I only watched this film because Sidney Poitier is in it. I've seen most of his films and he is (or was since he hasn't really acted in anything since 2001, 1997 in film) an exceptional actor. Most of his films were quite good, some others...not so much. Sadly, this is one of the lesser films. The title is a powerful title for a film; and I am sure the novel it was based on was powerful itself. The subject matter of apartheid is a powerful subject and for 1951, I'm sure this film wasn't easy to make especially since it was a new application in South Africa, which started in 1948 and didn't end until 1991 (I was 14 years old in 1991).
An old man named Stephen Kumalo (Canada Lee) travels to Johannesburg looking for some of his family members: sister, brother, son, etc., with the help of Reverend Msimangu (Sidney Poitier). He finds his sister who's a prostitute, his brother basically a braggart, the poorer version of one. Johannesburg, in the view of Kumalo, seems to be equivalent to Sodom: a den of constant sin; basically hell. The novel, as I have read, incorporates much of the Bible into it; using characters from it as characters in the novel. Also, tries to paint a neutral view of the struggles of not only white people in South Africa but also of black people in South Africa. This film leans more one way than the other, there's really no semblance of neutrality here, for better or worse. And that's fine, I guess.
The acting is below average to average by all, including Sidney Poitier but I feel it rests more on the script and direction rather than their inability to act well. Even with the obvious non-actors throughout. The composition is sparse and in being so moves the film at a snail's pace. That's what I always found composition to be used for, mainly: as a way to move quieter perhaps more dramatic scenes along. Here, there's rarely any of it throughout the film; especially in the dramatic scenes such as when a father hears about the death of his son, then his wife finds out, and it's talked about by many others afterward: absolutely no composition to help move the scenes along or give context to the emotional impact it is supposed to have. Now, I know silence can be deafening but it doesn't really work in this film, in my opinion. If it had a stronger script, maybe...and where there is composition it just didn't work for me. Like when the mother and father lost their son and the wife is reading something and there's composition, and you can barely hear her speaking. Not a good place for composition, in my opinion. Then after that scene they have vibrant and loud composition with the police trying to find the culprits and I felt it didn't work there either because the totality of the film (up to that point) is actually pretty solemn and then they throw this unexpected excitement. It felt like the element of the story was being changed. And it was but changed back to being solemn and the composition is gone. When Kumalo finds out his son, the one he's been looking for, is the one who killed the son of the white couple in a supposed robbery gone bad he's excited (in an agitated way) but there's no emotion to be felt because, in my opinion, it's too solemn. If that makes sense to anyone other than myself.
The 1995 version with James Earl Jones and Richard Harris I felt is better than this film but the contrast of this one being filmed during apartheid and that one after it, is not lost on me. Both films have powerful statements about an unjust happenstance to a people undeserving of such cruelty by an invader who sees them less based on the color of their skin. That perception isn't lost on me but doesn't make the film any better.
-Nam
An old man named Stephen Kumalo (Canada Lee) travels to Johannesburg looking for some of his family members: sister, brother, son, etc., with the help of Reverend Msimangu (Sidney Poitier). He finds his sister who's a prostitute, his brother basically a braggart, the poorer version of one. Johannesburg, in the view of Kumalo, seems to be equivalent to Sodom: a den of constant sin; basically hell. The novel, as I have read, incorporates much of the Bible into it; using characters from it as characters in the novel. Also, tries to paint a neutral view of the struggles of not only white people in South Africa but also of black people in South Africa. This film leans more one way than the other, there's really no semblance of neutrality here, for better or worse. And that's fine, I guess.
The acting is below average to average by all, including Sidney Poitier but I feel it rests more on the script and direction rather than their inability to act well. Even with the obvious non-actors throughout. The composition is sparse and in being so moves the film at a snail's pace. That's what I always found composition to be used for, mainly: as a way to move quieter perhaps more dramatic scenes along. Here, there's rarely any of it throughout the film; especially in the dramatic scenes such as when a father hears about the death of his son, then his wife finds out, and it's talked about by many others afterward: absolutely no composition to help move the scenes along or give context to the emotional impact it is supposed to have. Now, I know silence can be deafening but it doesn't really work in this film, in my opinion. If it had a stronger script, maybe...and where there is composition it just didn't work for me. Like when the mother and father lost their son and the wife is reading something and there's composition, and you can barely hear her speaking. Not a good place for composition, in my opinion. Then after that scene they have vibrant and loud composition with the police trying to find the culprits and I felt it didn't work there either because the totality of the film (up to that point) is actually pretty solemn and then they throw this unexpected excitement. It felt like the element of the story was being changed. And it was but changed back to being solemn and the composition is gone. When Kumalo finds out his son, the one he's been looking for, is the one who killed the son of the white couple in a supposed robbery gone bad he's excited (in an agitated way) but there's no emotion to be felt because, in my opinion, it's too solemn. If that makes sense to anyone other than myself.
The 1995 version with James Earl Jones and Richard Harris I felt is better than this film but the contrast of this one being filmed during apartheid and that one after it, is not lost on me. Both films have powerful statements about an unjust happenstance to a people undeserving of such cruelty by an invader who sees them less based on the color of their skin. That perception isn't lost on me but doesn't make the film any better.
-Nam