The Cannes Film Festival is now over. I had earlier noted that no African film had made the cut for the official (or main) program, but were relegated to a series of “special sections.”
That’s like humanitarianism for film.
A friend of mine who knows a thing about African film exhibition and distribution in the United States is less diplomatic: “Cannes is like a nightclub singer whose time has expired.”
It turns out that technically I wasn’t entirely correct since at least two films with African topics did make the “official” selection. The first was Madonna’s self-indulgent documentary about her attempt to adopt a baby in Malawi disguised as a film about AIDS orphaps, “I Am Because We Are.” Although not officially part of the festival’s program, the film took on an undeserved importance. The film was panned in French media, with one critic making fun of the images of “… tearful, emaciated children” accompanied by “overwrought music, pointless slow motion sequences, and simplistic commentary on the order of ‘everybody needs love’ ”
The other film with an African-theme that made the program is “Johnny Mad Dog,” directed by French filmmaker, Jean-Stephane Sauvaire, as part of the “Un Certain Regarde” section of the festival. Here‘s Manohla Dargis, one of the more perceptive film reviewers at The New York Times (and The International Herald Tribune) on “Johnny Mad Dog”:
“… One of a gang of lost children who call themselves ‘the death dealers,’ Mad Dog roams the wastelands of his country, spreading machine-gun terror and death — to men, women and other children — in the name of the revolution. Whose revolution? The movie doesn’t say. Charles Taylor, the former Liberian president who drove the country into civil war, is never mentioned, as far as I could tell. Instead, there are skillfully shot, rapidly edited scenes of dead-eyed children walking, running, dancing, shooting, screaming and killing, killing, killing. Without context, information or explanation, the movie plunges you into horror — yet, to what end? There’s no pleasure here, certainly, just effort and craft and a lot of black bodies, children and adolescents mostly, though also some adults, in a surrealistic and violent pantomime. In one late scene, Mr. Sauvaire shows the frenzied child soldiers dancing around a bonfire, their dark skin glistening in the ruddy light and the whites of their eyes shining brightly. Although I’m certain Mr. Sauvaire means well — he talks a good line about wanting to get close to the truth, though doesn’t explain what truth he means — it’s impossible not to question what he wants his audience to take away from this spectacle. Terror? Pity? I felt both, but was also repulsed by Mr. Sauvaire’s high-minded exploitation and provocative flourishes, like the image of the children walking through a graveyard as a radio broadcast of Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech fills the air. (Liberia was founded by former American slaves in the mid-19th century.) During the end credits, as Nina Simone sings the old Billie Holiday standard “Strange Fruit,” we see a series of real images of the war taken by the French photographer Patrick Robert. One picture shows a man clutching what looks like a human femur and another shows two small, presumably dead children in a puddle of blood. In another, a severed human head rests in the middle of a road, neck down. During the prescreening pleasantries when some of the movie’s creators were introduced, one of the group assured the predominately white audience that Liberia’s president, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, and all the people of the republic stand behind “Johnny Mad Dog.” Afterward, still reeling from what I’d just seen, I wondered, Who am I to argue?”

[...] Sean added an interesting post on Cannes âis like a nightclub singerâ and war pornHere’s a small excerpt [...]
Actually it was “humanitarianism for film” when in the early 90′s, there was a corny Burkina-Faso movie part of the selection each year.
And on “Johnny Mad Dog”, wouldn’t that criticism extend to the novel, which was written by an African.
Aflakate, my sense is the film is not based on the book?
It is an adaptation of the book. They bought the rights and re-use characters names and everything.
Since I haven’t seen the movie I can’t say if how close an adaptation it is. But from the reviews I’ve read (including this one), it seems like it’s quite to the spirit of the book, if not the storyline. The nihilism, the brutality, the lack of context were there in Dongala’s work.
Well, Africans aren’t angels and can also repeat the worse stereotypes about themselves.
Stereotypes ? lol.
I think Dongala’s intention was to write a novel describing the cruelty, senselessness of that type of wars, the ones that don’t have or loose their political goals, the ones involving child soldiers. It wasn’t written about Liberia specifically. After all, he did experience a brutal and senseless war too. And he has written about other types of conflicts before and is capable of describing complicated situations.
Honestly I don’t see what’s stereotypical about describing the horrors of Liberia, Sierra Leone, Congo etc.. Those conflicts were brutal, nihilistic, apolitical to a large extend.
… and not also about diamonds for markets in London, Paris, New York, and political power by national militias and personalities like Taylor, Sankoh, Prince Johnson, Savimbi in Angola, Kabila? etc? I am not against describing horros btw. In fact, one of my favorite novels is Kourouma’s Allah is not Obliged.
If you’re interested in Liberia, look into IRON LADIES OF LIBERIA, which wasn’t at Cannes either but premiered at Toronto Film Festival 2007.
A team of filmmakers that included a young female Liberian gained unprecedented access to the inner-workings of Ellen Johnson Sirleaf’s cabinet during her first year in office. Read about it:
ironladiesofliberia.com
Think about the novel as reflecting the experiences of the people who were victims of those wars.
For the random teenagers in Monrovia, Brazzaville, Freetown or in Kivu or Northern Uganda, the geopolitics of the conflicts didn’t change much. Their lives were being destroyed anyway. Not to mention that we’re talking about wars that (from the get-go or later) reached the point when they turn really awful, as the militias lose all touch with their original purpose and become indistinguishable from criminal gangs.
This is not different from most WW1 novels. The politics of the wars are uninteresting because for the most part they’re senseless and irrelevant. What really matters is what happens to the fighters and the victims in those wars.
Or at least that was Dongala’s goal.
[...] “Teza” won the best screenplay at the Venice Film Festival. Tell that to Cannes. Rub it in. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Turkish film ’Pandora’s Box’ wins [...]