warwick.ac.uk/lib-publications

A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD at the University of Warwick

Permanent WRAP URL:

http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/81400

Copyright and reuse:

This thesis is made available online and is protected by original copyright.

Please scroll down to view the document itself.

Please refer to the repository record for this item for information to help you to cite it.

Our policy information is available from the repository home page.

For more information, please contact the WRAP Team at: wrap@warwick.ac.uk

FILMSABOUTSOUTHAFRICA

1987–2014:

REPRESENTATIONSOF‘THERAINBOW’

by

DerileneMarco

Athesissubmittedinpartialfulfillmentofthe

requirementsforthedegreeofDoctorof

PhilosophyinFilmandTelevisionStudies

UniversityofWarwick,DepartmentofFilmand

TelevisionStudies

January2016

CONTENTS

Page

ListofIllustrations i

Glossary ii

Acknowledgements vi

Declaration vii

Abstract viii

Introduction 1

ChapterOne–ReviewofLiterature

Introduction 14

PartOne

1.1‘SouthAfricanese’,‘SouthAfrican-ness’andthe

ChallengeofRepresentation:NewandOldTerms 16

1.2SouthAfricanCinema:Definitions,Historiesand

Possibilities 22

1.3‘RainbowNation’Cinema:ANationalCinema? 23

1.4SouthAfrica:Post-colonialand/orPost-apartheid 33

PartTwo

DefiningCinemas,Nationsand‘StructuresofFeeling’ 37

PartThree

3.1MemoryandTraumainSouthAfricanFilms 50

3.2MemoryandTraumaStudies:Perspectivesand

TheoreticalPoints 55

3.2.1TraumaCinema,‘ActingOut’and

‘WorkingThrough’ 58

3.2.2Traumainfilms 61

Conclusion 64

SectionOne 66

ChapterTwo:OntheBrinkofFreedom:

ADryWhiteSeason,CryFreedomandMapantsula

Introduction 67

PartOne:

WhiteandBlackAnti-ApartheidMasculinities

InCryFreedomandADryWhiteSeason 72

PartTwo:

Mapantsula:ABlackPerspectiveAnti-ApartheidFilm,the

CaseofPanic,the‘Tsotsi’ 91

PartThree:

TheWomenofCryFreedomandADryWhiteSeason 101

3.1TheAfrikanerWomenofADryWhiteSeason

andMelanie,theOutsider 102

3.2DefianceandtheJointStruggleofWomenin

CryFreedom 110

Conclusion 115

SectionTwo 116

ChapterThree:Memory,‘Ubuntu’andForgiveness

inFilmsaboutTheTruthAndReconciliation

Commission

Introduction 117

SouthAfrica’sTruthandReconciliationCommission 126

PartOne:

TheTruthShallSetYouFreeand‘FullDisclosure’in

InMyCountryandRedDust 133

RedDust 133

InMyCountry 141

PartTwo:

‘ActingOut’,ForgivenessandRevenge:Forgivenessand

ZuluLoveLetter 150

Forgiveness 150

ZuluLoveLetter 164

Conclusion 174

ChapterFour:Shame,GuiltandtheRelevanceof

WhiteMeninPost-Apartheid:DisgraceandSkoonheid

Introduction 176

GuiltandShameinDisgraceandSkoonheid

Disgrace 185

Skoonheid 194

RapeinDisgraceandSkoonheid 205

Disgrace 207

Skoonheid 215

Conclusion 223

SectionThree 225

ChapterFive:ViolentMasculinitiesandYoungBack

MeninPost-ApartheidFilms:HijackStories,Tsotsi,

Disgrace

Introduction 229

HijackStories 234

Tsotsi 247

Disgrace 260

Conclusion 265

ChapterSix:Rituals,TraditionandStepsForward

intheNewSouthAfrica:FanieFourie’sLobola,

ElelwaniandDisgrace

Introduction 268

FanieFourie’sLobola:NegotiatingNewTraditions 273

Elelwani:theBurdenofBeingaYoung,FreeWoman 288

DisgraceandLucy’sRainbowWomb 302

Conclusion 309

Conclusion 311

Bibliography 321

Filmography 340

i

Listofillustrations Page

Figure2.1–PaniconroutetoPat’sworkplaceinwhitesuburb(OliverSchmitz,1988)

95

Figure2.2–ShatteredwindowatMrsBentley’shouse,Mapantsula 96Figure2.3–Shatteredwindowinflashback,Mapantsula 97Figure3.1–AnnaMalanandLangstonWhitfieldinfirstconfrontationaboutTRC,InMyCountry(JohnBoorman,2004)

142

Figure3.2–MediaarriveintheTRCbusforthefirsthearing,InMyCountry

142

Figure3.3–Arrivalofcrowdsatthefirsthearinginthefilm,InMyCountry

143

Figure3.4–Daniel’scomrades:The‘RainbowNation’trio,Forgiveness(IanGabriel,2004)

160

Figure3.5–Daniel’sfamilyathisgrave,Forgiveness 161Figure4.1–Beforeorgy,Skoonheid(OliverHermanus,2011) 201Figure4.2–Afterorgysceneshot1,Skoonheid 202Figure4.3–Afterorgysceneshot2,Skoonheid 202Figure5.1–Zamaafterhavinglandedtheroleof‘BraBiza’,HijackStories(OliverSchmitz,2001)

245

Figure5.2–Tsotsiandhisfriendsinopeningscene,Tsotsi(GavinHood,2005)

248

Figure5.3Tsotsilookingbackathisfriendswhilehisbodyremainsforward,facingthetownship,Tsotsi

249

Figure6.1–Elelwaniwithhermother,Elelwani(NtshavheniwaLuruli,2012)

300

Figure6.2–Elelwaniassheleavesherparentshomestead,Elelwani 300Figure6.3–DavidlookingatPetrus,Disgrace(SteveJacobs,2008) 307

ii

GLOSSARY

ApartheidEraofenforcedandlegalisedseparateracialdevelopmentinSouthAfricabetween1948and1994.Purposefullywrittenwithasmall‘a’throughoutthethesis.Post-apartheidTheerafrom1994throughtothepresentafterthefirstdemocraticelectionswereheldinSouthAfricaon27April1994.RainbowNationTermusedtodescribeSouthAfricansaftertheendofapartheid.Thetermsuggeststhatthepopulation,constitutedofdifferentethnicitiesandraces,isunitedinitsdiversity.AskariAblackpersonwhofoughtagainstapartheid(oftenpartofoneoftheresistancemovementsliketheAfricanNationalCongress–ANC)butwhowasco-optedbytheapartheidsecuritypoliceforcetoactasaninformant.Oftenblackmailedorsomehowcoercedintoapositioninwhichtheyneededtoprovideinformationtotheapartheidsecuritypolice.BoerLiterally"farmer"inAfrikaans.InSouthAfrica,aderogatorytermusedbyBlackpeopleduringapartheidtoidentifyawhiteAfrikaansspeakingpersonofanykind,i.e.apoliceofficeroranordinarywomancitizen.Althoughthetermisstillused,itisnotascommonineverydayparlanceandnolongerholdsthesamefear.Born-freesPeoplewhowerebornafter1990butusuallyrefersspecificallytothoseborninandafter1994.BraaiThewordbraaiisAfrikaansfor“barbecue”or“roast”.ItisacommonsocialcustominSouthAfrica.

iii

ColouredApersonofmixed-raceheritagebutwithspecificculturalandethnicmeaninginSouthAfricaanddifferenttomixed-race.Theculturalgroupingislinkedtointerracialsexualactivitiesbetweenslavesandindenturedlabourersandwhitesettlersduringcolonialism.AlsolinkedtotheSanandtheKhoi,whoareindigenousmigrantcommunities.ItwasaracialcategoryenforcedbytheapartheidgovernmentthroughthePopulationRegistrationActNo.30of1950.ImpimpiABlackpoliceinformantduringapartheid.Similartothetermaskaributnotinterchangeableasanyoneinthecommunitycouldbeanimpimpi.KoeksistersAplaiteddoughnutdippedinsyrup.FromAfrikaanskoe(k)sister:koekmeaning'cake'+sissen'meaningtosizzle'.KwaitoKwaitoisamusicgenrethatemergedinJohannesburg,SouthAfrica,duringthe1990s.ItisavariantofhousemusicfeaturingtheuseofAfricansoundsandbeats.MixedraceThisisarelativelynewandgrowingracialcategoryinSouthAfricawhichreferstothemixedraceoffspringofparentsoftwodifferentraces.MoffieReferstoaneffeminatemaleormalehomosexual(derogatoryterm),ortransvestite.

Toyi-toyiAphysicalactionwhichexpressesdefianceandprotest.Itinvolvesraisingoneskneesandarmsheldinfists.Commonlyseeninanti-apartheidmarches.TsotsiMosteasilytranslatedasgangsterorthugbuthasadditionalconnotationsinblacktownshipsinSouthAfrica.

iv

UbuntuThetermubuntuisusedaspartofanAfricanproverb:umuntungumuntungabantu,toimparttheideathatweareallconnectedviaourhumanity.Translated,thephrasemeans,‘IamwhatIambecauseofwhoweallare’.BlackReferencesallnon-whitecitizensofSouthAfrica.Usedwithacapital‘B’inthisthesiswhendiscussingnon-whitecharactersunlessotherwiseindicated.blackReferencestheapartheidracialcategory,blackAfricans,enforcedbythePopulationRegistrationActNo.30of1950.Usedinpartsofthethesis.ManseAtermwhichmeansSouthbutwhichiscolloquiallyusedasadirectreferencetoSouthAfrica.‘Kaffir’

AderogatoryandhighlyoffensiveracialtermthatwasusedforandtoBlackpeopleduringapartheid.Thetermcouldbeequatedtotheuseoftheword“nigger”intheU.Scontext.

Coconut

Theterm‘coconuts’suggeststhatoneisBlackontheoutsidebutwhiteontheinside,orculturally‘white’.Itisalsoatermthatreferenceswealthy,youngBlackSouthAfricanswhogrewupmiddleclassandwhoareabletoaccesscertainthingsthatotheryoungBlackSouthAfricanscannot.ItissometimesusedalongwiththetermBlackDiamonds.Althoughrelated,thetermsarenotalwaysinterchangeable.

Afrikaner

AtermusedtodescribeAfrikaans-speakingwhitesinSouthAfrica.Theseidentitieswere/areoftenassociatedwithconservativeCalvinistvaluesandtheprotectionofakindofethnicitywithinSouthAfricanwhitenessthatmakesanAfrikanerdistinctfromawhiteEnglishperson,forexample.

Afrikanerdom

AtermthatdescribesanAfrikanerperson’scultureandvalues.DuringapartheiditwastheculturalgroupwhichwastobeprotectedandwhichwasblessedbyGod.TheDutchReformedChurchsupportedapartheidandwasthestrongholdofAfrikanerdom,asitwasacultureprotectedbyGod.

v

‘Madam’/‘Missus’

Thetermsareusedinterchangeablyandreferenceawhitehousewife.OftenatermusedbyBlackdomesticworkersabouttheownerofthehouse.

Shebeen

Anillegalplacetobuyandconsumealcoholinthetownshipduringapartheid.Theystillexisttodayinmanytownshipsaroundthecountry.

Stoep

Afrikaanswordmeaningfrontporch.

vi

AcknowledgementsThejourneyofthisthesiswasmorethanIcouldeverhaveimaginedwhenIstartedin2011.Iamsogratefulforthelove,kindness,generosityofheartandmindthatIhaveexperiencedduringthisperiod.

ThankyoutoCharlotteBrunsdonforyourpatienceandguidance.Youhavetaughtmehowimportantitistoacknowledgehardwork,realisemistakesand,inspiteofitall,reassesswithpatiencebeforeonejustkeepsgoing.ThisissomethingIwillkeepwithmealways.FromyouIhavealsolearnedthevalueinacknowledgingthatmanythings are challenging and thatmaking it through them is, in itself, no small feat.Your unwavering support has been incredible and I feel honoured to have beenunderyourguidance.

ThankstotheWarwickFilmandTelevisionDepartmentforsupportthroughoutmystudies,especiallyduringmyperiodof illnessandwithregardstomyreturntotheUniversityOfWarwick.

Thank you to The University ofWarwick for a Chancellor’s Award, whichmade itpossible to undertake my studies. Thank you also to the generosity of theOppenheimer Memorial Trust that supported me throughout my studies andthroughwhomitwaspossibletoreturntoEnglandaftermyperiodofillness.Iamdeeplygratefulforthecontinualtrustandsupportinmyproject.

So much of this thesis is because of the continuous love of so many and a truereflectionofmylife. Toallofyou,thankyou.Tomycolleaguesandfriendsinthedepartment: IvanGirina, IsabelRhodes,NikeJung,GregFrame. Thankyoufor thegoodtimes,thehardtimes,the laughs. Iholdyousoverydear. Thankyoutomyfriends and family, many who consistently provided intellectual and emotionalsupportfromnearandfar.Youallmakeupthepuzzlepiecesofmyheart,someofyouliterallyholdingmyhandevenindistance…Finally,themomentishere!Toallof you, thank you: Kathleen Ebersohn-Khuvutlu, Jenna-Lee Marco, Jody Felton,HannahAllan,PetraAdams,AntoinetteEngel,TraceyMarks,SharleneKhan,FouadAsfour, Khwezi Mkhize, Khwezi Gule, Seun Olatoye, Philippe Le Geoff, JenWebb,Patricia Hendricks, Regina Isaacs, Colleen Marco, Yana Abrahams, Abebe Zegeye,Pumla Gqola, Bhekizizwe Peterson, Henriette Gunkel, Gabi Ngcobo, Lyn Ossome,PortiaMalatjie. Tomy final stretch crew, Iwould not havemade itwithout you:BasaniBaloyi,NomaMasina,BéréniceKafui.You’vemadetheendsosweet.

And to Kemang Wa Lehulere, for all the many times this crazy undertaking hasgottenourplansanddreamsand the ‘everyday’ intohotwater, thankyou for thelove and support. Thank you for the home, the bolognaise and the beautifulmemoriesovertheyears.

Thisthesisisdedicatedtomyparents,withoutwhomIwouldnotbethepersonIamtoday,andthisthesiswouldnotbeatall. Youinstilledinmeaspiritofpossibility,beliefandtenacityofheartandsoul. Whatyouhavedoneandcontinuetobeformegoesbeyondthedutiesattachedtoparenting...You’reincredible.Thankyoucanneversufficebutinthemeantime,Dad,here’stostayingfocussed!

vii

DeclarationIherebydeclarethatthisthesisrepresentsmyownwork.Ithasnotpreviouslybeensubmittedforexaminationatanotherinstitution.Thethesisdoesnotcontainmaterialfrompriorwork,norforanotherdegreeattheUniversityofWarwickoranyotherinstitution.

viii

AbstractThe thesis analyses representations of the ‘Rainbow Nation’ and dominant post-apartheid themes in SouthAfrican films between 1987 and 2014. The term SouthAfrican filmsor cinema is used to encompass films that are co-producedbetweenSouth Africa and other nations, aswell as films thatmay find their South Africanarticulation only in content and narrative composition. Drawing on RaymondWilliams’ scholarship, the thesis sets out to explore whether a new structure offeelingcanbe identified inpost-apartheid films.Thethesisalsoengages trauma inthepost-apartheidfilmsaboutthe‘RainbowNation’. InbeingabletoidentifyhownewSouthAfrican filmsshowandgrapplewithpost-apartheid identitiesas ‘actingout’, ‘working through’ and ‘making sense’ of the past, the thesis concludes thatpost-apartheidfilmsareinsomewayscriticalofthepastandinotherways,hopefulforthefuture.However,themorethecountrysettlesintoitsnewnationalidentities,themorevariationsarepresent infilmicrepresentationsandthemorepossibilitiesexistforseeingthecomplexitiesofpost-apartheidcinema.

Thethesisisdividedintothreesectionsandfollowsathematicapproachaswellasaformof periodisation that has not been used in previous scholarship about SouthAfricancinema.SectionOneconsiders themomentbefore theendofapartheid inthe films A Dry White Season (Euzhan Palcy, 1989), Cry Freedom (RichardAttenborough, 1987) and Mapantsula (Oliver Schmitz, 1988). Section Two isconstituted of two chapters which focus on the representations of the end ofapartheid, trauma, guilt and ‘acting out’ seen in the filmsRedDust (TomHooper,2004), InMy Country (John Boorman, 2004), Forgiveness (Ian Gabriel, 2004), ZuluLoveLetter(RamadanSuleman,2004),Disgrace(SteveJacobs,2008)andSkoonheid(OliverHermanus,2011).SectionThreeexploresthepossibilityofanewstructureoffeeling through analysis of the representations of youth identities and coming toterms with the past in Hijack Stories (Oliver Schmitz, 2001), Tsotsi (Gavin Hood,2005) and Disgrace (Steve Jacobs, 2008). In the final chapter, the films Disgrace(Steve Jacobs, 2008), Fanie Fourie’s Lobola (Henk Pretorius, 2013) and Elelwani(Ntshavheni wa Luruli, 2012) are analysed to show how traditions and rituals arefashionedas important,unexpectedvehicles, throughwhich tonavigateemergentpost-apartheidSouthAfricaanditsidentities.

1

INTRODUCTION

No generation speaks quite the same language as itspredecessors.1

This thesis is a sustainedconsiderationandanalysisof selectedpost-apartheidSouth

African films. The thesis explores what the films do by paying specific attention to

thoseelementsthathavenotbeencriticallyanalysedbefore:mainly,thecomplexityof

post-apartheididentitiesofindividualcharacters;thepresenceoftraumainfilmsthat

grapplewiththeapartheidpast;andfinally, theconsiderationofpost-apartheidfilms

andindividualcharacters,asrepresentativeofdifferentstructuresoffeeling.Theaim

ofthethesisisthustoanalyseandconsiderwhathasgoneunnoticedinpost-apartheid

filmsbeforeandwhatissoever-presentnow:anger,disdainandadisappointmentin

the promises of ‘The Rainbow’. It interrogates the cinematic realisation of the

‘Rainbow Nation’ and explores new, fractured post-apartheid identities through an

analysisoffilmsrangingfromADryWhiteSeason(1987)toElelwani(2014).

Thethesisemploysathematicandperiodicstructurewhichaidsthinkingabout

apartheidandpost-apartheidasspecificperiodsoftimebutalsoasspecificidentitiesof

placeandrace.Thethesisisthuspositionedinthecomplicated,overlappingterrainof

scholarly discussions of national cinema, race and ethnicity, as well as touching on

questionsofrepresentation,trauma,memoryandidentity.Throughout,Ihavetriedto

payattentiontowhatisspecifictotheSouthAfricansituation,whilealso,atthesame

time,avoidingisolatingthisexplorationofSouthAfricancinemafromothertheoretical

andcriticaldiscussions.Keepingthisinmind,theresearchquestionsofthethesisare:

1RaymondWilliams,MarxismandLiterature(Oxford,NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1977),p.131.

2

What are the identifiable differences between anti-apartheid films made during

apartheid and post-apartheid films? Do post-apartheid films contribute to post-

apartheidrhetoric?Ifso,howisitevidencedinthefilms?Shouldpost-apartheidfilms

beconsideredasanationaland/orpost-apartheidcinema? Whatare thedominant

presences in post-apartheid films and what do they reveal about individual and

collectivepost-apartheididentitiesandsubjectivities?

***

The fourteenth annual Ruth First lecture was held on 17 August 2015, the

anniversary of the death of journalist and anti-apartheid activist, Ruth First.2 The

theme,“Race:LivedExperiencesandContemporaryContestations”,wastakenupby

twoyoungBlackwomenwhospoketothechallengesofraceinpost-apartheidSouth

Africa. PanasheChigumadzi’s focuswasonanemergentgroup inSouthAfrica, the

growingBlackmiddleclass, sometimes referred to in this thesisasBlackdiamonds/

Blackmiddleclassbut inthecontextofChigumadzi’stalk, ‘coconuts’.3 Thefocusof

herpresentationwasonthegrowingeconomicdisparitiesamongtheBlackyouthof

SouthAfrica. Chigumadzi’s arguments sometimes pull against each other, seen for

instance in her promotion of the use of the problematic term ‘coconuts’, while

arguingforthewealthy‘coconuts’totakeuparmswiththeirpoorBlackcounterparts

around the country. What Chigumadzi’s talk illuminated was something beyond a

growingeconomic(andracial)divide.Itwasrather,anattempttoarticulatesomeof

the sensibilities of the young Blacks who identify as coconuts and who now seek

2AversionofChigumadzi’stalkappearedintheUK’sTheGuardian:http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/24/south-africa-race-panashe-chigumadzi-ruth-first-lecture[Accessed5October2015].;AtranscriptandaudiorecordingofthelectureisavailableontheWitsJournalismwebsite:http://www.journalism.co.za/projects-a-fellowships/ruth-first/[Accessed2September2015].3Pleaseseeglossary.

3

legitimate Black space for their identities. Itwas about amiddle class struggle for

relevancethroughanattemptatpoliticisingapost-apartheid‘coconut’identity.The

talkdemonstrates thatwhile the immediateaftermathof theendofapartheidwas

difficult and complex, the struggles continue to evolve and transform as ‘post-

apartheid-ness’ (in the different identities it encompasses) continues to

metamorphosise.

AlthoughChigumadzidoesnotreferencefilms,thistalkpresentedsomething

that is a concern throughout the thesis, as it is an attempt at exploring and

articulating what could be an emergent sensibility of the new South Africa. The

speaker,herselfarepresentativeofthe‘RainbowNation’,andthefilmsofthisthesis

intersect becausewhile they present what post-apartheidwas intended to be, the

idyllic‘RainbowNation’,theyalsointersecttoilluminatesomeofthedisgruntlements

andintangiblepresenceswithinthe‘RainbowNation’.

Turning to the films, then, Mandela, Long Walk To Freedom (Dir: Justin

Chadwick, 2013) is themost recent and arguably, one of themost important films

about apartheid and post-apartheid SouthAfrica. The film premiered on the night

thatMandelapassedawayandwill forevermorebeentrenchedinourgenerational

memories ina reverentialway. During theSouthAfrican runof the film, itgrossed

the highest ever box office amounts for a non-holiday film release. Some South

Africanseventooktimeoffworktoseethefilmonitsdayofrelease.4

Chigumadzi, and her concerns, are a direct product of Nelson Mandela’s

negotiations with the apartheid government and the imagined ‘Rainbow’ of post-

apartheid South Africa. Although the government attempted to create newmodes4ArticleaboutSouthAfricanaudiences:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-25169194[Accessed2December2013].

4

andsitesoflivingtogetherinademocracy,theproblemswiththatconstructionwere

never fully addressed. Those problems are now finding expressions in the post-

apartheid youth who are not only voicing discomforts with post-apartheid official

constructionsbutwhoarealso,urgentlydemandingthatthestatebeginstotakenote

oftheinadequaciesofthe‘Rainbow’.Thisthesisisinterestedinseeinghowthefilms

portrayandexploreissuesaroundthecomplex‘RainbowNation’.

Although Chadwick’s film is not the first film to depictMandela, it has been

laudedasexceptionalbecause it isanadaptationofMandela’sautobiographybased

on his life and primarily on the twenty-seven years he spent in prison on Robben

Island.However,thereisroomforcautionandscepticismwhenviewingMandela’slife

through this hagiographic lens. There are unanswered questions about what is

excluded in the representations seenonscreen,why thoseparticularexclusionsand

howdotheseimpactonviewers’perceptionsofMandelaandpost-1994SouthAfrica.

Inessence,thedidacticnatureofthisfilmhasbeencelebratedinternationallybuthas

in South Africa beenmet with a combination of knowledge of the context and the

‘true’ repercussions of life after 1994. This film poses questions around authorship

andspectatorshipsuchas,whoconstructsthese‘SouthAfrican’films?And,whoare

thesefilmsfor?

More in linewith challenging the ‘RainbowNation’, documentary filmmaker,

Khalo Matabane embarked on a critical journey of thinking about Mandela in the

documentary,Mandela, theMyth andMe (2014). The documentary grapples with

complex questions about Mandela, his choices around the negotiations that have

cometorepresenttheendofapartheid,andtheimplicationsofthisforBlackpeople,

many whose living conditions have not changed with the end of apartheid. This

5

mythicalMandela is significantly different to the conservative and palatable hero in

Chadwick’s biopic. Matabane tries to showhowhe, as the director and as a South

African, cannot marry the unequal socio-economic reality of so many Black South

Africanswiththelanguageofpost-1994:freedom,‘ubuntu’,forgiveness,reconciliation

and equality. The primary question that Matabane asks is what happened to that

radicalMandela that his grandmother told him about as a young boy. He, like the

studentsoftheRhodesMustFallstudentmovement,and,toadegree,thespeakersat

theRuthFirstLecture,wantstoknowwhyMandela‘soldout’throughreconciliation.

Ineachofthecasespresentedabove,Iattempttoshowandcontextualisesomeofthe

prevalent debates of post-apartheid, some of which, like Chadwick’s biopic, revere

Mandelaandvalorisethecharacterandthe‘RainbowNation’,andothers,ofwhichare

struggling to find ways of articulating what can be described as the irreconcilable

debrisoftheendofapartheid.

ScholarshipaboutSouthAfricancinemahasnotyetdealtexclusivelywiththe

complexrepresentationsofmemoryandthemythofthe‘Rainbow’inpost-apartheid

films. Most of what exists about South African post-apartheid films is grounded in

questions around the national collective identity seen in post-apartheid cinema,

constantlyreturningtothequestionofwhetherwecancallthiscinemanationalatall,

asIdiscussfurtherintheliteraturereview.WhileIsupporttheapproachandvalueof

thisimportantbodyofscholarship,thisthesisengagespost-apartheidrepresentations

differently. Thethesisdepartsfromexistingscholarshipinthewayitcategorisesthe

apartheid past and pays closer attention to the impact of that past on the present.

The hypothesis is that post-apartheid films are representative of ineradicable

manifestations of the apartheid pastwhich are still evidenced in the present. Even

thoughtraumaisnotrepresentable,somepost-apartheidfilmstrytoshowtheextent

6

ofthesystemicinfiltrationofapartheidinSouthAfrica.Otherfilmsalsotrytoextend

beyond the trauma, posing new and important questions from and of a new

generation. This thesis attempts to show how these overlapping periods in recent

SouthAfricanhistoryareexploredinthefilms.

The cinema of post-apartheid South Africa has shown me things about the

processesof‘workingthrough’ofthepastthatIcouldnothaveanticipated.Ithasalso

shown me that some of what occurs, both in reality and in the films, can also be

conceptualised against a psychoanalytic backdrop of ‘acting out’ alongside ‘working

through’ in the contextof traumaand therapy. The literature reviewwhich follows

elaborates further on these ideas. The thesis is interested in thinking about

representations of ‘acting out’ and ‘working through’ present in post-apartheid

identitiesinthefilms. Post-apartheidfilmsachievemorethanjustshowingthe‘new

South Africa’. Through close critical contextualisation, the films show how ‘post-

apartheid-nessis’entangledinshowingthechangesfromtheapartheidpastaswellas

the difficulties of manifesting those changes in the context and identities of the

present.Inadditiontoaconsistentneedtothinkaboutandreformulatehowwesee

andimaginethepast,thesefilmsarealsosteepedinheightenedawarenessabouthow

the present came to be through the vocabulary of new nation that supports it.

‘Rainbowism(s)’, ‘New South African-nese’, ‘New South African-ness’, ‘Rainbow

Nation’, ‘newSouthAfrica’, ‘theborn frees’, ‘ubuntu’, ‘memory’and ‘belonging’,are

all terms that curate the individual and collective identity of thenewnation.5 Each

term,when applied to the specific context of post-apartheid South Africa comes to

imbibesomeofthatplaceandthespecificitiesofthecontext.

5Pumla,Gqola“DefiningPeople:AnalysingPower,LanguageandRepresentationinMetaphorsoftheNewSouthAfrica”,Transformation47(2001),pp.94–106.

7

Thetermsaboveareillustrativeofthetropesinthefilmsthatformthecorpus

ofthethesis.Inthethesis,IusethedescriptorBlacktodiscuss(astheSouthAfrican

Constitutionoutlines)allnon-whiteSouthAfricans,althoughtherearesectionswhereI

useotherrelatedtermsmostlyinadescriptivesensewherethefilmitselfemphasises

somethingspecific relatedtorace thatneededtheemploymentofdistinctionwithin

‘Black’,suchas‘coloured’or‘black’.6TheaimoftheemotivetermsofthenewSouth

Africa, was/ is for the ideals of this language to penetrate a previously segregated

South African society so that people do not only physically reflect a multitude of

colours but also that they fundamentally believe in the ‘Rainbow Nation’ and the

collective hope that it promises. In the immediacy of the end of apartheid, South

Africanswereencouraged toviewthemselvesassimultaneouslyunifiedanddiverse,

holdingonto theirownculturalheritageswhileputting thebroaderaimsofnational

unityaheadofethnic‘differences’.

Apartheid emphasised physical and psychological segregation and therefore

post-apartheidculturalworkoftenstillemployspersistentsegregations(albeitaltered)

asaspringboard.Thetermsformedthebasisofnewpolicies,ideologiesandpractices

that would be mobilised, even if only superficially, if ordinary citizens could also

participate in the languageof democracy. Despite theofficialmodesof putting the

new South Africa into practice through the post-apartheid language, historically

entrenchedracialcategorieshavenotsimplydissipatedandclassdivisionsarestarker

thaneverbefore.Theterm‘RainbowNation’suggeststhatbecauseapartheidisover,

allSouthAfricanswillbenefitfromthenewdemocracy.Itisacelebrationofdiversity

throughtheconclusionthatthewholeisgreaterthanthesumofitsparts.

6Explanationoftermsisintheglossaryaswellasonpage18–19oftheliteraturereview.

8

What is vital to this research is to see and understand how the terms have

incorporatedandmanifested themselvescinematically. Toanalysehowthese terms

have been realised, the form of periodisation is an important choice regarding

methodology.DuringtheresearchperiodIhavepaidspecificattentiontoaskingwhy

somefilmsshowandelaborateonthecontextofSouthAfrica,andothersdonot,even

thoughtheysomehowreferenceapartheidorpost-apartheid.Theperiodisationofthe

thesisrequiredcomplexconsiderationsandmethodologicalchoices.Hencethethesis

makes distinctions but alsooverlaps in its primary approaches: theproject adopts a

critical textual approach, which incorporates analysis of how the films portray the

apartheid past, and how the films represent ‘Rainbow Nation’ identities. The

categories intersect because the changes in the country are sometimes part of the

reasonwhynewidentitiesorshiftsinidentityareshowntobecomemorepresentand

prevalent. Employing periods also facilitates analysis about the official differences

betweenapartheidandpost-apartheidSouthAfrica.Whereasanalysisthatfocuseson

shiftingSouthAfricanidentitiesmakesitpossibletoidentifyhowthetermshighlighted

abovehavecuratedthepost-apartheidnationpredominantly throughsentimentand

popular rhetoric. At the intersectionsof these identityandnationalquestions, I am

interested inhow the filmsconsciouslyandunconsciouslymanufacture the termsof

thenewSouthAfrica.

The corpus is comprised of films that represent the shifting identities of the

newnationindifferentwaysandfromdifferentvantagepoints.Thecorpusincludes:

A Dry White Season (1989), Cry Freedom (1987), Mapantsula (1987), Forgiveness

(2004), Zulu Love Letter (2004), Red Dust (2004), In My Country (2004), Skoonheid

(2011),Disgrace(2008),HijackStories(2001),Tsotsi(2004),Elelwani(2012)andFanie

Fourie’sLobola(2013).Theselectionreflectsfilmswhichdealwithcollectivenational

9

and individual post-apartheid identities. The films of the corpus are also intricately

concernedwiththelexiconofapartheidandpost-apartheidandeachone,particularly

thefilmsofSectionsTwoandThree,holdsapositiononthe‘RainbowNation’andthe

characters’ place in it. Someof the filmshavebeendealtwithextensively in South

African film scholarship, while others have not been engaged with at all. The

combinationof‘wellknown’andseeminglylessimportantfilmsalsoallowsthethesis

toexploretheterrainofpost-apartheidfilmsindifferentways.

Thisthesis’sprimaryfocusonthematicandculturalconcernsofthefilmsisalso

inlinewithfundingincentivesforpost-apartheidcinema.Mostofthefilmsdiscussed

in this thesis are co-funded or multi-funded, with the National Film and Video

Foundation (NFVF) having emphasised in itsmandate that it supports South African

filmswhich dealwith local narratives andwhich showor explore the history of the

country.Thisisatellingissueregardingpost-apartheidfilms,asitconfirmsthatthere

is definitely room and funding for films about South Africa. It also points to the

implicationthatsometimesSouthAfricanfilmsfundedthrough,orpartly,bytheNFVF,

needtosomehowshowthecountryinaparticular(positive)lightbecausetheNFVFis

attachedtothestate.7Thereare,however,anumberofinitiativesmobilisedforfilm

and television in South Africa, some which are specifically geared towards local

productsandothers, like tax incentives,whicharealsogeared towards foreign films

madewithinthecountry.

7ChiefinvestorsinlocalSouthAfricanfilmindustry:NationalFilmandVideoFoundation,IndustrialDevelopmentCorporationandDepartmentofTradeandIndustry:http://www.filmandtvtransformation.org/sa-film-incentives/[Accessed5October2015].

10

TheNFVFwasformedin1999asastatuarybodyofthenewgovernment.8The

primary taskof thisorganisation is to increase thenumberof SouthAfrican filmsas

well as the amount of previously disadvantaged people producing these films. The

NFVF’sbiggestchallengebyfaristheplaceitneedstostraddlebetweenitseconomic

goalsanditsculturalgoals,bothlinkedtotheshiftfromapartheidtopost-apartheid.

The NFVF provides funding in four different areas: education and training,

development funding, production funding andmarketing and distribution. Since its

inception, theNFVF alongwith theDepartmentof Trade and Industry (DTI) and the

SouthAfricanRevenueServices(SARS)haveformulatedincentivepoliciesforlocaland

foreignfilmproductions,bothforco-productionfilmsandforfilmsinpost-production.

Todate,SouthAfricanhasco-productiontreatieswiththefollowingcountries:

Canada(1997), Italy (2003),Germany(2004),UK(2007),France(2010),NewZealand

(2011)andIreland(2012).Theadvantageoffilmsortelevisionprogrammeswhichare

approved as official co-productions is that the production is considered national in

eachof the co-producing countries and therefore eligible to funding andbenefits in

either country. This alsomeans that the film has access to two ormore domestic

markets.InSouthAfrica,andforthepurposesofthisthesis,italsomeansthatafilmis

termedaco-productionbutcanbeviewedasafilmofeithernationwhichfundedthe

film. This raises a complexity when the cultural content is about one or the other

nationalcontext,asisoftenthecasewithpost-apartheidfilmsdiscussedinthisthesis.

For thepurposesofclarity, IusethetermSouthAfrican filmsthroughout thethesis,

exceptinthecaseofDisgrace.ThereasonsforthiswillbemadeclearinChapterFour.

8http://nfvf.co.za/home/index.php?ipkContentID=101&ipkMenuID=25&ipkMenuID=54[Accessed5October2015].

11

The final section of the introduction is comprised of three parts. The first

sectiondrawson filmsof the late1980s to setup thecontextof thepoliticalmilieu

rightbeforetheendofapartheid.Thesinglechapterinthissectionanalysesthefilms

A Dry White Season, Cry Freedom and Mapantsula to see how apartheid and the

history about it had begun, in this period, to be constructed in films. This chapter

initiates a discussionof how racial representations aided the formationof a specific

image of apartheid and anti-apartheid struggle. It is also an important chapter for

contextualising what some of the changes from apartheid to ‘Rainbow Nation’

entailed. In the friendships between white and Black men in Dry White and Cry

Freedom, I explore how these anti-apartheid films construct the main male

protagonists as characters who are ‘out of place’ in apartheid. The chapter also

exploreshowthewomeninthefilmsholdontoafixed,hyper-racialisedconstruction

ofapartheid.ThefilmMapantsulainitiatesadiscussionaroundananti-apartheidfilm

fromaBlackrepresentative. Takentogetherwith the first twofilms,anda rangeof

scholarship about these films, the chapter is able to draw conclusions about anti-

apartheid representations in films, which contextualises the end of apartheid, the

transitionandhowthe‘RainbowNation’comesintobeing. ThefilmsofSectionOne

showwhatapartheidracerelationswerelikeduringapartheidandthisisusefulforthe

argumentsthatfollow.

SectionTwo is comprisedof two chapters, chapters threeand four. Chapter

Three focuses on representations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC)

and considers how representations of ‘acting out’ and ‘working through’ present

possibilities for thinking about how such filmsmight exhibit trauma. Chapter Three

engages four ‘TRC films’ all released in 2004: Forgiveness, RedDust, InMy Country,

ZuluLoveLetter.Thischapterpresentsanimportantshiftasittakesapost-apartheid

12

pointofdeparturetoshowthelegacyofapartheidusheredinandofficiallyfacilitated

bytheTRC.However,whiletwoofthefilmsseektoshowandre-createtheTRC,the

othertwoareinterestedinwhatisignoredorleftbehindandchallengestheplaceand

ramificationsoftheTRCinitsnarratives.ChapterFour’sfocusisonmiddle-agedpost-

apartheid white masculinities. I examine the presence of guilt, shame and loss of

power in the characters of Francois Van Heerden in Skoonheid and David Lurie in

Disgrace. Section Two thus engages the issues of dealing with the apartheid past

throughthetropesofforgiveness,guilt,shame,allensconcedintheTRC.

Section Three of the thesis looks at the present and the future, asking the

question:Isitpossibletoidentifyanemergentstructureoffeelingintheyouthinpost-

apartheidfilms?Ifso,thissectionasks,whataresomeofthecharacteristicsofsucha

newsensibilityseeninthefilms?ChapterFivecontinuestoexplorethematicconcerns

of post-apartheid masculine identities, except that this chapter turns from middle-

agedwhitementofocusonrepresentationsofviolentBlack‘boys’oryoungmen.This

chapter considers representations of the young men in Hijack Stories, Disgrace

andTsotsi.ChapterSixconsidersrepresentationsoftheyoungpost-apartheidthrough

aconsiderationofthesecharactersengagedinritualsofunionsandtraditions.Infilms

whichhavesofarreceivedlittlecriticalattention,thechapterconsidershowwomen

like Elelwani in Elelwani, Lucyin Disgrace and Dinky in Fanie Fourie’s Lobola are

representativesofanewSouthAfrica. Thechapteralsoapplies the samequestions

aroundanemergentsensibilitytothewomen,andattemptstofindoutwhetherthere

aredifferencesinpost-apartheidraceandgenderidentities.

As my research has progressed, in addition to the contradictions and

disappointmentsofthepromisesof‘Rainbowism’,Ihavebeenabletodiscerntracesof

13

a rather less idealistic,morepragmatic, emergent sensibility. It iswith these fragile

signsofchangethatthethesisconcludes.

14

CHAPTERONE

REVIEWOFLITERATURE

Introduction

This chapter surveys selected literature to provide a framework for thinking

about films that represent narratives that concern or are contextualised in post-

apartheid South Africa. Part One focuses on the primary scholarship about post-

apartheid cinema and the terms and discourse around post-apartheid South Africa.

Fourprimary textscontextualise theoverlappingperiodsandthemes that this thesis

addresses:IsabelBalseiroandNtongelaMasilela’sToChangeReels(2003),Jacqueline

Maingard’sSouthAfricanNationalCinema(2007),LuciaSaks’CinemainaDemocratic

SouthAfrica:theRaceforRepresentation(2010)andLithekoModisane’sSouthAfrica’s

RenegadeReels:theMakingandPublicLivesofBlack-CentredFilms(2012).9Maingard

andSaks’s texts analyse anational apartheid andpost-apartheid cinema in termsof

South Africa’s film policies and thematic concerns such as race, gender and

nationalism. Balseiro,Masilela andModisanepay attention to the lacunae in South

AfricancinemahistoriesbyinsertingBlackhistoriesintoSouthAfricanfilmscholarship,

atopicthathadnotreceivedthisspecifickindofnuancedapproachuntilBalseiroand

Masilela’seditedvolume.

9IsabelBalseiroandNtongelaMasilela(eds.),ToChangeReels:FilmandFilmCultureinSouthAfrica(Detroit:WayneStateUniversityPress,2003),JacquelineMaingard,SouthAfricanNationalCinema(London:Routledge,2007),LuciaSaks,CinemainaDemocraticSouthAfrica:TheRaceforRepresentation(Indiana:IndianaUniversityPress,2010),LithekoModisane,SouthAfrica’sRenegadeReels:theMakingandPublicLivesofBlack-CenteredFilms(NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan,2013).

15

Parts Two and Three consider different avenues of definition of and

engagement with post-apartheid films, some which fall outside of the disciplinary

boundaries of film scholarship. Although some of Part Two’s concern is with the

questionofwhether‘RainbowNation’cinemaisautomaticallyanationalcinema,the

intentionsofthethesisarenotconcentratedwithinsuchaframework.Theresearch

is not expressly interested in making a claim for a national cinema, but is rather

investedintryingtoexploreandidentifywhatthedominanttropesofpost-apartheid

cinemaare,locatetheiranimusandconsiderwhatisbirthedfromtherepresentations

of ‘Rainbow identities’ in post-apartheid films. In order to explore these issues, I

incorporate Raymond Williams’s theoretical and methodological approach, put

forwardintheconceptsof‘residual’,‘dominant’and‘emergent’structuresoffeeling.

TheliteraturedrawsonCulturalStudiesscholarshipmorebroadlytoascertainwhether

it is possible to identify an emergent structure of feeling in post-1994 films. I also

highlightsomeofthekeyelementsintheextensivediscussionofnationalcinemasand

otherassociateddefinitions,likesmallnations,transnationalandworldcinemas.Part

Threeaddressestraumaandmemoryincinemastudies.

16

PartOne

1.1 ‘South Africanese’, ‘South African-ness’ And The Challenge OfRepresentation:NewAndOldTerms

The films analysed in this thesis are mainly products of the post-1994 new

South Africa. “New-South-Africanese” is comprised of multiple heterogeneous

discourses,writesPumlaGqola.10DrawingonStuartHall’sscholarshipaboutidentity,

Gqolaunpacksthemeaningofthe‘RainbowNation’,atermthatbecamesynonymous

withpost-apartheidSouthAfricannationalidentity.AdamHabibdescribestheuseof

the metaphor in electioneering as a tool of the political elite, who use the term

“cloakedinpatriotism”toappealtothemasses.11Criticsarechallengedtoexposethe

underlying problematics with the term and its use value precisely because of this

patriotic appeal. The “in vogue” term of post-apartheid South Africa is “Rainbow

Nation”, writes Habib.12 Scholarship by Gqola and Habib and others unpacks the

manifestationofthemetaphor“RainbowNation”andbringtolightthemanyhistories

andnarrativesthatareexcludedbytheforgivenessprojectof1994andtheTruthand

ReconciliationCommission.Suchscholarshipdepartsfromanti-apartheidscholarships,

whichengagedwithwhatNjabuloNdebeletermed“resistanceart”andfreedomfrom

apartheid inorder toassesshowpost-apartheidart andculture is advancedbeyond

“RainbowNation”narratives.13

10Gqola,“DefiningPeople”,p.95.11AdamHabib,“SouthAfrica–TheRainbowNationandProspectsforConsolidatingDemocracy”,AfricanJournalofPoliticalScience2:2(1997),p.15.12Ibid.13NjabuloNdebele,SouthAfricanLiteratureandCulture:RediscoveryoftheOrdinary(ManchesterandNewYork:ManchesterUniversityPress,1994).

17

LikethefilmsCryFreedomandADryWhiteSeason,whichwerereleasedasthe

world anticipated the demise of apartheid, scholars like Njabulo Ndebele and Albie

SachswereengagedinquestionsaroundwhatitmeanstobeSouthAfricanandwhat

itwouldmean tobe SouthAfrican in apost-apartheid era. As though in answer to

scholarlyspeculations,ArchbishopDesmondTutuofferedtheterm“rainbowchildren

ofGod”,ananalogythatGqolasuggests“…foregroundedhisbeliefintheabilityofall

SouthAfricanstoco-exist inspiteofandbecauseofdifference”.14 It is intheterm’s

progression into what Gqola describes as “mainstream discourse of new South

Africanese”thatittookonproblematicconnotationsinthefollowingways:

a) thelabel‘rainbownation’grewtobesynonymouswith‘SouthAfrica’.b) theinvocationofthecollective‘rainbownation’stiflesrigorousdiscussions

ofpowerdifferentials;c) the inherent contradiction contained in the label superficially emphasises

differencebutpreventsitsdiscussion.15

Gqola’semphasisisonthedangerofthe‘Rainbow’–anemphasiswhichGrace

Musilaidentifiesas“thecracksintherainbow”16.Musila’s“LaughingattheRainbow’s

Cracks?”engagesquestionsofracerelationsbythinkingabouthowtheserelationsare

“…anobvious,albeitunder-acknowledgedtruism”17.Bypayingparticularattentionto

howtheseslippagesandcracksintherainbowareevidentinhumourinSouthAfrica,

Musila engages the comedic works of young stand-up comedians as well as other

publiccomedicfeaturesonnationaltelevision:oneadvertandanotheranunplanned

outburst in a live interview. One unplanned public outburst on national television

14Ibid.,p.98.15Ibid.,pp.98–99.16GraceA.Musila,“LaughingattheRainbow’sCracks?Blackness,WhitenessandtheAmbivalencesofSouthAfricanStand-UpComedy”inEbenezerObadareandWendyWillems(eds.),CivicAgencyinAfrica:ArtsofResistanceinthe21stCentury(SuffolkandNewYork:JamesCurrey,2014),p.147.17Ibid.

18

resulted in the ‘Rainbow’ public finding an ‘acceptable’ incident to laugh at the

employmentofbadgrammarbyablackmanandanAfrikanerman.

On 6 April 2011, South African television audiences watched an unscriptedflare-upbetweene.tv anchorChrisMaroleng,AfrikanerWeerstandsbeweging(AWB) Secretary General Andre Visagie, and the political analyst LebohangPhekoduringalivecurrentaffairsprogrammeonracerelationsinSouthAfrica,following the brutal murder of outspoken right-wing AWB leader EugeneTerreblanche…What stood out about the episode was not that Visagie andMarolengalmostcametoblowsonlivetelevision;northatVisagiewalkedoffthe set in anger as the cameras rolled and the nationwatched. The incidentwas unique in terms of the subsequent humour the South African publicinscribedintoMaroleng’sagitatedstatementtoVisagie:‘Don’ttouchmeonmystudio!’towhichVisagierepeatedlyshouted:‘Iwilltouchyouonyourstudio!’Thegrammaticalerrorinthepreposition‘on’hadthecountryinstitches….18

The above incident is asmuch part of South African-ese as is the Truth and

Reconciliation Commission. Like Musila, I am interested in what the rainbow

narrativesofpost-apartheid filmsexcludeand include. CarliCoetzeetheorisesthese

expressions of post-apartheid “accentedness” in her monograph Accented Futures,

which conceptualises the ways in which new South Africans are able to articulate

themselves (or not) and their new identities. Coetzee argues against translation

“…because accent (rather than translation) provides…a framework that allows for

keepingapartheid’s insistenceonskinandsurface”.19 Coetzee’smixedmethodology

reliesoninterviews,observation,textualanalysisofartworksandliteratureandaself-

reflexiveaccountofherown(white)“accentedness”.

In an early post-apartheid attempt at theorising new nation culture and art,

Carli Coetzee and Sarah Nuttall’s edited volume,Negotiating the Past, attempts to

answerquestionsabouthowthepastmightberememberedthroughdifferentcultural18GraceA.Musila,“LaughingattheRainbow’sCracks?Blackness,WhitenessandtheAmbivalencesofSouthAfricanStand-UpComedy”inEbenezerObadareandWendyWillems(eds.),CivicAgencyinAfrica:ArtsofResistanceinThe21stCentury(SuffolkandNewYork:JamesCurrey,2014),p.147.19CarliCoetzee,AccentedFutures:LanguageActivismandtheEndingofApartheid(Johannesburg:WitsUniversityPress,2013),p.xii.

19

iterations. Theyexpress their interest in trying tounderstand,“whichmemoriesare

privileged, andwhat are the loci for theproductionofmemory”.20 Similarly,Abebe

ZegeyeandRichardC.Harris’seditedvolumeis interestedinhowthepost-apartheid

mediarepresentandshapenewSouthAfrican identities.21 Inboth instances,motifs

about ‘distressed’ new identities and culture are employed in different ways and

sometimes recycled, to show the processes of ‘working through’ and sometimes,

‘actingout’,conceptswhichIelaborateoninPartThree.

Post-apartheid cultural identities are indelibly locked into a discourse about

naming,inparticularracialnaminganddefinitioninscribedinthenewdescriptors.As

Gqola has argued, the rainbow is suggestive of “the rain that is over and little or

nothing remains to be done”.22 Taken as part of ‘Rainbow Nation’ discourse,

“rainbowism serves to reinforce notions of a united nation”.23 Nevertheless,

possibilitiesforshiftshavetakenplaceandcontinueto,forexampleinrelationtothe

racialtermsb/Blackandc/Coloured.Suchdecisionsaroundnaminginpost-apartheid

South Africa are part of a decisive choice not to automatically employ apartheid

terminology, and an approach of this thesis except in cases where the films invite

othertermsordescriptions.

Beyond official South Africanese, I am interested in representations of new

cultural identitieswhichmaynotyetbenameable. Inthissense, IdrawfromStuart

Hall’s formulation of cultural identity, which argues that “[c]ultural identity…is a

20CarliCoetzeeandSarahNuttall,NegotiatingthePast:TheMakingofMemoryinSouthAfrica(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1998,),p.1.21AbebeZegeyeandRichardC.Harris(eds.),Media,IdentityandthePublicSphereinPost-ApartheidSouthAfrica(LeidenandBoston:KoninklijkeBrill,2003).22Gqola,“DefiningPeople”,p.100.23Ibid.

20

matter of ‘becoming’ as well as of ‘being’”24. Cultural identity “belongs”, as Hall

remindsus,“tothefutureasmuchastothepast”.25Itisinunderstandingthis,asHall

argues,thatwecantrulybegintounderstandthetraumaofthecolonialexperience,

when “[t]hey had the power tomake us see and experience ourselves as ‘Other”.26

Following Hall, I seek to scrutinise the case study films for the complex and

contradictoryresiduallyandnewlyracialisedcategoriesofidentitywhichareobscured

bythenotionof‘RainbowNation’.Intryingtoremainawareoftheresidualandnew

meaningsofracialterms,IclarifyhowIusecertaintermsthroughoutthethesis.Iuse

thetermBlack(captialisedB)withreferencetoanynon-whitecharactersidentifiedin

thefilms.InsomeinstancesImayinterspersethisBlackConsciousnessuseoftheterm

‘Black’todescribespecificblackethnic identitiesforreasonsthatarerelevanttothe

analysisandcontextofthefilm(s).Theuseoftheterm‘black’,withasmall‘b’refers

toAfricanblackpeople, the term ‘coloured’ refers tohistoricallymixed racepeople,

whoinSouthAfricarepresentanethnicgroupmostlyfoundintheWesternCape.

Theculturally specific term isnot tobeconfusedwith the term ‘mixed race’,

which isa relativelynew term inSouthAfrica,as interracialmarriagesandsexwere

illegal during apartheid. ‘Mixed race’ South Africans now come to represent a first

generationmixbetweentwodifferentraces.Indianpeople,mainlyfoundontheEast

coast of South Africa are of Indian descent and the term ‘white’ references white

SouthAfricanunlessstatedotherwise.Ialsousethetermapartheidwithalowercase

‘a’tosubverthistoriesofpowerlocatedintheterm.

24StuartHall,“CulturalIdentityandCinematicRepresentation”inHoustonA.Baker,Jr.,ManthiaDiawaraandRuthH.Lindeborg(eds.),BlackBritishCulturalStudies,p.212.25Ibid.26Ibid.,p.213.

21

The terms of the new South Africa, or “South Africanese”, form part of a

contentious multi-faceted moment that extends into the present. In this

nomenclature,representationsofpost-apartheidSouthAfricaremainindialoguewith

Sach’s1989question:WhatdoesitmeantobeSouthAfrican?Althoughthepossible

answerhasshiftedsince1994, itstillremainsmessyandcomplex. Filmsaboutpost-

apartheid SA grapplewith various representations that show thepower of this new

language and identity of South African-ness, even when unaware of their cultural

validityandpower. DrawingonSachs’postulationsaboutcultural freedomasSouth

Africa approached the end of apartheid, Ashraf Jamal offers this apt critique of the

‘RainbowNation’:

The abandonment of Sachs’ leading question in the name of positivism andinstrumentality is indicativenotofanon-goingquest for freedom,butof thederailmentof thisquest.That freedom inSouthAfricawas largelycededandbequeathed, rather than seized, all the more accentuates the diminishmentand critical occlusion whichmarked the process of, and quest for, freedom.Freedom, then, becomes a hand-out andnot a reckoning; a guaranteed ideaand not a fraught and avidly awaited actuality… If Sachs’ paper remainspertinent(…)itisbecauseitcontainsacriticalquestionthatnoinstrumentaloropportunistic vision, including Sachs’s own, has successfully been able tosuppress.ItisaquestionthatpertainsasmuchtotheimaginaryofnationhoodasitdoestothesilencedmajoritywhohuddleunderthenameSouthAfrica.27

ThisthesisseekstoexploretheanswerstoSachs’squestion;answersthatIarguecan

begleanedbyexaminingpost-apartheidcinema.28

27AshrafJamal,PredicamentsofCultureinSouthAfrica(Pretoria:PretoriaUniversityPress,2005),p.4–5.28AlbieSachs’paperreferencedinJamal’squotecanbefoundinthefollowing:AlbieSachs,“PreparingOurselvesforFreedom”inIngriddeKokandKarenPress(eds.),SpringisRebellious(CapeTown:BuchuBooks,1990).

22

1.2SouthAfricanCinema:Definitions,HistoriesandPossibilities

ItisnoteasytodefineSouthAfricancinema.Inthefirstinstance,therearea

numberofhistoricalconsiderationstotakeintoaccount–suchastheperiodicchanges

betweencolonialcinema,apartheidcinemaandpost-apartheidcinema.Secondly,with

eachoftheseeras,thecountryexperiencedanincreaseinracialprojectsenforcedby

thestate,which ledtoacountryprimarilydefinedbyracialandconsequently,social

inequality. A discussion about cinema in this context is not devoid of similar

considerations. This section explores the primary scholarship about post-apartheid

SouthAfricancinemawhiletakingintoaccountsomeapartheiderascholarship.

ThelmaGutsche’s1972TheHistoryandSocialSignificanceofMotionPicturesin

SouthAfrica1895–1940isaseminaltextaboutthesocialcontextandimportanceof

colonial cinema.29 Not until 1989, did another extensivemonograph appear again.

TheCinemaofApartheid:RaceandClassinSouthAfricanCinema,byKeyanTomaselli,

opens with an assertion that the book was published as apartheid South Africa

received unprecedented challenges fromwithin and outside up until the end of the

regime.30 ScholarshipbyMartinBothaandTomaselliengagescolonialandapartheid

cinema,takingasitsfocusthevariouswayswhichfilmsproducedduringtheapartheid

erafunctionedasacinemaforwhites,whilefocusing,too,onhowfilmsfunctionfor

Blacks functioned under apartheid.31 Both critical works also consider the role and

presence of apartheid in the film industry and briefly engage with anti-apartheid

cinema.

29ThelmaGutsche,TheHistoryandSocialSignificanceofMotionPicturesinSouthAfrica1895–1940(CapeTown:HowardTimmins,1972).30KeyanTomaselli,TheCinemaOfApartheid:RaceandClassinSouthAfricanFilm(London:Routledge,1989). 31MartinBotha(ed.),MarginalLivesandPainfulPasts:SouthAfricanCinemaafterApartheid(CapeTown:GenugtigPublishers,2007).,KeyanTomaselli,TheCinemaofApartheid.

23

Althoughsuchscholarshiphasbeeninstrumentalinunderstandingthecontext

anddevelopmentsoffilminSouthAfrica,thefocusofthisthesisispredominantlyon

post-apartheid films. Four key textsengageexplicitlywith the relationshipbetween

apartheid and post-apartheid cinema in South Africa. This section highlights their

engagements with primary themes of the transition between apartheid and post-

apartheid such as nation, identity, and race. This study benefits significantly from

thesefourbookswhichfocusspecificallyonSouthAfricancinema.

1.3‘RainbowNation’Cinema:ANationalCinema?

AccordingtoIsabelBalseiroandNtongelaMasilela,tounderstandfilmculture

inSouthAfrica is tounderstandtheemergenceofmodernity.32 Thechapters in this

edited volumebuild on this position, and look to drawout a Black presence in film

cultureinSouthAfrica.Ofthescholarshipthatexistedwhenthebookwaspublished,

nonehadengagedBlackabsencesinfilmsinasustainedfashionbeyondBlaxploitation

filmsofapartheidand the few filmswhich incorporateBlackactors incolonial films.

Thismonographsoughttorectifythis lacunaofrepresentation,anduntilModisane’s

specificengagementwith‘Blackcentred’filmcultureinapartheiderafilms,nofurther

studieshavecentralisedthetopicofBlackfilmcultureinSouthAfrica.33

Masilela and Balseiro’s make two distinct claims about their edited volume.

These critics state, firstly, that theyare scepticalof anational cinemaapproachand

secondlythattheyaimtolocatefilmsaboutSouthAfricainasocialcontextandnotto

excludetheculturalandpoliticalforcesthatledtotheirproduction.34Thebook’stitle,

To Change Reels: Film and Film Culture in South Africa, references film culture, not

32BalseiroandMasilela,“Introduction”inBalseiroandMasilela(eds.),ToChangeReels,pp.1–14.33Modisane,SouthAfrica’sRenegadeReels.34BalseiroandMasilela,“Introduction”,inBalseiroandMasilela(eds.),ToChangeReels,pp.1-14.

24

cinemaorfilms,anindicationthatthevolumeisinterestednotonlyinthefilmsbutin

the cultural context and impact beyond the films. Their emphasis is significantly

differenttopreviousscholarship inthatthesecriticsplaceBlackfilmsalongsideanti-

colonialandanti-apartheidstruggles. Inthisvolume,then,thestartofSouthAfrican

cinema is not onlyHarold Shaw’sDeVoortrekkers (Harold Shaw, 1916) but also, Sol

Plaatje’s mobile cinema and the New African Movement.35 To Change Reels also

engages with questions around sexuality and argues that these can no longer be

ignored in the face of racial politics.36 Although the editors emphasise a shift from

racetogenderinpost-apartheidSouthAfrica,thetopicofraceremainsparamountin

thefilmsandscholarshipaboutthemthatarepublishedinyearsafter.

Despitetheeditors’suspicionofanationalcinemaapproach,thisvolumedoes

notonlytracewhatMasilelaandBalseirodescribeas“thecinemaofoccupation”butit

alsoasksvitalquestionsaboutthenewSouthAfricaonfilm.37Bytracingtheunwritten

historiesofSouthAfricancinema, chapters likeMasilela’sandBhekizizwePeterson’s

formulationon theNewAfricanmovementand filmculture in colonial SouthAfrica,

makenewworkaccessible. MasilelaandBalseiroarguethatwhitenationalismin its

colonial historical form, perceived of as “Afrikaner and British alike…has indeed

debilitated filmic practice in the country from its inception by firmly grounding its

ideological perspective in ethnocentrism”.38 They ask the following significant

questions:

Should a ‘true SouthAfrican cinema’beonewhere themeansofproductionareinthehandsofthemajorityofSouthAfricans–or,attheveryleast,inthehandsofanintellectualblackelitethatclaimstorepresenttheinterestsofthatmajoritymorepersuasively thanhashithertobeen thecase? If theanswer is

35Ibid.,p.3.36Ibid.,p.8.37Ibid.,p.6.38Ibid.

25

yes,would it followthat ‘black films’would thenbemade?Andwould ‘blackfilms’, by virtueofbeingmadebyblacks, fit thebill of beingpartof a SouthAfricannationalcinema?39

MasilelaandBalseiroasksuchquestionsinordertoconsiderthewaysinwhichSouth

African films might be inserted into discourses about the African Renaissance and

Africanmodernity. This is a radical theoreticalposition,which is theonlyoneof its

kind in the context of scholarship about South African cinema from colonialism

through to post-apartheid because it provides evidence and extensive engagement

with Black cinema over an extended period of South African history. Masilela and

Balseiro’s intervention is thus toengagewith representationsofBlack SouthAfrican

cinema,andtherebytoextendandelaboratestudiesonSouthAfricanfilm,afieldof

studythathaspredominatelybeenwrittenaboutasa‘whitesonly’project,oratthe

veryleast,systematisedbywhitestructures.

Litheko Modisane’s South Africa’s Renegade Reels is similarly interested in

tracing the Black modernist experience through film culture. Modisane draws on

Balseiro and Masilela when he writes that this book partly fashions itself and “its

exploration on South African films – with an eye on black participation and the

problematic of black identity”.40 Modisane argues that “Black-centred” films have

been able to, and continue to, stimulate public critical engagements onBlackness.41

With a historical focus, Modisane’s focus is on early and late apartheid films and

informsthisstudy,asitisoneoftwobooksthatdevelopSouthAfricancinemahistory

39Ibid.40Modisane,SouthAfrica’sRenegadeReels,p.8.41Ibid.,p.2.

26

byincludingBlackSouthAfricansandtheirpubliccriticalexperiencesofandwithfilms

between1959and1998.42

Maingard and Saks’ works favour a national cinema approach to explore

themes present in colonial, apartheid and post-apartheid films. Maingard’sSouth

AfricanNationalCinemaexploreshow thenation represented itself at various times

across different epochs of South African history. Her project is interested in “…the

more porous terrain for identity, both within theoretical frameworks and screen

representations…”.43 Maingard,aswithotherprominentSAscholars,doesnotusea

strict film studies framework for her work but rather an interdisciplinary approach

which,likeBalseiroandMasilela,favoursGutsche’sawarenessofthesocialcontextof

film making and cinema in apartheid. In Maingard’s case specifically, her position

regarding the porous and shifting terrain of identity in relation to films potentially

pointstoRaymondWilliams’conceptofanemergentstructureoffeelingalthoughshe

does not engage this fully.44 Maingard writes, for instance, that the new post-

apartheideracouldbeconsideredas“…somethingpotentially‘emergent’…asawayof

describingtheexperienceofoccupyingpluralsubjectivepositionings”.45

Maingard’snationalcinemaformulationusefullytakesintoaccountthemany

complexities of the South African context both during apartheid and through to

democracy.However,thisthesisarguesthatatraditionalnationalcinemasframework

is not the most suitable approach for post-apartheid cinema because such a

framework allows some room for variation but fundamentally seeks to identify and

definespecificaspectsofasinglenationality (howeverethnicallydiverse) inorderto

42Ibid.,p.10.43Maingard,SANationalCinema,p.3.44Williams,MarxismandLiterature.45Maingard,SANationalCinema,p.3.

27

beable todistinguish it fromanother country trying todo the same. SouthAfrican

National Cinemashows developments in representations in films from South Africa,

andprovidesanalysisforthethemesofnationalunityorthemesofdissidencepresent

in apartheid era films. Maingard’s argument for a national cinema is interested in

showing that these alternative and changing threads are constitutive of a post-

apartheidSouthAfricannationalcinema.

Ontheonehand,Maingard’semphasisisonauniquecinemathatmightnotbe

national at all. On theother hand, her argument is strongly in favour of a national

cinemaapproach. InachapterinMasilelaandBalseiro’sToChangeReels,whichwas

published four years prior toMaingard’smonograph, she argued against a national

cinema approach for South African cinema. In Maingard’s monograph, four years

later, she explains her methodological shift. In Balseiro and Masilela’s volume,

Maingard asserts that, “there is no national cinema in South Africa”.46 In her

monograph, fromwhich thisquote is taken, sheexplains thata cinemamust reflect

whatthatnationisandbecauseofwhereSouthAfricawasin1997,itcouldnotthen

be perceived as a national cinema. Nevertheless, despite the change in position

between2003and2007,bothworks include the identifier ‘national cinema’ in their

titles.TheeditorsofToChangeReels,BalseiroandMasilela,askintheintroductionto

thatvolume,whyMaingardwouldtakesuchanapproachwhenshedoesnotbelieveit

is a national cinema. ForMaingard, films about and fromSouthAfrica are indelibly

linked to thenational frameworkof thatcountry, inotherwords, themoredistance

the country gains fromapartheid, themore it is democratic and thus national in its

democratic unity and its cultural output. Maingard’s argument for a national post-

46Ibid.,p.2.

28

apartheidcinema isaboutmediateddemocracy throughthe images,ademocracyof

thefilms(andeveryaspectofthem)themselves.

Consideringthefilmlandscapefromasocio-politicalpositionisalsoimportant

to Lucia Saks’ The Race for Representation, in which Saks distances herself from a

nationalcinemaformulation.Saksusesapuninthetitle,TheRaceforRepresentation,

toreferencetwokindsofrace:onewhichreferencesapartheid’sracialcategoriesand

theotherwhichreferenceswinninga race.47 Saksoffersa fewprovisos forwhyher

studyisnotaboutanationalcinema:

TheSouthAfricannation isacelebrationofdiversityafteracenturyofbrutaland racist control…national cinema stories tend to focus on nations at themoment when a univocal culture is being formulated and/ or foisted oncitizens,whentheFrenchnotionofcitoyen/citoyenne (thosewhoparticipateinthepoliticallifeofthecommunityandenjoyitspositivefreedoms)isattheforeground.AnynationalcinemastoryofSouthAfricainthe1990sandbeyondmustbeaboutanationdevelopinganationalspirit…48

DemocracydoesnotautomaticallyproduceanationalcinemaforSaks.Instead

ofaredefinitionofcinemaoranattemptattryingtolocateSAcinemadifferently,Saks

ratherchoosestonamewhatsheengageswithas,“aracetoestablishnewtermsof

representation thatwill lead theway toharmony,however temporal, transient, and

idealized”. Saks prefers to steer away from the term national cinema and instead

describes what she analyses as “a national story”.49 However differently Saks and

Maingardhavechosentonamethecinematheydiscuss,andthusthemethodologies

they employ, theseworks are nevertheless in dialoguewith one another through a

similarnationalcinemasapproachthatprivilegesthinkingaboutthecinemaand ‘the

nation’ in its various incarnations. Both Maingard and Saks also provide historical

47Saks,CinemaInADemocraticSA.48Ibid.,p.6.49Ibid.,p.2.

29

explorationsofthe intricaciesofa ‘new’cinematorepresentthe ‘new’SouthAfrica.

Bothworksalsofavouramethodologyfocusingonrepresentation inthefilms,while

theysimultaneouslyconsiderofficialchangesfromapartheidtopost-apartheidinthe

creationofanationalcinema. Inthisway,bothSaksandMaingardalsopresentthe

official decisions of the post-apartheid government and how they impacted on the

constructionofa‘Rainbownationcinema’.Saksremindsustobeawareofthefraught

terrainofcinemainpost-apartheid,thedoublearticulationof“cinemaasindustryand

cinemaasart”thatcanbeseenintwopost-apartheidstate-ledinstitutionswhichaim

toachievedifferentgoals:TheNationalFilmandVideoFoundationandtheIndustrial

DevelopmentCorporation’smediaandmotionpicturedivision.50

Saks’s work however departs from Maingard’s in that she consistently

buttresses‘RainbowNation’themeswiththepoliciesthatmakethedevelopmentsin

the film industry possible. Saks privileges a political economy approach and

emphasisesadistinctawarenessofhowrepresentationalissuesworkalongsidepolicy

matters. The Race for Representation is about pointing out the issues and

developments in post-apartheid South African films as well as a more sociological

analysisofhowactualtransformationwasexperiencedafter1994.Forexample,one

ofthechaptersisdedicatedtocommunityandHIV/AIDSandwhatinterventionswere

made during this time, focusing on films that were educative and useful to

communities.51 Where earlier texts about post-apartheid cinema focus on writing

forgottenBlack cinemahistories (BalseiroandMasilela andModisane)ormakingan

argument for a particular kind of national cinema (Maingard), Saks also emphasises

twodistinctbranchesthatconstitutenationalcinemas:audiencesandpoliciesforthe

50Ibid.,p.7.51Ibid.,p.133.

30

filmindustry.Herengagementwithpost-1994policiesbytheNationalFilmandVideo

Foundation (NFVF) and the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), both, arms of

governmentthathaveplayedaveryparticularroleintryingtopropelBlackstoriesinto

thecinematicspherewithoutgivingmuchthoughttowhethersuchfilmscanberead

aspost-apartheidnationalistpropagandaorusefuleducationalmaterial.

In addition to these key works, other noteworthy scholarship about South

African cinema includeswork byMartin Botha, LindiweDovey, Keyan Tomaselli and

AudreyMcCluskey.

AudreyMcCluskey’s The Devil You DanceWith is often excluded from post-

apartheid cinema scholarship because the book is comprised of interviews with a

range of players, from directors to actors, scholars and producers.52 McCluskey is

interested insimilar issuestoMaingardandSakswhenshesetsoutthequestionsof

thebook.Sheisinterestedintheresponsibilitythatfilmmakershavetorepresentthe

issuesofhistoryandnationintheSouthAfricancontext,or,forexample, inwhether

there is a national cinema or not. The exploration of these questions takes place

through the formatof interviewswithplayers in the industryand the reader is thus

invited to consider different opinions. However, McCluskey offers no conclusion

throughwhichshepullstogethertherangeofanswers,andsoitisquitechallengingto

fullycomprehendtheeditor’sfinalassertionsonthetopic.

Two scholars who offer long-standing and consistent engagement with the

topic of South African (apartheid and post-apartheid) cinema areMartin Botha and

Keyan Tomaselli. With the thesis’s focus on post-apartheid, I focus on Botha and

Tomaselli’slaterworksinthissection.MartinaBotha’s2012monographaboutSouth52AudreyMcCluskey(ed.),TheDevilYouDanceWith:FilmCultureintheNewSouthAfrica(UrbanaandChicago:UniversityOfIllinoisPress,2009).

31

Africancinemacovers the full spectrumof films fromthecountry,however,Botha’s

lackofanalysisoffilmsorthemesmakesitachallengingtexttoidentifyasaprimary

source of scholarship relevant to the thesis.53 Nevertheless, Botha’s contribution is

useful in that it provides an extensive list of South African films. The author’s

emphasishowever isnotanalyticalandoscillatesbetweenasurveyof filmtitlesand

directors that he has identified as important. It is unclear onwhat basis they have

been chosen and most of the book, barring the final two chapters, references

apartheid era films. Keyan Tomaselli’s Encountering Modernity (2006) is a post-

apartheid reflection onAfrican and SouthAfrican cinema as part of African cinema.

Tomaselliwritesthattheaimofhis1980smonographwaslessinvestedinthetextsof

apartheid cinema and focussed instead on policies from an interventionist political

economyposition.54 This latermonograph,however, explores SouthAfrican cinema

andAfricancinemainacontextinwhichSouthAfricaisnolongerseparatedfromthe

continent as it was during apartheid. This study is invested in an historical

interpretation of twentieth century South African films and explores these films

throughfilmtheoryfromtheWest,ThirdCinemaandpost-colonialAfricancinema.55

Inadifferentapplicationofpost-apartheidcinema,LindiweDoveyalsoemploys

many South African films in her monograph, African Film And Literature: Adapting

ViolenceToTheScreen.56 Dovey’sdualnationalandregionalcinemaorientationalso

emphasisesissuesofauthorshipandspectatorshipintheadaptationsshedrawson.57

53KeyanTomaselli,EncounteringModernity:TwentiethCenturySouthAfricanCinemas(Amsterdam:RozenbergPublishers,2006).,MartinaBotha,SouthAfricanCinema1896–2010(Bristol,Chicago:Intellect,2012).54Tomaselli,EncounteringModernity,p.1.55Ibid.56LindiweDovey,AfricanFilmandLiterature:AdaptingViolencetotheScreen(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2009).57Ibid.,p.xi.

32

Thisistheonlyscholarshipaboutpost-apartheidSouthAfricancinemathatpaysclose

attentiontoanationalcinemaapproachwhileatthesametimeengaginginadecisive

argumentforaconsiderationofSouthAfricancinema’splaceintheregionofAfrica.In

thisway,DoveytouchesonthequestionofhowSouthAfricancinemamightalsobe

consideredpost-colonial.Dovey’semphasishoweverisnotonnamingthecinemabut

onthewayinwhichliterarytextswhichhaveviolentthemesintheirnarrativeshave

beenadaptedto films. Sheanalyses the films fromthisperspectivesoas toengage

representations of violence seen in a range of films across the African continent,

making specific arguments around the representations and reconstructions of the

narrativesinfilms.Inhercontinentalapproach,Doveyalsopaysspecificattentionto

theroleofthePanAfricanfilmfestival,thePanAfricanFilmandTelevisionFestivalof

Ougadougou(FESPACO),onthecontinentasawayoflocatingSouthAfricancinema’s

presence in Africa after the end of apartheid. Although their arguments vary,

Tomaselli, Maingard and Dovey comment on South Africa’s presence and inclusion

undertheumbrellaofAfricancinemaaftertheendofapartheid.

The literature about post-apartheid cinema has shown that there are a few

primaryways to think about this cinema todate. Although SouthAfrican cinema is

certainlyanevolvingcinema,Ihavefoundthattherearerepresentationalelementsin

the films themselves that have not been considered before. The work that I have

discussedinthissectionlaysthefoundationforfurtherconsiderationofwhatmightbe

present in the films. Scholarship aboutpost-apartheid cinemahasmadearguments

foranationalcinemaimbuedwithidentitypolitics(Maingard)andagrowingcinemain

whichthenarrativesremaindependentonchangingpolicies(Saks).Atthesametime,

scholarship by Masilela, Balseiro and Modisane approaches the historical and

33

contemporary film terrain from a cultural and Black centred approach. Although a

historicalandrepresentationalapproachhasreceivedmuchattentionbysomeofthe

above-mentionedscholars,theemphasishaslargelybeenontracingwhathaslargely

beenacceptedasaversionofnationalcinema. This thesishowever, is interested in

unpackingwhetheranationalcinemaapproachisreallythemostfittingoneforpost-

apartheid films. Thus the thesis departs slightly from the texts discussed in this

section, as it sets out to investigate what post-apartheid films explore in their

narratives about the apartheid past, the end of apartheid and the simultaneous

establishmentof a newdemocratic system, andalongside this, newnation as it has

beenshowninrecentexamplesofpost-apartheidnarratives.

In order to explore these issues and possibilities, this literature review now

surveysotherssourcesoutsideofSouthAfrican filmstudies inorder tograpplewith

otherwaysofidentifying,namingandengagingwithpost-apartheidfilms.

1.4SouthAfrica:Post-Colonialand/orPost-Apartheid?

South Africa was at the height of apartheid when most African countries

becameindependentintheearly1960s.AsLizelleBischoffputsit,

Becauseof SouthAfrica’sdisjointedhistory–outof synchwith thehistoricalpatterns of colonisation, freedom struggles and eventual independence thatshaped the modern era for most other African countries – South Africancinemaduring apartheid is generally excluded fromhistorical and theoreticaldiscussionsofAfricanfilmasawhole.58

Bischoff’s observation is confirmed in the explicit exclusion of South Africa inmost

post-colonialAfricancinematexts. ManthiaDiawara, forexample,tracesthehistory

58LizelleBischoff,“Sub-SaharanAfricanCinemaintheContextofFespaco:Close-upsofFrancophoneWestAfricaandAnglophoneSouthAfrica”,ForumforModernLanguageStudies45:4(2009),p.448.

34

of African colonial cinema through to post-colonial Anglophone and Francophone

cinemas,showingchangesaswellasresonancesofthecoloniesthatoncecontrolled

them.59Otherconsiderationsofpost-colonialAfricancinemacomefromNwachukuwu

Frank Ukadike’s Black African Cinema, Imruh Bakari and Mbye Cham’s African

Experiences of Cinema, Ken Harrow’s African Cinema: Post-colonial and Feminist

Readings and June Givanni’s edited volume Symbolic Narratives/ African Cinema

Audiences,TheoryandtheMovingImage.60Thesevolumesarenotrepresentativeof

an extensive list of works about African cinema but they are key in post-colonial

Africancinemascholarship.Mostoftheselectedworksdonotincludeanalysisabout

South Africa’s film industry because of apartheid. It was only after the end of

apartheid that South Africa was invited to participate in FESPACO. Because of the

manyexclusionsof SouthAfrica inpost-colonialAfrican cinema scholarship, it isnot

feasibletomakeanargumentforthecountrytobeconsideredaspost-colonial.

DavidMurphyandPatrickWilliams,however,choosetoconsiderpost-colonial

cinemadifferentlyandtheirfinalchapter isdevotedtoSouthAfricandirectorDarrell

Roodt. In Postcolonial African Cinema: Ten Directors, the authors consider Darrell

Roodt(Sarafina (1992),Cry,theBelovedCountry (1995)andYesterday(2004)aspart

ofasurveyofpost-colonialAfricandirectors. Roodt’s inclusionmakes itpossible for

MurphyandWilliamstoconsiderSouthAfrica’sseparatedevelopmentfromtherestof

thecontinentbyasking,“…whatisthestatusofawhite,liberaldirectorsuchasRoodt

59ManthiaDiawara,AfricanCinema:PoliticsandCulture(BloomingtonandIndianapolis:IndianaUniversityPress,1992).60NwachukuwuFrankUkadike,BlackAfricanCinema(LosAngeles:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1994).,ImruhBakariandMbyeCham,AfricanExperiencesofCinema(London:BFI,1996).,KenHarrow,AfricanCinema:Post-colonialandFeministReadings(AfricaWorldPress,1999).,andJuneGivanni(ed.),SymbolicNarratives/AfricanCinemaAudiences,TheoryandtheMovingImage(London,BFI,2000).

