The Disgrace of Disgrace
This film has won a major prize and is being given the big hype by all the trendy thinkers as a profound look at the "new South Africa." That it may be, though not in the way they mean. Disgrace is one of the vilest movies ever produced for normal viewing, and I cannot recommend it for anyone. Even though I fast-forwarded through much of it, I admit it haunts me like a bad dream—a hellish tour of Western decadence.
I have not read the novel by the South African émigré J.M. Coetzee upon which Disgrace is said to be based. Nor do I intend to. Whenever I hear that a movie is "based on" something I think of the cinema mogul in one of Evelyn Waugh's early novels who gave John Wesley a sword and a mistress.
The first and lesser problem here is John Malkovich. I have heretofore thought well of Malkovich—he has done some interesting things, has a Balkan lineage rare in Hollywood circles, and is reputed to be terrifyingly "conservative" among his colleagues—that is, he has exhibited some independence of mind, rare everywhere these days.
Malkovich's voice and mannerisms have become too well-honed and familiar. The trend has been obvious for some time and has reached a sad climax in this performance. Malkovich has destroyed our suspension of disbelief. We can never forget that we are watching Malkovich playing a part. This may be in some degree because the character being acted is at the same time so repulsive and so tedious that he can't be believed. He lacks "motivation," as they say. More than half the film is spent demonstrating that this character is lecherous, selfish, irresponsible, and, though this might not be intended, boring. If a message was intended about the society of "the new South Africa," such a goal would have been much better served by a normal character rather than one of distracting oddity. There are other disgusting, unnecessary touches as well.
Our hero is a divorced urbanite Capetown professor who loses his position because of his seduction of a mixed race (Cape Coloured?) student. He seems to prefer darker women, though his lechery is without serious racial or any other kind of discrimination. He next appears at the small remote farm (eastern Cape? Natal?) where his grown, unmarried daughter, a feminist and possibly a lesbian, lives alone. The only neighbour is a black man who is friendly and helpful but a little too intrusive. Then three black "youths" show up, gain admittance under a false appeal for help, and proceed to wreck the house, steal everything of value, kill the animals, and gang rape the daughter. Our hero, meanwhile, after pitiful efforts at resistance, is knocked on the head and locked in the bathroom.
A little later it is discovered that the criminals are relatives and friends of the neighbour, who was conveniently absent that day. The daughter refuses to call in "the police" on the grounds that if the bad boys are prosecuted, it will become impossible for her to remain on her place. It is not mentioned that in "the new South Africa" calling the police would probably make no difference anyway.
Here, I suppose, beginneth the lesson. The daughter is pregnant with a rapist's baby and does not seem too unhappy about it. After all, the evil has been committed because that is what men are like, not because these happen to be black Africans. Having a part black child will, at least so she concludes, give her an accepted role in the community of "the new South Africa" and guarantee her safety. After all, she will have relatives in the neighbourhood.
How are we supposed to feel about this? I assume that enlightened opinion will applaud this happy ending. With this example South Africa can now march forward into the long-awaited happy future. The oppressor and the oppressed have switched places, but are satisfactorily reconciled to the new way of things. So what if a little violence against the innocent is necessary to make clear who is now the boss? (Another recent film, The Lovely Bones, seems to promote a similar theme: vicious criminals should not be punished but be forgiven and reconciled with their victims. A Hollywood trend?)
My dark, reactionary mind, which thinks there is no redemption in this world and that history never rises very far above the raw fundamentals of our flawed nature, sensed another, profounder teaching. Whether this revelation was intended or is a case of art containing more than the artist was aware of, I know not. This strikes me as a prescient, dramatic depiction that Western men have lost their courage, will, pride, sense of social obligation, and ability to protect their women. They no longer display the qualities that made them Western men. Indeed, one can see already considerable evidence of this in America and Europe as well as among the outnumbered whites of South Africa. The real message may be that white women are instinctively adapting to their new masters as a tactic of survival for themselves and their offspring. Celebration or warning? I suppose it is all a matter of how you feel about it.
Entries(RSS)
That sounds despicable. I remember some years ago a white feminist 'anti-racist' activist was murdered in South Africa, and the liberal organization from which she came from made all kinds of excuses for her killers.
Your memory is correct, Mr. Maxwell. Her name was Amy Biehl and she was in South Africa to help register blacks for the 1994 elections which ended white rule.
Amy Biehl was pulled from a car and beaten to death by a mob of blacks. She was the only white person in the car and her black friends were not harmed. Her parents went to South Africa and placed the blame for her daughter's murder on ... you guessed it ... white racism.
I was in college at the time and remember thinking that there is something terribly wrong with many white people - particularly white Americans.
