Weiße Zeit der Dürre

One day in South Africa in the 1960's, a young black man was walking along the street with his aged mother. Coming along the road was a young white man. The young black man knew that apartheid law and custom meant that the white would probably barge the two blacks off the pavement and into the gutter. The law would protect him and the young black man might be imprisoned for defending himself. The young black man tensed his muscles and prepared to defend his mother, but was amazed when the Englishman stepped off the pavement and doffed his broad brimmed hat in greeting. Later on the two would become friends and allies. The white man was to become bishop Trevor Huddleston, the black man, bishop Desmond Tutu.

That story is NOT the story of A Dry White season, but it is of a kindred spirit. Like the gesture of Trevor Huddleston, the story of Ben de Tor is a gesture against apartheid. A glimmer of hope, but merely that, a flicker.

It must be five years since I saw a Dry White Season but I still remember how I felt leaving the cinema. It is a film which will stay with you.

The plot follows a white South African on an adventure through bewilderment, revelation, denial, disgust, and a futile attempt to fight a grossly unfair system.

I can't go into detail after this length of time but the cameos in this film would be worth the video rental. Marlon Brando (yes) steals the show as the lawyer who knows exactly how hopeless the fight against apartheid is but agrees to fight anyway.

The political situation today in South Africa is a world away from that of A Dry White Season. Watch it and never forget.

Having just seen it on the TV again after a number of years it is a stark reminder of the terror imposed on the black population by the security apparatus of S. Africa during the years of Apartheid.

The part with Marlon Brando as the human rights lawyers is particularly good exposing the ludicrous nature of a system that is completely repressive while maintaining the fiction that it is not.

This film should be compulsory viewing in any educational course studying recent African history

A personal reminiscence:-

I was living in Zimbabwe from 87-89 and I remember when the film was being shot on location there. They were shooting the scene at the end when it is raining but it was during the dry season in Zimbabwe in the local news they recorded the fact that they'd had to make their own rain with lots of hoses etc.

It's 1976. Ben du Toit (Donald Sutherland) is a liberal South African schoolmaster and a former rugby star. He is shocked by the police beating of his gardener Gordon's son but does nothing. When the kids gather to protest the teaching of Afrikaans, the police reply with violence. Gordon's son goes missing. Ben, in his sheltered life, tries to help and the police tells him that he's dead. Ben again advises Gordon to leave it alone. Gordon continues to investigate and gets arrested. Captain Stolz (Jürgen Prochnow) is the man in charge of torturing Gordon. Gordon's wife brings lawyer Stanley Makhaya (Zakes Mokae). The police claims that Gordon committed suicide. Stanley brings Ben to the Soweto township and shown the truth of his torture. Melanie Bruwer (Susan Sarandon) is a newspaper reporter. Civil rights lawyer Ian McKenzie (Marlon Brando) relents to Ben and takes on the case.

Ben is a clueless idiot at the start of the movie and that is the part that I dislike most about the movie. It would be so much better for Ben to be in denial. Sutherland plays it so wide eye and ill-informed. It would be more dramatic and better as character development that he doesn't come off as ignorant at the beginning. The court case in the middle drags on a little too much. It's often hard to switch into court like that. There isn't the shock of revelation since the movie already showed the torture earlier. This is also very heavy handed. This feels like a sermon more than a drama. Having Marlon Brando there pontificating doesn't help. The other problem is that after the court case, the movie goes back to the white folks. Even though it's not the movie intention, the black folks get sidelined. Nevertheless, it's an interesting attempt at bringing South Africa to the big screen.

If you want to understand what the old South Africa could be like at its worst, this movie accurately portrays it. Well acted and only slightly over-dramatized, it gives you the sense of how the ruling culture was blind to its own injustices. Those who oppose the main character from within his own family make some valid points, and that makes it all the more chilling.

As someone who lived in South Africa until shortly before the year this movie is set in (and was forced to leave because I opposed apartheid), I can't fault the authenticity of this movie but I want to caution viewers not to form all your opinions of white South Africans from this type of film. There is a good side to every culture, but it is harder to portray and doesn't always make great box office.

If this movie leaves you hating anyone, you are taking away the wrong message. If it leaves you realizing this could happen anywhere, and ordinary good people can easily find themselves on the wrong side in situations like this, that is the right message to take away.

Donald Sutherland (one of Hollywood's most undervalued actors) is simply brilliant in this quiet and thought-provoking films. Many black people do not like to see white heroes in films about apartheid or racism. But the truth is, there are many white people who have contributed to the fight for justice, not for black people, but for humanity.

Marlon Brando is also fantastic. Unfortunately, Susan Sarandon's role is quite minimal.

The film is about a white teacher in a posh boys school (whites only) whose gardener asks for his help when his son is arrested and beaten up. The son later dies and the father seeks justice. Sutherland's character is faced with the reality that being a good person and minding one's own business may not be enough, especially when he realises that more is going on in his country than he knows about. As another reviewer has said, Marlon Brando's lawyer character perfectly showcases a brilliant man who has given himself to hopeless causes. he expertly shows in court the injustice that is going on. We see how the legal system worked for the oppressors; knowing this, Brando's character does it anyway. It is the principle that counts. Much like (in a totally different kind of film) King Theoden's words in the Lord of the Rings:The Return of the King, when it is noted that in no way will his army defeat the enemy, replies, 'yes, but we will meet them in battle all the same.' It was people like this who gave of themselves for the sake of others, maybe in future generations to which many of us owe our freedom.