35

in our conception of African cinema?”61 Murphy and Williams’ questions are

interesting because so many directors of South African films are white males,

sometimesSouthAfricanandothertimesnot.

Aware of the importance of the potential relationship between post-colonial

and post-apartheid questions, Rosemary Jolly and Derek Attridgewere some of the

first cultural scholars of the 1990s to ask, “What then, is the nature of post

colonialism’s contribution to a post apartheid future?”62Premesh Lalu offers a

polemical suggestion for thinking about post-apartheid as post-colonial when he

critiqueswhatheconsidersaneo-liberalcollapseoftheoneontotheother:

Lurkingwithin this claim toapostcolonialhistorywhicharguablyemergedattheheightofapartheidistheundertowofthe‘nativequestion’.IttugsattheveryconstellationoftheSouthAfricanhistoryand,perhaps,explainswhythepostapartheidpresenthasbeen rendered in such away as to suggest that itsignals a rupture with the past. Such a presentation of the postapartheidnecessarilyrunstheriskofobscuringthefoundationalpresuppositionsofSouthAfricanhistory andallowsSouthAfricanhistorians to forgeaheadas if thoseknowledgeprojects,suchassocialhistory,thataroseinoppositiontoapartheidcansimplybetransposedtogivemeaningtothepostapartheid.Otherthantodefine itself as oppositional, the nostalgic renderings of agency and a re-reading of the community as spatially local, social history cannot, it seems,accountforitsownhistoricity.63

TotakeLalu’spointofdepartureinthecontextofpost-colonialAfricancinema

meanstodecidedlynotemploysucha‘collapsed’perspectiveinthisthesisatall:the

assumption that because post-apartheid connotes a break from apartheid and

colonialism it is necessary post-colonial. Lalu critiques this too easy effect within

scholarshipaboutpost-apartheid.ThisdoesnotmeanthatIamnotawareofitbutit

61DavidMurphyandPatrickWilliams,PostcolonialAfricanCinema:TenDirectors(ManchesterandNewYork:ManchesterUniversityPress,2007),p.5.62RosemaryJollyandDerekAttridge,“Introduction”inJollyandAttridge(eds.),WritingSouthAfrica:Literature,Apartheid,andDemocracy1970–1995(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1998),pp.1–13.63PremeshLalu,“WhenwasSouthAfricanhistoryeverpostcolonial?”,KronosSouthernAfricanHistories34(November2008),p.268.

36

does mean that the scholarship of Francophone and Anglophone African film

scholarship is excluded from this studybeyondpointingout that that history is at a

disjuncture with the development of South African cinema. The African cinema

discoursecoversalargevolumeofworkwhichisnotdirectlypertinenttotheaimsof

thisthesis.

Although I disagree with a post-colonial framework for post-apartheid films,

there isneverthelessadistinctstruggleforrepresentationofthepastofthecountry

andidentitiesofthepresent.Inlightofthecomplexitiesofrepresentation,Inowturn

toscholarshipthatfacilitatesadiscussionaroundwhatanadequateframeworkmight

be.

37

PartTwo

DefiningCinemas,Nationsand‘StructuresofFeeling’

Scholarsofnationalcinemastudiesorrelatedtopicshavelongbeenengagedin

thetoandfroofwhatmeaningiscreatedwhenusingtheterm‘national’inrelationto

cinema.64 Such scholarship has been concernedwithwhata cinema imparts to the

nationitseekstorepresentandwhatinterpretationsothernationsaremeanttotake

from these ‘national’ filmic constructions. Later, twenty-first century debates

incorporatenuancestodiscussionsaboutnationalcinemas,andrecognisetheshifting

terrainandvalidityoftheconceptbutdonotquiteprovidetheconceptualrepertoire

for discussion of the specific South African situation in theway that this thesis will

explore.65

Andrew Higson identifies four characteristics by which to identify a national

cinema.66 Although he references Britain, the modes of assessment are relevant

nonetheless, especially as they continue to appear in national cinema scholarship

outsideofthatcontext. Thefirstcharacteristic isrelatedtotheeconomyofcinema:

64Someofthemostinfluentialtextsaboutnationalcinemadebatesinthelatetwentiethcenturyinclude:AndrewHigson,“TheConceptofNationalCinema”,Screen30:4(1989),pp.36–47.,PhilipRosen,“NationandAnti-Nation:ConceptsofNationalCinemainthe‘New’MediaEra”,Diaspora5:3(1996),pp.375–399.,ThomasElsaessar,“FilmHistoryandVisualPleasure”WeimarCinema”inP.MellencampandP.Rosen(eds.),CinemaHistories,CinemaPractices(Frederick,MD:UniversityPublicationsofAmerica,1984),pp.47–85.,EdBuscombe,TheIdeaofNationalCinema”,AustralianJournalofScreenTheory9/10(1981),pp.141–153.Outsidethefieldofcinemastudies,theworkofBenedictAnderson,ImaginedCommunities:ReflectionsontheOriginsandSpreadofNationalism(London:Verso,1983)andHomiBhabha(ed.),NationandNarration(London:Routledge,1990)hasbeenextremelysignificantinthetheorisationofnationalidentities.ThomasElsaessar,asignificantcontributortothesedebates,summarisessomeofthekeymovesinnationalcinemadebatesin“Impersonations:NationalCinema,HistoricalImaginationandNewCinemaEurope”,MiseAuPointOnline5(2013),http://map.revues.org/1480.[Accessed30November2015].65MetteHjortandScottMackenzie(eds.),CinemaandNation(London:Routledge,2000).,ValentinaVitaliandPaulWillemen(eds.),TheorisingNationalCinema(London:PalgraveMacmillan/BFI,2008).,AlanWilliams(ed.),FilmandNation(Rutgers:TheStatueUniversityPress,2002).66AndrewHigson,“TheConceptofNationalCinema”,inScreen30:4(1989),pp.36–47.

38

“establishingaconceptualcorrespondencebetweenthe terms ‘nationalcinema’and

‘the domestic film industry’, and therefore being concernedwith such questions as:

wherearethesefilmsmade,andbywhom?...”.67Aseconddefinitiveaspectisonethat

mightprefaceatext-basedapproachtothefilmsthemselves,askingthingslike,“what

are these films about? Do they share a common style or worldview?What sort of

projections of the national character do they offer?...”.68 Points three and four are

closely relatedas theyare concernedwithaudienceand reception:who iswatching

andwhataretheychoosingtowatch. Thefinalpoint is two-fold:thefirstrelatesto

what Higson calls a reduction of national cinema to “the terms of a quality art

cinema…”.69 This “high –cultural” cinema presents a particular construction of the

nation instead of paying attention to what popular audiences may want to see.70

Based on this, a national cinema and related modalities of exhibiting nation(s), is

always, as variousother scholars have articulated, in conflict, as it is simultaneously

inwardandoutwardfocussed.

Themeaningof the term ‘national’ has shifted since theearly 1980swhena

significant round of critique was launched against preconceived assumptions about

whatconstituted‘thenational’indifferentdisciplines.AsThomasElsaessarputsitina

reflection and re-assertion about the contemporary value of national cinemas,

Anderson’suseofconstructivismasamethod,cameinanswertothequestionsthat

four important essays in the field had posed, albeit in different ways, almost

exclusively in relation to British cinema and Hollywood productions.71 These

discussionsformedthefoundationofdebatesaboutnationalcinemaandthepressing67AndrewHigson,“TheConceptofNationalCinema”inScreen30:41(1989),p.36.68Ibid.69Ibid.70Ibid.,p.3771ThomasElsaessar,“Impersonations:NationalCinema,HistoricalImaginationandNewCinemaEurope”inMiseAuPoint(2013).

39

presenceandinfiltrationoftelevisioninpublicdiscourse.Thesediscoursesstartedto

formulate ideas around how nations might be constructed and represented by its

popularmedia:televisionand/orcinema.72

Higson’s later reflection on national cinemas in “The Limiting Imagination of

National Cinema” does not completely refute his early work but self reflexively

repositions the question, asking about the usefulness of the concept of national

cinema.Hedescribesthetermas“…clearlyahelpfultaxonomicdivide,aconventional

meansofreferenceinthecomplexdebatesaboutcinema,buttheprocessoflabelling

is always to some degree tautologous, fetishising the national rather than merely

describing it.”73 Philip Rosen, one of the key thinkers in that path breaking 1980s

discourse,in1996writesthat,“Thecinematicinstitutionhasneverbeenacompletely

stableentity”.74ThomasElsaessarasksthequestion:nationalorinternationalcinema?

bywayofnamingachapterinhis1989monograph.75Theseinquiriesintoalternative

ways of imagining national (western) cinemas are pointed to here to show how

‘nationalcinema’hasbeenacomplextermfromtheoutset.

Threerecentcomprehensiveeditedvolumesarethepointofdepartureofnew

century scholarship about national cinemas: Mette Hjort and Scott Mackenzie’s

Cinema and Nation, Alan Williams’ Film and Nation and Valentina Vittali and Paul

72Idonotexplorethisinterrelationshipindetailbuttherelevanceoftelevision’spresenceinmainstreamsocietywasavitalpartofthediscussionsaboutnationalcinemas.Notablescholarshipinthisfieldincludes:CharlotteBrunsdonandDavidMorley,TheNationwideTelevisionStudies(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,2005).,PhilipRosen“NationandAnti-Nation:ConceptsofNationalCinemainthe‘New’MediaEra”inDiaspora:AJournalOfTransnationalStudies5:3Winter1996,pp.375–402.,StuartHall(ed.)Representation:CulturalRepresentationsandSignifyingPractices(London,ThousandOaks,NewDelhi:SagePublications,1997).,ThomasElsaessar,NewGermanCinema:AHistory(London:BFI,1989).73AndrewHigson,“TheLimitingImaginationofNationalCinema”inMetteHjortandScottMackenzie(eds.)CinemaandNation(London:Routledge,2000),p.64.74PhilipRosen,“NationandAnti-Nation:ConceptsofNationalCinemainthe‘New’MediaEra”inDiaspora5:3(1996),p.376.75ThomasElsaessar,NewGermanCinema:AHistory(Basingstoke:Macmillan/BFI,1989).

40

Willemen’sTheorisingNationalCinema.Eachofthesevolumesalsoincludeshistorical

works,someofwhichhavebeenreferencedabove.76

Mette Hjort and Scott Mackenzie preface a need to rethink the concept of

nationalcinemassothatitincorporatesmorefluidaspectsinapost-modernandpost-

structuralist era. Such an examination considers how the previous parameters of

scholarship within the humanities have shifted dramatically from Eurocentric-only

approachestoincorporategeographiesandcontextsbeyondhistoricallyWestern-only

dilemmas.Recentscholarshipaboutnationsalsoarguesfortermstobemoreinclusive

andmalleable.SomesuchtermsareidentifiedbyHjortandMcKenziewhentheywrite

that,“…deconstructionandpsychoanalyticsemiologymustcompetewithanewsetof

terms…’hybridity’, ‘multiculturalism’, ‘transnationalism’, ‘nationalism’,

‘internationalism’,‘globalisation’,‘cosmopolitanism’,‘exile’,‘postcolonial’,tomention

some of themost salient terms”.77 However, even inmaking room for new terms,

scholarsofnationalcinemasdonotallagreeonwhichofthesearerelevantanduseful,

nordotheyallagreethatthetermnationalcinemaiseffectiveinasfarasitreflectsa

distinctsetofdefinitions.

HjortandMcKenzieassert thatwhendiscussingnational cinema,wearealso

engaging in “notions of conflict”.78 What they observe as national cinema also

employing “notions of conflict”, is engagedwith differently in Vitali andWillemen’s

Theorising National Cinema.79 This text pays close attention to surveying the

historicity of national cinema (the first section is specifically focussed on the older

76MetteHjortandScottMackenzie(eds.)CinemaandNation(London:Routledge,2000).,ValentinaVitaliandPaulWillemen(eds.)TheorisingNationalCinema(London:PalgraveMacmillan/BFI,2008).,AlanWilliams(ed.),FilmandNation(Rutgers:TheStatueUniversityPress,2002).77HjortandMackenzie(eds.)CinemaandNation,p.1.78Ibid.,p.4.79VitaliandWillemen(eds.)TheorisingNationalCinema.

41

works referenced in theopeningof this section)before individual scholars’ chapters

extend intomorecontemporarydebates. Similar to theconflictarticulatedbyHjort

andMcKenzie,VitalandWillemenpointoutthatfilmsarethemselvesperceivedofas

“discursiveterrain”.80

LikeVitalandWillemen,AlanWilliams’editedvolumewarnsagainstatooeasy

lapseintoanAndersonianapproachtowardsnationalcinemastudies.Williamsasserts

that “Nationhood… is not merely established, it must be maintained; its definition,

therefore will inevitably shift over time... Cinema would be an essential part of a

processofdefiningnations”.81Thethreeeditedvolumesallsurveyhistoricalnational

cinemadebatesandoffercontemporarymethodologicalperspectivesonhowtothink

aboutvariationsinnationalcinemasandthusprovideausefuloverviewofdebateson

thetopic.

Ontheissueoftheconceptualexpansionsinnationalcinemadebates,scholars

have also put forward certain suggestions for how to think about variety within

national frameworks. Susan Hayward, for example, uses the term “pluricultural”

instead of multicultural, calling the latter a fallacy employed to fulfil the aims of

globalisation.82 According to Hayward, national cinemas, as thought of in a

multiculturalframework,attempttodistinguishonenationasdifferentfromanother

by looking at differenceswithin the national, in otherwords, a nation looking in on

itself.Shecriticallyidentifiesthat“itisinthatsetofdifferencesthatweseektoforge

ournationalidentityasone:callingitmulticultural(i.e.differentbutasone)whereasit

80Ibid.,p.8.81AlanWilliams(ed.),FilmandNation,p.3.82SusanHayward,“Re-evaluating/revaluingtheconceptandthevalueofnationalcinema”inHjortandMackenzie(eds.),CinemaandNation,p.94.

42

is patently pluricultural (i.e. segregated cultures)…”.83 Tom O’Regan, writing about

Australian national cinema, expresses a similar critique that the topic of a national

cinemaisinfactnotstraightforwardandcoherentbutrather,dispersedandhybrid.84

Other scholars have approached the question of how to define cinema still

differently. A few examples briefly surveyed here are: ‘accented cinema’, the small

nation’scinemaapproach,worldcinema,artcinemaandtransnationalcinema.

HamidNaficy’s‘accentedcinema’takesintoaccountfilmsbydiasporafilmmakersand

emphasisestheinclusionofaglobalSouthpointofviewandanaestheticthatclaims

both diaspora and ‘home’ status.85 Not only does such an argument necessarily

employ Hayward’s pluricultural assertion but it also manifests it in the method of

analysis of the films. The Cinema of Small Nations approach by Mette Hjort and

Duncan Petrie argues for a significant analytical distancing of how cinemas are

considered in relation toHollywoodor largernational cinemas. This approachdoes

not dismiss the traditional construction of a national cinema but rather argues that

smallercinemasalsoexistandmatter.86HjortandPetrieprovideafour-pointoutline

forhowcertaincinemasmightbedefinedas‘small’.Thesepointsencompassthesize

of the nation’s population, the geographic size of the nation, the Gross National

Product and thepresenceof colonial rule or historical subjugation.87 Despite South

Africa’slargegeographicsize,populationandlargestGDPonthecontinent(Hjortand

Petrie identifysmallAfricancountriessuchasTunisiaandBurkinaFaso),someofthe

characteristicsofsmallnationcinemasapplytoSouthAfricaaswell.

83Ibid.84TomO’Regan,AustralianNationalCinema(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,1996),p.285HamidNaficy,AnAccentedCinema:ExilicandDiasporicFilmmaking(PrincetonandOxford:PrincetonUniversityPress,2001).86MetteHjortandDuncanPetrie(eds.),TheCinemaofSmallNations(Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress,2007).87Ibid.,p.6.

43

Considering films outside of the national approach is also important to

StephanieDennisonandSongHweeLiminRemappingWorldCinema:Identity,Culture

andPoliticsinFilm.88AlthoughAfricancinemaisnotincludedinthisvolumeatall,my

interest lies in thealternativedefinitionsoutsideofnationalcinema,asking, todraw

fromDudleyAndrews’“AnAtlasOfWorldCinema”,notwherepost-apartheidSouth

African filmsmight beplacedon amap showing global cinematic power, but rather

whatmakesitdistinctonthemap.89Alsoconcernedwithwaysofremappingcinemas,

Elizabeth Ezra and Terry Rowden define transnational cinema in relation to the

scholarship about national cinema identified earlier in this review. Their

considerationsemphasiseamoveawayfromnationalcinemaandanawarenessoffilm

asaglobalindustrythatisnotgeographicallyfixed.

Rosalind Galt and Karl Schoonover’s Global Art Cinema: New Theories and

Historiesengageswiththepotentialways inwhich“artcinemacanbedefinedby its

impurity; a difficulty of categorization that is as productive to film culture as it is

frustratingtotaxonomy”.90Theeditorsnotethatartcinema“…pervertsthestandard

categories used to divide up institutions, locations, histories, or spectators…”.91 I

consider that films about South Africa as discussed in this thesis, to be part of an

impurecategoryofcinemathatissimultaneouslydeeplyrootedinandexcludedfrom

the standard categories pointed out above: institutions, locations, histories, or

spectators.Inspiteofthis,theSouthAfricanfilmsdiscussedcannotallbetermedart

cinemaeither,asnotalloftheselectionarenecessarilyandconvincinglyinterestedin

88StephanieDennisonandSongHweeLim(eds.),RemappingWorldCinemas(WallflowerPress:London,2006).89DudleyAndrews,“AnAtlasofWorldCinema”inDennisonandLim(eds.),RemappingWorldCinemas,p.19.90RosalindGaltandKarlSchoonover(eds.),GlobalArtCinema:NewTheoriesandHistories(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2010),p.6.91Ibid.,p.6-7.

44

perverting the standard categories related to the workings of cinema. Galt and

Schoonover’svolumeprovidesausefulandchallengingsourceforthetaxonomiesof

‘other’cinemas.

The categories briefly acknowledged in this section point to how itmight be

able to conceptualiseSouthAfrican filmswithin cinema frameworksoutsideofearly

nationalcinemaapproaches.Whilecompellingintheirtheoreticalandmethodological

approaches,these‘other’conceptualisationsofcinemasarenotquitetheemphasisof

thisthesis.Whilethisprojectnecessarilyengagesconcernswithregardtonamingand

framingfilmsfromandaboutSouthAfrica, thestress isplacedontheways inwhich

the different kinds of films seen in this cinemapresent and represent tropes of the

post-apartheid‘Rainbow’.

Post-apartheid South African films are distinct for similar reasons to what

AckbarAbbas identifiesaboutHongKongcinema, its“absentpresences”,articulated

asafragmentednationthathasnotyetresolvedthe issueofnation.92(emphasismy

own) In this thesis’s engagementwith representations of thenewnational in post-

apartheidfilms,myinterestliesnotindefinitionbutratherinanalysingwhatthefilms

themselvesshowas“absentpresences”because,aswithHongKongcinema,theissue

ofnationinSouthAfricahasalsonotyetbeenresolved.

As reviewed in Part One of the literature review, South African cinema has

generally beendiscussed froma perspective that considers the nationor themesof

the nation in film. At this time, because of various reasons, among them, multi-

nationalcinemadiscussionsandother formulationsofcinema(s), itmaybeuseful to

moveawayfromsuchdiscussions. SouthAfricanfilmswrittenaboutfromanational92AckbarAbbas,“HongKong”inMetteHjortandDuncanPetrie(eds.),TheCinemaofSmallNations(Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress,2007),p.116.

45

cinemaperspectiveemphasiseexpression(s)oforbythenation.Thisthesishowever

drawsonarelatedbutdifferentapproach,throughwhichIconsiderwhataselection

ofSouthAfrican-setfilmscantellusaboutthetransformationsinSouthAfricaandthe

negotiationsofbeingSouthAfrican. Theconcernsofthisthesisarethusadjacentto

nationalcinemaconcernsasmyinterestliesinsomethingbeyond,yetstillwithin,the

representationsofnation.

Toundertakethisinvestigation,theliteraturereviewnowturnstoscholarship

that is lessconcernedwithdefiningthekindofcinemathatpost-apartheidmightbe

characterised as. Instead, it considers literature that deals with conceptions and

articulations of the subjectivities of nation and identity through British Cultural

Studies.Suchanapproachhasnotreceivedmuchcriticalattentionfromwithinpost-

apartheidculturalandfilmstudieseventhoughsomeofthescholarshipraisedinPart

Onecommentsonthedifferentwaysinwhichtheconcept‘post-apartheid’hasbeen

renderedacrossculturalworks.

On theonehand, itmightappear thataCulturalStudiesapproach that is so

firmlyrootedinanothernationandthecontextofanothertime,the1970s–1990sin

Britain,mightbeofnousetoacontextlikeSouthAfrica.Ihavefoundthisnottobe

thecase,asCulturalStudiesisatheoreticalplatformthatisableto,andthisisrelevant

to the post-apartheid context too, “situate itself…in a transitional space within

contemporarycultural–politicaldebate– inthemidstofconflicts for instance,over

often pivotal political terms”.93 The terms that the editors of the Cultural Remix

volumerefertoareofparticularpopularandpoliticalpertinencetothelate1980sin

Britain. However, it isnot somuch the terms that I am interested in (orhowthese

93EricaCarter,JamesDonaldandJudithSquires(eds.),CulturalRemix:TheoriesofPoliticsandthePopular(London:LawrenceAndWishart,1995),p.x.

46

1980s terms find their articulation) but rather the appreciation of hybridity and

differenceinCulturalStudiesscholarship.94

Conceptualised in this way, the thesis is able to draw on unexpected

scholarshiptoexplorewhatpost-apartheidfilmsrepresentandshowusaboutthepre-

occupationsof the identitiesof thenewnation. DrawingonWilliamstoexplorethe

possibilityofanewstructureoffeelingpresentinpost-apartheidcinemaanddrawing

on conceptions of ‘working through’ and ‘working beyond’ trauma seen in post-

apartheidfilms(PartThreeofthe literaturereview), invitesapotentiallynewwayof

thinkingaboutthe‘TheRainbowNation’infilm.

This section pays specific attention to detailing what Williams’ ‘structure of

feeling’entailsandwhyitisrelevanttothepost-apartheidcontext.Williamsusesthe

concept‘structureoffeeling’tounderstandtheveryintricateprocessofshiftswithina

society from the perception of social consciousness and changes to that social

consciousness.Somesuchchangesmightstartoutasunambiguousinthereflectionof

dominantstructureoffeelingwhileotherchangesmightbesignificantlylessarticulate.

This thesis is concerned with finding out whether post-apartheid films show us

anything about the less articulate changes, especially against the powerful and all-

consumingbackgroundoftheofficialpost-1994‘RainbowNation’narrative.

94ThefollowingscholarshipisrelevanttoaCulturalStudiesframeworkthatinformsthisthesis:PaulGilroy,AintNoBlackintheUnionJack(London,Melbourne,Sydney,Auckland,Johannesburg:Hutchinson,1992(Reprintof1987)),pp.11.,ClydeTaylor,“EurocentricsVs.NewThoughtatEdinburgh”inFramework(34:1987)pp.140–148.;HomiK.Bhabha,“TheCommitmenttoTheory”inNewFormations(5:1988)pp.5–23.;JimPinesandPaulWillemenQuestionsofThirdCinema(London:BFI,1989).Muchlaterscholarshipbutwhichalso,atleastbywayofintroduction,beginsattheEdinburghconferenceisJuneGivanni’seditedvolumeSymbolicNarratives/AfricanCinema:Audiences,TheoryandtheMovingImage(London:BFI,2000).,HoustonA.Baker,Jr.,ManthiaDiawaraandRuthH.Lindeborg(eds.)BlackBritishCulturalStudies:AReader(ChicagoandLondon:ChicagoUniversityPress,1996),StuartHall,“CulturalIdentityandCinematicRepresentation”inHoustonA.Baker,Jr.,ManthiaDiawaraandRuthH.Lindeborg(eds.)BlackBritishCulturalStudies:AReader(ChicagoandLondon:ChicagoUniversityPress,1996).,StuartHall,“Race,Articulation,andSocietiesStructuredinDominance”inHoustonA.Baker,Jr.,ManthiaDiawaraandRuthH.Lindeborg(eds.)BlackBritishCulturalStudies:AReader(ChicagoandLondon:ChicagoUniversityPress,1996).

47

Theopeningquotationofthisthesis,byWilliams,quitesimplyindicatesthatno

generationspeaksthesamelanguageasthegenerationbefore.Thisisrelatedtothe

unarticulatedshiftsdiscussedaboveandwhatWilliamsexpressesas trying todefine

“…a particular quality of social experience and relationship” that diverges from one

generation toanother.95 There isa relationbetween thisqualityandwhatWilliams

definesas“otherspecifyinghistoricalmarksofchanging institutions,formations,and

beliefs between andwithin classes”, that poses a specific set of historical questions

andwhichsimultaneouslyposesamethodologicalchallenge.96

This challenge is related to where the historical markings are evidenced or

assumed to be evidenced because, as Williams points out, “what really changes is

somethingquitegeneral,overawiderange…”.97Inthisregard,Williamsexplainsthe

changes by way of two elements of definition: first, “changes of presence…” and

second, that “… although they are emergent or pre-emergent, they do not have to

awaitdefinition,classification,orrationalizationbeforetheyexertpalpablepressures

andseteffectivelimitsonexperienceandonaction”.98Thesechangesaredefinedas

‘structuresoffeeling’,whichWilliamsdescribesas:

…specificallyaffectiveelementsofconsciousnessandrelationships:notfeelingagainst thought, but thought as felt and feeling as thought: practicalconsciousnessofapresentkind,inalivingandinterrelatingcontinuity.Wearethendefiningintheseelementsasa‘structure’:asaset,withspecificinternalrelations,atonceinterlockingandintension.Yetwearealsodefiningasocialexperiencewhichisstillinprocess…whichinanalysis(thoughrarelyotherwise)hasitsemergent,connecting,anddominantcharacteristics, indeeditsspecifichierarchies.Theseareoftenmorerecognizableatalaterstage,whentheyhavebeen (as often happens) formalized, classified, and in many cases built into

95Williams,MarxismandLiterature,p.131.96Ibid.97Ibid.98Ibid.,p.132.

48

institutionsandformations.Bythattimethecaseisdifferent;anewstructureoffeelingwillusuallyalreadyhavebeguntoform…99

Inthecontextofthisthesis,then,Iconsiderhowitmightbepossibletoidentify

a new structure of feeling presented in post-apartheid films. I am interested in the

interrelationship between what might be present as emergent and residual in the

specificidentitiesofpost-apartheidSouthAfrican-ness.Inthisintricatespacebetween

officialdiscourseofnewnationandpotentialemergencesofnewidentities,thethesis

is also concerned with trying to articulate some of what, if present, this emergent

structureoffeelingischaracterisedas.

Initsmethodologicalapproach,Williamssetsoutthat“a‘structureoffeeling’is

a cultural hypothesis” that seeks tounderstandelements and their connections in a

generation or period100. Related to South African apartheid to post-apartheid film

analysis,thethesissetsouttodeterminehowtheelementsofthepastmightstillbe

present in the future,while at the same time, trying to find and identify a possibly

emergentstructureoffeeling.Iusetheterms‘emergent’,‘residual’and‘dominant’as

definedbyWilliams to identify thepresenceofeachof these in their individual and

overlappinggenerationalforms.

Drawing on Fanonian scholarship, Hall asks these questions which are so

pertinent also to the context of post-apartheid cinematic representation and the

investigationsaroundanewstructureoffeeling:

Isitonlyamatterofunearthingthatwhichthecolonialexperienceburiedandoverlaid,bringing to light thehiddencontinuities it suppressed?Or isaquite

99Ibid.100Ibid.

49

differentpracticeentailed–nottherediscoverybuttheproductionofidentity?Notanidentitygroundedinthearchaeologybutintheretellingofthepast?101

Partoftheattemptsoutlinedabovemeansthatitisnecessarytounpackhow

trauma comes to life in post-apartheid films. Part Two of the thesis pays specific

attention to representations of this era in South Africa through a thorough

consideration of the official and unofficial rhetoric of the Truth and Reconciliation

Commission. Thefinalsectionof the literaturereviewthusturnstoscholarshipthat

dealswithtraumaandmemoryanditspresenceinpost-apartheidcinema.

101StuartHall,“CulturalIdentityandCinematicRepresentation”inBaker,Jr.,DiawaraandLindeborg(eds.),BlackBritish,pp.211-212.

50

PartThree

3.1MemoryandTraumainSouthAfricanFilms

Scholarship about trauma on screen in the South African film context is

sparse.102 There isminimal dialoguebetween trauma scholarship fromSouthAfrica

andother contextsof traumaandmemory. The lackofextensiveengagementwith

this topic in relation to film interested me because so many post-apartheid films

exhibitelementsofthetraumaofapartheid.LuciaSaksalsonotesthelackofcritical

engagementwiththeTRCwhenshewritesthat,“cinemahasnot(asyet)participated

inanypubliccriticismoftheevent”.103LiteraturethatdealswiththeTRConfilmalso

engagesmost consistently with documentary films about the TRC than fiction films

whichdepictit.

This section briefly surveys the debates in memory and trauma studies in

relationtotheSouthAfricancontext. Iconsiderthedebates inmemoryandtrauma

scholarship more broadly to think about what is relevant to the context of post-

apartheid cinema. For example, there is no shortage of material about truth

102NotablescholarshipthatengagestheSATRCinfilmsincludes:JoylonP.MitchellPromotingPeace,IncitingViolence:TheRoleofReligionandtheMedia(Oxon:Routledge,2012).,SarahL.Lincoln“ThisIsMyHistory”inE.Anne.KaplanandBanWang(eds.),TraumaandCinema:CrossCulturalExplorations(HongKongandAberdeen:HongKongUniversityPress,2004),pp.25-44.,MartinMhandoandKeyanG.Tomaselli,FilmandTrauma:AfricaSpeakstoItselfthroughTruthandReconciliationFilms,BlackCamera1:1(2009),pp.30–50.,AngeloFerrillo,“ASpaceof(Im)Possibility:IanGabriel’sForgivenessinPumlaGobodo-MadikizelaandChrisVanDerMerwe(eds.),Memory,NarrativeandForgiveness(Newcastle:CambridgeScholarsPublishing,2009).,AnnieE.Coombes,“TheGenderofMemoryinPost-ApartheidSouthAfrica”inSusannahRadstoneandBillSchwarz(eds.),Memory:Histories,Theories,Debates(NewYork:FordhamUniversityPress,2010),pp.442–458.,JacquelineMaingard,SANationalCinema,pp.157–178.,LizelleBisschoffandStefanieVanDePeer(eds.),ArtandTraumainAfrica:RepresentationsofReconciliationinMusic,VisualArts,LiteratureandFilm(NewYork,I.B.Tauris&CoLtd.:2013).,CaraMoyer-Duncan,“Truth,ReconciliationandCinema:ReflectionsonSouthAfrica’sRecentPastinUbuntu’sWoundsandHomecoming”inBisschoffandVanDePeer(eds.),ArtandTrauma,pp.272–293.,LuciaSaks,CinemainaDemocraticSouthAfrica).,BhekizizwePeterson,“Dignity,MemoryandtheFutureUnderSiege:ReconciliationandNation-BuildinginPost-ApartheidSouthAfrica”,inSamOkothOpondoandMichaelJ.Shapiro(eds.),TheNewViolentCartography:Geo-AnalysisaftertheAestheticTurn(London:Routledge,2012),pp.214–233.,JacquelineMaingard,“Love,Loss,MemoryandTruth”inBhekizizwePetersonandRamadanSuleman,ZuluLoveLetter:AScreenplay

(Johannesburg:WitsUniversityPress,2009),pp.5–17.,LindiweDoveyAfricanFilmandLiterature.103Saks,CinemainaDemocraticSouthAfrica,p.90.

51

commissions around the world as well as the one that took place in South Africa

between 1995 and 2002.104 Because of divergent theoretical and methodological

approaches, someof theseworksarenotdirectly relevant to the thesis. It is in the

context of the Truth and Reconciliation film ‘(TRC) films’ of 2004 that the most

extensive engagement with trauma occurs in the literature and this is discussed in

ChapterThree.105

IntheirpsychoanalyticengagementwiththeeventandexperiencesoftheTRC,

Pumla Gobodo-Madikizela and Chris Van DerMerwe’s two edited volumes serve as

insightful compilations from which to proceed.106 These volumes have different

interestsintheprocessesandimpactsoftheTRCbutintersectinthatthechaptersare

concernedwithnarratives, journeysandperspectivesaroundhealingandforgiveness

104HereIrefertosomeworksthatcriticallyengagewiththeintricateprocessesanddifferentglobaltribunalsoftruthaswellastheSATRC.ThislistiscomprisedofscholarshipabouttheTRCprocessandrepresentationsofit:AlettaJ.Norval,“Memory,Identityandthe(Im)possibilityOfReconciliation:TheWorkoftheTRCinSouthAfrica”,Constellations5:2(1998),pp.250-265.,MichaelCunningham,“SayingSorry:thePoliticsofApology”,ThePoliticalQuarterlyPublishingCo.(1999),pp.285-293.,RosemaryNagy,“TheAmbiguitiesofReconciliationandResponsibilityinSouthAfrica”,PoliticalStudies52(2004),pp.709-727.,RosemaryJolly,“RehearsalsofLiberation:ContemporaryPostcolonialDiscourseandtheNewSouthAfrica”,PMLA110:1(1995),pp.17–29.,TristanAnneBorer,“ReconcilingSouthAfrica/SouthAfricans?CautionaryNotesfromtheTRC”,AfricanStudiesQuarterly8:1(2004),pp.19–38.,CatherineM.Cole,“Performance,TransitionalJustice,andtheLaw:SouthAfrica’sTruthandReconciliationCommission”,TheatreJournal59:2(2007),pp.167-187.,AnneliesVerdoolaege,“MediaRepresentationsoftheSouthAfricanTruthandReconciliationCommissionandtheirCommitmenttoReconciliation”,JournalOfAfricanCulturalStudies17:2(2005),pp.181–199.,SusanVanzantenGallagher,“‘IWantToSay/ForgiveMe’:SouthAfricanDiscourseandForgiveness”,PMLA117:2(2002),pp.303–306.,PumlaGqola,“DefiningPeople,pp.94–106.,MarthaMinow,“InPracticeBetweenVengeanceandForgiveness:SouthAfrica’sTruthandReconciliationCommission”,NegotiationJournal(1998),pp.319–355.,IfiAmadiumeandAbdullahAn-Nam(eds.),ThePoliticsOfMemory:Truth,HealingandSocialJustice,(LondonandNewYork:ZedBooks,2000).,DeborahPoselandGraemeSimpson(eds.),CommissioningthePast:UnderstandingSouthAfrica’sTruthandReconciliationCommission(Johannesburg:WitwatersrandUniversityPress,2002).,CatherineM.Cole,PerformingSouthAfrica’sTruthCommission:StagesofTransition(BloomingtonandIndianapolis:IndianaUniversityPress,2010).,AntjeKrog,CountryofMySkull(Johannesburg:RandomHouse,1998).,AlexBoraine,ACountryUnmasked(OxfordandNewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2000).,DesmondTutu,NoFutureWithoutForgiveness(NewYork:RandomHouse,2000).,CharmaineMcEachern,NarrativesofNationMedia,MemoryAndRepresentationintheMakingoftheNewSouthAfrica:AVolumeinHorizonsinPost-ColonialStudies(NewYork:NovaSciencePublishers,Inc.,2002).105ThefilmsdiscussedinChapterThreeare:ZuluLoveLetter(RamadanSuleman,2004),InMyCountry(JohnBoorman,2004),Forgiveness(IanGabriel,2004)andRedDust(TomHooper,2004).106PumlaGobodo-MadikizelaandChrisVanDerMerwe(eds.),Memory,NarrativeandForgiveness,PumlaGobodo-MadikizelaandChrisVanDerMerweNarratingOurHealing:PerspectivesonWorkingthroughTrauma(Newcastle:CambridgeScholarsPublishing,2009).

52

after apartheid. In a single chapter in the later of the two volumes, Angelo Ferrillo

discussesoneofthe‘TRCfilms’,IanGabriel’sForgiveness(2004).107SarahLincoln,like

Gobodo-MadikizelaandVanDerMerwe,discussescollectivenationaltraumaandthe

spacethattheTRCprovidedforworkingthroughthepastwhenshewritesthatnew

South African-ness “…is being forged precisely out of this shared experience of a

traumatic past”.108 Her argument is suggestive of the fact that trauma is part of

‘RainbowNation’commonheritage.

Annie E. Coombes draws on Susan Sontag in her analysis of Long Night’s

Journey Into Day, noting that, “…we cannot help but feel horror at the deeds we

witness with the mothers, but our shame is provoked by witnessing their extreme

distressfromthecomfortofourseatsbeyondthetimeandspaceofthehearing”.109

As Long Night’s Journey Into Day is a documentary film, it is not dealt with in the

thesis.Nevertheless,Coombes’approachofidentifyingthediscomfortofwatchingthe

painandtraumaofothers isofgreat interesttoPartTwoofthethesisthatgrapples

withsimilarconcernsinrelationtothetraumasoftheTRC.

Mostrecently,theeditedvolumeArtandTraumainAfrica (2012)bringsnew

andfreshengagementtothetopicoftraumainAfricanart.110Thevolumeemploysa

pan-African approach, which takes trauma scholarship as an important point of

departure by begining with Cathy Caruth’s primary argument that trauma studies

concerns “representing the unrepresentable”.111 JacquelineMaingard’s foreword to

this volume outlines the concerns as a collection on “conflict, trauma and

107AngeloFerrillo,“ASpaceOf(Im)Possibility:IanGabriel’sForgivenessinGobodo-MadikizelaandVanDerMerwe(eds.),Memory,NarrativeandForgiveness,pp.237–257.108SarahL.Lincoln“ThisisMyHistory”,inKaplanandWang(eds.),TraumaandCinema,p.27.109AnnieE.Coombes,“TheGenderofMemory”inRadstoneandSchwarz(eds.),Memory,p.446.110LizelleBisschoffandStefanieVanDePeer,“RepresentingtheUnrepresentable”inBisschoffandVanDePeer(eds.),ArtandTrauma,pp.3–24.111Ibid.,p.10.

53

reconciliation,andexamplesofvariousart formsrepresentingthese inapan-African

context”.112

Although the volume’s intention is tomakeanargument for conflict, trauma

and reconciliation present in African art, a thorough survey of the literature on the

topicoftraumaandmemoryinscreenstudiesissomewhatlacking.Alsomissingisa

critical (re)definition ofwhich tools can be employed in order to identify trauma in

Africanartandcinemaand,howtraumahasbeenconceptualisedoutsideofthestrict

terrainof‘theunrepresentable’.Methodologically,thebookreliesontextualanalysis

ofrepresentationsoftraumainAfrica,arguingforthefirsttimeinasustainedvolume

aboutAfricanartthattheterm‘trauma’ isapplicable inthisculturalcontext. It is in

thisformulationthatthevolumeisvaluabletothisthesisbecauseitalertsmetothe

fact that intersections between African art (including films) and trauma are being

grappled with. Although the editors consider this volume part corrective and part

theoretical insertion into (Western) trauma studies scholarship, which they outline

briefly in the introduction, the efficacy of the book is lost in the too easy lapse of

theoretical issues around the crux of trauma studies and alternative trauma

possibilitiesthathavebeenexploredbefore.

Cara Moyer-Duncan’s chapter in this volume engages with two ‘TRC films’:

Ubuntu’sWounds(SechabaMorejele,2001)andHomecoming(NormanMaake,2005).

Moyer-Duncansignals,inthischapter,ashiftinscholarshipabout‘TRCfilms’todate.

Although she defines the films as part of the post-apartheid TRC discourse,Moyer-

Duncan also employs them in an argument related to trauma. Moyer-Duncan’s

argument is that the films analysed in the chapter “…contest dominant cinematic

112JacquelineMaingard,“Foreword”inBisschoffandVanDePeer(eds.),ArtandTrauma,p.xviii.

54

discourse on the TRC by aligning themselves with the black community that was

politicallymarginalisedand sociallyoppressedduringapartheid”.113 This scholarship

proceedsfrompreviousworkthatisinvestedintheimmediacyoftheTRCasanevent

andbeginstocriticallyengageTRCfilms.

Otherscholarshave,tovaryingdegrees,dealtwithelementsoftraumathrough

the TRC in post-apartheid films. Bhekizizwe Peterson’s “Dignity, Memory and The

Future Under Siege” puts forward the argument that there is a close relationship

betweenritual,traumaandreconciliationinthepost-apartheidcontext.114Relevantto

Peterson’sarticleisMaingard’s2008chapterintheadditiontothescreenplayforZulu

Love Letter, in which she makes an argument for post-traumatic flashbacks being

presentinthefilm.115TheseperspectivesaretakenintoaccountinChapterThreeas

PetersonandMaingardboth identifytraumaandarticulate itaspartofthefabricof

post-apartheid in the films.116 Focusing on Ian Gabriel’s Forgiveness (2004) and

SechabaMorejele’sUbuntu’sWounds (2001), LindiweDoveyasserts that these films

critiqueviolence,whilealsobeingdemonstrativeof thecontradictionsof theTRC.117

AlthoughDovey isnotexplicitly interested inmakingarguments lookingattraumain

Africanadaptations,hermonographiscertainly investedinmakingcertainassertions

aboutTRCfilmsandhowtheydealwiththeviolenceofthepast.

Basedonthescholarshipdiscussedinthissection,thethesisacknowledgesthe

attemptsthathavebeenmadetoconceptualisememoryandtraumainSouthAfrican

113CaraMoyer-Duncan,“Truth,ReconciliationandCinema:ReflectionsonSouthAfrica’sRecentPastinUbuntu’sWoundsandHomecoming”inBisschoffandVanDePeer(eds.),ArtandTrauma,p.278.114BhekizizwePeterson,“Dignity,MemoryandtheFutureunderSiege”inOpondoandShapiro(eds.),TheNewViolentCartography:Geo-AnalysisaftertheAestheticTurn(London:Routledge,2012),pp.214–233.115JacquelineMaingard,“Love,Loss,MemoryandTruth”inPetersonandSuleman,ZuluLoveLetter,pp.5–17.116Ibid.117Dovey,AfricanFilmandLiterature,pp.53–56.

55

films, even in cases where the term ‘trauma’ has not been used. However, these

attemptshavebeensparseandoftenofdirectrelevanceonlytofilmsthatsignpostthe

narrativeoftrauma.Inotherwords,notmuchhasbeenconsideredinrelationtofilms

thatdonotexpressadirectcorrelationtothetraumaofviolenceofanapartheidpast.

Hence,questionsremain,suchas:cantraumabeidentifiedinfilmsinwhichtheTRCis

notan intrinsicpartofthenarrative? Dofilmsshowtraumaas isolatedtoaspecific

era or event in South Africa? The films of Section Two of the thesis are primary

examplesthroughwhichtoapplythesequestions.However,Iseektoexplorewhether

itmightbepossible that trauma isanunavoidable implication inanemergentSouth

Africancontext.

Thefollowingsectionconsiderssomeoftheprimarydebatesaroundmemory

andtraumastudiesandconcludeswithabriefdiscussionofthreetraumaandscreen

approachesthatinformthisthesis.

3.2MemoryandTraumaStudies:PerspectivesandTheoreticalPoints

E. Anne Kaplan and BanWang put forward the following about trauma and

traditionalapproachestoit:

The traumaofmodernityhasgone frompush toshove. It simplyboggles themindorrisksbanalizationtorundownthelistofallthemajortraumasofthemodern world – all of which came in the wake of the three fundamentaltraumas associated with the loss of the absolute in the experience ofmodernity.Whilethetwentiethcenturywitnessedaclimaxofallthetraumaticblows within the frame that Freud spoke of, the new millennium has runheadlongintounthinkablecatastrophesandforebodesmoretocome.118

118E.AnnKaplanandBanWang,“Introduction:fromTraumaticParalysistotheForceFieldofModernity”inKaplanandWang(eds.),TraumaandCinema:CrossCulturalExplorations(HongKongandAberdeen:HongKongUniversityPress,2004),p.3.

56

An international conference titled “Frontiers Of Memory”, held in 1999,

generated a series of publications edited by organisers Susannah Radstone and

KatherineHodgkin,includingaspecial issueofScreen,titled“TraumaDossier,Special

Debate: Traumaand Screen StudiesOpeningTheDebate”.119 In the introduction to

the dossier, Radstone asks some of the following questions about the connections

betweenScreenStudiesandtraumascholarship:

…Is there a relation between screen media and trauma? If so, where shouldScreenStudiesscholarshipbeginitsanalysisofthisrelation?Shouldsuchanalysistakeitsimpetusfromtexts,andifso,shouldthefocusfallprimarilyonnarration,oronmise-en-scèneoroneditingorsoon?Ordoes traumamake itself felt in(canone saymark?) thesemedia in the relationbetween their texts and theirspectators–andifso,thenhow?120

Thisquestionis important inthisthesisandamajorconsiderationofsomeof

theseminalworksaboutscreentraumastudies.121 AlthoughSouthAfrica’spastwas

traumatic, I keep in mind what Radstone and Hodgkin identify as at the heart of

trauma – the unrepresentable – that which cannot ever be represented again. The

specificinterrelationbetweenthisunrepresentabilityandtheHolocaustisalsoavital

pointtoremainawareofintheanalysisoftraumainthefilmsdiscussedinthethesis.

About the central issues of trauma studies, the relationship between the holocaust

andtrauma,theeditorsoffer:

The specific horrors of the holocaust have generated a sense that it is aproblemforrepresentationinawaythatnoothereventcanbe;thatitisset

119SusannahRadstone,“IntroductionTraumaDossier,SpecialDebate:TraumaandScreenStudies:OpeningtheDebate”,Screen42:2(2001),pp.188–193.120Ibid.,p.188.121SusannahRadstoneandKatherineHodgkin(eds.),MemoryCultures:Memory,SubjectivityandRecognition(NewBrunswickandLondon:TransactionPublishers,2005).,KatharineHodgkinandSusannahRadstone,Memory,History,Nation:ContestedPasts(NewBrunswickandLondon:TransactionPublishers,2006).,SusannahRadstone,MemoryandMethodology(OxfordandNewYork:Berg,2000).,SusannahRadstoneandBillSchwarz,“Introduction:MappingMemory”inSusannahRadstoneandBillSchwarz(eds.),Memory:Histories,Theories,Debates(NewYork:FordhamUniversityPress,2010).,CathyCaruth(ed.),Trauma:ExplorationsinMemory(BaltimoreandLondon:TheJohnHopkinsUniversityPress,1995).

57

apart,requiringitsownlanguage,itsowntheory;that,ultimately,discussionof holocaust memory should be somehow excused the norms of criticalinterchange…Totheextentthattraumatheoryisamemorydiscourse,itaimsprecisely to summonup thepresentnessofmemory, to insistonunfinishedbusiness:guiltandreparationremainthedominantthemes.122

Radstone undertakes a later comprehensive survey of trauma literature in

relationtoculturalworks.123 Avaluablequestionposed is,“Towhatextent, (…),are

the insights offered by trauma theory generalizable to the whole field of

representation?”124Thisquestionisrelevantalsotothethesiswhichleansheavilyon

the field of representation in relation to films from the South African context. Jill

Bennettarticulatestraumaticmemoryas“resolutelyanissueofthepresent”.125 Her

thesismakes the cleardistinctionand relationbetween “affectiveexperience (sense

memory) or representation (common memory)…”.126 Writing specifically about

traumaandfilms,JanetWalkerexpressestheconceptofa“traumacinema…agroupof

films,eachofwhichdealswithaworld-shatteringeventoreventsofthepast…”.127

As a valuable point to remember in relation to the unique elements of the

SouthAfricansituation,Walkeralsowritesthat“traumacinemaisaninternationaland

transnationalphenomenon”,implyingthattheveryrelationsacrossthiskindofcinema

invites a kindof openness to someof thedefinitions of national andother cinemas

discussedinSectiontwooftheliteraturereview.128Walker’sassertionalsosuggests

that trauma cinemas exist outside of the realm of what is considered standard

122SusannahRadstoneandKatharineHodgkin,“BelievingtheBody:Introduction”inRadstoneandHodgkin(eds.),ContestedPasts,p.7.123SusannahRadstone,“TraumaTheory:Contexts,Politics,Ethics”inParagraph30:1(2007),pp.9–29.124Ibid.,p.12.125JillBennett,“TheAestheticofSense-Memory”inRadstoneandHodgkin(eds.),MemoryCultures,p.35.126Ibid.p.32.127JanetWalker,“TraumaCinema:FalseMemoriesandTrueExperience”inSpecialDebate:TraumaandScreenStudies:OpeningtheDebate,Screen42:2(2001),p.215.128Ibid.p.215

58

psychoanalyticscholarshipabouttraumaandnecessarilyinvitestheconceptofaffect

intoanalysisof this kind. Walker’s insistenceon the international and transnational

scope of trauma cinema specifically, also references something of the relationship

betweenhowtonameandframeacinemaasdiscussedinsectiontwooftheliterature

review.

Thethesisisinterestedinshowinghowelementsoftraumacanbeidentifiedin

individual post-apartheid identities and collective national representations in the

selectedfilms.Theconcernwithmemoryandtraumainthethesisisthusinthisvery

particularplaceofshowingthatpost-apartheididentitiesareimbuedwithtraumaand

related sentiments that cannot always be neatly articulated. In spite of the

unrepresentabilityoftrauma,thereareneverthelesselementsoftraumathatcanbe

experienced through the characters and context of someof the filmsdiscussed. To

thisend,thescholarshipontraumacinemaandaffectisuseful.

3.2.1TraumaCinema,‘ActingOut’and‘WorkingThrough’

JanetWalkerarguesthatcinema is“anarrativemediumwhichallows for the

coexistenceofincompatibletruths”whicharerelatedtofantasyinmemoriesandare

often dismissed as improvable and assumed untrue.129 Walker argues for the

coexistenceofmemory alongside the fantastical addition to thatmemory,what she

calls“imaginaryscenes”.130Botharetobedeemedasrealandvaluable,especiallyif,

as trauma studies qualifies, we are to believe that post-traumatic stress disorder

(PTSD)isacknowledgedpreciselybecausetraumaticmemoryassumesthatthe“event

129SusannahRadstoneandKatharineHodgkin,“RememberingSuffering:Introduction”inRadstoneandHodgkin(eds.),p.100.130JanetWalker“TheTraumaticParadox:Autobiography,DocumentaryandthePsychologyofMemory”RadstoneandHodgkin(eds.),ContestedPasts,p.109.

59

(was)tooterribletoacknowledgenon-traumatically”.131ForWalker,thereisvaluein

the‘incorrect’memoryoralteredfactsofthosememoriesduetofantasy,anelement

ofmemorypermittedinmemorystudiesbutnotintraumabecauseofmemory’smore

malleable relation to an event or happening versus trauma’s relation to the specific

distressbroughtonbythathappening.132

Walker develops the term “the traumatic paradox”, which arises because

“traumaticeventscananddoresultintheveryamnesiasandmistakesinmemorythat

aregenerally considered,outside the theoryof traumamemory, toundermine their

claimtoveracity”.133 Thisconception ledWalker toengagewithanddefine ‘trauma

cinema’asfollows:

…agroupoffilms,drawnfromdifferentgenres,modes,andnationalcinemas,eachofwhichdealswithworld-shatteringevents(…)inanon-realiststylethatfigures the traumatic past as meaningful, fragmentary, virtually unspeakableandstriatedwithfantasyconstructions.134

ElsaessarappliesasimilarconcepttorecentGermancinemabyedging‘trauma

cinema’ further and defining it as ‘parapractic cinema’, a cinema which enacts and

represents the traumatic (and incompatible or ‘failed’) qualities that Walker refers

to.135‘Parapraxis’isdefinedascomprisedoftwosides,“…thefailedperformanceand

theperformanceoffailure”.136 Inanotherrelatedconceptionoftraumaandcinema,

Joshua Hirsch in After Image offers the term ‘post-traumatic’ cinema to describe

131Ibid.132Ibid.133Ibid.,p.107.134Ibid.,p.109.135ThomasElsaessar,TerrorandTrauma:CulturalMemorysince1945(NewYorkandLondon:Routledge,2014),p.321.136Ibid.,p.26.

60

Germanfilmsthattrytoexhibittraumatichistories.137Despitetheirengagementwith

a radical exposition of how trauma and the cinema intersect and inwhichwayswe

maybeable tocall certainkindsof films, trauma films (whichever termonemaygo

with), these scholars intersect ina return toa fundamentalpre-requisite for trauma

work to be defined as such, namely that the Holocaust and memory thereof as a

pivotalandalmostsingularelementinsuchaframeworkforanalysis.

Thismightseemtoautomaticallyexcludetheaimsof thisproject,however, I

remain interested in some of the ways in which what I consider as intersectional

approachesapplytothewaysinwhichtraumaappearsinthefilms.WhileKaplanand

Wang acknowledge “trauma (is) a debilitating kind ofmemory”, they choose not to

concedethatthis intheir internationaldebatesabouttraumaandmemory. Instead,

they are, as I am, interested in Dominick La Capra’s use of the Freudian concepts

‘actingout’and‘workingthrough’,bothalsoemployedbyElsaessarandJoshuaHirsch

intheirdiscussionsaboutGermanexamplesoftraumacinema.138

Freudnotesthat,“…wemaysaythatthepatientdoesnotrememberanything

ofwhathehas forgottenandrepressed,butacts itout…Thegreater theresistance,

themore extensivelywill acting out (repetition) replace remembering”.139 It is only

throughallowingthepatienttimewiththeresistantthatthepatientisableto“work

throughit,toovercomeit…”.140DrawingonFreud,then,KaplanandWangnotethat

thecontributorstoTraumaandCinema“stageasimilarcritique”asLaCapra,inorder

137JoshuaHirsch,Afterimage:Film,TraumaandtheHolocaust(Philadelphia:TempleUniversityPress,2004).138DominickLaCapra,WritingHistory,WritingTrauma(Baltimore:TheJohnHopkinsUniversityPress,2001).139SigmundFreud,“Remembering,RepeatingandWorking-Through(FurtherRecommendationsontheTechniqueofPsycho-Analysis)”,TheStandardEditionoftheCompletePsychologicalWorksofSigmundFreudVol.XII(1911–1913):TheCaseofSchreber,PapersonTechniqueandOtherWorks(1914),pp.150–151.140Ibid.,p.155.

61

to challenge “this notion of psychic paralysis by examining the distinction between

acting out and working through”, the latter of which creates room for sustainable

possibilities for change.141 LaCapradistinguishesbetween ‘actingout’ and ‘working

through’asfollows:

Inactingout,onerelivesthepastasifoneweretheother,includingoneselfasanother in the past…In working through, one tries to acquire some criticaldistance that allows one to engage in life in the present, to assumeresponsibility –but thatdoesn’tmean that youutterly transcend thepast. Itmeansyoucometotermswithit…142

IntheSouthAfricanexamplesusedinthisthesis,Iaminterestedinkeepingthe

concepts of ‘acting out’ and/ or ‘working through’ in mind in analyses of post-

apartheidrepresentationsinordertoassesswhatsensibilitiesmightbediscerniblein

new South African identities and subjectivities as seen in the selected films. These

concepts invite possibilities for thinking about traumatised collective and individual

identities and invite room for making sense of potentially emergent ways of being

beyondthe‘actingout’throughtheprocessof‘workingthrough’.

Myinterestinthisconceptforpost-apartheidfilmanalysisthusliesinthinking

abouthowtoarticulatethepresenceoftraumainthefilmsalongsidewhatmightbea

newstructureoffeeling,andthroughthinkingabouthowthetraumahasmanifested

in‘RainbowNation’characters.

3.2.2Traumainfilms

While the scholars discussed in the above section emphasise both the larger

concept of trauma and/ within trauma cinema, this section briefly highlights

scholarship about trauma and affect in films. Jill Bennett argues that, if properly141Hirsch,Afterimage,p.5.142LaCapra,WritingHistory,p.148.

62

conjured, affect “produces a real-time somatic experience, no longer framed as

representation”.143Inorderfortheimpossibilityoftraumatoberepresented,writes

Bennettor,theonlywaytocomeclosetowhatthetraumaticexperiencewas,istocall

on an extreme affective experience, which resists processing in the way memory

does.144 Inotherwords, it isnotpossibletorepresenttraumabut it is,accordingto

Bennett, possible to see and identify an emotion in a character orwithin the larger

film.SusannahRadstone’sanalysisofForrestGump(RobertZameckis,1994)notes,“a

pointofaffectiveidentificationthroughwhichtraumaticmemorybeginstobeworked

through”.145

Radstone’s thesis, likeBennett’s, is alsonotexplicitly located inaffect theory

but rather straddlesaffect,psychoanalysisand traumascreenstudies. Awareof the

limitationsoftraumastudies,Radstoneemploystheterm“affectiveidentification”as

awayofexplicitlypointingout thepresenceand identificationof trauma.146 Sucha

definition provides an analytical tool through which traumatic experience can be

identifiedonscreenbutnotthroughwhichanalysisisdebilitatedbytheimpenetrable

(traumaasunrepresentable).Itisthuspossible,throughtheuseofthisapproach,to

identifythepossibilityofanexperience liketrauma,implyingnotthattheviewercan

experience it fully but rather that trauma can be registered as a particular kind of

emotive response to a particular memory(ies) or, at the very least, a related

consideration.

Another renditionbyBennettdiscusseshownarrative film isopen to “realist

interpretationbyvirtueofcharacterisation–weseeacharactersuffer,andwefeelan

143JillBennett,“TheAestheticofSense-Memory”inRadstoneandHodgkin(eds.),MemoryCultures,p.27.144Ibid.145SusannahRadstone,MemoryandMethodology,p.98.146Ibid.

63

emotionalresponse”.147Itis“transactiveratherthancommunicative”,resultinginan

“affective transaction”.148 DrawingonBrecht to consider an “affective transaction”,

Bennettemploystheformer’sterm‘crudeempathy’,definedas“afeelingforanother

based on the assimilation of the other’s experience to the self”.149 Bennett’s

engagementwiththeconceptof‘crudeempathy’relatedtotheSouthAfricantheatre

pieceabouttheTruthandReconciliationCommision,UbuandtheTruthCommission,

also suggests that there is room for such application in other narratives about the

traumasoftheSouthAfricanpast.150

Suchapproachestotraumaandaffectdistinguishthemselvesasdifferentfrom

traditional affect studies that is more explicitly interested in how emotions “do

things”.151 In the context of the thesis I employ the term trauma in relation to

elementsoffilms,particularlyrelatedtoSectionTwoofthethesis.Idothis,keepingin

mindtheongoingtraumastudiesscholarshipand,moreexplicitlyrelevant,traumaand

screen studies and the various elisions that are bound up in such projects.

Nevertheless, the films of chapters three and four are particularly concerned with

impartingthememory(ies)ofapartheidandtheincompatibletruthsoftheprocesses

ofandaroundtheTRC,andIfindthatsuchaconstructionisnotonlyusefulbutinvites

variousnewpossibilitiesinSouthAfricanfilmexamples.

147JillBennett,EmpathicVision:Affect,Trauma,andContemporaryArt(Stanford,California:StanfordUniversityPress,2005),p.7.148Ibid.149Ibid.,p.10.150JaneTaylor,UbuandTheTruthCommission,(CapeTown,SouthAfrica:UniversityofCapeTownPress,1998).151SaraAhmed,“AffectiveEconomics”,SocialText22:2(2004),p.119.

64

Conclusion

This thesis draws on scholarship that intersects to identify collective and

individualrepresentationsofthenewnationofpost-apartheidSouthAfricainselected

films. Drawing on Williams’ conception of thinking about structures of feeling as

layered(andoverlapping),thethesisengageswithindividualandcollective‘actingout’

and‘workingthrough’oftheapartheidpastinaselectionofanti-apartheidandpost-

apartheid films. And, at the same time, against this collective national milieu, the

thesisinvestigatesthepotentialforemergentcharacteristicsofpost-apartheid-nessin

individual characters. This survey of literature has shown that although there is

substantial scholarship about apartheid and post-apartheid cinema, there remain

many avenues that can still be explored. This thesis is a consideration of some of

thesepotentialavenuesofexpressionandcritique.

BasedontheliteraturesurveyedIwilldeveloptwointerrelatedconcernsinthe

post-apartheidcinemacontext:thefirstistomakeanargumentthatwhilesomepost-

apartheidfilmsintendtoshowthepast(memoryfilms),othersseektogobeyondand

bring out the discomfort of that history (trauma). In order to do this, some films

portray traumatic elements. Scholarship about South African films has generally

focussed on thematic concerns about the nation in South African films. Such

scholarshiphasinpartprovidedimportanthistoryaboutSouthAfricancinemaandhas

also, inserted valuable Black film histories. Nevertheless, the nation on screen has

beenadominantapproach.Thisthesisveersawayfromsuchanapproach.

ThesecondconcernthatIsetouttoexploreisaroundhowtraumainthefilms

mightbepartof a residual structureof feeling. If it ispossible to identify a residual

structureoffeeling(throughtrauma),thenpartofthehypothesisisthatanemergent

65

onemust also then necessarily exist. The thesis spans a period of time in order to

considerthepossibilityofanewstructureoffeelingthatmightbepresentthroughthe

characters and the context of the films. Attached to these interlinked periods:

apartheid,thetransitionaryphaseandpost-apartheid, isalsothe ideathatapartheid

designatedplaceinclearlydefinedways,throughrace.Eventhoughthoselegislative

barriersarenomore,newSouthAfrican identit(ies)are complexand the thesis sets

outtoexploretheseideas.

66

SECTION1

SectionOneiscomprisedofasinglechapterthatdealswiththreefilmsabout

apartheidSouthAfrica. Twoof the films,ADryWhiteSeason andCryFreedom, are

distinctlyHollywoodtypefilmsandemploycastsandnarrativesthatsupportdidactic

narrativesforforeignaudiences.MapantsulaisalocalSouthAfricanfilm.

Apartheid South Africa was a place in which people of different races were

lawfullysegregated.Inthisway,theplaceandtheidentitiesofthepeoplewerefixed

inparticularwaysbythelawsthatgovernedthecountry.Theanalysisofthefilmsof

this chapter considers how thewhite andBlack characters in the filmswere people

whowere out of place in this fixed context. SectionOne contains a single chapter

becauseit istheonlyonethatdealswithanti-apartheidfilmsandrepresentationsof

thattimeinthecountry.Thechapterservesasawaytoseehowthethesisprogresses

fromtheendofapartheidintopost-apartheid.

67

CHAPTERTWO

ONTHEBRINKOFFREEDOM:ADRYWHITESEASON,CRYFREEDOMANDMAPANTSULA

Introduction

Themythof integrationaspropoundedunderthebannerof liberal ideologymustbecrackedandkilledbecauseitmakespeoplebelievethatsomethingisbeingdonewheninrealitytheartificially integratedcirclesareasoporifictotheblackswhile salving theconsciencesof theguilt-strickenwhite. Itworksfrom the false premise that, because it is difficult to bring people fromdifferentracestogetherinthiscountry,achievementofthisisinitselfasteptowards the total liberation of the blacks. Nothing could be moremisleading.152

SouthAfricawasunderapartheidrulefrom1948to1994.Inthisperiodvarious

Acts were passed which intensified racial segregation in all spheres of life in South

Africa.InthisperiodthepopulationwasraciallydividedintoBlackAfrican,coloured,

Cape coloured, CapeMalay, Indian and white. Throughout apartheid Black people

foughtagainstapartheid,firstthroughpeacefulandnon-violentprotests.Oneofthe

most important of these anti-apartheid protestswas the Sharpevillemassacre of 21

March1960, inwhichthemostpeoplewerekilledatananti-apartheidmarch in the

historyofapartheid.

Sixteenyearslater,blackschoolstudentstooktothestreetson16June1976to

protestagainstbeinginstructedinAfrikaans,theofficiallanguageofAfrikanersandthe

NationalPartygovernment.Thedismantlementofapartheidcamefromanumberof

areas,oneof thembeing internationalpressurebroughtonby sanctions. Alongside

thegrowinganti-apartheidpressurefromwithinSouthAfricaandtheglobalshiftsof

152SteveBiko,IWriteWhatILike(London:TheBowerdeanPress,1978),p.65.

68

the end of the 1980s, therewas significant need to consider that apartheidwas no

longerworking. The late 1980s thus sawmajor changeswith the release ofNelson

Mandela and the active discussions between 1990 and 1993 inwhich he and other

leaders of the African National Party and the leaders of the National Party such as

newlyelectedPresidentF.W.DeKlerknegotiatedthetermsofthenewSouthAfrica.

The first democratic election was held on 27 April 1994. Some of what is briefly

summarisedherealsoprovidesbackgroundcontexttothefilmsofthischapter.

Keyan Tomaselli writes that although racism is not something unique to the

contextofapartheidSouthAfrica,“its legal formasshapedbythespecificdominant

ideology is”.153 Tomaselli’s The Cinema Of Apartheid surveys the apartheid cinema

terrain,however,theanalysisdoesnotextendbeyondfilmsafter1985.Nevertheless,

Tomasellinotesthedominantideologyofracism,separatedevelopmentandapartheid

filmcensorship thatenforcedapartheid from1948 to1994. In thisplace,apartheid

SouthAfrica,ideologyandidentitieswerelegallyfixedbyraceandplace.

Therewasoftenlittlescopeforindividualdissonancesbecausecollectiveracial

andethnicculturewassuchanoverwhelmingcomponentofbeingSouthAfrican.This

chapter is about characters who step out of the official constructions of apartheid

SouthAfrican-ness. These conspicuously ‘out of place’ characters, as theymight be

described,dispeltherulesandfixedformsofapartheidandthischapterexploreswhat

suchcharactersshowusaboutanti-apartheid.Thechapterundertakesthisapproach

so as not to recapitulate previous scholarship about apartheid cinemabut rather to

explore how the narratives contextualised within apartheid can show us something

153Tomaselli,TheCinemaofApartheid,p.13.

69

aboutracial factionsandthedifferencesbetween individualandcollectivechoices in

thewelldocumentedanti-apartheidstories.

Thischapterconsidersthreeanti-apartheidfilmsofthelate1980s:CryFreedom

(Richard Attenborough, 1987),Mapantsula (Oliver Schmitz, 1988) and A Dry White

Season(EuzhanPalcy,1989).ThiserainSouthAfricaisrepresentativeofheightened

socio-politicalandeconomicconcernsthatsomewhatpullagainsteachother:anxiety

and fear as it became increasingly clearer that apartheid would end soon and

conversely, an emotion that was not entirely permitted just yet: the anticipated

excitementaroundwhatthatrealitymightlooklikeeventhoughapartheidhadnotyet

beendismantled.

Tomasellipointsoutthatthepublicationofhismonographcoincideswiththe

fastdismantlementofapartheidbecauseofgrowing internalandexternalpressures.

While Tomaselli provides an extensive outline and engagement with apartheid-era

filmsandsubsidisedfilmsforBlacks,JacquelineMaingardwritesthat itwasnotuntil

the 1980s that a significant and noticeable anti-apartheid cinema came to mean

something in SouthAfrica.154 Although shepointsout that this tookplaceprimarily

throughdocumentary films, shealsohighlightsMapantsula (OliverSchmitz,1988)as

“the exemplary film of the era” (emphasis mine).155A Dry White Season and Cry

Freedom are set in an era a decade earlier inwhich it is significantly clear that the

heightofapartheidisthecontextofthefilms. Setwithinthesameera,ADryWhite

Season takesplaceagainst thebackdropof the1976June16studentuprising,while

154JacquelineMaingard,“SouthAfricanCinema:HistoriesandFutures”,Screen48:4(Winter2007),p.513.155Ibid.

70

Cry Freedom incorporates Steve Biko’s 1977 death, which occurred while he was

detainedinpolicecustody.

Incorporatingthesefilmsofthelate1980s invitesapositionthat includesthe

transitional period of the end of apartheid without trying to incorporate films that

competewiththeofficialactionsoftheearly1990s:primarilytheinterimgovernment

and the1994elections. The issuesof theearly 1990s are found in the filmsof this

chapteraswellasthefilmsofSectionTwoofthethesis.

As part of thinking about one of the research questions of the thesis, this

chapter is interested in what these films tell us about being South African during

apartheid.Afurtherconcernofthechapterrelatestokeepinginmindwhothesefilms

weremadefor.Thechapterisdividedintothreesections.Thefirstsectionhasatwo-

prongedintentionandaddressesthemainBlackandwhitemaleprotagonistsinADry

WhiteSeason(DryWhite)andCryFreedom.Inthefirstinstance,thissectiondiscusses

whyandhowthewhiteandBlackmenare‘outofplace’ inapartheid. Secondly,the

sectiondiscussestheunionsbetweenthewhiteandBlackmentoconveytheideathat

the end of apartheidwas borne of joint struggle against the apartheid government.

Thesecondpartofsectiononethusconsidersdifferentsetsofrelationshipstoshow

how the films construct a dialogue about apartheid, political awakening and active

change in a way that explicitly shows the processes of liberation from apartheid.

Section two focuses onMapantsula and the differences between this film andDry

WhiteandCryFreedom.Thefinalsectionofthechapterbrieflyconsidersthewaysin

which the women characters in these films are represented in order to show how,

althoughthemenactivelypartakeinmakingthechanges,itprovestobethewomen’s

71

responsibility to hold society together in very precarious and sometimes dangerous

ways.Asignificantbodyofscholarshipaboutapartheidcinemainformsthischapter.156

For themostpart, the thesisaddressesnarrativesand representationsof the

newnationonfilm.However,itisimpossibletotracetheprogression(orstagnation)

of South African filmic representations without analysing what is identified in this

chapterasmodelsofliberationfilmnarrativesandwhatJulieReidterms,“thehistory

filmormythical films”.157 Mapantsulapresents a different takeon apartheid South

Africa.Co-written by director Oliver Schmitz and ThomasMogotlane,who also plays

main protagonist, Panic, the film received much critical acclaim because of how it

presentsapartheidfromaBlackpointofviewin1980’sSouthAfrica.

156InadditiontoTomaselliandMaingardalreadycited,alsousefultotheconsiderationsofthischapterare:JulieReid,“TheRemythologisationofWhiteCollectiveIdentitiesinPost-ApartheidSouthAfricanFilmbyMythandCounterMyth”,Communicatio:SouthAfricanJournalforCommunicationTheoryandResearch,38:1(2012),pp.45-63.,VivianBickford-Smith,“ReviewingHollywood’sApartheid:CryFreedom(1987)andDryWhiteSeason(1989)”,SouthAfricanHistoryJournal48:1(May2003).,VictoriaCarchidi,“SouthAfricafromTexttoFilm:CryFreedomandADryWhiteSeason”inJohn.D.Simons(ed.),LiteratureandFilmintheHistoricalDimension:SelectedPapersFromThe15thFloridaStateUniversityConferenceonLiteratureandFilm(Gainesville,Florida:UniversityPressOfFlorida,1994),pp.47–62.,RobNixon,Homelands,HarlemandHollywood:SouthAfricanCultureandTheWorldBeyond(NewYorkandLondon:Routledge,1994).157Reid,“Post-ApartheidSouthAfricanFilmbyMythandCounterMyth”,p.49.

72

PartOne

White and Black Anti-ApartheidMasculinities inCry Freedom andADry

WhiteSeason

TheopeningshotsofCryFreedomestablishtheviewerinaplacethathasbeen

designatedforBlackpeoplebytheapartheidgovernment:atownship inCapeTown.

The sequence incorporates what is made to look like documentary footage, which

showsaquiet informal settlementwitha few small shacksandnarrow roadsas the

setting. A fewwomenpassonthestreetandtherisingsun is justaboutvisible ina

wide-angleestablishingshotofthetownshipinCapeTown,illustratedbytheimageof

TableMountainwithin the frame. The quiet serenity of the sleepy place is quickly

joltedwhenayoungboyblowsawhistleasawarningforresidentstoknowthatthe

policearearriving.Thesoundoftypewriterkeyscorrelateswiththeopeningcreditsof

thefilmandisthefirstintroductiontothenewsroom,aplacewhichinthe1970swas

filledwithtypewritersandwhichisimportantinthisfilmaswhiteprotagonist,Donald

Woods(KevinKline),istheeditorofanewspaper.Theraidcontinuestoshowhouses

being destroyed, accompanied by general mayhem as people frantically try to save

familymembersandafewpersonalitems.

The viewer has already seen protagonist Donald Woods (Kevin Kline) in his

editorialofficebythetimeheandSteveBiko(DenzelWashington)meetforthefirst

timeinKingWilliamsTown.Steveisunderhousearrestandisintroducedthroughthe

rhetoricofBlackConsciousness.FurthercluestoBiko’scharacterarepresentedinthe

openingscenesofthefilmwhenayoungmanputsupaposterofBikoaftertheraidin

CrossroadsTownship.Thecamerafocusesontheposterforjustlongenoughtomake

out thenameSteveBikoaround theportrait.The first timeBikohimselfappearson

73

screenisinthismeetingwithWoods.Theseencounters,whichtakeplaceinthefirst

fifteenminutesof the film, introduce themainprotagonists,DonaldWoods, “a true

liberal”, as described by Biko in their first meeting, and the second, Steve Biko, a

revolutionary“withdangerousideas”,asdescribedbyWoodsatthesamemeeting.

A wide-angle shot shows DonaldWoods’ approach into KingWilliams Town,

whereBiko is under house arrest. HisMercedesBenz comes to a halt in front of a

churchbuildingwhichservesasacommunitycentreofsortswhereBiko’swife(asshe

introducesherself)runsaspaceforBlackpeopletomeetandlearnvariouscraftsand

skills.WoodsiswelcomedbyBiko’swife,wholeadshimthroughthebuildingtoaback

door.SheindicatesthatBikocanbefoundoutthere.Onexitingthesanctuaryofthe

church,Woodstakesinthesurroundingsintheseeminglyemptychurchyard.Woods

isinamediumshotwhenabrightlightisdirectedathim,causinghimtosquint.The

lightappearstobecomingfromtheweepingwillow’s leaves. FromWoods’pointof

view,weseewhatlooksliketheimageofaman,SteveBiko.Bikostandsinakindof

makeshift circle, protected from sight by the leaves of the weeping willow. It is a

camouflagethroughwhichhecanpartiallyseetheworldbutalsothroughwhichthe

worldcanpartiallyseehim.DonaldhastosquinttomakesensefirstlyofwhereBikois

in theyardandsecondlytotry tomakeoutWoods’silhouette fromwithinthe leafy

circle.

Theway inwhich they arebothpositioned is part of the constructionof the

trepidationandsenseoftheunknownbotharoundthesituationoftheirmeetingand

the larger context of apartheid South Africa. In a way, such a representation is

indicativeofwhatcomesacrossas fumbling inthedark. Eventhoughtheyareboth

unsureofhowthemeetingwillunfold,itisBikowhohasreallyconstructedthisinitial

74

meetingtobesocovert.Inaway,itisalsoBikowhoisabletoseemorefrombehind

theweepingwillowasWoodshasthelightreflectedinhiseyes.CryFreedommakes

fewattempts at showingBlack assertion in actionoutsideofwhitepartnership, and

thisisoneoftheoccasionsonwhichitdoessothroughtheinitialcharacterisationof

Biko.

Thefollowingshotisofasmallroomthatlookslikeastudy.Thesceneopens

withamediumclose-upofSteveinthecentreoftheframe.TotherightofBiko’shead

isaphotographofNelsonMandelaagainst thewall. WeseeWoods’cautiousentry

into the small room fromBiko’sperspective. A shot-reverse-shotpattern followsas

Bikospeaksfirst. Thetwoarepositionedoppositeeachotherinasmallroom.Both

are cautious and curious and immediately take to critical engagement with the

ideological beliefs of the other. Biko begins to speak as soon asWoods is standing

oppositehimintheroom.Hebeginswithanexplanationofwhathousearrestmeans,

that hewould havemetWoods in the hall but that thiswould havemeant hewas

breaking the rulesof theban. Heendswith a judgementofWoods, saying thathe

probably approves of Biko’s ban. WhenWoods explains that this is not true Biko

retortswithasmile,“Atruewhiteliberal…”.Subsequently,Woodsmentionsthathe

finds Biko’s ideas dangerous and that he is proud to be a liberal. Woods also

challengesBikowhenhewondersoutloudwhatBikowoulddoifhewastheonewith

thejob,thehouse,theMercedesanditwasthewhiteswholivedinthetownships.On

thisnoteBikochucklesandsaysthatthatisacharmingidea.

This initial interactionalsopointsouthowthese twocharactersknowthat in

thisplacetheyarebothoutofplace,Bikobecauseheisunderhousearrestandheisa

blackmaninapartheidSouthAfricaandWoodsbecausehe isawhitemanspending

75

timewith ablackmanwho the state thinks is dangerous. WhateverWoods’ liberal

intentionshavebeenupuntil thispoint, theynecessarilyshiftafterhismeetingwith

BikobecauseheisforcedtobecomemoreawareofhispositioninrelationtoBlacks.

Afterthebriefintroductorybanter,whichwasframedasbothintenseandmeasured,

the two men seem to relax. This is reinforced by a distinct shift in how they are

framedwhenthecameramovestoadifferentpartoftheroomtocapturebothmenin

afulllengthwideangleshotastheyreachouttheirarmstoshakehands.Theadjacent

room is darkwhile the room that Biko andWoods are in is light. Thedifference in

lightingexpressesthespecialsentimentofthisunlikelyunion,thattheirmeetinghas

madesomethingdarkenter the lightshowingnewpossibilitieswhere theynotbeen

anybefore.ThepairsitdownatSteve’sdeskaftertheyshakehands,asthoughthey

havecometoanamicableagreementabouttheirmutual‘outofplace’positionalities

inapartheid.TheshowingofdifferencesbetweenBlackandwhiteplacesinapartheid

invites a way of seeing the physical and psychological geography of apartheid. For

example,intheaftermathofWoods’visittoBiko,hereturnstohisownhome.

