Skoonheid (2011) Reviews

• A man yearns for forbidden beauty only to become consumed by it and ultimately leads to abuse and self-hatred.

  hamthemanster2011-08-07

  I did not expect much, going into the theater, but when the sound faded up and I saw the first shot, I knew this was going to be something different. And it was. The director builds tension that is sometimes unbearable, but each uncomfortable scene pushes you through a quiet journey of a man and his inner demon. Breathtaking. Deon Lotz's portrayal of 'Francois' is fearlessly disciplined. It seems slow paced but Oliver Hermanus reveals details and new information in every shot, which are held exceptionally long and really made me feel a Michael Haneke influence. In the visual stillness of the film, the sound design stepped up to the challenge. Although explicit in places, but very functional, the film is gentle and carefully told. Regardless of subject matter - this is a well made film that was treated with a lot of respect by the makers and a rare film-going experience.

• One man's experience of the closet and sexual obsession

  Laakbaar2012-05-11

  What an astonishing, sophisticated, insightful movie this is. Superbly written, superbly acted, it's a film that explores with devastating detail one man's experience of the closet and sexual obsession. For Francois van Heerden, the closet was a comfortable place of control and secrecy. The problems started arising when he became obsessed with Christian, his friend's much younger, sublimely beautiful son. Yes, there have been movies about the closet before, but it's still a story worth telling, especially when it's told in this way with such finesse. It's a shame that the real people out there leading desperate, overly controlled lives like Francois will probably never see films like this. In the end, the closet is a desperate horrible place, despite what Francois will tell you. The climax of this movie is an act of brutal rape. Yes, sexual violence occurs in the gay community as well. However, I didn't come away from this movie thinking the director was conflating the closet with sexual violence, or even Afrikaner culture with excessive violence. This is just an account of one man's obsession and act of rape. It's an interesting twist that the man just happens to be a closeted Afrikaner. The movie has a very strong sense of place. To watch this movie is to spend two hours exploring the soul and landscape of modern Afrikaner South Africa. However, at the same time, the movie is quite universal in the themes it explores. This is a hallmark of a fine movie: fascinatingly local and yet telling universal truths. The realism of the movie is striking. This is a movie that shines a laser-like spotlight on an ordinary man, his psychological constructs, and the people hurt by him because of this. The pace of the movie was deliberately slow. At times, we focus on the minutiae of this man's life. This slow-pace technique forces the viewer to wonder what the character was doing and thinking. At times this style worked so well for me that I was shaken (eg the scene near the end when Francois is looking at the happy gay couple). I would dearly love to have known what he was thinking at this point. I desperately wanted this man to see the light, to experience a little redemption. And of course to face justice. But Hermanus and Lotz don't help us with this. In the end we are alone in this inner struggle, as is Francois. There were other times, however, when I found the slow pace, well, a little on the overly slow side. Particularly, the scene where he checked into the hotel. This was the part of the film that worked for me the least. If you enjoy movies with this theme, don't miss this one. It is under-rated on IMDb.com.

• Brilliantly opaque

  p-stepien2012-01-11

  In Hermanus's sophomore feature we receive a character study about a repressed Afrikaner homosexual family-man, who starts obsessing about his nephew. A movie focused solely on the main character, not a likable man by any length due to his bubbling volcanoes of sexual frustration coupled with a culturally inflicted hate towards moffies (gays) and blacks. Enough said that the rating means I liked the movie, despite it's slow pacing and vague storytelling. I must say however that my review is more a direct response to JvH48 review, which I found very lacking and miscommunicated. 1) "An indirect result of falsely reporting his car stolen (why?), is that uncle and nephew finally meet." After the car was stolen he reported it to his family and this resulted in his daughter being told of this fact and hurriedly ending her beach day with Christian. The uncle and nephew finally meet as the first called the latter to have him picked up. 2) "Their conversation seems not to run very smoothly, however. The dialogue falters very often, seemingly no stepping stone for meeting again." Their conversation was not intended to run smoothly. It was supposed to be awkward for Christian. 3) "Nevertheless, they continue talking in the uncle's hotel room (why?)." Christian wanted to borrow money from his rich uncle, hence he went with him to the hotel room to further discuss the loan. As it is between uncle and nephew he found it a natural family occurrence... Most likely the money retrieved from the bank in the penultimate scene is for Christian and his business. 4) "Though what happened in the hotel room can be expected to have severe impact on family relationships, we see no reference to it in any later scene. At least the daughter should know, given her close relation with the nephew." No. That is exactly the point. This occurrence was kept hidden within the family. The movie seems to say that in the Afrikaner culture swiping all the dirt under the carpet is just a way of life. Hence apart from Christian's family cutting ties with Francois and his family the attempted rape had no direct consequences. 4) "For example, the uncle buys an IPod (with o) for this nephew, after hearing that he was in need of an IPad (with a). We see him carrying the IPod along all the time, but never gets the chance to hand it over and have his mistake exposed." Why? Why did the mistake have to be exposed? The iPod served it's purpose as an symbol of Francois's obsession. 5) "And with this closing scene still on our minds, we were sent home without a clue how everything ties together, nor how it makes logical sense." The movie ends with Francois paying out money, most likely to give them to Christian, given his remorse for what happened (also the scenery in the background is Cape Town, but only a knowledgeable observer would notice). After going to the bank Christian by chance sees a couple of gays kiss in a restaurant and feels envious about them and sad about his life. End movie. Everything nicely tied in together and the movie is beautifully punctuated.

