Customer Reviews

In My Country [VHS]

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(9)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission, (TRC), was a court-like body assembled in South Africa after Apartheid ended. The mandate of the commission, established under Nelson Mandela, was "to bear witness to, record and in some cases grant amnesty to the perpetrators of crimes relating to human rights violations, reparation and rehabilitation." Anybody who felt they had been a victim of violence could come forward and be heard before the Commission. Perpetrators of violence could also give testimony and request Amnesty from prosecution. The hearings made headlines around the world and many sessions were televised on national TV.

John Boorman's political drama is set in South Africa in 1996, at the beginning of the TRC hearings. The film includes testimony which graphically describes the brutal atrocities perpetrated under the apartheid system and is extremely moving. The hearings were designed to bring a measure of domestic peace to South Africa following decades of violent, inhumane and repressive government. I believe that Boorman's goal here is to help westerners understand the African concept of "ubuntu," or justice that involves confession, forgiveness and a restoration of amity rather than mere retribution. And he does succeed on many levels. However, the movie has some major flaws which seriously distract from the inspirational story.

Anna Malan, (Juliette Binoche), a progressive Afrikaaner journalist and poet, is assigned to cover the hearings for a local radio station in Cape Town. Her commentary will also be broadcast on National Public Radio in the United States. Anna comes from a wealthy South African family with large landholdings. They have farmed here for generations. The Malan family would prefer that Anna not become involved in any activities surrounding the TRC. However, she is extremely optimistic that a deep and abiding peace will prevail, eventually, between fellow citizens, black and white. She identifies strongly with Africa, and the principle of "ubuntu."

Dumi Mkhalipi (Menzi "Ngubs" Ngubane), plays Anna's savvy black South African assistant.

Washington Post correspondent Langston Whitfield, (Samuel L. Jackson), in Cape Town to cover the events, has a much more cynical view of the proceedings. He believes the hearings represent a giant smokescreen designed to protect the whites from the consequences of their crimes. He would much rather a harsher punishment be imposed, one reflecting vengeance. After his initial, contentious discussion with Anna he begins to mellow, interpersonally anyway, and to hang out with her and Dumi. She finally makes her point that she is as African as he is, and in many ways, more so.

There is a subplot involving Whitfield's series of interviews with Colonel De Jager, (Brendan Gleeson), a member of the military in the former apartheid regime, responsible for numerous atrocities and notorious for innovative torture techniques.

The testimonies are extremely well depicted, and as I mentioned above, quite emotional. Seamus Deasy, director of photography, beautifully captures the majesty of the South African countryside. And the historical theme is perfect for adaptation into a first-class drama. So what happens? Where do things go wrong? (And they do).

Well, I'd like to know why a contrived, awkward romance was stuck right in the middle of the main storyline? Is not the drama of apartheid, plus the concept of "ubuntu," as well as actual historic testimony, great actors, unbelievable cinematography, etc., enough to create significant cinema? Did "In My Country" need the embellishment of an adulterous romance? There's not a scintilla of chemistry between Anna and Langston. Totally unnecessary and distracting filler!

And why the melodrama? There is more than enough serious, true life material to have to resort to extravagant portrayals. This kind of writing/directing trivializes rather than accentuates and dramatizes. There is one courtroom scene where Juliette Binoche, (one of my favorite actresses), goes right over the top. I felt embarrassed for her and for the lack of subtlety with which she was asked to perform. Also, I do find it difficult to believe that Anna is so shocked by the testimonies. After all, she has lived in South Africa all of her life. As an American, I knew about many of the atrocities committed during apartheid - in the 1980's. Fewer than four million Afrikkaners stood by while more than 30 million of their countrymen and women were oppressed and brutalized, simply because of the color of their skin. And Anna is shocked? She is a journalist. She must have traveled outside Africa. I am sure she read articles and books from other countries? Was there no progressive/liberal underground? Simply not credible. Anna was also, always, the only person to react with such surprise. Has she been on Mars?

