Talk:Africa Addio

Allegations by Ebert

Why are his allegations the second thing you have to read about the movie after the depicted events? When you read the full review on Eberts site, he doesnt provide any evidence for his accusations - no sources about the hippo hunt, nothing. This makes the artice biased and disrespects the filmmakers who put their life in danger, getting in the line of fire in their helicopter, trying to report about a genocide. If you you cannot provide those sources for Roger Ebert, then stop quoting him, using his reputation as evidence, which it isnt. And if you have a problem with the fact that certain things in the human history happened because they put a group of people you like or belong to in a bad light, it doesnt mean you should or have the right to change history; this is propaganda. -Not signed, 85.176.106.129 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrEvilGuy (talk • contribs) 09:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, see my comments below under the subheading, "this article needs fixing." Again, I've re-removed Ebert's allegations about the Boer cattle-moving scene. His allegations are based on the American, heavily edited version, as well as his poor memory (I've read enough of his reviews to see how he mixes things up a lot and doesn't seem to pay enough attention sometimes). — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrEvilGuy (talk • contribs) 09:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not gonna go put it back as it was because I think you guys make valid points, but I think it's worth including some mention of various critics who accused the pair of staging scenes, considering these allegations dogged them throughout much of their career. I'm considering rewriting that passage to simply state that various critics publicly expressed doubt about the authenticity of the film, citing Ebert's review and a few others but not listing specific allegations. Considering the page also has Jacopeti and Prosperi's response to charges of staging footage, I think it reasonable to include at least some reference to the people doing the accusing. It doesn't matter if those accusations were correct or not, it matters to the historical record that they were made, and it becomes difficult to understand the controversy Africa Addio engendered without some discussion of this. Mr Subtlety (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Whitewashed Article

The authors and protectors of this article are trying to make this film out to be a "lightly European slanted' look at atrocities committed by black Africans" when that could not be farther from the truth. I've recently watched the entire film and its one of the most racist films of the past 50 years and throughout the net cherished by white supremacists and nationalists. Please refrain from so much protectionism and instead include more balanced aspects of this film. Thanks Catherine Huebscher (talk) at (9:29 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Before I continue, I want to point out that I am not the subject of the paragraph above; my only edits have been to remove spurious formatting marks and insert spaces where required. I am sure that the film is as horrible as Ebert's review states, but at the moment the article is seriously flawed, because it is full of assertions. E.g. "The film is edited with a clear pro-white European and pro-Colonialist slant," which is no doubt true, but is presented as objective fact when it is actually an opinion. Wikipedia demands that this kind of thing be referenced in the style "According to X, the film is etc." Given the existence of so much controversy that shouldn't be too hard. I would do this myself, but I simply don't care about the subject. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed and I will make changes to the povs. Thanks Catherine Huebscher (talk) at (3:20 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Hitler cherished animals = animals are evil? - Just thought I'd point out that racist groups cherishing something is a silly argument/point; they also cherish traditional families as far as I'm aware too... --Kurtle (talk) 18:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the critics could show us were the film is actually in error or misrepresenting something. Then we could place that in the article one by one. Of course the critique would also have to be backed up. --41.19.126.90 (talk) 09:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

fascist italia

Every thing in this film is staged for the camera. They paid an entire village to do the killing in order to justify the decolonisation political movement...most Italians are racist, arrogant and full of complexity and inferiority in regard to ethnical issues...so I totally believe that this movie was a stage...as we all know the African tribe they hunt with respect and after killing they prey they always perform a thanks giving pray for nature..see the San tribes, aborigines and etc. the movie Avatar (2009)depicts exactly the life of many indigenous that have been killed, exploited and looted in the name of peace, love and non sense religion (see the connection between catholic, fascist and Nazi with the "cross"..Those who made this film and their financier should be put to trial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.117.223 (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Trollin ain't what it used to be —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.241.77 (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more.. Crusty007 (talk) 02:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

exploitation filmEpirenton (talk) 07:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

A more objective and neutral opening would be "Africa Addio is a 1966 Italian documentary film"

Though it seems to have negative connotations, unfortunately basically everything could be considerend and exploitation film --Kurtle (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

