Mandela and de Klerk

"Mandela and de Klerk" is a movie from Showtime that dramatizes the events leading to the release of Nelson Mandela from political prison after 27 years. It was NOT a single event but a series of negotiations and steps leading to this huge change in South Africa. It's best for folks who are only somewhat familiar with events. If you know nothing about it, as is the case with younger viewers, I suggest you read up on the events before watching the film.

The film, to me, seems reasonably fair in its depiction of events. Some folks, such as Winnie Mandela and Pieter Botha, are not shown as saints or innocents...which I appreciate. The acting is quite good, the story compelling and it's well worth seeing. My only complaint is that the DVD I watched did not have captions....which made understanding everything in the film a tad difficult, as I am hard of hearing and the accents were a bit thick. Perhaps newer copies of the film will not have this issue.

As the writer below states, the events portrayed in this film are in fact more complex. But this is a movie, and only 114 minutes, and a lot of ground had to be covered.

Even though I read two books about Nelson Mandela, and was inspired seeing him on TV's Oprah, I was still reluctant to rent this film at the low low rate of 50 cents (USD $). What a fool I was to waver - this is an EXCELLENT film because the story is so amazing, and true. Everyone should see it.

Poitier's acting was of course wonderful, and Michael Caine was fine as de Klerk.

I felt good after seeing this film, and it held my attention like a good thriller - even though I knew what was going to happen.

Sidney Poitier was the right actor to play Mandela, but Michael Caine not for de Klerk, don't get me wrong, Caine is a very fine actor and put in a good performance, but the false bald head made him look like a Tefal man from the old advertisement, and his voice did not suit the part. The other roles were well filled.

With such a scope for a movie, it would be impossible to make justice of it in just under 2 hours, so they did a good job with what they had, if lengthened it would of made a better film, Maybe a 10 part mini-series on TV could be the answer.

The live news clips were fitted in well, and editing was good, however I think they could have made more of the fantastic South African scenery, it wasn't all ramshackle townships and government buildings. But that is a minor quibble, on the whole it is a good movie, and a document of history which should never be forgotten.

"A Dry White Season," "Bopha!," "Sarafina!," and "Cry Freedom" are all movies about South African apartheid which I watched before "Mandela and de Klerk," yet they didn't make this movie any easier to watch. "Mandela and de Klerk," unlike the aforementioned movies, focuses on Nelson Mandela (obviously). Because it focuses more on Mandela and his contributions from behind bars we don't see as many atrocities that were committed against the South African people. There was some very jarring actual footage showed which had a significant impact, but nothing like other movies in which we got to see the harm and violence close up.

Mandela and de Klerk were Nelson Mandela (Sidney Poitier) and F.W. de Klerk (Michael Caine). Nelson Mandela spent 27 years as a political prisoner and became the de facto face of the struggle for Black South African civil rights. F.W. de Klerk was a chairman of his government's party and the eventual president of SA. Though the movie got around to their interaction, it focused mostly on Mandela and rightly so.

From this movie we got an idea of Mandela's life in prison as well as his ideas, principles, and character. I've read his autobiography, so I think the movie was very fair. No two hour movie can do justice to a lifetime of work, but "Mandela and de Klerk" was a good start.

This is a well-structured, easy to follow "short version" of the Mandela miracle. The actual events were of course much more complex, as was the cast of important characters. But weaving actual footage with the close ups of Poitier(Mandela) and Caine (DeKlerk) produced a better documentary of this historic process than other "actual" documentaries. Poitier has played Mandela and South African heroes so often and so well, we may be mixing fact and fiction here. Caine also gave a great performance, perhaps the finest dramatic portrayal of his career. I'm convinced that the relatively low rating the movie has received in your base is due to the high number of South African voters. Though casting Caine as DeKlerk was necessary to attract viewers (and the bald Caine actually bore a good resemblance to DeKlerk), the choice was obviously not well received by Afrikaaanerdom and South Africans in general. How can the last important Afrikaaner ever be portrayed by his historical nemesis, an Englishman? Makes sense, but otherwise the film was great as biopics go.