About Advertise
Movies
Viva Riva!

Viva Riva!

by Kavish Chetty / 06.10.2011

I have developed a taste for flesh and so here I cannibalise our young to make my point. In Mahala’s previous coverage of Viva Riva, Colin Macrae speaks of director Djo Tunda Wa Munga as “an African Tarantino“. Interestingly, not the African Tarantino, but an African Tarantino – marking him indefinitely as one amongst many potential Africans who might have that lusted-after medal pinned to their lapels (“good job, old chap”). I can hear the distant echoes of Wole Soyinka and Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o grunting with displeasure. Listen carefully and you will hear them too: they have a vexed six-decade history of irritation inside them. Sometime around the 1960s, the western middle-classes developed African (and other ex-colonial) literatures as an object of desire (“look what the natives made, honey!”). It was an inevitable recolonisation of African culture that has its legacy everywhere – see the sweating tourist with his camera slung vigilantly over sunburned neck at the African market, shopping amongst cultural relics for a mantelpiece ornament, or a Congolese mask which complements his Tibetan rugs. In trying to appreciate these foreign literary artefacts, western critics would always reduce and compare. The New York Times wrote of Midnight’s Children, “a continent finding its voice” (really?). Elsewhere you might hear of Africa producing ‘its James Joyce’ or ‘its Anne Frank’. The logic is what we might call stage-ist: history is viewed as a linear sequence in which the modern “West” is the apex, and all ex-colonial cultures are lagging behind, slowly lurching towards the desirable modernity of their old colonizers. This motivates the endless comparison: We, the West, have our James Joyce already – 90 yeas ago, in fact – and now you can have yours. You are condemned, by this haughty judgment, to emulation alone.

Viva Riva!

This threat is there in the poisoned compliment of “African Tarantino” – yes, you have raised your culture into a product which is intelligible and respectable, but only by my standards, motherfucker. It is also a threat which has its strongest chokehold on African cinema. But does this logic hold? Does it not point to something deeper – the repressed western inheritance of modern African “culture” – which sets alight the question that all liberals fear: is it impossible to produce an “authentic” African cinema or book because such an authenticity has never existed in the first place? The book and the film, these are irresistibly the largesse of colonial contact. They bring with them whole ideological cores about how culture can be transmitted (should be transmitted). So when we mine all the way to the naked structure of a film, we discover that it can only be ‘western’, and that at its summit the greatest independence of African cinema achievable can only be as a ‘hybrid’ thing. Charitably it might be said to ‘champion the liminal space’, but its detractors are armed to charge of a “schizophrenia”. You have become me already, just not enough. What can actually be done about this? At the bare minimum, African film-makers have to use a technological medium that was not their own (the camera). At the bare minimum they have to borrow from a vocabulary of techniques that was not their own. It seems that all attempts to locate ‘authenticity’ are doomed to hang, because the very method of telling an African story is itself not African (compare this to those nostalgic and lavished precolonial ‘oral traditions’).

It is possible – even if many would loathe the suggestion – that this points us toward a new universalism that was created by modernity. I would usually interject here on Theodor Adorno’s thesis on the “Culture Industry”, but I’ve delayed the substantive review for too long (you are welcome to hunt it up; it’s a fascinating and ever-relevant read). But of course, this ‘universalism’ is precisely predicated on a violent disavowal and invalidation of old native ways of being. Capitalism conditions whatever possibilities of expression remain – if you dislike my Marxist perspective, you are cordially invited to kiss my ass.

Viva Riva! Poster

The Democratic Republic of Congo hasn’t had an international staging of any of their films in 25 years. Appropriately then, Viva Riva! contains a quarter-century’s worth of repressed misogyny and violence that had just been dying to escape the borders – and, not accidentally, affirm most stereotypes we have of Congo (and its brother ‘the Congo’, the proverbial heart of darkness to its West) as a corrupt, chaotic carnival of torture and developmental failure (seriously, pardon the alliteration). In its representation in this film, you might even go as far as to lavish it with that third-world superlative “vibrant”, although wear a bulletproof vest if you do it anywhere near me. What’s most remarkable is that it took them 25 years to get a picture out, and in one film, they’ve made most of our film industry look like its run by a team possessing the collective intellect of your average copywriter. Viva Riva! gets the ‘genre picture’ right on target. For comparative purposes I would choose one of our latest local blockbusters, How to Steal 2 Million. That film is a ham-fisted half-noir piece of shit, which inelegantly grafts a bunch of American clichés into South Africa in a way that is just bankrupt with impossibility. Viva Riva! on the other hand makes its action-thriller format breathe. I was entertained, which is the first half of cinematic joy, and my expectations were almost constantly subverted, which is really the second. Another critic – whose brother works as a firefighter in Kinshasa – made the (oh, maybe a little controversial and yet accurate) remark that where the aestheticisation of violence is always stylized in American cinema, it seems strangely at home in Congo. Here violence, of which there are oildrums in quantity, is not beautiful, but comically real. Because, hell, this shit could probably go down in Africa.

