Why can't Lucy (the daughter) just leave? - Disgrace (2009) Discussion

[–] g02o0555 15 years ago

She doesn't have to stay, it is her choice. She feels that as a white South African she is to stay and pay her dues. She is taking on her people's disgrace. By leaving, she will be giving up.

reply

[–] springm 15 years ago

Thanks for the clarification. I'm not sure it's a good idea to put this character on a moral pedestal. I hope the book handles it more delicately than this movie does.

reply

[–] haggar 15 years ago

It does not make any sense that she stays. It's pure, unabated, colossal nonsense.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Nirhtuc 14 years ago

Well, think of it this way: if you're a woman and you were raped by a group of original citizens in your country, would you go back to the country where your ancestors came from, and if you did, do you think you would come back? Of course, the answers to these questions would differ according to each person, but still...

I think what Lucy meant by 'going and not coming back' is that she would feel the social differences between Holland and South Africa (i.e. people in Holland would probably not make her feel like she's an intruder) so sharply that she may not want to call South Africa home again. But she wants to atone for what her ancestors have done to black Africans, and feels that this is the right path to take, so she remains where she is.

Actually, I couldn't understand any of her actions since I read the book until I just saw this post. I still don't agree with her actions, but understand why she did what she did.

If I was her, though, I would have sold the land and moved to the city or somewhere else. Would definitely not have decided to have the baby and get married to Petrus while getting harrassed by his family! :S

reply

[–] Grrr8 14 years ago

I agree with ckhafre.

I found the ending of the movie so bogus. Simply nonsense.

I would not recommend this to anyone.

One Star.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] HawgRider 14 years ago

I also agree, the ending was ludicrous and ruined the entire movie for me. I kept shouting at the TV "Shoot that piece of $hit...". I just couldn't figure out why the characters didn't get guns? For a white man in South Africa, getting guns would be easy. I would have rated the movie a 6 out of 10, but the ending brought it down to a 3 for me.

reply

[–] mekong24 14 years ago

The ending with Lucy staying was complete an utter nonsense, ruining the whole movie. She said " I can creep in under Petrus's wing " when asked what (how) she intended to do. That for me was the point I said, "this is rubbish!" But, hey, if a women or anyone would choose to subject themselves to the degradation and humilation that poor Lucy was sure to continue enduring then they would most definately deserve what they get. Way to ruin a stellar acting performance.

reply

[–] edess 14 years ago

Yes, it's utter nonsense. And I say this as an African American. Guilt? Black people don't need white people's guilt. Especially in South Africa. What the Africans need is for these white people to leave and go where ever, just get out of Africa. The past cannot be changed. And many are unrepentant. It's also difficult to see the 2 cultures juxtaposed in a way that sears into you an understanding as to how very horrific the exploitation and subjagation of Africa and its original inhabitants was and remains.

Lucy was a confused woman. And sadly, too many young women of all races, and ethnicities are confused these days. And movies are more than happy to present these desperate women who always seem to be sex starved and just out of it. I grew up on movies where women had more dignity and purpose on screen. This is not to say there wasn't plenty of female sexiness. But there were also movies about women struggling toward their own independence and public dignity. Nowadays, everybody is a confused waif who can't seem to understand when they are being threatened physically.

It's hard to believe that any white person in South Africa, especially a woman, would actually put their dogs in a cage and allow one strange male into her home. Really? Do people do dumb stuff like this? What's the purpose of having guard dogs if you aren't going to let them guard you?

Lucy seemed in some kind of rebellion against her father whom she loved but did not like and I certainly can understand that, he was a despicable man. But she used her father as a yardstick for ALL men. Very wrong indeed.

She should have sold the land, had an abortion and gone back to Holland. It's not about her leaving Africa, because Africa had left her and all white people long ago. There's no point in staying other than to be a martyr and humiliated.

reply

[–] noveltylibrary 14 years ago

I think she thought giving up all she's worked for would be weak...I got the feeling she felt like a stronger woman for staying, despite the facts.

reply

[–] eYeDEF 12 years ago

She was already giving up all she worked for. She was to sign over the rest of the land to Petrus for his "protection" of being under his wing as his wife. What a deal for a dyke huh? She would be a tenet on his property. Talk about humiliation. All that she worked for would be his as it was.

