Abstract:
The study focuses on two contemporary LGBTQI films that were periodised during the
South African Border War: Kanarie (Olwagen 2018) and Moffie (Hermanus 2019) with
the aim to identify myths prevalent in their visual representation. The dissertation
argues that in order for toxic mythology to be subverted, a process of queering must
unfold. Julie Reid offers an important insight with regard to the ethical value of myth.
To Reid (2011:344) “myth … carries the risk of inciting damaging social action [that]
validates the critical analysis of myth, especially in terms of the ethical nature of its
content”. In the study, these beliefs or myths include hegemony, religious superiority,
nationalism, hegemonic discourses of hetero-patriarchy, heroism, patriarchy, white
supremacy, militarism and heteronormativity. These myths are toxic in their nature. The
study examines the prevalence of these myths in visual culture during the War and then
identifies them in the two films. This is done in order to find whether Moffie and Kanarie
are LGBTQI cinematic products that show progression from the antedating myths of the
War era films, as well as to identify other visual representations that were produced
during this time.
The analysis adopts Queer Theory as well as Barthesian semiotics to arrive at the
conclusion that, for the most part, Moffie and Kanarie still serve mythology that is
unrelatable to the social and political context of post-apartheid South Africa. These
myths are only consumed by a particular faction of South African society. Moreover,
their production is unethical given the responsibility that producers and artists have to
not perpetuate toxic myths but rather queer them. This is especially important since it
is insufficient simply to present alternative figures such as homosexuals visually in order
to satisfy a supposed liberal product. On the contrary, the representation of
homosexuality is not liberal at all if gay figures still conform to toxic myths of masculinity.
iii
It is crucial that, if gay figures are represented, their representation should queer the
myths that suppressed them in the first place. Otherwise, their inclusion is
inconsequential and meaningless. It is thus disappointing that Moffie and Kanarie, for
the most part, subscribe to the aforementioned myths in their visual representation of
gay figures to satisfy the kind of mythology with which audiences are, sadly, familiar.
