Urban Renewal

IN YOUR FILMS, WHEN WE SEE PEOPLE DOING DRUGS (ESPECIALLY SMOKING OUT OF A BROKEN BOTTLE NECK), THEY’RE ALWAYS BROWN PEOPLE. WHY DON’T YOU EVER SHOW WHITE PEOPLE OR BLACK PEOPLE DOING DRUGS? THIS IMAGERY COULD REINFORCE THE STEREOTYPE THAT CAPE TOWN COLOURED PEOPLE ARE DISSOLUTE AND AIMLESS, AND ALSO NATURALLY INCLINED TOWARDS DRUG ADDICTION.
Firstly because the previous two films were shot in Bonteheuwel, which is a so-called brown area, and that (smoking drugs) related to the themes of the film. In this film, this happened while we were there – I didn’t see anyone else smoking a bottle neck, except that guy and the racial thing was not relevant at that point. That scene comes out of Aubrey speaking about having to fight to survive, and then we see this beautiful place with someone smoking drugs – so it’s in a context of finding a way of coping with the difficulty of being homeless.

It wasn’t a comment on race, but it kind of relates to the next scene, the watermelon scene, with kids playing and it’s kind of trippy – so there’s something about being stoned and looking at things in a different way. So you look at kids inheriting the future and violence; it plays with your idea of looking at it and you feel different things about kids who are going to inherit the earth, a suggestive thing and the dope smoking sequence prepares you for the trippiness of the scene – it goes from one to another very nicely.

But beyond that, I think there’s also the scene with the rent boys – it’s clearly a multi-racial group and they speak about smoking drugs. I can understand that you might see that as a representational thing, even though I don’t see that as a racial representation.

Of course there’s a long history of representation, but a documentary is the interplay between reality, political intention and subjective, artistic vision and how these come together. Any film has a political-representation dimension, so you have to be aware of the implications of the film, but I think this film is so strongly grounded in a particular place and is so much about what was found, that I think in a way it’s an honest representation of this area. So, there’s the yellow bib campaign, where they want to fight against drugs and you could make a political argument that this guy (smoking the bottleneck) is weak and harmless, but look at all the energy expended to get rid of him.

But the other thing is that the film, I think, actively engages with stereotypes, specifically with Aubrey, the drunk homeless guy: he doesn’t drink most of the time – the presumably drunk scabrous homeless guy. The film consciously takes you beyond the stereotype and actually shows … the film is about visions. The film does make you uncomfortable on purpose and you’re meant to feel the discomfort in it. With this film it’s so critical of whiteness, it so clearly goes beyond the stereotypes of this person just being this or that, that I think it’s important to have that. What makes Aubrey interesting is that he’s someone who is easily discarded by society – first racially and now by class – he has had no benefits in the new South Africa; he has made mistakes and is almost symbolic of someone who has lost out in both systems – in the old and in the new South Africa.

The film has enough honesty and depth to go way beyond reinforcing racial stereotypes. It so looks at how those things relate to the opposite: there are many scenes of coloured middle class people. I think a lot of critique of representation comes from a fairly conservative position. I think the film is honest and often interference with the film along political means can be dishonest.

On The Beach

I’M NOT SURE WHY YOU HAVE THOSE GIRLS DANCING AT THE OLD AGE HOME INTERCUT WITH ARCHIVE BLACK AND WHITE FOOTAGE OF WHITE PEOPLE LAUGHING AT BLACK PEOPLE PERFORMING – ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THINGS HAVEN’T CHANGED AND THAT THESE OLD PEOPLE FIND THE GIRLS RIDICULOUS? BECAUSE I DON’T THINK THEY FIND THE GIRLS RIDICULOUS.
The current day concept is uncomfortable for me because the kids look so unhappy. There is some continuation between sixty years ago and what’s happening now. The girls are from a rural community and there’s something really bizarre in that contemporary scene, where the kids are not smiling and the old people are also a little bit uncomfortable. I’m not sure about that scene: there’s something that’s really uncomfortable for me, but I can’t cast a 100% interpretation.

It does link to the past and it was also in the context of Jean having spoken about her relationship with apartheid. The film does not clearly condemn or force answers and political interpretations, but it makes you think about why you feel discomfort and gives the space to maybe work things out. I loved those old ladies when I met them – they’re charming and lovable – but at the same time I’m aware that their nostalgia is different from other people’s memories of the past. My relationship with the older generation is a tricky thing – you have an immense love for the older generation, but you find their politics problematic. You are part of certain social and family structures that you can’t disengage yourself from and the old ladies was the means for me to explore this. I want to recreate the discomfort that I feel, or my own conflicts around this, through watching the film.

WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE APARTHEID VIOLENCE ARCHIVE FOOTAGE SERVE? IT’S NOT IN SEA POINT …
I don’t think a filmmaker’s in control of their own film – you’re borrowing from reality. If you make a film openly and honestly, it can be much bigger than you and much wiser than you. I think different people will get different truths from it.

I think the apartheid footage is about dealing with the legacy of the past and I thought the nostalgic footage needed to show something different, a different past: in a way you had the protected white middle class memory of apartheid, but there was a different reality where people were fighting and being oppressed in the townships and I wanted to make you confront the two together. The struggle and horror of apartheid wasn’t visible in Sea Point; you didn’t see the police brutality in Sea Point, but at some level white middle class people knew it was happening. It was an internal thing, like the crime footage, an internal memory that people have in their heads.

I’m sure some black people who have seen the film have experienced that vision, so it is an internal reality of memory for some black people.

WHY DIDN’T YOU SUB TITLE AUBREY SAYING THAT JP IS FROM THE DA, IMPLYING THAT WHAT JP SAYS IS NONSENSE OR NOT BELIEVABLE?  I THINK IT’S INTERESTING THAT THERE IS THAT SENTIMENT TOWARDS THE DA (DEMOCRATIC ALLIANCE) AND NOW AN INTERNATIONAL AUDIENCE WON’T GET IT.
That specifically was an instance where I thought getting into the party political meaning would be complicated. On one level it’s about the DA, and on another Aubrey’s saying it’s because JP’s a white, liberal, so it’s the same thing. I think the broader meaning is clear without having to reference the DA. Party politics are self-interested and there’s always political expediency involved. Think of it more in broader human political terms, rather than party political terms. Urban policies of the ANC and the DA are not always that different anyway, but the ANC feeds of the myth of being a people’s party, while keeping an empowered upper middle class position. So, it’s not fair to simplify the class and rate debates according to political party lines.

IN PART FIVE THERE IS THIS SEQUENCE OF SHOTS WITH MOSTLY BROWN PEOPLE BUYING TICKETS TO USE THE POOL. WE DON’T SEE THE MOSTLY WHITE REGULARS WHO COME THROUGH EARLY IN THE MORNING WITH THEIR SEASON TICKETS – WHY DID YOU LEAVE THIS OUT?
I expect that some of the pool goers will be disappointed that there’s not more emphasis on the training culture. The demographics of the pool changes throughout the day and that whole swimming thing wasn’t that interesting for me. We should have probably had a bit more, but it was difficult to find a place to fit that in. I did try a scene with just swimmers, but I couldn’t find a place where it would fit nicely, so I incorporated it in chapter two. There is a scene shot at the same time as the scene in chapter 1, when, in summertime and over holidays a lot of people from poorer areas do come to the pool, so the queue was demographically representative during the most part of a summer’s day.

It’s a bit similar to that scene in The Mother’s house where Miche admits to using drugs and it cuts to all the women in the market, so that at the end of the film, all the experiences you’ve had through the film, are seen in the ordinary person’s face: you look at the same kind of people in a different way at the end of the film, so maybe you have a sense of what they bring with them. The shots at the ticket booth are held quite long and some people eventually saw there was a camera there, but then we cut out before they saw it.

SO WHAT WOULD YOU DO DIFFERENTLY?
I would have had more of a kind of level of vision, like have more of the subjective, trippy element. I think there’s a conflict between director POV and character POV, which has to do with a positioning of my voice and the character’s voice. I think that conflict is a reflection of what the film deals with, but I think that could have been improved upon. I think there could have been more of a director’s POV, more of a vision and more deliberative.

I think sometimes the film moves too fast for me, but that’s a question of how the overall film moves, which could have worked out better with longer editing. I would have liked to have been able to try some other scenes, but I couldn’t go on any more. And clearly I would have liked to have shot it with a proper budget, because I would have liked to have shot some of it on film and I would have liked to have had a month or two with a good editor to take it to another level. Even so, Silver Docs described it as “the very best that documentary film has to offer”.

We’ve had good responses and at private screening in South Africa, people have really loved it. There will be many people who don’t get it, but you’ll have either that and people who’ll love it. If some of the political questions had been stated more forcefully, it would have not been right: the film gives you the space to work things out for yourself.

This interview first appeared on Perspective, a Documentary Filmmakers’ Association (DFA) initiative to provide insight into the documentary filmmaking process. Tina-Louise Smith is the founder-editor of Perspective.

More information on the film can be found on the Sea Point Days web site.