Goodbye Bafana

Joseph Fiennes has always looked a bit like a spider monkey in my view, but in this movie he was better than in any role I'd seen him in before, doing what I thought was a competent job with the South African accent as well. Finally exempted from having to play the sex symbol, Ralph's little brother could finally concentrate on actually challenging himself with a complex role. In a movie based upon a true story, Fiennes plays James Gregory, a racist South African guard whose certainties are nonetheless shaken to the core over the span of twenty years – the time he spends as Nelson Mandela's prison warden. The movie's merit lies largely in showing us the daily application of a major historic abomination – Apartheid – through the lives of "little people", those ordinary men and women of South Africa thanks to whom it was perpetuated. These are "ordinary" white people who are neither heroes nor villains, but obtuse conformists. The violence of the system on its white citizens was considerably more hidden than on its black ones, but it was violence all the same: it was the obligation to remain as ignorant as possible. The alternative was to be persecuted by the status quo.

Dennis Haysbert as Nelson Mandela was suitably stoic and charismatic, a positive counterpart to Forest Whitaker's villainous Idi Amin from The Last King of Scotland. Diane Kruger was definitely better cast as an "ordinarily" racist, suburban hairdresser wife and mother of two, than as Helen of Troy. By the end of Goodbye, Bafana, I was also somewhat moved. My major complaint with the movie was that like the vast majority of African-set, historical movies made recently, Nelson Mandela and all the black African characters were largely viewed from the outside, through the whiteys' eyes. These movies' directors all need to sit in a darkened room and watch The Battle of Algiers together sometime

James Gregory (Joseph Fiennes) with language skills is recruited as the censor officer to watch over prisoner Nelson Mandela (Dennis Haysbert). His wife Gloria (Diane Kruger) is eager for the promotion. He is a true believer in fighting the African communists and would prefer to have Mandela hung for treason. His childhood on a farm and friendship with native boy Bafana had taught him the languages. James starts to see problems with the oppressive apartheid system and becomes an advocate for Mandela's rights.

By all accounts, James Gregory was a professional jailer and a kind one as much as they were allowed to be. I don't see any big problems with some minor tall tales. There may be some history police coming for this. The movie faces bigger problems. James Gregory could never face more danger than the situation for other people during this time. It feels minor by comparison no matter how much the movie pumps it up. Haysbert is a solid Mandela. He doesn't have the look but he does have the presence. Joseph Fiennes is a great actor and a solid lead here.

This film, based on two very important men, is emotional and sincere but overall it is believable, every single moment is significant and told gracefully. A real life movie based is supposed to be precise without getting too much into detail - otherwise it turns boring - and so is "Goodbye Bafana", documenting 27 years in the life of this prison guard. Things and events described in the motion picture heat up gradually, the leading actors are simply outstanding so that the two hours runtime seems much shorter than it is. Haysbert is terrific, even more than Fiennes and they're both superb for their parts, with them each moment becomes increasingly more touching

I'd just like to make the point that Raj Doctor of Amsterdam's comment above is more than a little misleading, as well as giving a rather simplified version of the long and complex history of what became the Republic of South Africa.

He refers to 'the ruling British', a group apparently wholly responsible for the racism and violence which have beset the country. South Africa achieved sovereignty in 1934, and became a republic in 1961. The government of the country was dominated until 1994 by the Afrikaner community (a majority amongst white South Africans) who, as most people would presumably know, were certainly not of 'British' origin. One might expect someone from the Netherlands to know that they are comprised chiefly of Dutch settlers...

Britain may be the former colonial power in SA, but was not the initiator of the post-war apartheid policy, still less the force which actually brought it about. Britain gave up its African colonies in the 1960s, so has not "ruled" anywhere on the continent in a direct sense since then, and has not ruled SA since considerably earlier than that. The particular nature of the problems which South Africa has faced are based primarily on the relatively significant size of its white population and their attendant rule (dominated as it has been by Afrikaners) not on 'British rule'.

I enjoyed the film, by the way. A thoughtful and satisfying treatment of the subject on the whole, I thought.

This film would have been easier to watch if the makers had cast a total unknown in the role of Mandela. I like Dennis Haysbert; he's a good actor, but he was miscast in the part of Nelson Mandela. There's a point in the film when Joseph Feinnes, in character, does a brief imitation of Mandela making a public statement; he does a very convincing job of it, and I thought:"This white guy would have made a better Nelson Mandela than we have here". Do the producers think that any black actor equals any other black actor? Why not place some South African character actor with a long, distinguished portfolio in the Mandela role? It seems obvious to me. Why go all the way to Hollywood for someone who's clearly wrong for the part? It's not a bad film-the motivation is clear, the pacing is OK, it held my interest...it just didn't present a convincing Nelson Mandela.