A Dry White Season (1989) User Reviews (43)

"Your Son Will Not Believe Their Lies"

[bkoganbing · 8/10 · 17 April 2008]

It took the cause and message of A Dry White Season for Marlon Brando to leave his self-imposed exile in Tahiti to come back to the screen, albeit in a small supporting role. Still the cause was one of the most remarkable in the 20th Century, the eventually successful opposition to the white apartheid government of the Union of South Africa.

A Dry White Season was originally a novel concerned with the aftermath of the famous Soweto Massacre when South African troops fired on a protest of black Bantu children being forced to learn in Afrikaans the language of the oppressor as Desmond Tutu so eloquently put it.

The son of the gardener at Donald Sutherland's estate is killed in Soweto and his body is not returned. After which the gardener Winston Ntshona is picked up by the special branch of the South African Police for asking too many questions and later he dies in prison the result of a suicide which no one with a functioning brain believes. At that point Sutherland decides to intervene himself.

Sutherland plays a history teacher in a white only school and as he learns about what's going on and starts asking the questions he dare not ask before even to himself. His radicalization is total, but it costs him dear, his wife Janet Suzman and his daughter Sussanah Harker leave him, but his young son Rowen Elnes sticks with dad.

It's not that he doesn't gain a few new friends, African National Congress organizer Zakes Mokae, crusading journalist Susan Sarandon, and human rights attorney Marlon Brando. But he also gains a bitter and malevolent enemy in Special Branch Captain Jurgen Prochnow who apparently does damage control for the government. That includes outright murder of suspected opposition to the apartheid government.

Every actor worth his salt loves a courtroom scene and Marlon Brando might have even come back for that in this film as well as the anti- apartheid cause. He got the film's only Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Actor, but lost to Denzel Washington for Glory. I suspect given Marlon's history with Oscar folks were reluctant to vote for him.

The film really belongs to star Donald Sutherland though and I think it a pity he wasn't given any Oscar nomination for this fine film with an eternal message about freedom.

could have been more compelling as a movie

[SnoopyStyle · 6/10 · 17 September 2014]

It's 1976. Ben du Toit (Donald Sutherland) is a liberal South African schoolmaster and a former rugby star. He is shocked by the police beating of his gardener Gordon's son but does nothing. When the kids gather to protest the teaching of Afrikaans, the police reply with violence. Gordon's son goes missing. Ben, in his sheltered life, tries to help and the police tells him that he's dead. Ben again advises Gordon to leave it alone. Gordon continues to investigate and gets arrested. Captain Stolz (Jürgen Prochnow) is the man in charge of torturing Gordon. Gordon's wife brings lawyer Stanley Makhaya (Zakes Mokae). The police claims that Gordon committed suicide. Stanley brings Ben to the Soweto township and shown the truth of his torture. Melanie Bruwer (Susan Sarandon) is a newspaper reporter. Civil rights lawyer Ian McKenzie (Marlon Brando) relents to Ben and takes on the case.

Ben is a clueless idiot at the start of the movie and that is the part that I dislike most about the movie. It would be so much better for Ben to be in denial. Sutherland plays it so wide eye and ill-informed. It would be more dramatic and better as character development that he doesn't come off as ignorant at the beginning. The court case in the middle drags on a little too much. It's often hard to switch into court like that. There isn't the shock of revelation since the movie already showed the torture earlier. This is also very heavy handed. This feels like a sermon more than a drama. Having Marlon Brando there pontificating doesn't help. The other problem is that after the court case, the movie goes back to the white folks. Even though it's not the movie intention, the black folks get sidelined. Nevertheless, it's an interesting attempt at bringing South Africa to the big screen.

Gripping tale about social injustice

[jotix100 · 8/10 · 5 May 2005]

Apartheid gripped South Africa for many years. One heard the news with total disbelief, as things got worse in that country. Euzhan Palcy has brought Andre Brink's novel to the screen making a statement along the way about what was wrong in South Africa under the brutal repression of those that dared to make a stand.

The carnage one sees in the film is hard to take. Especially, since one occurrence is directed to innocent children who are trying to make a stand about education. At the time, the white establishment labeled communist all those that dared oppose the ruling class. It's ironic that after things got to be democratic, those same rebels didn't turn the country into a communist state.

The story centers on a white teacher that suddenly awakens to what is happening around him. His involvement comes through his gardener, Gordon, who is a decent man. When the gardener's son is arrested, Gordon turns to Ben for help. That will mark the beginning of Ben's passive attitude toward apartheid. By trying to help, Ben will be a marked man, a traitor to his people, according to even his own family.

