In My Country

Released in the wake of Hotel Rwanda, In My Country tackles another grim chapter in African history. Set during South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the film is adapted from Antjie Krog's Country of My Skull. Oscar-winner Juliette Binoche (The English Patient) is Anna, an Africaans poet and broadcaster, and Samuel L. Jackson (Pulp Fiction) is Langston, a Chicago reporter. The two meet during the hearings and take an instant dislike to each other. In due time, however, they come to an understanding and embark on a tentative affair, despite Anna's faith in the hearings and Langston's doubts. John Boorman, whose previous features were the underrated Beyond Rangoon and The Tailor of Panama, coaxes sensitive performances from his leads and sheds welcome light on an important event, but In My Country never catches fire. Boorman regular Brendan Gleeson (The General), however, makes a memorable appearance as a sadistic police chief. --Kathleen C. Fennessy Amazon.com

In My Country

In My Country is the best movie I have seen about the changes in South Africa from Apartheid to free and the Truth and Reconciliation Committee. It wasn't always factual but was powerful. The performances were Oscar winning to me, and the beauty of song Senzenina (The Power of One) moving throughout the film made me weep. A must for anyone interested in a visceral look at those powerful days and months of the Truth and Reconciliation Committee hearings in South Africa. As we look at the problems that South Africa now faces, we can easily see through this movie, how they came to be, and how complicated the problems are. God help Africa, a land that many of us love. October 3, 2008

Justice and Forgiveness: Well-Intentioned, But Too Melodramatic

"In My Country" (also known as "Country of My Skull") stars Juliette Binoche and Samuel L. Jackson based on Antjie Krog's novel. Binoche is Anna, Afrikaner poet and radio broadcaster while Jackson is Langston, sent from a Chicago newspaper. They both report the hearings of TRC (Truth and Reconciliation Commission) in South Africa, where people gave their testimonies about the violence and abuses during Apartheid. Langston is also given a chance to interview a notorious police head De Jager (Brendan Gleeson), who knows what really happened to some of the victims.

But somehow director John Boorman thought it necessary to follow another story about Anna (who is married) and Langston who develop instant dislike to each other, then come to be romantically attracted. Except the fine acting from the two, their romantic story does not offer much partly because the film refuses to develop it, but the main reason is I think Boorman crammed too many things into the plot - most notably Anna's parents' story and Anna's brother's one, both of which should be left in cutting room. And the film tells us the story of De Jager and a little girl, which needs more time and more detailed storytelling.

[UBUNTU] As far as TRC section is concerned, the film is great. The testimonies are not only heart-rending but multi-layered because both sides must be present at the hearings. The film also has one great message based on a traditional idea called Ubuntu, humanist concept about the relations between humans.

But I still cannot see why Ubuntu should be told with the melodramatic story Anna and Langston. Philip Noyce's "Catch a Fire" (which is also set in South Africa) has certainly love affair in its plot, but it never occupied the central stage. "In My Country" is certainly made with good intention and has insightful moments about sins and forgiveness, but overall they are overshadowed by something else that should be told elsewhere. June 16, 2007

Flirts with Genius, but falls short

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.
May 18, 2007

hollywood, ideology and reality

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. November 26, 2006

John Boorman Misfires With A Heavy-Handed And Obvious Apartheid Drama

"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. November 9, 2006

More reviews at Amazon.com ...