User Reviews (41)

Add a Review

  • Both J.M. Coetzee's novel and its film adaptation leave their audience wanting more answers. Disgrace is a confronting and brutal tale of life in modern South Africa. The message is clear. There are no simple solutions.

    Literary academic David Lurie's admiration of Byron seems to have formed his personal morality and his professional ethics.

    His amorality leads to a doomed relationship that precipitates both work and identity crises. His alienation from university colleagues and students results in a refusal to defend his reputation or his professorial position.

    He is not the victim of an old fool's infatuation but the arrogance of a serial Casanova. He quotes William Blake as his sole defence, "Sooner strangle an infant in its cradle than nurse unacted desires." His retreat to his daughter's remote farm entangles their individual problems in the realities of life in the post apartheid era.

    Director Steve Jacobs and screenwriter Anna Maria Monticelli continue their professional and personal partnership as co-producers. Their earlier collaboration on La spagnola in 2001 was another Australian production that is a minor gem.

    John Malkovich's ability to convey complete self absorption and intense self doubt without dialogue make him an excellent choice for David. Relative newcomer Jessica Haines plays his daughter Lucy. Hers is a competent and moving performance. Eriq Ebouaney strikes the right tone in a difficult role as Petrus, the black farmer and her co-landholder.

    Disgrace is an adaptation that more than does justice to the novel. Like the book, it does not sensationalise or over-dramatise this extremely difficult story. I had misgivings before the screening because the novel seemed so bleak. Lucy's compromise and David's acceptance of her decision offer such slim hope.

    We are left with little doubt that this is an allegory for the issues facing modern multi-racial South Africa. Yet it is at the personal level that the film is most powerful.

    Kevin Rennie Cinema Takes http://cinematakes.blogspot.com
  • Warning: Spoilers
    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?
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Steve Jacobs, who has considerable experience as an actor, has directed only one previous film, the rather episodic "La Spagnola", but here he has managed to do justice to a very fine literary work by J M Coetzee. The fairly short book, 220 pages, fits neatly into the 2 hours of screen time, and writer Anna Maria Montecelli has followed the book fairly closely – little is left out. The last two scenes in the book are reversed in the film which makes the ending a little less bleak, but otherwise it is a fairly faithful adaptation-perhaps too faithful, as others have said, but I'm not sure what other approach could have been taken. Coetzee's themes come through loud and clear. Although the production team is Australian, filming was mainly on location (on a shoestring $6 million) in South Africa.

    The story of a professor's ill-judged affair with a student and his fall from grace is a pretty common one, a recent example being Philip Roth's novel "Elegy" filmed with Ben Kingsley as the professor. For some reason these errant academics always seem to be in the field of literature – surely professors of botany and physics have similar tendencies. Exposure brings about a variety of reactions. The parents and other students are apoplectic, but the panel of fellow academics inquiring into Professor Lurie's affair is all set to thrash him with a feather, as long as he apologises in public. However, Lurie is tired of teaching and just wants to confess and leave, perhaps to continue his work on Lord Byron (a suitable literary hero for a fornicator). He goes off to visit his daughter Lucy on her smallholding in the Eastern Cape countryside, but this turns out to be less than idyllic. In the new South Africa power has moved into the hands of the black majority, and white people are there on sufferance only, as Lucy has realised. Ex-professor Lurie becomes involved with an animal refuge, and its operator, a blowsy middle aged woman whom he would not have given a second look in his previous life. Yet somehow he comes to accept his humiliation.

    John Malkovich's performance as Lurie is what you would expect – an arrogant, hissing snake of a man. I couldn't help wondering how differently Ben Kingsley would have done it. Malkovich is a very mannered actor at his best on the stage and his Lurie is, well, a bit lurid. Nevertheless he holds our attention if he does not capture our sympathy. Jessica Haines as his daughter Lucy does – a wonderfully judged and utterly realistic piece of acting.