Donald Sutherland makes an excellent Ben, the former football star and teacher. We watch him as he gets deeply involved in his quest for justice in a land where it was unknown. Zakes Mokae, an immensely talented actor of stage and screen, plays Stanley the man that serves as a link between the struggling faction and Ben. Jurgen Prochnow plays the sadistic Capt. Stolz conveying all the cruelty and arrogance of the man. Janet Suzman is Ben's wife, a woman who doesn't want to see any changes in her cushy life.

The surprise of the film is the appearance of Marlon Brando in a small, but pivotal role of Ian McKenzie, a barrister that brings the case to a court of justice, but it's defeated by the system. Mr. Brando made a tremendous contribution to the film.

Ms. Palcy's film is a reminder of the injustice perpetuated in South Africa under the apartheid rule.

a splendid period piece of a dark part of South Africa's history.

[hkmanwah · 12 July 2004]

I believe this to be one of Marlon Brando's most underrated performances. The film itself is a splendid period piece of Apartheid South Africa. I rarely see this movie mentioned in biographical comment with regard to Brando's career, and yet, it is a stunning performance. I assume the lack of comment is the fact that he only played a supporting role, and that the subject of apartheid probably denied it a higher profile. As somebody who has lived in South Africa, both before and after apartheid, i cannot tell you how accurate the performance of Brando is in this role. There is no doubt in my mind that he must have studied meticulously before playing this part. I do not know why, but there are a large percentage of professional people in South Africa who have an almost perfect "Queen's English" accent...but it is tinged with a slight South African edge which only the most perceptive can detect. Not only does Marlon Brando capture this perception, but he somehow manages to replicate it, which i have always found truly incredible. You would have to live South Africa to know how fantastic his voicing is in this part, but believe me, apart from the power of his acting, this role is a truly stunning illustration of his amazing ability. I hope this movie will obtain the higher profile it deserves in the future.

Manny Wah Hong Kong

Very interesting

[barbara_caroline · 7/10 · 7 June 2002]

I found the story very interesting because it's a real story about the South Africa.The film opens on the demonstrations and riots in Soweto,I like this extract even if it was violent.The main character of Benjamin Dutoit is interesting because he is the hand of the Black.He is brave.

Morally Straightforward Representation of Life in Apartheid South Africa

[l_rawjalaurence · 6/10 · 12 August 2016]

Released in the year before the process of ending apartheid began, A DRY WHITE SEASON offers a straightforward portrayal of life, with the Afrikaaners depicted as almost uniformly racist and the black Africans as their largely innocent victims. The only people straddling this racial and ideological divide are history teacher Ben du Toit (Donald Sutherland) and his young son Johan (Rowen Elmes).

At the beginning of the film we see du Toit, a former Springbok rugby union player, happily presiding over his learners at his all-white private school. It is only when he learns of the brutal way in which his African gardener Gordon Ngubene (Winston Ntshona) has been murdered by the authorities that his hitherto fixed beliefs in Afrikaaner supremacy are challenged. After an abortive court case charging the police with brutality, du Toit determines to pursue justice at any cost, even at the cost of his family life.

The plot is a familiar one with resonances far beyond the immediate South African context. It could prove equally plausible in an historical drama about the anticommunist era in the United States. We roughly know what will happen in the end, but there are some noteworthy moments along the way, especially Marlon Brando's star turn as a campaigning lawyer where he rehearses his British English accent (previously shown off in the remake of MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY (1962).

Most of the supporting roles are played by British actors speaking a peculiarly nasal form of Afrikaaner English, including Richard Wilson, Ronald Pickup, Paul Brooke and a youthful Susannah Harker (in a pre- HOUSE OF CARDS role). Perhaps the ruling Afrikaaner oligarchy intervened, but the film would have appeared more historically authentic if more locally employed actors had been cast. Nonetheless the black Africans are all played by locals, who are given the chance to speak Bantu as well as English in the film. Susan Sarandon appears briefly as a British journalist, but she doesn't have to do much.

A DRY WHITE SEASON looks a bit anachronistic now, but its sincerity of purpose cannot be doubted.

Pretty Enjoyable

[andrewparakg · 7/10 · 12 April 2021]

Not as bad as I expected. Apart from some cringy dialogue and acting it has it's moments.

I would say the highlights are Donald Sutherland and especially Marlon Brando's brief appearence.

Accurate but incomplete portrayal of the old South Africa

[ctepizkp · 9/10 · 29 March 2005]

If you want to understand what the old South Africa could be like at its worst, this movie accurately portrays it. Well acted and only slightly over-dramatized, it gives you the sense of how the ruling culture was blind to its own injustices. Those who oppose the main character from within his own family make some valid points, and that makes it all the more chilling.

As someone who lived in South Africa until shortly before the year this movie is set in (and was forced to leave because I opposed apartheid), I can't fault the authenticity of this movie but I want to caution viewers not to form all your opinions of white South Africans from this type of film. There is a good side to every culture, but it is harder to portray and doesn't always make great box office.

