riddle@im4u.UUCP (Prentiss Riddle) (09/19/85)
Some of you may recall my previous negative comments on "The Gods Must Be
Crazy." Although I detested the movie, my judgement was just an aesthetic
one: I thought it was an especially bad grade grade of slapstick. Now I've
discovered that there are other reasons to criticize the movie as well.
According to a review in the August-September 1985 issue of "Sojourners,"
the fanciful depiction of the !Kung in "The Gods Must Be Crazy" is not
merely feeble-minded, it is highly offensive given the actual living
conditions of the !Kung, whose territory in Namibia is under illegal
occupation and control by South Africa.
The review contrasts this portrayal of the !Kung with that of another film,
"N!ai: the Story of a !Kung Woman," a documentary by anthropologist John
Marshall. Marshall's project began in the 1950s when he took footage of the
!Kung in their traditional occupation as hunters and gatherers. In 1978 he
returned to take more footage and found that things had changed considerably:
the modern-day !Kung live under apartheid, forced into a small area the
South African administration of Namibia has set up as "Bushmanland." Since
Bushmanland contains far too few resources for them to continue their old
ways of life, they are forced to adapt as best they can to modern ways:
almost 40% of the !Kung in Bushmanland work for the South African army in
its war against SWAPO, the highest rate of military service of any ethnic
group in the world; another 30% have tuberculosis and live off of cornmeal
rations provided by the government. The film states its case about the
effects of apartheid and South African rule largely through the life of a
single !Kung woman, whom Marshall was fortunate enough to film as a young
girl in the fifties and then again as a grown woman and mother in 1978.
To quote from the review in "Sojourners:"
As this documentary makes clear, "The Gods Must Be Crazy" is not
just a naively wrong or unknowing romanticization of Bushman life,
but a carefully constructed mirror-image opposite of !Kung life
under apartheid. And in that lie, it has been very successful. It
has proved to be a public relations goldmine for the South African
regime.
I'm going to try to see "N!ai" as soon as I can; I hope any of you who have
seen or are thinking of seeing "The Gods" will consider doing the same.
--- Prentiss Riddle ("Aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada.")
--- {ihnp4,harvard,seismo,gatech}!ut-sally!riddle riddle@sally.UTEXAS.EDU
--- Leaving the net soon: friends can write for my new snail-mail address.jsq@im4u.UUCP (John Quarterman) (09/20/85)
As I pointed out to Prentiss earlier today, the same criticisms
apply to The Emerald Forest and Gone with the Wind. I liked
the former and detest the latter. The Gods I saw mostly as
a satire of white pretensions, put together in a mild enough
manner that it could be shown in South Africa. But, then,
I *like* slapstick. It is equally easy to read the intrepretation
of propaganda for the apartheid regime into it. It mostly seems
to depend on whether you think The Gods could be taken seriously
as a document of real black or white lifestyles or relations,
which kind of depends on whether you already knew much about
the situations in the region. What do others think?
I'm going to go see N!ai, myself, if it ever shows here.
--
John Quarterman, UUCP: {ihnp4,seismo,harvard,gatech}!ut-sally!jsq
ARPA Internet and CSNET: jsq@sally.UTEXAS.EDU, formerly jsq@ut-sally.ARPAsdyer@bbncc5.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (09/20/85)
As reported in the Boston Globe today, "The Gods Must Be Crazy" has just
passed "La Cage aux Folles" as the highest grossing foreign film in the US.
To use the logic of some people on the net, if 20,000,000 dollars like this
movie, it can't be ALL bad. :-)
Actually, TGMBC is much too silly a movie to be taken as a realistic comment on
the mores of the !Kung, wouldn't you say?
