Annoying Anthropologists: Jamie Uys's Films on ‘Bushmen’ and Animals
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227995571 Annoying Anthropologists: Jamie Uys's Films on ‘Bushmen’ and Animals Article in Journal of the Society for Visual Anthropology · May 2008 DOI: 10.1525/var.1990.6.1.75 CITATIONS READS 2 203 1 author: Keyan Tomaselli University of Johannesburg 485 PUBLICATIONS 2,674 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Critical Studies on African Media and Culture View project Research and Publishing Ethics View project All content following this page was uploaded by Keyan Tomaselli on 11 November 2014. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. ANNOYING ANTHROPOLOGISTS: Jamie Uys's Films On 'Bushmen' And Animals Keyan Tomaselli he international success of rate 'Bushmen' wasDirkie (1969). Dirkie, tive. But ultimately, the narrative dem- South African director Jamie an eight year old city boy lost in the desert onstrates that 'whitejustice' is sufficiently Uys's The Gods Must Be with his dog, is found unconscious by flexible to incorporate aspects of tribal T Crazy (1980) cracked an- two Bushmen, who revive him. Dirkie law. thropological complacency on the rela- mistakes the meat they feed him as his tionship between representations of the dog. He runs away, throwing stones at Disneyfying Animals and People 'Bushmen'1 and apartheid. Uys has been them. They abandon Dirkie as they would considered 'fair game' ever since. an evil spirit. The Bushmen clan in Beautiful Critical frameworks through which The desert is primeaval, hot and a People (1974) is presented as one of the academics have focused on Uys's films, place of death where only the most hardy "60 stories" weaved together in each of however, tend to be theoretically narrow. survive - snakes, scorpions, hyenas and which "you met a little animal or a big These rightly foreground racism, but sup- Bushmen. The adult who finds Dirkie is animal, and you had to fall in love with it, press the broader historically discursive stern, frightening and intractable. They and find the solution to the problem" contexts from which Uys and his films abandon him as easily as they found him. (Press Kit). The clan is shown to be have emerged2. Such critiques rely on a The Bushmen are not criticised by Uys. perfectly attuned to nature, in which ani- reductive view of the complex processes Uys's later films replace this sandy mals are given the respect reserved by that shape relations between film makers manevolence and its killer inhabitants whites only for the Gods. and the state, and of how ideology con- with kind animals and beautiful scenery. Beautiful People (1974) Disneyfies structs individual identities within dis- The villain in Gods I is not the environ- depictions of animals through documen- cursive practices. ment, but terrorists, and white poachers tary realism which also introduces the This paper questions some critiques in Gods//(1989). Where planes, radio, two Gods films. These and many of of Uys's films and responds to a broader jeeps and the mil itary were hot on Dirkie's Uys's earlier films use wildlife and tour- matrix of subjectivities on the part of both trail, now Uys makes fun of modern tech- ist photography, and ethnographic film to the film maker and critics. I aim therefore nology as the path to rescue. Uys states: set the scenes for their respective narra- to open up analytical spaces ignored, if "I find civilised things more of a nuisance tives. not suppressed, by recent analysis. than an aid" (Gods II Press Kit, 1989). Animals are anthropomorphised in This feeling recurs in all his films. Din- Beautiful People. The Bushmen endear- First Impressions: the Hostile Desert gaka (1964), for example, criticises ingly mimic, and have an affinity with, civilisation's impersonal judicial system, the animals of the desert. These images The first of Uys's films to incorpo- and empathises with the tribal perspec- recur in Gods I when N!Xau imitates an 1. I use the term 'Bushmen' ironically. Terms like San and Khoisan have been proposed by those offended by the term 'Bushmen'. However, 'San' is also an imposed word and does not entirely elude the ideological implications of the term 'Bushmen'. See Elephick 1974. The most honest way of naming particular clans is to refer to their own clan names. However, apart from the Ju/wasi at Tshumkwi, the clan membership of the other 'San' actors is unclear. 2. The full historical account of Jamie Uys's relationship to Afrikaner Nationalism is to be published in Pretorius, W. and Botha, M. (eds.): Current South African Cinema. Taurus, Johannesburg (Forthcoming). 