If Palcy had not gotten MGM to distribute her film, it wouldn't have gotten a wide audience, but she may have been able then to tell the story without compromise- it's clear, as you show, that they made her conform to their acceptable narrative standards. But the presence of notable Hollywood lefties Sutherland, Sarandon and Brando in the cast would have made a point, anyway.
absolutely agree with that. Hidden brain recently had a researcher on military history? and political change on the podcast and she did a research study on achieving political change via non-violent direct action v. violence that found non violence was significantly more successful in attaining political change than violence, which she was surprised by having an interest and background in war history. The violence generally turns off the mushy middle that needs to also buy in to achieve change whereas direct action, coalition building... (which frequently elicits violence from those in power) attracted more supporters.
I suppose there's also the issue of the source material, which your piece doesn't cover. The book the movie is derived from was written by a White man, a Boer descendant, an academic himself and critic of the apartheid regime. Palcy is adapting a book, not creating a fully original story. So perhaps she can be forgiven for the White Saviour trope, it is entirely embedded in the book. Unless one wants to criticize her for choosing this particular book, which won André Brink the MLK Memorial prize and the Booker, too, over more Black South African centered books?
I don’t know that blaming her is really the frame I’m using! But yes, I’d say the decision to choose the book, with roles for white stars, was probably calculated.
Apologies if I came across as framing your comments as blame for E. Palcy, though in a way your last paragraphs somewhat do go in that direction. I was merely pointing out her movie is adapting a book, and was hoping this would shed light on her choices.
I'm in agreement with you that she deliberatly chose this book, because it was already famous, so that she could raise awareness of the situation in SA in the USA and the West, and that that choice has consequences for what she can and cannot say through her movie.
I agree but change takes coalition building across identity lines and the people that needed to change in SA were the white people, the oppressed black citizens were already well aware of the problems in their society. Sadly, but very normal and human, people tend to identify with people that look like them or have similar life experience, so in that sense centering a middle class white man’s journey when you’re trying to move white men (the political and capital leaders now and especially then) makes sense.
This isn't really what happened in SA, though. The government didn't change because of a transformative change of heart among white liberals. it changed because of a very successful campaign of direct action, including some violence, launched by Black people—and by an international boycott, again pushed in large part by Black people.
Some solidarity from white people, within SA and internationally was helpful for sure. But I think films like this also mislead people about how freedom movements work, centering the moral transformation of the oppressors rather than the ways in which the oppressed build power.
If Palcy had not gotten MGM to distribute her film, it wouldn't have gotten a wide audience, but she may have been able then to tell the story without compromise- it's clear, as you show, that they made her conform to their acceptable narrative standards. But the presence of notable Hollywood lefties Sutherland, Sarandon and Brando in the cast would have made a point, anyway.
absolutely agree with that. Hidden brain recently had a researcher on military history? and political change on the podcast and she did a research study on achieving political change via non-violent direct action v. violence that found non violence was significantly more successful in attaining political change than violence, which she was surprised by having an interest and background in war history. The violence generally turns off the mushy middle that needs to also buy in to achieve change whereas direct action, coalition building... (which frequently elicits violence from those in power) attracted more supporters.
I suppose there's also the issue of the source material, which your piece doesn't cover. The book the movie is derived from was written by a White man, a Boer descendant, an academic himself and critic of the apartheid regime. Palcy is adapting a book, not creating a fully original story. So perhaps she can be forgiven for the White Saviour trope, it is entirely embedded in the book. Unless one wants to criticize her for choosing this particular book, which won André Brink the MLK Memorial prize and the Booker, too, over more Black South African centered books?
I don’t know that blaming her is really the frame I’m using! But yes, I’d say the decision to choose the book, with roles for white stars, was probably calculated.
Apologies if I came across as framing your comments as blame for E. Palcy, though in a way your last paragraphs somewhat do go in that direction. I was merely pointing out her movie is adapting a book, and was hoping this would shed light on her choices.
I'm in agreement with you that she deliberatly chose this book, because it was already famous, so that she could raise awareness of the situation in SA in the USA and the West, and that that choice has consequences for what she can and cannot say through her movie.
I hadn’t known it was adapting a book, honestly; thank you for that info; it’s good to know!
I agree but change takes coalition building across identity lines and the people that needed to change in SA were the white people, the oppressed black citizens were already well aware of the problems in their society. Sadly, but very normal and human, people tend to identify with people that look like them or have similar life experience, so in that sense centering a middle class white man’s journey when you’re trying to move white men (the political and capital leaders now and especially then) makes sense.
This isn't really what happened in SA, though. The government didn't change because of a transformative change of heart among white liberals. it changed because of a very successful campaign of direct action, including some violence, launched by Black people—and by an international boycott, again pushed in large part by Black people.
Some solidarity from white people, within SA and internationally was helpful for sure. But I think films like this also mislead people about how freedom movements work, centering the moral transformation of the oppressors rather than the ways in which the oppressed build power.