warwick.ac.uk/lib-publications
A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD at the University of Warwick
Permanent WRAP URL:
http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/81400
Copyright and reuse:
This thesis is made available online and is protected by original copyright.
Please scroll down to view the document itself.
Please refer to the repository record for this item for information to help you to cite it.
Our policy information is available from the repository home page.
For more information, please contact the WRAP Team at: [email protected]
FILMSABOUTSOUTHAFRICA
1987–2014:
REPRESENTATIONSOF‘THERAINBOW’
by
DerileneMarco
Athesissubmittedinpartialfulfillmentofthe
requirementsforthedegreeofDoctorof
PhilosophyinFilmandTelevisionStudies
UniversityofWarwick,DepartmentofFilmand
TelevisionStudies
January2016
CONTENTS
Page
ListofIllustrations i
Glossary ii
Acknowledgements vi
Declaration vii
Abstract viii
Introduction 1
ChapterOne–ReviewofLiterature
Introduction 14
PartOne
1.1‘SouthAfricanese’,‘SouthAfrican-ness’andthe
ChallengeofRepresentation:NewandOldTerms 16
1.2SouthAfricanCinema:Definitions,Historiesand
Possibilities 22
1.3‘RainbowNation’Cinema:ANationalCinema? 23
1.4SouthAfrica:Post-colonialand/orPost-apartheid 33
PartTwo
DefiningCinemas,Nationsand‘StructuresofFeeling’ 37
PartThree
3.1MemoryandTraumainSouthAfricanFilms 50
3.2MemoryandTraumaStudies:Perspectivesand
TheoreticalPoints 55
3.2.1TraumaCinema,‘ActingOut’and
‘WorkingThrough’ 58
3.2.2Traumainfilms 61
Conclusion 64
SectionOne 66
ChapterTwo:OntheBrinkofFreedom:
ADryWhiteSeason,CryFreedomandMapantsula
Introduction 67
PartOne:
WhiteandBlackAnti-ApartheidMasculinities
InCryFreedomandADryWhiteSeason 72
PartTwo:
Mapantsula:ABlackPerspectiveAnti-ApartheidFilm,the
CaseofPanic,the‘Tsotsi’ 91
PartThree:
TheWomenofCryFreedomandADryWhiteSeason 101
3.1TheAfrikanerWomenofADryWhiteSeason
andMelanie,theOutsider 102
3.2DefianceandtheJointStruggleofWomenin
CryFreedom 110
Conclusion 115
SectionTwo 116
ChapterThree:Memory,‘Ubuntu’andForgiveness
inFilmsaboutTheTruthAndReconciliation
Commission
Introduction 117
SouthAfrica’sTruthandReconciliationCommission 126
PartOne:
TheTruthShallSetYouFreeand‘FullDisclosure’in
InMyCountryandRedDust 133
RedDust 133
InMyCountry 141
PartTwo:
‘ActingOut’,ForgivenessandRevenge:Forgivenessand
ZuluLoveLetter 150
Forgiveness 150
ZuluLoveLetter 164
Conclusion 174
ChapterFour:Shame,GuiltandtheRelevanceof
WhiteMeninPost-Apartheid:DisgraceandSkoonheid
Introduction 176
GuiltandShameinDisgraceandSkoonheid
Disgrace 185
Skoonheid 194
RapeinDisgraceandSkoonheid 205
Disgrace 207
Skoonheid 215
Conclusion 223
SectionThree 225
ChapterFive:ViolentMasculinitiesandYoungBack
MeninPost-ApartheidFilms:HijackStories,Tsotsi,
Disgrace
Introduction 229
HijackStories 234
Tsotsi 247
Disgrace 260
Conclusion 265
ChapterSix:Rituals,TraditionandStepsForward
intheNewSouthAfrica:FanieFourie’sLobola,
ElelwaniandDisgrace
Introduction 268
FanieFourie’sLobola:NegotiatingNewTraditions 273
Elelwani:theBurdenofBeingaYoung,FreeWoman 288
DisgraceandLucy’sRainbowWomb 302
Conclusion 309
Conclusion 311
Bibliography 321
Filmography 340
i
Listofillustrations Page
Figure2.1–PaniconroutetoPat’sworkplaceinwhitesuburb(OliverSchmitz,1988)
95
Figure2.2–ShatteredwindowatMrsBentley’shouse,Mapantsula 96Figure2.3–Shatteredwindowinflashback,Mapantsula 97Figure3.1–AnnaMalanandLangstonWhitfieldinfirstconfrontationaboutTRC,InMyCountry(JohnBoorman,2004)
142
Figure3.2–MediaarriveintheTRCbusforthefirsthearing,InMyCountry
142
Figure3.3–Arrivalofcrowdsatthefirsthearinginthefilm,InMyCountry
143
Figure3.4–Daniel’scomrades:The‘RainbowNation’trio,Forgiveness(IanGabriel,2004)
160
Figure3.5–Daniel’sfamilyathisgrave,Forgiveness 161Figure4.1–Beforeorgy,Skoonheid(OliverHermanus,2011) 201Figure4.2–Afterorgysceneshot1,Skoonheid 202Figure4.3–Afterorgysceneshot2,Skoonheid 202Figure5.1–Zamaafterhavinglandedtheroleof‘BraBiza’,HijackStories(OliverSchmitz,2001)
245
Figure5.2–Tsotsiandhisfriendsinopeningscene,Tsotsi(GavinHood,2005)
248
Figure5.3Tsotsilookingbackathisfriendswhilehisbodyremainsforward,facingthetownship,Tsotsi
249
Figure6.1–Elelwaniwithhermother,Elelwani(NtshavheniwaLuruli,2012)
300
Figure6.2–Elelwaniassheleavesherparentshomestead,Elelwani 300Figure6.3–DavidlookingatPetrus,Disgrace(SteveJacobs,2008) 307
ii
GLOSSARY
ApartheidEraofenforcedandlegalisedseparateracialdevelopmentinSouthAfricabetween1948and1994.Purposefullywrittenwithasmall‘a’throughoutthethesis.Post-apartheidTheerafrom1994throughtothepresentafterthefirstdemocraticelectionswereheldinSouthAfricaon27April1994.RainbowNationTermusedtodescribeSouthAfricansaftertheendofapartheid.Thetermsuggeststhatthepopulation,constitutedofdifferentethnicitiesandraces,isunitedinitsdiversity.AskariAblackpersonwhofoughtagainstapartheid(oftenpartofoneoftheresistancemovementsliketheAfricanNationalCongress–ANC)butwhowasco-optedbytheapartheidsecuritypoliceforcetoactasaninformant.Oftenblackmailedorsomehowcoercedintoapositioninwhichtheyneededtoprovideinformationtotheapartheidsecuritypolice.BoerLiterally"farmer"inAfrikaans.InSouthAfrica,aderogatorytermusedbyBlackpeopleduringapartheidtoidentifyawhiteAfrikaansspeakingpersonofanykind,i.e.apoliceofficeroranordinarywomancitizen.Althoughthetermisstillused,itisnotascommonineverydayparlanceandnolongerholdsthesamefear.Born-freesPeoplewhowerebornafter1990butusuallyrefersspecificallytothoseborninandafter1994.BraaiThewordbraaiisAfrikaansfor“barbecue”or“roast”.ItisacommonsocialcustominSouthAfrica.
iii
ColouredApersonofmixed-raceheritagebutwithspecificculturalandethnicmeaninginSouthAfricaanddifferenttomixed-race.Theculturalgroupingislinkedtointerracialsexualactivitiesbetweenslavesandindenturedlabourersandwhitesettlersduringcolonialism.AlsolinkedtotheSanandtheKhoi,whoareindigenousmigrantcommunities.ItwasaracialcategoryenforcedbytheapartheidgovernmentthroughthePopulationRegistrationActNo.30of1950.ImpimpiABlackpoliceinformantduringapartheid.Similartothetermaskaributnotinterchangeableasanyoneinthecommunitycouldbeanimpimpi.KoeksistersAplaiteddoughnutdippedinsyrup.FromAfrikaanskoe(k)sister:koekmeaning'cake'+sissen'meaningtosizzle'.KwaitoKwaitoisamusicgenrethatemergedinJohannesburg,SouthAfrica,duringthe1990s.ItisavariantofhousemusicfeaturingtheuseofAfricansoundsandbeats.MixedraceThisisarelativelynewandgrowingracialcategoryinSouthAfricawhichreferstothemixedraceoffspringofparentsoftwodifferentraces.MoffieReferstoaneffeminatemaleormalehomosexual(derogatoryterm),ortransvestite.
Toyi-toyiAphysicalactionwhichexpressesdefianceandprotest.Itinvolvesraisingoneskneesandarmsheldinfists.Commonlyseeninanti-apartheidmarches.TsotsiMosteasilytranslatedasgangsterorthugbuthasadditionalconnotationsinblacktownshipsinSouthAfrica.
iv
UbuntuThetermubuntuisusedaspartofanAfricanproverb:umuntungumuntungabantu,toimparttheideathatweareallconnectedviaourhumanity.Translated,thephrasemeans,‘IamwhatIambecauseofwhoweallare’.BlackReferencesallnon-whitecitizensofSouthAfrica.Usedwithacapital‘B’inthisthesiswhendiscussingnon-whitecharactersunlessotherwiseindicated.blackReferencestheapartheidracialcategory,blackAfricans,enforcedbythePopulationRegistrationActNo.30of1950.Usedinpartsofthethesis.ManseAtermwhichmeansSouthbutwhichiscolloquiallyusedasadirectreferencetoSouthAfrica.‘Kaffir’
AderogatoryandhighlyoffensiveracialtermthatwasusedforandtoBlackpeopleduringapartheid.Thetermcouldbeequatedtotheuseoftheword“nigger”intheU.Scontext.
Coconut
Theterm‘coconuts’suggeststhatoneisBlackontheoutsidebutwhiteontheinside,orculturally‘white’.Itisalsoatermthatreferenceswealthy,youngBlackSouthAfricanswhogrewupmiddleclassandwhoareabletoaccesscertainthingsthatotheryoungBlackSouthAfricanscannot.ItissometimesusedalongwiththetermBlackDiamonds.Althoughrelated,thetermsarenotalwaysinterchangeable.
Afrikaner
AtermusedtodescribeAfrikaans-speakingwhitesinSouthAfrica.Theseidentitieswere/areoftenassociatedwithconservativeCalvinistvaluesandtheprotectionofakindofethnicitywithinSouthAfricanwhitenessthatmakesanAfrikanerdistinctfromawhiteEnglishperson,forexample.
Afrikanerdom
AtermthatdescribesanAfrikanerperson’scultureandvalues.DuringapartheiditwastheculturalgroupwhichwastobeprotectedandwhichwasblessedbyGod.TheDutchReformedChurchsupportedapartheidandwasthestrongholdofAfrikanerdom,asitwasacultureprotectedbyGod.
v
‘Madam’/‘Missus’
Thetermsareusedinterchangeablyandreferenceawhitehousewife.OftenatermusedbyBlackdomesticworkersabouttheownerofthehouse.
Shebeen
Anillegalplacetobuyandconsumealcoholinthetownshipduringapartheid.Theystillexisttodayinmanytownshipsaroundthecountry.
Stoep
Afrikaanswordmeaningfrontporch.
vi
AcknowledgementsThejourneyofthisthesiswasmorethanIcouldeverhaveimaginedwhenIstartedin2011.Iamsogratefulforthelove,kindness,generosityofheartandmindthatIhaveexperiencedduringthisperiod.
ThankyoutoCharlotteBrunsdonforyourpatienceandguidance.Youhavetaughtmehowimportantitistoacknowledgehardwork,realisemistakesand,inspiteofitall,reassesswithpatiencebeforeonejustkeepsgoing.ThisissomethingIwillkeepwithmealways.FromyouIhavealsolearnedthevalueinacknowledgingthatmanythings are challenging and thatmaking it through them is, in itself, no small feat.Your unwavering support has been incredible and I feel honoured to have beenunderyourguidance.
ThankstotheWarwickFilmandTelevisionDepartmentforsupportthroughoutmystudies,especiallyduringmyperiodof illnessandwithregardstomyreturntotheUniversityOfWarwick.
Thank you to The University ofWarwick for a Chancellor’s Award, whichmade itpossible to undertake my studies. Thank you also to the generosity of theOppenheimer Memorial Trust that supported me throughout my studies andthroughwhomitwaspossibletoreturntoEnglandaftermyperiodofillness.Iamdeeplygratefulforthecontinualtrustandsupportinmyproject.
So much of this thesis is because of the continuous love of so many and a truereflectionofmylife. Toallofyou,thankyou.Tomycolleaguesandfriendsinthedepartment: IvanGirina, IsabelRhodes,NikeJung,GregFrame. Thankyoufor thegoodtimes,thehardtimes,the laughs. Iholdyousoverydear. Thankyoutomyfriends and family, many who consistently provided intellectual and emotionalsupportfromnearandfar.Youallmakeupthepuzzlepiecesofmyheart,someofyouliterallyholdingmyhandevenindistance…Finally,themomentishere!Toallof you, thank you: Kathleen Ebersohn-Khuvutlu, Jenna-Lee Marco, Jody Felton,HannahAllan,PetraAdams,AntoinetteEngel,TraceyMarks,SharleneKhan,FouadAsfour, Khwezi Mkhize, Khwezi Gule, Seun Olatoye, Philippe Le Geoff, JenWebb,Patricia Hendricks, Regina Isaacs, Colleen Marco, Yana Abrahams, Abebe Zegeye,Pumla Gqola, Bhekizizwe Peterson, Henriette Gunkel, Gabi Ngcobo, Lyn Ossome,PortiaMalatjie. Tomy final stretch crew, Iwould not havemade itwithout you:BasaniBaloyi,NomaMasina,BéréniceKafui.You’vemadetheendsosweet.
And to Kemang Wa Lehulere, for all the many times this crazy undertaking hasgottenourplansanddreamsand the ‘everyday’ intohotwater, thankyou for thelove and support. Thank you for the home, the bolognaise and the beautifulmemoriesovertheyears.
Thisthesisisdedicatedtomyparents,withoutwhomIwouldnotbethepersonIamtoday,andthisthesiswouldnotbeatall. Youinstilledinmeaspiritofpossibility,beliefandtenacityofheartandsoul. Whatyouhavedoneandcontinuetobeformegoesbeyondthedutiesattachedtoparenting...You’reincredible.Thankyoucanneversufficebutinthemeantime,Dad,here’stostayingfocussed!
vii
DeclarationIherebydeclarethatthisthesisrepresentsmyownwork.Ithasnotpreviouslybeensubmittedforexaminationatanotherinstitution.Thethesisdoesnotcontainmaterialfrompriorwork,norforanotherdegreeattheUniversityofWarwickoranyotherinstitution.
viii
AbstractThe thesis analyses representations of the ‘Rainbow Nation’ and dominant post-apartheid themes in SouthAfrican films between 1987 and 2014. The term SouthAfrican filmsor cinema is used to encompass films that are co-producedbetweenSouth Africa and other nations, aswell as films thatmay find their South Africanarticulation only in content and narrative composition. Drawing on RaymondWilliams’ scholarship, the thesis sets out to explore whether a new structure offeelingcanbe identified inpost-apartheid films.Thethesisalsoengages trauma inthepost-apartheidfilmsaboutthe‘RainbowNation’. InbeingabletoidentifyhownewSouthAfrican filmsshowandgrapplewithpost-apartheid identitiesas ‘actingout’, ‘working through’ and ‘making sense’ of the past, the thesis concludes thatpost-apartheidfilmsareinsomewayscriticalofthepastandinotherways,hopefulforthefuture.However,themorethecountrysettlesintoitsnewnationalidentities,themorevariationsarepresent infilmicrepresentationsandthemorepossibilitiesexistforseeingthecomplexitiesofpost-apartheidcinema.
Thethesisisdividedintothreesectionsandfollowsathematicapproachaswellasaformof periodisation that has not been used in previous scholarship about SouthAfricancinema.SectionOneconsiders themomentbefore theendofapartheid inthe films A Dry White Season (Euzhan Palcy, 1989), Cry Freedom (RichardAttenborough, 1987) and Mapantsula (Oliver Schmitz, 1988). Section Two isconstituted of two chapters which focus on the representations of the end ofapartheid, trauma, guilt and ‘acting out’ seen in the filmsRedDust (TomHooper,2004), InMy Country (John Boorman, 2004), Forgiveness (Ian Gabriel, 2004), ZuluLoveLetter(RamadanSuleman,2004),Disgrace(SteveJacobs,2008)andSkoonheid(OliverHermanus,2011).SectionThreeexploresthepossibilityofanewstructureoffeeling through analysis of the representations of youth identities and coming toterms with the past in Hijack Stories (Oliver Schmitz, 2001), Tsotsi (Gavin Hood,2005) and Disgrace (Steve Jacobs, 2008). In the final chapter, the films Disgrace(Steve Jacobs, 2008), Fanie Fourie’s Lobola (Henk Pretorius, 2013) and Elelwani(Ntshavheni wa Luruli, 2012) are analysed to show how traditions and rituals arefashionedas important,unexpectedvehicles, throughwhich tonavigateemergentpost-apartheidSouthAfricaanditsidentities.
1
INTRODUCTION
No generation speaks quite the same language as itspredecessors.1
This thesis is a sustainedconsiderationandanalysisof selectedpost-apartheidSouth
African films. The thesis explores what the films do by paying specific attention to
thoseelementsthathavenotbeencriticallyanalysedbefore:mainly,thecomplexityof
post-apartheididentitiesofindividualcharacters;thepresenceoftraumainfilmsthat
grapplewiththeapartheidpast;andfinally, theconsiderationofpost-apartheidfilms
andindividualcharacters,asrepresentativeofdifferentstructuresoffeeling.Theaim
ofthethesisisthustoanalyseandconsiderwhathasgoneunnoticedinpost-apartheid
filmsbeforeandwhatissoever-presentnow:anger,disdainandadisappointmentin
the promises of ‘The Rainbow’. It interrogates the cinematic realisation of the
‘Rainbow Nation’ and explores new, fractured post-apartheid identities through an
analysisoffilmsrangingfromADryWhiteSeason(1987)toElelwani(2014).
Thethesisemploysathematicandperiodicstructurewhichaidsthinkingabout
apartheidandpost-apartheidasspecificperiodsoftimebutalsoasspecificidentitiesof
placeandrace.Thethesisisthuspositionedinthecomplicated,overlappingterrainof
scholarly discussions of national cinema, race and ethnicity, as well as touching on
questionsofrepresentation,trauma,memoryandidentity.Throughout,Ihavetriedto
payattentiontowhatisspecifictotheSouthAfricansituation,whilealso,atthesame
time,avoidingisolatingthisexplorationofSouthAfricancinemafromothertheoretical
andcriticaldiscussions.Keepingthisinmind,theresearchquestionsofthethesisare:
1RaymondWilliams,MarxismandLiterature(Oxford,NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1977),p.131.
2
What are the identifiable differences between anti-apartheid films made during
apartheid and post-apartheid films? Do post-apartheid films contribute to post-
apartheidrhetoric?Ifso,howisitevidencedinthefilms?Shouldpost-apartheidfilms
beconsideredasanationaland/orpost-apartheidcinema? Whatare thedominant
presences in post-apartheid films and what do they reveal about individual and
collectivepost-apartheididentitiesandsubjectivities?
***
The fourteenth annual Ruth First lecture was held on 17 August 2015, the
anniversary of the death of journalist and anti-apartheid activist, Ruth First.2 The
theme,“Race:LivedExperiencesandContemporaryContestations”,wastakenupby
twoyoungBlackwomenwhospoketothechallengesofraceinpost-apartheidSouth
Africa. PanasheChigumadzi’s focuswasonanemergentgroup inSouthAfrica, the
growingBlackmiddleclass, sometimes referred to in this thesisasBlackdiamonds/
Blackmiddleclassbut inthecontextofChigumadzi’stalk, ‘coconuts’.3 Thefocusof
herpresentationwasonthegrowingeconomicdisparitiesamongtheBlackyouthof
SouthAfrica. Chigumadzi’s arguments sometimes pull against each other, seen for
instance in her promotion of the use of the problematic term ‘coconuts’, while
arguingforthewealthy‘coconuts’totakeuparmswiththeirpoorBlackcounterparts
around the country. What Chigumadzi’s talk illuminated was something beyond a
growingeconomic(andracial)divide.Itwasrather,anattempttoarticulatesomeof
the sensibilities of the young Blacks who identify as coconuts and who now seek
2AversionofChigumadzi’stalkappearedintheUK’sTheGuardian:http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/24/south-africa-race-panashe-chigumadzi-ruth-first-lecture[Accessed5October2015].;AtranscriptandaudiorecordingofthelectureisavailableontheWitsJournalismwebsite:http://www.journalism.co.za/projects-a-fellowships/ruth-first/[Accessed2September2015].3Pleaseseeglossary.
3
legitimate Black space for their identities. Itwas about amiddle class struggle for
relevancethroughanattemptatpoliticisingapost-apartheid‘coconut’identity.The
talkdemonstrates thatwhile the immediateaftermathof theendofapartheidwas
difficult and complex, the struggles continue to evolve and transform as ‘post-
apartheid-ness’ (in the different identities it encompasses) continues to
metamorphosise.
AlthoughChigumadzidoesnotreferencefilms,thistalkpresentedsomething
that is a concern throughout the thesis, as it is an attempt at exploring and
articulating what could be an emergent sensibility of the new South Africa. The
speaker,herselfarepresentativeofthe‘RainbowNation’,andthefilmsofthisthesis
intersect becausewhile they present what post-apartheidwas intended to be, the
idyllic‘RainbowNation’,theyalsointersecttoilluminatesomeofthedisgruntlements
andintangiblepresenceswithinthe‘RainbowNation’.
Turning to the films, then, Mandela, Long Walk To Freedom (Dir: Justin
Chadwick, 2013) is themost recent and arguably, one of themost important films
about apartheid and post-apartheid SouthAfrica. The film premiered on the night
thatMandelapassedawayandwill forevermorebeentrenchedinourgenerational
memories ina reverentialway. During theSouthAfrican runof the film, itgrossed
the highest ever box office amounts for a non-holiday film release. Some South
Africanseventooktimeoffworktoseethefilmonitsdayofrelease.4
Chigumadzi, and her concerns, are a direct product of Nelson Mandela’s
negotiations with the apartheid government and the imagined ‘Rainbow’ of post-
apartheid South Africa. Although the government attempted to create newmodes4ArticleaboutSouthAfricanaudiences:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-25169194[Accessed2December2013].
4
andsitesoflivingtogetherinademocracy,theproblemswiththatconstructionwere
never fully addressed. Those problems are now finding expressions in the post-
apartheid youth who are not only voicing discomforts with post-apartheid official
constructionsbutwhoarealso,urgentlydemandingthatthestatebeginstotakenote
oftheinadequaciesofthe‘Rainbow’.Thisthesisisinterestedinseeinghowthefilms
portrayandexploreissuesaroundthecomplex‘RainbowNation’.
Although Chadwick’s film is not the first film to depictMandela, it has been
laudedasexceptionalbecause it isanadaptationofMandela’sautobiographybased
on his life and primarily on the twenty-seven years he spent in prison on Robben
Island.However,thereisroomforcautionandscepticismwhenviewingMandela’slife
through this hagiographic lens. There are unanswered questions about what is
excluded in the representations seenonscreen,why thoseparticularexclusionsand
howdotheseimpactonviewers’perceptionsofMandelaandpost-1994SouthAfrica.
Inessence,thedidacticnatureofthisfilmhasbeencelebratedinternationallybuthas
in South Africa beenmet with a combination of knowledge of the context and the
‘true’ repercussions of life after 1994. This film poses questions around authorship
andspectatorshipsuchas,whoconstructsthese‘SouthAfrican’films?And,whoare
thesefilmsfor?
More in linewith challenging the ‘RainbowNation’, documentary filmmaker,
Khalo Matabane embarked on a critical journey of thinking about Mandela in the
documentary,Mandela, theMyth andMe (2014). The documentary grapples with
complex questions about Mandela, his choices around the negotiations that have
cometorepresenttheendofapartheid,andtheimplicationsofthisforBlackpeople,
many whose living conditions have not changed with the end of apartheid. This
5
mythicalMandela is significantly different to the conservative and palatable hero in
Chadwick’s biopic. Matabane tries to showhowhe, as the director and as a South
African, cannot marry the unequal socio-economic reality of so many Black South
Africanswiththelanguageofpost-1994:freedom,‘ubuntu’,forgiveness,reconciliation
and equality. The primary question that Matabane asks is what happened to that
radicalMandela that his grandmother told him about as a young boy. He, like the
studentsoftheRhodesMustFallstudentmovement,and,toadegree,thespeakersat
theRuthFirstLecture,wantstoknowwhyMandela‘soldout’throughreconciliation.
Ineachofthecasespresentedabove,Iattempttoshowandcontextualisesomeofthe
prevalent debates of post-apartheid, some of which, like Chadwick’s biopic, revere
Mandelaandvalorisethecharacterandthe‘RainbowNation’,andothers,ofwhichare
struggling to find ways of articulating what can be described as the irreconcilable
debrisoftheendofapartheid.
ScholarshipaboutSouthAfricancinemahasnotyetdealtexclusivelywiththe
complexrepresentationsofmemoryandthemythofthe‘Rainbow’inpost-apartheid
films. Most of what exists about South African post-apartheid films is grounded in
questions around the national collective identity seen in post-apartheid cinema,
constantlyreturningtothequestionofwhetherwecancallthiscinemanationalatall,
asIdiscussfurtherintheliteraturereview.WhileIsupporttheapproachandvalueof
thisimportantbodyofscholarship,thisthesisengagespost-apartheidrepresentations
differently. Thethesisdepartsfromexistingscholarshipinthewayitcategorisesthe
apartheid past and pays closer attention to the impact of that past on the present.
The hypothesis is that post-apartheid films are representative of ineradicable
manifestations of the apartheid pastwhich are still evidenced in the present. Even
thoughtraumaisnotrepresentable,somepost-apartheidfilmstrytoshowtheextent
6
ofthesystemicinfiltrationofapartheidinSouthAfrica.Otherfilmsalsotrytoextend
beyond the trauma, posing new and important questions from and of a new
generation. This thesis attempts to show how these overlapping periods in recent
SouthAfricanhistoryareexploredinthefilms.
The cinema of post-apartheid South Africa has shown me things about the
processesof‘workingthrough’ofthepastthatIcouldnothaveanticipated.Ithasalso
shown me that some of what occurs, both in reality and in the films, can also be
conceptualised against a psychoanalytic backdrop of ‘acting out’ alongside ‘working
through’ in the contextof traumaand therapy. The literature reviewwhich follows
elaborates further on these ideas. The thesis is interested in thinking about
representations of ‘acting out’ and ‘working through’ present in post-apartheid
identitiesinthefilms. Post-apartheidfilmsachievemorethanjustshowingthe‘new
South Africa’. Through close critical contextualisation, the films show how ‘post-
apartheid-nessis’entangledinshowingthechangesfromtheapartheidpastaswellas
the difficulties of manifesting those changes in the context and identities of the
present.Inadditiontoaconsistentneedtothinkaboutandreformulatehowwesee
andimaginethepast,thesefilmsarealsosteepedinheightenedawarenessabouthow
the present came to be through the vocabulary of new nation that supports it.
‘Rainbowism(s)’, ‘New South African-nese’, ‘New South African-ness’, ‘Rainbow
Nation’, ‘newSouthAfrica’, ‘theborn frees’, ‘ubuntu’, ‘memory’and ‘belonging’,are
all terms that curate the individual and collective identity of thenewnation.5 Each
term,when applied to the specific context of post-apartheid South Africa comes to
imbibesomeofthatplaceandthespecificitiesofthecontext.
5Pumla,Gqola“DefiningPeople:AnalysingPower,LanguageandRepresentationinMetaphorsoftheNewSouthAfrica”,Transformation47(2001),pp.94–106.
7
Thetermsaboveareillustrativeofthetropesinthefilmsthatformthecorpus
ofthethesis.Inthethesis,IusethedescriptorBlacktodiscuss(astheSouthAfrican
Constitutionoutlines)allnon-whiteSouthAfricans,althoughtherearesectionswhereI
useotherrelatedtermsmostlyinadescriptivesensewherethefilmitselfemphasises
somethingspecific relatedtorace thatneededtheemploymentofdistinctionwithin
‘Black’,suchas‘coloured’or‘black’.6TheaimoftheemotivetermsofthenewSouth
Africa, was/ is for the ideals of this language to penetrate a previously segregated
South African society so that people do not only physically reflect a multitude of
colours but also that they fundamentally believe in the ‘Rainbow Nation’ and the
collective hope that it promises. In the immediacy of the end of apartheid, South
Africanswereencouraged toviewthemselvesassimultaneouslyunifiedanddiverse,
holdingonto theirownculturalheritageswhileputting thebroaderaimsofnational
unityaheadofethnic‘differences’.
Apartheid emphasised physical and psychological segregation and therefore
post-apartheidculturalworkoftenstillemployspersistentsegregations(albeitaltered)
asaspringboard.Thetermsformedthebasisofnewpolicies,ideologiesandpractices
that would be mobilised, even if only superficially, if ordinary citizens could also
participate in the languageof democracy. Despite theofficialmodesof putting the
new South Africa into practice through the post-apartheid language, historically
entrenchedracialcategorieshavenotsimplydissipatedandclassdivisionsarestarker
thaneverbefore.Theterm‘RainbowNation’suggeststhatbecauseapartheidisover,
allSouthAfricanswillbenefitfromthenewdemocracy.Itisacelebrationofdiversity
throughtheconclusionthatthewholeisgreaterthanthesumofitsparts.
6Explanationoftermsisintheglossaryaswellasonpage18–19oftheliteraturereview.
8
What is vital to this research is to see and understand how the terms have
incorporatedandmanifested themselvescinematically. Toanalysehowthese terms
have been realised, the form of periodisation is an important choice regarding
methodology.DuringtheresearchperiodIhavepaidspecificattentiontoaskingwhy
somefilmsshowandelaborateonthecontextofSouthAfrica,andothersdonot,even
thoughtheysomehowreferenceapartheidorpost-apartheid.Theperiodisationofthe
thesisrequiredcomplexconsiderationsandmethodologicalchoices.Hencethethesis
makes distinctions but alsooverlaps in its primary approaches: theproject adopts a
critical textual approach, which incorporates analysis of how the films portray the
apartheid past, and how the films represent ‘Rainbow Nation’ identities. The
categories intersect because the changes in the country are sometimes part of the
reasonwhynewidentitiesorshiftsinidentityareshowntobecomemorepresentand
prevalent. Employing periods also facilitates analysis about the official differences
betweenapartheidandpost-apartheidSouthAfrica.Whereasanalysisthatfocuseson
shiftingSouthAfricanidentitiesmakesitpossibletoidentifyhowthetermshighlighted
abovehavecuratedthepost-apartheidnationpredominantly throughsentimentand
popular rhetoric. At the intersectionsof these identityandnationalquestions, I am
interested inhow the filmsconsciouslyandunconsciouslymanufacture the termsof
thenewSouthAfrica.
The corpus is comprised of films that represent the shifting identities of the
newnationindifferentwaysandfromdifferentvantagepoints.Thecorpusincludes:
A Dry White Season (1989), Cry Freedom (1987), Mapantsula (1987), Forgiveness
(2004), Zulu Love Letter (2004), Red Dust (2004), In My Country (2004), Skoonheid
(2011),Disgrace(2008),HijackStories(2001),Tsotsi(2004),Elelwani(2012)andFanie
Fourie’sLobola(2013).Theselectionreflectsfilmswhichdealwithcollectivenational
9
and individual post-apartheid identities. The films of the corpus are also intricately
concernedwiththelexiconofapartheidandpost-apartheidandeachone,particularly
thefilmsofSectionsTwoandThree,holdsapositiononthe‘RainbowNation’andthe
characters’ place in it. Someof the filmshavebeendealtwithextensively in South
African film scholarship, while others have not been engaged with at all. The
combinationof‘wellknown’andseeminglylessimportantfilmsalsoallowsthethesis
toexploretheterrainofpost-apartheidfilmsindifferentways.
Thisthesis’sprimaryfocusonthematicandculturalconcernsofthefilmsisalso
inlinewithfundingincentivesforpost-apartheidcinema.Mostofthefilmsdiscussed
in this thesis are co-funded or multi-funded, with the National Film and Video
Foundation (NFVF) having emphasised in itsmandate that it supports South African
filmswhich dealwith local narratives andwhich showor explore the history of the
country.Thisisatellingissueregardingpost-apartheidfilms,asitconfirmsthatthere
is definitely room and funding for films about South Africa. It also points to the
implicationthatsometimesSouthAfricanfilmsfundedthrough,orpartly,bytheNFVF,
needtosomehowshowthecountryinaparticular(positive)lightbecausetheNFVFis
attachedtothestate.7Thereare,however,anumberofinitiativesmobilisedforfilm
and television in South Africa, some which are specifically geared towards local
productsandothers, like tax incentives,whicharealsogeared towards foreign films
madewithinthecountry.
7ChiefinvestorsinlocalSouthAfricanfilmindustry:NationalFilmandVideoFoundation,IndustrialDevelopmentCorporationandDepartmentofTradeandIndustry:http://www.filmandtvtransformation.org/sa-film-incentives/[Accessed5October2015].
10
TheNFVFwasformedin1999asastatuarybodyofthenewgovernment.8The
primary taskof thisorganisation is to increase thenumberof SouthAfrican filmsas
well as the amount of previously disadvantaged people producing these films. The
NFVF’sbiggestchallengebyfaristheplaceitneedstostraddlebetweenitseconomic
goalsanditsculturalgoals,bothlinkedtotheshiftfromapartheidtopost-apartheid.
The NFVF provides funding in four different areas: education and training,
development funding, production funding andmarketing and distribution. Since its
inception, theNFVF alongwith theDepartmentof Trade and Industry (DTI) and the
SouthAfricanRevenueServices(SARS)haveformulatedincentivepoliciesforlocaland
foreignfilmproductions,bothforco-productionfilmsandforfilmsinpost-production.
Todate,SouthAfricanhasco-productiontreatieswiththefollowingcountries:
Canada(1997), Italy (2003),Germany(2004),UK(2007),France(2010),NewZealand
(2011)andIreland(2012).Theadvantageoffilmsortelevisionprogrammeswhichare
approved as official co-productions is that the production is considered national in
eachof the co-producing countries and therefore eligible to funding andbenefits in
either country. This alsomeans that the film has access to two ormore domestic
markets.InSouthAfrica,andforthepurposesofthisthesis,italsomeansthatafilmis
termedaco-productionbutcanbeviewedasafilmofeithernationwhichfundedthe
film. This raises a complexity when the cultural content is about one or the other
nationalcontext,asisoftenthecasewithpost-apartheidfilmsdiscussedinthisthesis.
For thepurposesofclarity, IusethetermSouthAfrican filmsthroughout thethesis,
exceptinthecaseofDisgrace.ThereasonsforthiswillbemadeclearinChapterFour.
8http://nfvf.co.za/home/index.php?ipkContentID=101&ipkMenuID=25&ipkMenuID=54[Accessed5October2015].
11
The final section of the introduction is comprised of three parts. The first
sectiondrawson filmsof the late1980s to setup thecontextof thepoliticalmilieu
rightbeforetheendofapartheid.Thesinglechapterinthissectionanalysesthefilms
A Dry White Season, Cry Freedom and Mapantsula to see how apartheid and the
history about it had begun, in this period, to be constructed in films. This chapter
initiates a discussionof how racial representations aided the formationof a specific
image of apartheid and anti-apartheid struggle. It is also an important chapter for
contextualising what some of the changes from apartheid to ‘Rainbow Nation’
entailed. In the friendships between white and Black men in Dry White and Cry
Freedom, I explore how these anti-apartheid films construct the main male
protagonists as characters who are ‘out of place’ in apartheid. The chapter also
exploreshowthewomeninthefilmsholdontoafixed,hyper-racialisedconstruction
ofapartheid.ThefilmMapantsulainitiatesadiscussionaroundananti-apartheidfilm
fromaBlackrepresentative. Takentogetherwith the first twofilms,anda rangeof
scholarship about these films, the chapter is able to draw conclusions about anti-
apartheid representations in films, which contextualises the end of apartheid, the
transitionandhowthe‘RainbowNation’comesintobeing. ThefilmsofSectionOne
showwhatapartheidracerelationswerelikeduringapartheidandthisisusefulforthe
argumentsthatfollow.
SectionTwo is comprisedof two chapters, chapters threeand four. Chapter
Three focuses on representations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC)
and considers how representations of ‘acting out’ and ‘working through’ present
possibilities for thinking about how such filmsmight exhibit trauma. Chapter Three
engages four ‘TRC films’ all released in 2004: Forgiveness, RedDust, InMy Country,
ZuluLoveLetter.Thischapterpresentsanimportantshiftasittakesapost-apartheid
12
pointofdeparturetoshowthelegacyofapartheidusheredinandofficiallyfacilitated
bytheTRC.However,whiletwoofthefilmsseektoshowandre-createtheTRC,the
othertwoareinterestedinwhatisignoredorleftbehindandchallengestheplaceand
ramificationsoftheTRCinitsnarratives.ChapterFour’sfocusisonmiddle-agedpost-
apartheid white masculinities. I examine the presence of guilt, shame and loss of
power in the characters of Francois Van Heerden in Skoonheid and David Lurie in
Disgrace. Section Two thus engages the issues of dealing with the apartheid past
throughthetropesofforgiveness,guilt,shame,allensconcedintheTRC.
Section Three of the thesis looks at the present and the future, asking the
question:Isitpossibletoidentifyanemergentstructureoffeelingintheyouthinpost-
apartheidfilms?Ifso,thissectionasks,whataresomeofthecharacteristicsofsucha
newsensibilityseeninthefilms?ChapterFivecontinuestoexplorethematicconcerns
of post-apartheid masculine identities, except that this chapter turns from middle-
agedwhitementofocusonrepresentationsofviolentBlack‘boys’oryoungmen.This
chapter considers representations of the young men in Hijack Stories, Disgrace
andTsotsi.ChapterSixconsidersrepresentationsoftheyoungpost-apartheidthrough
aconsiderationofthesecharactersengagedinritualsofunionsandtraditions.Infilms
whichhavesofarreceivedlittlecriticalattention,thechapterconsidershowwomen
like Elelwani in Elelwani, Lucyin Disgrace and Dinky in Fanie Fourie’s Lobola are
representativesofanewSouthAfrica. Thechapteralsoapplies the samequestions
aroundanemergentsensibilitytothewomen,andattemptstofindoutwhetherthere
aredifferencesinpost-apartheidraceandgenderidentities.
As my research has progressed, in addition to the contradictions and
disappointmentsofthepromisesof‘Rainbowism’,Ihavebeenabletodiscerntracesof
13
a rather less idealistic,morepragmatic, emergent sensibility. It iswith these fragile
signsofchangethatthethesisconcludes.
14
CHAPTERONE
REVIEWOFLITERATURE
Introduction
This chapter surveys selected literature to provide a framework for thinking
about films that represent narratives that concern or are contextualised in post-
apartheid South Africa. Part One focuses on the primary scholarship about post-
apartheid cinema and the terms and discourse around post-apartheid South Africa.
Fourprimary textscontextualise theoverlappingperiodsandthemes that this thesis
addresses:IsabelBalseiroandNtongelaMasilela’sToChangeReels(2003),Jacqueline
Maingard’sSouthAfricanNationalCinema(2007),LuciaSaks’CinemainaDemocratic
SouthAfrica:theRaceforRepresentation(2010)andLithekoModisane’sSouthAfrica’s
RenegadeReels:theMakingandPublicLivesofBlack-CentredFilms(2012).9Maingard
andSaks’s texts analyse anational apartheid andpost-apartheid cinema in termsof
South Africa’s film policies and thematic concerns such as race, gender and
nationalism. Balseiro,Masilela andModisanepay attention to the lacunae in South
AfricancinemahistoriesbyinsertingBlackhistoriesintoSouthAfricanfilmscholarship,
atopicthathadnotreceivedthisspecifickindofnuancedapproachuntilBalseiroand
Masilela’seditedvolume.
9IsabelBalseiroandNtongelaMasilela(eds.),ToChangeReels:FilmandFilmCultureinSouthAfrica(Detroit:WayneStateUniversityPress,2003),JacquelineMaingard,SouthAfricanNationalCinema(London:Routledge,2007),LuciaSaks,CinemainaDemocraticSouthAfrica:TheRaceforRepresentation(Indiana:IndianaUniversityPress,2010),LithekoModisane,SouthAfrica’sRenegadeReels:theMakingandPublicLivesofBlack-CenteredFilms(NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan,2013).
15
Parts Two and Three consider different avenues of definition of and
engagement with post-apartheid films, some which fall outside of the disciplinary
boundaries of film scholarship. Although some of Part Two’s concern is with the
questionofwhether‘RainbowNation’cinemaisautomaticallyanationalcinema,the
intentionsofthethesisarenotconcentratedwithinsuchaframework.Theresearch
is not expressly interested in making a claim for a national cinema, but is rather
investedintryingtoexploreandidentifywhatthedominanttropesofpost-apartheid
cinemaare,locatetheiranimusandconsiderwhatisbirthedfromtherepresentations
of ‘Rainbow identities’ in post-apartheid films. In order to explore these issues, I
incorporate Raymond Williams’s theoretical and methodological approach, put
forwardintheconceptsof‘residual’,‘dominant’and‘emergent’structuresoffeeling.
TheliteraturedrawsonCulturalStudiesscholarshipmorebroadlytoascertainwhether
it is possible to identify an emergent structure of feeling in post-1994 films. I also
highlightsomeofthekeyelementsintheextensivediscussionofnationalcinemasand
otherassociateddefinitions,likesmallnations,transnationalandworldcinemas.Part
Threeaddressestraumaandmemoryincinemastudies.
16
PartOne
1.1 ‘South Africanese’, ‘South African-ness’ And The Challenge OfRepresentation:NewAndOldTerms
The films analysed in this thesis are mainly products of the post-1994 new
South Africa. “New-South-Africanese” is comprised of multiple heterogeneous
discourses,writesPumlaGqola.10DrawingonStuartHall’sscholarshipaboutidentity,
Gqolaunpacksthemeaningofthe‘RainbowNation’,atermthatbecamesynonymous
withpost-apartheidSouthAfricannationalidentity.AdamHabibdescribestheuseof
the metaphor in electioneering as a tool of the political elite, who use the term
“cloakedinpatriotism”toappealtothemasses.11Criticsarechallengedtoexposethe
underlying problematics with the term and its use value precisely because of this
patriotic appeal. The “in vogue” term of post-apartheid South Africa is “Rainbow
Nation”, writes Habib.12 Scholarship by Gqola and Habib and others unpacks the
manifestationofthemetaphor“RainbowNation”andbringtolightthemanyhistories
andnarrativesthatareexcludedbytheforgivenessprojectof1994andtheTruthand
ReconciliationCommission.Suchscholarshipdepartsfromanti-apartheidscholarships,
whichengagedwithwhatNjabuloNdebeletermed“resistanceart”andfreedomfrom
apartheid inorder toassesshowpost-apartheidart andculture is advancedbeyond
“RainbowNation”narratives.13
10Gqola,“DefiningPeople”,p.95.11AdamHabib,“SouthAfrica–TheRainbowNationandProspectsforConsolidatingDemocracy”,AfricanJournalofPoliticalScience2:2(1997),p.15.12Ibid.13NjabuloNdebele,SouthAfricanLiteratureandCulture:RediscoveryoftheOrdinary(ManchesterandNewYork:ManchesterUniversityPress,1994).
17
LikethefilmsCryFreedomandADryWhiteSeason,whichwerereleasedasthe
world anticipated the demise of apartheid, scholars like Njabulo Ndebele and Albie
SachswereengagedinquestionsaroundwhatitmeanstobeSouthAfricanandwhat
itwouldmean tobe SouthAfrican in apost-apartheid era. As though in answer to
scholarlyspeculations,ArchbishopDesmondTutuofferedtheterm“rainbowchildren
ofGod”,ananalogythatGqolasuggests“…foregroundedhisbeliefintheabilityofall
SouthAfricanstoco-exist inspiteofandbecauseofdifference”.14 It is intheterm’s
progression into what Gqola describes as “mainstream discourse of new South
Africanese”thatittookonproblematicconnotationsinthefollowingways:
a) thelabel‘rainbownation’grewtobesynonymouswith‘SouthAfrica’.b) theinvocationofthecollective‘rainbownation’stiflesrigorousdiscussions
ofpowerdifferentials;c) the inherent contradiction contained in the label superficially emphasises
differencebutpreventsitsdiscussion.15
Gqola’semphasisisonthedangerofthe‘Rainbow’–anemphasiswhichGrace
Musilaidentifiesas“thecracksintherainbow”16.Musila’s“LaughingattheRainbow’s
Cracks?”engagesquestionsofracerelationsbythinkingabouthowtheserelationsare
“…anobvious,albeitunder-acknowledgedtruism”17.Bypayingparticularattentionto
howtheseslippagesandcracksintherainbowareevidentinhumourinSouthAfrica,
Musila engages the comedic works of young stand-up comedians as well as other
publiccomedicfeaturesonnationaltelevision:oneadvertandanotheranunplanned
outburst in a live interview. One unplanned public outburst on national television
14Ibid.,p.98.15Ibid.,pp.98–99.16GraceA.Musila,“LaughingattheRainbow’sCracks?Blackness,WhitenessandtheAmbivalencesofSouthAfricanStand-UpComedy”inEbenezerObadareandWendyWillems(eds.),CivicAgencyinAfrica:ArtsofResistanceinthe21stCentury(SuffolkandNewYork:JamesCurrey,2014),p.147.17Ibid.
18
resulted in the ‘Rainbow’ public finding an ‘acceptable’ incident to laugh at the
employmentofbadgrammarbyablackmanandanAfrikanerman.
On 6 April 2011, South African television audiences watched an unscriptedflare-upbetweene.tv anchorChrisMaroleng,AfrikanerWeerstandsbeweging(AWB) Secretary General Andre Visagie, and the political analyst LebohangPhekoduringalivecurrentaffairsprogrammeonracerelationsinSouthAfrica,following the brutal murder of outspoken right-wing AWB leader EugeneTerreblanche…What stood out about the episode was not that Visagie andMarolengalmostcametoblowsonlivetelevision;northatVisagiewalkedoffthe set in anger as the cameras rolled and the nationwatched. The incidentwas unique in terms of the subsequent humour the South African publicinscribedintoMaroleng’sagitatedstatementtoVisagie:‘Don’ttouchmeonmystudio!’towhichVisagierepeatedlyshouted:‘Iwilltouchyouonyourstudio!’Thegrammaticalerrorinthepreposition‘on’hadthecountryinstitches….18
The above incident is asmuch part of South African-ese as is the Truth and
Reconciliation Commission. Like Musila, I am interested in what the rainbow
narrativesofpost-apartheid filmsexcludeand include. CarliCoetzeetheorisesthese
expressions of post-apartheid “accentedness” in her monograph Accented Futures,
which conceptualises the ways in which new South Africans are able to articulate
themselves (or not) and their new identities. Coetzee argues against translation
“…because accent (rather than translation) provides…a framework that allows for
keepingapartheid’s insistenceonskinandsurface”.19 Coetzee’smixedmethodology
reliesoninterviews,observation,textualanalysisofartworksandliteratureandaself-
reflexiveaccountofherown(white)“accentedness”.
In an early post-apartheid attempt at theorising new nation culture and art,
Carli Coetzee and Sarah Nuttall’s edited volume,Negotiating the Past, attempts to
answerquestionsabouthowthepastmightberememberedthroughdifferentcultural18GraceA.Musila,“LaughingattheRainbow’sCracks?Blackness,WhitenessandtheAmbivalencesofSouthAfricanStand-UpComedy”inEbenezerObadareandWendyWillems(eds.),CivicAgencyinAfrica:ArtsofResistanceinThe21stCentury(SuffolkandNewYork:JamesCurrey,2014),p.147.19CarliCoetzee,AccentedFutures:LanguageActivismandtheEndingofApartheid(Johannesburg:WitsUniversityPress,2013),p.xii.
19
iterations. Theyexpress their interest in trying tounderstand,“whichmemoriesare
privileged, andwhat are the loci for theproductionofmemory”.20 Similarly,Abebe
ZegeyeandRichardC.Harris’seditedvolumeis interestedinhowthepost-apartheid
mediarepresentandshapenewSouthAfrican identities.21 Inboth instances,motifs
about ‘distressed’ new identities and culture are employed in different ways and
sometimes recycled, to show the processes of ‘working through’ and sometimes,
‘actingout’,conceptswhichIelaborateoninPartThree.
Post-apartheid cultural identities are indelibly locked into a discourse about
naming,inparticularracialnaminganddefinitioninscribedinthenewdescriptors.As
Gqola has argued, the rainbow is suggestive of “the rain that is over and little or
nothing remains to be done”.22 Taken as part of ‘Rainbow Nation’ discourse,
“rainbowism serves to reinforce notions of a united nation”.23 Nevertheless,
possibilitiesforshiftshavetakenplaceandcontinueto,forexampleinrelationtothe
racialtermsb/Blackandc/Coloured.Suchdecisionsaroundnaminginpost-apartheid
South Africa are part of a decisive choice not to automatically employ apartheid
terminology, and an approach of this thesis except in cases where the films invite
othertermsordescriptions.
Beyond official South Africanese, I am interested in representations of new
cultural identitieswhichmaynotyetbenameable. Inthissense, IdrawfromStuart
Hall’s formulation of cultural identity, which argues that “[c]ultural identity…is a
20CarliCoetzeeandSarahNuttall,NegotiatingthePast:TheMakingofMemoryinSouthAfrica(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1998,),p.1.21AbebeZegeyeandRichardC.Harris(eds.),Media,IdentityandthePublicSphereinPost-ApartheidSouthAfrica(LeidenandBoston:KoninklijkeBrill,2003).22Gqola,“DefiningPeople”,p.100.23Ibid.
20
matter of ‘becoming’ as well as of ‘being’”24. Cultural identity “belongs”, as Hall
remindsus,“tothefutureasmuchastothepast”.25Itisinunderstandingthis,asHall
argues,thatwecantrulybegintounderstandthetraumaofthecolonialexperience,
when “[t]hey had the power tomake us see and experience ourselves as ‘Other”.26
Following Hall, I seek to scrutinise the case study films for the complex and
contradictoryresiduallyandnewlyracialisedcategoriesofidentitywhichareobscured
bythenotionof‘RainbowNation’.Intryingtoremainawareoftheresidualandnew
meaningsofracialterms,IclarifyhowIusecertaintermsthroughoutthethesis.Iuse
thetermBlack(captialisedB)withreferencetoanynon-whitecharactersidentifiedin
thefilms.InsomeinstancesImayinterspersethisBlackConsciousnessuseoftheterm
‘Black’todescribespecificblackethnic identitiesforreasonsthatarerelevanttothe
analysisandcontextofthefilm(s).Theuseoftheterm‘black’,withasmall‘b’refers
toAfricanblackpeople, the term ‘coloured’ refers tohistoricallymixed racepeople,
whoinSouthAfricarepresentanethnicgroupmostlyfoundintheWesternCape.
Theculturally specific term isnot tobeconfusedwith the term ‘mixed race’,
which isa relativelynew term inSouthAfrica,as interracialmarriagesandsexwere
illegal during apartheid. ‘Mixed race’ South Africans now come to represent a first
generationmixbetweentwodifferentraces.Indianpeople,mainlyfoundontheEast
coast of South Africa are of Indian descent and the term ‘white’ references white
SouthAfricanunlessstatedotherwise.Ialsousethetermapartheidwithalowercase
‘a’tosubverthistoriesofpowerlocatedintheterm.
24StuartHall,“CulturalIdentityandCinematicRepresentation”inHoustonA.Baker,Jr.,ManthiaDiawaraandRuthH.Lindeborg(eds.),BlackBritishCulturalStudies,p.212.25Ibid.26Ibid.,p.213.
21
The terms of the new South Africa, or “South Africanese”, form part of a
contentious multi-faceted moment that extends into the present. In this
nomenclature,representationsofpost-apartheidSouthAfricaremainindialoguewith
Sach’s1989question:WhatdoesitmeantobeSouthAfrican?Althoughthepossible
answerhasshiftedsince1994, itstillremainsmessyandcomplex. Filmsaboutpost-
apartheid SA grapplewith various representations that show thepower of this new
language and identity of South African-ness, even when unaware of their cultural
validityandpower. DrawingonSachs’postulationsaboutcultural freedomasSouth
Africa approached the end of apartheid, Ashraf Jamal offers this apt critique of the
‘RainbowNation’:
The abandonment of Sachs’ leading question in the name of positivism andinstrumentality is indicativenotofanon-goingquest for freedom,butof thederailmentof thisquest.That freedom inSouthAfricawas largelycededandbequeathed, rather than seized, all the more accentuates the diminishmentand critical occlusion whichmarked the process of, and quest for, freedom.Freedom, then, becomes a hand-out andnot a reckoning; a guaranteed ideaand not a fraught and avidly awaited actuality… If Sachs’ paper remainspertinent(…)itisbecauseitcontainsacriticalquestionthatnoinstrumentaloropportunistic vision, including Sachs’s own, has successfully been able tosuppress.ItisaquestionthatpertainsasmuchtotheimaginaryofnationhoodasitdoestothesilencedmajoritywhohuddleunderthenameSouthAfrica.27
ThisthesisseekstoexploretheanswerstoSachs’squestion;answersthatIarguecan
begleanedbyexaminingpost-apartheidcinema.28
27AshrafJamal,PredicamentsofCultureinSouthAfrica(Pretoria:PretoriaUniversityPress,2005),p.4–5.28AlbieSachs’paperreferencedinJamal’squotecanbefoundinthefollowing:AlbieSachs,“PreparingOurselvesforFreedom”inIngriddeKokandKarenPress(eds.),SpringisRebellious(CapeTown:BuchuBooks,1990).
22
1.2SouthAfricanCinema:Definitions,HistoriesandPossibilities
ItisnoteasytodefineSouthAfricancinema.Inthefirstinstance,therearea
numberofhistoricalconsiderationstotakeintoaccount–suchastheperiodicchanges
betweencolonialcinema,apartheidcinemaandpost-apartheidcinema.Secondly,with
eachoftheseeras,thecountryexperiencedanincreaseinracialprojectsenforcedby
thestate,which ledtoacountryprimarilydefinedbyracialandconsequently,social
inequality. A discussion about cinema in this context is not devoid of similar
considerations. This section explores the primary scholarship about post-apartheid
SouthAfricancinemawhiletakingintoaccountsomeapartheiderascholarship.
ThelmaGutsche’s1972TheHistoryandSocialSignificanceofMotionPicturesin
SouthAfrica1895–1940isaseminaltextaboutthesocialcontextandimportanceof
colonial cinema.29 Not until 1989, did another extensivemonograph appear again.
TheCinemaofApartheid:RaceandClassinSouthAfricanCinema,byKeyanTomaselli,
opens with an assertion that the book was published as apartheid South Africa
received unprecedented challenges fromwithin and outside up until the end of the
regime.30 ScholarshipbyMartinBothaandTomaselliengagescolonialandapartheid
cinema,takingasitsfocusthevariouswayswhichfilmsproducedduringtheapartheid
erafunctionedasacinemaforwhites,whilefocusing,too,onhowfilmsfunctionfor
Blacks functioned under apartheid.31 Both critical works also consider the role and
presence of apartheid in the film industry and briefly engage with anti-apartheid
cinema.
29ThelmaGutsche,TheHistoryandSocialSignificanceofMotionPicturesinSouthAfrica1895–1940(CapeTown:HowardTimmins,1972).30KeyanTomaselli,TheCinemaOfApartheid:RaceandClassinSouthAfricanFilm(London:Routledge,1989). 31MartinBotha(ed.),MarginalLivesandPainfulPasts:SouthAfricanCinemaafterApartheid(CapeTown:GenugtigPublishers,2007).,KeyanTomaselli,TheCinemaofApartheid.
23
Althoughsuchscholarshiphasbeeninstrumentalinunderstandingthecontext
anddevelopmentsoffilminSouthAfrica,thefocusofthisthesisispredominantlyon
post-apartheid films. Four key textsengageexplicitlywith the relationshipbetween
apartheid and post-apartheid cinema in South Africa. This section highlights their
engagements with primary themes of the transition between apartheid and post-
apartheid such as nation, identity, and race. This study benefits significantly from
thesefourbookswhichfocusspecificallyonSouthAfricancinema.
1.3‘RainbowNation’Cinema:ANationalCinema?
AccordingtoIsabelBalseiroandNtongelaMasilela,tounderstandfilmculture
inSouthAfrica is tounderstandtheemergenceofmodernity.32 Thechapters in this
edited volumebuild on this position, and look to drawout a Black presence in film
cultureinSouthAfrica.Ofthescholarshipthatexistedwhenthebookwaspublished,
nonehadengagedBlackabsencesinfilmsinasustainedfashionbeyondBlaxploitation
filmsofapartheidand the few filmswhich incorporateBlackactors incolonial films.
Thismonographsoughttorectifythis lacunaofrepresentation,anduntilModisane’s
specificengagementwith‘Blackcentred’filmcultureinapartheiderafilms,nofurther
studieshavecentralisedthetopicofBlackfilmcultureinSouthAfrica.33
Masilela and Balseiro’s make two distinct claims about their edited volume.
These critics state, firstly, that theyare scepticalof anational cinemaapproachand
secondlythattheyaimtolocatefilmsaboutSouthAfricainasocialcontextandnotto
excludetheculturalandpoliticalforcesthatledtotheirproduction.34Thebook’stitle,
To Change Reels: Film and Film Culture in South Africa, references film culture, not
32BalseiroandMasilela,“Introduction”inBalseiroandMasilela(eds.),ToChangeReels,pp.1–14.33Modisane,SouthAfrica’sRenegadeReels.34BalseiroandMasilela,“Introduction”,inBalseiroandMasilela(eds.),ToChangeReels,pp.1-14.
24
cinemaorfilms,anindicationthatthevolumeisinterestednotonlyinthefilmsbutin
the cultural context and impact beyond the films. Their emphasis is significantly
differenttopreviousscholarship inthatthesecriticsplaceBlackfilmsalongsideanti-
colonialandanti-apartheidstruggles. Inthisvolume,then,thestartofSouthAfrican
cinema is not onlyHarold Shaw’sDeVoortrekkers (Harold Shaw, 1916) but also, Sol
Plaatje’s mobile cinema and the New African Movement.35 To Change Reels also
engages with questions around sexuality and argues that these can no longer be
ignored in the face of racial politics.36 Although the editors emphasise a shift from
racetogenderinpost-apartheidSouthAfrica,thetopicofraceremainsparamountin
thefilmsandscholarshipaboutthemthatarepublishedinyearsafter.
Despitetheeditors’suspicionofanationalcinemaapproach,thisvolumedoes
notonlytracewhatMasilelaandBalseirodescribeas“thecinemaofoccupation”butit
alsoasksvitalquestionsaboutthenewSouthAfricaonfilm.37Bytracingtheunwritten
historiesofSouthAfricancinema, chapters likeMasilela’sandBhekizizwePeterson’s
formulationon theNewAfricanmovementand filmculture in colonial SouthAfrica,
makenewworkaccessible. MasilelaandBalseiroarguethatwhitenationalismin its
colonial historical form, perceived of as “Afrikaner and British alike…has indeed
debilitated filmic practice in the country from its inception by firmly grounding its
ideological perspective in ethnocentrism”.38 They ask the following significant
questions:
Should a ‘true SouthAfrican cinema’beonewhere themeansofproductionareinthehandsofthemajorityofSouthAfricans–or,attheveryleast,inthehandsofanintellectualblackelitethatclaimstorepresenttheinterestsofthatmajoritymorepersuasively thanhashithertobeen thecase? If theanswer is
35Ibid.,p.3.36Ibid.,p.8.37Ibid.,p.6.38Ibid.
25
yes,would it followthat ‘black films’would thenbemade?Andwould ‘blackfilms’, by virtueofbeingmadebyblacks, fit thebill of beingpartof a SouthAfricannationalcinema?39
MasilelaandBalseiroasksuchquestionsinordertoconsiderthewaysinwhichSouth
African films might be inserted into discourses about the African Renaissance and
Africanmodernity. This is a radical theoreticalposition,which is theonlyoneof its
kind in the context of scholarship about South African cinema from colonialism
through to post-apartheid because it provides evidence and extensive engagement
with Black cinema over an extended period of South African history. Masilela and
Balseiro’s intervention is thus toengagewith representationsofBlack SouthAfrican
cinema,andtherebytoextendandelaboratestudiesonSouthAfricanfilm,afieldof
studythathaspredominatelybeenwrittenaboutasa‘whitesonly’project,oratthe
veryleast,systematisedbywhitestructures.
Litheko Modisane’s South Africa’s Renegade Reels is similarly interested in
tracing the Black modernist experience through film culture. Modisane draws on
Balseiro and Masilela when he writes that this book partly fashions itself and “its
exploration on South African films – with an eye on black participation and the
problematic of black identity”.40 Modisane argues that “Black-centred” films have
been able to, and continue to, stimulate public critical engagements onBlackness.41
With a historical focus, Modisane’s focus is on early and late apartheid films and
informsthisstudy,asitisoneoftwobooksthatdevelopSouthAfricancinemahistory
39Ibid.40Modisane,SouthAfrica’sRenegadeReels,p.8.41Ibid.,p.2.
26
byincludingBlackSouthAfricansandtheirpubliccriticalexperiencesofandwithfilms
between1959and1998.42
Maingard and Saks’ works favour a national cinema approach to explore
themes present in colonial, apartheid and post-apartheid films. Maingard’sSouth
AfricanNationalCinemaexploreshow thenation represented itself at various times
across different epochs of South African history. Her project is interested in “…the
more porous terrain for identity, both within theoretical frameworks and screen
representations…”.43 Maingard,aswithotherprominentSAscholars,doesnotusea
strict film studies framework for her work but rather an interdisciplinary approach
which,likeBalseiroandMasilela,favoursGutsche’sawarenessofthesocialcontextof
film making and cinema in apartheid. In Maingard’s case specifically, her position
regarding the porous and shifting terrain of identity in relation to films potentially
pointstoRaymondWilliams’conceptofanemergentstructureoffeelingalthoughshe
does not engage this fully.44 Maingard writes, for instance, that the new post-
apartheideracouldbeconsideredas“…somethingpotentially‘emergent’…asawayof
describingtheexperienceofoccupyingpluralsubjectivepositionings”.45
Maingard’snationalcinemaformulationusefullytakesintoaccountthemany
complexities of the South African context both during apartheid and through to
democracy.However,thisthesisarguesthatatraditionalnationalcinemasframework
is not the most suitable approach for post-apartheid cinema because such a
framework allows some room for variation but fundamentally seeks to identify and
definespecificaspectsofasinglenationality (howeverethnicallydiverse) inorderto
42Ibid.,p.10.43Maingard,SANationalCinema,p.3.44Williams,MarxismandLiterature.45Maingard,SANationalCinema,p.3.
27
beable todistinguish it fromanother country trying todo the same. SouthAfrican
National Cinemashows developments in representations in films from South Africa,
andprovidesanalysisforthethemesofnationalunityorthemesofdissidencepresent
in apartheid era films. Maingard’s argument for a national cinema is interested in
showing that these alternative and changing threads are constitutive of a post-
apartheidSouthAfricannationalcinema.
Ontheonehand,Maingard’semphasisisonauniquecinemathatmightnotbe
national at all. On theother hand, her argument is strongly in favour of a national
cinemaapproach. InachapterinMasilelaandBalseiro’sToChangeReels,whichwas
published four years prior toMaingard’smonograph, she argued against a national
cinema approach for South African cinema. In Maingard’s monograph, four years
later, she explains her methodological shift. In Balseiro and Masilela’s volume,
Maingard asserts that, “there is no national cinema in South Africa”.46 In her
monograph, fromwhich thisquote is taken, sheexplains thata cinemamust reflect
whatthatnationisandbecauseofwhereSouthAfricawasin1997,itcouldnotthen
be perceived as a national cinema. Nevertheless, despite the change in position
between2003and2007,bothworks include the identifier ‘national cinema’ in their
titles.TheeditorsofToChangeReels,BalseiroandMasilela,askintheintroductionto
thatvolume,whyMaingardwouldtakesuchanapproachwhenshedoesnotbelieveit
is a national cinema. ForMaingard, films about and fromSouthAfrica are indelibly
linked to thenational frameworkof thatcountry, inotherwords, themoredistance
the country gains fromapartheid, themore it is democratic and thus national in its
democratic unity and its cultural output. Maingard’s argument for a national post-
46Ibid.,p.2.
28
apartheidcinema isaboutmediateddemocracy throughthe images,ademocracyof
thefilms(andeveryaspectofthem)themselves.
Consideringthefilmlandscapefromasocio-politicalpositionisalsoimportant
to Lucia Saks’ The Race for Representation, in which Saks distances herself from a
nationalcinemaformulation.Saksusesapuninthetitle,TheRaceforRepresentation,
toreferencetwokindsofrace:onewhichreferencesapartheid’sracialcategoriesand
theotherwhichreferenceswinninga race.47 Saksoffersa fewprovisos forwhyher
studyisnotaboutanationalcinema:
TheSouthAfricannation isacelebrationofdiversityafteracenturyofbrutaland racist control…national cinema stories tend to focus on nations at themoment when a univocal culture is being formulated and/ or foisted oncitizens,whentheFrenchnotionofcitoyen/citoyenne (thosewhoparticipateinthepoliticallifeofthecommunityandenjoyitspositivefreedoms)isattheforeground.AnynationalcinemastoryofSouthAfricainthe1990sandbeyondmustbeaboutanationdevelopinganationalspirit…48
DemocracydoesnotautomaticallyproduceanationalcinemaforSaks.Instead
ofaredefinitionofcinemaoranattemptattryingtolocateSAcinemadifferently,Saks
ratherchoosestonamewhatsheengageswithas,“aracetoestablishnewtermsof
representation thatwill lead theway toharmony,however temporal, transient, and
idealized”. Saks prefers to steer away from the term national cinema and instead
describes what she analyses as “a national story”.49 However differently Saks and
Maingardhavechosentonamethecinematheydiscuss,andthusthemethodologies
they employ, theseworks are nevertheless in dialoguewith one another through a
similarnationalcinemasapproachthatprivilegesthinkingaboutthecinemaand ‘the
nation’ in its various incarnations. Both Maingard and Saks also provide historical
47Saks,CinemaInADemocraticSA.48Ibid.,p.6.49Ibid.,p.2.
29
explorationsofthe intricaciesofa ‘new’cinematorepresentthe ‘new’SouthAfrica.
Bothworksalsofavouramethodologyfocusingonrepresentation inthefilms,while
theysimultaneouslyconsiderofficialchangesfromapartheidtopost-apartheidinthe
creationofanationalcinema. Inthisway,bothSaksandMaingardalsopresentthe
official decisions of the post-apartheid government and how they impacted on the
constructionofa‘Rainbownationcinema’.Saksremindsustobeawareofthefraught
terrainofcinemainpost-apartheid,thedoublearticulationof“cinemaasindustryand
cinemaasart”thatcanbeseenintwopost-apartheidstate-ledinstitutionswhichaim
toachievedifferentgoals:TheNationalFilmandVideoFoundationandtheIndustrial
DevelopmentCorporation’smediaandmotionpicturedivision.50
Saks’s work however departs from Maingard’s in that she consistently
buttresses‘RainbowNation’themeswiththepoliciesthatmakethedevelopmentsin
the film industry possible. Saks privileges a political economy approach and
emphasisesadistinctawarenessofhowrepresentationalissuesworkalongsidepolicy
matters. The Race for Representation is about pointing out the issues and
developments in post-apartheid South African films as well as a more sociological
analysisofhowactualtransformationwasexperiencedafter1994.Forexample,one
ofthechaptersisdedicatedtocommunityandHIV/AIDSandwhatinterventionswere
made during this time, focusing on films that were educative and useful to
communities.51 Where earlier texts about post-apartheid cinema focus on writing
forgottenBlack cinemahistories (BalseiroandMasilela andModisane)ormakingan
argument for a particular kind of national cinema (Maingard), Saks also emphasises
twodistinctbranchesthatconstitutenationalcinemas:audiencesandpoliciesforthe
50Ibid.,p.7.51Ibid.,p.133.
30
filmindustry.Herengagementwithpost-1994policiesbytheNationalFilmandVideo
Foundation (NFVF) and the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), both, arms of
governmentthathaveplayedaveryparticularroleintryingtopropelBlackstoriesinto
thecinematicspherewithoutgivingmuchthoughttowhethersuchfilmscanberead
aspost-apartheidnationalistpropagandaorusefuleducationalmaterial.
In addition to these key works, other noteworthy scholarship about South
African cinema includeswork byMartin Botha, LindiweDovey, Keyan Tomaselli and
AudreyMcCluskey.
AudreyMcCluskey’s The Devil You DanceWith is often excluded from post-
apartheid cinema scholarship because the book is comprised of interviews with a
range of players, from directors to actors, scholars and producers.52 McCluskey is
interested insimilar issuestoMaingardandSakswhenshesetsoutthequestionsof
thebook.Sheisinterestedintheresponsibilitythatfilmmakershavetorepresentthe
issuesofhistoryandnationintheSouthAfricancontext,or,forexample, inwhether
there is a national cinema or not. The exploration of these questions takes place
through the formatof interviewswithplayers in the industryand the reader is thus
invited to consider different opinions. However, McCluskey offers no conclusion
throughwhichshepullstogethertherangeofanswers,andsoitisquitechallengingto
fullycomprehendtheeditor’sfinalassertionsonthetopic.
Two scholars who offer long-standing and consistent engagement with the
topic of South African (apartheid and post-apartheid) cinema areMartin Botha and
Keyan Tomaselli. With the thesis’s focus on post-apartheid, I focus on Botha and
Tomaselli’slaterworksinthissection.MartinaBotha’s2012monographaboutSouth52AudreyMcCluskey(ed.),TheDevilYouDanceWith:FilmCultureintheNewSouthAfrica(UrbanaandChicago:UniversityOfIllinoisPress,2009).
31
Africancinemacovers the full spectrumof films fromthecountry,however,Botha’s
lackofanalysisoffilmsorthemesmakesitachallengingtexttoidentifyasaprimary
source of scholarship relevant to the thesis.53 Nevertheless, Botha’s contribution is
useful in that it provides an extensive list of South African films. The author’s
emphasishowever isnotanalyticalandoscillatesbetweenasurveyof filmtitlesand
directors that he has identified as important. It is unclear onwhat basis they have
been chosen and most of the book, barring the final two chapters, references
apartheid era films. Keyan Tomaselli’s Encountering Modernity (2006) is a post-
apartheid reflection onAfrican and SouthAfrican cinema as part of African cinema.
Tomaselliwritesthattheaimofhis1980smonographwaslessinvestedinthetextsof
apartheid cinema and focussed instead on policies from an interventionist political
economyposition.54 This latermonograph,however, explores SouthAfrican cinema
andAfricancinemainacontextinwhichSouthAfricaisnolongerseparatedfromthe
continent as it was during apartheid. This study is invested in an historical
interpretation of twentieth century South African films and explores these films
throughfilmtheoryfromtheWest,ThirdCinemaandpost-colonialAfricancinema.55
Inadifferentapplicationofpost-apartheidcinema,LindiweDoveyalsoemploys
many South African films in her monograph, African Film And Literature: Adapting
ViolenceToTheScreen.56 Dovey’sdualnationalandregionalcinemaorientationalso
emphasisesissuesofauthorshipandspectatorshipintheadaptationsshedrawson.57
53KeyanTomaselli,EncounteringModernity:TwentiethCenturySouthAfricanCinemas(Amsterdam:RozenbergPublishers,2006).,MartinaBotha,SouthAfricanCinema1896–2010(Bristol,Chicago:Intellect,2012).54Tomaselli,EncounteringModernity,p.1.55Ibid.56LindiweDovey,AfricanFilmandLiterature:AdaptingViolencetotheScreen(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2009).57Ibid.,p.xi.
32
Thisistheonlyscholarshipaboutpost-apartheidSouthAfricancinemathatpaysclose
attentiontoanationalcinemaapproachwhileatthesametimeengaginginadecisive
argumentforaconsiderationofSouthAfricancinema’splaceintheregionofAfrica.In
thisway,DoveytouchesonthequestionofhowSouthAfricancinemamightalsobe
consideredpost-colonial.Dovey’semphasishoweverisnotonnamingthecinemabut
onthewayinwhichliterarytextswhichhaveviolentthemesintheirnarrativeshave
beenadaptedto films. Sheanalyses the films fromthisperspectivesoas toengage
representations of violence seen in a range of films across the African continent,
making specific arguments around the representations and reconstructions of the
narrativesinfilms.Inhercontinentalapproach,Doveyalsopaysspecificattentionto
theroleofthePanAfricanfilmfestival,thePanAfricanFilmandTelevisionFestivalof
Ougadougou(FESPACO),onthecontinentasawayoflocatingSouthAfricancinema’s
presence in Africa after the end of apartheid. Although their arguments vary,
Tomaselli, Maingard and Dovey comment on South Africa’s presence and inclusion
undertheumbrellaofAfricancinemaaftertheendofapartheid.
The literature about post-apartheid cinema has shown that there are a few
primaryways to think about this cinema todate. Although SouthAfrican cinema is
certainlyanevolvingcinema,Ihavefoundthattherearerepresentationalelementsin
the films themselves that have not been considered before. The work that I have
discussedinthissectionlaysthefoundationforfurtherconsiderationofwhatmightbe
present in the films. Scholarship aboutpost-apartheid cinemahasmadearguments
foranationalcinemaimbuedwithidentitypolitics(Maingard)andagrowingcinemain
whichthenarrativesremaindependentonchangingpolicies(Saks).Atthesametime,
scholarship by Masilela, Balseiro and Modisane approaches the historical and
33
contemporary film terrain from a cultural and Black centred approach. Although a
historicalandrepresentationalapproachhasreceivedmuchattentionbysomeofthe
above-mentionedscholars,theemphasishaslargelybeenontracingwhathaslargely
beenacceptedasaversionofnationalcinema. This thesishowever, is interested in
unpackingwhetheranationalcinemaapproachisreallythemostfittingoneforpost-
apartheid films. Thus the thesis departs slightly from the texts discussed in this
section, as it sets out to investigate what post-apartheid films explore in their
narratives about the apartheid past, the end of apartheid and the simultaneous
establishmentof a newdemocratic system, andalongside this, newnation as it has
beenshowninrecentexamplesofpost-apartheidnarratives.
In order to explore these issues and possibilities, this literature review now
surveysotherssourcesoutsideofSouthAfrican filmstudies inorder tograpplewith
otherwaysofidentifying,namingandengagingwithpost-apartheidfilms.
1.4SouthAfrica:Post-Colonialand/orPost-Apartheid?
South Africa was at the height of apartheid when most African countries
becameindependentintheearly1960s.AsLizelleBischoffputsit,
Becauseof SouthAfrica’sdisjointedhistory–outof synchwith thehistoricalpatterns of colonisation, freedom struggles and eventual independence thatshaped the modern era for most other African countries – South Africancinemaduring apartheid is generally excluded fromhistorical and theoreticaldiscussionsofAfricanfilmasawhole.58
Bischoff’s observation is confirmed in the explicit exclusion of South Africa inmost
post-colonialAfricancinematexts. ManthiaDiawara, forexample,tracesthehistory
58LizelleBischoff,“Sub-SaharanAfricanCinemaintheContextofFespaco:Close-upsofFrancophoneWestAfricaandAnglophoneSouthAfrica”,ForumforModernLanguageStudies45:4(2009),p.448.
34
of African colonial cinema through to post-colonial Anglophone and Francophone
cinemas,showingchangesaswellasresonancesofthecoloniesthatoncecontrolled
them.59Otherconsiderationsofpost-colonialAfricancinemacomefromNwachukuwu
Frank Ukadike’s Black African Cinema, Imruh Bakari and Mbye Cham’s African
Experiences of Cinema, Ken Harrow’s African Cinema: Post-colonial and Feminist
Readings and June Givanni’s edited volume Symbolic Narratives/ African Cinema
Audiences,TheoryandtheMovingImage.60Thesevolumesarenotrepresentativeof
an extensive list of works about African cinema but they are key in post-colonial
Africancinemascholarship.Mostoftheselectedworksdonotincludeanalysisabout
South Africa’s film industry because of apartheid. It was only after the end of
apartheid that South Africa was invited to participate in FESPACO. Because of the
manyexclusionsof SouthAfrica inpost-colonialAfrican cinema scholarship, it isnot
feasibletomakeanargumentforthecountrytobeconsideredaspost-colonial.
DavidMurphyandPatrickWilliams,however,choosetoconsiderpost-colonial
cinemadifferentlyandtheirfinalchapter isdevotedtoSouthAfricandirectorDarrell
Roodt. In Postcolonial African Cinema: Ten Directors, the authors consider Darrell
Roodt(Sarafina (1992),Cry,theBelovedCountry (1995)andYesterday(2004)aspart
ofasurveyofpost-colonialAfricandirectors. Roodt’s inclusionmakes itpossible for
MurphyandWilliamstoconsiderSouthAfrica’sseparatedevelopmentfromtherestof
thecontinentbyasking,“…whatisthestatusofawhite,liberaldirectorsuchasRoodt
59ManthiaDiawara,AfricanCinema:PoliticsandCulture(BloomingtonandIndianapolis:IndianaUniversityPress,1992).60NwachukuwuFrankUkadike,BlackAfricanCinema(LosAngeles:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1994).,ImruhBakariandMbyeCham,AfricanExperiencesofCinema(London:BFI,1996).,KenHarrow,AfricanCinema:Post-colonialandFeministReadings(AfricaWorldPress,1999).,andJuneGivanni(ed.),SymbolicNarratives/AfricanCinemaAudiences,TheoryandtheMovingImage(London,BFI,2000).