--
/Steve Dyer
{harvard,seismo}!bbnccv!bbncc5!sdyer
sdyer@bbncc5.ARPAtomczak@harvard.ARPA (Bill Tomczak) (09/21/85)
In article <542@im4u.UUCP> jsq@im4u.UUCP (John Quarterman) writes: >As I pointed out to Prentiss earlier today, the same criticisms >apply to The Emerald Forest and Gone with the Wind. I liked >the former and detest the latter. I just saw "The Gods Must Be Crazy" and "Emerald Forest" within two days of each other this week and have found the discussion on these films in this group very interesting. Now..... I liked both of these films with certain reservations, expecially in the case of Emerald Forest. I was actually a little surprised at the criticism of Gods. This may reflect some considerable ignorance on my part concerning the situation in South Africa. Actually, it never ocurred to me to connect Apartheid to the locale of Gods. (I SAID I was ignorant! no flames please). In comparing Gods and Forest my reaction was that at least in Gods the natives were treated with some respect. They were pictured as peace loving and at one with the world around them. The fact that this flies in the face of their situation because of apartheid was not good news to me. The political aspects of this movie become sinister indeed. However, apart from the political implications of the movie, I still feel that the !kung were accorded respect as a community. Now Emerald Forest, on the other hand seemed to do all it could to clean up, caricature and otherwise make the native cultures palatable to a yuppie American audience. I saw this movie with a friend who knew a little about the culture of the "Fierce People". They in particular seemed totally stripped of any respectability. The ceremonies of the "Invisible People" seemed to me very white-ified. I know nothing of the cultures of these peoples, but after working only a little with the folk arts of various cultures, the only time I've seen that clean of even ritual choreography was done on a stage for an audience. In spite of this, I liked the theme of the movie and the message it seemed to be getting across. Sorry this is so long.... Bill tomczak@harvard.{ARPA, UUCP}
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (09/21/85)
> > To quote from the review in "Sojourners:" > > As this documentary makes clear, "The Gods Must Be Crazy" is not > just a naively wrong or unknowing romanticization of Bushman life, > but a carefully constructed mirror-image opposite of !Kung life > under apartheid. And in that lie, it has been very successful. It > has proved to be a public relations goldmine for the South African > regime. > > --- Prentiss Riddle ("Aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada.") Sigh... It is true that "The Gods Must Be Crazy" is not "just a naively wrong or unknowing romanticization of Bushman life". That is because it is not really about the Bushmen at all. It is a comedy about western civilization. The Bushmen are there only as foils, to make all the "advanced" people look silly.. A person would have to be an idiot to see this film, and come away thinking he had learned something about the Bushmen and their living conditions. It is not a documentary, so why review it like one? -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) "Saints should always be judged guilty until they are proved innocent..." {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
gdvsmit@watrose.UUCP (Riel Smit) (09/23/85)
In article <539@im4u.UUCP> riddle@im4u.UUCP (Prentiss Riddle) writes: > ... the !Kung, whose territory in Namibia is under illegal >occupation and control by South Africa. > ... >the modern-day !Kung live under apartheid, forced into a small area the >South African administration of Namibia has set up as "Bushmanland." Since >Bushmanland contains far too few resources for them to continue their old >ways of life, they are forced to adapt as best they can to modern ways: >almost 40% of the !Kung in Bushmanland work for the South African army in Bushmanland was Bushmanland long before apartheid existed. Bushmanland is not part of Namibia and never was. It lies south of the Orange River and east of Namakwaland. There are no Bushmen there any more and have not been for a long time -- they were killed/chased away in the previous century by white and black alike. The !Kung do live in Namibia, and some in Botswana. Their culture is fast becoming extinct, but that has more to do with a bronze-age culture trying to survive in the 20th century than with apartheid. In fact, for at least the last 5 years there have been no official apartheid in Namibia. The internal "government" of Namibia is "mixed", And so is the rest of Namibia.
wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly) (09/23/85)
In article <367@harvard.ARPA> tomczak@harvard.UUCP (Bill tomczak) writes: >... In comparing >Gods and Forest my reaction was that at least in Gods the natives >were treated with some respect. They were pictured as peace loving >and at one with the world around them. ... >However, apart from the political implications of the movie, I still >feel that the !kung were accorded respect as a community. Kind of like Hollywood's treatment of the American Indian, n'est-ce pas? Up until the '60s, Amerindians were portrayed mostly as bloodthirsty savages whooping it up in Westerns. Amerindians in contemporary life were never (to my knowledge) portrayed on the screen. Then, in the '60s we had movies like Little Big Man that romanticised Amerindian life, and 'contemporary' Indians started showing up. Like Billy Jack. Unfortunately, the portrayal of contemporary Amerindians was ALSO highly stereotyped. In fact, it seems to me that the stereotyping was much like the stereotypeing of the !Kung in 'Gods:' basically romantic. You can see much the same process in films like Weir's "The Last Wave" on Australian aborigines (although the urban plight of the aborigine is sensitively portrayed in Weir's film). What's the last Hollywood film you saw that portrayed the problems of the Amerindian in contemporary American society, urban or otherwise? I'm not defending the South African system, but it seems to me that 'Gods' is an easy target for Americans who have forgotten their OWN mistreatment of minorities. It wasn't all that long ago that we got rid of our own system of apartheid, and it's not entirely clear that the process is complete. -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly
mwg@petrus.UUCP (Mark Garrett) (09/25/85)
++ > A person would have to be an idiot to see this film, and come away thinking > he had learned something about the Bushmen and their living conditions... > Jeff Lichtman I may be an idiot, and I admit that the lifestyle of the bushmen was treated superficially, but can someone tell me what errors lie in the following impression of the bushmen: 1) They live in the Kalahari as semi-nomads in small family groups. 2) They are basically peaceful. 3) They do not recognize private property. 4) They are largely unexposed to the modern world. 5) They have a 'primitive' polytheistic religion which includes the belief that the gods provide all good things for them. 6) They dress like that. 7) Their language has a lot of clicks in it. 8) They can survive in a harsh climate (as portrayed) with only a bow and arrow and some home-made tranquilizer. I can see problems with (4) because the existance of such a film contradicts it. They portray only the ones who are untouched, which may be a very small number of people. Otherwise, this is a lot more than I knew about them before. Another point, did anyone notice in the scene with the school teacher in her office job, there was a conversation between her and a black man (working in a seemingly respectable job) where the dialog was changed. The words didn't match the lips, but only in that scene. I wonder what it was originally. -Mark Garrett
al@mot.UUCP (Al Filipski) (09/27/85)
> > Some of you may recall my previous negative comments on "The Gods Must Be > Crazy." Although I detested the movie, my judgement was just an aesthetic > one: I thought it was an especially bad grade grade of slapstick. Now I've > discovered that there are other reasons to criticize the movie as well. > > According to a review in the August-September 1985 issue of "Sojourners," > the fanciful depiction of the !Kung in "The Gods Must Be Crazy" is not > merely feeble-minded, it is highly offensive given the actual living > conditions of the !Kung, whose territory in Namibia is under illegal > occupation and control by South Africa. > > . . . > etc. > . . . Well, I thought the movie was delightful. The !Kung culture was treated with respect and sensitivity. It's too bad that the people are having bad times, but I see nothing offensive about the possible anachronism of portraying them as they might have been before encountering "civilization." Must even slapstick comedy be politicized? As far as aesthetics goes, I have seen "good" slapstick (Charlie Chaplin) and "bad" slapstick (Jerry Lewis) and I'd call that in "The Gods" "good". Most of the situations are imaginatively set up and nicely timed. Amongst all the junk at the theaters, its a gem, in my opinion. If it leads one to try to find out more about the !Kung, all the better, but it can be enjoyed for itself. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Alan Filipski, UNIX group, Motorola Microsystems, Tempe, AZ U.S.A {seismo|ihnp4}!ut-sally!oakhill!mot!al | ucbvax!arizona!asuvax!mot!al ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Life is a comedy for those who think, a tragedy for those who feel" --LaBruyere