    What the film does give us, which the book cannot, is the magnificence of the setting, and the film makers have done very well in this regard, though they have used locations in the Western Cape rather than the East. I was struck by the similarities with parts of Australia, and wondered what it would be like living as a member of a white minority. As Coetzee and the film makers attest, it is not a comfortable position to be in.
  • Disgrace is based on J.M. Coetzee's prize winning novel. Its central character is a an English professor in South Africa and his relationship with a number of women including one of his students, his daughter and a lover. It's about race, sex, revenge, redemption, moral ambiguities, what is right and what is wrong; above all it's about the complex nation that is South Africa.

    Having read the novel, I can say that the film is very faithful to the book. Perhaps if the movie can be faulted it is because the film adaptation is too faithful. We can clearly hear the author's voice in the movie but not the director's. It just does not resonate as it should have done considering the source material. This by no means to say Disgrace is not a good film; in fact it is a very good film, finely acted (especially by Malkovich) and well directed. But it is not a great film and one feels that if Steve Jacobs, the director had perhaps not remained so faithful to the novel, the film would have risen from the level of a very competent and faithful adaptation to a great and perhaps even a classic film.
  • Being John Malkovich means you can make this sort of fairly unpleasant and often disturbing dark tale into both an actor's piece and a reasonably good movie, from what is a bit of a dog's ear, which I saw on BBC1.

    Few do contemptible sneering the way that Malkovich can and as in his best roles, he's a suitably complex nasty piece of work, emotionally shallow and morally drowning, we see him fall from what grace he had - and into the disgrace of the title.

    Set in post Apartheid South Africa, the location is unusual as are the economic and political set-ups, creating an intriguing if beguiling premise. It's based on the Booker Prize-winning novel by J M Coetzee and ably directed by Steve Jacobs, of which this is his second only feature.

    After the suicide of the young female mixed-race student, who had had a sexual relationship with white university lecturer David Lurie (Malkovich), the English professor is sacked. Finding he has no option, he goes to live with his lesbian daughter on a remote farm in the bush. Both willing to fit in and help to protect his own interests Lurie tries to accept both his fate and the set-up he has to tolerate, while the ever presence of black odd-job worker Petrus (Eriq Ebouaney) both irritates and underscores the whole black/white power struggle that resonates throughout the film.

    Just as the film settles, some very nasty things happen and these are, frankly, unpleasant and difficult to sit through, with no restraints on graphic details. He's set on fire, pet dogs slaughtered and a rape. All done by black youths, seemingly on a whim.

    Get past these though and the you will be rewarded; not in a film of great triumph and people changed and redeemed, riding off into the sunset but a slow realisation that life is just that and one has to admit personal shortfalls and to live with that. Disgrace is a fairly memorable film (maybe some of the parts more than the whole) but isn't one I particularly wish to see again, so the DVD won't be on my Christmas wish-list. For those who like and appreciate a challenging, well acted and modern human drama, it has a lot going for it.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    JM Coetzee's writing isn't to everyone's taste. Some of it might seem pointlessly dense and self-indulgent. But Disgrace is a widely-hailed masterpiece, and in this reviewer's opinion rightly so.

    The problem in adapting it for the screen is that it's largely an allegory of post-apartheid South Africa and of white responses to it. It presents two very different such responses represented by the two main characters. On the one hand there's David, a professor who is caught having an affair with a mixed-race student, confesses everything without even being asked and willingly accepts his punishment and the end of his career. On the other, there's his daughter Lucy, who is gang-raped by a group of black men but who refuses to do anything about it other than bear the child which she conceives and indeed marry a relative of the rapist.

    Of course, this is not how we'd expect real people or indeed convincing film characters to behave. But in the novel at least, that isn't the point. David represents a point of view which sees formal justice as everything. Guilty people (himself included) should accept their punishment and move on. By extension, the abolition of formal apartheid is all that is needed to remove any sense of race-based disadvantage or special pleading. Whites have given up power and non-whites (on this view) need to accept that and expect no more than formal equal treatment.

    Lucy, on the other hand, represents the exact opposite position. Formal justice has no meaning - there is no such thing as crime and victims (herself included) take no comfort from the punishment of criminals. Again, the analogy is that abolishing the formal features of apartheid solves nothing - racial injustice and its consequences will always remain. Accordingly, whites need to accept that and the desire for revenge that comes with.

