Il colore della libertà

Joseph Fiennes has always looked a bit like a spider monkey in my view, but in this movie he was better than in any role I'd seen him in before, doing what I thought was a competent job with the South African accent as well. Finally exempted from having to play the sex symbol, Ralph's little brother could finally concentrate on actually challenging himself with a complex role. In a movie based upon a true story, Fiennes plays James Gregory, a racist South African guard whose certainties are nonetheless shaken to the core over the span of twenty years – the time he spends as Nelson Mandela's prison warden. The movie's merit lies largely in showing us the daily application of a major historic abomination – Apartheid – through the lives of "little people", those ordinary men and women of South Africa thanks to whom it was perpetuated. These are "ordinary" white people who are neither heroes nor villains, but obtuse conformists. The violence of the system on its white citizens was considerably more hidden than on its black ones, but it was violence all the same: it was the obligation to remain as ignorant as possible. The alternative was to be persecuted by the status quo.

Dennis Haysbert as Nelson Mandela was suitably stoic and charismatic, a positive counterpart to Forest Whitaker's villainous Idi Amin from The Last King of Scotland. Diane Kruger was definitely better cast as an "ordinarily" racist, suburban hairdresser wife and mother of two, than as Helen of Troy. By the end of Goodbye, Bafana, I was also somewhat moved. My major complaint with the movie was that like the vast majority of African-set, historical movies made recently, Nelson Mandela and all the black African characters were largely viewed from the outside, through the whiteys' eyes. These movies' directors all need to sit in a darkened room and watch The Battle of Algiers together sometime

Wow. This movie really touches your heart in a profound way. It makes you think about how we as human beings treat each other, and about what really matters in life.

We've all heard about the apartheid that took place in South Africa a few decades ago and how Nelson Mandela fought for freedom for the black people. This movie gives a somewhat different perspective being from a prison guards point of view during the almost three decades that he worked around Mandela. He goes into it with the opinion that Mandela is a dangerous terrorist, but during the years to come we get to follow the incredible journey of this man while he seeks the truth and challenges his preconceptions. This is truly inspiring to see.

Also, the actors are amazing in their roles, which contributes a lot to making this movie as good and believable as it is. I especially like Dennis Haysbert as Nelson Mandela. He feels perfect for this part as he manages to really bring out the charisma and strength of his character. When I see him even in the beginning of the movie I could feel from the performance made by Haysbert that this man could change the world. I like Joseph Fiennes from before, and he too makes an outstanding performance as the prison guard.

Nelson Mandela – this movie is about him, and that is the only factor that made to select this movie.

But the story is not about Nelson Mandela (Dennis Haysbert) but about his prison guard James Gregory (Joseph Fiennes) who first serves as a prison guard (in 1968) for Mandela because he knows the African language Xhosa that Mandela and his comrades speak. He is transferred because he shows a soft corner for Mandela but due to international pressure is re-appointed in 1983 till the release of Mandela from prison.

While seeing the movie one feels that what a great honor to have – serving contemporary history's most respected leaders as prison guard. Joseph Fiennes shows his range as an actor filling all ranges of age profile – being young and energetic to middle aged character. Dennis Haysbert portrays the role of his life time with gut, gutsy and tremendous respect and dignity – in being Nelson Mandela – an honor for an actor.

The movie as rightly said by some critics is a history lesson of sorts. But please do not be mistaken by this comment. When I read that comment, I had two thoughts – whether I should go and see a history lesson? YES everyone who has a golden heart should see this movie. Every person who is by default has white skin should see this movie. It is simple, honest, and displays hidden prejudices of apartheid world that are prevalent even today in forms of class.

As Mahatma Gandhi was called terrorist, so was Nelson Mandela was labeled a terrorist. He used arms struggle for making his point. He wanted the ruling British to talk with nationalist fighters – for peace. But British and their allied countries never agreed for a one-to-one dialogue and the mayhem of anarchy, atrocity and violence continued for more than half a century in peaceful and beautiful South African country. The local inhabitants were brutally killed by invaders who occupied most part of resources land claiming it to be their own mother land.

My salute to Denmark Director Bille August who shows the apathy of human mind with everyday talks against terrorist – the same we talk today.

I was fortunate to be part of the audience seeing this movie.

(Stars 7.5 out of 10)

Or at least through the eyes of a white man. Even if you are not familiar with Mandelas story you will able to see where this is going. The story of the white man/guard might be spiked a bit and his wife does not have much to do (Diane Kruger) besides the obvious (caring for him, the safety of their family and being a faithful wife, sticking with her husband through it all).

One thing is sure, you do need a really charismatic and good actor if you want to portray a man like Mandela. And Dennis H. is one who can deliver. Even if he may not be on everyones radar, he has proved (on TV, but still), that he does have the skills and the presence to do such a job. He is not revealed immediately in the movie, which is not just another (filmmaking) trick, but serves the story or better yet the relationship between the two main man. New movies will come out and they probably will tell a better story, but this is not a bad movie either (even if predictable all the way through).

I'd just like to make the point that Raj Doctor of Amsterdam's comment above is more than a little misleading, as well as giving a rather simplified version of the long and complex history of what became the Republic of South Africa.

He refers to 'the ruling British', a group apparently wholly responsible for the racism and violence which have beset the country. South Africa achieved sovereignty in 1934, and became a republic in 1961. The government of the country was dominated until 1994 by the Afrikaner community (a majority amongst white South Africans) who, as most people would presumably know, were certainly not of 'British' origin. One might expect someone from the Netherlands to know that they are comprised chiefly of Dutch settlers...

Britain may be the former colonial power in SA, but was not the initiator of the post-war apartheid policy, still less the force which actually brought it about. Britain gave up its African colonies in the 1960s, so has not "ruled" anywhere on the continent in a direct sense since then, and has not ruled SA since considerably earlier than that. The particular nature of the problems which South Africa has faced are based primarily on the relatively significant size of its white population and their attendant rule (dominated as it has been by Afrikaners) not on 'British rule'.

I enjoyed the film, by the way. A thoughtful and satisfying treatment of the subject on the whole, I thought.