• A film of merit, but beware the "uncle"/"nephew" thing

  himbletony2012-05-01

  There seems to be a misapprehension about this movie and is key to understanding it. Francois is not in fact a blood uncle. In the opening wedding scene Christian says something ( I can't remember his actual words) which establish that. The opening scene shows Francois transfixed by a vision of a young man known to him last as a boy before the two families lost touch. If he were a REAL uncle, how likely is it that he doesn't already know what he looks like? This changes the whole dynamic of the movie and makes his actions at the later beach scene easier to understand. This movie is very good, but not an easy watch, but I feel that viewers need to know the above, (a point which even a few commercial reviewers got wrong) in order to appreciate its merits.

• Ugly

  hughman552013-06-02

  About 90 minutes into this "film" the main character, Francois (played by Deon Lotz) lures his "nephew", Christian (played by Charlie Keegan), to his hotel room under the pretense that he is too inebriated to get there on his own. Out of nowhere the uncle lunges onto his nephew like a lion taking down an antelope. Then Francois, sitting on his nephew's chest, pinning his arms down with his knees, proceeds to pound his face like a sledge hammer with his fist, hard enough to fracture his jaw, break his nose, and cause some level of brain concussion. "Uncle" Francois then undoes his pants and forces his nephews face into his own crotch and rapes him orally. Blood is everywhere. The nephew, by then, sufficiently injured and in full blown medical shock, is then turned over onto his stomach, pants are pulled down, and the uncle proceeds to rape him anally while strangling him. Just in case this isn't horrifying enough for you, the camera angle is then changed to an overhead shot so that you can see the victims backside as he's being brutalized. His injuries from this attack, both exterior and interior, physical and mental, leave him comatose and unable to move even after he is no longer being physically restrained. This film is the "rape" equivalence of a snuff film. Its only real purpose is to titillate at the basest, and most disgusting, reptilian level. The makers of this crap would have you believe that what happened in that hotel room was the result of repressed homosexuality. Again, just to reiterate, he brutally beat and brutally raped his "nephew". Repressed homosexuality may lead to alcoholism, drug addiction, a secret life of clandestine sex, but it does not lead to sadistic sexual sadism and rape. Either make a film about a repressed homosexual, or make one about a rapist. But do not conflate the two. One is a tortured soul. The other tortures victims. It is unbelievable to read the "10's" here that congratulate this filmmaker on his "penetrating look into the torment of sexual repression". What this actually is, is a glimpse into the soulless evil of sadistic sexual psychopath. Think, Boston Strangler, John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy. Francois, in this film, is not Dennis Quaid in "Far From Heaven". He is a brutal criminal. And about half an hour before the brutal rape you'll discover that he's a racist and a homophobe as well when he travels to the South African plains to an isolated ranch house where he stands around drinking with other racist/homophobes until they get drunk enough to dull their mutual disgust for one another enough so that they can have gross-out sex with each other while watching porn. Those two wonderful scenes take up about five minutes of screen time. The other hour and thirty- two minutes is composed of Francois thinking, thinking, thinking. Looking, thinking, looking. Thinking, looking, thinking. Staring, looking, thinking, looking, staring. The only mercy, which you are as of yet unaware, is that there is no raping going on. There is very little dialog. And what there is, is banal. Then the gross-out sex in the ranch house with a bunch of sweaty fat old men. Then the brutal, and truly horrifying, rape; and that's about it. This is a sick, sick, movie. Not because it shows something horrible that is difficult to watch, or shouldn't be explored, but because it attempts to explain a crime, or gain sympathy for a criminal, by portraying that criminal as a victim of a repressive society, and his crime as the byproduct of that repression. THAT, is criminal. Yes, we should repress assault, battery, and rape, as much as is humanly possible. Those are crimes. Prosecute, and then off to prison you go for a possible twenty-five years to life. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.00. And do not make a stupid movie surrounding the crime. Oh, yeah. The ending (as if this couldn't get any worse). Francois is out alone at a restaurant for lunch and sees a happy gay couple across the dining room sharing romantic glances with one another. He looks wistfully (the looking, staring, thinking - again) as if to imply, "if only I could be "out" I wouldn't have to brutally beat and rape my nephew." Hey idiot boy, writer/director Robert Hermanus, sexual battery, assault, and rape, are not the by products of sexual repression. That you are confused about this is - interesting. I don't know what is more disturbing, this film, or that there are some out there who think that this garbage is an insight into repression. This film panders to a gay audience (I am one), in a truly egregious, creepy, and insulting, way. No thanks. It is of no importance whatsoever that Deon Lotz gives a good performance of - someone... It's in the wrong film.