    Neither character is attractive in the novel, and neither point of view is optimistic. I suspect that's exactly what Coetzee intended, challenging the reader to come up with some alternative between two bleak and diametrically-opposed alternatives.

    The trouble is that allegory doesn't work well on screen. In the film - indeed in any film - there's less left to your imagination than in a novel. Many who've seen the film but not read the book are seemingly left bemused about why a rape victim passively accepts her situation, or why a tenured professor doesn't try to save his career. The symbolism and allegory of a novel, particularly a complex and challenging novel like Disgrace, just doesn't register. The film's strict adherence to the book, including much dialogue which is used verbatim, doesn't help this.

    In other words, both the main characters are caricatures, intended to represent opposing wider beliefs or viewpoints. That's fine in a novel, but when a film-maker gives them an immediacy - faces, voices and surroundings - it becomes harder to see them as anything other than 'real'. What was meant to be absurd but illuminating risks becoming simply unbelievable.

    Nonetheless, it has its moments. Both leads do well to give their characters at least some credibility, especially Jessica Haines as the self-willed but ultimately passive Lucy. The affair between John Malkovich and his student is given a strongly and appropriately sordid flavour. Eriq Ebouaney brings just the right balance of awkward bonhomie and hidden menace to Petrus. And the attack on the farm has a power which no novel can capture.

    Overall, a decent effort at filming what is probably and ultimately unfilmable. Read the book first and you might like it more.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I've NOT read the book and WILL NOT as I was deeply disturbed by the movie. This was a quality production, above average direction with very good performances, especially Malkovich, always weird but great. I saw two important themes; the main character Lurie's dispassionate, self-absorbed and arrogant existence (and an eventual partial thaw)amid the chaos and turmoil as South Africa reverts to a lawless culture as the structure accorded by apartheid unravels. The core of the plot is not Lurie but he and his daughter's relationship with their world around them as they lose their favored white status and grow fearful of racially-motivated violence. Malkovich shines as his character's aloof persona moves about unhurriedly and only the most disturbing event imaginable gets him riled to the point of some level of action. I believe the greatest disgrace, among several is Petrus' reaction to the rape and violence perpetrated upon his white neighbors. His matter-of-fact behavior, deceit and rationalization is absolutely astounding. The inference I drew is that as whites they had it coming to them. Also a disgrace is the decision by Lucy to remain even though she knows she was a target for the jackroll and may be again. It's clear that as a white woman she is a favored target. That Lucy and David lower their guards to perhaps prevent the assaults is almost beyond belief and shows the naiveté and vulnerability of these whites who fall from power. The movie reveals the deep racism and hatred in South Africa.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    J.M. Coetzee's Disgrace is a hard, concentrated novel, painful to read, unyielding, uncooperative, unfun. What better actor than John Malkovich to convey Coetzee's own unwillingness to do anything to ingratiate himself to the reader? The actor projects a cold self-assurance. It may not matter that his South African accent is faulty at best, fades in and out; that he seems too distant and affected to be any kind of literature teacher, let alone one currently teaching Wordsworth, a devotee of Byron. The same thing happened with his performance as Valmont in Frears' Dangerous Liaisons. His Midwestern drawl grated; he lacked suavity, lacked charm. None of it mattered because he had such evil, such confidence, such panache, such an edge, he held the screen and transformed himself into a new compelling kind of 18th-century French Iago of love. Besides, here, as his daughter Lucy, the South African newcomer Jessica Haines is equally important and very good, less flawed by casting incongruities than Malkovich. And as Coetzee's comment has acknowledged, the most important thing to the adaptation is how the film can convey the beauty of the South African landscape better than his book did.

    What's most disturbing to people about the novel is this: it conveys ideas through the protagonist David Lurie (Malkovich's role) about how South Africa has been trashed, how the blacks hate the whites, how the country is a place of anarchy and violence, that are clearly Coetzee's own views. How dare he do that and make no bones about it? But since he's ruthlessly honest, how dare he not? The novel was the first I read by Coetzee and didn't make me run out to read more. But the book became the first time a writer won a Booker Prize twice, and four years later Coetzee was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature. Maybe he was doing something right.