If this movie leaves you hating anyone, you are taking away the wrong message. If it leaves you realizing this could happen anywhere, and ordinary good people can easily find themselves on the wrong side in situations like this, that is the right message to take away.

A decent film overall

[ThomsonGA · 7/10 · 22 March 2005]

"Trevor Moses'" review is most unfair and disingenuous. That review is clearly based on his political views and not on the film's merit, as his opening line plainly indicates: "Typically anti-apartheid sewer seepage" -- those are his exact words.

Note that Mr. Moses hails from South Africa. Perhaps he is part of that minority that still resents the end of apartheid? His review would support such a notion.

I saw the film many years ago, and it was at least decent, to best of my recollection. Director Palcy has done other quality work, e.g., "Sugar Cane Alley."

watch it and never forget.

[shell-26 · 10/10 · 24 April 1999]

One day in South Africa in the 1960's, a young black man was walking along the street with his aged mother. Coming along the road was a young white man. The young black man knew that apartheid law and custom meant that the white would probably barge the two blacks off the pavement and into the gutter. The law would protect him and the young black man might be imprisoned for defending himself. The young black man tensed his muscles and prepared to defend his mother, but was amazed when the Englishman stepped off the pavement and doffed his broad brimmed hat in greeting. Later on the two would become friends and allies. The white man was to become bishop Trevor Huddleston, the black man, bishop Desmond Tutu.

That story is NOT the story of A Dry White season, but it is of a kindred spirit. Like the gesture of Trevor Huddleston, the story of Ben de Tor is a gesture against apartheid. A glimmer of hope, but merely that, a flicker.

It must be five years since I saw a Dry White Season but I still remember how I felt leaving the cinema. It is a film which will stay with you.

The plot follows a white South African on an adventure through bewilderment, revelation, denial, disgust, and a futile attempt to fight a grossly unfair system.

I can't go into detail after this length of time but the cameos in this film would be worth the video rental. Marlon Brando (yes) steals the show as the lawyer who knows exactly how hopeless the fight against apartheid is but agrees to fight anyway.

The political situation today in South Africa is a world away from that of A Dry White Season. Watch it and never forget.

A white guy comes to his senses

[rmax304823 · 6/10 · 2 April 2005]

The story of a schoolteacher (Southerland) who's black gardener's son "disappears" in 1970s South Africa, accused of activism. Then the gardner disappears too. Then an innocent black woman who is a friend disappears.

With each incident, the comfortable family-oriented bourgois teacher becomes more involved in the awful injustices inflicted on black civilians, activists or just suspected activists. He first asks some friends in the government to help out and is treated with empty reassurances and pats on the back. Then he brings suit against the government's Special Action Squad (or whatever the death squad is called) for the gardener's death. The gardener was clearly tortured and then murdered under the supervision of the Chief Minister of Villainy (Jurgen Prochnow) and Southerland hires a lawyer who was disillusioned long ago (Marlon Brando).

But Southerland pushes too far. His friends ignore him. He loses his job and his son is expelled from the school. His wife wants things the way they always have been -- nice compliant kaffirs who serve dinner when you tinkle the little bell, and sense of security. His wife leaves him, taking their adolescent daughter who feels the same way she does. Southerland's son, who seems to have inherited his Dad's ears, insists on staying with him and observes all the goings on. Susan Sarandon is a reporter who is sympathetic but has seen it all before. In the end, Southerland loses everything, but, as Sarandon tells him, despite his own helplessness, his son has learned a good deal and represents the next generation.

The performances are all fine. Southerland is subdued and thoughtful in a role which calls for exactly those characteristics. Marlon Brando is also a standout, bringing to the part a kind of amused disdain for Southerland's naivete. Prochnow is properly villainous without being entirely unreasonable. He does his best with an Afrikaans accent -- nobody has ever trilled his r's so thoroughly -- but he may have been miscast because he looks like such a nice guy. I don't mean that the villain has to look like a scuzzbag, but that he should have an appearance and demeanor that projects villainy and what Prochnow projects is more like Carl Roger's "unconditional regard." But, beyond the incidents presented in this particular movie, I wonder what the function of such a story is. The first response of any sensitive viewer is undoubtedly going to be white guilt or black self pity. It's ironic because almost the entire population of viewers, regardless of race, color, or creed, will have had absolutely nothing to do with the events we see.