35
in our conception of African cinema?”61 Murphy and Williams’ questions are
interesting because so many directors of South African films are white males,
sometimesSouthAfricanandothertimesnot.
Aware of the importance of the potential relationship between post-colonial
and post-apartheid questions, Rosemary Jolly and Derek Attridgewere some of the
first cultural scholars of the 1990s to ask, “What then, is the nature of post
colonialism’s contribution to a post apartheid future?”62Premesh Lalu offers a
polemical suggestion for thinking about post-apartheid as post-colonial when he
critiqueswhatheconsidersaneo-liberalcollapseoftheoneontotheother:
Lurkingwithin this claim toapostcolonialhistorywhicharguablyemergedattheheightofapartheidistheundertowofthe‘nativequestion’.IttugsattheveryconstellationoftheSouthAfricanhistoryand,perhaps,explainswhythepostapartheidpresenthasbeen rendered in such away as to suggest that itsignals a rupture with the past. Such a presentation of the postapartheidnecessarilyrunstheriskofobscuringthefoundationalpresuppositionsofSouthAfricanhistory andallowsSouthAfricanhistorians to forgeaheadas if thoseknowledgeprojects,suchassocialhistory,thataroseinoppositiontoapartheidcansimplybetransposedtogivemeaningtothepostapartheid.Otherthantodefine itself as oppositional, the nostalgic renderings of agency and a re-reading of the community as spatially local, social history cannot, it seems,accountforitsownhistoricity.63
TotakeLalu’spointofdepartureinthecontextofpost-colonialAfricancinema
meanstodecidedlynotemploysucha‘collapsed’perspectiveinthisthesisatall:the
assumption that because post-apartheid connotes a break from apartheid and
colonialism it is necessary post-colonial. Lalu critiques this too easy effect within
scholarshipaboutpost-apartheid.ThisdoesnotmeanthatIamnotawareofitbutit
61DavidMurphyandPatrickWilliams,PostcolonialAfricanCinema:TenDirectors(ManchesterandNewYork:ManchesterUniversityPress,2007),p.5.62RosemaryJollyandDerekAttridge,“Introduction”inJollyandAttridge(eds.),WritingSouthAfrica:Literature,Apartheid,andDemocracy1970–1995(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1998),pp.1–13.63PremeshLalu,“WhenwasSouthAfricanhistoryeverpostcolonial?”,KronosSouthernAfricanHistories34(November2008),p.268.
36
does mean that the scholarship of Francophone and Anglophone African film
scholarship is excluded from this studybeyondpointingout that that history is at a
disjuncture with the development of South African cinema. The African cinema
discoursecoversalargevolumeofworkwhichisnotdirectlypertinenttotheaimsof
thisthesis.
Although I disagree with a post-colonial framework for post-apartheid films,
there isneverthelessadistinctstruggleforrepresentationofthepastofthecountry
andidentitiesofthepresent.Inlightofthecomplexitiesofrepresentation,Inowturn
toscholarshipthatfacilitatesadiscussionaroundwhatanadequateframeworkmight
be.
37
PartTwo
DefiningCinemas,Nationsand‘StructuresofFeeling’
Scholarsofnationalcinemastudiesorrelatedtopicshavelongbeenengagedin
thetoandfroofwhatmeaningiscreatedwhenusingtheterm‘national’inrelationto
cinema.64 Such scholarship has been concernedwithwhata cinema imparts to the
nationitseekstorepresentandwhatinterpretationsothernationsaremeanttotake
from these ‘national’ filmic constructions. Later, twenty-first century debates
incorporatenuancestodiscussionsaboutnationalcinemas,andrecognisetheshifting
terrainandvalidityoftheconceptbutdonotquiteprovidetheconceptualrepertoire
for discussion of the specific South African situation in theway that this thesis will
explore.65
Andrew Higson identifies four characteristics by which to identify a national
cinema.66 Although he references Britain, the modes of assessment are relevant
nonetheless, especially as they continue to appear in national cinema scholarship
outsideofthatcontext. Thefirstcharacteristic isrelatedtotheeconomyofcinema:
64Someofthemostinfluentialtextsaboutnationalcinemadebatesinthelatetwentiethcenturyinclude:AndrewHigson,“TheConceptofNationalCinema”,Screen30:4(1989),pp.36–47.,PhilipRosen,“NationandAnti-Nation:ConceptsofNationalCinemainthe‘New’MediaEra”,Diaspora5:3(1996),pp.375–399.,ThomasElsaessar,“FilmHistoryandVisualPleasure”WeimarCinema”inP.MellencampandP.Rosen(eds.),CinemaHistories,CinemaPractices(Frederick,MD:UniversityPublicationsofAmerica,1984),pp.47–85.,EdBuscombe,TheIdeaofNationalCinema”,AustralianJournalofScreenTheory9/10(1981),pp.141–153.Outsidethefieldofcinemastudies,theworkofBenedictAnderson,ImaginedCommunities:ReflectionsontheOriginsandSpreadofNationalism(London:Verso,1983)andHomiBhabha(ed.),NationandNarration(London:Routledge,1990)hasbeenextremelysignificantinthetheorisationofnationalidentities.ThomasElsaessar,asignificantcontributortothesedebates,summarisessomeofthekeymovesinnationalcinemadebatesin“Impersonations:NationalCinema,HistoricalImaginationandNewCinemaEurope”,MiseAuPointOnline5(2013),http://map.revues.org/1480.[Accessed30November2015].65MetteHjortandScottMackenzie(eds.),CinemaandNation(London:Routledge,2000).,ValentinaVitaliandPaulWillemen(eds.),TheorisingNationalCinema(London:PalgraveMacmillan/BFI,2008).,AlanWilliams(ed.),FilmandNation(Rutgers:TheStatueUniversityPress,2002).66AndrewHigson,“TheConceptofNationalCinema”,inScreen30:4(1989),pp.36–47.
38
“establishingaconceptualcorrespondencebetweenthe terms ‘nationalcinema’and
‘the domestic film industry’, and therefore being concernedwith such questions as:
wherearethesefilmsmade,andbywhom?...”.67Aseconddefinitiveaspectisonethat
mightprefaceatext-basedapproachtothefilmsthemselves,askingthingslike,“what
are these films about? Do they share a common style or worldview?What sort of
projections of the national character do they offer?...”.68 Points three and four are
closely relatedas theyare concernedwithaudienceand reception:who iswatching
andwhataretheychoosingtowatch. Thefinalpoint is two-fold:thefirstrelatesto
what Higson calls a reduction of national cinema to “the terms of a quality art
cinema…”.69 This “high –cultural” cinema presents a particular construction of the
nation instead of paying attention to what popular audiences may want to see.70
Based on this, a national cinema and related modalities of exhibiting nation(s), is
always, as variousother scholars have articulated, in conflict, as it is simultaneously
inwardandoutwardfocussed.
Themeaningof the term ‘national’ has shifted since theearly 1980swhena
significant round of critique was launched against preconceived assumptions about
whatconstituted‘thenational’indifferentdisciplines.AsThomasElsaessarputsitina
reflection and re-assertion about the contemporary value of national cinemas,
Anderson’suseofconstructivismasamethod,cameinanswertothequestionsthat
four important essays in the field had posed, albeit in different ways, almost
exclusively in relation to British cinema and Hollywood productions.71 These
discussionsformedthefoundationofdebatesaboutnationalcinemaandthepressing67AndrewHigson,“TheConceptofNationalCinema”inScreen30:41(1989),p.36.68Ibid.69Ibid.70Ibid.,p.3771ThomasElsaessar,“Impersonations:NationalCinema,HistoricalImaginationandNewCinemaEurope”inMiseAuPoint(2013).
39
presenceandinfiltrationoftelevisioninpublicdiscourse.Thesediscoursesstartedto
formulate ideas around how nations might be constructed and represented by its
popularmedia:televisionand/orcinema.72
Higson’s later reflection on national cinemas in “The Limiting Imagination of
National Cinema” does not completely refute his early work but self reflexively
repositions the question, asking about the usefulness of the concept of national
cinema.Hedescribesthetermas“…clearlyahelpfultaxonomicdivide,aconventional
meansofreferenceinthecomplexdebatesaboutcinema,buttheprocessoflabelling
is always to some degree tautologous, fetishising the national rather than merely
describing it.”73 Philip Rosen, one of the key thinkers in that path breaking 1980s
discourse,in1996writesthat,“Thecinematicinstitutionhasneverbeenacompletely
stableentity”.74ThomasElsaessarasksthequestion:nationalorinternationalcinema?
bywayofnamingachapterinhis1989monograph.75Theseinquiriesintoalternative
ways of imagining national (western) cinemas are pointed to here to show how
‘nationalcinema’hasbeenacomplextermfromtheoutset.
Threerecentcomprehensiveeditedvolumesarethepointofdepartureofnew
century scholarship about national cinemas: Mette Hjort and Scott Mackenzie’s
Cinema and Nation, Alan Williams’ Film and Nation and Valentina Vittali and Paul
72Idonotexplorethisinterrelationshipindetailbuttherelevanceoftelevision’spresenceinmainstreamsocietywasavitalpartofthediscussionsaboutnationalcinemas.Notablescholarshipinthisfieldincludes:CharlotteBrunsdonandDavidMorley,TheNationwideTelevisionStudies(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,2005).,PhilipRosen“NationandAnti-Nation:ConceptsofNationalCinemainthe‘New’MediaEra”inDiaspora:AJournalOfTransnationalStudies5:3Winter1996,pp.375–402.,StuartHall(ed.)Representation:CulturalRepresentationsandSignifyingPractices(London,ThousandOaks,NewDelhi:SagePublications,1997).,ThomasElsaessar,NewGermanCinema:AHistory(London:BFI,1989).73AndrewHigson,“TheLimitingImaginationofNationalCinema”inMetteHjortandScottMackenzie(eds.)CinemaandNation(London:Routledge,2000),p.64.74PhilipRosen,“NationandAnti-Nation:ConceptsofNationalCinemainthe‘New’MediaEra”inDiaspora5:3(1996),p.376.75ThomasElsaessar,NewGermanCinema:AHistory(Basingstoke:Macmillan/BFI,1989).
40
Willemen’sTheorisingNationalCinema.Eachofthesevolumesalsoincludeshistorical
works,someofwhichhavebeenreferencedabove.76
Mette Hjort and Scott Mackenzie preface a need to rethink the concept of
nationalcinemassothatitincorporatesmorefluidaspectsinapost-modernandpost-
structuralist era. Such an examination considers how the previous parameters of
scholarship within the humanities have shifted dramatically from Eurocentric-only
approachestoincorporategeographiesandcontextsbeyondhistoricallyWestern-only
dilemmas.Recentscholarshipaboutnationsalsoarguesfortermstobemoreinclusive
andmalleable.SomesuchtermsareidentifiedbyHjortandMcKenziewhentheywrite
that,“…deconstructionandpsychoanalyticsemiologymustcompetewithanewsetof
terms…’hybridity’, ‘multiculturalism’, ‘transnationalism’, ‘nationalism’,
‘internationalism’,‘globalisation’,‘cosmopolitanism’,‘exile’,‘postcolonial’,tomention
some of themost salient terms”.77 However, even inmaking room for new terms,
scholarsofnationalcinemasdonotallagreeonwhichofthesearerelevantanduseful,
nordotheyallagreethatthetermnationalcinemaiseffectiveinasfarasitreflectsa
distinctsetofdefinitions.
HjortandMcKenzieassert thatwhendiscussingnational cinema,wearealso
engaging in “notions of conflict”.78 What they observe as national cinema also
employing “notions of conflict”, is engagedwith differently in Vitali andWillemen’s
Theorising National Cinema.79 This text pays close attention to surveying the
historicity of national cinema (the first section is specifically focussed on the older
76MetteHjortandScottMackenzie(eds.)CinemaandNation(London:Routledge,2000).,ValentinaVitaliandPaulWillemen(eds.)TheorisingNationalCinema(London:PalgraveMacmillan/BFI,2008).,AlanWilliams(ed.),FilmandNation(Rutgers:TheStatueUniversityPress,2002).77HjortandMackenzie(eds.)CinemaandNation,p.1.78Ibid.,p.4.79VitaliandWillemen(eds.)TheorisingNationalCinema.
41
works referenced in theopeningof this section)before individual scholars’ chapters
extend intomorecontemporarydebates. Similar to theconflictarticulatedbyHjort
andMcKenzie,VitalandWillemenpointoutthatfilmsarethemselvesperceivedofas
“discursiveterrain”.80
LikeVitalandWillemen,AlanWilliams’editedvolumewarnsagainstatooeasy
lapseintoanAndersonianapproachtowardsnationalcinemastudies.Williamsasserts
that “Nationhood… is not merely established, it must be maintained; its definition,
therefore will inevitably shift over time... Cinema would be an essential part of a
processofdefiningnations”.81Thethreeeditedvolumesallsurveyhistoricalnational
cinemadebatesandoffercontemporarymethodologicalperspectivesonhowtothink
aboutvariationsinnationalcinemasandthusprovideausefuloverviewofdebateson
thetopic.
Ontheissueoftheconceptualexpansionsinnationalcinemadebates,scholars
have also put forward certain suggestions for how to think about variety within
national frameworks. Susan Hayward, for example, uses the term “pluricultural”
instead of multicultural, calling the latter a fallacy employed to fulfil the aims of
globalisation.82 According to Hayward, national cinemas, as thought of in a
multiculturalframework,attempttodistinguishonenationasdifferentfromanother
by looking at differenceswithin the national, in otherwords, a nation looking in on
itself.Shecriticallyidentifiesthat“itisinthatsetofdifferencesthatweseektoforge
ournationalidentityasone:callingitmulticultural(i.e.differentbutasone)whereasit
80Ibid.,p.8.81AlanWilliams(ed.),FilmandNation,p.3.82SusanHayward,“Re-evaluating/revaluingtheconceptandthevalueofnationalcinema”inHjortandMackenzie(eds.),CinemaandNation,p.94.
42
is patently pluricultural (i.e. segregated cultures)…”.83 Tom O’Regan, writing about
Australian national cinema, expresses a similar critique that the topic of a national
cinemaisinfactnotstraightforwardandcoherentbutrather,dispersedandhybrid.84
Other scholars have approached the question of how to define cinema still
differently. A few examples briefly surveyed here are: ‘accented cinema’, the small
nation’scinemaapproach,worldcinema,artcinemaandtransnationalcinema.
HamidNaficy’s‘accentedcinema’takesintoaccountfilmsbydiasporafilmmakersand
emphasisestheinclusionofaglobalSouthpointofviewandanaestheticthatclaims
both diaspora and ‘home’ status.85 Not only does such an argument necessarily
employ Hayward’s pluricultural assertion but it also manifests it in the method of
analysis of the films. The Cinema of Small Nations approach by Mette Hjort and
Duncan Petrie argues for a significant analytical distancing of how cinemas are
considered in relation toHollywoodor largernational cinemas. This approachdoes
not dismiss the traditional construction of a national cinema but rather argues that
smallercinemasalsoexistandmatter.86HjortandPetrieprovideafour-pointoutline
forhowcertaincinemasmightbedefinedas‘small’.Thesepointsencompassthesize
of the nation’s population, the geographic size of the nation, the Gross National
Product and thepresenceof colonial rule or historical subjugation.87 Despite South
Africa’slargegeographicsize,populationandlargestGDPonthecontinent(Hjortand
Petrie identifysmallAfricancountriessuchasTunisiaandBurkinaFaso),someofthe
characteristicsofsmallnationcinemasapplytoSouthAfricaaswell.
83Ibid.84TomO’Regan,AustralianNationalCinema(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,1996),p.285HamidNaficy,AnAccentedCinema:ExilicandDiasporicFilmmaking(PrincetonandOxford:PrincetonUniversityPress,2001).86MetteHjortandDuncanPetrie(eds.),TheCinemaofSmallNations(Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress,2007).87Ibid.,p.6.
43
Considering films outside of the national approach is also important to
StephanieDennisonandSongHweeLiminRemappingWorldCinema:Identity,Culture
andPoliticsinFilm.88AlthoughAfricancinemaisnotincludedinthisvolumeatall,my
interest lies in thealternativedefinitionsoutsideofnationalcinema,asking, todraw
fromDudleyAndrews’“AnAtlasOfWorldCinema”,notwherepost-apartheidSouth
African filmsmight beplacedon amap showing global cinematic power, but rather
whatmakesitdistinctonthemap.89Alsoconcernedwithwaysofremappingcinemas,
Elizabeth Ezra and Terry Rowden define transnational cinema in relation to the
scholarship about national cinema identified earlier in this review. Their
considerationsemphasiseamoveawayfromnationalcinemaandanawarenessoffilm
asaglobalindustrythatisnotgeographicallyfixed.
Rosalind Galt and Karl Schoonover’s Global Art Cinema: New Theories and
Historiesengageswiththepotentialways inwhich“artcinemacanbedefinedby its
impurity; a difficulty of categorization that is as productive to film culture as it is
frustratingtotaxonomy”.90Theeditorsnotethatartcinema“…pervertsthestandard
categories used to divide up institutions, locations, histories, or spectators…”.91 I
consider that films about South Africa as discussed in this thesis, to be part of an
impurecategoryofcinemathatissimultaneouslydeeplyrootedinandexcludedfrom
the standard categories pointed out above: institutions, locations, histories, or
spectators.Inspiteofthis,theSouthAfricanfilmsdiscussedcannotallbetermedart
cinemaeither,asnotalloftheselectionarenecessarilyandconvincinglyinterestedin
88StephanieDennisonandSongHweeLim(eds.),RemappingWorldCinemas(WallflowerPress:London,2006).89DudleyAndrews,“AnAtlasofWorldCinema”inDennisonandLim(eds.),RemappingWorldCinemas,p.19.90RosalindGaltandKarlSchoonover(eds.),GlobalArtCinema:NewTheoriesandHistories(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2010),p.6.91Ibid.,p.6-7.
44
perverting the standard categories related to the workings of cinema. Galt and
Schoonover’svolumeprovidesausefulandchallengingsourceforthetaxonomiesof
‘other’cinemas.
The categories briefly acknowledged in this section point to how itmight be
able to conceptualiseSouthAfrican filmswithin cinema frameworksoutsideofearly
nationalcinemaapproaches.Whilecompellingintheirtheoreticalandmethodological
approaches,these‘other’conceptualisationsofcinemasarenotquitetheemphasisof
thisthesis.Whilethisprojectnecessarilyengagesconcernswithregardtonamingand
framingfilmsfromandaboutSouthAfrica, thestress isplacedontheways inwhich
the different kinds of films seen in this cinemapresent and represent tropes of the
post-apartheid‘Rainbow’.
Post-apartheid South African films are distinct for similar reasons to what
AckbarAbbas identifiesaboutHongKongcinema, its“absentpresences”,articulated
asafragmentednationthathasnotyetresolvedthe issueofnation.92(emphasismy
own) In this thesis’s engagementwith representations of thenewnational in post-
apartheidfilms,myinterestliesnotindefinitionbutratherinanalysingwhatthefilms
themselvesshowas“absentpresences”because,aswithHongKongcinema,theissue
ofnationinSouthAfricahasalsonotyetbeenresolved.
As reviewed in Part One of the literature review, South African cinema has
generally beendiscussed froma perspective that considers the nationor themesof
the nation in film. At this time, because of various reasons, among them, multi-
nationalcinemadiscussionsandother formulationsofcinema(s), itmaybeuseful to
moveawayfromsuchdiscussions. SouthAfricanfilmswrittenaboutfromanational92AckbarAbbas,“HongKong”inMetteHjortandDuncanPetrie(eds.),TheCinemaofSmallNations(Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress,2007),p.116.
45
cinemaperspectiveemphasiseexpression(s)oforbythenation.Thisthesishowever
drawsonarelatedbutdifferentapproach,throughwhichIconsiderwhataselection
ofSouthAfrican-setfilmscantellusaboutthetransformationsinSouthAfricaandthe
negotiationsofbeingSouthAfrican. Theconcernsofthisthesisarethusadjacentto
nationalcinemaconcernsasmyinterestliesinsomethingbeyond,yetstillwithin,the
representationsofnation.
Toundertakethisinvestigation,theliteraturereviewnowturnstoscholarship
that is lessconcernedwithdefiningthekindofcinemathatpost-apartheidmightbe
characterised as. Instead, it considers literature that deals with conceptions and
articulations of the subjectivities of nation and identity through British Cultural
Studies.Suchanapproachhasnotreceivedmuchcriticalattentionfromwithinpost-
apartheidculturalandfilmstudieseventhoughsomeofthescholarshipraisedinPart
Onecommentsonthedifferentwaysinwhichtheconcept‘post-apartheid’hasbeen
renderedacrossculturalworks.
On theonehand, itmightappear thataCulturalStudiesapproach that is so
firmlyrootedinanothernationandthecontextofanothertime,the1970s–1990sin
Britain,mightbeofnousetoacontextlikeSouthAfrica.Ihavefoundthisnottobe
thecase,asCulturalStudiesisatheoreticalplatformthatisableto,andthisisrelevant
to the post-apartheid context too, “situate itself…in a transitional space within
contemporarycultural–politicaldebate– inthemidstofconflicts for instance,over
often pivotal political terms”.93 The terms that the editors of the Cultural Remix
volumerefertoareofparticularpopularandpoliticalpertinencetothelate1980sin
Britain. However, it isnot somuch the terms that I am interested in (orhowthese
93EricaCarter,JamesDonaldandJudithSquires(eds.),CulturalRemix:TheoriesofPoliticsandthePopular(London:LawrenceAndWishart,1995),p.x.
46
1980s terms find their articulation) but rather the appreciation of hybridity and
differenceinCulturalStudiesscholarship.94
Conceptualised in this way, the thesis is able to draw on unexpected
scholarshiptoexplorewhatpost-apartheidfilmsrepresentandshowusaboutthepre-
occupationsof the identitiesof thenewnation. DrawingonWilliamstoexplorethe
possibilityofanewstructureoffeelingpresentinpost-apartheidcinemaanddrawing
on conceptions of ‘working through’ and ‘working beyond’ trauma seen in post-
apartheidfilms(PartThreeofthe literaturereview), invitesapotentiallynewwayof
thinkingaboutthe‘TheRainbowNation’infilm.
This section pays specific attention to detailing what Williams’ ‘structure of
feeling’entailsandwhyitisrelevanttothepost-apartheidcontext.Williamsusesthe
concept‘structureoffeeling’tounderstandtheveryintricateprocessofshiftswithina
society from the perception of social consciousness and changes to that social
consciousness.Somesuchchangesmightstartoutasunambiguousinthereflectionof
dominantstructureoffeelingwhileotherchangesmightbesignificantlylessarticulate.
This thesis is concerned with finding out whether post-apartheid films show us
anything about the less articulate changes, especially against the powerful and all-
consumingbackgroundoftheofficialpost-1994‘RainbowNation’narrative.
94ThefollowingscholarshipisrelevanttoaCulturalStudiesframeworkthatinformsthisthesis:PaulGilroy,AintNoBlackintheUnionJack(London,Melbourne,Sydney,Auckland,Johannesburg:Hutchinson,1992(Reprintof1987)),pp.11.,ClydeTaylor,“EurocentricsVs.NewThoughtatEdinburgh”inFramework(34:1987)pp.140–148.;HomiK.Bhabha,“TheCommitmenttoTheory”inNewFormations(5:1988)pp.5–23.;JimPinesandPaulWillemenQuestionsofThirdCinema(London:BFI,1989).Muchlaterscholarshipbutwhichalso,atleastbywayofintroduction,beginsattheEdinburghconferenceisJuneGivanni’seditedvolumeSymbolicNarratives/AfricanCinema:Audiences,TheoryandtheMovingImage(London:BFI,2000).,HoustonA.Baker,Jr.,ManthiaDiawaraandRuthH.Lindeborg(eds.)BlackBritishCulturalStudies:AReader(ChicagoandLondon:ChicagoUniversityPress,1996),StuartHall,“CulturalIdentityandCinematicRepresentation”inHoustonA.Baker,Jr.,ManthiaDiawaraandRuthH.Lindeborg(eds.)BlackBritishCulturalStudies:AReader(ChicagoandLondon:ChicagoUniversityPress,1996).,StuartHall,“Race,Articulation,andSocietiesStructuredinDominance”inHoustonA.Baker,Jr.,ManthiaDiawaraandRuthH.Lindeborg(eds.)BlackBritishCulturalStudies:AReader(ChicagoandLondon:ChicagoUniversityPress,1996).
47
Theopeningquotationofthisthesis,byWilliams,quitesimplyindicatesthatno
generationspeaksthesamelanguageasthegenerationbefore.Thisisrelatedtothe
unarticulatedshiftsdiscussedaboveandwhatWilliamsexpressesas trying todefine
“…a particular quality of social experience and relationship” that diverges from one
generation toanother.95 There isa relationbetween thisqualityandwhatWilliams
definesas“otherspecifyinghistoricalmarksofchanging institutions,formations,and
beliefs between andwithin classes”, that poses a specific set of historical questions
andwhichsimultaneouslyposesamethodologicalchallenge.96
This challenge is related to where the historical markings are evidenced or
assumed to be evidenced because, as Williams points out, “what really changes is
somethingquitegeneral,overawiderange…”.97Inthisregard,Williamsexplainsthe
changes by way of two elements of definition: first, “changes of presence…” and
second, that “… although they are emergent or pre-emergent, they do not have to
awaitdefinition,classification,orrationalizationbeforetheyexertpalpablepressures
andseteffectivelimitsonexperienceandonaction”.98Thesechangesaredefinedas
‘structuresoffeeling’,whichWilliamsdescribesas:
…specificallyaffectiveelementsofconsciousnessandrelationships:notfeelingagainst thought, but thought as felt and feeling as thought: practicalconsciousnessofapresentkind,inalivingandinterrelatingcontinuity.Wearethendefiningintheseelementsasa‘structure’:asaset,withspecificinternalrelations,atonceinterlockingandintension.Yetwearealsodefiningasocialexperiencewhichisstillinprocess…whichinanalysis(thoughrarelyotherwise)hasitsemergent,connecting,anddominantcharacteristics, indeeditsspecifichierarchies.Theseareoftenmorerecognizableatalaterstage,whentheyhavebeen (as often happens) formalized, classified, and in many cases built into
95Williams,MarxismandLiterature,p.131.96Ibid.97Ibid.98Ibid.,p.132.
48
institutionsandformations.Bythattimethecaseisdifferent;anewstructureoffeelingwillusuallyalreadyhavebeguntoform…99
Inthecontextofthisthesis,then,Iconsiderhowitmightbepossibletoidentify
a new structure of feeling presented in post-apartheid films. I am interested in the
interrelationship between what might be present as emergent and residual in the
specificidentitiesofpost-apartheidSouthAfrican-ness.Inthisintricatespacebetween
officialdiscourseofnewnationandpotentialemergencesofnewidentities,thethesis
is also concerned with trying to articulate some of what, if present, this emergent
structureoffeelingischaracterisedas.
Initsmethodologicalapproach,Williamssetsoutthat“a‘structureoffeeling’is
a cultural hypothesis” that seeks tounderstandelements and their connections in a
generation or period100. Related to South African apartheid to post-apartheid film
analysis,thethesissetsouttodeterminehowtheelementsofthepastmightstillbe
present in the future,while at the same time, trying to find and identify a possibly
emergentstructureoffeeling.Iusetheterms‘emergent’,‘residual’and‘dominant’as
definedbyWilliams to identify thepresenceofeachof these in their individual and
overlappinggenerationalforms.
Drawing on Fanonian scholarship, Hall asks these questions which are so
pertinent also to the context of post-apartheid cinematic representation and the
investigationsaroundanewstructureoffeeling:
Isitonlyamatterofunearthingthatwhichthecolonialexperienceburiedandoverlaid,bringing to light thehiddencontinuities it suppressed?Or isaquite
99Ibid.100Ibid.
49
differentpracticeentailed–nottherediscoverybuttheproductionofidentity?Notanidentitygroundedinthearchaeologybutintheretellingofthepast?101
Partoftheattemptsoutlinedabovemeansthatitisnecessarytounpackhow
trauma comes to life in post-apartheid films. Part Two of the thesis pays specific
attention to representations of this era in South Africa through a thorough
consideration of the official and unofficial rhetoric of the Truth and Reconciliation
Commission. Thefinalsectionof the literaturereviewthusturnstoscholarshipthat
dealswithtraumaandmemoryanditspresenceinpost-apartheidcinema.
101StuartHall,“CulturalIdentityandCinematicRepresentation”inBaker,Jr.,DiawaraandLindeborg(eds.),BlackBritish,pp.211-212.
50
PartThree
3.1MemoryandTraumainSouthAfricanFilms
Scholarship about trauma on screen in the South African film context is
sparse.102 There isminimal dialoguebetween trauma scholarship fromSouthAfrica
andother contextsof traumaandmemory. The lackofextensiveengagementwith
this topic in relation to film interested me because so many post-apartheid films
exhibitelementsofthetraumaofapartheid.LuciaSaksalsonotesthelackofcritical
engagementwiththeTRCwhenshewritesthat,“cinemahasnot(asyet)participated
inanypubliccriticismoftheevent”.103LiteraturethatdealswiththeTRConfilmalso
engagesmost consistently with documentary films about the TRC than fiction films
whichdepictit.
This section briefly surveys the debates in memory and trauma studies in
relationtotheSouthAfricancontext. Iconsiderthedebates inmemoryandtrauma
scholarship more broadly to think about what is relevant to the context of post-
apartheid cinema. For example, there is no shortage of material about truth
102NotablescholarshipthatengagestheSATRCinfilmsincludes:JoylonP.MitchellPromotingPeace,IncitingViolence:TheRoleofReligionandtheMedia(Oxon:Routledge,2012).,SarahL.Lincoln“ThisIsMyHistory”inE.Anne.KaplanandBanWang(eds.),TraumaandCinema:CrossCulturalExplorations(HongKongandAberdeen:HongKongUniversityPress,2004),pp.25-44.,MartinMhandoandKeyanG.Tomaselli,FilmandTrauma:AfricaSpeakstoItselfthroughTruthandReconciliationFilms,BlackCamera1:1(2009),pp.30–50.,AngeloFerrillo,“ASpaceof(Im)Possibility:IanGabriel’sForgivenessinPumlaGobodo-MadikizelaandChrisVanDerMerwe(eds.),Memory,NarrativeandForgiveness(Newcastle:CambridgeScholarsPublishing,2009).,AnnieE.Coombes,“TheGenderofMemoryinPost-ApartheidSouthAfrica”inSusannahRadstoneandBillSchwarz(eds.),Memory:Histories,Theories,Debates(NewYork:FordhamUniversityPress,2010),pp.442–458.,JacquelineMaingard,SANationalCinema,pp.157–178.,LizelleBisschoffandStefanieVanDePeer(eds.),ArtandTraumainAfrica:RepresentationsofReconciliationinMusic,VisualArts,LiteratureandFilm(NewYork,I.B.Tauris&CoLtd.:2013).,CaraMoyer-Duncan,“Truth,ReconciliationandCinema:ReflectionsonSouthAfrica’sRecentPastinUbuntu’sWoundsandHomecoming”inBisschoffandVanDePeer(eds.),ArtandTrauma,pp.272–293.,LuciaSaks,CinemainaDemocraticSouthAfrica).,BhekizizwePeterson,“Dignity,MemoryandtheFutureUnderSiege:ReconciliationandNation-BuildinginPost-ApartheidSouthAfrica”,inSamOkothOpondoandMichaelJ.Shapiro(eds.),TheNewViolentCartography:Geo-AnalysisaftertheAestheticTurn(London:Routledge,2012),pp.214–233.,JacquelineMaingard,“Love,Loss,MemoryandTruth”inBhekizizwePetersonandRamadanSuleman,ZuluLoveLetter:AScreenplay
(Johannesburg:WitsUniversityPress,2009),pp.5–17.,LindiweDoveyAfricanFilmandLiterature.103Saks,CinemainaDemocraticSouthAfrica,p.90.
51
commissions around the world as well as the one that took place in South Africa
between 1995 and 2002.104 Because of divergent theoretical and methodological
approaches, someof theseworksarenotdirectly relevant to the thesis. It is in the
context of the Truth and Reconciliation film ‘(TRC) films’ of 2004 that the most
extensive engagement with trauma occurs in the literature and this is discussed in
ChapterThree.105
IntheirpsychoanalyticengagementwiththeeventandexperiencesoftheTRC,
Pumla Gobodo-Madikizela and Chris Van DerMerwe’s two edited volumes serve as
insightful compilations from which to proceed.106 These volumes have different
interestsintheprocessesandimpactsoftheTRCbutintersectinthatthechaptersare
concernedwithnarratives, journeysandperspectivesaroundhealingandforgiveness
104HereIrefertosomeworksthatcriticallyengagewiththeintricateprocessesanddifferentglobaltribunalsoftruthaswellastheSATRC.ThislistiscomprisedofscholarshipabouttheTRCprocessandrepresentationsofit:AlettaJ.Norval,“Memory,Identityandthe(Im)possibilityOfReconciliation:TheWorkoftheTRCinSouthAfrica”,Constellations5:2(1998),pp.250-265.,MichaelCunningham,“SayingSorry:thePoliticsofApology”,ThePoliticalQuarterlyPublishingCo.(1999),pp.285-293.,RosemaryNagy,“TheAmbiguitiesofReconciliationandResponsibilityinSouthAfrica”,PoliticalStudies52(2004),pp.709-727.,RosemaryJolly,“RehearsalsofLiberation:ContemporaryPostcolonialDiscourseandtheNewSouthAfrica”,PMLA110:1(1995),pp.17–29.,TristanAnneBorer,“ReconcilingSouthAfrica/SouthAfricans?CautionaryNotesfromtheTRC”,AfricanStudiesQuarterly8:1(2004),pp.19–38.,CatherineM.Cole,“Performance,TransitionalJustice,andtheLaw:SouthAfrica’sTruthandReconciliationCommission”,TheatreJournal59:2(2007),pp.167-187.,AnneliesVerdoolaege,“MediaRepresentationsoftheSouthAfricanTruthandReconciliationCommissionandtheirCommitmenttoReconciliation”,JournalOfAfricanCulturalStudies17:2(2005),pp.181–199.,SusanVanzantenGallagher,“‘IWantToSay/ForgiveMe’:SouthAfricanDiscourseandForgiveness”,PMLA117:2(2002),pp.303–306.,PumlaGqola,“DefiningPeople,pp.94–106.,MarthaMinow,“InPracticeBetweenVengeanceandForgiveness:SouthAfrica’sTruthandReconciliationCommission”,NegotiationJournal(1998),pp.319–355.,IfiAmadiumeandAbdullahAn-Nam(eds.),ThePoliticsOfMemory:Truth,HealingandSocialJustice,(LondonandNewYork:ZedBooks,2000).,DeborahPoselandGraemeSimpson(eds.),CommissioningthePast:UnderstandingSouthAfrica’sTruthandReconciliationCommission(Johannesburg:WitwatersrandUniversityPress,2002).,CatherineM.Cole,PerformingSouthAfrica’sTruthCommission:StagesofTransition(BloomingtonandIndianapolis:IndianaUniversityPress,2010).,AntjeKrog,CountryofMySkull(Johannesburg:RandomHouse,1998).,AlexBoraine,ACountryUnmasked(OxfordandNewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2000).,DesmondTutu,NoFutureWithoutForgiveness(NewYork:RandomHouse,2000).,CharmaineMcEachern,NarrativesofNationMedia,MemoryAndRepresentationintheMakingoftheNewSouthAfrica:AVolumeinHorizonsinPost-ColonialStudies(NewYork:NovaSciencePublishers,Inc.,2002).105ThefilmsdiscussedinChapterThreeare:ZuluLoveLetter(RamadanSuleman,2004),InMyCountry(JohnBoorman,2004),Forgiveness(IanGabriel,2004)andRedDust(TomHooper,2004).106PumlaGobodo-MadikizelaandChrisVanDerMerwe(eds.),Memory,NarrativeandForgiveness,PumlaGobodo-MadikizelaandChrisVanDerMerweNarratingOurHealing:PerspectivesonWorkingthroughTrauma(Newcastle:CambridgeScholarsPublishing,2009).
52
after apartheid. In a single chapter in the later of the two volumes, Angelo Ferrillo
discussesoneofthe‘TRCfilms’,IanGabriel’sForgiveness(2004).107SarahLincoln,like
Gobodo-MadikizelaandVanDerMerwe,discussescollectivenationaltraumaandthe
spacethattheTRCprovidedforworkingthroughthepastwhenshewritesthatnew
South African-ness “…is being forged precisely out of this shared experience of a
traumatic past”.108 Her argument is suggestive of the fact that trauma is part of
‘RainbowNation’commonheritage.
Annie E. Coombes draws on Susan Sontag in her analysis of Long Night’s
Journey Into Day, noting that, “…we cannot help but feel horror at the deeds we
witness with the mothers, but our shame is provoked by witnessing their extreme
distressfromthecomfortofourseatsbeyondthetimeandspaceofthehearing”.109
As Long Night’s Journey Into Day is a documentary film, it is not dealt with in the
thesis.Nevertheless,Coombes’approachofidentifyingthediscomfortofwatchingthe
painandtraumaofothers isofgreat interesttoPartTwoofthethesisthatgrapples
withsimilarconcernsinrelationtothetraumasoftheTRC.
Mostrecently,theeditedvolumeArtandTraumainAfrica (2012)bringsnew
andfreshengagementtothetopicoftraumainAfricanart.110Thevolumeemploysa
pan-African approach, which takes trauma scholarship as an important point of
departure by begining with Cathy Caruth’s primary argument that trauma studies
concerns “representing the unrepresentable”.111 JacquelineMaingard’s foreword to
this volume outlines the concerns as a collection on “conflict, trauma and
107AngeloFerrillo,“ASpaceOf(Im)Possibility:IanGabriel’sForgivenessinGobodo-MadikizelaandVanDerMerwe(eds.),Memory,NarrativeandForgiveness,pp.237–257.108SarahL.Lincoln“ThisisMyHistory”,inKaplanandWang(eds.),TraumaandCinema,p.27.109AnnieE.Coombes,“TheGenderofMemory”inRadstoneandSchwarz(eds.),Memory,p.446.110LizelleBisschoffandStefanieVanDePeer,“RepresentingtheUnrepresentable”inBisschoffandVanDePeer(eds.),ArtandTrauma,pp.3–24.111Ibid.,p.10.
53
reconciliation,andexamplesofvariousart formsrepresentingthese inapan-African
context”.112
Although the volume’s intention is tomakeanargument for conflict, trauma
and reconciliation present in African art, a thorough survey of the literature on the
topicoftraumaandmemoryinscreenstudiesissomewhatlacking.Alsomissingisa
critical (re)definition ofwhich tools can be employed in order to identify trauma in
Africanartandcinemaand,howtraumahasbeenconceptualisedoutsideofthestrict
terrainof‘theunrepresentable’.Methodologically,thebookreliesontextualanalysis
ofrepresentationsoftraumainAfrica,arguingforthefirsttimeinasustainedvolume
aboutAfricanartthattheterm‘trauma’ isapplicable inthisculturalcontext. It is in
thisformulationthatthevolumeisvaluabletothisthesisbecauseitalertsmetothe
fact that intersections between African art (including films) and trauma are being
grappled with. Although the editors consider this volume part corrective and part
theoretical insertion into (Western) trauma studies scholarship, which they outline
briefly in the introduction, the efficacy of the book is lost in the too easy lapse of
theoretical issues around the crux of trauma studies and alternative trauma
possibilitiesthathavebeenexploredbefore.
Cara Moyer-Duncan’s chapter in this volume engages with two ‘TRC films’:
Ubuntu’sWounds(SechabaMorejele,2001)andHomecoming(NormanMaake,2005).
Moyer-Duncansignals,inthischapter,ashiftinscholarshipabout‘TRCfilms’todate.
Although she defines the films as part of the post-apartheid TRC discourse,Moyer-
Duncan also employs them in an argument related to trauma. Moyer-Duncan’s
argument is that the films analysed in the chapter “…contest dominant cinematic
112JacquelineMaingard,“Foreword”inBisschoffandVanDePeer(eds.),ArtandTrauma,p.xviii.
54
discourse on the TRC by aligning themselves with the black community that was
politicallymarginalisedand sociallyoppressedduringapartheid”.113 This scholarship
proceedsfrompreviousworkthatisinvestedintheimmediacyoftheTRCasanevent
andbeginstocriticallyengageTRCfilms.
Otherscholarshave,tovaryingdegrees,dealtwithelementsoftraumathrough
the TRC in post-apartheid films. Bhekizizwe Peterson’s “Dignity, Memory and The
Future Under Siege” puts forward the argument that there is a close relationship
betweenritual,traumaandreconciliationinthepost-apartheidcontext.114Relevantto
Peterson’sarticleisMaingard’s2008chapterintheadditiontothescreenplayforZulu
Love Letter, in which she makes an argument for post-traumatic flashbacks being
presentinthefilm.115TheseperspectivesaretakenintoaccountinChapterThreeas
PetersonandMaingardboth identifytraumaandarticulate itaspartofthefabricof
post-apartheid in the films.116 Focusing on Ian Gabriel’s Forgiveness (2004) and
SechabaMorejele’sUbuntu’sWounds (2001), LindiweDoveyasserts that these films
critiqueviolence,whilealsobeingdemonstrativeof thecontradictionsof theTRC.117
AlthoughDovey isnotexplicitly interested inmakingarguments lookingattraumain
Africanadaptations,hermonographiscertainly investedinmakingcertainassertions
aboutTRCfilmsandhowtheydealwiththeviolenceofthepast.
Basedonthescholarshipdiscussedinthissection,thethesisacknowledgesthe
attemptsthathavebeenmadetoconceptualisememoryandtraumainSouthAfrican
113CaraMoyer-Duncan,“Truth,ReconciliationandCinema:ReflectionsonSouthAfrica’sRecentPastinUbuntu’sWoundsandHomecoming”inBisschoffandVanDePeer(eds.),ArtandTrauma,p.278.114BhekizizwePeterson,“Dignity,MemoryandtheFutureunderSiege”inOpondoandShapiro(eds.),TheNewViolentCartography:Geo-AnalysisaftertheAestheticTurn(London:Routledge,2012),pp.214–233.115JacquelineMaingard,“Love,Loss,MemoryandTruth”inPetersonandSuleman,ZuluLoveLetter,pp.5–17.116Ibid.117Dovey,AfricanFilmandLiterature,pp.53–56.
55
films, even in cases where the term ‘trauma’ has not been used. However, these
attemptshavebeensparseandoftenofdirectrelevanceonlytofilmsthatsignpostthe
narrativeoftrauma.Inotherwords,notmuchhasbeenconsideredinrelationtofilms
thatdonotexpressadirectcorrelationtothetraumaofviolenceofanapartheidpast.
Hence,questionsremain,suchas:cantraumabeidentifiedinfilmsinwhichtheTRCis
notan intrinsicpartofthenarrative? Dofilmsshowtraumaas isolatedtoaspecific
era or event in South Africa? The films of Section Two of the thesis are primary
examplesthroughwhichtoapplythesequestions.However,Iseektoexplorewhether
itmightbepossible that trauma isanunavoidable implication inanemergentSouth
Africancontext.
Thefollowingsectionconsiderssomeoftheprimarydebatesaroundmemory
andtraumastudiesandconcludeswithabriefdiscussionofthreetraumaandscreen
approachesthatinformthisthesis.
3.2MemoryandTraumaStudies:PerspectivesandTheoreticalPoints
E. Anne Kaplan and BanWang put forward the following about trauma and
traditionalapproachestoit:
The traumaofmodernityhasgone frompush toshove. It simplyboggles themindorrisksbanalizationtorundownthelistofallthemajortraumasofthemodern world – all of which came in the wake of the three fundamentaltraumas associated with the loss of the absolute in the experience ofmodernity.Whilethetwentiethcenturywitnessedaclimaxofallthetraumaticblows within the frame that Freud spoke of, the new millennium has runheadlongintounthinkablecatastrophesandforebodesmoretocome.118
118E.AnnKaplanandBanWang,“Introduction:fromTraumaticParalysistotheForceFieldofModernity”inKaplanandWang(eds.),TraumaandCinema:CrossCulturalExplorations(HongKongandAberdeen:HongKongUniversityPress,2004),p.3.
56
An international conference titled “Frontiers Of Memory”, held in 1999,
generated a series of publications edited by organisers Susannah Radstone and
KatherineHodgkin,includingaspecial issueofScreen,titled“TraumaDossier,Special
Debate: Traumaand Screen StudiesOpeningTheDebate”.119 In the introduction to
the dossier, Radstone asks some of the following questions about the connections
betweenScreenStudiesandtraumascholarship:
…Is there a relation between screen media and trauma? If so, where shouldScreenStudiesscholarshipbeginitsanalysisofthisrelation?Shouldsuchanalysistakeitsimpetusfromtexts,andifso,shouldthefocusfallprimarilyonnarration,oronmise-en-scèneoroneditingorsoon?Ordoes traumamake itself felt in(canone saymark?) thesemedia in the relationbetween their texts and theirspectators–andifso,thenhow?120
Thisquestionis important inthisthesisandamajorconsiderationofsomeof
theseminalworksaboutscreentraumastudies.121 AlthoughSouthAfrica’spastwas
traumatic, I keep in mind what Radstone and Hodgkin identify as at the heart of
trauma – the unrepresentable – that which cannot ever be represented again. The
specificinterrelationbetweenthisunrepresentabilityandtheHolocaustisalsoavital
pointtoremainawareofintheanalysisoftraumainthefilmsdiscussedinthethesis.
About the central issues of trauma studies, the relationship between the holocaust
andtrauma,theeditorsoffer:
The specific horrors of the holocaust have generated a sense that it is aproblemforrepresentationinawaythatnoothereventcanbe;thatitisset
119SusannahRadstone,“IntroductionTraumaDossier,SpecialDebate:TraumaandScreenStudies:OpeningtheDebate”,Screen42:2(2001),pp.188–193.120Ibid.,p.188.121SusannahRadstoneandKatherineHodgkin(eds.),MemoryCultures:Memory,SubjectivityandRecognition(NewBrunswickandLondon:TransactionPublishers,2005).,KatharineHodgkinandSusannahRadstone,Memory,History,Nation:ContestedPasts(NewBrunswickandLondon:TransactionPublishers,2006).,SusannahRadstone,MemoryandMethodology(OxfordandNewYork:Berg,2000).,SusannahRadstoneandBillSchwarz,“Introduction:MappingMemory”inSusannahRadstoneandBillSchwarz(eds.),Memory:Histories,Theories,Debates(NewYork:FordhamUniversityPress,2010).,CathyCaruth(ed.),Trauma:ExplorationsinMemory(BaltimoreandLondon:TheJohnHopkinsUniversityPress,1995).
57
apart,requiringitsownlanguage,itsowntheory;that,ultimately,discussionof holocaust memory should be somehow excused the norms of criticalinterchange…Totheextentthattraumatheoryisamemorydiscourse,itaimsprecisely to summonup thepresentnessofmemory, to insistonunfinishedbusiness:guiltandreparationremainthedominantthemes.122
Radstone undertakes a later comprehensive survey of trauma literature in
relationtoculturalworks.123 Avaluablequestionposed is,“Towhatextent, (…),are
the insights offered by trauma theory generalizable to the whole field of
representation?”124Thisquestionisrelevantalsotothethesiswhichleansheavilyon
the field of representation in relation to films from the South African context. Jill
Bennettarticulatestraumaticmemoryas“resolutelyanissueofthepresent”.125 Her
thesismakes the cleardistinctionand relationbetween “affectiveexperience (sense
memory) or representation (common memory)…”.126 Writing specifically about
traumaandfilms,JanetWalkerexpressestheconceptofa“traumacinema…agroupof
films,eachofwhichdealswithaworld-shatteringeventoreventsofthepast…”.127
As a valuable point to remember in relation to the unique elements of the
SouthAfricansituation,Walkeralsowritesthat“traumacinemaisaninternationaland
transnationalphenomenon”,implyingthattheveryrelationsacrossthiskindofcinema
invites a kindof openness to someof thedefinitions of national andother cinemas
discussedinSectiontwooftheliteraturereview.128Walker’sassertionalsosuggests
that trauma cinemas exist outside of the realm of what is considered standard
122SusannahRadstoneandKatharineHodgkin,“BelievingtheBody:Introduction”inRadstoneandHodgkin(eds.),ContestedPasts,p.7.123SusannahRadstone,“TraumaTheory:Contexts,Politics,Ethics”inParagraph30:1(2007),pp.9–29.124Ibid.,p.12.125JillBennett,“TheAestheticofSense-Memory”inRadstoneandHodgkin(eds.),MemoryCultures,p.35.126Ibid.p.32.127JanetWalker,“TraumaCinema:FalseMemoriesandTrueExperience”inSpecialDebate:TraumaandScreenStudies:OpeningtheDebate,Screen42:2(2001),p.215.128Ibid.p.215
58
psychoanalyticscholarshipabouttraumaandnecessarilyinvitestheconceptofaffect
intoanalysisof this kind. Walker’s insistenceon the international and transnational
scope of trauma cinema specifically, also references something of the relationship
betweenhowtonameandframeacinemaasdiscussedinsectiontwooftheliterature
review.
Thethesisisinterestedinshowinghowelementsoftraumacanbeidentifiedin
individual post-apartheid identities and collective national representations in the
selectedfilms.Theconcernwithmemoryandtraumainthethesisisthusinthisvery
particularplaceofshowingthatpost-apartheididentitiesareimbuedwithtraumaand
related sentiments that cannot always be neatly articulated. In spite of the
unrepresentabilityoftrauma,thereareneverthelesselementsoftraumathatcanbe
experienced through the characters and context of someof the filmsdiscussed. To
thisend,thescholarshipontraumacinemaandaffectisuseful.
3.2.1TraumaCinema,‘ActingOut’and‘WorkingThrough’
JanetWalkerarguesthatcinema is“anarrativemediumwhichallows for the
coexistenceofincompatibletruths”whicharerelatedtofantasyinmemoriesandare
often dismissed as improvable and assumed untrue.129 Walker argues for the
coexistenceofmemory alongside the fantastical addition to thatmemory,what she
calls“imaginaryscenes”.130Botharetobedeemedasrealandvaluable,especiallyif,
as trauma studies qualifies, we are to believe that post-traumatic stress disorder
(PTSD)isacknowledgedpreciselybecausetraumaticmemoryassumesthatthe“event
129SusannahRadstoneandKatharineHodgkin,“RememberingSuffering:Introduction”inRadstoneandHodgkin(eds.),p.100.130JanetWalker“TheTraumaticParadox:Autobiography,DocumentaryandthePsychologyofMemory”RadstoneandHodgkin(eds.),ContestedPasts,p.109.
59
(was)tooterribletoacknowledgenon-traumatically”.131ForWalker,thereisvaluein
the‘incorrect’memoryoralteredfactsofthosememoriesduetofantasy,anelement
ofmemorypermittedinmemorystudiesbutnotintraumabecauseofmemory’smore
malleable relation to an event or happening versus trauma’s relation to the specific
distressbroughtonbythathappening.132
Walker develops the term “the traumatic paradox”, which arises because
“traumaticeventscananddoresultintheveryamnesiasandmistakesinmemorythat
aregenerally considered,outside the theoryof traumamemory, toundermine their
claimtoveracity”.133 Thisconception ledWalker toengagewithanddefine ‘trauma
cinema’asfollows:
…agroupoffilms,drawnfromdifferentgenres,modes,andnationalcinemas,eachofwhichdealswithworld-shatteringevents(…)inanon-realiststylethatfigures the traumatic past as meaningful, fragmentary, virtually unspeakableandstriatedwithfantasyconstructions.134
ElsaessarappliesasimilarconcepttorecentGermancinemabyedging‘trauma
cinema’ further and defining it as ‘parapractic cinema’, a cinema which enacts and
represents the traumatic (and incompatible or ‘failed’) qualities that Walker refers
to.135‘Parapraxis’isdefinedascomprisedoftwosides,“…thefailedperformanceand
theperformanceoffailure”.136 Inanotherrelatedconceptionoftraumaandcinema,
Joshua Hirsch in After Image offers the term ‘post-traumatic’ cinema to describe
131Ibid.132Ibid.133Ibid.,p.107.134Ibid.,p.109.135ThomasElsaessar,TerrorandTrauma:CulturalMemorysince1945(NewYorkandLondon:Routledge,2014),p.321.136Ibid.,p.26.
60
Germanfilmsthattrytoexhibittraumatichistories.137Despitetheirengagementwith
a radical exposition of how trauma and the cinema intersect and inwhichwayswe
maybeable tocall certainkindsof films, trauma films (whichever termonemaygo
with), these scholars intersect ina return toa fundamentalpre-requisite for trauma
work to be defined as such, namely that the Holocaust and memory thereof as a
pivotalandalmostsingularelementinsuchaframeworkforanalysis.
Thismightseemtoautomaticallyexcludetheaimsof thisproject,however, I
remain interested in some of the ways in which what I consider as intersectional
approachesapplytothewaysinwhichtraumaappearsinthefilms.WhileKaplanand
Wang acknowledge “trauma (is) a debilitating kind ofmemory”, they choose not to
concedethatthis intheir internationaldebatesabouttraumaandmemory. Instead,
they are, as I am, interested in Dominick La Capra’s use of the Freudian concepts
‘actingout’and‘workingthrough’,bothalsoemployedbyElsaessarandJoshuaHirsch
intheirdiscussionsaboutGermanexamplesoftraumacinema.138
Freudnotesthat,“…wemaysaythatthepatientdoesnotrememberanything
ofwhathehas forgottenandrepressed,butacts itout…Thegreater theresistance,
themore extensivelywill acting out (repetition) replace remembering”.139 It is only
throughallowingthepatienttimewiththeresistantthatthepatientisableto“work
throughit,toovercomeit…”.140DrawingonFreud,then,KaplanandWangnotethat
thecontributorstoTraumaandCinema“stageasimilarcritique”asLaCapra,inorder
137JoshuaHirsch,Afterimage:Film,TraumaandtheHolocaust(Philadelphia:TempleUniversityPress,2004).138DominickLaCapra,WritingHistory,WritingTrauma(Baltimore:TheJohnHopkinsUniversityPress,2001).139SigmundFreud,“Remembering,RepeatingandWorking-Through(FurtherRecommendationsontheTechniqueofPsycho-Analysis)”,TheStandardEditionoftheCompletePsychologicalWorksofSigmundFreudVol.XII(1911–1913):TheCaseofSchreber,PapersonTechniqueandOtherWorks(1914),pp.150–151.140Ibid.,p.155.
61
to challenge “this notion of psychic paralysis by examining the distinction between
acting out and working through”, the latter of which creates room for sustainable
possibilities for change.141 LaCapradistinguishesbetween ‘actingout’ and ‘working
through’asfollows:
Inactingout,onerelivesthepastasifoneweretheother,includingoneselfasanother in the past…In working through, one tries to acquire some criticaldistance that allows one to engage in life in the present, to assumeresponsibility –but thatdoesn’tmean that youutterly transcend thepast. Itmeansyoucometotermswithit…142
IntheSouthAfricanexamplesusedinthisthesis,Iaminterestedinkeepingthe
concepts of ‘acting out’ and/ or ‘working through’ in mind in analyses of post-
apartheidrepresentationsinordertoassesswhatsensibilitiesmightbediscerniblein
new South African identities and subjectivities as seen in the selected films. These
concepts invite possibilities for thinking about traumatised collective and individual
identities and invite room for making sense of potentially emergent ways of being
beyondthe‘actingout’throughtheprocessof‘workingthrough’.
Myinterestinthisconceptforpost-apartheidfilmanalysisthusliesinthinking
abouthowtoarticulatethepresenceoftraumainthefilmsalongsidewhatmightbea
newstructureoffeeling,andthroughthinkingabouthowthetraumahasmanifested
in‘RainbowNation’characters.
3.2.2Traumainfilms
While the scholars discussed in the above section emphasise both the larger
concept of trauma and/ within trauma cinema, this section briefly highlights
scholarship about trauma and affect in films. Jill Bennett argues that, if properly141Hirsch,Afterimage,p.5.142LaCapra,WritingHistory,p.148.
62
conjured, affect “produces a real-time somatic experience, no longer framed as
representation”.143Inorderfortheimpossibilityoftraumatoberepresented,writes
Bennettor,theonlywaytocomeclosetowhatthetraumaticexperiencewas,istocall
on an extreme affective experience, which resists processing in the way memory
does.144 Inotherwords, it isnotpossibletorepresenttraumabut it is,accordingto
Bennett, possible to see and identify an emotion in a character orwithin the larger
film.SusannahRadstone’sanalysisofForrestGump(RobertZameckis,1994)notes,“a
pointofaffectiveidentificationthroughwhichtraumaticmemorybeginstobeworked
through”.145
Radstone’s thesis, likeBennett’s, is alsonotexplicitly located inaffect theory
but rather straddlesaffect,psychoanalysisand traumascreenstudies. Awareof the
limitationsoftraumastudies,Radstoneemploystheterm“affectiveidentification”as
awayofexplicitlypointingout thepresenceand identificationof trauma.146 Sucha
definition provides an analytical tool through which traumatic experience can be
identifiedonscreenbutnotthroughwhichanalysisisdebilitatedbytheimpenetrable
(traumaasunrepresentable).Itisthuspossible,throughtheuseofthisapproach,to
identifythepossibilityofanexperience liketrauma,implyingnotthattheviewercan
experience it fully but rather that trauma can be registered as a particular kind of
emotive response to a particular memory(ies) or, at the very least, a related
consideration.
Another renditionbyBennettdiscusseshownarrative film isopen to “realist
interpretationbyvirtueofcharacterisation–weseeacharactersuffer,andwefeelan
143JillBennett,“TheAestheticofSense-Memory”inRadstoneandHodgkin(eds.),MemoryCultures,p.27.144Ibid.145SusannahRadstone,MemoryandMethodology,p.98.146Ibid.
63
emotionalresponse”.147Itis“transactiveratherthancommunicative”,resultinginan
“affective transaction”.148 DrawingonBrecht to consider an “affective transaction”,
Bennettemploystheformer’sterm‘crudeempathy’,definedas“afeelingforanother
based on the assimilation of the other’s experience to the self”.149 Bennett’s
engagementwiththeconceptof‘crudeempathy’relatedtotheSouthAfricantheatre
pieceabouttheTruthandReconciliationCommision,UbuandtheTruthCommission,
also suggests that there is room for such application in other narratives about the
traumasoftheSouthAfricanpast.150
Suchapproachestotraumaandaffectdistinguishthemselvesasdifferentfrom
traditional affect studies that is more explicitly interested in how emotions “do
things”.151 In the context of the thesis I employ the term trauma in relation to
elementsoffilms,particularlyrelatedtoSectionTwoofthethesis.Idothis,keepingin
mindtheongoingtraumastudiesscholarshipand,moreexplicitlyrelevant,traumaand
screen studies and the various elisions that are bound up in such projects.
Nevertheless, the films of chapters three and four are particularly concerned with
impartingthememory(ies)ofapartheidandtheincompatibletruthsoftheprocesses
ofandaroundtheTRC,andIfindthatsuchaconstructionisnotonlyusefulbutinvites
variousnewpossibilitiesinSouthAfricanfilmexamples.
147JillBennett,EmpathicVision:Affect,Trauma,andContemporaryArt(Stanford,California:StanfordUniversityPress,2005),p.7.148Ibid.149Ibid.,p.10.150JaneTaylor,UbuandTheTruthCommission,(CapeTown,SouthAfrica:UniversityofCapeTownPress,1998).151SaraAhmed,“AffectiveEconomics”,SocialText22:2(2004),p.119.
64
Conclusion
This thesis draws on scholarship that intersects to identify collective and
individualrepresentationsofthenewnationofpost-apartheidSouthAfricainselected
films. Drawing on Williams’ conception of thinking about structures of feeling as
layered(andoverlapping),thethesisengageswithindividualandcollective‘actingout’
and‘workingthrough’oftheapartheidpastinaselectionofanti-apartheidandpost-
apartheid films. And, at the same time, against this collective national milieu, the
thesisinvestigatesthepotentialforemergentcharacteristicsofpost-apartheid-nessin
individual characters. This survey of literature has shown that although there is
substantial scholarship about apartheid and post-apartheid cinema, there remain
many avenues that can still be explored. This thesis is a consideration of some of
thesepotentialavenuesofexpressionandcritique.
BasedontheliteraturesurveyedIwilldeveloptwointerrelatedconcernsinthe
post-apartheidcinemacontext:thefirstistomakeanargumentthatwhilesomepost-
apartheidfilmsintendtoshowthepast(memoryfilms),othersseektogobeyondand
bring out the discomfort of that history (trauma). In order to do this, some films
portray traumatic elements. Scholarship about South African films has generally
focussed on thematic concerns about the nation in South African films. Such
scholarshiphasinpartprovidedimportanthistoryaboutSouthAfricancinemaandhas
also, inserted valuable Black film histories. Nevertheless, the nation on screen has
beenadominantapproach.Thisthesisveersawayfromsuchanapproach.
ThesecondconcernthatIsetouttoexploreisaroundhowtraumainthefilms
mightbepartof a residual structureof feeling. If it ispossible to identify a residual
structureoffeeling(throughtrauma),thenpartofthehypothesisisthatanemergent
65
onemust also then necessarily exist. The thesis spans a period of time in order to
considerthepossibilityofanewstructureoffeelingthatmightbepresentthroughthe
characters and the context of the films. Attached to these interlinked periods:
apartheid,thetransitionaryphaseandpost-apartheid, isalsothe ideathatapartheid
designatedplaceinclearlydefinedways,throughrace.Eventhoughthoselegislative
barriersarenomore,newSouthAfrican identit(ies)are complexand the thesis sets
outtoexploretheseideas.
66
SECTION1
SectionOneiscomprisedofasinglechapterthatdealswiththreefilmsabout
apartheidSouthAfrica. Twoof the films,ADryWhiteSeason andCryFreedom, are
distinctlyHollywoodtypefilmsandemploycastsandnarrativesthatsupportdidactic
narrativesforforeignaudiences.MapantsulaisalocalSouthAfricanfilm.
Apartheid South Africa was a place in which people of different races were
lawfullysegregated.Inthisway,theplaceandtheidentitiesofthepeoplewerefixed
inparticularwaysbythelawsthatgovernedthecountry.Theanalysisofthefilmsof
this chapter considers how thewhite andBlack characters in the filmswere people
whowere out of place in this fixed context. SectionOne contains a single chapter
becauseit istheonlyonethatdealswithanti-apartheidfilmsandrepresentationsof
thattimeinthecountry.Thechapterservesasawaytoseehowthethesisprogresses
fromtheendofapartheidintopost-apartheid.
67
CHAPTERTWO
ONTHEBRINKOFFREEDOM:ADRYWHITESEASON,CRYFREEDOMANDMAPANTSULA
Introduction
Themythof integrationaspropoundedunderthebannerof liberal ideologymustbecrackedandkilledbecauseitmakespeoplebelievethatsomethingisbeingdonewheninrealitytheartificially integratedcirclesareasoporifictotheblackswhile salving theconsciencesof theguilt-strickenwhite. Itworksfrom the false premise that, because it is difficult to bring people fromdifferentracestogetherinthiscountry,achievementofthisisinitselfasteptowards the total liberation of the blacks. Nothing could be moremisleading.152
SouthAfricawasunderapartheidrulefrom1948to1994.Inthisperiodvarious
Acts were passed which intensified racial segregation in all spheres of life in South
Africa.InthisperiodthepopulationwasraciallydividedintoBlackAfrican,coloured,
Cape coloured, CapeMalay, Indian and white. Throughout apartheid Black people
foughtagainstapartheid,firstthroughpeacefulandnon-violentprotests.Oneofthe
most important of these anti-apartheid protestswas the Sharpevillemassacre of 21
March1960, inwhichthemostpeoplewerekilledatananti-apartheidmarch in the
historyofapartheid.
Sixteenyearslater,blackschoolstudentstooktothestreetson16June1976to
protestagainstbeinginstructedinAfrikaans,theofficiallanguageofAfrikanersandthe
NationalPartygovernment.Thedismantlementofapartheidcamefromanumberof
areas,oneof thembeing internationalpressurebroughtonby sanctions. Alongside
thegrowinganti-apartheidpressurefromwithinSouthAfricaandtheglobalshiftsof
152SteveBiko,IWriteWhatILike(London:TheBowerdeanPress,1978),p.65.
68
the end of the 1980s, therewas significant need to consider that apartheidwas no
longerworking. The late 1980s thus sawmajor changeswith the release ofNelson
Mandela and the active discussions between 1990 and 1993 inwhich he and other
leaders of the African National Party and the leaders of the National Party such as
newlyelectedPresidentF.W.DeKlerknegotiatedthetermsofthenewSouthAfrica.
The first democratic election was held on 27 April 1994. Some of what is briefly
summarisedherealsoprovidesbackgroundcontexttothefilmsofthischapter.
Keyan Tomaselli writes that although racism is not something unique to the
contextofapartheidSouthAfrica,“its legal formasshapedbythespecificdominant
ideology is”.153 Tomaselli’s The Cinema Of Apartheid surveys the apartheid cinema
terrain,however,theanalysisdoesnotextendbeyondfilmsafter1985.Nevertheless,
Tomasellinotesthedominantideologyofracism,separatedevelopmentandapartheid
filmcensorship thatenforcedapartheid from1948 to1994. In thisplace,apartheid
SouthAfrica,ideologyandidentitieswerelegallyfixedbyraceandplace.
Therewasoftenlittlescopeforindividualdissonancesbecausecollectiveracial
andethnicculturewassuchanoverwhelmingcomponentofbeingSouthAfrican.This
chapter is about characters who step out of the official constructions of apartheid
SouthAfrican-ness. These conspicuously ‘out of place’ characters, as theymight be
described,dispeltherulesandfixedformsofapartheidandthischapterexploreswhat
suchcharactersshowusaboutanti-apartheid.Thechapterundertakesthisapproach
so as not to recapitulate previous scholarship about apartheid cinemabut rather to
explore how the narratives contextualised within apartheid can show us something
153Tomaselli,TheCinemaofApartheid,p.13.
69
aboutracial factionsandthedifferencesbetween individualandcollectivechoices in
thewelldocumentedanti-apartheidstories.
Thischapterconsidersthreeanti-apartheidfilmsofthelate1980s:CryFreedom
(Richard Attenborough, 1987),Mapantsula (Oliver Schmitz, 1988) and A Dry White
Season(EuzhanPalcy,1989).ThiserainSouthAfricaisrepresentativeofheightened
socio-politicalandeconomicconcernsthatsomewhatpullagainsteachother:anxiety
and fear as it became increasingly clearer that apartheid would end soon and
conversely, an emotion that was not entirely permitted just yet: the anticipated
excitementaroundwhatthatrealitymightlooklikeeventhoughapartheidhadnotyet
beendismantled.
Tomasellipointsoutthatthepublicationofhismonographcoincideswiththe
fastdismantlementofapartheidbecauseofgrowing internalandexternalpressures.
While Tomaselli provides an extensive outline and engagement with apartheid-era
filmsandsubsidisedfilmsforBlacks,JacquelineMaingardwritesthat itwasnotuntil
the 1980s that a significant and noticeable anti-apartheid cinema came to mean
something in SouthAfrica.154 Although shepointsout that this tookplaceprimarily
throughdocumentary films, shealsohighlightsMapantsula (OliverSchmitz,1988)as
“the exemplary film of the era” (emphasis mine).155A Dry White Season and Cry
Freedom are set in an era a decade earlier inwhich it is significantly clear that the
heightofapartheidisthecontextofthefilms. Setwithinthesameera,ADryWhite
Season takesplaceagainst thebackdropof the1976June16studentuprising,while
154JacquelineMaingard,“SouthAfricanCinema:HistoriesandFutures”,Screen48:4(Winter2007),p.513.155Ibid.
70
Cry Freedom incorporates Steve Biko’s 1977 death, which occurred while he was
detainedinpolicecustody.
Incorporatingthesefilmsofthelate1980s invitesapositionthat includesthe
transitional period of the end of apartheid without trying to incorporate films that
competewiththeofficialactionsoftheearly1990s:primarilytheinterimgovernment
and the1994elections. The issuesof theearly 1990s are found in the filmsof this
chapteraswellasthefilmsofSectionTwoofthethesis.
As part of thinking about one of the research questions of the thesis, this
chapter is interested in what these films tell us about being South African during
apartheid.Afurtherconcernofthechapterrelatestokeepinginmindwhothesefilms
weremadefor.Thechapterisdividedintothreesections.Thefirstsectionhasatwo-
prongedintentionandaddressesthemainBlackandwhitemaleprotagonistsinADry
WhiteSeason(DryWhite)andCryFreedom.Inthefirstinstance,thissectiondiscusses
whyandhowthewhiteandBlackmenare‘outofplace’ inapartheid. Secondly,the
sectiondiscussestheunionsbetweenthewhiteandBlackmentoconveytheideathat
the end of apartheidwas borne of joint struggle against the apartheid government.
Thesecondpartofsectiononethusconsidersdifferentsetsofrelationshipstoshow
how the films construct a dialogue about apartheid, political awakening and active
change in a way that explicitly shows the processes of liberation from apartheid.
Section two focuses onMapantsula and the differences between this film andDry
WhiteandCryFreedom.Thefinalsectionofthechapterbrieflyconsidersthewaysin
which the women characters in these films are represented in order to show how,
althoughthemenactivelypartakeinmakingthechanges,itprovestobethewomen’s
71
responsibility to hold society together in very precarious and sometimes dangerous
ways.Asignificantbodyofscholarshipaboutapartheidcinemainformsthischapter.156
For themostpart, the thesisaddressesnarrativesand representationsof the
newnationonfilm.However,itisimpossibletotracetheprogression(orstagnation)
of South African filmic representations without analysing what is identified in this
chapterasmodelsofliberationfilmnarrativesandwhatJulieReidterms,“thehistory
filmormythical films”.157 Mapantsulapresents a different takeon apartheid South
Africa.Co-written by director Oliver Schmitz and ThomasMogotlane,who also plays
main protagonist, Panic, the film received much critical acclaim because of how it
presentsapartheidfromaBlackpointofviewin1980’sSouthAfrica.
156InadditiontoTomaselliandMaingardalreadycited,alsousefultotheconsiderationsofthischapterare:JulieReid,“TheRemythologisationofWhiteCollectiveIdentitiesinPost-ApartheidSouthAfricanFilmbyMythandCounterMyth”,Communicatio:SouthAfricanJournalforCommunicationTheoryandResearch,38:1(2012),pp.45-63.,VivianBickford-Smith,“ReviewingHollywood’sApartheid:CryFreedom(1987)andDryWhiteSeason(1989)”,SouthAfricanHistoryJournal48:1(May2003).,VictoriaCarchidi,“SouthAfricafromTexttoFilm:CryFreedomandADryWhiteSeason”inJohn.D.Simons(ed.),LiteratureandFilmintheHistoricalDimension:SelectedPapersFromThe15thFloridaStateUniversityConferenceonLiteratureandFilm(Gainesville,Florida:UniversityPressOfFlorida,1994),pp.47–62.,RobNixon,Homelands,HarlemandHollywood:SouthAfricanCultureandTheWorldBeyond(NewYorkandLondon:Routledge,1994).157Reid,“Post-ApartheidSouthAfricanFilmbyMythandCounterMyth”,p.49.
72
PartOne
White and Black Anti-ApartheidMasculinities inCry Freedom andADry
WhiteSeason
TheopeningshotsofCryFreedomestablishtheviewerinaplacethathasbeen
designatedforBlackpeoplebytheapartheidgovernment:atownship inCapeTown.
The sequence incorporates what is made to look like documentary footage, which
showsaquiet informal settlementwitha few small shacksandnarrow roadsas the
setting. A fewwomenpassonthestreetandtherisingsun is justaboutvisible ina
wide-angleestablishingshotofthetownshipinCapeTown,illustratedbytheimageof
TableMountainwithin the frame. The quiet serenity of the sleepy place is quickly
joltedwhenayoungboyblowsawhistleasawarningforresidentstoknowthatthe
policearearriving.Thesoundoftypewriterkeyscorrelateswiththeopeningcreditsof
thefilmandisthefirstintroductiontothenewsroom,aplacewhichinthe1970swas
filledwithtypewritersandwhichisimportantinthisfilmaswhiteprotagonist,Donald
Woods(KevinKline),istheeditorofanewspaper.Theraidcontinuestoshowhouses
being destroyed, accompanied by general mayhem as people frantically try to save
familymembersandafewpersonalitems.
The viewer has already seen protagonist Donald Woods (Kevin Kline) in his
editorialofficebythetimeheandSteveBiko(DenzelWashington)meetforthefirst
timeinKingWilliamsTown.Steveisunderhousearrestandisintroducedthroughthe
rhetoricofBlackConsciousness.FurthercluestoBiko’scharacterarepresentedinthe
openingscenesofthefilmwhenayoungmanputsupaposterofBikoaftertheraidin
CrossroadsTownship.Thecamerafocusesontheposterforjustlongenoughtomake
out thenameSteveBikoaround theportrait.The first timeBikohimselfappearson
73
screenisinthismeetingwithWoods.Theseencounters,whichtakeplaceinthefirst
fifteenminutesof the film, introduce themainprotagonists,DonaldWoods, “a true
liberal”, as described by Biko in their first meeting, and the second, Steve Biko, a
revolutionary“withdangerousideas”,asdescribedbyWoodsatthesamemeeting.
A wide-angle shot shows DonaldWoods’ approach into KingWilliams Town,
whereBiko is under house arrest. HisMercedesBenz comes to a halt in front of a
churchbuildingwhichservesasacommunitycentreofsortswhereBiko’swife(asshe
introducesherself)runsaspaceforBlackpeopletomeetandlearnvariouscraftsand
skills.WoodsiswelcomedbyBiko’swife,wholeadshimthroughthebuildingtoaback
door.SheindicatesthatBikocanbefoundoutthere.Onexitingthesanctuaryofthe
church,Woodstakesinthesurroundingsintheseeminglyemptychurchyard.Woods
isinamediumshotwhenabrightlightisdirectedathim,causinghimtosquint.The
lightappearstobecomingfromtheweepingwillow’s leaves. FromWoods’pointof
view,weseewhatlooksliketheimageofaman,SteveBiko.Bikostandsinakindof
makeshift circle, protected from sight by the leaves of the weeping willow. It is a
camouflagethroughwhichhecanpartiallyseetheworldbutalsothroughwhichthe
worldcanpartiallyseehim.DonaldhastosquinttomakesensefirstlyofwhereBikois
in theyardandsecondlytotry tomakeoutWoods’silhouette fromwithinthe leafy
circle.
Theway inwhich they arebothpositioned is part of the constructionof the
trepidationandsenseoftheunknownbotharoundthesituationoftheirmeetingand
the larger context of apartheid South Africa. In a way, such a representation is
indicativeofwhatcomesacrossas fumbling inthedark. Eventhoughtheyareboth
unsureofhowthemeetingwillunfold,itisBikowhohasreallyconstructedthisinitial
74
meetingtobesocovert.Inaway,itisalsoBikowhoisabletoseemorefrombehind
theweepingwillowasWoodshasthelightreflectedinhiseyes.CryFreedommakes
fewattempts at showingBlack assertion in actionoutsideofwhitepartnership, and
thisisoneoftheoccasionsonwhichitdoessothroughtheinitialcharacterisationof
Biko.
Thefollowingshotisofasmallroomthatlookslikeastudy.Thesceneopens
withamediumclose-upofSteveinthecentreoftheframe.TotherightofBiko’shead
isaphotographofNelsonMandelaagainst thewall. WeseeWoods’cautiousentry
into the small room fromBiko’sperspective. A shot-reverse-shotpattern followsas
Bikospeaksfirst. Thetwoarepositionedoppositeeachotherinasmallroom.Both
are cautious and curious and immediately take to critical engagement with the
ideological beliefs of the other. Biko begins to speak as soon asWoods is standing
oppositehimintheroom.Hebeginswithanexplanationofwhathousearrestmeans,
that hewould havemetWoods in the hall but that thiswould havemeant hewas
breaking the rulesof theban. Heendswith a judgementofWoods, saying thathe
probably approves of Biko’s ban. WhenWoods explains that this is not true Biko
retortswithasmile,“Atruewhiteliberal…”.Subsequently,Woodsmentionsthathe
finds Biko’s ideas dangerous and that he is proud to be a liberal. Woods also
challengesBikowhenhewondersoutloudwhatBikowoulddoifhewastheonewith
thejob,thehouse,theMercedesanditwasthewhiteswholivedinthetownships.On
thisnoteBikochucklesandsaysthatthatisacharmingidea.
This initial interactionalsopointsouthowthese twocharactersknowthat in
thisplacetheyarebothoutofplace,Bikobecauseheisunderhousearrestandheisa
blackmaninapartheidSouthAfricaandWoodsbecausehe isawhitemanspending
75
timewith ablackmanwho the state thinks is dangerous. WhateverWoods’ liberal
intentionshavebeenupuntil thispoint, theynecessarilyshiftafterhismeetingwith
BikobecauseheisforcedtobecomemoreawareofhispositioninrelationtoBlacks.
Afterthebriefintroductorybanter,whichwasframedasbothintenseandmeasured,
the two men seem to relax. This is reinforced by a distinct shift in how they are
framedwhenthecameramovestoadifferentpartoftheroomtocapturebothmenin
afulllengthwideangleshotastheyreachouttheirarmstoshakehands.Theadjacent
room is darkwhile the room that Biko andWoods are in is light. Thedifference in
lightingexpressesthespecialsentimentofthisunlikelyunion,thattheirmeetinghas
madesomethingdarkenter the lightshowingnewpossibilitieswhere theynotbeen
anybefore.ThepairsitdownatSteve’sdeskaftertheyshakehands,asthoughthey
havecometoanamicableagreementabouttheirmutual‘outofplace’positionalities
inapartheid.TheshowingofdifferencesbetweenBlackandwhiteplacesinapartheid
invites a way of seeing the physical and psychological geography of apartheid. For
example,intheaftermathofWoods’visittoBiko,hereturnstohisownhome.
