Before I went, I told the Yote of my intention. He replied - "that's a little arty farty for you".
In Yote speak that meant "You won't enjoy it. Why on earth are you going?" but unfortunately at the time we were speaking I'd forgotten to put on my translator hearing-aid, and so didn't heed the advice of the wise one.
To cut a long story short, the Yote was right. I did not enjoy it.
Several people have already benefited from my long tirade about what a terrible film it was, but I would just like to share my view with the world in case Stephen Spielberg or Spike Lee voices a similar opinion in a week's time prompting a 360 degree revolution in world opinion on Sissako's project. And we all know I won't get any credit when that happens.
I suppose my take on the movie could be considered overly critical, so permit me to explain my starting point. Here are a few things I believe about cinema and the medium of film:
1) A film should be an experience, be it a pleasant one or not.
2) If a film is being shown in the West, it should be judged with the same criteria applied to all other films showing in the West, regardless of its origin. Meaning, the film should not be patronised with praise given simply because of the fact that it is based on Africa, set in Africa, and made by an African.
Bamako basically follows events in a makeshift courtroom where the plaintiff is Africa and her people, and the defendant is the World Bank, the IMF, the G8, multinationals and all such other Western powers/corporate entities. The courtroom is in a rural compound attached to some houses, and the inhabitants of said house carry on with their comings and goings as if the courtroom were not going on in their backyard.
Whether or not my synopsis is factually accurate, that is sha the general plot. Reading that, you're probably thinking (like I foolishly did) - "Wow, that sounds really interesting!"
WRONG!
Bamako had all the potential to be a captivating and clever film, but instead it was the dullest thing I have seen in a long time which sent me to sleep THREE... I repeat... THREE times. I would say that's a remarkable feat, given that it was only two and a half hours long.The movie is basically one cleverly-worded lecture after another. There is nothing spontaneous or real about what happens in the courtroom. The lectures (I'm sorry... "testimonies") after the first ten minutes become tedious and snore-inducing. Sissako ought to have asked himself why it is that such lectures (on poverty, globalisation, debt, emigration, poverty, globalisation, debt... you get the picture!) are rarely given in blacked-out theatres. Perhaps its because in such environments, even if the speaker is the most enthralling specialist on the planet, the viewer's chemical faculties are more easily triggered, and he will fall ASLEEP?
None of the 'clever' elements in the film were introduced subtly. You could almost hear Sissako screeching "Look at me!! Aren't I clever?" with every multi-layered/quirky maneouvre. To illustrate... at the start of the film, to make it clear that the inhabitants of the backyard were going about their business as though the courtroom was not there, he showed the madame of the house having the straps of her top tied by her house-boy, in the way your mother/girlfriend would ask you to "zip her up". I thought that was clever until he showed it happening AGAIN on Day 2.
What else did I hate?
The Arguments.
Africa was depicted as a pathetic shell of her former self. I had problems with that depiction, but not (before you suggest it) because I'm some misguided Afro-centric nationalist who deplores any impression of the motherland that departs from the imagery of her beauty and riches. I had a problem with the depiction because it was simply incessant whingeing.
Yes, Africa is in a terrible state at the moment... The situation is more than terrible, more than bleak, I get it. The white man robbed her of her man-power through slavery, broke her spirit through colonialism and emptied (and continues to empty) her coffers through World Bank/IMF-sponsored economic policies. I get that too. Africa has been crippled by the West. Yes, I get that. Most of us who have ever looked into this issue for longer than 2 seconds (and who will probably be the only ones to ever go out of our way to watch the film) know all this.
Because we know all this, we also know that poverty, disease and desperation are not the only things that define Africa. We know that some of Africa's territories are breaking away from the cycle of desperation despite having to face these very obstacles the individuals in Bamako whinge about for so long. We know that Africa will get nowhere if her people are encouraged to sit on their asses and mope and moan about how badly they've been wronged by the West. The West knows its wronged us (well the powers that be do) and the West will continue to wrong us if we don't get our shit in gear or start taking matters into our own hands, and instead persist with the kind of attitude promoted in Bamako.
Another thing we (viewers) know is that Africa's 'citizens' share a considerable portion of the blame that the movie lays so shamelessly on the West. Our contributions (I speak not of crooked politicians alone) are/were instrumental to the huge mess Africa is in now. What Sissako implies through Bamako (Hey! That rhymes!) is that Africa has every right to blame the West for her misfortunes, and should keep on doing so for every single misfortune that arises from here on end!