Personally, we will be gripped by the exposition of such injustice -- such outright murder by the authorities -- and that's fine as far as it goes. Beyond that, the movie-makers have given us an educational documentary-style film, beginning with a naive complacent white guy, a lot like many of the rest of us, and guiding him through a tour of corrupt racism, along with the viewer. (How he could have remained so innocent without having lived in a cave isn't explained.) I wonder in the long run if movies like this (and "Z" and dozens of others) don't have counter-productive properties. We feel not only sympathy but anger. In the final shot -- and I do mean "shot" -- the movie seems to endorse the idea that violence is the only appropriate response to injustice. Why should such a notion be expected to do anything other than drive a deeper wedge between minorities and the dominant majority? Is murder really the only way out of inequity? If they kill us, is our only response to kill them too? A more object lesson might be that colonialism doesn't work for long, but a lot of viewers may not be able to get past the violence on screen. And anyway, colonialism never calls itself "colonialism." It's always "The Crusades," or "spreading civilization," or "protecting our own interests," or "preventing the spread of" (fill in the blank with your own noxious ideology).

There's a semi-happy ending. Southerland's son will live to straighten things out. But it's a pale message and seems tacked on. Our amygdalas stand up and applaud at the end when Prochnow gets a bullet through his heart.

Peace, brothers and sisters.

Dark yet brilliant........ (SPOILER WARNING ---- This review discusses the plot)

[PhilipChandler · 9/10 · 4 February 2006]

This movie explores apartheid and the monstrous injustices perpetrated against non-white South Africans by that system from the perspective of Ben du Toit (Donald Sutherland), a well-respected history teacher of Afrikaans heritage (white South Africans are primarily Afrikaans (of Dutch descent) or of British descent). Ben du Toit is portrayed as a decent, law-abiding man who investigates the death of his gardener, Gordon Ngubene (Winston Ntshona). Ngubene dies in police custody while investigating the circumstances that led to his son first being whipped across the buttocks and then being killed by the police. At first, du Toit merely approaches the police in good faith, politely expressing concern to Colonel Viljoen (Gerard Thoolen) and Captain Stolz (Jurgen Prochnow) together with the observation that human errors do occur, even at South African police headquarters.

With the aid of Stanley Makhaya (Zakes Mokae), du Toit gathers evidence revealing, unambiguously, that the police had tortured and murdered Ngubene in scenes of stomach-turning cruelty. Du Toit goes through profound psychological turmoil as he realizes that the government and the police in which he had placed so much faith were instruments in the service of massive oppression, made all the more personally horrifying in that this oppression had allowed du Toit and others like him to live their lives in relative comfort and complacency, never having to observe the brutality and barbaric actions taken in the service of preserving that comfortable lifestyle, yet alone having to account for it. With the aid of British reporter Melanie Bruwer (Susan Sarandon), du Toit gather sufficient evidence to bring criminal charges against the "Special Branch" of the South African Police.

Barrister Ian McKenzie (Marlon Brando) agrees to take du Toit's case, knowing in advance that the case will never succeed. Brando steals the show as he informs du Toit that the law and justice are "second cousins," and that in South Africa they are "simply not on speaking terms." The courtroom scenes are riveting, as McKenzie slowly but brutally exposes the horrifying manner in which Ngubene was murdered. Viewers should be prepared for a chilling account of the state of Ngubene's body as, for the first time during the trial, McKenzie raises his voice and lambasts the "Special Branch" for their handiwork.

Unknown to du Toit, his wife Susan du Toit (wonderfully portrayed by Janet Suzman) had sneaked into the courtroom to watch the proceedings. The reaction of du Toit's family is mixed -- daughter Suzette du Toit (Susannah Harker) and wife Susan are furious with Ben, who is supported only by his son Johan (Rowen Elmes). In a scene that is profoundly disturbing precisely because of the sincerity of her beliefs and the validity of some of the points that she makes, Susan compares life in South Africa to life during a time of war, and exhorts Ben to choose the side of his people. She grapples with her conscience as she acknowledges that she does not believe that everything that the police does is right, bur she is adamant in her determination that Ben must reject the viewpoint of the black majority, even if that means rejecting the truth. She does not even try to hide her racism as she complains about not wanting Gordon's ghost to haunt her house; how she does not want "any of these kaffirs" in her house ever again, echoing daughter Suzette's comments about the newspaper photograph of Ben and widow Emily Ngubene leaving the courtroom ("Pa! You with a kaffir woman! You look like lovers!").

Having failed to bring the government to account in criminal proceedings, du Toit decides to file a civil suit. He is supported in this endeavor by Stanley, Melanie, and his son Johan. However, against the backdrop of approaching Christmas, matters are fast spinning out of control. He is fired from his job as a teacher on the pretext of having missed too many classes. When he dismisses this pretext and demands to know why he has been fired, du Toit is informed by the headmaster that it is "a matter of loyalties." When the headmaster informs him that it would be better were Johann not to re-enroll at the beginning of the next term, stating that the school does not need traitors, du Toit literally backhands him across the face in what is certainly one of the movie's most satisfying moments.

