SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

InformationRap This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Ezmae Chang This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Nicole I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

James Moore 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.

Robert J. Maxwell It's a rather laminous story of a self-indulgent professor in South Africa who learns that there's more to life than the hedonic treadmill. At least I think that's what it's about.Malkovich teaches poetry and finds nothing wrong with Lucifer's "dark heart". It's even admirable in a way. He has a bit of it himself. He seduces a beautiful young student, Antoinette Engel, who is clearly uncomfortable with his fevered pursuit and with his love making. She stops coming to class and he fakes a passing grade on her mid term exam. Her father learns about the affair and Malkovich is asked to resign. He freely admits his guilt but shows no remorse. "Better murder an infant in its cradle than nurse an unacted desire", he quotes from William Blake, who was quite a nut himself.At leisure he leaves the city and moves in with his daughter, Jessica Haines, who has a rambling cottage in the remote countryside. Haines makes a living growing flowers and selling them at the market. She shares the land with an older African man, Ebouaney, who lives down the road. She also takes care of the stray dogs who overflow the local shelter.While Ebouaney is gone off to seek a wife, Malkovich and Haines are viciously attacked by a trio of young black kids. The kids gang bang Haines, set fire to Malkovich, steal everything of value, including the car, and shoot all the dogs in their cages -- laughing all the while. It's a brutal scene but the barbarity is no more explicit than it needs to be.So far, so good. Quite good in fact. But after this I began to wonder where the screenplay was headed.Haines is unwilling to call the police in on the matter because one of the youthful miscreants may be a relative of Ebouaney's wife. She doesn't change her mind even when it develops that she's pregnant and even after Malkovich has begged her.Haines decides to settle the matter by becoming Ebouaney's wife, which will be a strictly socioeconomic arrangement. Ebouaney gets the land but Haines will keep her house.This Ebouaney is a key figure and he's inscrutable. It's said that he made Haines' flower garden possible, but he's an all-around queer fellow. (It's a finely measured performance.) Malkovich is snoozing on the couch in the cottage and Ebouaney simply walks in without knocking, seats himself next to Malkovich, and turns the TV on to a loud soccer game.When Ebouaney returns, following the attack, he doesn't visit the Haines cottage but busies himself with building an irrigation system on his land. Malkovich strolls over and asks if Ebouaney has heard of the attack. "Yes. Very bad," he replies phlegmatically, "but you're all right now." Well, Malkovich is hardly "all right." His head and face have been burned and he's swathed in bandages. "I'm all right if you mean I'm still alive". Ebouaney is still smiling but turns back to his work without an answer.But, as time passes, Malkovich thinks things over. And he, who has thought of no one but himself, decides to apologize ritually to the family of the student he seduced. They don't exactly forgive him profusely. Mostly they stare at him in silence as he cow tows to the family and walks out the door.Back at the cottage, Haines has decided to have the child and "marry" Ebouaney, which will provide her with protection from further attacks. Malkovich is aghast but, again, on thinking things over, he returns to her and she leads him into the house, preceded by her big belly, for a cup of tea. He follows with a resigned smile.The end.I kept trying to figure out what the messages were supposed to be. I mean, unless the plot is aiming at something, then it's simply pointless, isn't it? One unrelated events following another unrelated event? Could it be that Malkovich is finally able to recognize the immoral quality of his "dark heart," that there is a parallel between his seduction of the innocent student and the gang bang of his daughter? That's not only banal but it's a big stretch to equate the student affair with the pillaging of a peaceful cottage, a violent multiple rape, and the attempted murder of Malkovich by setting him afire. Morally, what the three vandals did to Haines is the same as what Malkovich did to the reluctant student? Huh?Yet that seems to be it. There's more to life than self indulgence, Alfie. Some desires are best left unacted. And the ending suggested some sort of redemption -- not that Malkovich didn't need some -- but the meeting between Haines and Malkovich, his friendly smile, that cup of tea, left me more puzzled than satisfied. Malkovich parked his car a mile away and walked down to the house for this climactic meeting with Haines. Why? I mean, why didn't he drive down to the house? Some applause is due to the writers for not bringing up racial or political conflicts. Race isn't mentioned once, and the few references to political problems are oblique. The two chief conflicts are between cultures and between individual values. Unless (and this is almost too horrible to think) this is meant as a story of justifiable payback against whites for so many years of Apartheid. In any case, the photography could hardly be improved upon. This part of South Africa looks a little like the American Southwest, a kind of scenic semi-desert.

doyler79 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.

putYourHandsUp All of us have to suffer the indignities of life, even our ultimate fate of death. What we can do is choose how we deal with the cards we are dealt. This movie examines people's reactions to injustices and to life itself.David is an English Lit professor, who has long since accepted his sexual desires as being part of his nature, being comfortable to make use of prostitutes, accepting that he was not "made for marriage". On a whim he strikes up a sexual relationship with one of his students. For this indiscretion and for falsifying some records for her benefit, he is faced with disciplinary action from his Goliath - the university board.Knowing that there is nothing much he can do, he completely submits to their charges, accepting guilt without bothering to even examine the charges, no matter the consequences, leaving prudence to the wind. In this he is quite defiant and dignified. An admirable reaction.Ironically Melanie, the object of his desires, a limp participant who seems to just let things happen to her, suffers no long term effects and ends up as a successful actress.Her father's reaction is one of refined indignation. He and David's dignified interaction, and David's ultimate plea for forgiveness lends some honor to the story. Prostrating himself before Melanie's mother was excessive but admirable.David's relationship with, and support of his daughter Lucy also makes for an interesting story. Lucy quietly yet forcefully accepts her fate. Both the departure of her lesbian lover and the rape at the hands of 3 young men, she takes ownership of, quietly accepting, yet drawing boundaries where she can, making pragmatic choices. Often disheveled and fragile, she makes for riveting viewing and empathy. Like the flower-grower/seller she is, she brings a fragile and ephemeral beauty to the world. Interesting line: after her rape she finds David partially burned and the first thing she says is "What on Earth have they done to you?!" David's support of her choices, even ones that bring him to tears, is heartwarming.David's relationship with Rosalind shows him capable of deeper, gentle love, more than the superficial sex he has with others.Rosalind herself is the caring executioner. By watching her we have to face our own ultimate fate. Will we also die like dogs, and will we be disposed of with the same care she gives her charges? Manas, the man who shares Lucy's life in an unusually superficial, pragmatic fashion, is a study in doing the right thing for the sake of the community. He is the builder, building physical shelters for his wife and metaphorical shelter for Lucy. Doggedly insisting that things must move on, that everything will be all right, that the time will come.This movie asks you: how do you handle the injustices of life? Uncaring like Melanie, gently like Rosalind, with pragmatical simplicity like Manas, with desperate acceptance like Lucy, with defiant dignity like David? There is a lot more you can find in this movie. It is worth seeing more than once.The title is an enigma. Where is the Disgrace? In life itself? In our inability to shape our futures with much effect?