It isawarmdayand the sceneopenswith the soundof splashingwaterand

laughter.Woodsisinalargepoolinhisowngardensurroundedbyhischildren,pool

toysandahappydog.WendyWoods,hiswifeappearsandisshotfromalowangleas

shedescendsthestairsthroughthegardentomeetherfamilyatthepool.Positioned

side-by-sideinrecliningloungechairs,Wendyandherhusbandchatabouthisrecent

meetingwithBiko.Woodsexcitedlytellsheraboutitaswellashisupcomingvisitto

thetownship,towhichWendycautiouslyaskswhetherWoodsisnowalsointoBiko’s

philosophy of Black Consciousness (BC). This idyllic picture is in contrast to the

different imagesofBlackpeople thathavebeenseen in the filmbefore,suchas the

frantictownshipraid,Biko’shousearrestandthecommunitycentre.Allthewhile,this

76

contrastismadedistinctlyunavoidableastheirblackdomestichelpercomestothem

for drinks orders, and as the laughter and splashing sometimes overwhelm the

backtrack. The sounds seem to clamour for as much attention as the ‘important’

politicaldiscussiontakingplace,whichconveysafeelingthatWoodandBiko’smeeting

isanadventureforDonald,almostasthoughitisnottrulyreallife.

Rob Nixon’s assertions ring true when he writes that Attenborough used

Woods,awhite journalist,asabridgetoa largeraudience.158 Thisdecisionhastwo

repercussions, the first being that having a white male protagonist in this role

contradicted the fundamental premiseofBiko’sBlackConsciousnessphilosophyand

second,“itrefractedaradicalSouthAfricanpoliticalmovementthroughHollywood’s

mostdurableliberalformulafordealingwiththe‘ThirdWorld’”.159

Nevertheless, Cry Freedom fundamentally returns to this ‘out of place’

consideration,thatbothBikoandWoodsexistoutsideofwhatisraciallynormativein

apartheidSouthAfrica.Inlightofthis,wealreadyknowthatDonaldWoodsisaliberal

and is set up this way from the outset however, Biko is naturally something else,

emphasisedthroughoutthefilmasbeyondanordinaryblackman.Afterthemeeting

in King William’s Town, Woods for instance describes Biko as “very intelligent” to

Wendy. In the township scene Woods asks Biko’s friends how he became so

articulate.Inthetownshipscenehowever,itisWoodsthatismadeawareofthefact

that township life isnotonlyanabstract apartheid creationbut that it is aworld in

whichrealpeoplelive.AlthoughBikosaysthistohim,itisinaverybriefinstancethat

heexperiencesthishimself.Althoughthefilmleansheavilytowardsdidacticism,ithas

moments, likethisone, inwhichitexpressessomethingabouthowtheseparateness

158Nixon,Homelands,HarlemandHollywood,pp.82–83.159Ibid.

77

ofBlackandwhiteexperiencesofapartheidextendsbeyondtheinflatedinteractions

ofBikoandWoods.

Mostof thescene in thetownshiptakesplaceata localshebeen. Woods is

seatedatapackedtableandwatchesthedancingcrowd(andthedancingBiko)with

great curiosity. Donald asks Biko’s friends many questions above the loud music

prominent on the soundtrack. He is particularly interested in Biko’s education and

how he became so articulate. The setting is akin to a fun and noisy bar, like

atmosphereinwhichpeoplearesimplyhavingagoodtime.Apartheiditselfisalmost

forgottenhere, except for theblacks-only crowd. Biko isoften shown fromWoods’

pointofviewandwhenWoodsisshownitisofteninamediumclose-up,anindication

oftheintensityofthisnewexperienceforhiminrelationtoBiko’scarefreenature.

Woods’adventureisthusjoltedwhenheseesayounggirlofschoolageleave

thedancefloortoenterthroughamakeshiftfabriccurtain.Ontheothersideofthe

curtainisanoldwomaninbed.Heroneeyeisvisiblebuttheotherseemsdamagedas

it is closed. It is not clear whether Woods’ surprised expression is related to the

presenceoftheyounggirlintheshebeenortotheolderwomanbuthisdiscomfortis

perceivedafterheandtheolderwomanexchangealook.Hisstareexposeshisshock

thatherrealityispartofthepartyscene.Shestaresbackwithheroneopeneye.Itis

unclearwhethershecanactuallyseehimthroughbotheyesbuttheyholdeachother’s

gaze in thisway for a fewmoments. She is awake because it seems impossible to

sleepthroughtheloudmusic,noise,drunkenchatterandall-roundpartyatmosphere.

Theyarebothshotinmediumclose-ups,conveyingtheintensityoftheexperiencefor

both of them: for her, great disruption but also a sense of resignation that this is

simply how it is. For Woods, his expression reveals a mixture of shock and guilt

78

becausemomentsagohehadbeenenjoyinghimselfandwascompletelyunawareof

thefactthatthesamevenuealsoservesasafamilyhome.Woodspullshimselfback

tothepartyasheshiftshiseyesbacktothetable.Bikosoonreturnstothetableand

theconversationrevertstopolitics.

This short encounter between Woods and the elderly woman is a sobering

experience for the main protagonist. Although part of this scene shows Biko and

WoodswalkingthestreetsofthetownshipwhileBikoexplainstheextremitiesofthe

Black apartheid experience, it is not until this encounter that something shifts for

Woods.Inthecontextoftheshebeen,Woodsrealiseshowheandtheelderlywoman

arenotquitewheretheybelong:heastheonlywhitemanintheillegalshebeenand

thewomanbecausesheisnotabletohavethepeaceshecouldbenefitfrombecause

thisishowherfamilymakesmoney.However,itisonlyWoodswhoisphysicallyand

psychologicallyoutofplaceinthelargercontextofthefixedcategoriesofapartheid.

For the old woman (and the girl), this is quite simply a rather desperate and

inconvenientlifebutitremainsBlackreality.

Biko too, isacharacteroutofplace in the fixedpresuppositionsofapartheid

butwhereasWoodsisabraveanti-apartheidhero,Bikoisanexceptional,intellectual

Blackwhosepolemicalstandpointislostinthefilm.CryFreedomsucceedsinitsliberal

educationbecausethefilmwasprimarilynotgearedatalocalSouthAfricanaudience.

RobNixonwrites that“…Woods’storyaboutBiko isquicklysupplantedwithWoods’

story aboutWoods, resulting in an acute case of displaced heroism…”.160 Similarly,

160Ibid.,p.83.

79

Nwachukwu Frank Ukadike writes that Cry Freedom deals with sensitive African

themes“butthatthefocusisonwhitecharactersratherthanblackones”.161

Twomajoroccurrencessignalashiftinthefilm.ThefirstisBiko’sdeath,which

signals the end of the politically astute part of the film heralded by Biko’s Black

ConsciousnesseducationofWoods.ThesecondisthatWoodshimselfisplacedunder

a five-year house arrest, a constant reminder for the duration of the film of the

conditionsunderwhichheandBikomet. InascenethattakesplaceafterWoods is

banned, we see him in his home office while Biko’s voice is prominent on the

soundtrack. Woods is in close-upashemullsoverBiko’s voiceand teachingsabout

howBikonegotiatedhiswayaroundtheban. Inamuchearlierscene,whenWoods

andBikodrive toaBlack-runcommunityclinic,WoodsasksBiko if thepolicealways

follow him, towhich Biko answers that they think they do. WhenWoods is placed

under the security ban the viewers are reminded of Biko andWoods’ firstmeeting.

Hearing Biko’s voice again in this much later scene after his death, it suggests the

persistenceofBikointhepresent.Itisinthisspiritthatthefilmhurtlesforwardasan

adventure melodrama in which Woods is now somehow part-infused with Biko’s

energy.162

After Biko’s death, the film problematically constructs Biko and his memory

throughhowWoodsrecalls their friendship. Biko is thusonlymemorialisedthrough

Woods,who fromtheoutset,differs fromBiko. Biko speaksofBlackConsciousness

while Woods speaks of liberal values. Liberalism was not the foundation of Black

consciousnessideologyand,asBikohimselfpointsoutinthefilmbeforeandafterthe

shebeen scene, liberalismwas something thatBiko scoffed at. AlthoughBiko is the

161Ukadike,BlackAfricanCinema,p.126.162Nixon,Homelands,HarlemandHollywood,p.84.

80

Blackheroandmythologisedassuch,hisdeathandhiswatered-downideologyinthe

film,arebothconcretisedinmemorythroughWoods,hisfamilyand,similarlytoADry

WhiteSeason(DryWhite),thesacrificestheymadeforanti-apartheidjustice.AsNixon

puts it, “…instead of simply enacting Biko’s values through the human drama of

friendship, Attenborough’s structural commitment to that friendship betrays and

obscurestheveryprinciplesthatBikodiedfor”.163WhileBikoandWoodsaredifferent

kinds of ‘out of place’ characters, their friendship works because they are both

dissident characters from the outset. Biko is radical in his Black Consciousness and

Woodsisemphaticabouthisliberalpositionaseditor.Botharesetupascharacters

whofundamentallydonotsupportapartheid.

The main protagonists of Dry White are different. Ben Du Toit (Donald

Sutherland) is a staunch Afrikaner and is shown this way from the outset. Gordon

Ngubene(WinstonNtshona),inhisroleastheblackgardenertotheDuToits,isshown

tobeanamenableBlackman.Bothknowtheirgeographicalandpsychologicalplaces

in apartheid South Africa and within this, the normalised hierarchy of race in

apartheid. DryWhite relies on the intimate narrative of a family, in which Ben Du

Toit’s life is affected by the deaths of Black characters who he knows. This is a

different relationship, for example, to the one between Woods and Biko, who are

consistentlyshownaseachother’s intellectualequals,eventhoughthis isconstantly

asnecessarytomention.ThisisnotthecaseinDryWhiteinwhichGordondoesnot

address Ben by his first name but as ‘Mr Ben’ to show respect even though they

appeartobeaboutthesameage.

163Ibid.

81

Dry White also relies on juxtaposing the white and Black geography of

apartheid. The opening sequence is of two young boys – one white, one black -

playingonanimmaculatelawn.TheyareBenandGordon’ssons,JohanandJonathan.

The music of popular Black band, LadySmith Black Mambazo, is prominent on the

soundtrackaswewatchtheboysinthiscarefreefreedomofchildhood.164Theidyllic

momentendsabruptlywhenthediegeticsoundsofthefilmintroducethenextscene:

agovernmentbeerhallinSouthAfricain1975.ThebeerhallisfilledwithelderlyBlack

mendrinkingoutof large,plastic jugsofbeer.Asyoungmilitantboysenter, tension

mounts as the leader pleadswith themen to boycott the beer halls. Followedby a

short scene showing a police raid on a township, the context of the two different

realitiesofapartheidSouthAfricaisset.

Themulti-racialopeningsceneisfollowedwithanexcitedBenDuToitandhis

wife,whocheerontheirsonataschoolrugbymatch.Thelawnsareimmaculateand

thestandsare fullofparentswhoare there tosupport theirchildren.Thesport isa

bastion of Afrikanerdom and as the camera pans the supporters’ stand, it becomes

clearthatallofthemandalltheplayersarewhite.AlbertGrundlinghwritesthat,

RugbymighthaveoriginatedinEnglandandsubsequentlybeenexportedtothecolonies, but, in line with the wider Afrikaner quest for independentnationhood,thegamecametobeanintegralpartoftheattempttotransformandtranscendtheimperialheritagebyreformulatingandmodifyingthevaluesassociatedwithit.165

The fact that the sport exists as an important bastion of apartheid culture

meansthateventhissceneofcheeringonaprimaryschoolteamofyoungwhiteboys

is about more than just the game or those boys. Considered against important

164TheimagealsoreferencesE’Lollipop(Dir:AshleyLazarus,1975),afilmmademorethanadecadebeforewhichalsoshowsthecross-racialfriendshipoftwoyoungboysduringapartheid.165AlbertGrundlingh,“PlayingforPower?Rugby,AfrikanerNationalismandMasculinityinSouthAfrica,c.1900–1970”,TheInternationalJournaloftheHistoryofSport11:3(December1994),p.413.

82

constructionsofnationalismandtradition,acelebrationofrugbyinthissceneisalso

thecelebrationofapartheidSouthAfricaandtheconstantcheeringonofitsprogress

anddevelopment.TheyoungboysonthefieldarenotonlythefutureSouthAfrican

rugbyteambuttheyarethefutureleadersofapartheid.

Palcythusfocusesonshowingwhatlifecouldhavelookedlikeifapartheiddid

not exist and then focuses on drawing the separatist apartheid lines through the

geographyofapartheid.Itistellingthatforwhitelifetobecontextualised,theviewer

needstoseetheexpanseofthewhitehome(singular).Thisisindirectoppositionto

theBlackhomethatisviewedasamassofpoverty,throughscenessetinthetownship

inwhichthecameraoftenoffersthevieweranaerialshottoshowthecrampedspaces

andoverpopulation.

In the first of a series of appeals fromGordon to Ben, the aftermath of the

rugby game is the comfortable Du Toit household, where the family are having a

relaxed braai. Gordon and his son Jonathon unexpectedly arrive at the Du Toit

householdafter the familyhas returned fromthe rugbygame.PresentareDuToit’s

wife, Susan, their daughter, her husband and baby and Johan, who appears in the

openingscenewithJonathon.Thesceneissetoutsideandbrieflyshowsallthefamily

membersenjoyingthelazysunnyday:Benonthegrasswithhistoddlergrandsonand

daughter,Johan,stilldressedinhisrugbyattire,sneakilystealingapieceofmeatfrom

the firewhile his brother-in-law takes care of the cooking and swats at him for his

mischief,andBen’swife,Suzette,makingsurethetable issetandthatthesidesare

ready.ItisJohan,Ben’syoungsonwhofirstnoticesGordonandJonathanwalkingup

thepathwaytothehouse.Heisshotinaclose-upwhichshowshisconcernedfaceas

83

hewhispers,“Jonathan”.Thefollowingshotrevealsamediumclose-upofBenlooking

concernedatthereasonforthevisit,bloodyslashesacrossJonathan’sbackside.

Aclose-upoftheboy’sbacksideconveystheseverityofapolicebeating.While

GordonwantsBen’sassistanceinensuringthathissonwillnothaveacriminalrecord,

Ben’sconcernislimitedtothestateofJonathan’sbottom.Heinstructshiswifetoget

someointment. Gordondismisses thephysicalwound,appealing toBenatanother

level:awoundoftheheartandthemind.Aseriesofmediumclose-upsareutilisedto

expressthedesperationonGordon’spart.Butwhilehispleasaidintheestablishment

ofthelackofunderstandingbetweenBlackandwhiteapartheidlife,theyachievelittle

elseforGordon.BendismisseswhathappenedtoJonathanaspunitiveforajustifiable

reason.

This scene is instructive in how it contrasts Black and white experiences of

apartheid. Ben shows what many Afrikaners believed, which is that whatever

treatmentwasenforcedonBlackswasjustified.Gordonexpressestheexperienceofa

generationofBlackswhoknewtheviolenceofapartheidbutwereunabletodealwith

it. Jonathan,hisdeath,and thedeathofyoungschoolchildren,arehoweverbriefly

shown to be part of the pre- emergent anti-apartheid expressions. Although the

chapterdoesnotdealwiththisaspectofapre-emergentand/oremergentstructure

offeelingduringapartheidingreatdetail, it isavaluable issuethatDryWhitepoints

to,butonewhich is lost in the largernarrativeofBenDuToitasamartyrandanti-

apartheidhero.Although Jonathan isnotpartof the storylineofDryWhite for very

long, thecharacter is importantbecauseofhowheexplainswhitedominationtohis

olderfather.

84

AlthoughBenpaysforJonathan’sschoolfees,theboydoesnotfeel indebted

tothewhitemananddisplaysasenseofyouthfulvigourthatisnotseeninhisfather’s

character. The June 1976 Soweto uprising had a focussed agenda in which school

childrenmarchedagainsttuitioninAfrikaans.HencethesceneinwhichJonathanand

his brother (unnamed in the film) stand up to Gordon is vital in also progressing

Gordon’sangeragainst theapartheid system. Jonathanexplicitly tellshis father that

being taught in Afrikaans will keep Blackmen beingminers and garden boys. Even

thoughGordonisoffended,herealisesthathisowntwosonsarealreadywitnessing

their father being emasculated. Gordon, who calls his employer ‘Mr Ben’ until his

death,doesnotcometotrulyembodythisdefiantspiritseenbrieflyinhisson,buthis

death acts as a catalyst for Ben to learn more about apartheid. Gordon is only

momentarily‘outofplace’whenhedemandsanswersaroundhisson’sdeath.

The logic of justified punishment for Blacks, articulated by Ben in the braai

scene, contributes to anunderstanding thatmanywhites simplydidnot knowwhat

happened to Blacks during apartheid.166 As Biko proffered in Cry Freedom, in

apartheid, Black people had intimate details of how the whites live because they

cleaned their houses, cooked their meals, tended their gardens, however, white

peoplehadvery little knowledgeof the realitiesofBlack lifeandmanybelieved the

apartheidgovernment.ThisissomethingthatCryFreedomattendsto,albeitbriefly,

in themomentwhenWoods sees the olderwoman through the curtain. However,

even after a series of actions that lead to Ben not being able to ignore apartheid’s

injustices,itisonlythroughtheprotagonist’srelationshipwithawhiteforeignwoman,

166MelissaE.Steyn,Whitenessjustisn’twhatitusedtobe:WhiteIdentityinaChangingSouthAfrica(NewYork:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,2001).

85

Melanie, thathe isabletotrulycomprehendthevastdifferencesofBlackandwhite

apartheidreality.

A latersceneshowsGordonworkingintheflowerbedsoftheDuToitgarden.

Gordonwearsastoicexpression,whichisjuxtaposedagainstBenandJohanplayfully

swatting each other with towels. Both are dressed in white shorts and t-shirts

indicating,aswiththebraaiscene,playfulnessand fun incontrast toGordon.Ben is

surprisedto learnthat Jonathanhasbeenarrestedaftermoreriots inthetownships

and decides tomake a fewphone calls to find outwhat happened to the boy. Ben

learnsofJonathan’sdeathandsharesthenewswithGordon.AfterBenagaininstructs

Gordontosimply let the issuego,weseeyetanotherdevelopmentalso inGordon’s

anger.ItisasthoughGordonwantstoholdontohisbeliefinBenandasthoughBen

wantstoholdontohisbelief inthesystem.AlthoughBenrealisestheseverityofthe

police inthetownshipshehasyettoactuallymaketheactiveshift toanti-apartheid

logic. Jonathanwaspartof the1976Sowetouprisingdepicted in the filmand in the

aftermathGordonandhiswifeEmilygotomortuaries,hospitalsandpolicestations.

Asthecamerapanstheroomofamortuaryitbecomesclearthatallthebodies

areclothedinschooluniforms.Somehavebeenstackedonthefloorandasthepan

continues we see the tragedy of the blood and wounds. The same children were

shown in the march as unarmed, vibrant and radical. The camera’s survey of the

bodiesraisesthequestionofwhattheseschoolchildrencouldpossiblyhavedoneto

havewarrantedtheirdeaths.Gordon’sdeath,whichfollowsnottoolongafter,iswhat

ittakesforBentoreallybegintoaskquestions.Gordon’sdeathiswhatittakesforBen

torealisethattheapartheidgovernmentisnotinterestedinprotectingallitscitizens.

ItservesasaspringboardforBentobecomeincreasinglymore‘outofplace’.Through

86

a union which is formed between Ben and Stanley (John Kani), a family friend of

GordonandhiswifeEmily,and,awhitewomanoutsider,Melanie (SusanSarandan),

DryWhiteprogresses toexhibitanunlikelyunionbetweenunlikelycharacters in the

fightagainstapartheid.WhileStanleyplaysacriticalrole intheeducationofawhite

man,thetrueconfirmationofapartheidrealitycomesfromasimilarlyliberalcharacter

totheWoodsfamilyinCryFreedom.

Melanie is an English journalist who Ben meets in the course of his

enlightenmentinrelationtotherealitiesofapartheid. Benisdeeplydistressedafter

theinquestintoGordon’sdeath(whichheinsistedupon),whichrevealedtheoutright

injusticesofapartheid.AsBentriestofindawayoutofthecrowdsMelaniepullsupin

her blue VW and offers him a quick exit. The inquest proved what Ian McKenzie

(MarlonBrando), the liberal lawyer, toldBenonhisvisit tohimaboutthecase: that

“lawandjusticecanbedescribedasdistantcousins…inSouthAfrica,thosecousinsare

notonspeakingtermsatall”.

AsBenandMelaniewalkthroughhergardentothehousewehearthesound

ofsoothingpianomusic.Itservesasausefulpassagetorelocatetheviewerfromthe

mayhemoftheprevioussceneoutsidethecourthousetoamoretranquilsettingfrom

which they (the characters) andwe (the viewers) can take in the full extent of the

meaningof theprevious scene.Melanie’s father has beenplaying thepiano andhe

stopswhenthepairentersthehouse.InthelivingroomBenandMelaniehaveashort

discussion about the events of the day. Ben finally admits,more to himself than to

Melanie, that he has been naïve for too long. The camera captures them both in

medium close-ups in this exchange inwhichMelanie finallywelcomes him to South

Africa. In so doing she critiques Ben’s excuse that he simply did not know thiswas

87

whatwashappeninginSouthAfrica. It isthusMelaniewhoisshowntoexplicitlytell

Ben thathehasbenefited fromapartheidand that the race to fight the system is a

longandgruellingone.

This isdifferenttoStanleyorGordon’sroleandrelationshiptoBen.Gordon’s

deathcomestomeanmorethanhis lifeandwhileStanley isabletotakeBentothe

township and show him where the blacks live, it is only through a white foreign

womanthatBenisabletoreallyacknowledgetheharshnessofthatreality.Thisscene

issignificantinhowDryWhiteisabletoshowandconfirmthatBen’slifehaschanged,

thathe isnow,withthisnewknowledgefromthe inquest,completelyoutsideofhis

previousidentityandcertainly‘outofplace’asawhitemaninapartheid.Eventhough

Melanie(liberal,British,robustandopinionated) isnotthesameasDuToit,theway

shelooksandsoundsisfamiliartothemajorityoftheaudienceofthetimeandsonot

only is it easier for Ben to get the most explicit articulation around apartheid’s

difficultiesfromher,itisalsoeasierfortheviewer.

These relationships are also complex as they illustrate that Ben’s

enlightenment is significantlydifferent toDonald’s.Ben is relegated to the statusof

outcast.Notonlyisthecharacter‘outofplace’inthathebeginstoexistoutsideofthe

realmofwhatisnormativeforhimasastaunchAfrikanerpatriarchbutheisalso,ina

way,excommunicatedfromthegroupidentity.Hiswifeanddaughterremindhimthat

he is not ‘one of them’, referring to Blacks. In a scenewhich takes place between

SusanandBeninthekitchen,itcomestolightthatSusanwasalsoatGordon’sinquest.

Eventhoughsheknewthatblackpeoplewerebeingtreatedinsuchhorrificways,she

stillsoughttodefendtheactionsofthestate.

88

InBen’s relationshipswithStanleyandGordon,weare shownhow theBlack

men characters are immortalised as heroic alongside Ben, albeit, as Biko espoused,

throughBlackConsciousnessand self-emancipation.DryWhite doesnotpresent the

Blackcharactersinthisway.TheincorporationofacharacterlikeMelaniestressesthis

point even further because it is only through her, as a foreigner, that the anti-

apartheid narrative can be validated. While Melanie is naturally ‘out of place’ in

apartheid,herselfinsteadasymbolofaplacewherethingsarenotonlydifferent,but

better,Benisasymboloftheultimatesacrificeofapartheid.InthesceneatMelanie’s

house, a close-up of Ben reveals the extent of the realisation of apartheid and his

resignationisshowntoinfiltrateintohisrelationshipstothepointwhere,attheendof

thefilm,heknowsthathisdaughterhandsoverdocumentstothesecuritypolice.

RebeccaAanerudnotesthat,“thisshiftfromguilttoinnocenceispredicatedon

thefalseassumptionthatawhitepersonwhodoesnotparticipatein‘extreme’racist

actsisnotracist”.167ItisthroughtheactsoffailuretosecureaninquestintoGordon’s

death, its failure for justice, and the eventual denouement in the narrative of Ben

himselfthatthefilmconcludesonatragicheroicnote.DrawingonAanerud,BenDu

Toitthusbecomesasymbolnotofguiltbutofinnocence.Ben’s‘outofplace’character

ispartlyself-imposedandpartlyexternallyinflicted.Inbeingawareofthis,empathyin

the film is directed in twoways andwhilewe knowBenwas a naïve Afrikaner,we

believehis innocencethroughthemartyrdomofknowingthathediedfor justice for

Gordon.

167RebeccaAanerud,“FictionsofWhiteness:SpeakingtheNamesofWhitenessinU.S.Literature”inRuthFrankenberg(ed.),DisplacingWhiteness:EssaysinSocialandCulturalCriticism(DurhamandLondon:DukeUniversityPress,1997),p.49.

89

The scenes discussed above emphasise that the relationships between Black

andwhite in apartheid South Africa (as evidenced inWoods and Biko and Ben and

Gordon,andlater,BenandStanley),arenotnormalrelationships.Thereisasensethat

notonlytherelationshipsbutalsotheactionsthattakeplacebecauseofthesecross-

racial relationships are exceptional and commendable. The heroic accolades

associatedwithsuchcommendationareconstructedaroundwhitemeninthesefilms

becauseoftheirabilitytoextractthemselves(andoftentheirfamilies)fromtheunfair

inequalitiesofapartheid.Theirsacrificesarethusunderstoodthroughthefilmsasacts

without which apartheid would not have ended. Black characters in turn are

mythologised as strong and resilient and, dependent on the Black man’s social

standing,written intohistoryasspecial.Bikoforexamplehasbeenmythologisedfor

his writings about Black consciousness but characters like Gordon are written into

history as part of the masses of Black people damaged, affected and killed by

apartheid.

Kelly Madison highlights the following three points which are useful to the

discussionofhowwhitesupremacyworksinsuchfilms:

1) bydefiningwhitesupremacyinaparticularlydistant,extreme,blatant,andtherefore superficial way, 2) by systematically privileging ‘white’experiences of those struggles for African peoples’ equality over Africanexperiencesand3)byconstructingapaternalisticformofwhitesupremacyas the ideological framework within which to understand the criticalhistoricalmomentsinthestrugglesforequality.168

Both Cry Freedom and DryWhite represent patriarchal sacrifice that foreign

audiences could empathise with. Termed anti-apartheid films, neither of these

features dramatically engages apartheid in ways beyond images of violence, which

168KellyMadison,“Legitimation,CrisisandContainment:‘Theanti-racist-white-hero’;film”,CriticalStudiesinMassCommunication16:4(1999),pp.405–406.

90

audiences were already familiar with through news footage. Both films recreate

protestmarchestosituatethecontextandheightenedviolenceofapartheid.BothDu

ToitandWoodsmanagetogarnerpublicattention,evenindeathinDuToit’scaseand

escapeinWoods’.However,althoughbothWoodsandDuToitarenotinSouthAfrica

bytheendofthefilms,bothhavealsobeenreleasedfromthewhitemaleperpetrator

rolethroughtheirheroicdeeds.Thisvindicationemphasisesanendingwhichnotonly

glorifiestheliberatorfriendshipsbetweenBlackandwhitemeninthesefilmsbutalso

extends this almost congratulatory sensibility tootherswhomightbe like thewhite

mainprotagonists.VictoriaCarchidiwritesthat,ateachfilm’score,thereisareflection

ontheaudiencespreconceivedideasratherthanamassivealterationinthinking.169

169Carchidi,“SouthAfricafromTexttoFilm”,p.47.

91

PartTwo

Mapantsula: A Black Perspective Anti-Apartheid Film: the Case of Panic,the‘Tsotsi’

The1988filmMapantsulaisaboutthecomingtoconsciousnessofatownship

tsotsi(townshipgangster)namedPanic.DirectedbyOliverSchmitzandco-writtenby

Schmitz and Thomas Mogotlane, who plays the lead Panic, Mapantsula’s critical

acclaimisderivedfromitsabilitytoshowandexploreanapartheidnarrativefromthe

perspective of a Black lead, which is not mediated through a white lead. Litheko

Modisanewrites that the film recasts the gangster genre from “a typicalHollywood

fare”, and draws on Third Cinema and a direct political narrative.170 The film was

released in theyearsbetweenthe twobig-budget filmsdiscussed in the firstpartof

this chapter. Panic’s consciousness is a different kind of consciousness to what is

presentedinthefilmsdiscussedintheprevioussection.Inthosefilms,themaingoal

was to educate liberal foreign audiences by way of showing the Black and white

protagonistsascharacters,whowerefundamentallyoutofplaceinaveryfixedplace,

apartheidSouthAfrica.

Mapantsula’s focus is different: Schmitz and Mogotlane present a more

complexformofconsciousnesswhichreferestoBiko’sBCideologywhen,forinstance,

Panic learns about the political importance and resilience of unions from his fellow

cellmates. However,whatmakes the film sovaluable is that it is able todepict the

everyday lifeofayoungblackman,who isnotexplicitly interested in thepoliticsof

apartheid SouthAfrica. He later comes toembody the idealsofBlackpsychological

liberation by Black people themselves. Mapantsula has been discussed at length in

170Modisane,RenegadeReels,p.100.

92

film scholarship and has secured its position as exceptional for its time.171 The

intentionofthissectionisthustoshowhowsomeoftherepresentationaldifferences

inMapantsulahelpstopointoutdistinctdifferencesinapproachandstyleoftheanti-

apartheidfilmsofthefirstsectionofthechapter.

Someof the practical difficulties ofmaking a film such asMapantsula in the

1980sareexplainedbyMaingardinherdiscussionofhow,inorderforthefilmtobe

shot in SouthAfrica, the script had to be passed by the Publications Control Board.

Againstsuchabackground,themakingofMapantsulawasimportantand“…itsability

tojuxtaposeblackandwhiteexperiencefromablackperspective,aswellasitsfocus

on black opposition to the state, has earned it a special place in the history of

oppositionalculturalwork”.172ItisalsoforthesereasonsthatMapantsulacontinues

tohaveculturalresonanceinSouthAfrica.LithekoModisanewritesthatwithregard

to financing,Mapantsulawas overshadowed by other SouthAfricanmovies likeCry

Freedom (1987)andAWorldApart (1988).173 The filmwas thusonlyable tosecure

developmentfundsfromEnglandandthefilmwaseventuallycoproducedbyOneLook

Productions (South Africa), David Hannay Productions (Australia) and Haverbeam

(UK)…”.174However,SchmitzandwriterMogotlanealsobenefitedfinanciallyfromthe

apartheid film subsidy scheme, as they presented a false gangster genre film to the

PublicationsControlBoard.175

171KeyanTomaselli,“PopularCommunicationinSouthAfrica:‘Mapantsula’anditsContextofStruggle”SouthAfricanTheatreJournal5:1(1991),pp.46–60.,Nixon,Homelands,HarlemandHollywood.,Maingard,“NewSouthAfricanCinema”,pp.235–243.,Magogodi,“Sexuality,PowerandtheBlackBody”inBalseiroandMasilela(eds.),ToChangeReels.172Maingard,“NewSouthAfricanCinema”,p.236.173Modisane,RenegadeReels,p.101.174Ibid.175Ibid.

93

With the film set against the contextual backdropof the (1986) Soweto rent

strikes, one is aware of viewing something that may be a true reflection of life in

apartheidSouthAfricaratherthanamystifiednarrativeofindividualbraveness.Thisis

particularly conveyed through Panic and Pat, two of the protagonistswho continue

withtheirregularlives.Thefilm’semphasestakeplacewithineverydayactivities,such

asPat’sexperiencesofworkingasadomesticworkerforawhitewoman,andPanic’s

pick-pocketing in the centre of town. Panic’s usualmodus operandi is to stand on

streetcornersandwatchwhitewomenenterandexitshopsandgrabtheirhandbags

whentheyarenotlooking.PanicdiffersfromBlackprotagonistsinDryWhiteandCry

Freedom; he is not exceptional like Biko, nor is he ordinary but a good person like

Gordon. There is no distinctmention of apartheid life inMapantsulaexcept for its

overtpresenceinthemilieuofracialseparationandelementsofapartheidexpressed

intheparallelnarrativeofPanicinjail.

Panic’santi-herostatusandthesmallchangesexperiencedinhimbytheendof

the film emphasises aspects of apartheid that neither Dry White nor Cry Freedom

achieve:firstly,thatBlackpeoplecontinuedtolivetheirlivesduringapartheid.Thisis

seen inhowPatcontinuestogotowork,paytherentandhavedomesticsquabbles

with the lazy Panic. It is also shown consistently in the images of the township, in

whichpeopleactuallyexpressthemselves,whichisdifferenttorepresentationsofthe

township inDryWhite andCry Freedom. Secondly,Mapantsula does not rely on a

whiteheroandshowshowBlackConsciousnessdevelopments,howeversmall,were

often instrumentalised through Black people learning from each other. This is

expressedinPanic’stimeinprison,inwhichheexperiencesthosewhowerejailedfor

political reasons rather than petty crimes. Finally,Mapantsula expresses distinct,

individual anger in Panic when he throws the brick through the window of Pat’s

94

‘madam’s’house.Thereoccurrenceofthisseeminglyminoreventthroughaflashback

laterinthefilm,showstheconsistentpresenceofhisanger,hisdevelopmentandthe

extentofpsychologicaleruptionwhichtakesplaceinthisfilm.

ThisisalsotheincidentwhichIdiscussbrieflyinthissectiontopointouthow

Panic isnotanexceptionalBlackhero,nor ishe reallyan ‘outofplace’ character in

apartheid. Thescene is interestingbecause it isbothanexpressionofPanic’sanger

andanexpressionofthehyper-masculinityhediplaystowardsPat.Thescenebegins

to drive home the idea of an extraordinary context inwhich Panic (and other Black

people)continuewithrelativelyordinarythings.Whenweexperiencetheflashbackof

theshatteringglass later in the film, it isa reminderofPanic’sdevelopmentandhis

nowmorearticulateanger:withthesystem,notjustwiththeunfairnessof life. It is

particularly vital thatweare able to remember the contextof the first incident and

then, knowing Panic’s growth, experience the shattering again from Panic’s new

vantage point. With the lack of emphasis on celebration for Panic’s political

enlightenment,andwithnowhiteprotagonisttovalidateit,thefilmisstill“themost

significantanti-apartheidfictionfilmtoemergepriortothefirstdemocraticelections

in1994…”.176

WhenPanicvisitsPatatwork,weareawareofthefactthat it isnotthefirst

timehedoesthis.OnthefirstoccasionheunexpectedlyvisitsPat,neithershenorher

white‘madam’arecomfortablewithPanic’spresenceatthehouse.Patisadomestic

workerforawhitefamilyinthesuburbsandthroughPanic’sbusjourneytothehouse,

webegintoseethechangesinthesurroundingsofthecity.Thesettingshiftsfromthe

176Maingard,SANationalCinema,p.149.

95

grungydirtystreets filledwithshopsandnoiseandnowreflects thequiet tree lined

streetsofawhitesuburb.Panicisframedinalongshotasheapproachesthehouse.

[Figure2.1]PaniconroutetoPat’sworkplaceinwhitesuburb

A continuity shot opens the scene to show Pat ironing as Panicwatches her

throughthebackdoor. Onseeingherbossarriveshebegshimto leave. Whenthe

‘Missus’ (Mrs Bentley) enters, she launches into isiZulu, reprimanding him for being

thereandagainbegginghimtogo.Hetakestoberatingherjobasadomesticworker.

Through the use of a shot-reverse-shot sequence, Pat and Panic have been arguing

aboutwhatthejobprovideshimwith:foodandshelter.MrsBentleyentersfromthe

leftofscreen,breakingtheshot-reverse-shotsequencetakingplacebetweenPatand

Panic. WhenPat refuses to leaveshe fetchesa largeAlsatian fromthebackseat to

threatenPanicwith.Onseeingthedogandhearingitbark,Panicquicklybacksaway

fromthedoorandpicksupahalfbrickalongsidethewhitewalloftheproperty. He

runsawaybutbeforeheexitsthefrontgarden,hethrowsthebrickatalargewindow.

ThecamerabrieflyfocusesonPanicashethrowsthebrickandthenfocusessolelyon

the window as it shatters. The sound of the glass shattering, accompanied by the

frenzy of the dog’s barking, contributes to a feeling that something beyond the

96

physical window has been broken. The camera’s focus on the hole in the window

servestofurtherenhancethisheightenedfeelingofuneaseandinaway,relief.Panic

wasfinallyabletodosomethingtoexpresshimselfbeyondbeingapettythief.Inthe

momentbeforethewindowbreaks,thecamerafocusesonshowingPanic’sexpression

andtheswiftpauseinhisrunningmotionasheturnstotakeinwhathehasjustdone.

[Figure2.2]ShatteredwindowatMrsBentley’shouse

97

[Figure2.3]Shatteredwindowinflashback

ThefilmrevisitsthissamemomentlaterinthefilmwhenhalfofPanic’sbodyis

heldoutofawindowatJohnVorsterSquarepoliceheadquarters.TheimageofPanic

in thisposition referencesahistoryofBlackdetaineeswhoweremurdered thisway

duringapartheid. Intheflashbackoftheearliersceneweseetheglassshatterfrom

theinsideofthehouse,inotherwords,notfromPanic’spointofviewontheoutside

of thehouse. Writing about thismoment,Maingardargues that, from thispointof

view,itisasthoughthewindow“shattersaroundus,positionedasweareonitsplane,

andthusbindingusintocomplicitywiththismostcentralofthefilm’smoments,and

ofPanic’s shifting internaldynamics,withinhisprisonnarrative”.177 The shiftof the

positionofthecameraintheflashbacknotonlybindsusintocomplicity,asMaingard

pointsout,butalsoinvitesustoexperiencePanic’spsychologicalshatteringinamore

criticalfashion.

177Ibid.,p.154.

98

Theshatteringglass representsashift inPanic so thathe (andwe)no longer

viewshimselfasavictimofapartheidbutassomeonewithagency.Herealisesthathe

doesnothavetohelpthesecuritypolicebygivingtheminformationabouthisunionist

cellmatesoranyotherliberationmovementinformationthattheywantfromhim.He

choosesnot tohelphimself inorder togetoutof jail, and insteadchooses to stand

with his fellowBlack struggle comrades, in thisway defying his past life’s lacklustre

attitudetowardstheharshnessofapartheid. Hisdefiance isemphasisedquietlyand

with little dramatic flair when, at the end of the film he refuses to sign an untrue

statementpresentedtohimbythesecuritypoliceman.Panic’sdefiantexpressionand

hisrighthandinafistasthesecuritypolicemanleansoverhimexpresshisnewstance

throughtheembodimentofanti-apartheidactions:araisedfistwhichindicatedpower

to the people. The camera lingers on this close-up of Panic,which emphasises the

power of individual change through Black Consciousness and significantly, not

navigatedthroughwhiteness.Inthisway,Mapantsuladoesnotonlysucceedinbeing

an anti-apartheid film from a Black point of view but also as a politically astute

representationofBlackconsciousness. ItsemphasisisonBlackpeoplelearningfrom

otherBlackpeopletoexpressthemselvesagainstwhitedomination. This isdifferent

fromthe‘outofplace’charactersofSectionOneofthischapter.

Beyond the Black perspective approach ofMapantsula, another noteworthy

elementisitsgenderdynamic.Thefinalsectionofthischapterconsidersthewomen

characters across the filmsDryWhite and Cry Freedom; however it isworth noting

here that Pat, Panic’s girlfriend, is not only defiant but she, like Ramphele in Cry

Freedomforexample,isanactivemobiliserofanti-apartheidwork.AsaBlackwoman,

hersignificance,readagainstPanic’sdisinterestedinpolitics‘tsotsi’approachiseven

more noticeable. According to Maingard, it is because of Pat’s employment as a

99

domesticworker that the film is able tomove between the geographical and racial

mise-en-scènesofthetownshipwheretheylivetogethertothegrittycitywherePanic

robspeopleandthewhitesuburb,wherePatworks.178Maingardcontinuesthatitis

Pat’s position that makes it possible for the film to really explore the relatioship

betweenblackandwhitelife.179

LaterinthefilmPatbeginstoparticipateinsomeofthecommunityrentriots

ofthe1980sinSoweto.However,Maingardarguesthatthistooisinvitedthroughthe

gaze and set up from a blackman, Duma, who is the antithesis of Panic. Duma is

respectful and treats Pat differently to Panic, who expects her to just get on with

thingsandpayfortherentandfoodeventhoughhealsocriticisesherforthekindof

jobshehas,adomestichelper.WithDuma,wearealsoabletoviewPatbeyondher

workerposition.Nevertheless,Maingardarguesthat,“…whilethefilm’sstrength lies

in its representation of the socio-political context of the period, it is a black male

perspectivethatdominates”.180KgafelaoaMagogodialsoemploysasimilarcritiqueto

Maingard when he points out that Pat’s consciousness is negotiated via her

relationshipstotheBlackmenPanicandDuma.Magogodiwritesthat,“…sheseemsto

jumpoutofPanic’sbedonlytolandinDuma’s.CouldPatnothavejoinedtheSouth

AfricanDomesticWorkersUnion (SADWU)without being romantically involvedwith

Duma?”181

WhatMaingardandMagogodipoint to is thateven thoughPat is intrinsic to

the actual socio-political content of Mapantsula, her own defiance is somewhat

watered down in a new romantic encounter with a politically driven man named

178Maingard,“NewSouthAfricanCinema”,pp.238.179Ibid.180Ibid.,p.239.181Magogodi,“Sexuality,Power,andtheBlackBody”inBalseiroandMasilela(eds.),ToChangeReels,p.197.

100

Duma.However,havingwatchedPatatthehandsofPanic’slazypatriarchy,wherehe

simply expected her to keep things going, Pat’s new love interest is not entirely

unwelcomeeither. Patdoesnotonlyattend themeetings forDumabut forherself

andherowndefiance,particularlyinrelationtorepresentationsofotherBlackwomen

inanti-apartheidfilms,shouldnotbetooquicklydismissed.

101

PartThree

TheWomenofCryFreedomandADryWhiteSeason

The analyses of the first two sections of this chapter have focused almost

exclusivelyontheobviousandprimaryBlack/whitepairingsofthemalecharacters.In

havingsetupthediscussioninsuchawayitappearsthatthewomenhavebeenleft

out,however, if the focused is slightly shifted, itbecomesapparent that thewomen

play as crucial a role as the men. In Anne McClintock writings about gender and

nationalism,shehighlightsthefollowing:

Excluded from direct action as national citizens, women are subsumedsymbolically into the national body politic as its boundary and metaphoriclimit…Womenare typically construed as the symbolic bearers of the nation,butaredeniedanydirectrelationtonationalagency.182

Inherdiscussionofpost-warGermanyandthereconstitutionofnation,Erica

Carterassertsthat,“Bothintheirpositionasiconsofnationhood(Britannia,Marianne,

Germania),andassymbolicandactualmothers tothe family-as-nation,women, it is

said, become the touchstone and guardian of traditional national identities”.183

Although this thesis is not about a new nation in the context of a post-war nation,

South Africa as a former colony and then an apartheid state, required that the

population(particularlywhites)agreedtocertaincodesofprotectingawhitenation.

Inthisnation,itwasofutmostimportancethatthe‘volk’(themasses,alsoBiblical,the

followers)beprotectedandthatthosewhowerepartofitkeptthebeliefsalive.This

work fell to thewomenand thuspoints toakindof reconstructionofwhiteEmpire

182AnneMcClintock,“FamilyFeuds:Gender,NationalismandtheFamily”,FeministReview:NationalismsandNationalIdentities44(Summer,1993),p.62.183EricaCarter,HowGermanIsShe?PostwarWestGermanReconstructionandtheConsumingWoman(AnnArbor:TheUniversityOfMichiganPress,1997),p.31.

102

that finds resonance insomeofCarter’s thesis. Thissectionof thechapterexplores

how thewomen in the films are represented as the guardians and safe keepers of

apartheid(inthecasesofSuzette,SusanandWendy)andasBlackwomen,protectors

alsooftheanti-apartheidmovement.

MelissaSteyn’sworkillustratesthateventhoughapartheidisover,whiteSouth

Africanidentitiesarestill inastateofconfusionandturmoilthatoftenrevertstoold

SouthAfricandialoguesandbeliefs.OneoftherespondentsinSteyn’sstudyofpost-

apartheidwhiteidentitysaid,“Youarebornandyourparentsbringyouupintheway

oftheoldSouthAfrica. Thepastisbeingheldagainstyou”184. Whatisevidencedin

this respondent’s answer to how he views himself as a white South African is an

inability tomove beyond the family structure. As Steyn puts it, “Growing up in an

authoritariansociety,whereacceptingandobeyingyourparentsisanabsolutenorm,

hewouldbeatraitortothemifhedidnotupholdtheirteaching.”185

3.1TheAfrikanerWomenofADryWhiteSeasonandMelanie,theOutsider

TheDuToitwomeninDryWhitearestaunchAfrikanerwomen. Susan,Ben’s

wife makes it clear after the inquest into Gordon’s death that she unequivocally

supportsapartheid.Suzette,Ben’sdaughter,doesthesame.Thissectionshowshow

Susan and Suzette do not see Ben’s development in a positive light but are instead

profoundlyembarrassedbywhattheyconsidertobehimlettingdownthefamilyand

the Afrikaner people. Both Susan and Suzette become more enraged as the film

progresses,withBen’sdaughter,Suzette,demanding, inherconfusedstate, that life

shouldjustreturnto“thewayitusedtobe”.

184MelissaSteyn,Whitenessjustisn’twhatitusedtobe,p.64.185Ibid.

103

In the scene atMelanie’s house that was analysed in the previous section I

concentratedonBen’sawarenessandmomentofenlightenment. However,Melanie

isalsointerestingasacharacterinrelationtotheconservativeSusanandSuzette.In

thatscene,MelanieisshowntobetheonetoarticulatetoBenthatwhathewitnessed

inthecourtroomistherealSouthAfrica;thenshewelcomeshimtothatSouthAfrica.

WhileBen isno longer in favourwithhisownpeople,he finds respite inMelanie,a

foreignerbecausesheisfromanotherplacebutalsoaforeignerinherperspectiveand

positiontowardshimandapartheidSouthAfrica.Heiswelcomedtotheothersideby

awomanwhosepresencethereisvalidatedbyherownothernessinthatplace.

BothMelanieandBenaregrantedequalamountsofscreenspaceinthescene

atMelanie’shouse. WhenBen sitsdown ina resigned fashion,withhishead inhis

hands,andlamentshisnaivetéaboutapartheid,itisMelaniewho,withherownglass

ofwhiskyinhand,affirmsthatfactandhisnewstatusinSouthAfrica.Sheisconfident

andboldandbecause she isoften in the same frameasothermen, it is sometimes

impliedthatshetooismasculine.However,onanotheroccasionlaterinthefilm,she

is beautifully dressed and sexily portrayedwith bright red lips, as she shares secret

information with Ben in a park. Although Melanie is a supporting character, the

differentwaysinwhichsheisrepresented–firm,serious,politicalandsexy–presenta

woman character,who is liberal andopenmindedanddifferent fromwhat the film

presents as a South Africanwhitewoman. InMelanie’s ‘out of place’ physical and

psychologicalpresence,andhersupportoftheanti-apartheidstruggle,Benbecomes

alignedwithher,and is thusalsopartofan ‘outofplace’ setofpeoplewhodonot

quitebelonginthedefinedspaceofapartheid.

104

Susan and Suzette are different to Melanie. At the height of Ben’s

enlightenmentandafterStanleyhasvisitedtheDuToithouseholdonmorethanone

occasion,SusanbeginstopushbackagainstBen.TwoscenesstandoutinwhichSusan

ispresentedasaracistapartheiddevoteeandaprotectorofherfamily. Thefirstof

these scenes opens with Susan helping Jonathan with his homework. Seated on a

couchandclearlyveryrelaxed,theylookupwhenBenarrives.Susan’sfootbeginsto

shakewhenshe seesBen,an indicationofherdiscomfort.This same feeling follows

BenandSusanintothekitchen,wherethesecondsceneunfolds.Surroundedbyfood

thingsandthehearthofthehome,SusanislocatedintheactualkitchenwhereasBen

looksin,shieldedbythedoorframethatactsformallyasakindofbarriertoentry.This

is similar to the previous scenewherewe see Susan and Johan fromBen’s point of

view.Helooksinontheminasimilarfashiontothatinthisscene.

Theseparationofspaceisstarkbecausesheis inoneroomandheisactually

justoutside,buttheseparationisalsonotovertbecauseBencanenterifhesowishes.

This is part of the labour of the film tomake Ben’s activist rolemore explicit. Ben

continuestochoosetofightthesystemwhereasSusanremainsinit. Nowthatheis

awareofhisownposition,heistheonelookingin.InadditiontoSusan’spositioning

within the kitchen, itself traditionally gendered as thewomen’s space, the dialogue

alsocontributes to thebinaryofwho is insideandwho isoutsideof theconfinesof

apartheid. Their inside/ outside locations also emphasise the ‘out of place-ness’ of

Ben, StanleyandMelanieand theprotected insider spaceof SusanandSuzetteand

theirfamily.

Susanusesdistinctionslike‘us’and‘them’,meaningwhitesandBlacks;Susan

alsousesthederogatoryapartheidterm‘kaffirs’torefertoBlackpeople inthemost

105

demeaningway. However Susan’s critiques extend beyond ridicule. They begin to

demonstrate the feararoundwhat itmightmean toher,her familyandcommunity

should Blacks take over the country. In her ability to make the ‘us’ and ‘them’

distinction, Susanexhibits awhiteapartheidmindsetwhich ispremisedona fearof

Black people, who are seen as savages, dangerous and almost not human. Such a

world, inwhichBlacks are permittedhumane treatment, is, according to Susan, the

dismantlementofeverythingsheknowsandholdsdear.ForSusanthesidesareclear

andBennolongerknowswhichsideheison.Whatismostevidentinthissceneisnot

Susan’sangertowardsBen.AlthoughSusan’sembarrassmentandupsetispalpable,it

isherdesiretoprotectherfamilythatisemphasisedinhercharacter.

WhilethecamerafollowsSusanasshepacesupanddowninherkitchenand

as Ben watches her, we are also invited to observe the fully stocked grocery

cupboards.Apeanutbutterjar, labeled‘BlackCat’,afamiliarSouthAfricanbrand,is

momentarily in focusas Susanpassesbyanopencupboarddoor. Havingdescribed

himself as “mean black cat in the night”, the image of the jar and the reference to

‘black’remindsusofStanleyinthisshot.Whileaclose-upofSusanconveysherdeep

upset and distress at the situation, one cannot help but observe the irony in the

welcomepresenceforthe ‘BlackCat’ inthe jarversusthehuman‘blackcat’Stanley.

ThereisalsoasubtlereferencetotheabsurdityofSusan’smusingsaboutapartheidas

asystemthatprotectsthemaswhites,whensherhetoricallyaskswhetherBenthinks

theBlackswouldnotdothesamegiventhechancetobeinpower.SusanandBendo

notlookateachotherinthisscene.Onceshehaspacedupanddownthekitchena

fewtimes,sheleansagainsttherefrigerator,lookingvacantlyinthesamedirectionas

Ben.WhenthecamerafocusesonSusanagainiteitherfollowsherasatrackingshot

orinamediumclose-up,contributingtotheflowofherthoughtsandmusings.Benis

106

often framed inmediumclose-ups in thescene,andhisstationaryposition indicates

thatlikehischangedideasandbeliefs,heisfirmlyrootedinwhathenowknowstobe

right.

ThefinalstrawhowevercomeslaterinthefilmasthefamilyenjoysaChristmas

meal.AcharacterthatappearstobeSusan’sfatherasksBenaboutwherehewillfind

ajobnow,ashewasrecentlymaderedundant.Althoughtheatmosphereischeerful

there isadistinctundertoneofdiscomfort thatcomesthrough incommentssuchas

theoneSusan’sfathermakesaboutBen’sworksituationandtheinsinuationthathe

maynotbeabletogetanotherjob,asananti-apartheidsympathiser.Stanleyappears

under the archway drunkenly swaying and commenting on howhappy they all look

huddling around the tree. His unruly appearance leads to a very quick end to the

Christmas festivities and another comment from Susan’s father to Ben which

reinforceswhattheythinkofhim,thatheisnolongeratrueAfrikanerbutatraitor.

SusandisappearsfromthesceneinwhichStanleyandBenphysicallyfighteach

otheronlytobebrokenupbyJohan. WhensheappearsagainweseeherfromBen

andStanley’spointofview.Theyarebothonthefloorandlookupather. Susanis

clearlythesuperioronehereassheapproachesthemwithtwosuitcasesoneitherside

ofhertoshowthatshehasreachedtheendofhertether.Suzetteispresentedasa

proud Afrikaner daughter and very similar to her mother. They are often dressed

similarly, in pastel colours cardigans and Suzette’s long blonde hair is neatly and

modestlystyledtoaccompanyherdemurelook.SuzetteandSusanhavemadesimilar

comments about the ‘kaffirs’ throughout the film, indicating a less nuanced

understanding of the situation of apartheid, but one that is clearly reflective of

traditionalAfrikanervaluesatthetime.

107

The values espoused by Susan and Suzette do not show a particularly rich

understanding of the situation, in fact, if anything, the filmpersists in showing how

these women characters continue to preach the apartheid mottos as virtuous.

Suzette’s angerather father comes fromaplaceofembarrassment. She interprets

what Ben does for Emily Ngubene as selfish because he does not think of his own

family.ThepointthatSusanandSuzetteperpetuallyreturntoisfamily.WhileSusan

walksawayfromBen,Suzettetakesituponherselftoworkwiththesecuritypoliceto

stopBen’santi-apartheidplanstoavengeGordon’smurder.Asthefilmprogressesto

theclimaxofBen’sdeath,Suzette isnotshownas the innocentdemurewomanshe

hasbeenupuntilthispoint. Sheisthusnotcharacteristicallyportrayedasawoman

whoisupsetanddoesnotknowwhattodobutratherasquiteashrewdenactorof

whatshefeelsneedstobeprotected.

InthesceneleadinguptoBen’sdeathheandSuzettemeetatwhatappearsto

bea localpizzeria.Benhasalready learnedofhisdaughter’sactsofvengeance (she

knew for example of an explosive that had been planted in Ben’s shed) and in this

scene intends to manipulate her by giving her fake documents which Ben knows

Suzettewill give to securitypolicemanStoltz. Although this scene is complex for a

numberof reasons, suchas the fact that theyarebothmanipulating theother, it is

Suzette’streacherythatismostdisturbing.TheearlierreferencetoMcClintockatthe

beginning of Part Three highlights the complicated relation of women to national

identityinawaywhichisusefulindeconstructingthecharactersofSusanandSuzette.

Considered in relation toMcClintock’s point, although Suzette and Susan are

characterisedsimilarly,Suzetteisemployedinactiveservicefortheprotectionofthe

nation and iswielded into a role that is outsideof the symbolic remit. Hermother

108

however remains the symbolic bearer of nation and is never seen beyond this

construction. Hence, although Suzette is a model of her mother, she is also

representedaspartofagenerationthatisawareofagencyintheserviceofpatriarchy.

To employ McClintock again, she points out that, “Women are represented as the

atavistic and authentic ‘body’ of national tradition (inert, backward-looking, and

natural)embodyingnationalism’sconservativeprincipleofcontinuity”.186BothSusan

andSuzettearerepresentativeofsuchwomen.ParticularlyinSuzette’scase,itisher

backwardlookingandforwardthinking(inrelationtoherowntoddler)thatspurson

herneedtobetrayherfather inthewaythatshedoes,whichultimately leadstohis

death.ThefilmthussuggeststhatwhiletheAfrikanerfamilyembodiesthevaluesof

apartheid and the traditions of the community (volk), the paternalistic nation is

affirmed by Protestant veracity. With this in mind, Susan and Suzette do not only

protecttheirownfamiliesbutalsotheessentialisedtraitsofAfrikanerdom.

WhileSusanandSuzetteareproblematic,theyarealsoexhibitedascharacters

that deservepity precisely becauseof their domesticmotheringwhen, for example,

weseethesecharactersatchurchorinthehomespace.Constitutedofthesedifferent

traitsasmothersasprotectors,thefilmdoesnotrequirethatthesewomenbevilified

without this being a complex awareness of the place that they occupy within the

familyandthenation.Wearethereforealsocompelledtoseetheirfears,comments

andchoicesasunderstandableandevenpermissible.

AlthoughDryWhite’s emphasis is elsewhere, the analysis of this section has

shownthatthemodelsofwhitefemininityarecomplexandpartofapartheidandanti-

apartheid positionalities. With Susan and Suzette as bearers of Afrikaner domestic

186McClintock,“FamilyFeuds”,p.66.

109

femininity,andMelanieasthebearerofEnglish(foreign)assertivefemininity,thefilm

doesnotquiterelegatethesecharacterstospacesof insignificancebutpointstothe

extentoftheirsymbolicandactivepower.AlthoughthefilmindicatesthatMelanie’s

anti-apartheid place is partly permissible because she is foreign, the film also,

expresses,todrawonCarter’sformulation,someofthecomplexitiesoftheguardians

ofnationalanddomesticspaces.187Thesecomplexitiesappearevenmoreinneedof

protectionintheintricaciesofanti-apartheidbeliefsinaplacewhere,liketheDuToit

household, no such articulation was truly needed before because everyone simply

understoodtheirfixedidentities.

However, the racial binary of Dry Whitealso points to another woman,

Gordon’swife,EmilyNgubene.EmilyisthesingleconsistentBlackwomaninthefilm;

howeverbythetimeshediesweactuallyknow littleabouther. Whereasthewhite

womenaredevelopedthroughoutthefilmasvariedandtheirchoicesareshownfrom

different angles, Emily’s lack of agency is only marginally pointed at when the

characterisonscreen.Emily’sroleisprimarilyinserviceofBen’sproject.Forexample,

sheistheonewhotellsBenaboutGordonindetentionandsheistheonewhowishes

toprobefurtherintothereasonsforGordon’sdeathindetention.However,itisBen’s

actions that follow up on these matters and it is Ben and Stanley’s conversations

aroundtheoutcomesthatyieldfurtherchoicesanddecisionsaroundtryingtoexpose

thesecuritypolice.Ben,StanleyandMelaniebecometheteamwhopropeltheactual

projectofvindicatingGordon’sdeath.AstheonlyBlackwomancharacterinafilmin

whichwomenareofgreatinterestintheplot,itiscuriousthatEmilyremainsreserved

throughouteveninherdeath.AnaspectofEmily’sdeathisshowninabriefflashback

whichshowsherandGordon’schildrentakentothehomelandonthebackofapolice

187Carter,HowGermanisShe?,p.31.

110

track. StanleyrelaysthatEmilydied inthatencounterwiththepolicebutshe isnot

shownandneitherisherdeath.

Contributingtothelargerfilmthen,thesecharactersconveyamessagethatis

notverydifferentfromapartheidpropagandaafterall.AsCarchidiwrites,“Themovie

compelsustowantaresolutionthatplaysrightintothepropagandaofapartheid:free

the blacks, and they will slaughter all the whites on suspicion of abuse or

complicity”.188

3.2DefianceandtheJointStruggleofWomeninCryFreedom

ThewomencharactersofCryFreedomaredifferenttothoseinDryWhite. In

thefirstinstance,DonaldWoods’wife,Wendy,isalsoaliberal.Althoughshowntobe

protectiveoffamilyandnation,Wendyissignificantlynotshowntobearacist. Ina

numberof scenesWendy and the children are contextualised in the samedomestic

spaceasEvalina,theirdomestichelper.AlthoughEvalinaworksfortheWoodsfamily,

thechildrentreatherwithrespect,atellingaspectoftheliberalvaluesofthefamily.

InthecontextofCryFreedom,theliberalstreattheBlackswellrelativetoAfrikaners

but,asSteveBikopointsoutinthefilm(andinhisownscholarship),theyremainwhite

andcandoverylittletoshifttheirownwhitecomforts.

InasceneinwhichWendyandDonalddebatethefamily’sescapefromSouth

AfricaweseeWendyinasimilarroletoSusanDuToit.Thisisacontextinwhichsheis

primarily presented as the protector of her family. There are a number of other

differences between Wendy and the white women of Dry White: Wendy supports

Donald’santi-apartheidworkwithSteveandWendyherselfisshowntobepresentat

a rally; she and their eldest daughter and Donald attend Steve’s funeral and she

188Carchidi,“SouthAfricafromTexttoFilm”,pp.54–55.

111

extendstheirfriendship,callingNtsikiandSteveherandDonald’sbrotherandsister.

Sheextendsthesupportofthefamilyandthereisclearcamaraderiebetweenthetwo

familiesandsomethingthatextendsbeyondanawarenessoftheplightofblackness.

Attenboroughalso successfully sets up amore fluid gender interactionbetween the

two couples, which is also significantly different toDryWhite, in which the gender

divide is reinforced alongside the racial divide. In theseways, Attenborough seems

abletodiversifyWendy,Donaldandtheirfamily,showingthemtobetrueliberalsbut

alsotobeactiveparticipantsinthefightagainstapartheid.

TheWoodsfamilyspeaksEnglish,anindicationoftheirwhiteliberalvaluesand

tradition. Their ‘Englishness’ alsopoints tohowboth filmsdrawon thedistinctions

betweenAfrikanersandEnglish(BritishorSouthAfrican)tosubtlyreferenceacolonial

tugofwarbetween theDutchand theBritish. Apartheid is inawayalsovilifiedas

somethingcreatedbyAfrikaners,andwhichtheEnglisharealwayssomehowslightly

removedfrom.AlthoughtheDuToitsspeakEnglishinDryWhite,theirnamesandtheir

fierceapartheidbeliefs indicatethattheyrepresentafamilythatwouldhavespoken

Afrikaans during apartheid. The choices around the use of English language inDry

White and Cry Freedom are another way in which it is clear that the films are not

directedatlocalaudiences.

The argument between theWoods takes place on a cliff that overlooks the

beach. The scene starts with a close-up of Wendy Woods and enters into a shot-

reverse-shot pattern as the pair discusses Donald’s suggestion to escape apartheid

South Africa to Britain. His intention is to publish about Steve’s teachings. The

intensity of the disagreement about whether to stay or go is conveyed through a

variety of close-ups and medium close-ups between Donald and Wendy. The

112

establishing shot in the scene has shown the couple to be seated atop a large rock

fromwheretheycanseetheirchildrenplayonanisolatedbeachbeneaththem.

Thesceneisabletoconveyasenseofthegeographicalisolationofthemfrom

other people, as they are the only family on the beach, but the isolation is also

extendedintowhotheyareasafamily.Theyaredifferenttootherwhitefamilieswho

donothaveBlackfriends,afatherunderhousearrestandparentsdiscussinganillegal

escapefromthecountry.Thevastopennessshownintheexpansivewide-angleshots

ofthebeachandthehorizonoftheseaalsohelpstoextendtheideaofpossibilitythat

WendyandDonaldspeakaboutinthescene.Wendyisnotimmediatelysupportiveof

Donald’sdecisiontoleave,callinghimselfishbutatthesametimeexpressingdisgust

for apartheid. Nevertheless, she laments, the country remains their home. It is in

Wendy’s robust expression around home and the protection of her family that a

connectionbetweenSusanandWendybecomesapparent.Bothwomenpointoutto

their partners that while their (masculine) focus is on liberatory acts, the feminine

focusisonprotectioninthefaceofasystemthatcouldharmthefamily.

Cry Freedom’s construction of cross-racial relations between thewomen and

themenmakesforamorenuancedfilmingeneral.TheBlackwomeninCryFreedom,

particularlyDr.RampheleMamphelaandSteve’swifeNtsiki,aredifferent fromeach

otherandquiterichintexture.Thefirstsectionofthischapterdiscussedhowthefilm

openswitharaidofCrossroadstownship. Followingthosecontextualscenesweare

introduced to a young Blackmedical doctor, Dr.Mamphela,who is also the person

who encouragesDonald to go to KingWilliams Town. Mamphela’s presence in the

Daily Mail newsroom is met with great surprise by Donald’s secretary and also by

Woodshimself.ThefirstpersonRampheleencountersintheDailyMailnewsroomis

113

Woods’secretary,ayoungwhitewomanwho,shotfromRamphele’shighangle,inan

inversionofapartheidpower,isforcedtolookupattheBlackwoman.Ramphelehas

just slammed a newspaper onto her desk and the camera zooms in to show the

headline:“BantuStephenBiko:Theuglymenaceofblackracism”.Thesecretarylooks

bewilderedandwithahintofamusementonherfaceasksRamphelewhosheis.She

isnotonly interested inwhoshe isbutalso inhowaBlackwomanhascome intoa

whiteofficewiththatattitude.“Dr.Ramphele”istheanswerthatthesecretarysnorts

atasthoughstillinaprivatejokewithherself.

ThenextshotisofWoodsinhisoffice,followedbyalongshotofthesecretary

enteringwithRamphele.ThesecretaryintroducesRamphelewiththesamebemused

expression she has had throughout. This short interaction between the twowomen

showsthatRamphele isnecessarilyboisterous in the faceofwhatsheknowswillbe

overtracism. IntheofficewithWoodsthough,shedoesnotlosetheexpressionbut

doespointoutthatsheknowsheisnotstupid.Sherealisesthatshecanmeethimon

anintellectuallevelbutsheknowsthatadiscussionwiththesecretarymightnotbeas

fruitful. Framed in close-ups or long shots fromDonald’s point of view in his large

editorialoffice,weseeMamphelapresentherselfasconfidentnotonlybecauseshe

knows she is different, as one of very few Black medical doctors in apartheid, but

because she believes in Black Consciousness and is confident thatWoods does not

properlyunderstand it. Theconversation is in factvital toWoodsandBikomeeting

andprovessuccessfulwhenweseeWoodsinKingWilliamsTowninthenextscene.

This is an important choice on Attenborough’s part: to have a Blackwoman

barge into a space that a white man controls, and then to instruct him about

somethingascomplexasapartheidSouthAfrica.However,Mamphela’scharacteralso

114

showsusthatBlackwomenwereactiveinthestruggle.Itisalsonoteworthybecause

although this is not the emphasis of Cry Freedom, the scene between Woods and

Mamphelacompelsustoseethediversityofthecharactersandtoseethattheanti-

apartheidstrugglewascomprisedoflayersofinsightsandactionsbydifferentpeople

of different strata of that fixed society. Despite the fact that Steve’swife is not as

vociferous as Mamphela, Donald nevertheless has to go through her first to reach

Steve in the first encounter. The film seems to consistently comment that Black

womenarealsoimportantpillarsofthestruggle.InthesceneinwhichDonaldcomes

tothechurchwhereSteveis, it isSteve’swifewholetshimintothechurchbuilding

andshowshimaroundthecommunitycentre. TheBlackwomeninCryFreedomare

not shown to be timid, as is the case for example with Emily in DryWhite. In Cry

Freedom,RampheleisthefirstintroductiontoBlackConsciousnessandsheisaBlack

SouthAfricanwoman.Fromthebeginningofthisfilm,aBlackwomanintroducesand

demandstobeintroducedequallytoBlackandwhiteme

115

Conclusion

Thischapterhassurveyedtherepresentationsofrace inADryWhiteSeason,

CryFreedomandMapantsula. Thechapterconcludesthatnotonlydothe filmsDry

WhiteandCryFreedomrelyontheunionsofwhiteandBlackheroestoportrayanti-

apartheid activities within the narratives, but that the individual characters are

themselvesoftenshowntobe‘outofplace’inaplaceinwhichidentitiesaredogmatic

and fixed. Themainprotagonistsare thuscontextualised incontrast toanormative

wayofbeinginapartheidSouthAfrica,asawayofshowingwhatitwaslikethereand

as awayof educating foreign audiences. This chapter has also shown that another

binary exists beyond the racial one already manifest in both films, and this is a

genderedone.Thefinalsection’sanalysisbrieflyexploredhowtherepresentationsof

thewomeninDryWhiteandCryFreedomcontributetotheprotectionandendurance

offamily,anti-apartheidstruggleandnation.

Mapantsulawasalsoconsideredinrelationtotheabovefilmsinordertoshow

thedifferentapproachofananti-apartheidfilmwhichadvancesaBlackperspective.

Thischapterhasthussetthefoundationforthesectionsthatfollow.Fromthispoint

onwards,thethesisdoesnotreturntoaconsiderationofapartheidfilmsagainand

thusconsidersthisasapointofdeparturefromapartheidintopost-apartheid.

116

SECTION2

SectionOneexploredthreeanti-apartheidfilmsofthelate1980sandprovided

background to the ways that apartheid delineated people according to race. This

secondsectionconcentratesonfilmsmadeafter1994–theofficialendofapartheid,

andtheinstitutionofthe‘RainbowNation’–andthevehiclethroughwhichthenew

nationwasmobilised,theTruthandReconciliationCommission(TRC).Inthefilmsof

ChapterThree, it ispossible to identifyandexplore someof the complexitiesof the

differencesbetween ‘official’ and ‘unofficial’memory in the TRCprocesses. Against

thebackdropofChapterTwo,whichemphasisestheapartheidracialbinary,Chapter

Threeunpicksthatfundamentalshiftintime,spaceanddiscoursefrom‘apartheid’to

‘post-apartheid’.Asisexplainedinthechapteritself,theTRCwasaformalprocessof

acknowledgingthetraumaofapartheid,thepains,andlosses.Itwasalsoaformalised

and official process that could not quite, even in its ‘Rainbow Nation’ aim, expel

apartheid racial categories. Chapter Four turns to two characters whowould have

been thequintessentialperpetratorsof apartheid. In those characters I explore the

presenceofanunfashionableandoftenignorednewSouthAfricanidentity:thatofthe

white,middle-agedman,questioning, as the filmsdo,what the ‘Rainbow’ looks like

fromtheotherside.

117

CHAPTERTHREE

MEMORY,‘UBUNTU’ANDFORGIVENESSINFILMS

ABOUTTHETRUTHANDRECONCILIATION

COMMISSION

Introduction

UbuntuisverydifficulttorenderintoaWesternlanguage…Wesay,‘apersonisapersonthroughotherpeople’.Itisnot,‘Ithink,thereforeIam’.Itsaysrather:IamhumanbecauseIbelong.189

The past will have been worked through only when the causes of whathappened then have been eliminated. Only because the causes continue toexistdoesthecaptivatingspellofthepastremaintothisdayunbroken.190

…How far back should memory reach? How deeply into the recesses of thepast? The answer that springs spontaneously tomind is thatmemory is notgovernedbythestatuteoflimitations,andthatcollectivememoryespeciallyisthe very warp and weft of the tapestry of history that makes up society.Unravelandjettisonathreadfromthattapestryandsocietyitselfmaybecomeundoneattheseams.Andyet,theoppositeisalsotrue.191

Thethesisnowtakeswhatmayappearasanuncharacteristicleapthroughtime

fromtheendofthe1980s(filmsdiscussedinchaptertwo)andtheearly2000s(films

discussedinthecurrentchapter,chapterthree).Althoughtheperiodofthe1990shas

beendiscussedinotherSouthAfricanfilmscholarship,thechoicetoexcludeithereis

basedontworeasons:thefirstisthatfilmproductionsloweddownsignificantlyinthe

decadeofthe1990s,partlyduetopoliticalchangesandtheofficialreconstructionof

thenation;thesecondreasonisthatbecauseofficialchangeswerehappening,there

was not a great deal of time for conception and production. Nevertheless, two

189DesmondTutu,NoFuturewithoutForgiveness(LondonandParktown:RandomHouse,1999),p.34.190TheodorAdorno,CriticalModels:InterventionsandCatchwords,(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1998),p.103.191WoleSoyinka,“Memory,TruthandHealing”inIfiAmadiumeandAbdullahAn-Nam(eds.),ThePoliticsofMemory:Truth,HealingandSocialJustice,(LondonandNewYork:ZedBooks,2000),p.21.

118

importantfilmsofthisdecadeoftendiscussedinfilmscholarshipareSarafinaandCry,

theBelovedCountry,bothdirectedbyDarrellRoodt.Theprimaryreasonforexcluding

thesefilmsinthethesisisthattheydealwiththesame/similarconcernsofthefilmsof

chaptertwothroughtheiremphasisontheendofapartheid.InmyresearchperiodI

foundthatthefilmsdiscussedinchaptertwowerenomoreorlessinterestingthanfor

example, the twomentionedabove,except that theyweremore firmly rooted inan

apartheidpresent.It isreallythenthefilmsofthefollowingdecade,whicharedealt

withinthiscurrentchapter,thatbegintoexplorethehistoricalnarrativeofthe1990s.

Because this is the emphasis of the thesis, an exploration of the post-apartheid

through representationsof the ‘RainbowNation’, it seemed fitting thatmoreof the

chaptersdealtwithpost-1994discoursesandfilmsthatemphasisedthetransitionand

complexitiesofthe‘Rainbow’.

Theyear2004markedanewdirectionforfilmsthatdealtwithapartheid.This

chapterconsidersrepresentationsoftheTruthandReconciliationCommission(TRC)in

four filmsandbrings together that referentialhistorical event, the culturally specific

conceptof‘ubuntu’,filmlanguage,throughanalysesofflashbacksinthesefilmsand,

thedifferentproductioncircumstancesofthefilms.Thefilmsdiscussedinthischapter

have received significant attention in scholarship and have come to be known in a

categoryoftheirown,‘TRCfilms’.192Theanalysisthroughoutthischapterextendsor

shifts that category from its current status to consider these films as contested

narrationsoftheTRC.Fictionandnon-fictionTRCfilmsareheavilyinfluencedbythe

actualeventsand testimoniesof theTRC,agovernment-mandated institutionwhich

existed between 1995 and 2002. Most SouthAfrican film scholars identify the four

192DoveyAfricanFilmandLiterature,pp.53–57.,Maingard,SANationalCinema,p.169.,Saks,CinemainaDemocraticSA,pp.83–132.

119

feature filmsdealtwith in this chapteramong theprominent representationsof the

TRC.Thesefourfilms,whichwereallreleasedin2004,arethefocusofthischapter:

ZuluLoveLetterdirectedbyRamadanSuleman,JohnBoorman’sInMyCountry,based

onAntjeKrog’sCountryofMySkull, IanGabriel’sForgivenessandTomHooper’sRed

Dust. Other noteworthy films of the time are documentaries like Of Joyce and

Remembrance (Mark Kaplan, 2004) and The Gugulethu Seven (LindyWilson, 2000),

Sechaba Morejele’s controversial short film about the inadequacies of the TRC,

Ubuntu’sWoundsandNormanMaake’sfeature-lengthfilmaboutthereturnofexiles

afterapartheidinHomecoming(2005).

These filmsarevariedandalthough theyprovide interesting insights into the

ways in which the TRC and the context of the country at that time have been

represented,my concern here is with fiction films. With reference to TRC films by

Blackdirectors,CaraMoyer-Duncancritiquesbigbudgetproductions(RedDustandIn

My Country), arguing that other films (likeUbuntu’s Wounds, Zulu Love Letter and

Homecoming) “…give voice to perspectives historically denied by apartheid and in

many ways still stifled by the legacy of inequality, which limits black access to the

trainingandresourcesneededtoproducenarrativefilm”.193

Although the filmsdiscussed in this chapter are all fiction features, they also

differ from each other. InMy CountryandRedDust are literary adaptations,while

Forgiveness is ameasuredand sombrepresentationof a small coastal town family’s

strugglewith coming to termswith their son/brother’sdeath. Zulu Love Letter is a

story about two mothers who try to connect with their daughters in spite of the

traumatic and challenging histories that shroud their lives. Jacqueline Maingard

193CaraMoyer-Duncan“Truth,ReconciliationandCinema”inBisschoffandVanDePeer(eds.),ArtandTrauma,p.277.

120

describesZuluLoveLetterascomprisingaspecialqualityinthatitsemphasisisnoton

makingadidacticpoliticalpoint.194 Instead,shewrites,“… itdrawsapictureofthe

state of the post-apartheid nation from a Black point-of-view, represented by one

personal story that stands in for many”.195 This latter point is also relevant to Ian

Gabriel’sForgiveness,inwhichtheTRCloomsbutisitselfnotrecreatedinthefilm.In

thisfilm,thefocusisonafamilyinmourninginthequietfishingvillageofPaternoster.

BeyondtheGrootboomfamily,whostandinforotherslikethemaroundSouthAfrica,

Forgivenessisabouttheperplexingandmoredifficultcounterpartofforgiveness:the

often unpredictable processes around being able to forgive such as “acting out”,

“workingthrough”and“comingtotermswith”whathappenedduringapartheid.

InMyCountryand RedDust are arguably not SouthAfrican filmsbecauseof

their formulaic Hollywood narrative construction and aesthetic composition. Both

films received British and South African funding, InMy Country from the Industrial

DevelopmentCorporationofSouthAfrica(IDC)andtheUKFilmCouncilandRedDust

fromtheIDCandBBCfilms. Despitethefactthatbothdirectors,JohnBoormanand

Tom Hooper, are English, the films themselves are South African in narrative and

becauseoftheirlocationsaroundthecountry.Thetrialofreconciliationiscentralto

the films, as are various other traits of the new nation, strongly displayed in the

‘Rainbow Nation’ rhetoric apparent in both. The choice to include these films is

because of the thesis’s interest in films that grapple with representations of new

identitiesof thenewnation. TheTRCwas the large-scalenationalplatformthrough

whichSouthAfricanswereusheredintowhateverthe‘RainbowNation’hadpromised.

194Maingard,SANationalCinema,p.169.195Ibid.

121

The choice to include these twomainstream films also seemed fitting in relation to

argumentsImakeforthetwonon-mainstreamfilms.

This chapter also explores the figuring and performance ofmemory through

how some of the films favour the cinematic trope for memory, the flashback.