Stanley arrives at the du Toit residence on Christmas Day, stinking drunk. Emily Ngubebe has been killed -- she died trying to prevent her children from being deported to Zululand (one of the "Bantustans" created under apartheid). The Christmas party is ruined as du Toit's few remaining friends leave in disgust and outrage, and Susan leaves the house, uttering the thoughts that had, until that moment, been unstated by so many of du Toit's Afrikaaner friends ("What a pretty picture! A drunken kaffir and an Afrikaaner traitor. You deserve each other.") Events lead to a bitter climax in the remainder of this movie. Realizing that there is no longer time to file a civil suit, du Toit has to find a way of handing all of the evidence that he has uncovered (most of it in the form of affidavits) to the liberal South African newspaper ("The Rand Daily Mail," which was indeed a liberal paper until it closed shortly before the writer left the country). In a scene of searing sadness, du Toit relies on the knowledge that his daughter Suzette will betray him to send the police on the chase of a decoy.

In terms of authenticity, this movie's faults are minor. Flaws in accent are minor in what is otherwise an incredibly sad unveiling of the human suffering beneath the lies; of the savagery that permitted du Toit and all white South Africans to live as they lived; and of the personal cost to those who were brave enough to dissent.

The mean season

[Chase_Witherspoon · 6/10 · 14 July 2012]

Compelling fictional account of a teacher (Sutherland) who begins to delve into the clandestine methods of his local South African police force when the heavy handedness being meted out against the coloured population happens close to home. Sutherland's character is essentially colour-blind, and shocked to discover his friends, colleagues and even his wife are all afflicted by the stain of Apartheid, and unwilling to modify their views (for fear, retribution and in some cases, their racism).

Brando has a relatively peripheral role as the human rights counsel, appearing in a puppet court where vicious establishment official Jurgen Prochnow is on trial for covert, racially-based atrocities. Prochnow is the film's sleeper role as the cold, merciless enforcer, while Ntshona playing Sutherland's key accomplice is also quite a defining character (some may recognise him from "The Wild Geese" in which he played the president in exile Julius Limbani). Susan Sarandon, Michael Gambon, Paul Brooke, John Kani and Ronald Pickup have smaller roles.

There's a few unsettling moments and gathering tension in the manner in which Sutherland's character is perversely ostracised for his 'disloyalty', a pariah whose young son makes him vulnerable to retributions. It's a busy kind of movie with frequent scene interchanges, multiple minor characters and sub-plots but the narrative is pervasive and keeps you engaged.

Caricature of a troubled time

[pierremichauville · 5/10 · 23 February 2018]

First of all, I want to mention that I lived in South Africa for around 5 years starting in 1975. After that we all left South Africa, for no politically reasons (my parents changed jobs and I left to complete a degree in Europe).

I must say that I find the superficial depiction of South Africa (rugby, sunshine and braai vleis like an advert said in those days) realistic. I can't speak about the accents since I viewed this movie in French.

Now a series of things struck me as a caricature, excessive or incomplete. Just to name a few in the first 35 minutes...

* Pupils at the start complain that learning Afrikaans would be a second-class education (under a new plan, 50% of their education was to be in Afrikaans), they ask for the same education as whites. Well, all white pupils learned Afrikaans and obviously the Afrikaner pupils (whose parents are portrayed as the nasty or naive rulers) had their whole education in Afrikaans. (This is increasingly getting more difficult under the ANC, BTW) In fact, in those pre-globalization days Afrikaans was increasingly more important to get a good job in South Africa (Afrikaans had nearly twice as many mother-tongue speakers than English). There is an inherent contradiction portraying South Africa being run by vicious and powerful Afrikaners and then saying Afrikaans has no importance or that this is what made Bantu Education second rate. (South Africa's public schools today, now teaching far less Afrikaans, are still as dismal...) Hate is what motivated the desire to get rid of Afrikaans. (Hate can be justified. . .)

* The start of the shooting is simplified to make a caricature of the whole scene. From the details known, the police faced around 10,000 menacing people who did not disperse after being asked to do so. Neither did they do so when tear gas was shot. The mob killed at least a police dog and then started stoning the police before the police finally shot.

* I'm unaware of any very young child (like the little toddling sister) being viciously shot. The movie gives the impression that hundreds were killed during that shooting and its immediate aftermath, in fact 23 were killed among which two whites. Dr Melville Edelstein, who had devoted his life to social welfare among blacks was one of them. He was stoned to death by the mob and left with a sign around his neck proclaiming "Beware Afrikaners". Edelstein was not an Afrikaner.

