Film Review of Invictus

1. Who was your favorite character?

My favorite character was Francois Pienaar, I really liked the interpretation that Matt Damon made about him. In my opinion, this character represents the paradigm shift that Nelson Mandela sought to generate in South Africa. I liked the way he went internalizing the ethical and moral principles that Mandela transmitted to him and then replicate it in the areas of his life, both in sports and personal. In addition to the reflections he had after meeting him, for example in the scene where they are in Robben Island and knows the cell where Mandela lived for years. I really liked his reintrospection and that he was able to open his eyes to a reality that he did not perceive.

2. How does the film show Nelson Mandela?

In the film the figure of Nelson Mandela is portrayed as that of a hero and martyr. They show the image of a man deeply reflective, tolerant and capable of forgiving despite everything he suffered. Someone who overcame hatred between ethnic groups and who urgently sought unity through nonviolence. In my opinion, the figure of Mandela is exalted in this film and he gave me the impression that he was an irreproachable man, someone to be listened to and followed, a man worthy of admiration.

3. How does this film compare to the other films?

This film is very different from all the ones we analyzed in the course. Without a doubt it is the one that I liked least because it deals with the Apartheid issue from a very vague perspective, focusing exclusively on rugby as the means of unity and practically as the solution to the racial conflict. The film makes little emphasis on the harshness of the conflict and at the end under the protection of the purest style of Hollywood shows a happy ending, as if all the problems had been solved. It has a oneiric character and does not give a good overview of the reality lived during apartheid, it is a living representation of what creative industries and their functions are capable of with commercial capital.

Obviously, the film is entertaining and involving because its producers are experts, but it lacks criticism and the reflexive sense that we could experiment with the other films discussed in this course.

Film Review of The Bang Bang Club

 1. In general, what did you like and dislike about the film?

In general I liked the movie very much, as a spectator it kept me in suspense and nervous about the outcome. I think the film portrays very well the rawness of the conflict, the horrific violence and the role that photojournalists played in covering the humanitarian conflict. I feel that the film makes a criticism of the ethics and morality with which the photographers act, inviting the viewer to reflect on their actions and the consequences they could have had if they had done things better. It is a very powerful and emotional film, one of those that leave you with a bitter feeling.

 I feel that the film has a great richness in content, but this could have been recreated much better if they had had better actors. In my opinion, the emotions and feelings that the actors try to interpret are not deep enough to make this a masterpiece of cinema.

 2.  How does the film make you think about your future role as journalists and film makers/producers/creators/directors?

This film made me reflect on egoism, individualism and the profound lack of awareness with which inhuman situations can be faced. in this case the film reflects it with the photographers. In my case that is journalism, it leaves me as a teaching that we have great power in our hands and we must know how to use it. As communicators we have the possibility of disseminating information to a large audience and we must clearly distinguish the influence that can be exercised from the office. Therefore I feel that we should be empathetic, try to improve things within our means and take risks if necessary.

 3.  In this film, and various of the other films, we have seen how black South Africans went to vote massively in April 1994 to seal the downfall of the apartheid system with the electoral triumph of Nelson Mandela and the ANC, now more than 20 years later, we see many of the problems originated during the apartheid are still present such as land inequality, class inequality, unemployment, etc.

How have the dreams from the anti-apartheid struggle played out since the ANC has been in power?

I believe that the political and social situation that the South African population still suffers is very regrettable. Where the historical struggle to achieve equal opportunities of a looted and impoverished people still persists. It seems that the principles of the Charter of Freedom, which in turn were decisive for the struggle against Apartheid, have been forgotten.

Social inequality persists, the positions of power that determine social and economic policies remain under the influence of whites, and there is a clear tendency of the country toward neoliberalism. The foundations that led the ANC to overthrow apartheid are currently very questionable, and the positions of political power that they achieved today are sustained and maintained thanks to the historical memory of a highly traumatic process.

There are great similarities between this situation and that experienced by Chile. Both experienced at a similar historical moment, the social repression of the state, discrimination, racism and intolerance. in which both processes left an indelible mark on their history. The principles of freedom, social equity and the fight against capitalism have been forgotten by those who represent the struggle of both the ANC in South Africa and the Concertación in Chile.

Extreme inequality persists and their governments respond, even if they do not want to admit it to the logic of neoliberal capitalism. I deeply hope that this situation will change, especially in South Africa, and that its future representatives will respect and reflect the historical demands of a beaten people.

Film review of Catch a Fire

1. In general, what did you like and dislike about the film?

Of all the movies we've seen this has been the one I liked the most. It tells a story less known, but no less influential in the fight for racial equality and human rights. I think it was fundamental that the director of the film personally interviewed Patrick Chamusso, because it gives him authenticity and creates a special intimacy with the viewer.

The story and how it develops is very involving, always kept me attentive and aroused many emotions throughout the film. The change of mentality of Patrick was surprising, the music was very well selected. I loved that Bob Marley was present, especially his song Exodus which talks about dreams of freedom.

