Moffie

'Moffie' is one of those films where a boy joins the military, goes through the random humiliations of basic training and Becomes A Man.

Conscripted into the South African military during the dying days of the apartheid era, Nick Van der Swart (Kai Luke Brummer) arrives at a training camp run by sadistic officers whose vocabulary appears to consist mainly of the word 'f***' (with an occasional 'c***' tossed in for variety). The next several months feature route marches, bullying in the barracks and the eating of vomit. There is also a tentative, platonic homosexual relationship with fellow recruit Stassen (Ryan de Villiers) - very dangerous as homosexuality is illegal. And always in the future lurks a posting to fight communist rebels on the border with Angola.

While the basic premise is not, of course, new, what makes this film different are the South African setting and the homosexual element (which, contrary to some publicity, is merely a part of the story rather than being the whole). As Nick, Brummer is a heartthrob in the making and I also found Matthew Vey, who plays Nick's cynical friend Michael, appealing. Hilton Pelser as the sergeant must have needed throat sweets to cope with all the bellowing he is required to do, but is also given a moment of awkward vulnerabilty. It might, perhaps, have been nice if de Villiers was given more to play with as regards his character; for such a pivotal role Stassen is curiously one-note, reduced pretty much to noble suffering. But that is not a major difficulty; this film is well worth watching. Seen at the London Film Festival 2019.

I'd read the book which is atmospheric and weirdly compelling, if also slight and ultimately unsatisfying. But books with sparse narratives often make the best films (eg. Bridges of Madison County) so I was ready to give Moffie another go. The film is also atmospheric and offers some confronting insights into the apartheid years and South African army culture. Beyond that, it is less compelling than the book, and even more unsatisfying. There's a fatal lack of narrative drive and no real attempt to flesh out key characters - acutely observed in the book, but only roughly sketched in the film. Our guide through two years of national service is Nicholas van der Swart, a sensitive young man, struggling to come to terms with his homosexuality and experiencing the first pangs of serious attraction. In the novel both his inner and outward struggle is moving and eventually devastating. But on film Nicholas appears frustratingly passive and considerably less heroic. Kai Luke Brummer makes an attractive Nick, but the role is almost entirely reactive, which makes for a somewhat lame hero. Perhaps Moffie is the film that that book deserved - faithful and true. But it still feels like a missed opportunity.

This South African film would appear to tread a well-worn path; and it's certainly true that the military training (and also war itself) is hell genre is one that can often feel over-familiar. Many of the tropes we know well are there, but this stands out for a couple of reasons. Telling the story of the white male experience of conscription in apartheid South Africa is an under-explored context in cinema; and to do so from a South African, coloured director makes this all the more striking. Also served by a disciplined running-time, the film manages to examine a particularly (Afrikaans) brand of white South African toxic masculinity with an unflinching but compassionate eye. That the legacy of this still haunts South Africans of all ages and races makes this all the more important. The title is an Afrikaans slang word used to offensively denigrate gay people, and it's this territory that the film specifically deals with; it's often a hard watch, but never relentlessly so and never excessive. Though it is very much rooted in the local context, it will work well for viewers no matter their nationality. This film suffered from an abbreviated cinema release due to lockdown, and deserves a wider audience.

What is it like to be a 16-year-old, having to spend 2 years in the army? It is 1981 South Africa, and Nick is due for army service, undergoing basic training, then joining the border clashes with the communists in Namibia. The biggest rule in basic training is to not catch the attention of the Sergeant. Also, in a hypermasculinized culture, don't get caught doing anything "moffie", i.e. "faggot".

Because of the taboo against homosexuality, there is little in the nature of a gay story - just some hints here and there. It would not take much cutting to remove the gay angle, except to show that the army considers moffies to be people to be beaten and sent for psychiatric treatment.

Also, while it was useful for recognition for Nick to look the youngest in his squad, it just seems weird that what should be a group of 16-year-old recruits would look so old.

Let's start by saying what this film is not. It's not an historical film. It's not a gay drama. It's not a documentary. It's not a war film.

What is it? It's a picture of a young man who barely understands that he is attracted to guys negotiating his way through military training, relationships in a brutal and macho culture, actual patrols in the bush and a strongly forbidden relationship. Worse, he is doing this as a native English speaker with an Afrikaans name.

I started like this because I think several reviewers may have wanted different things from the film as mentioned in their appraisals of it. That they didn't get it speaks, for me, to the excellence of the film which holds the interest throughout. We didn't need bludgeoning with details of the border war, a weepy romance, grisly scenes of gore and shattered flesh. Thank goodness we didn't have them.

We see, despite the in-your-face military training and the rudeness of barracks life, something that is almost impressionistic in its alighting from scene to scene some of which are respites from the relentless horror of instilling hard, soulless conformity into a company of disparate kids and some of which are flashbacks. The film is happening, we know the outlines of the situation, but it's as if it's happening outside the bounds of the events in the world at large which are incidental yet essential to the film's progress.

The loathsome oppressiveness of life in South Africa in the 80s is shown - obligatory church services, indoctrination, no dissent brooked, patriotism compulsory, psychological torture for those who do not conform, medical interventions amounting to abuse for those suspected of being gay.

In this poisonous atmosphere, Nick finds fleeting happiness with a fellow recruit Stassen.

After the conscription period, Nick returns home and fulfils his promise to see the sea together. The ending is perfect and equivocal and it leaves the viewer to use his or her own mind as to what might have come after.

As for the alleged inaccuracies in the script, so what? It's a film. I didn't care that the guys hadn't been shaved to a number two. So what if the sergeant would have normally been a corporal doing the basic training?

It's a film that will certainly stay with me.