* The whole story of the gardener being tortured because he's looking for his boy and, the movie tells us, having contacted a lawyer really stretches credulity. But I suppose for anyone believing that South Africa was a kind of new Nazi Germany, that's a perfectly normal leap of faith. The security apparatus was cruel and did torture but I very much doubt it tortured parents looking for their children: many parents will have been searching for their children and they were people planning far more nefarious acts... And there lies a problem: André Brink and the movie producer lead us into believing this is a truthful depiction of what happened in Soweto, but I very much suspect it is a just a liberal's impression of what could have happened if a gardener got too inquisitive.

* During the history lesson, a pupil recites that the Afrikaners vanquished all the tribes and then settled all over South Africa. (Nasty I tell you!) In fact, the story is far more complex again, a large part of South Africa was emptied by Zulu kings' wars against other tribes (but they are brave and nice) and the Boers encountered very little resistance. This whole episode of Mfecane was taught at school in those days, the pupil would have recited it. The Afrikaners were even granted land by one Zulu king (Dinuzulu) which they helped beat a rival (Zibhebhu). What? Blacks and Whites fought together, as equal allies?

* In the taxi, the driver says that Zulu, Xhosa, those differences are not important. He may well say that (ANC activist would have said that to a white), but that is far from the reality in South Africa. In fact as apartheid was falling the biggest massacres occurred between blacks of the Zulu-based Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) and the ANC. (Any major movie about that anyone?) The IFP wanted a federal South Africa while the ANC wanted a centralized Jacobine State. Today, all South Africans know for example that Zulu (Zuma) was replaced recently by a Venda (Ramaphosa). Tribal identity was and still is very important.

* In the same taxi scene, Ben Dutoit clumsily tries to show that he shares some past experiences with the driver: grew on a farm, walked the veld bare feet, etc. The driver then says that at least Dutoit could vote (unlike blacks). The Afrikaner history professor is then dumbstruck. At this stage, he is not an opponent to apartheid and, as such, he would have answered that everyone could vote but each in his homeland. That was the very base of apartheid (Transkei had just been granted its "independence"), he would have known that and believed it. André Brink's portrayal does not sound truthful to someone who lived through those days and experienced unabashed support for the regime from most whites (many English speakers also. . .)

* My attention kind of fizzled when Marlon Brando interrogated a witness in court, by now unsurprizingly either very dumb (this doctor's case) or very vicious (his bosses).

we will never be the same now

[welshyvero · 12 December 2001]

We are pupils in the10th grade in Dumont d'Urville in Normandy (France). We are all sixteen and we have been learning English for six years. We watched the film A dry white season in class and we had to write a review on it.

It is a film shot by Euzhan Palcy in 1997 which is based from a novel by André Brink.

The main characters are Ben du Toit played by Donald Sutherland, Captain Stolz played by Jürgen Prochnow, Stanley played by Zakes Mokae and Gordon played by Winston Ntshona.

The plot deals with apartheid in South Africa in 1976. A naïve history teacher Ben du Toit decides to avenge his gardener's death, Gordon, a black man. He is tortured to death by the white police. Ben becomes aware of the issue of segregation in his country and he sides with the blacks.

We all liked this film because it gave another vision of apartheid, more shocking and violent than the one we had imagined. This film is educative because too many people ignore what white men did to the blacks at that time and even recently. Nowadays, colored people endure discrimination in many countries even if apartheid, slavery have been abolished, so it is a very interesting film, it shows a real and current problem : racism which still exists in our society. We don't know if it can make people's mentalities evolve but it will certainly make people question themselves.

We would recommend this film to our friends because we think people are not informed enough about apartheid.

Decent....Brando is Terrific!

[namashi_1 · 6/10 · 30 January 2012]

Based upon André Brink's novel of the same name, 'A Dry White Season' is a Decent Attempt. The Disturbing yet Courageous comes alive on celluloid with sincerity & honesty. Brando, who only has 10-minutes of Screen-Time, is Terrific & Over-Powers every other actor abroad.

'A Dry White Season' Synopsis: Ben du Toit, A schoolteacher, who always has considered himself a man of caring and justice, at least on the individual level. When his gardener's son is brutally beaten up by the police at a demonstration by black school children, he gradually begins to realize his own society is built on a pillar of injustice and exploitation.

'A Dry White Season' is disturbing, honest & courageous. The Adapted Screenplay by Colin Welland & Euzhan Palcy, is sincere. Euzhan Palcy's Direction, on the other-hand, is sensitive. Cinematography, Editing & Art Design, are passable.

Performance-Wise: As Mentioned, Brando is Terrific in a cameo. He over-powers everyone! Donald Sutherland delivers a very genuine performance. Janet Suzman is first-rate. Susan Sarandon leaves a mark. Jürgen Prochnow is excellent. Others lend able support.

On the whole, 'A Dry White Season' is a decent watch.