Is that the message of progress? To sit around waiting for handouts from other sovereign nations when we will soon be (and in the case of Ghana, are already) celebrating the 50th anniversaries of our own sovereignty? Even though this may look like I'm trivialising the past (and continuing) sufferings of Africa, I can't help but be reminded of road accident victims in Lagos. You hit Mr. Passerby with your car, take him to hospital, foot the bill, and then get a phone call a week later from Mr. Passerby saying that his mother is sick and you must pay for that too, and another call a month later saying that he can't find work because times are tough, and so you must pay for his child's schoolfees.
To the optimistic or perhaps more academic eye, it may not look like that is what Bamako was doing. But to me, it did.
The only way I can think to conclude is to say that perhaps Bamako wasn't intended for an African audience. I don't think it can have been. Firstly, because it provides a purely unconstructive forum for 'victim' mentality which is the last thing Africa needs. And secondly, because it is just too damn boring for any African to sit through.
Bitchy is retiring. Feel free to pick holes in her long-ass argument. Shey BlogWorld is all about free speech? In any case she can handle a show-down on the comments page, so bring it on.
9 comments:
One reading of the film is that it perpetuates a Africa-as-victim mentality that can only serve a western audience seeking to have it confirmed (we can call this the bleeding heart liberal syndrome), as you point out.
However, there are few other issues to throw into the mix which complicate this reading somewhat.
First, if you see any of Sissako's earlier films (Life on Earth, Waiting for Happiness), you'll get the sense that a continuing theme of his films is to play around with a different sense of time - a time of desert life, where things happen slowly, woven around the sluggish whispy emptiness of life in the Sahara. If you're looking for narrative drive or a strong plot, you are going to be disappointed. The slow emptiness of his films is more reflective of life in Mali, than it is supposed to be a cypher for existential ennui or despair. In that sense, Sissako's films ARE an experience, albeit one you may not be used to. But it is precisely in this way that his films cannot really be said to be made for a western aesthetic (built around the desire for plot and narrative)..
Second, the more interesting question posed by the film is this: do the World Bank/IMF have bad intentions? Do they want us to be poor? The question was not answered affirmatively, which suspends or renders more complex the issue of who is the victim and who is victimiser. Certainly, the film dealt with internal corruption and complicity, as much as it dealt with international corruption. Sissako rightly made the point that the external corruption of the international capitalist system is far larger than internal systems of corruption, and is in fact often the main cause of the latter. This translates directly into the Nigerian experience. Many Nigerians feel a closet sense of shame for belonging to the home of 419, for being part of a failed post-independence project etc etc. But what if there have been higher-level mechanisms which a purely internal/overly reflexive perspective cannot articulate?
It is precisely because of agricultural tariffs etc that African farmers get a raw deal and a) cannot trade their goods internationally and b) are even squeezed out of their own markets by heavily subsidised imports/food dumping. This is the fundamental truth of the global system of agribusiness which deprives African farmers of a livelihood beyond subsistence.
As I was watching the film, I thought about how some watching it may fall into the trap of thinking the lawyer defending the World Bank/IMF is being cast as the baddie. In fact, I think it was pretty clear all the way through that Sissako was trying to resist or challenge that reading with a more ambiguous interpretation.
Here are some questions for you OluwaBitchiola: what can be done to improve the subsistence plight of the vast majority of African farmers? Are they anything other than victims of an abstract capital system of agreements which they are helpless to challenge? What is so wrong with a film that tries to represent this helplessness, in as articulate a way as possible? Finally, on an aesthetic level, what are your criteria for a film being an experience?
I wonder if you would think of the Bicycle Thieves in the same way... In many ways, it has the same theme (albeit from a different culture, time and place). But perhaps you would hate it equally; perhaps it would not be an experience either!
Oga J, as you no doubt worked out, this post was written for you alone, as aside from the friends (who're still yet to forgive me) that I dragged along to the cinema, no one I know has seen Bamako.
I did notice that Sissako made the points you referred to. He tried not to hold the IMF and World Bank out as the bad guys completely, but despite those (not-so-valiant) efforts, I still found his personal bias seeped through and became so overwhelmingly blatant.
I suppose he's entitled to portray this bias through the film he himself decided to make, but I think he should have drawn a line at the point where Africans began to look extremely spineless and worthless.
There's nothing wrong with trying to represent the helplessness of Africans, but there was something very wrong with the way Sissako chose to do so. He did not do so articulately.
