The Story of an African Farm

Why on earth was a film made out of what has to be one of the most depressing books in the world. This film was the absolute pits. Surely whoever made this film must have thought about this - or, maybe not. And besides being the most depressing piece of work I have seen in years, there was no magic in this movie at all. The whole thing was just too boring for words.

The script also felt very naive. It was too linear. There was no real development. It actually felt like a real amateur piece of work. I don't think this particular film has done any good for the South African film industry. I would be very curious to find out what a film like this cost to make. I am sure it was another run-away budget that seems to be so typical these past few years in South Africa. Like Stander, I am sure this is another financial disaster waiting to be buried. What a pity.

It might be paradoxical to refer to a film set in the Karoo as 'lush', but that is what this film is: both a paradox and lush.

There is a terrific cast: a thoughtful, understated performance by Armin Mueller-Stahl as Otto; a wonderfully toned performance by Richard E. Grant as Bonaparte Blenkins; good acting by the 'children', in particular Luke Gallant as Waldo. Karin van der Laag (who is known to South African viewers as Maggie Webster in Isidingo), gives an excellent portrayal as Tant Sannie, displaying her insularity, her rigidity, her anger and ultimately her vulnerability and final independence. This woman is a stunning actress, and incredibly versatile. (I think it's a pity that Isidingo doesn't air in other countries, because Karin van der Laag is - in my opinion - a brilliant actress, who deserves wider-spread exposure. She is as good as, if not better than, our more famous Charlize Theron. I hope this film convinces agents of this.)

Supporting cast are uniformly good, too.

The film is lushly filmed, well scripted and well directed: a South African product we can be proud of.

But the film is ultimately forgettable, a diversion, one that can never make an impact.

Why then is this film a paradox? Probably because of the slight story line (and kudos to casting director and director for casting Luke Gallant as Waldo) and insular nature of Olive Shreiner's novel. The novel hasn't stood the 'test of time': it is a bit like a dodo's egg. Unlike Pauline Smith's works (if Karoo life, and the 1800's is what the film-makers wished to focus on) this story is jaded. It's juvenile (infantile might be too strong a word, imperceptive, insular and makes no lasting impression.

After seeing the film, I wondered why I felt cheated. And this is why: the story, quite simply, is not good enough. Unlike Jane Austen, Olive Shreiner does not use her narrative to comment on society. South African literature and movies have come a long way over the years.

This film is well-scripted, well filmed, well acted BUT the reservations lie with its subject matter. O for a cast as good as this to be in a film that makes a point, that goes somewhere.

According to Philip-ct, the book is outdated. The same can be said for most "old literature". Forget his "balanced" report. The book is a classic of world literature and rightly so. The film is slight, but entertaining, very well made and has been criminally overlooked internationally- 7 votes at IMDb- (and nationally). South-Africans just don't seem to take well to cinematic subjects from their own back yard. Our "Top Ten" at the box office reads like any other across the world. "Story of an African Farm" made the number 10 spot in it's opening weekend and then dropped off the charts. But its part of the ravages of commodity culture. "Yesterday", a now Oscar nominated film has been seen by a slight few in this country and has a total (as of this entry) of 38 votes at IMDb "EARTH's BIGGEST MOVIE DATABASE". These are thoughtful, well made films and do not deserve such treatment.

I'll be the first to admit that turning Olive Schreiner's monumental work into a movie is a daunting task. The book is deeply layered - many of the vignettes are out of sequence or devoid of context. And, probably the most difficult part - much of the story involves the psychological and spiritual development of the children (particularly Waldo and Lyndall).

That being said, it's hard to understand why the producers chose to focus on Bonaparte. In the novel itself he is a throw-away character, a caricature if you will. He serves little purpose other than a foil against which the children's formative years are thrown in sharp relief. To make matters worse, the movie ends with Bonaparte's ignominious expulsion from the farm - however, it is precisely here that the book takes it's most powerful and controversial path - following the lives of Waldo and Lyndall as they grow to adulthood.

The many themes of the book are only hinted at - Waldo's journey from Christian fanaticism to eventual atheism; Lyndall's desperate (and ultimately futile) attempt to overcome the shackles of female oppression, her desire to find someone who is worthy of her love, and to be loved in return.

None of these complex themes are addressed - perhaps they never can be. I must say that Kasha Kropinski presents an outstanding performance - she is exactly as I pictured Lyndall would be. Kudos also to Luke Gallant and Armin Mueller-Stahl for great performances.

Perhaps someday someone will undertake the herculean task of translating Schreiner's work to film. Sadly, this movie is not it.

Having studied this film in my Grade 12 year, I was sad to find what an inaccurate depiction of a novel it is.

For one thing, the film only portrays the first half of the book. This half merely serves as an introduction, which develops the lead characters as children; however, it only makes a few suggestions to the key themes of the book. The second develops these themes greatly. The two main themes are the facets of indoctrinated religion and feminism, both of which were disregarded by the film. What's more, Bonaparte Blenkins is a minor character in the book. I'm not that shocked that his character was seen as being so important in the film though as he is, arguably, played by the 'biggest' actor in the cast, Richard E. Grant. Still, Grant does portray his role excellently. The problem is that his "Dickenson-type" performance over-stages all the other actors' performances, with the exception of Armin Mueller-Stahl, whose depiction of Otto is impressive. Karin van der Laag's performance is awfully 'cardboard-like,' and I was not convinced by her attempted Afrikaans accent.

Just the character of Waldo is evidence enough for me to deem the film inaccurate. He is supposed to be an emotionally disturbed child, who is deeply obsessed with religious gratification, yet this is poorly conveyed as many of the plot details pertaining to his character in the book have been removed, or fabricated to make the film more family-orientated. Also, another fabrication is that Lyndall is supposed to be vastly prettier than Em, yet in the book, there is no clear distinction in the two characters' depictions. Never before have I witnessed such an altered ending in a book being transformed into a film.

What's more, one of the most acclaimed sections of the book, 'the hunter short story,' which was actually published as a separate work, is not at all established in the film.

I wonder whether or not the filmmakers and/or actors had the 'chops' to perform the second half of the book successfully. I highly doubt it, as the second part is dramatically complicated and I do not believe that such an inexperienced crew would have been able to make an attempt at realising it. Such a film is a poor depiction of one the most important books in South African literary history and this saddens me. Not to mention, the cinematography is not particularly effective, either. Yes, the book may have been altered to widen its audience to one involving "the whole family" but I feel this was a mistake and that if the filmmakers wanted to portray a South African family-film, they should have chosen a different novel.