It isawarmdayand the sceneopenswith the soundof splashingwaterand
laughter.Woodsisinalargepoolinhisowngardensurroundedbyhischildren,pool
toysandahappydog.WendyWoods,hiswifeappearsandisshotfromalowangleas
shedescendsthestairsthroughthegardentomeetherfamilyatthepool.Positioned
side-by-sideinrecliningloungechairs,Wendyandherhusbandchatabouthisrecent
meetingwithBiko.Woodsexcitedlytellsheraboutitaswellashisupcomingvisitto
thetownship,towhichWendycautiouslyaskswhetherWoodsisnowalsointoBiko’s
philosophy of Black Consciousness (BC). This idyllic picture is in contrast to the
different imagesofBlackpeople thathavebeenseen in the filmbefore,suchas the
frantictownshipraid,Biko’shousearrestandthecommunitycentre.Allthewhile,this
76
contrastismadedistinctlyunavoidableastheirblackdomestichelpercomestothem
for drinks orders, and as the laughter and splashing sometimes overwhelm the
backtrack. The sounds seem to clamour for as much attention as the ‘important’
politicaldiscussiontakingplace,whichconveysafeelingthatWoodandBiko’smeeting
isanadventureforDonald,almostasthoughitisnottrulyreallife.
Rob Nixon’s assertions ring true when he writes that Attenborough used
Woods,awhite journalist,asabridgetoa largeraudience.158 Thisdecisionhastwo
repercussions, the first being that having a white male protagonist in this role
contradicted the fundamental premiseofBiko’sBlackConsciousnessphilosophyand
second,“itrefractedaradicalSouthAfricanpoliticalmovementthroughHollywood’s
mostdurableliberalformulafordealingwiththe‘ThirdWorld’”.159
Nevertheless, Cry Freedom fundamentally returns to this ‘out of place’
consideration,thatbothBikoandWoodsexistoutsideofwhatisraciallynormativein
apartheidSouthAfrica.Inlightofthis,wealreadyknowthatDonaldWoodsisaliberal
and is set up this way from the outset however, Biko is naturally something else,
emphasisedthroughoutthefilmasbeyondanordinaryblackman.Afterthemeeting
in King William’s Town, Woods for instance describes Biko as “very intelligent” to
Wendy. In the township scene Woods asks Biko’s friends how he became so
articulate.Inthetownshipscenehowever,itisWoodsthatismadeawareofthefact
that township life isnotonlyanabstract apartheid creationbut that it is aworld in
whichrealpeoplelive.AlthoughBikosaysthistohim,itisinaverybriefinstancethat
heexperiencesthishimself.Althoughthefilmleansheavilytowardsdidacticism,ithas
moments, likethisone, inwhichitexpressessomethingabouthowtheseparateness
158Nixon,Homelands,HarlemandHollywood,pp.82–83.159Ibid.
77
ofBlackandwhiteexperiencesofapartheidextendsbeyondtheinflatedinteractions
ofBikoandWoods.
Mostof thescene in thetownshiptakesplaceata localshebeen. Woods is
seatedatapackedtableandwatchesthedancingcrowd(andthedancingBiko)with
great curiosity. Donald asks Biko’s friends many questions above the loud music
prominent on the soundtrack. He is particularly interested in Biko’s education and
how he became so articulate. The setting is akin to a fun and noisy bar, like
atmosphereinwhichpeoplearesimplyhavingagoodtime.Apartheiditselfisalmost
forgottenhere, except for theblacks-only crowd. Biko isoften shown fromWoods’
pointofviewandwhenWoodsisshownitisofteninamediumclose-up,anindication
oftheintensityofthisnewexperienceforhiminrelationtoBiko’scarefreenature.
Woods’adventureisthusjoltedwhenheseesayounggirlofschoolageleave
thedancefloortoenterthroughamakeshiftfabriccurtain.Ontheothersideofthe
curtainisanoldwomaninbed.Heroneeyeisvisiblebuttheotherseemsdamagedas
it is closed. It is not clear whether Woods’ surprised expression is related to the
presenceoftheyounggirlintheshebeenortotheolderwomanbuthisdiscomfortis
perceivedafterheandtheolderwomanexchangealook.Hisstareexposeshisshock
thatherrealityispartofthepartyscene.Shestaresbackwithheroneopeneye.Itis
unclearwhethershecanactuallyseehimthroughbotheyesbuttheyholdeachother’s
gaze in thisway for a fewmoments. She is awake because it seems impossible to
sleepthroughtheloudmusic,noise,drunkenchatterandall-roundpartyatmosphere.
Theyarebothshotinmediumclose-ups,conveyingtheintensityoftheexperiencefor
both of them: for her, great disruption but also a sense of resignation that this is
simply how it is. For Woods, his expression reveals a mixture of shock and guilt
78
becausemomentsagohehadbeenenjoyinghimselfandwascompletelyunawareof
thefactthatthesamevenuealsoservesasafamilyhome.Woodspullshimselfback
tothepartyasheshiftshiseyesbacktothetable.Bikosoonreturnstothetableand
theconversationrevertstopolitics.
This short encounter between Woods and the elderly woman is a sobering
experience for the main protagonist. Although part of this scene shows Biko and
WoodswalkingthestreetsofthetownshipwhileBikoexplainstheextremitiesofthe
Black apartheid experience, it is not until this encounter that something shifts for
Woods.Inthecontextoftheshebeen,Woodsrealiseshowheandtheelderlywoman
arenotquitewheretheybelong:heastheonlywhitemanintheillegalshebeenand
thewomanbecausesheisnotabletohavethepeaceshecouldbenefitfrombecause
thisishowherfamilymakesmoney.However,itisonlyWoodswhoisphysicallyand
psychologicallyoutofplaceinthelargercontextofthefixedcategoriesofapartheid.
For the old woman (and the girl), this is quite simply a rather desperate and
inconvenientlifebutitremainsBlackreality.
Biko too, isacharacteroutofplace in the fixedpresuppositionsofapartheid
butwhereasWoodsisabraveanti-apartheidhero,Bikoisanexceptional,intellectual
Blackwhosepolemicalstandpointislostinthefilm.CryFreedomsucceedsinitsliberal
educationbecausethefilmwasprimarilynotgearedatalocalSouthAfricanaudience.
RobNixonwrites that“…Woods’storyaboutBiko isquicklysupplantedwithWoods’
story aboutWoods, resulting in an acute case of displaced heroism…”.160 Similarly,
160Ibid.,p.83.
79
Nwachukwu Frank Ukadike writes that Cry Freedom deals with sensitive African
themes“butthatthefocusisonwhitecharactersratherthanblackones”.161
Twomajoroccurrencessignalashiftinthefilm.ThefirstisBiko’sdeath,which
signals the end of the politically astute part of the film heralded by Biko’s Black
ConsciousnesseducationofWoods.ThesecondisthatWoodshimselfisplacedunder
a five-year house arrest, a constant reminder for the duration of the film of the
conditionsunderwhichheandBikomet. InascenethattakesplaceafterWoods is
banned, we see him in his home office while Biko’s voice is prominent on the
soundtrack. Woods is in close-upashemullsoverBiko’s voiceand teachingsabout
howBikonegotiatedhiswayaroundtheban. Inamuchearlierscene,whenWoods
andBikodrive toaBlack-runcommunityclinic,WoodsasksBiko if thepolicealways
follow him, towhich Biko answers that they think they do. WhenWoods is placed
under the security ban the viewers are reminded of Biko andWoods’ firstmeeting.
Hearing Biko’s voice again in this much later scene after his death, it suggests the
persistenceofBikointhepresent.Itisinthisspiritthatthefilmhurtlesforwardasan
adventure melodrama in which Woods is now somehow part-infused with Biko’s
energy.162
After Biko’s death, the film problematically constructs Biko and his memory
throughhowWoodsrecalls their friendship. Biko is thusonlymemorialisedthrough
Woods,who fromtheoutset,differs fromBiko. Biko speaksofBlackConsciousness
while Woods speaks of liberal values. Liberalism was not the foundation of Black
consciousnessideologyand,asBikohimselfpointsoutinthefilmbeforeandafterthe
shebeen scene, liberalismwas something thatBiko scoffed at. AlthoughBiko is the
161Ukadike,BlackAfricanCinema,p.126.162Nixon,Homelands,HarlemandHollywood,p.84.
80
Blackheroandmythologisedassuch,hisdeathandhiswatered-downideologyinthe
film,arebothconcretisedinmemorythroughWoods,hisfamilyand,similarlytoADry
WhiteSeason(DryWhite),thesacrificestheymadeforanti-apartheidjustice.AsNixon
puts it, “…instead of simply enacting Biko’s values through the human drama of
friendship, Attenborough’s structural commitment to that friendship betrays and
obscurestheveryprinciplesthatBikodiedfor”.163WhileBikoandWoodsaredifferent
kinds of ‘out of place’ characters, their friendship works because they are both
dissident characters from the outset. Biko is radical in his Black Consciousness and
Woodsisemphaticabouthisliberalpositionaseditor.Botharesetupascharacters
whofundamentallydonotsupportapartheid.
The main protagonists of Dry White are different. Ben Du Toit (Donald
Sutherland) is a staunch Afrikaner and is shown this way from the outset. Gordon
Ngubene(WinstonNtshona),inhisroleastheblackgardenertotheDuToits,isshown
tobeanamenableBlackman.Bothknowtheirgeographicalandpsychologicalplaces
in apartheid South Africa and within this, the normalised hierarchy of race in
apartheid. DryWhite relies on the intimate narrative of a family, in which Ben Du
Toit’s life is affected by the deaths of Black characters who he knows. This is a
different relationship, for example, to the one between Woods and Biko, who are
consistentlyshownaseachother’s intellectualequals,eventhoughthis isconstantly
asnecessarytomention.ThisisnotthecaseinDryWhiteinwhichGordondoesnot
address Ben by his first name but as ‘Mr Ben’ to show respect even though they
appeartobeaboutthesameage.
163Ibid.
81
Dry White also relies on juxtaposing the white and Black geography of
apartheid. The opening sequence is of two young boys – one white, one black -
playingonanimmaculatelawn.TheyareBenandGordon’ssons,JohanandJonathan.
The music of popular Black band, LadySmith Black Mambazo, is prominent on the
soundtrackaswewatchtheboysinthiscarefreefreedomofchildhood.164Theidyllic
momentendsabruptlywhenthediegeticsoundsofthefilmintroducethenextscene:
agovernmentbeerhallinSouthAfricain1975.ThebeerhallisfilledwithelderlyBlack
mendrinkingoutof large,plastic jugsofbeer.Asyoungmilitantboysenter, tension
mounts as the leader pleadswith themen to boycott the beer halls. Followedby a
short scene showing a police raid on a township, the context of the two different
realitiesofapartheidSouthAfricaisset.
Themulti-racialopeningsceneisfollowedwithanexcitedBenDuToitandhis
wife,whocheerontheirsonataschoolrugbymatch.Thelawnsareimmaculateand
thestandsare fullofparentswhoare there tosupport theirchildren.Thesport isa
bastion of Afrikanerdom and as the camera pans the supporters’ stand, it becomes
clearthatallofthemandalltheplayersarewhite.AlbertGrundlinghwritesthat,
RugbymighthaveoriginatedinEnglandandsubsequentlybeenexportedtothecolonies, but, in line with the wider Afrikaner quest for independentnationhood,thegamecametobeanintegralpartoftheattempttotransformandtranscendtheimperialheritagebyreformulatingandmodifyingthevaluesassociatedwithit.165
The fact that the sport exists as an important bastion of apartheid culture
meansthateventhissceneofcheeringonaprimaryschoolteamofyoungwhiteboys
is about more than just the game or those boys. Considered against important
164TheimagealsoreferencesE’Lollipop(Dir:AshleyLazarus,1975),afilmmademorethanadecadebeforewhichalsoshowsthecross-racialfriendshipoftwoyoungboysduringapartheid.165AlbertGrundlingh,“PlayingforPower?Rugby,AfrikanerNationalismandMasculinityinSouthAfrica,c.1900–1970”,TheInternationalJournaloftheHistoryofSport11:3(December1994),p.413.
82
constructionsofnationalismandtradition,acelebrationofrugbyinthissceneisalso
thecelebrationofapartheidSouthAfricaandtheconstantcheeringonofitsprogress
anddevelopment.TheyoungboysonthefieldarenotonlythefutureSouthAfrican
rugbyteambuttheyarethefutureleadersofapartheid.
Palcythusfocusesonshowingwhatlifecouldhavelookedlikeifapartheiddid
not exist and then focuses on drawing the separatist apartheid lines through the
geographyofapartheid.Itistellingthatforwhitelifetobecontextualised,theviewer
needstoseetheexpanseofthewhitehome(singular).Thisisindirectoppositionto
theBlackhomethatisviewedasamassofpoverty,throughscenessetinthetownship
inwhichthecameraoftenoffersthevieweranaerialshottoshowthecrampedspaces
andoverpopulation.
In the first of a series of appeals fromGordon to Ben, the aftermath of the
rugby game is the comfortable Du Toit household, where the family are having a
relaxed braai. Gordon and his son Jonathon unexpectedly arrive at the Du Toit
householdafter the familyhas returned fromthe rugbygame.PresentareDuToit’s
wife, Susan, their daughter, her husband and baby and Johan, who appears in the
openingscenewithJonathon.Thesceneissetoutsideandbrieflyshowsallthefamily
membersenjoyingthelazysunnyday:Benonthegrasswithhistoddlergrandsonand
daughter,Johan,stilldressedinhisrugbyattire,sneakilystealingapieceofmeatfrom
the firewhile his brother-in-law takes care of the cooking and swats at him for his
mischief,andBen’swife,Suzette,makingsurethetable issetandthatthesidesare
ready.ItisJohan,Ben’syoungsonwhofirstnoticesGordonandJonathanwalkingup
thepathwaytothehouse.Heisshotinaclose-upwhichshowshisconcernedfaceas
83
hewhispers,“Jonathan”.Thefollowingshotrevealsamediumclose-upofBenlooking
concernedatthereasonforthevisit,bloodyslashesacrossJonathan’sbackside.
Aclose-upoftheboy’sbacksideconveystheseverityofapolicebeating.While
GordonwantsBen’sassistanceinensuringthathissonwillnothaveacriminalrecord,
Ben’sconcernislimitedtothestateofJonathan’sbottom.Heinstructshiswifetoget
someointment. Gordondismisses thephysicalwound,appealing toBenatanother
level:awoundoftheheartandthemind.Aseriesofmediumclose-upsareutilisedto
expressthedesperationonGordon’spart.Butwhilehispleasaidintheestablishment
ofthelackofunderstandingbetweenBlackandwhiteapartheidlife,theyachievelittle
elseforGordon.BendismisseswhathappenedtoJonathanaspunitiveforajustifiable
reason.
This scene is instructive in how it contrasts Black and white experiences of
apartheid. Ben shows what many Afrikaners believed, which is that whatever
treatmentwasenforcedonBlackswasjustified.Gordonexpressestheexperienceofa
generationofBlackswhoknewtheviolenceofapartheidbutwereunabletodealwith
it. Jonathan,hisdeath,and thedeathofyoungschoolchildren,arehoweverbriefly
shown to be part of the pre- emergent anti-apartheid expressions. Although the
chapterdoesnotdealwiththisaspectofapre-emergentand/oremergentstructure
offeelingduringapartheidingreatdetail, it isavaluable issuethatDryWhitepoints
to,butonewhich is lost in the largernarrativeofBenDuToitasamartyrandanti-
apartheidhero.Although Jonathan isnotpartof the storylineofDryWhite for very
long, thecharacter is importantbecauseofhowheexplainswhitedominationtohis
olderfather.
84
AlthoughBenpaysforJonathan’sschoolfees,theboydoesnotfeel indebted
tothewhitemananddisplaysasenseofyouthfulvigourthatisnotseeninhisfather’s
character. The June 1976 Soweto uprising had a focussed agenda in which school
childrenmarchedagainsttuitioninAfrikaans.HencethesceneinwhichJonathanand
his brother (unnamed in the film) stand up to Gordon is vital in also progressing
Gordon’sangeragainst theapartheid system. Jonathanexplicitly tellshis father that
being taught in Afrikaans will keep Blackmen beingminers and garden boys. Even
thoughGordonisoffended,herealisesthathisowntwosonsarealreadywitnessing
their father being emasculated. Gordon, who calls his employer ‘Mr Ben’ until his
death,doesnotcometotrulyembodythisdefiantspiritseenbrieflyinhisson,buthis
death acts as a catalyst for Ben to learn more about apartheid. Gordon is only
momentarily‘outofplace’whenhedemandsanswersaroundhisson’sdeath.
The logic of justified punishment for Blacks, articulated by Ben in the braai
scene, contributes to anunderstanding thatmanywhites simplydidnot knowwhat
happened to Blacks during apartheid.166 As Biko proffered in Cry Freedom, in
apartheid, Black people had intimate details of how the whites live because they
cleaned their houses, cooked their meals, tended their gardens, however, white
peoplehadvery little knowledgeof the realitiesofBlack lifeandmanybelieved the
apartheidgovernment.ThisissomethingthatCryFreedomattendsto,albeitbriefly,
in themomentwhenWoods sees the olderwoman through the curtain. However,
even after a series of actions that lead to Ben not being able to ignore apartheid’s
injustices,itisonlythroughtheprotagonist’srelationshipwithawhiteforeignwoman,
166MelissaE.Steyn,Whitenessjustisn’twhatitusedtobe:WhiteIdentityinaChangingSouthAfrica(NewYork:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,2001).
85
Melanie, thathe isabletotrulycomprehendthevastdifferencesofBlackandwhite
apartheidreality.
A latersceneshowsGordonworkingintheflowerbedsoftheDuToitgarden.
Gordonwearsastoicexpression,whichisjuxtaposedagainstBenandJohanplayfully
swatting each other with towels. Both are dressed in white shorts and t-shirts
indicating,aswiththebraaiscene,playfulnessand fun incontrast toGordon.Ben is
surprisedto learnthat Jonathanhasbeenarrestedaftermoreriots inthetownships
and decides tomake a fewphone calls to find outwhat happened to the boy. Ben
learnsofJonathan’sdeathandsharesthenewswithGordon.AfterBenagaininstructs
Gordontosimply let the issuego,weseeyetanotherdevelopmentalso inGordon’s
anger.ItisasthoughGordonwantstoholdontohisbeliefinBenandasthoughBen
wantstoholdontohisbelief inthesystem.AlthoughBenrealisestheseverityofthe
police inthetownshipshehasyettoactuallymaketheactiveshift toanti-apartheid
logic. Jonathanwaspartof the1976Sowetouprisingdepicted in the filmand in the
aftermathGordonandhiswifeEmilygotomortuaries,hospitalsandpolicestations.
Asthecamerapanstheroomofamortuaryitbecomesclearthatallthebodies
areclothedinschooluniforms.Somehavebeenstackedonthefloorandasthepan
continues we see the tragedy of the blood and wounds. The same children were
shown in the march as unarmed, vibrant and radical. The camera’s survey of the
bodiesraisesthequestionofwhattheseschoolchildrencouldpossiblyhavedoneto
havewarrantedtheirdeaths.Gordon’sdeath,whichfollowsnottoolongafter,iswhat
ittakesforBentoreallybegintoaskquestions.Gordon’sdeathiswhatittakesforBen
torealisethattheapartheidgovernmentisnotinterestedinprotectingallitscitizens.
ItservesasaspringboardforBentobecomeincreasinglymore‘outofplace’.Through
86
a union which is formed between Ben and Stanley (John Kani), a family friend of
GordonandhiswifeEmily,and,awhitewomanoutsider,Melanie (SusanSarandan),
DryWhiteprogresses toexhibitanunlikelyunionbetweenunlikelycharacters in the
fightagainstapartheid.WhileStanleyplaysacriticalrole intheeducationofawhite
man,thetrueconfirmationofapartheidrealitycomesfromasimilarlyliberalcharacter
totheWoodsfamilyinCryFreedom.
Melanie is an English journalist who Ben meets in the course of his
enlightenmentinrelationtotherealitiesofapartheid. Benisdeeplydistressedafter
theinquestintoGordon’sdeath(whichheinsistedupon),whichrevealedtheoutright
injusticesofapartheid.AsBentriestofindawayoutofthecrowdsMelaniepullsupin
her blue VW and offers him a quick exit. The inquest proved what Ian McKenzie
(MarlonBrando), the liberal lawyer, toldBenonhisvisit tohimaboutthecase: that
“lawandjusticecanbedescribedasdistantcousins…inSouthAfrica,thosecousinsare
notonspeakingtermsatall”.
AsBenandMelaniewalkthroughhergardentothehousewehearthesound
ofsoothingpianomusic.Itservesasausefulpassagetorelocatetheviewerfromthe
mayhemoftheprevioussceneoutsidethecourthousetoamoretranquilsettingfrom
which they (the characters) andwe (the viewers) can take in the full extent of the
meaningof theprevious scene.Melanie’s father has beenplaying thepiano andhe
stopswhenthepairentersthehouse.InthelivingroomBenandMelaniehaveashort
discussion about the events of the day. Ben finally admits,more to himself than to
Melanie, that he has been naïve for too long. The camera captures them both in
medium close-ups in this exchange inwhichMelanie finallywelcomes him to South
Africa. In so doing she critiques Ben’s excuse that he simply did not know thiswas
87
whatwashappeninginSouthAfrica. It isthusMelaniewhoisshowntoexplicitlytell
Ben thathehasbenefited fromapartheidand that the race to fight the system is a
longandgruellingone.
This isdifferenttoStanleyorGordon’sroleandrelationshiptoBen.Gordon’s
deathcomestomeanmorethanhis lifeandwhileStanley isabletotakeBentothe
township and show him where the blacks live, it is only through a white foreign
womanthatBenisabletoreallyacknowledgetheharshnessofthatreality.Thisscene
issignificantinhowDryWhiteisabletoshowandconfirmthatBen’slifehaschanged,
thathe isnow,withthisnewknowledgefromthe inquest,completelyoutsideofhis
previousidentityandcertainly‘outofplace’asawhitemaninapartheid.Eventhough
Melanie(liberal,British,robustandopinionated) isnotthesameasDuToit,theway
shelooksandsoundsisfamiliartothemajorityoftheaudienceofthetimeandsonot
only is it easier for Ben to get the most explicit articulation around apartheid’s
difficultiesfromher,itisalsoeasierfortheviewer.
These relationships are also complex as they illustrate that Ben’s
enlightenment is significantlydifferent toDonald’s.Ben is relegated to the statusof
outcast.Notonlyisthecharacter‘outofplace’inthathebeginstoexistoutsideofthe
realmofwhatisnormativeforhimasastaunchAfrikanerpatriarchbutheisalso,ina
way,excommunicatedfromthegroupidentity.Hiswifeanddaughterremindhimthat
he is not ‘one of them’, referring to Blacks. In a scenewhich takes place between
SusanandBeninthekitchen,itcomestolightthatSusanwasalsoatGordon’sinquest.
Eventhoughsheknewthatblackpeoplewerebeingtreatedinsuchhorrificways,she
stillsoughttodefendtheactionsofthestate.
88
InBen’s relationshipswithStanleyandGordon,weare shownhow theBlack
men characters are immortalised as heroic alongside Ben, albeit, as Biko espoused,
throughBlackConsciousnessand self-emancipation.DryWhite doesnotpresent the
Blackcharactersinthisway.TheincorporationofacharacterlikeMelaniestressesthis
point even further because it is only through her, as a foreigner, that the anti-
apartheid narrative can be validated. While Melanie is naturally ‘out of place’ in
apartheid,herselfinsteadasymbolofaplacewherethingsarenotonlydifferent,but
better,Benisasymboloftheultimatesacrificeofapartheid.InthesceneatMelanie’s
house, a close-up of Ben reveals the extent of the realisation of apartheid and his
resignationisshowntoinfiltrateintohisrelationshipstothepointwhere,attheendof
thefilm,heknowsthathisdaughterhandsoverdocumentstothesecuritypolice.
RebeccaAanerudnotesthat,“thisshiftfromguilttoinnocenceispredicatedon
thefalseassumptionthatawhitepersonwhodoesnotparticipatein‘extreme’racist
actsisnotracist”.167ItisthroughtheactsoffailuretosecureaninquestintoGordon’s
death, its failure for justice, and the eventual denouement in the narrative of Ben
himselfthatthefilmconcludesonatragicheroicnote.DrawingonAanerud,BenDu
Toitthusbecomesasymbolnotofguiltbutofinnocence.Ben’s‘outofplace’character
ispartlyself-imposedandpartlyexternallyinflicted.Inbeingawareofthis,empathyin
the film is directed in twoways andwhilewe knowBenwas a naïve Afrikaner,we
believehis innocencethroughthemartyrdomofknowingthathediedfor justice for
Gordon.
167RebeccaAanerud,“FictionsofWhiteness:SpeakingtheNamesofWhitenessinU.S.Literature”inRuthFrankenberg(ed.),DisplacingWhiteness:EssaysinSocialandCulturalCriticism(DurhamandLondon:DukeUniversityPress,1997),p.49.
89
The scenes discussed above emphasise that the relationships between Black
andwhite in apartheid South Africa (as evidenced inWoods and Biko and Ben and
Gordon,andlater,BenandStanley),arenotnormalrelationships.Thereisasensethat
notonlytherelationshipsbutalsotheactionsthattakeplacebecauseofthesecross-
racial relationships are exceptional and commendable. The heroic accolades
associatedwithsuchcommendationareconstructedaroundwhitemeninthesefilms
becauseoftheirabilitytoextractthemselves(andoftentheirfamilies)fromtheunfair
inequalitiesofapartheid.Theirsacrificesarethusunderstoodthroughthefilmsasacts
without which apartheid would not have ended. Black characters in turn are
mythologised as strong and resilient and, dependent on the Black man’s social
standing,written intohistoryasspecial.Bikoforexamplehasbeenmythologisedfor
his writings about Black consciousness but characters like Gordon are written into
history as part of the masses of Black people damaged, affected and killed by
apartheid.
Kelly Madison highlights the following three points which are useful to the
discussionofhowwhitesupremacyworksinsuchfilms:
1) bydefiningwhitesupremacyinaparticularlydistant,extreme,blatant,andtherefore superficial way, 2) by systematically privileging ‘white’experiences of those struggles for African peoples’ equality over Africanexperiencesand3)byconstructingapaternalisticformofwhitesupremacyas the ideological framework within which to understand the criticalhistoricalmomentsinthestrugglesforequality.168
Both Cry Freedom and DryWhite represent patriarchal sacrifice that foreign
audiences could empathise with. Termed anti-apartheid films, neither of these
features dramatically engages apartheid in ways beyond images of violence, which
168KellyMadison,“Legitimation,CrisisandContainment:‘Theanti-racist-white-hero’;film”,CriticalStudiesinMassCommunication16:4(1999),pp.405–406.
90
audiences were already familiar with through news footage. Both films recreate
protestmarchestosituatethecontextandheightenedviolenceofapartheid.BothDu
ToitandWoodsmanagetogarnerpublicattention,evenindeathinDuToit’scaseand
escapeinWoods’.However,althoughbothWoodsandDuToitarenotinSouthAfrica
bytheendofthefilms,bothhavealsobeenreleasedfromthewhitemaleperpetrator
rolethroughtheirheroicdeeds.Thisvindicationemphasisesanendingwhichnotonly
glorifiestheliberatorfriendshipsbetweenBlackandwhitemeninthesefilmsbutalso
extends this almost congratulatory sensibility tootherswhomightbe like thewhite
mainprotagonists.VictoriaCarchidiwritesthat,ateachfilm’score,thereisareflection
ontheaudiencespreconceivedideasratherthanamassivealterationinthinking.169
169Carchidi,“SouthAfricafromTexttoFilm”,p.47.
91
PartTwo
Mapantsula: A Black Perspective Anti-Apartheid Film: the Case of Panic,the‘Tsotsi’
The1988filmMapantsulaisaboutthecomingtoconsciousnessofatownship
tsotsi(townshipgangster)namedPanic.DirectedbyOliverSchmitzandco-writtenby
Schmitz and Thomas Mogotlane, who plays the lead Panic, Mapantsula’s critical
acclaimisderivedfromitsabilitytoshowandexploreanapartheidnarrativefromthe
perspective of a Black lead, which is not mediated through a white lead. Litheko
Modisanewrites that the film recasts the gangster genre from “a typicalHollywood
fare”, and draws on Third Cinema and a direct political narrative.170 The film was
released in theyearsbetweenthe twobig-budget filmsdiscussed in the firstpartof
this chapter. Panic’s consciousness is a different kind of consciousness to what is
presentedinthefilmsdiscussedintheprevioussection.Inthosefilms,themaingoal
was to educate liberal foreign audiences by way of showing the Black and white
protagonistsascharacters,whowerefundamentallyoutofplaceinaveryfixedplace,
apartheidSouthAfrica.
Mapantsula’s focus is different: Schmitz and Mogotlane present a more
complexformofconsciousnesswhichreferestoBiko’sBCideologywhen,forinstance,
Panic learns about the political importance and resilience of unions from his fellow
cellmates. However,whatmakes the film sovaluable is that it is able todepict the
everyday lifeofayoungblackman,who isnotexplicitly interested in thepoliticsof
apartheid SouthAfrica. He later comes toembody the idealsofBlackpsychological
liberation by Black people themselves. Mapantsula has been discussed at length in
170Modisane,RenegadeReels,p.100.
92
film scholarship and has secured its position as exceptional for its time.171 The
intentionofthissectionisthustoshowhowsomeoftherepresentationaldifferences
inMapantsulahelpstopointoutdistinctdifferencesinapproachandstyleoftheanti-
apartheidfilmsofthefirstsectionofthechapter.
Someof the practical difficulties ofmaking a film such asMapantsula in the
1980sareexplainedbyMaingardinherdiscussionofhow,inorderforthefilmtobe
shot in SouthAfrica, the script had to be passed by the Publications Control Board.
Againstsuchabackground,themakingofMapantsulawasimportantand“…itsability
tojuxtaposeblackandwhiteexperiencefromablackperspective,aswellasitsfocus
on black opposition to the state, has earned it a special place in the history of
oppositionalculturalwork”.172ItisalsoforthesereasonsthatMapantsulacontinues
tohaveculturalresonanceinSouthAfrica.LithekoModisanewritesthatwithregard
to financing,Mapantsulawas overshadowed by other SouthAfricanmovies likeCry
Freedom (1987)andAWorldApart (1988).173 The filmwas thusonlyable tosecure
developmentfundsfromEnglandandthefilmwaseventuallycoproducedbyOneLook
Productions (South Africa), David Hannay Productions (Australia) and Haverbeam
(UK)…”.174However,SchmitzandwriterMogotlanealsobenefitedfinanciallyfromthe
apartheid film subsidy scheme, as they presented a false gangster genre film to the
PublicationsControlBoard.175
171KeyanTomaselli,“PopularCommunicationinSouthAfrica:‘Mapantsula’anditsContextofStruggle”SouthAfricanTheatreJournal5:1(1991),pp.46–60.,Nixon,Homelands,HarlemandHollywood.,Maingard,“NewSouthAfricanCinema”,pp.235–243.,Magogodi,“Sexuality,PowerandtheBlackBody”inBalseiroandMasilela(eds.),ToChangeReels.172Maingard,“NewSouthAfricanCinema”,p.236.173Modisane,RenegadeReels,p.101.174Ibid.175Ibid.
93
With the film set against the contextual backdropof the (1986) Soweto rent
strikes, one is aware of viewing something that may be a true reflection of life in
apartheidSouthAfricaratherthanamystifiednarrativeofindividualbraveness.Thisis
particularly conveyed through Panic and Pat, two of the protagonistswho continue
withtheirregularlives.Thefilm’semphasestakeplacewithineverydayactivities,such
asPat’sexperiencesofworkingasadomesticworkerforawhitewoman,andPanic’s
pick-pocketing in the centre of town. Panic’s usualmodus operandi is to stand on
streetcornersandwatchwhitewomenenterandexitshopsandgrabtheirhandbags
whentheyarenotlooking.PanicdiffersfromBlackprotagonistsinDryWhiteandCry
Freedom; he is not exceptional like Biko, nor is he ordinary but a good person like
Gordon. There is no distinctmention of apartheid life inMapantsulaexcept for its
overtpresenceinthemilieuofracialseparationandelementsofapartheidexpressed
intheparallelnarrativeofPanicinjail.
Panic’santi-herostatusandthesmallchangesexperiencedinhimbytheendof
the film emphasises aspects of apartheid that neither Dry White nor Cry Freedom
achieve:firstly,thatBlackpeoplecontinuedtolivetheirlivesduringapartheid.Thisis
seen inhowPatcontinuestogotowork,paytherentandhavedomesticsquabbles
with the lazy Panic. It is also shown consistently in the images of the township, in
whichpeopleactuallyexpressthemselves,whichisdifferenttorepresentationsofthe
township inDryWhite andCry Freedom. Secondly,Mapantsula does not rely on a
whiteheroandshowshowBlackConsciousnessdevelopments,howeversmall,were
often instrumentalised through Black people learning from each other. This is
expressedinPanic’stimeinprison,inwhichheexperiencesthosewhowerejailedfor
political reasons rather than petty crimes. Finally,Mapantsula expresses distinct,
individual anger in Panic when he throws the brick through the window of Pat’s
94
‘madam’s’house.Thereoccurrenceofthisseeminglyminoreventthroughaflashback
laterinthefilm,showstheconsistentpresenceofhisanger,hisdevelopmentandthe
extentofpsychologicaleruptionwhichtakesplaceinthisfilm.
ThisisalsotheincidentwhichIdiscussbrieflyinthissectiontopointouthow
Panic isnotanexceptionalBlackhero,nor ishe reallyan ‘outofplace’ character in
apartheid. Thescene is interestingbecause it isbothanexpressionofPanic’sanger
andanexpressionofthehyper-masculinityhediplaystowardsPat.Thescenebegins
to drive home the idea of an extraordinary context inwhich Panic (and other Black
people)continuewithrelativelyordinarythings.Whenweexperiencetheflashbackof
theshatteringglass later in the film, it isa reminderofPanic’sdevelopmentandhis
nowmorearticulateanger:withthesystem,notjustwiththeunfairnessof life. It is
particularly vital thatweare able to remember the contextof the first incident and
then, knowing Panic’s growth, experience the shattering again from Panic’s new
vantage point. With the lack of emphasis on celebration for Panic’s political
enlightenment,andwithnowhiteprotagonisttovalidateit,thefilmisstill“themost
significantanti-apartheidfictionfilmtoemergepriortothefirstdemocraticelections
in1994…”.176
WhenPanicvisitsPatatwork,weareawareofthefactthat it isnotthefirst
timehedoesthis.OnthefirstoccasionheunexpectedlyvisitsPat,neithershenorher
white‘madam’arecomfortablewithPanic’spresenceatthehouse.Patisadomestic
workerforawhitefamilyinthesuburbsandthroughPanic’sbusjourneytothehouse,
webegintoseethechangesinthesurroundingsofthecity.Thesettingshiftsfromthe
176Maingard,SANationalCinema,p.149.
95
grungydirtystreets filledwithshopsandnoiseandnowreflects thequiet tree lined
streetsofawhitesuburb.Panicisframedinalongshotasheapproachesthehouse.
[Figure2.1]PaniconroutetoPat’sworkplaceinwhitesuburb
A continuity shot opens the scene to show Pat ironing as Panicwatches her
throughthebackdoor. Onseeingherbossarriveshebegshimto leave. Whenthe
‘Missus’ (Mrs Bentley) enters, she launches into isiZulu, reprimanding him for being
thereandagainbegginghimtogo.Hetakestoberatingherjobasadomesticworker.
Through the use of a shot-reverse-shot sequence, Pat and Panic have been arguing
aboutwhatthejobprovideshimwith:foodandshelter.MrsBentleyentersfromthe
leftofscreen,breakingtheshot-reverse-shotsequencetakingplacebetweenPatand
Panic. WhenPat refuses to leaveshe fetchesa largeAlsatian fromthebackseat to
threatenPanicwith.Onseeingthedogandhearingitbark,Panicquicklybacksaway
fromthedoorandpicksupahalfbrickalongsidethewhitewalloftheproperty. He
runsawaybutbeforeheexitsthefrontgarden,hethrowsthebrickatalargewindow.
ThecamerabrieflyfocusesonPanicashethrowsthebrickandthenfocusessolelyon
the window as it shatters. The sound of the glass shattering, accompanied by the
frenzy of the dog’s barking, contributes to a feeling that something beyond the
96
physical window has been broken. The camera’s focus on the hole in the window
servestofurtherenhancethisheightenedfeelingofuneaseandinaway,relief.Panic
wasfinallyabletodosomethingtoexpresshimselfbeyondbeingapettythief.Inthe
momentbeforethewindowbreaks,thecamerafocusesonshowingPanic’sexpression
andtheswiftpauseinhisrunningmotionasheturnstotakeinwhathehasjustdone.
[Figure2.2]ShatteredwindowatMrsBentley’shouse
97
[Figure2.3]Shatteredwindowinflashback
ThefilmrevisitsthissamemomentlaterinthefilmwhenhalfofPanic’sbodyis
heldoutofawindowatJohnVorsterSquarepoliceheadquarters.TheimageofPanic
in thisposition referencesahistoryofBlackdetaineeswhoweremurdered thisway
duringapartheid. Intheflashbackoftheearliersceneweseetheglassshatterfrom
theinsideofthehouse,inotherwords,notfromPanic’spointofviewontheoutside
of thehouse. Writing about thismoment,Maingardargues that, from thispointof
view,itisasthoughthewindow“shattersaroundus,positionedasweareonitsplane,
andthusbindingusintocomplicitywiththismostcentralofthefilm’smoments,and
ofPanic’s shifting internaldynamics,withinhisprisonnarrative”.177 The shiftof the
positionofthecameraintheflashbacknotonlybindsusintocomplicity,asMaingard
pointsout,butalsoinvitesustoexperiencePanic’spsychologicalshatteringinamore
criticalfashion.
177Ibid.,p.154.
98
Theshatteringglass representsashift inPanic so thathe (andwe)no longer
viewshimselfasavictimofapartheidbutassomeonewithagency.Herealisesthathe
doesnothavetohelpthesecuritypolicebygivingtheminformationabouthisunionist
cellmatesoranyotherliberationmovementinformationthattheywantfromhim.He
choosesnot tohelphimself inorder togetoutof jail, and insteadchooses to stand
with his fellowBlack struggle comrades, in thisway defying his past life’s lacklustre
attitudetowardstheharshnessofapartheid. Hisdefiance isemphasisedquietlyand
with little dramatic flair when, at the end of the film he refuses to sign an untrue
statementpresentedtohimbythesecuritypoliceman.Panic’sdefiantexpressionand
hisrighthandinafistasthesecuritypolicemanleansoverhimexpresshisnewstance
throughtheembodimentofanti-apartheidactions:araisedfistwhichindicatedpower
to the people. The camera lingers on this close-up of Panic,which emphasises the
power of individual change through Black Consciousness and significantly, not
navigatedthroughwhiteness.Inthisway,Mapantsuladoesnotonlysucceedinbeing
an anti-apartheid film from a Black point of view but also as a politically astute
representationofBlackconsciousness. ItsemphasisisonBlackpeoplelearningfrom
otherBlackpeopletoexpressthemselvesagainstwhitedomination. This isdifferent
fromthe‘outofplace’charactersofSectionOneofthischapter.
Beyond the Black perspective approach ofMapantsula, another noteworthy
elementisitsgenderdynamic.Thefinalsectionofthischapterconsidersthewomen
characters across the filmsDryWhite and Cry Freedom; however it isworth noting
here that Pat, Panic’s girlfriend, is not only defiant but she, like Ramphele in Cry
Freedomforexample,isanactivemobiliserofanti-apartheidwork.AsaBlackwoman,
hersignificance,readagainstPanic’sdisinterestedinpolitics‘tsotsi’approachiseven
more noticeable. According to Maingard, it is because of Pat’s employment as a
99
domesticworker that the film is able tomove between the geographical and racial
mise-en-scènesofthetownshipwheretheylivetogethertothegrittycitywherePanic
robspeopleandthewhitesuburb,wherePatworks.178Maingardcontinuesthatitis
Pat’s position that makes it possible for the film to really explore the relatioship
betweenblackandwhitelife.179
LaterinthefilmPatbeginstoparticipateinsomeofthecommunityrentriots
ofthe1980sinSoweto.However,Maingardarguesthatthistooisinvitedthroughthe
gaze and set up from a blackman, Duma, who is the antithesis of Panic. Duma is
respectful and treats Pat differently to Panic, who expects her to just get on with
thingsandpayfortherentandfoodeventhoughhealsocriticisesherforthekindof
jobshehas,adomestichelper.WithDuma,wearealsoabletoviewPatbeyondher
workerposition.Nevertheless,Maingardarguesthat,“…whilethefilm’sstrength lies
in its representation of the socio-political context of the period, it is a black male
perspectivethatdominates”.180KgafelaoaMagogodialsoemploysasimilarcritiqueto
Maingard when he points out that Pat’s consciousness is negotiated via her
relationshipstotheBlackmenPanicandDuma.Magogodiwritesthat,“…sheseemsto
jumpoutofPanic’sbedonlytolandinDuma’s.CouldPatnothavejoinedtheSouth
AfricanDomesticWorkersUnion (SADWU)without being romantically involvedwith
Duma?”181
WhatMaingardandMagogodipoint to is thateven thoughPat is intrinsic to
the actual socio-political content of Mapantsula, her own defiance is somewhat
watered down in a new romantic encounter with a politically driven man named
178Maingard,“NewSouthAfricanCinema”,pp.238.179Ibid.180Ibid.,p.239.181Magogodi,“Sexuality,Power,andtheBlackBody”inBalseiroandMasilela(eds.),ToChangeReels,p.197.
100
Duma.However,havingwatchedPatatthehandsofPanic’slazypatriarchy,wherehe
simply expected her to keep things going, Pat’s new love interest is not entirely
unwelcomeeither. Patdoesnotonlyattend themeetings forDumabut forherself
andherowndefiance,particularlyinrelationtorepresentationsofotherBlackwomen
inanti-apartheidfilms,shouldnotbetooquicklydismissed.
101
PartThree
TheWomenofCryFreedomandADryWhiteSeason
The analyses of the first two sections of this chapter have focused almost
exclusivelyontheobviousandprimaryBlack/whitepairingsofthemalecharacters.In
havingsetupthediscussioninsuchawayitappearsthatthewomenhavebeenleft
out,however, if the focused is slightly shifted, itbecomesapparent that thewomen
play as crucial a role as the men. In Anne McClintock writings about gender and
nationalism,shehighlightsthefollowing:
Excluded from direct action as national citizens, women are subsumedsymbolically into the national body politic as its boundary and metaphoriclimit…Womenare typically construed as the symbolic bearers of the nation,butaredeniedanydirectrelationtonationalagency.182
Inherdiscussionofpost-warGermanyandthereconstitutionofnation,Erica
Carterassertsthat,“Bothintheirpositionasiconsofnationhood(Britannia,Marianne,
Germania),andassymbolicandactualmothers tothe family-as-nation,women, it is
said, become the touchstone and guardian of traditional national identities”.183
Although this thesis is not about a new nation in the context of a post-war nation,
South Africa as a former colony and then an apartheid state, required that the
population(particularlywhites)agreedtocertaincodesofprotectingawhitenation.
Inthisnation,itwasofutmostimportancethatthe‘volk’(themasses,alsoBiblical,the
followers)beprotectedandthatthosewhowerepartofitkeptthebeliefsalive.This
work fell to thewomenand thuspoints toakindof reconstructionofwhiteEmpire
182AnneMcClintock,“FamilyFeuds:Gender,NationalismandtheFamily”,FeministReview:NationalismsandNationalIdentities44(Summer,1993),p.62.183EricaCarter,HowGermanIsShe?PostwarWestGermanReconstructionandtheConsumingWoman(AnnArbor:TheUniversityOfMichiganPress,1997),p.31.
102
that finds resonance insomeofCarter’s thesis. Thissectionof thechapterexplores
how thewomen in the films are represented as the guardians and safe keepers of
apartheid(inthecasesofSuzette,SusanandWendy)andasBlackwomen,protectors
alsooftheanti-apartheidmovement.
MelissaSteyn’sworkillustratesthateventhoughapartheidisover,whiteSouth
Africanidentitiesarestill inastateofconfusionandturmoilthatoftenrevertstoold
SouthAfricandialoguesandbeliefs.OneoftherespondentsinSteyn’sstudyofpost-
apartheidwhiteidentitysaid,“Youarebornandyourparentsbringyouupintheway
oftheoldSouthAfrica. Thepastisbeingheldagainstyou”184. Whatisevidencedin
this respondent’s answer to how he views himself as a white South African is an
inability tomove beyond the family structure. As Steyn puts it, “Growing up in an
authoritariansociety,whereacceptingandobeyingyourparentsisanabsolutenorm,
hewouldbeatraitortothemifhedidnotupholdtheirteaching.”185
3.1TheAfrikanerWomenofADryWhiteSeasonandMelanie,theOutsider
TheDuToitwomeninDryWhitearestaunchAfrikanerwomen. Susan,Ben’s
wife makes it clear after the inquest into Gordon’s death that she unequivocally
supportsapartheid.Suzette,Ben’sdaughter,doesthesame.Thissectionshowshow
Susan and Suzette do not see Ben’s development in a positive light but are instead
profoundlyembarrassedbywhattheyconsidertobehimlettingdownthefamilyand
the Afrikaner people. Both Susan and Suzette become more enraged as the film
progresses,withBen’sdaughter,Suzette,demanding, inherconfusedstate, that life
shouldjustreturnto“thewayitusedtobe”.
184MelissaSteyn,Whitenessjustisn’twhatitusedtobe,p.64.185Ibid.
103
In the scene atMelanie’s house that was analysed in the previous section I
concentratedonBen’sawarenessandmomentofenlightenment. However,Melanie
isalsointerestingasacharacterinrelationtotheconservativeSusanandSuzette.In
thatscene,MelanieisshowntobetheonetoarticulatetoBenthatwhathewitnessed
inthecourtroomistherealSouthAfrica;thenshewelcomeshimtothatSouthAfrica.
WhileBen isno longer in favourwithhisownpeople,he finds respite inMelanie,a
foreignerbecausesheisfromanotherplacebutalsoaforeignerinherperspectiveand
positiontowardshimandapartheidSouthAfrica.Heiswelcomedtotheothersideby
awomanwhosepresencethereisvalidatedbyherownothernessinthatplace.
BothMelanieandBenaregrantedequalamountsofscreenspaceinthescene
atMelanie’shouse. WhenBen sitsdown ina resigned fashion,withhishead inhis
hands,andlamentshisnaivetéaboutapartheid,itisMelaniewho,withherownglass
ofwhiskyinhand,affirmsthatfactandhisnewstatusinSouthAfrica.Sheisconfident
andboldandbecause she isoften in the same frameasothermen, it is sometimes
impliedthatshetooismasculine.However,onanotheroccasionlaterinthefilm,she
is beautifully dressed and sexily portrayedwith bright red lips, as she shares secret
information with Ben in a park. Although Melanie is a supporting character, the
differentwaysinwhichsheisrepresented–firm,serious,politicalandsexy–presenta
woman character,who is liberal andopenmindedanddifferent fromwhat the film
presents as a South Africanwhitewoman. InMelanie’s ‘out of place’ physical and
psychologicalpresence,andhersupportoftheanti-apartheidstruggle,Benbecomes
alignedwithher,and is thusalsopartofan ‘outofplace’ setofpeoplewhodonot
quitebelonginthedefinedspaceofapartheid.
104
Susan and Suzette are different to Melanie. At the height of Ben’s
enlightenmentandafterStanleyhasvisitedtheDuToithouseholdonmorethanone
occasion,SusanbeginstopushbackagainstBen.TwoscenesstandoutinwhichSusan
ispresentedasaracistapartheiddevoteeandaprotectorofherfamily. Thefirstof
these scenes opens with Susan helping Jonathan with his homework. Seated on a
couchandclearlyveryrelaxed,theylookupwhenBenarrives.Susan’sfootbeginsto
shakewhenshe seesBen,an indicationofherdiscomfort.This same feeling follows
BenandSusanintothekitchen,wherethesecondsceneunfolds.Surroundedbyfood
thingsandthehearthofthehome,SusanislocatedintheactualkitchenwhereasBen
looksin,shieldedbythedoorframethatactsformallyasakindofbarriertoentry.This
is similar to the previous scenewherewe see Susan and Johan fromBen’s point of
view.Helooksinontheminasimilarfashiontothatinthisscene.
Theseparationofspaceisstarkbecausesheis inoneroomandheisactually
justoutside,buttheseparationisalsonotovertbecauseBencanenterifhesowishes.
This is part of the labour of the film tomake Ben’s activist rolemore explicit. Ben
continuestochoosetofightthesystemwhereasSusanremainsinit. Nowthatheis
awareofhisownposition,heistheonelookingin.InadditiontoSusan’spositioning
within the kitchen, itself traditionally gendered as thewomen’s space, the dialogue
alsocontributes to thebinaryofwho is insideandwho isoutsideof theconfinesof
apartheid. Their inside/ outside locations also emphasise the ‘out of place-ness’ of
Ben, StanleyandMelanieand theprotected insider spaceof SusanandSuzetteand
theirfamily.
Susanusesdistinctionslike‘us’and‘them’,meaningwhitesandBlacks;Susan
alsousesthederogatoryapartheidterm‘kaffirs’torefertoBlackpeople inthemost
105
demeaningway. However Susan’s critiques extend beyond ridicule. They begin to
demonstrate the feararoundwhat itmightmean toher,her familyandcommunity
should Blacks take over the country. In her ability to make the ‘us’ and ‘them’
distinction, Susanexhibits awhiteapartheidmindsetwhich ispremisedona fearof
Black people, who are seen as savages, dangerous and almost not human. Such a
world, inwhichBlacks are permittedhumane treatment, is, according to Susan, the
dismantlementofeverythingsheknowsandholdsdear.ForSusanthesidesareclear
andBennolongerknowswhichsideheison.Whatismostevidentinthissceneisnot
Susan’sangertowardsBen.AlthoughSusan’sembarrassmentandupsetispalpable,it
isherdesiretoprotectherfamilythatisemphasisedinhercharacter.
WhilethecamerafollowsSusanasshepacesupanddowninherkitchenand
as Ben watches her, we are also invited to observe the fully stocked grocery
cupboards.Apeanutbutterjar, labeled‘BlackCat’,afamiliarSouthAfricanbrand,is
momentarily in focusas Susanpassesbyanopencupboarddoor. Havingdescribed
himself as “mean black cat in the night”, the image of the jar and the reference to
‘black’remindsusofStanleyinthisshot.Whileaclose-upofSusanconveysherdeep
upset and distress at the situation, one cannot help but observe the irony in the
welcomepresenceforthe ‘BlackCat’ inthe jarversusthehuman‘blackcat’Stanley.
ThereisalsoasubtlereferencetotheabsurdityofSusan’smusingsaboutapartheidas
asystemthatprotectsthemaswhites,whensherhetoricallyaskswhetherBenthinks
theBlackswouldnotdothesamegiventhechancetobeinpower.SusanandBendo
notlookateachotherinthisscene.Onceshehaspacedupanddownthekitchena
fewtimes,sheleansagainsttherefrigerator,lookingvacantlyinthesamedirectionas
Ben.WhenthecamerafocusesonSusanagainiteitherfollowsherasatrackingshot
orinamediumclose-up,contributingtotheflowofherthoughtsandmusings.Benis
106
often framed inmediumclose-ups in thescene,andhisstationaryposition indicates
thatlikehischangedideasandbeliefs,heisfirmlyrootedinwhathenowknowstobe
right.
ThefinalstrawhowevercomeslaterinthefilmasthefamilyenjoysaChristmas
meal.AcharacterthatappearstobeSusan’sfatherasksBenaboutwherehewillfind
ajobnow,ashewasrecentlymaderedundant.Althoughtheatmosphereischeerful
there isadistinctundertoneofdiscomfort thatcomesthrough incommentssuchas
theoneSusan’sfathermakesaboutBen’sworksituationandtheinsinuationthathe
maynotbeabletogetanotherjob,asananti-apartheidsympathiser.Stanleyappears
under the archway drunkenly swaying and commenting on howhappy they all look
huddling around the tree. His unruly appearance leads to a very quick end to the
Christmas festivities and another comment from Susan’s father to Ben which
reinforceswhattheythinkofhim,thatheisnolongeratrueAfrikanerbutatraitor.
SusandisappearsfromthesceneinwhichStanleyandBenphysicallyfighteach
otheronlytobebrokenupbyJohan. WhensheappearsagainweseeherfromBen
andStanley’spointofview.Theyarebothonthefloorandlookupather. Susanis
clearlythesuperioronehereassheapproachesthemwithtwosuitcasesoneitherside
ofhertoshowthatshehasreachedtheendofhertether.Suzetteispresentedasa
proud Afrikaner daughter and very similar to her mother. They are often dressed
similarly, in pastel colours cardigans and Suzette’s long blonde hair is neatly and
modestlystyledtoaccompanyherdemurelook.SuzetteandSusanhavemadesimilar
comments about the ‘kaffirs’ throughout the film, indicating a less nuanced
understanding of the situation of apartheid, but one that is clearly reflective of
traditionalAfrikanervaluesatthetime.
107
The values espoused by Susan and Suzette do not show a particularly rich
understanding of the situation, in fact, if anything, the filmpersists in showing how
these women characters continue to preach the apartheid mottos as virtuous.
Suzette’s angerather father comes fromaplaceofembarrassment. She interprets
what Ben does for Emily Ngubene as selfish because he does not think of his own
family.ThepointthatSusanandSuzetteperpetuallyreturntoisfamily.WhileSusan
walksawayfromBen,Suzettetakesituponherselftoworkwiththesecuritypoliceto
stopBen’santi-apartheidplanstoavengeGordon’smurder.Asthefilmprogressesto
theclimaxofBen’sdeath,Suzette isnotshownas the innocentdemurewomanshe
hasbeenupuntilthispoint. Sheisthusnotcharacteristicallyportrayedasawoman
whoisupsetanddoesnotknowwhattodobutratherasquiteashrewdenactorof
whatshefeelsneedstobeprotected.
InthesceneleadinguptoBen’sdeathheandSuzettemeetatwhatappearsto
bea localpizzeria.Benhasalready learnedofhisdaughter’sactsofvengeance (she
knew for example of an explosive that had been planted in Ben’s shed) and in this
scene intends to manipulate her by giving her fake documents which Ben knows
Suzettewill give to securitypolicemanStoltz. Although this scene is complex for a
numberof reasons, suchas the fact that theyarebothmanipulating theother, it is
Suzette’streacherythatismostdisturbing.TheearlierreferencetoMcClintockatthe
beginning of Part Three highlights the complicated relation of women to national
identityinawaywhichisusefulindeconstructingthecharactersofSusanandSuzette.
Considered in relation toMcClintock’s point, although Suzette and Susan are
characterisedsimilarly,Suzetteisemployedinactiveservicefortheprotectionofthe
nation and iswielded into a role that is outsideof the symbolic remit. Hermother
108
however remains the symbolic bearer of nation and is never seen beyond this
construction. Hence, although Suzette is a model of her mother, she is also
representedaspartofagenerationthatisawareofagencyintheserviceofpatriarchy.
To employ McClintock again, she points out that, “Women are represented as the
atavistic and authentic ‘body’ of national tradition (inert, backward-looking, and
natural)embodyingnationalism’sconservativeprincipleofcontinuity”.186BothSusan
andSuzettearerepresentativeofsuchwomen.ParticularlyinSuzette’scase,itisher
backwardlookingandforwardthinking(inrelationtoherowntoddler)thatspurson
herneedtobetrayherfather inthewaythatshedoes,whichultimately leadstohis
death.ThefilmthussuggeststhatwhiletheAfrikanerfamilyembodiesthevaluesof
apartheid and the traditions of the community (volk), the paternalistic nation is
affirmed by Protestant veracity. With this in mind, Susan and Suzette do not only
protecttheirownfamiliesbutalsotheessentialisedtraitsofAfrikanerdom.
WhileSusanandSuzetteareproblematic,theyarealsoexhibitedascharacters
that deservepity precisely becauseof their domesticmotheringwhen, for example,
weseethesecharactersatchurchorinthehomespace.Constitutedofthesedifferent
traitsasmothersasprotectors,thefilmdoesnotrequirethatthesewomenbevilified
without this being a complex awareness of the place that they occupy within the
familyandthenation.Wearethereforealsocompelledtoseetheirfears,comments
andchoicesasunderstandableandevenpermissible.
AlthoughDryWhite’s emphasis is elsewhere, the analysis of this section has
shownthatthemodelsofwhitefemininityarecomplexandpartofapartheidandanti-
apartheid positionalities. With Susan and Suzette as bearers of Afrikaner domestic
186McClintock,“FamilyFeuds”,p.66.
109
femininity,andMelanieasthebearerofEnglish(foreign)assertivefemininity,thefilm
doesnotquiterelegatethesecharacterstospacesof insignificancebutpointstothe
extentoftheirsymbolicandactivepower.AlthoughthefilmindicatesthatMelanie’s
anti-apartheid place is partly permissible because she is foreign, the film also,
expresses,todrawonCarter’sformulation,someofthecomplexitiesoftheguardians
ofnationalanddomesticspaces.187Thesecomplexitiesappearevenmoreinneedof
protectionintheintricaciesofanti-apartheidbeliefsinaplacewhere,liketheDuToit
household, no such articulation was truly needed before because everyone simply
understoodtheirfixedidentities.
However, the racial binary of Dry Whitealso points to another woman,
Gordon’swife,EmilyNgubene.EmilyisthesingleconsistentBlackwomaninthefilm;
howeverbythetimeshediesweactuallyknow littleabouther. Whereasthewhite
womenaredevelopedthroughoutthefilmasvariedandtheirchoicesareshownfrom
different angles, Emily’s lack of agency is only marginally pointed at when the
characterisonscreen.Emily’sroleisprimarilyinserviceofBen’sproject.Forexample,
sheistheonewhotellsBenaboutGordonindetentionandsheistheonewhowishes
toprobefurtherintothereasonsforGordon’sdeathindetention.However,itisBen’s
actions that follow up on these matters and it is Ben and Stanley’s conversations
aroundtheoutcomesthatyieldfurtherchoicesanddecisionsaroundtryingtoexpose
thesecuritypolice.Ben,StanleyandMelaniebecometheteamwhopropeltheactual
projectofvindicatingGordon’sdeath.AstheonlyBlackwomancharacterinafilmin
whichwomenareofgreatinterestintheplot,itiscuriousthatEmilyremainsreserved
throughouteveninherdeath.AnaspectofEmily’sdeathisshowninabriefflashback
whichshowsherandGordon’schildrentakentothehomelandonthebackofapolice
187Carter,HowGermanisShe?,p.31.
110
track. StanleyrelaysthatEmilydied inthatencounterwiththepolicebutshe isnot
shownandneitherisherdeath.
Contributingtothelargerfilmthen,thesecharactersconveyamessagethatis
notverydifferentfromapartheidpropagandaafterall.AsCarchidiwrites,“Themovie
compelsustowantaresolutionthatplaysrightintothepropagandaofapartheid:free
the blacks, and they will slaughter all the whites on suspicion of abuse or
complicity”.188
3.2DefianceandtheJointStruggleofWomeninCryFreedom
ThewomencharactersofCryFreedomaredifferenttothoseinDryWhite. In
thefirstinstance,DonaldWoods’wife,Wendy,isalsoaliberal.Althoughshowntobe
protectiveoffamilyandnation,Wendyissignificantlynotshowntobearacist. Ina
numberof scenesWendy and the children are contextualised in the samedomestic
spaceasEvalina,theirdomestichelper.AlthoughEvalinaworksfortheWoodsfamily,
thechildrentreatherwithrespect,atellingaspectoftheliberalvaluesofthefamily.
InthecontextofCryFreedom,theliberalstreattheBlackswellrelativetoAfrikaners
but,asSteveBikopointsoutinthefilm(andinhisownscholarship),theyremainwhite
andcandoverylittletoshifttheirownwhitecomforts.
InasceneinwhichWendyandDonalddebatethefamily’sescapefromSouth
AfricaweseeWendyinasimilarroletoSusanDuToit.Thisisacontextinwhichsheis
primarily presented as the protector of her family. There are a number of other
differences between Wendy and the white women of Dry White: Wendy supports
Donald’santi-apartheidworkwithSteveandWendyherselfisshowntobepresentat
a rally; she and their eldest daughter and Donald attend Steve’s funeral and she
188Carchidi,“SouthAfricafromTexttoFilm”,pp.54–55.
111
extendstheirfriendship,callingNtsikiandSteveherandDonald’sbrotherandsister.
Sheextendsthesupportofthefamilyandthereisclearcamaraderiebetweenthetwo
familiesandsomethingthatextendsbeyondanawarenessoftheplightofblackness.
Attenboroughalso successfully sets up amore fluid gender interactionbetween the
two couples, which is also significantly different toDryWhite, in which the gender
divide is reinforced alongside the racial divide. In theseways, Attenborough seems
abletodiversifyWendy,Donaldandtheirfamily,showingthemtobetrueliberalsbut
alsotobeactiveparticipantsinthefightagainstapartheid.
TheWoodsfamilyspeaksEnglish,anindicationoftheirwhiteliberalvaluesand
tradition. Their ‘Englishness’ alsopoints tohowboth filmsdrawon thedistinctions
betweenAfrikanersandEnglish(BritishorSouthAfrican)tosubtlyreferenceacolonial
tugofwarbetween theDutchand theBritish. Apartheid is inawayalsovilifiedas
somethingcreatedbyAfrikaners,andwhichtheEnglisharealwayssomehowslightly
removedfrom.AlthoughtheDuToitsspeakEnglishinDryWhite,theirnamesandtheir
fierceapartheidbeliefs indicatethattheyrepresentafamilythatwouldhavespoken
Afrikaans during apartheid. The choices around the use of English language inDry
White and Cry Freedom are another way in which it is clear that the films are not
directedatlocalaudiences.
The argument between theWoods takes place on a cliff that overlooks the
beach. The scene starts with a close-up of Wendy Woods and enters into a shot-
reverse-shot pattern as the pair discusses Donald’s suggestion to escape apartheid
South Africa to Britain. His intention is to publish about Steve’s teachings. The
intensity of the disagreement about whether to stay or go is conveyed through a
variety of close-ups and medium close-ups between Donald and Wendy. The
112
establishing shot in the scene has shown the couple to be seated atop a large rock
fromwheretheycanseetheirchildrenplayonanisolatedbeachbeneaththem.
Thesceneisabletoconveyasenseofthegeographicalisolationofthemfrom
other people, as they are the only family on the beach, but the isolation is also
extendedintowhotheyareasafamily.Theyaredifferenttootherwhitefamilieswho
donothaveBlackfriends,afatherunderhousearrestandparentsdiscussinganillegal
escapefromthecountry.Thevastopennessshownintheexpansivewide-angleshots
ofthebeachandthehorizonoftheseaalsohelpstoextendtheideaofpossibilitythat
WendyandDonaldspeakaboutinthescene.Wendyisnotimmediatelysupportiveof
Donald’sdecisiontoleave,callinghimselfishbutatthesametimeexpressingdisgust
for apartheid. Nevertheless, she laments, the country remains their home. It is in
Wendy’s robust expression around home and the protection of her family that a
connectionbetweenSusanandWendybecomesapparent.Bothwomenpointoutto
their partners that while their (masculine) focus is on liberatory acts, the feminine
focusisonprotectioninthefaceofasystemthatcouldharmthefamily.
Cry Freedom’s construction of cross-racial relations between thewomen and
themenmakesforamorenuancedfilmingeneral.TheBlackwomeninCryFreedom,
particularlyDr.RampheleMamphelaandSteve’swifeNtsiki,aredifferent fromeach
otherandquiterichintexture.Thefirstsectionofthischapterdiscussedhowthefilm
openswitharaidofCrossroadstownship. Followingthosecontextualscenesweare
introduced to a young Blackmedical doctor, Dr.Mamphela,who is also the person
who encouragesDonald to go to KingWilliams Town. Mamphela’s presence in the
Daily Mail newsroom is met with great surprise by Donald’s secretary and also by
Woodshimself.ThefirstpersonRampheleencountersintheDailyMailnewsroomis
113
Woods’secretary,ayoungwhitewomanwho,shotfromRamphele’shighangle,inan
inversionofapartheidpower,isforcedtolookupattheBlackwoman.Ramphelehas
just slammed a newspaper onto her desk and the camera zooms in to show the
headline:“BantuStephenBiko:Theuglymenaceofblackracism”.Thesecretarylooks
bewilderedandwithahintofamusementonherfaceasksRamphelewhosheis.She
isnotonly interested inwhoshe isbutalso inhowaBlackwomanhascome intoa
whiteofficewiththatattitude.“Dr.Ramphele”istheanswerthatthesecretarysnorts
atasthoughstillinaprivatejokewithherself.
ThenextshotisofWoodsinhisoffice,followedbyalongshotofthesecretary
enteringwithRamphele.ThesecretaryintroducesRamphelewiththesamebemused
expression she has had throughout. This short interaction between the twowomen
showsthatRamphele isnecessarilyboisterous in the faceofwhatsheknowswillbe
overtracism. IntheofficewithWoodsthough,shedoesnotlosetheexpressionbut
doespointoutthatsheknowsheisnotstupid.Sherealisesthatshecanmeethimon
anintellectuallevelbutsheknowsthatadiscussionwiththesecretarymightnotbeas
fruitful. Framed in close-ups or long shots fromDonald’s point of view in his large
editorialoffice,weseeMamphelapresentherselfasconfidentnotonlybecauseshe
knows she is different, as one of very few Black medical doctors in apartheid, but
because she believes in Black Consciousness and is confident thatWoods does not
properlyunderstand it. Theconversation is in factvital toWoodsandBikomeeting
andprovessuccessfulwhenweseeWoodsinKingWilliamsTowninthenextscene.
This is an important choice on Attenborough’s part: to have a Blackwoman
barge into a space that a white man controls, and then to instruct him about
somethingascomplexasapartheidSouthAfrica.However,Mamphela’scharacteralso
114
showsusthatBlackwomenwereactiveinthestruggle.Itisalsonoteworthybecause
although this is not the emphasis of Cry Freedom, the scene between Woods and
Mamphelacompelsustoseethediversityofthecharactersandtoseethattheanti-
apartheidstrugglewascomprisedoflayersofinsightsandactionsbydifferentpeople
of different strata of that fixed society. Despite the fact that Steve’swife is not as
vociferous as Mamphela, Donald nevertheless has to go through her first to reach
Steve in the first encounter. The film seems to consistently comment that Black
womenarealsoimportantpillarsofthestruggle.InthesceneinwhichDonaldcomes
tothechurchwhereSteveis, it isSteve’swifewholetshimintothechurchbuilding
andshowshimaroundthecommunitycentre. TheBlackwomeninCryFreedomare
not shown to be timid, as is the case for example with Emily in DryWhite. In Cry
Freedom,RampheleisthefirstintroductiontoBlackConsciousnessandsheisaBlack
SouthAfricanwoman.Fromthebeginningofthisfilm,aBlackwomanintroducesand
demandstobeintroducedequallytoBlackandwhiteme
115
Conclusion
Thischapterhassurveyedtherepresentationsofrace inADryWhiteSeason,
CryFreedomandMapantsula. Thechapterconcludesthatnotonlydothe filmsDry
WhiteandCryFreedomrelyontheunionsofwhiteandBlackheroestoportrayanti-
apartheid activities within the narratives, but that the individual characters are
themselvesoftenshowntobe‘outofplace’inaplaceinwhichidentitiesaredogmatic
and fixed. Themainprotagonistsare thuscontextualised incontrast toanormative
wayofbeinginapartheidSouthAfrica,asawayofshowingwhatitwaslikethereand
as awayof educating foreign audiences. This chapter has also shown that another
binary exists beyond the racial one already manifest in both films, and this is a
genderedone.Thefinalsection’sanalysisbrieflyexploredhowtherepresentationsof
thewomeninDryWhiteandCryFreedomcontributetotheprotectionandendurance
offamily,anti-apartheidstruggleandnation.
Mapantsulawasalsoconsideredinrelationtotheabovefilmsinordertoshow
thedifferentapproachofananti-apartheidfilmwhichadvancesaBlackperspective.
Thischapterhasthussetthefoundationforthesectionsthatfollow.Fromthispoint
onwards,thethesisdoesnotreturntoaconsiderationofapartheidfilmsagainand
thusconsidersthisasapointofdeparturefromapartheidintopost-apartheid.
116
SECTION2
SectionOneexploredthreeanti-apartheidfilmsofthelate1980sandprovided
background to the ways that apartheid delineated people according to race. This
secondsectionconcentratesonfilmsmadeafter1994–theofficialendofapartheid,
andtheinstitutionofthe‘RainbowNation’–andthevehiclethroughwhichthenew
nationwasmobilised,theTruthandReconciliationCommission(TRC).Inthefilmsof
ChapterThree, it ispossible to identifyandexplore someof the complexitiesof the
differencesbetween ‘official’ and ‘unofficial’memory in the TRCprocesses. Against
thebackdropofChapterTwo,whichemphasisestheapartheidracialbinary,Chapter
Threeunpicksthatfundamentalshiftintime,spaceanddiscoursefrom‘apartheid’to
‘post-apartheid’.Asisexplainedinthechapteritself,theTRCwasaformalprocessof
acknowledgingthetraumaofapartheid,thepains,andlosses.Itwasalsoaformalised
and official process that could not quite, even in its ‘Rainbow Nation’ aim, expel
apartheid racial categories. Chapter Four turns to two characters whowould have
been thequintessentialperpetratorsof apartheid. In those characters I explore the
presenceofanunfashionableandoftenignorednewSouthAfricanidentity:thatofthe
white,middle-agedman,questioning, as the filmsdo,what the ‘Rainbow’ looks like
fromtheotherside.
117
CHAPTERTHREE
MEMORY,‘UBUNTU’ANDFORGIVENESSINFILMS
ABOUTTHETRUTHANDRECONCILIATION
COMMISSION
Introduction
UbuntuisverydifficulttorenderintoaWesternlanguage…Wesay,‘apersonisapersonthroughotherpeople’.Itisnot,‘Ithink,thereforeIam’.Itsaysrather:IamhumanbecauseIbelong.189
The past will have been worked through only when the causes of whathappened then have been eliminated. Only because the causes continue toexistdoesthecaptivatingspellofthepastremaintothisdayunbroken.190
…How far back should memory reach? How deeply into the recesses of thepast? The answer that springs spontaneously tomind is thatmemory is notgovernedbythestatuteoflimitations,andthatcollectivememoryespeciallyisthe very warp and weft of the tapestry of history that makes up society.Unravelandjettisonathreadfromthattapestryandsocietyitselfmaybecomeundoneattheseams.Andyet,theoppositeisalsotrue.191
Thethesisnowtakeswhatmayappearasanuncharacteristicleapthroughtime
fromtheendofthe1980s(filmsdiscussedinchaptertwo)andtheearly2000s(films
discussedinthecurrentchapter,chapterthree).Althoughtheperiodofthe1990shas
beendiscussedinotherSouthAfricanfilmscholarship,thechoicetoexcludeithereis
basedontworeasons:thefirstisthatfilmproductionsloweddownsignificantlyinthe
decadeofthe1990s,partlyduetopoliticalchangesandtheofficialreconstructionof
thenation;thesecondreasonisthatbecauseofficialchangeswerehappening,there
was not a great deal of time for conception and production. Nevertheless, two
189DesmondTutu,NoFuturewithoutForgiveness(LondonandParktown:RandomHouse,1999),p.34.190TheodorAdorno,CriticalModels:InterventionsandCatchwords,(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1998),p.103.191WoleSoyinka,“Memory,TruthandHealing”inIfiAmadiumeandAbdullahAn-Nam(eds.),ThePoliticsofMemory:Truth,HealingandSocialJustice,(LondonandNewYork:ZedBooks,2000),p.21.
118
importantfilmsofthisdecadeoftendiscussedinfilmscholarshipareSarafinaandCry,
theBelovedCountry,bothdirectedbyDarrellRoodt.Theprimaryreasonforexcluding
thesefilmsinthethesisisthattheydealwiththesame/similarconcernsofthefilmsof
chaptertwothroughtheiremphasisontheendofapartheid.InmyresearchperiodI
foundthatthefilmsdiscussedinchaptertwowerenomoreorlessinterestingthanfor
example, the twomentionedabove,except that theyweremore firmly rooted inan
apartheidpresent.It isreallythenthefilmsofthefollowingdecade,whicharedealt
withinthiscurrentchapter,thatbegintoexplorethehistoricalnarrativeofthe1990s.
Because this is the emphasis of the thesis, an exploration of the post-apartheid
through representationsof the ‘RainbowNation’, it seemed fitting thatmoreof the
chaptersdealtwithpost-1994discoursesandfilmsthatemphasisedthetransitionand
complexitiesofthe‘Rainbow’.
Theyear2004markedanewdirectionforfilmsthatdealtwithapartheid.This
chapterconsidersrepresentationsoftheTruthandReconciliationCommission(TRC)in
four filmsandbrings together that referentialhistorical event, the culturally specific
conceptof‘ubuntu’,filmlanguage,throughanalysesofflashbacksinthesefilmsand,
thedifferentproductioncircumstancesofthefilms.Thefilmsdiscussedinthischapter
have received significant attention in scholarship and have come to be known in a
categoryoftheirown,‘TRCfilms’.192Theanalysisthroughoutthischapterextendsor
shifts that category from its current status to consider these films as contested
narrationsoftheTRC.Fictionandnon-fictionTRCfilmsareheavilyinfluencedbythe
actualeventsand testimoniesof theTRC,agovernment-mandated institutionwhich
existed between 1995 and 2002. Most SouthAfrican film scholars identify the four
192DoveyAfricanFilmandLiterature,pp.53–57.,Maingard,SANationalCinema,p.169.,Saks,CinemainaDemocraticSA,pp.83–132.
119
feature filmsdealtwith in this chapteramong theprominent representationsof the
TRC.Thesefourfilms,whichwereallreleasedin2004,arethefocusofthischapter:
ZuluLoveLetterdirectedbyRamadanSuleman,JohnBoorman’sInMyCountry,based
onAntjeKrog’sCountryofMySkull, IanGabriel’sForgivenessandTomHooper’sRed
Dust. Other noteworthy films of the time are documentaries like Of Joyce and
Remembrance (Mark Kaplan, 2004) and The Gugulethu Seven (LindyWilson, 2000),
Sechaba Morejele’s controversial short film about the inadequacies of the TRC,
Ubuntu’sWoundsandNormanMaake’sfeature-lengthfilmaboutthereturnofexiles
afterapartheidinHomecoming(2005).
These filmsarevariedandalthough theyprovide interesting insights into the
ways in which the TRC and the context of the country at that time have been
represented,my concern here is with fiction films. With reference to TRC films by
Blackdirectors,CaraMoyer-Duncancritiquesbigbudgetproductions(RedDustandIn
My Country), arguing that other films (likeUbuntu’s Wounds, Zulu Love Letter and
Homecoming) “…give voice to perspectives historically denied by apartheid and in
many ways still stifled by the legacy of inequality, which limits black access to the
trainingandresourcesneededtoproducenarrativefilm”.193
Although the filmsdiscussed in this chapter are all fiction features, they also
differ from each other. InMy CountryandRedDust are literary adaptations,while
Forgiveness is ameasuredand sombrepresentationof a small coastal town family’s
strugglewith coming to termswith their son/brother’sdeath. Zulu Love Letter is a
story about two mothers who try to connect with their daughters in spite of the
traumatic and challenging histories that shroud their lives. Jacqueline Maingard
193CaraMoyer-Duncan“Truth,ReconciliationandCinema”inBisschoffandVanDePeer(eds.),ArtandTrauma,p.277.
120
describesZuluLoveLetterascomprisingaspecialqualityinthatitsemphasisisnoton
makingadidacticpoliticalpoint.194 Instead,shewrites,“… itdrawsapictureofthe
state of the post-apartheid nation from a Black point-of-view, represented by one
personal story that stands in for many”.195 This latter point is also relevant to Ian
Gabriel’sForgiveness,inwhichtheTRCloomsbutisitselfnotrecreatedinthefilm.In
thisfilm,thefocusisonafamilyinmourninginthequietfishingvillageofPaternoster.
BeyondtheGrootboomfamily,whostandinforotherslikethemaroundSouthAfrica,
Forgivenessisabouttheperplexingandmoredifficultcounterpartofforgiveness:the
often unpredictable processes around being able to forgive such as “acting out”,
“workingthrough”and“comingtotermswith”whathappenedduringapartheid.
InMyCountryand RedDust are arguably not SouthAfrican filmsbecauseof
their formulaic Hollywood narrative construction and aesthetic composition. Both
films received British and South African funding, InMy Country from the Industrial
DevelopmentCorporationofSouthAfrica(IDC)andtheUKFilmCouncilandRedDust
fromtheIDCandBBCfilms. Despitethefactthatbothdirectors,JohnBoormanand
Tom Hooper, are English, the films themselves are South African in narrative and
becauseoftheirlocationsaroundthecountry.Thetrialofreconciliationiscentralto
the films, as are various other traits of the new nation, strongly displayed in the
‘Rainbow Nation’ rhetoric apparent in both. The choice to include these films is
because of the thesis’s interest in films that grapple with representations of new
identitiesof thenewnation. TheTRCwas the large-scalenationalplatformthrough
whichSouthAfricanswereusheredintowhateverthe‘RainbowNation’hadpromised.
194Maingard,SANationalCinema,p.169.195Ibid.
121
The choice to include these twomainstream films also seemed fitting in relation to
argumentsImakeforthetwonon-mainstreamfilms.
This chapter also explores the figuring and performance ofmemory through
how some of the films favour the cinematic trope for memory, the flashback.
