I always have to remind myself that the Richard Attenborough that directed Gandhi back in 1982 is the same Attenborough that directed the film Cry Freedom in 1987. Although both fine films, they are so much different. Cry Freedom is certainly not the 3 hour plus epic that Gandhi is, and therefore is not presented on such a grand scale. It also is not the masterpiece that Gandhi is, but there is still much to enjoy about this Apartheid-era epic story. The viewer may at first be fooled into thinking that this is the Steve Biko story starring a rather young Denzel Washington. Instead, what it becomes is the Donald Woods story, starring Kevin Kline, where a journalist (Woods) finds his life and the life of his family in danger because of his investigation into the death of Steve Biko. This I actually found a bit disappointing. When the focus of attention is on Washington's masterful handling of Steve Biko, the film soars. After Biko's death, however, it really begins to feel formulaic. It's not as bad as Lifetime Movie of the Week material, but it still just begins to feel a bit color by number for me. I enjoyed the film, don't get me wrong, but the strongest half is certainly the first half. The real power of this film is the consideration of the context in which this film was made. One must remember that in 1987, the apartheid system in South Africa was still in force (amidst growing opposition, but still in force). Why is it important to consider the context in which of a film, or really any type of documentation, was created? How does context add to our depth of understanding? If Cry Freedom was made in, say 1996, post-Apartheid, would the film be as powerful? Would it have the same bite? Does the fact that it was made in 1987 create an extra layer of depth? If you enjoyed this film, and the subject of apartheid in South Africa in general, more films are unfortunately difficult to find. Decent films critical of South African policies during the period are almost non-existent. However, similar ideas are presented in Philip Noyce's Rabbit Proof Fence, a film dealing with Australian policies of segregation (that is rarely ever addressed). Additionally, if you find South Africa interesting in general, there have been a number of quality films released recently dealing with post-Apartheid issues. Of all of those films, the major standout is Darrell Roodt's Yesterday.
5 comments:
I definitely have to agree with Mr. Prill on the fact that Cry Freedom was a disappointment, since the film was not really about the story of Steve Biko (the activist), and instead was about Donald Woods (the journalist). I did however turn out getting more interested in the movie, after the death of Steve Biko, because I was really interested in how Donald Woods would keep striving to make South Africa a better place. Although the ending was not what we all would have hoped for, it shows that you may not always get that fairytale ending, and you just have to keep working and striving for what you believe in, hoping one day you can accomplish what you are set out to do.
I enjoyed the first half of the film when it showed the injustices and inequalities in South Africa and how Steve Biko tries to change it, but during the second half of the film, it started to get boring because after Steve Biko's death, the movie is about how Donald Woods and his family escapes to England. However, the movie brings up the problems of the apartheid again at the end of the movie by depicting the Soweto uprising and the list of people who died in police custody.
I didnt actually watch this movie, but Matthew McConaughey is one of my fave. actors, and i didnt know that he did anything this prolific. Was he any good in it?
miss fox, Matthew McConaughey wasn't in this one. did you mean amistad?
I also have to agree that the strongest part of the movie was the first half, like others have said it tends to spiral down after Biko's death. The rest of the movie is about how Wood's family is trying to escape to England. On the other hand, i think that if the movie was filmed post-apartheid, it would have been a bit more forceful, because having it filmed during the apartheid time period,it means that if one little thing was controversial, it could have only made things worse during that time.
Post a Comment