In general, I could say that I liked everything about the movie, I just had the feeling that it was a bit short, but it is a product of the same tension that it provokes. And no doubt the end leaves great lessons, the fact that Chamusso decides not to kill you, despite all the suffering that this gave him, is a sign of greatness, as it seeks to break the circle of hate.

2. Who was the character you like the most and the character you liked the least in the film? Why?

Definitely the character that I liked the most was Patrick Chamusso. His change of mentality is impressive, the passage of a common man who had stability, considering the context in which they found themselves, a distinguished figure in the struggle for the fundamental rights of a people that is denigrated in their own land, I think incredible and inspiring. He left everything aside for a good that I can not even imagine, fight and be willing to give my life for the slogan of equality and justice speaks of a greatness that only few have.

On the other hand is Nic Vos, the worst character in the film. He embodies a retrograde, racist and imperialist philosophy of thought. It's a latent sign of the abuse of power, racial superiority and the use of violence as a mechanism to solve problems. It's a character that serves as an example to teach that this type of thought exists, is still present and that above all things we must work collectively to change it.

3. What was the role of Samora Machel, the FRELIMO, and revolutionary Mozambique in the struggle against the South African apartheid? Use examples from the film and the biography of Samora Machel

The importance of Samora Machel and the Front for the Liberation of Mozambique (FRELIMO), is that they are a symbol of resistance, solidarity and community, not to give up in spite of everything and fight. I think Samora was very influential in the kind of thinking of Patrick Chamusso and helped him to reaffirm his position. 

First they fought their own battle, they won it and they continued to help other African nations in order to liberate them and get fairer rights. In the case of the ANC, they offered their help, they sheltered them, trained them and planned strategies to overthrow apartheid. I find that his way of acting and that deep camaraderie by the other African nations is very respectable, an example worthy of imitation.

Film Review of Kangamba

1. How does the film, Kangamba, show Cuban internationalism in Angola?

The film shows a very heroic image of the Revolutionary Armed Forces (FAR). It shows the Cuban soldiers as men willing to give their lives in very distant lands, capable of fighting without retreating and fighting side by side with the soldiers of The People's Armed Forces of Liberation of Angola (FAPLA) in order to liberate and protect the land of kangamba. The film leaves the impression that the Cuban volunteers are able to feel the pain that afflicts the community of Kangamba, who are besieged by the forces of the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA).

2. What was the most impactful scene for you? Why?

In my opinion, the most remarkable scene of the film is when the FAR and FAPLA soldiers read the letter sent by the Cuban commanders to give them strength at a time when almost everything was lost. They were exhausted, many of their comrades had died, there wasn't water or food and UNITA forces seemed implacable. It's the key moment of the film where you can appreciate the horror and pain of war.

3. What was something you like and something you disliked about the film? Why?

What I didn't like about the movie is the patriotism it has. I thought that because it's a film that isn't from the American film industry, it would have another focus on war. For example, the music that it has doesn't feel that it has nuances with Cuban culture and less that of Angola, on the contrary, it's very similar to American productions. The same thing happened to me with the special effects and with that idealism of "here we come the saviors".

What I did like about the movie was the ending, I never expected Mario to die. That broke the ending that seemed to be happy, it surprised me and I think it was a very creative idea.

Film Review of Goodbye Bafana

1. In general, what did you like and dislike about the film?

I find that the film was very interesting, I liked that the director considered it important to tell the story behind the jailer who for years had been in contact with Nelson Mandela. Knowing the history of James Gregory they leads the viewer to imagine the situations with which they had to deal. The constant pressure of the high commands, the psychological stress to which they were exposed, knowing the paradigms of thought that led their actions, and seeing their family life development.

I liked that they gave importance to the Xhosa language, since it brings the viewer closer to the native language by Nelson Mandela. It's an approach to their culture and I think it has the intention of encouraging tolerance and respect, for example in the scenes where Gregory struggles as a child with his friend from an Xhosa language tribe or in the emblematic scene in which he and Mandela struggle remembering what was part of their roots.

In general it was a great experience to see Goodbye Bafana, I recommend her independently of the controversies that revolve around this production.

2. Who was the character you liked the most and the character you liked the least in the film? Why?

The character that I liked the most was Nelson Mandela, I think his version in this film is more realistic, probably because the production of the film was not in the hands of the American film industry and was directed by the great Danish film director Bille August . Again he is seen an admirable personality, but less exacerbated than in other films. for example in the scene when Gregory tells Mandela and others of his comrades that 17 white people had died in an attack carried out by opposition forces to the Apartheid regime. His response was to think of the thousands of blacks who have died as a result of the repression of the authorities and he would not take a step back.

The character that I liked least was James Gregory, although the performance behind the character was very good, it seems to me that he never really put himself at risk for Mandela, nor did he transmit to his children the values he transmitted. For example, when the police repress the blacks for not going through the pass and hit them regardless of who they are. James' only response to the horror of his children was that this was the work of the police and they had to do it. Gregory was simply a subordinate, his actions were small but they couldn't change anything and for him it was always more important to move up in his work.

