MovieChat Forums > The Wild Geese (1978) Discussion > 'Political inocrrectness' in The Wild Ge...

'Political inocrrectness' in The Wild Geese

posted 19 years ago by crawfrordboon
50 replies | jump to latest

Reading the promotional material for the film, and some supporting martial with the DVD i.e. accompanying booklet, DVD commentary, it is clear that the people who made it have tried to spin it as if TWG was a reform-minded and forward looking film which explicitly rejected racism and looked with sympathy on the plight of the people of Africa.

I'm no bleeding heart, but i can see why some people would disagree with this view. For instance, black people, for whom the credit sequence purports to show concern, are basically cannon fodder in this film, who can't shoot straight and simply get mowed down running at the enemy. The main black character, Limbani, is symbolically carried around the bush on the back of a white Afrikaner. The only other black character, Jesse, seems to be a token gesture, and certainly John Kani does not seem to have been selected for the role purely based on his acting.

Then there's the gay medic who seems rather out of place, like he belongs ina carryy on film, not some serious business like this.

But I thought the strangest part of pretence, which undermined the film's claim to be supportive of the black cause, was the hurried and uncomfortable way in which the Hardy Kruger chacater, a middle-aged Afrikaner racist, changes his entire mindset with regard to blacks after hearing a few platitudes from the exiled President Limbani. This is passed off as 'character development' and a revelation tp Pieter of the power of togetherness and unity, but his conversion if far less convinving than his cahracter's original views on the state of Africa, i.e.

"you're living on forieng aid, screaming about outside oppression while you'rekilling each other in great big bleeding batches. Now when you hav esomething better to offer, come to talk to us on the white side"

For me, purely the way that passage is written and delivered seem for more in line whit the character and the film, than his later conversion to non-racism.

We also see the standard British/American/South African use of Cubans and East Germans controlling Africans, suggesting that blacks are dummies to be moulded into whatever form those Commies like, and that no way could black Africans even come close to touching Faulkener's band of heros if the red devils weren't there to point the way. Blacks in the film seem incompetant - falling asleep in guard towers, taking a pee on guard duty, not being sharp enough to stop their base getting overrun by a vastly numerically inferior force etc.

The attitude towards women is also important: only two have speaking parts, and both 2female leads" are related to the producer (his wife and daughter). One is generally portrayed as a middle aged fuss pot who wants to live in pece and make the tea, the other is a bimbo who is gallant enough to take a beating for her serial philandering boyfriend, saying "it was a pleaseure to have served...isn't he a love?" - and this is while she is waiting for an ambulance to take her to hospital (and the dentist i guess), while he goes off on a three month trip to Africa immediately. The only other women we see are two more bimbos in Sonny's beroom, the way he dismissed them when he sees Shawn reminds me of the butslap, 'man talk' moment between Bond and Dink in Goldfinger.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not attacking the film for these sentiments, I am mere trying to chrnoicle and document instances of what some people would deride as 'political incorrectness', so that when this film's sentiments are discussed, we know what we are talking about.

"He's a bit of a rough diamond but his heart's in the right place."

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bonsaisamurai 16 years ago

Most if not all African nations that have been decolonised have not benefited. In most cases while they are free of the British etc. they are now even worse off with fewer freedoms under warlords and despots like Mugabe and Idi Amin. So don't complain about political incorrectness in an excellent film.

[–] slokes 16 years ago

Most if not all African nations may have suffered from the resulting power vacuum and chaos of decolonization and/or enfranchisement of the black majorities, but that doesn't make continued colonization right. Using Mugabe and Amin as an example of African independence's failure is like using Hitler as an example of how miserably German democracies work.

Actually, "The Wild Geese", for its faults both real and PC, does side with the vision of Africa for Africans, black and white, rather than for exploitative Western capitalists.

[–] laddiebuck 16 years ago

You say, in the same sentence, that most if not all African nations have suffered from the power vacuum that resulted from the end of colonialism. In the same sentence you say continued colonialism wasn't right. How can you reconcile these views? What matters is not ideals but people -- how are the people faring. The only way to read your sentence is that you actually condone the suffering the African and other nations have endured due to decolonisation.