I don't understand the comment about The Lovely Bones. In the end of the movie the killer/rapist goes down. There is no reconciliation. In the book, it is made more explicit that his demise is caused by his dead victim Susie Salmon. Whether or not it is possible for the dead to take revenge on their still living murderers, neither the book nor the movie implies that viscious criminals should escape punishment.
Daniel and Bernie,
The blogroll to the right has a link to Ilana Mercer who has a very similar but more recent account about a poor confused woman raped in Haiti who was also insanely thankful for the experience. It is really much closer to the exploitation of the sick and is dreadful in the most pathetic sense of the word. It illustrates a demonic dimension of this rather contraceptive variety of charity that begins with the illusion of a worthy endeavor but is somehow turned back on itself in the most destructive of ways. It is a micro version of the neo-conservative drive towards creating a world safe for democracy by first destroying everything in its path including the country spreading the illusion. It reminds me of the witches brew concocted for that tragic figure, Macbeth, who discovered too late that half truths are really more deadly than entire lies because of their more enticing quality. I almost said it cannot last long but the GOP has been living it on it for years.
Dr. Wilson has touched on an important problem for movie makers when he points out the extreme portrayals by Malkovich. In recent decades the worst movies try to "expand the envelope" but fail by trying to be more outrageous than other works. Foul and gratuitous profanity is a regular part of adult movies today. Consequently, it is impossible for a director to shock the viewer who has seen it all and has become jaded. The palette of language and action available to the cinema director today is, in a way, more limited than it was under the censors of the 1940's and 1950's.
"Vicious criminals should not be punished but be forgiven and reconciled with their victims..."
Roman Polanski comes to mind. I think Polanski protests too much, but the above sentence reflects the current theme being projected for public consumption by both Hollywood and Polanski regarding his case/situation. I think we may never get our mitts on him. The delay in Switzerland just goes on and on.
Is this a recent trend for Hollywood? Or did it exist back in the Fatty Arbuckle affair -- presuming I recall the name correctly. In the end he was innocent but ruined. Was the cry then forgive and forget?
#3. In "Lovely Bones" the killer does get killed, but only accidentally and not in payment for his crimes, suggesting punishment should be left to chance. I was offended that the father was prevented from fulfilling justice, administering justice was seen as a bad and unhealthy thing, and that the killer was able to dispose of the Victim's body so that the family never knew where it reposed. On the whole, justice was over-ridden by sentimental fantasy.
I have seen the film and can confirm that it is a depressing spectacle of western servility and impotence. My impression from the film was that it was more of a warning than a call for whites to take their punishment.
It may be that the film has been given great hype by the ‘trendy thinkers’ but I suspect they (deliberately) misunderstood the main themes of the film, the plight and future of the white South Africans and the stupidity of the liberal guilt mindset. After all Coetzee emigrated and the ANC denounced the film as racist. My bet is the ANC know better than Hollywood critics what the film/novel is saying. It is a warning for whites.
I am grateful for Prof. Wilson’s interesting points about the relation between western men and women in this film which I did not pick up on when I watched it. Yes this portrayal of western weakness is the starkest and most depressing I have seen on the screen.
Showing gratitude towards your rapist/batterer. Is that not what the American taxpayer does everytime he votes to re-elect his representatives? In the end, those will will not protest, even violently if need be, overreaching government, get what they deserve.
I have not been to the New South Africa, nor will I ever. I have met enough South African ex-patriots who've informed me of the country's regression into hedonism since the end of White rule. I had spent enough time in the Old South Africa to seriously consider making the Cape area my temporary residence while working abroad. I thought the trendy thinkers would stay with trite sport depictions of white and black unification in rugby and soccer clubs with a nod to black superiority and Mandela deification, rather than a film depicting any moral degredation in South Africa.
I could not go so far as to believe that the artist intended to comment on the fact that Western men have lost their courage, will, pride etc., to protect their women. The patently obvious is not worthy of artistic comment. I cannot speak for Europe (although the recent Polish immigrants to Chicago with which I familiar are much more in line with the “men” I grew up around 50 odd years ago), but the efforts at effeminizing and emotionally debilitating Western/American males, beginning in pre-school, have long been with us. Having lived in the South these past seven years, I will say that, generally, young men are “tougher” here; unfortunately the toughness usually goes along with under education and uncouthness. It is a “gangsta rapper” show toughness rather than the “Gary Cooper” toughness that I a saw in the WWII males that typified my father’s generation. Dad, and his friends, did not have to work at it, or affect it through mindless shows of bravado - that was simply how they were wired.