I believe that most of the movie's problems lie in screenwriter Ann Peacock's adaptation of South African Antjie Krog's semi-autobiographical book, "Country of My Skull," and in John Boorman's clumsy, often heavy-handed direction.

Remember, there is an upside to my review, and it is for the movie's "plusses" that I give it 3 stars. Everyone should see it, for the history and for the knowledge it imparts. I am just reminded what a brilliant film "Hotel Rwanda" is and know that "In My Country" could have been turned into a 5 Star work of art also. The subject matter warrants it.
JANA

This 2004 film is also called "In The Country of My Skull" and must have had a very short run at the box office because I never heard of it. And yet it stars Samuel L. Jackson and Juliette Binoche, both excellent actors. Their roles demand nuanced performances in this story set at The Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa after Apartheid ended. In order to keep the country from upheavals and violence, these hearings allowed people to appear before a public tribunal, confess exactly what they did, convince the tribunal that they were just following orders, and then make a public apology. These hearings were heart wrenching for all, but allowed redemption. Most of the people were forgiven or given light jail sentences. But then there were some whose crimes went way beyond the limits that could be pardoned.

The film, based on a memoir by a journalist, is fictionalized for greater impact. Samuel L. Jackson is cast as a Washington Post reporter who is covering the story. Juliette Binoche is an Afrikaner who does a local daily radio broadcast. Both are married. And yet a strong bond forms between these too, leading to a romance. Their roles call for emotional complexity. And both of them succeed magnificently, seeming to enter the very core of their characters as they meet both victims and victimizers and grasp the reality of the horror. I applaud their performances and I applaud the screenplay. I was totally involved and also very sad. The film presented some upsetting truths. And, as when any truth is probed this deeply, there are no easy answers.

I didn't cry real tears. It was not that kind of film. Rather I felt it deep inside and now, several weeks later, I am still thinking about it.

A big bonus on the DVD was the many interviews with the director, the stars and the writer. Each of them talked about how they had to look at themselves and their own lives and come to terms with some harsh truths about their own ethnic backgrounds. I came away thinking of my own life in this context.

This is perhaps the most worthwhile film I've seen this year. It's not pleasant to watch. You won't come away with any answers and you won't be smiling. And you won't understand any more than you do now. But your perception will surely be broadened. And you just might see a light brought to the dark side of human nature through the act of forgiveness.

Definitely recommended. But not for the faint of heart.

I'm one who enjoyed this movie. I haven't always been a John Boorman fan. He's sort of hit or miss with me, and it often feels that his politics highjacks the story and pushes the characters in certain ways. I didn't feel this way about this film, though.

I did find the Truth and Reconcilation testimonies to be convincing and heartrending. They give you enough of the horrors of Apartheid without making the entire movie nothing more than a catalog of crimes.

I like the relationships between Binoche's and Jackson's characters. It felt real to me, and interesting that Boorman deals maturely with infidelity. He doesn't make an overt issue of it, but we as viewers certainly know that both these characters are married with children. Still, however, they're put together and surrounded by such emotive material that it makes sense they should be drawn together.

Don't go away from some of the earlier reviews thinking this is a feel-good movie in which whites come off looking good. They don't. Binoche's character is an activist, yes, but her father's a racist and her brother, it turns out, was involved in incredible atrocities. This movie is far from simple. Just the opposite, it does honor to a complex issue that taints all the players.

IN MY COUNTRY (COUNTRY OF MY SKULL), based on a book by Antjie Krog about South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) of 1996 set in the aftermath of Apartheid, has been altered by screenwriter Ann Peacock and director John Boorman who have elected to 'dramatize' that event by fleshing out 'committed journalists' on both sides of the color fence: South Afrikaner Anna Malan (Juliette Binoche) and American hothead Langston Whitfield (Samuel L. Jackson). The dichotomy of the white/black reconciliation is thus reversed; Anna is white defending the South African blacks while Langston is black firing his vitriol against the white South Afrikaners.