3. How do the versions of James Gregory, Nelson Mandela, and Winnie Mandela compare between Goodbye Bafana and Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom?

I think that Winnie Mandela's version of Long Walk to Freedom is much more protagonist than in Goodbye Bafana. In this last one she has a secondary role, we can only see her in the scenes in which she is going to visit Mandela to jail. You can't appreciate his political role and the experiences he had to face for years with his family before Nelson was released.

I also believe that the role of James Gregory in Goodbye Bafana is much closer to Nelson Mandela than in Long Walk to Freedom. This is because Goodbye Bafana is specifically about the life of James during the time he had to keep an eye on Mandela. Unlike this, the jailer portrayed in Long Walk to Freedom, is more distant and only appreciates his approach to the end of the scenes in which Mandela is already close to obtaining freedom.

Finally, I think Nelson Mandela's characterization of Long Walk to Freedom is much better than that of Goodbye Bafana. It presents multiple aspects of his life as his romances, his ideals, his family and his political participation. In addition, the actor makes a great interpretation of the character. In Goodbye Bafana I feel that the acting part is weaker and we can only know small passages of his life. Therefore, it distances the viewer from a close image of this character.

Film Review of Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom

1. In general, what did you like and dislike about the film?

A while ago I saw Invitus, it was the first time I saw a film about Nelson Mandela and Apartheid. I have never known much about South African history, so it was a good approach. Now, after seeing Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom I am impressed by the way they approached the subject.

What I liked most, apart from the performance of the actress who played Winnie Mandela, was how the director could capture the historical context of violence, the protests for the rights of blacks and state repression, without ever losing tension in the whole movie. I think the music is great, especially the songs about the South African culture, because they are full of overwhelming force.

What I didn´t like about the film was that it was given a very abrupt end, the transition from an impending civil war to the presidency of Nelson Mandela was very rapid. In my opinion it lacked development at a critical moment and a lot of tension within the film, but in general was a great movie.

2. In your own words, how would you compare the "various Mandelas;" the ones from the article and the one from the film?

I think the two Mandelas described in the article agree with the growth of Nelson Mandela in the film. The transition of a revolutionary man willing to an armed struggle, a leader who was willing to give his life if necessary, for example the speech he gave before being sentenced to life imprisonment, a man who thought that through violence they would find the solution to end apartheid. Towards old Mandela, a wise person, capable of forgiving those who hurt him. Someone able to see beyond, a symbol of peace and revolution. bought have a lot in common.

In spite of the fact that the Article questions certain mysticalisms about the figure of Nelson Mandela, both productions show great respect for him. Nonetheless I agree with Fogel about being careful with the stories and myths that revolve around his figure, because there is a lot of history that we should know.

3. What was the role that Winnie Mandela played in the film? Think about the contrast between her and the other ANC members.

Winnie Mandela played a leading role since it appears on the scene. When she met Nelson Mandela, she was a beautiful, subtle woman, a social worker who saw with some ingenuity the social change that black citizens were urgently seeking. She always supported the cause, she helped Mandela and the ANC, but never as a leader.

Since Madiba was imprisoned, she changed categorically. The repression of the state, the critical situation of violence that they lived and all the humiliations suffered. Made her change her personality, she became a fierce woman, ready for an armed struggle because she thought that was the only solution to defeat the oppressors and thus capture the rights and freedoms they never had.

Over the years she became leader of the ANC, but she didn´t agree with the high command of the movement, since they thought that the solution could be through dialogue and nonviolence. She was against that solution, her anger and resentment against the human rights violations of Apartheid was greater. That substantial difference of thought led them to finally having to separate.

4. How do you compare the role of Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress in the struggle against the apartheid and in the post-apartheid South Africa to the Concertación and their role in the struggle against Augusto Pinochet's dictatorship and in post-dictatorial Chile?

Both struggles have much in common, on the one hand Mandela and the ANC fought for minimum rights of equality in a land that belonged to them. A fight for racial rights, which implies a change of ideological paradigm on the part of the whites who led apartheid. On the other hand, in Chile a military dictatorship was installed, all those who manifested their opposition to the regime were killed, tortured or never appeared again. Both situations are characterized by intolerance, abuse of power and violation of human rights.

The two experiences lasted for many years, had moments in which it was thought that everything was lost. For example when the main ANC leaders were imprisoned or the murder of the main opposition figures in the Chilean case. In both situations, it was finally not the violence that led them to victory, it was through the presidential elections in the South African case and through the plebiscite in the Chilean case.

After overthrowing both regimes, vestiges of the past still persist. These countries are very unequally economically, The ANC fought not only to achieve racial equality, they also fought to make their society more just, the years have passed and the gap still persists. In Chile, for example, the agreement promised that they would change the constitution made during the dictatorship, but it is still the same. We are a Neoliberal economy, also South Africa, that means that we forge deeply unequal societies, controlled by the nuclei of power that seek to maintain their hegemony. Both cases have achieved significant changes, but the struggle still persists.