Some fellows get credit for being conservative when they are only stupid.
- Kin Hubbard

reply

[–] at7000 9 years ago

I thought Petrus married that other woman? In other words, he already was married? Is polygomy legel in SA? Or maybe he was not legally married to her?

reply

[–] eYeDEF 9 years ago

Even though it's illegal it doesn't really matter since it's not enforced. It's widely practiced in some parts and SA law seems to recognize it by affording benefits to polygamous unions such as inheritance and child custody rights normally only reserved for monogamous marriages in the rest of the western world.

reply

[–] at7000 9 years ago

Exactly. The old "I will stick to my morals and not give up, whilst I get raped once a month, savages invade and rob my house on a regular basis, and dear old Dad get set ablaze every once in a while.

Get the heck out of that country! You should never have colonized it in the first place.

reply

[–] SmokeyTee 13 years ago

Women have been subjecting themselves to exactly that for a very long time. The fact it is a black man, and not a white seems to be the main reason we are affronted by the arrangement.

Is it so very unfair for the white woman to give up her productive land for an indigenous man to use it more productively and support a living community?

That said I have issues with this films' ideology and particularly reading it as allegorical for wider South Africa. The white woman has no community (excepting her father) and no meaningful productivity (her farm produces a tiny crop of flowers and she is significantly a lesbian so cannot *produce* a second generation and her partner has left regardless). Conversely, the lower class black man has a wife and a wide family and community. He takes all her land, which has been largely unproductive, and produces FOOD with it instead of flowers (which will never feed anyone).

If read as allegorical for the situation in South Africa we are supposed to believe that whites sit on land and fail to make it productive, they are not community minded and blacks are the inverse...

There is a lot of reversal going on and perhaps we are supposed to find a kind of karmic re-balancing taking place. Personally, I just wanted dad to shoot some people. Which solves nothing beyond the immediate and this was NOT, after all, a Charles Bronson movie.

As far as the ending being a "cop-out": I haven't read the book but I found his parking remotely and walking on to the property an indication of his respecting his daughters position...

In fact my first thought was (given the morbidity of the daughter and the constantly recurring theme of death as a solution) he had put down the dog because he was not going to be around any longer to care for it and parked remotely to enter the property and end his daughter's disgrace (and possibly his own...).

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cthulhulurks 12 years ago

A movie must be utterly bad to rate it as low as 3. Looks like there are so many people who rate films in this whimsical manner: "Oh I didn't like her accent", "Oh I didn't like her choice, it ruined an the otherwise good movie for me. This movie's piece of crap".

my vote history:
http://imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=27424531

reply

[–] at7000 9 years ago

Rather, humans make little sense. If you know anything about the Afrikaners, White Rhodesians, etc...you would know they do fanatically stay even whilst murders, rapes, and home invasions are a routine, weekly occurance.

Strange indeed, but also fact. I suppose it is something on a deep psychological level- "My great-great grandfather was born here and worked these lands, fought off the natives, broke their backs working the soil and taming the land, etc."

Amazing this fanaticism is besically suicidal. The daughter seemed "cool with being raped once in a while" to stay on her land, and make atonement for the Aparthied era evils.

reply

[–] varrick5775 14 years ago

I sincerely believe that those who are of the White liberal persuasion feel so guilty about their race especially from the history I have read about South Africa that they're willing to make their homes into compounds just to remain there. I'm trying to be as sincere as possible when I say that and of course my definition of a White liberal is based on American's and not SA's. I'll agree I don't completely know the entire history but this much I know, the Whites built the country w/black help of course and deserve more of a voice than they have now. Anyone that calls themselves fair minded would look at the crime and rape rates in SA and see this. Black on black crime is even worse than black on White crime. If not for blacks and other mixed races in the US liberal politicians wouldn't exist. The minorities in the US sustain the democratic party. Isn't it funny that only one black US Senator exists out of 100 and that Senator who hails from Illinois, Senator Burris will be history soon too.

Anyhow, what a digression. I just think Lucy has been brainwashed into thinking that she can give up everything including the most personal things of hers, the soul and that past history of what happened in SA will be forgotten. To bear a black rapists' child to me is the sign of someone who is completely deranged. Lucy was very deranged. And her Father, David, was too for allowing himself to be nearly killed and for what!

reply

[–] at7000 9 years ago

Exactly, the Liberals and Political Correctness nutters have brainwashed the Lucys of South Afrika, that they deserve punishment, rape, murder, robberies, home invasions, and one's parents being set ablaze.