FlashbacksoccurinRedDustandZuluLoveLetterbuttheyarenotemployedinInMy
CountryandForgiveness.MaureenTurimdefinestheclassicflashbackas,“…animage
orafilmicsegmentthatisunderstoodasrepresentingtemporaloccurrencesanterior
to those in the images thatpreceded it”.196 In the classic flashback the information
about the past that we are provided with contributes to the current narrative and
helpstomakesenseofthepresent-daynarrative.Thischapterhoweverarguesthatin
Zulu Love Letter we see a different kind of flashback, one defined by JoshuaHirsch
(and drawing on Hirsch’s work, Maingard) as a post-traumatic flashback. Such a
device,Hirschargues,makesuseoftemporalandstylisticcodesthathelptheviewer
experience the film in a way that is “…analogous to a series of characteristics of
psychological trauma”.197 This kindof flashbackworksnotonly to show thepastor
revealaplotoracharacter’sbiography,as in thecaseof theclassical flashback,but
createsadisturbanceinthetemporalityofthecontentandintheformofthefilmand
transmitsanexperienceoftraumaforthespectator.198
ZuluLoveLetterisalsotheonlyoneofthefourfilmsthatdoesnotrelyheavily
onracialbinariesinTRCnarratives.Theendofapartheidreliedquitesignificantlyon
negotiation between the apartheid government and the African National Congress
(ANC) and in this chapter I consider negotiation also as a ‘rite of passage’ through
196MaureenTurim,FlashbacksinFilm:MemoryandHistory(NewYork:Routledge,1989),p.1.197HirschAfterimage:Film,TraumaandTheHolocaust,p.98.198Ibid.,p.99.
122
which it is possible to overcome more than apartheid. The ‘more than’ refers to
something that lies beyond forgiveness and it is these considerations I turn to in
Section Three of the thesis. Julie Reid offers insight into white identities in South
African films, arguing that they are remythologised in films. In this process of
remythologisation,white identities are reformulatedby perpetuating thebinaries of
goodwhiteversusbadwhiteasseeninChapterTwo.
Keepinginmindthesocialvalueofsuchareformulationandwhothismightbe
for,ReidarguesthatitshouldbeamatterforconcernthatsomeoftheTRCfilmsare
made by non-South African directors. In relation to foreign directors it is vital to
questionwho these filmsareactually for, as it appears that anover-relianceon the
racialbinaryshowninTRCfilmshastheaccompanyingeffectofoversimplificationof
theprocessesofforgivenessandthecomplexitiesofthetransitiontopost-apartheid.
Reidoffersthatseeingsuchfilmsasdevelopingmyths,
emptiesouttherepresentationofcomplexitiesandevenhistory,andoffersatype of short-hand which can be easily understood and consumed by thereader. But the counter-mythical representations ofwhiteness in these filmsmay,undercriticalscrutiny,amounttothestereotypingofSouthAfricanwhitesbyandforforeigners.199
This leads to the persistence of the good and bad whites of anti-apartheid
cinemaintopost-apartheidfilms.
While the narratives of TRC films are unique to South Africa, the larger
conceptsthatthefilmsdealwith,suchasmemoryandtrauma,arerelevanttoother
contexts around the world. The films of this section thus also resonate with
representations of other narratives of memory. Although the context is different,
199Reid,“TheRemythologisationofWhiteCollectiveIdentities”,p.50.
123
filmslikeJoshuaOppenheimer’sTheActofKilling(2012)andthesequel,TheLookof
Silence(2014),whichdealwithIndonesiancommunisthistory,arefurtherexamplesof
filmicrepresentationsofthetraumaofanationalandindividualpast.
What is most pertinent about the similarities found in these films which
represent different contexts, is that they all exhibit hownational perception can be
fixed and curated so that the majority of the population are compelled to (almost
instructedto)thinkaboutandrememberaspecificversionofhistory.Oppenheimer’s
films remind us of the far-reaching effects of state power accompanied by ideology
whichcan, insomeways,manipulatehistory. TRCfilmsarealsobornoutofastate-
driven initiative geared towards showing the ‘Rainbow Nation’ on screen. The
NationalFilmandVideoFoundation(NFVF)wasmandated(andthisdirectiveremains
inplace)toprioritisethefundingoffilmsthatrepresentedtheapartheidpastandthe
post-apartheid nation.200 Two points under the objectives of the foundation in the
NationalFilmandVideoFoundationAct1997arepertinent:
3.b) to provide and encourage the provision of opportunities for persons,especially from disadvantaged communities to get involved in the film andvideoindustry;
e)inrespectofthefilmandvideoindustry,toaddresshistoricalimbalancesintheinfrastructureanddistributionofskillsandresources.201
RecentinterestinSouthAfricaasahighlyviablefilmsetlocationhasalsoseen
majorgrowthintheindustry.Localdirectorshavegenerallynotbenefitedasmuchas
foreign production companies, which has caused some tensions. For example,
Ubuntu’sWounds director SechabaMorejelewants to know the politics behind the
200http://www.nfvf.co.za/home/index.php?ipkContentID=57.[Accessed15August,2015].201RepublicofSouthAfrica,GovernmentGazette,NationalFilmandVideoFoundationAct1997,Act.No.73,3December1997:http://www.gov.za/sites/www.gov.za/files/a73-97.pdf.
124
NFVFchoices,specificallywhytheNFVFpromotesthefundingofSouthAfricanliterary
adaptationsbutthenseemstoplacewhiteSouthAfricanliteratureaheadofstoriesby
Blackwriters.
In an interview with Lindiwe Dovey, Morejeleasks why films such as Gillian
Slovo’s Red Dust (2000) or Antje Krog’s Country ofMy Skull (1998), “…are deemed
more appropriate for adaptation to film” than for example literature by black
writers.202 According to Morejele “…many black testimonies of the TRC have been
written, but that filmadapters, inorder to acquire funding, still appear to require a
white intermediary…”.203 Dovey links this comment back to the need for a white
intermediaryas seen inanti-apartheid filmsof the late1980s. What isevidenced in
suchrepresentationsisthattheemphasisonunityandthepositiveoutcomesofpost-
apartheid suggests both awhite and Black triumph over apartheid. Such dominant
mainstreamrepresentationsservethestate-drivenideologyofpost-apartheidandare
alsosuggestiveofthefactthatTRCnarratives,likeanti-apartheidfilms,aremarketable
toforeignaudiencesasstoriesofhopeandthetriumphofgood.Additionally,funding
maynotbewillinglysharedwiththosewhomightbemorecriticalofthenewnation
and so mainstream TC films also function to serve the dominant ‘Rainbow Nation’
rhetoric.TheinsinuationisthatthewholeprojectoftheTRCandthenewnationwill
failmiserablyunderthetoobrightglareofcriticalityandnuance.Thisispartofwhy
ZuluLoveLetterandForgivenessaresuchcompellingexamplestoconsider.
Thischapter iscomprisedof twoparts: the firstconsiders filmswhichrelyon
theHollywoodaesthetic and composition, InMyCountryand RedDust. This section
focusesonrepresentationsofthe‘official’TRCrepresentedinthosefilms.Thesecond
202DoveyAfricanFilmandLiterature,p.55.203Ibid.
125
sectiondealswithfilmsinwhichtheTRCispresentinthenarrativeofthefilmbutis
not necessarily officially represented. This section shows how Forgiveness and Zulu
Love Letter aredefinedas ‘unofficial’ in their representationsof theTRC. Maingard
pointsoutthatZuluLoveLetterisexceptionalbecauseofhowitcentraliseswomenin
thisfilmandalsohowitsetsadifferentaestheticstandardthatisnotHollywood-like
butclosertoanAfricanaesthetic.204Ialsoanalyseelementsoftheprocessof‘working
through’ or what can be described as attempts at forgiveness beyond the TRC in
Forgiveness.DirectorIanGabrielrepresentshowitmightbepossibletograpplewith
andpotentially(butnotdefinitely)reachastateofforgivenessaftertraumaticdeath.I
aminterestedinwhatthislookslikeinthecontextoftheGrootboomfamily,whichis
traumatised and debilitated by the death of their twenty-year-old son ten years
previously. I am also interested in how the film represents and grapples with the
unfashionableaspectsandplacesofthe‘RainbowNation’after1994.
Inthesecondsection,theanalysisfocusesonseeinghowtraumaismanifested
in selected characters in Zulu Love Letter and Forgiveness. This trauma is not fully
translatableorarticulatebutremainsintricatelyenmeshedwiththenation.Inthecase
ofForgiveness, I showhow thecharactersexperience theafter-effectsof trauma. In
the case of Zulu Love Letter, I focus specifically on the use of the flashback as a
modality through which “acting out” and “working through” are represented and
mediated.
Bothsectionsareguidedbyquestionssuchas:Whatdothefilmsemphasisein
how they represent the TRC and the period around it? In asking this I attempt to
uncoverwhateachfilmdeems important torepresent.Whatdothe filmsachieve in
204Ibid.,p.169.
126
settingupanunderstandingoftheTRCasawatershedeventinSouthAfricanhistory?
Can an argument be made that these films are representative of individual and/or
collective traumatic consciousness? How do these films contribute to a further
constructionofthenewnation?
SouthAfrica’sTruthandReconciliationCommission
The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (SA TRC) sought to
bringtheatrocitiesofapartheidtolightthroughtwoprimarymodesofinquiry:firstly
to provide a forum for perpetrators to confess to politically motivated crimes, and
secondly,forfamiliestoaskforthedetailsofwhathappenedtofamilymemberswho
had gone missing or been killed by such acts during apartheid. The commission
listened to testimonies of victims and perpetrators relating to events that occurred
between1960and1994. TheSATRC followeda reparative justicemodelandnota
retributivejusticemodelaswasthecaseoftheNurembergtrials.Amajorconditionof
thismodelwas that thepastbeexcavatedwith theendgoalof theRainbowNation
alreadyinmind.
TheCommissionwascomprisedofthreecommittees,namelyheHumanRights
ViolationsCommittee(HRV),theRestorationandRehabilitationCommittee(R+R)and
theAmnestyCommittee. Therewas greatnational and international interest in the
processesoftheHRVandtheAmnestyCommitteesasthesepertainedspecificallyto
thehearings. Howevertheaftereffectsof theTRC,relatedtoreparations,havestill
notbeencompletelydealtwith. Hearingswerebroadcastonthepublicbroadcaster,
the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) and South Africans could thus
follow the proceedings around the country. TheHRVCommittee heard testimonies
from victims of apartheid and the Amnesty Committee heard testimonies from
127
apartheidperpetrators,whowereoftenmembersofthesecuritypoliceand‘askaris’.
Colloquiallycalled‘impimpis’,suchcharactersareeitherpresentoralludedtoineach
ofthefilmsdiscussedinthischapter.Thesamecommitteealsoheardthetestimonies
ofanti-apartheid struggle veterans who resorted to violence. In other words, the
Amnesty Committee made no distinctions between white and Black perpetrators.
Alongwiththenationalrhetoricaroundthetermsofthenewnation,thecommission
didnotidentifythecomplexityof‘wrongdoers’inthissituation.Inotherwords,the
priceofamnestyandforgivenesswasthesameforthewhiteapartheidsecurityforce
officersandthe freedomfighters thatwerepartof theanti-apartheidarmsstruggle.
The R+R Committee was mandated with the task of formulating proposals for the
rehabilitation of victims of apartheid and aimed to restore their dignity. This
committeewasnotpublicandthusreceivedconsiderablylessattentionthantheother
hearings.205
There is a great deal of existing scholarship about the TRC because it is
considered an exemplary international model in truth, forgiveness and
reconciliation.206A brief consideration of truth commissions outside of South Africa
205GovernmentGazetteno.22833of16November2001,Volume6,section6isadetailedreportoftheprocessesandlogisticsoftheTRCbetween1998and200,1pp.733–787:http://www.justice.gov.za/trc/report/finalreport/vol6_s6.pdf.,FinalreportoftheTRC:http://www.justice.gov.za/trc/report/206AlettaJ.Norval,“Memory,Identityandthe(Im)possibilityofReconciliation:TheWorkoftheTRCinSouthAfrica”,Constellations5:2(1998),pp.250-265.,MichaelCunningham,“SayingSorry:thePoliticsofApology”,ThePoliticalQuarterlyPublishingCo.(1999),pp.285-293.,RosemaryNagy,“TheAmbiguitiesofReconciliationandResponsibilityinSouthAfrica”,PoliticalStudies52(2004),pp.709-727.,RosemaryJolly,“RehearsalsofLiberation:ContemporaryPostcolonialDiscourseandtheNewSouthAfrica”,PMLA110:1(1995),pp.17–29.,TristanAnneBorer,“ReconcilingSouthAfrica/SouthAfricans?CautionaryNotesfromtheTRC”,AfricanStudiesQuarterly8:1(2004),pp.19–38.,CatherineM.Cole,“Performance,TransitionalJustice,andtheLaw:SouthAfrica’sTruthandReconciliationCommission”,TheatreJournal59:2(2007),pp.167-187.,AnneliesVerdoolaege,“MediaRepresentationsoftheSouthAfricanTruthAndReconciliationCommissionandtheirCommitmenttoReconciliation”,JournalOfAfricanCulturalStudies17:2(2005),pp.181–199.,SusanVanzantenGallagher,“‘IWantToSay/ForgiveMe’:SouthAfricanDiscourseandForgiveness”,PMLA117:2(2002),pp.303–306.,MarthaMinow,“InPracticebetweenVengeanceandForgiveness:SouthAfrica’sTruthandReconciliationCommission”,NegotiationJournal(1998),pp.319–355.
128
alsoshowsarangeofpracticesindifferentsearchesfortruth.207RidwanNyftagodien
and Arthur Neal describe the international context of the truth commissions as the
“collective conscience of many nations of the world… disturbed by the modern
imperativetoconfrontanuglypast”.208
Despite someof the overlapping similarities in different nations’ attempts at
unpacking traumatic pasts for the outcome of truth and reconciliation, the South
Africansituationisalsounique.MamoodMamdanicritiquesprominentscholarsand
politicianswhoconstructedandendorsedtheTRCasguiltyofatooeasyassumption
associatedwith the TRC that “all justice is victor’s justice”.209 Mamdani calls South
Africa’snegotiationfor freedomandequalityaspolitically justifiablebutmorallyand
intellectually unjustifiable. His caution,more than ten years ago, is being evidenced
nowinsomeofthecontemporarydebatesinSouthAfrica.Hepointstothefactthat
problemswillarisefromover-simplificationof“severalversionsoftruth”toonlyone
monolithicandill-fittingversion.210Theoneversionisthe‘RainbowNation’versionof
truth.
Aware of the different versions of truth, this chapter identifies official and
unofficial elements of the TRC present in the films. The official TRC suggests the
distinct presence in narrative and mise-en-scéne of the roving community-style
courtrooms of the TRC. The unofficial TRC is more complex and is comprised of
207JuanE.Mendez,“LatinAmericanExperiencesofAccountability”inAmadiumeandAn-Na’Im(eds.),ThePoliticsofMemory,pp.127–141.,DavidMellor,DiBrethertonandLucyFirth,“AboriginalandNon-AboriginalAustralia”,PeaceandConflict:JournalofPeacePsychology13:1(2007),pp.11-36.,LynS.Graybill,“Pardon,Punishment,andAmnesia:ThreeAfricanPost-ConflictMethods”,ThirdWorldQuarterly25:6(2004),pp.1117-1130.,RogerBromley,“AfterSuchKnowledge,WhatForgiveness?:CulturalRepresentationsofReconciliationinRwanda”inFrenchCulturalStudies20:20(2009),pp.181-197.208RidwanLaherNyftagodienandArthurG.Neal,“CollectiveTrauma,Apologies,andthePoliticsofMemory”,JournalofHumanRights3:4(2004),p.465.209MamoodMamdani,“TheTruthAccordingtotheTRC”inAmadiumeandAn-Nam(eds.),ThePoliticsofMemory,p.178.210Ibid.
129
elements of the TRC that were present alongside or surfaced as much later re-
interpretationsoftheofficialevents.Suchfilmsmayreferencetheperiodandmilieu
oftheTRCwithoutactuallyshowingtheTRChearings.TheunofficialTRCisinscribed
throughanumberofdevices,someofwhichareevidencedinthefilms.Oneofthese
processes is interpretation through themedia. According toCharmaineMcEachern,
the“mediaTRC”provide(d)the“publicsphereinwhichnationbuildingisdebatedand
affirmed”.211 More than a media platform for broadcasting of actual hearings, the
media also interpreted, reported and documented the process of nation building.
Documenting,notesStellaBruzzi,is“…aperpetualnegotiationbetweentherealevent
and its representation (that is, to propose that the two remain distinct but
interactive)…”.212
ThemediaperformedtwofunctionsintheircapacitiesasperformersattheTRC
andperformers forthenation:witnessesand interpreters.The“mediaTRC”wasthe
vehicleoftruthforthemajorityofSouthAfricans.Eventhoughtheirprimaryroleisto
factuallyconveyinformation,themediaTRCwereillustrativeofwhatBruzzidescribes
as, the “underpinning rationale” that performance is important in relation to
documentary.213InMy Country is an example of a TRC film that shows this layer in
greatdetailbecausethemainprotagonistsarejournalists.
ThesecondwayofconsideringtheunofficialTRCisthroughrepresentationsof
theeventandmanifestationsofitinculturalre-enactmentsthatnotonlyreconstruct
butalsofictionalisetheTRC. There isnoshortageofsuchexamples,onebeingJane
Taylor’sUbu and the Truth Commission, first performed in 1997 by the Handspring
211CharmaineMcEachern,NarrativesofNationMedia,MemoryandRepresentationintheMakingoftheNewSouthAfrica:AVolumeinHorizonsinPost-ColonialStudies(NewYork:NovaSciencePublishers,Inc.,2002),p.xv.212StellaBruzzi,NewDocumentary2ndedition(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,2006),p.13.213Ibid.p.2
130
Puppetry Company, accompanied by filmic projections designed by William
Kentridge.214 Another poignant example of the far-reaching effects of the TRC is in
nationalmonuments.215 FreedomPark isaproductof theoutcomeof theTRC,as it
celebrates the ‘Rainbow Nation’, described as, “a centre of knowledge aimed at
deepening the understanding of the nation. It strives to accommodate all of the
country’sexperiencesandsymbolstotellacoherentstory”.216
This chapterexplores thedifferent layerspresent inTRC films. Bywayofan
exampleofthe layerednessofthehearingsthemselves,thissectiondrawstoaclose
withanexcerptfroma1996hearingtranscript.ArchbishopTutu,ChairmanoftheTRC
saysthefollowingtoanemotionalBlackaudienceintheruralEasternCape:
Ihopethatthosewhoreadthebibleknowthattheremustbethetruthbeforetheaward…Wehavebeengivenaveryimportanttask,thisisnotashowwhatwearedoing.Wearetryingtogetmedicinestohealupourwounds…TheTruthCommissionisseentobeevenhanded,butevenmorethanthat,donotmakeus a laughing stock, because peoplewill say because these things are undernowblacks,noweverythingisturnedintoabioscope,pleaseIdonotwanttodo anything painful to you now, because I know that stories that you arelisteningtonow,thesethingsremindyouofwhatyoualsowentthroughandittakessomeoftheburden.217HereTutureferencestheabsurdityofapartheidandtheworkoftheTRCusing
thelanguageofthemovingimage:thebioscopeorcinema.HespeaksabouttheTRC
asthoughitisakindoffiction.Writingaboutthisincident,CatherineColearguesthat
thecrowddidnotembracethetheatricsoftheTRC.218 Idisagreewiththisbasedon
theknowledgethatthecrowdsalsoparticipatedintheprocessofwitnessing,listening
214Taylor,UbuandTheTruthCommission.215AnnieE.Coombes,HistoryafterApartheid:VisualCultureandPublicMemoryinaDemocraticSouthAfrica(DurhamandLondon:DukeUniversityPress).216Freedomparkwebsite:www.freedompark.co.za[Accessed11August2015].217ArchbishopDesmondTutuspeakingtothecrowdsatDay1ofthePortElizabethHRVhearings,21-23May1996.www.justice.gov.za/Trc/hrvtrans/hrvpe1/day1/htm[Accessed6November2013].218CatherineM.Cole,PerformingSouthAfrica’sTruthCommission:StagesofTransition(BloomingtonandIndianapolis:IndianaUniversityPress,2010),p.16.
131
and forgiveness. Theywere the theatrics of the TRCbecause itwas asmuchup to
themtoforgiveasitwasfortheperson(s)whograntedamnesty.Inotherwords,the
victim/perpetratorscenarioplayed itselfoutnotonly in frontofcrowdsaroundthe
countrybutforsuchcrowds,asthoughthenationwaswatchingafilm.
Cole’sinterpretationofalongerexcerptofthesametranscriptfocusesonthe
natureandimpactofcodeswitchingbetweenlanguages.Havingwatchedtheofficial
videorecordingsofthehearingsattheNationalArchivesinCapeTown,Colehighlights
the complexity of translation and interpretation because the Archbishop uses both
EnglishandisiXhosaintheactualhearing.Thisinformationislostinthetranscription
duetothefactthattranscriptswereonlypublishedinEnglish.BecauseofTutu’scode
switching,Colearguesthathismessagewasclearandhewasabletobettermanage
the hearings, able to “stage-manage, to orchestrate contending forces, to shift
abruptly thetone,style, language,andmoodof theproceedings”andthroughdoing
so,he“kepttheaudienceandallparticipantsslightlyoffguard”219. This,sheargues,
“provedefficaciousformovingtheritual forward, forkeepingtheshowontheroad,
forbetterorworse”220.
Tutu’suseofcommunicationviadifferentlanguagesisacommoncharacteristic
ofcodeswitchinginSouthAfrica.Therearethustwopointsworthnotinginrelation
to this excerpt: the first is the use of the metaphor of the TRC as bioscope. The
performativeandinterpretivenatureoftheTRCwasalwayscomplicittotheobjective
of unearthing truth. The second point is related to two parts of the excerpt that
emphasisetheprominenceofBlacknessinparticularandtheconflictednatureofthe
219CatherineM.Cole,PerformingSouthAfrica’sTruthCommission:StagesOfTransition(BloomingtonandIndianapolis:IndianaUniversityPress,2010),p.17.220Ibid.
132
relationshipbetweenBlacknessandmemory through theTRC. Through framing the
trauma, and the bioscope as a ‘Black’ experience, Tutu emphasises a particular
awarenessaroundbeingBlack in thisTRCprojectof recallingapartheid,aprojection
thatbecausethenewgovernmentisBlack,thereisafearthatthewholeenterpriseof
theTRCwillbemockedbecauseitwasn’trunwellbecauseofunruly(Black)behaviour.
Mamdani’scaution,thatthemoralandintellectualcompromiseoftheTRCwas
unjustifiable,isusefulonceagain.221Writingaboutthisincident,CatherineColeargues
thatthecrowddidnotembracethetheatricsoftheTRC.222Idisagreewiththisbased
on the knowledge that the audiences at the hearings were intrinsic witnesses who
wereactiveparticipantsintheprocessofforgiveness.
Cole’sinterpretationofalongerexcerptofthesametranscriptfocusesonthe
natureandimportofcodeswitchingbetweenlanguagesanddialects inSouthAfrica.
Cole highlights the complexity of translation and interpretation because the
ArchbishopusesbothEnglishandisiXhosaintheactualhearing,addingthathisability
togobetweenlanguagesinthiswayaidedhisabilityto“stage-manage,toorchestrate
contending forces, to shift abruptly the tone, style, language, and mood of the
proceedings”andthroughdoingso,he“kepttheaudienceandallparticipantsslightly
offguard”223.This,Coleargues,“provedefficaciousformovingtheritualforward,for
keeping the show on the road, for better or worse”224. Code switching also occurs
throughoutthefilmsinthischapter,moreeffectivelyinsomethanothersbecausenot
manyofthemainprotagonistsareSouthAfrican.
221Mamdani,“TheTruthAccordingtotheTRC”inAmadiumeandAn-Nam(eds.),ThePoliticsofMemory,p.178.222CatherineM.Cole,PerformingSouthAfrica’sTruthCommission:StagesofTransition(BloomingtonandIndianapolis:IndianaUniversityPress,2010),p.16.223Ibid.,p.17.224Ibid.
133
PartOne
TheTruthShallSetYouFreeand‘FullDisclosure’inInMyCountryandRedDust
RedDust
The primary request that the commission (and victims) had of those who
applied for amnesty in the TRCwas ‘full disclosure’,whichmeant that anyonewho
wishedtobegrantedfullamnestywastoprovidethecompletedetailsoftheactthat
theywereresponsiblefor.Thismeantthat,asexpressedrepeatedlyinInMyCountry,
the gruesomeminuscule details of tortures, killings and other human rights crimes
weretobesharedinfrontofthecommissionandthepublicatthehearings.
ThefilmsRedDustand InMyCountryarefilmswhichrepresenttheTRCinits
officialcapacitymainlythrougharecreationofthesettingofthehearings.Thesefilms
portraytheTRCasthewatershedmomentthatcementstheendofapartheid. Both
films follow a narrative structurewhich draws on a familiar trope seen in the films
discussedinChapterTwo,whichemphasisesthatanti-apartheidjusticewasachieved
throughBlackandwhitemasculineunions.Thefilmsinthissectionhoweveremploy
the same cross-racial approach but not throughmenworking together but through
Blackmenandwhitewomen. Theshift incross-racialgenderrelations ismeaningful
becauseitmeansthattheemphasisalsotransfersfromtheproactivewhiteandBlack
fightagainstapartheid,tothemoreforgivablewhitewomanwho,throughcrossracial
relations is retrospectively able to vindicate the apartheid project and alongside it,
otherwhites.
Thepowerof InMyCountryandRedDust is retained ineach film’sability to
showwhathappenedattheTRC,whatitwasaboutandhowitemployeditsmethods
134
ofuncoveringtruths.InsuchrenditionsoftheTRC,theultimateemphasisislocatedin
representationsofthegoodwhitesandtheirabilitytoworkwiththeBlacksinorderto
achievethe‘RainbowNation’.Insuchnarrativestheendofapartheidispossiblenot
becausemanywhitesbelievedinthesystembutbecausesomewhitesfoughtagainst
apartheid.Inthefilmsdiscussedinthischapterthesecharactersarerebelliouswhite
women,asopposedto‘outofplace’whitemen.RedDust(TomHooper,2004)isaco-
production of theUK and South Africa. The film is based on the novel of the same
name by Gillian Slovo, the daughter of anti-apartheid stalwarts Joe Slovo and Ruth
First.InMyCountry(JohnBoorman,2004)isbasedonAntjeKrog’sCountryofMySkull
(1998)whichisapersonalaccountofthepoet’sownexperienceofthehearings.
Iaminterestedinhow‘fulldisclosure’functionsinthesetwofilms.Becauseof
theemphasisonthewatershedmomentoftheTRCandtheinterracialrelationshipsin
these films, thewholeprojectof theTRC, andany representationof it, becomesan
overly sentimentalised exploitation of the real possibilities of the new nation.Red
Dust’sAlexMpondo(ChiwetelEjiofor)isastruggleheroandistreatedassuchwhenhe
goes to a small town to testify before the TRC on behalf of himself and fellow
comrade,SteveSizela(LoyisoGxwala),whoseparentswanttoknowwhathappenedto
theirson.SteveisdeadandonlyappearsinflashbacksandsoitisthroughMpondo’s
capricious memory that we learn about Steve. Mpondo is also there to oppose
amnesty being granted to his torturer, a security policeman named Dirk Hendricks
(JamieBartlett).SarahBarcant(HilarySwank)returnstoSouthAfricafromNewYork
aftermanyyearsofnothavinglivedinthecountrybecauseofherownexperienceof
apartheidlawwhensheandherBlackboyfriendatthetimeweredetained.Thisisthe
first time she has returned to the country since then and she finds that she is still
ridiculedforhavinghadarelationshipwithaBlackman,eventhoughapartheidisover.
135
DuringtheproceedingsoftheTRC,Barcantlearnsthatalthoughshemadeitoutofthe
countrythatshedespised,theboyfriendwhosheleftbehindwaskilledindetention.
According toLuciaSaks, the filmconforms to theconventionsof thepolitical
thriller genreand succeeds in subverting themalegazebecausewe learnabout the
casemostlythroughBarcantandnotMpondo,whowashimselfdetainedalongwith
Steve.225 In an early scene in the film, Mpondo and Barcant agree to meet at a
swimmingpoolaftertheformer’smorninglaps.Barcantarrivesattheentrancetothe
dustytown’scommunitypooltofinditlocked.Asmallsignonthewallindicatesthat
notmuch timehaspassedbetween theendofapartheidand theTRC,as thepool’s
‘whites only’ sign is still present. That the pool is closed may indicate the tacit
understandingofthatimmediatepost-apartheidmoment:thattherewasnorealrules
for how to move forward, which further accentuates the importance of the TRC.
Barcantappearssmallinthemiddleofawide-angleshotwhichshowsadustyroad,a
derelictoldwallsurroundingthepoolandthelargecloseddoorsthatshewillnotbe
able toenter. Shemanages tomake itover thehighwall inherblackpowersuit:a
formaljacketandskirtwithsling-backshoes.ItisclearfromBarcant’sattirethather
presencehere is temporary,asherwardrobedoesnotaccommodate thecontextof
thesmalltown;sheisdefiantlyaparticularkindofcorporateurbanite.
Mpondo is furiously racing through lapsontheothersideof thewall. When
Barcantleansdownattheedgeofthepooltoindicatethatshehasarrivedhesimply
continueswithout acknowledging her presence. She is forced towait for him on a
concrete bleacher, with Barcant seated in a eerily empty place where one would
usually expect crowds. Alex isnothurriedbyherpresenceandwhenheeventually
225Saks,CinemainaDemocraticSA,p.103.
136
emerges,hetakesaleisurelyshower,thendrieshimselfwhilecasuallystartingachat
withBarcant,whoisatthisstagedesperatetotalkaboutthecase.
Saksarguesthatthismomentsubvertsthemasculinegazethatissocommonin
featurefilms.Shewritesthat“…itislikelythatAlex’spositioninginthefilmasbearer
ofthelookoperatesinadualway:itissymptomaticofhishistoricalposition,evenin
the‘new’SouthAfrica,anditisanexpressionoffemalewhiteempowerment”.226She
alsotakesintoaccountthatAlex’sbodyisbothpowerful(showntousbyhisrigorous
training and his toned body on exiting the pool) and scarred by the torture he
experiencedwhenhewasdetained.MyownreadingofthisscenediffersfromSaks’s.
In this scene and in the development of the relationship between the two, the film
continues to emphasise Barcant’s dual and complex relationship with South Africa.
We watch Barcant struggle with her own position to South Africa alongside the
strugglesoftheTRCasawhole.
Twocomplexnarrativesarethusplacedindialoguewitheachother:onetodo
withBarcant’swhitenessinaplaceshedespisesandtheotherwithMpondo’storture,
andpost-traumaticstressdisorder. DespitewhathappenedtoAlexas thebearerof
the physical scars of apartheid torture, we are consistently reminded of Sarah’s
struggle and sacrifices as a good white. In the same way that Sarah is a visitor
‘sneakingalook’atthecountry,andatthenewleadersrepresentedbyAlex,wetoo
areinvitedtowitnessSouthAfricaas‘notsuchabadplace’, ifwecanworktogether
andheal.This ismadeclear inBarcant’schildlikerelationshiptotheolderfather-like
figure,Ben. HeencourageshertoseethegoodintheTRCandthusthegoodinthe
newSouthAfrica. He, liketheTRC,preachesabout ‘ubuntu’andthepossibilitiesfor
226Ibid.,p.104.
137
real change through it. Barcant is placed in relation to two other kinds of white
characters,Benandthesecuritypolicemenwhoapply foramnesty,andso thegood
white versus the badwhite opposition is persistent. The Black characters however
remain viewed from a victim-only position, as traumatised and poor (like the
community inwhich thehearing takesplace)or traumatisedandnow inpower (like
Alex).
Nevertheless,RedDustisstillabletogiveavaluableperspectivethroughitsre-
enactment of the trial setting of the TRC, and portrayal of the official TRC. For
example, the film brings to light an issue of askaris and the complexity of such a
positionheldbyAlex,who is consideredahero throughout the filmuntil thepublic
learnthathesoldSteveoutwhiletheywereindetention.The‘impimpi’ortraitorisa
narrativetropethatalsoappearsintheotherfilmsdiscussedinthischapterandoften
appearsasatooeasywayofmakingitclearthatsomeBlackpeoplesoldoutandthus
inthesamewayasitmustbeacknowledgedthatsomewhitesweregood,itmustbe
acknowledgedthatsomeBlackswerebad.
AnotherofficialTRCtropeinRedDustistheappearanceofinterpretersandan
assignedcomforterormourner. This isadistinct choicebecause it shows the film’s
useofaclosemodeloftherealTRCtomakeitsrepresentationsbelievable,butitalso
showsthecomponentsoftheTRChearingsthatmadethoseeventsdistinctfromother
hearings. Thecharacterof thecomforter isnotshownorexploredbeyondan initial
appearance and introduction toAlex on his first day at the trial. The presence and
acknowledgementofthecomfortersthroughouttheTRCandthemeaninginscribedin
having people there to comfort the victims is meaningful as it affirms that their
feelingsandmemoriesarevalid.
138
Alex’scomforter introducesherselftohimafterheentersonthestageofthe
communityhallwhere the trial isheld. The introduction takesplacemomentsafter
AlexandperpetratorHendricksmeeteachother’sgazefromacrossthehall:Alexison
hiswaytowardsthestageandHendricks isabouttotakehisseatonthestage. It is
clearthatAlexisaherointhecommunitybecausecrowdsofpeoplemillaroundhim,
congratulatehim,welcomehimandgenerallywanttobenearhim.ButAlexhasalso
ascendedbeyond the credentialsof anti-apartheid freedom fighter toanewkindof
post-apartheidhero; he is part of the government that rules the country. Alex, the
crowds and the single white face, Barcant, walk towards the camera. As they are
framedinmediumandlongshotswithcrowdsalmostusheringthemtothestage,we
getafeelingoftheexcitementattheimportanceofthismoment.Inthenextshotwe
seeamediumshotofHendricks,who isbroughtontothestagebypolicemen. They
removehiscuffsandheisinstructedtositatthetableononeendofthestage.This
communityvenueiswherethehearingwilltakeplaceinthissmalltown.It issetup
similarlytoacourtroomexceptthattheperpetratorsitsononesideofthestageand
thevictim,atermAlexrefuses,sitsontheother.Betweenthetwositthecommittee,
whoguidetheprocessthroughlisteningandaskingquestions.Therestofthevenue,
which faces the stage, is filled with chairs for members of the community and the
mediatobearwitnesstotherequestforamnesty,whichAlexintendstorefuse.
As Alex enters onto the stage from the side curtains we see the comforter
introduce herself to him. Alex however seems very confident and although he
respectfully acknowledges her as ‘Mama’, he is still dismissive of the woman. She
appears only once in her role as comforter, when she puts a hand on his shoulder
duringHendricks’testimonyaboutthemethodsoftortureusebythesecuritypolice.
The camera then zooms out to capture the panel on the stage, who are Alex and
139
Sarah, the three commissioners and to the right of them, the perpetrator and his
lawyer.
The participants in the hearing are viewed from just behind amedia camera
which is purposefully included in the shot and serves as a reminder of the
overpoweringpresenceofthemedia, interpretersanddocumentationthatwentinto
eachhearing.Bruzzi’sdistinctionbetweenthenegotiationofwhatactuallyhappened
andhowitisrepresentedisalsorelevant.Sheemphasisesthattheprocessbetween
thetwomeansthat theyarebothdistinctaswellas interactive.227 Bybeingableto
see the victim, perpetrator, committee and the new camera that captures the
proceedings,weareableto,throughthefilm,experiencetheofficialandinterpreted
elements of the TRC. As the head counsellor calls for order, Alex removes the title
‘Victim’whichsitsinfrontofhimonthetableandchucksittotheside,asignalofhis
owndismissalnotonlyof thetitlebutof theeffectof thetraumaof thepastonhis
currentlife.
Red Dust employs the classical flashback in its narrative to give the viewer
informationaboutAlexandSteveindetentionandtovindicateAlexfromtheimpimpi
statusthatHendrickstriestopinontohim.Thesameflashbackisusedinthreeother
parts of the film. They appear different because they are of different lengths and
becauseofwheretheyappearinthefilm.Althougheachflashbackseemstotakeon
anindividualmeaning,itisthefinalonethatcontextualisesallofthem.Theflashbacks
inRedDustcomplicatetheroleoftheviewerbecauseontheonehand,weremainin
thepositionofpartwitnessingtheeventsoftheTRChearingalongwiththemembers
227Bruzzi,NewDocumentary,p.13.
140
oftheaudience. Ontheotherhand,becauseoftheflashbacks,weknowmorethan
theaudiencesandasmuchastheperpetratorandvictimatthehearings.
Thefirstflashbackappearsafterthetitlesequenceatthebeginningofthefilm.
Itstartsasaclose-upthatshowsthebloodiedandmutilatedfaceofaBlackman.The
cameraholds thegruesomeclose-up fora fewmoments,which reveals that the left
eyeisalmostoutofitssockethandandhisentirefaceiscoveredinblood.Whenthe
camerazoomsoutweseehisfullbodycoveredinbloodonablood-coveredfloor.Itis
a disturbing opening sequence. On the soundtrack we hear a voice that does not
correlate with the disturbing images. Amale voice says, “You’vemade a bigmess
here,hey?”,followedbyachuckle.Theeyesofthefacemeetthecamerajustbefore
themanisdraggedoff-screenbyhisfeet. Heliftsanarmasthoughwantingtograb
the viewer as he stares directly at the camera through his one eye. He is almost
pleadingforhelp,forsaving.Thesecondtimeweseethischaracterwerealisethathe
isSteveSizela,Alex’sfriend,whoseparentshaveaskedhimabouttheirsonandwho
nowwishtogetanswersfromtheTRCabouthisdisappearance.
ThesecondflashbackoccursinsporadicshotsbetweenHendricks’testimonyat
theTRC.AsheexplainsthemethodsoftortureandwhichofthesewereusedonAlex,
Alex’srecollectiontakesplacevia joltingflashbacks. This isthesamefirstdayofthe
hearingswhichisdiscussedindetailearlierinthissection.Thecamerajumpsbetween
HendricksandAlextoshowAlex’sanguishatthememoryofthatnight.Thefinaltime
that this flashback isemployed isclose to theendof the filmand it showsAlexand
StevebothtorturedandbloodiedinaninterrogationroomwithHendricksandanother
securitypoliceman.Alexisseatedonthefloorandhisupperbodyisdrapedoverthe
seatofachair.SteveisagainstawalltoAlex’srightandheisinabadstate,withhis
141
eye out of its socket and his entire face unrecognisable. Hendricks wants Alex to
identifySteveashiscomrade.Alexdoesnotacquiesceandinsteadofagreeingtotheir
answers, Alex and Steve share a look, an eyeline match of recognition and
acknowledgmentbetween the two. HendrickspicksupAlex’sarm topoint toSteve
and decides that this would suffice as suitable identification. Alex briefly drops his
headatthesametimeandthisisthefurtherconfirmationthatthepolicemenneedto
kill Steve. This seems to be themoment inwhich Alex actually sells out but other
detailsintheplotshowthisnottobetrue.
Itisimportanttonotetheheadgesture,asitisremainsunclearwhetherAlex
actuallyidentifiedhiscomradeornot.Theflashbackendsinthesamewayasthefilm
began,withStevebeingdraggedoutoftheroom.Itisclearthatwhatisperceivedasa
desperatelooktowardsthevieweratthestartofthefilmisintheflashbackunveiled
asafinalfarewelltoAlex,asSteveknowshewillneverseehimagain.Insteadofthe
flashback endingwith Steve’s haunting face, the camera tilts upwards to showwho
dragshim,theperpetratoratthehearing,Hendricks.Inthisway,theflashbackatthe
endofthefilm,liketheendoftheTRC,holdssomeone(orpeople)accountableforthe
horrificactionsofapartheidbynamingthem.Butthisscenealsoservesasaconfusing
strategy to make the viewer unsure about Alex and thus, in his new capacity in
government,untrustingofwhetherhecantrulybetrusted.
InMyCountry
InMyCountry’sAfrikaner,AnnaMalan(JulietteBinoche),isdeeplyaffectedby
theprocessandretellingoftraumaticstoriesfromtheTRChearings. Thefilmopens
withAnna’sfatheraskinghertoknowherplace,remindingAnnathatsheisnotBlack
but is an Afrikaner. This is a way of the film introducing its main protagonist by
142
situatingheron theSouthAfrican landscape. Hedismisses theTRChearings,which
Anna will cover as a journalist for the South African Broadcasting Corporation, the
country’s national broadcaster. Anna is deeplymoved by the hearings and spends
mostofherenergytryingtoexplainandprovetoAfrican-AmericanLangstonWhitfield
(SamuelL.Jackson)that‘ubuntu’isreal.Annaherselfismarriedtoawhitemanand
hasthreeboysbutasthefilmprogressesshefindsherselfincreasinglymoreunableto
access the middle-class white world that her friends and family occupy so
unscrupulously.
[Figure3.1]AnnaMalanandLangstonWhitfieldinfirstconfrontationabouttheTRC
[Figure3.2]MediaarriveintheTRCbusforthefirsthearing
143
[Figure 3.3] Arrival of crowds at the first hearing in the film. TRC banner is clearlyvisible.Alsovisibleisachoirdressedinthenationalflag.
Anna gets to go home every few weeks when the TRC is either between
provincesoronabreak.Ononesuchweekendonavisithome,Annaandherhusband
have friends over for a casual braai (barbecue). The couple sit around a tablewith
friendsastheirchildrenplayinapoolintheyard.ABlackdomesticworkertendsto
thetable.ItisatypicalSouthAfricanmiddle-classafternoon.Theconversationatthe
tablejumpsfromonetopictothenext,frombettersecurityforwhitehomestowhites
fleeingthecountrytoothergeneraltopicsthatareinnowaypolitical,letaloneabout
the TRC, Anna’s complete preoccupation. The camera focuses on Anna, who looks
dazedandindisbelief. Sheisshotinamediumclose-upandfromtheproximitywe
areabletoseeherchestheavingslightly,whichindicateshermoodasherfriendsand
husbandcontinuewith‘ordinary’conversation.Herdeadpanexpressionagainsttheir
laughter achieves something different to the good whites versus bad whites
dichotomy. InMyCountrydepictsAnnaas somewhere inbetweena character like
144
BenandBarcantinRedDustbecauseshe,likeBen,believesintheprojectoftheTRC
and differently to Barcant, does not dismiss the country completely but also, as is
showninthisleisurelysceneinherownbackyard,istornaboutwhetherwhitesthat
canbetrustedwiththisfragilemomentinSouthAfrica.Accordingtothetraumatised
Anna,theysimplydonotseemtotakeitveryseriously.Sheinteruptstheirsuperficial
musingswithaquestionthathasbeensittingwithhersincethelasttrialsheattended,
andwantstoknowifherfriendsthinkitispossibletorapewithapoliticalmotive.Her
friends,particularlythewomen,lookdeeplyuncomfortable.Thecameradoesapanof
thetableshowingtheirexpressions.AsAnnacontinuestolookaroundthetablewith
greatexpectation,oneofthemenatthetablebeginstorespondtoherandoneofthe
womeninterjectstosaythattheyneedto leave. Anna’shusbandshootshera look
acrossthetablebutherexpressionremainsthesameandsoonthepartyatmosphere
is over. This scene is indicative of Anna’s growing experience of the trauma of the
hearings.
AnnaisflankedbytwoBlackmen:DumihersoundengineerfromtheSABCon
onesideandLangston, theAfrican-American journalistwhosheeventuallybefriends
afteraboozynightout.TherelationshipbetweenAnnaandLangstonextendsbeyond
friendship.WhenatoneofthehearingsLangstonasksDumiwhyAnnaiscryingwhen
none of the Black people in the audience are crying, Dumi tells him that “we”
(referencing Black people) “have done our crying”. Dumi’s comment highlights two
points that cameup throughout theTRC, firstly thatwhitepeopledidnot know the
extent of the genocide that occurred in the Black townships and secondly, the
ordinarinessof trauma inblack communities in SouthAfrica. A similar sentimentof
disbeliefwas expressed in ADryWhite SeasonwhenGordon tried to tell Ben about
whatwashappening inthetownships. But it isalsodifferent inthisrenditionwhich
145
takes place against the backdrop of post-apartheid because the feeling that is
conveyed is that if more whites knew then more would have fought against the
system.ThisisaverystrongelementofAnna’sconsistentsadnessanddespairwhen
shehearsthetestimoniesatthehearings.Annaisthegoodandlikeablewhiteinthis
film and through learningwhoher family is, her brother’s suicide at the end of the
film,herhusband’sabilitytoforgiveher infidelityandtheabilityofsomanytohave
forgiventhehorrendousactsof rapeandviolence,weasviewersareencouragedto
see and believe in the spirit of ‘ubuntu’ that Anna professes as possible for post-
apartheidSouthAfricaandforpost-apartheidSouthAfricansthroughoutthefilm.
AlthoughweseethefullspectrumofAnna’slifeweonlygetbriefglimpsesinto
the livesofothercharacters. Forexample,Dumi isa localand lives inatownship in
CapeTown,andLangstonWhitfieldcoversthehearingsforanindifferentUSaudience,
accordingtohiseditor,butthisistheextentofourknowledgeoftheirlives.Wedo,
however, witness Anna’s home and family. InMy Country implies that Langston is
attached to the TRC process because of his own African-American heritage. This is
evident in his judgemental stance towards Anna and his defensiveness about Black
SouthAfricans,asthoughheprotectstheBlacksfromher.
Thefilm’sculminationincorporatestwodeathsofsecondarycharacters,which
furthercomplicateswhat thenewSouthAfricahasbeenconstructedasupuntil this
point.Anna’sbrothercommitssuicidebecauseoftheguiltofhavingtorturedpeople
during apartheid. After Anna and Langston find the farm on which tortures were
carriedout,Annalearnsthatherownbrotherwasinvolved.AsanAfrikanerman,his
decisiontokillhimself isadecisiontopunishhimself for theactshecommittedand
theguilthesatwith.AgainstthebackdropoftheTRCproceedingsthroughoutthefilm
146
andhissister’sgrowingtrauma,thesuicidebringsupconflictedideasbecause,onthe
one hand, the film’s close representations of the trials do bring up the question of
whatadequatepunishmentmightbeinsuchacase.Ontheotherhand,andbecause
thereasonsforhissuicideareneverdiscussedinthefilm,itisalsopossibletowonder
whetherhesimplygotwhathedeserved.
TheseconddeathisDumi’s. Inamuchearlierconversationabout‘impimpis’,
Dumibecamedefensiveaboutwhypeoplesellout,arguingthatsometimes,thingsare
grey.WhenDumiinvitesAnnaandLangstontohishometocelebratetheendofthe
hearings, Anna declines but Langston goes with him. Shown to be in a township
setting,and framed inawide-angleshot, thepairdrivedownanarrowroadas they
approach Dumi’s house. Previously unknown characters drive up to them. Dumi
knows them as local ‘tsotsis’. When the leader of the gang comments on Dumi’s
positionasadoubleagent,welearnwhyhemadethoseearliercomments.Hediesin
themiddleoftheroadandthe‘tsotsis’quicklyvacatethescenewhileLangstonisleft
there. The film’s comment, when taken alongside the earlier suicide, is that truth,
justice,forgivenessandmemoryareallgreyareas.InMyCountrythusalsosuggests
thatnoteveryonewhowasBlacksufferedduringapartheidandnoteveryonewhowas
whiteparticipatedintorture.
CharacterslikeAnna,DumiandLangstonequalisetheplayingfieldofhistorical
BlacktraumabecauseInMyCountryextendstheTRCbeyondSouthAfrica’shistoryby
makingitseemthatLangston’svehemenceandpersonalafflictionwiththeTRCisthe
same(orattheveryleastsimilar)justbecauseheisalsoBlack.Thispointstoaneven
further problem of representation in the film, which is that it oversimplifies Black
histories.Weare,however,throughthedepthofrepresentationofAnna,consistently
147
remindedthatnotallwhiteswerebadorknewtheextentofwhathappenedduring
apartheid. LindiweDoveyargues that these filmsare in fact awareof andmakean
attempt“…tounderstand thenuancesofSouthAfrica’sviolentpastandpresent”.228
By contrast I have viewed these two films as useful, but nevertheless overtly
reductionist in their undertakings, Dovey argues that it is remarkable that the
filmmakershave“shunnedengagementinthediscourseof‘blackvictimhood’,asone
wouldexpect in the immediatepost-apartheidera”.229Shesees thisasan important
wayofrepresentingthedifficultythatsomeBlackpeople,likethecharacterofDumiin
particular,musthavefacedwhentheyhadtochooseaperpetratorpositionthrough,
“themetonymicdisplacementofviolence”.230Perhapssuchaviewwouldbepossible
if theBlackcharacterswerebetterroundedbuttheyaregenerallynot ineitherfilm.
This leadsme tosee representations in such filmsascloselyalignedwithmonolithic
white representations more broadly. Richard Dyer points out the value and
importance of thinking about the cultural construction(s) of white people… “white
makingsofwhiteness…”andit ispreciselythiscriticalitythat ismissing inrelationto
therepresentationsofwhitecharactersinRedDustandInMyCountry.231
WhereasRedDustcoversthehearingsfromtheperspectiveofasinglehearing,
whichismeanttoactasametaphorforthemanyothers,InMyCountry’sapproachis
via Anna’s experience of different hearings brought before the Human Rights
ViolationsCommitteeoftheTRC. WeexperiencetheTRCfromAnna’spointofview
andher interpretationsof thehearings throughherSABC radio reports. Becauseof
this,thejourneyisasmuchaboutAnna’ssearchforforgivenessforherpeopleasitis
228Dovey,AfricanFilmandLiterature,p.55.229Ibid.230Ibid.231RichardDyer,White(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,1997),p.xiv.
148
about those who bring forth testimonies, actively mourn and receive momentary
comfort,butneverthelessmust leave thehearings tocontinuewith life. Anna loses
herselfwhenawhitemancomesforwardforanswersaboutthemurderofhisfamily.
Sheentersthehearinglateandisframedinalongshotwalkingtowardsthecamera.
ShelooksaroundforaseatandfindsoneinfrontofLangstonandDumiandnexttoan
Afrikanerman. AsthevictimemotionallyretellshisstoryAnnabeginsto laugh. She
nudges themannext toher as though theyare sharinga joke.Her laughingquickly
progressesintohystericaltearsandseatednexttothelargeman,shelookssmalland
vulnerable.Sheisallthewhileframedinamediumclose-upwhichmakesitpossible
toseeherfacialexpressionofdisbeliefatthehorrorsthatcontinuetopileupthrough
theTRC.Anna’slossofcontrolisnotaninabilitytounderstandtheinformationsheis
hearingbutanindicationofhersaturationwithtraumaticstoriesfromSouthAfrica’s
past, and reflective of a kind of transferred posttraumatic stress disorder through
witnessingthestories.
The scene that follows is of Langston comforting her in a hotel room. A
comforting hugquickly progresses into an extra-marital affair that continues for the
durationoftheTRChearings.Anna’sbreakdowninthehearingsisareflectionofher
stateofmindat the time,a state thatextends the lossof control toherdecision to
sleepwithLangston.Anna’slossofcontrolisnotonlyaboutherselfbutisalsoabout
tryingtofigureoutwhereandhowshecouldfitinasanAfrikanerinSouthAfricawhen
theTRCshowedsostarklyhowmanyAfrikanersbelievedinandprotectedapartheid.
Thiswasnotahalf-bakedsideprojectbutanomnipresentone.
The emphasis of In My Country is on whiteness. In relation to both films
discussedinthissection,Iconsiderthepossibilitythattheideaof‘fulldisclosure’isnot
149
only about the perpetrators telling thewhole truth but also about the goodwhites
who, likeAnnaandSarah,are themselves representedas traumatisedby the factual
accounts of torture, deaths and thewholehearted belief on the part of the security
policethattheywerejustfollowingorders.Inotherwords,fulldisclosureiscomplex
because itnotonlyreferencesthe factsof thebadactsonthepartof theapartheid
securitypolice,italsonow,attheTRC,necessarilyincludesfulldisclosureofallfeelings
inpost-apartheidSouthAfrica.Itisdifficultnottoempathisewith,andevenlikeAnna
whoissincere,tenaciousandveryhopefulforherself,herfamilyandhernation.
It is as difficult not to like and feel an affinity with Sarah, who seems
adequatelyangryatanddisgustedwithapartheidSouthAfrica.Aboveallelsethough,
the narrative of these films means that both these women are vindicated by their
sexual relationswithBlackmen. Such logic seems to imply thatbecausebothAnna
andSarahwerewithBlackmen,theycannotberacistandthusmustreallybelievein
‘ubuntu’. It is ‘ubuntu’ in action when families at the TRC are able to forgive
perpetrators for various vicious acts and it is this same ‘ubuntu’ thatAnna asks her
husbandtoenactwhensheconfessestotheextra-maritalaffair. His forgiveness for
her should not be ignored as something that is merely part of the narrative as it
presentsanactionforwhichAnnamustherselfbeforgiven.
150
PartTwo
‘ActingOut’,ForgivenessandRevenge:ForgivenessandZuluLoveLetter
Forgiveness
“Are seeking revenge and offering forgiveness two sides of the same coin,
differentwaysoftryingtotakesomecontrolwherethereissuchadespairinglevelof
powerlessness?”,askCynthiaRansleyandTerri Spy in their studyof forgivenessand
the healing process.232 In this section I discuss films by two Black South African
directors, IanGabrielandRamadanSuleman. BothForgivenessand ZuluLoveLetter
resistthewhollyoptimisticapproachandassumptionsof‘thenewSouthAfrica’.
Forgiveness is Ian Gabriel’s first feature film. The script is predominantly in
Afrikaans,thelocallanguagespokeninPaternoster,thesmalltowninwhichthefilmis
set.ZuluLoveLetterisRamadanSuleman’sthirdindependentfilm.Thefilmissetin
Johannesburg,alargecitywithaculturalmixofpeoplefromaroundthecountryand
the continent; thus many languages are spoken there. The film reflects this
multiculturalmilieuandcharactersspeakisiZulu,Sesotho,English,Afrikaansandlocal
slangthatcombinestwoormoreoftheselanguagesandothers.Itwasco-fundedby
SouthAfrica,FranceandGermany. BothForgivenessandZuluLoveLetterwerealso
partfundedbytheNFVF.
Forgiveness follows the journey of ex-apartheid policeman Tertius Coetzee,
who seeks absolution from the family of a young man whom he killed in 1991.
Coetzee travels to find Daniel Grootboom’s family, who he hopes will offer him
somethingbeyondtheamnestyhehasalreadyreceivedfromtheTRC.Thefamilyhas
232CynthiaRansleyandTerriSpy(eds.),ForgivenessandtheHealingProcess:ACentralTherapeuticConcern(EastSussexandNewYork:Routledge,2004),p.4.
151
been in the depth of struggling since their son died. They are represented as
experiencing an inescapable complexmix of emotions and a great deal of sadness.
Paternoster,wherethefilmisset,isoneoftheoldestfishingvillagesonthewestcoast
ofSouthAfrica. It ispopulatedmostlywithcoloured fishing familiesandthis is true
alsoforthefilm.TheGrootboomsareafishingfamilyandDanielwasthefirstsonwho
waseversenttostudyfurther.Thechoicetohavethefilmsetinsuchacontextisan
unusualchoiceforafewreasons.Firstly,becausethefilmissetinasmalltownthere
islittledistractionfromthemainissueandthereisadistinctfeelingthatthecentrality
oftheapartheidpastofwhichDaniel’smurderisapart,andtheprocessesoftheTRC
and forgivenesscannotbeescaped. Inaverypoeticmanner, theseaaspartof the
mise-en-scèneofthefilmplaysitsownroleasthetiderisesandfallswitheachpassing
day,verymuchliketheemotionsinthefilm.
Anothernoteworthypointaboutthesettingofthisfilmistheemphasisonthe
colouredtownshipandacolouredfamilyascentraltotheplot.OftenTRCstoriesthat
are chosen for re-enactment have black Africans asmain protagonists because this
wasthepopulationgroupmostharshlyaffectedbyapartheid.Whilethisisthecasein
RedDustandInMyCountry,theotherfilmdiscussedinthissection,ZuluLoveLetter,
incorporatescharactersofdifferentracestoshowthatapartheidaffectedBlackSouth
AfricanseventhoughitwasmostsevereforblackAfricans.Generallyhowever,other
Blacks are not as visible in TRC films, or rather part of the construction of the new
governmenthasbeenan inability to reallycreate roomfor thestoriesofall races in
South Africa to be of equal cultural value. Many representations have been overly
simplifiedinthefilmstomakethedominantnarrativeaboutSouthAfricainapartheid
oneexclusivelyaboutBlackAfricans,alsonotahomogeneousgroup,appearassuch.
Gabriel’schoiceforthefilmtobeabouta‘coloured’familyisahistoricalassertionthat
152
the‘RainbowNation’doesnotonlymeanblackandwhitebutinfactencompassesthe
fullmeaning of the term Black: black, coloured, Indian,mixed-race andwhite. The
term‘coloured’ishoweverusedintheanalysisofForgivenessbecausethefilm’sfocus
is on a family who represent some of the historical baggage of ‘colouredness’.
Nevertheless,thethesisstillconsiderssuchagroupingundertheterm‘Black’.
Among the few signposts and landmarks along Coetzee’s journey into the
humblecolouredtownshipofPaternosterare theshellcoveredgraves, the imageof
theemptyshore,portrayedquiteunglamorouslyinthisfilm(perhapsbecauseitisthe
primary means of living) and the small almost identical houses that reference
apartheidforcedremovalspractices.Thefilm’sopeningsceneisshotfromCoetzee’s
pointofviewofasandyroadashedrivestowardsanasyetunknowndestination.We
see the road covered by sea sand as he enters a small town. The street appears
forlornandisemptyuntilayoungmanrunsuptohimandslamstwolivecrayfishon
the driver’s side window. The ‘click click clicking’ of the crayfish tentacles on the
window is audible on the soundtrack as the youngman shouts something about a
cheap price. Coetzee is jolted by the seller but his expression soon returns to the
worriedlookingexpressionthatthefilmopenswith.Alittlewayonhestopsatafour
waystopwhereawomanwithcurlersinherhairstaresaheadatnothinginparticular.
Thecamerazoomsoutslightlytoestablishthescence;tothe leftofscreen isanold
unusedfishingboatwithaderelictwelcomesignonitthatTertiusdoesnotevensee.
Neither thewomannor thesignappearverywelcoming to thewhiteman. Coetzee
asksthewomantodirecthimtothecemetery.“Gobackthewayyoucame”,shesays
withadeadpanexpression.Thewomanindicatesaphysicalaboutturnaswellasone
that canbe read as ametaphor for him to return to the emotional placehe comes
from.
153
The Grootboom ‘stoep’ is a large open-planmake-shift area fromwhich the
ocean is visible in the not too far distance. It has been haphazardly covered with
weathered fishingnets toprovidesomeshelter. In thewind thenets lookhaunting
andcontributeeven further to theoverall forlorn lookof theproperty. Thehouse’s
cream-colouredwalls arepeeling andpatchy, an indication that theyhavenotbeen
painted in a long time. This is the derelict mise-en-scène when Father Dalton and
TertiusfirstarriveattheGrootboomhouseoneovercastandgreyafternoon.Theyare
first captured in a tracking shotwalking towards the camera and the family. Linen
sheets flap in the wind, covering parts of their approaching bodies as they walk
towardsthestoep.WaitingthereareMrandMrsGrootboom,whohewalkstowards;
he passes Sannie and Ernest and comes to stand between the parents and the
children. Father Dalton offers that they should sit. On this first visit to the
GrootboomfamilyTertiusexplainsthatheistheretoapologiseforhavingkilledtheir
son. Daniel’s parents are confused because the TRC has already granted Coetzee
amnesty.
Thissceneutilisesclose-upsmanytimestoconveytheextremeandheightened
emotions of each character. Facial expressions are not enough to convey Ernest’s
resentment,Sannie’srage,MagdaGrootboom’sheartbreakandMrGrootboom’sguilt
andsadness.ButfacialexpressionsarealsonotenoughtoshowTertius’ownguiltand
brokennessaboutwhathehasdone,his inabilitytoworkthrough, letalonepastthe
trauma.Thefamilyisclearlyonguard.MrGrootboomprotectivelyhashishandonhis
wife’sshoulder,whileaclearlyupsetSanniewatchestotherightofthescreen. The
youngest son, Ernest, is seated, frantically writing away on a clipboard with a
calculator set in front of him. Father Dalton and Coetzee appear from behind the
blowing white sheets on the washing line. The awkward meeting is short, mostly
154
comprisedofloomingquestionsaroundwhythemanwhomurderedtheirsonisnow
at their house. But it is the childrenwhobring the issue to lightwhen Sannie calls
Tertius a “murderous, white bastard”, shortly followed by Ernest who demands to
knowwhetherCoetzeehasR1000000togivethembecausethatwouldhavebeenhis
brother’sannual incomeasanengineer. Thesiblingspoint tothe lossofpromise in
theirhouseholdaswellasalossofhopebecauseneitherofthemhasbeenabletogo
toUniversitysincewhathappenedtoDanielinterruptedtheirlives.Ernest’smonetary
concernsalsohighlightthe issueofreparationsbyemphasisingthe inadequacyofan
apologywithwords,asintheTRC.
A second meeting takes place the following day after a heated family
disagreement between Sannie and her father. She accuses her father of being
deceptive aboutDaniel’s deathbecause theyhavenever revealed thatDanielwas a
freedomfighterandnot thevictimofabotchedhijacking. Becausehisdeath is still
rememberedasanaccidenthehasneverreceivedanyrecognitionforhisrole inthe
struggle. Sannie wants her brother to be mourned as a hero, not someone to be
ashamedoforpitied. Herboldattackonherfatherculminates inSanniereceivinga
flat-palmedslapacrossthefacefromhimwhichleavesher,andtherestofthefamily,
speechless.
ThefamilyisclearlyupsetthatSanniehasinvitedthemanbacktotheirhome
but they are mostly upset that the details of Daniel’s death are now being openly
discussed. Mrs Grootboom, for example, retreats to her bedroom after she upsets
Ernestwithacommentthat impliesthatDanielwastheperfectson.MrGrootboom,
tryingtoremedythequicklyunravellingsituation, instructsSannietophoneCoetzee
totellhimnottocome.Thecamerafollowshimwalkingoutofthecrampedkitchen
155
towards thebedroomwherehiswife is. It then captures Sanniewho,watchingher
fatherwalkaway fromher shoutsadefiant “no!” in response tohis instruction. He
turnsaround,shockedthatshewouldspeaktohiminthisway.
Mr Grootboom’s looming stance and tone towards Sannie in this scene
indicatesthathestilltreatsherasachild,anindicationoftheparents’stagnationafter
Daniels’ death, in that they are unable to see the growth anddevelopment of their
other children. A confrontational shot-reverse-shot pattern ensues between father
anddaughter,firstwithfatheranddaughteronoppositeendsofthesmallloungearea
andthentowardstheendofthescene,withaclose-upofMrGrootboomsmackinghis
daughteracrossher right check. Theclose-upofhishandonher faceand then the
followupclose-upofSannieholdingherrightcheckwithbothhandsemphasisesnot
only the shockof the actionbut also the shockof thebottled-up feelings that have
beenpresentinthehome.
The conflict between Sannie and her father could be taken to be simply an
issueofgenerationalconflict.However,Gabrielisexploringadifficultandcontentious
issuebeyondthedeathinthefamily,anissueofshamethatDanielwasinvolvedwith
politics. This kind of shame is historically linked to being coloured, a racial
classification of apartheid South Africa. As Zimitri Erasmus points out, growing up
colouredinCapeTown“…meantknowingthatIwasnotonlynotwhite,butlessthan
white;notonlynotblack,butbetterthanblack…”.233Thispointstooneofthemany
complexitiesofmakingsenseofpost-apartheididentitiesandinaway,challengesthe
constructionofthe‘RainbowNation’becauseitbringstolighttheintricaciesofracial
classificationsanddivisionsassystemicdespitetheendofapartheid.Gabrielisableto
233ZimitriErasmus,“Re-ImaginingColouredIdentitiesinPost-ApartheidSouthAfrica”inZimitriErasmus(ed.),ColouredbyHistory,ShapedbyPlace(CapeTown:Kwela,2001),p.17.
156
highlightsuchadiscourseinForgiveness,particularlythroughDaniel’sfather,whoisa
representativeofaparticulargenerationofstoiccolouredmen.
More than this though, Gabriel’s choice for the Grootboom parents to be
embarrassed by their son’s participation in the struggle speaks to the problematic
position of the coloured population group and their relationship to racialisedwhite
powerduringapartheid.Inpost-apartheidthispopulationgroupisstill‘inthemiddle’
even in the somewhat politically and racially inverted new South Africa. Coloureds
alsooccupiedaslightlyprivilegedpositioninapartheidSouthAfricaastheywerefairer
incomplexionthanblackAfricansandthusreceivedcertain‘benefits’.Inthecontext
of thedisagreementbetweenSannieandher father it is also this generational issue
that is prominent: that Mr Grootboom did not consider his son’s death heroic but
remainedangryathimself(andatDaniel)forgettinginvolvedinpoliticsandterrorism
(what Black freedom fighters were accused of) at all. The economic and political
position and sentiment of some of the coloured population of Mr Grootboom’s
generationand thatof Sannie andErnest’s generation is shown tobe verydifferent
throughoutthisfilm.
Where the Grootboom parents, whose views are articulated only by Mr
Grootboom, wish to leave the issues around their son’s death in the past, their
childrenwishtorectifyhoweasilyCoetzeehasbeengrantedforgivenessbydenyingit
to him. The children raise an issue not only of reparations and ‘easy’ forgiveness
through the TRC but also a consideration of punishment for what he did. In their
overtlyangrystancesandactionstowardsCoetzee,thechildrenalso‘actup’,because
seeing him makes the multiple deaths in their family (Daniel’s physical death, the
157
death of family life, the death of the children’s hopes and futures in lieu of their
brothergoingtothecity)realalloveragain.
Coetzee’ssecondvisittotheGrootboomhouseisverydifferenttothefirst.In
this one he testifies to them, in ways reminiscent of the hearings discussed in the
previoussectionofthischapterbutalsodifferent.FatherDaltonstillmediates,asthe
commissionerswouldhavedone in theofficial TRCbut thecloseproximitybetween
Coetzeeandthefamilymakestheexperiencedifferent. ErnestGrootboomalertshis
family to the unwanted visitor’s return. Seated in theirmodest and relatively dark
(despite the timeofday) loungearea, theGrootboomfamilyappearssimilar tohow
they did the day before: an upsetmother, a protective father and two angry adult
childrenwhowill never be able to capture theirmother’s attention theway Daniel
does,evenindeath(perhapsparticularlybecauseofit).Theyareseatedinahalf-circle
this timeasSannieprobesCoetzeewith thedetailsofDaniel’sdeath,decisions they
madeasthepolice,theplantoframeitasahijackgonewrong.AswewatchCoetzee
explainingDaniel’slastwordstoMagdaGrootboom,theclose-upsshowthattheyare
bothcrying.
It is as though, in thismoment, thekillerandmotherare locked in sharinga
specialmoment asMagda longingly imagines her son in these finalmoments of his
death.Inthemidstofthistendermoment,whichtakesplacethroughashot-reverse-
shot sequence, we see Coetzee’s desperation to be freed of guilt and Magda’s
unbearableheartbreak.WealsoseeErnest’smid-sectiontotheleftofCoetzee’shead
andtotheleftofthescreen.Sannieisinchargeofquestioningandsheisunrelenting,
demanding to knoweverything that happened. Drawingour attention in is Ernest’s
righthandwhichbecomesaprominentfistintherightcornerofthescreen.Assoon
158
asCoetzeefinishesandwhiletheroomisstillsombreinthememoryofDaniel’sdeath
thattheyhaveallhadtoimagine,asthoughattheTRC,Ernestpicksupapotandlets
outalongdeepthroatyscreamasheslamsthepotontoCoetzee’shead.
ErnestandCoetzeeareheld inthesameframeforafewmoments,reflecting
both of their mental states: Coetzee remorseful and haunted and Ernest violently
incensed.Ernest’sactionreleaseseveryoneelse’sfeelingtooashismotherandSannie
become hysterical, and everyone else tries to simultaneously hold back Ernest and
helpCoetzee,whoisbleedingfromthehead.Thesceneisreminiscentoftheprevious
afternoon’s first meeting when Mrs Grootboom dropped the plate of 'koeksisters'
afterSannieremindedherwhyCoetzeewasthere.Theincidentswithbrokenobjects
emphasise the broken family and the visceral jolts of brokenness that Coetzee
representstothisfamily.Thispain,oftenshownintheirtearsand,forexampleinMrs
Grootboom’s case, in a distinct sense of confusion and a reclusive desire to be left
alone, breaks through the seemingly placid dullness of the everyday and the
knowledge that the day is not ‘normal’ when the nightmare of Daniel’s death
continues to recur. These actions are not the same as the solutions of talking
proffered at the TRC hearings. Missing in the home TRC are the mourners and
comforters aswell as the otherwitnesses and audienceswhowatch and listen and
also,forgive.
Thereisasub-plotinthisfilmwhichisnotaboutforgivenessbutaboutactive
revenge, which is not only a feeling, conveyed from the get-go by the Grootboom
childrenbut inanotherplotaltogether. AfterCoetzee’s first visit to theGrootboom
family, Sannie calls anactivist friendofDaniel’sbased in Johannesburg. Onhearing
thatDaniel’skiller is inPaternosterhe instructsSannietokeepCoetzeethere;this is
159
actuallywhysheinvitesCoetzeebackthefollowingdaytoseeherfamily.Threeyoung
men,black,colouredandwhitesetoutona roadtrip toPaternoster tokill theman
whokilledtheir friend. This isnotonlyaboutpunishmentbutalsoaboutvengeance
and revenge. The full extent of revenge, unknown to the characters (and audience)
until the endof the film, is only revealed in the final scenes of the film.Within the
‘RainbowNation’triowhoareonroutetoPaternostertoserveCoetzeethepunitive
deathpenaltythatnolongerexistsinthecountry,lingerstheasyetunknownanswer
tothequestiontheyhaveallbeenmullingoverforthepasttenyears:whonotifiedthe
policeofDaniel’sparticipation in the resistancemovement? Ina shockingmoment,
theyandSannierealisethatit isnotonlythewhitepoliceman(Coetzee)butalsothe
unsuspectingblackcomrade,Zuko,whohasforalltheseyearsbeenequallyguiltyfor
Daniel’sdeath.
Theconfrontationtakesplaceattheendofthefilm,afterDaniel’smotherhas
decidedtocomeoutoflivingintheshadows,afterthefatherhasforgivenhimself,his
son and Coetzee and after Ernest has also faced his own anger and has embraced
‘movingon’.SannieappearsnotonlytohaveforgivenCoetzeebutalsotobeableto
seethehumanity inhim,thetruepersonificationof ‘ubuntu’asencouragedthrough
theTRC.Itappearsthatthefamilyhastrulybeenabletodothemourning,‘actingout’
and ‘working through’ to reach a place of forgiveness. In her only instruction,Mrs
GrootboomasksthatCoetzeeaskhersonforforgivenessathisgravesite,afterwhich
shegivesCoetzeeherblessingtomoveon.Itiswhilethisfinalredemptiontakesplace
thatthethreecomradescomescreechingintothedustygraveyardofPaternoster.
160
[Figure3.4]Daniel’scomrades:The‘RainbowNation’trio
Coetzeeandthetrioexchangeknowinglooksofrecognition.Aseriesofshot-
reverse-shotstakeplaceandthistime,insteadofCoetzeebeingtheoneoppositethe
Grootboom family, he is now on their side, shot in the same frame as them and
protectivelyalongsideDaniel’sgrave.Thecomradesarenowontheoppositesideof
the fence. Each camp is representative of the ‘Rainbow Nation’ both in race and
historicalcomposition:age,politicalcredibilityandhistoricaltrauma.ItisCoetzee,as
a representative of the camp around the grave, who politely taps on the driver’s
windowandasksthethreetojointhemastheypayhomagetoDaniel.Heclearlytries
to protect the family. They exit the car and stand in a semi-circle with the family
lookingon.Daniel’smotherrecognisesoneofthem.Coetzee,asthoughawareofhis
imminent death, is able to spare Sannie (the onewho asked them to come) of her
parents’ questions in that he takes the blame for the untimely arrival of Daniel’s
comrades. This is yet another protective action of his towards the family. Another
seriesofshot-reverse-shotsensues,inwhichaninterestingfinalrevelationrealisesthe
end of the film: forgiveness and revenge. Neither of these looks the way it was
imagined,asisthecasewiththeendoftheTRC.Althoughthe‘RainbowNation’myth
wasconstructedandpartiallyimplemented,thematerialandsocialconditionsremain
161
the same for so many that it remains difficult to fully buy into the myth.
[Figure3.5]Daniel’sfamilyatgrave
The situation unravels soon after the Coetzee family respectfully leave their
son’sgraveside.ThethreecomradeslookunsureofwhattodonowthatCoetzeehas
been forgiven and in the midst of this confusion, Zuko, the black comrade, shoots
CoetzeewiththeAK47theyuncoveredonadetour,anAK47that,tenyearsprior,was
partofashipmentofammunitionthatthesecuritypolicewanted informationabout
andthusthereasonforDaniel’sdeath.Twoofthethreelookperplexedbecausethe
reasonfortheirjourneyquicklyfellapartwhentheyarrivedtoseethefamilyalongside
Coetzee. Zuko’s intentions are however very different. In amuchearlier scenewe
brieflysawZukospeaktoayoungmaninawheelchair,whowelearnishisbrother.In
that scene the short interactionbetween thebrothers indicated that theone in the
wheelchair warned him not to act foolishly. Zuko has not come to Paternoster to
avengeDaniel,butforhisbrother’sloss,whichhasaffectedhisownlife. AsCoetzee
bleedstodeathnexttoDaniel’sgrave,thethreescramblebacktotheircaranddrive
off inthesameblurofdustandsandthattheyarrived in. There isnofurtherdetail
abouttheirreactiontoZukoaftertheyleavethescene.
ThefilmconcludeswithafinalshotofCoetzee’sbodynexttoDaniel’sgrave,a
reminder that throughout the film we do not see a single image or photograph of
Daniel.OnlySannieisleftstandingatherbrother’sgraveasthefinalfadeoutoccurs.
162
Although moments before the film seemed to indicate that forgiveness is possible
even inunthinkable situations, the film thenundoes thisexact feelingbyconcluding
with Coetzee’s death, killing the one who was forgiven. But this final scene also
comments on anothermyth about how racialised characters in post-apartheid films
arepreconceivedaccordingtorace.UntilZukoconfesses,itseemsmostobviousthat
itwasthewhitecomradewhosoldoutandgaveDaniel’snametothesecuritypolice.
Itappearsalikelypossibilitynotonlythatthewhitefriendistheleasttrustworthybut
alsothathecouldpotentiallybeasecuritypolicemantoo.Thisconstruction isalsoa
wayinwhichthefilmquestionstheviewer’sracialassumptions.
InForgiveness, IanGabriel’s choices to include such critical but unarticulated
angerinDaniel’syoungersiblingsandtohavetheintermediaryinthefilmbeawhite
malepriest,or,tohaveDaniel’sfriendsbethepersonificationofthe‘RainbowNation’,
are allmanners in which hemakes the TRCmoot. There aremoments in which it
appearsGabrielhimselfmaybeunsureofhowcriticalhewantsthefilmtobe.Father
DaltonisawhitemalepriestwhoseaccenthintsthathemaybeBritishand/orSouth
Africanandwho,despitehaveagreedtosetupthemeetingbetweenCoetzeeandthe
Grootbooms, is clearly distressed by the information Coetzee shares about Daniel’s
murder.OnoneoccasionsoonafterCoetzeearrives,hetellsCoetzeethatitisnotfair
toputpeoplethroughthis.Onanotheroccasion,whenheexplainswhathappenedto
Daniel,heinterruptshimtosuggestaeuphemisticversionoftheeventswhichSannie
dismisses. ItappearsthatontheseoccasionsDaltonisnotspeakingsomuchforthe
familyasforhimselfbecausefortheGrootboomfamily,asDumipointedoutinInMy
Country,Blackpeoplearesousedtothesestoriesas theyalready livealongsideand
withtrauma.
163
Like thewitnesseswho listened to the storiesat theTRC,weasviewersalso
have to believe the victims and perpetrators in this film. As at the TRC, we are
compelled tobelieve full disclosure and grant amnestybut it is the film itselfwhich
pushes beyond an official TRC representation that does not do either. As ‘witness
viewers’, we, alongside the Grootbooms, also need to hear Coetzee’s testimony to
believehimandgranthimamnesty. Butwearenotpermitted to ignore the ‘acting
out’ of the various characters that cannot simply forgive. In the scenewhich takes
placeinthesmallGrootboomlounge,theviewerstandsinfortheaudienceoftheTRC.
Like those audiences, viewers are able to hear and experience the interpretation of
eventsandhaveourownfeelingsaboutthedifferentpartiesontheissueofamnesty
andforgiveness. NotbeingabletoseeDanielorhisdeathviaflashbacksalsomeans
thattheissueoftrustingthestory ispushedtoanewlimit. Flashbacksappear inall
theotherthreefilmsdiscussedinthischapter,forexample,andtheyaidtheprocess
ofshowingthepast,soastotaketheviewerstoaplacewheretheTRCaudiencecould
nevergo.