FlashbacksoccurinRedDustandZuluLoveLetterbuttheyarenotemployedinInMy

CountryandForgiveness.MaureenTurimdefinestheclassicflashbackas,“…animage

orafilmicsegmentthatisunderstoodasrepresentingtemporaloccurrencesanterior

to those in the images thatpreceded it”.196 In the classic flashback the information

about the past that we are provided with contributes to the current narrative and

helpstomakesenseofthepresent-daynarrative.Thischapterhoweverarguesthatin

Zulu Love Letter we see a different kind of flashback, one defined by JoshuaHirsch

(and drawing on Hirsch’s work, Maingard) as a post-traumatic flashback. Such a

device,Hirschargues,makesuseoftemporalandstylisticcodesthathelptheviewer

experience the film in a way that is “…analogous to a series of characteristics of

psychological trauma”.197 This kindof flashbackworksnotonly to show thepastor

revealaplotoracharacter’sbiography,as in thecaseof theclassical flashback,but

createsadisturbanceinthetemporalityofthecontentandintheformofthefilmand

transmitsanexperienceoftraumaforthespectator.198

ZuluLoveLetterisalsotheonlyoneofthefourfilmsthatdoesnotrelyheavily

onracialbinariesinTRCnarratives.Theendofapartheidreliedquitesignificantlyon

negotiation between the apartheid government and the African National Congress

(ANC) and in this chapter I consider negotiation also as a ‘rite of passage’ through

196MaureenTurim,FlashbacksinFilm:MemoryandHistory(NewYork:Routledge,1989),p.1.197HirschAfterimage:Film,TraumaandTheHolocaust,p.98.198Ibid.,p.99.

122

which it is possible to overcome more than apartheid. The ‘more than’ refers to

something that lies beyond forgiveness and it is these considerations I turn to in

Section Three of the thesis. Julie Reid offers insight into white identities in South

African films, arguing that they are remythologised in films. In this process of

remythologisation,white identities are reformulatedby perpetuating thebinaries of

goodwhiteversusbadwhiteasseeninChapterTwo.

Keepinginmindthesocialvalueofsuchareformulationandwhothismightbe

for,ReidarguesthatitshouldbeamatterforconcernthatsomeoftheTRCfilmsare

made by non-South African directors. In relation to foreign directors it is vital to

questionwho these filmsareactually for, as it appears that anover-relianceon the

racialbinaryshowninTRCfilmshastheaccompanyingeffectofoversimplificationof

theprocessesofforgivenessandthecomplexitiesofthetransitiontopost-apartheid.

Reidoffersthatseeingsuchfilmsasdevelopingmyths,

emptiesouttherepresentationofcomplexitiesandevenhistory,andoffersatype of short-hand which can be easily understood and consumed by thereader. But the counter-mythical representations ofwhiteness in these filmsmay,undercriticalscrutiny,amounttothestereotypingofSouthAfricanwhitesbyandforforeigners.199

This leads to the persistence of the good and bad whites of anti-apartheid

cinemaintopost-apartheidfilms.

While the narratives of TRC films are unique to South Africa, the larger

conceptsthatthefilmsdealwith,suchasmemoryandtrauma,arerelevanttoother

contexts around the world. The films of this section thus also resonate with

representations of other narratives of memory. Although the context is different,

199Reid,“TheRemythologisationofWhiteCollectiveIdentities”,p.50.

123

filmslikeJoshuaOppenheimer’sTheActofKilling(2012)andthesequel,TheLookof

Silence(2014),whichdealwithIndonesiancommunisthistory,arefurtherexamplesof

filmicrepresentationsofthetraumaofanationalandindividualpast.

What is most pertinent about the similarities found in these films which

represent different contexts, is that they all exhibit hownational perception can be

fixed and curated so that the majority of the population are compelled to (almost

instructedto)thinkaboutandrememberaspecificversionofhistory.Oppenheimer’s

films remind us of the far-reaching effects of state power accompanied by ideology

whichcan, insomeways,manipulatehistory. TRCfilmsarealsobornoutofastate-

driven initiative geared towards showing the ‘Rainbow Nation’ on screen. The

NationalFilmandVideoFoundation(NFVF)wasmandated(andthisdirectiveremains

inplace)toprioritisethefundingoffilmsthatrepresentedtheapartheidpastandthe

post-apartheid nation.200 Two points under the objectives of the foundation in the

NationalFilmandVideoFoundationAct1997arepertinent:

3.b) to provide and encourage the provision of opportunities for persons,especially from disadvantaged communities to get involved in the film andvideoindustry;

e)inrespectofthefilmandvideoindustry,toaddresshistoricalimbalancesintheinfrastructureanddistributionofskillsandresources.201

RecentinterestinSouthAfricaasahighlyviablefilmsetlocationhasalsoseen

majorgrowthintheindustry.Localdirectorshavegenerallynotbenefitedasmuchas

foreign production companies, which has caused some tensions. For example,

Ubuntu’sWounds director SechabaMorejelewants to know the politics behind the

200http://www.nfvf.co.za/home/index.php?ipkContentID=57.[Accessed15August,2015].201RepublicofSouthAfrica,GovernmentGazette,NationalFilmandVideoFoundationAct1997,Act.No.73,3December1997:http://www.gov.za/sites/www.gov.za/files/a73-97.pdf.

124

NFVFchoices,specificallywhytheNFVFpromotesthefundingofSouthAfricanliterary

adaptationsbutthenseemstoplacewhiteSouthAfricanliteratureaheadofstoriesby

Blackwriters.

In an interview with Lindiwe Dovey, Morejeleasks why films such as Gillian

Slovo’s Red Dust (2000) or Antje Krog’s Country ofMy Skull (1998), “…are deemed

more appropriate for adaptation to film” than for example literature by black

writers.202 According to Morejele “…many black testimonies of the TRC have been

written, but that filmadapters, inorder to acquire funding, still appear to require a

white intermediary…”.203 Dovey links this comment back to the need for a white

intermediaryas seen inanti-apartheid filmsof the late1980s. What isevidenced in

suchrepresentationsisthattheemphasisonunityandthepositiveoutcomesofpost-

apartheid suggests both awhite and Black triumph over apartheid. Such dominant

mainstreamrepresentationsservethestate-drivenideologyofpost-apartheidandare

alsosuggestiveofthefactthatTRCnarratives,likeanti-apartheidfilms,aremarketable

toforeignaudiencesasstoriesofhopeandthetriumphofgood.Additionally,funding

maynotbewillinglysharedwiththosewhomightbemorecriticalofthenewnation

and so mainstream TC films also function to serve the dominant ‘Rainbow Nation’

rhetoric.TheinsinuationisthatthewholeprojectoftheTRCandthenewnationwill

failmiserablyunderthetoobrightglareofcriticalityandnuance.Thisispartofwhy

ZuluLoveLetterandForgivenessaresuchcompellingexamplestoconsider.

Thischapter iscomprisedof twoparts: the firstconsiders filmswhichrelyon

theHollywoodaesthetic and composition, InMyCountryand RedDust. This section

focusesonrepresentationsofthe‘official’TRCrepresentedinthosefilms.Thesecond

202DoveyAfricanFilmandLiterature,p.55.203Ibid.

125

sectiondealswithfilmsinwhichtheTRCispresentinthenarrativeofthefilmbutis

not necessarily officially represented. This section shows how Forgiveness and Zulu

Love Letter aredefinedas ‘unofficial’ in their representationsof theTRC. Maingard

pointsoutthatZuluLoveLetterisexceptionalbecauseofhowitcentraliseswomenin

thisfilmandalsohowitsetsadifferentaestheticstandardthatisnotHollywood-like

butclosertoanAfricanaesthetic.204Ialsoanalyseelementsoftheprocessof‘working

through’ or what can be described as attempts at forgiveness beyond the TRC in

Forgiveness.DirectorIanGabrielrepresentshowitmightbepossibletograpplewith

andpotentially(butnotdefinitely)reachastateofforgivenessaftertraumaticdeath.I

aminterestedinwhatthislookslikeinthecontextoftheGrootboomfamily,whichis

traumatised and debilitated by the death of their twenty-year-old son ten years

previously. I am also interested in how the film represents and grapples with the

unfashionableaspectsandplacesofthe‘RainbowNation’after1994.

Inthesecondsection,theanalysisfocusesonseeinghowtraumaismanifested

in selected characters in Zulu Love Letter and Forgiveness. This trauma is not fully

translatableorarticulatebutremainsintricatelyenmeshedwiththenation.Inthecase

ofForgiveness, I showhow thecharactersexperience theafter-effectsof trauma. In

the case of Zulu Love Letter, I focus specifically on the use of the flashback as a

modality through which “acting out” and “working through” are represented and

mediated.

Bothsectionsareguidedbyquestionssuchas:Whatdothefilmsemphasisein

how they represent the TRC and the period around it? In asking this I attempt to

uncoverwhateachfilmdeems important torepresent.Whatdothe filmsachieve in

204Ibid.,p.169.

126

settingupanunderstandingoftheTRCasawatershedeventinSouthAfricanhistory?

Can an argument be made that these films are representative of individual and/or

collective traumatic consciousness? How do these films contribute to a further

constructionofthenewnation?

SouthAfrica’sTruthandReconciliationCommission

The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (SA TRC) sought to

bringtheatrocitiesofapartheidtolightthroughtwoprimarymodesofinquiry:firstly

to provide a forum for perpetrators to confess to politically motivated crimes, and

secondly,forfamiliestoaskforthedetailsofwhathappenedtofamilymemberswho

had gone missing or been killed by such acts during apartheid. The commission

listened to testimonies of victims and perpetrators relating to events that occurred

between1960and1994. TheSATRC followeda reparative justicemodelandnota

retributivejusticemodelaswasthecaseoftheNurembergtrials.Amajorconditionof

thismodelwas that thepastbeexcavatedwith theendgoalof theRainbowNation

alreadyinmind.

TheCommissionwascomprisedofthreecommittees,namelyheHumanRights

ViolationsCommittee(HRV),theRestorationandRehabilitationCommittee(R+R)and

theAmnestyCommittee. Therewas greatnational and international interest in the

processesoftheHRVandtheAmnestyCommitteesasthesepertainedspecificallyto

thehearings. Howevertheaftereffectsof theTRC,relatedtoreparations,havestill

notbeencompletelydealtwith. Hearingswerebroadcastonthepublicbroadcaster,

the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) and South Africans could thus

follow the proceedings around the country. TheHRVCommittee heard testimonies

from victims of apartheid and the Amnesty Committee heard testimonies from

127

apartheidperpetrators,whowereoftenmembersofthesecuritypoliceand‘askaris’.

Colloquiallycalled‘impimpis’,suchcharactersareeitherpresentoralludedtoineach

ofthefilmsdiscussedinthischapter.Thesamecommitteealsoheardthetestimonies

ofanti-apartheid struggle veterans who resorted to violence. In other words, the

Amnesty Committee made no distinctions between white and Black perpetrators.

Alongwiththenationalrhetoricaroundthetermsofthenewnation,thecommission

didnotidentifythecomplexityof‘wrongdoers’inthissituation.Inotherwords,the

priceofamnestyandforgivenesswasthesameforthewhiteapartheidsecurityforce

officersandthe freedomfighters thatwerepartof theanti-apartheidarmsstruggle.

The R+R Committee was mandated with the task of formulating proposals for the

rehabilitation of victims of apartheid and aimed to restore their dignity. This

committeewasnotpublicandthusreceivedconsiderablylessattentionthantheother

hearings.205

There is a great deal of existing scholarship about the TRC because it is

considered an exemplary international model in truth, forgiveness and

reconciliation.206A brief consideration of truth commissions outside of South Africa

205GovernmentGazetteno.22833of16November2001,Volume6,section6isadetailedreportoftheprocessesandlogisticsoftheTRCbetween1998and200,1pp.733–787:http://www.justice.gov.za/trc/report/finalreport/vol6_s6.pdf.,FinalreportoftheTRC:http://www.justice.gov.za/trc/report/206AlettaJ.Norval,“Memory,Identityandthe(Im)possibilityofReconciliation:TheWorkoftheTRCinSouthAfrica”,Constellations5:2(1998),pp.250-265.,MichaelCunningham,“SayingSorry:thePoliticsofApology”,ThePoliticalQuarterlyPublishingCo.(1999),pp.285-293.,RosemaryNagy,“TheAmbiguitiesofReconciliationandResponsibilityinSouthAfrica”,PoliticalStudies52(2004),pp.709-727.,RosemaryJolly,“RehearsalsofLiberation:ContemporaryPostcolonialDiscourseandtheNewSouthAfrica”,PMLA110:1(1995),pp.17–29.,TristanAnneBorer,“ReconcilingSouthAfrica/SouthAfricans?CautionaryNotesfromtheTRC”,AfricanStudiesQuarterly8:1(2004),pp.19–38.,CatherineM.Cole,“Performance,TransitionalJustice,andtheLaw:SouthAfrica’sTruthandReconciliationCommission”,TheatreJournal59:2(2007),pp.167-187.,AnneliesVerdoolaege,“MediaRepresentationsoftheSouthAfricanTruthAndReconciliationCommissionandtheirCommitmenttoReconciliation”,JournalOfAfricanCulturalStudies17:2(2005),pp.181–199.,SusanVanzantenGallagher,“‘IWantToSay/ForgiveMe’:SouthAfricanDiscourseandForgiveness”,PMLA117:2(2002),pp.303–306.,MarthaMinow,“InPracticebetweenVengeanceandForgiveness:SouthAfrica’sTruthandReconciliationCommission”,NegotiationJournal(1998),pp.319–355.

128

alsoshowsarangeofpracticesindifferentsearchesfortruth.207RidwanNyftagodien

and Arthur Neal describe the international context of the truth commissions as the

“collective conscience of many nations of the world… disturbed by the modern

imperativetoconfrontanuglypast”.208

Despite someof the overlapping similarities in different nations’ attempts at

unpacking traumatic pasts for the outcome of truth and reconciliation, the South

Africansituationisalsounique.MamoodMamdanicritiquesprominentscholarsand

politicianswhoconstructedandendorsedtheTRCasguiltyofatooeasyassumption

associatedwith the TRC that “all justice is victor’s justice”.209 Mamdani calls South

Africa’snegotiationfor freedomandequalityaspolitically justifiablebutmorallyand

intellectually unjustifiable. His caution,more than ten years ago, is being evidenced

nowinsomeofthecontemporarydebatesinSouthAfrica.Hepointstothefactthat

problemswillarisefromover-simplificationof“severalversionsoftruth”toonlyone

monolithicandill-fittingversion.210Theoneversionisthe‘RainbowNation’versionof

truth.

Aware of the different versions of truth, this chapter identifies official and

unofficial elements of the TRC present in the films. The official TRC suggests the

distinct presence in narrative and mise-en-scéne of the roving community-style

courtrooms of the TRC. The unofficial TRC is more complex and is comprised of

207JuanE.Mendez,“LatinAmericanExperiencesofAccountability”inAmadiumeandAn-Na’Im(eds.),ThePoliticsofMemory,pp.127–141.,DavidMellor,DiBrethertonandLucyFirth,“AboriginalandNon-AboriginalAustralia”,PeaceandConflict:JournalofPeacePsychology13:1(2007),pp.11-36.,LynS.Graybill,“Pardon,Punishment,andAmnesia:ThreeAfricanPost-ConflictMethods”,ThirdWorldQuarterly25:6(2004),pp.1117-1130.,RogerBromley,“AfterSuchKnowledge,WhatForgiveness?:CulturalRepresentationsofReconciliationinRwanda”inFrenchCulturalStudies20:20(2009),pp.181-197.208RidwanLaherNyftagodienandArthurG.Neal,“CollectiveTrauma,Apologies,andthePoliticsofMemory”,JournalofHumanRights3:4(2004),p.465.209MamoodMamdani,“TheTruthAccordingtotheTRC”inAmadiumeandAn-Nam(eds.),ThePoliticsofMemory,p.178.210Ibid.

129

elements of the TRC that were present alongside or surfaced as much later re-

interpretationsoftheofficialevents.Suchfilmsmayreferencetheperiodandmilieu

oftheTRCwithoutactuallyshowingtheTRChearings.TheunofficialTRCisinscribed

throughanumberofdevices,someofwhichareevidencedinthefilms.Oneofthese

processes is interpretation through themedia. According toCharmaineMcEachern,

the“mediaTRC”provide(d)the“publicsphereinwhichnationbuildingisdebatedand

affirmed”.211 More than a media platform for broadcasting of actual hearings, the

media also interpreted, reported and documented the process of nation building.

Documenting,notesStellaBruzzi,is“…aperpetualnegotiationbetweentherealevent

and its representation (that is, to propose that the two remain distinct but

interactive)…”.212

ThemediaperformedtwofunctionsintheircapacitiesasperformersattheTRC

andperformers forthenation:witnessesand interpreters.The“mediaTRC”wasthe

vehicleoftruthforthemajorityofSouthAfricans.Eventhoughtheirprimaryroleisto

factuallyconveyinformation,themediaTRCwereillustrativeofwhatBruzzidescribes

as, the “underpinning rationale” that performance is important in relation to

documentary.213InMy Country is an example of a TRC film that shows this layer in

greatdetailbecausethemainprotagonistsarejournalists.

ThesecondwayofconsideringtheunofficialTRCisthroughrepresentationsof

theeventandmanifestationsofitinculturalre-enactmentsthatnotonlyreconstruct

butalsofictionalisetheTRC. There isnoshortageofsuchexamples,onebeingJane

Taylor’sUbu and the Truth Commission, first performed in 1997 by the Handspring

211CharmaineMcEachern,NarrativesofNationMedia,MemoryandRepresentationintheMakingoftheNewSouthAfrica:AVolumeinHorizonsinPost-ColonialStudies(NewYork:NovaSciencePublishers,Inc.,2002),p.xv.212StellaBruzzi,NewDocumentary2ndedition(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,2006),p.13.213Ibid.p.2

130

Puppetry Company, accompanied by filmic projections designed by William

Kentridge.214 Another poignant example of the far-reaching effects of the TRC is in

nationalmonuments.215 FreedomPark isaproductof theoutcomeof theTRC,as it

celebrates the ‘Rainbow Nation’, described as, “a centre of knowledge aimed at

deepening the understanding of the nation. It strives to accommodate all of the

country’sexperiencesandsymbolstotellacoherentstory”.216

This chapterexplores thedifferent layerspresent inTRC films. Bywayofan

exampleofthe layerednessofthehearingsthemselves,thissectiondrawstoaclose

withanexcerptfroma1996hearingtranscript.ArchbishopTutu,ChairmanoftheTRC

saysthefollowingtoanemotionalBlackaudienceintheruralEasternCape:

Ihopethatthosewhoreadthebibleknowthattheremustbethetruthbeforetheaward…Wehavebeengivenaveryimportanttask,thisisnotashowwhatwearedoing.Wearetryingtogetmedicinestohealupourwounds…TheTruthCommissionisseentobeevenhanded,butevenmorethanthat,donotmakeus a laughing stock, because peoplewill say because these things are undernowblacks,noweverythingisturnedintoabioscope,pleaseIdonotwanttodo anything painful to you now, because I know that stories that you arelisteningtonow,thesethingsremindyouofwhatyoualsowentthroughandittakessomeoftheburden.217HereTutureferencestheabsurdityofapartheidandtheworkoftheTRCusing

thelanguageofthemovingimage:thebioscopeorcinema.HespeaksabouttheTRC

asthoughitisakindoffiction.Writingaboutthisincident,CatherineColearguesthat

thecrowddidnotembracethetheatricsoftheTRC.218 Idisagreewiththisbasedon

theknowledgethatthecrowdsalsoparticipatedintheprocessofwitnessing,listening

214Taylor,UbuandTheTruthCommission.215AnnieE.Coombes,HistoryafterApartheid:VisualCultureandPublicMemoryinaDemocraticSouthAfrica(DurhamandLondon:DukeUniversityPress).216Freedomparkwebsite:www.freedompark.co.za[Accessed11August2015].217ArchbishopDesmondTutuspeakingtothecrowdsatDay1ofthePortElizabethHRVhearings,21-23May1996.www.justice.gov.za/Trc/hrvtrans/hrvpe1/day1/htm[Accessed6November2013].218CatherineM.Cole,PerformingSouthAfrica’sTruthCommission:StagesofTransition(BloomingtonandIndianapolis:IndianaUniversityPress,2010),p.16.

131

and forgiveness. Theywere the theatrics of the TRCbecause itwas asmuchup to

themtoforgiveasitwasfortheperson(s)whograntedamnesty.Inotherwords,the

victim/perpetratorscenarioplayed itselfoutnotonly in frontofcrowdsaroundthe

countrybutforsuchcrowds,asthoughthenationwaswatchingafilm.

Cole’sinterpretationofalongerexcerptofthesametranscriptfocusesonthe

natureandimpactofcodeswitchingbetweenlanguages.Havingwatchedtheofficial

videorecordingsofthehearingsattheNationalArchivesinCapeTown,Colehighlights

the complexity of translation and interpretation because the Archbishop uses both

EnglishandisiXhosaintheactualhearing.Thisinformationislostinthetranscription

duetothefactthattranscriptswereonlypublishedinEnglish.BecauseofTutu’scode

switching,Colearguesthathismessagewasclearandhewasabletobettermanage

the hearings, able to “stage-manage, to orchestrate contending forces, to shift

abruptly thetone,style, language,andmoodof theproceedings”andthroughdoing

so,he“kepttheaudienceandallparticipantsslightlyoffguard”219. This,sheargues,

“provedefficaciousformovingtheritual forward, forkeepingtheshowontheroad,

forbetterorworse”220.

Tutu’suseofcommunicationviadifferentlanguagesisacommoncharacteristic

ofcodeswitchinginSouthAfrica.Therearethustwopointsworthnotinginrelation

to this excerpt: the first is the use of the metaphor of the TRC as bioscope. The

performativeandinterpretivenatureoftheTRCwasalwayscomplicittotheobjective

of unearthing truth. The second point is related to two parts of the excerpt that

emphasisetheprominenceofBlacknessinparticularandtheconflictednatureofthe

219CatherineM.Cole,PerformingSouthAfrica’sTruthCommission:StagesOfTransition(BloomingtonandIndianapolis:IndianaUniversityPress,2010),p.17.220Ibid.

132

relationshipbetweenBlacknessandmemory through theTRC. Through framing the

trauma, and the bioscope as a ‘Black’ experience, Tutu emphasises a particular

awarenessaroundbeingBlack in thisTRCprojectof recallingapartheid,aprojection

thatbecausethenewgovernmentisBlack,thereisafearthatthewholeenterpriseof

theTRCwillbemockedbecauseitwasn’trunwellbecauseofunruly(Black)behaviour.

Mamdani’scaution,thatthemoralandintellectualcompromiseoftheTRCwas

unjustifiable,isusefulonceagain.221Writingaboutthisincident,CatherineColeargues

thatthecrowddidnotembracethetheatricsoftheTRC.222Idisagreewiththisbased

on the knowledge that the audiences at the hearings were intrinsic witnesses who

wereactiveparticipantsintheprocessofforgiveness.

Cole’sinterpretationofalongerexcerptofthesametranscriptfocusesonthe

natureandimportofcodeswitchingbetweenlanguagesanddialects inSouthAfrica.

Cole highlights the complexity of translation and interpretation because the

ArchbishopusesbothEnglishandisiXhosaintheactualhearing,addingthathisability

togobetweenlanguagesinthiswayaidedhisabilityto“stage-manage,toorchestrate

contending forces, to shift abruptly the tone, style, language, and mood of the

proceedings”andthroughdoingso,he“kepttheaudienceandallparticipantsslightly

offguard”223.This,Coleargues,“provedefficaciousformovingtheritualforward,for

keeping the show on the road, for better or worse”224. Code switching also occurs

throughoutthefilmsinthischapter,moreeffectivelyinsomethanothersbecausenot

manyofthemainprotagonistsareSouthAfrican.

221Mamdani,“TheTruthAccordingtotheTRC”inAmadiumeandAn-Nam(eds.),ThePoliticsofMemory,p.178.222CatherineM.Cole,PerformingSouthAfrica’sTruthCommission:StagesofTransition(BloomingtonandIndianapolis:IndianaUniversityPress,2010),p.16.223Ibid.,p.17.224Ibid.

133

PartOne

TheTruthShallSetYouFreeand‘FullDisclosure’inInMyCountryandRedDust

RedDust

The primary request that the commission (and victims) had of those who

applied for amnesty in the TRCwas ‘full disclosure’,whichmeant that anyonewho

wishedtobegrantedfullamnestywastoprovidethecompletedetailsoftheactthat

theywereresponsiblefor.Thismeantthat,asexpressedrepeatedlyinInMyCountry,

the gruesomeminuscule details of tortures, killings and other human rights crimes

weretobesharedinfrontofthecommissionandthepublicatthehearings.

ThefilmsRedDustand InMyCountryarefilmswhichrepresenttheTRCinits

officialcapacitymainlythrougharecreationofthesettingofthehearings.Thesefilms

portraytheTRCasthewatershedmomentthatcementstheendofapartheid. Both

films follow a narrative structurewhich draws on a familiar trope seen in the films

discussedinChapterTwo,whichemphasisesthatanti-apartheidjusticewasachieved

throughBlackandwhitemasculineunions.Thefilmsinthissectionhoweveremploy

the same cross-racial approach but not throughmenworking together but through

Blackmenandwhitewomen. Theshift incross-racialgenderrelations ismeaningful

becauseitmeansthattheemphasisalsotransfersfromtheproactivewhiteandBlack

fightagainstapartheid,tothemoreforgivablewhitewomanwho,throughcrossracial

relations is retrospectively able to vindicate the apartheid project and alongside it,

otherwhites.

Thepowerof InMyCountryandRedDust is retained ineach film’sability to

showwhathappenedattheTRC,whatitwasaboutandhowitemployeditsmethods

134

ofuncoveringtruths.InsuchrenditionsoftheTRC,theultimateemphasisislocatedin

representationsofthegoodwhitesandtheirabilitytoworkwiththeBlacksinorderto

achievethe‘RainbowNation’.Insuchnarrativestheendofapartheidispossiblenot

becausemanywhitesbelievedinthesystembutbecausesomewhitesfoughtagainst

apartheid.Inthefilmsdiscussedinthischapterthesecharactersarerebelliouswhite

women,asopposedto‘outofplace’whitemen.RedDust(TomHooper,2004)isaco-

production of theUK and South Africa. The film is based on the novel of the same

name by Gillian Slovo, the daughter of anti-apartheid stalwarts Joe Slovo and Ruth

First.InMyCountry(JohnBoorman,2004)isbasedonAntjeKrog’sCountryofMySkull

(1998)whichisapersonalaccountofthepoet’sownexperienceofthehearings.

Iaminterestedinhow‘fulldisclosure’functionsinthesetwofilms.Becauseof

theemphasisonthewatershedmomentoftheTRCandtheinterracialrelationshipsin

these films, thewholeprojectof theTRC, andany representationof it, becomesan

overly sentimentalised exploitation of the real possibilities of the new nation.Red

Dust’sAlexMpondo(ChiwetelEjiofor)isastruggleheroandistreatedassuchwhenhe

goes to a small town to testify before the TRC on behalf of himself and fellow

comrade,SteveSizela(LoyisoGxwala),whoseparentswanttoknowwhathappenedto

theirson.SteveisdeadandonlyappearsinflashbacksandsoitisthroughMpondo’s

capricious memory that we learn about Steve. Mpondo is also there to oppose

amnesty being granted to his torturer, a security policeman named Dirk Hendricks

(JamieBartlett).SarahBarcant(HilarySwank)returnstoSouthAfricafromNewYork

aftermanyyearsofnothavinglivedinthecountrybecauseofherownexperienceof

apartheidlawwhensheandherBlackboyfriendatthetimeweredetained.Thisisthe

first time she has returned to the country since then and she finds that she is still

ridiculedforhavinghadarelationshipwithaBlackman,eventhoughapartheidisover.

135

DuringtheproceedingsoftheTRC,Barcantlearnsthatalthoughshemadeitoutofthe

countrythatshedespised,theboyfriendwhosheleftbehindwaskilledindetention.

According toLuciaSaks, the filmconforms to theconventionsof thepolitical

thriller genreand succeeds in subverting themalegazebecausewe learnabout the

casemostlythroughBarcantandnotMpondo,whowashimselfdetainedalongwith

Steve.225 In an early scene in the film, Mpondo and Barcant agree to meet at a

swimmingpoolaftertheformer’smorninglaps.Barcantarrivesattheentrancetothe

dustytown’scommunitypooltofinditlocked.Asmallsignonthewallindicatesthat

notmuch timehaspassedbetween theendofapartheidand theTRC,as thepool’s

‘whites only’ sign is still present. That the pool is closed may indicate the tacit

understandingofthatimmediatepost-apartheidmoment:thattherewasnorealrules

for how to move forward, which further accentuates the importance of the TRC.

Barcantappearssmallinthemiddleofawide-angleshotwhichshowsadustyroad,a

derelictoldwallsurroundingthepoolandthelargecloseddoorsthatshewillnotbe

able toenter. Shemanages tomake itover thehighwall inherblackpowersuit:a

formaljacketandskirtwithsling-backshoes.ItisclearfromBarcant’sattirethather

presencehere is temporary,asherwardrobedoesnotaccommodate thecontextof

thesmalltown;sheisdefiantlyaparticularkindofcorporateurbanite.

Mpondo is furiously racing through lapsontheothersideof thewall. When

Barcantleansdownattheedgeofthepooltoindicatethatshehasarrivedhesimply

continueswithout acknowledging her presence. She is forced towait for him on a

concrete bleacher, with Barcant seated in a eerily empty place where one would

usually expect crowds. Alex isnothurriedbyherpresenceandwhenheeventually

225Saks,CinemainaDemocraticSA,p.103.

136

emerges,hetakesaleisurelyshower,thendrieshimselfwhilecasuallystartingachat

withBarcant,whoisatthisstagedesperatetotalkaboutthecase.

Saksarguesthatthismomentsubvertsthemasculinegazethatissocommonin

featurefilms.Shewritesthat“…itislikelythatAlex’spositioninginthefilmasbearer

ofthelookoperatesinadualway:itissymptomaticofhishistoricalposition,evenin

the‘new’SouthAfrica,anditisanexpressionoffemalewhiteempowerment”.226She

alsotakesintoaccountthatAlex’sbodyisbothpowerful(showntousbyhisrigorous

training and his toned body on exiting the pool) and scarred by the torture he

experiencedwhenhewasdetained.MyownreadingofthisscenediffersfromSaks’s.

In this scene and in the development of the relationship between the two, the film

continues to emphasise Barcant’s dual and complex relationship with South Africa.

We watch Barcant struggle with her own position to South Africa alongside the

strugglesoftheTRCasawhole.

Twocomplexnarrativesarethusplacedindialoguewitheachother:onetodo

withBarcant’swhitenessinaplaceshedespisesandtheotherwithMpondo’storture,

andpost-traumaticstressdisorder. DespitewhathappenedtoAlexas thebearerof

the physical scars of apartheid torture, we are consistently reminded of Sarah’s

struggle and sacrifices as a good white. In the same way that Sarah is a visitor

‘sneakingalook’atthecountry,andatthenewleadersrepresentedbyAlex,wetoo

areinvitedtowitnessSouthAfricaas‘notsuchabadplace’, ifwecanworktogether

andheal.This ismadeclear inBarcant’schildlikerelationshiptotheolderfather-like

figure,Ben. HeencourageshertoseethegoodintheTRCandthusthegoodinthe

newSouthAfrica. He, liketheTRC,preachesabout ‘ubuntu’andthepossibilitiesfor

226Ibid.,p.104.

137

real change through it. Barcant is placed in relation to two other kinds of white

characters,Benandthesecuritypolicemenwhoapply foramnesty,andso thegood

white versus the badwhite opposition is persistent. The Black characters however

remain viewed from a victim-only position, as traumatised and poor (like the

community inwhich thehearing takesplace)or traumatisedandnow inpower (like

Alex).

Nevertheless,RedDustisstillabletogiveavaluableperspectivethroughitsre-

enactment of the trial setting of the TRC, and portrayal of the official TRC. For

example, the film brings to light an issue of askaris and the complexity of such a

positionheldbyAlex,who is consideredahero throughout the filmuntil thepublic

learnthathesoldSteveoutwhiletheywereindetention.The‘impimpi’ortraitorisa

narrativetropethatalsoappearsintheotherfilmsdiscussedinthischapterandoften

appearsasatooeasywayofmakingitclearthatsomeBlackpeoplesoldoutandthus

inthesamewayasitmustbeacknowledgedthatsomewhitesweregood,itmustbe

acknowledgedthatsomeBlackswerebad.

AnotherofficialTRCtropeinRedDustistheappearanceofinterpretersandan

assignedcomforterormourner. This isadistinct choicebecause it shows the film’s

useofaclosemodeloftherealTRCtomakeitsrepresentationsbelievable,butitalso

showsthecomponentsoftheTRChearingsthatmadethoseeventsdistinctfromother

hearings. Thecharacterof thecomforter isnotshownorexploredbeyondan initial

appearance and introduction toAlex on his first day at the trial. The presence and

acknowledgementofthecomfortersthroughouttheTRCandthemeaninginscribedin

having people there to comfort the victims is meaningful as it affirms that their

feelingsandmemoriesarevalid.

138

Alex’scomforter introducesherselftohimafterheentersonthestageofthe

communityhallwhere the trial isheld. The introduction takesplacemomentsafter

AlexandperpetratorHendricksmeeteachother’sgazefromacrossthehall:Alexison

hiswaytowardsthestageandHendricks isabouttotakehisseatonthestage. It is

clearthatAlexisaherointhecommunitybecausecrowdsofpeoplemillaroundhim,

congratulatehim,welcomehimandgenerallywanttobenearhim.ButAlexhasalso

ascendedbeyond the credentialsof anti-apartheid freedom fighter toanewkindof

post-apartheidhero; he is part of the government that rules the country. Alex, the

crowds and the single white face, Barcant, walk towards the camera. As they are

framedinmediumandlongshotswithcrowdsalmostusheringthemtothestage,we

getafeelingoftheexcitementattheimportanceofthismoment.Inthenextshotwe

seeamediumshotofHendricks,who isbroughtontothestagebypolicemen. They

removehiscuffsandheisinstructedtositatthetableononeendofthestage.This

communityvenueiswherethehearingwilltakeplaceinthissmalltown.It issetup

similarlytoacourtroomexceptthattheperpetratorsitsononesideofthestageand

thevictim,atermAlexrefuses,sitsontheother.Betweenthetwositthecommittee,

whoguidetheprocessthroughlisteningandaskingquestions.Therestofthevenue,

which faces the stage, is filled with chairs for members of the community and the

mediatobearwitnesstotherequestforamnesty,whichAlexintendstorefuse.

As Alex enters onto the stage from the side curtains we see the comforter

introduce herself to him. Alex however seems very confident and although he

respectfully acknowledges her as ‘Mama’, he is still dismissive of the woman. She

appears only once in her role as comforter, when she puts a hand on his shoulder

duringHendricks’testimonyaboutthemethodsoftortureusebythesecuritypolice.

The camera then zooms out to capture the panel on the stage, who are Alex and

139

Sarah, the three commissioners and to the right of them, the perpetrator and his

lawyer.

The participants in the hearing are viewed from just behind amedia camera

which is purposefully included in the shot and serves as a reminder of the

overpoweringpresenceofthemedia, interpretersanddocumentationthatwentinto

eachhearing.Bruzzi’sdistinctionbetweenthenegotiationofwhatactuallyhappened

andhowitisrepresentedisalsorelevant.Sheemphasisesthattheprocessbetween

thetwomeansthat theyarebothdistinctaswellas interactive.227 Bybeingableto

see the victim, perpetrator, committee and the new camera that captures the

proceedings,weareableto,throughthefilm,experiencetheofficialandinterpreted

elements of the TRC. As the head counsellor calls for order, Alex removes the title

‘Victim’whichsitsinfrontofhimonthetableandchucksittotheside,asignalofhis

owndismissalnotonlyof thetitlebutof theeffectof thetraumaof thepastonhis

currentlife.

Red Dust employs the classical flashback in its narrative to give the viewer

informationaboutAlexandSteveindetentionandtovindicateAlexfromtheimpimpi

statusthatHendrickstriestopinontohim.Thesameflashbackisusedinthreeother

parts of the film. They appear different because they are of different lengths and

becauseofwheretheyappearinthefilm.Althougheachflashbackseemstotakeon

anindividualmeaning,itisthefinalonethatcontextualisesallofthem.Theflashbacks

inRedDustcomplicatetheroleoftheviewerbecauseontheonehand,weremainin

thepositionofpartwitnessingtheeventsoftheTRChearingalongwiththemembers

227Bruzzi,NewDocumentary,p.13.

140

oftheaudience. Ontheotherhand,becauseoftheflashbacks,weknowmorethan

theaudiencesandasmuchastheperpetratorandvictimatthehearings.

Thefirstflashbackappearsafterthetitlesequenceatthebeginningofthefilm.

Itstartsasaclose-upthatshowsthebloodiedandmutilatedfaceofaBlackman.The

cameraholds thegruesomeclose-up fora fewmoments,which reveals that the left

eyeisalmostoutofitssockethandandhisentirefaceiscoveredinblood.Whenthe

camerazoomsoutweseehisfullbodycoveredinbloodonablood-coveredfloor.Itis

a disturbing opening sequence. On the soundtrack we hear a voice that does not

correlate with the disturbing images. Amale voice says, “You’vemade a bigmess

here,hey?”,followedbyachuckle.Theeyesofthefacemeetthecamerajustbefore

themanisdraggedoff-screenbyhisfeet. Heliftsanarmasthoughwantingtograb

the viewer as he stares directly at the camera through his one eye. He is almost

pleadingforhelp,forsaving.Thesecondtimeweseethischaracterwerealisethathe

isSteveSizela,Alex’sfriend,whoseparentshaveaskedhimabouttheirsonandwho

nowwishtogetanswersfromtheTRCabouthisdisappearance.

ThesecondflashbackoccursinsporadicshotsbetweenHendricks’testimonyat

theTRC.AsheexplainsthemethodsoftortureandwhichofthesewereusedonAlex,

Alex’srecollectiontakesplacevia joltingflashbacks. This isthesamefirstdayofthe

hearingswhichisdiscussedindetailearlierinthissection.Thecamerajumpsbetween

HendricksandAlextoshowAlex’sanguishatthememoryofthatnight.Thefinaltime

that this flashback isemployed isclose to theendof the filmand it showsAlexand

StevebothtorturedandbloodiedinaninterrogationroomwithHendricksandanother

securitypoliceman.Alexisseatedonthefloorandhisupperbodyisdrapedoverthe

seatofachair.SteveisagainstawalltoAlex’srightandheisinabadstate,withhis

141

eye out of its socket and his entire face unrecognisable. Hendricks wants Alex to

identifySteveashiscomrade.Alexdoesnotacquiesceandinsteadofagreeingtotheir

answers, Alex and Steve share a look, an eyeline match of recognition and

acknowledgmentbetween the two. HendrickspicksupAlex’sarm topoint toSteve

and decides that this would suffice as suitable identification. Alex briefly drops his

headatthesametimeandthisisthefurtherconfirmationthatthepolicemenneedto

kill Steve. This seems to be themoment inwhich Alex actually sells out but other

detailsintheplotshowthisnottobetrue.

Itisimportanttonotetheheadgesture,asitisremainsunclearwhetherAlex

actuallyidentifiedhiscomradeornot.Theflashbackendsinthesamewayasthefilm

began,withStevebeingdraggedoutoftheroom.Itisclearthatwhatisperceivedasa

desperatelooktowardsthevieweratthestartofthefilmisintheflashbackunveiled

asafinalfarewelltoAlex,asSteveknowshewillneverseehimagain.Insteadofthe

flashback endingwith Steve’s haunting face, the camera tilts upwards to showwho

dragshim,theperpetratoratthehearing,Hendricks.Inthisway,theflashbackatthe

endofthefilm,liketheendoftheTRC,holdssomeone(orpeople)accountableforthe

horrificactionsofapartheidbynamingthem.Butthisscenealsoservesasaconfusing

strategy to make the viewer unsure about Alex and thus, in his new capacity in

government,untrustingofwhetherhecantrulybetrusted.

InMyCountry

InMyCountry’sAfrikaner,AnnaMalan(JulietteBinoche),isdeeplyaffectedby

theprocessandretellingoftraumaticstoriesfromtheTRChearings. Thefilmopens

withAnna’sfatheraskinghertoknowherplace,remindingAnnathatsheisnotBlack

but is an Afrikaner. This is a way of the film introducing its main protagonist by

142

situatingheron theSouthAfrican landscape. Hedismisses theTRChearings,which

Anna will cover as a journalist for the South African Broadcasting Corporation, the

country’s national broadcaster. Anna is deeplymoved by the hearings and spends

mostofherenergytryingtoexplainandprovetoAfrican-AmericanLangstonWhitfield

(SamuelL.Jackson)that‘ubuntu’isreal.Annaherselfismarriedtoawhitemanand

hasthreeboysbutasthefilmprogressesshefindsherselfincreasinglymoreunableto

access the middle-class white world that her friends and family occupy so

unscrupulously.

[Figure3.1]AnnaMalanandLangstonWhitfieldinfirstconfrontationabouttheTRC

[Figure3.2]MediaarriveintheTRCbusforthefirsthearing

143

[Figure 3.3] Arrival of crowds at the first hearing in the film. TRC banner is clearlyvisible.Alsovisibleisachoirdressedinthenationalflag.

Anna gets to go home every few weeks when the TRC is either between

provincesoronabreak.Ononesuchweekendonavisithome,Annaandherhusband

have friends over for a casual braai (barbecue). The couple sit around a tablewith

friendsastheirchildrenplayinapoolintheyard.ABlackdomesticworkertendsto

thetable.ItisatypicalSouthAfricanmiddle-classafternoon.Theconversationatthe

tablejumpsfromonetopictothenext,frombettersecurityforwhitehomestowhites

fleeingthecountrytoothergeneraltopicsthatareinnowaypolitical,letaloneabout

the TRC, Anna’s complete preoccupation. The camera focuses on Anna, who looks

dazedandindisbelief. Sheisshotinamediumclose-upandfromtheproximitywe

areabletoseeherchestheavingslightly,whichindicateshermoodasherfriendsand

husbandcontinuewith‘ordinary’conversation.Herdeadpanexpressionagainsttheir

laughter achieves something different to the good whites versus bad whites

dichotomy. InMyCountrydepictsAnnaas somewhere inbetweena character like

144

BenandBarcantinRedDustbecauseshe,likeBen,believesintheprojectoftheTRC

and differently to Barcant, does not dismiss the country completely but also, as is

showninthisleisurelysceneinherownbackyard,istornaboutwhetherwhitesthat

canbetrustedwiththisfragilemomentinSouthAfrica.Accordingtothetraumatised

Anna,theysimplydonotseemtotakeitveryseriously.Sheinteruptstheirsuperficial

musingswithaquestionthathasbeensittingwithhersincethelasttrialsheattended,

andwantstoknowifherfriendsthinkitispossibletorapewithapoliticalmotive.Her

friends,particularlythewomen,lookdeeplyuncomfortable.Thecameradoesapanof

thetableshowingtheirexpressions.AsAnnacontinuestolookaroundthetablewith

greatexpectation,oneofthemenatthetablebeginstorespondtoherandoneofthe

womeninterjectstosaythattheyneedto leave. Anna’shusbandshootshera look

acrossthetablebutherexpressionremainsthesameandsoonthepartyatmosphere

is over. This scene is indicative of Anna’s growing experience of the trauma of the

hearings.

AnnaisflankedbytwoBlackmen:DumihersoundengineerfromtheSABCon

onesideandLangston, theAfrican-American journalistwhosheeventuallybefriends

afteraboozynightout.TherelationshipbetweenAnnaandLangstonextendsbeyond

friendship.WhenatoneofthehearingsLangstonasksDumiwhyAnnaiscryingwhen

none of the Black people in the audience are crying, Dumi tells him that “we”

(referencing Black people) “have done our crying”. Dumi’s comment highlights two

points that cameup throughout theTRC, firstly thatwhitepeopledidnot know the

extent of the genocide that occurred in the Black townships and secondly, the

ordinarinessof trauma inblack communities in SouthAfrica. A similar sentimentof

disbeliefwas expressed in ADryWhite SeasonwhenGordon tried to tell Ben about

whatwashappening inthetownships. But it isalsodifferent inthisrenditionwhich

145

takes place against the backdrop of post-apartheid because the feeling that is

conveyed is that if more whites knew then more would have fought against the

system.ThisisaverystrongelementofAnna’sconsistentsadnessanddespairwhen

shehearsthetestimoniesatthehearings.Annaisthegoodandlikeablewhiteinthis

film and through learningwhoher family is, her brother’s suicide at the end of the

film,herhusband’sabilitytoforgiveher infidelityandtheabilityofsomanytohave

forgiventhehorrendousactsof rapeandviolence,weasviewersareencouragedto

see and believe in the spirit of ‘ubuntu’ that Anna professes as possible for post-

apartheidSouthAfricaandforpost-apartheidSouthAfricansthroughoutthefilm.

AlthoughweseethefullspectrumofAnna’slifeweonlygetbriefglimpsesinto

the livesofothercharacters. Forexample,Dumi isa localand lives inatownship in

CapeTown,andLangstonWhitfieldcoversthehearingsforanindifferentUSaudience,

accordingtohiseditor,butthisistheextentofourknowledgeoftheirlives.Wedo,

however, witness Anna’s home and family. InMy Country implies that Langston is

attached to the TRC process because of his own African-American heritage. This is

evident in his judgemental stance towards Anna and his defensiveness about Black

SouthAfricans,asthoughheprotectstheBlacksfromher.

Thefilm’sculminationincorporatestwodeathsofsecondarycharacters,which

furthercomplicateswhat thenewSouthAfricahasbeenconstructedasupuntil this

point.Anna’sbrothercommitssuicidebecauseoftheguiltofhavingtorturedpeople

during apartheid. After Anna and Langston find the farm on which tortures were

carriedout,Annalearnsthatherownbrotherwasinvolved.AsanAfrikanerman,his

decisiontokillhimself isadecisiontopunishhimself for theactshecommittedand

theguilthesatwith.AgainstthebackdropoftheTRCproceedingsthroughoutthefilm

146

andhissister’sgrowingtrauma,thesuicidebringsupconflictedideasbecause,onthe

one hand, the film’s close representations of the trials do bring up the question of

whatadequatepunishmentmightbeinsuchacase.Ontheotherhand,andbecause

thereasonsforhissuicideareneverdiscussedinthefilm,itisalsopossibletowonder

whetherhesimplygotwhathedeserved.

TheseconddeathisDumi’s. Inamuchearlierconversationabout‘impimpis’,

Dumibecamedefensiveaboutwhypeoplesellout,arguingthatsometimes,thingsare

grey.WhenDumiinvitesAnnaandLangstontohishometocelebratetheendofthe

hearings, Anna declines but Langston goes with him. Shown to be in a township

setting,and framed inawide-angleshot, thepairdrivedownanarrowroadas they

approach Dumi’s house. Previously unknown characters drive up to them. Dumi

knows them as local ‘tsotsis’. When the leader of the gang comments on Dumi’s

positionasadoubleagent,welearnwhyhemadethoseearliercomments.Hediesin

themiddleoftheroadandthe‘tsotsis’quicklyvacatethescenewhileLangstonisleft

there. The film’s comment, when taken alongside the earlier suicide, is that truth,

justice,forgivenessandmemoryareallgreyareas.InMyCountrythusalsosuggests

thatnoteveryonewhowasBlacksufferedduringapartheidandnoteveryonewhowas

whiteparticipatedintorture.

CharacterslikeAnna,DumiandLangstonequalisetheplayingfieldofhistorical

BlacktraumabecauseInMyCountryextendstheTRCbeyondSouthAfrica’shistoryby

makingitseemthatLangston’svehemenceandpersonalafflictionwiththeTRCisthe

same(orattheveryleastsimilar)justbecauseheisalsoBlack.Thispointstoaneven

further problem of representation in the film, which is that it oversimplifies Black

histories.Weare,however,throughthedepthofrepresentationofAnna,consistently

147

remindedthatnotallwhiteswerebadorknewtheextentofwhathappenedduring

apartheid. LindiweDoveyargues that these filmsare in fact awareof andmakean

attempt“…tounderstand thenuancesofSouthAfrica’sviolentpastandpresent”.228

By contrast I have viewed these two films as useful, but nevertheless overtly

reductionist in their undertakings, Dovey argues that it is remarkable that the

filmmakershave“shunnedengagementinthediscourseof‘blackvictimhood’,asone

wouldexpect in the immediatepost-apartheidera”.229Shesees thisasan important

wayofrepresentingthedifficultythatsomeBlackpeople,likethecharacterofDumiin

particular,musthavefacedwhentheyhadtochooseaperpetratorpositionthrough,

“themetonymicdisplacementofviolence”.230Perhapssuchaviewwouldbepossible

if theBlackcharacterswerebetterroundedbuttheyaregenerallynot ineitherfilm.

This leadsme tosee representations in such filmsascloselyalignedwithmonolithic

white representations more broadly. Richard Dyer points out the value and

importance of thinking about the cultural construction(s) of white people… “white

makingsofwhiteness…”andit ispreciselythiscriticalitythat ismissing inrelationto

therepresentationsofwhitecharactersinRedDustandInMyCountry.231

WhereasRedDustcoversthehearingsfromtheperspectiveofasinglehearing,

whichismeanttoactasametaphorforthemanyothers,InMyCountry’sapproachis

via Anna’s experience of different hearings brought before the Human Rights

ViolationsCommitteeoftheTRC. WeexperiencetheTRCfromAnna’spointofview

andher interpretationsof thehearings throughherSABC radio reports. Becauseof

this,thejourneyisasmuchaboutAnna’ssearchforforgivenessforherpeopleasitis

228Dovey,AfricanFilmandLiterature,p.55.229Ibid.230Ibid.231RichardDyer,White(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,1997),p.xiv.

148

about those who bring forth testimonies, actively mourn and receive momentary

comfort,butneverthelessmust leave thehearings tocontinuewith life. Anna loses

herselfwhenawhitemancomesforwardforanswersaboutthemurderofhisfamily.

Sheentersthehearinglateandisframedinalongshotwalkingtowardsthecamera.

ShelooksaroundforaseatandfindsoneinfrontofLangstonandDumiandnexttoan

Afrikanerman. AsthevictimemotionallyretellshisstoryAnnabeginsto laugh. She

nudges themannext toher as though theyare sharinga joke.Her laughingquickly

progressesintohystericaltearsandseatednexttothelargeman,shelookssmalland

vulnerable.Sheisallthewhileframedinamediumclose-upwhichmakesitpossible

toseeherfacialexpressionofdisbeliefatthehorrorsthatcontinuetopileupthrough

theTRC.Anna’slossofcontrolisnotaninabilitytounderstandtheinformationsheis

hearingbutanindicationofhersaturationwithtraumaticstoriesfromSouthAfrica’s

past, and reflective of a kind of transferred posttraumatic stress disorder through

witnessingthestories.

The scene that follows is of Langston comforting her in a hotel room. A

comforting hugquickly progresses into an extra-marital affair that continues for the

durationoftheTRChearings.Anna’sbreakdowninthehearingsisareflectionofher

stateofmindat the time,a state thatextends the lossof control toherdecision to

sleepwithLangston.Anna’slossofcontrolisnotonlyaboutherselfbutisalsoabout

tryingtofigureoutwhereandhowshecouldfitinasanAfrikanerinSouthAfricawhen

theTRCshowedsostarklyhowmanyAfrikanersbelievedinandprotectedapartheid.

Thiswasnotahalf-bakedsideprojectbutanomnipresentone.

The emphasis of In My Country is on whiteness. In relation to both films

discussedinthissection,Iconsiderthepossibilitythattheideaof‘fulldisclosure’isnot

149

only about the perpetrators telling thewhole truth but also about the goodwhites

who, likeAnnaandSarah,are themselves representedas traumatisedby the factual

accounts of torture, deaths and thewholehearted belief on the part of the security

policethattheywerejustfollowingorders.Inotherwords,fulldisclosureiscomplex

because itnotonlyreferencesthe factsof thebadactsonthepartof theapartheid

securitypolice,italsonow,attheTRC,necessarilyincludesfulldisclosureofallfeelings

inpost-apartheidSouthAfrica.Itisdifficultnottoempathisewith,andevenlikeAnna

whoissincere,tenaciousandveryhopefulforherself,herfamilyandhernation.

It is as difficult not to like and feel an affinity with Sarah, who seems

adequatelyangryatanddisgustedwithapartheidSouthAfrica.Aboveallelsethough,

the narrative of these films means that both these women are vindicated by their

sexual relationswithBlackmen. Such logic seems to imply thatbecausebothAnna

andSarahwerewithBlackmen,theycannotberacistandthusmustreallybelievein

‘ubuntu’. It is ‘ubuntu’ in action when families at the TRC are able to forgive

perpetrators for various vicious acts and it is this same ‘ubuntu’ thatAnna asks her

husbandtoenactwhensheconfessestotheextra-maritalaffair. His forgiveness for

her should not be ignored as something that is merely part of the narrative as it

presentsanactionforwhichAnnamustherselfbeforgiven.

150

PartTwo

‘ActingOut’,ForgivenessandRevenge:ForgivenessandZuluLoveLetter

Forgiveness

“Are seeking revenge and offering forgiveness two sides of the same coin,

differentwaysoftryingtotakesomecontrolwherethereissuchadespairinglevelof

powerlessness?”,askCynthiaRansleyandTerri Spy in their studyof forgivenessand

the healing process.232 In this section I discuss films by two Black South African

directors, IanGabrielandRamadanSuleman. BothForgivenessand ZuluLoveLetter

resistthewhollyoptimisticapproachandassumptionsof‘thenewSouthAfrica’.

Forgiveness is Ian Gabriel’s first feature film. The script is predominantly in

Afrikaans,thelocallanguagespokeninPaternoster,thesmalltowninwhichthefilmis

set.ZuluLoveLetterisRamadanSuleman’sthirdindependentfilm.Thefilmissetin

Johannesburg,alargecitywithaculturalmixofpeoplefromaroundthecountryand

the continent; thus many languages are spoken there. The film reflects this

multiculturalmilieuandcharactersspeakisiZulu,Sesotho,English,Afrikaansandlocal

slangthatcombinestwoormoreoftheselanguagesandothers.Itwasco-fundedby

SouthAfrica,FranceandGermany. BothForgivenessandZuluLoveLetterwerealso

partfundedbytheNFVF.

Forgiveness follows the journey of ex-apartheid policeman Tertius Coetzee,

who seeks absolution from the family of a young man whom he killed in 1991.

Coetzee travels to find Daniel Grootboom’s family, who he hopes will offer him

somethingbeyondtheamnestyhehasalreadyreceivedfromtheTRC.Thefamilyhas

232CynthiaRansleyandTerriSpy(eds.),ForgivenessandtheHealingProcess:ACentralTherapeuticConcern(EastSussexandNewYork:Routledge,2004),p.4.

151

been in the depth of struggling since their son died. They are represented as

experiencing an inescapable complexmix of emotions and a great deal of sadness.

Paternoster,wherethefilmisset,isoneoftheoldestfishingvillagesonthewestcoast

ofSouthAfrica. It ispopulatedmostlywithcoloured fishing familiesandthis is true

alsoforthefilm.TheGrootboomsareafishingfamilyandDanielwasthefirstsonwho

waseversenttostudyfurther.Thechoicetohavethefilmsetinsuchacontextisan

unusualchoiceforafewreasons.Firstly,becausethefilmissetinasmalltownthere

islittledistractionfromthemainissueandthereisadistinctfeelingthatthecentrality

oftheapartheidpastofwhichDaniel’smurderisapart,andtheprocessesoftheTRC

and forgivenesscannotbeescaped. Inaverypoeticmanner, theseaaspartof the

mise-en-scèneofthefilmplaysitsownroleasthetiderisesandfallswitheachpassing

day,verymuchliketheemotionsinthefilm.

Anothernoteworthypointaboutthesettingofthisfilmistheemphasisonthe

colouredtownshipandacolouredfamilyascentraltotheplot.OftenTRCstoriesthat

are chosen for re-enactment have black Africans asmain protagonists because this

wasthepopulationgroupmostharshlyaffectedbyapartheid.Whilethisisthecasein

RedDustandInMyCountry,theotherfilmdiscussedinthissection,ZuluLoveLetter,

incorporatescharactersofdifferentracestoshowthatapartheidaffectedBlackSouth

AfricanseventhoughitwasmostsevereforblackAfricans.Generallyhowever,other

Blacks are not as visible in TRC films, or rather part of the construction of the new

governmenthasbeenan inability to reallycreate roomfor thestoriesofall races in

South Africa to be of equal cultural value. Many representations have been overly

simplifiedinthefilmstomakethedominantnarrativeaboutSouthAfricainapartheid

oneexclusivelyaboutBlackAfricans,alsonotahomogeneousgroup,appearassuch.

Gabriel’schoiceforthefilmtobeabouta‘coloured’familyisahistoricalassertionthat

152

the‘RainbowNation’doesnotonlymeanblackandwhitebutinfactencompassesthe

fullmeaning of the term Black: black, coloured, Indian,mixed-race andwhite. The

term‘coloured’ishoweverusedintheanalysisofForgivenessbecausethefilm’sfocus

is on a family who represent some of the historical baggage of ‘colouredness’.

Nevertheless,thethesisstillconsiderssuchagroupingundertheterm‘Black’.

Among the few signposts and landmarks along Coetzee’s journey into the

humblecolouredtownshipofPaternosterare theshellcoveredgraves, the imageof

theemptyshore,portrayedquiteunglamorouslyinthisfilm(perhapsbecauseitisthe

primary means of living) and the small almost identical houses that reference

apartheidforcedremovalspractices.Thefilm’sopeningsceneisshotfromCoetzee’s

pointofviewofasandyroadashedrivestowardsanasyetunknowndestination.We

see the road covered by sea sand as he enters a small town. The street appears

forlornandisemptyuntilayoungmanrunsuptohimandslamstwolivecrayfishon

the driver’s side window. The ‘click click clicking’ of the crayfish tentacles on the

window is audible on the soundtrack as the youngman shouts something about a

cheap price. Coetzee is jolted by the seller but his expression soon returns to the

worriedlookingexpressionthatthefilmopenswith.Alittlewayonhestopsatafour

waystopwhereawomanwithcurlersinherhairstaresaheadatnothinginparticular.

Thecamerazoomsoutslightlytoestablishthescence;tothe leftofscreen isanold

unusedfishingboatwithaderelictwelcomesignonitthatTertiusdoesnotevensee.

Neither thewomannor thesignappearverywelcoming to thewhiteman. Coetzee

asksthewomantodirecthimtothecemetery.“Gobackthewayyoucame”,shesays

withadeadpanexpression.Thewomanindicatesaphysicalaboutturnaswellasone

that canbe read as ametaphor for him to return to the emotional placehe comes

from.

153

The Grootboom ‘stoep’ is a large open-planmake-shift area fromwhich the

ocean is visible in the not too far distance. It has been haphazardly covered with

weathered fishingnets toprovidesomeshelter. In thewind thenets lookhaunting

andcontributeeven further to theoverall forlorn lookof theproperty. Thehouse’s

cream-colouredwalls arepeeling andpatchy, an indication that theyhavenotbeen

painted in a long time. This is the derelict mise-en-scène when Father Dalton and

TertiusfirstarriveattheGrootboomhouseoneovercastandgreyafternoon.Theyare

first captured in a tracking shotwalking towards the camera and the family. Linen

sheets flap in the wind, covering parts of their approaching bodies as they walk

towardsthestoep.WaitingthereareMrandMrsGrootboom,whohewalkstowards;

he passes Sannie and Ernest and comes to stand between the parents and the

children. Father Dalton offers that they should sit. On this first visit to the

GrootboomfamilyTertiusexplainsthatheistheretoapologiseforhavingkilledtheir

son. Daniel’s parents are confused because the TRC has already granted Coetzee

amnesty.

Thissceneutilisesclose-upsmanytimestoconveytheextremeandheightened

emotions of each character. Facial expressions are not enough to convey Ernest’s

resentment,Sannie’srage,MagdaGrootboom’sheartbreakandMrGrootboom’sguilt

andsadness.ButfacialexpressionsarealsonotenoughtoshowTertius’ownguiltand

brokennessaboutwhathehasdone,his inabilitytoworkthrough, letalonepastthe

trauma.Thefamilyisclearlyonguard.MrGrootboomprotectivelyhashishandonhis

wife’sshoulder,whileaclearlyupsetSanniewatchestotherightofthescreen. The

youngest son, Ernest, is seated, frantically writing away on a clipboard with a

calculator set in front of him. Father Dalton and Coetzee appear from behind the

blowing white sheets on the washing line. The awkward meeting is short, mostly

154

comprisedofloomingquestionsaroundwhythemanwhomurderedtheirsonisnow

at their house. But it is the childrenwhobring the issue to lightwhen Sannie calls

Tertius a “murderous, white bastard”, shortly followed by Ernest who demands to

knowwhetherCoetzeehasR1000000togivethembecausethatwouldhavebeenhis

brother’sannual incomeasanengineer. Thesiblingspoint tothe lossofpromise in

theirhouseholdaswellasalossofhopebecauseneitherofthemhasbeenabletogo

toUniversitysincewhathappenedtoDanielinterruptedtheirlives.Ernest’smonetary

concernsalsohighlightthe issueofreparationsbyemphasisingthe inadequacyofan

apologywithwords,asintheTRC.

A second meeting takes place the following day after a heated family

disagreement between Sannie and her father. She accuses her father of being

deceptive aboutDaniel’s deathbecause theyhavenever revealed thatDanielwas a

freedomfighterandnot thevictimofabotchedhijacking. Becausehisdeath is still

rememberedasanaccidenthehasneverreceivedanyrecognitionforhisrole inthe

struggle. Sannie wants her brother to be mourned as a hero, not someone to be

ashamedoforpitied. Herboldattackonherfatherculminates inSanniereceivinga

flat-palmedslapacrossthefacefromhimwhichleavesher,andtherestofthefamily,

speechless.

ThefamilyisclearlyupsetthatSanniehasinvitedthemanbacktotheirhome

but they are mostly upset that the details of Daniel’s death are now being openly

discussed. Mrs Grootboom, for example, retreats to her bedroom after she upsets

Ernestwithacommentthat impliesthatDanielwastheperfectson.MrGrootboom,

tryingtoremedythequicklyunravellingsituation, instructsSannietophoneCoetzee

totellhimnottocome.Thecamerafollowshimwalkingoutofthecrampedkitchen

155

towards thebedroomwherehiswife is. It then captures Sanniewho,watchingher

fatherwalkaway fromher shoutsadefiant “no!” in response tohis instruction. He

turnsaround,shockedthatshewouldspeaktohiminthisway.

Mr Grootboom’s looming stance and tone towards Sannie in this scene

indicatesthathestilltreatsherasachild,anindicationoftheparents’stagnationafter

Daniels’ death, in that they are unable to see the growth anddevelopment of their

other children. A confrontational shot-reverse-shot pattern ensues between father

anddaughter,firstwithfatheranddaughteronoppositeendsofthesmallloungearea

andthentowardstheendofthescene,withaclose-upofMrGrootboomsmackinghis

daughteracrossher right check. Theclose-upofhishandonher faceand then the

followupclose-upofSannieholdingherrightcheckwithbothhandsemphasisesnot

only the shockof the actionbut also the shockof thebottled-up feelings that have

beenpresentinthehome.

The conflict between Sannie and her father could be taken to be simply an

issueofgenerationalconflict.However,Gabrielisexploringadifficultandcontentious

issuebeyondthedeathinthefamily,anissueofshamethatDanielwasinvolvedwith

politics. This kind of shame is historically linked to being coloured, a racial

classification of apartheid South Africa. As Zimitri Erasmus points out, growing up

colouredinCapeTown“…meantknowingthatIwasnotonlynotwhite,butlessthan

white;notonlynotblack,butbetterthanblack…”.233Thispointstooneofthemany

complexitiesofmakingsenseofpost-apartheididentitiesandinaway,challengesthe

constructionofthe‘RainbowNation’becauseitbringstolighttheintricaciesofracial

classificationsanddivisionsassystemicdespitetheendofapartheid.Gabrielisableto

233ZimitriErasmus,“Re-ImaginingColouredIdentitiesinPost-ApartheidSouthAfrica”inZimitriErasmus(ed.),ColouredbyHistory,ShapedbyPlace(CapeTown:Kwela,2001),p.17.

156

highlightsuchadiscourseinForgiveness,particularlythroughDaniel’sfather,whoisa

representativeofaparticulargenerationofstoiccolouredmen.

More than this though, Gabriel’s choice for the Grootboom parents to be

embarrassed by their son’s participation in the struggle speaks to the problematic

position of the coloured population group and their relationship to racialisedwhite

powerduringapartheid.Inpost-apartheidthispopulationgroupisstill‘inthemiddle’

even in the somewhat politically and racially inverted new South Africa. Coloureds

alsooccupiedaslightlyprivilegedpositioninapartheidSouthAfricaastheywerefairer

incomplexionthanblackAfricansandthusreceivedcertain‘benefits’.Inthecontext

of thedisagreementbetweenSannieandher father it is also this generational issue

that is prominent: that Mr Grootboom did not consider his son’s death heroic but

remainedangryathimself(andatDaniel)forgettinginvolvedinpoliticsandterrorism

(what Black freedom fighters were accused of) at all. The economic and political

position and sentiment of some of the coloured population of Mr Grootboom’s

generationand thatof Sannie andErnest’s generation is shown tobe verydifferent

throughoutthisfilm.

Where the Grootboom parents, whose views are articulated only by Mr

Grootboom, wish to leave the issues around their son’s death in the past, their

childrenwishtorectifyhoweasilyCoetzeehasbeengrantedforgivenessbydenyingit

to him. The children raise an issue not only of reparations and ‘easy’ forgiveness

through the TRC but also a consideration of punishment for what he did. In their

overtlyangrystancesandactionstowardsCoetzee,thechildrenalso‘actup’,because

seeing him makes the multiple deaths in their family (Daniel’s physical death, the

157

death of family life, the death of the children’s hopes and futures in lieu of their

brothergoingtothecity)realalloveragain.

Coetzee’ssecondvisittotheGrootboomhouseisverydifferenttothefirst.In

this one he testifies to them, in ways reminiscent of the hearings discussed in the

previoussectionofthischapterbutalsodifferent.FatherDaltonstillmediates,asthe

commissionerswouldhavedone in theofficial TRCbut thecloseproximitybetween

Coetzeeandthefamilymakestheexperiencedifferent. ErnestGrootboomalertshis

family to the unwanted visitor’s return. Seated in theirmodest and relatively dark

(despite the timeofday) loungearea, theGrootboomfamilyappearssimilar tohow

they did the day before: an upsetmother, a protective father and two angry adult

childrenwhowill never be able to capture theirmother’s attention theway Daniel

does,evenindeath(perhapsparticularlybecauseofit).Theyareseatedinahalf-circle

this timeasSannieprobesCoetzeewith thedetailsofDaniel’sdeath,decisions they

madeasthepolice,theplantoframeitasahijackgonewrong.AswewatchCoetzee

explainingDaniel’slastwordstoMagdaGrootboom,theclose-upsshowthattheyare

bothcrying.

It is as though, in thismoment, thekillerandmotherare locked in sharinga

specialmoment asMagda longingly imagines her son in these finalmoments of his

death.Inthemidstofthistendermoment,whichtakesplacethroughashot-reverse-

shot sequence, we see Coetzee’s desperation to be freed of guilt and Magda’s

unbearableheartbreak.WealsoseeErnest’smid-sectiontotheleftofCoetzee’shead

andtotheleftofthescreen.Sannieisinchargeofquestioningandsheisunrelenting,

demanding to knoweverything that happened. Drawingour attention in is Ernest’s

righthandwhichbecomesaprominentfistintherightcornerofthescreen.Assoon

158

asCoetzeefinishesandwhiletheroomisstillsombreinthememoryofDaniel’sdeath

thattheyhaveallhadtoimagine,asthoughattheTRC,Ernestpicksupapotandlets

outalongdeepthroatyscreamasheslamsthepotontoCoetzee’shead.

ErnestandCoetzeeareheld inthesameframeforafewmoments,reflecting

both of their mental states: Coetzee remorseful and haunted and Ernest violently

incensed.Ernest’sactionreleaseseveryoneelse’sfeelingtooashismotherandSannie

become hysterical, and everyone else tries to simultaneously hold back Ernest and

helpCoetzee,whoisbleedingfromthehead.Thesceneisreminiscentoftheprevious

afternoon’s first meeting when Mrs Grootboom dropped the plate of 'koeksisters'

afterSannieremindedherwhyCoetzeewasthere.Theincidentswithbrokenobjects

emphasise the broken family and the visceral jolts of brokenness that Coetzee

representstothisfamily.Thispain,oftenshownintheirtearsand,forexampleinMrs

Grootboom’s case, in a distinct sense of confusion and a reclusive desire to be left

alone, breaks through the seemingly placid dullness of the everyday and the

knowledge that the day is not ‘normal’ when the nightmare of Daniel’s death

continues to recur. These actions are not the same as the solutions of talking

proffered at the TRC hearings. Missing in the home TRC are the mourners and

comforters aswell as the otherwitnesses and audienceswhowatch and listen and

also,forgive.

Thereisasub-plotinthisfilmwhichisnotaboutforgivenessbutaboutactive

revenge, which is not only a feeling, conveyed from the get-go by the Grootboom

childrenbut inanotherplotaltogether. AfterCoetzee’s first visit to theGrootboom

family, Sannie calls anactivist friendofDaniel’sbased in Johannesburg. Onhearing

thatDaniel’skiller is inPaternosterhe instructsSannietokeepCoetzeethere;this is

159

actuallywhysheinvitesCoetzeebackthefollowingdaytoseeherfamily.Threeyoung

men,black,colouredandwhitesetoutona roadtrip toPaternoster tokill theman

whokilledtheir friend. This isnotonlyaboutpunishmentbutalsoaboutvengeance

and revenge. The full extent of revenge, unknown to the characters (and audience)

until the endof the film, is only revealed in the final scenes of the film.Within the

‘RainbowNation’triowhoareonroutetoPaternostertoserveCoetzeethepunitive

deathpenaltythatnolongerexistsinthecountry,lingerstheasyetunknownanswer

tothequestiontheyhaveallbeenmullingoverforthepasttenyears:whonotifiedthe

policeofDaniel’sparticipation in the resistancemovement? Ina shockingmoment,

theyandSannierealisethatit isnotonlythewhitepoliceman(Coetzee)butalsothe

unsuspectingblackcomrade,Zuko,whohasforalltheseyearsbeenequallyguiltyfor

Daniel’sdeath.

Theconfrontationtakesplaceattheendofthefilm,afterDaniel’smotherhas

decidedtocomeoutoflivingintheshadows,afterthefatherhasforgivenhimself,his

son and Coetzee and after Ernest has also faced his own anger and has embraced

‘movingon’.SannieappearsnotonlytohaveforgivenCoetzeebutalsotobeableto

seethehumanity inhim,thetruepersonificationof ‘ubuntu’asencouragedthrough

theTRC.Itappearsthatthefamilyhastrulybeenabletodothemourning,‘actingout’

and ‘working through’ to reach a place of forgiveness. In her only instruction,Mrs

GrootboomasksthatCoetzeeaskhersonforforgivenessathisgravesite,afterwhich

shegivesCoetzeeherblessingtomoveon.Itiswhilethisfinalredemptiontakesplace

thatthethreecomradescomescreechingintothedustygraveyardofPaternoster.

160

[Figure3.4]Daniel’scomrades:The‘RainbowNation’trio

Coetzeeandthetrioexchangeknowinglooksofrecognition.Aseriesofshot-

reverse-shotstakeplaceandthistime,insteadofCoetzeebeingtheoneoppositethe

Grootboom family, he is now on their side, shot in the same frame as them and

protectivelyalongsideDaniel’sgrave.Thecomradesarenowontheoppositesideof

the fence. Each camp is representative of the ‘Rainbow Nation’ both in race and

historicalcomposition:age,politicalcredibilityandhistoricaltrauma.ItisCoetzee,as

a representative of the camp around the grave, who politely taps on the driver’s

windowandasksthethreetojointhemastheypayhomagetoDaniel.Heclearlytries

to protect the family. They exit the car and stand in a semi-circle with the family

lookingon.Daniel’smotherrecognisesoneofthem.Coetzee,asthoughawareofhis

imminent death, is able to spare Sannie (the onewho asked them to come) of her

parents’ questions in that he takes the blame for the untimely arrival of Daniel’s

comrades. This is yet another protective action of his towards the family. Another

seriesofshot-reverse-shotsensues,inwhichaninterestingfinalrevelationrealisesthe

end of the film: forgiveness and revenge. Neither of these looks the way it was

imagined,asisthecasewiththeendoftheTRC.Althoughthe‘RainbowNation’myth

wasconstructedandpartiallyimplemented,thematerialandsocialconditionsremain

161

the same for so many that it remains difficult to fully buy into the myth.

[Figure3.5]Daniel’sfamilyatgrave

The situation unravels soon after the Coetzee family respectfully leave their

son’sgraveside.ThethreecomradeslookunsureofwhattodonowthatCoetzeehas

been forgiven and in the midst of this confusion, Zuko, the black comrade, shoots

CoetzeewiththeAK47theyuncoveredonadetour,anAK47that,tenyearsprior,was

partofashipmentofammunitionthatthesecuritypolicewanted informationabout

andthusthereasonforDaniel’sdeath.Twoofthethreelookperplexedbecausethe

reasonfortheirjourneyquicklyfellapartwhentheyarrivedtoseethefamilyalongside

Coetzee. Zuko’s intentions are however very different. In amuchearlier scenewe

brieflysawZukospeaktoayoungmaninawheelchair,whowelearnishisbrother.In

that scene the short interactionbetween thebrothers indicated that theone in the

wheelchair warned him not to act foolishly. Zuko has not come to Paternoster to

avengeDaniel,butforhisbrother’sloss,whichhasaffectedhisownlife. AsCoetzee

bleedstodeathnexttoDaniel’sgrave,thethreescramblebacktotheircaranddrive

off inthesameblurofdustandsandthattheyarrived in. There isnofurtherdetail

abouttheirreactiontoZukoaftertheyleavethescene.

ThefilmconcludeswithafinalshotofCoetzee’sbodynexttoDaniel’sgrave,a

reminder that throughout the film we do not see a single image or photograph of

Daniel.OnlySannieisleftstandingatherbrother’sgraveasthefinalfadeoutoccurs.

162

Although moments before the film seemed to indicate that forgiveness is possible

even inunthinkable situations, the film thenundoes thisexact feelingbyconcluding

with Coetzee’s death, killing the one who was forgiven. But this final scene also

comments on anothermyth about how racialised characters in post-apartheid films

arepreconceivedaccordingtorace.UntilZukoconfesses,itseemsmostobviousthat

itwasthewhitecomradewhosoldoutandgaveDaniel’snametothesecuritypolice.

Itappearsalikelypossibilitynotonlythatthewhitefriendistheleasttrustworthybut

alsothathecouldpotentiallybeasecuritypolicemantoo.Thisconstruction isalsoa

wayinwhichthefilmquestionstheviewer’sracialassumptions.

InForgiveness, IanGabriel’s choices to include such critical but unarticulated

angerinDaniel’syoungersiblingsandtohavetheintermediaryinthefilmbeawhite

malepriest,or,tohaveDaniel’sfriendsbethepersonificationofthe‘RainbowNation’,

are allmanners in which hemakes the TRCmoot. There aremoments in which it

appearsGabrielhimselfmaybeunsureofhowcriticalhewantsthefilmtobe.Father

DaltonisawhitemalepriestwhoseaccenthintsthathemaybeBritishand/orSouth

Africanandwho,despitehaveagreedtosetupthemeetingbetweenCoetzeeandthe

Grootbooms, is clearly distressed by the information Coetzee shares about Daniel’s

murder.OnoneoccasionsoonafterCoetzeearrives,hetellsCoetzeethatitisnotfair

toputpeoplethroughthis.Onanotheroccasion,whenheexplainswhathappenedto

Daniel,heinterruptshimtosuggestaeuphemisticversionoftheeventswhichSannie

dismisses. ItappearsthatontheseoccasionsDaltonisnotspeakingsomuchforthe

familyasforhimselfbecausefortheGrootboomfamily,asDumipointedoutinInMy

Country,Blackpeoplearesousedtothesestoriesas theyalready livealongsideand

withtrauma.

163

Like thewitnesseswho listened to the storiesat theTRC,weasviewersalso

have to believe the victims and perpetrators in this film. As at the TRC, we are

compelled tobelieve full disclosure and grant amnestybut it is the film itselfwhich

pushes beyond an official TRC representation that does not do either. As ‘witness

viewers’, we, alongside the Grootbooms, also need to hear Coetzee’s testimony to

believehimandgranthimamnesty. Butwearenotpermitted to ignore the ‘acting

out’ of the various characters that cannot simply forgive. In the scenewhich takes

placeinthesmallGrootboomlounge,theviewerstandsinfortheaudienceoftheTRC.

Like those audiences, viewers are able to hear and experience the interpretation of

eventsandhaveourownfeelingsaboutthedifferentpartiesontheissueofamnesty

andforgiveness. NotbeingabletoseeDanielorhisdeathviaflashbacksalsomeans

thattheissueoftrustingthestory ispushedtoanewlimit. Flashbacksappear inall

theotherthreefilmsdiscussedinthischapter,forexample,andtheyaidtheprocess

ofshowingthepast,soastotaketheviewerstoaplacewheretheTRCaudiencecould

nevergo.