    And so were the Australian Steve Jacobs who directed this adaptation of the book and his Moroccan-born wife Anna Maria Monticelli who wrote the screenplay and produced it. Outsiders that they are they have nonetheless produced an adaptation that makes a complex book clearer without mangling or oversimplifying it. This kind of international production may grate upon the spirits of South Africans, but they wouldn't be likely to enjoy an all-local production either. All one can say is that this is a book that works well as a film and that adapts successfully without a lot of changes.

    David Lurie has had several wives but he "wasn't made for marriage." A womanizer, a sensualist, at 52 he's losing his physical attraction; he's looking old. Even his Malay prostitute lets him go. He forces himself upon Melanie Isaacs (Antoinette Engel), a mixed-race student in his romantic poetry class. When they have sex, she turns away as if repelled, but she submits. He's found out and threatened by Melanie's boyfriend, yelled at by her father, boycotted by the students, and at an administrative hearing he's so unrepentent he ends by being forced to leave the college. He goes to the Eastern Cape where his lesbian daughter Lucy has recently been abandoned by her lover. She grows flowers and vegetables she sells in the local market, and she arranges for David to help Bev (Fiona Press), a middle-aged lady whose animal shelter work consists primarily of euthanizing unwanted dogs. In and out of the property he now shares with Lucy is Petrus (Eriq Ebouaney), an almost mythically neutral, philosophical black man who owns land there and is gradually taking over, but who also made Lucy's garden land arable.

    Then enters the outside horror. Three young black men appear when Lucy and David are returning from a walk and ask to use her phone. They invade the house, rape Lucy, nearly kill David, and shoot all Lucy's dogs, wrecking the interior of the house and stealing David's car. One pours a bottle of methyl spirits over David and sets fire to him, locking him in the bathroom.

    This sequence is more powerful than the book. After his arrogance, to see Malkovich cowering beside a toilet bowl with his face burned is unforgettable. Eventually he returns to Cape Town and cowers before Melanie's family, asking forgiveness. It's not quite believed, but it's as much of a transformation as such a man is capable of. But it's Lucy's response that's more important: she refuses to report the crime, and refuses to leave. She cooperates with Petrus, who defends the youngest perpetrator. He turns out to be family, the son of his new wife's sister. He says it's over. Reconciliation. In fact, the attack may not have been so random.

    David says it'll never be over and will be passed on to those who come long after them. This may be an endgame. But they were born here and they remain. The important thing is that Lucy stays, and so does David, after returning to Cape Town to apologize -- and be serviced by a prostitute. The film, like the book (but perhaps in clearer outline) is about humiliation, suffering, enduring. It's about sexuality and about living with other beings, other animals. Viewers who don't find Disgrace "real" astonish me, though people and events are symbolic as well as specific, always richly both, and always simple and complex. David sleeps with Bev to please her, because she's lonely, and she wants it. Of course it's the sort of good deed that pleases him, but there is humility in it, as is his help, however unenthusiastic, with the animals. Malkovich's arrogance becomes complex because the most vivid images in the film are the ones of him cowering and afraid. In order to maintain his Byronic arrogance as a genteel rapist of "coloured" young women, he has given up his pride and his status. Disgrace is a film for smart people. It's as tightly coiled and thought-provoking as the book, and nearly as good.
  • Disgrace (2008)

    Wow, what a troubled movie, and troubling. At the very very bottom, I think it's about accepting things that are horrible because you have to, but also about accepting things that you don't understand, also because you have to. That's a hard thing to do, and the lead character, a literature professor played by John Malkovich, is the kind of man who analyzes and understands with great nuance almost everything.

    But things go wrong, and he is trying to help his grown lesbian daughter, who in her submissiveness all around, even to him, lets him fail through no fault of her own. The world of South Africa, where whites are bound to gradually lose their place, their land, their well being in a shift back to the original black inhabitants, is not easy to grasp, and the movie, based on J.M. Coetzee's novel, tries. Noble, frustrating, at times unconvincing, "Disgrace" is redeemed (as a movie) by the professor's seeming higher sense of values. We cling to his feelings for justice and for his daughter even as we find him personally despicable. "Disgrace" is also redeemed (as a concept) by the very strong currents of the book, dealing with what might be the most problematic issue of our times--how to get along, how to coexist and when not to, how to understand and accept and sometimes refuse to accept.

