[This is an adaptation of a chapter of SAUL MOLOBI's
research report which was in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree, Master of Arts in
Dramatic Art, conferred by the University of the Witwatersrand
in 1999. Saul is an independent filmmaker (A Quick
Trick), a former journalist and Editor-in-Chief of
Learn & Teach magazine, a former Publishing Director
of Heinemann Publishers, a children's author (Thulani's
Magic Water), a poet (poems published in various journals,
including Tribute magazine), and is currently a Senior
Manager: Corporate Communications for Telkom.]
Perhaps I must first state that my background in
political activism - particularly in the arena of
`alternative'/independent/anti-apartheid media and
cultural organisations - has informed my choice of
topic, area of study, and will certainly influence
my critique of independent documentary film in South
Africa. I also have to add that some of the information
I have provided in this research report comes from
the numerous political discussions, which we figuratively
called `umrabulo' , that I attended as an ANC-aligned
activist and as a political detainee in Pietersburg
and Pretoria prisons from 1987 to 1988. These experiences
have made it possible - and obvious for that matter
- for me to find a theoretical home in the discourse
of Third Cinema. Since all discourse is `placed' or
`positioned' - that is, what we say is always `in
context' - I have established a political context
under which independent film emerged. This means that
my paper may ultimately seem to be preoccupied with
the discourse of apartheid and its antithesis.
What is Third Cinema? The key to Third Cinema discourse
is found in a paper titled `Towards a Third Cinema'
which was written by the Argentinian Fernando Solanas
and the Spanish-born Octavio Getino, in 1969. The
two formulated the Third Cinema phrase and used it
to describe and define the kind of cinema that reflects
the socio-political contradictions - particularly
the contradiction of colonialism - that characterised
Latin American societies. Even though this is not
necessarily a `bible' of Third Cinema, there can never
be an authentic study of Third Cinema without referring
to this paper because it outlines the theoretical
parameters for the distinguishing features of Third
Cinema. My assertion against this paper being treated
as a `bible' arises out of Getino and Solanas' argument
against a dogmatic approach to applying Third Cinema
theory in conditions different from those that existed
in Latin America in the 1960s.
It is important to note that Third Cinema today does
not simply encompass cinema made in the geo-political
space called the Third World, but is most significantly
a combative film practice that questions the filmic
grammar of Hollywood to "articulate visions and
voices that speak to the realities of oppression"
(Mercer, 1986: 32). In this sense, it transcends `national'
cinemas, cuts across ethnic boundaries and embraces
the work of black independent filmmakers (Mercer,
1986: 32).
The reason why we should use it as a theoretical
framework is that it is significant for us - as South
African scholars, intellectuals and academics - to
apply internationally designed theories and discourses
which are suited to South African conditions. In other
words, it is important to subject the South African
experience to theories which have been developed internationally.
Third Cinema discourse is particularly useful for
the analysis of independent documentary film in South
Africa as it is an even more appropriate tool of analysis.
On the other hand, the South African experience -
particularly when we look at the gender focus (in
the form of the ideological position of anti-apartheid
forces) of the national democratic struggle will broaden
the theoretical base of Third Cinema discourse. Although
women and their organisation have formed part of the
Congress Alliance and the mass democratic movement,
the series hardly reflects this. Here it is noteworthy
that Fusco states that Third Cinema discourse has
"almost always forgot[ten] about gender"
(1988: 8).
My research adds to the existing body of knowledge
on Third Cinema. Even though the concept was first
formulated by Solanas and Getino in 1969, and further
developed by Teshome Gabriel and the participants
of the 1986 Edinburgh Film Festival and the 1988 Fourth
Birmingham Film and Television Festival, the concept
has not been adequately explored, especially in the
South African context.
My research will show that Third Cinema is a discourse
applicable to all countries, and that although Solanas
and Getino have laid the foundation, it is up to us
as a new crop of scholars and academics to build on
it, enrich it and develop it further. This enrichment,
as my research will indicate, emanates from my analysis
of representations of race, class, gender and nation-building
in independent film-making which can be seen as `part'
of the struggle against apartheid. Third Cinema theory
was proposed in 1969, but my research into independent
South African film testifies that its validity as
a tool of analysis still stands. In South Africa very
little has been written on the subject and in the
few articles written on the subject, there are one
or two differences of interpretation. Even though
Jacqueline Maingard has written positively on the
subject, based on her extensive research, there are
some scholars such as Tomaselli and Prinsloo who try
to disprove the applicability of Third Cinema discourse
to the South African cinematic experience. This pair
argue that Third Cinema contains certain "contestable
and problematic notions" (Blignaut and Botha,
1992: 358). My research aims to prove that this is
a misconception.
TOWARDS AN AESTHETIC OF THIRD
CINEMA
I have decided to propose a `manifesto' containing
certain principles which we could follow when critiquing
and qualifying a film as part of Third Cinema. The
crux of the matter is that Third Cinema demands of
us a particular fictional mode, which is different
from that of Hollywood's or European art circuit movies.
