves, so there! The movie may simplify many things, but it isn't meant to be a documentary, but a silly film that makes people laugh, and outside of self-important jerks who look down their noses at anything that isn't up to their standards of "art", people love the humor of this movie. Yet it does have one very serious message, and that is that materialism and greed are a very serious problem in our world. In this it shows the idealised version of the Bushmen as the one group in the film that is living life the way it should be lived, so I truly don't understand how people come up with the idea that this movie is racist.
reply
share