A critical reading of the myths in Oliver Hermanus’s Moffie (2019) and Christiaan Olwagen’s Kanarie (2018)

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.