A Review by Phil Calabro
2005, Sony Picture Classics/Phoenix Pictures, Dir. John Boorman - Starring Samuel L. Jackson, Juliette Binoche, Brendan Gleeson, Menzi Ngubane, Sam Ngakane, Aletta Bezuidenhout, Lionel Newton, Langley Kirkwood, Owen Sejake, Louis Van Niekerk
I won't deny it, I enjoyed 'In My Country' for what it's worth. But there's something deep within me that realizes that it still has a weak script, and this flaw really damages the film's credibility. Director John Boorman of 'Deliverance' fame and 'Exorcist II' failure is given some powerful messages to send to the audience, but it's due to the horrible convoluted writing of Ann Peacock that really throws off his entire groove. Certainly the South African Reconciliation hearings are some of the most overlooked accords in history, and so it seems proper that they be given a fresh perspective. It's the agony in some of the victim's faces that can steal the scene, and the coupling of Samuel L. Jackson and Juliette Binoche that steal it in others. 'In My Country' is definitely a tolerable and very insightful film to watch, although it suffers from some faulty writing and disoriented plot elements.
It's 1995 in South Africa, and the government is holding the anticipated Truth and Reconciliation Commission Hearings, where several South African victims of torture confront their Afrikaaner perpetrators face to face, in order to have them granted amnesty by the government. We are then brought into the lives of two fictional journalists, the first being Langston Whitfield (Jackson) of the Washington Post. He is sent by his editor to interview the most notorious Apartheid police chief, De Jager (Gleeson), who has committed more accounts of crime against the South African people than anyone else. While presiding over the reconciliation hearings and this particular interview, Langston clashes with the young Afrikaan poet and radio journalist Anna Malan (Binoche), who brings shame upon herself at what her own countrymen have done to the South African commonwealth. Langston and Anna find themselves at odds with their opinions at first, but as it all boils down, they find a common link between each other that is ignited by the hearings.
Samuel L. Jackson gives a likeable performance as Langston, a sound-minded yet confused American stuck in the middle of a political conflict such as this. From some viewer's perspectives, he may seem one-dimensional, but his confrontations with Anna alone and De Jager show a more complex character. He can not fathom the atrocities committed by the Afrikaan government, much less from De Jager himself. Jackson has soft and enjoyable chemistry with Binoche, whose character seems ripped out of Southern literature in itself. The character of Anna is a poetry-rambling and misunderstood young woman (not too young, but hey). She is stricken with grief as she goes along the journey, finding out more about her own people and even her family as the misfortunes pour out. Binoche sometimes comes across too unrealistic in her love affairs, and too misguided in her political motives - a sign of a bad script. Brendan Gleeson, although one of more complex characters, is too stereotypical as De Jager. He is just another bad guy, who uses philosophical entries and rhetorical questions to back up his motives. He's got nothing but bad dialogue and a nasty scowl.
It's shameful how pitiful Peacock's script is - she makes a dice out of a Rubik's cube, a molehill out of a mountain. It's reverse complication in a way. Instead of focusing more on the horrors of the TRC hearings, she is so obsessed with the romantic plotline between Langston and Anna and how it winds together a message. The romance is not totally unnecessary, but it certainly could have been dulled down to a miminal plotline. Even the dialogue between the two journalists seem so juvenile and amateur - which makes me wonder who's working at Phoenix Studios. Their questioning of each others' races and their nationalities is not a theme that should be ravelled around a romance, but a political mission that deals with that topic at face value. This is a major stumbling point of the film, and really lowers my rating for it.
'In My Country' has so much potential to be insightful, genuine, and innovative, but a lack of writing talent really takes a turn for the worst. The audience is given some enjoyable acting jobs from our two main stars, but there's such artificiality that lines this movie's surface that questions its credibility.