Although the film is not easy towatch; there are other choices that Gabriel

makes that easily lapse into racial stereotypes, taking away power from important

earlier scenes. For example, Gabriel’s casting of Daniel’s comrades as a convenient

multiracial trio, white, black and coloured, seems a too easy lapse into the use of

stereotypes. SuchaconstructionminimisesthecriticalstanceofSannietowardsher

father in the earlier scene where she confronts him about the reasons for Daniel’s

death. In that sceneweareable toperceive that apartheid categorieswerenot all

neatandeasytounderstand.Intheconstructionoftheanti-apartheidrainbowtrio,it

appears thatGabrielmight be taking on toomuch. Althoughhe is highly critical of

racial constructshealso tries todismantle them tooquickly throughcharacters that

164

have not really been developed beyond their old apartheid ‘comrade’ status. For

example,while Tertius Coetzee is so highly developed thatwe are able to see how

torturedandbrokenhe isbyhisguilt,Zuko, the leastcharacterised,comesoffquite

one-dimensionallyassimplyangry.

Thisleadstoaveryconfusingending,withastrongsenseofnotknowingwhat

to be upset about or comforted by at the end of the film. Some of the questions

Forgiveness leavesunansweredare:Whoshouldwebeangryatnowthat thewhite

manwhohadgonetosuchgreatlengthstogettrueforgivenessishimselfkilled?Does

post-apartheidpermitangeratBlackpeople? Inotherwords,thegreyareaofbeing

an ‘impimpi’ applied to apartheid but what of the present context? Dumi, for

example,getskilledevenafterapartheidends. ShouldangerbedirectedatSannie’s

juvenilebutshrewdattemptsatmurderorratherangerthatshetellsCoetzeetoolate,

onceshehasdecidedthatshecanforgivehimafterall?TheTRCdidnotequipSouth

Africanstodealwiththesequestions.However,if,asLizelleBischoffandStefanieVan

DePeerpointout,oneoftheresponsibilitiesofartistodealwiththeunspeakableand

to “… transport the spectator/ reader/ listener into the realm of experience”, then

Forgiveness’sachievementsextendbeyondtheremit.234

ZuluLoveLetter

TheKhulumanisupportgroupwasstartedbyvictimswhohadtestifiedatthe

TRCandwho, todate, have still not received reparations from the state. Zulu Love

Letter, directed by Ramadan Suleman (2004) is the only one of the four films that

incorporates theexistenceof thisorganisation into itsnarrativeaboutgrief, trauma,

memoryandtryingtomoveonafterapartheid.Thechoicetodothisissuggestiveof

234BischoffandVanDePeer,“Introduction”inBischoffandVanDePeer(eds.),ArtandTrauma,p.13.

165

thefact that this filmcastsawidernetaroundtheTRC.ZuluLoveLetter isnota film

aboutforgivenessbutratheritsemphasis,liketrauma,liesintheunspeakableandthe

unrepresentable in thedaily livesofordinarypeopleandoutsideof the spectacleof

themiracleof‘TheRainbow’.

ThisfinalanalysisofthechapterfocusesonhowSulemanemploysthestrategy

oftheflashbacktoshowtheinteriorityofprotagonistThandeka(PamelaNomvete),a

journalistandanti-apartheidactivist.LikeBhekizizwePeterson,whoreplacestheterm

flashbackswith‘interludes’, Ialsofindtheterminadequateforthecomplexityofthe

mainprotagonist,Thandeka’srecurrentmemoryexperience. Throughtheuseofthe

term ‘interlude’, Peterson asserts an intention of the cinematic device

“…simultaneously (to) encapsulate and disrupt the coherence of time and the

certitudes of experience andmemory”.235 Like JacquelineMaingard, I also find the

classical flashback an insufficient term for the case of Zulu Love Letter and instead

drawonHirsch’sconceptualisationoftheposttraumaticflashback(PTflashback).236

AlthoughmysuggestionsfortheuseofthetermisinlinewithMaingard’s,this

chapter’sanalysisfurthersMaingard’sinordertoincludetheindividualandthenation,

makinganargumentthatthefilmpayscloseattentiontotheportrayalofboththese

experiences, not one or the other. This is different to the classic flashbacks inRed

Dust,whichprimarilyfunctiontoimpartinformationaboutthepast.ThePTflashbacks

inZuluLoveLetterdonotnecessarilyanswerquestionsorrevealmissingelementsof

the plot in the narrative of the film. On the contrary, they complicate the official

discourse of the TRC. Shifts in temporality, pace, and the representation of the

235BhekizizwePeterson,“Writer’sStatement:Trauma,ArtandHealing”inPetersonandSuleman,ZuluLoveLetter:aScreenplay(Johannesburg:WitsUniversityPress,2009),p.22.236JacquelineMaingard,“Love,Loss,MemoryandTruth”inPetersonandSuleman,ZuluLoveLetter:aScreenplay(Johannesburg:WitsUniversityPress,2009),pp.5–17.

166

challengingworkofassociativememoryintheincorporationofthePTflashbacksallow

for a consideration that such a flashback revealsmore (in the narrative and to the

viewers)thanclassicalones.Theflashbacksbringaboutanerratictempoindicativeof

Thandeka’smental state.And this shift in formconnotesanexperientialmoveaway

fromThandeka’s everyday into something haunting from the past. Hirsch identifies

threebroadgenresofclassicalflashbacksandtheirroles:

Melodramatic flashbacks contributed to the construction of a character,explaining the character’s motivation within a present conflict and clarifyingthe action needed for narrative resolution. Mystery flashbacks revealedinformation previously withheld from the plot for purposes of suspense orcomedy. Andbiographical flashbacks told life stories retrospectively, framingthem in the present. As such, classical flashbacks played a key role in theteleologicalstructureofthenarratives.237

ThefirstPTflashbackbeginswithadramaticchangeinpaceasweobservethe

fastblurryimagesofstreetsettingfromamovingcar.Alongcameralenspeeksoutof

thewindowofamovingcarinthefirstflashbackandwehearthesoundsofacamera

clicking. The lens somewhat emulates the barrel of a gun, imposing a sense of

uncertainty about what is happening. Looking out of the same window, we see a

numberofposterswithnewsheadlines,oneofthembytheMail&Guardian(aliberal

newspaper)reads:“Pre-electionviolencepredicted”.Theseposterscontextualisethe

film and the events to follow as taking place in post-apartheid South Africa at the

heightoftheofficialchangesfromoneregimetoanother. Asthefilmprogresses it

becomesclearthattheflashbacksareThandeka’sbuttheyarenotalwaysshot from

herpointofview.Thisisanindicationthatthetraumathatlivesinherisalsoatrauma

that lives in others and references Peterson’s comments about the flashbacks as

237Ibid.,p.94.

167

dealingwiththelackofcertaintyoftraumaticmemory.Theflashbackisfinishedinall

oftwelveseconds.

The second PT flashback through to the final one is a variation of Dineo’s

(LeratoMoloi)deathbythreesecuritypolicemen.Dineo’sdeathisasmuchpartofthe

filmaseveryoneelse’sattemptstoworkpasttrauma.ButtherecurringPTflashback

alsoexhibitsamorepervasive linkandcommentsonbeingBlackandtraumatised in

SouthAfrica. This isexploredthroughThandeka’smemoriesof theeventofDineo’s

death aswell as throughDineo’smother,Me’Thau’spersistence inworking through

thetraumabyburyingherchild.Thefilmdoesnotoffermanyanswers.Forexample,

we never properly learn of Dineo’s role and the actual reason behindwhy shewas

killed. Thispoints tothemanyotherswhonotonlydiedand ‘disappeared’butwho

died for reasonssobanalas simplybeingBlack. WeassumeweknowDineo’s story

becauseitissofamiliarinthehistoryofthecountryand,alongsidethetestimoniesof

theTRC, this story is oneofmany like it. Wealsohave topiece the story together

throughThandeka’sinconsistent(anduntrustworthy)memory.Thandeka’switnessof

her death sits with her in a way that she cannot process even after apartheid has

ended and the nation is officially democratic and unified and collectively working

throughthepast. OftenthePT flashbacksendwithaclose-upofherwide,shocked

eyes,asthoughsheherselfcannotbelievewhathashappened.

Therepeatedre-occurrenceofDineo’sdeathandsomeofthesimilaritiesand

differences between each PT flashback are emphasised by aspects of the girl, her

actions in these final moments of her life and the mise-en-scène, for example her

clothing isalways thesame:awhitesummer top,aknee-lengthshirt,white trainers

andablackberet. Dineo isalwaysrunningand lookingoverhershoulderas though

168

trying to escape. In some of the flashbacks we see the three security police men

approachherand inallof the flashbackswesee thewhitewallagainstwhichshe is

shot, thechurch fromwhichDineoandMichaelwitness theshootingand thegrassy

areabetweenthewallandthechurch.

Although we never see the men’s faces in the flashbacks, Dineo’s face is

witnessedonly fromThandeka’s point of view. This demonstrates that it is not the

killers who are prominent in Thandeka’s mind but rather Dineo and an unspoken

relationandbondbetween the twowomen. Inall exceptoneof thePT flashbacks,

ThandekawitnessesDineo’sdeath fromthesmallwindowofanemptychurch. The

recurrenceoftheplaceofwitness(andrepeatedtraumaforDineo)asachurch,isthe

film’scommentonacontradictionoftheTRC:thereligiousintonationofforgiveness.

Thepresenceofthechurchastheplaceofwitnessalso impliesthatThandeka isnot

able to find thecomfortandpeace in forgiveness. Dineo’smomentofdeath isalso

fractured inthePTflashbacks,againemphasisingtheuncertaintiesofmemory, truth

andtrauma.ThefirsttimeweseeDineo’smurder,sheisagainstthewhitewallwith

thethreemenaroundher.Themaninthemiddlestandsdirectlyinfrontofherand

raisesagun toherhead. Inanticipationof theshotandasher finalactofdefiance,

Dineogallantlyraisesherright fistandshoutstheAfricanNationalCongressstruggle

mantra:“Amandla!Awethu!”whichmeans‘Powertothepeople’.Herfinalwordsare

inaudible but can be made out if one is familiar with the meaning of the fist and

becauseoftheclose-upofherface.InanothervariationofthisPTflashback,Dineois

runninginthesamedressandblackberetbutthistimewithayoungmantoherright.

Capturedfrombehind,theybothlookovertheirshouldersastheyrun.Evidentlythey

arebothbeing followedbutonlyDineoendsupagainst thewhitewallwithher fist

raised.

169

Thandeka’sdaily life shiftsanddevelops throughout the film. When the film

beginswearemadeawareofherstrainedrelationshipwithherdaughter,whoishard

ofhearing,withherparents,whoshefeelsneverfullyunderstoodthestruggle,with

hereditormanager,whoiswhiteandliberalanddismissiveoftheeffectsthestruggle

hadonher.TheopeningsceneofZuluLoveLetterisadefinitecommentonthestate

ofThandeka’s life.Thefilmopenswithherpassedout inthedriver’sseatofhercar.

There is nobody around in the dark basement car park and the only accompanying

noiseislouderraticjazzmusicthatoverwhelmsthesoundtrack.Theabsenceofaction

orevenamoretraditionalestablishingshot leadstoconfusionaboutwhosheisand

whathashappenedtoher.

ThefinalPTflashbackincorporatessubtledifferencestoDineo’sdeath.There

areelementsthatarefamiliarfromthepreviousonesbutitisonlyinthisfinalmoment

thatforthefirsttimewegetasensethatThandekaandDineowerecomrades.ThisPT

flashback isalso interspersedwithasimilarmise-en-scène inthereal lifeofthefilm;

forexample,ThandekaisdrivinginherredVWGolfandpassingthrougharoadblock,

havingtointeractwithpolice,whenthePTflashbackbegins. Similarlytoitsopening

scene,ZuluLoveLetterdoesnotprescribewhattheviewershouldbelieveaboutthe

TRCbut insteadplaces its emphasisonmaking theunrepresentable as accessible as

possible.ThefinalPTflashbacktakesplaceatnightwhereaspreviousoneshavetaken

placeduringtheday.ThandekaisdrivingherredVWGolf,thesamecarsheisfound

unconscious in in the opening sequence of the film. This time however she is not

aloneandDineoisinthepassengerseat.

Thetwowomenhaveneverbeenseentogether, letaloneinthesameframe.

And until this flashback we have only experienced Dineo’s death from the church

170

window.Theyexchangesomethingimportantinthisflashback,whichopenswiththe

diegetic sound of a police helicopter accompanied by police sirens and a spotlight.

ThisPTflashbackisfilmedfromabird’seyeview,showingwhatlookslikeanescape

(from what we do not know) as the red VW races along a desolate street. Dineo

unexpectedly jumpsoutofthepassengersideofthecarwhenThandekacomestoa

halt. It isunclearwhy she stops the car, aswenever come toknow the reason for

Dineo’s death. No sounds were present in previous flashbacks but in this one

Thandeka’s calls to Dineo are audible. A close-up of Thandeka’s face shows her

desperationas shewatches thegirl sprintaway fromher. ThisPT flashback iseven

morechaoticinitsaestheticcompositionthanthepreviousones.Itisalsoevenmore

difficulttomakeoutthemise-en-scènethathadbecomefamiliarfromthepreviousPT

flashbacks.

The landmark of thewhite church building assists in orienting the viewer to

whereDineomightbe,andalsonow,servesasacluebecauseweknowDineo’sdeath

isimminent.AlargebrightspotlighthasbeentrailingThandeka’scarandnowfollows

Dineoassherunsthroughthedesertedarea.Sheisdressedinthesameclothingand

hat as before and has the same expression but this time, only one of the killers is

present.HeappearsintheframemomentsafterDineotripsandfalls.Hispresenceis

madeknownonly froma low-angle shotas though thepointofview isalignedwith

Dineo,whoisontheground.Weonlyseethebottomofhiscoatandhisshoesandthe

pistol. Whereasbefore therewerenopossibilities forThandekatoexpressherguilt

aboutherownsurvivalinrelationtothegirl’s,thistime,thePTflashbackincorporates

anotherelement:afinaleyelinematchbetweenDineoandthecamera.

171

Therearesomepossibilitiesforwhothegirlcouldbelookingatortowardsin

thisfinalmomentofherlife.ItcouldbethatDineoislookingout,attheviewerand

holding their gaze in her moment of death. Dineo’s pause before death could be

askingtheviewernottoforgettheinhumanityandtraumaofapartheid.Oritcouldbe

that sheholds the killer’s gaze,holdingapartheidperpetrators accountable for their

acts. In thecontextof thePT flashbacksas theyhaveoccurred throughout the film

however,itseemsmostfittingthatDineoholdsThandeka’sgazeinthisfinalmoment

ofherlife.Inaway,theeyelinematchactsasawayforThandekatoaccept,andwork

beyondthetraumathatgripsher inthepresent. However,theprevioussuggestions

alsoseemfittingconsiderationsofDineo’sfinalmomentbecauseofhow,forthefirst

time,weexperienceDineobeforeherdeath.

Thechoicesmadeinthefilmmakeitpossibletoarguethatthisfinalclose-upof

DineoisaboutmorethanonlyThandeka’strauma.Havingrevisitedthistraumawith

her,wetooarecomplicittoworkingbeyond.WorkingbeyondthetraumaofDineo’s

death means that Thandeka experiences humanity outside of the trauma that

pervadesher life.Thisexperiencemeansthatworkingthroughandforgivenesscome

to have extensive consequences for feelings and lived possibilities, not locked in

rhetoricandsignificantlyrepresentativeof‘ubuntu’(althoughthistermisneverused

inthisfilm).

Thandeka’s ability to repair the relationship with her daughter S’mangaliso

speakstothepossibilityforthetraumatisedinSouthAfricatoforgenewandthusfar,

only imagined bridges with the new generation who have their own complex

relationshipstothepastandthepresent.ThisfinalshortexchangebetweenThandeka

andDineoindicatessomethinglikeanacknowledgementoflettinggo,forgivenessand

172

movingon.Thereisnewpossibilityarticulatedintheclose-upofDineothatisheldfor

slightly longer than usual. Zulu Love Letter does not, like other TRC films, place

emphasisonanoverlyexaggeratedracialisedforgiveness.Andthusforgivenessisnot

atalldirectedtowardsthekillers,whodonotappearinthisfinalmomentinthefinal

PTflashback,butatThandeka.Theendoftheflashbackisofaclose-upofDineo’sface

assheliesonthegrassandstillappearstodieeventhoughwedonotexperienceher

murderinthisscene.

The PT flashbacks as experienced in this film expose fragilities within the

traumaticcontextandpointtothepost-traumaticindividualandcollectiveidentitiesof

post-apartheid.CathyCaruthdefinesposttraumaticstressdisorder(PTSD)inrelation

to the traumatic event as follows: “…an overwhelming experience of sudden or

catastrophic events inwhich the response to theeventoccurs in theoftendelayed,

uncontrolled repetitive appearance of hallucinations and other intrusive

phenomena”.238PTSD specifically references the delayed response (whichmay occur

repeatedly) and the uncontrolled repetitions of re-experiencing the trauma, which

may lead to various experiences of reality for the person who experiences the

flashbacks.BasedonhowThandekaischaracterised,particularlyemphasisedthrough

thePTflashbacks,itispossibletoidentifyPTSDinthischaracter.Itisalsopossibleto

seehowothercharactersinthisfilmandinothersdiscussedinthischaptersufferfrom

thesamecondition,astheyneedtomakepeacewithbeingaliveandnotdeadlikeso

manyothercomrades.AsthesefilmsallreferencetheTRC,Isuggestthatnotonlyis

PTSD applicable to individual characters analysed but to the nation as a collectively

traumatisedgroup.AbouttherelationshipbetweentraumaorPTSDCaruthwrites:

238CathyCaruth,UnclaimedExperience:Trauma,Narrative,andHistory(BaltimoreandLondon:TheJohnHopkinsUniversityPress,1996),p.11.

173

The traumatised, we might say, carry an impossible history within them, orthey become themselves the symptomof a history that they cannot entirelypossess.Yet,whatcanitmeanthathistoryoccursasasymptom?It is indeedthis curiousphenomenon thatmakes traumaorPTSD in itsdefinition,and inthe impact ithasonthe livesof thosewho live it intimatelyboundupwithaquestionoftruth.239

239Ibid.p.5.

174

Conclusion

This chapter has explored representations of the TRC in four films thatwere

releasedin2004.ThefirstsectionpaidattentiontohowInMyCountryandRedDust

aremainlyrepresentativeofamonolithicandmainstreamversionoftheTRC.Inthese

renditions, the outcomes emphasise only the good story of the unification of South

Africaafter1994. These filmssucceedbecause theyreflectandcelebrate the terms

thatpromotethenewSouthAfricaandrhetoricofthe‘RainbowNation’and‘ubuntu’

throughhowtheyrecalibratenewSouthAfricanwhiteidentities,particularlythrough

women. I haveargued that representations in these filmsareoften too simpleand

haveadidactictonewhichisoftennotgearedatlocalaudiencesbutforeignonesand

fundamentallypuntsthemessagethateverythingis‘alright’.

PartTwodiscussedthefilmsZuluLoveLetterandForgiveness toexplorehow

the films represent everyday post-apartheid identities as entangled in very difficult

processesofbeinginthepresentwhilestillweigheddownbythetraumasofthepast.

Itisinthesefilmsthat‘workingthrough’,‘actingout’andatsomelevel,grapplingwith

whatmaybecalledforgiveness, ispointedto intheanalyses. Thefilmsdiscussed in

this section also comment on the complexity of new South African identities and

understandingsofplaceandspaceforthecharactersbothasindividualsandwithina

larger post-apartheid national context. Such an understanding of the films already

revealsashiftfromanti-apartheidfilmstopost-apartheidonesastheiremphasisison

ideasand realities thatwereacknowledgedby theTRCbutnot fullymendedby the

commission or the rhetoric of ‘Rainbow Nation’. These films thus do not offer

redemptive endings but begin to articulate questions around how we might think

about the post-apartheid era in ways that are less fixed than the categories of

175

apartheidandlessprescriptivethanthecategoriesofpost-apartheid.ZuluLoveLetter

andForgivenessenact‘ubuntu’whereasRedDustandInMyCountrytrytodefinethe

word itself. The latter films also intimate that the national accomplishments

presentedbytheTRCassumedwholesalebettermentwhereasthiswasnotthecase.

InForgivenessandZuluLoveLetter,wearenotinvitedtoimagineneatendingsandwe

are certainly not permitted to forget, particularly as the films incorporate imagesof

the socio-economic failures of the new South Africa into their respective mise-en-

scènes.

The films in this chapter paved theway for the nextwave of post-apartheid

films, which are still heavily engrossed in the discourse of apartheid and post-

apartheidbutareincreasinglymorecriticalofthedifferentwaysofbeingthatpersist

after1994.

176

CHAPTER4

SHAME,GUILTANDTHERELEVANCEOFWHITE

MENINPOST-APARTHEID:DISGRACEANDSKOONHEID

Introduction

We may be on our way to genuine hybridity, multiplicity without (white)hegemony,anditmaybewherewewanttogetto–butwearen’tthereyet,andwewon’tgetthereuntilweseewhiteness,seeitspower,itsparticularityand limitedness, put it in its place and end its rule. This is why studyingwhitenessmatters.240

Iwanttoaskhowwhitepeoplecanbeandlivewellinsuchaland,withsuchalegacy… What is the morally appropriate reaction to one’s situation ofprivilege?...Perhapsevenmorethanguiltthesuggestionthatshamemightbeappropriatecutsveryclosetothebone.241

Shelaybackandlaughed,drawingherskirtup.Thiswashowtheylikedit,filthyand stinking. He should know that, superintendent of cleanliness and order.The naaimaintje (whore)was here. Yes, he should knowwho andwhat thisplacehadmadeofheralltheseyearsshehadbeenforgotten.242

Thischapterexplorestropesofshameandguiltembodiedinwhitemasculinity

in two post-apartheid films, Disgrace (Steve Jacobs, 2008) and Skoonheid (Oliver

Hermanus,2011).Theprecedingchapter,with its focuson theTRC,brought to light

some of the monolithic representations of whiteness that are present in post-

apartheidfilms.Thischapterturnsitsattentionawayfromthespecificcontextofthe

TRCandconsiders representationsof shameandguilt in twowhitemalecharacters,

David Lurie (John Malkovich) in Disgrace and Francois van Heerden (Deon Lotz) in

Skoonheid.Thesefilmsshowpost-apartheidprogressinadifferentwayfromthefilms

in the previous chapter which focalised the overt or absent presence of the TRC240RichardDyer,“Whiteness:ThePowerofInvisibility”inPaulaRothenburg(ed.),WhitePrivilege:EssentialReadingsoftheOtherSideofRacismSecondEdition(NewYork:WorthPublishers,2005),p.12.241SamanthaVice,“HowDoILiveinThisStrangePlace?”,JournalofSocialPhilosophy41:3(2010),p.323;p.328.242YvetteChristianse,Unconfessed:ANovel(NewYork,OtherPress,2006),p.2.

177

because,althoughtheytakeplaceagainstthebackdropofpost-apartheidSouthAfrica,

they are centred on the ordinary lives and identities of themain protagonists. The

questionsofthischapterare:Dothecharactersinthesefilmsshowthemselvestofeel

shameorguilt?Canguilt,asportrayedthroughviolentsexualrepresentations,beseen

as a metaphor for change? Is there a connection that the films construct between

post-apartheidwhitenessandshame?

Thefirstthreequotationsattheheadofthischapteroutlinetheconsiderations

takenintoaccountinthischapter.ThefirstquotationbyRichardDyerformsthebasis

for thinking about why it matters to engage critically with representations of

whiteness.Inpost-apartheidSouthAfrica,perhapsevenmorethaninthewest,which

Dyerreferstoinhisstudy,whitenesshasnotgoneunconsideredastheprimaryracial

power,buthasviolentlyandstructurallybeenconstructedasthesupremepoweron

every possible social, political and economic level. This chapter looks at the

constructionoftwowhitecharactersandaskswhetherthefilmsrepresentversionsof

dismantlement of that historical power in a South African context. The second

quotationisfromSamanthaVice’s,“HowDoILiveInThisStrangePlace?”,withthe“I”

self-reflexivelypositioningthescholar’sownwhitenessandplacingotherwhitesinthe

same“I”position.Asawhiteacademic,ViceimploreswhiteSouthAfricanstobesilent

inthefaceofpost-apartheidBlackrealityinSouthAfrica.Thearticlealsosuggeststo

whitepeoplethattheyshouldacceptdefeat, letgoofapartheidpowerandembrace

shame and guilt.243 The final introductory quotation incorporates and references

generationsof ‘raced’ rape inSouthAfrica,primarilybetween farmers, slaveowners

andslaves.ThisexcerptisaboutSila,afreeMozambicanwhowasillegallysoldoffasa

243Thearticlewasmetwithagreatdealofcriticism.SomeofthebacklashcamefromtheMail&Guardiannewspaper’sspecialissue:http://mg.co.za/report/on-whiteness[Accessed8May2013].

178

slave inSouthAfrica. It isalsoanarrativeabout inversionofpoweras,eventhough

Sila is the slave in the novel, she claims back her power through what Gabeba

Baderoonterms“preferredsilence”.244

TowriteaboutorcritiqueshameinSouthAfrica involvespullingtogetherthe

divergent strands indicated in the above excerpts that come from different critical,

public and cultural places. For example, shame could steer this chapter in the

directionofaskingwhoisashamedoftheapartheidpastorontheother,thechapter

might unpack shame from a different angle, shame towards white and Black racial

interactions after a past like South Africa’s. These hypotheses are not only

assumptions but are also presented in the films. These possibilities form part of

something that is much more pressing, seen in Disgrace and Skoonheid, which is

aroundtheintersectionsofshame,arousal, interracialandhomosexualsex,andloss.

In the context of South Africa this loss references apartheid and white masculine

power that was inscribed in that system. Gillian Straker’s scholarship about white

racialmelancholia in thepost-apartheidcontextofferssome insightwhenshewrites

that this condition,white racialmelancholia, is generatedby the lossof the idealof

what that group represented and identified with. White racial melancholia

thus“implies recognition of one’s relative powerlessness and betrayal by one’s own

groupoftheideasthatoneimaginedthatitembraced”.245

Vice’s article is also an example ofwhite racialmelancholia. It is alsowhat I

suggest the films in this chapter represent throughmainprotagonistsDavid Lurie in

244GabebaBaderoon,“‘ThisIsOurSpeech’:Voice,BodyandPoeticForminRecentSouthAfricanWriting”,SocialDynamics:AJournalofAfricanStudies37:2(June2011),p.214.245GillianStraker,“UnsettlingWhiteness”,Psychoanalysis,CultureandSociety,16:1(2011),p.18.AlsoseeDavidL.EngandShinheeHan,“ADialogueonRacialMelancholia”,PsychoanalyticDialogues,10:4(2000),pp.667-700,whichStrakerreferencesinherarticle.TheirpieceisnotofdirectrelevancetotheSouthAfricanexamplebutneverthelessusefulinrelationtotheconcept.

179

Disgraceand Francois VanHeerden inSkoonheid, because each filmportrays varied

realities and sensibilities of post-apartheid white masculinities. The focus and

emphasis on white bodies in a post-apartheid context contributes to a critique of

shame and guilt and shows a development in narrative from the films discussed in

chapter one. But the construction of the characters in the films that this chapter

focusesonalsoset inmotionacritiquethatDyer invitesaboutwhiteness ingeneral,

whichistomakewhitenesssomethingthatisalsoogled,critiqued,andnotdeemedas

theprimarymarkerofassessment.Theimageofthewhitemalehasaltered,ashashis

powerandpost-apartheidrelevance.

In“UglyFeelings,NegativeDialects:ReflectionsonPost-ApartheidShame”,Rita

Barnard puts Vice’s article and Timothy Bewes’ The Event of Postcolonial Shame in

dialogue by drawing on affect theory.246 Barnard describesVice’s article as, “in the

end,peculiarlyapolitical,[...]thepsychologyofshameismoretwistedandcomplex–

moretied…toloveanddesireandtootherugly,comparative,andrelationalemotions

suchasenvy–thanVice,constrainedperhapsbyherdiscipline,canacknowledge”247.

AsecondapproachthatBarnardusesthroughaffecttheory,drawsaparallelbetween

Vice’s “public apology and the Australian government’s public apology on behalf of

white citizens for their historic treatment of aboriginals and the resultant “sorry”

books, parades, and the like…248”. Sarah Ahmed’s work analyses the Australian

contextindetail,questioningthevalueofsuchpractices.249Ahmedwritesthat,“The

question of who is doing the healing and who is being healed is a troubling one…

Reconciliationbecomes, in thisnarrative, the reconciliationof indigenous individuals246TimothyBewes,TheEventofPostcolonialShame(PrincetonandOxford:PrincetonUniversityPress,2011).247RitaBarnard,“UglyFeelings,NegativeDialects:ReflectionsonPost-apartheidShame”,Safundi:TheJournalofSouthAfricanandAmericanStudies,13:1-2(Jan-April2012),p.154.248Ibid.,p.159.249SarahAhmed,TheCulturalPoliticsofEmotion,(Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress,2004).

180

intothewhitenation,whichisnowcleansedthroughitsexpressionofshame”.250The

samequestion could be asked in the post-apartheid SouthAfrican context –who is

doing the healing and who is being healed through a white acknowledgement and

expressionofshameabouttheapartheidpast?

Becausethetopicofwhitenessandshameisvast,thischapterhomesinonthe

prominent tropes seen in the films, particularly the ways in which sexual acts are

presented through the characters. There appears to be an overreliance, obsession

even,withrepresentingshame,guiltandlossinpost-apartheidfilmwiththeintention

toshoworacknowledgeashiftinpost-apartheidracialidentities.FilmslikeDisgrace

andSkoonheidbringtotheforenewrepresentationsofwhitenessthatwerenotpart

oftherepresentationalterrainbefore–defeatofwhitepower,notquitelettinggoand

avulgarviolentdefenceofitwhichisnotquiteholdingoneither.Inthesetwofilms,a

secondarythreadthatisneveraddresseddirectlybyLurieorVanHeerden,israpeand

itshistoricalplaceinSouthAfrica,andtherelationshipbetweenwhitemenwhoraped

Blackwomen throughout the period of colonial and apartheid South Africa. Rape is

present inboth films. Theuseofhomosexualeroticism inSkoonheid raisesanother

broadrangeofquestionsaboutthefictionalrepresentationofthemiddle-agedwhite

malebody.Inparticular,thewhiteAfrikanermalebodyisnotonlymadehyper-visible

inthisfilmbutisalsomadeuglyindifferentwaystoLurie’smoralandethical‘demise’.

InSkoonheid,raperepresentslostpower.InDisgrace,raperepresentsdefeat.

TimothyBewesanalysesthenovelDisgraceasacharacterisationofthewhite

male body, making this supposedly historically unmarked body entirely inscribed in

250Ibid.,p.35.

181

shamethroughtheagingwhitemaleimageandcharacterisationofDavidLurie.251The

films in this chapter can be read as attempts atmarkingwhite bodies inways that

makethebodiesshameful,displayguiltandproblematisewhitenessingeneral,while

simultaneouslyevokingshameforthecharacters.Beweslocatesthe“mortificationof

thewhitebody”ascomplicitwiththepostcolonialmoment.Hewritesthat“Itshould

not be understood inmerely subjective or expressive terms, for the explanation for

suchbodilyshameliesnotinthebody’sappearance,butinthemerefactofitscoming

into visibility in the period of decolonisation”.252 Conceived of in this way, shame

about the body is aboutmore than that because it extends into the shame or pity

rendered towards such bodies, which echoes Ahmed’s question: who is doing the

healing and who is being healed? In this way, then, the films bring to light a

discomfortwithviewingthewhite(especiallymale)body.

Disgraceisbasedona1999novelofthesamenamebyJ.MCoetzee,whichwas

globallycelebratedwiththeManBookerPrize,butwasmetwithmuchdissent from

withinSouthAfrica.RachelDonadio’sNewYorkTimesarticleprobesquestionsaround

Coetzee’s 2002 departure from South Africa to Australia, where he still lives. The

article also highlights areas where some of the backlash againstDisgrace the novel

came from: fellow acclaimed South African writers like Chris Van Wyk and Nadine

Gordimerandpolitically,directlyfromtherulingparty,theAfricanNationalCongress

(ANC).253 It thus comes as no surprise that the film could not receive funding from

251Bewes,PostcolonialShame,p.6.252Ibid.253RachelDonadio,“OutofSouthAfrica”,TheNewYorkTimes,16December2007,http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/books/review/Donadio-t.html?fta=y&_r=0.[Accessed6December2015].

182

withinSouthAfrica.254 However, the fact that therethe filmcouldnotsecureSouth

African funding is also suggestive of the kinds of films that the NFVF supports and

thosethatitwillnot.

Disgrace is thus not a South African film because its fundingwas Australian.

Nevertheless,assetoutintheintroduction,thisthesis’sfocusisonfilmsthatdealwith

SouthAfricannarratives,subjectivitiesanddepictionsoftheshiftingidentitiesofpost-

apartheid.ScreenwriterAnna-MariaMonticellisuggeststhatDisgracebecategorised

asanAustralianfilmforthefollowingreasons:

CoetzeelivesinAustralianow,andthedirectorandmyselfareAustralian,andallthekeycrewelementsareAustralian,andtherearequiteafewAustralianactors in the film. We tried to say to Screen Australia that it’s likedocumentaries. You can have an Australian team and they go to India, youknow,andtellastory.AndI liketheideathatAustralianscantellstoriesthatareoutsideofwhatwenormallydo. It’sAustraliancraftsmanship in theend,andIbelieveourfilmsneedtobecomemoreinternational.Wearesoluckytohaveagovernment thatsupports the film industryandofcourseweneed tostaynationalistic,butwecangetoutaswell.255

Monticelli’sopinionofthefilmindicatesthatthisisaSouthAfricanstorythatis

Australian in texture because Coetzee and the creators reside in Australia. This

assessment of Disgrace is not one that this thesis agrees with. To follow Bewes’

argumentsaboutthepresenceandembodimentofshameinDisgraceistounderstand

thattheshame,andwhiteguilt,arenotonlytobefoundinthenarrativebutalsoin

theverymaterialofthenovel. Inotherwords,theprocessofmaking(whetheritbe

writingthenovelorthescript)isnotonlylinkedtothecontextbutalsomarkedbyit.

254ElizabethHeffelfingerandLauraWright,“Conclusion:InterculturalFilmin2009:TheYearofSouthAfricaandPandora”inVisualDifference:PostcolonialStudiesandInterculturalCinema(NewYork:PeterLangPublishing,2011),p.177.255Anna-MariaMonticelliinterviewwithAustralianFilmInstitutecalled“AdaptingDisgrace”,2009,www.afi.org.au/archive[Accessed1May2013].

183

It is also in this light that I argue that both writers, Coetzee andMonticelli,

enact a process of catharsis throughDisgrace. In the Australian context, itself not

devoidofanarduousracialandcolonialhistory,Disgracemaybereadalongsideafilm

such as Rabbit Proof Fence (Phillip Noyce, 2002), which represents the Aboriginal

historyof that country. I consider the filmDisgraceaspart of a discourseof South

African attempts at “sorry” paraphernalia, a term Ahmed applies to the Australian

historical context.256 In an interview with Disgrace director Steve Jacobs, Nicolas

RapoldwritesthatthedirectordrawsparallelsbetweenAustraliaandSouthAfricaas

“countriescolonisedbypioneers”.257

Skoonheid isdirectedbySouthAfricanOliverHermanusandwasco-produced

with funding from South Africa, France and Germany. Hermanus is part of a new

generationofpost-apartheidSouthAfricanfilmmakers,who,withhispreviousfeature

film,ShirleyAdams,alsoengagedincomplexquestionsandrepresentationsofthenew

SouthAfrica.RelevanttotheyoungBlackmalecharactersofChapterFive,Hermanus’,

ShirleyAdams isabout theeffectofgangviolence inaBlack townshipafterayoung

man is paralysed in a shoot-out. Hermanus has shown a distinct investment in not

shying away from the difficulties of the South African past and present. However,

thesedesperate concerns areneverovert in the films. According toHermanus, the

main protagonist in Skoonheid, Francois, is a symbol of a generation coming out of

apartheid.However,Francoisneverdirectlyreferencesapartheidorpost-apartheidin

thefilm.HermanusremainsawareoftheimpactofSouthAfrica’shistoryandhisown

positionasadirectorwhenhenotesthediscomfortwithwhichthefilmwasmetfrom

the Afrikaner because he, as the director, is not white. In the same interview he

256Ahmed,TheCulturalPoliticsofEmotion,p.108.257NicolasRapold,“ToughTerraintoDocument:SouthAfrica”,NewYorkTimes,3September2009,http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/movies/06rapo.html?_r=0[Accessed8May2013].

184

mentionsthattherewasnooutcryabouthisracewhenhemadeShirleyAdams,asthe

filmhasBlackmainprotagonists.258 Theinsinuationisthatthereisfinitemeaningto

the‘RainbowNation’andwhatiscomfortabletodounderthisparticipatoryguise.It

references an inversion from apartheid to post-apartheid, that although a Black

director is permitted tomake films aboutwhite lives, the outcry about his position

(andrace)alsosuggestsotherwise.

Thefirstpartofanalysis in thischapterexploreswhetherandhowDavidand

Francoisareconstructedtobeshamefulorashamedcharactersintherespectivefilms

DisgraceandSkoonheid.

258OliverHermanusinterviewwithSBS,12June2012,http://www.sbs.com.au/films/video/2244869603/Beauty-Oliver-Hermanus[Accessed1May2013].InterviewwithOliverHermanusbyDylanValleyforAfricaisaCountry.http://africasacountry.com/2011/08/05/interview-with-film-director-oliver-hermanus/[Accessed1May2013].

185

GuiltandShameinDisgraceandSkoonheid

Disgrace

MyanalysisofDisgrace juxtaposes thesexualencountersofDavid, itscentral

figure,withtherapeofhisdaughter later inthefilm. Myinteresthereis intheway

the filmingof the sexualact constructsandanalyses thecomplicated relationshipof

race and power. Disgrace opens with a sex scene between David Lurie (John

Malkovich) and a prostitute named Sorayawho he sees on aweekly basis. It is an

opening that emphasises David’s loneliness because she knows things about his life

but he knows nothing of hers. The end of that scene also indicates howmuch he

enjoys theirweekly sessions. David’s sexual encounters in the film arewhere he is

abletopursuehisprowess.SorayaexitsthenarrativeofthefilmaftersheseesDavid

leavearedboxonacounteralongwithher fee for theafternoon’srendezvous. He

soon turns his attention to a student named Melanie who attends his Cape Town

UniversityclassonRomanticPoetry.

LuriemeetsMelanieoncampusaftershetripsandfallsassheisgoingupafew

stairs.Thecamerafollowsherfrombehind,showingherbouncyhairinaponytailand

shortblackskirtbeforeshestumblesoverherself. Luriepausestowatchhergetup

andafterashortexchange inviteshertohishouseforadrink. Inachildlikefashion

Melanie indicates that she needs to be home by 7.30pm. A strained relationship

developsbetweenMelanieandDavid inwhich theyhave sexon twooccasions. On

bothoccasionsMelanie looks dejected anduninterested in the act, something Lurie

shouldhaveknownbasedonherhalf-heartedagreementstoseehimatall.Thefirst

time they see each other again after the drinks at his house is at an upmarket

186

restaurantwithlargewindowsthroughwhichdinerscanwatchtheebbandflowofthe

waves. On this particular day the large waves and grey clouds contribute to the

alreadyblusteryday. ThewavesseemtomirrorMelanie’smoodasshepicksat the

uneaten foodonherplace. WhenLurieasksherwhether she isworriedabout the

twoofthem,sheanswersadejected,“Maybe”,withoutraisingherhead.

A dramatic opera song takes over on the soundtrack after Lurie assures

Melaniethathewillnotletitgotoofar.Knowingthatheisherlecturer,bothMelanie

andDavidareawareof theunequalpowerrelationsbetweenthem,which leadtoa

veryearlysenseofdiseasearoundhimfromveryearlyon.Theoperamusicprovides

the fadeoutofonesceneand into thenext,whichopenswithaclose-upshot from

onesideofawindowlookingoutwards.Intheframeareaclosedblackgardengate,

an indication that either someone is coming or that, because the gate is closed,

someoneisalreadyhome.Asthecameratiltsdownwardsandafterafewmomentsof

completedarkness,itisrevealedthatitisMelanieandDavidwhoareinsidehishouse.

Asthoughreferencingtheclosed-infeelingconveyedbythegatemomentsbefore,a

tilt shot shows Lurie heaving on top ofMelanie. The only diegetic sound is Lurie’s

monotonemoaningthataccompanieshisthrusting.Melanie,eyesclosed,facesaway

fromLurie. Herarmsare raisedaboveherheadas thoughanemphasisofhowshe

doesnottouchhim.HerdistancingherselffromLurieinthiswayisalsoareminderof

theopening sequence inwhich the cameradoesa similar close-up surveyof Soraya

andLurie’sbodies. Inthatscene,Soraya’sdarkskinclutchingontoDavid’sfleshwas

emphasised inwhatwe imaginemustbe feignedenjoyment. In contrast,Melanie’s

lackoftouchconveysthatshedoesnotevenpretendtoenjoysexwiththisman.

187

DavidbecomesmoredemandingofMelanie,asseeninafewinstanceswhich

he coerces her into being around him and one in which he comes to her home

uninvited and violently cajoles her into sex. The camera captures Melanie’s

apartmentblockandLurie’scar inawide-angleshotwhilethesexscenetakesplace

inside.Thequietstreetandapartmentblockexpressesthatthereisnowaytoknow

someone’s distress in such a situation. It aids a feeling of disgust for Lurie,who is

clearly unwanted. Themusic on the soundtrack is upbeat and warm and in direct

contrasttowhatunfoldswhenMelanieopensthedoor,shockedtoseeLurieandwith

herhandseitherawayfromLurie,soasnottotouchhim,ortryingtopushhimoffher

ashepressesher against thewall ofherentranceway. Herprotestsdonothelpas

soonafterwardstheyoungwomanisnaked,standinginfrontofLuriewhoisalready

(presumably, fromhisbare chest) naked inbed. In this second instanceofMelanie

andLuriesleepingtogetherwedonotseetheactualactbut,shotfrombehindLurie’s

back,weseethesceneabouttounfold.LuriewatchesasthenakedMelaniegetsinto

bed, while the camera holds a nakedMelanie in a medium shot as she dejectedly

contemplatesLurie’senthusiasticpresenceinherbed.Herfaceexpressesdisdainand

unhappiness,sheisnotsmiling,shedoesnotevenlookatLurie.Afewmomentspass

withthecameraholdingherinthisframeandthen,asthoughinresignation,shesits

downonthebedandisagainheldinamediumshotforafewseconds.Sheappears

tobeweighingupherchoicesbutintheendresignsherselfandthesceneendsasshe

liftstheblankettojoinLurie.WeareremindedofthesetwosexsceneswithMelanie

when later in the film David’s daughter Lucy calls him ‘a man’. After having been

rapedherself,Lucyimpliesthatherfather,as‘aman’mustknowwhatitisliketotake

sex (i.e. to rape). Lurie’s own words about his sexual acts with Melanie haunt

188

throughout the film when he describes them as “not rape, not quite that…but

undesirednevertheless”.

Although Lurie admitsMelanie’s lackof desire he is never quite degraded to

rapiststatusandhispredationisnotpresentedasthesameasthethreeyoungBlack

menwho rape Lucy. Thus,we are not positioned to see the two acts as the same

thing. Further, although Melanie’s facial expression, lacklustre body language and

general lack of interestmake her feelings about Lurie explicit, the film still sets up

Lucy’s rapeas indisputable rapeanddifferent to the sexualharassment that Lurie is

charged with by the University. This analysis is not intended to pit the two rapes

againsteachotherbutrathertopointoutthewaysinwhichLurieisconstructedasa

white man and to, for now, tangentially point to how the young men rapists are

constructed. Lurie’s interiority isaconsistentexploration inDisgraceandhisshame,

which appears in glimpses and for fleetingmoments indicates an acknowledgement

thathe,likewhitesduringapartheid,usedthehierarchytoabusepowerandaccessof

allkinds.

ThesexsceneswithMelaniealsoemphasisethatDavidisabletoasserthimself

inthiswayinsexualpursuitsinlightofthefactthathehaslostpowerinotherspheres

of his life. For example, his students ignore him and show him little respect, he is

divorced,hisdaughterisalesbian,afactthathespeaksofwithdisdainintheopening

scenewithSoraya.However,eventhoughthisparallelbetweenDavidandtherapists

is intimated, the consistent construction of his character in the film repels such an

idea, placing Lurie’s sexual pursuits as somehow above or incapable of rape. More

thanthis,thefilmcommentsthatLurieisstillbetterthantheBlackmen.

189

DrawingonSarahProjansky’sscholarshipaboutrapeandrepresentationinfilm

and television, rape narratives can broadly include “representations of rape,

attempted rape, threatsof rape, implied rape,andsometimescoercivesexuality”.259

Projansky emphasises that it is important to “acknowledge commonalities among

various formsof sexual violence againstwomen in general”.260 In otherwords, this

analysis considers David’s acts with Melanie as rape because of the unequal

relationshipbetweenthetwo.InDisgrace,sexbetweenLurieandSorayaandMelanie

is shown; theviewer is invited towitnessDavid’s supremacy in that spacewherehe

doesnothavetobeashamedof the lossofpowersodesperatelyexhibited inother

spheresofhislife.ThisisincontrasttoLucy’srape,whichisanabsentpresenceinthe

film.

For all Lurie’s downfalls the one thing he has left is Lucy and his inability to

protecther inhermomentofneed furtherconfirmshis shame-fillednature. Bewes

writesaboutshameinthenovelDisgrace:

…shameisbydefinitionunnameable,uninstantiable.Toinvokeitasaprincipleof one’s action, as informing an ethics, would be to turn it too into anabstraction,toremoveitscorporealquality,tomakeitfungible.Forthesamereason,DavidthroughoutDisgracerefusestoapologiseorexpressanyremorseover his affair with the student; but this intransigence, this shamelessness,speaksnotofhislackofshame,butofitsfullness,itsopacity.261

There is also a disjuncture in David’s emotions becausewhile on the one hand the

overwhelmingcharacterisationisofadisgracedmiddle-agedwhiteman,ontheother,

there is theoverwhelming issueofguilt thatDavidalsoembodies. Viceprovidesan

259SarahProjanksy,WatchingRape:FilmandTelevisioninPostfeministCulture,(NewYorkandLondon:NewYorkUniversityPress,2001,)p.18.260Ibid.261Bewes,PostcolonialShame,p.163.

190

apt description of the relationship between guilt and shame as it pertains towhite

SouthAfricans,adefinitionthatisusefuldespiteherproblematicargument:

…shamediffers fromguilt inbeingessentiallydirectedtowardtheself, ratherthan outwards toward a harm one brought about. Shame is a response tohavingfallenbelowthestandardsonesetsforoneself,whethermoralornot.One’s very self is implicated in a way that need not be the case with guilt,whichisareactiontowhatonehasdone,notprimarilytowhooneis.262

DavidLurieisashamedofhisactsbutshowslittleremorseandthuslittleability

to realisehisguilt. This isparticularly clear in the trial-like scene reminiscentof the

TRC,inwhichadisciplinarycommitteeattheUniversitystrugglewithLurie’s inability

toshowremorseeventhoughheadmitsguilt.Lurie’svehemenceaboutanadmission

ofguiltversustheexhibitionofremorsebringsupquestionsaroundhowtheTRCdealt

withthesepreciseconflictingconcerns.AmajorcornerstoneoftheTRC’sforgiveness

was based on perpetrators being able to somehow perform remorse as a way of

showingregretfortheiracts.Lurierefusestodothis.

Acameratiltsdownwardsfromtheceilingexposesthescenebelow:anofficial-

lookingsettingwithalongtableforthemembersofthecommitteeandasingleseat

for the offender, Lurie. A wide-angle bird’s eye view shows that the committee is

comprisedofsevenpeople. Thesoundofadooropening indicatesDavid’spresence

beforeheentersonscreen.Thecouncillorssitwiththeirbackstothreelargewindows

throughwhichlightsurroundsthem,portrayingtheminasaint-likefashion.Theimage

recallsabiblicalreferenceinthedepictionofJesusandhisdisciplesattheLastSupper.

The image also however recalls another depiction,which is of ArchbishopDesmond

Tutu(headoftheTRC)surroundedbycommissionerswhowaitedtoheartestimonies

attheTRChearings.Becauseofthenovel’sreleasein1999,andcriticalscholarshipand

262Vice,“HowDoILiveinThisStrangePlace?”,p.328.

191

commentary about it, thenovel (and thus the film) is considered a critiqueof post-

apartheidSouthAfrica.263InemployingacharacterlikeDavidinthisTRC-likesetupin

thisscene,itisnotentirelyclearwhetherheisthevictimortheperpetratorbecause

whenthecommitteeaskforhisrenditionofthestory,herefusesit.InTRC-parlance,

‘fulldisclosure’wastheonlywaytoreceiveamnesty.

TheheadcouncillorspeaksfirstandasksDavidwhetherhethinksanyoneinthe

committeewouldbeprejudicialtowardshim.WhenDavidrepliesthecamerafocuses

onhiminamediumwide-angleshot,amoveawayfromtheobjectivevantagepoint

thatthescenestartedwith.Thisshotemphasisesthatthehearingisinsessionanditis

followedbyashot-reverse-shotpatternbetweenDavid,who isseatedwithhisarms

and legs crossed, and the councillors. Despite David Lurie being on trial, the shots

movebetweenthecouncillorsandLurie,whichposestheviewerwithachallengeto

affix subjectivity with one side’s point of view. However, for shortmoments in the

scene,thecameracapturesbothDavidandthecouncillorsfromtheside, inthisway

extracting the viewer from the face-to-face shot-reverse-shot pattern. This too is

reminiscentoftheTRCbecauseitwasbasedontheprincipleofrestorativejustice;the

intentionwasthusnottoassignblamebutratherforamnestyand‘ubuntu’toguide

the path to forgiveness. However, unlike the perpetrators of the TRC, who were

meanttoacknowledgeguiltandshowremorsefortheiractions,Davidadmitsguiltbut

cannotadmitregretforwhathehasdone.Instead,hechoosestodescribehimselfas

a victim of Eros, the Greek God of love, distancing himself from his actions and

263AmongmanyperspectivesaboutDisgracethenovel,thefollowinghavebeeninsightful:CaitlinCharos,“StatesofShame:SouthAfricanWritingafterApartheid”,Safundi:TheJournalofSouthAfricanandAmericanStudies10:3(July2009),pp.273–304.,SarahBezan,“ShameasaStructureofFeeling:RapeandProstitutedWomeninJ.M.Coetzee’s‘Disgrace’andFuthiNtshingila’s‘Shameless’”,TheJournaloftheAfricanLiteratureAssociation7:1(2012),pp.15–24.,RitaBarnard,“J.M.Coetzee’s‘Disgrace’andtheSouthAfricanPastoral”,ContemporaryLiterature44:2(Summer2003),pp.199–224.

192

abdicating responsibility. This is also reminiscent of the TRC, as many perpetrators

coupledapologieswithexcuses.

Astheintensityoftheinquestrises,thecamerazoomsintomediumclose-ups

of specific councillors, eventually leading toanexasperatedwomancouncillor losing

patiencewith Luriewhenhe points out that there is a difference betweenpleading

guiltyandadmittingyouwerewrong.Thepointofviewandsubjective responsesof

each of the councillors towards David Lurie’s actions is expressed through the

individualattentionthecamerapaysbyzoominginforclose-upsoftheirfaces,away

of showing each one’s intricate investment in truth-finding. David is pushed even

furtherbyoneofthecouncillorswhoasksifthestatementreflectshissincerefeelings.

ThesceneendsabruptlywithDavid’sexclamation“that’senough”.Thescene’sabrupt

endisemphasisedwithDavidracingdownaflightofstairs.Thecamera’sfocusonhis

feetastheyhastilydrumthestairsaccentuatesthedramaticexitevenmore.Despite

David’spositionasaperpetratorofsorts,heisnottrulyplacedintheTRCperpetrator

position. Because of his refusal to accept shame, he is unable to convince the

committee that he should be accepted back in his role purely on an admission of

wrongdoing. Consequently, David is not granted proverbial amnesty and so the

outcome implies that there is really no place for someone like this within this

microcosmof‘TheRainbow’nation.

The inquest and the end of the scene emphasises a number of issues that

challenge truth-finding. The first observation is that David performs a role for the

committee.Whileheisashamedatthefactthathemustappearbeforeadisciplinary

committee,heisinfactnotashamedofwhathedidwithortoMelanie.Thisisevident

inthathedoesnotreadMelanie’sreportagainsthim,hedistanceshimself fromfull

193

responsibility for his actions, andhemakes scoffing remarks and smiles sardonically

throughoutthehearing.Lurie’sbody languagedoesnotchange,asheremains inhis

cagedcrossed-limbposition–asignalofhisconsistentdiscomfortwiththesituation.

Nor ishecapturedinvariedshotsasthecouncillorsare,an indicationthatwhilethe

viewerisneveremphaticallypromptedtochooseaside,theconsistentmediumshots

whichshowhisclosed-offbodylanguage,morestronglyservesjudgementandopinion

ofDavid than itdoesof thecommitteeandofMelanie, theclear victim. The scene

alsoinvitesaquestionaroundhoweasyLuriethoughtitwouldbetogetthroughthis.

In his position as a white man he would in a previous era have gotten away with

anything.Now,sittinginfrontofacommittee,heisjudgedbyaselectionofUniversity

staff,themselvesareflectionofthe‘RainbowNation’.

The difficulty of the event finally spells out that theUniversity, like theNew

SouthAfrica,hasnotgotroomfortheoldDavid. Thecommitteewanthimtograsp

theextentofhisactandtheneedforextensiverecalibrationofhiswhitemasculinity.

Through pressing him as they do, they point out an inadequacy of post-apartheid’s

TRC,thatacknowledgementofguiltisnotenough.Ahmednotestherelationbetween

shameandprideinthecontextofnation-building:

Nationalshamecanbeamechanismforreconciliationasself-reconciliation,inwhich the ‘wrong’ that is committed provides the grounds for claiming anational identity, for restoring a pride that is threatened in the moment ofrecognition,andthen,regainedinthecapacitytobearwitness.264

TheexamplesraisedinthissectionshowLurie’sdesperatedesiretobelongin

an old way of being that the ‘Rainbow Nation’ does not accommodate. The trial

analysed above further drives home the idea that David’s guilt and shame are not

264Ahmed,TheCulturalPoliticsofEmotion,p.109.

194

easily managed or articulated emotions. David’s sexuality was his last remaining

markerofhisownpowerandwhitemasculinity.

Skoonheid

Skoonheid’s main protagonist Francois van Heerden (Deon Lotz) leads a

relatively dull life while engaging in sporadic breakaway sexual episodeswith other

Afrikaner men. Skoonheid opens on a warm and celebratory scene of a wedding

reception. The diegetic sounds of awell-dressed crowd chatting and greeting each

otherareaudibleonthesoundtrackasthecamerapanstheroomfromrightto left.

The camera settles on a bride and groomwho stand at the doorway greeting their

guests.Weviewthehappeningsfromanasyetunknownpointofviewasthecamera

then exits the room and settles on two bridesmaids and a youngman chatting and

laughingjustoutsidetheentrance.Thesoundofthewedding-goershasbeenoverlaid

byslowpianomusic.Thecamerazoomsintoamediumclose-upoftheyoungpeople

chatting. Hermanus discusses the camera choices made for the opening scene of

Skoonheidas“Hitchcock,usingazoomandapanatthesametime”.265Aftertwogirls

leavetheframeandayoungmanlooksaroundalittlehelplessly,thecameracutsto

the first image of the main protagonist, a close-up of Francois van Heerden, the

character whose point of view we have been privy to from the opening shot.

Moments later,Francoisandtheyoungman, identifiedasChristian(CharlieKeegan),

areinamediumclose-upinthesameframeafterChristiangreetstheoldermanwith,

“Congratulations,UncleFrancois”,atermwhichisoftenusedasasignofrespecteven

whenthepersonisnotfamily.TheeventisFrancois’daughter’swedding.

265OliverHermanusinterviewwithSBS,12June2012,http://www.sbs.com.au/films/video/2244869603/Beauty-Oliver-Hermanus[Accessed1May2013].

195

Francoisisoftenframedinclose-upsorinmediumshotsevenwhentheaction

of the scene is not necessarily intense. Such shot choices reveal a persistent, often

unspokenintensityinthemainprotagonist.Close-upsrevealthewrinklesonhisface

andconstantlyputthevieweroff-guardthroughbuildingasenseoffamiliaritywithhis

coldstare,whichissuggestiveofsomethingsinisterabouthimthatcomesoffasstern

andalways incontrol. FurthercharacterisationofFrancoisentails informationabout

his successful timber company, his comfortable home, filled with various fleeting

depictions and encounters with him and his wife, who he seems estranged from.

These traits about the protagonist come to present him primarily as a loner, an

impressionoften further assistedby various scenes inwhichwe seeandexperience

Francois carrying out everyday tasks in confined spaces or alone. He is often in his

bakkie, forexample. In another scene, awideangle shotexposesa ratherdesolate

settinginwhichFrancoiscleansthefamilypool.Thepoolitselfisspotlessandinviting

butthereisnobodyelsethere.Itisasthoughheissimplygoingaboutthemundane

chores knowing that he is not cleaning the pool for anyone in particular. Such

momentsofconfinementandlonelinessalsoreflectFrancois’mentalstateofasense

ofbeingalonewithhimselfandsomewhatabandonedandforgotten,asthoughheno

longermatters.

The film is largely set in the historically conservative Afrikaner city of

Bloemfontein in the Free State of South Africa. This is an interesting choice and

context,particularlybecausemanypost-apartheidfilmsaresetinwhathavebecome

knownascosmopolitanurbancentreslikeJohannesburgorCapeTown.Althoughpart

ofSkoonheidtakesplaceincosmopolitanCapeTown,thefilmcommentsonhowitis

notonlygeographicalplacethat reflectsdatedvaluesbut thatFrancois ishimselfan

unassailablephysicalpresenceandaconstantreminderofthepast.Otherimportant

196

references to the film’s construction of Afrikaner culture are shown in the use of

stereotypicalcharacterisations,seenforexample,inFrancois’clothing–thetraditional

khakishortsandshirtandtheconsistentuseofAfrikaansthroughoutthefilmexceptin

dialoguewithChristian.Francois’bakkieisanotherAfrikanertraitwhichcharacterises

himinaparticularpatriarchalway.Duringapartheid,suchAfrikanermenwerecalled

‘boers’, a reference to theirAfrikaanswhiteness,which set these seemingly harsher

andmoreracistwhitesapartfromthosewhospokeEnglish. Thechoicetocreatea

filmabout the formerapartheidperpetratorswasabraveundertaking,andsomeof

thereasonsforthishavealreadybeenpointedto.

Fundamentally,thisfilmemployscertainstereotypesaboutbeinganAfrikaner

manandplacessuchtraitsinacontroversialdialoguewithquestionsabouthowthose

whowere previously at the top of the hierarchy of power in South Africa are now

almostwithout aplace in the ‘RainbowNation’. Skoonheid points out that in some

ways men like Francois remain perpetrators despite the TRC and its rhetoric of

forgiveness.AsawayofdevelopingsomeofmyargumentaroundFrancois’confused

identityandhowheembodies theshameandguiltof theapartheidpast Ianalysea

scenewhichexposesasecretelementofthemainprotagonist’slife.

Afterbuyingapacketofcigarettesatatruckstop,vanHeerdenwalkstowards

his Isuzu bakkie. The clock blinks 12:59 and the camera focuses on it until the time

changesto13:00,whenFrancoisstartstheignition.Apoint-of-viewshotshowsalong

open stretch of road ahead and looming clouds above. The cuts between van

Heerden’s point of view of the road and amedium close-up of him signify that he

travelsquiteadistancebeforehereacheshisdestination. Themise-en-scèneof the

destination is a desolate farm with a small farm house and another bakkie in the

197

frame.AtrackingshotindicatesthatFrancoishasenteredthehouseandfollowsthe

soundofmale voices in conversation. He arrives in a kitchen filledwithothermen

whostandaround idlymaking small talk. Francois iswelcomed to theparty,where

everyone already has a beer in hand. Most of the men are dressed similarly in

Afrikanergarb–khakishirtswithmatchingshortsorlongpants.Thismysteriousscene

beginstosetupsomethingthatisstillunknowntous.

Henry,thehost,proceedstomakeintroductions.AyoungermannamedBrian

stealsashylookatFrancoisfromacrosstheroomwhileHenrykeepsupthechatterby

checkinginwiththeothersaboutemailasamodeofcommunication.Thisisaclear

indication that this group has met before and that they communicate among each

other.Afinalman,Gideonenterstheroom.Heisalargeman,wholookssimilarto

theothermenwhoarealready there. As thoughstickingoutasanappendage, isa

smaller, youngmanwho is notwhite. He is short, dark, has curly hair andwears a

body-hugging blue t-shirt. On seeing the faces of the men in the kitchen, Gideon

quicklyinstructstheyoungmantowaitinthecar.Themoodintheroomhasclearly

shiftedasthehostimmediatelyattacksGideonwiththerulesthathehasalreadybeen

told: “Geen moffies en geen kleurlinge” (No faggots and no coloureds). The

boundariesof the groupare ironically clear andemphasise thatonlywhitemenare

part of this group. Gideon’s decision to bring an ‘other’ into the group disrupts

somethingthattheyallseektoprotect. Inadditiontothejudgementofthe‘moffie’

character, a religious cross conspicuously hangs against the kitchen wall. The

unimposingpresenceof thecrosscomplicates the latentconservatismof themen in

thekitchen,andactsasa reminderof thecomplex relationsbetweenapartheidand

AfrikanerdomandtheProtestantChristianvaluesthatendorsedthatera. Thecross,

like the homosexual colouredman, forms part of themise-en-scène to again subtly

198

reference the unspoken shifts between then (apartheid) and now (post-apartheid).

The cross also implies something similar to the relation between the church and

witnessinZuluLoveLetter,commentingonhowthereligion(andGod)offersnosolace

(anymore). With the TRC’s religious overtones through the rhetoric of forgiveness,

theseChristian symbols in both filmsoffer subtle comments on the inadequacies of

theTRCmodel.

Aftertheawkwardkitchenscenethecameracutstoawide-angleshotofpart

of the farm. Present in the frameare anouthouse, some shrubs andbushes anda

lonely dogmilling about. This shot is held for a fewmoments, inviting a reflective

pause after the previous mysterious scene. The opening shot of the next scene is

jarring:ahighanglemediumshotofBrian’sheadbobbingupanddownwithFrancois’

hands on either side of the bed clutching the bedding. Francois’ wedding band is

vaguelyidentifiableashislefthandisinthedark.Achangeincameraangleshowsthe

backofFrancois’head;visibleinthesameframeispornographyonthetelevision.The

camera then shows a side angle of Francois and Brian, who is still on his knees.

Becausetheroomisdarkweseetheirsilhouettes,asuggestionoftheunrealelement

ofwhatwewitness.Withthisopeningwearenowawareofwhatthegatheringsare

for,andthereasonsfortheawkwardinteractioninthekitchenbecomesclear.

BrianraiseshisheadexpectantlyafterFrancoisgivesthesignalthatheisnow

readyforpenetrativesex.Thecamerafocusescloselyonthepairinamediumshotas

BrianpositionshimselfinfrontofFrancois.AfterhavingestablishedBrianandFrancois

as ready, thecamerathen jumpstoanotherpairofmenonabedoppositeFrancois

andBrian. Anotherparticipantpassesthecamera,anindicationthattherearemore

participants.Thecameralingersonthesecondpairintheactofpenetrativesexfora

199

numberofmomentsasanoverweightmanliterallybangsawayathispartner. Their

fullbodiesareondisplay. Thecameraconcentrateson theorgy, conveyinga sense

that time has slowed down as the shots are held for long periods. The camera’s

lingeringshotsinthissceneofferaprovocation.Insteadofthinkingofthefilmunder

itsexplicittitle‘Beauty’,asastatement,itisasthoughaquestionmarkshouldfollow,

sothatitinsteadreads,‘Beauty’?

Because there is no dialogue in the scene, we can only make certain

assumptions based onwhat is present in the space. The sounds convey a sense of

enjoymentbut,aswiththeearlierawkwarddiscussion in thekitchen, there isalsoa

senseofsomethingthat isunarticulatedpresent inthisscenetoo. Thesex isalmost

violent, as the variety of camera shots and angles emphasise the sounds of skin

slammingagainst skinand thepale, loose fleshymasculinebodies. Themendonot

lookateachother’sfaces,noristheremuchfocusontheirfacialexpressions.Itisas

though theymightbe repulsedby themselves if they acknowledged thehomoerotic

natureof theiractions. The focus ison fullbody images,anexhibitionof theactof

‘fucking’,seeminglyenjoyableandpunitiveatthesametime.Becausethetwoscenes

work together, the first setsupmasculinearchetypesofapartheidwhoare, through

this special club, able to recreate the fixed conditions of belonging as in apartheid.

Significantly, thesemen were not out of place like the anti-apartheid characters of

ChapterTwo.

However, the orgy scene destabilises the apartheid boundaries and fixed

identitiessetupinthepreviousscene.Firstly,themenarenakedintheorgyscene,an

attestationtotheirphysicalandpsychologicalvulnerabilities.Secondly,becausethey

arepresentedasfamilymen(morethanonewearsaweddingband),thesceneposes

200

questions around why heterosexual men would want to have homosexual sex. A

potentialanswercomesinamuchlaterarticulationbyFrancoistoChristianwhen,ina

drunken reflectionon Francois’ past, he reflects onhaving lacked choicebecauseof

“family commitments”. In that scene Francois expresses a sense of resentment

towardsthepast,inwhichhehadtosubmittobeinganAfrikanerpatriarchindistinct

ways.Manyofthosewaysmeantthathecouldnotfulfilhisowndreamssuchas,for

example, becoming a pilot. However,what hewas guaranteed in that contextwas

respect,powerandadefinedidentity.

Intheactionsofthisscene,weseeeachofthesemenembodyandemploya

mutuallydesiredpowerthatdissipatedforthemwiththeendofapartheid.However

twisted,theyareabletorecreatesomeofthatfeelingofpowerandownershipover

anotherbody intheirorgies. Thirdly,whatever isdestabilisedand inarticulateabout

their post-apartheid identities, can once again be experienced as fixed through the

sexualactsinwhicheachcanexhibitpowerandsee‘sameness’throughcontrol.While

there,noneofthemneedtothinkabouthowtobeoutside. Partoftheclandestine

activityof theirmeetings is thehomogeneousappealof those in theclubandwhen

Gideon brings in an outsider, he invites in the reality (and intrusion) of ‘Rainbow

Nation’ inclusion. This ispreciselywhattheydonotwantattheirgatherings. When

Francois loses his temper with Gideon, he conveys a sentiment about a desire to

protect what they have. The disagreement exposes Francois’ and the group’s

homophobiaandracism,and impliesafewthingsaboutthemen inthekitchen:this

club,likeapartheid,isforwhitesonly.Althoughontheoutsidetheyneedtosomehow

existinthenewSouthAfrica,inhere,theyarenotbeholdentothesamereality.

201

Gideon’sdesiresarequitedifferentbecause,asHenrypointsout, it isnotthe

first timethathehasbroughtanunwelcomeguest,which indicates that forGideon,

theactofhomosexualsexisnotaboutpowerorself-assertionbutaboutenjoyment;it

impliesthatGideonmayjustbeaclosetgaymanofaparticularageandculturewho

never had the opportunity to comeout under the constraints of being anAfrikaner

man. The choice to include this ‘other’ portrayed through Gideon emphasises the

presenceof (andability to identify)differentdesiresbetweentheonecharacterand

the other men in the room. Although they too experience pleasure in the

arrangement, the emphasis of their pleasure is not, the film suggests, necessarily in

theactof thephysicaldesire forhomosexual sexbut rather theattractionand thus

desireisforpowerand‘sameness’seenineachother.

[Figure4.1]Wide-angleshotofyardbeforeorgyscene

202

[Figure4.2]Afterorgysceneshot1 [Figure4.3]Afterorgysceneshot2

Thegroupdynamicoftheinarticulatenatureofpost-apartheidwhitemasculine

identitiesasshowninthisscene,isneverrevisitedinquitethesamewayagaininthe

film.Weonlyexperiencethefurthercomplexitiesofsuchcharactersthroughthemain

protagonist.Theendoftheorgyisalsotelling,inthataftertheslowpanandemphatic

momentsofpauseinthatscene,wearenotshownanyofthosecharactersafterthe

act.Thescenecutsfromthemen,stillinaction,totwosimilarwide-angleshotstothe

onethatprecededthesexscene. Thesameyardisstilleerilyquiet,asthoughthese

quiet images thatbookendthesceneallowamoment to take inwhathas justbeen

witnessed.Thequietnessanddesolationoftheshotaftertheorgyalsosuggestshow

possible it isforthistoremainasecretbecausethere isquitesimply,nothingtosee

fromoutside. Francois’sshortwalkbacktohis ‘bakkie’aftertheorgyalsohighlights

something elsewhen he rinses out hismouth and spits onto the ground. Francois

wishestowashhimselfofwhatjustoccurred,likeavictimaftertheactofrape.This

dissociationwiththeact thathe justwillinglyparticipated inaddstothereasons for

the group as one in which unspoken and undisclosed matters can be acted on in

unconventionalways. ThisdissociativeactonFrancois’partalsoshowsthatthere is

nothingsentimentalaboutwhathasjusthappened.Followedbyhisre-entryintothe

confines of his ‘bakkie’, it is as though Francois re-enters a closeted and repressed

203

spaceafterhavingexperiencedsomethingthathedidnotquitedislikebutsomething

thathedidnotquitelikeeither.

Similarly to David, then, when he speaks of sex with Melanie as “not quite

rape”,IconsiderbothFrancoisandDavidascharactersunabletoexpressthemselves

and their new identities because they do not really know what they are. In both

instances, sex is a vehicle of release, some enjoyment and perverted phallic

(patriarchal) freedom. Iperceivethattheactofsexhasvery littletodowithsimple

enjoyment, and comes to represent somethingmuchmore layered and complex. In

thatwhitemenareoftendeniedvoice,space,andarticulationbeyondguiltinthenew

SouthAfrica,thissceneoffersaglimpseintotheclandestinespacesofrepressionand

theinabilitytocometotermswiththepresent.Whereasthepreviouschapter’sfilms

triedtoshowthecomingtotermswiththeapartheidpast,thesefilmsemphasisethe

present from a point of view (white, masculine, middle-aged) that shows us the

challengesofcharactersrepresentativeofaresidualstructureoffeeling.Thesceneis

difficult to watch because it is uncomfortable and unexplained. While the film

emphasises and, to a degree, legitimises new possibilities for young post-apartheid

white characters, it reiterates the cloying impossibilities for the middle aged white

meninthisscene.

The difference between the different sex scenes that have been analysed in

thissectionarethatDavidhassexwithcolouredwomenwhileFrancoishassexwith

otherwhitemen. Francois’ secretmen’sgroup is riddledwith shameful silence ina

waythatbothinvokesanddistancesitselffromthe“preferredsilence”thatBaderoon

proposesinrelationtoSilatheslave.Baderoon’stermdoesnotapplytowhitemen,

however, there isaprovocation inaconsiderationofwhat“preferredsilence”could

204

mean for the perpetrator – in other words, the preferred silence of the coloniser

throughracialandsexualmelancholia.GillianStraker’sterm,‘promiscuousshame’,is

relevant when she avers that such a post-apartheid condition permits white South

Africanstodisplayshamecollectivelyevenwhentheyarenotsureofwhatthatmeans,

orwhetheritmeansanythingatall.266Inotherwords,thesexanditssecretiveplace

ineachoftheirlivesisreadasametaphorforreality–intheoutsideworldtheyare

one version of themselves which is neat, polite, patriarchal and unquestioningly

heterosexual. The orgy scene disrupts that to show us the extent of unnameable

feelings of ‘promiscuous shame’ and the dangerous tipping points of post-apartheid

whitemasculinerepression.

266Straker,“UnsettlingWhiteness”,p.14.

205

RapeinDisgraceandSkoonheid

ThefirstsectionofthischaptersetsupthetwomainprotagonistsinDisgrace

andSkoonheidbymakinganargumentthattheyembodyshameandalossofpower

emblematicofmiddleagedwhitemeninpost-apartheidSouthAfrica.

Thesecondpartofthischapterfocusesspecificallyontherapescenesineach

filminordertoexplorequestionssuchas:isitpossibletoarguethatthefilmsuserape

asametaphorforquestionsaroundpoweranddefeat?Whatmightbegarneredfrom

making a link between middle-aged white masculinity, guilt in post-apartheid and

rape?Thesequestionsdonotonlyinterrogatewhiteguiltbutalsotherepresentations

ofwhitefearofviolencebyandfrom(Black)intrudersandtheinabilitytotrulyaccept

defeat.

Sorcha Gunnewrites about representing rape in post-apartheid literature in a

waythatisfittingtothischapter:

Framed by a political context claiming ‘to reveal is to heal’, what emerges inpost-apartheid writing is a preoccupation with the hierarchical dynamics thatshape discourses of power and the complexities inherent in speaking abouttrauma. As such, interrogating sexual violence is fundamental to the fabric ofnegotiating thepast as it exemplifies themomentwhere thedominatingbodyattemptstowriteitselfontothebodyofthedominated.267

Gunne’s argument for sexual violence as part of a negotiation of the past in post-

apartheidisevidencedinSkoonheidandDisgrace.BothFrancoisandDavidattemptto

inscribe their own bodies onto the bodies that they dominate in sex. At the same

time,theyperformsomethingmorecomplextoproperly identify,and insomeways,

267SorchaGunne,“QuestioningTruthandReconciliation:WritingRapeinAchmatDangor’sBitterFruitandKagisoLesegoMolope’sDancingintheDust”inSorchaGunneandZoeBrigleyThompson(eds.),Feminism,LiteratureandRapeNarratives:ViolenceandViolation(NewYorkandLondon:Routledge,2010),p.165.

206

wordsfail,becauseboththesecharactersalsotryto,throughrape,unsuccessfully,re-

embody theirpreviouslypowerfulpositions. Through rape theyareable toperform

power that theycannotperform in theoutsideworld. Bothof thesemenalso rape

youngercharacterswhoaremoredecisivelypartofthenewSouthAfrica.

Theyoungercharactersdonotstrugglewiththesamedemonsasthemiddle-

agedmen.Theactofpoweristhuspowerovertheyoungcharactersaswellaspower

fortheoldmen.Mostofthescholarshipaboutrepresentationsofrapeisnotofdirect

relevancetothischapter. Forexample,althoughpost-feministscholarshiphasmade

significantstridesindiscussionsaboutrapeontelevisionandinfilm,thisbodyofwork

hasalsoemphaticallylocateditselfprimarilyinwesternfilmdiscourses.268Whilesome

work from postfeminism has been useful, other work has perpetuated more of a

decisive break than a link. According to Sarah Projansky, postfeminism is a useful

frameworkforthinkingaboutrapeandrepresentationbecausecontemporarypopular

culture“discursivelydefinesfeminism…postfeminismabsorbsandtransformsaspects

offeminisminwaysthat,atminimum,dissociatefeministconceptsfrompoliticaland

socialactivism”.269Inthecontextofpost-apartheidrepresentationsofrape,itwould

be overly simplistic to assume a post-feminist position. A more encompassing

approach is “representational intersectionality” which is a combination of different

approachessuchasthatofKimberléCrenshaw.270

268LynnA.HigginsandBrendaR.Silver(eds.),RapeandRepresentation(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1991)andTanyaHoreck,PublicRape:RepresentingViolationinFictionandFilm(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,2004).269SarahProjansky,WatchingRape:FilmandTelevisioninPostfeminstCulture(NewYorkandLondon:NewYorkUniversityPress),p.66.270KimberléCrenshaw,“MappingtheMargins:Intersectionality,IdentityPolitics,andViolenceagainstWomenofColour”,StanfordLawReview43(1991),pp.1241-99.

207

Drawing on Crenshaw’swork is a conceptual acknowledgementmore than a

basis for thinking about rape in thepost-apartheid context.271 In addition toearlier

references to slave histories of rape, Pumla Gqola’s writing on rape as power in

contemporarySouthAfricaisparticularlyenlightening.272Gqolanotestherelationship

betweenwarandrapeasborneof“…aspecificidiom,fromthecolonialarchive.Itisa

deliberate investment in using sexual violence as part of conquest…”.273 Other

scholarshipsuchasworkonrapeinartcinemahasbeenusefulbutfocusesonrapeas

a spectacle in avant-garde films rather than a filmic device that could reference a

seriesofissuesandeventsoutsideofthefilmaswellasinit.Insuchaconstruction,

rapehasbeentheorisedasapost-moderntoolinfilmorasarepresentationalissueto

addressinfilm.274

Disgrace

ThepinnacleofDisgraceisLucy’srape.Weonlyknowittakesplacebecauseof

theeventsarounditandbecauseofDavid’stortureinthatscene.Thenarrativesetup

fortherapeisDavidLurie’sdecisiontoleaveCapeTownaftertheinquest.Theshiftin

thesettingof the film, fromthecity to the farm, introducesseveralnewcharacters,

particularly Petrus, Lucy’s Black co-proprietor, the youngmale rapists and the dogs,

Lucy’scompanions.

Lucy and her father have a strange relationship inwhich she does not really

respectmuchofhowhegoesabouthis lifeandhedoesnotseemtobeparticularly

fondofher lifestylechoices,oneofthembeingherchoiceto liveonaremotefarm.

The idea that this is a dangerous choice is implicit from David’s arrival. The scene271Ibid.272PumlaGqola,Rape:aSouthAfricanNightmare(Johannesburg:JacanaMedia,2015).273Ibid.,p.48.274DominiqueRussell(ed.),RapeinArtCinema(NewYorkandLondon:Continuum,2010).

