User reviews

The ignorance in these reviews is astonishing. This movie was meant to be an exposition of the vicious injustice of Mugabe and his regime, and it succeeded in its intention. No matter how you slice it, the violence, injustice, and lawlessness shown in this documentary is very real. Some of the reviewers attempt to discredit the racism and violence shown in this film by commenting on the oppressive history of Rhodesia. For those people, I only recommend you consult the following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

Pointing out the reprehensible actions of others, does not validate your own or anyone else's. It's a fallacy. This film showed what it is like for a white farm owner living in modern Zimbabwe. It showed what it is like right here, right now. It was not inaccurate or with bias. It was not scripted. It was not dramatized (in fact quite the opposite, it's amazing the subjects were not more dramatic).

This film delved into a little known subject and captured a moving story. I highly recommend this film to any documentary lover.

I always hold dear the memories of visiting my grandparents as a child and taking early morning walks through the Great Zimbabwe Ruins, it was majestic to say the least. To see the state Zimbabwe is in today is so sad considering it used to be such a great country.

This documentary did a fantastic job of creating awareness, the real truths behind the (m)ugabe regime. You cannot help feel a deep sadness for the individuals' involved, especially noting that children are the also the victims of this outrageous regime.

A realisation that a brain washed/racist state is the order of the day, every day in Zimbabwe. The White Farmers are providing for 100's of workers livelihoods and they're the bad guys. The whole concept on which Mugabe bases his Dictatorship is one big Contradiction. As they say, every dog has its day.

Excellent Documentary - Pity that some of the previous reviewers could not see through their collective PC, liberal and socialist blinkers. What has Mugabe done for his people? ZIP. Apart from the so called "War Veterans" and other family, Generals,and political cronies, all of Zimbabwe is in desolation, fear, hunger and despair, while his majesty mister Bob Mugabe lives in a palace. With servants and bodyguards. All you out there - take note - see and realize. That's it. The whites made a difference, a small minority, overstepped the line, we all know that, but is that a reason for millions of honest black folk to starve while his majesty zests in luxury?

Good show, glad to have seen it and most recommendable,

This is no doubt one of the most moving documentaries I have seen in a long time. The story of a family who decided not to bow to pressure, not to run away, not to give up in the face of the most horrendous state brutality speaks for itself and I find some of the criticisms voiced in other reviews hard to stomach. It is not Mugabe and his oppressive regime that need to be explained, it is the fact that his system is allowed to continue without much international challenge that is abhorrent. The courage of Michael and Ben in making this documentary, in continuing with their case and in showing the real face of Mugabe and his small but brutal elite is worth noting and remembering.

It was a refreshing change to see such an accurate and vivid portrayal of life under Robert Mugabe. The almost comic dialog between Campbell and the son of a Government Minister who felt entitled so simply take the farm showed how ridiculous the whole situation in Zimbabwe has become. A once prosperous and thriving country now gripped by terror, sickness and starvation. Bravo to Mike Cambell for his lonely stand for what is right. There are millions of bitterly oppressed Africans in Zimbabwe who can only benefit from the stand of Mike Campbell and the widespread showing of this masterpiece documentary. Robin Greaves California

This documentary is a moving, emotionally charged film focused on one elderly white farmer and his family as they try to hold on to their farm in Zimbabwe and validate the justice of their cause before the SADC International Court, a kind of International Court of Justice. As much of the film depicts the family's preparation for their court appearance and the associated consultation with their lawyers, the jurisdiction of the court in this matter and what they hoped to achieve from the court's decision was not clear to me. The Assistant Attorney General of Zimbabwe says in the film that this court has no weight on matters within Zimbabwe, while the advocates for Mike Campbell, the white farmer, intend to emphasize the racism of Zimbabwe's "land-reform" by showing that only white farmers are being expropriated.