    Great stuff, good movie.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    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.
  • John Malkovich portrays an esteemed Capetown professor who lives somewhat in his own ivory tower, has an affair with a young student and finds his idyllic life in academia and ego-gratification shattered.

    He decides somewhat on a whim to visit his daughter Lucy, who runs a farm on the South African coast. She cares for several dogs and has a native worker who helps her on the farm. It is a small cohesive village and she is on the outside looking in, a veritable intruder, in more ways than one.

    The story develops and foreshadows the violence which is beset upon Lucy and her father by a local disturbed boy who rapes her, along with a gang of two other young men. Her father sustains burns, but does not see what actually happens to Lucy in the other room, although the audience can infer she is being raped repeatedly.

    Malkovich at first approaches her gingerly, thinking she is damaged and distraught needing to move away from the farm and her assailants. However, the opposite proves to be true. In a rather dismal scene, Lucy tells her father she must remain, that rapes like this have occurred before, and she is owing this to the people of the land, that she must remain to take on a sort of punishment.

    There are psychological nuances here. People inducing sadomasochism, or enduring it for their real or presumed character flaws. It makes for a compelling story, and I'd imagine the novel by J.M. Coetzee is a great read. The film at times does not translate this subtlety, and we are left feeling annoyed with Lucy and her victimized state.

    Malkovich is good here, as usual, with an affected but acceptable accent, a restrained but marked need for sexuality in his later years. He has an affair with a local veterinarian where he brings some of Lucy's unfortunate dogs to be etherized.

    The scene where Malkovich plays music for a dog, the dog responds to him, wanting his love, and he brings it to the vet to be destroyed is sad and stark. "Put it out of its misery", he tells her...and we almost imagine he is speaking of his own life instead of the dogs.

    Overall a worthy film, although the book is probably much clearer in intent and I am now intrigued to read the authors works regarding animals and the fragility of life. Recommended. 8/10. **Addendum: Have finished the novel and it is a must read
  • eucalyptus920 October 2009
    Warning: Spoilers
    John Malkovich. He's one of those actors you can hate one day and love the next. In Luc Besson's "Joan of Arc", Malkovich was terrific as the spoiled, under-handed Dauphin, but in "Ripley's Game" I found him just annoying.

    At first, I thought that his mannerisms would do the same to me in this film, just annoy the hell out of me. How could a person this unattractive be a serial womanizer? But then you realize how perfect he is for the role. Driven by desire, limited in his accomplishments, he can't keep a wife, his regular prostitute rejects him when he starts to get too close, and his student submits to his advances only passively. (Although why she does that doesn't get explained in either the book or the movie. For good marks, perhaps? No, I think that would conflict with her other statements regarding the professor's course and her attendance at it.)

    J.M.Coetzee doesn't appeal to me much either. The acclaimed "Elizabeth Costello" was plot-less, character-less and its monologues were of only limited interest. "Disgrace" was a much better book, I think, well-plotted, well thought out, and with well-drawn characters. In fact, I thought it was better than the film. It's a while since I read the book, but I seem to recall the professor's affair consuming perhaps the first third of the book, his arrival at the Cape and immersion into his daughter's life perhaps another third, then comes the attack and its consequences. The movie seems to skip as quickly as possible to the attack, then follows a somewhat boring set of post-attack psychological musings, with very little activity of any interest. Lucy spends a lot of time lying down and staring off into space, while David does some wandering about, some work at the clinic, passes the odd cryptic remark to Petrus, and makes some very sexless love to Bev.

