Disgrace (2008)

The story line is that: the father has sexual proclivity for colored young women, and abuses his power to get what he wants; the daughter (who, of course, is white) who lives a secluded life in a sea of blacks, chooses to endure and submit to the humiliation of being raped, robbed, and taken advantage of by her black neighbours, so that she can continue with her way of life in the country; the father, gaining insight into his own past abuse of power through the blacks' abuse of power upon his own daughter, finally repents and becomes genuinely remorseful for his own abuse of power (over young black women). In other words, he has finally realized how "disgraceful" his past conduct used to be.

So, it is an allegory of the nation of South Africa itself: father is the old Apartheid-South Africa, abusing, humiliating and taking advantage of black people; daughter is the whites in the 'new' South Africa with blacks in power, abusing, humiliating and taking advantage of the cowered whites in their turn. Just as the old whites robbed the blacks of their land, made them beg for their mercy, the daughter is now being robbed of her land by Petrus and depends on him to keep the black boys away from her. Now the table has turned. Just as Lucy has voluntarily become Petrus' tenant on her own land, South African whites, by handing the power over to the blacks, become blacks' tenants in their own land. Simbolically, across Lucy's house Petrus has built a brand new house, as if telling Lucy that this land is now my land.

The thing is, the movie is improbable and rather far-fetched in one crucial aspect: why the victims are going to so many lengths to submit to the abusers (in both father's and daughter's cases) to such extreme degree. Did the college girl not have the option of reporting the professor's conduct to the disciplinary board? Did she not have the free will to refuse the invitations and wining and dining? Did the professor force himself upon her? Now let's turn to the daughter: She knows that Petrus had masterminded the robbing and rape in order to drive her out of the farm: Yet she still makes a deal with him on such humiliating terms for his "protection" The victim of rape is seeking protection from further rape by making a humiliating deal with the rapist. Is she an incurable masochist? Or is there some compelling reason that she will not or cannot leave the farm? The movie never tells. Perhaps the movie is attempting to allegorize and translate into personal dimension the change that has happened in the relationship between the whites and blacks in South Africa in general. But the story as told in the format of movie simply fails to convey the subtle nuances in the novel, and would only look improbable and far-fetched to whoever sees the movie without first reading the novel.

Fmovies: Disgrace (2008)

Wow, what a troubled movie, and troubling. At the very very bottom, I think it's about accepting things that are horrible because you have to, but also about accepting things that you don't understand, also because you have to. That's a hard thing to do, and the lead character, a literature professor played by John Malkovich, is the kind of man who analyzes and understands with great nuance almost everything.

But things go wrong, and he is trying to help his grown lesbian daughter, who in her submissiveness all around, even to him, lets him fail through no fault of her own. The world of South Africa, where whites are bound to gradually lose their place, their land, their well being in a shift back to the original black inhabitants, is not easy to grasp, and the movie, based on J.M. Coetzee's novel, tries. Noble, frustrating, at times unconvincing, "Disgrace" is redeemed (as a movie) by the professor's seeming higher sense of values. We cling to his feelings for justice and for his daughter even as we find him personally despicable. "Disgrace" is also redeemed (as a concept) by the very strong currents of the book, dealing with what might be the most problematic issue of our times--how to get along, how to coexist and when not to, how to understand and accept and sometimes refuse to accept.

Great stuff, good movie.

After having read J.M. Coetzee's complex, disturbing, shocking and controversial novel, one could not directly see how this story could be transformed into an appealing screenplay and still less into a convincing movie. It's heavily charged with all kind of sexual contacts, unforced and forced ones (by someone who is in a dominating position) and even with pure rape. It deals also with the eventual outcome of those contacts, like pregnancy and parental love. Moreover, the story unfolds against the violent background of open racism in a country known for its apartheid.

Steve Jacobs did a formidable job in turning the harsh and sometimes bitter and terrible realities into a moving, emotional and ultimately sublime movie, which matches the book. The director was impressively helped by his cast and in the first place by John Malkovich, whose (physical! and mental) interpretation of the very uninviting character of a sexually driven university professor is certainly one of his most memorable. He was superbly seconded by Jessica Haines as his fiercely independent daughter as well as by the rest of the cast.

A must see for all movie lovers and for all admirers J. M. Coetzee's work.

Disgrace fmovies. Disgrace is based on J.M. Coetzee's prize winning novel. Its central character is a an English professor in South Africa and his relationship with a number of women including one of his students, his daughter and a lover. It's about race, sex, revenge, redemption, moral ambiguities, what is right and what is wrong; above all it's about the complex nation that is South Africa.

Having read the novel, I can say that the film is very faithful to the book. Perhaps if the movie can be faulted it is because the film adaptation is too faithful. We can clearly hear the author's voice in the movie but not the director's. It just does not resonate as it should have done considering the source material. This by no means to say Disgrace is not a good film; in fact it is a very good film, finely acted (especially by Malkovich) and well directed. But it is not a great film and one feels that if Steve Jacobs, the director had perhaps not remained so faithful to the novel, the film would have risen from the level of a very competent and faithful adaptation to a great and perhaps even a classic film.

This austere movie based on a Booker prize winning novel be J.M.Coertzee will leave you breathless as the performances by Malkovich and his co star Jessica Haines are both very compelling.A story perhaps without a beginning or an ending and not a movie for the brainless, may suit more than one viewing to figure out all the symbolism here of post apartheid South Africa. Here we are asked how do you handle the injustices of life? aloof like Melanie, timid like Rosalind, with desperate acceptance like Lucy or with audacious dignity like David? There is a lot more to discover in this movie.The title is an enigma, where is the Disgrace? In life itself or In our inability to shape our futures with much effect? Well worth a watch but be prepared to be frustrated, angry and outraged by the displays of injustice paraded before you.

John Malkovich portrays an esteemed Capetown professor who lives somewhat in his own ivory tower, has an affair with a young student and finds his idyllic life in academia and ego-gratification shattered.

He decides somewhat on a whim to visit his daughter Lucy, who runs a farm on the South African coast. She cares for several dogs and has a native worker who helps her on the farm. It is a small cohesive village and she is on the outside looking in, a veritable intruder, in more ways than one.

The story develops and foreshadows the violence which is beset upon Lucy and her father by a local disturbed boy who rapes her, along with a gang of two other young men. Her father sustains burns, but does not see what actually happens to Lucy in the other room, although the audience can infer she is being raped repeatedly.

Malkovich at first approaches her gingerly, thinking she is damaged and distraught needing to move away from the farm and her assailants. However, the opposite proves to be true. In a rather dismal scene, Lucy tells her father she must remain, that rapes like this have occurred before, and she is owing this to the people of the land, that she must remain to take on a sort of punishment.

There are psychological nuances here. People inducing sadomasochism, or enduring it for their real or presumed character flaws. It makes for a compelling story, and I'd imagine the novel by J.M. Coetzee is a great read. The film at times does not translate this subtlety, and we are left feeling annoyed with Lucy and her victimized state.

Malkovich is good here, as usual, with an affected but acceptable accent, a restrained but marked need for sexuality in his later years. He has an affair with a local veterinarian where he brings some of Lucy's unfortunate dogs to be etherized.

The scene where Malkovich plays music for a dog, the dog responds to him, wanting his love, and he brings it to the vet to be destroyed is sad and stark. "Put it out of its misery", he tells her...and we almost imagine he is speaking of his own life instead of the dogs.

Overall a worthy film, although the book is probably much clearer in intent and I am now intrigued to read the authors works regarding animals and the fragility of life. Recommended. 8/10. **Addendum: Have finished the novel and it is a must read