But this film's strength is not on the legal issues, or the political context, but on the courage and strength of character of Campbell, his son-in-law (Ben Freeth) and their wives as they face political and physical intimidation. We see the Zimbabwe government exerting increasing pressure, most ominously through its thugs who seem to enter the farm at will to beat up its workers and tell Campbell and his family that "we don't want you here in Zimbabwe". Campbell does not back down under the intimidation but decides to highlight the justice of his cause by taking his case to the SADC. It's curious to me why the government through its marauders didn't just go in and physically dispossess this family of their farm, killing a few on the way, mostly black African workers, as they did with most of the white-owned farms previously dispossessed. Presumably, Campbell's claim to his farm was more difficult for Mugabe and his minions to wave away; he apparently bought it from another white farmer during Ian Smith's white colonial government a few years before Zimbabwe's independence.

Some of these reviews have indicated that no historical context is provided in this film, particularly how white farms were acquired during the colonial period. Well, the film was never meant to be a comprehensive historical review of land acquisition, usage and disposition in Southern Rhodesia / Zimbabwe complete with exposés of Cecil Rhodes and the like. It's a very personal microcosm of the recent "land-reform" in Zimbabwe where President Mugabe plays the "racial card" to dispossess white farmers and transfer their farms to his political supporters somewhat akin to the privatization of Soviet-era state assets to politically-connected insiders. Unfortunately, these were not accomplished farmers, and Zimbabwe's food exports have dropped significantly since the dispossessions. Indeed, it's hard to imagine anyone in a democratic country retaining power whose stewardship of his nation's economy has resulted in 80% unemployment and 100 billion (?) % inflation without resort to violent intimidation as Mugabe has done. You can see the look of fear in the faces of the black farm workers as Mugabe's thugs intimidate them and their livelihoods are threatened. I wished the film focused a bit more on these workers who have much to lose from this "land-reform"; perhaps they were reluctant to talk for fear of what might happen to their families.

In summary, this is a powerful drama that needs to be told; and I'll conclude with two comments: (1) if you live in a nation that goes by the rule of law,and not the rule of men, be thankful, and (2) imagine the form of land-reform that a Nelson Mandela might have initiated in Zimbabwe, a more just, evolutionary approach with fair compensation and allocation of the land to experienced farm workers of all political stripes who don't necessarily have to be Mugabe's "bush veterans". Just compare the Mandela of "Invictus" and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to the Mugabe regime and his election-time rhetoric:"the whites are gathering at our borders and getting ready to take your land back" (reported in AP).

This film is compelling but also seems very incomplete. That's because the context for what is occurring is missing--and the film is hard to relate to as a result. If you are unaware of the political situation in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe over the last 40 or so years, the film is difficult to understand or relate to. Giving this complete picture would have fuzzied up the story a bit but also made it more honest in dealing with the land reform debate.

First, Rhodesia was a racist country--much like South Africa during Apartheid. There is no justification for this--it was bad and you certainly could understand resentment among blacks in the country towards their overlords. This is not addressed in the film and as one reviewer correctly stated, the family featured in the film bought their land from this racism regime. And, a lot of black Africans felt taking the land away was a case of payback--payback for being among the elite.

Second, when Robert Mugabe became leader of Zimbabwe, people in the West generally approved of him. He was seen as a moderate and one of the better African leaders--receiving honorary degrees from major universities abroad as well as honors from the British government. Part of this, I'm sure, was the West's relief that Mugabe was better than the communists who had tried to gain control of the new nation. HOWEVER, over the years, Mugabe turned out to live by one rule...whatever is best for Mugabe! Whatever it took to remain in power, he did. If it meant appealing to the uneducated masses by proclaiming land reform, he did it--even though the way it was done was haphazard AND the standard of living for the Zimbabwean people actually got much worse and mass starvation resulted!! He and his friends, however, didn't suffer during this horrible economic slide--and, in effect, he and his friends became the whites in charge of the nation! In addition, any real efforts to wrest him from power or mount an opposition were crushed--seemingly by 'the people'. In other words, Mugabe gave consent to roving gangs to kill or intimidate opposition. Mugabe himself behaved like he had no control over this--that it was a popular movement. But, as President for Life and dictator, he could have stopped it but instead fomented race and class hatred for his own means.