208

leadingup to the rape is relaxed. DavidandLucy take someof thedogs forawalk

throughthesurroundingfarmland.Ontheirreturntothefarmhouse,LucyandDavid

hearthebarkingofthedogsthathadbeenleftbehind.OnseeingthreeyoungBlack

menDavidglancesatLucyandasksherwhethertheyshouldbenervous.Thecamera

cutstoacloseupofoneoftheyoungmenhissingatandteasingthedogsthroughthe

cages.

As Lucy and David approach the boys, Lucy calls for Petrus and then shouts

“hamba”,whichmeans“go”or“leave”.Thedishevelledboysaredressedinbrokent-

shirtsandbootsthataretoobigforthem.TheyappearshywhenconfrontedbyLucy,

only briefly glancing up at her after she begins to ask why they are there. They

generally have their heads cast down with eyes lowered, referencing a familiar

historical interaction inwhichpower isperceivedbetweenawhite farmerandBlack

people who work on farms. Petrus is the personification of the new Black South

African in the film and on the farm, and power between him and Lucy, as well as

betweenhimandDavid,isthusdisplayedinadifferentregistertohowpowerisshown

in thescenewith theyoungmen.275 The incessantbarkingsetsuptensionbetween

LucyandDavidaswellasbetweenLucyandtheyoungmen.

Throughtheuseofshot-reverse-shotsbetweenLucyandDavidasateam,and

thethreeyoungmenasanother,thereasonfortheirpresencebecomesknown:“an

accident…ababy”,oneof themsays. Theyneed to telephone, indicatesoneof the

three. WhenLucypressesthemforwhytheyhavenotgonetoapubliconetheydo

notanswerandcontinuetheircoyact.DavidhoversprotectivelybehindLucywhilehe

275Isometimesusetheterm‘boys’inreferencetotheyoungmenbecauseofthewaythattheyareinfantilisedtothisstatus,inlinewithapartheiddescriptionsthroughnamingBlackmen‘boys’.ThisiselaboratedoninChapterFive.

209

holdsontotheleashofthegoldenretriever. Havingmadeuphermindtoletoneof

themintothehousetousethetelephone,Lucyputsthethreedogsthatshehasbeen

walking inakennelbeforestandingbackandchoosingwhatcanonlybeassumedas

theleastthreateningyoungmanto let in. Davidtriesto interjectbutLucydismisses

himandcontinues towardsherhouse. The interaction fromthe time that Lucyand

Davidarriveatthekennelsisshotinamediumlong-shotinterspersedwiththeshot-

reverse-shotswhen Lucy interrogates the three. The use of the long shot however

distancestheviewerfromtheunfoldingsceneasthoughwantingtoshift theviewer

intoawitnesspositionfromthetimeLucyandDavidarrivebackatthefarm.

WatchingfromDavid’spointofviewweseeLucyfishingthekeyfromundera

potplantandunlockingthedoor.OnceLucyandoneoftheyoungmenhaveentered

thehouse,thecamerashiftsbacktoashotofDavidnervouslywatchingtheremaining

two.TheireyesareonthedoorandassoonasLucyisinsideadrummingsoundbursts

onto the soundtrack. It matches the change in energy from the boys’ sheepish

performancemomentsbeforetothedecisiveplanandresultantactions.Inthefilmit

isunclearwhyshechosetheyoungmanthatshedoesbutinthenovel,thereaderis

giventheinformationthatshechoosesthemosthandsomeoneofthethree.AsDavid

watchestheopendoortothehouse, the fastdrumrhythmputstheothertwoboys

into actionwith one running ahead,whipping up dust as he does so and the other

momentarilysloweddownbytheonlydogwhoremainsoutside,thegoldenretriever

thatDavidwasholding. As the secondboycloses thedoorbehindhim, thecamera

zoomsinforaclose-upofhisfaceandtheshotissloweddowntoshowhisexpression,

a complex fusion of achievement and guile. Davidmanages to enter the house by

kicking inthedoorbuthisgallantattemptsarequicklystoppedbeforeheabletodo

anythingasheishitonthehead,ablowwhichknockshimout.

210

Afadetoblack,apauseandfade-inthatshowsDavidcomingto,presentsan

important point: we do not see Lucy in her moment of crisis but instead see and

witness David in his moment of distress. The music plays an important role in

heighteningthetensionattheoutsetoftheattack. Thewaythecameraframesthe

two groups on opposite sides of the screen separated by the dogs in the kennels

furthercomplicatesthealreadyevidentracistsuggestionsmadeinthefilm,onebeing

thatDavid isnervousbecausetheylooklikepoorBlackboysandsoheassumesthat

they might be dangerous. One of the strengths of Disgrace is showing up the

inadequacies of conventionalmorality with reference to right andwrong in a place

suchasSouthAfrica.SamanthaVice’sargumentforarelevantmoralactionofsilence

forwhite South Africans seems inadequate because it does notmake room for the

messinessofpost-apartheidaspresented in this sceneand film. In somewaysVice

reinsribesLucy’spointofviewaboutherplaceinthecountry,whichisaroundmoral

action(orinaction):thatwhitesshouldacceptwhateverhappenstothembecauseof

thepast.LucyalsoexpressesasmuchwhenshetellsDavidthatperhapsthisiswhatit

means to live in post-apartheid South Africa. She references her own rape as

‘collateral’damageofsortsforchoosingtostay.Insuchaconstruction,Lucy,andVice,

implythatwhilethereshouldbeaplaceforwhitesinSouthAfrica,thetermsofstaying

andbelonging cannotbemediated,negotiatedor endorsedbywhites. WhileDavid

struggleswiththatreality,Lucyacceptsitinthisdirecontext.

It isuncleartotheviewerandtoDavidhimselfhowmuchtimepassesbefore

Davidwakesupinasmallgreenbathroomwithonlyatoiletinit.Hisbodyissprawled

outacross the screen. He tries toopen thedoorbut it is locked. Firsthewhispers

Lucy’sname,thenhebeginstoshoutlouderandwithdesperation.Hehearsthemen

outsidethesmallwindowofthetoiletandtriestoseewhattheyaredoing. Twoof

211

themjokearoundastheyputsomestolengoods intothebootofacar. Amongthe

stolen wares is the ‘protective’ rifle that Lucy referenced when David first arrived.

Davidislefttodealwiththefailurethatalreadywashesoverhim:heknowsthatthe

rape isnowoverandheknowsthathefailedtosavehisdaughter. Therobberssee

Lurie through thesmall toiletwindowhe looksoutof. Asoneof thempicksup the

rifle,David,alarmedandshocked,scurriesdown inananimal like fashionandsits in

thesmallconfinedspacebetweenthewallandthetoiletseat. Thelookofterroron

David’sfaceindicatesthathebelievestheywillkillhimbutinsteadtheybegintoshoot

the dogs in the kennels. Althoughwe do not see the act of shooting the dogs,we

again experience violence and tortureof others fromDavid’s point of view. To this

end,wethusheareachgunshotfollowedbyadog’swhimperingofpain.

Davidhimselfisalsonotoffthehook–twoofthethreemenopenthedoorto

thetoiletthathehasbeenconfinedto. Ashetriestoescape,screaming“Lucy”,the

robbers trip him, and then douse him in a flammable liquid. He falls back into the

confinesofthetoiletoncemore,thistimetakingintheshockofwhattheyaredoing.

ThesoundscomingfromDavidnowemulatethesoundsofthedogsaftertheywere

shot. The camera follows a lit match in slowmotion as it travels from one of the

grinning young men to its landing place, David’s shirt. David’s flailing arms and

animal-likescreamsbreaktheslowmotionsequence. Theslowmotionshotendsat

thesametimeasthelitmatchhitsDavid.AlongwithDavid’sflailingarmsandanimal-

likescreams,thecolourandmovementoftheflamesemphasisethathehasnowhere

togointherestrictedtoilet.AswithFrancois,whoisoftenfoundintheconfinesofhis

‘bakkie’, David’s imposed confinement here serves as an explicit presentation of an

arrayofemotionsthatwehavenotseeninthecharacter.Someoftheseemotionsare

desperation, lossandfear. Eachoftheseareexpressed indifferentmoments inthis

212

scene,brought to lightby theseyoungboyswhocometo takewhatever theywant,

includinghisdaughter’sbody.

ThesceneendswithashotofanexasperatedDavidonthetoiletfloor. Heis

breathingheavilyafterhavingmanagedtoputouttheflamesonhisbodyandheadby

immersing his head in the toilet bowl. This paused image of David also provides a

chancetotake inwhathas justoccurred. Themoment isbrokenwhenLucyunlocks

thedoor. FromDavid’s pointof viewwewatch Lucywalk away fromDavid and the

toilet.Sheisbarefoot,dressedinawhiterobeandherhairiswet,anindicationthat

shehaswashedherself.ThewayinwhichLucyisportrayedinthisbriefmomentisthe

onlydirectaccessgiventoLucy’srapefromLucy.Assheisframedinalongshotfrom

David’spointofview,notonlyshebutalsoherhomeisreestablished.Thekitchenisin

completedisarraywithbrokenfurnitureandLucy’sthingsallover.Lucyherselfstands

inthemidstofitasshepoursherselfaglassofwater.Theuseofslowmotioninthe

two places it is used in this scene serves to highlight David’s helplessness, again

focalisingourattentiononhimandontheviolenceofthescenethroughhim.

ThedescriptionaboutwhathappensbetweenLucyandDavid’sarrivalbackon

the farm until the pointwhen Lucy pours herselfwater is about an attack on Lucy.

However,althoughtheultimateemphasisisLucy’srape,theinformationandhowthe

film chooses to set up the rape is really about David Lurie. This is intentional and

highlights the film’s investment in Lucy’s rape as an eventwhich reveals something

aboutthecomplexitiesofpost-apartheididentityandbelonging.Thelackoffocuson

Lucyintherapesceneplacesemphasisontheunspeakable.ForLucy,theunspeakable

repercussions of the rape and of her emphatic choice not to report it, is a distinct

commentonherplaceasayoungwhitepost-apartheidSouthAfrican.Forthe‘boys’,

213

as perceived through David’s whitemasculinity, there are no repercussions for bad

behaviourbecause,thefilmseemstocomment,thepowerofthe‘RainbowNation’is

primarilyembodiedinpost-apartheidBlackmasculinity. Whileweareinvitedtosee

two versions of post-apartheid Black masculinity, the film comments, once again

throughDavid, that both versions are vengeful and crass, representations of violent

taking(therapists)orconspicuousconsumption(Petrus).

ThisscenealsoemphasisesDavid’sinadequacies.Hewasunabletoprotecthis

daughterandherland.Hisshameandguilt,alreadypresentinthecharacter,become

even more apparent after the rape scene. David comes to realise that his own

(intellectual and philosophical) position of referencing back to the Romantic poets

Wordsworth and Byron, and his white imperialist outlook, has no place in post-

apartheid.276Thesceneanditsrepercussionalsoseemtomakethepressingissuesof

identity already alluded to in the film evenmore apparent and convoluted. When

Lucy’sfarmhouseisfirstrepresentedinDisgrace,itandshearereadasmetaphorsof

safeandcomplementarychange in thenewSouthAfrica– inotherwords, Lucyhad

doneeverythingrighttobepartofthelandscapeandsheinessencepersonifieswhat

VicearguesforallwhiteSouthAfricanstobe–quietandappreciativeforalittlespace

inSouthAfrica.Thisshiftsaftertheattack.

Anumberofothermattersarisefromtherapescene;mostperplexingisLucy’s

silenceabouttherapeandhervehemenceaboutstayingonthefarmaftertheattack.

LucycontinuouslyrefusestogotoAmsterdamtobewithhermother,emphaticthat

therearethingsthatDaviddoesnotunderstand.Lucyiscaughtinthedifficultplaceof

acceptingthenewSouthAfricatobeunequalandunfairbutalsowantingtoremain

276MargotBeard,“LessonsfromtheDeadMasters:WordsworthandByroninJ.M.Coetzee’sDisgrace”,EnglishInAfrica34:1(May2007),pp.59–77.

214

liberalandopen,unlike,forexampleEttinger,aneighbouringfarmerwhodrivesLucy

and David to the police station after the attack. Ettinger, a staunch Afrikaner,

comments on the differences between “then” and “now” in reference to how the

policewon’tprotectyouanymore, referencingpost-apartheid lawandorder. Lucy’s

generationalguiltbecomesevenmoreapparent in lightofthehypermasculinitiesof

EttingerandDavid.

This generational separation becomes clearer after the rape scene and is

indicativeof lostpower (seen in thewhitemen)butalso, indicativeofsomethingas

yet unseen: that Lucy is representative of an emergent post-apartheid sensibility.

What is troubling ishow the filmconsistently showsLucy’spositionasdifferentand

moreprogressivethanherfather’sbut itaffordstheyoungmenvery littletexture;a

pointdiscussedmoreinChapterFive.Thisraisessomequestionsaroundwhatapost-

apartheidemergentsensibilitymightbe.Ifpresent,Disgracepersistsinitsrelianceon

theracialbinariesofapartheidtoshowhowwhiteyouthsaredealingwiththeirpost-

apartheid identities but offers little positive outcome for Black youths dealing with

their new identities. The differences between Lucy and the older white men also

pointstoaresidualapartheidstructureoffeeling.Disgracethusemploysarapescene

in a twisted fashion to bring three generations of South Africans into its narrative:

David, representative of residual apartheid sensibilities andwho cannot quitemake

senseof his ownnewplaceor identity, Lucy,whoaccepts herwhitepost-apartheid

fate, takes on David’s guilt, andwho is forced to dealwith the repercussion of the

rape, anda thirdgeneration,mixed inas yetunknowablewaysbeyond race, a rape

baby.

215

Skoonheid

The rape scene in Skoonheid is different to the one inDisgrace. In the first

instance,sexandrapescenes inSkoonheidareexplicitacts.Disgrace invitesablurry

considerationofsexandrapethroughDavid’s ‘coercive’sexwithMelanieandLucy’s

unseenrape.ThisisnotthecaseinSkoonheid,inwhichFrancoisrapestheyoungman

Christian. AftermakingupalietogotoCapeTown,itbecomesobvious,asFrancois

followsChristianaroundthecity,thatFrancoishasdevelopedanuncontrollablecrush.

The cool and calm exterior constructed earlier in the film begins to unravel while

FrancoisisinCapeTown.OneexampleofthisiswhenhebuysChristiananAppleIPod

asagift,whichhe intendstogivetotheyoungmanonavisittoabraaithathehas

beeninvitedtoatChristian’sparents’home.OnrealisingthatChristianwouldnotbe

at thebraai,Francoismakesahurriedexcuse forwhyhecannotstay. In thescenes

that precede the rape, Hermanus pieces together a series of Francois’ actions that

confirmthe insidiouscharacteristicsseen inhimsofar. Inascene inwhichFrancois

getsdrunkinthebarsandclubsofthegaydistrictofCapeTown,weseethecharacter

reactinasimilarwayasintheearlierorgyscenewhenayounggaycolouredmantries

tohitonhim.EventuallyFrancoisrealisesthathewillnotfindwhatheislookingforin

the clubs. The men there are attracted to other men, whereas Francois’ desire is

different. Francois exits the final club and throws up on the pavement, an act of

ambiguousrepulsion.

The following scene openswith Francois and Christian sitting side by side in

Christian’scar. Eachof thecharacters is framedseparately,withus firstseeingone,

thentheother.Thisworksasawayofkeepingtheirbodiesandidentitiesapartinthe

scene,andinthelargernarrativeofthefilm.Thedrivingsceneandtheonehereafter,

in which the pair sit at a restaurant, serves to further question why Francois is so

216

obsessedwiththeyoungman. Francois’obsessionhasextendedtoabeliefthatnot

only ishe interested inChristian,but thatChristianmight alsobe interested inhim.

WhatbecomesclearinthissequenceafterChristianhaspickedupFrancois,isthatthe

objectofFrancois’obsession isnottheenjoymentofsexbutratheragrowinggreed

aroundadesiretohavewhatChristianhas:youth,possibility,aspaceinacountrythat

seemstocontinuouslypronounce itselfclosedtoFrancois’generationofwhitemen.

This form of jealousy is expressed in the restaurant scene when Francois begins to

wistfully revisit his ownyouth and thehopes anddesireshehad. In the restaurant

Francois andChristian are seatedoppositeeachother. Theuseof either side-angle

shotstoshowthemonoppositesidesoftheframe,ortheuseofshot-reverse-shots,

aids in keeping the two individual characters apart. There is thus no suggestion of

themasaunit.However,fromFrancois’position,hisbeingoppositeChristianseems

toimpartadifferentmeaning,onethattheoldermantakesasasignalforaction.

Francois occupies a trickyplacenotonly as awhitemanbut also ashimself.

This is shown repeatedly in the different versions of his life: one inane, seemingly

unfeelinganddarkinthedomesticspace,andonecloisteredbutactive. Thewayhe

displaysangerandresentmenttowardshiswifeandhisyoungestdaughtershouldnot

go unnoticed in the context of the rape because it emphasises how the rape is not

aboutsexbutanattempttotakebackpowerandalmosttakewhatChristianhassoas

tomakehisownlifeseemlesspathetic. Therape isaboutdesireforChristian’s life,

andfreedomfromtheconstrictionsofhisown.Thisfreedomisalsodisplayedthrough

language:theentirefilm is inAfrikaansexceptfordialoguewithChristian,asthough

there is a freedom in articulation when around this young man specifically. The

younger man is constantly positioned as different to the older men (Francois and

217

Christian’s own father), not only because of the age and natural generational

differences but because, in South Africa, his opportunities and possibilities in the

realityofpost-apartheidaresovehementlydifferenttothoseoftheoldermen. The

useof language inSkoonheid is an importantway inwhich thedifferencesbetween

FrancoisandChristianareapparent.

Francois’suncomfortableusageofasecondlanguagealsoservestoshowhow

he is a recalcitrant apartheid and post-apartheid presence because so much of his

identity is locked intohis languageandculture. Hence, inFrancoisandChristian,a

juxtaposition is presented: two seemingly incompatiblemodalities of post-apartheid

Afrikaner identity and structures of feeling: in Francois a residual and conflicted

structure of feeling and in Christian, a kind of disavowal of this history. Christian

inhabits a different place and is a character suggestive of an emergent sensibility

associatedwithacarefreelifeunburdenedbytheapartheidpast.

TheentirescenethattakesplaceinFrancois’hotelroomisshotfromawitness

point of view. Differently to Disgrace, the viewer is compelled to watch Francois

restrainandoverpowerhisvictim. Awide-angleshotshowsastandardroomwitha

bed,atelevisionset,aminibarandabathroomthatbothcharactersenterseparately

at different times. Francois hurriedly tidies the roomduring the time thatChristian

usesthetoiletandthensitsexpectantlyontheedgeofthebed.Francoisismirrored

byhisownimageemphasisedbytheverticallinescapturedinthewide-anglelongshot

of the room.This isalsoaconfusingmoment in that theviewer isunsureas towhy

Christian is intheroominthefirstplace.ViewingFrancoiswaitingforChristianfrom

this angle distances the viewer fromwhatever unexpected actionmay occur. After

218

exiting the toilet, Christian casually lights a cigarette and takes a sip of his drink,

somethingthat,accordingtoFrancois,will“puthaironyourchest”.

Francoisconstantlyremindshimself,andus,oftheagedifferencebetweenhim

andChristian.Buildingtension,thecameragoesbetweenframingthetwoinsilencein

medium shots to close-ups of their faces. The close up is especially effectivewhen

theysitsidebysideonthebedasitemphasisesthegenerationalgapbetweenthetwo

men and the different expressions they hold: one older and guarded and the other

youngerand light. It isalso indicativeofa shift in themoodof the scene. Whereas

previously the wide side-angle shot distanced the viewer, the close-ups draw on

nervoussubjectivity towardseachof them. Itbecomesapparent thatChristian’sbig

questionisrelatedtomoney.Francoisislessbruisedbytherequestthanbythefact

that it is not attached to something more. They remain in the same side-by-side

position;however,theyareshotinseparateframesuntilFrancoisaskswhetherthatis

allthatChristianwanted.ItisclearnowthatFrancoishascreatedafantasyinhisown

mind. While Christian nervously awaits a reply, Francois’ facial expression changes

slightlyasheleansintoChristiansaying,“Givemeakiss”. Christiannervouslyswats

himawayandsays,“Stopit,Francois”.Christianremainsseatedonthebedhowever,

andthenextshortinterludebuildsuptensionandfearasatussleensuesbetweenthe

twomen.FrancoisisheavysetandolderandChristianisagileandfitlookingandsoit

does not look like the oldermanwill dominate but he does. In order to assist his

position, Francois slamshis fist intoChristian’s face a few times,which leads to the

young man’s face and mouth becoming covered in blood. As Francois sits atop

Christian,half leaningonhisthroattogethispenis intoChristian’smouth,wewatch

theassaulttakeplacefrombehind(andabove)Christian’sheadwhichisonthebed.

219

Wearethuspositionedinaplacefromwhichitisnotpossibletolookaway.

The diegetic noise accompanying the image is a gurgling, strangled sound,

brought on by Christian’s inability to breathe properlywith blood in hismouth and

possiblyhis throat. Thecameraanglesshiftduringthisscenetoconsistentlyconvey

the intensity of the scene: first the pair are shot from against the wall and slightly

above the pair, then from behind Francois’ back, when he tries to undo Christian’s

shortsandthenagainfromahighangleabovethebed.Thehighanglepointofview

echoes theearlierorgy scene inwhichwearealso, likeChristian,held captive. The

cameraanglealsoemphasisesthecold,almostdetachedpowerseeninFrancoisasa

perpetrator. The proximity of the camera to Francois on top of Christian jars the

viewerinthewayitconstructsfearandrepulsionevokedbyandforFrancois,asdoes

theawarenessthatFrancoiscannotfollowthroughwiththerapeashekeepstryingto

penetrateChristianbutcannotand thenhas tomasturbate toarousehimselfwithin

theviolence.

The rape is not owned by Francois through a point of view shot nor is the

viewerinvitedtoexperienceitonlyfromChristian’spointofviewasthevictim. Ina

challenging and ambiguous approach, aided by the camera angles used, the scene

doesnotascribespecificinstructionsforhowtofeelforChristianorFrancois.After

Francois pins Christian down he hits him. Christian’s bloodied mouth and choking

soundscontrastwithFrancois’desire-filledheavybreathingandactionstopenetrate

theyoungerman.Francoisusesacoaxingpaternalvoiceontheoneoccasionthathe

speakswithChristianinthescenewhenherepeats,“comeon,takeoffyourpants”.In

the only dialogue from Christian, the young man begs and repeatedly screams,

220

“please”.Thelackofdialogueinthesceneisreminiscentoftheorgyscenetoo,and,

liketheculminationofthatscene,rendersFrancoisasincapableandinarticulate.Just

likeFrancois isunabletoarticulatehispositioninthenewSouthAfrica,sotoo,he is

unabletocommunicatehisdesire.AfterFrancoispullsdowntheyoungman’spants,

healsounbuttonshisown.FrancoisthenphysicallyliftsandturnsChristian’sbodyso

thathisbacksideisexposed.Intheearlierorgyscene,FrancoisalsopositionedBrianin

asimilarwayandthecameraalsoheldthatimageforamoment.Asinthatscene,the

emphasisislessonthepenetrationabouttotakeplaceandinsteadonFrancoisinthe

positionofpower for theact. This scene remindsusof thepower inscribed in the

actionofFrancoiscontrollingasituationlikethisnotonce,butontwooccasions.

Therapeisviolentandquickbutshort-livedforFrancoiswhostopsandstarts

again. It is this point that tells us that although there are similaritiesbetween this

sceneandtheorgy,there isalsoaverycleardifferencebetweenconsensualsexand

rape. Although the camera shots do not serve a specific character, the scene is

constructedinsuchawaythatitprivilegesthepowerpositioning:wewatchFrancois’

actionsandwe seeChristiandefeated. Christian continues to lie in the same foetal

positionevenafterFrancoisdismountshimtogotothebathroom.Ourfinalimageof

the young man is his destroyed facial expression compounded by his still bloodied

mouthandexposedbottom.Thecameraholdsthiswideside-angleshotforawhile,

allowingtheshockandterrorofwhathasjusthappenedtosettle.Christianstilldoes

notmoveevenwhenFrancoisreturnsandsitsontheedgeofthebed.Throughoutthe

sceneFrancois’heavybreathingandpantinghasdominated,onlyinterjectedwiththe

bloodiedgarglingsoundsearlierintherape.Now,towardstheendofthisscene,with

Francoismomentarily in the toilet and the rapedvictim lyingon thebed,Christian’s

221

sobsandgaspingbreathsbecomeaudible.

In a larger socio-cultural context, the rape is considered as a kind of raping

awayorerasureofChristian’spost-apartheid freedomsandthepotentialpromiseof

his young white identity within the ‘Rainbow Nation’. The differences between

Christian and Francois further emphasise that Francois’ homosexual urges are not

aboutphysicalpleasurebutaboutself-hate.Francois’earlierexpressiontoChristianof

thepressuresofresponsibilitieswhenhewasayoungmanalsoexposestheambiguity

hefeelsabouthisownsomewhatrebelliousandwild(butfulfilling)actions.Through

therapeFrancoisalsotriestomakeChristianpartofhisownguiltandshame. Inan

attempttobedesiredandneededbyChristian,Francoisalsowantstotainttheyoung

man with his own irrelevance and baggage. It is as though Francois thinks that

Christian’s carefree life is too easy and hewishes to somehow strip him of it. The

aftermathoftherapesceneinSkoonheidisacomplete,almostinanereturntolifejust

as it was before Francois’ trip to Cape Town. The return to the familiar image of

Francois in the confinesof amoving vehicle implies, similar to the aftermathof the

orgyscene,areturntoareticentversionofnormality. Aswiththecharacters inthe

orgyscene,Christianisalsoneverseeninthefilmagain.

The rape scene in Skoonheid is a complex construction around Francois’

desperationforpowerthatisgone.TherapescenerevealsthatFrancoishas,through

homosexualsex,foundamodeforrelease;intheorgysceneitisaconsensualchoice

andunderstanding,whereaswithChristianwerealisethefurtherproblematicdepthof

Francois’need. Francoisdealswithacompoundedlossofpowerthatwaserasedby

the celebratory rhetoric of the ‘RainbowNation’. This power is notonly ideological

222

powerintermsofapartheidandthestrippedrelevanceofmiddle-agedwhitemenin

thatera,butitisalsoalackofpowerthathas,perhapsmoredangerously,manifested

inother spheresofhis life. Francois’ identityhasbeen renderedobsoleteeven ina

place that has historically been the Afrikaner and patriarchal stronghold: The Free

Stateandhisownfamilyhome.

TheorgycommentsthatFrancoisisclearlynotaloneinthisplaceofisolation,

which raises further questions around the relatively unpopular topic of white

masculinity in post-apartheid. Skoonheid suggests that narratives about the new

SouthAfrica cannotonlybeabout theofficial,manicuredand constructed ‘Rainbow

Nation’. Narrativesabout theguiltywhitemenseen in this chapter show that films

aboutthenewSouthAfricadonotonlydealwiththepresent ‘RainbowNation’asa

construct,butthattheyalsograpplewiththecompoundedandfragmentedissuesof

loss,guilt,shameandfear.

The film sets up and explores this constant dichotomy in Francois between

familymanandclosethomosexual, conservative, racistAfrikanerandacceptingnew

SouthAfricanAfrikaner.ThepointthatSkoonheid leavesuswithisthatFrancoisand

hisproblematicsearchforanewidentity,isasmuchpartofpost-apartheidasarethe

otherstoriesofapartheid.

223

Conclusion

This chapter has explored middle-aged white protagonists David Lurie and

FrancoisvanHeerdeninDisgraceandSkoonheidthroughwhathavebeenidentifiedas

common tropesof shame, guilt and aging corporeality. This chapter concludes that

DavidandFrancoisarepost-apartheidversionsofthewhite liberalandtheAfrikaner

representativeofcharacterswhodonotreallyhavea(welcome)placeinthe‘Rainbow

Nation’. In post-apartheid South Africa, they represent those who are paid least

attention to, because, in the context of the TRC,menwho look like themwere the

perpetrators. This section has considered how the films have manifested the

unspoken about identities of post-apartheid. The films take a particularly sardonic

approach to how they construct post-apartheid reality and thus Lurie’s, and van

Heerden’s place in the country. However, there are also very clear choices made

aroundthefactthatbothcharactersremaininSouthAfricaandso,althoughthefilms

relishintheshamefulnaturesofboththeseseeminglyrepulsivewhitemen,thefilms

also, in theirownways,offer theirownversionsofhomagetotheTRCandthenew

SouthAfrica.ItisimpossiblenottothinkofLucy’srape,andhermakingsenseofit,as

heavilysteepedinmeaningwhensheverbaliseswhatDisgracecommentsonaspartof

anemergentstructureoffeeling:thatperhapswhathappenedtoLucyis“thepricefor

staying”.Or,inFrancois’case,toreadtheimmediatereturnto“normalcy”afterboth

the sex and the rape scene as suggestive of complete psychological separation and

alienationfromhimselfandothers.

To return then to the introduction, I suggest that the insights of the three

introductory quotations are evidenced acutely and latently in the films. In the first

instance, this chapter considers that the films are representative of white racial

224

melancholiaintheirambivalencetowardschangeinSouthAfrica. Aswhitemen,the

former instigators and bearers of apartheid South Africa, Francois and David are

indeliblylinkedtoperpetratorstatusandtheforgiven,yetwhenweseetheminthese

films, the characters are also so problematic that it is hard to imagine them as

permitted to be part of the post-apartheid ‘Rainbow’. The narrative of rape that

appears inbothfilms isan importantdevice fordisplayingandtakingpower. More

thananyother trope ineither film, it is through the rapes that the filmsareable to

revealthecomplexitiesofshame,guiltandalsoapology.Therefore,inthesameway

that Sila’s story of rape and miscegenation hovers in the chapter, I argue that the

broader implicationsof the filmsarenot limited topost-apartheidcinemaalonebut

havefar-reachingconsequencesforhowthecountrymakessenseofthetraumaofthe

past. Basedon thediscussions in this chapter, there is considerablymore room for

thinking about how trauma manifests in younger generations, and for the

characteristicspresentwithinapossibleemergentstructureoffeeling.

225

SECTION3

Theprecedingsectionsofthisthesishavetracedandanalysedtropesinpost-

apartheidSouthAfricancinema.Intryingtoconceptualisewhatthenewgenerationof

post-apartheid identities might represent, the chapters of this final section of the

thesis grapple with two related questions: Can an emergent structure of feeling be

identified inpost-apartheid films?What are the characteristicsof this subjectivity in

the context of post-apartheid South Africa? The matter is complex, as Raymond

Williamsexplores inMarxismandLiteraturewhenhedefinesstructuresof feelingas

“socialexperiencesinsolution”.277Amajorconceptualfootholdofthischapterliesin

whereWilliamsidentifiesthesolutionwhenhewrites:

The effective formations ofmost actual art relate to alreadymanifest socialformations, dominant or residual, and it is primarily to emergent formations(thoughoften in the formofmodificationordisturbance inolder forms) thatthestructureoffeeling,assolution,relates.278

Havingexploredpost-apartheidrepresentationsoftheapartheidpast,Ifollow

Williams to considerwhere emergent formations might be found in the context of

post-apartheid films. This section focuses on the representations of post-apartheid

youthinaselectionoffilms:HijackStories,Tsotsi,Disgrace,FanieFourie’sLobolaand

Elelwani. The films date from 2001 to 2013 and present an array of post-apartheid

youth identities, most notably differentiated through gender, race and class. The

approachofthissectionliespredominantlyinitsattempttoseekoutthepresenceofa

new structure of feeling among post-apartheid youth characters in the films and to

277Williams,MarxismandLiterature,pp.133–134.278Ibid.,p.134.

226

analysewhatcanbegleanedaboutpost-apartheidfromaperspectivewhichisnotfree

ofthepastbutindeliblylinkedinit.

For example, pressing concerns for the country’s youth at this point are at a

practicalandideologicaldisjuncture:middleclassBlackyouthsandworkingclassBlack

youthsare resistant to the ‘Rainbow’ ideologyandprojectandhavebegun to reject

and ‘act out’. That these active pursuits against residual structures of feeling have

beenparticularlypressingatinstitutionslikeuniversitiesacrossthecountryisrevealing

ofthestateofpost-apartheidSouthAfrica.Thechaptersofthissectionconsiderhow

theyoutharerepresentedinpost-apartheidfilmsinordertodrawconclusionsabout

what lies not only beneath ‘TheRainbow’ (ideological) but alsobeneath the trauma

and sadness of the past (Section Two). Also employing Williams’ analytical tools,

PremeshLaluinvitesavaluableconsiderationoftheconcept‘structuresoffeeling’ in

relationtothepost-apartheidcontextwhenhenotesthat,

…the problem, it seems, is that the end of apartheid is marked as achronologicalor juridicalevent,with ‘event’ asanoperative term. Weseemless capable of thinking about the structure of feeling we called the post-apartheid,however inarticulatelyexpressedat theveryheightof thestruggleagainstapartheid.279

This final section considers the emergent from the point of view of alliances

andunionswhichareheavilysteepedintraditionbutwhichhavetodealwithyouthful

resistance.Williams’definitionofwhatastructureoffeelingisandhowitcomestobe

truly emergent is important when he writes that it is about trying to define “a

particularqualityofsocialexperienceandrelationship,historicallydistinctfromother

279Premesh,Lalu,“ConsideringHistory,Memory,CitizenryandtheirRepresentationwithintheArts:StefenJonssonandPremeshLaluinConversation,ModeratedbyTracyMurinik”inElviraDyanganiOse(ed.),AStorywithinaStory,TheGothenburgInternationalBiennalforContemporaryArt2015(Stockholm:ArtandTheoryPublishing,2015),pp.208–209.

227

particularqualities,whichgivesthesenseofagenerationorofaperiod”.280Thisnew

structureoffeelinghastodowithintricatequestionsabouthowthenewsenserelates

to, or is historically distinct from, previous relations between and among

“…institutions, formations, and beliefs, and beyond these the changing social and

economicrelationsbetweenandwithinclasses…”.281

The youth in this section are representative of different post-apartheid

realities.AsSarahNuttallhasexplored,thisY-generationisconstitutedof“thosewho

have attended racially mixed (Model C) schools in the city as well as those who

attended exclusively black township schools”.282 These youths are the ‘born-free’

generation,whocame intobeingafterapartheid.Although in someways,asyet,an

impossible task, the chapters of this section explore how post-apartheid films use

youngcharacterstoshowpost-apartheiddevelopmentandstagnationinthenational

imaginary.WithnogroupisthismorecomplexandfracturedthanwithinBlackyouth

althoughwhiteyouthscontinue tobe represented innoteworthyways too, suchas,

forexample,ChristianinSkoonheidandLucyinDisgrace.Theideaof“having”inSouth

Africaisanissueofrace,genderandclass.

To draw on Nuttall again is useful when she describes the Y Generation as

youngpeoplewhoareableto“…remakethepastinveryspecificwaysintheservices

ofthepresentandthefutureandhowtheydevelopamodeofculturalaccessorisation

in themaking of their contemporary selfhood”.283 The section thus does not place

emphasis on direct memories of apartheid but instead, as Veena Das articulates,

exploreshowthememoriesare“foldedinto”on-goingrelationshipsandnarrativesof

280Williams,MarxismandLiterature,p.131.281Ibid.282SarahNuttall,“StylizingtheSelf:TheYGenerationinRosebank,Johannesburg”,PublicCulture,16:3(Fall2004),p.432.283Ibid.

228

nation through the quotidian, and how “…everyday life absorbs the traumatic

collectiveviolencethatcreatesboundariesbetweennationsandbetweenethnicand

religiousgroups”.284

284VeenaDas,LifeandWords:ViolenceandtheDescentintotheOrdinary,(Berkeley,LosAngeles,London:UniversityOfCaliforniaPress,2007),p.8.

229

CHAPTERFIVE

VIOLENTMASCULINITIESANDYOUNGBLACKMEN

INPOST-APARTHEIDFILMS:HIJACKSTORIES,TSOTSI,DISGRACE

Introduction

YoungBlackmenoccupyarelativelyprecariousplace inSouthAfricanculture

and society. According to a study of the 2009 crime statistics, African black and

colouredmenwere shown tobe themost involved inviolent crimesandmurder.285

These violent trends in South African society have proliferated into post-apartheid

popular culture, often a reminder of the deeply embedded racial constructions of

apartheidandcolonialism.A2007advertbyoneofthechannelsoftheSouthAfrican

Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) inverted this dominant reality by replacing whites

andBlackssothatwhitesareshownto live inthetownshipsandBlacks inthewhite

suburbs.286 The advert demands attention. In case viewers did not observe the

valuablepointof theadvert, italsoendsonan instructivenote:“Takeanother look,

Mzansi”,itencourages,beforeaflashoftheSABC1sloganatthetime,“YaMampela”

whichmeans“therealthing”.Intheperiodthatthechannelusedthe“YaMampela”

slogan,itwasoftenfollowedwithashortjingleof,“Weareone”andthenumberone

inacircleonthescreen.Althoughsuch ‘RainbowNation’sloganeering formspartof

theofficialprojectof‘post-apartheid-ness’,thisadvertdoesnot.

In abriefmoment in this advert, the youngmaleprotagonist, a youngwhite

manwholivesinSowetotownship(alsothesettingfortwoofthecasestudiesinthis

285GavinSilberandNathanGeffen,“Race,ClassandViolentCrimeinSouthAfrica:Dispellingthe‘HuntleyThesis’”,SACrimeQuarterly30(2009),pp.35–43.https://www.issafrica.org/uploads/CQ30SILBER.PDF[Accessed10November2015].286Racialperspectiveadvert:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcWsTwvtyOI.[Accessed10November2015].

230

chapter)walksdownthestreetandasheapproachesaluxurycar,thedriver,aBlack

woman, watches him closely as she locks her car door. The advert addresses how

often Black men seen at traffic lights are stereotyped as thieves or hijackers. In

everyday South African parlance the characters would be inverted; the young man

would be Black and the woman in the luxury German car would be white. The

inversion is particularly striking in SouthAfrica because it is uncommon to seepoor

whitepeopleenmasse(showninafewlargescaleshotsofthetownship)andbecause

it is uncommon to see a young white man as someone to fear. The focus of this

chapterisaroundsimilarconcernsasIconsiderthewaysinwhichyoungBlackmenare

representedinthreepost-apartheidfilms:HijackStories(OliverSchmitz,2001),Tsotsi

(GavinHood,2005)andDisgrace(SteveJacobs,2008).

The research questions of this chapter are: what is the correlation between

youngBlackmenandviolenceinthepost-apartheidfilms?Whatcanbegleanedfrom

aseeminglyimpenetrablerelationshipbetweenviolenceandyoungBlackmen?Does

this connote a shift from apartheid representations (representative of a potentially

emergent structure of feeling) or does this relationship represent problematic

stagnation? Thefilmsdiscussed inthischapterportrayyoungBlackmenindifferent

ways but there are also representational intersections. For example, Tsotsi and the

rapistsinDisgracearepresentedaspooranddangerous,howeverSoxinHijackStories

isnot.ThegangstersinHijackStoriesrefertoSoxas“MrRainbowNation”.Thefilms

of this section are reminiscent of the gangster genre also seen in films of other

countries. The relationship and influence of Hollywood (and within this, African

Americangangsterfilms)onSouthAfricancinemahasalonghistory.287Filmslikethe

287Amongothers,notablecontributionscomefrom:EdGuerrero,“TheBlackManonourScreensandtheEmptySpaceinRepresentation”Callaloo,18:20(1995),pp.395–400.,EdGuerrero,Framing

231

ones dealt with in this chapter "parallel Hollywood representations of African

American men…”, notes Adam Haupt.288 Jane Stadler’s discussion of Tsotsi, Hijack

Stories and theU.S filmShaft (John Single, 2000) exposes the intertextuality at play

regardingBlackmasculinityandrepresentationsofviolence.289 Stadlercautions that

although similar, “the relevance to African cultures, where demographics, history,

socio-political contexts and patterns of media production and consumption differ

substantially has not been ascertained”.290 In the context of this thesis, I take this

caution and while noting this scholarship, will concentrate on South African Black

masculinity.Itisalsousefultonotethatthereisanoverlapinscholarshipthatapplies

toHijackStoriesandTsotsi,asthefilmsemploysimilarrepresentations,someofwhich

arediscussedinthischapter.

Thechapterisinterestedininterrogatingwhatcanbegleanedfromtheyoung

Black men characters in the films to better examine and understand how they are

positioned within the ‘Rainbow Nation’. The character of the tsotsi or thug is

historicallycomplex.Primaryrepresentationsofsuchcharactershavemodelledthug-

likecharactersaseitherviolentanddangerousordissidentwithpoliticallysuggestive

elements.291 In the latter, the implication is that the tsotsi is politically astute and

aware of his choices to disrupt the rules and fixedness of apartheid. In the first

instance, the apolitical tsotsi operates to fulfil personal gain. These tsotsis are

dangerous and subversive. In apartheid representations it was easier to ascertain

Blackness:TheAfricanAmericanImageinFilm(Philadelphia:TempleUniversityPress,1993).,bellhooks,BlackLooks:RaceandRepresentation(Boston,Massachusetts:SouthEndPress,1992).288AdamHaupt,Static:RaceandRepresentationinPost-ApartheidMusic,MediaandFilm(CapeTown:HSRCPress,2012),p.153.289JaneStadler,“Tsotsis,CoconutsandWiggers:BlackMasculinityandContemporarySouthAfricanMedia”inAdrianHadland,EricLouw,SimphiweSesanti,HermanWasserman(eds.),Power,PoliticsandIdentityinSouthAfricanMedia(CapeTown:HSRCPress,2008),pp.343–363.290Ibid.,p.344.291RosalindC.Morris,“Style,Tsotsi-style,andTsotsitaal:TheHistories,Aesthetics,andPoliticsofaSouthAfricanFigure”,SocialText28:2(2010),pp.85–112.

232

thesecategories,however,inpost-apartheidrepresentationboththesecharactersare

presentedindifferentways.Theyoungmeninthefilmsofthischapterpresentanew

wayofthinkingaboutthetsotsiinthecontextofpost-apartheid.InTsotsiandHijack

Stories, we see the resonance of the township gangster and a two-fold argument

aroundself-assertioninthetownship,orblack-on-blackviolenceandalegitimationof

crimeandmasculinityinpoorBlackspaces.

OfconcerntoMorrisandStadler’sconceptualisationsofyoungBlacktsotsis,is

theeasydismissalofwhatcouldbestrategicandradicaldissonance,tooquicklycast

offwithoutinterrogationofthecomplexitiesthatunderliesuchcharacters.Although

itisnotalwaysrelevant,Iheedtheimpliedwarningintheanalysesofthechapter.In

relationtorepresentationsofanti-apartheidstruggle,Stadlersuggeststhatcinematic

representationsofviolenceamongBlackmen ingangs fulfilasimilar functionto the

erosion of credibility of the anti-apartheid struggle through apartheidmedia images

bothinSouthAfricaandabroad.292Inthisway,mediaandfilmconstructionsshiftthe

emphasis away from radical opposition to socio-political issues to oversimplify and

instructthegazeimposedonsuchcharactersinfilms.

Stadler further notes that such cinematic representations undermine social

criticisms expressed through related sounds, images, articulations attached to the

characterofthetsotsissuchasrapmusic,astheserepresentations“deflectattention

from the social problems that give rise to gangs and drugs”.293 Although the three

youngmen inDisgrace are not characterised or ever explicitly labelled as thugs or

292Stadler,“Tsotsis,CoconutsandWiggers”inHadland,Louw,Sesanti,Wasserman(eds.),SouthAfricanMedia,p.345293Ibid.,346.

233

tsotsis,theyareneverthelessalsorepresentativeofthesedangerousblackelementsin

society.

Dovey also explores how the tsotsi is not an apartheid creation but rather a

“…street-wise criminal” who operated in South African townships, and particularly

fromthe1930sinSophiatowninJohannesburg.294Thetsotsispresentinthefilmsof

this chapter were selected to explore a range of young Black tsotsis and the

scholarshipabovepoints to someof thehistorically inferences inadiscussionabout

dissident Blackmen. My interest in this chapter however is less inmerely showing

thatyoungBlackmenarerepresentedasdissidentpost-apartheidcharacters,asinthe

filmsJerusalema(RalphZiman,2008)orFourCorners(IanGabriel,2014)forexample,

and lies instead in analysing how the films represent post-apartheid young Black

identities.

294Dovey,AfricanFilmandLiterature,p.94.

234

HijackStories

Hijack Stories occupies a complex space in time as it was released in 2001,

hencebeforetheslewofTRCfilmsthatChapterThreedealswithandalsobeforethe

guiltandshameofthefilmsdealtwithinChapterFour.Thisfilmmightalsoappearto

bepartof theerabeforeand thus seemoutofplace in this chapter. However, the

film’sfocusonpost-apartheidBlackmasculinity,tsotsisandtownshipgangsterculture

resonatesmorewiththepersonaeofthischapter,asthemainprotagonistsSox(Tony

Kgoroge) and Bra Zama (Rapulana Seiphemo) embody ‘Rainbow Nation’ culture in

quite extremeways even though they are both young Blackmen of the same age.

Hijack Stories was co-funded by the Deutsche Bank, British Screen through the

Europeanco-productionfund,andFilmbüroNW.Thedevelopmentofthescriptwas

financially supported by the SouthAfricanDepartment of Arts, Culture, Science and

Technology.DirectedbySchmitz,whodirectedMapantsula,thisfilmhasalsoreceived

criticalattention,againbecauseofwhatweregleanedasauthenticrepresentationsof

BlackSouthAfricanexperiences. It isalsoa filmoftenplaced indialoguewithother

post-apartheid gangster genre films, such as Jerusalema and Tsotsi and there are

overlapsinthescholarshipthatdealswithpost-apartheidgangsterfilms.295

One of the main protagonists, Sox, also called variations of ‘Mr Rainbow

Nation’ throughout the film, is a model-C educated ‘born-free’ as described by the

localSowetogangwhohespendsthemajorityofthefilm‘learningfrom’.InStadler’s

295Inadditiontoearlierreferences,thesearerelevanttoHijackStoriesandTsotsi:AlbertFuandMartinJ.Murray,“CinemaandtheEdgyCity:Johannesburg,CarjackingandthePostMetropolis”,AfricanIdentities5:2(2007),pp.279–289.,LeslyMarx,“AtTheEndoftheRainbow:JerusalemaandtheSouthAfricanGangsterFilm”,Safundi:TheJournalofSouthAfricanandSouthAmericanStudies11:3(2010),pp.261–278.,DavidW.DeVilliers,“AftertheRevolution:JerusalemaandtheEntrepreneurialPresent”,SouthAfricanTheatreJournal23(2009),pp.8–22.,AdamHaupt,“BlackMasculinityandtheTyrannyofAuthenticityinSouthAfricanPopularCulture”inHadland,Louw,Sesanti,Wasserman(eds.),SouthAfricanMedia,pp.378–398.,Maingard,“Love,Loss,MemoryandTruth”inPetersonandSuleman,ZuluLoveLetter,pp.18–25.

235

discussion of the film, she uses the term ‘Coconut’ to describe Sox, based on other

supporting literaturearoundpost-apartheid ‘newSouthAfrican’ characters. Sox isa

well-off young ‘Joburger’, a continuitypresenteronSABC1, the samechannelof the

national broadcaster which aired the advert discussed in the introduction to this

chapter.SoxisalsoanactorandthenarrativecommenceswhenSoxauditionsforthe

role of a gangster, ‘Bra Biza’ in a new television series. Sox is dismissed from the

auditionasnotbeingauthenticenoughandthusnotconvincingasagangster.Sox is

characterisedastheperfect incarnationofthe‘RainbowNation’,anidentitythathas

beenfilledwiththefullspectrumofopportunitiesforyoungBlackmenlikehim. He

also lives in a nice apartment with his white British girlfriend in Rosebank, a

fashionableaspirationalarea.Sox’slifestylereflectsallthepromisesandimplications

oftheendofapartheid:prosperity,multiracialismandpromise.

However,whenSoxiscrudelydismissedasaphoney,heinternalisestherefusal

ofthepartasajudgementofhisauthenticationasaBlackman.Althoughthisisnot

something developed in the film, there is some suspicion and irony around the

legitimationofaBlackcharacterbyawhitecastingdirector. Therefusalof thepart

setsSoxonhiswaytoareturntoSoweto,wherehewishestolearnhowtobehavelike

a tsotsi. But Sox’s task, just like the official institutional aspirations of the post-

apartheidgovernment,isnotsoeasytoachieve,noristhegoalasuncomplicatedasit

appears.Sox’sgangsterfriendsareledbyBraZama,oftensimplycalledZamabythe

othertwoyoungmeninthesquad,JoeandFly.Theword‘ukuzama’isaverb,which

meanstotryinisiZuluandappearsafittingtitlefortheleaderofthecarthievingand

hijackingpack.

236

It isonlywhenSoxhaslearnedabitmoreabouttheguysinthegangthathe

reveals an overt political assumption he has had about them. The scene opens as

ZamaviolentlydragsSoxoutofacar.HoldingaguntoSox’shead,Zamadragshimto

one corner of the frame. Sox comes to a cowering position behind an old, broken

yellowcar.WhileZamapointsagunatSoxheisalsorattlingoffquestionsabouthow

oneundertakesacarhijacking.Itbecomesclearthatthisisnotanactualhijackingor

attack,but infactpartofSox’seducation inbecomingatsotsi. Zamaeventually lets

himgoandthethreetsotsisstandagainstZama’scarwatchingSox,whocontinuesto

cower in the earlier spot. Sox is impressed with Zama’s performance and a shot-

reverse-shotsequenceproceedsbetweenthesetofthree(theestablishedteam),and

Sox,whoremainsthetrainee.Thewaytheyareframedasseparateunitsshowsthat

Soxisnotoneofthem.WhenSoxpressesthemaboutwheretheylearnedtodowhat

theydo,theyhaughtilyanswer“boardingschool”,slangforjail.Mostlythough,Zama

adds, theyhave learned fromtheiractionheroes in themovies likeBruceWillisand

Sylvester Stallone. Sox is amazed because, in his words, he thought they were

“radical”,implyingthathebelievedtheywerepoliticallyinterestedandawareofBlack

politics. Now that they have identified white actors as their action idols (and

teachers),Soxfeelshecanshowthemsomethingtoo.

The cowering Sox from moments before has disappeared to reveal the

confidentyoungmanandfamiliarTVpersonality.Soxiscuriousastowhytheydonot

lookuptoBlackactorslikeWesleySnipes,forexample.ThroughoutthissceneSoxhas

felt inferior to the other guys, as he has not got a ‘boarding school’ education.

However now Sox feels empowered because he is confident in talking about the

movies and explains that they need to use “nigger psychology”, something that can

237

onlybeperformedandembodiedbyBlackcharacters.Soxinvitesthethreehijackers

tothinkaboutthisforamomentandthenhedemonstrates.

Gun in hand and shot from the point of view of the three tsotsis, Sox

transformsintoanAfricanAmericangangster,atrueincarnationofWesleySnipes.Sox

beginshischaracterisationbydoinganonchalantdancethattheotherguyslaughat.

While thecamera focusesontheirdismissivegiggling,wecanstill seesomeofSox’s

dancemovesinthereflectionofthecarbeforeheunexpectedlylaunchesintoZamaby

pointing the gun up against his face and now speaking in anAmerican accent. The

intensity of themoment is heightened by the use ofmedium close-ups shot either

fromjustbehindSoxorZama.Oftentheseshotsareabletoexposetheexpressionsof

bothcharacters, fromwhichwecan seeSox’s complete investment inhis character,

and, surprisingly, a glimmer of fear from Zama. These tight shots also impart the

feeling that theother two characters areno longer there, that Sox’sperformance is

real. In Sox’s Snipes rendition, he is able to come alive in a role that commands

respect fromtheother tsotsis. He isable touseverbalandbody language thatSox

wouldnotusebutthatthecharacterheplayswoulduse.Intheopportunitythathe

hasinasense,affordedhimselfinthisscene,Soxisabletoshowthemsomethingthat

they do not know. On completion Sox’s expression returns to one mixed with

expectationand fear, similar tobefore the shortperformance. Tohis surprise, they

arevery impressed,withZamaevenasking thatSox repeatshis rendition. Soxdoes

nothesitateandpushesupagainstZama’storsoagain,withthegunjusttouchinghis

jaw.Sox’sfacialexpressionhasalsochangedtoexhibitsomethingakintoconfidence.

InthissceneweseehowSchmitzbeginstoemploythecharactersofSoxand

Zamatoshowtwodifferentkindsofversionsof‘RainbowNation’. Althoughthishas

238

been present throughout, Sox has not really been shown to assert himself in this

unknownspace.NorhavethegangtakenSoxveryseriously.Thissceneinvitesatwist

inSox’scharacterisationas thegang,and theviewers,becomemoreawareofother

versions of Sox. Although Sox has asserted his desires to learn, he has not been

preparedforactualpractice.InStadler’sdiscussionofthisscene,shearguesthatinit

SoxandZamalearnfromeachotherandthefilmisthusabletocommenton“‘cultural

colonisation’”.296Thisisaprocessthatcontinuesandbecomesmoreambiguousasthe

filmprogressesbecausethisismorethan“culturalcolonisation”.Inhisperformanceof

anAfricanAmericangangster character, Soxalso shows that the influenceof sucha

characteronhislifeisontheonehandUSculturalcolonisation,asStadlersuggests.

Ontheotherhand,Sox’srenditionisaperformanceofself,inthatheembodies

elements of that gangster culture throughhaving learned from themovies, just like

Zamaandtheothers.Theargumentforcolonisationseemsfittingifdirectedatallof

them,not fromSoxontoZama. Thedifferencesarepolitical in their abilities to see

racialisedmasculinity in one way or another and to apply value to those racialised

representations.OnlySoxseemstonoticethesedifferencesanditisintheintricacies

ofthatmomentIwishtoemphasisethecomplexityofthelessonsforbothSoxandthe

othergangmembers.

InthebeginningofthefilmmuchattentionispaidtocharacterisingSoxasan

archetypeof ‘RainbowNation’. As the filmprogresses Sox’s identitybecomesmore

fragmented. Once the gang starts to accept him, the lessons also become more

dangerousandheisnolongerastudentbutalsobecomesaparticipant.Heisshown

tobeinaconstantlyambiguousdiscussionwithhimself,asthoughamoraldebateis

296Stadler,“Tsotsis,CoconutsandWiggers”inHadland,Louw,Sesanti,Wasserman(eds.),SouthAfricanMedia,p.350.

239

constantly taking place about the fragmentation of his own identity. Whilewe see

Sox’sambivalenceanduneasewithcriminality(evenpettyacts,suchaspickpocketing,

taught to him by Grace, a young woman he becomes romantically involved with),

otherdevicesservetoremindus,andSox,ofhisidentityandreality.Oneoftheseis

forexampletheconsistentvoiceofhiswhiteagent,Maureen,whoisneverseenbut

always phones Sox on his cell phone. Often Maureen’s calls come at the most

inopportune moments, such as during a violent escape scene. Amidst sirens and

gunshotswehearMaureen’supbeatvoiceencouragingSoxtotryforanotheraudition

eventhoughhedidnotgettheroleof‘BraBiza’.ItisthusnotSoxhimselfbutother

characters, significantly, women (Grace,Maureen, his girlfriend, Nicky) who remind

Soxthatheisnotreallyathug.

However, while the film offers these subtle reminders about Sox’s neatly

parcelled post-apartheid identity, themore compelling presence in the film is Sox’s

consciousandunconsciousstrugglewithhisownauthenticityondifferentlevelsofhim

beingayoungBlackmiddle-classmaninpost-apartheidSouthAfrica.WhenSoxcalls

Zama and the gang dangerous criminals, Zama retorts by reversing the judgement.

AccordingtoZamaitisSox’spositioninthenewSouthAfricathatiscriminal,whilehe

andisgangareordinaryguysfromSoweto.Zama’spointisthatBlackidentitylocated

inthetownshiphasamuchlongerpresencethatSox’snew‘RainbowNation’identity.

Zama legitimises township identity andmasculinitywhereas he dismisses Sox’s easy

identityasjuvenileand,likeweseeinSox,inarticulate.AlthoughZamaisconfidentin

thetownshipandinhisposition,thereisalsoanelementofjealousyinhisdemeanour

towardsSox.WhileSoxwantsthebelievablestreetcredentialsthatZamaembodies,

healsodoesnotfullywanttoletgooftheprivilegesandsafetyofhisownlife.Sox’s

240

unspokenfearsandZama’sunspokenjealousybecomemoreprominentthroughSox’s

on-goinglessonsasthefilmcontinues.

Afteranightofpartyinganddrinking,Soxfindshimselfinthebackofacarwith

his three tsotsi friends. The two less prominent gangsters sit in front and Sox and

Zamasitonthebackseat.Soxiscomfortableastheguystalkabouttheirexperiences

butwhentheydecidethattheywilldosomeworkthatnight,Sox’sattitudechanges.

Kwaito music overwhelms the soundtrack as the team of four embark on their

“shopping list”, as Joe terms it. After the swift hijacking of a four-by-four vehicle

belonging to a youngwhite couple,we see Sox lookingback at the stranded couple

and empathising with them instead of celebrating with the team who have just

acquiredanothercar.Hisface,seenthroughtherearwindow,isalsoanexpressionof

terrorandfearasthisisthefirsttimethattheyhavetakenhimalong.Astheybegin

totakestockofthenight’seventsSox,stillinthesamepositioninthebackofthecar,

begins to thank them and tries to make a quick exit. Because they are all in a

stationarycartheshotsareclose-upandintense.Sox’sfearisintenseashiseyesflit

aroundthecar.Theguyspointoutthattheyonlyhavethreecarsyettherearefourof

them. ThemomentsuggeststhatSox isnowoneofthem. Althoughthis iswhathe

saidhewanted, likethe‘RainbowNation’,thisdesiretoohascomewithunexpected

things.

Sox’sfirstcarbreak-inisabotchedattemptthatZamahastohelphimfix.The

sceneopenswithamovingpointofviewshotfromSox’sperspectiveasweseethecar

passthehighwallsoftheJohannesburgsuburbs.Aftermovingthroughthesuburbthe

cameracomestorestonanoldyellowToyotaCorollaparkedoutsideoneofthehigh

wallsandviewedfrominsidetheVWthattheyoungmenarein. Aftersomejeering

241

and teasing,Zamahandshisgun toSox. Sox’seyebrowsare furrowedandhe looks

frazzledbutalsoknowshehas little choice,particularly after Zamaadviseshim that

messing this up might mean his own death. Both he and Zama are framed in a

mediumclose-up.Itisdarkandthemusiconthesoundtrackissuggestiveoftrouble.

ThethreeguyssitinthecarandwatchSoxapproachthevehiclewithalongruler-like

objectwithwhichhemustbreakthelock.WealsowatchSoxfromtheirperspectivein

awideangleshot.Soxstruggleswiththeactionandpushesagainstthecar,whichsets

offthealarm.OnhearingthisZamacomestoassist,andatthesametimetheowner

comesoutofthehouse.Theownerisamiddle-agedwhitemanwhoapproachesthe

car. Sox and Zama have been cowering so that he will not see them but as he

approachesthecarSoxjumpsoutfromthehidingplace.

With the gun in hand Sox approaches the stunned man, who immediately

raiseshisarmsinsurrender.IronicallySoxdoesthesame.Inamediumshotwesee

SoxandtheownerwiththesamedesperatefearontheirfacesexceptthatSoxisnot

inthevictimposition.AsthoughSoxrealisesthis,helowershisarmsandbeginstoask

themanforthecarkeys. TheowneriscompletelytakenoffguardbecauseSoxasks

theownerforthekeys,usingtermslike“Sir’and“please”.Theowneriscompletely

takenoffguard,havingexpectedamoreviolentapproach.Soxrepeatshimself,again

including and emphasising his “please”. Having lost patience with Sox’s amenable

approach to theft,Zamaapproaches thesituationwith the intention to sortout this

situation.Zamaisintimidatingandpushesthegunupagainsttheowner’sface,similar

toSox’srenditionofanAfricanAmericangangstercharacter. WhileemployingSox’s

method,heangrilyshoutsatSoxthatthisisthewaytodoit.Zamainstructstheman

tolieonthegroundbeforeheturnstoSox,tellinghimthathehasnowseenhisface.

WhoisSox’sbrotherasksZama,theownerorhim.Thequestionismoreintricatethan

242

the simple choice between Zama and the whiteman because it implies a range of

things that Sox has not been able to deal with himself since he began his new

education. Inapproachingtheman inhismodelCaccentwith ‘Sir’and ‘please’and

‘thankyou’,Soxindicatesthathedoesnotknowhowtobeatsotsi.WhenZamatakes

overthesituationheinstructsthemantogivehimthekeyswhilethreateninghislife.

He also adds some tsotsi slang in his request. There are differing subjectivities

displayedbyZamaandSox,noticeablysointheirrenditionsofactiveviolence.

WhileSoxhasbeenhappytowatchandlearn,hewasnottrulyreadyorableto

actuallybeatsotsi. Soxseemstomakehisdecisionaboutwhichsidehe iswhenhe

firesa shot into theair. Framed inamediumshotweseeadifferent lookonSox’s

face,oneofdefianceandvehemence,ashepointstheguninthedirectionofwhere

themanhasescaped to and letsoff two shots. Wearenot shown theoutcomeof

thoseshots.ThesceneendsasJoegetsinthedriver’sseatoftheyellowCorolla.Itis

asthoughthefilmrevertstoputtinginpowertheoneswhoknowwhattheyaredoing.

This scene is telling inhowquickly thingsbegin tounravel forSox,aswellas

what he embodies: the ideal of the ‘Rainbow Nation’. Hijack Stories’ places its

emphasisontheinscrutableracialandclasspositionsthatSoxthinkshecanembody

butwhichhe learnshecannot. The film’suseof spaceandthe transitionsbetween

townshipandsuburbareasinstructiveasSox’slessonsaboutbecomingatsotsi.This

is a similar consideration to Mapantsula, Schmitz’s 1988 film in which Panic’s

movement achieves to bring an awareness of space, politicising it and making it

impossiblenottobeawareofit.Linkedtotheconsiderationsofspaceandplaceinthe

filmisalsothechoicesaroundmise-en-scèneandmarkersofthecontextualnational

transformations alongside Sox’s transformation. Also present in the scene analysed

243

above is something thatMapantsula isnotable toachievebecauseof theapartheid

contextofthefilm.Thisisthepresenceofthewhitecharactersinpositionsoffear.In

bothinstances,firstthehijackingofthewhitecoupleandthetheftofthecar,weare

shownwhitepeopleinaninferior(albeitviolent)positionandtheyoungBlackmenare

in a position of power. This is in direct contrast to Panic inMapantsula. The film’s

abilitytoemploytheracialreversalinthiswayisanimportantwaythroughwhichitis

able tocaptureSox’s transitionandalmostposeaquestion, justasZamadid:which

sidedoesSoxbelongto?And, isbelongingtothe‘RainbowNation’abadsidetobe

on?

Inthemidstofapolicechasethatensuesafterthenightofhijackingsandcar

thefts,weareofferedsomeanswerstotheopen-endedquestionsposedbythescene

before.Forexample,asingleword,‘Vote’,hasbeenspraypaintedontoawhitewall.

Next to it is an advert for the forthcoming showwith ‘Bra Biza’, the character Sox

wishestoplay.‘BraBiza’hasasternexpressionandstaresdirectlyatSoxandJoeas

Joe continues to brag about himself as the ‘Michael Schumacher of Soweto’. The

advertforagangster,andtheword‘Vote’,whichimpliescertainthingsaboutapost-

apartheid democracy, do not go together. As incongruous terms they reflect the

incongruent society of post-apartheid. ‘BraBiza’ represents a fictional Zamaand as

the character called ‘Rainbow Nation’ throughout, it is fitting that Sox could be

equated to the term ‘Vote’. But like the characters Zama and Sox, and the terms,

‘RainbowNation’and‘Vote’,thefilmalsoseemstohaveatongue-in-cheekapproach

inwhichitsuggestsacautionaboutthepromisesandpackagingofthe‘Rainbow’. It

suggeststhattherearenoneatcongruousendings,notanindividualnoratacollective

level.

244

HijackStories’concernswithidentityandperformanceinthenewSouthAfrica

comesfullcircleinthefilm’sending.AfterSox’sfinalandmostdangerouslesson,heis

badly injured. The injury lands him in a public hospital where he does not receive

adequate treatment. Knowing thatZamahascash,Graceaskshimtoassistand the

tworushSox toaprivatehospital,whatZamacallsa ‘white’hospital. Soxpromises

Zamaanythinginexchangeforhislife.The‘anything’isSox’sidentity,whichthefilm

gives us brief access to in the final sceneswhen Zama accesses Sox’s apartment to

retrieve his identity document. As Zama looks for the document, he also takes in

piecesofSox’slife.Visibleonthewallforexample,istheposterofWesleySnipesina

frontalmediumactionshot.BehindSnipesiswhatlookslikesunraysorlightfroman

explosionthatilluminatesandframeshiminaheroicaura.AsthoughkeepingSnipes’

heroicglowablaze,thefinalsceneshowsZamahavingsecuredtheroleof ‘BraBiza’.

This is Zama’s new beginning, his ‘RainbowNation’ coming into being. Zama has a

largehoodieoverhisheadsothatthecastingdirectordoesnotseethatheisnotthe

samepersonfrombefore.Zama’saudition,whichwehaveseenSoxfailatanumber

oftimesthroughoutthefilm, isaconvincingsuccess. Asthecameracapturesafinal

sneer from almost inside Zama’s hood as he takes in the compliments, we are

remindedoftwothings:firstly,thatZamasecuredthisroleonhisfirsttrybecausethis

is not a performance for him, hijacking is what he does. Secondly, we are also

remindedof Sox’s threeattempts at the role and thus the filmendsupquestioning

bothyoungmen’sauthenticpost-apartheididentities.

245

[Figure5.1]Zamaafterhavinglandedtheroleof‘BraBiza’

WhattheendingalsoprovesisthatwhileZamaandhisgangteasedSoxabout

being ‘Mr Rainbow Nation’, they were also envious of Sox’s life. The lessons seen

throughoutthefilmwerenotonlyforSoxbutalsoforZama.Zamahaslearnedhowto

perform the ‘Rainbow Nation’ and being awarded this role is his access to what

seemedlikeanunattainable‘Rainbow’.ZamaandSoxwerebothborninSowetobut

only one got out. Zama’s jealously easily goes unnoticed in light of Sox’s more

overwhelminganddemandingnarrativehowever, in theculminationof the film, the

finalclose-upofZama’sdevioussneerseemstosuggestthatitisreallyZama’slifethat

looksmoreappealingatthispoint.Stadlernotesthat“BothSoxandZamahave,like

allofus,beenplayingpartsthatwerescriptedforthembythecircumstancesoftheir

lives…”.297

ThechapternowturnstothecasestudyofanothertsotsiinSowetoinTsotsi.

Althoughthereareanumberofbroadoverlapsbetweenthetwofilms,HijackStories

297Stadler,“Tsotsis,CoconutsandWiggers”inHadland,Louw,Sesanti,Wasserman(eds.),SouthAfricanMedia,p.359.

246

succeedsinitsabilitytoshowanddeveloptwodifferenteconomic,andracialpositions

through itsmainprotagonistsZamaandSox. SimilarlytoTsotsi, it focalises issuesof

Black masculinity and post-apartheid identity from within and outside of spaces of

poverty(township)andaffluence(suburbs).

247

Tsotsi

Tsotsi isa2005SouthAfrica/UKproductiondirectedbyGavinHood. Itwon

the2006AcademyAwardforBestForeignLanguagefilm.BasedonthenovelbyAthol

Fugard, Hood adapts Tsotsi for a post-apartheid South African context.When Tsotsi

(PresleyChweneyagae)hijacksamiddleclassBlackwomanonlytofindoutthathealso

stoleababy,thefilm’snarrativedevelopstoshowthathumanitytrumpshistraumatic

past. Tsotsi, which, as highlighted earlier, has received significant critical attention,

waseligible foranAcademyAwardbecauseof the rangeofSouthAfrican languages

anddialectsitemployssuchasSotho,Zulu,‘tsotsi-taal’(gangslang)andEnglish.298

IntheopeningsceneofTsotsi,thediegeticsoundofmenjeeringeachotheris

audibleovertheactionthattakesplaceonaboardgame.Thecamerafocusesclosely

onhandsastheyshakeandrolldiceagainstthebackdropofthetitlesequence.The

imageisbrieflysloweddowntoshowapairofdiceastheylandonatable,astrategy

thatemphasisesthediceandthebrokentabletheylandon.Theimpactoftheclose-

upsonhandstranslates intoasenseofdangerousskittishnesswhen,moments later,

oneoftheguysatthetableslamsthetipofaknifeontotheverysame‘game’table.A

wide-angleshotrevealsthemise-en-scène:acrampedmakeshiftlivingroom,bedroom

and kitchen. One of the group members watches the sunset as he stands in the

backgroundonwhatappearstobeabalcony. He looksbackat thegroupthathave

beenplayingthegame.Inthewide-angleshotheisbehindthegroupbutinthecentre

oftheshot,halfturnedtowardsthemandhalfawayfromthem.

298Seefootnotenumber259.

248

[Figure5.2]Tsotsiandhisfriendsinopeningscene

The character, who we learn is Tsotsi, the main protagonist, is shot in a

mediumclose-upashewatcheshisfriends.Fromtheoutsettheimplicationisthathe

is in an in-between place because of his backward-facing head and forward facing

body.Hood’suseofwide-angleshotsinthisfilmhasbeennotedasenablingthefilm

tofocuson“individualcharactersandtheenvironmentinwhichtheyexist…”.299Thisis

alsotrueoftheopeningscene,inwhichTsotsiisseenagainstabackdropofanidyllic

African sunsetaswell asagainst the less than idyllic townshipwherehe lives. Such

wide-angle shots are incorporated throughout Tsotsi to continuously situate the

characterwithinahistoricalcontext.

FollowingtheopeningsceneTsotsiwalksoutofthedoorofhisshack.Booming

kwaitomusicisintroducedonthesoundtrackashisthreefellowtsotsismakewayfor

himtodescendtherampfirst,emphasisinghisroleasleader.ReneSmithwritesthat

thefilmuseskwaitomusicas,“…acelebrationofyouthculture…anincredibleassetto

blackSouthAfricanyouthculture[…]asaformofresistance,kwaitothusisanintegral

part of representation of ‘real-life’ township experience”.300 In another wide-angle

shot,Tsotsiisatthecentreofthegangastheyparadethroughthetownshipstreets.

299Dovey,AfricanFilmandLiterature,p.100.300ReneSmith,“YizoYizoandEssentialism:RepresentationsofWomenandGender-BasedViolenceinaDramaSeriesBasedonReality”inHermanWassermanandSeanJacobs(eds.),ShiftingSelves:Post-ApartheidEssaysonMedia,CultureandIdentity(CapeTown:KwelaBooks,2003),p.250.

249

The tsotsis in the film emulate a similar look via dress and other codes conveyed

throughverbalandbodylanguageandemployavernacularspecifictothetownships

of Joburg. Similar characterisation takesplacewith the characters ofHijack Stories,

madeparticularlyprominentaswewitnessSox’searlytransformation.

[Figure5.3]Tsotsilookingbackathisfriendswhilehisbodyremainsforward-facing.

It isnotonlyTsotsi’sexpressionwhichpresentshimascoldandheartlessbut

that samenight he and his gang go to the Johannesburg train station to find a few

people torob,somethingthatseemsaregularpastime. Abungledrobbery leads to

theunexpectedmurderofanelderlymanon the train. This is clearlynot theusual

modusoperandiforthegangandTsotsiisblamedforwhathappenedwhenoneofhis

friends angrily and guiltily tells him that hewent too far. Theywere all part of the

murder. Tsotsi runs away from the township after this scene. The images of him

crossingtheJohannesburgminedumpsserveasafittingbackdropfortheinclusionof

flashbackstohischildhood. Asheruns,withthenightsky litbyflashesof lightning,

250

theimagebrieflycutstoayoungerTsotsirunningalongthesamepath.Thepurpose

oftheflashbackistoshowthatthisisnotthefirsttimethatTsotsirunsawayfroman

incidentthathashurtandaffectedhim.TheyoungerTsotsirunswithtearsstreaming

downhisface.TheolderTsotsidoesnotcrybuthasthesamepainedexpressionasthe

childintheflashback.Tsotsi’srunningisemblematicofaliteralrunningawayfromhis

problemsathome,theimplicationthatTsotsi’shardexterioris,asStadlernotesinthe

caseofHijackStories,aproductofhiscircumstances.301

When he did this as a child, he ran away to life as a street child and then

graduated to the thug life. Now, he runs away and finds himself on the tree-lined

streetof aquiet Johannesburg suburb. Inboth contexts, Tsotsi’s running awaydoes

not leadtoabetter lifebuttoamorecomplicatedandproblem-riddenone. Aswas

shownbythechoicetomurdertheoldmanonthetrain,Tsotsiexhibitsanaffinityfor

similarimpulsiveactionsinthefollowingscene,asthough,thefilmimplies,heisstilla

childorthathistraumahassomehowaffectedhisabilitytogrowup.Theawareness

ofTsotsi’s traumaticpast isalsocritical in shapinghowwecome toviewTsotsi,not

only as a thug but, as the film encourages us to believe in the end, a traumatised

young Black man. The film’s post-apartheid context is explicit in how it addresses

affluence through an example of the post-apartheid Black middle-class, the Dube

couple. Tsotsi’s construction of the predominant identity of young post-apartheid

BlackmenexhibitswhatHauptdiscussesasprimarywaysofrepresentingyoungBlack

menasdangerousandviolent.302ThismodeofrepresentationisprominentinTsotsi’s

301Stadler,Tsotsis,CoconutsandWiggersinHadland,Louw,Sesanti,Wasserman(eds.),SouthAfricanMedia,p.359.302Haupt,BlackMasculinityandtheTyrannyofAuthenticityinSouthAfricanPopularCulture”inHadland,Louw,Sesanti,Wasserman(eds.),SouthAfricanMedia,pp.378–398.

251

firstencounterwiththe livesoftheDubecouplewhen,afterrunningawayfromthe

township,hefindshimselfinaleafyJoburgsuburb.

Tsotsi bewilderedly trudges through the rain along a tree-lined road

accompanied only by high walls and security gates. The camera frames his small,

darklycladbodyfrombehindandshowsTsotsi inthemiddleofthestreet inawide-

angle long shot as the Highveld storm looms around him. As he takes in his

surroundingsthecamerazoomsinonhishandsashelooksatthem,areminderthat

heranawayfromtheshebeenwherehehadjustbeatenuphisfriend.Aclose-upof

hisfaceindicatesthatheisbreathingheavilyandhecrouchesunderatreeforshelter

from the rain. This image recalls the younger Tsotsi’s tear-stained face from the

flashback. The use of close-ups of the fragile looking youngman is suggestive of a

highlyambivalentemotiverelationshipbeingsetupbetweenTsotsiandtheviewer.In

this relationship it is difficult to judge Tsotsi too harshly when his fragile and

fragmentedinteriorisexposed.Tsotsishiversunderatreeasheseestheheadlightsof

acarapproaching.

Tsotsi’s thug instincts and childlike impulsiveness spring into action when,

moments later, the seemingly vulnerable ‘boy-man’ hijacks a well-dressed woman,

PumlaDube(NambithaMpumlwana),whodrivesaBMWM5(acarwhichcommands

respectinthetownship). Pumlafreezesonseeingthegunpointedather. Although

sheexitsthecaronTsotsi’scommandshedoesnotrunawaybutinsteadstaysthere

pleadingwithTsotsi.Tsotsiisabouttodriveawaywhensheopensthepassengerdoor

andhe shootsher. The frenzy andadrenalineof thehijacking is emphasised in the

close-ups of Tsotsi’s face and of his hands as they fumble with the unfamiliar

automaticgears. Heseemsasafraidas she isbut thisdoesnot registerbecausehe

252

also holds a gun. Pumla’s pleas arewashed out by the sound of the rain and the

darknessofthenight. TsotsidoesnotunderstandthatPumladoesnotwanttofight

himforthecarbutforherbaby,whoisonthebackseat.Themisunderstandingleads

toTsotsi’simpulsiveactofshootingPumla.Hedrivesoffwiththecarandonlyrealises

thepresenceofthebabylater.Inthatshotasilhouetteofthetownshipispresentin

the background. We experience this scene from Tsotsi’s point of view and even

thoughheshootsPumla, the filmhassetuphisownsituationasquitedire. Hood’s

choice for the events to unfold as they do is suggestive of how the differentmale

charactersaresomehowboundtogether inthefilm:Tsotsitheboy,Tsotsitheyoung

man and the metaphoric implication attached to Tsotsi as the baby boy on the

backseat.

ThechildbecomesasymbolofmaterialwealthandpossibilitythatTsotsidoes

nothaveanddidnothavegrowingup.Thechildrepresentstheinnocentembodiment

oftherisingBlackmiddleclassofpost-apartheidSouthAfricaandis,atthesametime,

representativeofaproverbialblankcanvasforTsotsitoimaginethathecanhavethis

child’sfutureand/orreworkhisownchildhoodtraumathroughthelifeaheadthatthe

babyrepresents.DoveycritiquesHood’sTsotsiasa“neoliberalgesture”towardsthe

violenceof contemporary SouthAfrica,becauseofhow the film is able to show the

vulnerabilityofacharacterlikeTsotsiinrelationtothewealthycouplewhosebabyis

stolen.303However,“neo-liberalgesture”seemstoosimplisticareadingtoattributeto

Tsotsibecauseoftheunspokenracialassociationbetweenthemiddle-classDubesand

whites.Thisanalysisalsoconsidershowthefilminvitesareadingthatisnotonlyabout

the “neoliberal gesture” thatendedapartheidbut alsoaboutTsotsi’s imaginationof

beingapartof‘TheRainbow’throughthemetaphorpresentedbythebaby.