NOT an exploitation genre film

I have altered the opening to state it is a documentary, and not an exploitation genre film. I know several dozen movies of the italian exploitation genre, in fact i have a friend who takes pride in collecting all the italian exploitation movies on DVD's. This is not one of them, this is an actual documentary of what happened there, and it certainly is NOT racist, because the movie clearly shows white people at their worst during several safari scenes. As one person who saw it in 1967, when it came out,states:"It squarely placed the blame on both the whites AND the black". I personally think it is quite offensive to one of the very few documentaries that really makes an effort to show Africa in the 1960-65 period as it actually was, as honest and untainted as possible, to call it racist. It is a unique piece of film-making, and not 'exploitation' at all. The film makers risked their lives making this film. You disgust me.You should be ashamed of yourselves.IF you alter my alteration, you will go on a full out edit-war with me and i will call in the admins ASAP, and they will see the movie..and you will suffer their wrath. Calling one of the extremely few documentaries of such an important era of African history 'racist' is a blatant effort to try to whitewash African history. You are blaming the messenger for the message. You must take a good look at yourself. Those who learn nothing from from history are BOUND TO REPEAT IT. You prefer to look the other way, which implies you want to do exactly what the movie shows us happened. If I have learned one thing from this movie, it is that Africa hasn't changed one bit in the past 40 years. So that's probably the reason why you want it blotted out from history. You disgust me.You are sickening.Learn from history. Don't try to change the past, try to change the future!Crusty007 (talk) 05:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but the previous version was cited. If you look at the history of the film's makers, they aren't exactly renowned for factual film making, with many scenes faked or allegedly so. Brutal Deluxe (talk) 09:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that, and I do think that the fox-hunting scene African-style might be enacted. However, I have not seen evidence to the contrary anywhere that white colonialists didn't do it that way. If you can find an original source from the time the movie came out (1966-67) that claims fox-hunting never happened that way I'll certainly reconsider. As it is, this documentary stands as one of the very few reminders that it did happen. On the other hand, most of the scenes depicting the slaughtering of the local wildlife is clearly on such a scale they can't possibly have been enacted. Try paying people to dump skeletons on 2 square km with the film budget of documentarists....that's no fake. This movie won a prestigious Italian film award, and would certainly have been massacred in the then-current press if parts of it were totally concocted. The directors were actually indicted for murder (and acquitted) because they were present at several executions. Not exactly fake either.

You should try to compare this movie with White King, Red Rubber, Black Death on one hand (if you have seen it you will understand the pun this entails) and the disgusting colonialistic documentary about Belgian Congo, made during the state visit of the Belgian king Boudewijn in 1955, Bwana Kitoko, on the other hand. If you need a colonialistic racist documentary to complain about, try that last one, it certainly qualifies.

I know the first movie you mention, but could you point me to the second one mentioned? What is the title? --41.151.80.121 (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

there's a wiki page for it on the dutch wikipedia: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bwana_Kitoko Crusty007 (talk) 02:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, there's a short impression of it on Youtube here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mr8cxgHMZSw Crusty007 (talk) 02:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Besides, having seen quite a few exploitation-genre movies, I can most certainly say that there is absolutely no comparison between the two. If anything, the exploitation films try desperately, and with a low budget and poor acting and direction, to accomplish a level of shock that this documentary has absolutely no problem whatsoever to achieve without all sorts of tricks. The average quality of an exploitation movie in all aspects is poor to terrible, whereas I can find no fault at all with this documentary on any artistic level.

I can now also see that some of the accusations of it being fake are done by seriously stupid movie critics who failed to keep paying attention while watching the movie. I direct your attention to this review: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19670425/REVIEWS/704250301/1023

"One dubious scene shows white Boers purportedly leaving Kenya in cattle-drawn wagons for the long trek back to the Cape. "A freedom march in reverse," the narrator explains. "These Boers settled Kenya generations ago, but have been driven from their own country. In fact, cattle-drawn wagons are no longer in general use in Africa, as Jacopetti and Prosperi undoubtedly knew. Real Boers (there are a few among the mostly British white population in Kenya) would probably call up a moving van for their furniture and then fly down to the Cape."

He must have gone for popcorn at the beginning of that scene, where it was very clearly stated that it was a group of Boers doing it exactly the old-fashioned way to call attention on their situation. It was clearly mentioned this was a policital action group trying to make a statement. Nowhere was it ever hinted that Boers where still doing that, yet this movie critic makes the ridiculous assertion above.