    The book, and the film, make some cogent and brave comments upon the state of South Africa, and the film, to be fair, tries to convey those points. But where the book could get away with being bland and boring in parts, the movie needed to excise those bits and keep its momentum. I think that it failed in that regard.
  • wespain18 February 2011
    Warning: Spoilers
    Where do I begin in describing my negative reactions to this misbegotten piece of alleged art. First of all, the inexplicable passivity of every female character had my wife screaming in our den. And I didn't blame her. Why the women in Disgrace passively tolerated the brutal indignities heaped on them is beyond both of us. We both found the underlying premise of Disgrace to be appalling. And here it is, believe it or not: white South Africans should accept a daughter being raped, her father being set on fire, and innocent dogs being slaughtered...all in the name of making up for apartheid! I'm sorry, this is insane. And no matter what the intentions were of the film's makers the vile and disgusting undertow of their creation is repulsive.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    While John Malkovich gives a terrific performance as the dismissed professor, who had a relationship with a student in his romantic poetry class, the film should have stayed with that subject matter. Instead, it goes on to detail his move to the Eastern Cape to live with his daughter in a remote area. They're victimized by local natives in the town and the daughter is pregnant from one of the 3 men who raped her.

    In other words, Malkovich undergoes the performance of one who tormented a woman only to find himself tormented when his daughter is molested.

    His daughter's insistence on entering an unusual alliance to avoid an abortion is most perplexing.

    I enjoyed his lecture of Lucifer in the poetry class. Wasn't he describing himself?
  • Warning: Spoilers
    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.
  • The motivations of this cast of characters is practically unfathomable. Playing against all reasonable expectations about human nature seems to be the point, here. This is an ugly, depressing movie about extremely neurotic people, none of whom elicit an ounce of sympathy. These people live in a society where "getting along" trumps pride and self respect. They are so world-weary, presumably from the black-white violence of their recent past that that will degrade and humiliate themselves just to maintain peace. It's not noble, it's not sensible, and it's very depressing. Why did the young black girl student, in the beginning of the story allow herself to be, essentially, raped by this odious troglodyte of a poetry teacher? She obviously didn't like him at all. Are we supposed to believe these blacks in South Africa have a slave mentality that prevents them from resisting a white man? I don't believe that for a moment. And how could the Malkovich character, so contrite about what he's done to the girl that he prostrates himself on the floor and apologizes to her mother—how does that attitude square with his seduction of the veterinarian woman without any regard for the feelings of her husband? And it goes on and on, all against a painful, callous background of dog euthanasia. Disgusting.
  • gapple-322 November 2009
    I have read the book and found it extremely bleak. I agree the film is (almost reverentially) faithful to the book, which is not necessarily a good thing. Many a good book has been the basis for a bad film (and vice versa). My main gripe concerns the casting of Malkovich, an actor I have admired - for example, he made a superb Ripley and was brilliant in Liaisons Dangereuses. However, in this film he was creepy, cold and unpleasant. Another actor would have given the character more emotional depth, but he failed to give the slightest indication that David cared about anyone but himself. I felt no involvement with the character and could not have cared less what ultimately became of him. Maybe it was a directing problem. But to me, Malkovich was wrong in every way, including being physically unattractive, for this role.
  • A Cape Town professor has an affair with a student.

    Starring John Malkovich and Jessica Haines.

    Written by J.M Koetzee (Novel) and Screenplay by Anna Maria Monticelli.

    Directed by Steve Jacobs.

    This is dark and quirky and left of centre, pretty much how I like my movies.

    It's basically about desire and how it can often lead to devastating results. John Malkovich and Jessica Haines are excellent and the whole thing kept my interest all the way. I really liked the location filming and it made a nice change to watch something set in South Africa. This movie makes you think and that's a good thing.