A Dry White Hero

[ArtVandelayImporterExporter · 7/10 · 18 November 2017]

There's a good movie in here somewhere. Ghetto uprising. Blacks mowed down by racist cops. White-dominated justice system that defends the status quo. But hey, enough about America. The Soweto uprising is fertile ground for a movie. But after a while the blacks fade into the background and it's a movie about Concerned Liberal White Dude and his cheerful, resourceful Black Sidekick. Heck, it's practically Lethal Weapon II. Good performances all around, marred only slightly by the bad fake accents. In every scene she's in, Sarandon seems to hail from a different corner of the British Empire. But none of the ''name'' actors seems to be able to maintain a consistent accent throughout the movie. Hollywood should just let actors speak naturally and let the audience fill in the blanks. This movie was probably quite powerful in 1989, and probably angered many at the injustices still occurring in South Africa at the time. It's pretty easy to imagine devil's horns growing out of the wife's head even moreso than the police captain's. Nowadays it's more of a reminder at how one group of people can treat another group so poorly, based on little more than skin color. A lesson we too easily forget, it seems.

Eventually, they'll need another site for all the bodies.

[thinker1691 · 8/10 · 11 June 2007]

For many years the government of South Africa carried on it's secret, grizzly business of imprisonment, torture and murder. Hundreds and then thousands of black South Africans were detained, arrested, beaten to death causing the numerous unofficial grave sites to overflow. Until then, many whites of South Africa either ignored their murderous brethren's brutalities or feigned ignorance of the atrocities. "A Dry White Season" rips deeply into the social fabric of both white myths, that proclaimed the enemy consisted of Black terrorists and anarchistic communists and the notion every white Africanier knew what was taking place and turned their heads. One family patriarch, Ben Du Toit (pronouched Toy) Donald Sutherland realizes he and his sanitized life style is to blame when a black Gardner and his son are both arrested and murdered without anyone caring. In order to get the government to change, he must challenge the Police Security Forces, or 'Special Branch' and it's formidable figurehead, Captain Stolz (Jürgen Prochnow, who is convincing as the menace behind the murderers). Marlon Brando is curiously interesting as Ian McKenzie as a sympathetic lawyer. Winston Ntshona is Gordon Ngubene a courageous national unafraid of anything except failure. All in all, a great film which needs to be seen by anyone who cares. ****

Break thru cinema

[cs_vernon · 8/10 · 6 March 2005]

Euzhan Palcy is a great director. She has broken many barriers for Black Female Filmmakers. Most of her work has been political with strong impact, as this film is. Never before have we seen such a story told through the eyes of a black woman and done so well that she received critical acclaim.

I have to disagree with Mr. Trevor Moses that this was an awful film. Also, Mr. Moses get your facts straight. The director of this film Ms. Palcy was not a racist hence the amazing cast. And one last thing these actors did this movie for almost nothing, including Robert Redford who did it for FREE, all because they saw her vision. FYI check out www.euzhanpalcy.com

Gripping

[cfnas · 10/10 · 7 February 2004]

The story tells of the terror and horror that abounded in segregated South Africa. The torture of the man servant mirrored that of what the Gestapo did to their victims during World War 2. I thought Donald Sutherland performed admirably, as did the entire supporting cast.

What one piece of dialogue remains with me was the sentence spoken by Marlon Brando when he identified the corrolation between the law and justice, brilliant!

A Dry White Season (1989)

[fntstcplnt · 5/10 · 12 August 2019]

Directed by Euzhan Palcy. Starring Donald Sutherland, Zakes Mokae, Jürgen Prochnow, Janet Suzman, Marlon Brando, Winston Ntshona, Susan Sarandon, Leonard Maguire, Susannah Harker, Thoko Ntshinga, Rowen Elmes, Paul Brooke, Michael Gambon. (R)

Apartheid drama about a white South African teacher (Sutherland) whose gardener (and gardener's son) turn up dead after being arrested and finds himself swept up seeking the truth and justice for their murders. Starts out well, earnest and angry and condemnatory, but in the second half, the narrative loses focus with its investigative thriller elements clashing with heavy-handed (but well-meaning) political tract; the last fifteen minutes or so are so inauthentic and melodramatic that they're downright dopey. Mokae and Brando (in a nicely oblique but magnetic supporting turn) stand out in the cast; Prochnow wisely underplays the villainous caricature he's saddled with, while Sarandon's role is a dimensionless prop. A reworking of the same material with more focus on the lives and perspectives of the black characters (and a far shrewder ending) would be most welcome.

55/100

A different, but great take on the apartheid story

[chipolopolo · 8 January 2004]

Donald Sutherland (one of Hollywood's most undervalued actors) is simply brilliant in this quiet and thought-provoking films. Many black people do not like to see white heroes in films about apartheid or racism. But the truth is, there are many white people who have contributed to the fight for justice, not for black people, but for humanity.

Marlon Brando is also fantastic. Unfortunately, Susan Sarandon's role is quite minimal.

