First of all, I want to mention that I lived in South Africa for around 5 years starting in 1975. After that we all left South Africa, for no politically reasons (my parents changed jobs and I left to complete a degree in Europe).
I must say that I find the superficial depiction of South Africa (rugby, sunshine and braai vleis like an advert said in those days) realistic. I can't speak about the accents since I viewed this movie in French.
Now a series of things struck me as a caricature, excessive or incomplete. Just to name a few in the first 35 minutes...
* Pupils at the start complain that learning Afrikaans would be a second-class education (under a new plan, 50% of their education was to be in Afrikaans), they ask for the same education as whites. Well, all white pupils learned Afrikaans and obviously the Afrikaner pupils (whose parents are portrayed as the nasty or naive rulers) had their whole education in Afrikaans. (This is increasingly getting more difficult under the ANC, BTW) In fact, in those pre-globalization days Afrikaans was increasingly more important to get a good job in South Africa (Afrikaans had nearly twice as many mother-tongue speakers than English). There is an inherent contradiction portraying South Africa being run by vicious and powerful Afrikaners and then saying Afrikaans has no importance or that this is what made Bantu Education second rate. (South Africa's public schools today, now teaching far less Afrikaans, are still as dismal...) Hate is what motivated the desire to get rid of Afrikaans. (Hate can be justified. . .)
* The start of the shooting is simplified to make a caricature of the whole scene. From the details known, the police faced around 10,000 menacing people who did not disperse after being asked to do so. Neither did they do so when tear gas was shot. The mob killed at least a police dog and then started stoning the police before the police finally shot.
* I'm unaware of any very young child (like the little toddling sister) being viciously shot. The movie gives the impression that hundreds were killed during that shooting and its immediate aftermath, in fact 23 were killed among which two whites. Dr Melville Edelstein, who had devoted his life to social welfare among blacks was one of them. He was stoned to death by the mob and left with a sign around his neck proclaiming "Beware Afrikaners". Edelstein was not an Afrikaner.
* The whole story of the gardener being tortured because he's looking for his boy and, the movie tells us, having contacted a lawyer really stretches credulity. But I suppose for anyone believing that South Africa was a kind of new Nazi Germany, that's a perfectly normal leap of faith. The security apparatus was cruel and did torture but I very much doubt it tortured parents looking for their children: many parents will have been searching for their children and they were people planning far more nefarious acts... And there lies a problem: André Brink and the movie producer lead us into believing this is a truthful depiction of what happened in Soweto, but I very much suspect it is a just a liberal's impression of what could have happened if a gardener got too inquisitive.
* During the history lesson, a pupil recites that the Afrikaners vanquished all the tribes and then settled all over South Africa. (Nasty I tell you!) In fact, the story is far more complex again, a large part of South Africa was emptied by Zulu kings' wars against other tribes (but they are brave and nice) and the Boers encountered very little resistance. This whole episode of Mfecane was taught at school in those days, the pupil would have recited it. The Afrikaners were even granted land by one Zulu king (Dinuzulu) which they helped beat a rival (Zibhebhu). What? Blacks and Whites fought together, as equal allies?
* In the taxi, the driver says that Zulu, Xhosa, those differences are not important. He may well say that (ANC activist would have said that to a white), but that is far from the reality in South Africa. In fact as apartheid was falling the biggest massacres occurred between blacks of the Zulu-based Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) and the ANC. (Any major movie about that anyone?) The IFP wanted a federal South Africa while the ANC wanted a centralized Jacobine State. Today, all South Africans know for example that Zulu (Zuma) was replaced recently by a Venda (Ramaphosa). Tribal identity was and still is very important.
* In the same taxi scene, Ben Dutoit clumsily tries to show that he shares some past experiences with the driver: grew on a farm, walked the veld bare feet, etc. The driver then says that at least Dutoit could vote (unlike blacks). The Afrikaner history professor is then dumbstruck. At this stage, he is not an opponent to apartheid and, as such, he would have answered that everyone could vote but each in his homeland. That was the very base of apartheid (Transkei had just been granted its "independence"), he would have known that and believed it. André Brink's portrayal does not sound truthful to someone who lived through those days and experienced unabashed support for the regime from most whites (many English speakers also. . .)
