1. In general, what did you like and dislike about the film?
> The movie itself is great in my opinion. It might not be the best movie of all time, but it has a strong screenplay and the actors did such a good job in their perfomance that you can experience the whole story without thinking about anything else. What I liked about the film is that you can understand most of the context and learn about one of the most important men of South Africa's history, I gotta admit that I didn't know much about Mandela until I read about him in this class and watched the movie.
What I didn't like about the whole thing was that they could use the real footage of Nelson talking to the people through TV, It was a wasted opportunity. The last problem with the film was the sudden ending, It felt unexpected and wasn't a good conclusion.
2. In your own words, how would you compare the "various Mandelas;" the ones from the article and the one from the film?
>Well, the two Mandelas are very different one from another. One is a "troublemaker" and the other would be an "angel". The first one is the Mandela is the one that can do everything to get what he wants, even if that means that things are gonna get violent, that Mandela was revolutionary and aggressive man. I gotta admit that he appears at the beginning of the movie, until he gets caught. At that moment he changes to a better man, I think that he gets the time to think and understand that he can survive and convince the people that he can evolve as a person. That is the Mandela that gets shown on the Film, the one that says no to violence and tries his best to use the dialogue to get to everyone, that Mandela was a mature man.
I think that anyone can be the first one, everybody can use violence to try to change the world or their surroundings. Second Mandela was truly unique in this way, because few people could achieve as much as he did through non violent means, through that experience he also learned much self control and humility, further proving that he has evolved and improved as a person and a leader.
3. What was the role that Winnie Mandela played in the film? Think about the contrast between her and the other ANC members.
>Winnie was a problem by the end , it was a noble act of her to follow Nelson's ideals but I think that she got everything wrong about the way to do it. Yeah, she was fighting for what she believed in but It was influenced by the first Mandela, the reckless and destructive man that got caught. The contrast between her and the ANC is that the last group were capable of making dialogue to get what they want and even if that was the case Winnie wasn't someone proper to follow, her motivation was her anger and her resentment for the people that the whites made suffer.
4.- How do you compare the role of Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress in the struggle against the apartheid and in the post-apartheid South Africa to the Concertación and their role in the struggle against Augusto Pinochet's dictatorship and in post-dictatorial Chile
>If we talk about what make them similar is that they wanted to restore human rights in the country. Mandela was a leader like Allende and instead of eliminate the people that doesn't think like the goverment they just put it in jail. The ANC and the Concertacion could achieve what they wanted at the end, and that was a some kind of freedom in the new democracy that was installed.
About post Apartheid and post dictadura the common thing is that the new goverments promised changes and make things right, i mean, make justice and change the legislation to be a fair and better place but they haven't been able to achieve that 'till now .
I think you have a good point when you say that anyone can be the first Mandela, but I don't think it's that simple. Yes, anyone can be a revolutionary and throw stones at white people, but he, even in his violent ways, was a leader and was beloved by his people. That is what makes the diference.
ResponderEliminari have no long trousers gn