So, put in its context both the pro- and anti-land reform groups have ammunition for their case. It sure complicates things but also gives a much more accurate view of the overall picture. I sure would have liked to see and hear this information in this film.

So how about this movie? Well, it gives the story of one particular farmer and his family that were hold-outs--among the last of the white farmers to remain in Zimbabwe. The rest were beaten and chased from the country or killed. It is sad. It is very compelling--especially when the family was severely beaten by the Mugabe-sanctioned mobs. Taking the land with no compensation whatsoever just seemed wrong--especially since the criteria used for taking the land was the color of his skin. It does make this point well if the film does not intend to educate you about the whole picture but only the plight of the family and nothing more. Considering how long it took to make the film, the risks to their safety and the quality of the production, I'd recommend it even if the film is incomplete. My advice is to see this film but only after reading up on the country and its history. Perhaps there is a good documentary about Mugabe out there and that would be a good place to start.

By the way, had the film given a more thorough view of the context for the events in the film, I don't think it would have significantly harmed their case---it still would have been a moving story.

Robert Mugabe, the post-colonial leader of Zimbabwe, was in the very beginning praised and lavishly awarded with honorary doctorates. He wasn't a communist and that was the only important thing for the Western powers. Hence, the enthusiastic support of all the murderers in the Latin America. Unfortunately, but quite commonly, the liberator of Zimbabwe became its dictator and tormentor. Even now at 88, he desperately clings to power. This is a story of the horrible plight of the family of white African farmers, who despite of the hopeless situation fight for their bare existence. The movie is powerful and its shaken camera work due to dangerous circumstances, just adds to this horrific story, the heartbreaking urgency.

First and foremost, let me make this clear: Robert Mugabe's regime is in no way defensible or just. It is a cruel and brutal dictatorship responsible for devastating economic policies, a state of fear and incredible lawlessness.

BUT, this movie is incredible flawed and frankly, I'm appalled by the incredible reviews it has gotten. Mike Campbell is a white farmer in Zimbabwe whose farm, which employs 500, is soon to be taken from him by ZANU PF (Zimbabwe's governing party) milita men. The film follows him and his struggle to bring his case, and the land grabbing of the Mugabe regime to the South Africa Development Council Supreme Court.

While this man's tale is moving, it's hard to ignore (and frankly a little uncomfortable) to watch this film and not think of the historical and political context of the land reform policies. We get the idea from the doc that the white people of Zimbabwe are nothing but a peaceful, God fearing, loving community there to help the poor natives, and the racist government wants to harm them. The film completely IGNORES the colonial history, white minority rule, the fact that 70% of the land in the country used to be owned by 1% of the population etc.

The black people seem to hate white people for no reason. There's no history of oppression or injustice where whites are concerned, and if there is, the film makers don't want to tell it. The bias makes it difficult for me to really look at this film seriously. One of the main characters, Ben, a white man, says "if you ask can you be a white American or white Australian, the answer is of course. But if you ask can you be a white African, most nationalists will say no. I find something very wrong with that."

What is so disturbing about that comment is that both America and Australia are associated with white people because Europeans essentially wiped out entire native societies. I don't understand how he can even make a parallel. Europe's history in Africa is so ripe with violence, injustice and oppression that the documentary borders on insensitive. It's also worth noting that very few black people are actually speaking in this film, and if they are, it's nothing more than a reaction to a white person.

In all, Mugabe and the White African has an important story to tell, but tells it in an incredibly biased way that lacks any context and is incredibly insensitive to any realities in race relations in Africa. Zimbabwe is a wayward country and Mugabe's policies are destructive, but to act as if the natives have no reason to feel this way isn't helping the problem.