Anyway, as I said to you the other day, I feel he wasted the opportunity to make a brilliant film. I'm afraid I must stop here for fear of sending any of my few regulars to sleep.
We shall continue in person.
P.S. Do not expect answers to the economic/globalisation questions from me oh!! I never once pretended to be a pro on the subject.
ahem...
permit me to address jeremy's question:Are they anything other than victims of an abstract capital system of agreements which they are helpless to challenge? What is so wrong with a film that tries to represent this helplessness, in as articulate a way as possible?
these farmers are met with more than simple capitalist systems of agreement...although it would be silly to assume thats not the biggest issue[see henry benstein's farewells to the peasantry]. most african countries[well developing] advocate education as the most vital factor for promoting development. needless to say, education potrays small scale farming as backwards and for peasants.[only the people who find it profitable want to stay] it only means no young adult who has gone through years of education wants to go back to the same place he started from[brain drain]. of course the shift of focus in recent years by mainstream economists away in terms of policy making doesn't help to make this plight any easier every year the budget for rural agriculture diminishes in most countries. i must say bitchy rural poverty is one arena which i cant argue about the helplessness. and yes I CALL THEM VICTIMS. not victims of simply the imf/wb/neoliberalism of course but of their states as well. a state which sees the returns from small scale farming as negligible..globalisation continues to play a very strong role or perhaps not globalisation as much as trade liberalisation which means tiny farms cant compete...these are arguements weve heard over and over again. i shouldnt be repeating them. but it then brings up the question of viable options.rural-urban migration[overcrowding?] or rural non farming economy...again needs state internvention as it requires necessary infrastructure to facilitate its growth. but then to plant an industrial sector in a rural area just suggests imposition and disrupting the existing the socio economic order in these area. the question then becomes:how viable is sustaining a rural livelihood while attempting an intergration in national economy? should rural livelihood even be sustained?
yawn..i move on
x
Rukayat.. I would recognise your discombobulated shpeel anywhere. Thanks for showing off with all your macro/socio/popio economic lingo. Can I ask why you wrote so eloquently (not! Teehee!) under the umbrella of the "anon"?
My hope is that J will have something intelligent to say in response, cuz I certainly don't.
Ball in my court. Its a tough one. I felt a similar sentiment travelling around the far North of Nigeria recently: what can these people do? For any govt, food security should be a priority (as well as energy security). Stimulation of sub-regional trade (within ECOWAS) is one area which can drive internal development. Unfortunately, ECOWAS is a bit of a bureaucratic dysfunctional mess at present. At least if it was easier to move goods and services throughout West Africa, migration away from nowhereville in Mali might be to Accra or Lagos, rather than via those desolate treks into the dunes as in Bamako..
oh shugs...i dint know twas anonymous...i apologise...heaven forbid someone else took credit for my lovely ramblings...
x
Hey Rukks. You have a space in blogger, but not a blog (not that I can find). Pourqoi?
"........... We know that Africa will get nowhere if her people are encouraged to sit on their asses and mope and moan about how badly they've been wronged by the West. The West knows its wronged us (well the powers that be do) and the West will continue to wrong us if we don't get our shit in gear or start taking matters into our own hands, and instead persist with the kind of attitude promoted in Bamako .............. What Sissako implies through Bamako (Hey! That rhymes!) is that Africa has every right to blame the West for her misfortunes, and should keep on doing so for every single misfortune that arises from here on end!"
Exactly what I say all the time. I have not seen this film, (I will make a point on researching a bit on it) ..... I'am usually quite scared of seeing Nigerian films, as a creative type, it's not just about the message it's about the 'mise en scene', (I think that's right), and how the film is made ..... and of course the message .... a film should make you feel like you are there, involved,..... needless to say Bitchy, you don't sound too impressed .... buts that's beside the point. I'm not the most political type, but i love it when people express their political views, so I'm not going to use big words and phrases, because I'll only confuse myself, ..... but why in the world do people, especially africans keep blaming the west. Isn't it time we moved on? We know that a lot of injustice has been done towards africa, but what about what the so called governments of many african countries have done and are still doing to their very own people. I think it's about time we looked to doing something positive about the future rather than crying about the past. All this 'we blame the west' whinging is beginning to make me cringe! I say move on!!
I just realized its not a nigerian film, I was wondering why a nigerian would make a film about a place in Mali...... hmmm... it actually looks quite interesting....
Post a Comment