Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom (2013) task
In general, what did you like and dislike about the film?
I didn’t really like the movie. In my opinion, it didn’t show enough information about the context of South Africa, of what the apartheid really was like and the racial discrimination within the white supremacy. I could see black people demanding their rights, but it was never clear which rights were those. The movie should’ve shown at least the wages discrimination and the difficulty to access to quality education and healthcare. Also, the director missed out the international pressure during the conflict, barely mentioning it. Although it was a biography of Mandela, I think it should’ve shown more of the apartheid in the material aspects of the afrikans life.
I did like the actors/actresses performances and character development, especially with Winnie. How she took over the revolutionary movement after being imprisoned and the development of her resentment towards the government, how she radicalized the movement to the point were it seemed she was developing her own white subjugation. The rawness of the conflict in the streets, the massacres and “necklacing”, was shocking and well achieved.
In your own words, how would you compare the "various Mandelas;" the ones from the article and the one from the film?
I feel as if both Mandelas that the article described were shown somewhat in the movie. The first half of the movie displayed the revolutionary Mandela, who took over the streets and encouraged an armed revolution through violent (bombing) and non violent acts (manifestations and public speeches). It portrayed the image of a man that mistreated his own family. He was a political figure, ideologically influenced by the Communist Party, though his left inclinations weren’t explicitly displayed. The second half of the movie introduced us a non violent, neutral politician: the symbol of peace that the article heavily criticized. Although, unlike the God-like figure loved by everyone described by the article, in the movie it seemed like even his own people didn’t like him much, since the movement was, at that point, radicalized and didn’t want a diplomatic solution to the conflict. They even hoot at him during his TV speech at the end of the movie. His own comrades doubted his decision of speaking with the government, thinking he was selling himself.
What was the role that Winnie Mandela played in the film? Think about the contrast between her and the other ANC members.
Winnie was crucial to preserve the revolutionary movement while Mandela and the other leaders were imprisoned. She took care of the speeches and kept alive Mandela’s image during his absence. While the other ANC members grew old and gave up the violence, she got stronger (through trauma) and radicalized the movement. She was a pivot point inside the movement, the one who ignited the anger piled up inside the afrikans and encouraged the “necklacing” of the traitors. When Mandela got free, he and his comrades decided to take the diplomatic path inside the Congress. She, in the other hand, kept speaking in the streets, talking directly to the people.
How do you compare the role of Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress in the struggle against the apartheid and in the post-apartheid South Africa to the Concertación and their role in the struggle against Augusto Pinochet's dictatorship and in post-dictatorial Chile?
In both cases, thanks to the overwhelming pressure that carried out in the streets through violent and non violent manifestations, and the continuous repressions from the dictatorships (ending in massacres and imprisonments), both governments lost control of their countries and incurred to diplomatic solutions. In this way, the ANC and the Concertación served as a “canal” to the people, doing speeches in TV and promoting the right of the citizens to decide the future of the country through a “democratic” suffrage. They decided what was “best” for the people (Mandela even says that the people don't know what they want, and that he has to lead them), though they preserved the power of the previous governments through economic policies (neoliberal market) and handing them power in the Congress. After all, both roles couldn't completely erase the legacy of the struggle. There's still social and racial discrimination, and there's still pending matters in the compensation of the victims that suffered during the conflict.
I didn’t really like the movie. In my opinion, it didn’t show enough information about the context of South Africa, of what the apartheid really was like and the racial discrimination within the white supremacy. I could see black people demanding their rights, but it was never clear which rights were those. The movie should’ve shown at least the wages discrimination and the difficulty to access to quality education and healthcare. Also, the director missed out the international pressure during the conflict, barely mentioning it. Although it was a biography of Mandela, I think it should’ve shown more of the apartheid in the material aspects of the afrikans life.
I did like the actors/actresses performances and character development, especially with Winnie. How she took over the revolutionary movement after being imprisoned and the development of her resentment towards the government, how she radicalized the movement to the point were it seemed she was developing her own white subjugation. The rawness of the conflict in the streets, the massacres and “necklacing”, was shocking and well achieved.
In your own words, how would you compare the "various Mandelas;" the ones from the article and the one from the film?
I feel as if both Mandelas that the article described were shown somewhat in the movie. The first half of the movie displayed the revolutionary Mandela, who took over the streets and encouraged an armed revolution through violent (bombing) and non violent acts (manifestations and public speeches). It portrayed the image of a man that mistreated his own family. He was a political figure, ideologically influenced by the Communist Party, though his left inclinations weren’t explicitly displayed. The second half of the movie introduced us a non violent, neutral politician: the symbol of peace that the article heavily criticized. Although, unlike the God-like figure loved by everyone described by the article, in the movie it seemed like even his own people didn’t like him much, since the movement was, at that point, radicalized and didn’t want a diplomatic solution to the conflict. They even hoot at him during his TV speech at the end of the movie. His own comrades doubted his decision of speaking with the government, thinking he was selling himself.
What was the role that Winnie Mandela played in the film? Think about the contrast between her and the other ANC members.
Winnie was crucial to preserve the revolutionary movement while Mandela and the other leaders were imprisoned. She took care of the speeches and kept alive Mandela’s image during his absence. While the other ANC members grew old and gave up the violence, she got stronger (through trauma) and radicalized the movement. She was a pivot point inside the movement, the one who ignited the anger piled up inside the afrikans and encouraged the “necklacing” of the traitors. When Mandela got free, he and his comrades decided to take the diplomatic path inside the Congress. She, in the other hand, kept speaking in the streets, talking directly to the people.
How do you compare the role of Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress in the struggle against the apartheid and in the post-apartheid South Africa to the Concertación and their role in the struggle against Augusto Pinochet's dictatorship and in post-dictatorial Chile?
In both cases, thanks to the overwhelming pressure that carried out in the streets through violent and non violent manifestations, and the continuous repressions from the dictatorships (ending in massacres and imprisonments), both governments lost control of their countries and incurred to diplomatic solutions. In this way, the ANC and the Concertación served as a “canal” to the people, doing speeches in TV and promoting the right of the citizens to decide the future of the country through a “democratic” suffrage. They decided what was “best” for the people (Mandela even says that the people don't know what they want, and that he has to lead them), though they preserved the power of the previous governments through economic policies (neoliberal market) and handing them power in the Congress. After all, both roles couldn't completely erase the legacy of the struggle. There's still social and racial discrimination, and there's still pending matters in the compensation of the victims that suffered during the conflict.
Comentarios
Publicar un comentario