And being the brain-washed idiot that she is, she is more than willing to get with that program.

reply

[–] ThurstonHunger 14 years ago

I do agree the movie makes a weak, if even existent, case for Lucy staying. In the book though as I recall, her former girlfriend leaving her was somehow tied to her reasoning. I'm grasping a bit, but perhaps it was sort of a "she left this place not me, and I will never leave this place."

reply

[–] firstwinsgop 14 years ago

What I don't get is why a single lesbian woman is off living by herself out in the middle of nowhere in the most dangerous country on earth without any means of protection in the first place. I mean, wouldn't she have been gang raped and murdered within weeks? I've seen the documentaries on how real South Africans live. People on farms carry guns with them all the time. Urban dwellers live in gated communities with armed private security. I don't see how this woman's behavior is in any way believable even before she got raped. Even setting the security issue aside, wouldn't a non closeted lesbian go crazy living out on the bush where I am presuming the LGBT scene is pretty much non-existent?

reply

[–] Nirhtuc 14 years ago

@firstwinsgop:

You make another good point. Also, LGBT people are allowed to get married in Holland! But nooo, Lucy wanted to remain in South Africa and wallow in her misery and become a metaphor ('Guilt'/'Atonement'/'Subjugation'/'Back to Basics'/'Become A Dog'). Just thinking about what happened to this character makes me feel angry!

reply

[–] filmfancy 13 years ago

"Lucy wanted to remain in South Africa and wallow in her misery and become a metaphor ('Guilt'/'Atonement'/'Subjugation'/'Back to Basics'/'Become A Dog'). Just thinking about what happened to this character makes me feel angry!"

Exactly. This film made me extremely angry with its treatment of women, as well as its treatment of stray dogs--women = dogs?

Its treatment of women--Melanie was a college student, she could have refused her professor's advances. Why did she even go to his home? Why not drop out of his class if she was uncomfortable (she didn't seem to be interested anyway)? Or why not report him right away instead of telling her boyfriend and letting him report David? .

Melanie was not as innocent as the film made her out to be. She was acting in a theatre production that was quite racy, plus she had a boyfriend. Why the passivity regarding David? Was she that fearful of the 'white man'?

Lucy chose to live in an isolated place, I understand that, but why stay after the violence? She could have returned to the city with her father. Who would want to stay in a place where their animals were savagely killed and where you could get attacked at any time.

The stray dogs--David could have adopted that last dog. He seemed to have bonded with it. It was a shame to have it put down. Why would anyone who didn't have to live in such a horrible place want to remain?

I haven't read the novel, and now don't want to, but if anyone has read it how does it compare with the film? I know it won the Booker prize.

If Lucy wanted to save the innocent child she could have had the baby and given it up. I'm sure Petrus would have been happy to adopt it. Why the need to marry him--just to remain on her land? What kind of life will that poor child have?

Altogether, I found this film to be very distasteful. It set feminism back a hundred years. If I was brutally raped I would want to get as far away from the scene as possible, and I surely wouldn't have the child.

I wonder what rape victims think about this story.

"And all the pieces matter."

reply

[–] RetroRick 12 years ago

"This film made me extremely angry with its treatment of women, as well as its treatment of stray dogs--women = dogs?"

I don't get the stray dogs = women connexion. I thought the dogs were symbolically male, as in the dog who is conditioned to fear his response the moment he smells a bitch. Lurie tells the story to illustrate how wretched men are when they are made to fear their own sexuality - that is his opinion at that moment, an opinion no doubt coloured by his own experience of having fallen from grace on account of having acted on his desires. However - and the sequencing is hardly subtle - almost immediately after he is attacked and his daughter is gang-raped by men acting on desires such as wild dogs and William Blake (if his comment about strangled babes is anything to go by) might have affirmed. Coetzee's take on women and rape may seem unrealistic but it serves his message, a message which is partly how women (and symbolically peoples more generally) respond, adapt, and accommodate to rape and violation. In arguing that message he is not perhaps seeking to provide a psychologically realistic depiction of a gang-raped woman.

reply

[–] poserpro 11 years ago

Who are we here to judge Lucy's own choice? It's her choice, and she certainly is a grown woman to walk her own path in her life, neither her father can force her to abandon her min, regardless she was manipulated and brainwashed by Petrus.

reply

[–] liraelUCT 12 years ago

wow. Waay to be judgmental and make a MASSIVE stereotypical statement with limited understanding of the situation. South Africa is certainly not 'the most dangerous country on Earth'. Some regions, particularly Joburg, have quite a bit of crime but urban dweller certainly do not all 'live in gated communities or carry guns'. And because of the large open spaces and farmland our country is still lucky enough to have, its quite common for a family or person to live in a house 'in the middle of nowhere' especially if their employment is farming related.

reply

[–] at7000 9 years ago

Petrus owned and managed a Lesbian-themed disocoteque right on the other side of that mountain on their property. Living "out on the bush" indeed.

reply

[–] TheDanMan1 14 years ago

It was due to her 'Liberarl White Guilt', unfortunately.

reply

[–] Nirhtuc 14 years ago

"It was due to her 'Liberarl White Guilt', unfortunately."