With twenty-five years and counting as a military officer, I also suspect that much of the “post traumatic stress” (PTSD) we see today is the direct result of putting “phony tough” or feminized males into life and death situations with deficient emotional fortitude. American males are told today that emotional fragility is normal and expected over the slightest brush with emotional discomfort, let alone trauma. Interestingly, those Soldiers from the poorer classes seem to do much better in the PTSD area. Anecdotally, I recall a HS classmate being killed in an auto accident during my Senior year. We all said what a shame, some girls cried, we went to the funeral Mass and then back to class the same day. No one ever thought of having an army of “grief counselors” descend on the school to hold our hands for a day or two. We all seemed to adjust perfectly well thereafter. Today, the grief counselors would be standard procedure. For us children of WWII vets, who had older brothers /cousins in Vietnam, some of whom did not return, I believe it would have been insulting to make much ado over an auto crash victim. The bottom line is that the government/liberal society desires malleable “sheeple” not man of my father’s vintage.
#7. I think The Lovely Bones does make the point that simply being intent on vengeance may bring a lot of collateral damage to the vengeance seeker and his loved ones no matter how justified his sentiments. As far as the killer's demise is concerned, the fact that he was killed in a freak accident immediately after trying to trap another girl to rape and kill struck me as justice being done within divine providence. In the book, however, which I was prompted to read after I saw the film, Susie Salmon reflects in her heaven that an icicle is the ideal murder weapon. So, many chapters later, when her killer/rapist is killed in an "accident" caused by a falling icicle, you get the idea that Susie had something to do with it. I'll concede that there is a lot made explicit in the book which is only implied in the movie. It is interesting that the book was written by a woman who was raped by a serial killer who for some reason let her live although he had killed other victims.
Has anyone seen the movie avatar, and if they have, what do they think about it?
The female character is lucky to be left alive by her attackers. A more likely scenario would find her raped AND murdered, an addition to the 4000 Boer farmers that have been slaughtered, to date, since "independence".
As for Mr. Malkovich, his Balkan lineage notwithstanding, he is a virulent Serbophobe.
I haven't seen the movie, but judging from this description of the plot, I'm sure the religious-right ninnies will celebrate the pro-life message and claim this as a "conservative" film. What idiots...
Since our Christian/Judaic traditions have been all but completely criminalized, we have to ask: What is it that constitutes a crime and sin? Further, who is it that makes these decisions? What are their qualifications for such an important role? And if crime, sin and punishment are considered only through the criteria of skin color and/or nationality – and not through an impartial process - doesn’t that represent only a mockery of real justice? Doesn’t it represent a breakdown at the most elemental of levels?
Mr. Karma @ 11
Your words:
"Anecdotally, I recall a HS classmate being killed in an auto accident during my Senior year. We all said what a shame, some girls cried, we went to the funeral Mass and then back to class the same day. No one ever thought of having an army of “grief counselors” descend on the school to hold our hands for a day or two. We all seemed to adjust perfectly well thereafter. Today, the grief counselors would be standard procedure."
Philip Rieff has written a work entitled the Therapeutic Culture (emerging culture/anti-culture). A culture, as opposed to an anti-culture, give/gave therapy to the gods, i.e. worship, and received thereby a collateral blessing, i.e. the crops did not die. In our earliest Christian tradition, a tradition which continued in various forms for about eighteen-hundred years, the point of a funeral was to take the deceased Christian from the place of death to the place of farewell - in his baptismal robe. Placing him in the grave was the last act of baptism, buried with Christ in baptism, later to be raised at the Last Day in newness of life. The deceased was turned over to the communion of saints. In fact, there was usually a Eucharist at the funeral site. It was all an act of worship and a demonstration of faith: all of life is a baptism - dying to oneself and being raised up, ever more sanctified in Christ. Physical death is the ultimate giving of the Christian creature and the ultimate expression of faith: I die and cease to exist; yet, in faith, I hold that at that Day, I will be raised even as my Savior, the First Fruit of the Resurrection, was raised.
The modern funeral, even sadly among most Christians, is a narcissistic, self-centered therapy for those "left behind." The funeral is about grief and not about the Good News of the Gospel. Thus, do we now in the post-Christian era have to endure the "grief" counselors whom you mentioned.
#15 - Well, we all have our taste in movies and we are not always consistent, but I am rather puzzled at Mr. Manning comparing Disgrace and Taken. I haven't seen Disgrace and probably won't, but I am assuming that Dr. Wilson's description is more or less accurate and it strikes me that Taken, called by some reviewers "a 9/11 revenge fantasy", is pretty much the polar opposite of Disgrace. In Taken, Liam Neeson slaughters his way through hordes of third world thugs and an assortment of degenerate Euro-trash Frenchies, to successfully rescue his daughter (apparently the last teenage American virgin) from the clutches of a lecherous Arab shiekh. I would think that if you hate Disgrace, you'll probably love Taken.
Perhaps a certain segment of white males is like the losers you describe, but what about all those white guys fighting in MMA shows? What about all the white guys participating in the various submission grappling/Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu tournaments? SOme of the bigger state events draw over 1,000 competitors. My BJJ instructor told me that local Police don't like to come to class because despite all their supposed toughness and, training, they can't handle civilians making them tap their opponents to stop submission
holds.
