ON READING "ON READING
THE S.A. FILM INDUSTRY"

Stan Miner

it both

Isn't
identical
the author was

strange

and indeed
book and W/112 up with

fascinating
two total1y

tryi ng to cOl1lT1unicate?

that
disparate

two people

can read the

conclusions

as

to what

Tne book in question
vey in his
criticism
industry
"Tomaselli's
is
that
it
are not
arti

analysis
financially
sti c."

in perspective

being K G Tomaselli's
this much needed
of
opells with
the S A film industry
not

self-sustaining

attempt
following:

the

of

The S A Film Industrl

R W Har-

at placing

the S A Film

rests
and that

on two observations
the

films

it produces

-

is beca~se

it
spectacles

for

Perhaps
tinted
that way, but
out
;,lakes the
despite
cinema already
spends nearly
cultures
this

point

as

I
a 'personalist'
state/112nts

ideological

exists
half
in other

in time

I don't
of Marxism,
read

happen
or maybe it

to look
is

at everything
just

that

through

red-
the book was written

the

it Tomaselli,
cinema here
creators

want

its
restraint

it
Tomaselli
in the Thlrd ~orld,
book drawing

muddled as his
in South Africa.

concepts
That
to make, despite
that
points
out
in Italy.
in France,
these

between

comparisons
emerging

South African

is

are,
crying
a cinema that
restraint,

is,
financial
such

ist'

a 'personal
he
In fact
film
(at

alternate
film infant

the
countries.
in grave

and the
danger

of being

still-born).

Harvey dismisses
dream of
a mutant
cinema.

the
of

sort
the

II

all
of
films

(perhaps

this
film he (Tomaselli)
of
the Ne\'1 Wave,

he skipped

pages
would like

Italian

Neo-real

29 to 92) as:
to see

in South Africa'
ism or Third \Jorld

"the

idle

film is basically
and consumed
to market
account

On page 8 of his
" ...
produced
subject
factual
that we are
dlsastrous
and cul ture

tre~ds
of what
in a capitalist
model
its
occupy

..

a commercial
it

earns
and potentials."
film is

book, Tomaselli

glves

a definition

product.

an income, makes a profi

of
As with

commercial

the
other
goods,
t or a loss

film:

a film is
and is

A very comprehensive,

totally
not

society).
fundamental

in a capitalist

society
to our critic
that

is

forget
(and let's
it is:.
a
economH structure

".

3ut

impl ication

dl fferent

pl aces."

free-enterpn~e

Harvey goes on from ~lIe",
capitali
st,
but carefully
Strangely
forces

enough
is exactl

plannea
1,

y 1.1ar, <

thesis

economic

to <;tatf', W1thOllt any 5upportive
the
powerful
as

systems
by:
,.
capitalism

'lnd structured
read Kapital.

are not

eVldence.

:nat

t of evolution.

resul
interests".

the ~esul

t of evolutionary

la~vey

What
interests
SpeClal
of
vestlgation
On Circult
at
holy of holies,
lClses,
system:

but
Francis

15 leadlng
'or

up to
"
Instance,

that
by

film cannot
the

arti<;t

I

recommend that

time df wnting

is
by capitalist

financed

viciously

attacks

the

Ford COPPola's

a film created

vested
very
foundations
Apocalypse Now.

interests,
of

to use as d tool
do d little

our critic

~e comandeered
the

for

by
in-

cinema ~oing
the
capitallst
in one of
that
not only.cnt-
.American capltallst

the

reality
the

Off ~he cuff
speclal
of Stalinism

lnterests"

I can cite

any number of

films

that

nave been

"<;ommandeered by

Eisenstein's

when Stalin

himself

Ivan the Terrlble
of

was the patron

vias a dlrect

cntlclsm

the Soviet

film industry.