Although the film is not easy towatch; there are other choices that Gabriel
makes that easily lapse into racial stereotypes, taking away power from important
earlier scenes. For example, Gabriel’s casting of Daniel’s comrades as a convenient
multiracial trio, white, black and coloured, seems a too easy lapse into the use of
stereotypes. SuchaconstructionminimisesthecriticalstanceofSannietowardsher
father in the earlier scene where she confronts him about the reasons for Daniel’s
death. In that sceneweareable toperceive that apartheid categorieswerenot all
neatandeasytounderstand.Intheconstructionoftheanti-apartheidrainbowtrio,it
appears thatGabrielmight be taking on toomuch. Althoughhe is highly critical of
racial constructshealso tries todismantle them tooquickly throughcharacters that
164
have not really been developed beyond their old apartheid ‘comrade’ status. For
example,while Tertius Coetzee is so highly developed thatwe are able to see how
torturedandbrokenhe isbyhisguilt,Zuko, the leastcharacterised,comesoffquite
one-dimensionallyassimplyangry.
Thisleadstoaveryconfusingending,withastrongsenseofnotknowingwhat
to be upset about or comforted by at the end of the film. Some of the questions
Forgiveness leavesunansweredare:Whoshouldwebeangryatnowthat thewhite
manwhohadgonetosuchgreatlengthstogettrueforgivenessishimselfkilled?Does
post-apartheidpermitangeratBlackpeople? Inotherwords,thegreyareaofbeing
an ‘impimpi’ applied to apartheid but what of the present context? Dumi, for
example,getskilledevenafterapartheidends. ShouldangerbedirectedatSannie’s
juvenilebutshrewdattemptsatmurderorratherangerthatshetellsCoetzeetoolate,
onceshehasdecidedthatshecanforgivehimafterall?TheTRCdidnotequipSouth
Africanstodealwiththesequestions.However,if,asLizelleBischoffandStefanieVan
DePeerpointout,oneoftheresponsibilitiesofartistodealwiththeunspeakableand
to “… transport the spectator/ reader/ listener into the realm of experience”, then
Forgiveness’sachievementsextendbeyondtheremit.234
ZuluLoveLetter
TheKhulumanisupportgroupwasstartedbyvictimswhohadtestifiedatthe
TRCandwho, todate, have still not received reparations from the state. Zulu Love
Letter, directed by Ramadan Suleman (2004) is the only one of the four films that
incorporates theexistenceof thisorganisation into itsnarrativeaboutgrief, trauma,
memoryandtryingtomoveonafterapartheid.Thechoicetodothisissuggestiveof
234BischoffandVanDePeer,“Introduction”inBischoffandVanDePeer(eds.),ArtandTrauma,p.13.
165
thefact that this filmcastsawidernetaroundtheTRC.ZuluLoveLetter isnota film
aboutforgivenessbutratheritsemphasis,liketrauma,liesintheunspeakableandthe
unrepresentable in thedaily livesofordinarypeopleandoutsideof the spectacleof
themiracleof‘TheRainbow’.
ThisfinalanalysisofthechapterfocusesonhowSulemanemploysthestrategy
oftheflashbacktoshowtheinteriorityofprotagonistThandeka(PamelaNomvete),a
journalistandanti-apartheidactivist.LikeBhekizizwePeterson,whoreplacestheterm
flashbackswith‘interludes’, Ialsofindtheterminadequateforthecomplexityofthe
mainprotagonist,Thandeka’srecurrentmemoryexperience. Throughtheuseofthe
term ‘interlude’, Peterson asserts an intention of the cinematic device
“…simultaneously (to) encapsulate and disrupt the coherence of time and the
certitudes of experience andmemory”.235 Like JacquelineMaingard, I also find the
classical flashback an insufficient term for the case of Zulu Love Letter and instead
drawonHirsch’sconceptualisationoftheposttraumaticflashback(PTflashback).236
AlthoughmysuggestionsfortheuseofthetermisinlinewithMaingard’s,this
chapter’sanalysisfurthersMaingard’sinordertoincludetheindividualandthenation,
makinganargumentthatthefilmpayscloseattentiontotheportrayalofboththese
experiences, not one or the other. This is different to the classic flashbacks inRed
Dust,whichprimarilyfunctiontoimpartinformationaboutthepast.ThePTflashbacks
inZuluLoveLetterdonotnecessarilyanswerquestionsorrevealmissingelementsof
the plot in the narrative of the film. On the contrary, they complicate the official
discourse of the TRC. Shifts in temporality, pace, and the representation of the
235BhekizizwePeterson,“Writer’sStatement:Trauma,ArtandHealing”inPetersonandSuleman,ZuluLoveLetter:aScreenplay(Johannesburg:WitsUniversityPress,2009),p.22.236JacquelineMaingard,“Love,Loss,MemoryandTruth”inPetersonandSuleman,ZuluLoveLetter:aScreenplay(Johannesburg:WitsUniversityPress,2009),pp.5–17.
166
challengingworkofassociativememoryintheincorporationofthePTflashbacksallow
for a consideration that such a flashback revealsmore (in the narrative and to the
viewers)thanclassicalones.Theflashbacksbringaboutanerratictempoindicativeof
Thandeka’smental state.And this shift in formconnotesanexperientialmoveaway
fromThandeka’s everyday into something haunting from the past. Hirsch identifies
threebroadgenresofclassicalflashbacksandtheirroles:
Melodramatic flashbacks contributed to the construction of a character,explaining the character’s motivation within a present conflict and clarifyingthe action needed for narrative resolution. Mystery flashbacks revealedinformation previously withheld from the plot for purposes of suspense orcomedy. Andbiographical flashbacks told life stories retrospectively, framingthem in the present. As such, classical flashbacks played a key role in theteleologicalstructureofthenarratives.237
ThefirstPTflashbackbeginswithadramaticchangeinpaceasweobservethe
fastblurryimagesofstreetsettingfromamovingcar.Alongcameralenspeeksoutof
thewindowofamovingcarinthefirstflashbackandwehearthesoundsofacamera
clicking. The lens somewhat emulates the barrel of a gun, imposing a sense of
uncertainty about what is happening. Looking out of the same window, we see a
numberofposterswithnewsheadlines,oneofthembytheMail&Guardian(aliberal
newspaper)reads:“Pre-electionviolencepredicted”.Theseposterscontextualisethe
film and the events to follow as taking place in post-apartheid South Africa at the
heightoftheofficialchangesfromoneregimetoanother. Asthefilmprogresses it
becomesclearthattheflashbacksareThandeka’sbuttheyarenotalwaysshot from
herpointofview.Thisisanindicationthatthetraumathatlivesinherisalsoatrauma
that lives in others and references Peterson’s comments about the flashbacks as
237Ibid.,p.94.
167
dealingwiththelackofcertaintyoftraumaticmemory.Theflashbackisfinishedinall
oftwelveseconds.
The second PT flashback through to the final one is a variation of Dineo’s
(LeratoMoloi)deathbythreesecuritypolicemen.Dineo’sdeathisasmuchpartofthe
filmaseveryoneelse’sattemptstoworkpasttrauma.ButtherecurringPTflashback
alsoexhibitsamorepervasive linkandcommentsonbeingBlackandtraumatised in
SouthAfrica. This isexploredthroughThandeka’smemoriesof theeventofDineo’s
death aswell as throughDineo’smother,Me’Thau’spersistence inworking through
thetraumabyburyingherchild.Thefilmdoesnotoffermanyanswers.Forexample,
we never properly learn of Dineo’s role and the actual reason behindwhy shewas
killed. Thispoints tothemanyotherswhonotonlydiedand ‘disappeared’butwho
died for reasonssobanalas simplybeingBlack. WeassumeweknowDineo’s story
becauseitissofamiliarinthehistoryofthecountryand,alongsidethetestimoniesof
theTRC, this story is oneofmany like it. Wealsohave topiece the story together
throughThandeka’sinconsistent(anduntrustworthy)memory.Thandeka’switnessof
her death sits with her in a way that she cannot process even after apartheid has
ended and the nation is officially democratic and unified and collectively working
throughthepast. OftenthePT flashbacksendwithaclose-upofherwide,shocked
eyes,asthoughsheherselfcannotbelievewhathashappened.
Therepeatedre-occurrenceofDineo’sdeathandsomeofthesimilaritiesand
differences between each PT flashback are emphasised by aspects of the girl, her
actions in these final moments of her life and the mise-en-scène, for example her
clothing isalways thesame:awhitesummer top,aknee-lengthshirt,white trainers
andablackberet. Dineo isalwaysrunningand lookingoverhershoulderas though
168
trying to escape. In some of the flashbacks we see the three security police men
approachherand inallof the flashbackswesee thewhitewallagainstwhichshe is
shot, thechurch fromwhichDineoandMichaelwitness theshootingand thegrassy
areabetweenthewallandthechurch.
Although we never see the men’s faces in the flashbacks, Dineo’s face is
witnessedonly fromThandeka’s point of view. This demonstrates that it is not the
killers who are prominent in Thandeka’s mind but rather Dineo and an unspoken
relationandbondbetween the twowomen. Inall exceptoneof thePT flashbacks,
ThandekawitnessesDineo’sdeath fromthesmallwindowofanemptychurch. The
recurrenceoftheplaceofwitness(andrepeatedtraumaforDineo)asachurch,isthe
film’scommentonacontradictionoftheTRC:thereligiousintonationofforgiveness.
Thepresenceofthechurchastheplaceofwitnessalso impliesthatThandeka isnot
able to find thecomfortandpeace in forgiveness. Dineo’smomentofdeath isalso
fractured inthePTflashbacks,againemphasisingtheuncertaintiesofmemory, truth
andtrauma.ThefirsttimeweseeDineo’smurder,sheisagainstthewhitewallwith
thethreemenaroundher.Themaninthemiddlestandsdirectlyinfrontofherand
raisesagun toherhead. Inanticipationof theshotandasher finalactofdefiance,
Dineogallantlyraisesherright fistandshoutstheAfricanNationalCongressstruggle
mantra:“Amandla!Awethu!”whichmeans‘Powertothepeople’.Herfinalwordsare
inaudible but can be made out if one is familiar with the meaning of the fist and
becauseoftheclose-upofherface.InanothervariationofthisPTflashback,Dineois
runninginthesamedressandblackberetbutthistimewithayoungmantoherright.
Capturedfrombehind,theybothlookovertheirshouldersastheyrun.Evidentlythey
arebothbeing followedbutonlyDineoendsupagainst thewhitewallwithher fist
raised.
169
Thandeka’sdaily life shiftsanddevelops throughout the film. When the film
beginswearemadeawareofherstrainedrelationshipwithherdaughter,whoishard
ofhearing,withherparents,whoshefeelsneverfullyunderstoodthestruggle,with
hereditormanager,whoiswhiteandliberalanddismissiveoftheeffectsthestruggle
hadonher.TheopeningsceneofZuluLoveLetterisadefinitecommentonthestate
ofThandeka’s life.Thefilmopenswithherpassedout inthedriver’sseatofhercar.
There is nobody around in the dark basement car park and the only accompanying
noiseislouderraticjazzmusicthatoverwhelmsthesoundtrack.Theabsenceofaction
orevenamoretraditionalestablishingshot leadstoconfusionaboutwhosheisand
whathashappenedtoher.
ThefinalPTflashbackincorporatessubtledifferencestoDineo’sdeath.There
areelementsthatarefamiliarfromthepreviousonesbutitisonlyinthisfinalmoment
thatforthefirsttimewegetasensethatThandekaandDineowerecomrades.ThisPT
flashback isalso interspersedwithasimilarmise-en-scène inthereal lifeofthefilm;
forexample,ThandekaisdrivinginherredVWGolfandpassingthrougharoadblock,
havingtointeractwithpolice,whenthePTflashbackbegins. Similarlytoitsopening
scene,ZuluLoveLetterdoesnotprescribewhattheviewershouldbelieveaboutthe
TRCbut insteadplaces its emphasisonmaking theunrepresentable as accessible as
possible.ThefinalPTflashbacktakesplaceatnightwhereaspreviousoneshavetaken
placeduringtheday.ThandekaisdrivingherredVWGolf,thesamecarsheisfound
unconscious in in the opening sequence of the film. This time however she is not
aloneandDineoisinthepassengerseat.
Thetwowomenhaveneverbeenseentogether, letaloneinthesameframe.
And until this flashback we have only experienced Dineo’s death from the church
170
window.Theyexchangesomethingimportantinthisflashback,whichopenswiththe
diegetic sound of a police helicopter accompanied by police sirens and a spotlight.
ThisPTflashbackisfilmedfromabird’seyeview,showingwhatlookslikeanescape
(from what we do not know) as the red VW races along a desolate street. Dineo
unexpectedly jumpsoutofthepassengersideofthecarwhenThandekacomestoa
halt. It isunclearwhy she stops the car, aswenever come toknow the reason for
Dineo’s death. No sounds were present in previous flashbacks but in this one
Thandeka’s calls to Dineo are audible. A close-up of Thandeka’s face shows her
desperationas shewatches thegirl sprintaway fromher. ThisPT flashback iseven
morechaoticinitsaestheticcompositionthanthepreviousones.Itisalsoevenmore
difficulttomakeoutthemise-en-scènethathadbecomefamiliarfromthepreviousPT
flashbacks.
The landmark of thewhite church building assists in orienting the viewer to
whereDineomightbe,andalsonow,servesasacluebecauseweknowDineo’sdeath
isimminent.AlargebrightspotlighthasbeentrailingThandeka’scarandnowfollows
Dineoassherunsthroughthedesertedarea.Sheisdressedinthesameclothingand
hat as before and has the same expression but this time, only one of the killers is
present.HeappearsintheframemomentsafterDineotripsandfalls.Hispresenceis
madeknownonly froma low-angle shotas though thepointofview isalignedwith
Dineo,whoisontheground.Weonlyseethebottomofhiscoatandhisshoesandthe
pistol. Whereasbefore therewerenopossibilities forThandekatoexpressherguilt
aboutherownsurvivalinrelationtothegirl’s,thistime,thePTflashbackincorporates
anotherelement:afinaleyelinematchbetweenDineoandthecamera.
171
Therearesomepossibilitiesforwhothegirlcouldbelookingatortowardsin
thisfinalmomentofherlife.ItcouldbethatDineoislookingout,attheviewerand
holding their gaze in her moment of death. Dineo’s pause before death could be
askingtheviewernottoforgettheinhumanityandtraumaofapartheid.Oritcouldbe
that sheholds the killer’s gaze,holdingapartheidperpetrators accountable for their
acts. In thecontextof thePT flashbacksas theyhaveoccurred throughout the film
however,itseemsmostfittingthatDineoholdsThandeka’sgazeinthisfinalmoment
ofherlife.Inaway,theeyelinematchactsasawayforThandekatoaccept,andwork
beyondthetraumathatgripsher inthepresent. However,theprevioussuggestions
alsoseemfittingconsiderationsofDineo’sfinalmomentbecauseofhow,forthefirst
time,weexperienceDineobeforeherdeath.
Thechoicesmadeinthefilmmakeitpossibletoarguethatthisfinalclose-upof
DineoisaboutmorethanonlyThandeka’strauma.Havingrevisitedthistraumawith
her,wetooarecomplicittoworkingbeyond.WorkingbeyondthetraumaofDineo’s
death means that Thandeka experiences humanity outside of the trauma that
pervadesher life.Thisexperiencemeansthatworkingthroughandforgivenesscome
to have extensive consequences for feelings and lived possibilities, not locked in
rhetoricandsignificantlyrepresentativeof‘ubuntu’(althoughthistermisneverused
inthisfilm).
Thandeka’s ability to repair the relationship with her daughter S’mangaliso
speakstothepossibilityforthetraumatisedinSouthAfricatoforgenewandthusfar,
only imagined bridges with the new generation who have their own complex
relationshipstothepastandthepresent.ThisfinalshortexchangebetweenThandeka
andDineoindicatessomethinglikeanacknowledgementoflettinggo,forgivenessand
172
movingon.Thereisnewpossibilityarticulatedintheclose-upofDineothatisheldfor
slightly longer than usual. Zulu Love Letter does not, like other TRC films, place
emphasisonanoverlyexaggeratedracialisedforgiveness.Andthusforgivenessisnot
atalldirectedtowardsthekillers,whodonotappearinthisfinalmomentinthefinal
PTflashback,butatThandeka.Theendoftheflashbackisofaclose-upofDineo’sface
assheliesonthegrassandstillappearstodieeventhoughwedonotexperienceher
murderinthisscene.
The PT flashbacks as experienced in this film expose fragilities within the
traumaticcontextandpointtothepost-traumaticindividualandcollectiveidentitiesof
post-apartheid.CathyCaruthdefinesposttraumaticstressdisorder(PTSD)inrelation
to the traumatic event as follows: “…an overwhelming experience of sudden or
catastrophic events inwhich the response to theeventoccurs in theoftendelayed,
uncontrolled repetitive appearance of hallucinations and other intrusive
phenomena”.238PTSD specifically references the delayed response (whichmay occur
repeatedly) and the uncontrolled repetitions of re-experiencing the trauma, which
may lead to various experiences of reality for the person who experiences the
flashbacks.BasedonhowThandekaischaracterised,particularlyemphasisedthrough
thePTflashbacks,itispossibletoidentifyPTSDinthischaracter.Itisalsopossibleto
seehowothercharactersinthisfilmandinothersdiscussedinthischaptersufferfrom
thesamecondition,astheyneedtomakepeacewithbeingaliveandnotdeadlikeso
manyothercomrades.AsthesefilmsallreferencetheTRC,Isuggestthatnotonlyis
PTSD applicable to individual characters analysed but to the nation as a collectively
traumatisedgroup.AbouttherelationshipbetweentraumaorPTSDCaruthwrites:
238CathyCaruth,UnclaimedExperience:Trauma,Narrative,andHistory(BaltimoreandLondon:TheJohnHopkinsUniversityPress,1996),p.11.
173
The traumatised, we might say, carry an impossible history within them, orthey become themselves the symptomof a history that they cannot entirelypossess.Yet,whatcanitmeanthathistoryoccursasasymptom?It is indeedthis curiousphenomenon thatmakes traumaorPTSD in itsdefinition,and inthe impact ithasonthe livesof thosewho live it intimatelyboundupwithaquestionoftruth.239
239Ibid.p.5.
174
Conclusion
This chapter has explored representations of the TRC in four films thatwere
releasedin2004.ThefirstsectionpaidattentiontohowInMyCountryandRedDust
aremainlyrepresentativeofamonolithicandmainstreamversionoftheTRC.Inthese
renditions, the outcomes emphasise only the good story of the unification of South
Africaafter1994. These filmssucceedbecause theyreflectandcelebrate the terms
thatpromotethenewSouthAfricaandrhetoricofthe‘RainbowNation’and‘ubuntu’
throughhowtheyrecalibratenewSouthAfricanwhiteidentities,particularlythrough
women. I haveargued that representations in these filmsareoften too simpleand
haveadidactictonewhichisoftennotgearedatlocalaudiencesbutforeignonesand
fundamentallypuntsthemessagethateverythingis‘alright’.
PartTwodiscussedthefilmsZuluLoveLetterandForgiveness toexplorehow
the films represent everyday post-apartheid identities as entangled in very difficult
processesofbeinginthepresentwhilestillweigheddownbythetraumasofthepast.
Itisinthesefilmsthat‘workingthrough’,‘actingout’andatsomelevel,grapplingwith
whatmaybecalledforgiveness, ispointedto intheanalyses. Thefilmsdiscussed in
this section also comment on the complexity of new South African identities and
understandingsofplaceandspaceforthecharactersbothasindividualsandwithina
larger post-apartheid national context. Such an understanding of the films already
revealsashiftfromanti-apartheidfilmstopost-apartheidonesastheiremphasisison
ideasand realities thatwereacknowledgedby theTRCbutnot fullymendedby the
commission or the rhetoric of ‘Rainbow Nation’. These films thus do not offer
redemptive endings but begin to articulate questions around how we might think
about the post-apartheid era in ways that are less fixed than the categories of
175
apartheidandlessprescriptivethanthecategoriesofpost-apartheid.ZuluLoveLetter
andForgivenessenact‘ubuntu’whereasRedDustandInMyCountrytrytodefinethe
word itself. The latter films also intimate that the national accomplishments
presentedbytheTRCassumedwholesalebettermentwhereasthiswasnotthecase.
InForgivenessandZuluLoveLetter,wearenotinvitedtoimagineneatendingsandwe
are certainly not permitted to forget, particularly as the films incorporate imagesof
the socio-economic failures of the new South Africa into their respective mise-en-
scènes.
The films in this chapter paved theway for the nextwave of post-apartheid
films, which are still heavily engrossed in the discourse of apartheid and post-
apartheidbutareincreasinglymorecriticalofthedifferentwaysofbeingthatpersist
after1994.
176
CHAPTER4
SHAME,GUILTANDTHERELEVANCEOFWHITE
MENINPOST-APARTHEID:DISGRACEANDSKOONHEID
Introduction
We may be on our way to genuine hybridity, multiplicity without (white)hegemony,anditmaybewherewewanttogetto–butwearen’tthereyet,andwewon’tgetthereuntilweseewhiteness,seeitspower,itsparticularityand limitedness, put it in its place and end its rule. This is why studyingwhitenessmatters.240
Iwanttoaskhowwhitepeoplecanbeandlivewellinsuchaland,withsuchalegacy… What is the morally appropriate reaction to one’s situation ofprivilege?...Perhapsevenmorethanguiltthesuggestionthatshamemightbeappropriatecutsveryclosetothebone.241
Shelaybackandlaughed,drawingherskirtup.Thiswashowtheylikedit,filthyand stinking. He should know that, superintendent of cleanliness and order.The naaimaintje (whore)was here. Yes, he should knowwho andwhat thisplacehadmadeofheralltheseyearsshehadbeenforgotten.242
Thischapterexplorestropesofshameandguiltembodiedinwhitemasculinity
in two post-apartheid films, Disgrace (Steve Jacobs, 2008) and Skoonheid (Oliver
Hermanus,2011).Theprecedingchapter,with its focuson theTRC,brought to light
some of the monolithic representations of whiteness that are present in post-
apartheidfilms.Thischapterturnsitsattentionawayfromthespecificcontextofthe
TRCandconsiders representationsof shameandguilt in twowhitemalecharacters,
David Lurie (John Malkovich) in Disgrace and Francois van Heerden (Deon Lotz) in
Skoonheid.Thesefilmsshowpost-apartheidprogressinadifferentwayfromthefilms
in the previous chapter which focalised the overt or absent presence of the TRC240RichardDyer,“Whiteness:ThePowerofInvisibility”inPaulaRothenburg(ed.),WhitePrivilege:EssentialReadingsoftheOtherSideofRacismSecondEdition(NewYork:WorthPublishers,2005),p.12.241SamanthaVice,“HowDoILiveinThisStrangePlace?”,JournalofSocialPhilosophy41:3(2010),p.323;p.328.242YvetteChristianse,Unconfessed:ANovel(NewYork,OtherPress,2006),p.2.
177
because,althoughtheytakeplaceagainstthebackdropofpost-apartheidSouthAfrica,
they are centred on the ordinary lives and identities of themain protagonists. The
questionsofthischapterare:Dothecharactersinthesefilmsshowthemselvestofeel
shameorguilt?Canguilt,asportrayedthroughviolentsexualrepresentations,beseen
as a metaphor for change? Is there a connection that the films construct between
post-apartheidwhitenessandshame?
Thefirstthreequotationsattheheadofthischapteroutlinetheconsiderations
takenintoaccountinthischapter.ThefirstquotationbyRichardDyerformsthebasis
for thinking about why it matters to engage critically with representations of
whiteness.Inpost-apartheidSouthAfrica,perhapsevenmorethaninthewest,which
Dyerreferstoinhisstudy,whitenesshasnotgoneunconsideredastheprimaryracial
power,buthasviolentlyandstructurallybeenconstructedasthesupremepoweron
every possible social, political and economic level. This chapter looks at the
constructionoftwowhitecharactersandaskswhetherthefilmsrepresentversionsof
dismantlement of that historical power in a South African context. The second
quotationisfromSamanthaVice’s,“HowDoILiveInThisStrangePlace?”,withthe“I”
self-reflexivelypositioningthescholar’sownwhitenessandplacingotherwhitesinthe
same“I”position.Asawhiteacademic,ViceimploreswhiteSouthAfricanstobesilent
inthefaceofpost-apartheidBlackrealityinSouthAfrica.Thearticlealsosuggeststo
whitepeoplethattheyshouldacceptdefeat, letgoofapartheidpowerandembrace
shame and guilt.243 The final introductory quotation incorporates and references
generationsof ‘raced’ rape inSouthAfrica,primarilybetween farmers, slaveowners
andslaves.ThisexcerptisaboutSila,afreeMozambicanwhowasillegallysoldoffasa
243Thearticlewasmetwithagreatdealofcriticism.SomeofthebacklashcamefromtheMail&Guardiannewspaper’sspecialissue:http://mg.co.za/report/on-whiteness[Accessed8May2013].
178
slave inSouthAfrica. It isalsoanarrativeabout inversionofpoweras,eventhough
Sila is the slave in the novel, she claims back her power through what Gabeba
Baderoonterms“preferredsilence”.244
TowriteaboutorcritiqueshameinSouthAfrica involvespullingtogetherthe
divergent strands indicated in the above excerpts that come from different critical,
public and cultural places. For example, shame could steer this chapter in the
directionofaskingwhoisashamedoftheapartheidpastorontheother,thechapter
might unpack shame from a different angle, shame towards white and Black racial
interactions after a past like South Africa’s. These hypotheses are not only
assumptions but are also presented in the films. These possibilities form part of
something that is much more pressing, seen in Disgrace and Skoonheid, which is
aroundtheintersectionsofshame,arousal, interracialandhomosexualsex,andloss.
In the context of South Africa this loss references apartheid and white masculine
power that was inscribed in that system. Gillian Straker’s scholarship about white
racialmelancholia in thepost-apartheidcontextofferssome insightwhenshewrites
that this condition,white racialmelancholia, is generatedby the lossof the idealof
what that group represented and identified with. White racial melancholia
thus“implies recognition of one’s relative powerlessness and betrayal by one’s own
groupoftheideasthatoneimaginedthatitembraced”.245
Vice’s article is also an example ofwhite racialmelancholia. It is alsowhat I
suggest the films in this chapter represent throughmainprotagonistsDavid Lurie in
244GabebaBaderoon,“‘ThisIsOurSpeech’:Voice,BodyandPoeticForminRecentSouthAfricanWriting”,SocialDynamics:AJournalofAfricanStudies37:2(June2011),p.214.245GillianStraker,“UnsettlingWhiteness”,Psychoanalysis,CultureandSociety,16:1(2011),p.18.AlsoseeDavidL.EngandShinheeHan,“ADialogueonRacialMelancholia”,PsychoanalyticDialogues,10:4(2000),pp.667-700,whichStrakerreferencesinherarticle.TheirpieceisnotofdirectrelevancetotheSouthAfricanexamplebutneverthelessusefulinrelationtotheconcept.
179
Disgraceand Francois VanHeerden inSkoonheid, because each filmportrays varied
realities and sensibilities of post-apartheid white masculinities. The focus and
emphasis on white bodies in a post-apartheid context contributes to a critique of
shame and guilt and shows a development in narrative from the films discussed in
chapter one. But the construction of the characters in the films that this chapter
focusesonalsoset inmotionacritiquethatDyer invitesaboutwhiteness ingeneral,
whichistomakewhitenesssomethingthatisalsoogled,critiqued,andnotdeemedas
theprimarymarkerofassessment.Theimageofthewhitemalehasaltered,ashashis
powerandpost-apartheidrelevance.
In“UglyFeelings,NegativeDialects:ReflectionsonPost-ApartheidShame”,Rita
Barnard puts Vice’s article and Timothy Bewes’ The Event of Postcolonial Shame in
dialogue by drawing on affect theory.246 Barnard describesVice’s article as, “in the
end,peculiarlyapolitical,[...]thepsychologyofshameismoretwistedandcomplex–
moretied…toloveanddesireandtootherugly,comparative,andrelationalemotions
suchasenvy–thanVice,constrainedperhapsbyherdiscipline,canacknowledge”247.
AsecondapproachthatBarnardusesthroughaffecttheory,drawsaparallelbetween
Vice’s “public apology and the Australian government’s public apology on behalf of
white citizens for their historic treatment of aboriginals and the resultant “sorry”
books, parades, and the like…248”. Sarah Ahmed’s work analyses the Australian
contextindetail,questioningthevalueofsuchpractices.249Ahmedwritesthat,“The
question of who is doing the healing and who is being healed is a troubling one…
Reconciliationbecomes, in thisnarrative, the reconciliationof indigenous individuals246TimothyBewes,TheEventofPostcolonialShame(PrincetonandOxford:PrincetonUniversityPress,2011).247RitaBarnard,“UglyFeelings,NegativeDialects:ReflectionsonPost-apartheidShame”,Safundi:TheJournalofSouthAfricanandAmericanStudies,13:1-2(Jan-April2012),p.154.248Ibid.,p.159.249SarahAhmed,TheCulturalPoliticsofEmotion,(Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress,2004).
180
intothewhitenation,whichisnowcleansedthroughitsexpressionofshame”.250The
samequestion could be asked in the post-apartheid SouthAfrican context –who is
doing the healing and who is being healed through a white acknowledgement and
expressionofshameabouttheapartheidpast?
Becausethetopicofwhitenessandshameisvast,thischapterhomesinonthe
prominent tropes seen in the films, particularly the ways in which sexual acts are
presented through the characters. There appears to be an overreliance, obsession
even,withrepresentingshame,guiltandlossinpost-apartheidfilmwiththeintention
toshoworacknowledgeashiftinpost-apartheidracialidentities.FilmslikeDisgrace
andSkoonheidbringtotheforenewrepresentationsofwhitenessthatwerenotpart
oftherepresentationalterrainbefore–defeatofwhitepower,notquitelettinggoand
avulgarviolentdefenceofitwhichisnotquiteholdingoneither.Inthesetwofilms,a
secondarythreadthatisneveraddresseddirectlybyLurieorVanHeerden,israpeand
itshistoricalplaceinSouthAfrica,andtherelationshipbetweenwhitemenwhoraped
Blackwomen throughout the period of colonial and apartheid South Africa. Rape is
present inboth films. Theuseofhomosexualeroticism inSkoonheid raisesanother
broadrangeofquestionsaboutthefictionalrepresentationofthemiddle-agedwhite
malebody.Inparticular,thewhiteAfrikanermalebodyisnotonlymadehyper-visible
inthisfilmbutisalsomadeuglyindifferentwaystoLurie’smoralandethical‘demise’.
InSkoonheid,raperepresentslostpower.InDisgrace,raperepresentsdefeat.
TimothyBewesanalysesthenovelDisgraceasacharacterisationofthewhite
male body, making this supposedly historically unmarked body entirely inscribed in
250Ibid.,p.35.
181
shamethroughtheagingwhitemaleimageandcharacterisationofDavidLurie.251The
films in this chapter can be read as attempts atmarkingwhite bodies inways that
makethebodiesshameful,displayguiltandproblematisewhitenessingeneral,while
simultaneouslyevokingshameforthecharacters.Beweslocatesthe“mortificationof
thewhitebody”ascomplicitwiththepostcolonialmoment.Hewritesthat“Itshould
not be understood inmerely subjective or expressive terms, for the explanation for
suchbodilyshameliesnotinthebody’sappearance,butinthemerefactofitscoming
into visibility in the period of decolonisation”.252 Conceived of in this way, shame
about the body is aboutmore than that because it extends into the shame or pity
rendered towards such bodies, which echoes Ahmed’s question: who is doing the
healing and who is being healed? In this way, then, the films bring to light a
discomfortwithviewingthewhite(especiallymale)body.
Disgraceisbasedona1999novelofthesamenamebyJ.MCoetzee,whichwas
globallycelebratedwiththeManBookerPrize,butwasmetwithmuchdissent from
withinSouthAfrica.RachelDonadio’sNewYorkTimesarticleprobesquestionsaround
Coetzee’s 2002 departure from South Africa to Australia, where he still lives. The
article also highlights areas where some of the backlash againstDisgrace the novel
came from: fellow acclaimed South African writers like Chris Van Wyk and Nadine
Gordimerandpolitically,directlyfromtherulingparty,theAfricanNationalCongress
(ANC).253 It thus comes as no surprise that the film could not receive funding from
251Bewes,PostcolonialShame,p.6.252Ibid.253RachelDonadio,“OutofSouthAfrica”,TheNewYorkTimes,16December2007,http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/books/review/Donadio-t.html?fta=y&_r=0.[Accessed6December2015].
182
withinSouthAfrica.254 However, the fact that therethe filmcouldnotsecureSouth
African funding is also suggestive of the kinds of films that the NFVF supports and
thosethatitwillnot.
Disgrace is thus not a South African film because its fundingwas Australian.
Nevertheless,assetoutintheintroduction,thisthesis’sfocusisonfilmsthatdealwith
SouthAfricannarratives,subjectivitiesanddepictionsoftheshiftingidentitiesofpost-
apartheid.ScreenwriterAnna-MariaMonticellisuggeststhatDisgracebecategorised
asanAustralianfilmforthefollowingreasons:
CoetzeelivesinAustralianow,andthedirectorandmyselfareAustralian,andallthekeycrewelementsareAustralian,andtherearequiteafewAustralianactors in the film. We tried to say to Screen Australia that it’s likedocumentaries. You can have an Australian team and they go to India, youknow,andtellastory.AndI liketheideathatAustralianscantellstoriesthatareoutsideofwhatwenormallydo. It’sAustraliancraftsmanship in theend,andIbelieveourfilmsneedtobecomemoreinternational.Wearesoluckytohaveagovernment thatsupports the film industryandofcourseweneed tostaynationalistic,butwecangetoutaswell.255
Monticelli’sopinionofthefilmindicatesthatthisisaSouthAfricanstorythatis
Australian in texture because Coetzee and the creators reside in Australia. This
assessment of Disgrace is not one that this thesis agrees with. To follow Bewes’
argumentsaboutthepresenceandembodimentofshameinDisgraceistounderstand
thattheshame,andwhiteguilt,arenotonlytobefoundinthenarrativebutalsoin
theverymaterialofthenovel. Inotherwords,theprocessofmaking(whetheritbe
writingthenovelorthescript)isnotonlylinkedtothecontextbutalsomarkedbyit.
254ElizabethHeffelfingerandLauraWright,“Conclusion:InterculturalFilmin2009:TheYearofSouthAfricaandPandora”inVisualDifference:PostcolonialStudiesandInterculturalCinema(NewYork:PeterLangPublishing,2011),p.177.255Anna-MariaMonticelliinterviewwithAustralianFilmInstitutecalled“AdaptingDisgrace”,2009,www.afi.org.au/archive[Accessed1May2013].
183
It is also in this light that I argue that both writers, Coetzee andMonticelli,
enact a process of catharsis throughDisgrace. In the Australian context, itself not
devoidofanarduousracialandcolonialhistory,Disgracemaybereadalongsideafilm
such as Rabbit Proof Fence (Phillip Noyce, 2002), which represents the Aboriginal
historyof that country. I consider the filmDisgraceaspart of a discourseof South
African attempts at “sorry” paraphernalia, a term Ahmed applies to the Australian
historical context.256 In an interview with Disgrace director Steve Jacobs, Nicolas
RapoldwritesthatthedirectordrawsparallelsbetweenAustraliaandSouthAfricaas
“countriescolonisedbypioneers”.257
Skoonheid isdirectedbySouthAfricanOliverHermanusandwasco-produced
with funding from South Africa, France and Germany. Hermanus is part of a new
generationofpost-apartheidSouthAfricanfilmmakers,who,withhispreviousfeature
film,ShirleyAdams,alsoengagedincomplexquestionsandrepresentationsofthenew
SouthAfrica.RelevanttotheyoungBlackmalecharactersofChapterFive,Hermanus’,
ShirleyAdams isabout theeffectofgangviolence inaBlack townshipafterayoung
man is paralysed in a shoot-out. Hermanus has shown a distinct investment in not
shying away from the difficulties of the South African past and present. However,
thesedesperate concerns areneverovert in the films. According toHermanus, the
main protagonist in Skoonheid, Francois, is a symbol of a generation coming out of
apartheid.However,Francoisneverdirectlyreferencesapartheidorpost-apartheidin
thefilm.HermanusremainsawareoftheimpactofSouthAfrica’shistoryandhisown
positionasadirectorwhenhenotesthediscomfortwithwhichthefilmwasmetfrom
the Afrikaner because he, as the director, is not white. In the same interview he
256Ahmed,TheCulturalPoliticsofEmotion,p.108.257NicolasRapold,“ToughTerraintoDocument:SouthAfrica”,NewYorkTimes,3September2009,http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/movies/06rapo.html?_r=0[Accessed8May2013].
184
mentionsthattherewasnooutcryabouthisracewhenhemadeShirleyAdams,asthe
filmhasBlackmainprotagonists.258 Theinsinuationisthatthereisfinitemeaningto
the‘RainbowNation’andwhatiscomfortabletodounderthisparticipatoryguise.It
references an inversion from apartheid to post-apartheid, that although a Black
director is permitted tomake films aboutwhite lives, the outcry about his position
(andrace)alsosuggestsotherwise.
Thefirstpartofanalysis in thischapterexploreswhetherandhowDavidand
Francoisareconstructedtobeshamefulorashamedcharactersintherespectivefilms
DisgraceandSkoonheid.
258OliverHermanusinterviewwithSBS,12June2012,http://www.sbs.com.au/films/video/2244869603/Beauty-Oliver-Hermanus[Accessed1May2013].InterviewwithOliverHermanusbyDylanValleyforAfricaisaCountry.http://africasacountry.com/2011/08/05/interview-with-film-director-oliver-hermanus/[Accessed1May2013].
185
GuiltandShameinDisgraceandSkoonheid
Disgrace
MyanalysisofDisgrace juxtaposes thesexualencountersofDavid, itscentral
figure,withtherapeofhisdaughter later inthefilm. Myinteresthereis intheway
the filmingof the sexualact constructsandanalyses thecomplicated relationshipof
race and power. Disgrace opens with a sex scene between David Lurie (John
Malkovich) and a prostitute named Sorayawho he sees on aweekly basis. It is an
opening that emphasises David’s loneliness because she knows things about his life
but he knows nothing of hers. The end of that scene also indicates howmuch he
enjoys theirweekly sessions. David’s sexual encounters in the film arewhere he is
abletopursuehisprowess.SorayaexitsthenarrativeofthefilmaftersheseesDavid
leavearedboxonacounteralongwithher fee for theafternoon’srendezvous. He
soon turns his attention to a student named Melanie who attends his Cape Town
UniversityclassonRomanticPoetry.
LuriemeetsMelanieoncampusaftershetripsandfallsassheisgoingupafew
stairs.Thecamerafollowsherfrombehind,showingherbouncyhairinaponytailand
shortblackskirtbeforeshestumblesoverherself. Luriepausestowatchhergetup
andafterashortexchange inviteshertohishouseforadrink. Inachildlikefashion
Melanie indicates that she needs to be home by 7.30pm. A strained relationship
developsbetweenMelanieandDavid inwhich theyhave sexon twooccasions. On
bothoccasionsMelanie looks dejected anduninterested in the act, something Lurie
shouldhaveknownbasedonherhalf-heartedagreementstoseehimatall.Thefirst
time they see each other again after the drinks at his house is at an upmarket
186
restaurantwithlargewindowsthroughwhichdinerscanwatchtheebbandflowofthe
waves. On this particular day the large waves and grey clouds contribute to the
alreadyblusteryday. ThewavesseemtomirrorMelanie’smoodasshepicksat the
uneaten foodonherplace. WhenLurieasksherwhether she isworriedabout the
twoofthem,sheanswersadejected,“Maybe”,withoutraisingherhead.
A dramatic opera song takes over on the soundtrack after Lurie assures
Melaniethathewillnotletitgotoofar.Knowingthatheisherlecturer,bothMelanie
andDavidareawareof theunequalpowerrelationsbetweenthem,which leadtoa
veryearlysenseofdiseasearoundhimfromveryearlyon.Theoperamusicprovides
the fadeoutofonesceneand into thenext,whichopenswithaclose-upshot from
onesideofawindowlookingoutwards.Intheframeareaclosedblackgardengate,
an indication that either someone is coming or that, because the gate is closed,
someoneisalreadyhome.Asthecameratiltsdownwardsandafterafewmomentsof
completedarkness,itisrevealedthatitisMelanieandDavidwhoareinsidehishouse.
Asthoughreferencingtheclosed-infeelingconveyedbythegatemomentsbefore,a
tilt shot shows Lurie heaving on top ofMelanie. The only diegetic sound is Lurie’s
monotonemoaningthataccompanieshisthrusting.Melanie,eyesclosed,facesaway
fromLurie. Herarmsare raisedaboveherheadas thoughanemphasisofhowshe
doesnottouchhim.HerdistancingherselffromLurieinthiswayisalsoareminderof
theopening sequence inwhich the cameradoesa similar close-up surveyof Soraya
andLurie’sbodies. Inthatscene,Soraya’sdarkskinclutchingontoDavid’sfleshwas
emphasised inwhatwe imaginemustbe feignedenjoyment. In contrast,Melanie’s
lackoftouchconveysthatshedoesnotevenpretendtoenjoysexwiththisman.
187
DavidbecomesmoredemandingofMelanie,asseeninafewinstanceswhich
he coerces her into being around him and one in which he comes to her home
uninvited and violently cajoles her into sex. The camera captures Melanie’s
apartmentblockandLurie’scar inawide-angleshotwhilethesexscenetakesplace
inside.Thequietstreetandapartmentblockexpressesthatthereisnowaytoknow
someone’s distress in such a situation. It aids a feeling of disgust for Lurie,who is
clearly unwanted. Themusic on the soundtrack is upbeat and warm and in direct
contrasttowhatunfoldswhenMelanieopensthedoor,shockedtoseeLurieandwith
herhandseitherawayfromLurie,soasnottotouchhim,ortryingtopushhimoffher
ashepressesher against thewall ofherentranceway. Herprotestsdonothelpas
soonafterwardstheyoungwomanisnaked,standinginfrontofLuriewhoisalready
(presumably, fromhisbare chest) naked inbed. In this second instanceofMelanie
andLuriesleepingtogetherwedonotseetheactualactbut,shotfrombehindLurie’s
back,weseethesceneabouttounfold.LuriewatchesasthenakedMelaniegetsinto
bed, while the camera holds a nakedMelanie in a medium shot as she dejectedly
contemplatesLurie’senthusiasticpresenceinherbed.Herfaceexpressesdisdainand
unhappiness,sheisnotsmiling,shedoesnotevenlookatLurie.Afewmomentspass
withthecameraholdingherinthisframeandthen,asthoughinresignation,shesits
downonthebedandisagainheldinamediumshotforafewseconds.Sheappears
tobeweighingupherchoicesbutintheendresignsherselfandthesceneendsasshe
liftstheblankettojoinLurie.WeareremindedofthesetwosexsceneswithMelanie
when later in the film David’s daughter Lucy calls him ‘a man’. After having been
rapedherself,Lucyimpliesthatherfather,as‘aman’mustknowwhatitisliketotake
sex (i.e. to rape). Lurie’s own words about his sexual acts with Melanie haunt
188
throughout the film when he describes them as “not rape, not quite that…but
undesirednevertheless”.
Although Lurie admitsMelanie’s lackof desire he is never quite degraded to
rapiststatusandhispredationisnotpresentedasthesameasthethreeyoungBlack
menwho rape Lucy. Thus,we are not positioned to see the two acts as the same
thing. Further, although Melanie’s facial expression, lacklustre body language and
general lack of interestmake her feelings about Lurie explicit, the film still sets up
Lucy’s rapeas indisputable rapeanddifferent to the sexualharassment that Lurie is
charged with by the University. This analysis is not intended to pit the two rapes
againsteachotherbutrathertopointoutthewaysinwhichLurieisconstructedasa
white man and to, for now, tangentially point to how the young men rapists are
constructed. Lurie’s interiority isaconsistentexploration inDisgraceandhisshame,
which appears in glimpses and for fleetingmoments indicates an acknowledgement
thathe,likewhitesduringapartheid,usedthehierarchytoabusepowerandaccessof
allkinds.
ThesexsceneswithMelaniealsoemphasisethatDavidisabletoasserthimself
inthiswayinsexualpursuitsinlightofthefactthathehaslostpowerinotherspheres
of his life. For example, his students ignore him and show him little respect, he is
divorced,hisdaughterisalesbian,afactthathespeaksofwithdisdainintheopening
scenewithSoraya.However,eventhoughthisparallelbetweenDavidandtherapists
is intimated, the consistent construction of his character in the film repels such an
idea, placing Lurie’s sexual pursuits as somehow above or incapable of rape. More
thanthis,thefilmcommentsthatLurieisstillbetterthantheBlackmen.
189
DrawingonSarahProjansky’sscholarshipaboutrapeandrepresentationinfilm
and television, rape narratives can broadly include “representations of rape,
attempted rape, threatsof rape, implied rape,andsometimescoercivesexuality”.259
Projansky emphasises that it is important to “acknowledge commonalities among
various formsof sexual violence againstwomen in general”.260 In otherwords, this
analysis considers David’s acts with Melanie as rape because of the unequal
relationshipbetweenthetwo.InDisgrace,sexbetweenLurieandSorayaandMelanie
is shown; theviewer is invited towitnessDavid’s supremacy in that spacewherehe
doesnothavetobeashamedof the lossofpowersodesperatelyexhibited inother
spheresofhislife.ThisisincontrasttoLucy’srape,whichisanabsentpresenceinthe
film.
For all Lurie’s downfalls the one thing he has left is Lucy and his inability to
protecther inhermomentofneed furtherconfirmshis shame-fillednature. Bewes
writesaboutshameinthenovelDisgrace:
…shameisbydefinitionunnameable,uninstantiable.Toinvokeitasaprincipleof one’s action, as informing an ethics, would be to turn it too into anabstraction,toremoveitscorporealquality,tomakeitfungible.Forthesamereason,DavidthroughoutDisgracerefusestoapologiseorexpressanyremorseover his affair with the student; but this intransigence, this shamelessness,speaksnotofhislackofshame,butofitsfullness,itsopacity.261
There is also a disjuncture in David’s emotions becausewhile on the one hand the
overwhelmingcharacterisationisofadisgracedmiddle-agedwhiteman,ontheother,
there is theoverwhelming issueofguilt thatDavidalsoembodies. Viceprovidesan
259SarahProjanksy,WatchingRape:FilmandTelevisioninPostfeministCulture,(NewYorkandLondon:NewYorkUniversityPress,2001,)p.18.260Ibid.261Bewes,PostcolonialShame,p.163.
190
apt description of the relationship between guilt and shame as it pertains towhite
SouthAfricans,adefinitionthatisusefuldespiteherproblematicargument:
…shamediffers fromguilt inbeingessentiallydirectedtowardtheself, ratherthan outwards toward a harm one brought about. Shame is a response tohavingfallenbelowthestandardsonesetsforoneself,whethermoralornot.One’s very self is implicated in a way that need not be the case with guilt,whichisareactiontowhatonehasdone,notprimarilytowhooneis.262
DavidLurieisashamedofhisactsbutshowslittleremorseandthuslittleability
to realisehisguilt. This isparticularly clear in the trial-like scene reminiscentof the
TRC,inwhichadisciplinarycommitteeattheUniversitystrugglewithLurie’s inability
toshowremorseeventhoughheadmitsguilt.Lurie’svehemenceaboutanadmission
ofguiltversustheexhibitionofremorsebringsupquestionsaroundhowtheTRCdealt
withthesepreciseconflictingconcerns.AmajorcornerstoneoftheTRC’sforgiveness
was based on perpetrators being able to somehow perform remorse as a way of
showingregretfortheiracts.Lurierefusestodothis.
Acameratiltsdownwardsfromtheceilingexposesthescenebelow:anofficial-
lookingsettingwithalongtableforthemembersofthecommitteeandasingleseat
for the offender, Lurie. A wide-angle bird’s eye view shows that the committee is
comprisedofsevenpeople. Thesoundofadooropening indicatesDavid’spresence
beforeheentersonscreen.Thecouncillorssitwiththeirbackstothreelargewindows
throughwhichlightsurroundsthem,portrayingtheminasaint-likefashion.Theimage
recallsabiblicalreferenceinthedepictionofJesusandhisdisciplesattheLastSupper.
The image also however recalls another depiction,which is of ArchbishopDesmond
Tutu(headoftheTRC)surroundedbycommissionerswhowaitedtoheartestimonies
attheTRChearings.Becauseofthenovel’sreleasein1999,andcriticalscholarshipand
262Vice,“HowDoILiveinThisStrangePlace?”,p.328.
191
commentary about it, thenovel (and thus the film) is considered a critiqueof post-
apartheidSouthAfrica.263InemployingacharacterlikeDavidinthisTRC-likesetupin
thisscene,itisnotentirelyclearwhetherheisthevictimortheperpetratorbecause
whenthecommitteeaskforhisrenditionofthestory,herefusesit.InTRC-parlance,
‘fulldisclosure’wastheonlywaytoreceiveamnesty.
TheheadcouncillorspeaksfirstandasksDavidwhetherhethinksanyoneinthe
committeewouldbeprejudicialtowardshim.WhenDavidrepliesthecamerafocuses
onhiminamediumwide-angleshot,amoveawayfromtheobjectivevantagepoint
thatthescenestartedwith.Thisshotemphasisesthatthehearingisinsessionanditis
followedbyashot-reverse-shotpatternbetweenDavid,who isseatedwithhisarms
and legs crossed, and the councillors. Despite David Lurie being on trial, the shots
movebetweenthecouncillorsandLurie,whichposestheviewerwithachallengeto
affix subjectivity with one side’s point of view. However, for shortmoments in the
scene,thecameracapturesbothDavidandthecouncillorsfromtheside, inthisway
extracting the viewer from the face-to-face shot-reverse-shot pattern. This too is
reminiscentoftheTRCbecauseitwasbasedontheprincipleofrestorativejustice;the
intentionwasthusnottoassignblamebutratherforamnestyand‘ubuntu’toguide
the path to forgiveness. However, unlike the perpetrators of the TRC, who were
meanttoacknowledgeguiltandshowremorsefortheiractions,Davidadmitsguiltbut
cannotadmitregretforwhathehasdone.Instead,hechoosestodescribehimselfas
a victim of Eros, the Greek God of love, distancing himself from his actions and
263AmongmanyperspectivesaboutDisgracethenovel,thefollowinghavebeeninsightful:CaitlinCharos,“StatesofShame:SouthAfricanWritingafterApartheid”,Safundi:TheJournalofSouthAfricanandAmericanStudies10:3(July2009),pp.273–304.,SarahBezan,“ShameasaStructureofFeeling:RapeandProstitutedWomeninJ.M.Coetzee’s‘Disgrace’andFuthiNtshingila’s‘Shameless’”,TheJournaloftheAfricanLiteratureAssociation7:1(2012),pp.15–24.,RitaBarnard,“J.M.Coetzee’s‘Disgrace’andtheSouthAfricanPastoral”,ContemporaryLiterature44:2(Summer2003),pp.199–224.
192
abdicating responsibility. This is also reminiscent of the TRC, as many perpetrators
coupledapologieswithexcuses.
Astheintensityoftheinquestrises,thecamerazoomsintomediumclose-ups
of specific councillors, eventually leading toanexasperatedwomancouncillor losing
patiencewith Luriewhenhe points out that there is a difference betweenpleading
guiltyandadmittingyouwerewrong.Thepointofviewandsubjective responsesof
each of the councillors towards David Lurie’s actions is expressed through the
individualattentionthecamerapaysbyzoominginforclose-upsoftheirfaces,away
of showing each one’s intricate investment in truth-finding. David is pushed even
furtherbyoneofthecouncillorswhoasksifthestatementreflectshissincerefeelings.
ThesceneendsabruptlywithDavid’sexclamation“that’senough”.Thescene’sabrupt
endisemphasisedwithDavidracingdownaflightofstairs.Thecamera’sfocusonhis
feetastheyhastilydrumthestairsaccentuatesthedramaticexitevenmore.Despite
David’spositionasaperpetratorofsorts,heisnottrulyplacedintheTRCperpetrator
position. Because of his refusal to accept shame, he is unable to convince the
committee that he should be accepted back in his role purely on an admission of
wrongdoing. Consequently, David is not granted proverbial amnesty and so the
outcome implies that there is really no place for someone like this within this
microcosmof‘TheRainbow’nation.
The inquest and the end of the scene emphasises a number of issues that
challenge truth-finding. The first observation is that David performs a role for the
committee.Whileheisashamedatthefactthathemustappearbeforeadisciplinary
committee,heisinfactnotashamedofwhathedidwithortoMelanie.Thisisevident
inthathedoesnotreadMelanie’sreportagainsthim,hedistanceshimself fromfull
193
responsibility for his actions, andhemakes scoffing remarks and smiles sardonically
throughoutthehearing.Lurie’sbody languagedoesnotchange,asheremains inhis
cagedcrossed-limbposition–asignalofhisconsistentdiscomfortwiththesituation.
Nor ishecapturedinvariedshotsasthecouncillorsare,an indicationthatwhilethe
viewerisneveremphaticallypromptedtochooseaside,theconsistentmediumshots
whichshowhisclosed-offbodylanguage,morestronglyservesjudgementandopinion
ofDavid than itdoesof thecommitteeandofMelanie, theclear victim. The scene
alsoinvitesaquestionaroundhoweasyLuriethoughtitwouldbetogetthroughthis.
In his position as a white man he would in a previous era have gotten away with
anything.Now,sittinginfrontofacommittee,heisjudgedbyaselectionofUniversity
staff,themselvesareflectionofthe‘RainbowNation’.
The difficulty of the event finally spells out that theUniversity, like theNew
SouthAfrica,hasnotgotroomfortheoldDavid. Thecommitteewanthimtograsp
theextentofhisactandtheneedforextensiverecalibrationofhiswhitemasculinity.
Through pressing him as they do, they point out an inadequacy of post-apartheid’s
TRC,thatacknowledgementofguiltisnotenough.Ahmednotestherelationbetween
shameandprideinthecontextofnation-building:
Nationalshamecanbeamechanismforreconciliationasself-reconciliation,inwhich the ‘wrong’ that is committed provides the grounds for claiming anational identity, for restoring a pride that is threatened in the moment ofrecognition,andthen,regainedinthecapacitytobearwitness.264
TheexamplesraisedinthissectionshowLurie’sdesperatedesiretobelongin
an old way of being that the ‘Rainbow Nation’ does not accommodate. The trial
analysed above further drives home the idea that David’s guilt and shame are not
264Ahmed,TheCulturalPoliticsofEmotion,p.109.
194
easily managed or articulated emotions. David’s sexuality was his last remaining
markerofhisownpowerandwhitemasculinity.
Skoonheid
Skoonheid’s main protagonist Francois van Heerden (Deon Lotz) leads a
relatively dull life while engaging in sporadic breakaway sexual episodeswith other
Afrikaner men. Skoonheid opens on a warm and celebratory scene of a wedding
reception. The diegetic sounds of awell-dressed crowd chatting and greeting each
otherareaudibleonthesoundtrackasthecamerapanstheroomfromrightto left.
The camera settles on a bride and groomwho stand at the doorway greeting their
guests.Weviewthehappeningsfromanasyetunknownpointofviewasthecamera
then exits the room and settles on two bridesmaids and a youngman chatting and
laughingjustoutsidetheentrance.Thesoundofthewedding-goershasbeenoverlaid
byslowpianomusic.Thecamerazoomsintoamediumclose-upoftheyoungpeople
chatting. Hermanus discusses the camera choices made for the opening scene of
Skoonheidas“Hitchcock,usingazoomandapanatthesametime”.265Aftertwogirls
leavetheframeandayoungmanlooksaroundalittlehelplessly,thecameracutsto
the first image of the main protagonist, a close-up of Francois van Heerden, the
character whose point of view we have been privy to from the opening shot.
Moments later,Francoisandtheyoungman, identifiedasChristian(CharlieKeegan),
areinamediumclose-upinthesameframeafterChristiangreetstheoldermanwith,
“Congratulations,UncleFrancois”,atermwhichisoftenusedasasignofrespecteven
whenthepersonisnotfamily.TheeventisFrancois’daughter’swedding.
265OliverHermanusinterviewwithSBS,12June2012,http://www.sbs.com.au/films/video/2244869603/Beauty-Oliver-Hermanus[Accessed1May2013].
195
Francoisisoftenframedinclose-upsorinmediumshotsevenwhentheaction
of the scene is not necessarily intense. Such shot choices reveal a persistent, often
unspokenintensityinthemainprotagonist.Close-upsrevealthewrinklesonhisface
andconstantlyputthevieweroff-guardthroughbuildingasenseoffamiliaritywithhis
coldstare,whichissuggestiveofsomethingsinisterabouthimthatcomesoffasstern
andalways incontrol. FurthercharacterisationofFrancoisentails informationabout
his successful timber company, his comfortable home, filled with various fleeting
depictions and encounters with him and his wife, who he seems estranged from.
These traits about the protagonist come to present him primarily as a loner, an
impressionoften further assistedby various scenes inwhichwe seeandexperience
Francois carrying out everyday tasks in confined spaces or alone. He is often in his
bakkie, forexample. In another scene, awideangle shotexposesa ratherdesolate
settinginwhichFrancoiscleansthefamilypool.Thepoolitselfisspotlessandinviting
butthereisnobodyelsethere.Itisasthoughheissimplygoingaboutthemundane
chores knowing that he is not cleaning the pool for anyone in particular. Such
momentsofconfinementandlonelinessalsoreflectFrancois’mentalstateofasense
ofbeingalonewithhimselfandsomewhatabandonedandforgotten,asthoughheno
longermatters.
The film is largely set in the historically conservative Afrikaner city of
Bloemfontein in the Free State of South Africa. This is an interesting choice and
context,particularlybecausemanypost-apartheidfilmsaresetinwhathavebecome
knownascosmopolitanurbancentreslikeJohannesburgorCapeTown.Althoughpart
ofSkoonheidtakesplaceincosmopolitanCapeTown,thefilmcommentsonhowitis
notonlygeographicalplacethat reflectsdatedvaluesbut thatFrancois ishimselfan
unassailablephysicalpresenceandaconstantreminderofthepast.Otherimportant
196
references to the film’s construction of Afrikaner culture are shown in the use of
stereotypicalcharacterisations,seenforexample,inFrancois’clothing–thetraditional
khakishortsandshirtandtheconsistentuseofAfrikaansthroughoutthefilmexceptin
dialoguewithChristian.Francois’bakkieisanotherAfrikanertraitwhichcharacterises
himinaparticularpatriarchalway.Duringapartheid,suchAfrikanermenwerecalled
‘boers’, a reference to theirAfrikaanswhiteness,which set these seemingly harsher
andmoreracistwhitesapartfromthosewhospokeEnglish. Thechoicetocreatea
filmabout the formerapartheidperpetratorswasabraveundertaking,andsomeof
thereasonsforthishavealreadybeenpointedto.
Fundamentally,thisfilmemployscertainstereotypesaboutbeinganAfrikaner
manandplacessuchtraitsinacontroversialdialoguewithquestionsabouthowthose
whowere previously at the top of the hierarchy of power in South Africa are now
almostwithout aplace in the ‘RainbowNation’. Skoonheid points out that in some
ways men like Francois remain perpetrators despite the TRC and its rhetoric of
forgiveness.AsawayofdevelopingsomeofmyargumentaroundFrancois’confused
identityandhowheembodies theshameandguiltof theapartheidpast Ianalysea
scenewhichexposesasecretelementofthemainprotagonist’slife.
Afterbuyingapacketofcigarettesatatruckstop,vanHeerdenwalkstowards
his Isuzu bakkie. The clock blinks 12:59 and the camera focuses on it until the time
changesto13:00,whenFrancoisstartstheignition.Apoint-of-viewshotshowsalong
open stretch of road ahead and looming clouds above. The cuts between van
Heerden’s point of view of the road and amedium close-up of him signify that he
travelsquiteadistancebeforehereacheshisdestination. Themise-en-scèneof the
destination is a desolate farm with a small farm house and another bakkie in the
197
frame.AtrackingshotindicatesthatFrancoishasenteredthehouseandfollowsthe
soundofmale voices in conversation. He arrives in a kitchen filledwithothermen
whostandaround idlymaking small talk. Francois iswelcomed to theparty,where
everyone already has a beer in hand. Most of the men are dressed similarly in
Afrikanergarb–khakishirtswithmatchingshortsorlongpants.Thismysteriousscene
beginstosetupsomethingthatisstillunknowntous.
Henry,thehost,proceedstomakeintroductions.AyoungermannamedBrian
stealsashylookatFrancoisfromacrosstheroomwhileHenrykeepsupthechatterby
checkinginwiththeothersaboutemailasamodeofcommunication.Thisisaclear
indication that this group has met before and that they communicate among each
other.Afinalman,Gideonenterstheroom.Heisalargeman,wholookssimilarto
theothermenwhoarealready there. As thoughstickingoutasanappendage, isa
smaller, youngmanwho is notwhite. He is short, dark, has curly hair andwears a
body-hugging blue t-shirt. On seeing the faces of the men in the kitchen, Gideon
quicklyinstructstheyoungmantowaitinthecar.Themoodintheroomhasclearly
shiftedasthehostimmediatelyattacksGideonwiththerulesthathehasalreadybeen
told: “Geen moffies en geen kleurlinge” (No faggots and no coloureds). The
boundariesof the groupare ironically clear andemphasise thatonlywhitemenare
part of this group. Gideon’s decision to bring an ‘other’ into the group disrupts
somethingthattheyallseektoprotect. Inadditiontothejudgementofthe‘moffie’
character, a religious cross conspicuously hangs against the kitchen wall. The
unimposingpresenceof thecrosscomplicates the latentconservatismof themen in
thekitchen,andactsasa reminderof thecomplex relationsbetweenapartheidand
AfrikanerdomandtheProtestantChristianvaluesthatendorsedthatera. Thecross,
like the homosexual colouredman, forms part of themise-en-scène to again subtly
198
reference the unspoken shifts between then (apartheid) and now (post-apartheid).
The cross also implies something similar to the relation between the church and
witnessinZuluLoveLetter,commentingonhowthereligion(andGod)offersnosolace
(anymore). With the TRC’s religious overtones through the rhetoric of forgiveness,
theseChristian symbols in both filmsoffer subtle comments on the inadequacies of
theTRCmodel.
Aftertheawkwardkitchenscenethecameracutstoawide-angleshotofpart
of the farm. Present in the frameare anouthouse, some shrubs andbushes anda
lonely dogmilling about. This shot is held for a fewmoments, inviting a reflective
pause after the previous mysterious scene. The opening shot of the next scene is
jarring:ahighanglemediumshotofBrian’sheadbobbingupanddownwithFrancois’
hands on either side of the bed clutching the bedding. Francois’ wedding band is
vaguelyidentifiableashislefthandisinthedark.Achangeincameraangleshowsthe
backofFrancois’head;visibleinthesameframeispornographyonthetelevision.The
camera then shows a side angle of Francois and Brian, who is still on his knees.
Becausetheroomisdarkweseetheirsilhouettes,asuggestionoftheunrealelement
ofwhatwewitness.Withthisopeningwearenowawareofwhatthegatheringsare
for,andthereasonsfortheawkwardinteractioninthekitchenbecomesclear.
BrianraiseshisheadexpectantlyafterFrancoisgivesthesignalthatheisnow
readyforpenetrativesex.Thecamerafocusescloselyonthepairinamediumshotas
BrianpositionshimselfinfrontofFrancois.AfterhavingestablishedBrianandFrancois
as ready, thecamerathen jumpstoanotherpairofmenonabedoppositeFrancois
andBrian. Anotherparticipantpassesthecamera,anindicationthattherearemore
participants.Thecameralingersonthesecondpairintheactofpenetrativesexfora
199
numberofmomentsasanoverweightmanliterallybangsawayathispartner. Their
fullbodiesareondisplay. Thecameraconcentrateson theorgy, conveyinga sense
that time has slowed down as the shots are held for long periods. The camera’s
lingeringshotsinthissceneofferaprovocation.Insteadofthinkingofthefilmunder
itsexplicittitle‘Beauty’,asastatement,itisasthoughaquestionmarkshouldfollow,
sothatitinsteadreads,‘Beauty’?
Because there is no dialogue in the scene, we can only make certain
assumptions based onwhat is present in the space. The sounds convey a sense of
enjoymentbut,aswiththeearlierawkwarddiscussion in thekitchen, there isalsoa
senseofsomethingthat isunarticulatedpresent inthisscenetoo. Thesex isalmost
violent, as the variety of camera shots and angles emphasise the sounds of skin
slammingagainst skinand thepale, loose fleshymasculinebodies. Themendonot
lookateachother’sfaces,noristheremuchfocusontheirfacialexpressions.Itisas
though theymightbe repulsedby themselves if they acknowledged thehomoerotic
natureof theiractions. The focus ison fullbody images,anexhibitionof theactof
‘fucking’,seeminglyenjoyableandpunitiveatthesametime.Becausethetwoscenes
work together, the first setsupmasculinearchetypesofapartheidwhoare, through
this special club, able to recreate the fixed conditions of belonging as in apartheid.
Significantly, thesemen were not out of place like the anti-apartheid characters of
ChapterTwo.
However, the orgy scene destabilises the apartheid boundaries and fixed
identitiessetupinthepreviousscene.Firstly,themenarenakedintheorgyscene,an
attestationtotheirphysicalandpsychologicalvulnerabilities.Secondly,becausethey
arepresentedasfamilymen(morethanonewearsaweddingband),thesceneposes
200
questions around why heterosexual men would want to have homosexual sex. A
potentialanswercomesinamuchlaterarticulationbyFrancoistoChristianwhen,ina
drunken reflectionon Francois’ past, he reflects onhaving lacked choicebecauseof
“family commitments”. In that scene Francois expresses a sense of resentment
towardsthepast,inwhichhehadtosubmittobeinganAfrikanerpatriarchindistinct
ways.Manyofthosewaysmeantthathecouldnotfulfilhisowndreamssuchas,for
example, becoming a pilot. However,what hewas guaranteed in that contextwas
respect,powerandadefinedidentity.
Intheactionsofthisscene,weseeeachofthesemenembodyandemploya
mutuallydesiredpowerthatdissipatedforthemwiththeendofapartheid.However
twisted,theyareabletorecreatesomeofthatfeelingofpowerandownershipover
anotherbody intheirorgies. Thirdly,whatever isdestabilisedand inarticulateabout
their post-apartheid identities, can once again be experienced as fixed through the
sexualactsinwhicheachcanexhibitpowerandsee‘sameness’throughcontrol.While
there,noneofthemneedtothinkabouthowtobeoutside. Partoftheclandestine
activityof theirmeetings is thehomogeneousappealof those in theclubandwhen
Gideon brings in an outsider, he invites in the reality (and intrusion) of ‘Rainbow
Nation’ inclusion. This ispreciselywhattheydonotwantattheirgatherings. When
Francois loses his temper with Gideon, he conveys a sentiment about a desire to
protect what they have. The disagreement exposes Francois’ and the group’s
homophobiaandracism,and impliesafewthingsaboutthemen inthekitchen:this
club,likeapartheid,isforwhitesonly.Althoughontheoutsidetheyneedtosomehow
existinthenewSouthAfrica,inhere,theyarenotbeholdentothesamereality.
201
Gideon’sdesiresarequitedifferentbecause,asHenrypointsout, it isnotthe
first timethathehasbroughtanunwelcomeguest,which indicates that forGideon,
theactofhomosexualsexisnotaboutpowerorself-assertionbutaboutenjoyment;it
impliesthatGideonmayjustbeaclosetgaymanofaparticularageandculturewho
never had the opportunity to comeout under the constraints of being anAfrikaner
man. The choice to include this ‘other’ portrayed through Gideon emphasises the
presenceof (andability to identify)differentdesiresbetweentheonecharacterand
the other men in the room. Although they too experience pleasure in the
arrangement, the emphasis of their pleasure is not, the film suggests, necessarily in
theactof thephysicaldesire forhomosexual sexbut rather theattractionand thus
desireisforpowerand‘sameness’seenineachother.
[Figure4.1]Wide-angleshotofyardbeforeorgyscene
202
[Figure4.2]Afterorgysceneshot1 [Figure4.3]Afterorgysceneshot2
Thegroupdynamicoftheinarticulatenatureofpost-apartheidwhitemasculine
identitiesasshowninthisscene,isneverrevisitedinquitethesamewayagaininthe
film.Weonlyexperiencethefurthercomplexitiesofsuchcharactersthroughthemain
protagonist.Theendoftheorgyisalsotelling,inthataftertheslowpanandemphatic
momentsofpauseinthatscene,wearenotshownanyofthosecharactersafterthe
act.Thescenecutsfromthemen,stillinaction,totwosimilarwide-angleshotstothe
onethatprecededthesexscene. Thesameyardisstilleerilyquiet,asthoughthese
quiet images thatbookendthesceneallowamoment to take inwhathas justbeen
witnessed.Thequietnessanddesolationoftheshotaftertheorgyalsosuggestshow
possible it isforthistoremainasecretbecausethere isquitesimply,nothingtosee
fromoutside. Francois’sshortwalkbacktohis ‘bakkie’aftertheorgyalsohighlights
something elsewhen he rinses out hismouth and spits onto the ground. Francois
wishestowashhimselfofwhatjustoccurred,likeavictimaftertheactofrape.This
dissociationwiththeact thathe justwillinglyparticipated inaddstothereasons for
the group as one in which unspoken and undisclosed matters can be acted on in
unconventionalways. ThisdissociativeactonFrancois’partalsoshowsthatthere is
nothingsentimentalaboutwhathasjusthappened.Followedbyhisre-entryintothe
confines of his ‘bakkie’, it is as though Francois re-enters a closeted and repressed
203
spaceafterhavingexperiencedsomethingthathedidnotquitedislikebutsomething
thathedidnotquitelikeeither.
Similarly to David, then, when he speaks of sex with Melanie as “not quite
rape”,IconsiderbothFrancoisandDavidascharactersunabletoexpressthemselves
and their new identities because they do not really know what they are. In both
instances, sex is a vehicle of release, some enjoyment and perverted phallic
(patriarchal) freedom. Iperceivethattheactofsexhasvery littletodowithsimple
enjoyment, and comes to represent somethingmuchmore layered and complex. In
thatwhitemenareoftendeniedvoice,space,andarticulationbeyondguiltinthenew
SouthAfrica,thissceneoffersaglimpseintotheclandestinespacesofrepressionand
theinabilitytocometotermswiththepresent.Whereasthepreviouschapter’sfilms
triedtoshowthecomingtotermswiththeapartheidpast,thesefilmsemphasisethe
present from a point of view (white, masculine, middle-aged) that shows us the
challengesofcharactersrepresentativeofaresidualstructureoffeeling.Thesceneis
difficult to watch because it is uncomfortable and unexplained. While the film
emphasises and, to a degree, legitimises new possibilities for young post-apartheid
white characters, it reiterates the cloying impossibilities for the middle aged white
meninthisscene.
The difference between the different sex scenes that have been analysed in
thissectionarethatDavidhassexwithcolouredwomenwhileFrancoishassexwith
otherwhitemen. Francois’ secretmen’sgroup is riddledwith shameful silence ina
waythatbothinvokesanddistancesitselffromthe“preferredsilence”thatBaderoon
proposesinrelationtoSilatheslave.Baderoon’stermdoesnotapplytowhitemen,
however, there isaprovocation inaconsiderationofwhat“preferredsilence”could
204
mean for the perpetrator – in other words, the preferred silence of the coloniser
throughracialandsexualmelancholia.GillianStraker’sterm,‘promiscuousshame’,is
relevant when she avers that such a post-apartheid condition permits white South
Africanstodisplayshamecollectivelyevenwhentheyarenotsureofwhatthatmeans,
orwhetheritmeansanythingatall.266Inotherwords,thesexanditssecretiveplace
ineachoftheirlivesisreadasametaphorforreality–intheoutsideworldtheyare
one version of themselves which is neat, polite, patriarchal and unquestioningly
heterosexual. The orgy scene disrupts that to show us the extent of unnameable
feelings of ‘promiscuous shame’ and the dangerous tipping points of post-apartheid
whitemasculinerepression.
266Straker,“UnsettlingWhiteness”,p.14.
205
RapeinDisgraceandSkoonheid
ThefirstsectionofthischaptersetsupthetwomainprotagonistsinDisgrace
andSkoonheidbymakinganargumentthattheyembodyshameandalossofpower
emblematicofmiddleagedwhitemeninpost-apartheidSouthAfrica.
Thesecondpartofthischapterfocusesspecificallyontherapescenesineach
filminordertoexplorequestionssuchas:isitpossibletoarguethatthefilmsuserape
asametaphorforquestionsaroundpoweranddefeat?Whatmightbegarneredfrom
making a link between middle-aged white masculinity, guilt in post-apartheid and
rape?Thesequestionsdonotonlyinterrogatewhiteguiltbutalsotherepresentations
ofwhitefearofviolencebyandfrom(Black)intrudersandtheinabilitytotrulyaccept
defeat.
Sorcha Gunnewrites about representing rape in post-apartheid literature in a
waythatisfittingtothischapter:
Framed by a political context claiming ‘to reveal is to heal’, what emerges inpost-apartheid writing is a preoccupation with the hierarchical dynamics thatshape discourses of power and the complexities inherent in speaking abouttrauma. As such, interrogating sexual violence is fundamental to the fabric ofnegotiating thepast as it exemplifies themomentwhere thedominatingbodyattemptstowriteitselfontothebodyofthedominated.267
Gunne’s argument for sexual violence as part of a negotiation of the past in post-
apartheidisevidencedinSkoonheidandDisgrace.BothFrancoisandDavidattemptto
inscribe their own bodies onto the bodies that they dominate in sex. At the same
time,theyperformsomethingmorecomplextoproperly identify,and insomeways,
267SorchaGunne,“QuestioningTruthandReconciliation:WritingRapeinAchmatDangor’sBitterFruitandKagisoLesegoMolope’sDancingintheDust”inSorchaGunneandZoeBrigleyThompson(eds.),Feminism,LiteratureandRapeNarratives:ViolenceandViolation(NewYorkandLondon:Routledge,2010),p.165.
206
wordsfail,becauseboththesecharactersalsotryto,throughrape,unsuccessfully,re-
embody theirpreviouslypowerfulpositions. Through rape theyareable toperform
power that theycannotperform in theoutsideworld. Bothof thesemenalso rape
youngercharacterswhoaremoredecisivelypartofthenewSouthAfrica.
Theyoungercharactersdonotstrugglewiththesamedemonsasthemiddle-
agedmen.Theactofpoweristhuspowerovertheyoungcharactersaswellaspower
fortheoldmen.Mostofthescholarshipaboutrepresentationsofrapeisnotofdirect
relevancetothischapter. Forexample,althoughpost-feministscholarshiphasmade
significantstridesindiscussionsaboutrapeontelevisionandinfilm,thisbodyofwork
hasalsoemphaticallylocateditselfprimarilyinwesternfilmdiscourses.268Whilesome
work from postfeminism has been useful, other work has perpetuated more of a
decisive break than a link. According to Sarah Projansky, postfeminism is a useful
frameworkforthinkingaboutrapeandrepresentationbecausecontemporarypopular
culture“discursivelydefinesfeminism…postfeminismabsorbsandtransformsaspects
offeminisminwaysthat,atminimum,dissociatefeministconceptsfrompoliticaland
socialactivism”.269Inthecontextofpost-apartheidrepresentationsofrape,itwould
be overly simplistic to assume a post-feminist position. A more encompassing
approach is “representational intersectionality” which is a combination of different
approachessuchasthatofKimberléCrenshaw.270
268LynnA.HigginsandBrendaR.Silver(eds.),RapeandRepresentation(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1991)andTanyaHoreck,PublicRape:RepresentingViolationinFictionandFilm(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,2004).269SarahProjansky,WatchingRape:FilmandTelevisioninPostfeminstCulture(NewYorkandLondon:NewYorkUniversityPress),p.66.270KimberléCrenshaw,“MappingtheMargins:Intersectionality,IdentityPolitics,andViolenceagainstWomenofColour”,StanfordLawReview43(1991),pp.1241-99.
207
Drawing on Crenshaw’swork is a conceptual acknowledgementmore than a
basis for thinking about rape in thepost-apartheid context.271 In addition toearlier
references to slave histories of rape, Pumla Gqola’s writing on rape as power in
contemporarySouthAfricaisparticularlyenlightening.272Gqolanotestherelationship
betweenwarandrapeasborneof“…aspecificidiom,fromthecolonialarchive.Itisa
deliberate investment in using sexual violence as part of conquest…”.273 Other
scholarshipsuchasworkonrapeinartcinemahasbeenusefulbutfocusesonrapeas
a spectacle in avant-garde films rather than a filmic device that could reference a
seriesofissuesandeventsoutsideofthefilmaswellasinit.Insuchaconstruction,
rapehasbeentheorisedasapost-moderntoolinfilmorasarepresentationalissueto
addressinfilm.274
Disgrace
ThepinnacleofDisgraceisLucy’srape.Weonlyknowittakesplacebecauseof
theeventsarounditandbecauseofDavid’stortureinthatscene.Thenarrativesetup
fortherapeisDavidLurie’sdecisiontoleaveCapeTownaftertheinquest.Theshiftin
thesettingof the film, fromthecity to the farm, introducesseveralnewcharacters,
particularly Petrus, Lucy’s Black co-proprietor, the youngmale rapists and the dogs,
Lucy’scompanions.
Lucy and her father have a strange relationship inwhich she does not really
respectmuchofhowhegoesabouthis lifeandhedoesnotseemtobeparticularly
fondofher lifestylechoices,oneofthembeingherchoiceto liveonaremotefarm.
The idea that this is a dangerous choice is implicit from David’s arrival. The scene271Ibid.272PumlaGqola,Rape:aSouthAfricanNightmare(Johannesburg:JacanaMedia,2015).273Ibid.,p.48.274DominiqueRussell(ed.),RapeinArtCinema(NewYorkandLondon:Continuum,2010).