303Dovey,AfricanFilmandLiterature,p.108.

253

Thefilmisthusalsoaboutthedeeppsychologicalfissures inTsotsithatallow

himtoimagineadifferentlifeandfutureifhecould,likeababy,haveafreshstart.In

such a consideration, I suggest that through its representation of young Black post-

apartheidmasculinity,thefilmisnotentirelyclear:ontheonehanditsuggestspost-

apartheidmiddle-classBlacknessasprecariously,but‘happily’embodiedintheDubes.

Ontheother, the filmsuggests thatyoungBlackmenarenot reallypartofa

newpost-apartheidsensibilityatallastheiractionsremainreflectionsoftraumatised

violence,confusionandchildlikeactions. Whenthe filmdoesseemto inviteanew

sensibilityisinrelationtothebaby.TolimitTsotsitotheclassbinaryshowninthefilm

meanstomissoutonwhatitmight implythroughthecharacterofthebaby. This is

particularlyevidentwhenMiriam(TerryPheto),thewomanwhoheaskstomindthe

baby, asks himwhat the child’s name is.Without her knowing, he names the child

David after himself. The name David is not a name that anyone uses for him and

connotesatimewhenTsotsi’sownmotherwasstillalive.TonamethechildDavidre-

invokesTsotsi’spastwhenitwasstilloneinwhichhewasachildthatwasnotscarred

bytraumaanditisthisfeelingofpossibilityforbabyDavidthatcompelshimtoreturn

totheDubehometocollectsomeofthechild’scomforts. WhatTsotsifindsthereis

beyondwhathecouldhaveimagined.

When Tsotsi enters the child’s room the camera focuses on him as he very

slowlysurveysthespaceintheroom,thecolourofthewalls,thetexturesofthewall

paintings,thecotthatbelongsonlytothechild.Oneofthewallsintheroomispainted

withanAfricansunset.ThisisachildwhohasmorethanTsotsihasasayoungman.

TheopeningsceneisechoedinthissceneasTsotsitakesinthehorizonofthesetting

sun,exceptthistime,itisapaintedsunthatthelittleboy’sparentsimagineandwork

254

towards,forhisbrighterfuture,andnot,asinTsotsi’slife,oneinwhichthesunrises

andsetsofitsownaccord.Theimageofthesunset(orsunrise)isthusconsideredasa

recurring image of promise and hope seen throughout the film. This scene shows

Tsotsitobeinanalmosttrance-likestateinwhichhewantstobelievetwoconflicting

things,thefirstbeingthatifhecanbringsomeofthechild’smaterialcomfortstohis

ownhome,thenhetoocandowhattheseparentsdofortheirchild.Ifonlyhecould

givetheboythethingsofthishouse,thenDavidcanalsobehischanceatdoingbetter,

in otherwords, Tsotsi’s own do-over. This scene is also suggestive of the fact that

Tsotsihimselfmaybeabletoabandonhiscurrentpsychologicalandphysicalsqualor

to return tohisownchildhood soas to re-experience life in theway thatDavid the

babyalreadylives,withcomfortandmoreimportantly,theopportunitiesofthenew

SouthAfrica.

Because of the dichotomy that is presented between two different kinds of

Black realities, the film is able to comment on the differences and the lived

experiences of both realities. On the one hand, the film is able to position itself

squarely in the new South African through commenting on specifically ‘Rainbow

Nation’issues.OntheotherhandhoweverTsotsi’sredemptiveconclusioncouldalso

beviewedasanaggravationonBlack-on-Blackviolenceandthusstillacompensatory

redemption that speaks to whites, not Blacks. For Tsotsi, this complexity would

perhapsnothaveariseninthesamewayifthecoupleandthechildwerenotblacklike

him.

TheDube’saffluenceistheobjectofparticularspectacleinthesceneinwhich

TsotsiandhisgangbreakintotheDubehome. This isalsoasceneinwhichthefilm

impliescomparisonstowhiteness.AlthoughTsotsitargetsthathouseforthesakeof

255

gettingsomeofthebaby’sthings,hisfriendsthinkitisjustanotherwealthysuburban

home.Thesceneactsasthefirstandonlyopportunityinwhichthewealthyandthe

poor come into contactbeyondTsotsi and thehelplessbaby. Themise-en-scèneof

thelargeexpensivelydecoratedhomeisacontrasttothevastterrainofthetownship

and the small houses in it. Oneof the gangmembers is taskedwithwatchingover

John,whohasbeen restrained. He is interested inwhy John likeswine,notbeer,a

commentonJohn’s ‘white’tastesasaBlackman.Thedistasteshownforthewineis

further emphasised by themany open but not consumed bottles on the table that

surroundhim.

FramedinahighangleshotfromJohn’spointofview,Aap(monkey)peruses

thecontentsofthefridge,callingout“…cheese,coldmeats,sausages,chickenlivers”.

Thefocusonthis lackof interest instealing,andthescene’s focus insteadoneating

and John’s drinking tastes, further serves to emphasise the class gap between the

characters.ItisalsoreminiscentoftherelationshipbetweenSoxandZamawhenthe

latterasksSox tochooseaside. In that sceneZamarefers toawhiteorBlackside,

fromwhichwe aremeant to infer that Zama could fit in with either. The same is

impliedtowardsJohnwithregardstothefoodanddrinkinhishouse.Itdistinguishes

himfromotherBlacksthroughasuggestionthatbecauseheismiddle-classheislikea

whiteperson.

Toelaborateonhowtheaspectof redemption functions topull together the

different concerns of Tsotsi I consider Tsotsi’s final ‘visit’ to the Dube residence in

whichhe returns thebaby. Thepolicearealready looking forTsotsiby the timehe

decidestoreturnthechildwho,istransportedinoneofthebagsfromtheDube’scar.

AsTsotsimakeshiswaytotheDuberesidence,thecameracaptureshiminanout-of-

256

focuswide-angleapproachingshot.Tsotsionlycomesintofocuswhenhegetscloser

tothecameraandthedestinationoftheDuberesidence.Thesametreeslinethedark

streetandshowhisapproach.ItstormedthefirsttimeTsotsiwasthereandhisdark

clothingandblackleatherjacketpresentedhimasstealthyinthedarkofthenightand

invitedasinistermood.Thistimehowever,Tsotsiisdressedinawhiteshirtandblack

pantsandcarriestwobags,oneoneithersideofhisbody:apaperbagthatholdsthe

babyandalargeleatherdufflebagthatcontainstheitemshestoleforthechildwhen

hereturnedtotheDuberesidencethesecondtime.Bothbagsandthelightcoloured

clothing indicate a literal and metaphoric change in the main protagonist. The off-

whiteshirtthatheisdressedinconveysasenseofTsotsiinthelightandweassociate

himwithgood.

Tsotsi leaves both items in the driveway of the residence and presses the

buzzertoalertthecoupletothechildoutside.Tsotsistartstoleavebutunexpectedly

turnsbackandhurriedlyleansdownintothebrownpaperbagtotakeonelastlookat

the child. A short shot-reverse-shot sequenceensuesbetween the two to conveya

bond they have formed. This short sequence reveres a private moment between

Tsotsiand thechildasTsotsi is viewed froma lowangle,as though fromthechild’s

pointofview.ThelightsandsirensofthepoliceandthespotlightonTsotsiknockthe

viewer out of the reverie. Tsotsimight be doing a good thing now but he has also

committedmanybadacts.TsotsiliftsDavidoutofthebagwhenhebeginstocryand

asthepolicesurroundTsotsi it looksasthoughhemaycrytoo. Thepolicesurround

Tsotsi and hold his frightened gaze with their drawn guns. John Dube, the child’s

father,approachesastunnedandnervousTsotsi.ThecamerafocusesonTsotsi’sface

as tears streamdownboth cheeks. The tears are a reminderof the youngboywho

runs away from home,whichwas shown in a flashback just before Tsotsi stole the

257

childatthebeginningofthefilm.Tsotsihugsthenowsleepingchildtightertohischest

asJohnapproacheshim,almostasthoughthechildcomfortshim,nottheotherway

round.

Even though this encounter between John and Tsotsi is constructed aswhat

couldbeaprivateencounter,thebluepolicelightsremainintheframeandserveasa

reminderofvariousonlookers:thepolice,thechild’smotherandus,theviewers.The

silentcommunicationbetweenJohnandTsotsiconveysanumberofthings:amutual

loveforthebabythatTsotsimusthandover,andasenseofrecognitionineachother’s

eyesthateitherofthemcouldhavebeentheother.JohnDubeisawareofthereality

of the majority of Blacks in South Africa and has himself been affected by violent

crime.Tsotsiisawarethatunderdifferentcircumstanceshisownlifecouldhavebeen

moreofareflectionofthe‘RainbowNation’thatJohnandhisfamilyarepartof.The

major connection between the twomen is quite simple and visceral: they are both

young, Blackmen in SouthAfrica. Despite class,which the filmuses to construct a

post-apartheidbinarybetweenthesetwocharacters,theracialhistoryofapartheidis

alsowrittenintomuchofthefilmeventhoughtheDubesarenotwhite.Tsotsilooksat

John above the baby’s head and John stares back at him, acknowledging their

commonalities. Thecamera frames the twomen inamediumshotand for the first

time,Hooddoesnotemploythewide-angleshottoincludethesurroundingarea.The

eye-lineshotconveysasensethattheyalonesharethatmoment.

WhenTsotsi returns the child to John, his arms remainoutstretched as John

backsawayfromhim,notbyturninghisbackandwalkingoffbutbytakingslowsteps

backwards.Thetwomencontinuetoholdeachother’sgazeevenafterthebabyhas

beenhandedovertohismother.Pumlaisnowinawheelchair,aphysicalreminderof

258

theviolencethatTsotsiiscapableof.ThepolicequicklysurroundTsotsiafterthebaby

is returned. The only white character in the film is a Zulu-speaking police officer

whoseinstructiontocuffTsotsibreaksthereverieofthemoment.ItisTsotsi’sbody

languagethatconveysTsotsi’semotionsinthescene.Forexample,Tsotsidisplayshis

ownprotective feelings towards thebabywhenhehugs the child close tohis chest

beforehehandshimovertoJohn.Inthismomenthereleasesthechildfrombeinghis

captive but he also releases his own traumatised childhood. John also comes to

representsomethingmoretoTsotsi;heisthebaby’sfatherbutthekindnessheshares

with Tsotsi is suggestive of a father figure that the youngman never had. Tsotsi’s

outstretchedarmsalsoconveythelongingforwhatheneverhad.

InfurtherconsiderationoftheDubes:thefilmutilisesthemprimarilytoshow

theiraffluenceandnot,asinthecaseofSoxinHijackStories,toshowwhattheirown

complex struggles with post-apartheid identitymight be. The couple thus serve as

‘replacement whites’ in a way, because, as is shown in Hijack Stories, whites still

largelypopulatethesuburbs.And,althoughgrowing,thepost-apartheidBlackmiddle-

classremainssmallerthanthewhiteone.BecausetheDubesareBlack,thefilmresists

any further critique or characterisation of them beyond their economic status. In a

way,itcommentsthatalifeliketheirsistheaspirationalaimofthe‘RainbowNation’.

The redemption of the film thus restswith theDubes’ (Black) ability to forgive, not

really in Tsotsi’s agency or change. This is different to Hijack Stories, which

consistentlydisrupts,problematisesandhyperbolisestheclassboundarybetweenSox

andZama,andthedifferentexperiencesofbeingBlackthattheyhave.HijackStories

also questions the middle-class ‘Rainbow Nation’ identity through the overt

articulation of the post-apartheid relation between middle-class Blacks, like Sox

259

(coconuts)andwhites.InTsotsiwearemeanttodeduceasimilarconclusionfromthe

robberyscene.

While the filmdoes,asDoveyargues, relyheavilyon the ideaof “neo-liberal

gesture”,thisanalysisofTsotsihasshownhowitincludesnotonebutlayeredgestures

setwithinacontextofchange (post-apartheid). Tsotsiproblematisespost-apartheid

Blackclassconcernsbutdoesnotshowhowthosesameclassconcernsarethemselves

entangled in apartheid and post-apartheid racial matters. The context of change

implied through the ‘Rainbow Nation’ rhetoric is not however congruous with

characters likeTsotsiorhisfellowthugsandIthusconsiderthatsuchpost-apartheid

masculinitiesare representedas inarticulateand,not truly reflectiveofanemergent

sensibilitybutratherofsomethingmoreakintoapre-emergentsensibility.

260

Disgrace

The final section of this chapter turns its attention to the three youngmen

rapistsinDisgrace.ThepreviouschapterconsideredtheissueoftherapeinDisgrace

assomethingthatwasconstructedmainly fromDavidLurie’semotionalandphysical

pointofviewaswell.Thissectionbrieflyconsiderstheconstructionandimplications

forthethreeyoungBlackmenwhorapeLucyandwhoareneverheldaccountablefor

their actions. The film constructs these characters as simple and boy-like, mainly

throughthelackofcharacterisationofallthreeandthenlaterinthefilm,theemphasis

ononeofthem,Pollux,whoisassumedtobementallyunstable. Becausetheother

twoyoungmenonlyappearintherapescene,thebehaviourseeninPollux(notonlya

lackofremorsebutaninabilitytoregisterwhathehasdoneaswrong)isonewayin

which the film comments on young Blackmen in general. Aswith the low-income

protagonistsofthetwootherfilmsdiscussedinthischapter,thesethreeyoungmen

alsorepresenttheyoungBlackmenofthenewSouthAfrica.

InthepreludetotherapesceneDavidandLucyapproachthehouseafterthe

walkwith thedogs (discussed indetail inChapter Four). The filmdesignates Lucy’s

body as the primary site of contestation and pain after the rape scene inDisgrace.

However, this section analyses how the young men are also representative of

contestedbodies.Theirunkemptappearancesandbadbehaviouralreadysetthemup

asunreliableandpotentiallydangerous. Forexample,theyareshowntohissatthe

dogs and shout and bang on the cages as though they themselves are animals, not

outsideofthecagesbut, likethedogs,also incarcerated. Inaddition,theyareBlack

and on a farm, a reference to the historical conditions of apartheid in which they

261

wouldhavebeentreatedas,andcalled, ‘boys’. Thesearethe indicatorsabouttheir

charactersbefore LucyandDavidget closeenough to talk to themand theyconvey

certain ideasabout theyoungmen,particularly that theyarenotwell-off. The look

anddemeanouroftheboysgoeshandinhandwithDavid’squestiontoLucyasthey

approachthehouseafterthewalk:“Shouldwebenervous”?

Differently to some of the other young Black characters discussed in this

chapter,theyoungmeninDisgracearenotcharacterswithdepthorinteriority.They

appearonlyassavagepropsofsortsandinthisway,theyarereducedtothekindof

representation that limits them from truly participating in the possibilities of the

‘Rainbow’. Against the film’s presentation of a somewhat sadistic (but hopeful)

continuancearoundtheoutcomeoftherapeembodiedthroughLucy,oneofthegang

rapists returns to the farm in the secondhalfof the film. Lucy identifieshimat the

Petrus’party. David confrontsPetrusabout theboy,demanding toknowhisname.

Petrus, who never mentions the word rape, explains that Pollux is “too young” to

understand what happened and to take responsibility for the consequence, the

pregnancy and a baby. Lucy too makes excuses for Pollux who she describes as

mentallyunwell. OnthedayafterLucyhastoldDavidaboutthepregnancyhetakes

theonlyremainingdogforawalk,thesamegoldenretrieverhewalkedonthedayof

the rape. The sceneopenswith thearrivalofDavidand thedogat the farmhouse.

Theyare framedsimilarly tohowtheywere in therapescene,exceptthis timeLucy

andtheotherdogsarenotthere. This isausefulre-enactmentthatrecallsthatday

fromthemomentLucyandDavidarrivebackat the farm. It isalsouseful in that it

confirms the importance in the details of them watching the boys at the kennels.

Davidtakesinthesurroundingsandnoticessomethingunusual,Pollux,holdingontoa

windowpane as he peers through the window. It becomes apparent that he is

262

watching Lucy take a shower, hinting at some potential truth to Lucy’s comments

aboutPollux, thathe isnot ‘right in thehead’. This imageof theboy suggests that

whilePolluxmightbea‘PeepingTom’andapervert,hemightnotbecunningorclever

enoughtohatchaplantorape.

Thedoggrowls and the same fastpaceddrummusic thatprecedes the rape

scenesetsinonthesoundtrack.Thistimehowever,itisDavidrunningandkickingup

dusttogettothetarget.Davidgrabstheboy,throwshimonthefloorandrepeatedly

kickshim.ThedogthatattackedPolluxonthedayoftherapealsoattackshimagain

on this occasion. The boy screams and crieswhile David shouts profanities at him.

Thecameracapturesthisindifferentshotsthatrangebetweenmediumshotstoshow

theimpactofDavidkickingtheboy,andvariationsofmediumclose-upsandclose-ups

toemphasiseDavid’sangerandPollux’sshockandfear.Whenviewedfromabove,we

witnesstheassaultfromDavid’spointofview,whichaddstotheintensityasDavidis

notonlyangrythatLucygotrapedbutheisangrybecauseoftheshamethathecould

notprotecther. TheassaultonlyendswhenLucyrunsoutofthehouseinthesame

white robe sheworeafter the rape. She speaks toPollux ina voice reserved fora

child who has been hurt, telling him that they can go wash the wounds. As she

straightensuptolookdownatPolluxherrobeopensandexceptforherpanties,sheis

naked.ThecameracapturesPollux’sfaceinamediumclose-upashetakesinLucy’s

nakedbreasts.ThenitmovestoDavid,whostandshelplesslybehindLucy.

TheboytakesthemomentLucyturnsawayfromhimtocloseherrobe,torun

off into a nearby patch of cauliflowers. As he kicks the heads of cauliflower, he

repeatedlyshoutsand laughs,“Wewillkillyou!”beforerunningoff. LucyandDavid

standnexttoeachotherandinalongwide-angleshottheytakeinthesituation.They

263

both lookstraightaheadof themandnotateachother. Lucybreaks thesilenceby

tellingDavidthatitcannotgoonlikethisbecauseitwasfinebeforehereturnedtothe

farm. This sceneconfirmsmuchofwhat is fleetingly setup in theaftermathof the

rapescene: thatLucy is thevictim,Davidstruggleswithhisownguiltandtheyoung

men are savage rapists. The scene also insinuates that Lucy, not David, has made

peacewithherplaceinpost-apartheidSouthAfricaasawhiteperson,asthoughthe

ordealisakindofpenancethatshemustpayforbeingthere.

ThedisturbingimplicationoftheinsistencethatPolluxismentallyunstableand

tooyoung(bothemphasisinganincapacity),isthat,becauseheistheonlyoneofthe

three rapists to return to the narrative, all three young men are necessarily

apportionedthesameconstruction.ItisalsoproblematicbecausePolluxisevidently

the least sly and wasmost likely not themastermind behind the constructed plan,

mostnotablyevidencedbythefactthatPolluxwasthelastonetoenterthehousein

the rape scene. With these traits and assumptions applied to all three boys, they

collectively represent young Black men as without depth and conscience and as

characterswhocannotbetrusted.PreviouslydiscussedcharactertraitsseeninTsotsi

arealsopresentinPollux:untrustworthiness,youngimpulsiveness,damage.Disgrace

suggeststhatadistincttraitoftheyoungBlackmenistheirdistinct inabilitytoshow

understanding,remorseandtoknowthesimpledifferencesbetweenrightandwrong.

ButDisgrace also comments on these concerns as something related to Blackmen

specifically,showntousbecauseofPetrus’reactionandapproachtotherapeandits

aftermathdiscussedinChapterSix.

Disgrace offers no interiority to the boys beyond the rape inflicted on Lucy.

Nor is Lucy’s horrific experience or her feelings about it grantedmuch roomeither.

264

Thefactthatsheisalesbianwomanalsoappearstobedismissedtoaccommodatethe

more pressing racial and class matters that take place through a specific kind of

masculinity inDisgrace. AlthoughwefeelshameforLucy,andalsosorrythatsucha

horrificact tookplace, the filmalsoevokesa senseofangeraboutwhyshewillnot

reportwhathappened toher. Even in suchanofficial pursuit of the youngmenas

perpetrators,theywouldstillhaveidentitiesandcharacteristicsbeyondthissingleact.

Lucy’sownfeelingsabouttherapecometolightinherfeelingstowardDavid,partlyas

her father and partly, as she points out, as a man. In this latter insinuation, Lucy

makesajudgementaboutmen,notrace,andthispoint isnevertakenupinthefilm

beyondherone-offemotivecommentona ‘dangerousstretchof road’betweenthe

farmandthepolicestation.

Rather, we see Lucy as amindlessmartyr pitted against the savage natives.

The rape scene and the consequences of it – Lucy’s pregnancy- raise complex

questions about whether Lucy does the right thing when she chooses silence over

reporting the rape, prompting the question about powerful silence that Baderoon

invites with regard to Sila in the previous chapter: is Lucy’s silence complicit or

powerful? Disgrace’s unfaltering comment about Black men is that they are

dangerous,thattheytakewhattheywantandthatevenincausinghavoctheydonot

knowwhattheydo.Jacobs’Disgracereemphasisestheoldandproblematictropesof

pittingBlackagainstwhiteandshowingthecomplexitiesbutnotengagingthem.

265

Conclusion

In theirbrief linguisticstudyoncommontermsused inSouthAfricanEnglish,

Kate Huddlestone and Melanie Fairhurst analyse the meanings and implications of

common “pragmatic markers” such as ‘anyway’, ‘okay’ and ‘shame’.304 One of the

ways inwhich termsbecome “pragmaticmarkers” is that they changemeaning and

implication within a given social context. In South Africa for example, the term

‘shame’ is employed in a relatively unique everyday way, often but not always,

precededbytheword‘ag’(‘oh’),andapplicabletoarangeofsituationstoreference

sympathy, surprise, resignation and other expressions thatmight not be considered

appropriate in another context. My intention is not to employ a divergent

methodologicalapproachatthisstagebuttocontextualiseatermintheSouthAfrican

lexicon,‘agshame’,asanaptnoteonwhichtoconcludethischapter.

TheyoungBlackmencharacterspresentan importantsectorofthe‘Rainbow

Nation’:thepost-apartheidyouthwhoshouldbepartof,andactiveparticipantsinthe

newcontext,whichencompassespromiseandhope. However,what isevidenced in

thefilmsprovessomethingslightlydifferent:thatwhiletheseyoungBlackmenlivein

post-apartheid SouthAfrica andoccupy theplace that is the ‘RainbowNation’, they

themselves do not really embody an emergent structure of feeling. If, asWilliams

defines, a new structure of feeling exhibits “a particular quality of social experience

andrelationship,historicallydistinctfromotherparticularqualities…”,thentheyoung

mendiscussed inthischapterarenotareflectionofsuchdistinctive ‘newness’. The

films point to the fact that the new South Africa is a place comprised of various

incarnations of an emergent disposition. Most notably, these are characterised304KateHuddlestoneandMelanieFairhurst,“ThePragmaticMarkersAnyway,Okay,andShame:ASouthAfricanEnglishCorpusStudy”,StellenboschPapersInLinguisticsPlus42(2013),pp.93–110.

266

through a complex new identity that is able to reflect the intricacies of the South

Africanracialpastandatthesametime,anidentitywhichisabletothriveanddevelop

inthepresent,andwhichtakesintoaccountvariousinstancesof‘newness’inrelation

torace.Anexampleofthis‘newness’ispointedtobythefilmsinthischapterandhas

beenanalysedthroughpost-apartheiddistinctionsofraceandclassandtheemergent

‘Black diamonds’ and the growing Black middle class. This emergent structure of

feeling is distinct from a residual structure of feeling because it is articulate in its

complexity and process. The young men of this chapter are however caught

somewhere between the past and the present, and thus somewhat reflective of a

residual structure of feelingwhile still being present in the context of an emergent

sensibility. Forexample,eventhoughtheircontextisnew,thecharacterslikeTsotsi,

Zama,therapistsandevenSox,seemtrappedandincapacitatedbytheirpasts.Their

violent(andoftentraumatised)choicesjustifytheirmasculinitiesinthecontextofthe

townshiporpoverty.Insuchsettings,aseachofthesefilmsrelyon,eventhoughwe

areaware that theyoungmen live in thenewSouthAfrica, theyseemburdenedby

theirinescapablepasts.

WhilethecharactersofDisgraceandTsotsiarenotaffordedtheopportunityat

livingthe‘Rainbow’dreamsofbettereducationandopportunity,SoxinHijackStories

is. Yetmuchofthefilmreliesonthemachoemotionalandpsychologicaltugofwar

betweenSoxandZama,withSox’sdesirestill firmlyarticulatedasawillto legitimise

hismasculinitythroughprovinghecanbeatownshiptsotsi.EventhoughZamatakes

Sox’s identity, the film still shows that the pull of the township and the respect for

masculinitythatcanbeachievedthere,farsurpassesthepromises,andinSox’scase,

therealitiesof‘TheRainbow’.InthecontextofTsotsi(Tsotsi)andPollux(Disgrace),I

conclude thatboth filmsend slightlypitifully. InTsotsi’s caseweare invited to feel

267

thatthecharacterhasredeemedhimselfandeventhoughhedidwrong,herealised

hismistake.ForPollux,andwhatisthroughhischaracterisationimpliedoftheother

rapists,wealsofeelpitybecausethecharacter’sbeingunwellisnotofhisownaccord.

Hetoo,isavictimofcircumstance.

There isanoverallsensethatthecumulativefeeling(andarticulation)forthe

youngmenpresentedinthischapterisdescribablethroughastandardSouthAfrican

‘ag shame’, which, while watching and waiting for the process to develop into

somethingmore,mightbeappliedtosomethingthatisnotfullydiscernibleorreadily

articulate. Williams explains that understanding emergent culture as different from

thedominantandtheresidualdepends“cruciallyonfindingnewformsofadaptations

of form”.305 Williams argues that, “Again and againwhatwe have to observe is in

effectapre-emergence,activeandpressingbutnotyet fullyarticulated, rather than

theevidentemergencewhichcouldbemoreconfidentlynamed”.306

Althoughthechapterhasnotpaidattentiontotheyoungwhitemenpresented

infilmsdiscussedinthethesis, it isnotablethatthesecharactersarenotlockedinto

residual rhetoric or representation. Alongside the analyses of this chapter, I thus

conclude that an ‘ag shame’ application for the young Black men is not only a

historically problematic construction but is also one that suggests that Black

masculinity, for reasons beyond the scope of this chapter, is somehow unable to

recalibratetoparticipateinthenewSouthAfricabeyondthewaysinwhichhavebeen

discussedinthischapter.

305Williams,MarxismandLiterature,p.126.306Ibid.

268

CHAPTER6

RITUALS,TRADITIONANDSTEPSFORWARDTHE

THENEWSOUTHAFRICA:FANIEFOURIE’SLOBOLA,ELEWANIANDDISGRACE

Introduction

Assetout in the introductiontoSectionThree,ChaptersFiveandSixexplore

whetheritispossibletoidentifyanewstructureoffeelinginrepresentationsofyouth

in post-apartheid films. The previous chapter’s analysis of youngmen proved that

although a context representative of an emergent sensibility is present, the young

Blackmendiscussedwerenotrepresentativeofsuchasensibilityinafullydiscernible

fashion. The chapter thus concludes that the young men are in fact more

representativeofapre-emergentsensibilitywithinanemergentcontext. Inorderto

drawsuchaconclusionitwasnecessarytoidentifywhatcharacteristicsareimpliedby

an emergent sensibility in the post-apartheid context. To this end, the films have

shown that post-apartheid South African is a place that, through the transition,

necessarily employed the rhetoric of something ‘new’, even before it was truly

possibletoarticulateorunderstandthatplace.

The films of Chapter Five also pointed to distinct racial and class differences

thathavebecomepressingforyoungergenerationsandwhichareintricateelements

of what is considered emergent. Lalu’s point noted earlier in the thesis is worth

reiteratingwhenhereferencesamajorchallengeofthepost-apartheidcontextasan

inabilitytoexpressthestructureoffeelingofpost-apartheidversuswhatwasimagined

duringanti-apartheidthroughtheimplementationandstructureofthesystemofpost-

269

apartheid, what has been discussed in the thesis as the ideology (and rhetoric) of

‘RainbowNation’.307

Thisfinalchapterofthethesisaddressesthequestionofhow,ifitispresent,is

anewsensibilityarticulatedthroughyoungwomencharactersinthreepost-apartheid

films:Disgrace (SteveJacobs,2008),Elelwani (NtshavheniwaLuruli,2012)andFanie

Fourie’s Lobola (Henk Pretorius, 2013). This chapter differs from previous chapters

because it considers representationsofunionsand local traditions thathavenotyet

been considered in scholarship about post-apartheid films. This chapter considers

negotiationswith traditional ‘love’unionsasproductiveoutcomesofpost-apartheid,

showinghowthenewgenerationnavigatessomeofthelegaciesofthepast.Ifpost-

apartheid itself isconsidereda ‘newunion’, thenthischapteraskshowthetermsof

the new union are expressed in other forms when they are not overtly about the

politicsofnation,butaboutotherkindsofrepresentations,suchasheterosexuallove.

Idiscussthreefilms,oneofwhich,Disgrace (SteveJacobs,2008),hasalready

beendiscussedearlierinthethesis,andallofwhichengagewiththepastindifferent

ways.FanieFourie’sLobola(HenkPretorius,2013)isaromanticcomedythatfollows

thestandardconventionsofthisgenrebutwhichismadelocalbyitsmixedlanguage

dialogueofEnglish,AfrikaansandisiZulu.Elelwani(NtshavheniwaLuruli,2012)isthe

first full length Tshivenda language film. It starts out as a drama but develops to

incorporate elements of magical realism in line with Tshivenda culture, which the

analysis does not incorporate. Both these locally produced films have not received

significantattentioninscholarshipaboutpost-apartheidcinemaandthusthischapter

attemptstoincorporatethemintothediscussionaboutthenewSouthAfricaonfilm.

307Lalu,“ConsideringHistory”inDyanganiOse,StoryWithin,p.207.

270

WithregardstoDisgraceinthischapter,IanalysetheunlikelyunionbetweenLucyand

Petrus.Althoughthereisnomentionofthetermlobola(brideprice),norareLucyand

Petrus in a heterosexual relationship, the analysis of this chapter identifies a

negotiateduniononthebasisofinclusionandthetermsofLucy’swhitefuture.This

chapter’s interest is in a consideration of a new structure of feeling and the

possibilitiesthatoccurafter‘actingout’and‘workingthrough’thetraumaasidentified

inSectionTwo.Itasksinstead,whatdoes‘workingbeyond’thetraumaofapartheid

films look like in post-apartheid films? Hence, the second aim of the chapter is to

consider whether a new structure of feeling, if present, could be considered as a

productiveoutcomeoftheTRC.

InElelwani Iconsider theritualof fetchingthebride-to-be,Elelwani,anadult

womanfromherruralfamilyhomeinLimpopo,throughanexplorationofthetenuous

relationship between rural life in Limpopo and Elelwani’s urban modern life (and

agency).InFanieFourie’sLobolaIshowhowFanieandDinky’sinterraciallovesitsso

uncomfortably with their families that the film is as much about the couple as a

successful part of the ‘Rainbow Nation’, as it is about the failures of the ‘Rainbow

Nation’.Thefilmreliesonstereotypestoshowtheawkwardrealitiesofthelegaciesof

apartheid.Ifocusspecificallyontherepresentationoftheritualoflobolainthisfilm

anditsalteredmeaninginthisre-racialisedframework.

This chapter, as with the previous one, considers the possibility of a new

structure of feeling of post-apartheid South Africa in two ways; firstly through a

considerationofwhotheemergentgenerationiscomprisedofandsecondly,through

addressing emerging class distinctions represented in the films. These class

distinctions, as discussed in the analysis of Tsotsi, highlight a growing complexity in

271

SouthAfricabetweenwhatwasaccordingtoapartheidneatlydelineatedaccordingto

race, and post-apartheid access to education and material consumption. In other

words,althoughtherewasindeedaBlackmiddleclassduringapartheiditwassmall,

nowhowever, the growingBlackmiddle classpresentsnew iterationsof nation and

belonging.Thischapterseekstofurtherexploretheoverlappingrepresentationswith

regardtoraceandclasspresentinthefilms.

Some of the research questions that ground this chapter are: What does it

meanwhen the ritualof lobola is conductedbyawhitemanwhowants tomarrya

Black Zulu girl?Howdoes such a previously unimagined practice affect the kinds of

possibilitiesformovingforward?Whatdoesitmeanwhen,inafilmlikeElelwani,the

mainprotagonistonlygivesintoherparents’wishesaftersherealisesthatifshedoes

not,theywillsendhersistertomarrytheVendaking?Thiskindofresistancetowards

tradition means that the experience of being a young woman in South Africa has

changedandeventhoughtraditionisinplace,youngpeoplearechanginghowthose

traditionsareengagedwith.Finally,thischapterasksifLucy’splaceinthenewSouth

Africaislegitimisedbecauseofthemixed-racerapebabyshecarries.

Lizelle Bischoff notes that, “The use of comedy and humour in recent South

African films hints at the possibility that a genre is also developing that does not

necessarilydealwithpost-apartheidissuesinadramaticway…”.308Thispointistruein

the case of the rom-com, Fanie Fourie’s Lobola (Lobola). However, no scholarship

exists about films like Elelwani, which incorporates magical realism and African

mythicalelements. Thisgenre isdifferent to thegrowing trend in localAfro-science

fictionfilmssuchasNeillBlomkamp’sDistrict9(2009)andChappie(2015),whichare

308LizelleBischoff,“Sub-SaharanAfricanCinemaintheContextofFespaco:Close-upsofFrancophoneWestAfricaandAnglophoneSouthAfrica”,ForumforModernLanguageStudies45:4(2009),p.451.

272

notdealtwith inthisthesis.BothLobolaandElelwaniaredirectedbySouthAfricans

andwere locallyproducedand funded,whichalsomakes these filmsexceptional. It

took nine years for Elelwani to be completed because of budget constraints. Both

ElelwaniandLobolaweremadeonasmallbudget,withLobola’sbudgetapproximately

$1,000,000 compared, for example, to Justin Chadwick’s Mandela: Long Walk To

Freedom,whichwasalsoreleasedin2013andhadabudgetof$35,000,000.

273

FanieFourie’sLobola:NegotiatingNewTraditions

Lobola,orbrideprice,isatraditionalAfricancustominwhichthegroomoffers

gifts,cattleor,morerecently,toaccommodateurbanlifestyles,money,totheparents

ofthebride.309Historically,thecustomtakesplaceoveraperiodoftimeandinvolves

aninnateknowledgeonthepartofbothfamiliesofhowtheritualisconstitutedand

what the appropriate approach is to completing it in the most respectful fashion.

MeghanHealy-ClancywritesaboutthepoliticsofmarriageamongtheNewAfricansin

an article in which she quotes Miss Rahab S. Petje’s women’s 1944 column in the

BantuWorldnewspaper.310AsnotedbyHealy-Clancy,

BeforethecomingofcolonialcapitalisminsouthernAfrica,marriagehadbeenthe foundation of an economy premised on homestead-based agriculturalproduction and pastoralism: it was far from a private or individualisticinstitution.Itwasthroughmarriagegiftsofcattle–knownvariouslyaslobolo,lobola,bohali,orbogadi(bridewealth)–thatmenbroughtwivesintotheirnewhomesteads,anditwasthroughwomen’s laboursasmothersandagriculturalworkersthatthesehomesteadssurvived...311

Petje’scolumnasks,“Why(do)wemoderngirls find itsoverydifficult toget

married…?”312 Sheblames “barbarismandbackwardness inourparents, andworse

still, segregation”, arguing for interethnic pairings between educated youngwomen

309NicolaAnsell,“‘BecauseIt’sOurCulture!’(Re)negotiatingthemeaningof‘lobola’inSouthernAfricanSecondarySchools”,JournalOfSouthernAfricanStudies27:4(December2001),pp.697–716.310MeghanHealy-Clancy,“ThePoliticsofNewAfricanMarriageinSegregationistSouthAfrica”,AfricanStudiesReview:ThePoliticsofMarriageinSouthAfrica57:2(2014),pp.7–28.TheBantuWorldnewspaperwasstartedin1932andwasthefirstnewspaperforblackSouthAfricansthatalsoincludedpagesforwomen.Thereisanextensivebodyofscholarshipaboutlobolathatisnotofdirectrelevancetotheaimsofthischapterbutnoteworthytothebriefintroductorydiscussionaboutlobolaisthefollowing:LynnM.Thomas,“Love,SexandtheModernGirlin1930sSouthernAfrica”inJenniferColeandLynnM.Thomas(eds.),LoveinAfrica(ChicagoandLondon:TheUniversityOfChicagoPress,2009).,pp.31–57.,LesSwitzer,“BantuWorldandtheOriginsofaCaptiveAfricanCommercialPressinSouthAfrica”inJournalofSouthernAfricanStudies14:3(1988),pp.351–370.311Healy-Clancy,“ThePoliticsofNewAfricanMarriage,p.13.312Ibid.,p.7.

274

andeducatedmen.313 This isan issuethatPetjehighlights in1944,emphasisingthe

challenges of interethnic relationships in which each cultural group has their own

ideas.Bridepricetodayismuchmorecontestedthanitusedtobebecauseofchanges

withinsocietyanddifferentapproachestopreviouslyassumedtraditionalgenderroles

andexpectations.314Raceisarelativelynewconsiderationwithinamyriadofalready

existing challenges amongst African approaches to lobola. White South Africans do

notdo lobolaatall sotheassumptionthat this ritualwill takeplace inan interracial

relationshipisnotagiven,noristheassumptionthatthefamilywillknowhowtogo

aboutthetradition.Lobolainaninterracialrelationshipisalsomorecomplexbecause

until1994cross-racial relationshipswerepunishableby law. Apartheid laws like the

ImmoralityActandtheProhibitionofMixedMarriagesActmeantthatanycrossracial

intimateactivitieswereillegal.315

A representation of this illicit activity takes place in the film Skin (Anthony

Fabian, 2008) when protagonist Sandra Laing runs away from homewith her black

boyfriend,Petrus. Sandra’sfather,AbrahamLaing,hasspentmuchofhisdaughter’s

life fighting the government for her racial classification to be white because even

though she looksmixed race, she is theproductof twowhiteparents. By the time

SandrarunsawaytoSwazilandwithPetrussheissoconfusedaboutheridentitythat

she wishes only to marry him and live with his family, as she feels more accepted

amongotherBlackpeople. In the scene inwhich Sandra andPetrus are found, the

policeenterasmallmakeshiftshacklikedwellingwherethecoupleareasleep.They

313Ibid.314FunsoAfolayan,CultureandCustomsofSouthAfrica(Westport:GreenwoodPress,2004),p.182.315ImmoralityActof1957:http://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/acts/1957-023.pdf[Accessed31December2015].;APDFfileoftheMixedMarriagesActwasnotaccessible,however,thefollowinglinkisacopyofthe1985amendmenttoboththeImmoralityActandtheMixedMarriagesAct:http://www.gov.za/sites/www.gov.za/files/Act%2072%20of%201985.pdf[Accessed31December2015].

275

come in and grab hold of Petrus, asking himwhere thewhite girl is. When Sandra

identifiesherselfasthewhitegirltheybegintolaughbecauseshedoesnotlookwhite.

Despitethis,Sandra’sofficialracialclassificationiswhiteandsoPetrusispunishedfor

being in violationof the ImmoralityAct. When theymarry soonafterwards, Sandra

reclassifies fromwhite to coloured so thather childrenwillnotbe takenaway from

her.

Although a post-apartheid film, Skin’s narrative is a historical biopic which

traverses Sandra’s life. Even though race is central, her relationshipwith her black

husbandispresentedwithinthecontextofapartheid.FanieFourie’sLobola,however,

isapost-apartheidfilmsetinapost-apartheidcontext.Basedona1954novelofthe

samenamebyNapeaMotana,FanieFourie’sLobola (Lobola)wasadaptedtofilmby

directorHenkPretorius to create a post-apartheid romantic comedy that dealswith

someoftheracialandculturalchallengesofpost-apartheidlife.Ashasbeenshownin

previouschapters,eventhoughapartheidhasendedandtherhetoricofthe‘Rainbow

Nation’prevails, representationsof the livedexperiencesof race inSouthAfrica still

showthatdifficultieswithcross-raciallivingandracialseparationremainpronounced.

This latter point has been discussed throughout the thesis and serves as a constant

reminderoftheseparatenessimposedbyapartheid.Lobolaemploysasimilarstrategy

becauseDinky(ZethuDlomo)andFanie(EduanvanJaarsveldt) live indifferentracial

neighbourhoods of Johannesburg: Dinky in the township of Soweto and Fanie in a

high-walledwhitesuburb.

In the previous chapter these spaces were identified as hypermasculine and

violent through the actions of the tsotsi characters. Lobola, like another post-

apartheid rom-com,White Wedding (Jann Turner, 2010), employs overt character

276

stereotypes.Suchfilmsaimtoshowpost-apartheidracialdifficultieswithoutdwelling

ontheimpossibilitiesand‘workingthrough’ofthe‘Rainbow’butratherthe‘working

beyond’thetrauma.FanieandDinkyaretwoyoungSouthAfricans,heamiddleclass

AfrikanerfromPretoriaandsheawell-educatedZuluwoman.Faniescoresadatewith

Dinkywhen she takes pity on him after his hypermasculine brother and friends bet

thathewillnotask the firstwomanwhosteps into theshoptoattendhisbrother’s

wedding.Dinky,withherownagendainmind,agreestobeFanie’sdateinreturnfor

himvisitingherfamilyhome.AlthoughFanieandDinkydonotintendtofall in love,

theydo.Whentheydecidetomarrytheyrun intoachallengingsituationbecauseof

theirdifferentculturalandracialbackgroundsbecause,intheeventofmarriage,Fanie

isexpectedtopay lobolaforDinky. However,asthetraditionof lobolanegotiations

goes, the discussion and negotiation about the bridal price does not take place

betweenbrideandgroombutbetweenthemaleeldersfromeitherside.

Myanalysisoftheuseoflobolanegotiationsisindicativeofanewstructureof

feelingwhichfocusesonafewsceneswhichfolloweachotherandcentrearoundthe

issueof lobola. SoonafterDinkyandFaniesettheir intentiontomarry,theyvisitan

oldderelicthousewhichDinkywishestobuyaspartofanewbusinessventure.The

pair is shot fromahighangle fromahole in the roofof thebuildingstructure. The

derelicthouseisconsideredtobeametaphorforthenewSouthAfrica:thestructure

istherebuttherearemanythingsthatmustbefixedanddealtwithbeforeanyonecan

liveinit.Thisbirds’eyeviewangleofthecoupleisalsoreminiscentofanearlierscene

inwhichtheyareonadateandFanieaskshertolaydownonthegrassnexttohimto

lookupatthebloomingJacarandatrees,astapleofthecityofTshwane.Inthatscene

theyareat theUnionBuildings, theofficial seatof thenationalgovernmentandthe

President’s office. Fanie and Dinky’s blooming love is validated by the official and

277

heavy historical structures of national politics and the mise-en-scène of the union

buildingswhichoverlookthecity.Itisasthough,setagainstthisbackdrop,thepairis

theperfectembodimentofthe‘RainbowNation’.ButLobolaisnotaboutreifyingthe

‘Rainbow’myth,itisalsoaboutshowinghowcomplexitcanbe,asshownindifferent

capacities inthetwosceneswiththecouple lookingskyward. Ontheonehand,the

pretty surroundings of the purple Jacaranda leaves and themanicured lawns of the

Union buildings validate their blooming love. On the other hand, that scene also

recallsthehistoryofthepastandtheinconceivabilityofsuchaunionnottoolongago.

AlthoughthedaytimeJacaranda-framedsceneonlybringsthepositiveaspectsofthe

unionto light, thesimilarlystagedscene in thedarkof thederelicthousebrings the

moredifficultrepresentationalelementsoftheiruniontolight.

As the pair is framed facing skyward once again, Dinky begins to tell Fanie

abouthowsheintendstousewhatwillbehermarriedsurnameinloanapplicationsat

thebankbecauseaBlacksurnamehasnothelpedher.Fanieisshockedthatshethinks

beingwhiteinthenewSouthAfricaisbetterthanbeingBlack.Dinkystandsupasshe

becomesdefensive.Dinkypointsoutthatsheistheonlywomanwho,outofherhigh

school girl friends, does not have a child. Instead of a child, she has a degree and

plans. In other words, Dinky explains to Fanie what historical disadvantage means.

Thisbrokeninteractionisimportantasitbeginsspecificallyfromthemomentinwhich

race is brought into the conversation and Dinkymoves from lying next to Fanie to

standingupandspeaking‘at’him.ItisaninteractionthatshowsthatFaniedoesnot

understandthehistoricalandcontemporarychallengesforhisbride-to-be.Thereisa

disjuncture in their ability to love one another because their different races and

backgroundshamperwhat they knowabout eachother andwhatmaybe sensitive,

complex or simply hard to understand. What Fanie addresses through the words

278

“thinkoutsidethebox”,withreferencetoDinky’sbusinessplan,rendersinadifferent

register for Dinky,who already perceives as herself as far outside of the proverbial

box.

The scene presents the complexity of the ‘Rainbow’ youth in post-apartheid,

becausealthoughitispossibleforDinkyandFanietofallinlove(invitedinthecontext

ofanewstructureoffeeling),thereisarangeofthingsthatalsohampertheirability

toproperly understandeachother. For example, Fanie’s panel-beating art business

laterbecomesDinky’sbusinessventureandsheletsgoofthehouserestorationidea.

ThischangeinDinky’sapproachtoherbusinessideasaswellasFanie’srealisationthat

his talent and ability is worth something presents a shift in the two as a couple.

However,Ialsosuggestthatthenewbusinessideapresentsashiftinhowthecouple

isabletorenderthemselvesaspartofthe‘Rainbow’nation,anegotiatedunionrather

than a truly romantic one. In other words, for change to truly occur, it is proven

necessarythattheyboth“thinkoutsideofthebox”andnegotiateandimplementthe

ideologyoftheunion.

Fanie’s lobola team iscomprisedofhisuncleandthe familygardenerPetrus,

whoFanietreatsandthinksofasfamily,eventhoughFanie’smother,MrsFourie,does

not.PetrusalsoassistsFaniewiththebespokerestorationofcars,Fanie’spassionand

abusinessthathecannotquitegetofftheground.Thelobolaprocessbeginsassoon

astheygettothefrontgateofthemodesthousewiththeirbrownpaperbagofcash

and a bottle of hard liquor in hand. Petrus greets a young boywith a parable-like

requesttoenter:“Wehavecometopickabeautifulflowerfromyourgarden…Dinky

Magubane”,towhichtheboyandFanie’sunclelookaroundatthebarrensoil inthe

front yard. Traditionally this request would have beenmade in isiZulu, a language

279

whichisusedinthefilmtomakeitclearthattheyoungblackboyandtheelderlyman,

Petrus, speak to each other in English to accommodate Fanie’s uncle, who cannot

speakisiZulu.Theoldermenstandoutsideofasmallgateandareframedinmedium

shotsastheywait.FromFanie’spointofviewtheyareshownfrombehindandinthat

shotweseetheyoungboywithwhomtheynegotiatetheirentry.Includedintheshot

is the wide-angle expanse of Soweto township in the background. The glimpse of

Fanieonthebackseatofthebakkiemakeshimlookyoungandcontainedinasmall

space.Shotinclose-upsinsuchaconfinedspace,thescenecontributestohisanxiety

about the negotiations, a feeling which seems to grown when his uncle decides to

‘disagree’withtherequestformoremoneytoenter.

In order to enter through the front gate (and conduct thenegotiations) they

mustoffer the familymoney incash, the firstamonga fewtraditionalprocessesthe

whitefarmerunclewillnotunderstand.TheyoffertheboyR100,whichherejectsas

he gestures with his hands for more money. The elders, including Dinky’s father,

watch from the front door. Petrus explains to Fanie’s uncle that moremoney will

allowthementry,towhichthewhitemanunexpectedlyreactsbybeginningto‘toyi-

toyi’. He asks Petrus in Afrikaans, “isn’t this what your people do when they are

unhappy?”Fanie’suncle’sdecisiontotoyi-toyiisinreactiontothehigherentry‘fee’

meaning that he considers this action a method that Black South Africans deem

appropriatewhenevertheyareunhappy.

He however says that he is trying to show the elders that he respects their

tradition.Theelderslaughathim,andinthemeantimePetrushandstheboyanother

R100note,afterwhichtheyarewelcomedinside.Differentlytohowthe'toyi-toying'

action is employed in a tongue-in-cheek fashion in this scene, it is fact an action

280

historicallyassociatedwiththestruggleagainstapartheidwhenBlackpeoplepartook

in numerousmarches, sang, walked andwere, through the use of different actions

(toyi-toying included), able to display their deep disgruntlement with a system of

oppression. The film’s light approachmeans that an argument for the action to be

readasmorethaninarticulatehumourwouldbeanoverexaggeration.Nevertheless,

itisalsonottobedismissedasonlyhumorousasitcontributestonewunderstandings

ofthisveryactandthehistoricallegacy,andcontemporarypost-apartheidinequality,

still articulated through toyi-toying. Dinky’s elders condone the toy-toyi-ing as

humorousbecausetheylaughathimandsoitisnotclearwhetherthefilm’scomment

isinlinewiththeuncle’s,thattheactbereadasrespectfulfortheir(Black)traditionor

not.Itappearshowever,thatwearealsoinvitedtolaughatFanie’sunclealongwith

the Magubane elders and in turn, this humorous take on a political action

encompassesBlacksandwhitesbeyondthecharactersinthisfilm.Theactioninvitesa

metaphoricalsalutetonewincarnationsofthe‘Rainbow’andshowsthecontextofan

emergentstructureoffeelings.

Once Fanie’s lobola team have entered the house they continue with the

rituals.ThefirstimageisofFanie’suncleandPetrusinamediumshotastheformer

heartilygreetsDinky’steam.ThecamerathenjumpstoshowDinky’seldersinawide-

angleshot;theyfillthescreenandDinky’sfathersitsinthemiddle,indicatingthathe

is the leaderof thesenegotiations. Petrus is theonewhoknowswhat todo in this

context and the uncle follows his lead. This is a curious reversal of roles because

Petrus is thecharacterof thegardeneratMrsFourie’shouse. In thatcontext,he is

never the one in charge, let alone allowed to have an opinion because of Fanie’s

mother’sracistoutlookandbehaviour.SeeingPetrusinthispowerfulroleisindicative

ofthereal inversionofpowerfromapartheidtopost-apartheid.Whentheyarefirst

281

shown in this scene the pair are framed in a medium shot and he happily greets

Dinky’s team with a hearty “Sanibonani Manomzani”, meaning “Good day,

gentlemen”.Inthewide-angleshotthatfollowsalltheeldersexceptforDinky’sfather

answershisgreetinginunison.Theunclethenproceedstositbutishastilypulledup

byPetruswho informshim that theyneed topay to sit. In this sceneFanie’suncle

continuestomakeattemptsatdoingwhathethinks is right,onlytobemetwithan

indication that he is wrong. This stilted interaction that persists throughout the

negotiations isa repeatedcomment in the filmaboutculturaldifferences. It isonly

whenPetrusplaces somemoneyonto the table in frontof themthatDinky’s father

motionsforthemtositdown.

Asthoughapointaboutthefactthatthelobolanegotiationsarenotgoingto

beeasyhasbeenmade,thecameracutstoadifferentsettingtoshowwhereFanieis.

Theyoungmanisseatedinaneighbour’sloungebutthefirstimageinthesceneisa

close-upofarawchicken.Theclose-upofthechickenremainsonscreenasweseea

knife come down on the bird. As Dinky’smatriarchal neighbour talks to Fanie, we

realisethat,shouldFanienottreatDinkyright,hecouldbeundertheproverbialknife.

ThenextimageisofFaniealoneonacouchintheadjacentroom.Awareofthefilled

lounge at Dinky’s house, the young man looks vulnerable and alone. He too is

unawareof theprocessof lobolaandhasgenerally followedtheadviceofothersso

far. Theneighbour’s opening comments to Fanie are that shewill forget “all about

Mandela’sforgivenessandthespiritofubuntuandtakerevenge”,shouldshefindout

that Dinky is unhappy. This comment is supported by the photographs of Nelson

MandelaandDesmondTututhatoccupythewallwhereFaniesits.Theirportraitsare

perched higher than Fanie and they hang on thewall amidst ornaments and family

photographs. Thewayshespeaksabout thetwodeifiedSouthAfricanmenandthe

282

way in which they are presented among her own family relics, makes it seem as

thoughtheyarepartofherfamilytoo. Hercommentscomefrominsidethekitchen

andshetalkstoFanieandseeshimfromthatpointofview,bothawarethatheisclose

butnotquiteinthesameroom.HerwarningstoFaniereferencetheendofapartheid

and theTRCand in talkingaboutFanieandDinky’sunionagainst thisbackdrop, she

equatestheirunion,liketheunionofthenewSouthAfrica,toanoutcomeoftheTRC.

The lobola negotiations end quite uncharacteristically when Mr Magubane

findsFanieinDinky’sroom.Whilethemaleeldersofeitherfamilymanagethelobola

negotiations, the funds for the lobola must come from the groom. In this case,

because Fanie’s mother was completely unsupportive of his marriage to a Black

woman, she refused to help himwith lobolamoney and so hemade a loan. Fanie

unwiselyborrows lobolamoney froma sneakyMandla,Dinky’s ex-boyfriend,who is

desperate to reunitewith her. Throughout the filmMandla showersDinky and her

fatherwithmoneyandthingsthattheydonotneed.AlthoughDinkydoesnotwantto

bewithMandla,heistheperfectguyinherfather’sopinion,aconsiderationonlyfrom

thepointofviewthatMandlaisalsoBlackandknowsthecustomsandculture.Asa

bonus,Mandlaisalsowealthy.Herfathercannotunderstandwhyhisdaughterwould

wanttomarryawhitemanasopposedtosomeonelikeMandla,apointthatbecomes

particularly obvious when the lobola negotiations fall apart because of Fanie’s

presenceinthehouse.MrMagubaneconsidersthisculturallydisrespectful.Towards

theendofthisscenethelobolapartystandoutsidethegatesoftheMagubanehouse

oncemore, this timewithMandlapresentinghimselfas thebetteroptionandFanie

forlornandupsetabouthowtheeventhaspannedout.

283

Fanie loaned money from Mandla’s company, conveniently called “Ubuntu

Finance”, yet another tongue-in-cheek reference to the new South Africa. The fact

thatFanieneedstorepaytheloanonthatdaybasedonMandla’sscheming,isfurther

comment on the slippery space that the post-apartheid Black middle class occupy.

Mandla is a representative of this growing class in South Africa and he flaunts his

wealth around the township as he drives around in his fancy black sports model

MercedesBenz.AswithmanyoftheBlackdiamonds,theconspicuouspositionofsuch

a character is placed under consistent scrutiny in the township, where on the one

hand,hisexpensivecarstandsinstarkoppositiontothepovertyofthetownship.On

theotherhandMandla’s car is a symbol of success andwealth and guaranteeshim

respect. “Ubuntu Finance”, like Mandla (and potentially, the film suggests, post-

apartheidSouthAfrica)isafarceandadodgyscheme.AgainstthebackdropofFanie

and Dinky as a metaphor of union for the nation, “Ubuntu Finance” is both what

makesthepromiseoftheunionpossibleandatthesametimerepresentsthefailure

of the union. In their joint study on race and inequality in South Africa, Kevin

Durrheim,ZoliswaMtoseandLyndsayBrownwritethatalthoughthegrowingmiddle

class exhibit significant development, poverty and wealth nevertheless remains

racialised.316

MrMagubanedemandssixty-fivelivecowsforDinky.AfterDinkypleadswith

himherethinkshisdecisionandasksforthirty“…livingandbreathingcowslikeinthe

olddayswhenpeoplestillrespectedourtradition”.Theolddaysthatherefersto,is

also a time when some of the contemporary expectations of lobola negotiations

highlighted above (like education and interracial relations) were not considerations.

316KevinDurrheim,XoliswaMtoseandLyndsayBrown,RaceTrouble:Race,IdentityandInequalityinPost-ApartheidSouthAfrica(Maryland:LexingtonBooks,2011),p.19.

284

Theironyisthatthe‘olddays’wouldalsohavebeenduringapartheidandFanieand

Dinkywouldnotbeinapositiontowedinthewaytheywanttointhispost-apartheid

context. Mr Magubane’s nostalgia for what was a deeply problematic context is

broughttolightthroughoutthefilmbutisstressedinthissceneandalsoattheendof

thefilmwhen,inthesamesettingoutsidehistownshiphouse,Faniearriveswiththe

thirty cows. However it is not only Mr Magubane but also Fanie’s mother who

articulates desires for respect and tradition also located in the past. When Fanie

returns from his botched lobola attempt, for example, his mother is opening

champagne to celebrate what can only be understood as his failure. Even Fanie’s

happinessissecondtoherproudAfrikaneridentity.

What Mrs Fourie and Mr Magubane present in Fanie Fourie’s Lobola is the

seeminglyimpenetrableresidualstructureoffeelingwhichexistseventhoughtheyare

bothalsoawarethatlifeisnolongerlikeitwas.Theirdesiresforthefixedboundsof

apartheid racial (and cultural) categories is different also to the residual andmessy

traits in Francois andDavid (Chapter Four). Themiddle agedwhitemen presented

something more akin to a complex psychological agitation with identity and place,

theseoldercharacterspresentagenerationwhoseemliketheycannotmovebeyond

thefixednessofapartheidconstructions.Thissituationpersistsuntilmuchlaterwhen

MrsFourieandMrMagubaneareabletosetasidetheirbeliefstosupportFanieand

Dinky’sunionas aunionof love. Their supportdoesnothoweverextend to seeing

themselvesdifferently.

However,thefocusofthischapterrestsontryingtoexplorethepresenceofa

new structure of feeling. Firstly, the analysis shows thatDinky and Fanie’s union is

framed as quite normative except for the unique situation of post-apartheid race

285

relationsandthechallengesthatthesepresentfortheritualof lobola. Thefactthat

DinkyandFanie fall in love is itselfnoteworthyandpoints to thepresenceofanew

structureoffeelingbecauseofthepossibilityoftheirunion. Whatwasevidencedin

the films of the previous chapter is also present in this film: a context of a new

structure of feeling exists. However, through Dinky’s character this film extends

beyond the township. On the one hand, Dinky’s aspiration is not emphasised as

material.Sheisproud,confidentandeducatedandherconstantrejectionofMandla

suggeststhatforher,apost-apartheidlifeasayoungBlackwomanisinfactnotabout

materialwealth.WhileMandlaisrepresentativeofthegrowingBlackmiddleclassand

notquitelikeSoxorthetsotsis,heisstillacharacterformulatedinlinewithwhatwas

evidencedinthepreviouschapter.Dinkyhoweverisnot.

Inthefinalsequenceofthefilm,Faniemanagestosecurethethirtylivecows

andarrivesattheMagubaneresidencewithhismotherandPetrus.Faniehasrestored

anddecoratedatruckingreenandgold,thecoloursoftheSpringbokrugbyteam,with

horns on the front of the truck to complete the Springbok national reference. In

Chapter Two I briefly alluded to rugby’s important and strategic place in Afrikaner

culture.317AlthoughFanieisanavidrugbysupporter(heandDinkyalsoattendagame

earlyinthefilm),thesportremainsacontentioussymbolofapartheidinSouthAfrica.

However, it isalsoasportthatwasinstrumentalisedbyPresidentNelsonMandelain

thebuildingofthenew‘RainbowNation’when, in1995,hepublicallysupportedthe

nationalteamintheRugbyWorldCup. Thishistoricalmomentwassoeffectualthat

the film Invictus (Clint Eastwood, 2009) was made about it, rendering the union

betweenSpringboksandMandelaasintrinsicinthebuildingofthenewnationinthe

317InadditiontothebriefdiscussionofrugbyandAfrikanerdom,IreferencedGrundlingh,“PlayingforPower”,pp.408–430inChapterTwoforsomeinsightintothesportandAfrikanerculture.

286

immediate aftermath of the first democratic elections. It was also Mandela who

fought for the Springbok to remain the national symbol and so, when Fanie builds

horns forhis ‘new look’ truck,heuses thepositiveMandela-inflected incarnationof

thesymboltoshowhisstatusas‘NewSouthAfrican’.Thepassengersalsoemploythe

enthusiasticspiritof‘RainbowNation’.

On arrival at the Magubane home, Fanie exits the truck and again asks Mr

Magubane for Dinky’s hand in marriage, pointing to the cows as requested. The

settingisthesameasthelasttimethatFaniewasatMrMagubane’shouseforDinky’s

lobola. Camerashotsvarybetweenmediumand longshotsbetweenthecharacters

and,ofteninthesameframeasMrMagubane,theexpanseofSoweto.AlthoughDinky

is from the township, she is characterised as someonewhonotonly believes in the

possibilitiesof the ‘Rainbow’butalso someonewho is able tomakeand implement

changestoevidencetheactualitiesofthepromisesofthe‘Rainbow’.Thisisclearat

the end of the film when Dinky, in a shot-reverse-shot sequence with her father,

explains tohim inZulu thatwhile sheneededandwantedFanie toprovehimself to

her and her father, she does notwant her father to accept the cows because they

(DinkyandFanie)needtostarttheirowntraditions.TheuseofZuluinthissequence

indicatesaprivatemomentbetweenDinkyandherfather,akindoflettinggoofthe

pastandarticulationofanewfuture,onewhichhemaynotevenfullygrasp.

Iconsiderthisasadistinctdifferencefromtheyoungmenseenpreviously, in

thatDinkyisabletopointtohowthepastisimportantandrelevantbutatthesame

time, she is able to assert herself and her post-apartheid desires within a new

framework. Shealsoacknowledges thatwhile the contextexists, it is still up toher

287

andFanietofigureoutwhatthosenewtraditionslooklike.Nevertheless,shemakesa

distinctionbetweenherselfandFanieandeachoftheirparents.

The (im)perfect lobola that takesplace in this film isa fittingallegory for the

unificationofSouthAfricaaftertheendofapartheid. Thelobola inthefilm,aswith

the lobolaof the ‘RainbowNation’hadtobenegotiatedontermsthatdidnotexist.

Everythingthatfollowsthen,likeDinkyandFanie’sunion,alsorequiresnewcustoms

andtraditionalritualsand,likethefilmpresents,thesenewconstructionswillnotbe

entirelydevoidofthepast.

288

Elelwani:theBurdenofbeingaYoung,FreeWoman

Elelwani,whichmeans‘toremember’,isthefirstVendalanguagefilmmadein

SouthAfrica.Thefilmisbasedona1954novelofthesamenamebyTNMaumela.318

MJMafelawritesthatElelwani,likeanumberofotherVendanovelsatthetime,was

aboutChristianmodernity,whichbecame increasinglypressing inthe1950sasmore

missionaries tried to infiltrate traditional customs and traditions.319 Narratives like

Elelwaniarepartofaparticularperiod’sfearsandassertions.WaLuruliadjustedthis

narrative to suit post-apartheid’s growing urban context and to juxtapose thatwith

Venda culture and traditions. In such a context, traditional cultural matters like

witchcraftandtheVendaKingcomeupagainstthefreedomsofaneducatedwoman.

Like Dinky, Elelwani (Florence Masebe) is the first woman in her family to

receive a University degree and has her own aspirations for her future. The film is

relevantinthischapterbecauseitpresentsanegotiationbetweenruraltraditionand

familyobligationandurban (female) freedom.Myanalysis in this section reflectson

thecomplexandnearimpossiblebalanceofresponsibilitythatElelwanihastoherself

and the responsibility she feels to her family and aims to show the incongruent

sensibilities(fromElelwani’spointofview)asillustrativeofanewstructureoffeeling.

Beforeshereturnstoherfamily’sruralvillage,Elelwaniisarepresentativeofayoung

womaninthenewSouthAfrica.Althoughweneverseeherandherpartner,(whoshe

affectionately calls her butterfly), in their joint urban life, her explanations of it and

318M.J.Mafela,“TheFirstVendaNovelWritersandtheClashofCultures”,SouthAfricanJournalofAfricanLanguages19:2(1999),pp.117–127.319Ibid.

289

theirplanstotraveloverseasforheraspirations,implythatsheisanambitiousyoung

womanwithagency.

Thefilm’sopeningsceneisofElelwanidressedintraditionalVendagarments.

Sheisinawell-decoratedbedroomassheexplainshernameandhowshecametobe

wheresheis.Thisopeningscenealsoformsthebackdropforthetitlesequence.The

mise-en-scèneshiftsdramatically fromthe lushbedroomtoshowamodestVWGolf

approachanelderlycouple.Thecarissurroundedbyreddustasitentersthevillage.

Ayoungwoman(Elelwani)exitsthecarbutleavestheyoungman,Vele,towatchonas

sheismetfirstbyhergoodfriend(theonlyonewhonoticesherboyfriend),thenher

little sister andmoments later, her parents. The image of the family is partly from

Vele’s point of view, indicating his desire to be a part of the welcome and also

indicatingthatforsomereasonheisnotallowedtobethere.Elelwani’sglancesback

athimalsoconveyasenseofcaution.Nevertheless,theoverwhelmingemotionofthe

welcome scene is theexcitement andpride aroundElelwani’s return. As the family

standaroundinwhatappearstobeanindistinctpatchofgrasswheretheywelcome

theirdaughter,Elelwanisharesherowngiftsofpride,anddivideshergraduationrobe

andhoodbetweenhermotherandfather.

Their comments indicate that they know that she has worn this to her

graduationbuttheirgushingalsorevealsthattheydonotrealisethevalueattachedto

the gownandhood and thus thedegree that Elelwani has been awarded. Elelwani

gives her father her graduation gown,which he places over his clothing, exclaiming

howhewillwear this to the tribalcouncilmeetings. She thengiveshermother the

hoodofthegown,whichhermothersaysshewillweartowipethesweatoffherself

whensheisinthefields.Elelwani’sparentsrealisethatthegownissignificantbutthe

290

allocation of the garments to everyday agrarian activities introduces the film’smain

idea,whichisaboutaskinghowitmightbepossibletocombineanurbaneducatedlife

with the entrenched traditions of rural Venda culture. This scene sets upwhatwill

followasaverysimpleandconsistentpresentationoftraditionalvaluesthatElelwani’s

parentsadhereto.ItisinthenextscenehoweverthatweexperienceElelwani’sown

position in relation to her parents and the beginnings of the antagonisms between

traditionandmodernity.

Thesceneopensagainstthebackdropofwhatappearstobearitualceremony.

Womenareseatedonthefloorastheyleanoverhugepotsandbowlsoffood.There

isdancingandmusicandasenseofcelebrationwhich is inferredbythepresenceof

hugepotsof food,peopledressed intraditionalattireandsinging. Elelwaniandher

childhood girlfriend are however not participating in any of the celebration and are

insteadstandingawayfromthecrowdgossipingandgiggling. Inthebackgroundwe

seeVelewatching themand the village in celebration. Like in the first scene, he is

againpresentedasanoutsider,watchingElelwaniandherfamilybutnotpartofit.In

themidstofElelwaniexplainingaboutherandVele’splans tomove toChicago,her

youngsistercallshertogoseetheirfatherinoneofthehuts.

Theroundhutisdimlylitcomparedtothebrightsunnydayoutsideandthere

isnofurnitureinsideexceptthreeoccupiedchairs.Therearethreemen;oneofthem

isElelwani’sfatherandtheothertworemainunknowntoherforthedurationofher

presencethere. Thelightingemphasisestheirfacesandconveystheimpressionthat

theyareveryimportant.Theirimportanceisfurtheremphasisedbythefactthatthey

areseatedwhileElelwanipresentsherselftotheminahorizontalposition,lyingdown

onareedmatonthefloor. Shefacesthembutdoesnotlookatthem.Thecamera

291

emphasisesherpositionbyfocusingonherfaceinclose-upsthroughoutthisscene.In

Venda tradition this is the respectful way for a woman to present herself to male

elders.Elelwani’smotherpresentsherselfinthesamewaywhenlaterinthefilmshe

shuffles into thehutonher knees. While Elelwani’s father speaksabouther in this

scene,asenseofherfeelingsaboutwhatshehearsisonlyconveyedthroughherfacial

expressions and her eyes. Her father introduces Elelwani to the two elderly men

withouthermoving,andtheythankhimforraisingher.Thecamerajumpstoaclose-

upofElelwani’s facenestledbetweenherarms. Herexpression,shownthroughher

eyes, vacillates between shock and confusion around the words like “princess” and

“wife”,whichthemenappeartobeusinginadiscussionabouther.

What Elelwani does not know is that the traditional ceremony that she has

beenobservingasavisitorfromthecitywhowillsoonleave,isactuallyaboutandfor

her.Justbeforesheiscalledtoseeherfather,sheandherfriendjokedabouthowshe

wouldsoonbefreeofcowdung,areferencetotherurallifestyleinVenda.However

now, she begins to realise that this is the kind of lifestyle that has already been

ascribed to herwithout her consent. Elelwani is finally let in onwhat is happening

when she is called to her parents’ hut later the next day. The set up in the hut is

similar to thedaybeforeexcept this time it isonlyher fatheronachair. Elelwani’s

mothersitsnexttohimonthefloorandElelwanioppositethem.Thisisthefirstscene

ofmany inwhichElelwani firmlyassertsher independence toherparents. It isalso

thefirstsceneinwhichherparentsmakeitclearthattheydonotunderstandwhyshe

is sodisrespectfulof theirdesires forherandpointouthereducationas something

thathas‘madeher’hostileandrudetoherelders. Theimplicationisnotonlyabout

rurallifecontrastedagainsturbanlifebutalsoacommentonsomethingaboutwithin

292

in: that education and freedom hinders a woman’s ability to succumb to the

unquestionabletraditionofrespectforonesparents.

AlthoughElelwanidoesnot liedownonthe floor this time,she is still seated

andhergazeremainslowasshetalkslookingdownwards.Herfatherspeaksonbehalf

ofbothmother and father. The threeare first captured in awideangle shot from

behind Elelwani which again shows the modest dwelling but serves to express the

importanceandcentralityofthediscussion.Althoughtheshot-reverse-shotpatternis

oftenusedtoshowadialoguebetweenpeople,theuseofitinthissceneisdifferent

becauseElelwanineveractuallymeetsherfather’sgaze.Itisthusdifficulttoconsider

the dialogue as equal because of her unengaged gaze. Although she remains

vociferousaboutherownbeliefs, forexample she refuses themarriage to theKing,

herbody languagemakes itconfusingtowatchthedisagreement. Nevertheless,the

meetingshowsthatthetwogenerationsunderstandtheworlddifferently. However

prestigiousheruniversityaccoladesmaybe,Elelwani’sdegreesmean little inVenda.

That she has been chosen as awife for the King ismore of a source of pride than

individual achievement found in her degree, and this is what her parents do not

understand.ForElelwanithough,herintentionisnottodisrespectherparentsorher

culture but is instead grounded in an individualistic approach to modern success.

Againstthebackdropofpost-apartheidSouthAfrica,thisanalysisconsidersElelwani’s

sensibilityaroundurbanpossibilityasfoldedintotherhetoricandpracticalitiesofthe

‘Rainbow Nation’. Although the film does not overtly reference the socio-political

contextofSouthAfrica,itemploysvariousreferencesthatsetupabinarybetweenthe

safetyandcorrectnessofthepastthroughtraditionandtheimpracticalfoolishnessof

thepresentseeninElelwani.

293

One such example takes place in a scene inwhich the King’s elders come to

collectthenewbridefromherfamilyhome.Elelwanilearnsthatthetwoeldersdonot

know that the country, America, is a place andnot a person. In the context of the

villagethesetwomenreceivesignificantrespectandaretreatedasthewisestmenin

the village. However, when Elelwani calls on their rationality, she ismetwith out-

dated ideas about tradition as well as, almost to her surprise, when seated in her

positiononthefloor,themen’slackofawarenessexhibitsthattherearefactsabout

the world that they simply do not know. The point is that there are different

hierarchiesofpowerandimportanceinthevillagethatarefaroutsideoftherealities

ofthepoliticsofSouthAfricaandeventheworld.

AfteranumberofdayshavepassedandElelwanihasnotgottenherparentsto

changetheirmindsyet,shedecidestochallengewhatsheistraditionallypermittedto.

Thetwooldmensitonaconcreteslaboutsidetheshedthatshehasbeensharingwith

the chickens. She goes against tradition and approaches them, taking her seated

positionsothattheylookdownather.Thescenetakesplaceusingtheshot-reverse-

shotpatternbutagainbearstheuncomfortablefeelingthatit isnottrulyadialogue.

Elelwaniexplainsthatshehasbeenofferedaprestigiousopportunityofabursaryfor

furtherstudyinAmerica.Thetwooldmendonotunderstandandbegintointegrate

the concept of the bursary into their own understanding of the world through

changing the termsso that ‘bursary’becomes ‘basa-basa’andAmericabecomes ‘Mr

Maliga’. AlthoughElelwani tries toexplain thatMaliga isnotamanoraKingbuta

place, theydonotunderstand. Theelders exhibit someof thehistorical legaciesof

apartheid because it is possible that they received no formal education. Their

persistentreaction,aswithherparents,isthatElelwanishouldbeproudtobecomea

wifetotheKing.Whentheeldersfinallyunderstandthat‘Maliga”isaplace,Elelwani

294

triestocontextualiseitfurtherbyassociatingaPresidentlikeMandelatoit,towhich

theyanswer thatsomeone likeMandelawill thenunderstandthatshealreadyhasa

husband. The interaction leaves Elelwani even more frustrated than before. The

confinementsheexperiencesisemphasisedthroughherbodylanguageandthespace

sheoccupies,thechickencoop.

Up until this point the film succeeds in showing us the complex

interrelationshipbetweenElelwaniandVendatraditions. DirectorwaLuruliexplains

that the film culminates in a knowledge that modernity (an educated women) and

Venda tradition do not need to bemutually exclusive but can in fact live alongside

eachother.ElelwanirepresentstheyoungwomaninthepresentSouthAfrica,who“is

tryingtoforgeabridgebetweenwhatitwas(herpast),andwhatitis(herpresent)…

neitherofthetwoisbetterthantheother”.320WhatwaLurulireferencesisevidenced

in the analysis, an intricate and complex relation between Elelwani as an educated

youngwomanandasayoungwomanwhowantstohonourhertradition. Itposesa

questionaboutwhereElelwanishoulddrawthelinebetweenwhat ispermissiblefor

her as a youngwoman living in post-apartheid South Africa and howmuch of that

womancanalsobeatraditionalVendawoman.Elelwani’sexperiencesarealsopartof

post-apartheidcomplexitiesofidentitybecausesheispartofthefirstgenerationthat

hastolearntonegotiatethesedivergentyetrelatedemergentsensibilities.Sheisalso

partofagenerationthatisforcedtoarticulatethecomplexities.Asshowninprevious

chapters, apartheid’s fixedness, as a highly controlled place and legislated system,

confirmedandepitomisedidentities.Itwasasystemthatreliedheavilyoncommunity

and the persistent promotion of ethnic sameness to achieve its goals of separate

320http://mg.co.za/article/2014-01-30-insights-into-an-exotic-culture[AccessedMonday21September2015].

295

development.321 Elelwani’s seemingly individualistic nature in the face of Venda

traditiongoesagainstapartheid’sconstructions.

ThusfartheanalysishasshownhowElelwaniisdifferentfromherparentsand

howthemainprotagonist is stuck inaprecariousplaceofnegotiationbetweenpast

and present, Venda tradition and urban assertiveness. This final section focuses

specificallyonElelwani’sdeparturefromherruralhomesteadtotheKing’scompound.

Her reasonforagreeingtomarry theKing isseenasasacrifice,asherparentswere

abouttosendherschool-goingsisterinsteadofElelwani. Inordertosavehersister,

Elelwaniconcedestothesituation.

The process of conversion from young urban chic woman to a demure

traditionalVendawifeexpressesasignificanttransition.AlthoughElelwaniendsona

redemptivenote,asElelwanicomestorulethevillage,thepointremainsthatshedid

notchoosethatlife. Theanalysisthatfollowsthusconsidersthetransformationand

thestrippingofagencythatElelwanipossessedintheurbanspacethatwedonotsee

in the film at all. Elelwani is consequently presented as part of a new generation

within the context of post-apartheid and, I argue, is representative of a complexly

emergentstructureoffeelingbecausesheholdsthepromiseofbeingabletocombine

differentworlds.

WhenthetimecomesforElelwanitodeparttotheKing’scompound,itisher

mother’sdutytoclothethenewbride.Thesceneislikeapersonalceremonyinwhich

321TheapartheidgovernmentpronouncedVendaaseparateethnichomeland(Bantustan)in1979.InthefourbantustansaroundSouthAfrica,separatehomelandsweremeanttopromoteseparatedevelopmentofBlacksfromwhites,andkeptBlacksoutofurbancentres.Noteworthyscholarshiponthetopicincludes:BrianH.KingandBrentMcCusker,“EnvironmentandDevelopmentintheFormerSouthAfricanBantustans”,GeographicalJournal173:1(March2007),pp.6–12.,HaroldWolpe,“CapitalismandCheapLabour-PowerinSouthAfrica:fromSegregationtoApartheid”,EconomyandSociety1:4(1972),pp.425–456.RobNixonincorporatesthehomelandsinhisdiscussiononSouthAfricancinemainNixon,Homelands,HarlemandHollywood.

296

themotherdisrobesherdaughterand sendsherarmedand literally clothed forher

newhome.InElelwaniweseetheremovalofherbright‘girly’coloursandaccessories

tomakewayforafulltraditionalVendaoutfitwhichmirrorsherownmother’s. The

scenealsoplaysacritical role inmakingvisible therelationshipbetweenElelwanias

part of one generation and her mother as part of another. Throughout the film

Elelwani’smotherhassubscribedtopatriarchalvalues. Herpositioning is,withouta

doubtcompoundedbythephysicalgesturesthataccompanyawoman’sroleinVenda

culture,suchasalwaysbowingyourheadwhenaddressingamalefigureandserving

food on your knees. Although Elelwani also subscribes to these customs, her self-

assertionpositionsheroutsideofhermother’sworld.

