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.