* My attention kind of fizzled when Marlon Brando interrogated a witness in court, by now unsurprizingly either very dumb (this doctor's case) or very vicious (his bosses).
I must say that I find the superficial depiction of South Africa (rugby, sunshine and braai vleis like an advert said in those days) realistic. I can't speak about the accents since I viewed this movie in French.
Now a series of things struck me as a caricature, excessive or incomplete. Just to name a few in the first 35 minutes...
* Pupils at the start complain that learning Afrikaans would be a second-class education (under a new plan, 50% of their education was to be in Afrikaans), they ask for the same education as whites. Well, all white pupils learned Afrikaans and obviously the Afrikaner pupils (whose parents are portrayed as the nasty or naive rulers) had their whole education in Afrikaans. (This is increasingly getting more difficult under the ANC, BTW) In fact, in those pre-globalization days Afrikaans was increasingly more important to get a good job in South Africa (Afrikaans had nearly twice as many mother-tongue speakers than English). There is an inherent contradiction portraying South Africa being run by vicious and powerful Afrikaners and then saying Afrikaans has no importance or that this is what made Bantu Education second rate. (South Africa's public schools today, now teaching far less Afrikaans, are still as dismal...) Hate is what motivated the desire to get rid of Afrikaans. (Hate can be justified. . .)
* The start of the shooting is simplified to make a caricature of the whole scene. From the details known, the police faced around 10,000 menacing people who did not disperse after being asked to do so. Neither did they do so when tear gas was shot. The mob killed at least a police dog and then started stoning the police before the police finally shot.
* I'm unaware of any very young child (like the little toddling sister) being viciously shot. The movie gives the impression that hundreds were killed during that shooting and its immediate aftermath, in fact 23 were killed among which two whites. Dr Melville Edelstein, who had devoted his life to social welfare among blacks was one of them. He was stoned to death by the mob and left with a sign around his neck proclaiming "Beware Afrikaners". Edelstein was not an Afrikaner.
* The whole story of the gardener being tortured because he's looking for his boy and, the movie tells us, having contacted a lawyer really stretches credulity. But I suppose for anyone believing that South Africa was a kind of new Nazi Germany, that's a perfectly normal leap of faith. The security apparatus was cruel and did torture but I very much doubt it tortured parents looking for their children: many parents will have been searching for their children and they were people planning far more nefarious acts... And there lies a problem: André Brink and the movie producer lead us into believing this is a truthful depiction of what happened in Soweto, but I very much suspect it is a just a liberal's impression of what could have happened if a gardener got too inquisitive.
* During the history lesson, a pupil recites that the Afrikaners vanquished all the tribes and then settled all over South Africa. (Nasty I tell you!) In fact, the story is far more complex again, a large part of South Africa was emptied by Zulu kings' wars against other tribes (but they are brave and nice) and the Boers encountered very little resistance. This whole episode of Mfecane was taught at school in those days, the pupil would have recited it. The Afrikaners were even granted land by one Zulu king (Dinuzulu) which they helped beat a rival (Zibhebhu). What? Blacks and Whites fought together, as equal allies?
* In the taxi, the driver says that Zulu, Xhosa, those differences are not important. He may well say that (ANC activist would have said that to a white), but that is far from the reality in South Africa. In fact as apartheid was falling the biggest massacres occurred between blacks of the Zulu-based Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) and the ANC. (Any major movie about that anyone?) The IFP wanted a federal South Africa while the ANC wanted a centralized Jacobine State. Today, all South Africans know for example that Zulu (Zuma) was replaced recently by a Venda (Ramaphosa). Tribal identity was and still is very important.
* In the same taxi scene, Ben Dutoit clumsily tries to show that he shares some past experiences with the driver: grew on a farm, walked the veld bare feet, etc. The driver then says that at least Dutoit could vote (unlike blacks). The Afrikaner history professor is then dumbstruck. At this stage, he is not an opponent to apartheid and, as such, he would have answered that everyone could vote but each in his homeland. That was the very base of apartheid (Transkei had just been granted its "independence"), he would have known that and believed it. André Brink's portrayal does not sound truthful to someone who lived through those days and experienced unabashed support for the regime from most whites (many English speakers also. . .)
* My attention kind of fizzled when Marlon Brando interrogated a witness in court, by now unsurprizingly either very dumb (this doctor's case) or very vicious (his bosses).