    A safe and enjoyable 7.5 out of 10.
  • doyler7927 December 2010
    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.
  • Exceptional performance by John Malkovich as usual. The others actors did a fine job as well. I'm not familiar with the novel. I should have liked this movie. Direction great. Cinematography superb. I don't mind sad and difficult stories where the ending is left up in the air and justice is bereft. Mystic River is a good example. However, this story is a hollow shell. Once you have been scraped a viewer can sometimes wash themselves in the sadness. A numbing if you will. That does not happen here. More angry than sad. Maybe it's because I don't understand the culture in South Africa or the nuance of it's history. Unspeakable tragedies happen in this film and no one seems to really care. Bizarre descions are made and it's infuriating. Is this a bleak statement about Apartheid? Mmmm ok. No thanks, I'd rather watch Mystic River again.
  • This movie is a complete insult to us indigenous South Africans. Firstly you don't find such a young white girl living on her own in a rural area amongst us - that is unreal here in SA. Secondly white life is more valuable here than any other race. If a white girl is raped, even a helicopter would be flying looking for suspects. It is even more insulting to us Africans that an African father would protect a rapist teenager - Africans condemn rapists no matter who they are. Africans do not just go on as if nothing has happened if their neighbour has been attacked - we show compassion and support. That Petros in the movie does not represent the normal behaviour of Africans - that movie is dsepicts us as uncaring and evil monsters. People who have lived with Africans will be horrified to see this movie. The producers and actors in this movie owe us Africans an apology.
  • After having read J.M. Coetzee's complex, disturbing, shocking and controversial novel, one could not directly see how this story could be transformed into an appealing screenplay and still less into a convincing movie. It's heavily charged with all kind of sexual contacts, unforced and forced ones (by someone who is in a dominating position) and even with pure rape. It deals also with the eventual outcome of those contacts, like pregnancy and parental love. Moreover, the story unfolds against the violent background of open racism in a country known for its apartheid.

    Steve Jacobs did a formidable job in turning the harsh and sometimes bitter and terrible realities into a moving, emotional and ultimately sublime movie, which matches the book. The director was impressively helped by his cast and in the first place by John Malkovich, whose (physical! and mental) interpretation of the very uninviting character of a sexually driven university professor is certainly one of his most memorable. He was superbly seconded by Jessica Haines as his fiercely independent daughter as well as by the rest of the cast.

    A must see for all movie lovers and for all admirers J. M. Coetzee's work.
  • cillyDINO1 November 2010
    Warning: Spoilers
    not much can be said for the movie since the book itself was actually quite horrid. the implications that that lucy and lurie deserved being attacked because their black attackers suffered from apartheid is stupid and only serves to breed ignorance. J.M. Coetzee would move to Australia and tolerate terrorism. the book and this movie was a disgrace and a waste of malkovich's talents. in comparison to malkovich, the other characters are 2D and cliché. the portrayals of africans in the film is ... well we all hope its incorrect nowadays but it certainly supported apartheid then. the object the author wished to make is terribly delivered, making you question what on earth was he thinking
  • Warning: Spoilers
    A fifty-something white professor almost forcefully seduces his pretty black student who then breaks the news to his boyfriend. When the whole campus learns of the event, the unapologetic professor resigns and visits his daughter's house in the middle of nowhere in rural Africa.

    The life of the professor and her daughter are forever changed after they are brutally attacked in their home by three African teenagers.

    The script adapted from Coetzee's novel is plain wonderful, as each character not only is part of a dramatic story but also actors of a wider drama, that of South Africa. After the end of apartheid, rape cases of white woman by blacks had shot up. The movie picks up from there and comments on Africa's bastardized future, where past crimes lead to revenge crimes, where only other crimes force wrongdoers take responsibility and ask for forgiveness.

    Directing was good, the movie told the drama with full clarity and efficiency. Acting by John Malkovich was simply great! Eriq Ebouaney was quite good, Jessica Haines as well.

    I had watched this movie during Istanbul Film Festival and had the opportunity to attend a question and answer session by Malkovich. It was not about this movie but about him taking the Istanbul Film Festival Lifetime Achievement Award and acting in general. I was surprised to see that he was shy and modest person. In real life too, he transmits the big energy that can suddenly come out of calm.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The only reason this movie gets a 3 is that the actors did a reasonable job with a completely unidentifiable storyline.

    The movie starts off setting a scene with a professor that has completely selfish motives and that karma seems to come back to bite him.

    But the bad decisions of both Malkovich's character and his daughter make. Even in the context of the story, let alone reality. I can't imagine anyone who is raped wanting to live anywhere near their rapists? Then also the decisions that are taken following the attack..This makes absolutely no sense at all.

    I have no idea how this movie was rated so high.
An error has occured. Please try again.