This mode has to redefine the viewers' cinematic experience
since they are used to Hollywood's format, narrative
style, grammar and expression of ethics. In short,
this means we have to give content, different from
Hollywood's (particularly) or that of European Art
Circuit movies, to the concept of aesthetics. The
break with Hollywood aesthetics demands of us that
we reject its claim to universality. The crux of Third
Cinema's principles which I am proposing, is that
the value of art lies in its social significance:
its contribution to the mythology that validates the
consciousness (that is, the value system) of a people.
I am saying this since I believe aesthetic values
are neither culture-free nor absolute. I concur with
Tomaselli (1981: 14) when he says that "the cogency
of art... lies in the degree to which it exposes actual
conditions of existence, the origins of those conditions,
how they are conformed ideologically and what their
social effects are." This perspective has informed
and inspired the principles I am suggesting.
The first principle says that this cinema has to
be about us. This means that it has to echo our voice,
and reflect our identity - our `true' identity. But
who is the `us' I have just mentioned - whose voice
and whose identity? I am talking about all those who
have fought for the removal of apartheid and its replacement
by a non-racial, democratic, non-sexist system of
government; about ordinary masses of our people who
are struggling to improve their lot. This is the perspective
that Hollywood ignores. Second, this cinema has to
be made by us.. This means those filmmakers whose
perspective on the world is informed by their commitment
to, and knowledge of, the struggle for the revolutionary
transformation of our society. If we leave our stories
to be told by Hollywood, then we will be grossly misrepresented:
our identity will be distorted and caricatured. For
example, if we look at how the character of a civic
leader is handled in director Darrel Roodt's Hollywood-funded
`Cry the beloved country', we see that he is caricatured,
and is presented as a heartless, thoughtless, mean
and opportunistic character. The application of this
principle will imply that Third Cinema functions to
expose and explore ideology from the inside. Paraphrasing
Althusser, Tomaselli (1981: 17) concludes that such
works of art will "make us perceive (but not
to know) in some sense from the inside, by an internal
distance, the very ideology in which it is held".
Third, this cinema has to be made with us. We have
to ensure that those of us who are portrayed in the
film are given the opportunity to give input into
the production. The material contribution the filmmakers
make to us, in the form of temporary jobs given to
us, is not enough; we have to be given the opportunity
to make an intellectual contribution into the making
of each film about us. Fourth, this cinema has to
be done for us.. The people used as subjects of the
cinema have to have access to it, it should not be
made, then distributed abroad without having been
shown to its subjects. Last, it should be shown near
us.. Obviously, for us to have access to it, it has
to be shown in theatres, churches, and community halls
near us. Mobile studios could also be erected, so
that films could be shown in areas where there are
no theatres .
IMPLEMENTING THIRD CINEMA'S
PRINCIPLES
Looking at the exorbitantly high illiteracy rate
particularly in the Third World and in Africa, cinema
- notwithstanding the high cost of making productions
- and radio are the most viable mediums to communicate
issues of national importance. This therefore places
a special responsibility on Third Cinema practitioners
in South Africa - that of exploring the medium to
its maximum extent. In South Africa alone, it is estimated
that over 15 million people are functionally illiterate.
But, related to the disturbingly high illiteracy rate,
is the language question. Ngugi (1985: 109) correctly
argues that "the choice of language and the use
to which language is put are central to a people's
definition of itself in relation to its natural and
social environment, indeed in relation to the entire
universe".. To make Third Cinema accessible to
as many ordinary people as possible, and for it to
galvanise its people into a revolutionary activity,
we have to make most of our films in indigenous African
languages - those languages which the target market
would understand. Again, if we have to make films
about people who speak indigenous African languages,
and we use our medium to give them the opportunity
to have their say, we have to allow them to express
their views in the languages in which they feel most
comfortable. By so doing, we will empower them to
relate their own stories. This will enable us to find
more ways of incorporating forms, treatments and devices
taken from the African oral tradition.
This poses a serious challenge to us: it places the
responsibility on us to challenge broadcasters to
accept our indigenous African-language films with
English sub-titles. This will constitute a political
victory for those languages which have been marginalised
all along because it will mean they are placed on
the same level as English, French, Italian and Spanish.
Why should we be shown French/Spanish/Italian movies
with English sub-titles, and not indigenous African-language
movies with English sub-titles? Why this imbalance?
On a personal but related vein, when I approached
the South African-based pay-station, M-Net, with a
proposal to produce a Setswana television series based
on Sol T. Plaatje's world-acclaimed novel, Mhudi,
with English sub-titles, a representative of M-Net's
Program Production department, Jean Thomas, wrote
back: "It [proposal] is an interesting and very
well-prepared one but M-Net as a pay TV station has
to be particular about the programmes aired. We have
to cater to the subscriber needs and our research
always indicates that the majority of our viewers
are English speaking therefore this project would
not sit very well with our subscriber base. As such,
we have to turn down this proposal."
With regard to the issue of language, how then do
we tell the story of rural Africa via this medium?