This story had a lot of potential to delve deeply into the intricacies of racial relationships and land reform within Zimbabwe and Africa as a whole. However the documentary makers, rather incredibly, have managed to create a film looking at a single side of the story. It is quite baffling how someone in the industry of documentary film making can not see the issues, and in fact dangers, of approaching a piece in this manner. There is no counter position to the "white African" point of view provided at any point during the film and it feels as if the watcher is assumed to associate and agree with this viewpoint from the outset. Whether intentional or not one can't help but feel this is a movie born out of racial ignorance.

There could have been some extremely interesting nuances to be explored here but unfortunately it completely missed the mark.

While this documentary of a white farmer fighting for his land against the bullying dictator Mugabe and his 'land redistribution' program that reportedly redistributed land mostly to his cronies is certainly a stirring, fascinating battle, there is also something a little simplistic in it's attitudes. Almost something a little colonial.

No one can defend Mugabe and his treatment of his own country, but the film acts as if there's no reason for lingering resentment of white, upper-class property holders after centuries of white domination. Even the lead character talks to and about his black workers in a sort of condescending 'see how well I treat them?' sort of way. (And never brings up that he's actually from South Africa, not Zimbabwe - it's not like the land he's fighting for is his ancestral home).

I don't pretend to be any sort of expert on the situation in Zimbabwe (there are some fascinating back and forth arguments in some of the reviews here) But I can't help feeling things are not so simplistic when the white ex-South African owner of a huge farm talks about the blacks he works with as if they were children or less than his equal.

Again, I am in not defending Mugabe. I know enough to see that he is clearly a ruthless, horrendous dictator, who has done great harm to blacks and white alike. I'm saying there is another, more subtle issue in this particular story that gets short shrift, making it feel a bit more like a polemic, and a bit less like an objective view than I wished. I don't know enough about Zimbabwe, but neither does most of the world. Just a few minutes of history to deal with the context both the country's history and the farmer's, might have made me either trust the films' arguments more deeply, or question them more thoroughly. Now I was left with a vague feeling of 'is this the whole story?'

To quote Roger Ebert " "Mugabe and the White African" could certainly have looked more deeply. The filmmakers travel to Kent in England to speak with the family of Campbell's son- in-law, but never have any meaningful conversations with the African workers on Campbell's farm."

Or The New York Times: "It should be pointed out, though, that Ms. Bailey and Mr. Thompson achieve their results largely through the narrowness of their focus. Almost the only voices we hear are those of the farmers, their families and their lawyers... It's possible to honor the suffering of the Campbells and the Freeths and to revile the actions of the Mugabe government and, at the same time, to be uneasy with the emotions the film stirs and to feel that its one-sidedness and its nearly complete lack of historical and cultural context are problems. The farm's black work force is frequently on screen and is presented as sympathetic to its employers, but the workers rarely speak. It's impossible to know what their true, probably complex and contradictory feelings are. Mr. Freeth asks why being a white African should be any different than being a white American or a white Australian. It's a good sound bite, but a moment's reflection tells you that the comparison doesn't hold water: the courses of colonialism and racial strife were radically different in America and Australia than they were in Africa. That doesn't make Mr. Freeth's cause any less just, but it does mean that "Mugabe and the White African" needs to be approached with care.

To sum up: A worthwhile documentary, that gets very tense at times as clandestine footage captures the threats the farmer and his family live under, and their struggle through the courts. But it misses, or perhaps intentionally ignores the bigger picture that explores how things got to where they are in the first place. It's very hard to make any documentary that is explicitly about modern African black on white racism, without looking at the context and the larger history. Not to forgive or absolve it. But to understand it. And surely understanding where an evil comes from is a crucial part of any examination of it.

I can't believe the high level of insincerity in this documentary. whole documentaries was from the view point of the white community.view point of black peoples were never concerned or given any space in this documentary of 90 minutes.

There was never mentioned the whole situation before the independence of Zimbabwe. The suppression of black people under colonial rule .And the facts like white peoples just make 1% of population but controlled 75% of land. black people were shown as angry for no reason and are being just racist.

In many parts of documentary author gives the reason that we have been targeted cause we are white(implying that black people just angry cause they are racist).