The cut a long story short, all I see is a few people who dislike this documentary being too honest and concocting 'fake' and 'racist' labels to prevent it being watched (and only making more people than ever want to see it in the process...everybody knows when he is being censored). Those who refuse to learn from the past have the secret desire to repeat it. Crusty007 (talk) 21:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Readjusted to documentary...i actually BOTHERED to read the reference, and you clearly didn't. It has the words africa addio in 3 places, one of them is the index at the back of he book. The other two places inside the reference where it IS cited, it is simply placed inside a sentence with some exploitation movies as a sort of 'yeah these movies fit in here too...'. At NO PLACE inside the referenced book is Africa Addio actually given ANY attention. Read the damn reference your bloody self.Crusty007 (talk) 04:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe that the genera of this movie is Shockumentary as opposed to exploitation film. Here is a list of things we know are staged.

Fox Hunt, farms for sale, Boer walk to SA (although the Boers went to the trouble to do that themselves), Girls on trampolines, African girl dance (although they were acting for a SA movie), the SA gold at the end (but that's real gold. Anyone got any they are 99% certain are "staged". Opinions on what is staged and what is not could go into the relevant interpretation section.Basilbeshkov (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that any settling of controversies should be done only with proper references. Unfortunately I don't live in Italy, but I'm pretty sure someone that does, can look up old paper reviews in the libraries there. Just stating idiocies as 'most racist movie ever' clearly shows the commenter hasn't actually seen any REALLY racist movies like 'Der Ewige Jude','Jud Süß', or 'Birth Of A Nation'...believe me, those movies will really flip your switch. If you think 'Avatar' is racist than I have no words for the sheer ******* you are. (Like I said, I have no words for it). Let me emphasis the PROPER part on 'proper references' btw..Crusty007 (talk) 02:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Reception is missing

A full section on reception of the film is missing. At the IMDb it gets 7 out of 10 based on 25 reviews. --41.19.126.90 (talk) 09:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Interpretation Section to Replace Rampant Criticism

This movie is hugely controversial and liable to many conflicting interpretations. I believe that the conversation would be better guided if various interpretations were laid out and argued for like positions in a debate. That way the content (some of which was staged and some of which is authentic, all of which is of historical value) will be separated from what people think of the content. Broadly positions can be summarized as "Movie Shows Africans as They Are," "This is the most racist movie ever," and "Historical documentary, intended to ruffle feathers". Let's note that all opinions are valid, and we have the "Movie Shows Africans as They Are," camp to thank for the movie's availability on the internet.

The film makers deliberately made this movie a challenge to interpret. In the opening, they state that Africa's effort to "become more modern [is] so recent there is no room to discuss it at the moral level." The film makers clearly state that they are bidding adieu to the old image Africa. Additionally, the original Italian narration (subtitles) differs significantly from the English narration making things that much more difficult.Basilbeshkov (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

This article needs fixing

First off, I'm removing the paragraph about Ebert's allegation of that the Boers moving in cattle-drawn wagons was staged. As noted above in the article, Ebert watched the American version, so it makes sense he would suspect that. But in the Italian film, Jacopetti clearly states that "They could have chosen boats or airplanes as the English did to return to Europe. Instead, with controversial intentions, they loaded their families and possessions on old wagons to return to their homeland".

I'm also removing the paragraph about the fox-hunting scene. "Some discussion exists" is not a good enough reason to include it in a wikipedia article, particularly if it can't be cited.

If people want to look at "discussions" about Africa Addio, they can go look around on internet forums and such. Wikipedia is not the place for that.

As suggested elsewhere on this talk page, I'm going to create a "reception" header. That's where I'll move the "allegations of pro-colonialism". Except I can only move the Ebert citation because the rest isn't cited.

If someone wants to improve this page, I recommend citing non-English movie critics who have seen the Italian version to elaborate on the "reception" of the film.

I'll also change the header "International opening crawl variations" to "Italian vs. English version". Someone should probably come up with a better header and elaborate on this section, though I like the quotations of the opening text to illustrate the difference.

Finally, the running time discussion is somewhat silly because citing IMDB isn't much different than citing another wikipedia article. But I'll keep it there for reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrEvilGuy (talk • contribs) 08:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

There is literally zero evidence that a group of Boers travelled from Kenya via ox wagon all the way to the Cape. A journey of that is ridiculous to contemplate to anyone familiar with Africa's sheer size. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.101.94.99 (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

longer version

I am sure there is a longer version to this film, as there are several scenes missing from the 140min version. Like the one about the lecture on the White brain. --197.228.32.215 (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Not only that, the Miss Uhuru sequence is missing and also the one where the new cronies got a White nanny for their kid. --41.151.235.106 (talk) 21:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)