The story is immensely important to tell: 21,800 blacks were tortured and killed in the final days of Apartheid, but in the wisdom of South African philosophy the perpetrators are given amnesty if they confront their crimes and show remorse. This noble morality is the single most touching aspect of this story.
During the Commission hearings all reporters hear the grief of the victims' families and are stunned. Though initially hostile to each other, Anna and Langston gradually are able to listen to each other's perspectives and become romantically involved (both are married with children) and as the film ends the affair is ended in keeping with the example of the truth the TRC has established.

In an attempt to make this reality into a movie the impact is dulled by the Hollywoodesque treatment. Yes, Binoche and Jackson are fine actors (as is Menzi Ngubane who plays a wholly loveable South African instigator), but the melodrama they are forced to enact is superficial and does not add to the otherwise powerful message of this film. This is a movie that deserves the attention of a wide audience. Just pay more attention to the facts than to the soupy frosting under which it plays. Grady Harp, July 05

I wish everyone on the face of the earth was required to see this movie. It is so very, very powerful. The 2004 Diamond Cinema for Peace Award Berlin Film Festival is well earned.

I am not a big movie watcher, but this is one that well worth the time spent watching. I dare anyone to watch it without sheding tears.

The movie has been panned as being to simplistic, well... some of us who didn't understand what was going on in South Africa need things simplistic.

Jackson and Binoche play very powerful roles, I just wish their roles had been written a little differently -- and I sooo don't have a problem with interracial relationships. I just believe more could have been accomplished by portraying their relationship differently and is why I give it 4 rather than the 5 stars I so want to give it.

This film is very well portrayed. I haven't read "Country of My Skull" to compare how truthful the movie is to Antjie Krog's depiction, but both Jackson and Binoche have done a superb job representing their characters. Director John Boorman stated that Samuel Jackson had to play a much more emotional role in this film than what he was used to. This becomes evident in his character. We're used to Samuel Jackson playing the cool walking, sharp-talking bad-ass. In this role, a vulnerable more complex side comes out. Binoche was on target, as usual, and seemless with her South African accent. I thought this film was beautifully done with the right emotional balance of forgiveness, anger, shame and happiness. Too much melodrama and graphic imagery would have pushed the film over the edge and become cliche. It's good for American audiences to break away from the usual Hollywood formula and see other angles of cinema.

The South African actors depicted in the movie are just as lively as the South Africans I met a couple years ago in Johannesburg and Cape Town. Boorman has done a fabulous job of capturing the South African spirit of both whites and blacks. Both have a strong love of their country despite their strained past. The true spirit of Unbutu (forgiveness) is ever present.

I, too, wondered why the part of Anna was not given to native South African actress Charlize Theron, but it's director's preogrative. Perhaps her experiences of growing up in an Apartheid society would have inadvertently biased the film from the tone of the movie the director intended to portray or maybe it was because Juliette Binoche was similar in appearance to Antjie Krog. Boorman did state it was Binoche's right emotional range in her acting that was suited for the role.

The cinematography of the film was fantastic, bringing out the gorgeous sweeping South African landscape. I'm hoping future movies about South Africa are not just about Apartheid or AIDS. It is a truly beautiful country with many enjoyable facets and beautiful people. This is the chance for young fresh directors of South Africa to bring their country out onto the global stage.

There are a lot of great movies about the South African struggle. I've seen "Gandhi" several times. I loved "The Power of one" and "Cry Freedom". But I suspect I'm not the only one who sees a video about Apartheid in the video store and thinks: Do I really feel like being preached to tonight? I mean I already get it, Apartheid is bad.

The good news about this film is that, in comparison to the other Apartheid films I've seen, it offers a fresh take. It takes during the Truth and Reconciliation commission hearings after the fall of Apartheid in 1994. During these hearings anyone who had committed atrocities during the apartheid era could make a full confession recieve amnesty provided they had only been following orders.