Sometimes people SHOULD feel guilty for what they have done, but letting yourself wallow in unnecessary misery is nothing but some kind of masochism. Besides, she's not even some ignorant racist trash- she's a good person!

reply

[–] not_completley_anonymous 14 years ago

Sometimes people SHOULD feel guilty for what they have done...

SHE didn't do anything. I don't think anyone should feel guilty about what their "people" have done.

I'm a white guy in the United States. I can honestly say that I never lose any sleep over what white people have done to the African Americans and Native Americans in the past. Why? It is NOT because I don't see it as wrong. It's because I wasn't even born yet when that stuff was going on. I don't even identify myself as being of a "race". I am just a person, and I am not in the least bit responsible for the actions of other people- I don't care if they're white, black, yellow, blue, orange, red, purple, or green!

reply

[–] Nirhtuc 14 years ago

It's not about personal guilt (feeling sorry because of your personal actions)- it's more like feeling sorry on behalf of a group of people (who are connected to you in some way) who did not even have the capacity to THINK about feeling sorry for the destruction they caused. For instance, I'm a non-white Australian who is wholeheartedly sorry about what the citizens of this country did to the aborigines. I think some people are either too proud or defensive when it comes to saying sorry.

reply

[–] maniaco70 14 years ago

you know what should have happened? Malkovich coming back with a Beretta, getting inside Petrus house and shoot him, then go for the kid, torture him to tell him where his friends are, then a bullet in the stomach just to let what he did then let the wife or whatever go, and burn the place down. Then he should've hunted the kids like dogs. And burn them alive just like they wanted him to die.

After that, slip some sleeping pills into his daughters Coke, take her to a good psychyatrist and have her be treated (and maybe with the sleeping pills, add some abortion ones there), that Lucy was freaking insane. Then put a flag in the house saying "you fck with us, you be dead holmes".

The real disgrace is how this movie sucked, and how the Melanie thing was not really interesting. The movie started when the rape happened... 40 minutes into the film. His past could've been done with dialogue. And BTW, that black girl in the beginning, she consented, you don't wanna have sex you don't have sex, period.

reply

[–] firstwinsgop 14 years ago

Your attitude is inherently racist. You are an individual. The fact you are white doesn't mean the glory of past white people somehow passes on to you, nor can you be responsible for their sins. It has nothing to do with pride. It is a simple matter of logic and reason.

reply

[–] turkeyprophet 13 years ago

Actually she was probably alive during apartheid and may not even have been that young whilst it was going on.

So maybe it's understandable why she feels guilt.

Although I get your point.

reply

[–] natedaug-1 13 years ago

Seriously, SHE, did nothing. Collective guilt is the biggest bogus concept because ever group will constantly be apologizing towards others groups for the actions of other individual, for the crimes those individuals commit. Besides, I don't know about South Africa, but there were many white abolitionists in America, so it was not like white people were some homogeneous group of slave owners. I am guessing the situation was similar in South African. In a way Lucy, was generalizing about her OWN race. I thought this movie was really annoying, and in a way she was enabling a rapist by trying to bring some sort of racial harmony to South Africa, and not holding him accountable.

reply

[–] sinncross 14 years ago

I think, while her decision is weird, that the point is that she ultimately cant function as the individual she hopes to be.

At one point in the novel she claims to David that he is not the only major character with everyone else being minor characters, or something to that effect (cant remember if this was in the film), as if trying to assert her own power.
In the end, her power only becomes eroded by having to be 'protected' by Petrus.

I think the point is that South Africa was coming to a point where Whites would need to acknowledge that the country is being governed by Africans. Which is sort of true...