At about 33 minutes , there was a dialog between black person and white person:

black person: ....we don't want to have anything with white people.....

white person: is that cause we are white?. (implying that black person is just racist and there is no valid for him to be angry)

the correct question should have been "is that because we exploited you for years and own most of your land because of long history of colonial rule?".

whole documentary was filled with animated emotions by various white characters showing how sad they are. while black people were shown as racist and violent.

To be fair I shouldn t be reviewing it because I turned it off after the first fifteen minutes. At the first shots of sad, wide eyed African children. I knew what I was in for and din't fancy the ride. These children wernet given a voice, nor were their parents. The film never questions the assumption that the land belongs by rights to the white settlers. The tone and language of the white family is classic colonial era: paternalistic towards 'our' workers. Resting on the (unspoken) assumption that Africans are irrational, child like and incapable of managing things themselves. Instead of rigorous analysis of a complex series of events, giving voice to the different interests and points of view, the film relies upon emotional manipulation of the audience. The situation in Zimbabwe is the culmination of years of interference in the continent on the part of Europeans. Shame this film couldn't offer more insight. It says much about the media and visual illiteracy of our culture along with Britain's unwillingness to confront the legacy of its colonial past that this film has been so feted to the extent of winning a BAFTA award. Still, people will believe the truths they want to believe.

The Big Lie of this documentary, is that Whites are a minority in Zimbabwe; that they own a minority of the land (2%), and that they are therefore 'singled out by Mugabe' because of their race. That 'Mugabe' wants to create a country free of all Whites. This is the Big Lie at the center of this propaganda piece.

The Truth: Ben Freeth and Mike Campbell are die hard Rhodesians. That is what they mean with 'White African' - Rhodesians. And these two Rhodesians are trying to resist the redistribution of their 12,000 hectare estate called Mount Carmel.

This estate, with it's 500 'workers' is repeatedly referred to as a 'farm'. The average EU farm is 90 hectares. The average white commercial farm was 2,500 hectares. Before land reform, which saw the 1% of the population who were classified white under colonialism and UDI, own 47% of the country. That is what land redistribution addressed.

The Campbell and Freeth estate is much bigger than that - 12,000 hectares. Under the Fast Track land reform program, land is redistributed in 50 hectare (A1) and 250 hectare (A2) farms. Many whites have acted like Zimbabweans, not Rhodesians, and have taken a 250 or so (more in low rainfall areas) farm.

This documentary is about the preservation of privilege, not 'human rights'.

Writing this as a White African born and raised in Africa I found the movie extremely distasteful and manipulative. How such a one-sided white-washing (literally) documentary received such accolades is beyond me. Especially amongst critics who normally like more balanced perspectives.

Best critique on the subject is by Eric Ritskes of the Wanderings blog who offer an honest balanced perspective on the movie and its misgivings. Best quote: "The movie fails to highlight the great irony in hearing White European lawyers argue that democracy is not merely about majority rule but about protecting basic human rights, basic human rights that White Europeans ignored in Zimbabwe for hundreds of years. I guess these basic human rights only need to be protected when White human rights are at stake." Other recommended reading is the 'other side of the story' of forced redistribution, as presented in the article "In Zimbabwe Land Takeover, a Golden Lining" in the New York Times (by Lydia Polgren, June 20th 2012).

Mugabe is a gibberish tyrant and his cronies are corrupt to the bare bone. But the key essence to the story is this: Land redistribution is just and necessary, whilst those responsible for stealing from the indigenous populations fail to own up and compensate the white farmers (aka the British government). Both the wickedness of Mugabe government and the failings of inevitable land redistribution need to be mentioned to offer true unbiased perspective.

I watched this and was frustrated. The white farmers were condescending toward the black farm workers and the producers failed to tell the full story of the barbaricl practices carried out by whites in and the european land grab which took place, enabling the white farmers to take hold of the farm land in Zimbabwe.

If you're looking for a full and balanced depiction of the events in Zimbabwe, look elsewhere.