The scene takes place in a hut: a now familiar setting although it is unclear

whether it is one that we have seen before or another hut because there are no

decorativeelementsthatservetoresituatetheviewer.AsElelwani’smotherremoves

itemsofclothingshealsogivesher tips forhowtobeagoodmarriedwoman. Two

mirrorsareplacedagainstthewallofthehut;oneisfulllengthandtheotherreflects

Elelwani’scalves,partsofherbodythatarenolongertobeseenbyanyoneotherthan

herhusband.Elelwani’smother’swarningsandsuggestionsareintendedtohelpthe

newbride,however, theyare ideasthatstand indirectcontrastwiththekindof life

Elelwanihasenvisionedforherself. TheresultforElelwani iswitnessedinthisscene

through her complete lack of interest and her desperate reluctance, which appears

almostincontrasttothephysicalchangeinherlookthatissoenthusiasticallyaffirmed

throughout the scene by hermother. Elelwani’s expression remains blank and the

olderwoman’swisdomsarenotmetwithanyresponsesfromherdaughter.

297

The intimacyof themoment is very clear in theway they are framed in this

scene,astheshotsvacillatebetweenlongshotsfromadistance,asthoughshotfrom

theothersideof thehut inordertoexpressa feelingofwitnessingsomethingquite

sacred,oravariationofclose-upsthatexpresseachwomen’s innerstate. Elelwani’s

clothingisvisibleonthefloorashermothertellsherthatshewillnolongerwearsuch

thingsanymore.Thecamerathenzoomsintoaclose-upofhercolourfulclothing,and

life,inadiscardedpile.Wecontinuetowatchhermotherdressherinthetraditional

Vendaskirtandbeads.ThisisaprocessofwitnessingElelwani’sacceptanceofherfate

andasenseofsadnessthateverythingshehasworkedsohardforwilldissipateinthis

hypermasculine and patriarchal world. This distinct sense of the inter-generational

gap remains a pressing representation throughout the scene as the mother’s

excitement grows even in spite of Elelwani’s clear pain. The camera zooms in on

Elelwani’s face in a close-up as hermother continues to talk about the chores of a

marriedwoman:collectingwater,makingfood,answeringtheeldersrespectfullyand

mostimportantly,notembarrassingthem,herfamily.

AbouthalfwaythroughthissceneElelwaniappearsalongsidehermotherina

fullfrontalshot.Thetransformationisnowcompleteandherappearanceexpressesa

full-circlemetamorphosis.Notonlyhasallherclothingbeenremoved,shealsohasno

accessories, nor does she have a weave as her hair is short and plain looking.

Unexpectedly though, something of the past remains. In a close-up of the side of

Elelwani’sfaceweseetheoutlineofabutterflybehindherear.Thisisareminderof

her butterfly, Vele, but like this scene in which Elelwani has transformed, it is a

reminderoftheselfthatshechoseandhadbecome.Thebutterfly’spresenceisthus

not only a metaphor for an unwanted transformation but it is also a permanent

298

reminder of the chosen butterfly of her previous life in a larger context of

transformation.

Elelwani does not raise her head in this scene, always keeping her gaze low

even though she does not have to practise this with her mother. The old woman

remainsaloof,genuinelyunawareofthedepthofElelwani’supset. Thisagainpoints

to the unarticulated generational and cultural differences between the twowomen

andabasestaccatosoundonthesoundtrackcomplementsthiseerieexpectantmood.

Thefinalpartoftheclothingprocessishermotherdrapingthebeadsoverherupper

body.Forthisfinaldecoration,Elelwanidoesnotliftherarmsvoluntarilyandtheold

womanhastotakeandliftthemherselfinordertofinishthearrangement.Elelwani’s

disdainispalpableinthismomentasthroughoutthisscene,however,thefinalsense

ofherangerisconveyedwhenhermothergushesoverheraftersheisfullyclothedin

the new outfit. Hermother’s insistence about Elelwani’s beauty and her persistent

requestforElelwanitoseethebeautythatsheseesfurtheremphasisesthediffering

sensibilitiesof their realities. Whenhermotherexcitedly laughs toherself, shealso

exclaimsthatherdaughtershouldturnaroundtolookatherselfinthemirror.Framed

inaclose-up,Elelwaniturnsherheadtotherightasthoughshemightturnaroundto

lookatherselfbutinsteadoffollowinghermother’sinstructionshedoesnot.Asthe

camera zooms out, Elelwani’s full body comes into vision to show that her body

remainsforward-facingeventhoughherheadisturnedtowardsthemirror.

ThissceneisthedefinitivemomentofElelwani’sacceptanceofherfateinthis

negotiation. Furthermore, this event undoes the expectation that she had of her

parentsandof traditionalVendacultureconveyed through theelders, thatalthough

theywerestaunchintheirculturalvalues,theremighthavebeenawaytomarryold

299

traditionswithnewwaysofbeingthatshehadlearnedinhercitylife. Elelwanithus

thoughtthatsheandVelewould,likeDinkyandFanie,beabletostarttheirownnew

traditions.

The soundtrack that accompanies Elelwani’s departure is distinct from the

musicheard throughout the film. It isaslow, languid jazzsoundthatseemsheavily

indicativeofElelwani’sangstaboutthesituation.Thesoundisalsomellowandeven

inrhythm,indicatingaresignedacceptance.Elelwani,fullycoveredinablueblanket,

exitsthehutnotbywalkingbutcrawlingoutandacrossthefrontyardonsmallbrown

andwhitereedmatswhicharelaidoutinfrontofheroneinfrontofthenext.Other

youngwomensinganddancearoundher,whichformsanotherlayerofsoundonthe

billowing jazz tonesof the trumpet. Whenshegets to the frontgateof theyard in

which the hut is she rises andwalks to the gate of her family’s compound. Before

exiting, another young woman lays a mat down which Elelwani lays on in a semi-

kneelingposition.

AlthoughthissceneliterallyfollowsElelwani’sexitfromherparents’hometo

hernewhomewiththeKing,itplaysapartintheexitbutisnottheeventthatmost

impresses on us the change in Elelwani’s life fromwho shewas before her visit to

Vendaandthekindoflifethatthatyoungwomanlived.Theanalysisthatfocuseson

Elelwani’s transformation with her mother in the hut is the climax of the complex

difficulties that Elelwani has to deal with: the tormenting psychological disjuncture

betweentraditionandpost-apartheidopportunityasayoungBlackwoman.

Thefilm’smostpressingcommentaboutthedichotomybetweentraditionand

modernity,whatwaLurulihasdescribedasthepossibilityfordifferingsubjectivitiesto

existsidebyside, is foundtobeuntrue inElelwanibecause,asarguedearlier inthis

300

section,thechoicetomarrytheKingisnotonethatshemakesherself.Itisthislackof

choicethatmakesit impossibletoarguethatElelwani’sdesireisfortheco-existence

oftheseworldsbecause,ashasbeenillustratedintheanalyses,shemakescontinuous

attemptstogetoutofthesituation.

[Figure6.1]Elelwaniwithhermother [Figure6.2]Elelwaniassheleaves her parents’homestead

Although the second half of the film invites a different representation of

Elelwani’spower,IstillconsiderthatbecauseitwasnotElelwani’schoicetobethere,

herownroleasrulershouldnotbethoughtlesslycelebratedasanachievement.The

sectionhasshownthatwhileElelwaniexistsinapost-apartheidcontextinwhichshe,

as seen in Dinky, is able to imagine, desire and even articulate resistance against

tradition, the character also exists in a context that is representative of a residual

structureoffeeling.InVenda,post-apartheidSouthAfricaanditsyoungpeopleseems

tobeafuturisticconstructbecauseinthatruralcontext,traditionandseparatismstill

seemtobeappliedinthesamefixedwaysastheywereduringapartheid.Elelwani’s

parentsandtheeldersarethusrepresentativeofadeeplyresidualstructureoffeeling,

which, in Venda, remains dominant. It is as though the contemporary emergent

301

contexthasnotinfiltratedthereyeteithereventhoughitisclearthatthesecharacters

areawarethatapartheidhasended.

Elelwani’s emergent sensibility is similar toDinky’s because it is evident that

shewishestostudyfurther,travelandchooseherownpartner.Elelwaniisthusalso

far outside the proverbial box and is also, a representative of a more discernible

structureof feelingwithin thenewSouthAfrica,perhapsevenmore sobecauseher

assertionstakeplaceinsuchanoutdatedcontext.Elelwaniproveswhatwasidentified

earlier as indicative of a trait of an emergent structure of feeling: a young South

African who is trying to make sense of and articulate the intricacies of a ‘Rainbow

Nation’ identity, and whose identity is distinctly different from those of previous

generations.

302

DisgraceandLucy’s‘RainbowWomb’

Thefinalsectionofthischapternowturnstoanunlikelyunionseenbetween

LucyandPetrus.

Thisthesishasalready,inthepreviouschapter,discussedtherepresentationof

rapeandviolenceinrelationtothethreeyoungmenwhorapeLucyLurie.Thissection

ismore concernedwith the aftermathof the rape,which leads to Lucy’s realisation

thatsheispregnantandherdecisiontokeepthechild.Thechapternowturnstothe

endofDisgraceinwhichLucyasksherfathertoacceptPetrus’proposalformarriage.

Partof thenegotiation that sheoffers is thatPetrus canhave the landbut that she

wantsthefarmhouseforherself.Lucy’soffer,liketheconceptionofthebaby,isadark

twist on ritualswhich, in other contexts, are enacted differently. Meg Samuelson’s

discussionofLucy’s rape in thecontextof thenoveluses the term“rainbowwomb”

withreferencetothepost-apartheidterminology‘RainbowNation’.322Inusingsucha

description,Samuelsondescribesthewhitewombasaboundaryofrace,notingthat

“as a white woman, Lucy has no future until her womb has been ‘soiled’ and

‘darkened’”.323 WhereasDinkyandFaniechoosetheir interracialunion,Lucyhasno

choiceinthemixedraceunionthatshewillbirth.

BeforeDavidleavesthefarmandafterPetrus’returnafterthebreak-inandthe

rape,PetruscomestoLucy’shouselookingforDavidtoassisthimwithpipefitting.The

scenetakesplaceasDavidandPetruscrouchdownoppositeeachothertojoinpipes

underthegroundonebyone.ThesepipeswillproviderunningwatertoPetrus’new

housethathebuildsthroughoutthefilm.Aconversationensuesaboutwhathappened

322MegSamuelson,“TheRainbowWomb:RapeandRaceinSouthAfricanFictionoftheTransition”,KunapipiXXIV:1&2(2002).323Ibid.,p.93.

303

whenPetruswasgone. Petrusknows theboyPolluxwho isbackafter the incident,

seenbyDavidandLucyatPetrus’party.PetrusdoesnotadmitthatPolluxisfamilybut

instead confidently assures David that “now, everything is alright” and that Lucy is

“forward-looking, not backward-looking”. Petrus’ emphasis on “forward-looking” is

interesting because he insinuates that Lucy’s approach is the best one in this new

context. He also insinuates that David, in his insistence to know about the boy, is

“backward-looking”whichisnotgood.ThisscenebetweenPetrusandDavidsetsup

thefocusofthissection:ananalysisofthemakeshiftlobolathattakesplacebetween

David and Petrus about Lucy, the baby and Lucy’s place on the farm (and in South

Africa).

Ashasbeenexaminedinthepreviouschapter,theBlack‘boys’whorapeLucy

are stereotypes of young Blackmen in South Africa. Pumla Gqola’s Rape: A South

African Nightmare contextualises the employment of this stereotype and traces its

historicalplace inSouthAfricawhenshewrites thatstereotypical representationsof

Blackmalesasrapistsofwhitewomenhasplayedamajorroleintheriseofracism.324

Gqola cautions that this is “not a smallmatter, and constructionsof ‘blackperil’, or

whatwastermed‘swartgevaar’(blackdanger)incolonialandapartheidSouthAfrica,

depended heavily on this idea of the sexually and otherwise violent Blackman”.325

WhatIintendtoshowinthisbriefanalysisisthattheunionbetweenPetrusandLucy

isacomplexnegotiationofwhatGqoladescribesasthe“constructionsof‘blackperil’”

andhowevershameful,possibilitiesfornewunions.

LucytellsDavidofthepregnancywhenhereturnstovisitherunderthepretext

thatheisonhiswaytoajobinterview.Thetwoareseatedoppositeeachotheratthe

324Gqola,Rape:aSouthAfricanNightmare(Johannesburg:MFBooks,2015),p.4.325Ibid.

304

kitchentablewhenLucytellshimthatsheispregnant.Theshortsceneincorporatesa

shot-reverse-shot pattern between Lucy and her father. They are both framed in

mediumclose-upsasLucyexplains that shewillhave thechild, that she isawoman

andwill not hate a child because ofwho its father is. The scene endswhenDavid

excuseshimself,teauntouched,togoforawalk.Amediumclose-upofLucy’sfaceis

held before a cut to David, who stands outside facing a wall. Overcome by the

humiliationandgriefofthesituation,Davidiscrying,firstslightlybentoverandthen,

moreviolently,asthoughhemightcollapse.Withthepregnancyasanewchallenge

to theexperienceof livingon the farm, Lucyhas tomake certain choices abouther

future.Hergrowingbellyposesimminenceandurgency,justliketheendofapartheid,

asking:whatwillhappennext,whatwillitlooklikeandisitpossibletolovethischild

bornofsuchaviolentexperience?

AlthoughPetrusexpressesthathewilllookoutforLucy,healsopointsoutthat

whileDavidprotectshischild,PetrustoomustprotectPollux,whoishisfamily. The

conversation takesplacewhileDavid,hands inpockets,watchesPetrus lay concrete

for a house that will soon be his own property. Different to the conversations

betweenLucyandherfather,wheretheyareoftenbothinthesameeyelevelposition

making shot-reverse-shots appear natural and equal, dialogues between Petrus and

David always take placewith one or the other positioned higher or lower than the

other,ansubtleindicationofpowerandthepresenceofabattleforit.Itisironicthat

inthis‘building’sceneitisPetruswholooksupatDavidfromalowangleshot,whenit

isPetruswhoisinfactinpower.Davidhoweverhasahardtimeacceptingasecond

defeatwhen Petrusmakes a pragmatic suggestion tomarry Lucy. Although Lucy is

abletoseeandacknowledgethesuggestionasagestureofprotectionDavidisnot.

305

There are, however two expectant women inDisgrace: one is Lucy and the

other is Petrus’wife. Samuelsonnotes in relation to the novel, that Petrus’ “‘pure’

race child (that) will be born in the spring with all its suggestions of renewal and

growth,whileLucy’sexpectedonlyinlateMay,willbebornintothefrostsofanearly

Eastern Cape winter”.326 The building, as with the pipes and running water, is

indicative of another new present, one in which the formerly disadvantaged have

accesstothesatisfactionofbasicneeds.Theculminationoftheconversationbetween

Petrus andDavid is a suggestion thatPetruswillmarry LucybecausePollux is still a

child. While David thinks that the idea is preposterous, Lucy immediately sees its

value. She perceives it as an acknowledgement of her presence in the new South

Africa and a justification and legitimation of her stay and white presence. Lucy’s

awareness about the union invites us to see Lucy’s controversial pregnancy in a

differentway,onewheresheacquiescesinpowerforhergreatergoodandprotection

through the baby. Although unwanted, the child serves a purpose and invites

possibilities for Lucywhere they did not exist before. The scene inwhich Lucy and

David discuss the possibility of a union between Lucy and Petrus is illuminative in

showinghowherpregnancyisconceivedofdifferentlyaftertheunexpectedproposal.

Thesceneopenswithamediumclose-upofDavidasheexpresseshis feeling

aboutPetrus’proposal.Ashot-reverse-shotpatternensuesbetweenthetwothrough

whichwegetthedistinctimpressionthatDavidisangrywithLucyfornotdealingwith

thesituationinthewayheseesfit.ThesettingisLucy’sfrontgarden,nowfilledwith

flowers, vegetables and plants which she tends to. Lucy disagrees with David’s

position and clarifies that Petrus’ proposal is not a traditional marriage but “an

alliance,adeal…”andultimatelyprotection.Lucy’spointofviewisofDavidandinthe

326Ibid.

306

backgroundPetrus’house(andPetrusbuildingthehouse)isvisible.Stillbeyondthatis

the landscape of the Eastern Cape. FromDavid’s point of viewwe see Lucy in her

garden. Thesebackgroundchoicesare importantbecauseforDavidandgenerations

before him,whitemen controlled the land. Not only is this no longer the case but

Blackmen,likePetrus,arenowtakingbackthelandandthecountry.Blackmenare

nowtherepresentativesofpower. Thefilmcommentsonthisoften,shownthrough

the presence of sex (David’s pursuits) and Lucy’s rape juxtaposedwith Petrus’ new

materialacquisitions,landandthehousethathebuildsthroughoutthefilm.

ForLucy’sgeneration,thefilmcomments,thereisadangerouslypressingneed

tonegotiatethetermsofstaying.DavidisabouttoreturntoPetruswitharejectionof

his proposal when Lucy jumps up. A full-length shotmakes the importance of her

following linesevenmore compelling. Sheoffersher termsof thenegotiation: that

shewillacceptthemarriageasprotectionontheconditionthatthechildisPetrus’too

andthuspartofhisfamily.Shewillsignoverallthelandtohimbutshewantstokeep

the house and the kennels, which nobody, not even Petrus is permitted to enter

withoutherpermission.ThesearethetermsofLucy’sagreementtomarryingPetrus.

WhenDavidtellsherthatitisnot“workable”,Lucy,inamediumclose-up,exclaims,“I

amnotleaving,David!”BeforeDavidleavestotellPetrusthetermsoftheagreement

he resignedly tells Lucy how humiliating to end like this, “like a dog”. Lucy agrees

beforeDavidturnstowardsPetruswhoisstillbuilding.

307

[Figure6.3]DavidlooksatPetrusinthedistanceasPetruscontinuesthebuildingofhishouse

Whattakesplaceinthissceneisanunconventionallobola,anegotiationofthe

termsofmarriage,evenwithoutabride.EventhoughPetrusdoesnotcallitthis,Lucy

understandsthathissuggestiontomarryisaboutanegotiation;inaway,thereisstill

adiscussionaboutbrideprice.LikeinFanieFourie’sLobola,theactuallobolaandthe

unionmayappearunconventionalbut twoprimarycharacteristics standout. One is

thatthe‘negotiation’stilltakesplacebetweenelders,Lucy’sfatherandPetrus,whoin

effect stands in for Pollux. Secondly, Lucy carries theultimateoffence in ‘damages’

(loweringofthebrideprice)inlobolanegotiations,whichisapregnancy.Althoughit

appears as though it is Lucywhoarticulates the termsof the agreement, it is really

Petruswhosteersthearrangementasheknowsitwillbenefithim. BothPetrusand

LucyalsoknowthatLucy’spregnancybyrapeisnottheonlydamageshecarriesinher

“soiledwomb”.327Lucyisalsoawhitewomaninpost-apartheidSouthAfricaandthus

carriesgenerationalguilt.

327Ibid.

308

The contrast between Lucy and David’s understanding of the realities of her

situationprovidesan illustrationofanewsensibility–Lucy’s–emergingagainst the

residual dominanceof her father’s. As in a traditionalmarriage, thewomanpasses

fromtheprotectionofherfathertoherhusband. Inthisparticularcontext, though,

Petrusrecognises theprivilegeofBlackness in thenewSouthAfrica,and isawareof

howtheemergentcontextbenefitshisownlife.

309

Conclusion

This chapter has shown how young women in post-apartheid South Africa

struggle with historically incompatible ways of being, often slightly stuck between

beingeducatedwomenwhohaveagencyandknowwhattheywant,versustraditional

binds that theyarehistoricallyandculturallybeholden to. Thecharactersdiscussed

are representative of emergent sensibilities within a post-apartheid context and

present emergent choices and actionswithin that context. This is in contrast to the

youngmen of the previous chapterwho exist in an emergent context butwho are

characterisedasincapableofarticulatingthemselvesasdistinctfromyoungBlackmen

of a previous generation. Each example in this chapter has reflected a different

negotiationofunionwhich Iargue isaproductivewayofthinkingaboutthepresent

andfutureofSouthAfricawhilestillawareofthepast.

Theexamplesinthischapterdonotonlyconfirmthepresenceofanemergent

structure of feeling of the new South Africa but also comment on the residual

structure of feeling. Examples have shown how characters representative of the

residual structure also hold a complicated place in the ‘RainbowNation’. Although

such characters are aware that apartheid is over, and often, like Mr Magubane or

Elelwani’s family, did not benefit from that structure, the respectful pasts that they

referencearepartofthattime. It isnotablethatcharacters likeElelwani,Dinkyand

evenLucy,whodealswithadifferentinstanceofaresidualcharacterinherfather,are

abletograpplewithandbegintoarticulatetheirresistancesagainstacontrivedpast

thatcontinuestoimposeresidualelementswithinthepresentcontextofanemergent

structureof feeling. Thischapterthusconcludesthattheyoungwomenrepresenta

310

constructiveoutcomeoftheTRCandinviteapositiverepositioningonSouthAfrica’s

traumaticpast.

Thenegotiationsdiscussedinthischapterviaritualstodowithunionsarealso

readasnegotiating the ‘Rainbow’ in theunfixedcontextofpost-apartheidalongside

the unfixed categories proposed by the characters. Dinky, Elelwani and even Lucy,

defytraditioninsignificantways,whileatthesametimetryingtoforgenewwaysof

being for themselves and their interracial and interethnic partnerships moving

forward.

311

CONCLUSION

In her study of the cultural politics of women as consumers in post-war

Germany, Erica Carter develops an argument around women’s critical and crucial

positions intherebuildingthenation.328 Post-apartheidSouthAfrica isnotpost-war

GermanyandIambynomeansalludingtosuchadenouement,neitherfortheoverall

thesisnorforpost-apartheidfilmsdiscussedinit.Iam,however,suggestingthatthis

thesis’s engagement with ‘Representations of the Rainbow’ has come to exhibit a

number of distinct gendered and class points aroundwho embodies the ‘Rainbow’.

Carter’sstudyillustratesthatwomenhavebeenprovenasthecarriersofnewnation

beforeinquiteremarkableways,someofwhicharealsorelevanttothisthesis.Ihave

foundthatpost-apartheidrepresentationsofyoungwomenachievesomethingsimilar

againstabackdropoffilmsthatshowhowcomplexitreallyistoimplementchange.In

theintroductiontothethesisIlistedsomeofthetermsofnewnationthataidedinthe

officialcreationofthepost-apartheidnationsuchas‘Rainbowism’,‘SouthAfricanese’

and ‘ubuntu’, among others. The thesis’s engagement with the rhetoric of the

‘RainbowNation’hasseenhowthesetermshavebeeninvokedinthefilmsandinthe

characters to represent a range of sensibilities related to different stages of the

processofworkingthroughthelegacyofapartheid.

The films discussed in this thesis have shown that an emergent structural

context, the official post-apartheid, is much more prominent than an emergent

structureof feeling seen in individual characters. The contextand the traitsofnew

nation are often still embroiled in the practical legacies of the past, and thus the

promises held in the rhetoric of ‘Rainbow Nation’ rhetoric, have been shown as

328Carter,HowGermanisShe?

312

generally unrealised. Old, residual structures of feeling also continue to persist,

sometimes in unexpected places and identities. Because of the weight and

expectation that came with the end of apartheid, the official rhetoric of ‘Rainbow

Nation’alsoremainsasakindofphantomwhichcontinuestohauntandneverquite

reincarnates intosomething tangible. The thesishas thusconsidered this inculcated

‘Rainbow Nation’ rhetoric with a historical approach, found within the films and

throughclosetextualanalysisaccordingtothethemesofeachsection.Thepastinthe

present is a recurring theme in the films dealt with in this thesis and has become

culturallymanifestinpost-apartheidanditsfilmculture.

Section One of the thesis’s engagement with anti-apartheid films helps to

contextualisetheapartheidpast. The identificationof ‘outofplace’Blackandwhite

charactersinapartheidshowshowapartheidwasafixedplaceinwhichidentitieswere

fixed too. Although the chapter concludes that these films were generally not for

South African audiences, the chapter’s emphasis on examining themasculine racial

binariessetupbythehyper-racialisedapartheidsystemasseeninADryWhiteSeason

andCryFreedom,assistsinunderstandinghowapartheidworked.Thechapterisalso

effective in constructing a gender binary in which women are protectors who hold

familiestogether.BeyondshowingthattheBlackandwhiteprotagonistsofthefilms

goagainsttheconstraintsofapartheid,thechapterthusalsocommentsonwomen’s

rolesintheconstructionandmaintenanceoftheeveryday. Thispointaboutwomen

wasfoundtobetrueinmanyoftheexamplesofthepost-apartheidfilmstoo.

SectionTwo’sconcernsarewithhowpost-apartheidfilmsrepresentthepast,

thenewnationandtheremnantsofthepastidentifiedasrepresentativeofaresidual

structureof feeling. TheconsiderationsofChapterThree illustratethattheTRC,the

313

primaryofficialvehiclethroughwhichtheendofapartheidwasnavigated,broughtthe

traumaandhistorical legaciesofapartheidtolight. Inallthefilms,theofficialevent

andthediscoursearounditpresentindividualandcollective(national)distress,whichI

perceiveastraumapresentedinthefilms.Inapre-emergentwaythen,thistrauma,in

its ‘publicness’,whichtheTRCandrepresentationsof itrichlyengagewith,showsus

thatwhile ‘RainbowNation’ rhetoric steers the immediate post-1994 sensibilities of

post-apartheid belonging, the TRC also presents a kind of end, an official ‘working

through’. The films of Chapter Three also show what is left behind, beneath the

official trauma articulated in the TRC. The analyses of this chapter then points to

parapraxis evidenced in the traumas in the films, which I consider as part of, not

excluded from the ‘Rainbow’. To recall Elsaessar’s definition regarding the two-

prongednatureofparapraxis, Iconsiderthatfilmsaboutpost-apartheidSouthAfrica

areboth representativeofa failedperformanceof the rhetoricofnewnationanda

performance of failure that has begun to find new ways of making sense of the

‘Rainbow’, outside of the official discourses.329 These inarticulate pains, seen in

characters in the films of Chapter Three, allow me to conclude that within these

representationsaretraumasthat liebeneaththatsurface,whichareasengrained in

the‘Rainbow’asthepositiveaspectsof‘ubuntu’.

Chapter Four’s discussion ofwhitemiddle-agedwhitemen is an investigation

into another lesser considered avenueof thepost-apartheid context. The chapter’s

analyses of the tropes of shame, guilt and loss of power concludes that although

characters like Francois van Heerden and David Lurie exist in a new South African

context,theyareunabletodealwiththeirownpastsandthelossofwhitemasculine

power. To thisend, ina sardonichomage to theTRC, these filmsgrapplewithhow

329Elsaessar,GermanCinema,p.26.

314

thesemiddle-agedwhitemendonotreallyhaveanidentifiedplaceinthe‘Rainbow’.

Inaway,theirsexualescapadespresentanothertakeontraumatic‘actingout’asthey

present residual elements of themselves (fixed apartheid identities) in an emergent

context.

InCoombes’explorationofthegenderofmemoryinSouthAfricainrelationto

theTRC,shepointstotheissuethatpost-apartheidmemoryworkmightbewomen’s

work.330 Inherdiscussionofhowweas viewers feel relating to themothers in the

documentaryLongNight’sJourneyIntoDay,sheemphasiseshowwesympathisewith

themandfeelshameatourpositionsasviewers.331Iwishtohighlightthough,thatit

isthemotherswhowerethecarriersofthememorynarrativesinthisfilmandalsoin

otherTRCfilmsthathavebeendiscussed inthethesis. Thetraumaoftheapartheid

pastisthereforerecognisablethroughoutthefilmsdiscussedinthethesis.

Eveniftraumaitselfisnotrepresentable,asisassumedintraumaandmemory

studies, then Iargue that theability to recognise trauma in the filmsmustbeworth

somepauseandconsideration. Therepresentabilityofconceptsaroundthetrauma,

such as ‘acting out’ and ‘working through’ leads me to conclude that the films of

SectionTwoaredefinitive intheirabilitytobringtheaffectiveemotionoftraumato

the experience of watching the films. However, instead of trying to prove the

‘unprovable’,IchoseinsteadtoalsoconsiderthefilmsbeyondtheTRCandtheirdirect

referencetotraumaandapartheid.Thisishowitcametobethatfilmsoutsideofthis

narrativealso reflectedelementsof trauma fromapartheidand it is basedon these

presencesthatthethesisisabletodrawsuchconclusions.

330Coombes,TheGenderofMemoryinRadstoneandSchwarz(eds.),Memory,pp.442–458.331Ibid.

315

Inamovetoquestionwhatexistsbeyondthe‘actingout’andguiltaroundthe

pastevidenced inthepresent,SectionThreetakesamoredecisiveturn in itssearch

forthepresenceofsomethingnewand/oremergent. GuidedbyWilliams’concepts

of‘pre-emergent’and‘emergent’,ChaptersFiveandSixsoughtnotonlytoexplorethe

possibilityofemergentstructuresoffeelingwithinthefilmsbutalsosoughttoexplore

the traits of the emergent. Although the investigations for the final section started

without distinguishing between young men and women, the films presented

themselvesinthisway.

Based on the analyses throughout, the thesis has been able to identify

elements of an emergent structure of feeling as the ability for a post-apartheid

charactertoshowvisibletraitsofactivatinganewsensibilityoftheirownidentity;and

for these post-apartheid characters to enact decisions made in relation to a post-

apartheidpresentandfuturewhichemphasisesadistinctshiftfromhowthingswere

inthepast.Afurthercharacteristicpresentedinthefilmsisthatthesecharactersare

also able to show awareness of the complexities of the past in such a way that I

consideranemergentsensibilityasencompassingthatpastwithoutthepastbeinga

debilitatingfactorinthepresent.Inotherwords,atrulyemergentwayofbeingisnot

one in which the characters are hampered by the past, and are thus no longer

restrained by the traumas of apartheid although they are also not unaware of the

history. A final emergent characteristic, and themost consistently employed in the

films, refers to showing how young Black post-apartheid characters are part of a

growingmiddleclass.

Chapter Five deals with representations of infantilisation and hyper

masculinitiesseenintheyoungBlackmenofDisgrace,Tsotsi,andHijackStories.While

316

eachofthefilmspresentthecontextofthenewSouthAfrica,eachalsomakesexplicit

useofshowinghowthisnewplaceisdangerousandproblematic,oftenbecauseofthe

youngmen.Althoughawareofthenewnation(exceptfortherapistsinDisgrace),the

youngmenof the filmsplaceemphasisonself-assertionthroughmasculinity innon-

mainstream,seeminglymarginalspaces,liketheurbantownshipsoronaremotefarm,

in the case ofDisgrace. It is as though, the films suggest, the practicalities of the

‘Rainbow’simplydonotextendintotheseBlack(poor)placesbecausetheyoungmen

are not actively involved in the emergent context, nor do they assert themselves in

emergent ways. In the one character that arguably embodies the traits of an

emergent perceptiveness, Sox, in Hijack Stories, we see the film reinforce the

emergent context,while it almost dismantles Sox’s ability to be present in it. Sox’s

searchforthemachoaffirmationhedesiresoutstripsthevalueofthe‘Rainbow’,and

Zama’s theft of the role of ‘Bra Zeb’ suggests thatmuch of the participation in the

‘Rainbow’isquitesimply,adeceptiveperformance.

The young Black men are however not alone in their fixed and seemingly

inescapable roles. The charactersofChapter Four, FrancoisVanHeerdenandDavid

Lurie, are also unable to (albeit for different reasons) access the ‘Rainbow’ in its

fullness. While their guilt, shameand lossofpowerdebilitate those characters, the

young men of Chapter Five are also incapacitated by the inability to surge beyond

residualmarkersandplacesofvalueoftenstillattachedtoapartheid. Eachof these

groupsofmenpresentrecalcitrantidentitieswithinthenewSouthAfricathattheyare

somehowunabletoescapeorreshape.ItisforthisreasonthatChapterFiveendson

thenoteof‘agshame’,applyingamodeof‘SouthAfricanese’tothesecharactersthat

aresoimpairedinacontextthatisinprinciple,sofullofhopeandpossibility.

317

ThefindingsofChapterFiveofferaratherdispiritingoutlookthatmaysuggest

the impossibility of an emergent structure of feeling at all. However, Chapter Six

presents new possibilities through engagement with representations of

unconventionalunions.Evidencedthroughtheirabilitytodistinguishthemselvesfrom

thepast,theyoungwomenofDisgrace,ElelwaniandFanieFourie’sLobolarepresent

emergent sensibilities within the emergent context of the ‘Rainbow’. In their

negotiationsofunions,Iarguethatitispossibletoevidenceaproductiveoutcomeof

theTRC.Althoughelementsoftheresidualstructureoffeelingarepresentincertain

charactersinthefilms,Iconcludethatitisbecauseoftheseresidualelementsthatthe

new identities are even further emphasised and illuminated. Instead of the young

womenrevertingtooldwaysofbeing,theydonotonlyreferencenewidentities,they

enactthemandtheirchoicescontributetonewformationswhichprovetoreconfigure

‘RainbowNation’identities.

Characters like Dinky, Elelwani and even Lucy, represent the foundational

embodimentofthecomplexitiesof‘TheRainbow’.Whileyoungmenseemunableto

trulyenterandbepartof thepractical re-imaginationofpost-apartheid, thewomen

do the work of building that nation. It is thus in their racial, gendered and ethnic

differences,thatyoungwomenareshowntocometogetheranddotheworkofpost-

apartheidinwaysthatfurther,progressanddevelopthatsociety.

Just as thedifferent structures of feeling are intricately part of the ‘Rainbow

Nation’, so the thesis, continuously in each section, returned to thequestionof the

validity of a national cinema. The introduction set out the aims of this thesis as

exploring representationsof ‘TheRainbow’,meaning thenewnationofSouthAfrica

after1994.Inpreviousscholarship,focushasbeenrelativelycleararoundtheformal

318

modalities of the structures put in place for the cinemaof the newnation (like the

NFVF). This thesis set out to probe the construction of this ‘rainbow’ within the

‘Rainbow’.BythisImeanthat,aspointedoutintheintroduction,structureslikethe

NFVFwereput inplace topromoteSouthAfrican filmsandplace theiremphasison

filmsthatshowanddealwiththehistoryofthecountry.

Inthisthesis’scriticalcontextualisationoffilmsIhavealsoconsideredtherole

of historiography in thinking abouthow these films contribute to theways inwhich

South African history is ‘written’ and remembered. Employing historiography in a

sustainedmannerwasbeyondthescopeofthisthesisbutisnotedhereassomething

forfutureconsideration.

Partoftheaimofthethesishasbeentounpackwhataselectionoffilmswhich

dealwiththeapartheidpastandpresentshowaboutthecountry,andtoquestionhow

thefilmsdealwiththeofficialrhetoricof‘RainbowNation’.Despitethefactthatsome

of the films are hopeful and others critical, they all intersect around one common

concern: anexplorationof newand shifting SouthAfrican identities. In lightof this

then, Iprefernot touse the term ‘nationalcinema’ for filmsaboutSouthAfricaand

instead see the themes they present as indelibly linked to the structures of feeling

identified in the characters. It is through an identification and articulation of

structuresof feeling, that thecommonthreadbecomesanalyticallymorecompelling

becauseanalysiscanengagearangeofbroadquestionswithoutmakingassumptions

aboutacinemaofanation.

This thesishas considered the consciouspersistenceofold identities inpost-

apartheid films, aswell asnew identitieswhich represent anemergent sensibility in

thereconstructionofanewstate.Althoughthestatesponsored‘emergent’,‘Rainbow

319

Nation’ rhetorichas insomeways failedandparalysedpost-apartheid identities, the

thesis has also identified successes. The blockages around ‘Rainbow Nation’ also

appear more discernible in popular culture than in films specifically, and this is

somethingthatmustbeacknowledgedasalimitation.However,whatthefilmshave

proven is that trauma can be identified in the representations of the traumatic

apartheidpastinthefilmsofSectionTwo.Thethesishasalsoproventhatthereare

specific ways in which a pre-emergent and emergent structure of feeling can be

identified within the emergent context of post-apartheid. This distinction between

pre-emergentandemergentwithinanemergentpost-apartheidcontextisvitaltothe

conclusion of the thesis as it points to some of the incompatible signs of the new

nation. Thethesiswasalsoabletoshow,aspopularculturemightnotaddresswith

such specificity, the place of recalcitrant old identities also within the ‘Rainbow

Nation’.Thethesisconcludesonthisambiguousnote,whichthefilmshaveprovenis

trulythedominantexperienceofpost-apartheidSouthAfrica. Whiletherearesome

successes,therearealsomanyincompleteandinarticulatewaysofbeingpartofthe

‘RainbowNation’.

321

BIBLIOGRAPHYAanerud,Rebecca, “FictionsofWhiteness: Speaking theNamesofWhiteness inU.S.

Literature” in Ruth Frankenberg (ed.),Displacing Whiteness: Essays in Social and

CulturalCriticism(DurhamandLondon:DukeUniversityPress,1997),pp.35–59.

Abbas,Ackbar,“HongKong”inHjort,MetteandPetrie,Duncan(eds.),TheCinemaof

SmallNations(Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress,2007),pp.113–126.

Adorno,Theodor,CriticalModels:InterventionsandCatchwords,(NewYork:Columbia

UniversityPress,1998).

Afolayan, Funso, Culture and Customs of South Africa (Westport: Greenwood Press,

2004).

Ahmed,Sara,“AffectiveEconomics”,SocialText22:2(2004),pp.117–139.

-TheCulturalPoliticsofEmotion(Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress,2004).

Amadiume,IfiandAn-NamAbdullah(eds.),ThePoliticsofMemory:Truth,Healingand

SocialJustice,(LondonandNewYork:ZedBooks,2000).

Anderson,Benedict, ImaginedCommunities:ReflectionsontheOriginsandSpreadof

Nationalism(London:Verso,1983).

Andrews,Dudley,“AnAtlasofWorldCinema”inStephanieDennisonandSongHwee

Lim(eds.),RemappingWorldCinema(WallflowerPress:London,2006),pp.19–29.

Ansell,Nicola, “‘Because It’sOurCulture!’ (Re)negotiating themeaningof ‘lobola’ in

Southern African Secondary Schools”, Journal of Southern African Studies 27:4

(December2001),pp.697–716.

Attridge,DerekandJolly,Rosemary(eds.),WritingSouthAfrica:Literature,Apartheid

andDemocracy1970–1995(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1998).

322

Baderoon,Gabeba,“‘ThisIsOurSpeech’:Voice,BodyandPoeticForminRecentSouth

AfricanWriting”,SocialDynamics:A JournalOfAfricanStudies37:2 (June2011),pp.

213–227.

Bakari, Imruh, and Cham,Mbye, (eds.),African Experiences of Cinema (London: BFI

Publishing)1996.

Balseiro,IsabelandMasilela,Ntongela(eds.),ToChangeReels:FilmandFilmCulturein

SouthAfrica(Detroit:WayneStateUniversityPress,2003).

Barnard, Rita, “J. M. Coetzee’s ‘Disgrace’ and The South African Pastoral”,

ContemporaryLiterature44:2(Summer2003),pp.199–224.

- “Ugly Feelings, Negative Dialects: Reflections on Post apartheid Shame”,

Safundi:TheJournalofSouthAfricanandAmericanStudies,13:1-2(January

–April2012),pp.151–170.

Beard, Margot, “Lessons from the Dead Masters: Wordsworth and Byron in J.M.

Coetzee’sDisgrace”inEnglishinAfrica34:1(May2007),pp.59–77.

Bennett, Jill, “TheAesthetic of Sense-Memory” in Radstone, Susannah andHodgkin,

Katharine (eds.), Memory Cultures: Memory, Subjectivity, and Recognition (New

BrunswickandLondon:TransactionPublishers,2005),pp.27–38.

Bennett, Jill Empathic Vision: Affect, Trauma, and Contemporary Art (Stanford,

California:StanfordUniversityPress,2005).

Bewes, Timothy, The Event Of Postcolonial Shame (Princeton andOxford: Princeton

UniversityPress,2011).

Bezan,Sarah,“ShameasaStructureofFeeling:RapeandProstitutedWomeninJ.M.

Coetzee’s ‘Disgrace’ and Futhi Ntshingila’s ‘Shameless’”, The Journal of the African

LiteratureAssociation7:1(2012),pp.15–24.

323

Bhabha,Homi(ed.),NationandNarration(London:Routledge,1990).

Bickford-Smith,Vivian,“ReviewingHollywood’sApartheid:CryFreedom(1987)andDry

WhiteSeason(1989)”,SouthAfricanHistoryJournal48:1(May2003),pp.23–34.

Biko,Steve,IWriteWhatILike(Johannesburg,Oxford:HeinemannPublishers,1978).

Bischoff,Lizelle,“Sub-SaharanAfricanCinemaintheContextofFespaco:Close-upsof

FrancophoneWestAfricaandAnglophoneSouthAfrica”,ForumforModernLanguage

Studies45:4(2009),pp.441–454.

Bisschoff, Lizelle and Van De Peer, Stefanie, “Representing the Unrepresentable” in

Bisschoff, Lizelle and Van De Peer, Stefanie (eds.), Art and Trauma in Africa:

RepresentationsofReconciliationinMusic,VisualArts,LiteratureandFilm(NewYork,

I.B.Tauris&CoLtd.,2013),pp.3–24.

Boraine,Alex,ACountryUnmasked, (OxfordandNewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,

2000).

Borer, Tristan, Anne, “Reconciling South Africa/ South Africans? Cautionary Notes

fromtheTRC”,AfricanStudiesQuarterly8:1(2004),pp.19–38.

Botha, Martin (ed.),Marginal Lives and Painful Pasts: South African Cinema after

Apartheid(CapeTown:GenugtigPublishers,2007).

- South African Cinema 1896 – 2010 (Bristol and Chicago: University Of

ChicagoPress,2012).

Bromley,Roger,“AfterSuchKnowledge,WhatForgiveness?:CulturalRepresentations

ofReconciliationinRwanda”,FrenchCulturalStudies20:20(2009),pp.181-197.

Bruzzi, Stella,NewDocumentary: Second Edition (London andNew York: Routledge,

2006).

324

Buscombe,Ed,TheIdeaofNationalCinema”,AustralianJournalofScreenTheory9/10

(1981),pp.141–153.

Carchidi, Victoria, “South Africa from Text to Film: Cry Freedom and A Dry White

Season” in Simons, John, D., Literature and Film in the Historical Dimension

(Gainesville,Florida:UniversityPressOfFlorida,1994),pp.47–61.

Carter, Erica, Donald, James and Squires, Judith (eds.), Cultural Remix: Theories of

PoliticsandthePopular(London:LawrenceAndWishart,1995).

Carter, Erica, How German Is She? Postwar West German Reconstruction and the

ConsumingWoman(AnnArbor:TheUniversityOfMichiganPress,1997).

Caruth,Cathy(ed.),Trauma:ExplorationsinMemory(BaltimoreandLondon:TheJohn

HopkinsUniversityPress,1995).

- Unclaimed Experience: Trauma, Narrative, and History (Baltimore and

London:TheJohnHopkinsUniversityPress,1996).

Charos,Caitlin,“StatesofShame:SouthAfricanWritingafterApartheid”,Safundi:The

JournalofSouthAfricanandAmericanStudies10:3(July2009),pp.273–304.

Christianse,Yvette,Unconfessed:ANovel(NewYork:OtherPress,2006).

Coetzee, Carli and Nuttall, Sarah, Negotiating the Past: The Making of Memory in

SouthAfrica(OxfordandNewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1998).

Coetzee, Carli, Accented Futures: Language Activism and the Ending of Apartheid

(Johannesburg:WitsUniversityPress,2013).

Cole, Catherine,M., “Performance, Transitional Justice, and the Law: South Africa’s

TruthandReconciliationCommission”,TheatreJournal59:2(2007),pp.167-187.

- Performing South Africa’s Truth Commission: Stages of Transition,

(BloomingtonandIndianapolis:IndianaUniversityPress,2010).

325

Coombes, Annie E.,History after Apartheid: Visual Culture and Public Memory in a

DemocraticSouthAfrica(DurhamandLondon:DukeUniversityPress).

- “The Gender of Memory in Post-Apartheid South Africa” in Radstone,

SusannahandSchwarz,Bill (eds.),Memory:Histories,Theories,Debates (New

York:FordhamUniversityPress,2010),pp.442–458.

Crenshaw, Kimberlé, “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and

ViolenceagainstWomenofColour”,StanfordLawReview43(1991),pp.1241-99.

Cunningham,Michael, “SayingSorry:ThePoliticsofApology”,ThePoliticalQuarterly

PublishingCo.(1999),pp.285-293.

Das,Veena,LifeandWords:ViolenceandtheDescentintotheOrdinary(Berkeley,Los

Angeles,London:UniversityOfCaliforniaPress,2007).

Dennison,StephanieandLim,SongHwee(eds.),RemappingWorldCinema(Wallflower

Press:London,2006).

De Villiers, David W., “After the Revolution: Jerusalema and the Entrepreneurial

Present”,SouthAfricanTheatreJournal23(2009),pp.8–22.

Diawara,Manthia,AfricanCinema:PoliticsandCulture(BloomingtonandIndianapolis:

IndianaUniversityPress,1992).

Dovey, Lindiwe,African Filmand Literature:AdaptingViolence to Screen (NewYork:

ColumbiaUniversityPress,2009).

Durrheim,Kevin,Mtose,XoliswaandBrown,Lyndsay,RaceTrouble:Race,Identityand

InequalityinPost-ApartheidSouthAfrica(Maryland:LexingtonBooks,2011).

Dyer,Richard,“White”,ScreenTheLastSpecial IssueOnRace?29:4 (1988),pp.44–

65.

- White(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,1997).

326

- “Whiteness: The Power of Invisibility” in Rothenburg, Paula (ed.),White

Privilege: Essential Readings of the Other Side of Racism Second Edition

(NewYork:WorthPublishers,2005),pp.9–14.

Elsaessar,Thomas,“Impersonations:NationalCinema,HistoricalImaginationandNew

Cinema Europe” in Mise Au Point Online 5 (2013),http://map.revues.org/1480.

[Accessed30November2015].

- TerrorAnd Trauma: CulturalMemory Since 1945 (NewYork and London:

Routledge,2014).

- “FilmHistoryandVisualPleasureWeimarCinema”, inMellencamp,P.and

P. Rosen, P. (eds.), Cinema Histories, Cinema Practices (Frederick, MD:

UniversityPublicationsofAmerica,1984),pp.47–85.

Eng, David L. and Han, Shinhee, “A Dialogue on RacialMelancholia”,Psychoanalytic

Dialogues,10:4(2000),pp.667-700.

Erasmus, Zimitri, “Re-Imagining Coloured Identity in Post-Apartheid South Africa” in

Erasmus,Zimitri(ed.),ColouredbyHistory,ShapedbyPlace(CapeTown:Kwela,2001),

pp.13–28.

Ezra, Elizabeth and Rowden, Terry (eds.), Transnational Cinema: the Film Reader

(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,2006).

Ferrillo, Angelo, “A Space of (Im)Possibility: Ian Gabriel’s Forgiveness in Gobodo-

Madikizela, Pumla and Van Der Merwe, Chris (eds.), Memory, Narrative and

Forgiveness (Newcastle upon Tyne, Cambridge Scholars Publishing: 2009), pp. 237 –

257.

Freud, Sigmund, “Remembering, Repeating and Working-Through (Further

RecommendationsontheTechniqueofPsycho-Analysis)”,TheStandardEditionOfThe

327

CompletePsychologicalWorksOfSigmundFreudVol.XII (1911–1913):TheCaseOf

Schreber,PapersOnTechniqueAndOtherWorks(1914),pp.147–156.

Fu,AlbertandMurray,MartinJ.,“CinemaandtheEdgyCity:Johannesburg,Carjacking

andthePostMetropolis”inAfricanIdentities5:2(2007),pp.279–289.

Gallagher,SusanVanzanten,“‘IWantToSay/ForgiveMe’:SouthAfricanDiscourseand

Forgiveness”,PMLA117:2(2002),pp.303–306.

Galt, Rosalind and Schoonover, Karl,Global Art Cinema:New Theories andHistories

(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2010).

Gilroy,Paul,AintNoBlack InTheUnionJack (London,Melbourne,Sydney,Auckland,

Johannesburg:Hutchinson,1992(Reprintof1987).

Givanni,June,(ed.)SymbolicNarrativesandAfricanCinema:Audiences,Theoryandthe

MovingImage(London:BFIPublishing,2000).

Gobodo-Madikizela, Pumla and Van Der Merwe, Chris, Narrating Our Healing:

PerspectivesonWorkingthroughTrauma(Newcastle:CambridgeScholarsPublishing,

2007).

Gobodo-Madikizela,PumlaandVanDerMerwe,Chris (eds.),Memory,Narrativeand

Forgiveness(NewcastleuponTyne,CambridgeScholarsPublishing:2009).

Gqola, Pumla, “Defining People: Analysing Power, Language and Representation in

MetaphorsoftheNewSouthAfrica”,Transformation47(2001),pp.94–106.

- Rape:ASouthAfricanNightmare(Johannesburg:JacanaMedia,2015).

Graybill, Lyn S., “Pardon, Punishment, and Amnesia: Three African Post-Conflict

Methods”,ThirdWorldQuarterly25:6(2004),pp.1117-1130.

328

Grundlingh,Albert,“PlayingForPower?Rugby,AfrikanerNationalismandMasculinity

in South Africa, c. 1900 – 1970”, The International Journal Of The History Of Sport

11:3(December1994),pp.408–430.

Guerrero, Ed, Framing Blackness: The African American Image in Film (Philadelphia:

TempleUniversityPress,1993).

- “The Black Man on Our Screens and the Empty Space in Representation”,

Callaloo18:20(1995),pp.395–400.

Gunne, Sorcha, “Questioning Truth and Reconciliation: Writing Rape in Achmat

Dangor’s Bitter Fruit and Kagiso Lesego Molope’s Dancing In The Dust” in Gunne,

Sorcha andBrigley Thompson, Zoe (eds.),Feminism, Literature andRapeNarratives:

ViolenceandViolation(NewYorkandLondon:Routledge,2010),pp.164–182.

Gutsche,Thelma,TheHistoryandSocialSignificanceofMotionPicturesinSouthAfrica

1895–1940(CapeTown:HowardTimmins,1972).

Habib, Adam, “South Africa – The Rainbow Nation and Prospects for Consolidating

Democracy”,AfricanJournalofPoliticalScience2:2(1997),pp.15–37.

Hall, Stuart, “Cultural Identity and Cinematic Representation” in Baker Jr. H.A.,

Diawara, M. and Lindeborg, R. H. (eds.), Black British Cultural Studies: A Reader.

(LondonandChicago:TheUniversityofChicagoPress,1996),pp.210-222.

Hamilton, Paula “Memory and History in Australia” in Hodgkin, Katharine and

Radstone,Susannah(eds.),Memory,History,Nation:ContestedPasts(NewBrunswick

andLondon:TransactionPublishers,2005),pp.136–152.

Hansen, Miriam Bratu, “Schindler’s List is Not Shoah: The Second Commandment,

Popular Modernism and Public Memory” in Landy, Marcia (ed.),The Historical Film:

HistoryandMemoryintheMedia(London:TheAthlonePress,2001),pp.201–217.

329

Harrow, Kenneth W. (ed.), African Cinema: Postcolonial and Feminist Readings

(Trenton,NewJersey:AfricaWorldPress,1999).

Haupt, Adam, “Black Masculinity and the Tyranny of Authenticity in South African

Popular Culture” in Hadland, Adrian, Louw, Eric, Sesanti, Simphiwe, Wasserman,

Herman(eds.),Power,PoliticsandIdentity inSouthAfricanMedia(CapeTown:HSRC

Press,2008),pp.378–398.

- Static: RaceandRepresentation in Post-ApartheidMusic,Media and

Film(CapeTown:HSRCPress,2012).

Healy,Chris,“DeadMan:Film,ColonialismandMemory” inRadstone,Susannahand

Hodgkin,Katharine (eds.),Memory,History,Nation:ContestedPasts (NewBrunswick

andLondon:TransactionPublishers,2005),pp.221–236.

Healy-Clancy,Meghan,“ThePoliticsofNewAfricanMarriage inSegregationistSouth

Africa”,AfricanStudiesReview:ThePoliticsofMarriageinSouthAfrica57:2(2014),pp.

7–28.

Heffelfinger,ElizabethandWright,Laura,“Conclusion:InterculturalFilmin2009:The

Year of South Africa and Pandora”, Visual Difference: Postcolonial Studies and

InterculturalCinema(NewYork:PeterLangPublishing,2011),pp.174–188.

Higgins, Lynn A. and Silver, Brenda R. (eds.), Rape and Representation (New York:

ColumbiaUniversityPress,1991).

Higson,Andrew,“TheConceptofNationalCinema”,Screen30:4(1989),pp.36–47.

Hirsch, Joshua, Afterimage: Film, Trauma and the Holocaust (Philadelphia: Temple

UniversityPress,2004).

Hjort, Mette and Petrie, Duncan (eds.), The Cinema of Small Nations (Edinburgh:

EdinburghUniversityPress,2007).

Hodgkin, Katharine and Radstone, Susannah (eds.), Memory, History, Nation:

ContestedPasts(NewBrunswickandLondon:TransactionPublishers,2006).

330

hooks,bell,BlackLooks:RaceandRepresentation(Boston,Massachusetts:SouthEnd

Press,1992).

Horeck, Tanya, Public Rape: Representing Violation in Fiction and Film (London and

NewYork:Routledge,2004).

Huddlestone,KateandFairhurst,Melanie,”ThePragmaticMarkersAnyway,Okay,and

Shame:ASouthAfricanEnglishCorpusStudy”,StellenboschPapers inLinguisticsPlus

42(2013),pp.93–110.

Jamal, Ashraf, Predicaments of Culture in South Africa (Pretoria: Pretoria University

Press,2005).

Jolly,Rosemary, “Rehearsalsof Liberation:ContemporaryPostcolonialDiscourseand

theNewSouthAfrica”,PMLA110:1(1995),pp.17–29.

Kaplan, E.Ann andWang, Ban, “Introduction: fromTraumatic Paralysis to the Force

Field ofModernity” in Kaplan andWang (eds.), Trauma and Cinema: Cross Cultural

Explorations(HongKongandAberdeen:HongKongUniversityPress,2004),pp.1–22.

Kilbourn, Russell J.A., Cinema, Memory, Modernity: The Representation of Memory

fromtheArtFilmtoTransnationalCinema(NewYorkandOxon:Routledge,2010).

King, BrianH. andMcCusker, Brent, “Environment andDevelopment in the Former

SouthAfricanBantustans”,GeographicalJournal173:1(March2007),pp.6–12.

Krog,Antje,CountryofMySkull,(Johannesburg:RandomHouse,1998).

La Capra, Dominick,Writing History, Writing Trauma (Baltimore: The John Hopkins

UniversityPress,2001).

Lalu,Premesh,“WhenwasSouthAfricanhistoryeverpostcolonial?”,KronosSouthern

AfricanHistories34(Nov2008),pp.267–281.

331

- “Considering History,Memory, Citizenry and their Representation within

theArts:StefenJonssonandPremeshLaluinConversation,ModeratedBy

TracyMurinik” in Elvira Dyangani Ose (ed.),A StoryWithin a Story, The

GothenburgInternationalBiennalForContemporaryArt2015(Stockholm:

ArtAndTheoryPublishing,2015),pp.208-219.

Landsberg,Alison,ProstheticMemory:TheTransformationofAmericanRemembrance

intheAgeofMassCulture(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2004).

Lincoln,SarahL.,“ThisismyHistory”inKaplan,E.AnneandWang,Ban(eds.),Trauma

and Cinema: Cross Cultural Explorations (Hong Kong and Aberdeen: Hong Kong

UniversityPress,2004),pp.25–44.

Lowenstein,Adam,HistoricalTrauma,NationalCinema,and theModernHorrorFilm

(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2005).

Mafela,M.J.,“TheFirstVendaNovelWritersandtheClashofCultures”,SouthAfrican

JournalofAfricanLanguages19:2(1999),pp.117–127.

Magogodi,Kgafelaoa,“Sexuality,PowerandtheBlackBodyinMapantsulaandFools”

inBalseiro,IsabelandMasilela,Ntongela(eds.),ToChangeReels:FilmandFilmCulture

inSouthAfrica(Detroit:WayneStateUniversityPress,2003),pp.187–200.

Maingard,Jacqueline,“NewSouthAfricanCinema:MapantsulaandSarafina”,Screen

35:3(Autumn1994),pp.235–243.

- “SouthAfricanCinema:HistoriesandFutures”,Screen48:4(Winter2007),

pp.511–515.

- SouthAfricanNationalCinema(London:Routledge,2007).

- “Love, Loss, Memory and Truth” in Peterson, Bhekizizwe and Suleman,

Ramadan, Zulu Love Letter: A Screenplay (Johannesburg:Wits University

Press,2009),pp.5–17.

332

- “Foreward” inBisschoff, Lizelle andVanDePeer, Stefanie (eds.),Artand

Trauma in Africa: Representations of Reconciliation inMusic, Visual Arts,

LiteratureandFilm(NewYork,I.B.Tauris&CoLtd.:2013),pp.xviii–xxxiii.

- “FramingSouthAfricanNationalCinemaandTelevision”inBalseiro,Isabel

and Masilela, Ntongela (eds.),To Change Reels: Film and Film Culture in

SouthAfrica(Detroit:WayneStateUniversityPress,2003)pp.115–131.

Mamdani,Mamood,“TheTruthAccordingtotheTRC”inAmadiume,IfiandAn-Nam,

Abdullah(eds.),ThePoliticsofMemory:Truth,HealingandSocialJustice,(Londonand

NewYork:ZedBooks,2000),pp.176–183.

Marx,Lesley,“AttheEndoftheRainbow:JerusalemaandtheSouthAfricanGangster

Film”,Safundi:The JournalofSouthAfricanandSouthAmericanStudies11:3 (2010),

pp.261–278.

McClintock, Anne, “Family Feuds: Gender, Nationalism and The Family”, Feminist

Review(NationalismsAndNationalIdentities)44(Summer,1993),pp.61–80.

McCluskey, Audrey (ed.), The Devil You DanceWith: Film Culture in the New South

Africa(UrbanaandChicago:UniversityOfIllinoisPress,2009).

McEachern, Charmaine,Narratives of NationMedia,Memory and Representation in

theMaking of the New South Africa: A Volume in Horizons in Post-Colonial Studies

(NewYork:NovaSciencePublishers,Inc.,2002).

Mellor, David, Bretherton, Di and Firth, Lucy, “Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal

Australia”,PeaceandConflict:JournalofPeacePsychology13:1(2007),pp.11-36.

Mendez,JuanE.,“LatinAmericanExperiencesofAccountability”inAmadiumeandAn-

Na’Im(eds.),ThePoliticsofMemory,pp.127–141.

Mhando,Martin and Tomaselli, KeyanG., “Film and Trauma: Africa Speaks To Itself

throughTruthandReconciliationFilms”,BlackCamera1:1(2009),pp.30–50.

333

Minow,Martha,“InPracticebetweenVengeanceandForgiveness:SouthAfrica’sTruth

andReconciliationCommission”,NegotiationJournal(1998),pp.319–355.

Mitchell, Joylon, P.,PromotingPeace, IncitingViolence: TheRoleofReligionand the

Media(Oxon:Routledge,2012).

Modisane, Litheko, South Africa’s Renegade Reels: The Making and Public Lives of

Black-CenteredFilms(NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan,2013).

- “Make-ingthePublicSphere:ThePublicLifeofaSouthAfricanFilm”

inComparativeStudiesofSouthAsia,AfricaandtheMiddleEast30:1

(2010),pp.133–146.

Morris, Rosalind, C.,“Style, Tsotsi-style, and Tsotsitaal: the Histories, Aesthetics, and

PoliticsofaSouthAfricanFigure”inSocialText28:2(2010),pp.85–112.

Moyer-Duncan, Cara, “New Directions, No Audiences”, Critical Interventions 5:1

(2011),pp.64–80.

- “Truth, Reconciliation And Cinema: Reflections on South Africa’s

Recent Past in Ubuntu’s Wounds and Homecoming” in Bisschoff,

Lizelle and Van De Peer, Stefanie (eds.), Art and Trauma in Africa:

RepresentationsofReconciliationinMusic,VisualArts,Literatureand

Film(NewYork:I.B.Tauris&CoLtd.,2013),pp.272–293.

Murphy, David and Williams, Patrick Postcolonial African Cinema: Ten Directors

(Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress,2007).

Musila, Grace A., “Laughing at the Rainbow’s Cracks? Blackness,Whiteness and the

AmbivalencesofSouthAfricanStand-UpComedy”inObadare,EbenezerandWillems,

Wendy(eds.),CivicAgencyinAfrica:ArtsofResistanceinThe21stCentury(Suffolkand

NewYork:JamesCurrey,2014),pp.147–166.

Naficy, Hamid,An Accented Cinema: Exilic and Diasporic Filmmaking (Princeton and

Oxford:PrincetonUniversityPress,2001).

334

Nagy, Rosemary, “The Ambiguities of Reconciliation and Responsibility in South

Africa”,PoliticalStudies52(2004),pp.709-727.

Ndebele, Njabulo, South African Literature and Culture: Rediscovery of the Ordinary

(ManchesterandNewYork:ManchesterUniversityPress,1994).

Nixon,Rob,Homelands,HarlemandHollywood:SouthAfricanCultureandtheWorld

Beyond(NewYorkandLondon:Routledge,1994).

Norval,Aletta,J.,“Memory,Identityandthe(Im)possibilityofReconciliation:theWork

oftheTRCinSouthAfrica”,Constellations5:2(1998),pp.250-265.

Nuttall,Sarah,2004.“StylizingtheSelf:TheYGenerationinRosebank,Johannesburg”,

PublicCulture16:3(Fall2004),pp.430–452.

Peterson, Bhekiziwe, and Suleman, Ramadan, Zulu Love Letter: A Screenplay

(Johannesburg:WitsUniversityPress,2009).

Peterson,Bhekizizwe“Dignity,MemoryandtheFutureunderSiege:Reconciliationand

Nation-Building inPost-ApartheidSouthAfrica”, inOpondo,SamOkothandShapiro,

MichaelJ. (eds.),TheNewViolentCartography:Geo-AnalysisaftertheAestheticTurn

(London:Routledge,2012),pp.214–233.

Posel,DeborahandSimpson,Graeme(eds.),Commissioning thePast:Understanding

South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (Johannesburg: Wits University

Press,2002).

Projanksy, Sarah,Watching Rape: Film and Television in Postfeminist Culture, (New

YorkandLondon:NewYorkUniversityPress,2001).

Radstone,Susannah,MemoryandMethodology(OxfordandNewYork:Berg,2000).

335

- “Introduction Trauma Dossier, Special Debate: Trauma and Screen

StudiesOpeningtheDebate”,Screen42:2(2001),pp.188–193.

Radstone, Susannah and Hodgkin, Katharine (eds.), Memory Cultures: Memory,

Subjectivity and Recognition (New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers,

2005).

Radstone, Susannah and Bill Schwarz, Bill, “Introduction: Mapping Memory” in

Radstone, Susannah and Schwarz, Bill (eds.),Memory: Histories, Theories, Debates

(NewYork:FordhamUniversityPress,2010),p.1–14.

Ransley,CynthiaandSpy,Terri (eds.),ForgivenessandtheHealingProcess:ACentral

TherapeuticConcern(EastSussexandNewYork:Routledge,2004).

Reid, Julie, “The Remythologisation of White Collective Identities in Post-Apartheid

SouthAfricanFilmbyMythandCounterMyth”,Communicatio:SouthAfricanJournal

forCommunicationTheoryandResearch,38:1(2012),pp.45-63.

Rosen, Philip, “Nation and Anti-Nation: Concepts of National Cinema in the ‘New’

MediaEra”,Diaspora5:3(1996),pp.375–399.

Russell, Dominique (ed.), Rape in Art Cinema (New York and London: Continuum,

2010).

Sachs, Albie, “Preparing Ourselves for Freedom” in de Kok, Ingrid and Press, Karen

(eds.),SpringisRebellious(CapeTown:BuchuBooks,1990).

Saks,Lucia,CinemainaDemocraticSouthAfrica:TheRaceforRepresentation(Indiana:

IndianaUniversityPress,2010).

Samuelson,Meg,“TheRainbowWomb:RapeandRaceinSouthAfricanFictionofthe

Transition”,KunapipiXXIV:1&2(2002).

336

Silber, Gavin and Geffen, Nathan, “Race, Class and Violent Crime in South Africa:

Dispelling The ‘Huntley Thesis’, SA Crime Quarterly 30 (2009), pp. 35 – 43.

https://www.issafrica.org/uploads/CQ30SILBER.PDF[Accessed10November2015].

Smith, Rene, “Yizo Yizo and Essentialism: Representations of Women and Gender-

Based Violence in a Drama Series Based on Reality” in Wasserman, Herman and

Jacobs, Sean (eds.), Shifting Selves: Post-Apartheid Essays on Media, Culture and

Identity(CapeTown:KwelaBooks,2003),pp.249–265.

Soyinka,Wole,“Memory,TruthandHealing”inAmadiume,IfiandAn-Nam,Abdullah

(eds.), The Politics OfMemory: Truth, Healing and Social Justice, (London and New

York:ZedBooks,2000),pp.21–37.

Stadler, Jane, “Tsotsis, Coconuts andWiggers: Black Masculinity and Contemporary

SouthAfricanMedia” inHadland,Adrian,Louw,Eric,Sesanti,Simphiwe,Wasserman,

Herman(eds.),Power,PoliticsandIdentity inSouthAfricanMedia(CapeTown:HSRC

Press,2008),pp.343–363.

Steyn,Melissa,WhitenessJustIsn’tWhatItUsedToBe:WhiteIdentityinaChanging

SouthAfrica,(NewYork:StateUniversityofNewYorkPressAlbany,2001).

Straker, Gillian, “Unsettling Whiteness”, Psychoanalysis, Culture And Society, 16:1

(2011),pp.11-26.

Switzer, Les, “BantuWorldand theOriginsof aCaptiveAfricanCommercial Press in

SouthAfrica”,JournalofSouthernAfricanStudies14:3(1988),pp.351–370.

Taylor, Jane.Ubu and the Truth Commission (Cape Town: University of Cape Town

Press,1998)

Thomas, Lynn, M., “Love, Sex and the Modern Girl in 1930s Southern Africa” in

Jennifer Cole and LynnM. Thomas (eds.), Love in Africa (Chicago and London: The

UniversityOfChicagoPress,2009),pp.31–57.

Thompson,SorchaandBrigley,Zoe, (eds.)Feminism,LiteratureandRapeNarratives:

ViolenceandViolation(NewYorkandLondon:Routledge,2010).

337

Tomaselli, Keyan, The Cinema of Apartheid: Race and Class in South African Film

(London:Routledge,1989).

- “PopularCommunicationinSouthAfrica:‘Mapantsula’anditsContext

ofStruggle”inSouthAfricanTheatreJournal5:1(1991),pp.46–60.

- Encountering Modernity: Twentieth Century South African Cinemas

(Amsterdam:RozenbergPublishers,2006).

Turim,Maureen,FlashbacksinFilm:MemoryandHistory(NewYork:Routledge,1989).

Tutu,Desmond,NoFuturewithoutForgiveness,(NewYork:RandomHouse,2000).

Ukadike, Nwachukuwu Frank, Black African Cinema (Los Angeles: University of

CaliforniaPress,1994).

VanderHaven,AntonandArnott, Jill, “TheAnxietyofAffect:MelodramaandSouth

AfricanFilmStudies”,SocialDynamics:AJournalofAfricanStudies35:1(2009),pp.162

–176.

Verdoolaege, Annelies, “Media Representations of the South African Truth and

Reconciliation Commission and their Commitment to Reconciliation”, Journal of

AfricanCulturalStudies17:2(2005),pp.181–199.

Vice, Samantha, “HowDo I Live In This StrangePlace?”, Journal of Social Philosophy

41:3(2010),pp.323-42.

Vitali, Valentina, and Willemen, Paul (eds.), Theorising National Cinema (London:

PalgraveMacmillan/BFI,2008).

Walker, Janet, “The Traumatic Paradox: Autobiography, Documentary and the

PsychologyofMemory”inRadstone,SusannahandHodgkin,Katharine(eds.),Memory,

History,Nation:ContestedPasts(NewBrunswickandLondon:TransactionPublishers,

2006),pp.104-119.

338

Walker, Janet, “Trauma Cinema: False Memories and True Experience” in Special

Debate:TraumaandScreenStudies:OpeningtheDebate,Screen42:2(2001),p.211-

216.

Williams,Alan(ed.),FilmandNation(Rutgers:TheStatueUniversityPress,2002).

Williams, Raymond,Marxism and Literature, (Oxford, New York: Oxford University

Press,1977).

- TheSociologyofCulture(Chicago:ChicagoUniversityPress,1981).

Wolpe,Harold,“CapitalismandCheapLabour-PowerinSouthAfrica:fromSegregation

toApartheid”,EconomyandSociety1:4(1972),pp.425–456.

Zegeye,Abebe,andHarris,Richard,C.(eds.),Media,IdentityandthePublicSpherein

Post-ApartheidSouthAfrica(LeidenandBoston:KoninklijkeBrill,2003).

Articles/Interviewsandotherinternetreferences:

NFVFwebsite:http://www.nfvf.co.za/home/index.php?ipkContentID=57[Accessed15August2015].

FreedomParkwebsite:www.freedompark.co.za[Accessed11August2015].

RachelDonadio,“OutofSouthAfrica”,NewYorkTimes,16December2007:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/books/review/Donadio-t.html?fta=y&_r=0.[Accessed6December2015].

AnnaMariaMonticelli interviewwith Australian Film Institute: “Adapting Disgrace”,2009:www.afi.org.au/archive.[Accessed1May2013].

InterviewwithdirectorNtshavheniwaLuruli:http://mg.co.za/article/2014-01-30-insights-into-an-exotic-culture[Accessed21September2015].

Chigumadziarticle,TheGuardianhttp://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/24/south-africa-race-panashe-chigumadzi-ruth-first-lecture[Accessed5October2015];Chigumadzi’srecordedspeech:http://www.journalism.co.za/projects-a-fellowships/ruth-first/[Accessed2September2015].

ArticleaboutSouthAfricanaudiencestoMandela:LongWalkToFreedom:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-25169194[Accessed2December2013].

339

ChiefinvestorsinlocalSouthAfricanfilmindustry:NationalFilmAndVideoFoundation,IndustrialDevelopmentCorporationandDepartmentOfTradeAndIndustry:http://www.filmandtvtransformation.org/sa-film-incentives/[Accessed5October2015].NationalFilmAndVideoFoundationSite:http://nfvf.co.za/home/index.php?ipkContentID=101&ipkMenuID=25&ipkMenuID=54[Accessed5October2015].Oliver Hermanus interview with SBS, 12 June2012:http://www.sbs.com.au/films/video/2244869603/Beauty-Oliver-Hermanus[Accessed1May2013].

OliverHermanusinterviewwithDylanValleyforAfricaisaCountrycultureandnewswebsite:http://africasacountry.com/2011/08/05/interview-with-film-director-oliver-hermanus/[Accessed1May2013].

Mail&Guardian reportonwhiteness:http://mg.co.za/report/on-whiteness[Accessed8May2013].

Rapold, Nicolas, “Tough Terrain To Document: South Africa”, New York Times, 3September 2009:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/movies/06rapo.html?_r=0[Accessed8May2013].

Racial perspective advert: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcWsTwvtyOI.[Accessed10November2015].

TranscriptsandofficialgovernmentActs:

RepublicOfSouthAfrica,GovernmentGazette,NationalFilmAndVideoFoundationAct1997,Act.No.73,3December1997:http://www.gov.za/sites/www.gov.za/files/a73-97.pdf[Accessed10December2015].

GroupAreasAct:http://www.sahistory.org.za/sites/default/files/group_areas_act.pdf[Accessed5November2015].Transcriptofday1ofthePortElizabethHRVTRChearingbetween21-23May1996:www.justice.gov.za/Trc/hrvtrans/hrvpe1/day1/htm[Accessed6November2013].

ImmoralityActof1957:http://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/acts/1957-023.pdf[Accessed31December2015].1985amendmenttoboththeImmoralityActandtheMixedMarriagesAct:http://www.gov.za/sites/www.gov.za/files/Act%2072%20of%201985.pdf[Accessed31December2015].

340

FILMOGRAPHY

Coretexts

CryFreedom.Dir.RichardAttenborough,UK,1987.Maincast:DenzelWashington(SteveBiko),KevinKline(DonaldWoods),JosetteSimon(MamphelaRamphele),PenelopeWitton(WendyWoods),JuanitaWaterman(NtsikiBiko).

Mapantsula.Dir.OliverSchmitz,SA/Australia/UK,1988.Maincast:ThomasMogotlane(Panic),ThembiMtshali(Pat),DarlingtonMichaels(Duma),VanessaCooke(Mrs.Bentley/‘theMissus’)

ADryWhiteSeason.Dir.EuzhanPalcy,USA,1989.Maincast:DonaldSutherland(BenDuToit),JanetSuzman(SusanDuToit),WinstonNtshona(GordonNgubene),JohnKani(StanleyMakhaya),SusanSarandan(MelanieBruwer),ThokoNtshinga(EmilyNgubene),BekhithembaMpofu(JonathanNgubene),RowenElmes(JohanDuToit).

ZuluLoveLetter.Dir.RamadanSuleman,SA/France/EuropeanUnion,2004.Maincast:PamelaNomvete(ThandekaKhumalo),MpumiMalatsi(S’mangalisoKhumalo),SophieNgcina(Me’Thau),LeratoMoloi(DineoTau).

Forgiveness.Dir.IanGabriel,SA/Netherlands/Sweden,2004.Maincast:ArnoldVosloo(TertiusCoetzee),ZaneMeas(HendrikGrootboom),DeniseNewman(MagdaGrootboom),QuanitaAdams(SannieGrootboom),ChristoDavids(ErnestGrootboom),JeremyCrutchley(FatherDalton).

RedDust.Dir.TomHooper,UK/SA,2004.Maincast:HilarySwank(SarahBarcant),ChiwetelEjiofor(AlexMpondo).

InMyCountry.Dir.JohnBoorman,USA/UK/SA,2004.Maincast:JulietteBinoche(AnnaMalan),SamuelL.Jackson(LangstonWhitfield),MenziNgubane(DumiMkhalipi).

Disgrace.Dir.SteveJacobs,Australia,2008.Maincast:JohnMalcovich(DavidLurie),JessicaHaines(LucyLurie),EriqEboliaemy(Petrus),AntoinetteEngel(MelanieIsaacs),BuyamiDuma(Pollux).

Skoonheid.Dir.OliverHermanus,SA/France,2011.Maincast:DeonLotz(FrancoisvanHeerden),CharlieKeegan(ChristianRoodt),MichelleScott(ElenavanHeerden).

Tstotsi.Dir.GavinHood,SA/UK,2005.Maincast:PresleyChweneyagae(Tsotsi),TerryPheto(Miriam),RapulanaSeiphemo(JohnDube),NambithaMpumlwana(PumlaDube).

HijackStories.Dir.OliverSchmitz,Germany/UK/SA,2001.Maincast:RapulanaSeiphemo(Zama),TonyKgoroge(SoxMoraka).

Elelwani.Dir.NtshaveniwaLuruli,SA,2012.Maincast:FlorenceMasebe(Elelwani),AshifashabbaMuleya(Vele),Mother(SalomeMutshinya),Father(SamsonRamabulana).

FanieFourie’sLobola.Dir.HenkPretorius,SA,2013.Maincast:EduanvanJaarsveldt(FanieFourie),ZethuDlomo(DinkyMagubane),MotlatsiMafatshe(Mandla),Jerry

341

Mofokeng(Dinky’sFather–DumisaneMagubane),MargavanRooy(Fanie’sMother–LouiseFourie),YuleMasiteng(Petrus),RichardvanderWesthuizen(Fanie’suncle).

342

SecondaryTexts

E’Lollipop.dir.AshleyLazarus,SA,1975.

ForrestGump.dir.RobertZemeckis,USA,1994.

Sarafina.dir.DarrellRoodt,SA/France/UK/USA,1992.

Cry,theBelovedCountry.dir.DarrellRoodt,SA/USA,1995.

LongNightsJourneyIntoDay.dir.FrancesReidandDeborahHoffmann,SA,2000.

Ubuntu’sWounds.dir.SechabaMorejele,2001.

Yesterday.dir.DarrellRoodt,SA,2004.

Homecoming.dir.NormanMaake,2005.

TheActofKilling.dir.JoshuaOppenheimer,Denmark/Norway/UK,2012.

TheLookofSilence.dir.JoshuaOppenheimer,Denmark/Indonesia/Finland/Norway/UK/Israel/France/USA/Germany/Netherlands,2014.

Jerusalema.dir.RalphZiman,SA,2008.

Skin.dir.AnthonyFabian,UK/SA,2008.

WhiteWedding.dir.JannTurner,SA,2009.

Invictus.dir.ClintEastwood,USA,2009.

FourCorners.dir.IanGabriel,SA,2013.

Chappie.dir.NeillBlomkamp,USA/Mexico,2015.

DistrictNine.dir.NeillBlomkamp,USA/NZ/Canada/SA,2009.

Mandela:LongWalktoFreedom.dir.JustinChadwick,UK/SA,2013.

Mandela,theMythandMe.dir.KhaloMatabane,SA/Germany,2013.