Movie Review Blog:
http://cruizd.blogspot.com

reply

[–] itszombietime 13 years ago

this film is not meant to reflect reality in the firm sense, and obviously the situation with lucy is not at all realistic. it's a symbolic film meant to reflect the screwed up ethics and morals that seemingly prevail in today's sud africa.

in truth, rural whites (boers) in sud africa live mostly in compounds, heavily armed, usually very proficient in the use of firearms, with their infamous guard dogs, usually mastiff or other molosser breeds that are often trained to aggress dark skinned people. it's a lousy existence.

blacks avoid the compounds rigorously, there is minimal exchange between whites and blacks who are not acquainted or on a trust level. most blacks have a deep fear and hatred of "de blanck mastiff", a fact alluded to in the film, when the rapists taunt and then shoot the caged dogs. the mastiff guard dogs have killed many many blacks over the generations, they have earned a superstitious reputation as bloodthirsty four legged spirits.

violent crimes do happen sometimes in the bush, but they are dealt with aggressively. rape is intolerable, as is murder. trespassing is strictly verboeten. petty theft is tolerated to a degree, actually disregarded, an ubiquitous fact of life that the boers live with.

a film about that, the real living conditions of rural sud africa, would be better than this peculiar film.

reply

[–] rayf-1 13 years ago

Excellent post! You explain the situation and the film extremely well. I gave DISGRACE a 10, but after your explanation I realize it only deserves an 8. Apparently those who made it were afraid that something more realistic would not be popular in South Africa.

--Rayf

reply

[–] iamfrankleonard 13 years ago

Back to the original question. Even disregarding her own safety, everyone (besides David) is apparently OK with letting a dangerous, mentally ill teenager continue to walk around free? I really wanted to like this movie and it had potential, but the story line was infuriating to watch. Is there some sort of cultural difference I am missing here? I want my 2 hours back.

reply

[–] Nirhtuc 13 years ago

They are all ok with the violent kid walking around free because they think he has as much right being where he wants as anyone else, I guess. I don't know how people with mental illnesses are treated in South Africa, but maybe they think it's ok not to get treatment (or maybe they can't seek treatment due to financial issues)? Either that, or they want to use the kid to control the white people by letting him terrorise Lucy and any other white people who live around them.

reply

[–] at7000 9 years ago

As Petrus stated- "He was one of their people." In other words, free to rob, steal, home invade, and rape white woman.

reply

[–] bluwater55 13 years ago

i really think that there was something wrong with Lucy .. she just didn't seem right to me .. maybe her clear self-hatred came from the fact that she had already been raped once before we enter the story .. i wonder why she didn't just leave .. i sure don't think that her staying has anything to do with guilt feeling for anything that her race might have done .. what's that got to do with her .. she was born there but i doubt that she had anything to do with the brutal people controlling everythingi think she stayed because of the fact that it was her home, where she had lived for years .. it was her land and she just didn't want to leave .. maybe she just didn't know what to do .. at the very least she should have been armed to the teeth .. of course she should have left a long time ago .. i read where rape is an epeidemic in Africa .. it's just a way of life there .. one thing that really bothered me in the movie was why didn't someone go to town and buy some firearms to protect themselves from those boys who were surely coming back for more since the locals all seemed to think it was quite normal to go around raping women

reply

[–] Nirhtuc 13 years ago

@ bluwater55:

I like some parts of your interpretation, but I think you're also being too realistic and not seeing why Lucy felt the way she did and did what she did from the perspective of the story itself. It clearly had something to do with atonement and as you also mentioned, some kind of self-degradation or hatred (feeling 'unclean' due to the rape). I also think it's unfair of you to say that rape is a 'way of life' for Africans. That is racist. Is killing the way of life for Americans just because many everyday people over there kill each other (even little children) using firearms, since owning guns is legal over there?

reply

[–] SmokeyTee 13 years ago

The trouble there is the film can be read as the lesbian running an unproductive farm is "given" a child she could not produce otherwise by a black man and her land is only brought into productivity by being restored to its "rightful" owners. Ones whose righteousness is determined by their skin and nothing more...

It's ideologically suspect.

reply

[–] Nirhtuc 12 years ago

Excellent point, SmokeyTee- I never really thought about it that way before!

reply

[–] RetroRick 12 years ago

everything in this film is allegorical, from the arrangement she agrees (via her dad) with petrus - where she gives him everything but the house - to the moment at the end when she invites her dad into said house for a cup of tea. No, I'm not suggesting she was inviting him in for that but it denotes consent nonetheless, her re-establishing enough power to have the final say in the matter. This isn't a convincing or realistic film in many ways precisely because of the allegory, that is as the story has to fit round the allegory to some extent, however if it is unrealistic in narrative terms its realism arises in its notion of compromise and agreement. Men are muzzled dogs, and women, straight or otherwise, live with or around them for protection or mutual convenience (the old fat lady is the only evidence in the film of actual female libido and she too is a fruit of the merit of compromise. This being a liberal post-apartheid story though in the negotiated cessation of rape its never entirely clear who it is who isn't raping who. As for Byron and Blake, its kind of a shame they feature only as ideas to be killed. Liberals, they make the world a duller, safer place. I'm not sure I like them much.

reply