didn't feel the spirit of my country in this film

[deleted]

Safrican_d,

I've got to agree with you on this one (even though I've yet to see the film).

I'm a student at a Canadian university and am taking a course on South African literature. In the course I was fortunate enough to be able to read Country of my Skull by Antjie Krog. This book was INCREDIBLY powerful stuff! Many of my classmates, myself included, were alternately horrified, mystified and inspired by the events that she related and the WAY that she related them. The issues that the novel dealt with, and the stark honesty in the way that they were dealt with made it difficult for some of us to sleep, gave some of us headaches, brought us to tears or made us laugh. THIS is the sort of emotion that the book is capable of evoking, and I can't believe that any movie version of it would be able to do the same.

One of the things that made the book so amazing was that readers were able to experience the TRC through Krog's perspective as not only an Afrikaner and a female, but as a journalist, a poet and a lover of the language of the nation's oppressors. The fact that Krog also used the victims and perpetrators OWN words to structure her book was important as well.

Hollywood's attempt to claim this story as their own (okay, so NOT Hollywood exactly, but just as bad -- it's still a WESTERN perspective!), to tell it from their own, falsified lense is what will ultimately prove it's downfall. After seeing actual footage of some of the victims' testimonies, I can't even image how much these people may have butchered this experience in order to profit from it. Actors will never be able to capture the depths of these people's emotions...

I firmly believe that this was a story not meant to be told by Hollywood, or at least, not from the perspective that they went about doing it. Safrican_d is right -- if anyone was to tell this story, it should have been another South African. But that of course brings you to the question of WHO?! Should another Afrikaner tell it? Should a black South African tell it? I dunno...

Gotta agree with safrican_d on this one. While the camera work is AMAZING (the scenery is BREATHTAKING), the storyline was limp. Don't get me wrong--this was an important story that needed to be told--it just needed to be told by other actors <wry grin>. Once again, Samuel Jackson portrays a black man with an attitude, and why cast a French actress in the role of an Afrikaner? Interesting that she did speak (what I personally consider to be) passable Afrikaans (though I'm still learning myself), but more likely so from memorization than a knowledge of the language.

Also, the constant cutting between the hearings (which I agree, seem to occur only in isolated rural areas instead of or in addition to the big cities--were there no atrocities in Jo'burg or Durban to speak of?) and the interview with De Jager left me confused--did Whitfield keep going back to De Jager's house or were these flashbacks or was this just bad editing? The interview might have worked better as one long intense scene.

The hearings themselves were simultaneously disturbing (which they should be) and dramatically over the top (which they shouldn't be)--everyone REALLY hammed it up for the camera.

Other films for Boorman to see would be "A World Apart" or "Cry the Beloved Country." "The Power of One" is another film set in South Africa, but less powerful in my opinion than the other two--the novel it's based on is supposed to be better.

I must also agree with Safrican_d. I was looking forward to this film as well, and I feel that it did a poor job at telling a story about South Africa. While I agree that the imagery of the film was quite powerful, it also must be taken into account that South Africa is one of (if not the) most beautiful countries in the world, and even an ammateur could capture its enormous natural beauty. The point it though - about the film of course (since I cannot refer to the book, as I have not read it) - that it is very choppy, and does nothing to bring in the audience. I was also appauled at Juliette Binoche's accent, as it it nowhere NEAR that of an afrikaaner. The only actor who I must really applaud is Brendon Gleeson, as he does a decent job at tackling an extremely difficult accent.

I saw this movie on the big screen some hours ago. I thought "damn a movie about apartheid and South Afrika, it has to be good and filled with emotion". I didn´t even read the concept, the title and the poster tricked me to the box office. I´ve read Mandelas biography and it really moved me. It felt genuine. "Country of my skull" felt like "Hotel Rwanda", I felt nothing and couldn´t connect with any character.

It all felt fake and the emotional ride I was promised in the opening sequence stopped there. I felt chills trough my body watching the documentary footage with the landscape images and the singing in the background. "Damn this has to be good, I´ve waited so long this year for a movie like this, this is the one". I am so disappointed now. What was it about? I don´t know. The main plot was so thin.

I´m glad I watched "Schindlers list" yesterday, it had everything that this movie didn´t have.

[deleted]

While South Africa is not my country, it is the home of my fiance and his family. He is an afrikaner, but i do not want people to automatically judge. The film itself was weak in plot, more focused on the love story between the reporters, which killed the film. so here is my list of pros and cons

Pros-
1. The pictures of landscape were well down, I remember driving through the Drakensburg mountains and those pictures revived my memory. (I visited in Jan/05)
2. The music, I really did love the music.
3. Anna's question "Is it ok to rape with a political agenda?" (not exact, i tried)

Cons-
1. Over focused on the affair.
2. Horrible afrikaans, my fiance was watching it with me and is completely afrikaans and couldn't understand it.
3. Tries to portray that all are at fault and that all are victims, but portrays that all afrkiaans are bad. (Rd Mandela's Autobio, even blacks were against whites, He himself was fearful of whites trying to help the ANC)
4. Not enough TRC hearings.


i think i have more, but i am in class..oops.
KT

Another inaccuracy --

In the intro and several times in the film it says that in order to get amnesty you had to be "following orders". This is wrong -- to be eligible for amnesty you had to make a complete revelation of what you did, and it had to be *politically motivated*.

It's an important mistake! (not just a technical error) because it obscures what was revolutionary about the TRC. You don't get off the hook because what you did wasn't really your fault. No. The truth -- the complete, unedited truth -- is so powerful, that it can begin to heal the harm to victims and families of even torture and murder. Knowing the truth allows you to reconcile yourself to what happened, however horrible and wrong.

But if you've committed an atrocity -- raped and tortured people, or bombed a public place, what incentive do you have for revealing what you've done? Not much.

So to allow the truth to come out into the open, the TRC gave you an incentive -- the possibility of amnesty.

And another thing -- forgiveness isn't a necessary part of the transaction either. It was the Truth and Reconciliation commission -- not the I Wasn't Really Responsible and Forgiveness commission!