208
leadingup to the rape is relaxed. DavidandLucy take someof thedogs forawalk
throughthesurroundingfarmland.Ontheirreturntothefarmhouse,LucyandDavid
hearthebarkingofthedogsthathadbeenleftbehind.OnseeingthreeyoungBlack
menDavidglancesatLucyandasksherwhethertheyshouldbenervous.Thecamera
cutstoacloseupofoneoftheyoungmenhissingatandteasingthedogsthroughthe
cages.
As Lucy and David approach the boys, Lucy calls for Petrus and then shouts
“hamba”,whichmeans“go”or“leave”.Thedishevelledboysaredressedinbrokent-
shirtsandbootsthataretoobigforthem.TheyappearshywhenconfrontedbyLucy,
only briefly glancing up at her after she begins to ask why they are there. They
generally have their heads cast down with eyes lowered, referencing a familiar
historical interaction inwhichpower isperceivedbetweenawhite farmerandBlack
people who work on farms. Petrus is the personification of the new Black South
African in the film and on the farm, and power between him and Lucy, as well as
betweenhimandDavid,isthusdisplayedinadifferentregistertohowpowerisshown
in thescenewith theyoungmen.275 The incessantbarkingsetsuptensionbetween
LucyandDavidaswellasbetweenLucyandtheyoungmen.
Throughtheuseofshot-reverse-shotsbetweenLucyandDavidasateam,and
thethreeyoungmenasanother,thereasonfortheirpresencebecomesknown:“an
accident…ababy”,oneof themsays. Theyneed to telephone, indicatesoneof the
three. WhenLucypressesthemforwhytheyhavenotgonetoapubliconetheydo
notanswerandcontinuetheircoyact.DavidhoversprotectivelybehindLucywhilehe
275Isometimesusetheterm‘boys’inreferencetotheyoungmenbecauseofthewaythattheyareinfantilisedtothisstatus,inlinewithapartheiddescriptionsthroughnamingBlackmen‘boys’.ThisiselaboratedoninChapterFive.
209
holdsontotheleashofthegoldenretriever. Havingmadeuphermindtoletoneof
themintothehousetousethetelephone,Lucyputsthethreedogsthatshehasbeen
walking inakennelbeforestandingbackandchoosingwhatcanonlybeassumedas
theleastthreateningyoungmanto let in. Davidtriesto interjectbutLucydismisses
himandcontinues towardsherhouse. The interaction fromthe time that Lucyand
Davidarriveatthekennelsisshotinamediumlong-shotinterspersedwiththeshot-
reverse-shotswhen Lucy interrogates the three. The use of the long shot however
distancestheviewerfromtheunfoldingsceneasthoughwantingtoshift theviewer
intoawitnesspositionfromthetimeLucyandDavidarrivebackatthefarm.
WatchingfromDavid’spointofviewweseeLucyfishingthekeyfromundera
potplantandunlockingthedoor.OnceLucyandoneoftheyoungmenhaveentered
thehouse,thecamerashiftsbacktoashotofDavidnervouslywatchingtheremaining
two.TheireyesareonthedoorandassoonasLucyisinsideadrummingsoundbursts
onto the soundtrack. It matches the change in energy from the boys’ sheepish
performancemomentsbeforetothedecisiveplanandresultantactions.Inthefilmit
isunclearwhyshechosetheyoungmanthatshedoesbutinthenovel,thereaderis
giventheinformationthatshechoosesthemosthandsomeoneofthethree.AsDavid
watchestheopendoortothehouse, the fastdrumrhythmputstheothertwoboys
into actionwith one running ahead,whipping up dust as he does so and the other
momentarilysloweddownbytheonlydogwhoremainsoutside,thegoldenretriever
thatDavidwasholding. As the secondboycloses thedoorbehindhim, thecamera
zoomsinforaclose-upofhisfaceandtheshotissloweddowntoshowhisexpression,
a complex fusion of achievement and guile. Davidmanages to enter the house by
kicking inthedoorbuthisgallantattemptsarequicklystoppedbeforeheabletodo
anythingasheishitonthehead,ablowwhichknockshimout.
210
Afadetoblack,apauseandfade-inthatshowsDavidcomingto,presentsan
important point: we do not see Lucy in her moment of crisis but instead see and
witness David in his moment of distress. The music plays an important role in
heighteningthetensionattheoutsetoftheattack. Thewaythecameraframesthe
two groups on opposite sides of the screen separated by the dogs in the kennels
furthercomplicatesthealreadyevidentracistsuggestionsmadeinthefilm,onebeing
thatDavid isnervousbecausetheylooklikepoorBlackboysandsoheassumesthat
they might be dangerous. One of the strengths of Disgrace is showing up the
inadequacies of conventionalmorality with reference to right andwrong in a place
suchasSouthAfrica.SamanthaVice’sargumentforarelevantmoralactionofsilence
forwhite South Africans seems inadequate because it does notmake room for the
messinessofpost-apartheidaspresented in this sceneand film. In somewaysVice
reinsribesLucy’spointofviewaboutherplaceinthecountry,whichisaroundmoral
action(orinaction):thatwhitesshouldacceptwhateverhappenstothembecauseof
thepast.LucyalsoexpressesasmuchwhenshetellsDavidthatperhapsthisiswhatit
means to live in post-apartheid South Africa. She references her own rape as
‘collateral’damageofsortsforchoosingtostay.Insuchaconstruction,Lucy,andVice,
implythatwhilethereshouldbeaplaceforwhitesinSouthAfrica,thetermsofstaying
andbelonging cannotbemediated,negotiatedor endorsedbywhites. WhileDavid
struggleswiththatreality,Lucyacceptsitinthisdirecontext.
It isuncleartotheviewerandtoDavidhimselfhowmuchtimepassesbefore
Davidwakesupinasmallgreenbathroomwithonlyatoiletinit.Hisbodyissprawled
outacross the screen. He tries toopen thedoorbut it is locked. Firsthewhispers
Lucy’sname,thenhebeginstoshoutlouderandwithdesperation.Hehearsthemen
outsidethesmallwindowofthetoiletandtriestoseewhattheyaredoing. Twoof
211
themjokearoundastheyputsomestolengoods intothebootofacar. Amongthe
stolen wares is the ‘protective’ rifle that Lucy referenced when David first arrived.
Davidislefttodealwiththefailurethatalreadywashesoverhim:heknowsthatthe
rape isnowoverandheknowsthathefailedtosavehisdaughter. Therobberssee
Lurie through thesmall toiletwindowhe looksoutof. Asoneof thempicksup the
rifle,David,alarmedandshocked,scurriesdown inananimal like fashionandsits in
thesmallconfinedspacebetweenthewallandthetoiletseat. Thelookofterroron
David’sfaceindicatesthathebelievestheywillkillhimbutinsteadtheybegintoshoot
the dogs in the kennels. Althoughwe do not see the act of shooting the dogs,we
again experience violence and tortureof others fromDavid’s point of view. To this
end,wethusheareachgunshotfollowedbyadog’swhimperingofpain.
Davidhimselfisalsonotoffthehook–twoofthethreemenopenthedoorto
thetoiletthathehasbeenconfinedto. Ashetriestoescape,screaming“Lucy”,the
robbers trip him, and then douse him in a flammable liquid. He falls back into the
confinesofthetoiletoncemore,thistimetakingintheshockofwhattheyaredoing.
ThesoundscomingfromDavidnowemulatethesoundsofthedogsaftertheywere
shot. The camera follows a lit match in slowmotion as it travels from one of the
grinning young men to its landing place, David’s shirt. David’s flailing arms and
animal-likescreamsbreaktheslowmotionsequence. Theslowmotionshotendsat
thesametimeasthelitmatchhitsDavid.AlongwithDavid’sflailingarmsandanimal-
likescreams,thecolourandmovementoftheflamesemphasisethathehasnowhere
togointherestrictedtoilet.AswithFrancois,whoisoftenfoundintheconfinesofhis
‘bakkie’, David’s imposed confinement here serves as an explicit presentation of an
arrayofemotionsthatwehavenotseeninthecharacter.Someoftheseemotionsare
desperation, lossandfear. Eachoftheseareexpressed indifferentmoments inthis
212
scene,brought to lightby theseyoungboyswhocometo takewhatever theywant,
includinghisdaughter’sbody.
ThesceneendswithashotofanexasperatedDavidonthetoiletfloor. Heis
breathingheavilyafterhavingmanagedtoputouttheflamesonhisbodyandheadby
immersing his head in the toilet bowl. This paused image of David also provides a
chancetotake inwhathas justoccurred. Themoment isbrokenwhenLucyunlocks
thedoor. FromDavid’s pointof viewwewatch Lucywalk away fromDavid and the
toilet.Sheisbarefoot,dressedinawhiterobeandherhairiswet,anindicationthat
shehaswashedherself.ThewayinwhichLucyisportrayedinthisbriefmomentisthe
onlydirectaccessgiventoLucy’srapefromLucy.Assheisframedinalongshotfrom
David’spointofview,notonlyshebutalsoherhomeisreestablished.Thekitchenisin
completedisarraywithbrokenfurnitureandLucy’sthingsallover.Lucyherselfstands
inthemidstofitasshepoursherselfaglassofwater.Theuseofslowmotioninthe
two places it is used in this scene serves to highlight David’s helplessness, again
focalisingourattentiononhimandontheviolenceofthescenethroughhim.
ThedescriptionaboutwhathappensbetweenLucyandDavid’sarrivalbackon
the farm until the pointwhen Lucy pours herselfwater is about an attack on Lucy.
However,althoughtheultimateemphasisisLucy’srape,theinformationandhowthe
film chooses to set up the rape is really about David Lurie. This is intentional and
highlights the film’s investment in Lucy’s rape as an eventwhich reveals something
aboutthecomplexitiesofpost-apartheididentityandbelonging.Thelackoffocuson
Lucyintherapesceneplacesemphasisontheunspeakable.ForLucy,theunspeakable
repercussions of the rape and of her emphatic choice not to report it, is a distinct
commentonherplaceasayoungwhitepost-apartheidSouthAfrican.Forthe‘boys’,
213
as perceived through David’s whitemasculinity, there are no repercussions for bad
behaviourbecause,thefilmseemstocomment,thepowerofthe‘RainbowNation’is
primarilyembodiedinpost-apartheidBlackmasculinity. Whileweareinvitedtosee
two versions of post-apartheid Black masculinity, the film comments, once again
throughDavid, that both versions are vengeful and crass, representations of violent
taking(therapists)orconspicuousconsumption(Petrus).
ThisscenealsoemphasisesDavid’sinadequacies.Hewasunabletoprotecthis
daughterandherland.Hisshameandguilt,alreadypresentinthecharacter,become
even more apparent after the rape scene. David comes to realise that his own
(intellectual and philosophical) position of referencing back to the Romantic poets
Wordsworth and Byron, and his white imperialist outlook, has no place in post-
apartheid.276Thesceneanditsrepercussionalsoseemtomakethepressingissuesof
identity already alluded to in the film evenmore apparent and convoluted. When
Lucy’sfarmhouseisfirstrepresentedinDisgrace,itandshearereadasmetaphorsof
safeandcomplementarychange in thenewSouthAfrica– inotherwords, Lucyhad
doneeverythingrighttobepartofthelandscapeandsheinessencepersonifieswhat
VicearguesforallwhiteSouthAfricanstobe–quietandappreciativeforalittlespace
inSouthAfrica.Thisshiftsaftertheattack.
Anumberofothermattersarisefromtherapescene;mostperplexingisLucy’s
silenceabouttherapeandhervehemenceaboutstayingonthefarmaftertheattack.
LucycontinuouslyrefusestogotoAmsterdamtobewithhermother,emphaticthat
therearethingsthatDaviddoesnotunderstand.Lucyiscaughtinthedifficultplaceof
acceptingthenewSouthAfricatobeunequalandunfairbutalsowantingtoremain
276MargotBeard,“LessonsfromtheDeadMasters:WordsworthandByroninJ.M.Coetzee’sDisgrace”,EnglishInAfrica34:1(May2007),pp.59–77.
214
liberalandopen,unlike,forexampleEttinger,aneighbouringfarmerwhodrivesLucy
and David to the police station after the attack. Ettinger, a staunch Afrikaner,
comments on the differences between “then” and “now” in reference to how the
policewon’tprotectyouanymore, referencingpost-apartheid lawandorder. Lucy’s
generationalguiltbecomesevenmoreapparent in lightofthehypermasculinitiesof
EttingerandDavid.
This generational separation becomes clearer after the rape scene and is
indicativeof lostpower (seen in thewhitemen)butalso, indicativeofsomethingas
yet unseen: that Lucy is representative of an emergent post-apartheid sensibility.
What is troubling ishow the filmconsistently showsLucy’spositionasdifferentand
moreprogressivethanherfather’sbut itaffordstheyoungmenvery littletexture;a
pointdiscussedmoreinChapterFive.Thisraisessomequestionsaroundwhatapost-
apartheidemergentsensibilitymightbe.Ifpresent,Disgracepersistsinitsrelianceon
theracialbinariesofapartheidtoshowhowwhiteyouthsaredealingwiththeirpost-
apartheid identities but offers little positive outcome for Black youths dealing with
their new identities. The differences between Lucy and the older white men also
pointstoaresidualapartheidstructureoffeeling.Disgracethusemploysarapescene
in a twisted fashion to bring three generations of South Africans into its narrative:
David, representative of residual apartheid sensibilities andwho cannot quitemake
senseof his ownnewplaceor identity, Lucy,whoaccepts herwhitepost-apartheid
fate, takes on David’s guilt, andwho is forced to dealwith the repercussion of the
rape, anda thirdgeneration,mixed inas yetunknowablewaysbeyond race, a rape
baby.
215
Skoonheid
The rape scene in Skoonheid is different to the one inDisgrace. In the first
instance,sexandrapescenes inSkoonheidareexplicitacts.Disgrace invitesablurry
considerationofsexandrapethroughDavid’s ‘coercive’sexwithMelanieandLucy’s
unseenrape.ThisisnotthecaseinSkoonheid,inwhichFrancoisrapestheyoungman
Christian. AftermakingupalietogotoCapeTown,itbecomesobvious,asFrancois
followsChristianaroundthecity,thatFrancoishasdevelopedanuncontrollablecrush.
The cool and calm exterior constructed earlier in the film begins to unravel while
FrancoisisinCapeTown.OneexampleofthisiswhenhebuysChristiananAppleIPod
asagift,whichhe intendstogivetotheyoungmanonavisittoabraaithathehas
beeninvitedtoatChristian’sparents’home.OnrealisingthatChristianwouldnotbe
at thebraai,Francoismakesahurriedexcuse forwhyhecannotstay. In thescenes
that precede the rape, Hermanus pieces together a series of Francois’ actions that
confirmthe insidiouscharacteristicsseen inhimsofar. Inascene inwhichFrancois
getsdrunkinthebarsandclubsofthegaydistrictofCapeTown,weseethecharacter
reactinasimilarwayasintheearlierorgyscenewhenayounggaycolouredmantries
tohitonhim.EventuallyFrancoisrealisesthathewillnotfindwhatheislookingforin
the clubs. The men there are attracted to other men, whereas Francois’ desire is
different. Francois exits the final club and throws up on the pavement, an act of
ambiguousrepulsion.
The following scene openswith Francois and Christian sitting side by side in
Christian’scar. Eachof thecharacters is framedseparately,withus firstseeingone,
thentheother.Thisworksasawayofkeepingtheirbodiesandidentitiesapartinthe
scene,andinthelargernarrativeofthefilm.Thedrivingsceneandtheonehereafter,
in which the pair sit at a restaurant, serves to further question why Francois is so
216
obsessedwiththeyoungman. Francois’obsessionhasextendedtoabeliefthatnot
only ishe interested inChristian,but thatChristianmight alsobe interested inhim.
WhatbecomesclearinthissequenceafterChristianhaspickedupFrancois,isthatthe
objectofFrancois’obsession isnottheenjoymentofsexbutratheragrowinggreed
aroundadesiretohavewhatChristianhas:youth,possibility,aspaceinacountrythat
seemstocontinuouslypronounce itselfclosedtoFrancois’generationofwhitemen.
This form of jealousy is expressed in the restaurant scene when Francois begins to
wistfully revisit his ownyouth and thehopes anddesireshehad. In the restaurant
Francois andChristian are seatedoppositeeachother. Theuseof either side-angle
shotstoshowthemonoppositesidesoftheframe,ortheuseofshot-reverse-shots,
aids in keeping the two individual characters apart. There is thus no suggestion of
themasaunit.However,fromFrancois’position,hisbeingoppositeChristianseems
toimpartadifferentmeaning,onethattheoldermantakesasasignalforaction.
Francois occupies a trickyplacenotonly as awhitemanbut also ashimself.
This is shown repeatedly in the different versions of his life: one inane, seemingly
unfeelinganddarkinthedomesticspace,andonecloisteredbutactive. Thewayhe
displaysangerandresentmenttowardshiswifeandhisyoungestdaughtershouldnot
go unnoticed in the context of the rape because it emphasises how the rape is not
aboutsexbutanattempttotakebackpowerandalmosttakewhatChristianhassoas
tomakehisownlifeseemlesspathetic. Therape isaboutdesireforChristian’s life,
andfreedomfromtheconstrictionsofhisown.Thisfreedomisalsodisplayedthrough
language:theentirefilm is inAfrikaansexceptfordialoguewithChristian,asthough
there is a freedom in articulation when around this young man specifically. The
younger man is constantly positioned as different to the older men (Francois and
217
Christian’s own father), not only because of the age and natural generational
differences but because, in South Africa, his opportunities and possibilities in the
realityofpost-apartheidaresovehementlydifferenttothoseoftheoldermen. The
useof language inSkoonheid is an importantway inwhich thedifferencesbetween
FrancoisandChristianareapparent.
Francois’suncomfortableusageofasecondlanguagealsoservestoshowhow
he is a recalcitrant apartheid and post-apartheid presence because so much of his
identity is locked intohis languageandculture. Hence, inFrancoisandChristian,a
juxtaposition is presented: two seemingly incompatiblemodalities of post-apartheid
Afrikaner identity and structures of feeling: in Francois a residual and conflicted
structure of feeling and in Christian, a kind of disavowal of this history. Christian
inhabits a different place and is a character suggestive of an emergent sensibility
associatedwithacarefreelifeunburdenedbytheapartheidpast.
TheentirescenethattakesplaceinFrancois’hotelroomisshotfromawitness
point of view. Differently to Disgrace, the viewer is compelled to watch Francois
restrainandoverpowerhisvictim. Awide-angleshotshowsastandardroomwitha
bed,atelevisionset,aminibarandabathroomthatbothcharactersenterseparately
at different times. Francois hurriedly tidies the roomduring the time thatChristian
usesthetoiletandthensitsexpectantlyontheedgeofthebed.Francoisismirrored
byhisownimageemphasisedbytheverticallinescapturedinthewide-anglelongshot
of the room.This isalsoaconfusingmoment in that theviewer isunsureas towhy
Christian is intheroominthefirstplace.ViewingFrancoiswaitingforChristianfrom
this angle distances the viewer fromwhatever unexpected actionmay occur. After
218
exiting the toilet, Christian casually lights a cigarette and takes a sip of his drink,
somethingthat,accordingtoFrancois,will“puthaironyourchest”.
Francoisconstantlyremindshimself,andus,oftheagedifferencebetweenhim
andChristian.Buildingtension,thecameragoesbetweenframingthetwoinsilencein
medium shots to close-ups of their faces. The close up is especially effectivewhen
theysitsidebysideonthebedasitemphasisesthegenerationalgapbetweenthetwo
men and the different expressions they hold: one older and guarded and the other
youngerand light. It isalso indicativeofa shift in themoodof the scene. Whereas
previously the wide side-angle shot distanced the viewer, the close-ups draw on
nervoussubjectivity towardseachof them. Itbecomesapparent thatChristian’sbig
questionisrelatedtomoney.Francoisislessbruisedbytherequestthanbythefact
that it is not attached to something more. They remain in the same side-by-side
position;however,theyareshotinseparateframesuntilFrancoisaskswhetherthatis
allthatChristianwanted.ItisclearnowthatFrancoishascreatedafantasyinhisown
mind. While Christian nervously awaits a reply, Francois’ facial expression changes
slightlyasheleansintoChristiansaying,“Givemeakiss”. Christiannervouslyswats
himawayandsays,“Stopit,Francois”.Christianremainsseatedonthebedhowever,
andthenextshortinterludebuildsuptensionandfearasatussleensuesbetweenthe
twomen.FrancoisisheavysetandolderandChristianisagileandfitlookingandsoit
does not look like the oldermanwill dominate but he does. In order to assist his
position, Francois slamshis fist intoChristian’s face a few times,which leads to the
young man’s face and mouth becoming covered in blood. As Francois sits atop
Christian,half leaningonhisthroattogethispenis intoChristian’smouth,wewatch
theassaulttakeplacefrombehind(andabove)Christian’sheadwhichisonthebed.
219
Wearethuspositionedinaplacefromwhichitisnotpossibletolookaway.
The diegetic noise accompanying the image is a gurgling, strangled sound,
brought on by Christian’s inability to breathe properlywith blood in hismouth and
possiblyhis throat. Thecameraanglesshiftduringthisscenetoconsistentlyconvey
the intensity of the scene: first the pair are shot from against the wall and slightly
above the pair, then from behind Francois’ back, when he tries to undo Christian’s
shortsandthenagainfromahighangleabovethebed.Thehighanglepointofview
echoes theearlierorgy scene inwhichwearealso, likeChristian,held captive. The
cameraanglealsoemphasisesthecold,almostdetachedpowerseeninFrancoisasa
perpetrator. The proximity of the camera to Francois on top of Christian jars the
viewerinthewayitconstructsfearandrepulsionevokedbyandforFrancois,asdoes
theawarenessthatFrancoiscannotfollowthroughwiththerapeashekeepstryingto
penetrateChristianbutcannotand thenhas tomasturbate toarousehimselfwithin
theviolence.
The rape is not owned by Francois through a point of view shot nor is the
viewerinvitedtoexperienceitonlyfromChristian’spointofviewasthevictim. Ina
challenging and ambiguous approach, aided by the camera angles used, the scene
doesnotascribespecificinstructionsforhowtofeelforChristianorFrancois.After
Francois pins Christian down he hits him. Christian’s bloodied mouth and choking
soundscontrastwithFrancois’desire-filledheavybreathingandactionstopenetrate
theyoungerman.Francoisusesacoaxingpaternalvoiceontheoneoccasionthathe
speakswithChristianinthescenewhenherepeats,“comeon,takeoffyourpants”.In
the only dialogue from Christian, the young man begs and repeatedly screams,
220
“please”.Thelackofdialogueinthesceneisreminiscentoftheorgyscenetoo,and,
liketheculminationofthatscene,rendersFrancoisasincapableandinarticulate.Just
likeFrancois isunabletoarticulatehispositioninthenewSouthAfrica,sotoo,he is
unabletocommunicatehisdesire.AfterFrancoispullsdowntheyoungman’spants,
healsounbuttonshisown.FrancoisthenphysicallyliftsandturnsChristian’sbodyso
thathisbacksideisexposed.Intheearlierorgyscene,FrancoisalsopositionedBrianin
asimilarwayandthecameraalsoheldthatimageforamoment.Asinthatscene,the
emphasisislessonthepenetrationabouttotakeplaceandinsteadonFrancoisinthe
positionofpower for theact. This scene remindsusof thepower inscribed in the
actionofFrancoiscontrollingasituationlikethisnotonce,butontwooccasions.
Therapeisviolentandquickbutshort-livedforFrancoiswhostopsandstarts
again. It is this point that tells us that although there are similaritiesbetween this
sceneandtheorgy,there isalsoaverycleardifferencebetweenconsensualsexand
rape. Although the camera shots do not serve a specific character, the scene is
constructedinsuchawaythatitprivilegesthepowerpositioning:wewatchFrancois’
actionsandwe seeChristiandefeated. Christian continues to lie in the same foetal
positionevenafterFrancoisdismountshimtogotothebathroom.Ourfinalimageof
the young man is his destroyed facial expression compounded by his still bloodied
mouthandexposedbottom.Thecameraholdsthiswideside-angleshotforawhile,
allowingtheshockandterrorofwhathasjusthappenedtosettle.Christianstilldoes
notmoveevenwhenFrancoisreturnsandsitsontheedgeofthebed.Throughoutthe
sceneFrancois’heavybreathingandpantinghasdominated,onlyinterjectedwiththe
bloodiedgarglingsoundsearlierintherape.Now,towardstheendofthisscene,with
Francoismomentarily in the toilet and the rapedvictim lyingon thebed,Christian’s
221
sobsandgaspingbreathsbecomeaudible.
In a larger socio-cultural context, the rape is considered as a kind of raping
awayorerasureofChristian’spost-apartheid freedomsandthepotentialpromiseof
his young white identity within the ‘Rainbow Nation’. The differences between
Christian and Francois further emphasise that Francois’ homosexual urges are not
aboutphysicalpleasurebutaboutself-hate.Francois’earlierexpressiontoChristianof
thepressuresofresponsibilitieswhenhewasayoungmanalsoexposestheambiguity
hefeelsabouthisownsomewhatrebelliousandwild(butfulfilling)actions.Through
therapeFrancoisalsotriestomakeChristianpartofhisownguiltandshame. Inan
attempttobedesiredandneededbyChristian,Francoisalsowantstotainttheyoung
man with his own irrelevance and baggage. It is as though Francois thinks that
Christian’s carefree life is too easy and hewishes to somehow strip him of it. The
aftermathoftherapesceneinSkoonheidisacomplete,almostinanereturntolifejust
as it was before Francois’ trip to Cape Town. The return to the familiar image of
Francois in the confinesof amoving vehicle implies, similar to the aftermathof the
orgyscene,areturntoareticentversionofnormality. Aswiththecharacters inthe
orgyscene,Christianisalsoneverseeninthefilmagain.
The rape scene in Skoonheid is a complex construction around Francois’
desperationforpowerthatisgone.TherapescenerevealsthatFrancoishas,through
homosexualsex,foundamodeforrelease;intheorgysceneitisaconsensualchoice
andunderstanding,whereaswithChristianwerealisethefurtherproblematicdepthof
Francois’need. Francoisdealswithacompoundedlossofpowerthatwaserasedby
the celebratory rhetoric of the ‘RainbowNation’. This power is notonly ideological
222
powerintermsofapartheidandthestrippedrelevanceofmiddle-agedwhitemenin
thatera,butitisalsoalackofpowerthathas,perhapsmoredangerously,manifested
inother spheresofhis life. Francois’ identityhasbeen renderedobsoleteeven ina
place that has historically been the Afrikaner and patriarchal stronghold: The Free
Stateandhisownfamilyhome.
TheorgycommentsthatFrancoisisclearlynotaloneinthisplaceofisolation,
which raises further questions around the relatively unpopular topic of white
masculinity in post-apartheid. Skoonheid suggests that narratives about the new
SouthAfrica cannotonlybeabout theofficial,manicuredand constructed ‘Rainbow
Nation’. Narrativesabout theguiltywhitemenseen in this chapter show that films
aboutthenewSouthAfricadonotonlydealwiththepresent ‘RainbowNation’asa
construct,butthattheyalsograpplewiththecompoundedandfragmentedissuesof
loss,guilt,shameandfear.
The film sets up and explores this constant dichotomy in Francois between
familymanandclosethomosexual, conservative, racistAfrikanerandacceptingnew
SouthAfricanAfrikaner.ThepointthatSkoonheid leavesuswithisthatFrancoisand
hisproblematicsearchforanewidentity,isasmuchpartofpost-apartheidasarethe
otherstoriesofapartheid.
223
Conclusion
This chapter has explored middle-aged white protagonists David Lurie and
FrancoisvanHeerdeninDisgraceandSkoonheidthroughwhathavebeenidentifiedas
common tropesof shame, guilt and aging corporeality. This chapter concludes that
DavidandFrancoisarepost-apartheidversionsofthewhite liberalandtheAfrikaner
representativeofcharacterswhodonotreallyhavea(welcome)placeinthe‘Rainbow
Nation’. In post-apartheid South Africa, they represent those who are paid least
attention to, because, in the context of the TRC,menwho look like themwere the
perpetrators. This section has considered how the films have manifested the
unspoken about identities of post-apartheid. The films take a particularly sardonic
approach to how they construct post-apartheid reality and thus Lurie’s, and van
Heerden’s place in the country. However, there are also very clear choices made
aroundthefactthatbothcharactersremaininSouthAfricaandso,althoughthefilms
relishintheshamefulnaturesofboththeseseeminglyrepulsivewhitemen,thefilms
also, in theirownways,offer theirownversionsofhomagetotheTRCandthenew
SouthAfrica.ItisimpossiblenottothinkofLucy’srape,andhermakingsenseofit,as
heavilysteepedinmeaningwhensheverbaliseswhatDisgracecommentsonaspartof
anemergentstructureoffeeling:thatperhapswhathappenedtoLucyis“thepricefor
staying”.Or,inFrancois’case,toreadtheimmediatereturnto“normalcy”afterboth
the sex and the rape scene as suggestive of complete psychological separation and
alienationfromhimselfandothers.
To return then to the introduction, I suggest that the insights of the three
introductory quotations are evidenced acutely and latently in the films. In the first
instance, this chapter considers that the films are representative of white racial
224
melancholiaintheirambivalencetowardschangeinSouthAfrica. Aswhitemen,the
former instigators and bearers of apartheid South Africa, Francois and David are
indeliblylinkedtoperpetratorstatusandtheforgiven,yetwhenweseetheminthese
films, the characters are also so problematic that it is hard to imagine them as
permitted to be part of the post-apartheid ‘Rainbow’. The narrative of rape that
appears inbothfilms isan importantdevice fordisplayingandtakingpower. More
thananyother trope ineither film, it is through the rapes that the filmsareable to
revealthecomplexitiesofshame,guiltandalsoapology.Therefore,inthesameway
that Sila’s story of rape and miscegenation hovers in the chapter, I argue that the
broader implicationsof the filmsarenot limited topost-apartheidcinemaalonebut
havefar-reachingconsequencesforhowthecountrymakessenseofthetraumaofthe
past. Basedon thediscussions in this chapter, there is considerablymore room for
thinking about how trauma manifests in younger generations, and for the
characteristicspresentwithinapossibleemergentstructureoffeeling.
225
SECTION3
Theprecedingsectionsofthisthesishavetracedandanalysedtropesinpost-
apartheidSouthAfricancinema.Intryingtoconceptualisewhatthenewgenerationof
post-apartheid identities might represent, the chapters of this final section of the
thesis grapple with two related questions: Can an emergent structure of feeling be
identified inpost-apartheid films?What are the characteristicsof this subjectivity in
the context of post-apartheid South Africa? The matter is complex, as Raymond
Williamsexplores inMarxismandLiteraturewhenhedefinesstructuresof feelingas
“socialexperiencesinsolution”.277Amajorconceptualfootholdofthischapterliesin
whereWilliamsidentifiesthesolutionwhenhewrites:
The effective formations ofmost actual art relate to alreadymanifest socialformations, dominant or residual, and it is primarily to emergent formations(thoughoften in the formofmodificationordisturbance inolder forms) thatthestructureoffeeling,assolution,relates.278
Havingexploredpost-apartheidrepresentationsoftheapartheidpast,Ifollow
Williams to considerwhere emergent formations might be found in the context of
post-apartheid films. This section focuses on the representations of post-apartheid
youthinaselectionoffilms:HijackStories,Tsotsi,Disgrace,FanieFourie’sLobolaand
Elelwani. The films date from 2001 to 2013 and present an array of post-apartheid
youth identities, most notably differentiated through gender, race and class. The
approachofthissectionliespredominantlyinitsattempttoseekoutthepresenceofa
new structure of feeling among post-apartheid youth characters in the films and to
277Williams,MarxismandLiterature,pp.133–134.278Ibid.,p.134.
226
analysewhatcanbegleanedaboutpost-apartheidfromaperspectivewhichisnotfree
ofthepastbutindeliblylinkedinit.
For example, pressing concerns for the country’s youth at this point are at a
practicalandideologicaldisjuncture:middleclassBlackyouthsandworkingclassBlack
youthsare resistant to the ‘Rainbow’ ideologyandprojectandhavebegun to reject
and ‘act out’. That these active pursuits against residual structures of feeling have
beenparticularlypressingatinstitutionslikeuniversitiesacrossthecountryisrevealing
ofthestateofpost-apartheidSouthAfrica.Thechaptersofthissectionconsiderhow
theyoutharerepresentedinpost-apartheidfilmsinordertodrawconclusionsabout
what lies not only beneath ‘TheRainbow’ (ideological) but alsobeneath the trauma
and sadness of the past (Section Two). Also employing Williams’ analytical tools,
PremeshLaluinvitesavaluableconsiderationoftheconcept‘structuresoffeeling’ in
relationtothepost-apartheidcontextwhenhenotesthat,
…the problem, it seems, is that the end of apartheid is marked as achronologicalor juridicalevent,with ‘event’ asanoperative term. Weseemless capable of thinking about the structure of feeling we called the post-apartheid,however inarticulatelyexpressedat theveryheightof thestruggleagainstapartheid.279
This final section considers the emergent from the point of view of alliances
andunionswhichareheavilysteepedintraditionbutwhichhavetodealwithyouthful
resistance.Williams’definitionofwhatastructureoffeelingisandhowitcomestobe
truly emergent is important when he writes that it is about trying to define “a
particularqualityofsocialexperienceandrelationship,historicallydistinctfromother
279Premesh,Lalu,“ConsideringHistory,Memory,CitizenryandtheirRepresentationwithintheArts:StefenJonssonandPremeshLaluinConversation,ModeratedbyTracyMurinik”inElviraDyanganiOse(ed.),AStorywithinaStory,TheGothenburgInternationalBiennalforContemporaryArt2015(Stockholm:ArtandTheoryPublishing,2015),pp.208–209.
227
particularqualities,whichgivesthesenseofagenerationorofaperiod”.280Thisnew
structureoffeelinghastodowithintricatequestionsabouthowthenewsenserelates
to, or is historically distinct from, previous relations between and among
“…institutions, formations, and beliefs, and beyond these the changing social and
economicrelationsbetweenandwithinclasses…”.281
The youth in this section are representative of different post-apartheid
realities.AsSarahNuttallhasexplored,thisY-generationisconstitutedof“thosewho
have attended racially mixed (Model C) schools in the city as well as those who
attended exclusively black township schools”.282 These youths are the ‘born-free’
generation,whocame intobeingafterapartheid.Although in someways,asyet,an
impossible task, the chapters of this section explore how post-apartheid films use
youngcharacterstoshowpost-apartheiddevelopmentandstagnationinthenational
imaginary.WithnogroupisthismorecomplexandfracturedthanwithinBlackyouth
althoughwhiteyouthscontinue tobe represented innoteworthyways too, suchas,
forexample,ChristianinSkoonheidandLucyinDisgrace.Theideaof“having”inSouth
Africaisanissueofrace,genderandclass.
To draw on Nuttall again is useful when she describes the Y Generation as
youngpeoplewhoareableto“…remakethepastinveryspecificwaysintheservices
ofthepresentandthefutureandhowtheydevelopamodeofculturalaccessorisation
in themaking of their contemporary selfhood”.283 The section thus does not place
emphasis on direct memories of apartheid but instead, as Veena Das articulates,
exploreshowthememoriesare“foldedinto”on-goingrelationshipsandnarrativesof
280Williams,MarxismandLiterature,p.131.281Ibid.282SarahNuttall,“StylizingtheSelf:TheYGenerationinRosebank,Johannesburg”,PublicCulture,16:3(Fall2004),p.432.283Ibid.
228
nation through the quotidian, and how “…everyday life absorbs the traumatic
collectiveviolencethatcreatesboundariesbetweennationsandbetweenethnicand
religiousgroups”.284
284VeenaDas,LifeandWords:ViolenceandtheDescentintotheOrdinary,(Berkeley,LosAngeles,London:UniversityOfCaliforniaPress,2007),p.8.
229
CHAPTERFIVE
VIOLENTMASCULINITIESANDYOUNGBLACKMEN
INPOST-APARTHEIDFILMS:HIJACKSTORIES,TSOTSI,DISGRACE
Introduction
YoungBlackmenoccupyarelativelyprecariousplace inSouthAfricanculture
and society. According to a study of the 2009 crime statistics, African black and
colouredmenwere shown tobe themost involved inviolent crimesandmurder.285
These violent trends in South African society have proliferated into post-apartheid
popular culture, often a reminder of the deeply embedded racial constructions of
apartheidandcolonialism.A2007advertbyoneofthechannelsoftheSouthAfrican
Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) inverted this dominant reality by replacing whites
andBlackssothatwhitesareshownto live inthetownshipsandBlacks inthewhite
suburbs.286 The advert demands attention. In case viewers did not observe the
valuablepointof theadvert, italsoendsonan instructivenote:“Takeanother look,
Mzansi”,itencourages,beforeaflashoftheSABC1sloganatthetime,“YaMampela”
whichmeans“therealthing”.Intheperiodthatthechannelusedthe“YaMampela”
slogan,itwasoftenfollowedwithashortjingleof,“Weareone”andthenumberone
inacircleonthescreen.Althoughsuch ‘RainbowNation’sloganeering formspartof
theofficialprojectof‘post-apartheid-ness’,thisadvertdoesnot.
In abriefmoment in this advert, the youngmaleprotagonist, a youngwhite
manwholivesinSowetotownship(alsothesettingfortwoofthecasestudiesinthis
285GavinSilberandNathanGeffen,“Race,ClassandViolentCrimeinSouthAfrica:Dispellingthe‘HuntleyThesis’”,SACrimeQuarterly30(2009),pp.35–43.https://www.issafrica.org/uploads/CQ30SILBER.PDF[Accessed10November2015].286Racialperspectiveadvert:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcWsTwvtyOI.[Accessed10November2015].
230
chapter)walksdownthestreetandasheapproachesaluxurycar,thedriver,aBlack
woman, watches him closely as she locks her car door. The advert addresses how
often Black men seen at traffic lights are stereotyped as thieves or hijackers. In
everyday South African parlance the characters would be inverted; the young man
would be Black and the woman in the luxury German car would be white. The
inversion is particularly striking in SouthAfrica because it is uncommon to seepoor
whitepeopleenmasse(showninafewlargescaleshotsofthetownship)andbecause
it is uncommon to see a young white man as someone to fear. The focus of this
chapterisaroundsimilarconcernsasIconsiderthewaysinwhichyoungBlackmenare
representedinthreepost-apartheidfilms:HijackStories(OliverSchmitz,2001),Tsotsi
(GavinHood,2005)andDisgrace(SteveJacobs,2008).
The research questions of this chapter are: what is the correlation between
youngBlackmenandviolenceinthepost-apartheidfilms?Whatcanbegleanedfrom
aseeminglyimpenetrablerelationshipbetweenviolenceandyoungBlackmen?Does
this connote a shift from apartheid representations (representative of a potentially
emergent structure of feeling) or does this relationship represent problematic
stagnation? Thefilmsdiscussed inthischapterportrayyoungBlackmenindifferent
ways but there are also representational intersections. For example, Tsotsi and the
rapistsinDisgracearepresentedaspooranddangerous,howeverSoxinHijackStories
isnot.ThegangstersinHijackStoriesrefertoSoxas“MrRainbowNation”.Thefilms
of this section are reminiscent of the gangster genre also seen in films of other
countries. The relationship and influence of Hollywood (and within this, African
Americangangsterfilms)onSouthAfricancinemahasalonghistory.287Filmslikethe
287Amongothers,notablecontributionscomefrom:EdGuerrero,“TheBlackManonourScreensandtheEmptySpaceinRepresentation”Callaloo,18:20(1995),pp.395–400.,EdGuerrero,Framing
231
ones dealt with in this chapter "parallel Hollywood representations of African
American men…”, notes Adam Haupt.288 Jane Stadler’s discussion of Tsotsi, Hijack
Stories and theU.S filmShaft (John Single, 2000) exposes the intertextuality at play
regardingBlackmasculinityandrepresentationsofviolence.289 Stadlercautions that
although similar, “the relevance to African cultures, where demographics, history,
socio-political contexts and patterns of media production and consumption differ
substantially has not been ascertained”.290 In the context of this thesis, I take this
caution and while noting this scholarship, will concentrate on South African Black
masculinity.Itisalsousefultonotethatthereisanoverlapinscholarshipthatapplies
toHijackStoriesandTsotsi,asthefilmsemploysimilarrepresentations,someofwhich
arediscussedinthischapter.
Thechapterisinterestedininterrogatingwhatcanbegleanedfromtheyoung
Black men characters in the films to better examine and understand how they are
positioned within the ‘Rainbow Nation’. The character of the tsotsi or thug is
historicallycomplex.Primaryrepresentationsofsuchcharactershavemodelledthug-
likecharactersaseitherviolentanddangerousordissidentwithpoliticallysuggestive
elements.291 In the latter, the implication is that the tsotsi is politically astute and
aware of his choices to disrupt the rules and fixedness of apartheid. In the first
instance, the apolitical tsotsi operates to fulfil personal gain. These tsotsis are
dangerous and subversive. In apartheid representations it was easier to ascertain
Blackness:TheAfricanAmericanImageinFilm(Philadelphia:TempleUniversityPress,1993).,bellhooks,BlackLooks:RaceandRepresentation(Boston,Massachusetts:SouthEndPress,1992).288AdamHaupt,Static:RaceandRepresentationinPost-ApartheidMusic,MediaandFilm(CapeTown:HSRCPress,2012),p.153.289JaneStadler,“Tsotsis,CoconutsandWiggers:BlackMasculinityandContemporarySouthAfricanMedia”inAdrianHadland,EricLouw,SimphiweSesanti,HermanWasserman(eds.),Power,PoliticsandIdentityinSouthAfricanMedia(CapeTown:HSRCPress,2008),pp.343–363.290Ibid.,p.344.291RosalindC.Morris,“Style,Tsotsi-style,andTsotsitaal:TheHistories,Aesthetics,andPoliticsofaSouthAfricanFigure”,SocialText28:2(2010),pp.85–112.
232
thesecategories,however,inpost-apartheidrepresentationboththesecharactersare
presentedindifferentways.Theyoungmeninthefilmsofthischapterpresentanew
wayofthinkingaboutthetsotsiinthecontextofpost-apartheid.InTsotsiandHijack
Stories, we see the resonance of the township gangster and a two-fold argument
aroundself-assertioninthetownship,orblack-on-blackviolenceandalegitimationof
crimeandmasculinityinpoorBlackspaces.
OfconcerntoMorrisandStadler’sconceptualisationsofyoungBlacktsotsis,is
theeasydismissalofwhatcouldbestrategicandradicaldissonance,tooquicklycast
offwithoutinterrogationofthecomplexitiesthatunderliesuchcharacters.Although
itisnotalwaysrelevant,Iheedtheimpliedwarningintheanalysesofthechapter.In
relationtorepresentationsofanti-apartheidstruggle,Stadlersuggeststhatcinematic
representationsofviolenceamongBlackmen ingangs fulfilasimilar functionto the
erosion of credibility of the anti-apartheid struggle through apartheidmedia images
bothinSouthAfricaandabroad.292Inthisway,mediaandfilmconstructionsshiftthe
emphasis away from radical opposition to socio-political issues to oversimplify and
instructthegazeimposedonsuchcharactersinfilms.
Stadler further notes that such cinematic representations undermine social
criticisms expressed through related sounds, images, articulations attached to the
characterofthetsotsissuchasrapmusic,astheserepresentations“deflectattention
from the social problems that give rise to gangs and drugs”.293 Although the three
youngmen inDisgrace are not characterised or ever explicitly labelled as thugs or
292Stadler,“Tsotsis,CoconutsandWiggers”inHadland,Louw,Sesanti,Wasserman(eds.),SouthAfricanMedia,p.345293Ibid.,346.
233
tsotsis,theyareneverthelessalsorepresentativeofthesedangerousblackelementsin
society.
Dovey also explores how the tsotsi is not an apartheid creation but rather a
“…street-wise criminal” who operated in South African townships, and particularly
fromthe1930sinSophiatowninJohannesburg.294Thetsotsispresentinthefilmsof
this chapter were selected to explore a range of young Black tsotsis and the
scholarshipabovepoints to someof thehistorically inferences inadiscussionabout
dissident Blackmen. My interest in this chapter however is less inmerely showing
thatyoungBlackmenarerepresentedasdissidentpost-apartheidcharacters,asinthe
filmsJerusalema(RalphZiman,2008)orFourCorners(IanGabriel,2014)forexample,
and lies instead in analysing how the films represent post-apartheid young Black
identities.
294Dovey,AfricanFilmandLiterature,p.94.
234
HijackStories
Hijack Stories occupies a complex space in time as it was released in 2001,
hencebeforetheslewofTRCfilmsthatChapterThreedealswithandalsobeforethe
guiltandshameofthefilmsdealtwithinChapterFour.Thisfilmmightalsoappearto
bepartof theerabeforeand thus seemoutofplace in this chapter. However, the
film’sfocusonpost-apartheidBlackmasculinity,tsotsisandtownshipgangsterculture
resonatesmorewiththepersonaeofthischapter,asthemainprotagonistsSox(Tony
Kgoroge) and Bra Zama (Rapulana Seiphemo) embody ‘Rainbow Nation’ culture in
quite extremeways even though they are both young Blackmen of the same age.
Hijack Stories was co-funded by the Deutsche Bank, British Screen through the
Europeanco-productionfund,andFilmbüroNW.Thedevelopmentofthescriptwas
financially supported by the SouthAfricanDepartment of Arts, Culture, Science and
Technology.DirectedbySchmitz,whodirectedMapantsula,thisfilmhasalsoreceived
criticalattention,againbecauseofwhatweregleanedasauthenticrepresentationsof
BlackSouthAfricanexperiences. It isalsoa filmoftenplaced indialoguewithother
post-apartheid gangster genre films, such as Jerusalema and Tsotsi and there are
overlapsinthescholarshipthatdealswithpost-apartheidgangsterfilms.295
One of the main protagonists, Sox, also called variations of ‘Mr Rainbow
Nation’ throughout the film, is a model-C educated ‘born-free’ as described by the
localSowetogangwhohespendsthemajorityofthefilm‘learningfrom’.InStadler’s
295Inadditiontoearlierreferences,thesearerelevanttoHijackStoriesandTsotsi:AlbertFuandMartinJ.Murray,“CinemaandtheEdgyCity:Johannesburg,CarjackingandthePostMetropolis”,AfricanIdentities5:2(2007),pp.279–289.,LeslyMarx,“AtTheEndoftheRainbow:JerusalemaandtheSouthAfricanGangsterFilm”,Safundi:TheJournalofSouthAfricanandSouthAmericanStudies11:3(2010),pp.261–278.,DavidW.DeVilliers,“AftertheRevolution:JerusalemaandtheEntrepreneurialPresent”,SouthAfricanTheatreJournal23(2009),pp.8–22.,AdamHaupt,“BlackMasculinityandtheTyrannyofAuthenticityinSouthAfricanPopularCulture”inHadland,Louw,Sesanti,Wasserman(eds.),SouthAfricanMedia,pp.378–398.,Maingard,“Love,Loss,MemoryandTruth”inPetersonandSuleman,ZuluLoveLetter,pp.18–25.
235
discussion of the film, she uses the term ‘Coconut’ to describe Sox, based on other
supporting literaturearoundpost-apartheid ‘newSouthAfrican’ characters. Sox isa
well-off young ‘Joburger’, a continuitypresenteronSABC1, the samechannelof the
national broadcaster which aired the advert discussed in the introduction to this
chapter.SoxisalsoanactorandthenarrativecommenceswhenSoxauditionsforthe
role of a gangster, ‘Bra Biza’ in a new television series. Sox is dismissed from the
auditionasnotbeingauthenticenoughandthusnotconvincingasagangster.Sox is
characterisedastheperfect incarnationofthe‘RainbowNation’,anidentitythathas
beenfilledwiththefullspectrumofopportunitiesforyoungBlackmenlikehim. He
also lives in a nice apartment with his white British girlfriend in Rosebank, a
fashionableaspirationalarea.Sox’slifestylereflectsallthepromisesandimplications
oftheendofapartheid:prosperity,multiracialismandpromise.
However,whenSoxiscrudelydismissedasaphoney,heinternalisestherefusal
ofthepartasajudgementofhisauthenticationasaBlackman.Althoughthisisnot
something developed in the film, there is some suspicion and irony around the
legitimationofaBlackcharacterbyawhitecastingdirector. Therefusalof thepart
setsSoxonhiswaytoareturntoSoweto,wherehewishestolearnhowtobehavelike
a tsotsi. But Sox’s task, just like the official institutional aspirations of the post-
apartheidgovernment,isnotsoeasytoachieve,noristhegoalasuncomplicatedasit
appears.Sox’sgangsterfriendsareledbyBraZama,oftensimplycalledZamabythe
othertwoyoungmeninthesquad,JoeandFly.Theword‘ukuzama’isaverb,which
meanstotryinisiZuluandappearsafittingtitlefortheleaderofthecarthievingand
hijackingpack.
236
It isonlywhenSoxhaslearnedabitmoreabouttheguysinthegangthathe
reveals an overt political assumption he has had about them. The scene opens as
ZamaviolentlydragsSoxoutofacar.HoldingaguntoSox’shead,Zamadragshimto
one corner of the frame. Sox comes to a cowering position behind an old, broken
yellowcar.WhileZamapointsagunatSoxheisalsorattlingoffquestionsabouthow
oneundertakesacarhijacking.Itbecomesclearthatthisisnotanactualhijackingor
attack,but infactpartofSox’seducation inbecomingatsotsi. Zamaeventually lets
himgoandthethreetsotsisstandagainstZama’scarwatchingSox,whocontinuesto
cower in the earlier spot. Sox is impressed with Zama’s performance and a shot-
reverse-shotsequenceproceedsbetweenthesetofthree(theestablishedteam),and
Sox,whoremainsthetrainee.Thewaytheyareframedasseparateunitsshowsthat
Soxisnotoneofthem.WhenSoxpressesthemaboutwheretheylearnedtodowhat
theydo,theyhaughtilyanswer“boardingschool”,slangforjail.Mostlythough,Zama
adds, theyhave learned fromtheiractionheroes in themovies likeBruceWillisand
Sylvester Stallone. Sox is amazed because, in his words, he thought they were
“radical”,implyingthathebelievedtheywerepoliticallyinterestedandawareofBlack
politics. Now that they have identified white actors as their action idols (and
teachers),Soxfeelshecanshowthemsomethingtoo.
The cowering Sox from moments before has disappeared to reveal the
confidentyoungmanandfamiliarTVpersonality.Soxiscuriousastowhytheydonot
lookuptoBlackactorslikeWesleySnipes,forexample.ThroughoutthissceneSoxhas
felt inferior to the other guys, as he has not got a ‘boarding school’ education.
However now Sox feels empowered because he is confident in talking about the
movies and explains that they need to use “nigger psychology”, something that can
237
onlybeperformedandembodiedbyBlackcharacters.Soxinvitesthethreehijackers
tothinkaboutthisforamomentandthenhedemonstrates.
Gun in hand and shot from the point of view of the three tsotsis, Sox
transformsintoanAfricanAmericangangster,atrueincarnationofWesleySnipes.Sox
beginshischaracterisationbydoinganonchalantdancethattheotherguyslaughat.
While thecamera focusesontheirdismissivegiggling,wecanstill seesomeofSox’s
dancemovesinthereflectionofthecarbeforeheunexpectedlylaunchesintoZamaby
pointing the gun up against his face and now speaking in anAmerican accent. The
intensity of themoment is heightened by the use ofmedium close-ups shot either
fromjustbehindSoxorZama.Oftentheseshotsareabletoexposetheexpressionsof
bothcharacters, fromwhichwecan seeSox’s complete investment inhis character,
and, surprisingly, a glimmer of fear from Zama. These tight shots also impart the
feeling that theother two characters areno longer there, that Sox’sperformance is
real. In Sox’s Snipes rendition, he is able to come alive in a role that commands
respect fromtheother tsotsis. He isable touseverbalandbody language thatSox
wouldnotusebutthatthecharacterheplayswoulduse.Intheopportunitythathe
hasinasense,affordedhimselfinthisscene,Soxisabletoshowthemsomethingthat
they do not know. On completion Sox’s expression returns to one mixed with
expectationand fear, similar tobefore the shortperformance. Tohis surprise, they
arevery impressed,withZamaevenasking thatSox repeatshis rendition. Soxdoes
nothesitateandpushesupagainstZama’storsoagain,withthegunjusttouchinghis
jaw.Sox’sfacialexpressionhasalsochangedtoexhibitsomethingakintoconfidence.
InthissceneweseehowSchmitzbeginstoemploythecharactersofSoxand
Zamatoshowtwodifferentkindsofversionsof‘RainbowNation’. Althoughthishas
238
been present throughout, Sox has not really been shown to assert himself in this
unknownspace.NorhavethegangtakenSoxveryseriously.Thissceneinvitesatwist
inSox’scharacterisationas thegang,and theviewers,becomemoreawareofother
versions of Sox. Although Sox has asserted his desires to learn, he has not been
preparedforactualpractice.InStadler’sdiscussionofthisscene,shearguesthatinit
SoxandZamalearnfromeachotherandthefilmisthusabletocommenton“‘cultural
colonisation’”.296Thisisaprocessthatcontinuesandbecomesmoreambiguousasthe
filmprogressesbecausethisismorethan“culturalcolonisation”.Inhisperformanceof
anAfricanAmericangangster character, Soxalso shows that the influenceof sucha
characteronhislifeisontheonehandUSculturalcolonisation,asStadlersuggests.
Ontheotherhand,Sox’srenditionisaperformanceofself,inthatheembodies
elements of that gangster culture throughhaving learned from themovies, just like
Zamaandtheothers.Theargumentforcolonisationseemsfittingifdirectedatallof
them,not fromSoxontoZama. Thedifferencesarepolitical in their abilities to see
racialisedmasculinity in one way or another and to apply value to those racialised
representations.OnlySoxseemstonoticethesedifferencesanditisintheintricacies
ofthatmomentIwishtoemphasisethecomplexityofthelessonsforbothSoxandthe
othergangmembers.
InthebeginningofthefilmmuchattentionispaidtocharacterisingSoxasan
archetypeof ‘RainbowNation’. As the filmprogresses Sox’s identitybecomesmore
fragmented. Once the gang starts to accept him, the lessons also become more
dangerousandheisnolongerastudentbutalsobecomesaparticipant.Heisshown
tobeinaconstantlyambiguousdiscussionwithhimself,asthoughamoraldebateis
296Stadler,“Tsotsis,CoconutsandWiggers”inHadland,Louw,Sesanti,Wasserman(eds.),SouthAfricanMedia,p.350.
239
constantly taking place about the fragmentation of his own identity. Whilewe see
Sox’sambivalenceanduneasewithcriminality(evenpettyacts,suchaspickpocketing,
taught to him by Grace, a young woman he becomes romantically involved with),
otherdevicesservetoremindus,andSox,ofhisidentityandreality.Oneoftheseis
forexampletheconsistentvoiceofhiswhiteagent,Maureen,whoisneverseenbut
always phones Sox on his cell phone. Often Maureen’s calls come at the most
inopportune moments, such as during a violent escape scene. Amidst sirens and
gunshotswehearMaureen’supbeatvoiceencouragingSoxtotryforanotheraudition
eventhoughhedidnotgettheroleof‘BraBiza’.ItisthusnotSoxhimselfbutother
characters, significantly, women (Grace,Maureen, his girlfriend, Nicky) who remind
Soxthatheisnotreallyathug.
However, while the film offers these subtle reminders about Sox’s neatly
parcelled post-apartheid identity, themore compelling presence in the film is Sox’s
consciousandunconsciousstrugglewithhisownauthenticityondifferentlevelsofhim
beingayoungBlackmiddle-classmaninpost-apartheidSouthAfrica.WhenSoxcalls
Zama and the gang dangerous criminals, Zama retorts by reversing the judgement.
AccordingtoZamaitisSox’spositioninthenewSouthAfricathatiscriminal,whilehe
andisgangareordinaryguysfromSoweto.Zama’spointisthatBlackidentitylocated
inthetownshiphasamuchlongerpresencethatSox’snew‘RainbowNation’identity.
Zama legitimises township identity andmasculinitywhereas he dismisses Sox’s easy
identityasjuvenileand,likeweseeinSox,inarticulate.AlthoughZamaisconfidentin
thetownshipandinhisposition,thereisalsoanelementofjealousyinhisdemeanour
towardsSox.WhileSoxwantsthebelievablestreetcredentialsthatZamaembodies,
healsodoesnotfullywanttoletgooftheprivilegesandsafetyofhisownlife.Sox’s
240
unspokenfearsandZama’sunspokenjealousybecomemoreprominentthroughSox’s
on-goinglessonsasthefilmcontinues.
Afteranightofpartyinganddrinking,Soxfindshimselfinthebackofacarwith
his three tsotsi friends. The two less prominent gangsters sit in front and Sox and
Zamasitonthebackseat.Soxiscomfortableastheguystalkabouttheirexperiences
butwhentheydecidethattheywilldosomeworkthatnight,Sox’sattitudechanges.
Kwaito music overwhelms the soundtrack as the team of four embark on their
“shopping list”, as Joe terms it. After the swift hijacking of a four-by-four vehicle
belonging to a youngwhite couple,we see Sox lookingback at the stranded couple
and empathising with them instead of celebrating with the team who have just
acquiredanothercar.Hisface,seenthroughtherearwindow,isalsoanexpressionof
terrorandfearasthisisthefirsttimethattheyhavetakenhimalong.Astheybegin
totakestockofthenight’seventsSox,stillinthesamepositioninthebackofthecar,
begins to thank them and tries to make a quick exit. Because they are all in a
stationarycartheshotsareclose-upandintense.Sox’sfearisintenseashiseyesflit
aroundthecar.Theguyspointoutthattheyonlyhavethreecarsyettherearefourof
them. ThemomentsuggeststhatSox isnowoneofthem. Althoughthis iswhathe
saidhewanted, likethe‘RainbowNation’,thisdesiretoohascomewithunexpected
things.
Sox’sfirstcarbreak-inisabotchedattemptthatZamahastohelphimfix.The
sceneopenswithamovingpointofviewshotfromSox’sperspectiveasweseethecar
passthehighwallsoftheJohannesburgsuburbs.Aftermovingthroughthesuburbthe
cameracomestorestonanoldyellowToyotaCorollaparkedoutsideoneofthehigh
wallsandviewedfrominsidetheVWthattheyoungmenarein. Aftersomejeering
241
and teasing,Zamahandshisgun toSox. Sox’seyebrowsare furrowedandhe looks
frazzledbutalsoknowshehas little choice,particularly after Zamaadviseshim that
messing this up might mean his own death. Both he and Zama are framed in a
mediumclose-up.Itisdarkandthemusiconthesoundtrackissuggestiveoftrouble.
ThethreeguyssitinthecarandwatchSoxapproachthevehiclewithalongruler-like
objectwithwhichhemustbreakthelock.WealsowatchSoxfromtheirperspectivein
awideangleshot.Soxstruggleswiththeactionandpushesagainstthecar,whichsets
offthealarm.OnhearingthisZamacomestoassist,andatthesametimetheowner
comesoutofthehouse.Theownerisamiddle-agedwhitemanwhoapproachesthe
car. Sox and Zama have been cowering so that he will not see them but as he
approachesthecarSoxjumpsoutfromthehidingplace.
With the gun in hand Sox approaches the stunned man, who immediately
raiseshisarmsinsurrender.IronicallySoxdoesthesame.Inamediumshotwesee
SoxandtheownerwiththesamedesperatefearontheirfacesexceptthatSoxisnot
inthevictimposition.AsthoughSoxrealisesthis,helowershisarmsandbeginstoask
themanforthecarkeys. TheowneriscompletelytakenoffguardbecauseSoxasks
theownerforthekeys,usingtermslike“Sir’and“please”.Theowneriscompletely
takenoffguard,havingexpectedamoreviolentapproach.Soxrepeatshimself,again
including and emphasising his “please”. Having lost patience with Sox’s amenable
approach to theft,Zamaapproaches thesituationwith the intention to sortout this
situation.Zamaisintimidatingandpushesthegunupagainsttheowner’sface,similar
toSox’srenditionofanAfricanAmericangangstercharacter. WhileemployingSox’s
method,heangrilyshoutsatSoxthatthisisthewaytodoit.Zamainstructstheman
tolieonthegroundbeforeheturnstoSox,tellinghimthathehasnowseenhisface.
WhoisSox’sbrotherasksZama,theownerorhim.Thequestionismoreintricatethan
242
the simple choice between Zama and the whiteman because it implies a range of
things that Sox has not been able to deal with himself since he began his new
education. Inapproachingtheman inhismodelCaccentwith ‘Sir’and ‘please’and
‘thankyou’,Soxindicatesthathedoesnotknowhowtobeatsotsi.WhenZamatakes
overthesituationheinstructsthemantogivehimthekeyswhilethreateninghislife.
He also adds some tsotsi slang in his request. There are differing subjectivities
displayedbyZamaandSox,noticeablysointheirrenditionsofactiveviolence.
WhileSoxhasbeenhappytowatchandlearn,hewasnottrulyreadyorableto
actuallybeatsotsi. Soxseemstomakehisdecisionaboutwhichsidehe iswhenhe
firesa shot into theair. Framed inamediumshotweseeadifferent lookonSox’s
face,oneofdefianceandvehemence,ashepointstheguninthedirectionofwhere
themanhasescaped to and letsoff two shots. Wearenot shown theoutcomeof
thoseshots.ThesceneendsasJoegetsinthedriver’sseatoftheyellowCorolla.Itis
asthoughthefilmrevertstoputtinginpowertheoneswhoknowwhattheyaredoing.
This scene is telling inhowquickly thingsbegin tounravel forSox,aswellas
what he embodies: the ideal of the ‘Rainbow Nation’. Hijack Stories’ places its
emphasisontheinscrutableracialandclasspositionsthatSoxthinkshecanembody
butwhichhe learnshecannot. The film’suseof spaceandthe transitionsbetween
townshipandsuburbareasinstructiveasSox’slessonsaboutbecomingatsotsi.This
is a similar consideration to Mapantsula, Schmitz’s 1988 film in which Panic’s
movement achieves to bring an awareness of space, politicising it and making it
impossiblenottobeawareofit.Linkedtotheconsiderationsofspaceandplaceinthe
filmisalsothechoicesaroundmise-en-scèneandmarkersofthecontextualnational
transformations alongside Sox’s transformation. Also present in the scene analysed
243
above is something thatMapantsula isnotable toachievebecauseof theapartheid
contextofthefilm.Thisisthepresenceofthewhitecharactersinpositionsoffear.In
bothinstances,firstthehijackingofthewhitecoupleandthetheftofthecar,weare
shownwhitepeopleinaninferior(albeitviolent)positionandtheyoungBlackmenare
in a position of power. This is in direct contrast to Panic inMapantsula. The film’s
abilitytoemploytheracialreversalinthiswayisanimportantwaythroughwhichitis
able tocaptureSox’s transitionandalmostposeaquestion, justasZamadid:which
sidedoesSoxbelongto?And, isbelongingtothe‘RainbowNation’abadsidetobe
on?
Inthemidstofapolicechasethatensuesafterthenightofhijackingsandcar
thefts,weareofferedsomeanswerstotheopen-endedquestionsposedbythescene
before.Forexample,asingleword,‘Vote’,hasbeenspraypaintedontoawhitewall.
Next to it is an advert for the forthcoming showwith ‘Bra Biza’, the character Sox
wishestoplay.‘BraBiza’hasasternexpressionandstaresdirectlyatSoxandJoeas
Joe continues to brag about himself as the ‘Michael Schumacher of Soweto’. The
advertforagangster,andtheword‘Vote’,whichimpliescertainthingsaboutapost-
apartheid democracy, do not go together. As incongruous terms they reflect the
incongruent society of post-apartheid. ‘BraBiza’ represents a fictional Zamaand as
the character called ‘Rainbow Nation’ throughout, it is fitting that Sox could be
equated to the term ‘Vote’. But like the characters Zama and Sox, and the terms,
‘RainbowNation’and‘Vote’,thefilmalsoseemstohaveatongue-in-cheekapproach
inwhichitsuggestsacautionaboutthepromisesandpackagingofthe‘Rainbow’. It
suggeststhattherearenoneatcongruousendings,notanindividualnoratacollective
level.
244
HijackStories’concernswithidentityandperformanceinthenewSouthAfrica
comesfullcircleinthefilm’sending.AfterSox’sfinalandmostdangerouslesson,heis
badly injured. The injury lands him in a public hospital where he does not receive
adequate treatment. Knowing thatZamahascash,Graceaskshimtoassistand the
tworushSox toaprivatehospital,whatZamacallsa ‘white’hospital. Soxpromises
Zamaanythinginexchangeforhislife.The‘anything’isSox’sidentity,whichthefilm
gives us brief access to in the final sceneswhen Zama accesses Sox’s apartment to
retrieve his identity document. As Zama looks for the document, he also takes in
piecesofSox’slife.Visibleonthewallforexample,istheposterofWesleySnipesina
frontalmediumactionshot.BehindSnipesiswhatlookslikesunraysorlightfroman
explosionthatilluminatesandframeshiminaheroicaura.AsthoughkeepingSnipes’
heroicglowablaze,thefinalsceneshowsZamahavingsecuredtheroleof ‘BraBiza’.
This is Zama’s new beginning, his ‘RainbowNation’ coming into being. Zama has a
largehoodieoverhisheadsothatthecastingdirectordoesnotseethatheisnotthe
samepersonfrombefore.Zama’saudition,whichwehaveseenSoxfailatanumber
oftimesthroughoutthefilm, isaconvincingsuccess. Asthecameracapturesafinal
sneer from almost inside Zama’s hood as he takes in the compliments, we are
remindedoftwothings:firstly,thatZamasecuredthisroleonhisfirsttrybecausethis
is not a performance for him, hijacking is what he does. Secondly, we are also
remindedof Sox’s threeattempts at the role and thus the filmendsupquestioning
bothyoungmen’sauthenticpost-apartheididentities.
245
[Figure5.1]Zamaafterhavinglandedtheroleof‘BraBiza’
WhattheendingalsoprovesisthatwhileZamaandhisgangteasedSoxabout
being ‘Mr Rainbow Nation’, they were also envious of Sox’s life. The lessons seen
throughoutthefilmwerenotonlyforSoxbutalsoforZama.Zamahaslearnedhowto
perform the ‘Rainbow Nation’ and being awarded this role is his access to what
seemedlikeanunattainable‘Rainbow’.ZamaandSoxwerebothborninSowetobut
only one got out. Zama’s jealously easily goes unnoticed in light of Sox’s more
overwhelminganddemandingnarrativehowever, in theculminationof the film, the
finalclose-upofZama’sdevioussneerseemstosuggestthatitisreallyZama’slifethat
looksmoreappealingatthispoint.Stadlernotesthat“BothSoxandZamahave,like
allofus,beenplayingpartsthatwerescriptedforthembythecircumstancesoftheir
lives…”.297
ThechapternowturnstothecasestudyofanothertsotsiinSowetoinTsotsi.
Althoughthereareanumberofbroadoverlapsbetweenthetwofilms,HijackStories
297Stadler,“Tsotsis,CoconutsandWiggers”inHadland,Louw,Sesanti,Wasserman(eds.),SouthAfricanMedia,p.359.
246
succeedsinitsabilitytoshowanddeveloptwodifferenteconomic,andracialpositions
through itsmainprotagonistsZamaandSox. SimilarlytoTsotsi, it focalises issuesof
Black masculinity and post-apartheid identity from within and outside of spaces of
poverty(township)andaffluence(suburbs).
247
Tsotsi
Tsotsi isa2005SouthAfrica/UKproductiondirectedbyGavinHood. Itwon
the2006AcademyAwardforBestForeignLanguagefilm.BasedonthenovelbyAthol
Fugard, Hood adapts Tsotsi for a post-apartheid South African context.When Tsotsi
(PresleyChweneyagae)hijacksamiddleclassBlackwomanonlytofindoutthathealso
stoleababy,thefilm’snarrativedevelopstoshowthathumanitytrumpshistraumatic
past. Tsotsi, which, as highlighted earlier, has received significant critical attention,
waseligible foranAcademyAwardbecauseof the rangeofSouthAfrican languages
anddialectsitemployssuchasSotho,Zulu,‘tsotsi-taal’(gangslang)andEnglish.298
IntheopeningsceneofTsotsi,thediegeticsoundofmenjeeringeachotheris
audibleovertheactionthattakesplaceonaboardgame.Thecamerafocusesclosely
onhandsastheyshakeandrolldiceagainstthebackdropofthetitlesequence.The
imageisbrieflysloweddowntoshowapairofdiceastheylandonatable,astrategy
thatemphasisesthediceandthebrokentabletheylandon.Theimpactoftheclose-
upsonhandstranslates intoasenseofdangerousskittishnesswhen,moments later,
oneoftheguysatthetableslamsthetipofaknifeontotheverysame‘game’table.A
wide-angleshotrevealsthemise-en-scène:acrampedmakeshiftlivingroom,bedroom
and kitchen. One of the group members watches the sunset as he stands in the
backgroundonwhatappearstobeabalcony. He looksbackat thegroupthathave
beenplayingthegame.Inthewide-angleshotheisbehindthegroupbutinthecentre
oftheshot,halfturnedtowardsthemandhalfawayfromthem.
298Seefootnotenumber259.
248
[Figure5.2]Tsotsiandhisfriendsinopeningscene
The character, who we learn is Tsotsi, the main protagonist, is shot in a
mediumclose-upashewatcheshisfriends.Fromtheoutsettheimplicationisthathe
is in an in-between place because of his backward-facing head and forward facing
body.Hood’suseofwide-angleshotsinthisfilmhasbeennotedasenablingthefilm
tofocuson“individualcharactersandtheenvironmentinwhichtheyexist…”.299Thisis
alsotrueoftheopeningscene,inwhichTsotsiisseenagainstabackdropofanidyllic
African sunsetaswell asagainst the less than idyllic townshipwherehe lives. Such
wide-angle shots are incorporated throughout Tsotsi to continuously situate the
characterwithinahistoricalcontext.
FollowingtheopeningsceneTsotsiwalksoutofthedoorofhisshack.Booming
kwaitomusicisintroducedonthesoundtrackashisthreefellowtsotsismakewayfor
himtodescendtherampfirst,emphasisinghisroleasleader.ReneSmithwritesthat
thefilmuseskwaitomusicas,“…acelebrationofyouthculture…anincredibleassetto
blackSouthAfricanyouthculture[…]asaformofresistance,kwaitothusisanintegral
part of representation of ‘real-life’ township experience”.300 In another wide-angle
shot,Tsotsiisatthecentreofthegangastheyparadethroughthetownshipstreets.
299Dovey,AfricanFilmandLiterature,p.100.300ReneSmith,“YizoYizoandEssentialism:RepresentationsofWomenandGender-BasedViolenceinaDramaSeriesBasedonReality”inHermanWassermanandSeanJacobs(eds.),ShiftingSelves:Post-ApartheidEssaysonMedia,CultureandIdentity(CapeTown:KwelaBooks,2003),p.250.
249
The tsotsis in the film emulate a similar look via dress and other codes conveyed
throughverbalandbodylanguageandemployavernacularspecifictothetownships
of Joburg. Similar characterisation takesplacewith the characters ofHijack Stories,
madeparticularlyprominentaswewitnessSox’searlytransformation.
[Figure5.3]Tsotsilookingbackathisfriendswhilehisbodyremainsforward-facing.
It isnotonlyTsotsi’sexpressionwhichpresentshimascoldandheartlessbut
that samenight he and his gang go to the Johannesburg train station to find a few
people torob,somethingthatseemsaregularpastime. Abungledrobbery leads to
theunexpectedmurderofanelderlymanon the train. This is clearlynot theusual
modusoperandiforthegangandTsotsiisblamedforwhathappenedwhenoneofhis
friends angrily and guiltily tells him that hewent too far. Theywere all part of the
murder. Tsotsi runs away from the township after this scene. The images of him
crossingtheJohannesburgminedumpsserveasafittingbackdropfortheinclusionof
flashbackstohischildhood. Asheruns,withthenightsky litbyflashesof lightning,
250
theimagebrieflycutstoayoungerTsotsirunningalongthesamepath.Thepurpose
oftheflashbackistoshowthatthisisnotthefirsttimethatTsotsirunsawayfroman
incidentthathashurtandaffectedhim.TheyoungerTsotsirunswithtearsstreaming
downhisface.TheolderTsotsidoesnotcrybuthasthesamepainedexpressionasthe
childintheflashback.Tsotsi’srunningisemblematicofaliteralrunningawayfromhis
problemsathome,theimplicationthatTsotsi’shardexterioris,asStadlernotesinthe
caseofHijackStories,aproductofhiscircumstances.301
When he did this as a child, he ran away to life as a street child and then
graduated to the thug life. Now, he runs away and finds himself on the tree-lined
streetof aquiet Johannesburg suburb. Inboth contexts, Tsotsi’s running awaydoes
not leadtoabetter lifebuttoamorecomplicatedandproblem-riddenone. Aswas
shownbythechoicetomurdertheoldmanonthetrain,Tsotsiexhibitsanaffinityfor
similarimpulsiveactionsinthefollowingscene,asthough,thefilmimplies,heisstilla
childorthathistraumahassomehowaffectedhisabilitytogrowup.Theawareness
ofTsotsi’s traumaticpast isalsocritical in shapinghowwecome toviewTsotsi,not
only as a thug but, as the film encourages us to believe in the end, a traumatised
young Black man. The film’s post-apartheid context is explicit in how it addresses
affluence through an example of the post-apartheid Black middle-class, the Dube
couple. Tsotsi’s construction of the predominant identity of young post-apartheid
BlackmenexhibitswhatHauptdiscussesasprimarywaysofrepresentingyoungBlack
menasdangerousandviolent.302ThismodeofrepresentationisprominentinTsotsi’s
301Stadler,Tsotsis,CoconutsandWiggersinHadland,Louw,Sesanti,Wasserman(eds.),SouthAfricanMedia,p.359.302Haupt,BlackMasculinityandtheTyrannyofAuthenticityinSouthAfricanPopularCulture”inHadland,Louw,Sesanti,Wasserman(eds.),SouthAfricanMedia,pp.378–398.
251
firstencounterwiththe livesoftheDubecouplewhen,afterrunningawayfromthe
township,hefindshimselfinaleafyJoburgsuburb.
Tsotsi bewilderedly trudges through the rain along a tree-lined road
accompanied only by high walls and security gates. The camera frames his small,
darklycladbodyfrombehindandshowsTsotsi inthemiddleofthestreet inawide-
angle long shot as the Highveld storm looms around him. As he takes in his
surroundingsthecamerazoomsinonhishandsashelooksatthem,areminderthat
heranawayfromtheshebeenwherehehadjustbeatenuphisfriend.Aclose-upof
hisfaceindicatesthatheisbreathingheavilyandhecrouchesunderatreeforshelter
from the rain. This image recalls the younger Tsotsi’s tear-stained face from the
flashback. The use of close-ups of the fragile looking youngman is suggestive of a
highlyambivalentemotiverelationshipbeingsetupbetweenTsotsiandtheviewer.In
this relationship it is difficult to judge Tsotsi too harshly when his fragile and
fragmentedinteriorisexposed.Tsotsishiversunderatreeasheseestheheadlightsof
acarapproaching.
Tsotsi’s thug instincts and childlike impulsiveness spring into action when,
moments later, the seemingly vulnerable ‘boy-man’ hijacks a well-dressed woman,
PumlaDube(NambithaMpumlwana),whodrivesaBMWM5(acarwhichcommands
respectinthetownship). Pumlafreezesonseeingthegunpointedather. Although
sheexitsthecaronTsotsi’scommandshedoesnotrunawaybutinsteadstaysthere
pleadingwithTsotsi.Tsotsiisabouttodriveawaywhensheopensthepassengerdoor
andhe shootsher. The frenzy andadrenalineof thehijacking is emphasised in the
close-ups of Tsotsi’s face and of his hands as they fumble with the unfamiliar
automaticgears. Heseemsasafraidas she isbut thisdoesnot registerbecausehe
252
also holds a gun. Pumla’s pleas arewashed out by the sound of the rain and the
darknessofthenight. TsotsidoesnotunderstandthatPumladoesnotwanttofight
himforthecarbutforherbaby,whoisonthebackseat.Themisunderstandingleads
toTsotsi’simpulsiveactofshootingPumla.Hedrivesoffwiththecarandonlyrealises
thepresenceofthebabylater.Inthatshotasilhouetteofthetownshipispresentin
the background. We experience this scene from Tsotsi’s point of view and even
thoughheshootsPumla, the filmhassetuphisownsituationasquitedire. Hood’s
choice for the events to unfold as they do is suggestive of how the differentmale
charactersaresomehowboundtogether inthefilm:Tsotsitheboy,Tsotsitheyoung
man and the metaphoric implication attached to Tsotsi as the baby boy on the
backseat.
ThechildbecomesasymbolofmaterialwealthandpossibilitythatTsotsidoes
nothaveanddidnothavegrowingup.Thechildrepresentstheinnocentembodiment
oftherisingBlackmiddleclassofpost-apartheidSouthAfricaandis,atthesametime,
representativeofaproverbialblankcanvasforTsotsitoimaginethathecanhavethis
child’sfutureand/orreworkhisownchildhoodtraumathroughthelifeaheadthatthe
babyrepresents.DoveycritiquesHood’sTsotsiasa“neoliberalgesture”towardsthe
violenceof contemporary SouthAfrica,becauseofhow the film is able to show the
vulnerabilityofacharacterlikeTsotsiinrelationtothewealthycouplewhosebabyis
stolen.303However,“neo-liberalgesture”seemstoosimplisticareadingtoattributeto
Tsotsibecauseoftheunspokenracialassociationbetweenthemiddle-classDubesand
whites.Thisanalysisalsoconsidershowthefilminvitesareadingthatisnotonlyabout
the “neoliberal gesture” thatendedapartheidbut alsoaboutTsotsi’s imaginationof
beingapartof‘TheRainbow’throughthemetaphorpresentedbythebaby.