51

don't

And please
in a "Marxist"
tradi ct you.

tell
state

us t1r Harvey
the whispers

-

that
of 20 million

this was possible
Stal1n

because
it occured
Vlct1filS Vlould con-

not denying

ideology
can be done under

be it
it

the effect
through
is possible
of
that
the most
it

of
censorship,

the Sout" African
through

state
the

on the South African

of

subsidy

funds,

control

a director

for
statement
repressive

to make h1S personal

stat~ment

-

may be -
ideology
in South Africa
'personalist'

in the South Afr1call C1nema.
- Soviet

(\1hich

communlsm under
b, Ings us
In the

cinema.

f1r~t

in history,
as yet
undefined
is meant by the
st,
or anywhere
(remenber Mr :,arvey,

can be done ~ere
of a

notion
term 'personalist'?
in-between.

from \~hich Marx got
system).

all
I can al ready

individualism~"
concept

the
the
is how the mythical

of

Very simply,

not

in the

past

also
movement of
later

the
to muddle

been

capitalist,
termed
nineteenth
into
a so-

It has
anti-political
ideas
cries

he was
of:

"Oh that's

to be careful

the
the
hear
I want
individual
'they'
of

and the
society

concept
locks

a person

just
to stress
of

a euphemism
the
distinct-

the

person.
in tne

our
relation-
punishment

An

believe
the

-

sociali

,Jhile
film industry,
I still
whatever
If
Stalin
back to the
place, what
not
anarchist
century
called
for
capitalist
ion between
individual
narrow fortress
ship
for

to the world.
individual
the

You can be a person
is

isolation.

of ego.

A person

is how you

and I experience

in solitude,

the worst

and only

as persGns

that

can be underllaken

in candour

"the

investigation

and curiosity.

is
of

as persons
reality"

And it
nature
sounds very much like
South African
cinema.
their
of
the
commerClal
Ross Devenish

personhood,

the
elusive
In so far
the

despite

that

'Art'
as
"dominant

they were

film in South Africa,
are deserving

of Tomaselli's

directors
at

is

to make the

through

the

into
All
of which
in search
of
in the
self
discovery
the medium of
and

as
ill-argued,

Jans Rautenbach
defence.

Tomaselli
able

ideology",
such
times

to be "misled
relations

of certain

Mr ~arvey warns. us not
d1vl~uals.
It 1S class
tegrlty
for,
relat10ns
the
sonhood of every
are
to.stam~
lt,

as
integrit.y
slngle
their

t:'r Harvey,

or

individuals."
I believe

of

clnematic
able
on their
vision
it.
or who lS gOlng to censor

that
If
Tomaselli
individuals
creator

of

of

oy the
are
it is

the
rather

goodwill
than

evidence
in question
as
cinema
book
1S in this
in q~estion,
is
as he,
or
no matter

that
in so far
productions,

the
looking
class
the
or

you're
it is not
per-
but
she,
they
who financed

in-
in-

'art'

To end with!
commer~lal
whose lnt~res~s
whose deSlre
marke~ happe~s
thlS
SOC1all st UtOPl a.

':Iarket

shal:

come back to the point

about

c1nem~ 1~ South Africa

being

1S lt evolved?"

:s 1t made, whose reactions
of
capitalist

In terms

to be free-enterprise,
that Tomaselli

analysing

is

in his

a commodity,
it

does

the market's

Harvey
anticipate,
desire.
in orientation
book

not

'

any film made for
asks:

the
"in
in terms
And the

And it

some mythical

of

~conomi cs,
nd because
~~Yt~O~cfludes
rlcan
u.

pol it1 cs and art
Tomase11i doesn't
author

tfhlat
1 m 1ndustry

the

are

cUmberously

happen
to agree
condones white

intertwined,

fu lly with
ca~ital;st

Harvey
th is
domination

tells

us.

s ta temen t Ha r-

in the

~:~~~~St~i~:~ew~hrdsb
areth'
em 0
tu ra 1 s truggl e ."
I f you'll
belng
in personal
to the Gulag Archipelago.

rooted

"Cultural
lnto
excuse
life,

account
failure

life

be1ng

rooted

1n political

life,

the paraph ras i ng Mr Harvey,

condemns one
to take
this

to an ineffectual
into

account

cultu ra 1 life

cul-
condemns

one

52