Now, to get my credentials clear, I am socially liberal and economically left-wing, say Keynesian or just to the left of it. I am also from a small country that never had colonies or was a colony. But I think rationally about every situation. I think colonialism in the British Empire was right, and it ended at least half a century or a century too early. In the French or Belgian or German empires, I would agree that in many cases it was a bad thing and couldn't have ended too soon. But you can't tar everyone with the same brush if you want to be a serious student of history. Most British colonies where the indigenous people survived would have benefitted from a longer colonial period and a more gradual transition, but of course nationalism was too strong and Britain was bankrupt and couldn't run her empire. There are also many other European colonies that did not benefit from the end of colonialism.

And let's not forget the shameful mess perpetrated in the 70s and 80s on the suddenly weakened Third World economies after the oil crises by the capitalists of the IMF and the World Bank, chiefly led by the US. They were singlehandedly responsible for the wholesale dismantling of public services across most of Africa and Latin America, leading to an explosion of illness, want, lack of education and associated unrest. For all this, they were merely raped by foreign companies. This was the banner of neoliberalism, and it is ten times more repugnant than colonialism, which actually built infrastructure: roads, railways, civil services, education, public health, police and all the rest of it.

After all, what was there before colonialism? Corruption, murderous tribal warfare, oppression, slavery, starvation, ignorance and various barbarous tribal practices (not to say that Westerners don't have some barbarous practices with their young, but far less). Those areas that didn't have a thorough enough grounding in the ideals of democracy, human rights, live-and-let-live, etc. reverted to some or all of these, sometimes immediately, sometimes when the money ran out in the 70s. Some, like India, with hundreds of years of these ideals and generations trained in them, have mostly stayed intact, with only the rural areas reverting, where the caste system and oppression, the burning of widows, the murder of female babies to carry on a male line, slavery, etc. returned in various measures. Some, typically the hotspots of today in Africa and Latin America, reverted to complete disorganisation. (Incidentally, Russia is not much better and would have benefited from an enlightened colonisation, but that was of course not to be.)

[–] slokes 16 years ago

<<You say, in the same sentence, that most if not all African nations have suffered from the power vacuum that resulted from the end of colonialism. In the same sentence you say continued colonialism wasn't right. How can you reconcile these views?>>

I don't see the two positions as contrary. In fact, I believe continued colonialism often perpetuated the power vacuum by holding down local leadership and making the administration of a territory a job for outsiders. Then when the colonial power was either kicked out or left voluntarily, it was often left to the least responsible and least democratic local elements to take over, the elements most embittered by long periods of occupation and likely to confuse national "stability" with their own ability to remain in power indefinitely. The emergence of a Gandhi is a rare exception to this, hardly the rule, and I doubt Gandhi would use the case of India to tout the virtues of colonialism.

Some colonizing powers were more enlightened than others, and took steps to improve the places they colonized. This was done both on humanitarian and economic grounds. But it doesn't make right taking over another country and using its people to serve your country's ends.

[–] DracenWolfe 16 years ago

And some former colonies think their country could benefit better by being a colony.

A few years ago, Sierra Leone? asked the UK government to return to colonial status.

He who lives by the sword will be shot by those who can't

[–] laddiebuck 15 years ago

It may have perpetuated the power vacuum, but compared to the pre-colonial era, in many instances even the vacuum it left was better organised than before. This was always the case in Africa, and even in India and Pakistan, where the landscape was a scattered mass of what amounted to feudal seignuries, the end of colonialism left organised and workable states, however shaky it was in Pakistan. The best proof of this is that India and Pakistan and Bangladesh are each nations and the subcontinent is not the Balkan peninsula.

<<Some colonizing powers were more enlightened than others, and took steps to improve the places they colonized. This was done both on humanitarian and economic grounds. But it doesn't make right taking over another country and using its people to serve your country's ends.>>
If they colonised and improved the place, that act was surely not serving their country's end? And that was therefore right.

It's often overlooked that quite often many areas of the British and Belgian empires were actually a drain on the taxpayer rather than a net profit. I don't know about others.

[–] pete36 15 years ago

All this nonsense about colonialism. In the 19th century there was no UN, no World Bank, EU, etc...
Powerful European countries just took what they wanted and Africa was ripe for the taking.