As such, the film offers a whole new set of issues to explore. Not simply "Let's all agree on how awful apartheid is", but also what is the best way for a society to move forward after the nightmare is over? What is more important for society, justice or reconciliation?

The bad news is that the film never manages to rise to the bar it has set for itself. As is often the case with these historical films, the fictional characters and story the film makers have created don't do justice to the real history. We get a glimpse of the complexity of issues under discussion at these hearings, but then the story veers away to the personal lives of white South African Anna Malan (Juliette Binoche) and cynical American journalistLangston Whitfield ( Samuel L. Jackson) and the unlikely Romance that develops between them. This would have been a much better movie if it had stayed more focused on the actual historical events, and skipped the hollywood love story.

It's not a bad movie, but it's one of those movies that flirts with genius, and then drops the ball, and you feel the disappointment bitterly. It is apparently based on a non-fiction book, "The Country of my Skull" which is supposed to be much better.

OK, its a 3 star movie... but the issues raised as the reasons for a poor rating strike me as people who misunderstand the reality of South Africa. Having lived in SA both during the apartheid era, as well as during the TRC period, I have to beg to differ with some of the other reviewers.

1. the affair -- just follow the psychological distancing of Anna from her husband and her white liberal Afrikaner lifestyle, as she enters into the story of the real South Africa. The pyscho-social encounter of the real TRC hearings is beyond the capacity of a re-creation to convey. She bonded with someone who was with her in the moment, then realized it was a mistake. [besides the fact that affairs and other social aberrations were so common in the white community under the guise of the respectable Nationalist years]
2. how could Anna not really know what was going on? it's called compartmentalizing. you sense, out of the corner of your eye, but you don't want to admit that it could be true, so you repress. Especially when admitting to the truth would mean the end of life as you know it. We all do it, in various ways. Binoche's overdoing the breakdown scene in the hearing was poor, granted. But did those destabilizing occurrences happen at the TRC hearings, amongst the regular participants (journalists, commissioners, support staff)? yes...
3. how can Hollywood really portray the idea of forgiveness, amnesty, ubuntu -- its all a bit sappy, and ideological sounding, until you actually try to do it as a nation. has it all turned out to be a happy ending? no. but it had to be tried, otherwise there is no reason to hope for something better. (hence her brother's suicide)

for me the film gave a little glimpse of some human beings interacting with the notion of the TRC and the South African context. thanks John Boorman.

"In My Country" is certainly a well meaning film. Filled with dignity, it means to explore the atrocities committed in the age of Apartheid. Can justice be served? Can South Africa move on? How complicit is the average man? There are certainly important topics and issues to be dealt with--but rarely have I seen them served up so falsely and dispassionately.

Everything in "In My Country" is a construct. You've got Juliette Binoche as the face of white shame, Samuel L. Jackson as black rage (though he's an American), Brendan Gleeson as the villain, Binoche's assistant as the tolerant and understanding African, and her boss as the face of white indifference. Of course, this story is told from the vantage point of the white lady and the American--as these stories rarely examine issues from the African viewpoint. Even the testimony of atrocities--which should be a dramatic highpoint--are so staged, so false with the requisite swoons from the audience at "shocking" revelations. And Binoche is ever present to provide the tears--but as the emotion isn't genuinely developed, I continued to sit there feeling rather empty at the whole exercise. The Africans are never portrayed as significant indivduals, but as understanding and forgiving souls. I'd have appreciated a bit of emotional complexity at any point!

If the pairing of Juliette Binoche and Samuel L. Jackson seems an odd match, trust me--it is. As characters with opposing views, they are put together rather conveniently. No actual friendship is ever developed, we're just supposed to take it at face value that these two would hang out together. Well, I didn't believe it for a second. It was necessary for the plot, so it happened--why bother with actual character development? There's a more important message to be delivered by having them debate.

