In My Country

Watching any one of the three - Juliette Binoche, Samuel L. Jackson, Brendan Gleeson - painting a wall would be a good use of time. Seeing them all in the same movie is a rare treat.

Jackson (Pulp Fiction) is Langston Whitfield from the Washington Post, sent to monitor the Truth and Reconciliation Commission hearings in South Africa. To avoid bloodshed, the commission asked white Afrikaners to appear before a public tribunal, confess exactly what they did, convince the commission they were acting under orders, make a believable apology, and amnesty will be given.

Bonoche (The English Patient, Chocolat)is Anna Malan, a poet, who is doing daily broadcasts for the South African Broadcasting Company.

Gleeson (In Bruges, Into the Storm, The Guard) is De Jager, a a South African cop with a zeal for torture and murder that went far beyond his job requirements; a reputed psychopath that is taking the fall for all the other criminals his superiors, in a new South Africa.

Anna finds out things she really didn't want to know, and Whitfield finds that truth is not so black and white, as he believed.

John Boorman, an interesting film maker, takes us to South Africa after Apartheid. Right after the country underwent the big change during the last decade of the last century, a commission was formed in order to hear the atrocities that were committed by the old regime, as the victims, and their families, were invited to come forward and speak to the panel that was investigating. The film is based on a novel by Antjie Krog, but not having read it, one can't really give an opinion about how true the film is to the novel.

"In my Country", the movie based on this book in its American release, came and went quickly. We tried to see it during its debut, bu it disappeared from local screens in no time. We recently caught the movie on cable.

There are some interesting aspects of what the commission was trying to accomplish in trying to bring members of the repressive force to justice. As in other conflicts, the people that were involved in the atrocities keep repeating about how they were following orders, a poor excuse, since no one owned up to having done anything wrong. After all, this was a country in which a white minority controlled a big black majority, and who wanted to keep things unchanged.

At the center of the story is Anna Malan, a white South African, who is a radio personality. She follows the commission as more and more people are coming forward to tell their stories. A Washington Post black reporter, Langston Whitfield, is also covering the process. Inevitably, both come together. While they clash at first, they find common ground in their desire to tell the truth about South Africa.

Juliette Binoche and Samuel L. Jackson are seen as Anna and Langston. Both give good performances. Brendan Gleeson is seen as the evil De Jager, a man responsible for some of the crimes committed against the poor black of the country who were deemed terrorist by the controlling whites. Menzi Ngubone plays Dumi, Anna's assistant and Sam Ngakone makes a dignified appearance as Anderson, who works for Anna's family.

The film is interesting to watch as Mr. Boorman has given us a film to think about the criminal acts that were committed by a group of people that didn't stop to consider the consequences of what they were doing.

This movie is flawed, but it's not over-dramatic or misleading. The grieving style of the victims is very realistic. The TRC scenes are a dead ringer for the real thing, and I HAVE seen both. The idea of Ubuntu is simple and the movie doesn't "oversimplify it". It also doesn't state that all South Africans believe in Ubuntu - far from it. It's odd that so many overseas reviewers think they know that the movie is pandering to them and oversimplifying Africa. Cleary it's not simplifying it enough! Sure, having overseas actors means it's a bit foreign, but if there weren't big name international stars in it you might not be able to find the damn thing on this site. oh, and by the way, Realise is spelled with an S in Africa.

It's a shame that I didn't get the emotional punch I felt as if I was supposed to have when watching In My Country, Country of my Skull to many others. You cannot force emotion and you cannot force an opinion on a film so whilst In My Country is nicely unfolded and is visually engaging for what it is, the fact that some people are pouring their hearts out in apparent regret at various points over horrific prior activity and I'm not feeling the pinch, I suppose you have to consider the film a minor failure.

But why is it that In My Country doesn't pack the necessary heat to make one identify and feel upset for the characters on screen? I think a lot of it is down to the overall approach director John Boorman adopts. The film feels like several things at once rather than an actual case-study of post-Apartheid era events that will change and affect lives just as lives were changed and affected during the era. You might argue that the best way to tackle historical issues that deal with human cruelty to other humans is to set whatever story or narrative you're doing during the actual time thus giving a first hand account of what went down and how. Many films have done this in the past but films such as The Pianist and perhaps more notably The Deer Hunter are so vast in their scale that they manage to cover life prior to 'the event'; the event(s) themselves and then the aftermath of it all through either escape or returning to their former lives before 'the event'.