As I have mentioned, we have to incorporate such devices
as narrative forms of African oral tradition into
Third Cinema. Perhaps I should clarify two misleading
assumptions made about the conflict between tradition
and modernity before I address this issue. First,
very often the development of modern industry, science
and technology is perceived as being in contrast to
tradition and rural cultures. It therefore follows
that the destruction of certain traditions are a necessary
evil. Second, rural and urban lives are presented
as two self-contained, unlinked entities - which means
that they are shown as not being mutually exclusive.
Marx and Engels (McLellan, 1985: 21) wrote in the
Communist Manifesto:
"The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to
the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities,
has greatly increased the urban population as compared
with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable
part of the population from the idiocy of rural life
[my emphasis]. Just as it has made the country dependent
upon towns, so it has made barbarian and semibarbarian
countries dependent on the civilised ones, nations
of peasants on nations of bourgeoisie..."
These misrepresentations have led to the dominance
of the `Jim comes to Jo'burg' theme - stories of rural
migrants coming to seek work in Johannesburg - in
the cultural life of South Africa, and has established
distorted images of characters from the rural areas.
My line of argument is that rural and urban lives
are intertwined, interwoven and interlinked. I cannot
agree more with Ngugi wa Thiongo (1981: 78) when he
says: "Far from destroying tradition, modern
technology (e.g. video, cinema, television, radio)
should make it possible to actually reclaim the positive
aspects of tradition and peasant cultures which are
withering away under the pressures of the economic
exploitation. Africa, for instance, has a rich tradition
of oral literature."
Content-wise, I would propose that independent filmmakers
have to continue to be inspired by the struggles of
the ordinary masses of people. Their work has to mirror
the current contradictions facing viewers and should
creatively chart the way forward. In proposing this
path, (and without sounding sentimental), I am therefore
opposing the neo-liberal position - espoused by both
black and white filmmakers and producers - that the
people of South Africa are no longer interested in
watching cinema that exposes the socio-political contradictions
plaguing our society or, put bluntly, they are no
longer interested in watching anything that touches
on apartheid.
The challenge facing independent filmmakers is to
find a creative, fresh way of making films which reflect
our turbulent history. If Steven Spielberg could make
Schindler's List, an Oscar-winning movie about the
persecution of the Jews by the Nazis in 1994 - over
forty years after the holocaust, why should South
African filmmakers not make films about the South
African version of the holocaust - apartheid - that
only happened yesterday? This is a challenge for Third
Cinema practitioners in this country: to view the
history of this country as a womb in which ideas are
conceived and developed instead of a tomb in which
the past is buried. Making documentaries that sharpen
the socio-political contradictions in South Africa
will further accelerate the movement for the establishment
of a fully-fledged Third Cinema in this country. The
seeds were planted in the 1980s, and germinated in
1990 with the making of the Hold Up the Sun television
series - which is, like I said in my `Introduction',
an example of the emergence of Third Cinema in South
Africa.
During this era of socio-political transformation
in South Africa, independent filmmakers have a role
to play in popularising reconstruction and development.
However, they have to be careful in this regard. They
have to heed the warning given by Haile Gerima - as
cited in Thompson and Xaba's article (1990) - that
Third Cinema filmmakers should guard against becoming
the "ideological generals and sergeants of neo-colonialism"..
Fortunately, it is very early to pass judgement on
the post-apartheid government of national unity but,
if the time comes we may have to be prepared to transform
the situation "with the camera in one hand and
a rock in the other" (Chanan, 1983: 24) as we
did with the apartheid government. This means that
independent filmmakers have to play a watchdog role,
seeing to it that the government delivers its promises
to the masses. They have to play a critical role -
that is, constructively criticising the government
where it fails.
In conclusion, in the process of implementing these
principles, we should always remember that their cardinal
concern is to tell our/their stories and tell them
well. If their cinematic work fails in that, it will
fail to attract the attention of the interest of the
public, and the cause which they are committed to
will have been badly served. Perhaps we could learn
a lesson from Gabriel Garcia Marquez (cited in Coleman,
1977: 21), the world-renowned Latin American novelist,
when he said of Latin American novels that they "are
not concerned with telling a story, but rather with
overthrowing the government ... look, after so many
years of this literature paved with good intentions,
we have not succeeded in overthrowing one simple government
with it, instead, we have invaded the bookstores with
unreadable novels ... we have lost our public!"
REFERENCES
Blignaut, J. and Botha, M. (eds.). (1992). Movies
- Moguls - Mavericks. Cape Town: Showdata. Fusco,
C. (1988). `About locating ourselves and our representations.'
Framework, No 36: 7 - 14. Gabriel, T.H. (1986). `Third
Cinema as guardian of popular memory: Towards a third
aesthetics.' (Pines and Willemen, 1989: 53 - 64).
Questions of Third Cinema Gabriel, T.H. (1986). `Towards
a critical theory of Third World films.' (Pines and
Willemen, 1989: 30 - 52). Questions of Third Cinema
Thompson, B. (1991). `FAWO and Third Cinema.' FAWO
News, September 1991. Tomaselli, K. and Prinsloo,
J. `Third Cinema in South Africa.' (Blignaut and Botha,
1992: 329 - 373. Movies - Moguls - Mavericks