303Dovey,AfricanFilmandLiterature,p.108.
253
Thefilmisthusalsoaboutthedeeppsychologicalfissures inTsotsithatallow
himtoimagineadifferentlifeandfutureifhecould,likeababy,haveafreshstart.In
such a consideration, I suggest that through its representation of young Black post-
apartheidmasculinity,thefilmisnotentirelyclear:ontheonehanditsuggestspost-
apartheidmiddle-classBlacknessasprecariously,but‘happily’embodiedintheDubes.
Ontheother, the filmsuggests thatyoungBlackmenarenot reallypartofa
newpost-apartheidsensibilityatallastheiractionsremainreflectionsoftraumatised
violence,confusionandchildlikeactions. Whenthe filmdoesseemto inviteanew
sensibilityisinrelationtothebaby.TolimitTsotsitotheclassbinaryshowninthefilm
meanstomissoutonwhatitmight implythroughthecharacterofthebaby. This is
particularlyevidentwhenMiriam(TerryPheto),thewomanwhoheaskstomindthe
baby, asks himwhat the child’s name is.Without her knowing, he names the child
David after himself. The name David is not a name that anyone uses for him and
connotesatimewhenTsotsi’sownmotherwasstillalive.TonamethechildDavidre-
invokesTsotsi’spastwhenitwasstilloneinwhichhewasachildthatwasnotscarred
bytraumaanditisthisfeelingofpossibilityforbabyDavidthatcompelshimtoreturn
totheDubehometocollectsomeofthechild’scomforts. WhatTsotsifindsthereis
beyondwhathecouldhaveimagined.
When Tsotsi enters the child’s room the camera focuses on him as he very
slowlysurveysthespaceintheroom,thecolourofthewalls,thetexturesofthewall
paintings,thecotthatbelongsonlytothechild.Oneofthewallsintheroomispainted
withanAfricansunset.ThisisachildwhohasmorethanTsotsihasasayoungman.
TheopeningsceneisechoedinthissceneasTsotsitakesinthehorizonofthesetting
sun,exceptthistime,itisapaintedsunthatthelittleboy’sparentsimagineandwork
254
towards,forhisbrighterfuture,andnot,asinTsotsi’slife,oneinwhichthesunrises
andsetsofitsownaccord.Theimageofthesunset(orsunrise)isthusconsideredasa
recurring image of promise and hope seen throughout the film. This scene shows
Tsotsitobeinanalmosttrance-likestateinwhichhewantstobelievetwoconflicting
things,thefirstbeingthatifhecanbringsomeofthechild’smaterialcomfortstohis
ownhome,thenhetoocandowhattheseparentsdofortheirchild.Ifonlyhecould
givetheboythethingsofthishouse,thenDavidcanalsobehischanceatdoingbetter,
in otherwords, Tsotsi’s own do-over. This scene is also suggestive of the fact that
Tsotsihimselfmaybeabletoabandonhiscurrentpsychologicalandphysicalsqualor
to return tohisownchildhood soas to re-experience life in theway thatDavid the
babyalreadylives,withcomfortandmoreimportantly,theopportunitiesofthenew
SouthAfrica.
Because of the dichotomy that is presented between two different kinds of
Black realities, the film is able to comment on the differences and the lived
experiences of both realities. On the one hand, the film is able to position itself
squarely in the new South African through commenting on specifically ‘Rainbow
Nation’issues.OntheotherhandhoweverTsotsi’sredemptiveconclusioncouldalso
beviewedasanaggravationonBlack-on-Blackviolenceandthusstillacompensatory
redemption that speaks to whites, not Blacks. For Tsotsi, this complexity would
perhapsnothaveariseninthesamewayifthecoupleandthechildwerenotblacklike
him.
TheDube’saffluenceistheobjectofparticularspectacleinthesceneinwhich
TsotsiandhisgangbreakintotheDubehome. This isalsoasceneinwhichthefilm
impliescomparisonstowhiteness.AlthoughTsotsitargetsthathouseforthesakeof
255
gettingsomeofthebaby’sthings,hisfriendsthinkitisjustanotherwealthysuburban
home.Thesceneactsasthefirstandonlyopportunityinwhichthewealthyandthe
poor come into contactbeyondTsotsi and thehelplessbaby. Themise-en-scèneof
thelargeexpensivelydecoratedhomeisacontrasttothevastterrainofthetownship
and the small houses in it. Oneof the gangmembers is taskedwithwatchingover
John,whohasbeen restrained. He is interested inwhy John likeswine,notbeer,a
commentonJohn’s ‘white’tastesasaBlackman.Thedistasteshownforthewineis
further emphasised by themany open but not consumed bottles on the table that
surroundhim.
FramedinahighangleshotfromJohn’spointofview,Aap(monkey)peruses
thecontentsofthefridge,callingout“…cheese,coldmeats,sausages,chickenlivers”.
Thefocusonthis lackof interest instealing,andthescene’s focus insteadoneating
and John’s drinking tastes, further serves to emphasise the class gap between the
characters.ItisalsoreminiscentoftherelationshipbetweenSoxandZamawhenthe
latterasksSox tochooseaside. In that sceneZamarefers toawhiteorBlackside,
fromwhichwe aremeant to infer that Zama could fit in with either. The same is
impliedtowardsJohnwithregardstothefoodanddrinkinhishouse.Itdistinguishes
himfromotherBlacksthroughasuggestionthatbecauseheismiddle-classheislikea
whiteperson.
Toelaborateonhowtheaspectof redemption functions topull together the
different concerns of Tsotsi I consider Tsotsi’s final ‘visit’ to the Dube residence in
whichhe returns thebaby. Thepolicearealready looking forTsotsiby the timehe
decidestoreturnthechildwho,istransportedinoneofthebagsfromtheDube’scar.
AsTsotsimakeshiswaytotheDuberesidence,thecameracaptureshiminanout-of-
256
focuswide-angleapproachingshot.Tsotsionlycomesintofocuswhenhegetscloser
tothecameraandthedestinationoftheDuberesidence.Thesametreeslinethedark
streetandshowhisapproach.ItstormedthefirsttimeTsotsiwasthereandhisdark
clothingandblackleatherjacketpresentedhimasstealthyinthedarkofthenightand
invitedasinistermood.Thistimehowever,Tsotsiisdressedinawhiteshirtandblack
pantsandcarriestwobags,oneoneithersideofhisbody:apaperbagthatholdsthe
babyandalargeleatherdufflebagthatcontainstheitemshestoleforthechildwhen
hereturnedtotheDuberesidencethesecondtime.Bothbagsandthelightcoloured
clothing indicate a literal and metaphoric change in the main protagonist. The off-
whiteshirtthatheisdressedinconveysasenseofTsotsiinthelightandweassociate
himwithgood.
Tsotsi leaves both items in the driveway of the residence and presses the
buzzertoalertthecoupletothechildoutside.Tsotsistartstoleavebutunexpectedly
turnsbackandhurriedlyleansdownintothebrownpaperbagtotakeonelastlookat
the child. A short shot-reverse-shot sequenceensuesbetween the two to conveya
bond they have formed. This short sequence reveres a private moment between
Tsotsiand thechildasTsotsi is viewed froma lowangle,as though fromthechild’s
pointofview.ThelightsandsirensofthepoliceandthespotlightonTsotsiknockthe
viewer out of the reverie. Tsotsimight be doing a good thing now but he has also
committedmanybadacts.TsotsiliftsDavidoutofthebagwhenhebeginstocryand
asthepolicesurroundTsotsi it looksasthoughhemaycrytoo. Thepolicesurround
Tsotsi and hold his frightened gaze with their drawn guns. John Dube, the child’s
father,approachesastunnedandnervousTsotsi.ThecamerafocusesonTsotsi’sface
as tears streamdownboth cheeks. The tears are a reminderof the youngboywho
runs away from home,whichwas shown in a flashback just before Tsotsi stole the
257
childatthebeginningofthefilm.Tsotsihugsthenowsleepingchildtightertohischest
asJohnapproacheshim,almostasthoughthechildcomfortshim,nottheotherway
round.
Even though this encounter between John and Tsotsi is constructed aswhat
couldbeaprivateencounter,thebluepolicelightsremainintheframeandserveasa
reminderofvariousonlookers:thepolice,thechild’smotherandus,theviewers.The
silentcommunicationbetweenJohnandTsotsiconveysanumberofthings:amutual
loveforthebabythatTsotsimusthandover,andasenseofrecognitionineachother’s
eyesthateitherofthemcouldhavebeentheother.JohnDubeisawareofthereality
of the majority of Blacks in South Africa and has himself been affected by violent
crime.Tsotsiisawarethatunderdifferentcircumstanceshisownlifecouldhavebeen
moreofareflectionofthe‘RainbowNation’thatJohnandhisfamilyarepartof.The
major connection between the twomen is quite simple and visceral: they are both
young, Blackmen in SouthAfrica. Despite class,which the filmuses to construct a
post-apartheidbinarybetweenthesetwocharacters,theracialhistoryofapartheidis
alsowrittenintomuchofthefilmeventhoughtheDubesarenotwhite.Tsotsilooksat
John above the baby’s head and John stares back at him, acknowledging their
commonalities. Thecamera frames the twomen inamediumshotand for the first
time,Hooddoesnotemploythewide-angleshottoincludethesurroundingarea.The
eye-lineshotconveysasensethattheyalonesharethatmoment.
WhenTsotsi returns the child to John, his arms remainoutstretched as John
backsawayfromhim,notbyturninghisbackandwalkingoffbutbytakingslowsteps
backwards.Thetwomencontinuetoholdeachother’sgazeevenafterthebabyhas
beenhandedovertohismother.Pumlaisnowinawheelchair,aphysicalreminderof
258
theviolencethatTsotsiiscapableof.ThepolicequicklysurroundTsotsiafterthebaby
is returned. The only white character in the film is a Zulu-speaking police officer
whoseinstructiontocuffTsotsibreaksthereverieofthemoment.ItisTsotsi’sbody
languagethatconveysTsotsi’semotionsinthescene.Forexample,Tsotsidisplayshis
ownprotective feelings towards thebabywhenhehugs the child close tohis chest
beforehehandshimovertoJohn.Inthismomenthereleasesthechildfrombeinghis
captive but he also releases his own traumatised childhood. John also comes to
representsomethingmoretoTsotsi;heisthebaby’sfatherbutthekindnessheshares
with Tsotsi is suggestive of a father figure that the youngman never had. Tsotsi’s
outstretchedarmsalsoconveythelongingforwhatheneverhad.
InfurtherconsiderationoftheDubes:thefilmutilisesthemprimarilytoshow
theiraffluenceandnot,asinthecaseofSoxinHijackStories,toshowwhattheirown
complex struggles with post-apartheid identitymight be. The couple thus serve as
‘replacement whites’ in a way, because, as is shown in Hijack Stories, whites still
largelypopulatethesuburbs.And,althoughgrowing,thepost-apartheidBlackmiddle-
classremainssmallerthanthewhiteone.BecausetheDubesareBlack,thefilmresists
any further critique or characterisation of them beyond their economic status. In a
way,itcommentsthatalifeliketheirsistheaspirationalaimofthe‘RainbowNation’.
The redemption of the film thus restswith theDubes’ (Black) ability to forgive, not
really in Tsotsi’s agency or change. This is different to Hijack Stories, which
consistentlydisrupts,problematisesandhyperbolisestheclassboundarybetweenSox
andZama,andthedifferentexperiencesofbeingBlackthattheyhave.HijackStories
also questions the middle-class ‘Rainbow Nation’ identity through the overt
articulation of the post-apartheid relation between middle-class Blacks, like Sox
259
(coconuts)andwhites.InTsotsiwearemeanttodeduceasimilarconclusionfromthe
robberyscene.
While the filmdoes,asDoveyargues, relyheavilyon the ideaof “neo-liberal
gesture”,thisanalysisofTsotsihasshownhowitincludesnotonebutlayeredgestures
setwithinacontextofchange (post-apartheid). Tsotsiproblematisespost-apartheid
Blackclassconcernsbutdoesnotshowhowthosesameclassconcernsarethemselves
entangled in apartheid and post-apartheid racial matters. The context of change
implied through the ‘Rainbow Nation’ rhetoric is not however congruous with
characters likeTsotsiorhisfellowthugsandIthusconsiderthatsuchpost-apartheid
masculinitiesare representedas inarticulateand,not truly reflectiveofanemergent
sensibilitybutratherofsomethingmoreakintoapre-emergentsensibility.
260
Disgrace
The final section of this chapter turns its attention to the three youngmen
rapistsinDisgrace.ThepreviouschapterconsideredtheissueoftherapeinDisgrace
assomethingthatwasconstructedmainly fromDavidLurie’semotionalandphysical
pointofviewaswell.Thissectionbrieflyconsiderstheconstructionandimplications
forthethreeyoungBlackmenwhorapeLucyandwhoareneverheldaccountablefor
their actions. The film constructs these characters as simple and boy-like, mainly
throughthelackofcharacterisationofallthreeandthenlaterinthefilm,theemphasis
ononeofthem,Pollux,whoisassumedtobementallyunstable. Becausetheother
twoyoungmenonlyappearintherapescene,thebehaviourseeninPollux(notonlya
lackofremorsebutaninabilitytoregisterwhathehasdoneaswrong)isonewayin
which the film comments on young Blackmen in general. Aswith the low-income
protagonistsofthetwootherfilmsdiscussedinthischapter,thesethreeyoungmen
alsorepresenttheyoungBlackmenofthenewSouthAfrica.
InthepreludetotherapesceneDavidandLucyapproachthehouseafterthe
walkwith thedogs (discussed indetail inChapter Four). The filmdesignates Lucy’s
body as the primary site of contestation and pain after the rape scene inDisgrace.
However, this section analyses how the young men are also representative of
contestedbodies.Theirunkemptappearancesandbadbehaviouralreadysetthemup
asunreliableandpotentiallydangerous. Forexample,theyareshowntohissatthe
dogs and shout and bang on the cages as though they themselves are animals, not
outsideofthecagesbut, likethedogs,also incarcerated. Inaddition,theyareBlack
and on a farm, a reference to the historical conditions of apartheid in which they
261
wouldhavebeentreatedas,andcalled, ‘boys’. Thesearethe indicatorsabouttheir
charactersbefore LucyandDavidget closeenough to talk to themand theyconvey
certain ideasabout theyoungmen,particularly that theyarenotwell-off. The look
anddemeanouroftheboysgoeshandinhandwithDavid’squestiontoLucyasthey
approachthehouseafterthewalk:“Shouldwebenervous”?
Differently to some of the other young Black characters discussed in this
chapter,theyoungmeninDisgracearenotcharacterswithdepthorinteriority.They
appearonlyassavagepropsofsortsandinthisway,theyarereducedtothekindof
representation that limits them from truly participating in the possibilities of the
‘Rainbow’. Against the film’s presentation of a somewhat sadistic (but hopeful)
continuancearoundtheoutcomeoftherapeembodiedthroughLucy,oneofthegang
rapists returns to the farm in the secondhalfof the film. Lucy identifieshimat the
Petrus’party. David confrontsPetrusabout theboy,demanding toknowhisname.
Petrus, who never mentions the word rape, explains that Pollux is “too young” to
understand what happened and to take responsibility for the consequence, the
pregnancy and a baby. Lucy too makes excuses for Pollux who she describes as
mentallyunwell. OnthedayafterLucyhastoldDavidaboutthepregnancyhetakes
theonlyremainingdogforawalk,thesamegoldenretrieverhewalkedonthedayof
the rape. The sceneopenswith thearrivalofDavidand thedogat the farmhouse.
Theyare framedsimilarly tohowtheywere in therapescene,exceptthis timeLucy
andtheotherdogsarenotthere. This isausefulre-enactmentthatrecallsthatday
fromthemomentLucyandDavidarrivebackat the farm. It isalsouseful in that it
confirms the importance in the details of them watching the boys at the kennels.
Davidtakesinthesurroundingsandnoticessomethingunusual,Pollux,holdingontoa
windowpane as he peers through the window. It becomes apparent that he is
262
watching Lucy take a shower, hinting at some potential truth to Lucy’s comments
aboutPollux, thathe isnot ‘right in thehead’. This imageof theboy suggests that
whilePolluxmightbea‘PeepingTom’andapervert,hemightnotbecunningorclever
enoughtohatchaplantorape.
Thedoggrowls and the same fastpaceddrummusic thatprecedes the rape
scenesetsinonthesoundtrack.Thistimehowever,itisDavidrunningandkickingup
dusttogettothetarget.Davidgrabstheboy,throwshimonthefloorandrepeatedly
kickshim.ThedogthatattackedPolluxonthedayoftherapealsoattackshimagain
on this occasion. The boy screams and crieswhile David shouts profanities at him.
Thecameracapturesthisindifferentshotsthatrangebetweenmediumshotstoshow
theimpactofDavidkickingtheboy,andvariationsofmediumclose-upsandclose-ups
toemphasiseDavid’sangerandPollux’sshockandfear.Whenviewedfromabove,we
witnesstheassaultfromDavid’spointofview,whichaddstotheintensityasDavidis
notonlyangrythatLucygotrapedbutheisangrybecauseoftheshamethathecould
notprotecther. TheassaultonlyendswhenLucyrunsoutofthehouseinthesame
white robe sheworeafter the rape. She speaks toPollux ina voice reserved fora
child who has been hurt, telling him that they can go wash the wounds. As she
straightensuptolookdownatPolluxherrobeopensandexceptforherpanties,sheis
naked.ThecameracapturesPollux’sfaceinamediumclose-upashetakesinLucy’s
nakedbreasts.ThenitmovestoDavid,whostandshelplesslybehindLucy.
TheboytakesthemomentLucyturnsawayfromhimtocloseherrobe,torun
off into a nearby patch of cauliflowers. As he kicks the heads of cauliflower, he
repeatedlyshoutsand laughs,“Wewillkillyou!”beforerunningoff. LucyandDavid
standnexttoeachotherandinalongwide-angleshottheytakeinthesituation.They
263
both lookstraightaheadof themandnotateachother. Lucybreaks thesilenceby
tellingDavidthatitcannotgoonlikethisbecauseitwasfinebeforehereturnedtothe
farm. This sceneconfirmsmuchofwhat is fleetingly setup in theaftermathof the
rapescene: thatLucy is thevictim,Davidstruggleswithhisownguiltandtheyoung
men are savage rapists. The scene also insinuates that Lucy, not David, has made
peacewithherplaceinpost-apartheidSouthAfricaasawhiteperson,asthoughthe
ordealisakindofpenancethatshemustpayforbeingthere.
ThedisturbingimplicationoftheinsistencethatPolluxismentallyunstableand
tooyoung(bothemphasisinganincapacity),isthat,becauseheistheonlyoneofthe
three rapists to return to the narrative, all three young men are necessarily
apportionedthesameconstruction.ItisalsoproblematicbecausePolluxisevidently
the least sly and wasmost likely not themastermind behind the constructed plan,
mostnotablyevidencedbythefactthatPolluxwasthelastonetoenterthehousein
the rape scene. With these traits and assumptions applied to all three boys, they
collectively represent young Black men as without depth and conscience and as
characterswhocannotbetrusted.PreviouslydiscussedcharactertraitsseeninTsotsi
arealsopresentinPollux:untrustworthiness,youngimpulsiveness,damage.Disgrace
suggeststhatadistincttraitoftheyoungBlackmenistheirdistinct inabilitytoshow
understanding,remorseandtoknowthesimpledifferencesbetweenrightandwrong.
ButDisgrace also comments on these concerns as something related to Blackmen
specifically,showntousbecauseofPetrus’reactionandapproachtotherapeandits
aftermathdiscussedinChapterSix.
Disgrace offers no interiority to the boys beyond the rape inflicted on Lucy.
Nor is Lucy’s horrific experience or her feelings about it grantedmuch roomeither.
264
Thefactthatsheisalesbianwomanalsoappearstobedismissedtoaccommodatethe
more pressing racial and class matters that take place through a specific kind of
masculinity inDisgrace. AlthoughwefeelshameforLucy,andalsosorrythatsucha
horrificact tookplace, the filmalsoevokesa senseofangeraboutwhyshewillnot
reportwhathappened toher. Even in suchanofficial pursuit of the youngmenas
perpetrators,theywouldstillhaveidentitiesandcharacteristicsbeyondthissingleact.
Lucy’sownfeelingsabouttherapecometolightinherfeelingstowardDavid,partlyas
her father and partly, as she points out, as a man. In this latter insinuation, Lucy
makesajudgementaboutmen,notrace,andthispoint isnevertakenupinthefilm
beyondherone-offemotivecommentona ‘dangerousstretchof road’betweenthe
farmandthepolicestation.
Rather, we see Lucy as amindlessmartyr pitted against the savage natives.
The rape scene and the consequences of it – Lucy’s pregnancy- raise complex
questions about whether Lucy does the right thing when she chooses silence over
reporting the rape, prompting the question about powerful silence that Baderoon
invites with regard to Sila in the previous chapter: is Lucy’s silence complicit or
powerful? Disgrace’s unfaltering comment about Black men is that they are
dangerous,thattheytakewhattheywantandthatevenincausinghavoctheydonot
knowwhattheydo.Jacobs’Disgracereemphasisestheoldandproblematictropesof
pittingBlackagainstwhiteandshowingthecomplexitiesbutnotengagingthem.
265
Conclusion
In theirbrief linguisticstudyoncommontermsused inSouthAfricanEnglish,
Kate Huddlestone and Melanie Fairhurst analyse the meanings and implications of
common “pragmatic markers” such as ‘anyway’, ‘okay’ and ‘shame’.304 One of the
ways inwhich termsbecome “pragmaticmarkers” is that they changemeaning and
implication within a given social context. In South Africa for example, the term
‘shame’ is employed in a relatively unique everyday way, often but not always,
precededbytheword‘ag’(‘oh’),andapplicabletoarangeofsituationstoreference
sympathy, surprise, resignation and other expressions thatmight not be considered
appropriate in another context. My intention is not to employ a divergent
methodologicalapproachatthisstagebuttocontextualiseatermintheSouthAfrican
lexicon,‘agshame’,asanaptnoteonwhichtoconcludethischapter.
TheyoungBlackmencharacterspresentan importantsectorofthe‘Rainbow
Nation’:thepost-apartheidyouthwhoshouldbepartof,andactiveparticipantsinthe
newcontext,whichencompassespromiseandhope. However,what isevidenced in
thefilmsprovessomethingslightlydifferent:thatwhiletheseyoungBlackmenlivein
post-apartheid SouthAfrica andoccupy theplace that is the ‘RainbowNation’, they
themselves do not really embody an emergent structure of feeling. If, asWilliams
defines, a new structure of feeling exhibits “a particular quality of social experience
andrelationship,historicallydistinctfromotherparticularqualities…”,thentheyoung
mendiscussed inthischapterarenotareflectionofsuchdistinctive ‘newness’. The
films point to the fact that the new South Africa is a place comprised of various
incarnations of an emergent disposition. Most notably, these are characterised304KateHuddlestoneandMelanieFairhurst,“ThePragmaticMarkersAnyway,Okay,andShame:ASouthAfricanEnglishCorpusStudy”,StellenboschPapersInLinguisticsPlus42(2013),pp.93–110.
266
through a complex new identity that is able to reflect the intricacies of the South
Africanracialpastandatthesametime,anidentitywhichisabletothriveanddevelop
inthepresent,andwhichtakesintoaccountvariousinstancesof‘newness’inrelation
torace.Anexampleofthis‘newness’ispointedtobythefilmsinthischapterandhas
beenanalysedthroughpost-apartheiddistinctionsofraceandclassandtheemergent
‘Black diamonds’ and the growing Black middle class. This emergent structure of
feeling is distinct from a residual structure of feeling because it is articulate in its
complexity and process. The young men of this chapter are however caught
somewhere between the past and the present, and thus somewhat reflective of a
residual structure of feelingwhile still being present in the context of an emergent
sensibility. Forexample,eventhoughtheircontextisnew,thecharacterslikeTsotsi,
Zama,therapistsandevenSox,seemtrappedandincapacitatedbytheirpasts.Their
violent(andoftentraumatised)choicesjustifytheirmasculinitiesinthecontextofthe
townshiporpoverty.Insuchsettings,aseachofthesefilmsrelyon,eventhoughwe
areaware that theyoungmen live in thenewSouthAfrica, theyseemburdenedby
theirinescapablepasts.
WhilethecharactersofDisgraceandTsotsiarenotaffordedtheopportunityat
livingthe‘Rainbow’dreamsofbettereducationandopportunity,SoxinHijackStories
is. Yetmuchofthefilmreliesonthemachoemotionalandpsychologicaltugofwar
betweenSoxandZama,withSox’sdesirestill firmlyarticulatedasawillto legitimise
hismasculinitythroughprovinghecanbeatownshiptsotsi.EventhoughZamatakes
Sox’s identity, the film still shows that the pull of the township and the respect for
masculinitythatcanbeachievedthere,farsurpassesthepromises,andinSox’scase,
therealitiesof‘TheRainbow’.InthecontextofTsotsi(Tsotsi)andPollux(Disgrace),I
conclude thatboth filmsend slightlypitifully. InTsotsi’s caseweare invited to feel
267
thatthecharacterhasredeemedhimselfandeventhoughhedidwrong,herealised
hismistake.ForPollux,andwhatisthroughhischaracterisationimpliedoftheother
rapists,wealsofeelpitybecausethecharacter’sbeingunwellisnotofhisownaccord.
Hetoo,isavictimofcircumstance.
There isanoverallsensethatthecumulativefeeling(andarticulation)forthe
youngmenpresentedinthischapterisdescribablethroughastandardSouthAfrican
‘ag shame’, which, while watching and waiting for the process to develop into
somethingmore,mightbeappliedtosomethingthatisnotfullydiscernibleorreadily
articulate. Williams explains that understanding emergent culture as different from
thedominantandtheresidualdepends“cruciallyonfindingnewformsofadaptations
of form”.305 Williams argues that, “Again and againwhatwe have to observe is in
effectapre-emergence,activeandpressingbutnotyet fullyarticulated, rather than
theevidentemergencewhichcouldbemoreconfidentlynamed”.306
Althoughthechapterhasnotpaidattentiontotheyoungwhitemenpresented
infilmsdiscussedinthethesis, it isnotablethatthesecharactersarenotlockedinto
residual rhetoric or representation. Alongside the analyses of this chapter, I thus
conclude that an ‘ag shame’ application for the young Black men is not only a
historically problematic construction but is also one that suggests that Black
masculinity, for reasons beyond the scope of this chapter, is somehow unable to
recalibratetoparticipateinthenewSouthAfricabeyondthewaysinwhichhavebeen
discussedinthischapter.
305Williams,MarxismandLiterature,p.126.306Ibid.
268
CHAPTER6
RITUALS,TRADITIONANDSTEPSFORWARDTHE
THENEWSOUTHAFRICA:FANIEFOURIE’SLOBOLA,ELEWANIANDDISGRACE
Introduction
Assetout in the introductiontoSectionThree,ChaptersFiveandSixexplore
whetheritispossibletoidentifyanewstructureoffeelinginrepresentationsofyouth
in post-apartheid films. The previous chapter’s analysis of youngmen proved that
although a context representative of an emergent sensibility is present, the young
Blackmendiscussedwerenotrepresentativeofsuchasensibilityinafullydiscernible
fashion. The chapter thus concludes that the young men are in fact more
representativeofapre-emergentsensibilitywithinanemergentcontext. Inorderto
drawsuchaconclusionitwasnecessarytoidentifywhatcharacteristicsareimpliedby
an emergent sensibility in the post-apartheid context. To this end, the films have
shown that post-apartheid South African is a place that, through the transition,
necessarily employed the rhetoric of something ‘new’, even before it was truly
possibletoarticulateorunderstandthatplace.
The films of Chapter Five also pointed to distinct racial and class differences
thathavebecomepressingforyoungergenerationsandwhichareintricateelements
of what is considered emergent. Lalu’s point noted earlier in the thesis is worth
reiteratingwhenhereferencesamajorchallengeofthepost-apartheidcontextasan
inabilitytoexpressthestructureoffeelingofpost-apartheidversuswhatwasimagined
duringanti-apartheidthroughtheimplementationandstructureofthesystemofpost-
269
apartheid, what has been discussed in the thesis as the ideology (and rhetoric) of
‘RainbowNation’.307
Thisfinalchapterofthethesisaddressesthequestionofhow,ifitispresent,is
anewsensibilityarticulatedthroughyoungwomencharactersinthreepost-apartheid
films:Disgrace (SteveJacobs,2008),Elelwani (NtshavheniwaLuruli,2012)andFanie
Fourie’s Lobola (Henk Pretorius, 2013). This chapter differs from previous chapters
because it considers representationsofunionsand local traditions thathavenotyet
been considered in scholarship about post-apartheid films. This chapter considers
negotiationswith traditional ‘love’unionsasproductiveoutcomesofpost-apartheid,
showinghowthenewgenerationnavigatessomeofthelegaciesofthepast.Ifpost-
apartheid itself isconsidereda ‘newunion’, thenthischapteraskshowthetermsof
the new union are expressed in other forms when they are not overtly about the
politicsofnation,butaboutotherkindsofrepresentations,suchasheterosexuallove.
Idiscussthreefilms,oneofwhich,Disgrace (SteveJacobs,2008),hasalready
beendiscussedearlierinthethesis,andallofwhichengagewiththepastindifferent
ways.FanieFourie’sLobola(HenkPretorius,2013)isaromanticcomedythatfollows
thestandardconventionsofthisgenrebutwhichismadelocalbyitsmixedlanguage
dialogueofEnglish,AfrikaansandisiZulu.Elelwani(NtshavheniwaLuruli,2012)isthe
first full length Tshivenda language film. It starts out as a drama but develops to
incorporate elements of magical realism in line with Tshivenda culture, which the
analysis does not incorporate. Both these locally produced films have not received
significantattentioninscholarshipaboutpost-apartheidcinemaandthusthischapter
attemptstoincorporatethemintothediscussionaboutthenewSouthAfricaonfilm.
307Lalu,“ConsideringHistory”inDyanganiOse,StoryWithin,p.207.
270
WithregardstoDisgraceinthischapter,IanalysetheunlikelyunionbetweenLucyand
Petrus.Althoughthereisnomentionofthetermlobola(brideprice),norareLucyand
Petrus in a heterosexual relationship, the analysis of this chapter identifies a
negotiateduniononthebasisofinclusionandthetermsofLucy’swhitefuture.This
chapter’s interest is in a consideration of a new structure of feeling and the
possibilitiesthatoccurafter‘actingout’and‘workingthrough’thetraumaasidentified
inSectionTwo.Itasksinstead,whatdoes‘workingbeyond’thetraumaofapartheid
films look like in post-apartheid films? Hence, the second aim of the chapter is to
consider whether a new structure of feeling, if present, could be considered as a
productiveoutcomeoftheTRC.
InElelwani Iconsider theritualof fetchingthebride-to-be,Elelwani,anadult
womanfromherruralfamilyhomeinLimpopo,throughanexplorationofthetenuous
relationship between rural life in Limpopo and Elelwani’s urban modern life (and
agency).InFanieFourie’sLobolaIshowhowFanieandDinky’sinterraciallovesitsso
uncomfortably with their families that the film is as much about the couple as a
successful part of the ‘Rainbow Nation’, as it is about the failures of the ‘Rainbow
Nation’.Thefilmreliesonstereotypestoshowtheawkwardrealitiesofthelegaciesof
apartheid.Ifocusspecificallyontherepresentationoftheritualoflobolainthisfilm
anditsalteredmeaninginthisre-racialisedframework.
This chapter, as with the previous one, considers the possibility of a new
structure of feeling of post-apartheid South Africa in two ways; firstly through a
considerationofwhotheemergentgenerationiscomprisedofandsecondly,through
addressing emerging class distinctions represented in the films. These class
distinctions, as discussed in the analysis of Tsotsi, highlight a growing complexity in
271
SouthAfricabetweenwhatwasaccordingtoapartheidneatlydelineatedaccordingto
race, and post-apartheid access to education and material consumption. In other
words,althoughtherewasindeedaBlackmiddleclassduringapartheiditwassmall,
nowhowever, the growingBlackmiddle classpresentsnew iterationsof nation and
belonging.Thischapterseekstofurtherexploretheoverlappingrepresentationswith
regardtoraceandclasspresentinthefilms.
Some of the research questions that ground this chapter are: What does it
meanwhen the ritualof lobola is conductedbyawhitemanwhowants tomarrya
Black Zulu girl?Howdoes such a previously unimagined practice affect the kinds of
possibilitiesformovingforward?Whatdoesitmeanwhen,inafilmlikeElelwani,the
mainprotagonistonlygivesintoherparents’wishesaftersherealisesthatifshedoes
not,theywillsendhersistertomarrytheVendaking?Thiskindofresistancetowards
tradition means that the experience of being a young woman in South Africa has
changedandeventhoughtraditionisinplace,youngpeoplearechanginghowthose
traditionsareengagedwith.Finally,thischapterasksifLucy’splaceinthenewSouth
Africaislegitimisedbecauseofthemixed-racerapebabyshecarries.
Lizelle Bischoff notes that, “The use of comedy and humour in recent South
African films hints at the possibility that a genre is also developing that does not
necessarilydealwithpost-apartheidissuesinadramaticway…”.308Thispointistruein
the case of the rom-com, Fanie Fourie’s Lobola (Lobola). However, no scholarship
exists about films like Elelwani, which incorporates magical realism and African
mythicalelements. Thisgenre isdifferent to thegrowing trend in localAfro-science
fictionfilmssuchasNeillBlomkamp’sDistrict9(2009)andChappie(2015),whichare
308LizelleBischoff,“Sub-SaharanAfricanCinemaintheContextofFespaco:Close-upsofFrancophoneWestAfricaandAnglophoneSouthAfrica”,ForumforModernLanguageStudies45:4(2009),p.451.
272
notdealtwith inthisthesis.BothLobolaandElelwaniaredirectedbySouthAfricans
andwere locallyproducedand funded,whichalsomakes these filmsexceptional. It
took nine years for Elelwani to be completed because of budget constraints. Both
ElelwaniandLobolaweremadeonasmallbudget,withLobola’sbudgetapproximately
$1,000,000 compared, for example, to Justin Chadwick’s Mandela: Long Walk To
Freedom,whichwasalsoreleasedin2013andhadabudgetof$35,000,000.
273
FanieFourie’sLobola:NegotiatingNewTraditions
Lobola,orbrideprice,isatraditionalAfricancustominwhichthegroomoffers
gifts,cattleor,morerecently,toaccommodateurbanlifestyles,money,totheparents
ofthebride.309Historically,thecustomtakesplaceoveraperiodoftimeandinvolves
aninnateknowledgeonthepartofbothfamiliesofhowtheritualisconstitutedand
what the appropriate approach is to completing it in the most respectful fashion.
MeghanHealy-ClancywritesaboutthepoliticsofmarriageamongtheNewAfricansin
an article in which she quotes Miss Rahab S. Petje’s women’s 1944 column in the
BantuWorldnewspaper.310AsnotedbyHealy-Clancy,
BeforethecomingofcolonialcapitalisminsouthernAfrica,marriagehadbeenthe foundation of an economy premised on homestead-based agriculturalproduction and pastoralism: it was far from a private or individualisticinstitution.Itwasthroughmarriagegiftsofcattle–knownvariouslyaslobolo,lobola,bohali,orbogadi(bridewealth)–thatmenbroughtwivesintotheirnewhomesteads,anditwasthroughwomen’s laboursasmothersandagriculturalworkersthatthesehomesteadssurvived...311
Petje’scolumnasks,“Why(do)wemoderngirls find itsoverydifficult toget
married…?”312 Sheblames “barbarismandbackwardness inourparents, andworse
still, segregation”, arguing for interethnic pairings between educated youngwomen
309NicolaAnsell,“‘BecauseIt’sOurCulture!’(Re)negotiatingthemeaningof‘lobola’inSouthernAfricanSecondarySchools”,JournalOfSouthernAfricanStudies27:4(December2001),pp.697–716.310MeghanHealy-Clancy,“ThePoliticsofNewAfricanMarriageinSegregationistSouthAfrica”,AfricanStudiesReview:ThePoliticsofMarriageinSouthAfrica57:2(2014),pp.7–28.TheBantuWorldnewspaperwasstartedin1932andwasthefirstnewspaperforblackSouthAfricansthatalsoincludedpagesforwomen.Thereisanextensivebodyofscholarshipaboutlobolathatisnotofdirectrelevancetotheaimsofthischapterbutnoteworthytothebriefintroductorydiscussionaboutlobolaisthefollowing:LynnM.Thomas,“Love,SexandtheModernGirlin1930sSouthernAfrica”inJenniferColeandLynnM.Thomas(eds.),LoveinAfrica(ChicagoandLondon:TheUniversityOfChicagoPress,2009).,pp.31–57.,LesSwitzer,“BantuWorldandtheOriginsofaCaptiveAfricanCommercialPressinSouthAfrica”inJournalofSouthernAfricanStudies14:3(1988),pp.351–370.311Healy-Clancy,“ThePoliticsofNewAfricanMarriage,p.13.312Ibid.,p.7.
274
andeducatedmen.313 This isan issuethatPetjehighlights in1944,emphasisingthe
challenges of interethnic relationships in which each cultural group has their own
ideas.Bridepricetodayismuchmorecontestedthanitusedtobebecauseofchanges
withinsocietyanddifferentapproachestopreviouslyassumedtraditionalgenderroles
andexpectations.314Raceisarelativelynewconsiderationwithinamyriadofalready
existing challenges amongst African approaches to lobola. White South Africans do
notdo lobolaatall sotheassumptionthat this ritualwill takeplace inan interracial
relationshipisnotagiven,noristheassumptionthatthefamilywillknowhowtogo
aboutthetradition.Lobolainaninterracialrelationshipisalsomorecomplexbecause
until1994cross-racial relationshipswerepunishableby law. Apartheid laws like the
ImmoralityActandtheProhibitionofMixedMarriagesActmeantthatanycrossracial
intimateactivitieswereillegal.315
A representation of this illicit activity takes place in the film Skin (Anthony
Fabian, 2008) when protagonist Sandra Laing runs away from homewith her black
boyfriend,Petrus. Sandra’sfather,AbrahamLaing,hasspentmuchofhisdaughter’s
life fighting the government for her racial classification to be white because even
though she looksmixed race, she is theproductof twowhiteparents. By the time
SandrarunsawaytoSwazilandwithPetrussheissoconfusedaboutheridentitythat
she wishes only to marry him and live with his family, as she feels more accepted
amongotherBlackpeople. In the scene inwhich Sandra andPetrus are found, the
policeenterasmallmakeshiftshacklikedwellingwherethecoupleareasleep.They
313Ibid.314FunsoAfolayan,CultureandCustomsofSouthAfrica(Westport:GreenwoodPress,2004),p.182.315ImmoralityActof1957:http://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/acts/1957-023.pdf[Accessed31December2015].;APDFfileoftheMixedMarriagesActwasnotaccessible,however,thefollowinglinkisacopyofthe1985amendmenttoboththeImmoralityActandtheMixedMarriagesAct:http://www.gov.za/sites/www.gov.za/files/Act%2072%20of%201985.pdf[Accessed31December2015].
275
come in and grab hold of Petrus, asking himwhere thewhite girl is. When Sandra
identifiesherselfasthewhitegirltheybegintolaughbecauseshedoesnotlookwhite.
Despitethis,Sandra’sofficialracialclassificationiswhiteandsoPetrusispunishedfor
being in violationof the ImmoralityAct. When theymarry soonafterwards, Sandra
reclassifies fromwhite to coloured so thather childrenwillnotbe takenaway from
her.
Although a post-apartheid film, Skin’s narrative is a historical biopic which
traverses Sandra’s life. Even though race is central, her relationshipwith her black
husbandispresentedwithinthecontextofapartheid.FanieFourie’sLobola,however,
isapost-apartheidfilmsetinapost-apartheidcontext.Basedona1954novelofthe
samenamebyNapeaMotana,FanieFourie’sLobola (Lobola)wasadaptedtofilmby
directorHenkPretorius to create a post-apartheid romantic comedy that dealswith
someoftheracialandculturalchallengesofpost-apartheidlife.Ashasbeenshownin
previouschapters,eventhoughapartheidhasendedandtherhetoricofthe‘Rainbow
Nation’prevails, representationsof the livedexperiencesof race inSouthAfrica still
showthatdifficultieswithcross-raciallivingandracialseparationremainpronounced.
This latter point has been discussed throughout the thesis and serves as a constant
reminderoftheseparatenessimposedbyapartheid.Lobolaemploysasimilarstrategy
becauseDinky(ZethuDlomo)andFanie(EduanvanJaarsveldt) live indifferentracial
neighbourhoods of Johannesburg: Dinky in the township of Soweto and Fanie in a
high-walledwhitesuburb.
In the previous chapter these spaces were identified as hypermasculine and
violent through the actions of the tsotsi characters. Lobola, like another post-
apartheid rom-com,White Wedding (Jann Turner, 2010), employs overt character
276
stereotypes.Suchfilmsaimtoshowpost-apartheidracialdifficultieswithoutdwelling
ontheimpossibilitiesand‘workingthrough’ofthe‘Rainbow’butratherthe‘working
beyond’thetrauma.FanieandDinkyaretwoyoungSouthAfricans,heamiddleclass
AfrikanerfromPretoriaandsheawell-educatedZuluwoman.Faniescoresadatewith
Dinkywhen she takes pity on him after his hypermasculine brother and friends bet
thathewillnotask the firstwomanwhosteps into theshoptoattendhisbrother’s
wedding.Dinky,withherownagendainmind,agreestobeFanie’sdateinreturnfor
himvisitingherfamilyhome.AlthoughFanieandDinkydonotintendtofall in love,
theydo.Whentheydecidetomarrytheyrun intoachallengingsituationbecauseof
theirdifferentculturalandracialbackgroundsbecause,intheeventofmarriage,Fanie
isexpectedtopay lobolaforDinky. However,asthetraditionof lobolanegotiations
goes, the discussion and negotiation about the bridal price does not take place
betweenbrideandgroombutbetweenthemaleeldersfromeitherside.
Myanalysisoftheuseoflobolanegotiationsisindicativeofanewstructureof
feelingwhichfocusesonafewsceneswhichfolloweachotherandcentrearoundthe
issueof lobola. SoonafterDinkyandFaniesettheir intentiontomarry,theyvisitan
oldderelicthousewhichDinkywishestobuyaspartofanewbusinessventure.The
pair is shot fromahighangle fromahole in the roofof thebuildingstructure. The
derelicthouseisconsideredtobeametaphorforthenewSouthAfrica:thestructure
istherebuttherearemanythingsthatmustbefixedanddealtwithbeforeanyonecan
liveinit.Thisbirds’eyeviewangleofthecoupleisalsoreminiscentofanearlierscene
inwhichtheyareonadateandFanieaskshertolaydownonthegrassnexttohimto
lookupatthebloomingJacarandatrees,astapleofthecityofTshwane.Inthatscene
theyareat theUnionBuildings, theofficial seatof thenationalgovernmentandthe
President’s office. Fanie and Dinky’s blooming love is validated by the official and
277
heavy historical structures of national politics and the mise-en-scène of the union
buildingswhichoverlookthecity.Itisasthough,setagainstthisbackdrop,thepairis
theperfectembodimentofthe‘RainbowNation’.ButLobolaisnotaboutreifyingthe
‘Rainbow’myth,itisalsoaboutshowinghowcomplexitcanbe,asshownindifferent
capacities inthetwosceneswiththecouple lookingskyward. Ontheonehand,the
pretty surroundings of the purple Jacaranda leaves and themanicured lawns of the
Union buildings validate their blooming love. On the other hand, that scene also
recallsthehistoryofthepastandtheinconceivabilityofsuchaunionnottoolongago.
AlthoughthedaytimeJacaranda-framedsceneonlybringsthepositiveaspectsofthe
unionto light, thesimilarlystagedscene in thedarkof thederelicthousebrings the
moredifficultrepresentationalelementsoftheiruniontolight.
As the pair is framed facing skyward once again, Dinky begins to tell Fanie
abouthowsheintendstousewhatwillbehermarriedsurnameinloanapplicationsat
thebankbecauseaBlacksurnamehasnothelpedher.Fanieisshockedthatshethinks
beingwhiteinthenewSouthAfricaisbetterthanbeingBlack.Dinkystandsupasshe
becomesdefensive.Dinkypointsoutthatsheistheonlywomanwho,outofherhigh
school girl friends, does not have a child. Instead of a child, she has a degree and
plans. In other words, Dinky explains to Fanie what historical disadvantage means.
Thisbrokeninteractionisimportantasitbeginsspecificallyfromthemomentinwhich
race is brought into the conversation and Dinkymoves from lying next to Fanie to
standingupandspeaking‘at’him.ItisaninteractionthatshowsthatFaniedoesnot
understandthehistoricalandcontemporarychallengesforhisbride-to-be.Thereisa
disjuncture in their ability to love one another because their different races and
backgroundshamperwhat they knowabout eachother andwhatmaybe sensitive,
complex or simply hard to understand. What Fanie addresses through the words
278
“thinkoutsidethebox”,withreferencetoDinky’sbusinessplan,rendersinadifferent
register for Dinky,who already perceives as herself as far outside of the proverbial
box.
The scene presents the complexity of the ‘Rainbow’ youth in post-apartheid,
becausealthoughitispossibleforDinkyandFanietofallinlove(invitedinthecontext
ofanewstructureoffeeling),thereisarangeofthingsthatalsohampertheirability
toproperly understandeachother. For example, Fanie’s panel-beating art business
laterbecomesDinky’sbusinessventureandsheletsgoofthehouserestorationidea.
ThischangeinDinky’sapproachtoherbusinessideasaswellasFanie’srealisationthat
his talent and ability is worth something presents a shift in the two as a couple.
However,Ialsosuggestthatthenewbusinessideapresentsashiftinhowthecouple
isabletorenderthemselvesaspartofthe‘Rainbow’nation,anegotiatedunionrather
than a truly romantic one. In other words, for change to truly occur, it is proven
necessarythattheyboth“thinkoutsideofthebox”andnegotiateandimplementthe
ideologyoftheunion.
Fanie’s lobola team iscomprisedofhisuncleandthe familygardenerPetrus,
whoFanietreatsandthinksofasfamily,eventhoughFanie’smother,MrsFourie,does
not.PetrusalsoassistsFaniewiththebespokerestorationofcars,Fanie’spassionand
abusinessthathecannotquitegetofftheground.Thelobolaprocessbeginsassoon
astheygettothefrontgateofthemodesthousewiththeirbrownpaperbagofcash
and a bottle of hard liquor in hand. Petrus greets a young boywith a parable-like
requesttoenter:“Wehavecometopickabeautifulflowerfromyourgarden…Dinky
Magubane”,towhichtheboyandFanie’sunclelookaroundatthebarrensoil inthe
front yard. Traditionally this request would have beenmade in isiZulu, a language
279
whichisusedinthefilmtomakeitclearthattheyoungblackboyandtheelderlyman,
Petrus, speak to each other in English to accommodate Fanie’s uncle, who cannot
speakisiZulu.Theoldermenstandoutsideofasmallgateandareframedinmedium
shotsastheywait.FromFanie’spointofviewtheyareshownfrombehindandinthat
shotweseetheyoungboywithwhomtheynegotiatetheirentry.Includedintheshot
is the wide-angle expanse of Soweto township in the background. The glimpse of
Fanieonthebackseatofthebakkiemakeshimlookyoungandcontainedinasmall
space.Shotinclose-upsinsuchaconfinedspace,thescenecontributestohisanxiety
about the negotiations, a feeling which seems to grown when his uncle decides to
‘disagree’withtherequestformoremoneytoenter.
In order to enter through the front gate (and conduct thenegotiations) they
mustoffer the familymoney incash, the firstamonga fewtraditionalprocessesthe
whitefarmerunclewillnotunderstand.TheyoffertheboyR100,whichherejectsas
he gestures with his hands for more money. The elders, including Dinky’s father,
watch from the front door. Petrus explains to Fanie’s uncle that moremoney will
allowthementry,towhichthewhitemanunexpectedlyreactsbybeginningto‘toyi-
toyi’. He asks Petrus in Afrikaans, “isn’t this what your people do when they are
unhappy?”Fanie’suncle’sdecisiontotoyi-toyiisinreactiontothehigherentry‘fee’
meaning that he considers this action a method that Black South Africans deem
appropriatewhenevertheyareunhappy.
He however says that he is trying to show the elders that he respects their
tradition.Theelderslaughathim,andinthemeantimePetrushandstheboyanother
R100note,afterwhichtheyarewelcomedinside.Differentlytohowthe'toyi-toying'
action is employed in a tongue-in-cheek fashion in this scene, it is fact an action
280
historicallyassociatedwiththestruggleagainstapartheidwhenBlackpeoplepartook
in numerousmarches, sang, walked andwere, through the use of different actions
(toyi-toying included), able to display their deep disgruntlement with a system of
oppression. The film’s light approachmeans that an argument for the action to be
readasmorethaninarticulatehumourwouldbeanoverexaggeration.Nevertheless,
itisalsonottobedismissedasonlyhumorousasitcontributestonewunderstandings
ofthisveryactandthehistoricallegacy,andcontemporarypost-apartheidinequality,
still articulated through toyi-toying. Dinky’s elders condone the toy-toyi-ing as
humorousbecausetheylaughathimandsoitisnotclearwhetherthefilm’scomment
isinlinewiththeuncle’s,thattheactbereadasrespectfulfortheir(Black)traditionor
not.Itappearshowever,thatwearealsoinvitedtolaughatFanie’sunclealongwith
the Magubane elders and in turn, this humorous take on a political action
encompassesBlacksandwhitesbeyondthecharactersinthisfilm.Theactioninvitesa
metaphoricalsalutetonewincarnationsofthe‘Rainbow’andshowsthecontextofan
emergentstructureoffeelings.
Once Fanie’s lobola team have entered the house they continue with the
rituals.ThefirstimageisofFanie’suncleandPetrusinamediumshotastheformer
heartilygreetsDinky’steam.ThecamerathenjumpstoshowDinky’seldersinawide-
angleshot;theyfillthescreenandDinky’sfathersitsinthemiddle,indicatingthathe
is the leaderof thesenegotiations. Petrus is theonewhoknowswhat todo in this
context and the uncle follows his lead. This is a curious reversal of roles because
Petrus is thecharacterof thegardeneratMrsFourie’shouse. In thatcontext,he is
never the one in charge, let alone allowed to have an opinion because of Fanie’s
mother’sracistoutlookandbehaviour.SeeingPetrusinthispowerfulroleisindicative
ofthereal inversionofpowerfromapartheidtopost-apartheid.Whentheyarefirst
281
shown in this scene the pair are framed in a medium shot and he happily greets
Dinky’s team with a hearty “Sanibonani Manomzani”, meaning “Good day,
gentlemen”.Inthewide-angleshotthatfollowsalltheeldersexceptforDinky’sfather
answershisgreetinginunison.Theunclethenproceedstositbutishastilypulledup
byPetruswho informshim that theyneed topay to sit. In this sceneFanie’suncle
continuestomakeattemptsatdoingwhathethinks is right,onlytobemetwithan
indication that he is wrong. This stilted interaction that persists throughout the
negotiations isa repeatedcomment in the filmaboutculturaldifferences. It isonly
whenPetrusplaces somemoneyonto the table in frontof themthatDinky’s father
motionsforthemtositdown.
Asthoughapointaboutthefactthatthelobolanegotiationsarenotgoingto
beeasyhasbeenmade,thecameracutstoadifferentsettingtoshowwhereFanieis.
Theyoungmanisseatedinaneighbour’sloungebutthefirstimageinthesceneisa
close-upofarawchicken.Theclose-upofthechickenremainsonscreenasweseea
knife come down on the bird. As Dinky’smatriarchal neighbour talks to Fanie, we
realisethat,shouldFanienottreatDinkyright,hecouldbeundertheproverbialknife.
ThenextimageisofFaniealoneonacouchintheadjacentroom.Awareofthefilled
lounge at Dinky’s house, the young man looks vulnerable and alone. He too is
unawareof theprocessof lobolaandhasgenerally followedtheadviceofothersso
far. Theneighbour’s opening comments to Fanie are that shewill forget “all about
Mandela’sforgivenessandthespiritofubuntuandtakerevenge”,shouldshefindout
that Dinky is unhappy. This comment is supported by the photographs of Nelson
MandelaandDesmondTututhatoccupythewallwhereFaniesits.Theirportraitsare
perched higher than Fanie and they hang on thewall amidst ornaments and family
photographs. Thewayshespeaksabout thetwodeifiedSouthAfricanmenandthe
282
way in which they are presented among her own family relics, makes it seem as
thoughtheyarepartofherfamilytoo. Hercommentscomefrominsidethekitchen
andshetalkstoFanieandseeshimfromthatpointofview,bothawarethatheisclose
butnotquiteinthesameroom.HerwarningstoFaniereferencetheendofapartheid
and theTRCand in talkingaboutFanieandDinky’sunionagainst thisbackdrop, she
equatestheirunion,liketheunionofthenewSouthAfrica,toanoutcomeoftheTRC.
The lobola negotiations end quite uncharacteristically when Mr Magubane
findsFanieinDinky’sroom.Whilethemaleeldersofeitherfamilymanagethelobola
negotiations, the funds for the lobola must come from the groom. In this case,
because Fanie’s mother was completely unsupportive of his marriage to a Black
woman, she refused to help himwith lobolamoney and so hemade a loan. Fanie
unwiselyborrows lobolamoney froma sneakyMandla,Dinky’s ex-boyfriend,who is
desperate to reunitewith her. Throughout the filmMandla showersDinky and her
fatherwithmoneyandthingsthattheydonotneed.AlthoughDinkydoesnotwantto
bewithMandla,heistheperfectguyinherfather’sopinion,aconsiderationonlyfrom
thepointofviewthatMandlaisalsoBlackandknowsthecustomsandculture.Asa
bonus,Mandlaisalsowealthy.Herfathercannotunderstandwhyhisdaughterwould
wanttomarryawhitemanasopposedtosomeonelikeMandla,apointthatbecomes
particularly obvious when the lobola negotiations fall apart because of Fanie’s
presenceinthehouse.MrMagubaneconsidersthisculturallydisrespectful.Towards
theendofthisscenethelobolapartystandoutsidethegatesoftheMagubanehouse
oncemore, this timewithMandlapresentinghimselfas thebetteroptionandFanie
forlornandupsetabouthowtheeventhaspannedout.
283
Fanie loaned money from Mandla’s company, conveniently called “Ubuntu
Finance”, yet another tongue-in-cheek reference to the new South Africa. The fact
thatFanieneedstorepaytheloanonthatdaybasedonMandla’sscheming,isfurther
comment on the slippery space that the post-apartheid Black middle class occupy.
Mandla is a representative of this growing class in South Africa and he flaunts his
wealth around the township as he drives around in his fancy black sports model
MercedesBenz.AswithmanyoftheBlackdiamonds,theconspicuouspositionofsuch
a character is placed under consistent scrutiny in the township, where on the one
hand,hisexpensivecarstandsinstarkoppositiontothepovertyofthetownship.On
theotherhandMandla’s car is a symbol of success andwealth and guaranteeshim
respect. “Ubuntu Finance”, like Mandla (and potentially, the film suggests, post-
apartheidSouthAfrica)isafarceandadodgyscheme.AgainstthebackdropofFanie
and Dinky as a metaphor of union for the nation, “Ubuntu Finance” is both what
makesthepromiseoftheunionpossibleandatthesametimerepresentsthefailure
of the union. In their joint study on race and inequality in South Africa, Kevin
Durrheim,ZoliswaMtoseandLyndsayBrownwritethatalthoughthegrowingmiddle
class exhibit significant development, poverty and wealth nevertheless remains
racialised.316
MrMagubanedemandssixty-fivelivecowsforDinky.AfterDinkypleadswith
himherethinkshisdecisionandasksforthirty“…livingandbreathingcowslikeinthe
olddayswhenpeoplestillrespectedourtradition”.Theolddaysthatherefersto,is
also a time when some of the contemporary expectations of lobola negotiations
highlighted above (like education and interracial relations) were not considerations.
316KevinDurrheim,XoliswaMtoseandLyndsayBrown,RaceTrouble:Race,IdentityandInequalityinPost-ApartheidSouthAfrica(Maryland:LexingtonBooks,2011),p.19.
284
Theironyisthatthe‘olddays’wouldalsohavebeenduringapartheidandFanieand
Dinkywouldnotbeinapositiontowedinthewaytheywanttointhispost-apartheid
context. Mr Magubane’s nostalgia for what was a deeply problematic context is
broughttolightthroughoutthefilmbutisstressedinthissceneandalsoattheendof
thefilmwhen,inthesamesettingoutsidehistownshiphouse,Faniearriveswiththe
thirty cows. However it is not only Mr Magubane but also Fanie’s mother who
articulates desires for respect and tradition also located in the past. When Fanie
returns from his botched lobola attempt, for example, his mother is opening
champagne to celebrate what can only be understood as his failure. Even Fanie’s
happinessissecondtoherproudAfrikaneridentity.
What Mrs Fourie and Mr Magubane present in Fanie Fourie’s Lobola is the
seeminglyimpenetrableresidualstructureoffeelingwhichexistseventhoughtheyare
bothalsoawarethatlifeisnolongerlikeitwas.Theirdesiresforthefixedboundsof
apartheid racial (and cultural) categories is different also to the residual andmessy
traits in Francois andDavid (Chapter Four). Themiddle agedwhitemen presented
something more akin to a complex psychological agitation with identity and place,
theseoldercharacterspresentagenerationwhoseemliketheycannotmovebeyond
thefixednessofapartheidconstructions.Thissituationpersistsuntilmuchlaterwhen
MrsFourieandMrMagubaneareabletosetasidetheirbeliefstosupportFanieand
Dinky’sunionas aunionof love. Their supportdoesnothoweverextend to seeing
themselvesdifferently.
However,thefocusofthischapterrestsontryingtoexplorethepresenceofa
new structure of feeling. Firstly, the analysis shows thatDinky and Fanie’s union is
framed as quite normative except for the unique situation of post-apartheid race
285
relationsandthechallengesthatthesepresentfortheritualof lobola. Thefactthat
DinkyandFanie fall in love is itselfnoteworthyandpoints to thepresenceofanew
structureoffeelingbecauseofthepossibilityoftheirunion. Whatwasevidencedin
the films of the previous chapter is also present in this film: a context of a new
structure of feeling exists. However, through Dinky’s character this film extends
beyond the township. On the one hand, Dinky’s aspiration is not emphasised as
material.Sheisproud,confidentandeducatedandherconstantrejectionofMandla
suggeststhatforher,apost-apartheidlifeasayoungBlackwomanisinfactnotabout
materialwealth.WhileMandlaisrepresentativeofthegrowingBlackmiddleclassand
notquitelikeSoxorthetsotsis,heisstillacharacterformulatedinlinewithwhatwas
evidencedinthepreviouschapter.Dinkyhoweverisnot.
Inthefinalsequenceofthefilm,Faniemanagestosecurethethirtylivecows
andarrivesattheMagubaneresidencewithhismotherandPetrus.Faniehasrestored
anddecoratedatruckingreenandgold,thecoloursoftheSpringbokrugbyteam,with
horns on the front of the truck to complete the Springbok national reference. In
Chapter Two I briefly alluded to rugby’s important and strategic place in Afrikaner
culture.317AlthoughFanieisanavidrugbysupporter(heandDinkyalsoattendagame
earlyinthefilm),thesportremainsacontentioussymbolofapartheidinSouthAfrica.
However, it isalsoasportthatwasinstrumentalisedbyPresidentNelsonMandelain
thebuildingofthenew‘RainbowNation’when, in1995,hepublicallysupportedthe
nationalteamintheRugbyWorldCup. Thishistoricalmomentwassoeffectualthat
the film Invictus (Clint Eastwood, 2009) was made about it, rendering the union
betweenSpringboksandMandelaasintrinsicinthebuildingofthenewnationinthe
317InadditiontothebriefdiscussionofrugbyandAfrikanerdom,IreferencedGrundlingh,“PlayingforPower”,pp.408–430inChapterTwoforsomeinsightintothesportandAfrikanerculture.
286
immediate aftermath of the first democratic elections. It was also Mandela who
fought for the Springbok to remain the national symbol and so, when Fanie builds
horns forhis ‘new look’ truck,heuses thepositiveMandela-inflected incarnationof
thesymboltoshowhisstatusas‘NewSouthAfrican’.Thepassengersalsoemploythe
enthusiasticspiritof‘RainbowNation’.
On arrival at the Magubane home, Fanie exits the truck and again asks Mr
Magubane for Dinky’s hand in marriage, pointing to the cows as requested. The
settingisthesameasthelasttimethatFaniewasatMrMagubane’shouseforDinky’s
lobola. Camerashotsvarybetweenmediumand longshotsbetweenthecharacters
and,ofteninthesameframeasMrMagubane,theexpanseofSoweto.AlthoughDinky
is from the township, she is characterised as someonewhonotonly believes in the
possibilitiesof the ‘Rainbow’butalso someonewho is able tomakeand implement
changestoevidencetheactualitiesofthepromisesofthe‘Rainbow’.Thisisclearat
the end of the film when Dinky, in a shot-reverse-shot sequence with her father,
explains tohim inZulu thatwhile sheneededandwantedFanie toprovehimself to
her and her father, she does notwant her father to accept the cows because they
(DinkyandFanie)needtostarttheirowntraditions.TheuseofZuluinthissequence
indicatesaprivatemomentbetweenDinkyandherfather,akindoflettinggoofthe
pastandarticulationofanewfuture,onewhichhemaynotevenfullygrasp.
Iconsiderthisasadistinctdifferencefromtheyoungmenseenpreviously, in
thatDinkyisabletopointtohowthepastisimportantandrelevantbutatthesame
time, she is able to assert herself and her post-apartheid desires within a new
framework. Shealsoacknowledges thatwhile the contextexists, it is still up toher
287
andFanietofigureoutwhatthosenewtraditionslooklike.Nevertheless,shemakesa
distinctionbetweenherselfandFanieandeachoftheirparents.
The (im)perfect lobola that takesplace in this film isa fittingallegory for the
unificationofSouthAfricaaftertheendofapartheid. Thelobola inthefilm,aswith
the lobolaof the ‘RainbowNation’hadtobenegotiatedontermsthatdidnotexist.
Everythingthatfollowsthen,likeDinkyandFanie’sunion,alsorequiresnewcustoms
andtraditionalritualsand,likethefilmpresents,thesenewconstructionswillnotbe
entirelydevoidofthepast.
288
Elelwani:theBurdenofbeingaYoung,FreeWoman
Elelwani,whichmeans‘toremember’,isthefirstVendalanguagefilmmadein
SouthAfrica.Thefilmisbasedona1954novelofthesamenamebyTNMaumela.318
MJMafelawritesthatElelwani,likeanumberofotherVendanovelsatthetime,was
aboutChristianmodernity,whichbecame increasinglypressing inthe1950sasmore
missionaries tried to infiltrate traditional customs and traditions.319 Narratives like
Elelwaniarepartofaparticularperiod’sfearsandassertions.WaLuruliadjustedthis
narrative to suit post-apartheid’s growing urban context and to juxtapose thatwith
Venda culture and traditions. In such a context, traditional cultural matters like
witchcraftandtheVendaKingcomeupagainstthefreedomsofaneducatedwoman.
Like Dinky, Elelwani (Florence Masebe) is the first woman in her family to
receive a University degree and has her own aspirations for her future. The film is
relevantinthischapterbecauseitpresentsanegotiationbetweenruraltraditionand
familyobligationandurban (female) freedom.Myanalysis in this section reflectson
thecomplexandnearimpossiblebalanceofresponsibilitythatElelwanihastoherself
and the responsibility she feels to her family and aims to show the incongruent
sensibilities(fromElelwani’spointofview)asillustrativeofanewstructureoffeeling.
Beforeshereturnstoherfamily’sruralvillage,Elelwaniisarepresentativeofayoung
womaninthenewSouthAfrica.Althoughweneverseeherandherpartner,(whoshe
affectionately calls her butterfly), in their joint urban life, her explanations of it and
318M.J.Mafela,“TheFirstVendaNovelWritersandtheClashofCultures”,SouthAfricanJournalofAfricanLanguages19:2(1999),pp.117–127.319Ibid.
289
theirplanstotraveloverseasforheraspirations,implythatsheisanambitiousyoung
womanwithagency.
Thefilm’sopeningsceneisofElelwanidressedintraditionalVendagarments.
Sheisinawell-decoratedbedroomassheexplainshernameandhowshecametobe
wheresheis.Thisopeningscenealsoformsthebackdropforthetitlesequence.The
mise-en-scèneshiftsdramatically fromthe lushbedroomtoshowamodestVWGolf
approachanelderlycouple.Thecarissurroundedbyreddustasitentersthevillage.
Ayoungwoman(Elelwani)exitsthecarbutleavestheyoungman,Vele,towatchonas
sheismetfirstbyhergoodfriend(theonlyonewhonoticesherboyfriend),thenher
little sister andmoments later, her parents. The image of the family is partly from
Vele’s point of view, indicating his desire to be a part of the welcome and also
indicatingthatforsomereasonheisnotallowedtobethere.Elelwani’sglancesback
athimalsoconveyasenseofcaution.Nevertheless,theoverwhelmingemotionofthe
welcome scene is theexcitement andpride aroundElelwani’s return. As the family
standaroundinwhatappearstobeanindistinctpatchofgrasswheretheywelcome
theirdaughter,Elelwanisharesherowngiftsofpride,anddivideshergraduationrobe
andhoodbetweenhermotherandfather.
Their comments indicate that they know that she has worn this to her
graduationbuttheirgushingalsorevealsthattheydonotrealisethevalueattachedto
the gownandhood and thus thedegree that Elelwani has been awarded. Elelwani
gives her father her graduation gown,which he places over his clothing, exclaiming
howhewillwear this to the tribalcouncilmeetings. She thengiveshermother the
hoodofthegown,whichhermothersaysshewillweartowipethesweatoffherself
whensheisinthefields.Elelwani’sparentsrealisethatthegownissignificantbutthe
290
allocation of the garments to everyday agrarian activities introduces the film’smain
idea,whichisaboutaskinghowitmightbepossibletocombineanurbaneducatedlife
with the entrenched traditions of rural Venda culture. This scene sets upwhatwill
followasaverysimpleandconsistentpresentationoftraditionalvaluesthatElelwani’s
parentsadhereto.ItisinthenextscenehoweverthatweexperienceElelwani’sown
position in relation to her parents and the beginnings of the antagonisms between
traditionandmodernity.
Thesceneopensagainstthebackdropofwhatappearstobearitualceremony.
Womenareseatedonthefloorastheyleanoverhugepotsandbowlsoffood.There
isdancingandmusicandasenseofcelebrationwhich is inferredbythepresenceof
hugepotsof food,peopledressed intraditionalattireandsinging. Elelwaniandher
childhood girlfriend are however not participating in any of the celebration and are
insteadstandingawayfromthecrowdgossipingandgiggling. Inthebackgroundwe
seeVelewatching themand the village in celebration. Like in the first scene, he is
againpresentedasanoutsider,watchingElelwaniandherfamilybutnotpartofit.In
themidstofElelwaniexplainingaboutherandVele’splans tomove toChicago,her
youngsistercallshertogoseetheirfatherinoneofthehuts.
Theroundhutisdimlylitcomparedtothebrightsunnydayoutsideandthere
isnofurnitureinsideexceptthreeoccupiedchairs.Therearethreemen;oneofthem
isElelwani’sfatherandtheothertworemainunknowntoherforthedurationofher
presencethere. Thelightingemphasisestheirfacesandconveystheimpressionthat
theyareveryimportant.Theirimportanceisfurtheremphasisedbythefactthatthey
areseatedwhileElelwanipresentsherselftotheminahorizontalposition,lyingdown
onareedmatonthefloor. Shefacesthembutdoesnotlookatthem.Thecamera
291
emphasisesherpositionbyfocusingonherfaceinclose-upsthroughoutthisscene.In
Venda tradition this is the respectful way for a woman to present herself to male
elders.Elelwani’smotherpresentsherselfinthesamewaywhenlaterinthefilmshe
shuffles into thehutonher knees. While Elelwani’s father speaksabouther in this
scene,asenseofherfeelingsaboutwhatshehearsisonlyconveyedthroughherfacial
expressions and her eyes. Her father introduces Elelwani to the two elderly men
withouthermoving,andtheythankhimforraisingher.Thecamerajumpstoaclose-
upofElelwani’s facenestledbetweenherarms. Herexpression,shownthroughher
eyes, vacillates between shock and confusion around the words like “princess” and
“wife”,whichthemenappeartobeusinginadiscussionabouther.
What Elelwani does not know is that the traditional ceremony that she has
beenobservingasavisitorfromthecitywhowillsoonleave,isactuallyaboutandfor
her.Justbeforesheiscalledtoseeherfather,sheandherfriendjokedabouthowshe
wouldsoonbefreeofcowdung,areferencetotherurallifestyleinVenda.However
now, she begins to realise that this is the kind of lifestyle that has already been
ascribed to herwithout her consent. Elelwani is finally let in onwhat is happening
when she is called to her parents’ hut later the next day. The set up in the hut is
similar to thedaybeforeexcept this time it isonlyher fatheronachair. Elelwani’s
mothersitsnexttohimonthefloorandElelwanioppositethem.Thisisthefirstscene
ofmany inwhichElelwani firmlyassertsher independence toherparents. It isalso
thefirstsceneinwhichherparentsmakeitclearthattheydonotunderstandwhyshe
is sodisrespectfulof theirdesires forherandpointouthereducationas something
thathas‘madeher’hostileandrudetoherelders. Theimplicationisnotonlyabout
rurallifecontrastedagainsturbanlifebutalsoacommentonsomethingaboutwithin
292
in: that education and freedom hinders a woman’s ability to succumb to the
unquestionabletraditionofrespectforonesparents.
AlthoughElelwanidoesnot liedownonthe floor this time,she is still seated
andhergazeremainslowasshetalkslookingdownwards.Herfatherspeaksonbehalf
ofbothmother and father. The threeare first captured in awideangle shot from
behind Elelwani which again shows the modest dwelling but serves to express the
importanceandcentralityofthediscussion.Althoughtheshot-reverse-shotpatternis
oftenusedtoshowadialoguebetweenpeople,theuseofitinthissceneisdifferent
becauseElelwanineveractuallymeetsherfather’sgaze.Itisthusdifficulttoconsider
the dialogue as equal because of her unengaged gaze. Although she remains
vociferousaboutherownbeliefs, forexample she refuses themarriage to theKing,
herbody languagemakes itconfusingtowatchthedisagreement. Nevertheless,the
meetingshowsthatthetwogenerationsunderstandtheworlddifferently. However
prestigiousheruniversityaccoladesmaybe,Elelwani’sdegreesmean little inVenda.
That she has been chosen as awife for the King ismore of a source of pride than
individual achievement found in her degree, and this is what her parents do not
understand.ForElelwanithough,herintentionisnottodisrespectherparentsorher
culture but is instead grounded in an individualistic approach to modern success.
Againstthebackdropofpost-apartheidSouthAfrica,thisanalysisconsidersElelwani’s
sensibilityaroundurbanpossibilityasfoldedintotherhetoricandpracticalitiesofthe
‘Rainbow Nation’. Although the film does not overtly reference the socio-political
contextofSouthAfrica,itemploysvariousreferencesthatsetupabinarybetweenthe
safetyandcorrectnessofthepastthroughtraditionandtheimpracticalfoolishnessof
thepresentseeninElelwani.
293
One such example takes place in a scene inwhich the King’s elders come to
collectthenewbridefromherfamilyhome.Elelwanilearnsthatthetwoeldersdonot
know that the country, America, is a place andnot a person. In the context of the
villagethesetwomenreceivesignificantrespectandaretreatedasthewisestmenin
the village. However, when Elelwani calls on their rationality, she ismetwith out-
dated ideas about tradition as well as, almost to her surprise, when seated in her
positiononthefloor,themen’slackofawarenessexhibitsthattherearefactsabout
the world that they simply do not know. The point is that there are different
hierarchiesofpowerandimportanceinthevillagethatarefaroutsideoftherealities
ofthepoliticsofSouthAfricaandeventheworld.
AfteranumberofdayshavepassedandElelwanihasnotgottenherparentsto
changetheirmindsyet,shedecidestochallengewhatsheistraditionallypermittedto.
Thetwooldmensitonaconcreteslaboutsidetheshedthatshehasbeensharingwith
the chickens. She goes against tradition and approaches them, taking her seated
positionsothattheylookdownather.Thescenetakesplaceusingtheshot-reverse-
shotpatternbutagainbearstheuncomfortablefeelingthatit isnottrulyadialogue.
Elelwaniexplainsthatshehasbeenofferedaprestigiousopportunityofabursaryfor
furtherstudyinAmerica.Thetwooldmendonotunderstandandbegintointegrate
the concept of the bursary into their own understanding of the world through
changing the termsso that ‘bursary’becomes ‘basa-basa’andAmericabecomes ‘Mr
Maliga’. AlthoughElelwani tries toexplain thatMaliga isnotamanoraKingbuta
place, theydonotunderstand. Theelders exhibit someof thehistorical legaciesof
apartheid because it is possible that they received no formal education. Their
persistentreaction,aswithherparents,isthatElelwanishouldbeproudtobecomea
wifetotheKing.Whentheeldersfinallyunderstandthat‘Maliga”isaplace,Elelwani
294
triestocontextualiseitfurtherbyassociatingaPresidentlikeMandelatoit,towhich
theyanswer thatsomeone likeMandelawill thenunderstandthatshealreadyhasa
husband. The interaction leaves Elelwani even more frustrated than before. The
confinementsheexperiencesisemphasisedthroughherbodylanguageandthespace
sheoccupies,thechickencoop.
Up until this point the film succeeds in showing us the complex
interrelationshipbetweenElelwaniandVendatraditions. DirectorwaLuruliexplains
that the film culminates in a knowledge that modernity (an educated women) and
Venda tradition do not need to bemutually exclusive but can in fact live alongside
eachother.ElelwanirepresentstheyoungwomaninthepresentSouthAfrica,who“is
tryingtoforgeabridgebetweenwhatitwas(herpast),andwhatitis(herpresent)…
neitherofthetwoisbetterthantheother”.320WhatwaLurulireferencesisevidenced
in the analysis, an intricate and complex relation between Elelwani as an educated
youngwomanandasayoungwomanwhowantstohonourhertradition. Itposesa
questionaboutwhereElelwanishoulddrawthelinebetweenwhat ispermissiblefor
her as a youngwoman living in post-apartheid South Africa and howmuch of that
womancanalsobeatraditionalVendawoman.Elelwani’sexperiencesarealsopartof
post-apartheidcomplexitiesofidentitybecausesheispartofthefirstgenerationthat
hastolearntonegotiatethesedivergentyetrelatedemergentsensibilities.Sheisalso
partofagenerationthatisforcedtoarticulatethecomplexities.Asshowninprevious
chapters, apartheid’s fixedness, as a highly controlled place and legislated system,
confirmedandepitomisedidentities.Itwasasystemthatreliedheavilyoncommunity
and the persistent promotion of ethnic sameness to achieve its goals of separate
320http://mg.co.za/article/2014-01-30-insights-into-an-exotic-culture[AccessedMonday21September2015].
295
development.321 Elelwani’s seemingly individualistic nature in the face of Venda
traditiongoesagainstapartheid’sconstructions.
ThusfartheanalysishasshownhowElelwaniisdifferentfromherparentsand
howthemainprotagonist is stuck inaprecariousplaceofnegotiationbetweenpast
and present, Venda tradition and urban assertiveness. This final section focuses
specificallyonElelwani’sdeparturefromherruralhomesteadtotheKing’scompound.
Her reasonforagreeingtomarry theKing isseenasasacrifice,asherparentswere
abouttosendherschool-goingsisterinsteadofElelwani. Inordertosavehersister,
Elelwaniconcedestothesituation.
The process of conversion from young urban chic woman to a demure
traditionalVendawifeexpressesasignificanttransition.AlthoughElelwaniendsona
redemptivenote,asElelwanicomestorulethevillage,thepointremainsthatshedid
notchoosethatlife. Theanalysisthatfollowsthusconsidersthetransformationand
thestrippingofagencythatElelwanipossessedintheurbanspacethatwedonotsee
in the film at all. Elelwani is consequently presented as part of a new generation
within the context of post-apartheid and, I argue, is representative of a complexly
emergentstructureoffeelingbecausesheholdsthepromiseofbeingabletocombine
differentworlds.
WhenthetimecomesforElelwanitodeparttotheKing’scompound,itisher
mother’sdutytoclothethenewbride.Thesceneislikeapersonalceremonyinwhich
321TheapartheidgovernmentpronouncedVendaaseparateethnichomeland(Bantustan)in1979.InthefourbantustansaroundSouthAfrica,separatehomelandsweremeanttopromoteseparatedevelopmentofBlacksfromwhites,andkeptBlacksoutofurbancentres.Noteworthyscholarshiponthetopicincludes:BrianH.KingandBrentMcCusker,“EnvironmentandDevelopmentintheFormerSouthAfricanBantustans”,GeographicalJournal173:1(March2007),pp.6–12.,HaroldWolpe,“CapitalismandCheapLabour-PowerinSouthAfrica:fromSegregationtoApartheid”,EconomyandSociety1:4(1972),pp.425–456.RobNixonincorporatesthehomelandsinhisdiscussiononSouthAfricancinemainNixon,Homelands,HarlemandHollywood.
296
themotherdisrobesherdaughterand sendsherarmedand literally clothed forher
newhome.InElelwaniweseetheremovalofherbright‘girly’coloursandaccessories
tomakewayforafulltraditionalVendaoutfitwhichmirrorsherownmother’s. The
scenealsoplaysacritical role inmakingvisible therelationshipbetweenElelwanias
part of one generation and her mother as part of another. Throughout the film
Elelwani’smotherhassubscribedtopatriarchalvalues. Herpositioning is,withouta
doubtcompoundedbythephysicalgesturesthataccompanyawoman’sroleinVenda
culture,suchasalwaysbowingyourheadwhenaddressingamalefigureandserving
food on your knees. Although Elelwani also subscribes to these customs, her self-
assertionpositionsheroutsideofhermother’sworld.