Interestingly, both those films look at prisoner of war scenarios, Jews to the Nazis and Americans to the Vietnamese, respectively. In My Country is more a look at what happens after 'the event', that being the Apartheid and all the atrocities that befell South Africa midway through the twentieth century. Trouble here is that the best the rest of the world can do here is show up, look glum at a couple of press conferences in which South African men of the law admit what they did and then report on the confessions, something that one character cannot even get much space for in his respective newspaper.

As a film alone, In My Country works as a re-telling of events that happened after an atrocity but it never delves deep into its subject matter. The Apartheid and the people involved in the Apartheid are not the central characters in fact they are relegated to giving accounts at timely spaced intervals throughout the film that hope to produce the odd tear from the audience. Families of the victims bursting into tears and music native to Africa that balres up try to add to the emotion felt in these scenes. But that's about as good as it gets with the rest of it crossing genres in and out of romance, historical, melodrama and the overall approach that gets tangled up that is the docu-drama.

At its very centre, In My Country has an American journalist named Langston Whitfield (Jackson) travelling to a country to cover events few people will have an interest in. It's interesting that a film dealing with the post-Apartheid era would have an American at its core as the lead male and not a South African. There is a South African lead of sorts but they are female and they are pulled up by Whitfield on more than one occasion about the treatment they gave the black inhabitants of the nation. Here there is a confused triangle of conflict; Whitfield is American and complains about Anna Malan's (Binoche) nation's treatment of blacks but as an American he could be read into as representing America, a powerful nation that did nothing about the Apartheid anyway. Then there is the fact Whitfield is black himself and his beef with Malan's nation's treatment of blacks could just be something personal.

The fact Malan is female in the first place immediately relegates her from what she would have been had the character been male. As a male, Malan would have made a good foil for Whitfield and the personal prejudice might not have existed as much. It's no secret that women in films have always been lowered somewhat when pitted against men – indeed theorists have argued that all films are shot for the male audience in mind so women view things through a male perspective when watching a film. But the fact sexual tension is present in the film between these two adds another layer of confusion and opens up the possibility that the film could fall into the romance as well as the, shock, 'buddy' genre. They fit the bill in the sense they are binary opposites to one another (black/white; male/female; American/South African, etc.) and rebound dialogue off one another but is there really space for 'buddy' content in a film about post-Apartheid South Africa?

Twinned with this, there are other sloppy instances that aid the film in its mediocrity. When we first get an introduction of any sorts of chief villain De Jager (Gleeson), it is a visit to his house at night; complete with eerie music and we see a lot of animal heads on his wall –he must be a baddie. As well as this clumsy labelling, De Jager's press conference right nearer the end does not act as the final moral catalyst for the film but rather as a plot point for Anna's family to ultimately fall apart which was unfortunate. While it's all nicely unfolded and cute for what it is, In My Country bogs itself down with confused studies and feels like a missed opportunity.

I thought this movie did very well in exploring many different relationships and story lines. Above all, this movie asked all of the hard questions and brought into light a lot of truth that a lot of people don't like to look at.

The African sense of justice is about reconciliation, not revenge. By using the testimonials of several individuals, this movie was very educational. The healing that was allowed to happen within the process of reconciliation was very inspirational. Their sophisticated system made a lot of sense to me, and seems much more advanced than systems employed where i live in the US.

The relationship between Langston and Anna brought a political story to a personal level. It was beautiful to see Anna come to terms with her own sense of responsibility, being a white south African who had known of the atrocities, but had done nothing to stop them. Langston forced her to examine her position, but was also there to support her when she felt crushed by the enormity. Their acting was very convincing and skillful. I especially loved the scene where Anna attacked Langston, but thought the actual sex scene could have been more believable.

One character I haven't seen anyone comment on is Anna'a assistant, Dumi. This character brought the story to yet another level. He was the classic joker with hidden depths. His character communicated to the audience that nothing is black or white; nothing is simple; really it's all endlessly complex.

In fact, this story was anything but one-sided. It showed many masks that individuals wear in specific situations. It communicated so much about humanity, both as individuals and as members of a larger society. I find it quite relevant to my experience as a white American who knows my government is responsible for the suffering of multitudes at this moment in time, and I feel responsible and helpless at the same time.

A man who sat behind me in the theater kept telling his girlfriend he wanted to leave because it was unpleasant. Yes, it is unpleasant, if you're the type of person who doesn't like to look at reality. But what I cam away with from the movie was a feeling of awe about humanity's capacity for compassion.