MeyerBros

Tsotsi: Read the book instead

2 out of 5 stars
someone airbrushed my fugard

I have to admit - I saw it coming when I saw the airbrushed cover art. And I was right. Within the first five minutes this movie had deviated so far from the book (and the book’s intention) that there was no way back. The complexity of Athol Fugard’s characters is reduced to simplistic stereotyping and meaningless redemption. Fugard’s story is gritty and complex, where this movie has an air-brushed and pristine gilding with nothing underneath. The movie changes everything from Tsotsi’s past (where the political context of apartheid is removed and replaced by a drunk father), to the present story (where a complex story of personal growth is replaced by a crime thriller), and even his implied future (where an honest story of redemption is replaced by, well, fluff). There is no way to call this the same story. Please read the book (and the rest of Athol Fugard’s work) before you watch this movie.

This entry was posted on Sunday, October 8th, 2006 at 2:37 pm by eric and is filed under books, movies, reviews, art. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

3 Responses to “Tsotsi: Read the book instead”

L. Nelson Says:

October 10th, 2007 at 8:57 pm

Did you know that Fugard helped write the script? And one reason the novel is different than the book is because the novel was written BEFORE aparthied and the movie after–how can they not be different? What is the point of going to see a movie and expecting it to be exactly like the book??? You’re imagination is involved in a book, in a movie it’s all there for you. I thought both were great in different aspects, but you can’t just go and say that the movie was terrible or fluff–it was still stuff many movie directors have wanted to do in South Africa for YEARS, and now finally get their chance. Herald it for what it is, a voice from the black South Africans who have been silenced for years. And yes, I realize Fugard was white, but he knew what life was really like there, and he tried to portray another story, one that most people would not have listened to 15 years ago, and the government would have banned.
eric Says:

October 15th, 2007 at 4:12 am

L. Nelson,

I don’t expect movies to be the book. I’m in theatre. I know the difference between mediums quite well. And I’m a big fan of Fugard and everything he has done. I’ve not read a script of his I didn’t like.

Point is, though: I loved the book. I didn’t like the movie. I thought it was fluff not because it wasn’t like the book, but because I thought it was fluff. I think it could have been a lot better. That’s my opinion. I think people should read the book and leave the movie alone. There’s no point being offended.

Directors who are finally getting their chance to do meaningful work in South Africa should refrain from airbrushing the powerful stories of SA into crime thrillers.
Menou Says:

August 13th, 2008 at 3:30 pm

Absolutely agree with the observations. At the heart of what was and remains a powerful and challenging novel is the concept of redemption. The film bursting with superb imagery, performances and creativity has disowned this concept and replaced it with a fluffy alternative of vague, secular hope. The decision to update the period also impacts on the story’s darkness and suffocating sense of despair - moods that carry the characters and plot forward in a way the movie simply cannot match. All in all a beautifully executed film, but with a much reduced heart at its centre.