What about all the sales of M-4 rifles and, handguns? The gun culture? Somehow, I doubt we'll see gangs of racial/leftist thugs getting their way as they do in South Africa and, perhaps Europe.
Maybe they'll attack liberal college-boy types, but they won't last long anywhere else.
OH MY ! Few will recall the riots in Los Angels California in 1992. After the initial rampage and cycle of looting and burning only the Korean stores were left. The Koreans had protected their stores from the rooftops with shotguns and pistols. The authorities then thought it prudent to disarm the Koreans so none would be hurt. They did and the next night their stores burned also.
Most of these Korean immigrants were poor, self-insured and many lived on the store premises. They had also been guilty of protecting themselves against robbery in the past. Many could not re-open after being burned out and returned to Korea. The survivors who stayed were brought together with the black community for counseling on why they deserved to be burned out. It was all very tiddy.
Of course it can't happen here in the good old USA.
I don't think gladiators are what we need; more part of the problem than the solution. There has to be enough intelligence to know for what purpose and against whom force might have to be used.
There are no doubt tough guys aplenty, but do they know who their real enemies are?
Dr.Peters,
Where would on the continuum culture>anti-culture, or, say, worship>therapy, would you place the New Orleans funeral march tradition? One can't avoid being attracted to the music, but I wonder if singing and dancing in defiance of death, though appealing for its bravura, may fall short of that "ultimate expression of faith" and celebration of the Gospel you rightly place at the center of the funeral ceremony.
Knowing how to physically fight, how to deal properly with the stress of combat? It's a part of what we need. Not the end, but a means to an end, because you aren't going to be intimidated by physical force. You respect it, but the idea of some punk putting his hands on you isn't going to terrify you because you've dealt with people much more skilled than the typical punk, trying to put their hands on you several times a week. You can think clearly and, react properly during a stressful situation.
What else do you think we need? The htreat you posed was from thugs and, their apologists. I don't think either has much power against a crowd with a fighting culture.
Mr. Jacobi @ 21
I have never been a "fan" of the New Orleans funeral march tradition. That is, of course, not a response to your question. Although I am a native of Louisiana, I know the tradition only as it appears in news clips or in movies. I am well aware of the song and tune most often associated with that tradition, namely, "When the Saints Go Marching In," although there are scores of others. I am not even sure that there is one such New Orleans tradition but likely several. Were one to assume that "When the Saints Go Marching In" was a celebration of the Gospel, one would, I hold, have to conclude that it has been so estranged from that tradition and so secularized that it has lost its objective correlative to the Gospel.
The message and the medium of the message are inextricably intertwined with one another. Although I am a Protestant of the evangelical variety, I understand the importance of the liturgy, which is the message and the medium, and that each word and act thereof must be carefully weighed if one is to become Christlike in and through the practice of it. I am fully aware of the alien liturgies - the liturgy of the mall or the liturgy of the rock concert - which have been Jesufied as if the medium does not matter, ignoring the fact that the medium carries its own message which countervails the Gospel.
I understand the New Orleans funeral tradition, noting my ignorance of it, to likewise be a medium in which the Gospel is distorted. There are those on these fora who might put some light on my ignorance in this matter.
#22. Mr. Mike, thanks for further clarification.
Dr. Peters,
Thank you. I had suspected as much. It seems though that my fondness for secular music, especially music with 19th and early 20th century black roots, and its offer of a quick flight from one's troubles and responsibilities, resists all attempts to lecture it into something more edifying.
Mr. Higdon,
I have not seen Taken but I have read in several places that the film was authentic in its portrayal of Europe's chief human traffickers - Albanians. So I was confused at your earlier reference to an Arab Shiekh as the baddie. Important because, like other favored groups, rarely are the Albanians portrayed in light of thier true behavior which is a sociopathic string of violence that allows them to populate the top ranks of Interpols 'most wanted' lists in Europe and increasingly the tops of war crime lists in the Balkans for the prisoner camps and organ trafficking that they conducted there. In the US the Albanians are nabbed in a plot to attack a US Army base and Bosnian Muslims shoot up shopping malls and what does Hollywood treat us to? Movies about Serbian terrorists. The inversion of reality and the confusion over right and wrong in western film-making is as appalling as the rest of the filth that comprises our "culture".
Eagle, iirc, the Arab shiek is the buyer at the end of the chain.
*sheik
Mr. Chan is correct. The rich Arab is the final buyer, the thuggish traffickers are Albanians, enabled by some corrupt French and other Europeans of indeterminate nationality.
Thanks, gentlemen. I get it now.
I haven't seen it but also thought the story seemed to sum us up now; peace at any price.