Of course, to make matters worse--a romantic entanglement evolves. There's not much drama there, either, as Binoche seemingly has an indifference to her husband and children. If she's conflicted about anything, it certainly never shows. And as if matters aren't bad enough, there's a heavy-handed (and obvious) ending that is supposed to be a revelatory twist. But I can only say it once more, without bothering to make the characters real--who cares?

A message can only take you so far. I'd have rather have watched a relevant speech, because no one here was concerned with drama. KGHarris, 11/06.

One of the first things that struck me about In My Country, the latest film from director John Borman was the question of why he cast Juliette Binoche in the lead role of embittered Anna Malan, the liberal Afrikaaner journalist. Nothing against Juliette, she's an incredible actress, but she's just so French! Wouldn't someone like Charlize Theron have been more appropriate? She is, after all, South African and is one who has actually lived the story of apartheid.

This minor quibble aside, Borman has generally succeeded in making an earnest, heartfelt film about an important subject, even though he does tend to pack the narrative with contrived plot devices. In My Country is set at the start of the 1996 Truth and Reconciliation Commission hearings, where the brutal dictators of apartheid were given an opportunity for amnesty but only if they owned up and told the truth about what really happened.

It's a remarkable moment in human history when the sufferers and perpetrators of the brutal apartheid system confronted each other, and although vengeance was not exacted, the world, for the first time heard descriptions of the terrible atrocities endured along with the genuine guilt of some of the state's torturers and murderers.

When Anna Malan starts reporting the commission for a local radio station, she is torn apart by grief when she discovers the extent of her people's cruelty to the black majority. At a meeting of international journalists who are covering the story, Anna meets her metaphoric match in Langston Whitfield (Samuel L. Jackson), a surly, African American reporter for The Washington Post who brings his own irate racial agenda to the hearings.

Langston views the hearings as just another smoke screen for white superiority and for him forgiveness for the white oppressors is totally unimaginable. He angers Anna with his narrow minded and one-sided view that all White Afrikaaner's were responsible for the tortures, and she becomes livid at him for not understanding that Africa is in her soul and that she's just as African as the Blacks.

But throughout all the emotional turmoil of the hearings, they gradually warm to each other, and while Anna becomes steadily more upset at the tales of torture, Langston grows to replace anger with a despondent humanism. He also grudgingly accepts Anna's claim that she's at least as African as he is, and in many ways more so.

There's a terrific story here, but for some reason it doesn't quite pack the emotional punch that it should. The movie does a good job of recreating the court room scenes as the Truth and Reconciliation Bus travels around the countryside setting up shop in school rooms and court houses. There are choice tidbits of testimony given by a number of victims and their graphic descriptions of rape and emasculation, of tongues being severed, of genitals being electrocuted, and of burying what body parts they can retrieve of loved ones. These tales are generally affective at getting the point across.

Anna, who is married with three children, and Langston, a married family man, begins an affair. The problem is that this twist in the story effectively belittles the harrowing material and turns the movie into a type of substandard hokey melodrama. It's a plot point that proves to be ultimately unworthy of the profound and important subject matter.

As the film moves along there's lots of heavy handed sermonizing about who should shoulder the burden of guilt. In fact, no one is vindicated as Anna soon discovers a skeleton in her own family closet, while her free-spirited, fun loving black South African assistant, Dumi Mkhalipi (Menzi Ngubane), also turns out to have blood on his hands.

Binoche and Jackson don't really have a lot of chemistry together, and their motivation for having the affair in the first place remains kind of vague and unclear. Rather than keep the divisive issues of betrayal bitterness and forgiveness to the courtroom where they belong, Borman has effectively transferred them to the bedroom, and the result is an uneven, disappointing, and somewhat tepid film, that could have been much more powerful and hard-hitting than it really is. Mike Leonard July 05.