The scene takes place in a hut: a now familiar setting although it is unclear
whether it is one that we have seen before or another hut because there are no
decorativeelementsthatservetoresituatetheviewer.AsElelwani’smotherremoves
itemsofclothingshealsogivesher tips forhowtobeagoodmarriedwoman. Two
mirrorsareplacedagainstthewallofthehut;oneisfulllengthandtheotherreflects
Elelwani’scalves,partsofherbodythatarenolongertobeseenbyanyoneotherthan
herhusband.Elelwani’smother’swarningsandsuggestionsareintendedtohelpthe
newbride,however, theyare ideasthatstand indirectcontrastwiththekindof life
Elelwanihasenvisionedforherself. TheresultforElelwani iswitnessedinthisscene
through her complete lack of interest and her desperate reluctance, which appears
almostincontrasttothephysicalchangeinherlookthatissoenthusiasticallyaffirmed
throughout the scene by hermother. Elelwani’s expression remains blank and the
olderwoman’swisdomsarenotmetwithanyresponsesfromherdaughter.
297
The intimacyof themoment is very clear in theway they are framed in this
scene,astheshotsvacillatebetweenlongshotsfromadistance,asthoughshotfrom
theothersideof thehut inordertoexpressa feelingofwitnessingsomethingquite
sacred,oravariationofclose-upsthatexpresseachwomen’s innerstate. Elelwani’s
clothingisvisibleonthefloorashermothertellsherthatshewillnolongerwearsuch
thingsanymore.Thecamerathenzoomsintoaclose-upofhercolourfulclothing,and
life,inadiscardedpile.Wecontinuetowatchhermotherdressherinthetraditional
Vendaskirtandbeads.ThisisaprocessofwitnessingElelwani’sacceptanceofherfate
andasenseofsadnessthateverythingshehasworkedsohardforwilldissipateinthis
hypermasculine and patriarchal world. This distinct sense of the inter-generational
gap remains a pressing representation throughout the scene as the mother’s
excitement grows even in spite of Elelwani’s clear pain. The camera zooms in on
Elelwani’s face in a close-up as hermother continues to talk about the chores of a
marriedwoman:collectingwater,makingfood,answeringtheeldersrespectfullyand
mostimportantly,notembarrassingthem,herfamily.
AbouthalfwaythroughthissceneElelwaniappearsalongsidehermotherina
fullfrontalshot.Thetransformationisnowcompleteandherappearanceexpressesa
full-circlemetamorphosis.Notonlyhasallherclothingbeenremoved,shealsohasno
accessories, nor does she have a weave as her hair is short and plain looking.
Unexpectedly though, something of the past remains. In a close-up of the side of
Elelwani’sfaceweseetheoutlineofabutterflybehindherear.Thisisareminderof
her butterfly, Vele, but like this scene in which Elelwani has transformed, it is a
reminderoftheselfthatshechoseandhadbecome.Thebutterfly’spresenceisthus
not only a metaphor for an unwanted transformation but it is also a permanent
298
reminder of the chosen butterfly of her previous life in a larger context of
transformation.
Elelwani does not raise her head in this scene, always keeping her gaze low
even though she does not have to practise this with her mother. The old woman
remainsaloof,genuinelyunawareofthedepthofElelwani’supset. Thisagainpoints
to the unarticulated generational and cultural differences between the twowomen
andabasestaccatosoundonthesoundtrackcomplementsthiseerieexpectantmood.
Thefinalpartoftheclothingprocessishermotherdrapingthebeadsoverherupper
body.Forthisfinaldecoration,Elelwanidoesnotliftherarmsvoluntarilyandtheold
womanhastotakeandliftthemherselfinordertofinishthearrangement.Elelwani’s
disdainispalpableinthismomentasthroughoutthisscene,however,thefinalsense
ofherangerisconveyedwhenhermothergushesoverheraftersheisfullyclothedin
the new outfit. Hermother’s insistence about Elelwani’s beauty and her persistent
requestforElelwanitoseethebeautythatsheseesfurtheremphasisesthediffering
sensibilitiesof their realities. Whenhermotherexcitedly laughs toherself, shealso
exclaimsthatherdaughtershouldturnaroundtolookatherselfinthemirror.Framed
inaclose-up,Elelwaniturnsherheadtotherightasthoughshemightturnaroundto
lookatherselfbutinsteadoffollowinghermother’sinstructionshedoesnot.Asthe
camera zooms out, Elelwani’s full body comes into vision to show that her body
remainsforward-facingeventhoughherheadisturnedtowardsthemirror.
ThissceneisthedefinitivemomentofElelwani’sacceptanceofherfateinthis
negotiation. Furthermore, this event undoes the expectation that she had of her
parentsandof traditionalVendacultureconveyed through theelders, thatalthough
theywerestaunchintheirculturalvalues,theremighthavebeenawaytomarryold
299
traditionswithnewwaysofbeingthatshehadlearnedinhercitylife. Elelwanithus
thoughtthatsheandVelewould,likeDinkyandFanie,beabletostarttheirownnew
traditions.
The soundtrack that accompanies Elelwani’s departure is distinct from the
musicheard throughout the film. It isaslow, languid jazzsoundthatseemsheavily
indicativeofElelwani’sangstaboutthesituation.Thesoundisalsomellowandeven
inrhythm,indicatingaresignedacceptance.Elelwani,fullycoveredinablueblanket,
exitsthehutnotbywalkingbutcrawlingoutandacrossthefrontyardonsmallbrown
andwhitereedmatswhicharelaidoutinfrontofheroneinfrontofthenext.Other
youngwomensinganddancearoundher,whichformsanotherlayerofsoundonthe
billowing jazz tonesof the trumpet. Whenshegets to the frontgateof theyard in
which the hut is she rises andwalks to the gate of her family’s compound. Before
exiting, another young woman lays a mat down which Elelwani lays on in a semi-
kneelingposition.
AlthoughthissceneliterallyfollowsElelwani’sexitfromherparents’hometo
hernewhomewiththeKing,itplaysapartintheexitbutisnottheeventthatmost
impresses on us the change in Elelwani’s life fromwho shewas before her visit to
Vendaandthekindoflifethatthatyoungwomanlived.Theanalysisthatfocuseson
Elelwani’s transformation with her mother in the hut is the climax of the complex
difficulties that Elelwani has to deal with: the tormenting psychological disjuncture
betweentraditionandpost-apartheidopportunityasayoungBlackwoman.
Thefilm’smostpressingcommentaboutthedichotomybetweentraditionand
modernity,whatwaLurulihasdescribedasthepossibilityfordifferingsubjectivitiesto
existsidebyside, is foundtobeuntrue inElelwanibecause,asarguedearlier inthis
300
section,thechoicetomarrytheKingisnotonethatshemakesherself.Itisthislackof
choicethatmakesit impossibletoarguethatElelwani’sdesireisfortheco-existence
oftheseworldsbecause,ashasbeenillustratedintheanalyses,shemakescontinuous
attemptstogetoutofthesituation.
[Figure6.1]Elelwaniwithhermother [Figure6.2]Elelwaniassheleaves her parents’homestead
Although the second half of the film invites a different representation of
Elelwani’spower,IstillconsiderthatbecauseitwasnotElelwani’schoicetobethere,
herownroleasrulershouldnotbethoughtlesslycelebratedasanachievement.The
sectionhasshownthatwhileElelwaniexistsinapost-apartheidcontextinwhichshe,
as seen in Dinky, is able to imagine, desire and even articulate resistance against
tradition, the character also exists in a context that is representative of a residual
structureoffeeling.InVenda,post-apartheidSouthAfricaanditsyoungpeopleseems
tobeafuturisticconstructbecauseinthatruralcontext,traditionandseparatismstill
seemtobeappliedinthesamefixedwaysastheywereduringapartheid.Elelwani’s
parentsandtheeldersarethusrepresentativeofadeeplyresidualstructureoffeeling,
which, in Venda, remains dominant. It is as though the contemporary emergent
301
contexthasnotinfiltratedthereyeteithereventhoughitisclearthatthesecharacters
areawarethatapartheidhasended.
Elelwani’s emergent sensibility is similar toDinky’s because it is evident that
shewishestostudyfurther,travelandchooseherownpartner.Elelwaniisthusalso
far outside the proverbial box and is also, a representative of a more discernible
structureof feelingwithin thenewSouthAfrica,perhapsevenmore sobecauseher
assertionstakeplaceinsuchanoutdatedcontext.Elelwaniproveswhatwasidentified
earlier as indicative of a trait of an emergent structure of feeling: a young South
African who is trying to make sense of and articulate the intricacies of a ‘Rainbow
Nation’ identity, and whose identity is distinctly different from those of previous
generations.
302
DisgraceandLucy’s‘RainbowWomb’
Thefinalsectionofthischapternowturnstoanunlikelyunionseenbetween
LucyandPetrus.
Thisthesishasalready,inthepreviouschapter,discussedtherepresentationof
rapeandviolenceinrelationtothethreeyoungmenwhorapeLucyLurie.Thissection
ismore concernedwith the aftermathof the rape,which leads to Lucy’s realisation
thatsheispregnantandherdecisiontokeepthechild.Thechapternowturnstothe
endofDisgraceinwhichLucyasksherfathertoacceptPetrus’proposalformarriage.
Partof thenegotiation that sheoffers is thatPetrus canhave the landbut that she
wantsthefarmhouseforherself.Lucy’soffer,liketheconceptionofthebaby,isadark
twist on ritualswhich, in other contexts, are enacted differently. Meg Samuelson’s
discussionofLucy’s rape in thecontextof thenoveluses the term“rainbowwomb”
withreferencetothepost-apartheidterminology‘RainbowNation’.322Inusingsucha
description,Samuelsondescribesthewhitewombasaboundaryofrace,notingthat
“as a white woman, Lucy has no future until her womb has been ‘soiled’ and
‘darkened’”.323 WhereasDinkyandFaniechoosetheir interracialunion,Lucyhasno
choiceinthemixedraceunionthatshewillbirth.
BeforeDavidleavesthefarmandafterPetrus’returnafterthebreak-inandthe
rape,PetruscomestoLucy’shouselookingforDavidtoassisthimwithpipefitting.The
scenetakesplaceasDavidandPetruscrouchdownoppositeeachothertojoinpipes
underthegroundonebyone.ThesepipeswillproviderunningwatertoPetrus’new
housethathebuildsthroughoutthefilm.Aconversationensuesaboutwhathappened
322MegSamuelson,“TheRainbowWomb:RapeandRaceinSouthAfricanFictionoftheTransition”,KunapipiXXIV:1&2(2002).323Ibid.,p.93.
303
whenPetruswasgone. Petrusknows theboyPolluxwho isbackafter the incident,
seenbyDavidandLucyatPetrus’party.PetrusdoesnotadmitthatPolluxisfamilybut
instead confidently assures David that “now, everything is alright” and that Lucy is
“forward-looking, not backward-looking”. Petrus’ emphasis on “forward-looking” is
interesting because he insinuates that Lucy’s approach is the best one in this new
context. He also insinuates that David, in his insistence to know about the boy, is
“backward-looking”whichisnotgood.ThisscenebetweenPetrusandDavidsetsup
thefocusofthissection:ananalysisofthemakeshiftlobolathattakesplacebetween
David and Petrus about Lucy, the baby and Lucy’s place on the farm (and in South
Africa).
Ashasbeenexaminedinthepreviouschapter,theBlack‘boys’whorapeLucy
are stereotypes of young Blackmen in South Africa. Pumla Gqola’s Rape: A South
African Nightmare contextualises the employment of this stereotype and traces its
historicalplace inSouthAfricawhenshewrites thatstereotypical representationsof
Blackmalesasrapistsofwhitewomenhasplayedamajorroleintheriseofracism.324
Gqola cautions that this is “not a smallmatter, and constructionsof ‘blackperil’, or
whatwastermed‘swartgevaar’(blackdanger)incolonialandapartheidSouthAfrica,
depended heavily on this idea of the sexually and otherwise violent Blackman”.325
WhatIintendtoshowinthisbriefanalysisisthattheunionbetweenPetrusandLucy
isacomplexnegotiationofwhatGqoladescribesasthe“constructionsof‘blackperil’”
andhowevershameful,possibilitiesfornewunions.
LucytellsDavidofthepregnancywhenhereturnstovisitherunderthepretext
thatheisonhiswaytoajobinterview.Thetwoareseatedoppositeeachotheratthe
324Gqola,Rape:aSouthAfricanNightmare(Johannesburg:MFBooks,2015),p.4.325Ibid.
304
kitchentablewhenLucytellshimthatsheispregnant.Theshortsceneincorporatesa
shot-reverse-shot pattern between Lucy and her father. They are both framed in
mediumclose-upsasLucyexplains that shewillhave thechild, that she isawoman
andwill not hate a child because ofwho its father is. The scene endswhenDavid
excuseshimself,teauntouched,togoforawalk.Amediumclose-upofLucy’sfaceis
held before a cut to David, who stands outside facing a wall. Overcome by the
humiliationandgriefofthesituation,Davidiscrying,firstslightlybentoverandthen,
moreviolently,asthoughhemightcollapse.Withthepregnancyasanewchallenge
to theexperienceof livingon the farm, Lucyhas tomake certain choices abouther
future.Hergrowingbellyposesimminenceandurgency,justliketheendofapartheid,
asking:whatwillhappennext,whatwillitlooklikeandisitpossibletolovethischild
bornofsuchaviolentexperience?
AlthoughPetrusexpressesthathewilllookoutforLucy,healsopointsoutthat
whileDavidprotectshischild,PetrustoomustprotectPollux,whoishisfamily. The
conversation takesplacewhileDavid,hands inpockets,watchesPetrus lay concrete
for a house that will soon be his own property. Different to the conversations
betweenLucyandherfather,wheretheyareoftenbothinthesameeyelevelposition
making shot-reverse-shots appear natural and equal, dialogues between Petrus and
David always take placewith one or the other positioned higher or lower than the
other,ansubtleindicationofpowerandthepresenceofabattleforit.Itisironicthat
inthis‘building’sceneitisPetruswholooksupatDavidfromalowangleshot,whenit
isPetruswhoisinfactinpower.Davidhoweverhasahardtimeacceptingasecond
defeatwhen Petrusmakes a pragmatic suggestion tomarry Lucy. Although Lucy is
abletoseeandacknowledgethesuggestionasagestureofprotectionDavidisnot.
305
There are, however two expectant women inDisgrace: one is Lucy and the
other is Petrus’wife. Samuelsonnotes in relation to the novel, that Petrus’ “‘pure’
race child (that) will be born in the spring with all its suggestions of renewal and
growth,whileLucy’sexpectedonlyinlateMay,willbebornintothefrostsofanearly
Eastern Cape winter”.326 The building, as with the pipes and running water, is
indicative of another new present, one in which the formerly disadvantaged have
accesstothesatisfactionofbasicneeds.Theculminationoftheconversationbetween
Petrus andDavid is a suggestion thatPetruswillmarry LucybecausePollux is still a
child. While David thinks that the idea is preposterous, Lucy immediately sees its
value. She perceives it as an acknowledgement of her presence in the new South
Africa and a justification and legitimation of her stay and white presence. Lucy’s
awareness about the union invites us to see Lucy’s controversial pregnancy in a
differentway,onewheresheacquiescesinpowerforhergreatergoodandprotection
through the baby. Although unwanted, the child serves a purpose and invites
possibilities for Lucywhere they did not exist before. The scene inwhich Lucy and
David discuss the possibility of a union between Lucy and Petrus is illuminative in
showinghowherpregnancyisconceivedofdifferentlyaftertheunexpectedproposal.
Thesceneopenswithamediumclose-upofDavidasheexpresseshis feeling
aboutPetrus’proposal.Ashot-reverse-shotpatternensuesbetweenthetwothrough
whichwegetthedistinctimpressionthatDavidisangrywithLucyfornotdealingwith
thesituationinthewayheseesfit.ThesettingisLucy’sfrontgarden,nowfilledwith
flowers, vegetables and plants which she tends to. Lucy disagrees with David’s
position and clarifies that Petrus’ proposal is not a traditional marriage but “an
alliance,adeal…”andultimatelyprotection.Lucy’spointofviewisofDavidandinthe
326Ibid.
306
backgroundPetrus’house(andPetrusbuildingthehouse)isvisible.Stillbeyondthatis
the landscape of the Eastern Cape. FromDavid’s point of viewwe see Lucy in her
garden. Thesebackgroundchoicesare importantbecauseforDavidandgenerations
before him,whitemen controlled the land. Not only is this no longer the case but
Blackmen,likePetrus,arenowtakingbackthelandandthecountry.Blackmenare
nowtherepresentativesofpower. Thefilmcommentsonthisoften,shownthrough
the presence of sex (David’s pursuits) and Lucy’s rape juxtaposedwith Petrus’ new
materialacquisitions,landandthehousethathebuildsthroughoutthefilm.
ForLucy’sgeneration,thefilmcomments,thereisadangerouslypressingneed
tonegotiatethetermsofstaying.DavidisabouttoreturntoPetruswitharejectionof
his proposal when Lucy jumps up. A full-length shotmakes the importance of her
following linesevenmore compelling. Sheoffersher termsof thenegotiation: that
shewillacceptthemarriageasprotectionontheconditionthatthechildisPetrus’too
andthuspartofhisfamily.Shewillsignoverallthelandtohimbutshewantstokeep
the house and the kennels, which nobody, not even Petrus is permitted to enter
withoutherpermission.ThesearethetermsofLucy’sagreementtomarryingPetrus.
WhenDavidtellsherthatitisnot“workable”,Lucy,inamediumclose-up,exclaims,“I
amnotleaving,David!”BeforeDavidleavestotellPetrusthetermsoftheagreement
he resignedly tells Lucy how humiliating to end like this, “like a dog”. Lucy agrees
beforeDavidturnstowardsPetruswhoisstillbuilding.
307
[Figure6.3]DavidlooksatPetrusinthedistanceasPetruscontinuesthebuildingofhishouse
Whattakesplaceinthissceneisanunconventionallobola,anegotiationofthe
termsofmarriage,evenwithoutabride.EventhoughPetrusdoesnotcallitthis,Lucy
understandsthathissuggestiontomarryisaboutanegotiation;inaway,thereisstill
adiscussionaboutbrideprice.LikeinFanieFourie’sLobola,theactuallobolaandthe
unionmayappearunconventionalbut twoprimarycharacteristics standout. One is
thatthe‘negotiation’stilltakesplacebetweenelders,Lucy’sfatherandPetrus,whoin
effect stands in for Pollux. Secondly, Lucy carries theultimateoffence in ‘damages’
(loweringofthebrideprice)inlobolanegotiations,whichisapregnancy.Althoughit
appears as though it is Lucywhoarticulates the termsof the agreement, it is really
Petruswhosteersthearrangementasheknowsitwillbenefithim. BothPetrusand
LucyalsoknowthatLucy’spregnancybyrapeisnottheonlydamageshecarriesinher
“soiledwomb”.327Lucyisalsoawhitewomaninpost-apartheidSouthAfricaandthus
carriesgenerationalguilt.
327Ibid.
308
The contrast between Lucy and David’s understanding of the realities of her
situationprovidesan illustrationofanewsensibility–Lucy’s–emergingagainst the
residual dominanceof her father’s. As in a traditionalmarriage, thewomanpasses
fromtheprotectionofherfathertoherhusband. Inthisparticularcontext, though,
Petrusrecognises theprivilegeofBlackness in thenewSouthAfrica,and isawareof
howtheemergentcontextbenefitshisownlife.
309
Conclusion
This chapter has shown how young women in post-apartheid South Africa
struggle with historically incompatible ways of being, often slightly stuck between
beingeducatedwomenwhohaveagencyandknowwhattheywant,versustraditional
binds that theyarehistoricallyandculturallybeholden to. Thecharactersdiscussed
are representative of emergent sensibilities within a post-apartheid context and
present emergent choices and actionswithin that context. This is in contrast to the
youngmen of the previous chapterwho exist in an emergent context butwho are
characterisedasincapableofarticulatingthemselvesasdistinctfromyoungBlackmen
of a previous generation. Each example in this chapter has reflected a different
negotiationofunionwhich Iargue isaproductivewayofthinkingaboutthepresent
andfutureofSouthAfricawhilestillawareofthepast.
Theexamplesinthischapterdonotonlyconfirmthepresenceofanemergent
structure of feeling of the new South Africa but also comment on the residual
structure of feeling. Examples have shown how characters representative of the
residual structure also hold a complicated place in the ‘RainbowNation’. Although
such characters are aware that apartheid is over, and often, like Mr Magubane or
Elelwani’s family, did not benefit from that structure, the respectful pasts that they
referencearepartofthattime. It isnotablethatcharacters likeElelwani,Dinkyand
evenLucy,whodealswithadifferentinstanceofaresidualcharacterinherfather,are
abletograpplewithandbegintoarticulatetheirresistancesagainstacontrivedpast
thatcontinuestoimposeresidualelementswithinthepresentcontextofanemergent
structureof feeling. Thischapterthusconcludesthattheyoungwomenrepresenta
310
constructiveoutcomeoftheTRCandinviteapositiverepositioningonSouthAfrica’s
traumaticpast.
Thenegotiationsdiscussedinthischapterviaritualstodowithunionsarealso
readasnegotiating the ‘Rainbow’ in theunfixedcontextofpost-apartheidalongside
the unfixed categories proposed by the characters. Dinky, Elelwani and even Lucy,
defytraditioninsignificantways,whileatthesametimetryingtoforgenewwaysof
being for themselves and their interracial and interethnic partnerships moving
forward.
311
CONCLUSION
In her study of the cultural politics of women as consumers in post-war
Germany, Erica Carter develops an argument around women’s critical and crucial
positions intherebuildingthenation.328 Post-apartheidSouthAfrica isnotpost-war
GermanyandIambynomeansalludingtosuchadenouement,neitherfortheoverall
thesisnorforpost-apartheidfilmsdiscussedinit.Iam,however,suggestingthatthis
thesis’s engagement with ‘Representations of the Rainbow’ has come to exhibit a
number of distinct gendered and class points aroundwho embodies the ‘Rainbow’.
Carter’sstudyillustratesthatwomenhavebeenprovenasthecarriersofnewnation
beforeinquiteremarkableways,someofwhicharealsorelevanttothisthesis.Ihave
foundthatpost-apartheidrepresentationsofyoungwomenachievesomethingsimilar
againstabackdropoffilmsthatshowhowcomplexitreallyistoimplementchange.In
theintroductiontothethesisIlistedsomeofthetermsofnewnationthataidedinthe
officialcreationofthepost-apartheidnationsuchas‘Rainbowism’,‘SouthAfricanese’
and ‘ubuntu’, among others. The thesis’s engagement with the rhetoric of the
‘RainbowNation’hasseenhowthesetermshavebeeninvokedinthefilmsandinthe
characters to represent a range of sensibilities related to different stages of the
processofworkingthroughthelegacyofapartheid.
The films discussed in this thesis have shown that an emergent structural
context, the official post-apartheid, is much more prominent than an emergent
structureof feeling seen in individual characters. The contextand the traitsofnew
nation are often still embroiled in the practical legacies of the past, and thus the
promises held in the rhetoric of ‘Rainbow Nation’ rhetoric, have been shown as
328Carter,HowGermanisShe?
312
generally unrealised. Old, residual structures of feeling also continue to persist,
sometimes in unexpected places and identities. Because of the weight and
expectation that came with the end of apartheid, the official rhetoric of ‘Rainbow
Nation’alsoremainsasakindofphantomwhichcontinuestohauntandneverquite
reincarnates intosomething tangible. The thesishas thusconsidered this inculcated
‘Rainbow Nation’ rhetoric with a historical approach, found within the films and
throughclosetextualanalysisaccordingtothethemesofeachsection.Thepastinthe
present is a recurring theme in the films dealt with in this thesis and has become
culturallymanifestinpost-apartheidanditsfilmculture.
Section One of the thesis’s engagement with anti-apartheid films helps to
contextualisetheapartheidpast. The identificationof ‘outofplace’Blackandwhite
charactersinapartheidshowshowapartheidwasafixedplaceinwhichidentitieswere
fixed too. Although the chapter concludes that these films were generally not for
South African audiences, the chapter’s emphasis on examining themasculine racial
binariessetupbythehyper-racialisedapartheidsystemasseeninADryWhiteSeason
andCryFreedom,assistsinunderstandinghowapartheidworked.Thechapterisalso
effective in constructing a gender binary in which women are protectors who hold
familiestogether.BeyondshowingthattheBlackandwhiteprotagonistsofthefilms
goagainsttheconstraintsofapartheid,thechapterthusalsocommentsonwomen’s
rolesintheconstructionandmaintenanceoftheeveryday. Thispointaboutwomen
wasfoundtobetrueinmanyoftheexamplesofthepost-apartheidfilmstoo.
SectionTwo’sconcernsarewithhowpost-apartheidfilmsrepresentthepast,
thenewnationandtheremnantsofthepastidentifiedasrepresentativeofaresidual
structureof feeling. TheconsiderationsofChapterThree illustratethattheTRC,the
313
primaryofficialvehiclethroughwhichtheendofapartheidwasnavigated,broughtthe
traumaandhistorical legaciesofapartheidtolight. Inallthefilms,theofficialevent
andthediscoursearounditpresentindividualandcollective(national)distress,whichI
perceiveastraumapresentedinthefilms.Inapre-emergentwaythen,thistrauma,in
its ‘publicness’,whichtheTRCandrepresentationsof itrichlyengagewith,showsus
thatwhile ‘RainbowNation’ rhetoric steers the immediate post-1994 sensibilities of
post-apartheid belonging, the TRC also presents a kind of end, an official ‘working
through’. The films of Chapter Three also show what is left behind, beneath the
official trauma articulated in the TRC. The analyses of this chapter then points to
parapraxis evidenced in the traumas in the films, which I consider as part of, not
excluded from the ‘Rainbow’. To recall Elsaessar’s definition regarding the two-
prongednatureofparapraxis, Iconsiderthatfilmsaboutpost-apartheidSouthAfrica
areboth representativeofa failedperformanceof the rhetoricofnewnationanda
performance of failure that has begun to find new ways of making sense of the
‘Rainbow’, outside of the official discourses.329 These inarticulate pains, seen in
characters in the films of Chapter Three, allow me to conclude that within these
representationsaretraumasthat liebeneaththatsurface,whichareasengrained in
the‘Rainbow’asthepositiveaspectsof‘ubuntu’.
Chapter Four’s discussion ofwhitemiddle-agedwhitemen is an investigation
into another lesser considered avenueof thepost-apartheid context. The chapter’s
analyses of the tropes of shame, guilt and loss of power concludes that although
characters like Francois van Heerden and David Lurie exist in a new South African
context,theyareunabletodealwiththeirownpastsandthelossofwhitemasculine
power. To thisend, ina sardonichomage to theTRC, these filmsgrapplewithhow
329Elsaessar,GermanCinema,p.26.
314
thesemiddle-agedwhitemendonotreallyhaveanidentifiedplaceinthe‘Rainbow’.
Inaway,theirsexualescapadespresentanothertakeontraumatic‘actingout’asthey
present residual elements of themselves (fixed apartheid identities) in an emergent
context.
InCoombes’explorationofthegenderofmemoryinSouthAfricainrelationto
theTRC,shepointstotheissuethatpost-apartheidmemoryworkmightbewomen’s
work.330 Inherdiscussionofhowweas viewers feel relating to themothers in the
documentaryLongNight’sJourneyIntoDay,sheemphasiseshowwesympathisewith
themandfeelshameatourpositionsasviewers.331Iwishtohighlightthough,thatit
isthemotherswhowerethecarriersofthememorynarrativesinthisfilmandalsoin
otherTRCfilmsthathavebeendiscussed inthethesis. Thetraumaoftheapartheid
pastisthereforerecognisablethroughoutthefilmsdiscussedinthethesis.
Eveniftraumaitselfisnotrepresentable,asisassumedintraumaandmemory
studies, then Iargue that theability to recognise trauma in the filmsmustbeworth
somepauseandconsideration. Therepresentabilityofconceptsaroundthetrauma,
such as ‘acting out’ and ‘working through’ leads me to conclude that the films of
SectionTwoaredefinitive intheirabilitytobringtheaffectiveemotionoftraumato
the experience of watching the films. However, instead of trying to prove the
‘unprovable’,IchoseinsteadtoalsoconsiderthefilmsbeyondtheTRCandtheirdirect
referencetotraumaandapartheid.Thisishowitcametobethatfilmsoutsideofthis
narrativealso reflectedelementsof trauma fromapartheidand it is basedon these
presencesthatthethesisisabletodrawsuchconclusions.
330Coombes,TheGenderofMemoryinRadstoneandSchwarz(eds.),Memory,pp.442–458.331Ibid.
315
Inamovetoquestionwhatexistsbeyondthe‘actingout’andguiltaroundthe
pastevidenced inthepresent,SectionThreetakesamoredecisiveturn in itssearch
forthepresenceofsomethingnewand/oremergent. GuidedbyWilliams’concepts
of‘pre-emergent’and‘emergent’,ChaptersFiveandSixsoughtnotonlytoexplorethe
possibilityofemergentstructuresoffeelingwithinthefilmsbutalsosoughttoexplore
the traits of the emergent. Although the investigations for the final section started
without distinguishing between young men and women, the films presented
themselvesinthisway.
Based on the analyses throughout, the thesis has been able to identify
elements of an emergent structure of feeling as the ability for a post-apartheid
charactertoshowvisibletraitsofactivatinganewsensibilityoftheirownidentity;and
for these post-apartheid characters to enact decisions made in relation to a post-
apartheidpresentandfuturewhichemphasisesadistinctshiftfromhowthingswere
inthepast.Afurthercharacteristicpresentedinthefilmsisthatthesecharactersare
also able to show awareness of the complexities of the past in such a way that I
consideranemergentsensibilityasencompassingthatpastwithoutthepastbeinga
debilitatingfactorinthepresent.Inotherwords,atrulyemergentwayofbeingisnot
one in which the characters are hampered by the past, and are thus no longer
restrained by the traumas of apartheid although they are also not unaware of the
history. A final emergent characteristic, and themost consistently employed in the
films, refers to showing how young Black post-apartheid characters are part of a
growingmiddleclass.
Chapter Five deals with representations of infantilisation and hyper
masculinitiesseenintheyoungBlackmenofDisgrace,Tsotsi,andHijackStories.While
316
eachofthefilmspresentthecontextofthenewSouthAfrica,eachalsomakesexplicit
useofshowinghowthisnewplaceisdangerousandproblematic,oftenbecauseofthe
youngmen.Althoughawareofthenewnation(exceptfortherapistsinDisgrace),the
youngmenof the filmsplaceemphasisonself-assertionthroughmasculinity innon-
mainstream,seeminglymarginalspaces,liketheurbantownshipsoronaremotefarm,
in the case ofDisgrace. It is as though, the films suggest, the practicalities of the
‘Rainbow’simplydonotextendintotheseBlack(poor)placesbecausetheyoungmen
are not actively involved in the emergent context, nor do they assert themselves in
emergent ways. In the one character that arguably embodies the traits of an
emergent perceptiveness, Sox, in Hijack Stories, we see the film reinforce the
emergent context,while it almost dismantles Sox’s ability to be present in it. Sox’s
searchforthemachoaffirmationhedesiresoutstripsthevalueofthe‘Rainbow’,and
Zama’s theft of the role of ‘Bra Zeb’ suggests thatmuch of the participation in the
‘Rainbow’isquitesimply,adeceptiveperformance.
The young Black men are however not alone in their fixed and seemingly
inescapable roles. The charactersofChapter Four, FrancoisVanHeerdenandDavid
Lurie, are also unable to (albeit for different reasons) access the ‘Rainbow’ in its
fullness. While their guilt, shameand lossofpowerdebilitate those characters, the
young men of Chapter Five are also incapacitated by the inability to surge beyond
residualmarkersandplacesofvalueoftenstillattachedtoapartheid. Eachof these
groupsofmenpresentrecalcitrantidentitieswithinthenewSouthAfricathattheyare
somehowunabletoescapeorreshape.ItisforthisreasonthatChapterFiveendson
thenoteof‘agshame’,applyingamodeof‘SouthAfricanese’tothesecharactersthat
aresoimpairedinacontextthatisinprinciple,sofullofhopeandpossibility.
317
ThefindingsofChapterFiveofferaratherdispiritingoutlookthatmaysuggest
the impossibility of an emergent structure of feeling at all. However, Chapter Six
presents new possibilities through engagement with representations of
unconventionalunions.Evidencedthroughtheirabilitytodistinguishthemselvesfrom
thepast,theyoungwomenofDisgrace,ElelwaniandFanieFourie’sLobolarepresent
emergent sensibilities within the emergent context of the ‘Rainbow’. In their
negotiationsofunions,Iarguethatitispossibletoevidenceaproductiveoutcomeof
theTRC.Althoughelementsoftheresidualstructureoffeelingarepresentincertain
charactersinthefilms,Iconcludethatitisbecauseoftheseresidualelementsthatthe
new identities are even further emphasised and illuminated. Instead of the young
womenrevertingtooldwaysofbeing,theydonotonlyreferencenewidentities,they
enactthemandtheirchoicescontributetonewformationswhichprovetoreconfigure
‘RainbowNation’identities.
Characters like Dinky, Elelwani and even Lucy, represent the foundational
embodimentofthecomplexitiesof‘TheRainbow’.Whileyoungmenseemunableto
trulyenterandbepartof thepractical re-imaginationofpost-apartheid, thewomen
do the work of building that nation. It is thus in their racial, gendered and ethnic
differences,thatyoungwomenareshowntocometogetheranddotheworkofpost-
apartheidinwaysthatfurther,progressanddevelopthatsociety.
Just as thedifferent structures of feeling are intricately part of the ‘Rainbow
Nation’, so the thesis, continuously in each section, returned to thequestionof the
validity of a national cinema. The introduction set out the aims of this thesis as
exploring representationsof ‘TheRainbow’,meaning thenewnationofSouthAfrica
after1994.Inpreviousscholarship,focushasbeenrelativelycleararoundtheformal
318
modalities of the structures put in place for the cinemaof the newnation (like the
NFVF). This thesis set out to probe the construction of this ‘rainbow’ within the
‘Rainbow’.BythisImeanthat,aspointedoutintheintroduction,structureslikethe
NFVFwereput inplace topromoteSouthAfrican filmsandplace theiremphasison
filmsthatshowanddealwiththehistoryofthecountry.
Inthisthesis’scriticalcontextualisationoffilmsIhavealsoconsideredtherole
of historiography in thinking abouthow these films contribute to theways inwhich
South African history is ‘written’ and remembered. Employing historiography in a
sustainedmannerwasbeyondthescopeofthisthesisbutisnotedhereassomething
forfutureconsideration.
Partoftheaimofthethesishasbeentounpackwhataselectionoffilmswhich
dealwiththeapartheidpastandpresentshowaboutthecountry,andtoquestionhow
thefilmsdealwiththeofficialrhetoricof‘RainbowNation’.Despitethefactthatsome
of the films are hopeful and others critical, they all intersect around one common
concern: anexplorationof newand shifting SouthAfrican identities. In lightof this
then, Iprefernot touse the term ‘nationalcinema’ for filmsaboutSouthAfricaand
instead see the themes they present as indelibly linked to the structures of feeling
identified in the characters. It is through an identification and articulation of
structuresof feeling, that thecommonthreadbecomesanalyticallymorecompelling
becauseanalysiscanengagearangeofbroadquestionswithoutmakingassumptions
aboutacinemaofanation.
This thesishas considered the consciouspersistenceofold identities inpost-
apartheid films, aswell asnew identitieswhich represent anemergent sensibility in
thereconstructionofanewstate.Althoughthestatesponsored‘emergent’,‘Rainbow
319
Nation’ rhetorichas insomeways failedandparalysedpost-apartheid identities, the
thesis has also identified successes. The blockages around ‘Rainbow Nation’ also
appear more discernible in popular culture than in films specifically, and this is
somethingthatmustbeacknowledgedasalimitation.However,whatthefilmshave
proven is that trauma can be identified in the representations of the traumatic
apartheidpastinthefilmsofSectionTwo.Thethesishasalsoproventhatthereare
specific ways in which a pre-emergent and emergent structure of feeling can be
identified within the emergent context of post-apartheid. This distinction between
pre-emergentandemergentwithinanemergentpost-apartheidcontextisvitaltothe
conclusion of the thesis as it points to some of the incompatible signs of the new
nation. Thethesiswasalsoabletoshow,aspopularculturemightnotaddresswith
such specificity, the place of recalcitrant old identities also within the ‘Rainbow
Nation’.Thethesisconcludesonthisambiguousnote,whichthefilmshaveprovenis
trulythedominantexperienceofpost-apartheidSouthAfrica. Whiletherearesome
successes,therearealsomanyincompleteandinarticulatewaysofbeingpartofthe
‘RainbowNation’.
321
BIBLIOGRAPHYAanerud,Rebecca, “FictionsofWhiteness: Speaking theNamesofWhiteness inU.S.
Literature” in Ruth Frankenberg (ed.),Displacing Whiteness: Essays in Social and
CulturalCriticism(DurhamandLondon:DukeUniversityPress,1997),pp.35–59.
Abbas,Ackbar,“HongKong”inHjort,MetteandPetrie,Duncan(eds.),TheCinemaof
SmallNations(Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress,2007),pp.113–126.
Adorno,Theodor,CriticalModels:InterventionsandCatchwords,(NewYork:Columbia
UniversityPress,1998).
Afolayan, Funso, Culture and Customs of South Africa (Westport: Greenwood Press,
2004).
Ahmed,Sara,“AffectiveEconomics”,SocialText22:2(2004),pp.117–139.
-TheCulturalPoliticsofEmotion(Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress,2004).
Amadiume,IfiandAn-NamAbdullah(eds.),ThePoliticsofMemory:Truth,Healingand
SocialJustice,(LondonandNewYork:ZedBooks,2000).
Anderson,Benedict, ImaginedCommunities:ReflectionsontheOriginsandSpreadof
Nationalism(London:Verso,1983).
Andrews,Dudley,“AnAtlasofWorldCinema”inStephanieDennisonandSongHwee
Lim(eds.),RemappingWorldCinema(WallflowerPress:London,2006),pp.19–29.
Ansell,Nicola, “‘Because It’sOurCulture!’ (Re)negotiating themeaningof ‘lobola’ in
Southern African Secondary Schools”, Journal of Southern African Studies 27:4
(December2001),pp.697–716.
Attridge,DerekandJolly,Rosemary(eds.),WritingSouthAfrica:Literature,Apartheid
andDemocracy1970–1995(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1998).
322
Baderoon,Gabeba,“‘ThisIsOurSpeech’:Voice,BodyandPoeticForminRecentSouth
AfricanWriting”,SocialDynamics:A JournalOfAfricanStudies37:2 (June2011),pp.
213–227.
Bakari, Imruh, and Cham,Mbye, (eds.),African Experiences of Cinema (London: BFI
Publishing)1996.
Balseiro,IsabelandMasilela,Ntongela(eds.),ToChangeReels:FilmandFilmCulturein
SouthAfrica(Detroit:WayneStateUniversityPress,2003).
Barnard, Rita, “J. M. Coetzee’s ‘Disgrace’ and The South African Pastoral”,
ContemporaryLiterature44:2(Summer2003),pp.199–224.
- “Ugly Feelings, Negative Dialects: Reflections on Post apartheid Shame”,
Safundi:TheJournalofSouthAfricanandAmericanStudies,13:1-2(January
–April2012),pp.151–170.
Beard, Margot, “Lessons from the Dead Masters: Wordsworth and Byron in J.M.
Coetzee’sDisgrace”inEnglishinAfrica34:1(May2007),pp.59–77.
Bennett, Jill, “TheAesthetic of Sense-Memory” in Radstone, Susannah andHodgkin,
Katharine (eds.), Memory Cultures: Memory, Subjectivity, and Recognition (New
BrunswickandLondon:TransactionPublishers,2005),pp.27–38.
Bennett, Jill Empathic Vision: Affect, Trauma, and Contemporary Art (Stanford,
California:StanfordUniversityPress,2005).
Bewes, Timothy, The Event Of Postcolonial Shame (Princeton andOxford: Princeton
UniversityPress,2011).
Bezan,Sarah,“ShameasaStructureofFeeling:RapeandProstitutedWomeninJ.M.
Coetzee’s ‘Disgrace’ and Futhi Ntshingila’s ‘Shameless’”, The Journal of the African
LiteratureAssociation7:1(2012),pp.15–24.
323
Bhabha,Homi(ed.),NationandNarration(London:Routledge,1990).
Bickford-Smith,Vivian,“ReviewingHollywood’sApartheid:CryFreedom(1987)andDry
WhiteSeason(1989)”,SouthAfricanHistoryJournal48:1(May2003),pp.23–34.
Biko,Steve,IWriteWhatILike(Johannesburg,Oxford:HeinemannPublishers,1978).
Bischoff,Lizelle,“Sub-SaharanAfricanCinemaintheContextofFespaco:Close-upsof
FrancophoneWestAfricaandAnglophoneSouthAfrica”,ForumforModernLanguage
Studies45:4(2009),pp.441–454.
Bisschoff, Lizelle and Van De Peer, Stefanie, “Representing the Unrepresentable” in
Bisschoff, Lizelle and Van De Peer, Stefanie (eds.), Art and Trauma in Africa:
RepresentationsofReconciliationinMusic,VisualArts,LiteratureandFilm(NewYork,
I.B.Tauris&CoLtd.,2013),pp.3–24.
Boraine,Alex,ACountryUnmasked, (OxfordandNewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,
2000).
Borer, Tristan, Anne, “Reconciling South Africa/ South Africans? Cautionary Notes
fromtheTRC”,AfricanStudiesQuarterly8:1(2004),pp.19–38.
Botha, Martin (ed.),Marginal Lives and Painful Pasts: South African Cinema after
Apartheid(CapeTown:GenugtigPublishers,2007).
- South African Cinema 1896 – 2010 (Bristol and Chicago: University Of
ChicagoPress,2012).
Bromley,Roger,“AfterSuchKnowledge,WhatForgiveness?:CulturalRepresentations
ofReconciliationinRwanda”,FrenchCulturalStudies20:20(2009),pp.181-197.
Bruzzi, Stella,NewDocumentary: Second Edition (London andNew York: Routledge,
2006).
324
Buscombe,Ed,TheIdeaofNationalCinema”,AustralianJournalofScreenTheory9/10
(1981),pp.141–153.
Carchidi, Victoria, “South Africa from Text to Film: Cry Freedom and A Dry White
Season” in Simons, John, D., Literature and Film in the Historical Dimension
(Gainesville,Florida:UniversityPressOfFlorida,1994),pp.47–61.
Carter, Erica, Donald, James and Squires, Judith (eds.), Cultural Remix: Theories of
PoliticsandthePopular(London:LawrenceAndWishart,1995).
Carter, Erica, How German Is She? Postwar West German Reconstruction and the
ConsumingWoman(AnnArbor:TheUniversityOfMichiganPress,1997).
Caruth,Cathy(ed.),Trauma:ExplorationsinMemory(BaltimoreandLondon:TheJohn
HopkinsUniversityPress,1995).
- Unclaimed Experience: Trauma, Narrative, and History (Baltimore and
London:TheJohnHopkinsUniversityPress,1996).
Charos,Caitlin,“StatesofShame:SouthAfricanWritingafterApartheid”,Safundi:The
JournalofSouthAfricanandAmericanStudies10:3(July2009),pp.273–304.
Christianse,Yvette,Unconfessed:ANovel(NewYork:OtherPress,2006).
Coetzee, Carli and Nuttall, Sarah, Negotiating the Past: The Making of Memory in
SouthAfrica(OxfordandNewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1998).
Coetzee, Carli, Accented Futures: Language Activism and the Ending of Apartheid
(Johannesburg:WitsUniversityPress,2013).
Cole, Catherine,M., “Performance, Transitional Justice, and the Law: South Africa’s
TruthandReconciliationCommission”,TheatreJournal59:2(2007),pp.167-187.
- Performing South Africa’s Truth Commission: Stages of Transition,
(BloomingtonandIndianapolis:IndianaUniversityPress,2010).
325
Coombes, Annie E.,History after Apartheid: Visual Culture and Public Memory in a
DemocraticSouthAfrica(DurhamandLondon:DukeUniversityPress).
- “The Gender of Memory in Post-Apartheid South Africa” in Radstone,
SusannahandSchwarz,Bill (eds.),Memory:Histories,Theories,Debates (New
York:FordhamUniversityPress,2010),pp.442–458.
Crenshaw, Kimberlé, “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and
ViolenceagainstWomenofColour”,StanfordLawReview43(1991),pp.1241-99.
Cunningham,Michael, “SayingSorry:ThePoliticsofApology”,ThePoliticalQuarterly
PublishingCo.(1999),pp.285-293.
Das,Veena,LifeandWords:ViolenceandtheDescentintotheOrdinary(Berkeley,Los
Angeles,London:UniversityOfCaliforniaPress,2007).
Dennison,StephanieandLim,SongHwee(eds.),RemappingWorldCinema(Wallflower
Press:London,2006).
De Villiers, David W., “After the Revolution: Jerusalema and the Entrepreneurial
Present”,SouthAfricanTheatreJournal23(2009),pp.8–22.
Diawara,Manthia,AfricanCinema:PoliticsandCulture(BloomingtonandIndianapolis:
IndianaUniversityPress,1992).
Dovey, Lindiwe,African Filmand Literature:AdaptingViolence to Screen (NewYork:
ColumbiaUniversityPress,2009).
Durrheim,Kevin,Mtose,XoliswaandBrown,Lyndsay,RaceTrouble:Race,Identityand
InequalityinPost-ApartheidSouthAfrica(Maryland:LexingtonBooks,2011).
Dyer,Richard,“White”,ScreenTheLastSpecial IssueOnRace?29:4 (1988),pp.44–
65.
- White(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,1997).
326
- “Whiteness: The Power of Invisibility” in Rothenburg, Paula (ed.),White
Privilege: Essential Readings of the Other Side of Racism Second Edition
(NewYork:WorthPublishers,2005),pp.9–14.
Elsaessar,Thomas,“Impersonations:NationalCinema,HistoricalImaginationandNew
Cinema Europe” in Mise Au Point Online 5 (2013),http://map.revues.org/1480.
[Accessed30November2015].
- TerrorAnd Trauma: CulturalMemory Since 1945 (NewYork and London:
Routledge,2014).
- “FilmHistoryandVisualPleasureWeimarCinema”, inMellencamp,P.and
P. Rosen, P. (eds.), Cinema Histories, Cinema Practices (Frederick, MD:
UniversityPublicationsofAmerica,1984),pp.47–85.
Eng, David L. and Han, Shinhee, “A Dialogue on RacialMelancholia”,Psychoanalytic
Dialogues,10:4(2000),pp.667-700.
Erasmus, Zimitri, “Re-Imagining Coloured Identity in Post-Apartheid South Africa” in
Erasmus,Zimitri(ed.),ColouredbyHistory,ShapedbyPlace(CapeTown:Kwela,2001),
pp.13–28.
Ezra, Elizabeth and Rowden, Terry (eds.), Transnational Cinema: the Film Reader
(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,2006).
Ferrillo, Angelo, “A Space of (Im)Possibility: Ian Gabriel’s Forgiveness in Gobodo-
Madikizela, Pumla and Van Der Merwe, Chris (eds.), Memory, Narrative and
Forgiveness (Newcastle upon Tyne, Cambridge Scholars Publishing: 2009), pp. 237 –
257.
Freud, Sigmund, “Remembering, Repeating and Working-Through (Further
RecommendationsontheTechniqueofPsycho-Analysis)”,TheStandardEditionOfThe
327
CompletePsychologicalWorksOfSigmundFreudVol.XII (1911–1913):TheCaseOf
Schreber,PapersOnTechniqueAndOtherWorks(1914),pp.147–156.
Fu,AlbertandMurray,MartinJ.,“CinemaandtheEdgyCity:Johannesburg,Carjacking
andthePostMetropolis”inAfricanIdentities5:2(2007),pp.279–289.
Gallagher,SusanVanzanten,“‘IWantToSay/ForgiveMe’:SouthAfricanDiscourseand
Forgiveness”,PMLA117:2(2002),pp.303–306.
Galt, Rosalind and Schoonover, Karl,Global Art Cinema:New Theories andHistories
(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2010).
Gilroy,Paul,AintNoBlack InTheUnionJack (London,Melbourne,Sydney,Auckland,
Johannesburg:Hutchinson,1992(Reprintof1987).
Givanni,June,(ed.)SymbolicNarrativesandAfricanCinema:Audiences,Theoryandthe
MovingImage(London:BFIPublishing,2000).
Gobodo-Madikizela, Pumla and Van Der Merwe, Chris, Narrating Our Healing:
PerspectivesonWorkingthroughTrauma(Newcastle:CambridgeScholarsPublishing,
2007).
Gobodo-Madikizela,PumlaandVanDerMerwe,Chris (eds.),Memory,Narrativeand
Forgiveness(NewcastleuponTyne,CambridgeScholarsPublishing:2009).
Gqola, Pumla, “Defining People: Analysing Power, Language and Representation in
MetaphorsoftheNewSouthAfrica”,Transformation47(2001),pp.94–106.
- Rape:ASouthAfricanNightmare(Johannesburg:JacanaMedia,2015).
Graybill, Lyn S., “Pardon, Punishment, and Amnesia: Three African Post-Conflict
Methods”,ThirdWorldQuarterly25:6(2004),pp.1117-1130.
328
Grundlingh,Albert,“PlayingForPower?Rugby,AfrikanerNationalismandMasculinity
in South Africa, c. 1900 – 1970”, The International Journal Of The History Of Sport
11:3(December1994),pp.408–430.
Guerrero, Ed, Framing Blackness: The African American Image in Film (Philadelphia:
TempleUniversityPress,1993).
- “The Black Man on Our Screens and the Empty Space in Representation”,
Callaloo18:20(1995),pp.395–400.
Gunne, Sorcha, “Questioning Truth and Reconciliation: Writing Rape in Achmat
Dangor’s Bitter Fruit and Kagiso Lesego Molope’s Dancing In The Dust” in Gunne,
Sorcha andBrigley Thompson, Zoe (eds.),Feminism, Literature andRapeNarratives:
ViolenceandViolation(NewYorkandLondon:Routledge,2010),pp.164–182.
Gutsche,Thelma,TheHistoryandSocialSignificanceofMotionPicturesinSouthAfrica
1895–1940(CapeTown:HowardTimmins,1972).
Habib, Adam, “South Africa – The Rainbow Nation and Prospects for Consolidating
Democracy”,AfricanJournalofPoliticalScience2:2(1997),pp.15–37.
Hall, Stuart, “Cultural Identity and Cinematic Representation” in Baker Jr. H.A.,
Diawara, M. and Lindeborg, R. H. (eds.), Black British Cultural Studies: A Reader.
(LondonandChicago:TheUniversityofChicagoPress,1996),pp.210-222.
Hamilton, Paula “Memory and History in Australia” in Hodgkin, Katharine and
Radstone,Susannah(eds.),Memory,History,Nation:ContestedPasts(NewBrunswick
andLondon:TransactionPublishers,2005),pp.136–152.
Hansen, Miriam Bratu, “Schindler’s List is Not Shoah: The Second Commandment,
Popular Modernism and Public Memory” in Landy, Marcia (ed.),The Historical Film:
HistoryandMemoryintheMedia(London:TheAthlonePress,2001),pp.201–217.
329
Harrow, Kenneth W. (ed.), African Cinema: Postcolonial and Feminist Readings
(Trenton,NewJersey:AfricaWorldPress,1999).
Haupt, Adam, “Black Masculinity and the Tyranny of Authenticity in South African
Popular Culture” in Hadland, Adrian, Louw, Eric, Sesanti, Simphiwe, Wasserman,
Herman(eds.),Power,PoliticsandIdentity inSouthAfricanMedia(CapeTown:HSRC
Press,2008),pp.378–398.
- Static: RaceandRepresentation in Post-ApartheidMusic,Media and
Film(CapeTown:HSRCPress,2012).
Healy,Chris,“DeadMan:Film,ColonialismandMemory” inRadstone,Susannahand
Hodgkin,Katharine (eds.),Memory,History,Nation:ContestedPasts (NewBrunswick
andLondon:TransactionPublishers,2005),pp.221–236.
Healy-Clancy,Meghan,“ThePoliticsofNewAfricanMarriage inSegregationistSouth
Africa”,AfricanStudiesReview:ThePoliticsofMarriageinSouthAfrica57:2(2014),pp.
7–28.
Heffelfinger,ElizabethandWright,Laura,“Conclusion:InterculturalFilmin2009:The
Year of South Africa and Pandora”, Visual Difference: Postcolonial Studies and
InterculturalCinema(NewYork:PeterLangPublishing,2011),pp.174–188.
Higgins, Lynn A. and Silver, Brenda R. (eds.), Rape and Representation (New York:
ColumbiaUniversityPress,1991).
Higson,Andrew,“TheConceptofNationalCinema”,Screen30:4(1989),pp.36–47.
Hirsch, Joshua, Afterimage: Film, Trauma and the Holocaust (Philadelphia: Temple
UniversityPress,2004).
Hjort, Mette and Petrie, Duncan (eds.), The Cinema of Small Nations (Edinburgh:
EdinburghUniversityPress,2007).
Hodgkin, Katharine and Radstone, Susannah (eds.), Memory, History, Nation:
ContestedPasts(NewBrunswickandLondon:TransactionPublishers,2006).
330
hooks,bell,BlackLooks:RaceandRepresentation(Boston,Massachusetts:SouthEnd
Press,1992).
Horeck, Tanya, Public Rape: Representing Violation in Fiction and Film (London and
NewYork:Routledge,2004).
Huddlestone,KateandFairhurst,Melanie,”ThePragmaticMarkersAnyway,Okay,and
Shame:ASouthAfricanEnglishCorpusStudy”,StellenboschPapers inLinguisticsPlus
42(2013),pp.93–110.
Jamal, Ashraf, Predicaments of Culture in South Africa (Pretoria: Pretoria University
Press,2005).
Jolly,Rosemary, “Rehearsalsof Liberation:ContemporaryPostcolonialDiscourseand
theNewSouthAfrica”,PMLA110:1(1995),pp.17–29.
Kaplan, E.Ann andWang, Ban, “Introduction: fromTraumatic Paralysis to the Force
Field ofModernity” in Kaplan andWang (eds.), Trauma and Cinema: Cross Cultural
Explorations(HongKongandAberdeen:HongKongUniversityPress,2004),pp.1–22.
Kilbourn, Russell J.A., Cinema, Memory, Modernity: The Representation of Memory
fromtheArtFilmtoTransnationalCinema(NewYorkandOxon:Routledge,2010).
King, BrianH. andMcCusker, Brent, “Environment andDevelopment in the Former
SouthAfricanBantustans”,GeographicalJournal173:1(March2007),pp.6–12.
Krog,Antje,CountryofMySkull,(Johannesburg:RandomHouse,1998).
La Capra, Dominick,Writing History, Writing Trauma (Baltimore: The John Hopkins
UniversityPress,2001).
Lalu,Premesh,“WhenwasSouthAfricanhistoryeverpostcolonial?”,KronosSouthern
AfricanHistories34(Nov2008),pp.267–281.
331
- “Considering History,Memory, Citizenry and their Representation within
theArts:StefenJonssonandPremeshLaluinConversation,ModeratedBy
TracyMurinik” in Elvira Dyangani Ose (ed.),A StoryWithin a Story, The
GothenburgInternationalBiennalForContemporaryArt2015(Stockholm:
ArtAndTheoryPublishing,2015),pp.208-219.
Landsberg,Alison,ProstheticMemory:TheTransformationofAmericanRemembrance
intheAgeofMassCulture(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2004).
Lincoln,SarahL.,“ThisismyHistory”inKaplan,E.AnneandWang,Ban(eds.),Trauma
and Cinema: Cross Cultural Explorations (Hong Kong and Aberdeen: Hong Kong
UniversityPress,2004),pp.25–44.
Lowenstein,Adam,HistoricalTrauma,NationalCinema,and theModernHorrorFilm
(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2005).
Mafela,M.J.,“TheFirstVendaNovelWritersandtheClashofCultures”,SouthAfrican
JournalofAfricanLanguages19:2(1999),pp.117–127.
Magogodi,Kgafelaoa,“Sexuality,PowerandtheBlackBodyinMapantsulaandFools”
inBalseiro,IsabelandMasilela,Ntongela(eds.),ToChangeReels:FilmandFilmCulture
inSouthAfrica(Detroit:WayneStateUniversityPress,2003),pp.187–200.
Maingard,Jacqueline,“NewSouthAfricanCinema:MapantsulaandSarafina”,Screen
35:3(Autumn1994),pp.235–243.
- “SouthAfricanCinema:HistoriesandFutures”,Screen48:4(Winter2007),
pp.511–515.
- SouthAfricanNationalCinema(London:Routledge,2007).
- “Love, Loss, Memory and Truth” in Peterson, Bhekizizwe and Suleman,
Ramadan, Zulu Love Letter: A Screenplay (Johannesburg:Wits University
Press,2009),pp.5–17.
332
- “Foreward” inBisschoff, Lizelle andVanDePeer, Stefanie (eds.),Artand
Trauma in Africa: Representations of Reconciliation inMusic, Visual Arts,
LiteratureandFilm(NewYork,I.B.Tauris&CoLtd.:2013),pp.xviii–xxxiii.
- “FramingSouthAfricanNationalCinemaandTelevision”inBalseiro,Isabel
and Masilela, Ntongela (eds.),To Change Reels: Film and Film Culture in
SouthAfrica(Detroit:WayneStateUniversityPress,2003)pp.115–131.
Mamdani,Mamood,“TheTruthAccordingtotheTRC”inAmadiume,IfiandAn-Nam,
Abdullah(eds.),ThePoliticsofMemory:Truth,HealingandSocialJustice,(Londonand
NewYork:ZedBooks,2000),pp.176–183.
Marx,Lesley,“AttheEndoftheRainbow:JerusalemaandtheSouthAfricanGangster
Film”,Safundi:The JournalofSouthAfricanandSouthAmericanStudies11:3 (2010),
pp.261–278.
McClintock, Anne, “Family Feuds: Gender, Nationalism and The Family”, Feminist
Review(NationalismsAndNationalIdentities)44(Summer,1993),pp.61–80.
McCluskey, Audrey (ed.), The Devil You DanceWith: Film Culture in the New South
Africa(UrbanaandChicago:UniversityOfIllinoisPress,2009).
McEachern, Charmaine,Narratives of NationMedia,Memory and Representation in
theMaking of the New South Africa: A Volume in Horizons in Post-Colonial Studies
(NewYork:NovaSciencePublishers,Inc.,2002).
Mellor, David, Bretherton, Di and Firth, Lucy, “Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal
Australia”,PeaceandConflict:JournalofPeacePsychology13:1(2007),pp.11-36.
Mendez,JuanE.,“LatinAmericanExperiencesofAccountability”inAmadiumeandAn-
Na’Im(eds.),ThePoliticsofMemory,pp.127–141.
Mhando,Martin and Tomaselli, KeyanG., “Film and Trauma: Africa Speaks To Itself
throughTruthandReconciliationFilms”,BlackCamera1:1(2009),pp.30–50.
333
Minow,Martha,“InPracticebetweenVengeanceandForgiveness:SouthAfrica’sTruth
andReconciliationCommission”,NegotiationJournal(1998),pp.319–355.
Mitchell, Joylon, P.,PromotingPeace, IncitingViolence: TheRoleofReligionand the
Media(Oxon:Routledge,2012).
Modisane, Litheko, South Africa’s Renegade Reels: The Making and Public Lives of
Black-CenteredFilms(NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan,2013).
- “Make-ingthePublicSphere:ThePublicLifeofaSouthAfricanFilm”
inComparativeStudiesofSouthAsia,AfricaandtheMiddleEast30:1
(2010),pp.133–146.
Morris, Rosalind, C.,“Style, Tsotsi-style, and Tsotsitaal: the Histories, Aesthetics, and
PoliticsofaSouthAfricanFigure”inSocialText28:2(2010),pp.85–112.
Moyer-Duncan, Cara, “New Directions, No Audiences”, Critical Interventions 5:1
(2011),pp.64–80.
- “Truth, Reconciliation And Cinema: Reflections on South Africa’s
Recent Past in Ubuntu’s Wounds and Homecoming” in Bisschoff,
Lizelle and Van De Peer, Stefanie (eds.), Art and Trauma in Africa:
RepresentationsofReconciliationinMusic,VisualArts,Literatureand
Film(NewYork:I.B.Tauris&CoLtd.,2013),pp.272–293.
Murphy, David and Williams, Patrick Postcolonial African Cinema: Ten Directors
(Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress,2007).
Musila, Grace A., “Laughing at the Rainbow’s Cracks? Blackness,Whiteness and the
AmbivalencesofSouthAfricanStand-UpComedy”inObadare,EbenezerandWillems,
Wendy(eds.),CivicAgencyinAfrica:ArtsofResistanceinThe21stCentury(Suffolkand
NewYork:JamesCurrey,2014),pp.147–166.
Naficy, Hamid,An Accented Cinema: Exilic and Diasporic Filmmaking (Princeton and
Oxford:PrincetonUniversityPress,2001).
334
Nagy, Rosemary, “The Ambiguities of Reconciliation and Responsibility in South
Africa”,PoliticalStudies52(2004),pp.709-727.
Ndebele, Njabulo, South African Literature and Culture: Rediscovery of the Ordinary
(ManchesterandNewYork:ManchesterUniversityPress,1994).
Nixon,Rob,Homelands,HarlemandHollywood:SouthAfricanCultureandtheWorld
Beyond(NewYorkandLondon:Routledge,1994).
Norval,Aletta,J.,“Memory,Identityandthe(Im)possibilityofReconciliation:theWork
oftheTRCinSouthAfrica”,Constellations5:2(1998),pp.250-265.
Nuttall,Sarah,2004.“StylizingtheSelf:TheYGenerationinRosebank,Johannesburg”,
PublicCulture16:3(Fall2004),pp.430–452.
Peterson, Bhekiziwe, and Suleman, Ramadan, Zulu Love Letter: A Screenplay
(Johannesburg:WitsUniversityPress,2009).
Peterson,Bhekizizwe“Dignity,MemoryandtheFutureunderSiege:Reconciliationand
Nation-Building inPost-ApartheidSouthAfrica”, inOpondo,SamOkothandShapiro,
MichaelJ. (eds.),TheNewViolentCartography:Geo-AnalysisaftertheAestheticTurn
(London:Routledge,2012),pp.214–233.
Posel,DeborahandSimpson,Graeme(eds.),Commissioning thePast:Understanding
South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (Johannesburg: Wits University
Press,2002).
Projanksy, Sarah,Watching Rape: Film and Television in Postfeminist Culture, (New
YorkandLondon:NewYorkUniversityPress,2001).
Radstone,Susannah,MemoryandMethodology(OxfordandNewYork:Berg,2000).
335
- “Introduction Trauma Dossier, Special Debate: Trauma and Screen
StudiesOpeningtheDebate”,Screen42:2(2001),pp.188–193.
Radstone, Susannah and Hodgkin, Katharine (eds.), Memory Cultures: Memory,
Subjectivity and Recognition (New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers,
2005).
Radstone, Susannah and Bill Schwarz, Bill, “Introduction: Mapping Memory” in
Radstone, Susannah and Schwarz, Bill (eds.),Memory: Histories, Theories, Debates
(NewYork:FordhamUniversityPress,2010),p.1–14.
Ransley,CynthiaandSpy,Terri (eds.),ForgivenessandtheHealingProcess:ACentral
TherapeuticConcern(EastSussexandNewYork:Routledge,2004).
Reid, Julie, “The Remythologisation of White Collective Identities in Post-Apartheid
SouthAfricanFilmbyMythandCounterMyth”,Communicatio:SouthAfricanJournal
forCommunicationTheoryandResearch,38:1(2012),pp.45-63.
Rosen, Philip, “Nation and Anti-Nation: Concepts of National Cinema in the ‘New’
MediaEra”,Diaspora5:3(1996),pp.375–399.
Russell, Dominique (ed.), Rape in Art Cinema (New York and London: Continuum,
2010).
Sachs, Albie, “Preparing Ourselves for Freedom” in de Kok, Ingrid and Press, Karen
(eds.),SpringisRebellious(CapeTown:BuchuBooks,1990).
Saks,Lucia,CinemainaDemocraticSouthAfrica:TheRaceforRepresentation(Indiana:
IndianaUniversityPress,2010).
Samuelson,Meg,“TheRainbowWomb:RapeandRaceinSouthAfricanFictionofthe
Transition”,KunapipiXXIV:1&2(2002).
336
Silber, Gavin and Geffen, Nathan, “Race, Class and Violent Crime in South Africa:
Dispelling The ‘Huntley Thesis’, SA Crime Quarterly 30 (2009), pp. 35 – 43.
https://www.issafrica.org/uploads/CQ30SILBER.PDF[Accessed10November2015].
Smith, Rene, “Yizo Yizo and Essentialism: Representations of Women and Gender-
Based Violence in a Drama Series Based on Reality” in Wasserman, Herman and
Jacobs, Sean (eds.), Shifting Selves: Post-Apartheid Essays on Media, Culture and
Identity(CapeTown:KwelaBooks,2003),pp.249–265.
Soyinka,Wole,“Memory,TruthandHealing”inAmadiume,IfiandAn-Nam,Abdullah
(eds.), The Politics OfMemory: Truth, Healing and Social Justice, (London and New
York:ZedBooks,2000),pp.21–37.
Stadler, Jane, “Tsotsis, Coconuts andWiggers: Black Masculinity and Contemporary
SouthAfricanMedia” inHadland,Adrian,Louw,Eric,Sesanti,Simphiwe,Wasserman,
Herman(eds.),Power,PoliticsandIdentity inSouthAfricanMedia(CapeTown:HSRC
Press,2008),pp.343–363.
Steyn,Melissa,WhitenessJustIsn’tWhatItUsedToBe:WhiteIdentityinaChanging
SouthAfrica,(NewYork:StateUniversityofNewYorkPressAlbany,2001).
Straker, Gillian, “Unsettling Whiteness”, Psychoanalysis, Culture And Society, 16:1
(2011),pp.11-26.
Switzer, Les, “BantuWorldand theOriginsof aCaptiveAfricanCommercial Press in
SouthAfrica”,JournalofSouthernAfricanStudies14:3(1988),pp.351–370.
Taylor, Jane.Ubu and the Truth Commission (Cape Town: University of Cape Town
Press,1998)
Thomas, Lynn, M., “Love, Sex and the Modern Girl in 1930s Southern Africa” in
Jennifer Cole and LynnM. Thomas (eds.), Love in Africa (Chicago and London: The
UniversityOfChicagoPress,2009),pp.31–57.
Thompson,SorchaandBrigley,Zoe, (eds.)Feminism,LiteratureandRapeNarratives:
ViolenceandViolation(NewYorkandLondon:Routledge,2010).
337
Tomaselli, Keyan, The Cinema of Apartheid: Race and Class in South African Film
(London:Routledge,1989).
- “PopularCommunicationinSouthAfrica:‘Mapantsula’anditsContext
ofStruggle”inSouthAfricanTheatreJournal5:1(1991),pp.46–60.
- Encountering Modernity: Twentieth Century South African Cinemas
(Amsterdam:RozenbergPublishers,2006).
Turim,Maureen,FlashbacksinFilm:MemoryandHistory(NewYork:Routledge,1989).
Tutu,Desmond,NoFuturewithoutForgiveness,(NewYork:RandomHouse,2000).
Ukadike, Nwachukuwu Frank, Black African Cinema (Los Angeles: University of
CaliforniaPress,1994).
VanderHaven,AntonandArnott, Jill, “TheAnxietyofAffect:MelodramaandSouth
AfricanFilmStudies”,SocialDynamics:AJournalofAfricanStudies35:1(2009),pp.162
–176.
Verdoolaege, Annelies, “Media Representations of the South African Truth and
Reconciliation Commission and their Commitment to Reconciliation”, Journal of
AfricanCulturalStudies17:2(2005),pp.181–199.
Vice, Samantha, “HowDo I Live In This StrangePlace?”, Journal of Social Philosophy
41:3(2010),pp.323-42.
Vitali, Valentina, and Willemen, Paul (eds.), Theorising National Cinema (London:
PalgraveMacmillan/BFI,2008).
Walker, Janet, “The Traumatic Paradox: Autobiography, Documentary and the
PsychologyofMemory”inRadstone,SusannahandHodgkin,Katharine(eds.),Memory,
History,Nation:ContestedPasts(NewBrunswickandLondon:TransactionPublishers,
2006),pp.104-119.
338
Walker, Janet, “Trauma Cinema: False Memories and True Experience” in Special
Debate:TraumaandScreenStudies:OpeningtheDebate,Screen42:2(2001),p.211-
216.
Williams,Alan(ed.),FilmandNation(Rutgers:TheStatueUniversityPress,2002).
Williams, Raymond,Marxism and Literature, (Oxford, New York: Oxford University
Press,1977).
- TheSociologyofCulture(Chicago:ChicagoUniversityPress,1981).
Wolpe,Harold,“CapitalismandCheapLabour-PowerinSouthAfrica:fromSegregation
toApartheid”,EconomyandSociety1:4(1972),pp.425–456.
Zegeye,Abebe,andHarris,Richard,C.(eds.),Media,IdentityandthePublicSpherein
Post-ApartheidSouthAfrica(LeidenandBoston:KoninklijkeBrill,2003).
Articles/Interviewsandotherinternetreferences:
NFVFwebsite:http://www.nfvf.co.za/home/index.php?ipkContentID=57[Accessed15August2015].
FreedomParkwebsite:www.freedompark.co.za[Accessed11August2015].
RachelDonadio,“OutofSouthAfrica”,NewYorkTimes,16December2007:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/books/review/Donadio-t.html?fta=y&_r=0.[Accessed6December2015].
AnnaMariaMonticelli interviewwith Australian Film Institute: “Adapting Disgrace”,2009:www.afi.org.au/archive.[Accessed1May2013].
InterviewwithdirectorNtshavheniwaLuruli:http://mg.co.za/article/2014-01-30-insights-into-an-exotic-culture[Accessed21September2015].
Chigumadziarticle,TheGuardianhttp://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/24/south-africa-race-panashe-chigumadzi-ruth-first-lecture[Accessed5October2015];Chigumadzi’srecordedspeech:http://www.journalism.co.za/projects-a-fellowships/ruth-first/[Accessed2September2015].
ArticleaboutSouthAfricanaudiencestoMandela:LongWalkToFreedom:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-25169194[Accessed2December2013].
339
ChiefinvestorsinlocalSouthAfricanfilmindustry:NationalFilmAndVideoFoundation,IndustrialDevelopmentCorporationandDepartmentOfTradeAndIndustry:http://www.filmandtvtransformation.org/sa-film-incentives/[Accessed5October2015].NationalFilmAndVideoFoundationSite:http://nfvf.co.za/home/index.php?ipkContentID=101&ipkMenuID=25&ipkMenuID=54[Accessed5October2015].Oliver Hermanus interview with SBS, 12 June2012:http://www.sbs.com.au/films/video/2244869603/Beauty-Oliver-Hermanus[Accessed1May2013].
OliverHermanusinterviewwithDylanValleyforAfricaisaCountrycultureandnewswebsite:http://africasacountry.com/2011/08/05/interview-with-film-director-oliver-hermanus/[Accessed1May2013].
Mail&Guardian reportonwhiteness:http://mg.co.za/report/on-whiteness[Accessed8May2013].
Rapold, Nicolas, “Tough Terrain To Document: South Africa”, New York Times, 3September 2009:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/movies/06rapo.html?_r=0[Accessed8May2013].
Racial perspective advert: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcWsTwvtyOI.[Accessed10November2015].
TranscriptsandofficialgovernmentActs:
RepublicOfSouthAfrica,GovernmentGazette,NationalFilmAndVideoFoundationAct1997,Act.No.73,3December1997:http://www.gov.za/sites/www.gov.za/files/a73-97.pdf[Accessed10December2015].
GroupAreasAct:http://www.sahistory.org.za/sites/default/files/group_areas_act.pdf[Accessed5November2015].Transcriptofday1ofthePortElizabethHRVTRChearingbetween21-23May1996:www.justice.gov.za/Trc/hrvtrans/hrvpe1/day1/htm[Accessed6November2013].
ImmoralityActof1957:http://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/acts/1957-023.pdf[Accessed31December2015].1985amendmenttoboththeImmoralityActandtheMixedMarriagesAct:http://www.gov.za/sites/www.gov.za/files/Act%2072%20of%201985.pdf[Accessed31December2015].
340
FILMOGRAPHY
Coretexts
CryFreedom.Dir.RichardAttenborough,UK,1987.Maincast:DenzelWashington(SteveBiko),KevinKline(DonaldWoods),JosetteSimon(MamphelaRamphele),PenelopeWitton(WendyWoods),JuanitaWaterman(NtsikiBiko).
Mapantsula.Dir.OliverSchmitz,SA/Australia/UK,1988.Maincast:ThomasMogotlane(Panic),ThembiMtshali(Pat),DarlingtonMichaels(Duma),VanessaCooke(Mrs.Bentley/‘theMissus’)
ADryWhiteSeason.Dir.EuzhanPalcy,USA,1989.Maincast:DonaldSutherland(BenDuToit),JanetSuzman(SusanDuToit),WinstonNtshona(GordonNgubene),JohnKani(StanleyMakhaya),SusanSarandan(MelanieBruwer),ThokoNtshinga(EmilyNgubene),BekhithembaMpofu(JonathanNgubene),RowenElmes(JohanDuToit).
ZuluLoveLetter.Dir.RamadanSuleman,SA/France/EuropeanUnion,2004.Maincast:PamelaNomvete(ThandekaKhumalo),MpumiMalatsi(S’mangalisoKhumalo),SophieNgcina(Me’Thau),LeratoMoloi(DineoTau).
Forgiveness.Dir.IanGabriel,SA/Netherlands/Sweden,2004.Maincast:ArnoldVosloo(TertiusCoetzee),ZaneMeas(HendrikGrootboom),DeniseNewman(MagdaGrootboom),QuanitaAdams(SannieGrootboom),ChristoDavids(ErnestGrootboom),JeremyCrutchley(FatherDalton).
RedDust.Dir.TomHooper,UK/SA,2004.Maincast:HilarySwank(SarahBarcant),ChiwetelEjiofor(AlexMpondo).
InMyCountry.Dir.JohnBoorman,USA/UK/SA,2004.Maincast:JulietteBinoche(AnnaMalan),SamuelL.Jackson(LangstonWhitfield),MenziNgubane(DumiMkhalipi).
Disgrace.Dir.SteveJacobs,Australia,2008.Maincast:JohnMalcovich(DavidLurie),JessicaHaines(LucyLurie),EriqEboliaemy(Petrus),AntoinetteEngel(MelanieIsaacs),BuyamiDuma(Pollux).
Skoonheid.Dir.OliverHermanus,SA/France,2011.Maincast:DeonLotz(FrancoisvanHeerden),CharlieKeegan(ChristianRoodt),MichelleScott(ElenavanHeerden).
Tstotsi.Dir.GavinHood,SA/UK,2005.Maincast:PresleyChweneyagae(Tsotsi),TerryPheto(Miriam),RapulanaSeiphemo(JohnDube),NambithaMpumlwana(PumlaDube).
HijackStories.Dir.OliverSchmitz,Germany/UK/SA,2001.Maincast:RapulanaSeiphemo(Zama),TonyKgoroge(SoxMoraka).
Elelwani.Dir.NtshaveniwaLuruli,SA,2012.Maincast:FlorenceMasebe(Elelwani),AshifashabbaMuleya(Vele),Mother(SalomeMutshinya),Father(SamsonRamabulana).
FanieFourie’sLobola.Dir.HenkPretorius,SA,2013.Maincast:EduanvanJaarsveldt(FanieFourie),ZethuDlomo(DinkyMagubane),MotlatsiMafatshe(Mandla),Jerry
341
Mofokeng(Dinky’sFather–DumisaneMagubane),MargavanRooy(Fanie’sMother–LouiseFourie),YuleMasiteng(Petrus),RichardvanderWesthuizen(Fanie’suncle).
342
SecondaryTexts
E’Lollipop.dir.AshleyLazarus,SA,1975.
ForrestGump.dir.RobertZemeckis,USA,1994.
Sarafina.dir.DarrellRoodt,SA/France/UK/USA,1992.
Cry,theBelovedCountry.dir.DarrellRoodt,SA/USA,1995.
LongNightsJourneyIntoDay.dir.FrancesReidandDeborahHoffmann,SA,2000.
Ubuntu’sWounds.dir.SechabaMorejele,2001.
Yesterday.dir.DarrellRoodt,SA,2004.
Homecoming.dir.NormanMaake,2005.
TheActofKilling.dir.JoshuaOppenheimer,Denmark/Norway/UK,2012.
TheLookofSilence.dir.JoshuaOppenheimer,Denmark/Indonesia/Finland/Norway/UK/Israel/France/USA/Germany/Netherlands,2014.
Jerusalema.dir.RalphZiman,SA,2008.
Skin.dir.AnthonyFabian,UK/SA,2008.
WhiteWedding.dir.JannTurner,SA,2009.
Invictus.dir.ClintEastwood,USA,2009.
FourCorners.dir.IanGabriel,SA,2013.
Chappie.dir.NeillBlomkamp,USA/Mexico,2015.
DistrictNine.dir.NeillBlomkamp,USA/NZ/Canada/SA,2009.
Mandela:LongWalktoFreedom.dir.JustinChadwick,UK/SA,2013.
Mandela,theMythandMe.dir.KhaloMatabane,SA/Germany,2013.