75 SVA REVIEW/SPRING 1990 ostrich to get amongst the school children Fossy had to work at developing an affin- cally. The film here works from the unfamiliar taken hostage by the evil terrorists. Martin ity with the gorillas by invading their to the familiar, it 'domesticates', seeking to Blythe (1986:20-1) argues that Uys fo- space. In the process, she alienated the play down ambiguity and focus audience at- cuses attention on Bushmen in a zoologi- humans around her. Uys may well be tention on what the bushmen to not understand cal way. Because Uys excludes other making the same pointabout 'civilisation'. about us. Thus the coke bottle becomes an ironic symbol of white 'gifts' to colonized Just Who Are These Crazy Gods? cultural referents in Gods I, Blythe con- cultures, though it was never intended as such cludes that "the effect is to render the Cultural misunderstanding reappears (Blythe 1986:19-20) bushmen as somewhat akin to animals in Gods I when the friendly Bushman, Xi themselves." This, he states, is further is maltreated by whites because of their The racism, concludes Blythe, seeps encouraged by emphasising the own ignorance. In Gods II, XiXi is en- through a modulated irony which laughs Bushmen's 'ability' to converse or com- tirely oblivious of the conflict between at another cultures' failure to understand mune with animals, especially in the the Cuban and UNITA soldiers, or be- white Western culture. Whether or not scenes where Xi 'talks' to a baboon and tween them, the rugged game ranger and the racism that Blythe has identified is mistakes moving phenomena in terms of the girl, and the two murderous elephant pernicious is a pertinent question. Peter animals. In Gods II, XiXi reads the wheel poachers who unwittingly drive off with Davis (1985:51) states that Gods I "be- prints of the poacher' s truck as belonging XiXi's two children in their water bowser. longs in that grey area of racism where no to an animal he had not encountered Here, XiXi signifies the ultimate inno- harm is intended." He asks: "Who are before. cence, oblivious as he is of the other these 'gods' who are crazy? They are the Blythe validates his reading of Gods unfolding "four stories" (Press Kit), or of technologically advanced whites, whose I by separating it, and Beautiful People,. civilisation itself. very garbage is a source of wonder to the from the intertextof Uys's own idiocode. In Gods I, Xi's innocence is dis- Third World" (Davis 1985:53). Thecode However, to argue, as Gilliam (1984) rupted by the Coke bottle for, in returning inversion that Blythe attributes to Uys is does, that Uys sees San as equivalent to it to the gods, he encounters the biologist, a problem facing all directors who make baboons, or as subhuman, is over-state- his helper, and the white city woman who films about 'other people', whether fic- ment. Although the San have a relation- wants to teach in the bundu. He also tive or ethnographic. And by extracting ship of dominance over animals, that stumbles across buffoonish black gueril- Gods I from the longer and broader in- dominance is tempered by a realisation of las intent on overthrowing the banana tertext of all Uys's 25 features and three mutual interdependence. San kill to sur- republic government; and ultimately, documentaries, dating back to 1951, vive, and never for greed or to exploit the policemen, court and imprisonment for Blythe perhaps over-emphasizes the cate- ecological system for profit. In Gods II, killing a goat. The guerillas take the gory of racism at the expense of other this value is contrasted with the motives teacher and school children hostage. Xi codes and signs (like auteuristl which of the ivory poachers. XiXi sees the dead rescues them by shooting the terrorists moderate the discourses by which people elephants as food for many families for with the biologist's animal tranquiliser are represented in Gods I. many days; the white poachers just leave applied to his arrows. A similar misapprehension occurs in the carcasses to rot. 'Civilised' people who drink Coke Davis' attribution of the pale skinned The issues here are ecological bal- know what the bottle is - this is the audi- terrorist leader as SA Communist Party ance and mutual respect, rather than in- ences' secret. Thus, Western cultural dif- leader Joe Slovo. Very few white South ferences of racial inferiority. In Grey- ficulties in making sense of the Bushmen Africans were aware of Slovo at the time, stoke, the Legend ofTarzan, Lord of the are displaced onto the Bushmen's diffi- as he was a 1 isted person who could not be Apes, for example, a similar situation of culty of understanding an artifact of civ- quoted or shown photographically. More a human being in total empathy with his ilised Western culture - the Coke bottle. likely, this hispanic looking character environment is made where Greystoke is The Bushmen responses to this alien in- mobilizes the myth that Cuba is an 'ex- seen to be integrated into the ecological trusion of the bottle are articulated by porter of revolution', that even black system inhabited by apes.