You would have had it then the other way round ? That Africa and China colonized Europe ?

That would be ofcourse the ultimate political correct wet dream!

[–] John-367 14 years ago

"I think everyone's missed the point here about political correctness. And that point is that this movie was filmed in 1978 when political correctness was some 20-odd years from inception. "

The term may not have been in use but in Europe and the UK at least the essential elements which became labeled as PC were in place e.g. criticism of the way that black people and women were portrayed and referred to (in general - not particularly in this film).

[–] Hammerfanatic46 16 years ago

Gordon P. Clarkson

Thank God for some "Political Incorrectness " .The way Africa is portrayed in the Film seems sadly,even more accurate now.Far from being mere "cannon fodder",I thought that the African army performed very well,far better than any would be likely to in real life,after all they kept coming in the face of withering fire.

[–] gregforttmags 16 years ago

The bad guy African army were OK by low Third World standards if they had standardized uniforms in a addition to having a pair of combat boots and automatic carbine each (with many African 'soldiers' in real life being bare foot or wearing sandals).

[–] moviebuff74 16 years ago

My favourite bit about the controversy surrounding this film at the time of it's release was some moron syudent politician berating Wuan Lloyd about the film being made with South African money.

The *beep* learned this he said, from reading the poster and noting thelater SA at the end of a company name

Euan Lloyd had to educate the moron by telling him "SA" means Sans Anonyme (PLC) in that context

[–] sanookdee 14 years ago

the original definition of 3rd world meant a developing country that could easily fall under the communist sphere of influence. As the USA and the west, were funneling money into these countries, so were the Soviets. The Soviet Union and their satellites (East Germany, Cuba, etc) often had military advisers in these 3rd world countries just as the west did. After colonialism in Africa, there was a vacuum created for control of the country. Take a look at Zimbabwe today. The Ian Smith government left and, the 2 strongest tribes, the Shona and the Matabele struggled for control. Robert Magube is Shona and, one of his first acts was ousting all Matabele people government. Zimbabwe was the breadbasket of Africa and now, can't even feed it's own people. Tribes in Africa hate each other and have for 100's of years.

[–] glenmusher 13 years ago

The Marxist Sino/Soviet plan for domination of Africa is now almost to fruition as Beijing has supremacy over Africa's mineral wealth.

Everything will be OK in the end, if it aint OK,it aint the end.

[–] muaythai1 13 years ago

*beep* political correctness!

People are way to sensitive about race, religion and sex these days...

[–] photoe 12 years ago

The movie shows its age, and you can say a racist couldn't be reformed in a short period of time, but how do you know that? It's a movie, so, yeah, things move quickly. That's the point. Kruger's character isn't portrayed as a terrible racist, just a guy with prejudice who wants to restart his life and have a family.

His lines are classic, about not hanging out with Prime Ministers. President Limbani''s lines are also great about each side forgiving each other for the past and present. Tow men come to a compromise, witnessed by the younger black merc, and then its all torn away from them. I've never seen a film more honestly and tragically address and encapsulate the problems of Africa. Bruce WIllis 'Tears of The Sun' was a far more racist movie by the standards you set, with Bruce WIllis riding to the rescue of Africa.

Wild Geese also treats the white paymaster Matheson in a terrible light.

Fact is, the WIld Geese couldn't get remade today because it has that hatred of the establishment that typified movies in the 1970s, and is simply no longer considered a moneymaker in Hollywood.

The movie is quite sexist, but the seargeant major's character says plenty in just a few lines. She knows
her husband is at risk, and she doesnt like the entire affair.

People need to lay off this movie. It attempted and achieved quite a lot and anybody involved should have a tremendous amount of pride in it.

[–] old-skool101 10 years ago

I thought it was years ahead of its time. A gay mercenary, token or non-token couldnt even be imagined in The Expendables, nevermind back in a 70's war flick.

Plus the scene with Coetzee showing empathy towards Limbani's vision of the future was very forward thinking imvho.

Yes, the movie was of its time but the writing did try and move it forward from its obvious cliches.

[–] dalto 9 years ago

That was waste of time reading your imbecilc comments.