Country of My Skull
Apr. 29th, 2004 10:34 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cthulhiaLast night's movie was about the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in post-Apartheid South Africa. It was also about a cheesy romance, where two reporters hook up in a credibly stressful environment, but then it turns into a soppy (and socially acceptable enough to not be discreet, even on her racist family's farm) lovestory, across cultures and colors, etc and so on. I can't imagine her family wouldn't disown her even if he is Samuel L. Jackson.
Then again, I can't entirely wrap my brain around the willingness to let bygones be bygones after so much torture, which is in part because, as John Boorman pointed out, we don't live in a culture, we live in an economy.
Also due to the fact that, since violence hasn't been a daily depression every day of my life, I can't fully grasp the idea of just trying to let go, because (a)vengeance is a self-proprogating loop. I can say it rationally, sure. But, a part of me just couldn't understand how these people could truly forgive each other after so much damage.
There were some nice bits, touched upon without hammered into one's, well, skull. Such as the reality that a caucasian raised in Africa is more African than an American of African descent. (I remember the white Kenyans in college outing the African Students Union as racist when they added Black to the name to exclude actual citizens of Africa.)
But then there were some other bits that seemed too cliche. Not all Black people, nor the entirely of any otherwise oppressed/disadvantaged groups, break out into song every time they face stress.
As![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
candle_light pointed out today, perhaps our nitpicky Cantabridgian audience was expecting a little much from the director who gave us Excalibur.
What bothered me most though, was claiming the opressors were insane. One suddenly realizes his guilt, and kills himself out of shame (talk about cliche!) and the main oppressor portrayed eventually breaks into a gleeful rant about the sexual joy of torture and murder.
The first thing that buzzed in my ear was his defensive use of the term Terrorism. A term being thrown around a lot lately to defend a lot of actrocities. The more crucial point to be made here is that not everyone who believes anything goes when fighting terrorists is Completely Insane. Many of them are doing their job, or supporting those who are.
In The Fog of War it is pointed out that the distinction between war criminal and war hero is often solely which side "won". (The atrocites committed in the name of fighting apartheid felt a little downplayed by comparison.)
On that note: seemetaphorge's link to US treatment of Iraqi POWs.
(And, in terms of domestic loss of freedoms, see the silent erosion of women's rights, viamommagoth, and proposed legislation that would allow doctors to refuse to treatment to someone who merely appears to be homosexual, via zodmicrobe.)
Then again, I can't entirely wrap my brain around the willingness to let bygones be bygones after so much torture, which is in part because, as John Boorman pointed out, we don't live in a culture, we live in an economy.
Also due to the fact that, since violence hasn't been a daily depression every day of my life, I can't fully grasp the idea of just trying to let go, because (a)vengeance is a self-proprogating loop. I can say it rationally, sure. But, a part of me just couldn't understand how these people could truly forgive each other after so much damage.
There were some nice bits, touched upon without hammered into one's, well, skull. Such as the reality that a caucasian raised in Africa is more African than an American of African descent. (I remember the white Kenyans in college outing the African Students Union as racist when they added Black to the name to exclude actual citizens of Africa.)
But then there were some other bits that seemed too cliche. Not all Black people, nor the entirely of any otherwise oppressed/disadvantaged groups, break out into song every time they face stress.
As
candle_light pointed out today, perhaps our nitpicky Cantabridgian audience was expecting a little much from the director who gave us Excalibur. What bothered me most though, was claiming the opressors were insane. One suddenly realizes his guilt, and kills himself out of shame (talk about cliche!) and the main oppressor portrayed eventually breaks into a gleeful rant about the sexual joy of torture and murder.
The first thing that buzzed in my ear was his defensive use of the term Terrorism. A term being thrown around a lot lately to defend a lot of actrocities. The more crucial point to be made here is that not everyone who believes anything goes when fighting terrorists is Completely Insane. Many of them are doing their job, or supporting those who are.
In The Fog of War it is pointed out that the distinction between war criminal and war hero is often solely which side "won". (The atrocites committed in the name of fighting apartheid felt a little downplayed by comparison.)
On that note: see
metaphorge's link to US treatment of Iraqi POWs. (And, in terms of domestic loss of freedoms, see the silent erosion of women's rights, via
mommagoth, and proposed legislation that would allow doctors to refuse to treatment to someone who merely appears to be homosexual, via zodmicrobe.)