The film is about a white teacher in a posh boys school (whites only) whose gardener asks for his help when his son is arrested and beaten up. The son later dies and the father seeks justice. Sutherland's character is faced with the reality that being a good person and minding one's own business may not be enough, especially when he realises that more is going on in his country than he knows about. As another reviewer has said, Marlon Brando's lawyer character perfectly showcases a brilliant man who has given himself to hopeless causes. he expertly shows in court the injustice that is going on. We see how the legal system worked for the oppressors; knowing this, Brando's character does it anyway. It is the principle that counts. Much like (in a totally different kind of film) King Theoden's words in the Lord of the Rings:The Return of the King, when it is noted that in no way will his army defeat the enemy, replies, 'yes, but we will meet them in battle all the same.' It was people like this who gave of themselves for the sake of others, maybe in future generations to which many of us owe our freedom.

A wonderful film

[creeda1 · 10/10 · 3 October 2005]

This is a wonderful film, superbly acted by a great cast. Everyone is very understated, despite the understandable possibilities of over-acting. Donald Sutherland, Marlon Brando and the little boy are particularly outstanding - but one would really need to list all of the cast! The story shows the courage needed to stand up against the pressure of society when one (somewhat belatedly in our hero's case) discovers the injustices that are daily committed. While there is a lot of blood and gore, for once it simply reflects the situation. The Marlon Brando character is certainly wonderfully acted; his accent was so British it took us quite a little while to recognised him, despite his fairly unmistakable appearance! - we were watching this on television, knowing only that it took place in South Africa. My compliments to all involved!

Good, but something you've seen before...

[dexter-3 · 8/10 · 16 August 1999]

This is, unfortunately, a standard but powerful story that reaches the screen fairly often, but is well-handled here. Although there is not a lot of new material or unique presentation in "A Dry White Season," I found that I was unsettled through much of the viewing. The horrors of the apartheid system are personally documented by the characters in this film, and we are all sadder for it.

"A Dry White Season" depicts the almost inhuman depravity of a state machine that caused tremendous pain and misery to support a corrupt and evil system. Sutherland is good in the title role, but Janet Suzman (as his wife) delivers the best scene when describing her longing for the status quo and confusion at her husband's behavior in a seemingly futile contest against public opinion and the state machine. His children are interestingly drawn supporting opposite sides of the conflict, although his son seems a bit too enlightened for a boy his age. Zakes Mokae and Winston Ntshona are good in their roles, Prochnow delivers the standard bad guy performance as the "executioner," and Sarandon is wasted in a role not fully developed.

The film is not without faults, however. The true consequences of du Toit's actions don't seem to REALLY cause an impact on his life. I find it very difficult to believe that a single man can set so many forces in motion with so little regard to the consequences, only to reap a tremendous amount of pain and sorrow, and not be almost crushed by the burden. Regardless, it is a compelling story of people who struggle for a great ideal while fully knowing the personal outcome. I found that I had similar reactions when watching "Mississippi Burning," which I recommend as a good companion piece.

I'd rate the film an "8" out of "10," but with extra points included for the power of the drama rather than just rating the film as presented.

Apartheid will make you angry.

[mark.waltz · 8/10 · 3 December 2011]

In "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington", James Stewart fought for a lost cause, the only cause he believed was worth fighting for. Fifty years after that iconic film moment, Donald Sutherland fought for another lost cause, risking everything he held dear in the process. This time, that cause is the eradication of injustice in South Africa after dozens of black children are murdered and their loved ones face annihilation for their grief-stricken protests.

Sutherland plays the employer of one of the fathers of one of the victims, and when more murders occur (disguised as suicide), he finds himself involved in bringing the leaders of this outrage to justice. This causes friction between him and his scared wife (the lovely Janet Suzman, Academy Award Nominee for "Nicholas and Alexandra") who fears for the destruction of their safe family structure, safe mainly because they are white. A court trial (with Marlon Brando in an Oscar Nominated role as the attorney fighting this lost cause) results in more government corruption and Sutherland turns towards a sympathetic reporter (Susan Sarandon) to help him expose the cruelty of apartheid and bring the culprits (who are more like a government supported mafia) to justice.

This is a disturbing topic, and moments of this film will bring on anger towards the hideous cruelties of the perpetrators. But it shows that even with the most corrupt government, there will always be people who will fight against it regardless of the dangers towards themselves. Sutherland is outstanding, and it is really nice to see Brando in a role bigger than a cameo. He may only be on for 20 minutes, but he is worthy of the acclaim he received. Susan Sarandon provides a nice cameo, probably because as a fighter of lost causes herself, she believed in the film's message. While I know little about the actual details of this corruption, I feel others like me may benefit by seeing the film to expose them to what is going on outside of their own back yard.