Okay, let’s get real for a minute: it probably wouldn’t. This film borrows heavily from an overblown action cinema heritage. The protagonist Riva is a womanizer, lover of money, double-crosser, asshole and loves to party and fuck whores; if he lived on the Flats, he’d be called a ‘Jolletjie’. The chief love interest, Nora, is a slim and sexual male fantasy, unhappily married to a major gangster, which cranks up her desirability for an idealist like Riva all the way to 11. The stakes are several gallons of petrol, during a Congolese petrol crisis, which Riva stole from some Angolans and is planning to sell in Kinshasa, before kicking back and living the life. And the jeopardy is these same Angolans, tracking Riva ruthlessly to kill him and get back their petrol. If Riva’s seduction of Nora is a template for how to impress a Congolese broad, then the trick is basically consensual rape: harass them, give them unwanted kisses, show up at their bathroom window, give them some good head and – Abracadabra, bitch! – you’ll be getting it reverse cowgirl style in the bathtub. Misogyny is this film’s bread and butter. Actually, sex is all over the place, whether harem-bound, lesbian or implied foursomes. During one particularly erotic encounter, a moistened dame in the row behind me purred “oh, viva Riva!” The sex is nearly as explicit as the violence (no cocks: cocks whether erect or inert are the last anxiety of our culture). In fact the film opens on a telling note. When I saw Nora pulling aside her panties, doing a half-squat in a field and pissing out a stream of steaming, golden urine, I knew what kind of party I had been invited to. Should’ve bought a trench-coat.

Viva Riva!

One of the greatest achievements of Viva Riva! is that it takes tenured cinematic traditions and works them in so seamlessly that you don’t feel barked at by your critical faculties, telling you: “this is cheap mimicry and nothing more.” It has an enjoyable, fast-paced energy, the almost slapstick extremity of a Machete, constant reversals of fortune – don’t get me wrong, it is definitely working within the rules, but at least bending them if not shattering them, and at least bending them muscularly.

What remains then is to do justice to this film by bookmarking some of its finer moments. Immediate accolade for most awesome actor goes to the serial Angolan bad-ass Cesar (Hoji Fortuna). This guy is such a piss-take of a character: he walks with a constant stoop like a buzzard, is dressed in ivory-white pimp gear with a pair of khaki sneaks (no predictable crocodile skin for this dude); he cuts an incompetent and yet brutal villain, very amusingly portrayed. Elsewhere, the director has a George Martin indifference to his characters, slaughtering them whimsically – and, admirably, not even lingering on the deaths of the more important cast; they are just inconsequential collections of plasma for his wholly violent narrative. The film is well-paced, buoyed by its action and sex, and nowhere else are you going to hear the rather sickening quotation, “I will carve out her vagina, cut out her ovaries and feed them to the dogs.” Or see a tortured man get punched so viciously in the bollocks, any man who didn’t belong to cinematic fiction would die of neurogenic shock. Yeah, the Congolese go straight for the genitals, apparently. They don’t stall the inevitable.

So, in the final analysis Viva Riva! is hugely entertaining – and definitely hugely problematic: I expect many an Africanist to justifiably point out that its women are punching bags and that what little of a tourism industry the DRC has left will dry up immediately after the world gets hold of this. But the director has a cynical reply about his responsibility to his state and the necessity of all this brutality: “My society is very macho,” he says. “My society has a problem with prostitution, the family has collapsed.” (Sir, your conservatism is showing. Please put it away). Still, all reports of this place are as a war-torn zone of misery, complete with collapsed economy and deep anomie. Viva Riva! is an important stimulus to revive the ways we think about how Africa produces cinema and how it deals with the problem of authenticity, or just to phrase it more accurately, how to ‘keep it real’. And of course, it’s just plain fucking fun to watch.

13   4
RESPONSES (15)
  1. Codeine says:

    Very interesting. This is the kind of film criticism I want to read. Not this Barry Ronge/Shaun de Waal crap I get when I open up the papers.

    Thumb up2   Thumb down 0

  2. Max says:

    @Codeine, damn right, Kavish is the bauws of film reviews in this country. hooves down.

    Thumb up1   Thumb down 0

  3. SihleMthembu says:

    Another great one Kavish–this film is just great

    Thumb up0   Thumb down 0

  4. Anti-Barry says:

    Nice take on the always troubled question of “authentic cinema”. I reckon for your next one you look into the question of ‘why’ there is a need to define an authentic African cinema.

    Thumb up0   Thumb down 0

  5. impressed the pants off says:

    absolutely awesome review. tres cool, finally someone with a brain and who can write.
    and i havent even seen the film yet.

    Thumb up0   Thumb down 0

  6. Anonymous says:

    Graduate scholar Chetty prattles on about attitudes of the western middle-classes and western critics before getting to the damned point of the piece. He is at pains to highlight the faults of both supposedly homogeneous groups. Yet he displays a remarkable talent for adopting the same patronising register he attributes to the western middle-classes (“good job, old chap”, “look what the natives made, honey!”), a register he often directs towards his reader.

    Chetty bemoans the faults of the western middle-classes who allegedly developed African literature. In fact, they did not develop African literature, though they may have commodified the genre. Alarmingly Chetty’s Marxist perspective neglects this point. Consider, for example, Heinmann executive Alan Hill’s founding of the African Writers Series in 1962. Works were published in London and African cities, mostly for the purposes of study at English schools and universities. With the winds of change blowing across the continent, there was a growing market for African writing in England. This market was not the middle class, however, considering the working middle class consisted of – amongst others – shop stewards and textile workers. Of course England’s middle class alone does not constitute Chetty’s western middle-classes (whatever they are) but it is nonetheless an illuminating case study.

    To deem film “a technological medium” that does not belong to Africans (“is not their own”) because we did not invent the camera is as simplistic as saying literature does not belong Africans because we did not invent the ball-point pen. This is a case of post hoc, ergo propter hoc; because the Western invention of the camera precedes filming of African stories, says Chetty, the stories filmed are not truly African. Thankfully there exist many films that disprove Chetty’s simplistic theory. For a start, try Djibril Diop Mambéty’s Hyénes.

    Eloquence and self-proclaimed loftiness aside, Chetty succumbs to the same faults he mocks in others. The author begins criticising the modern “West” before stating “The Democratic Republic of Congo hasn’t had an international staging of any of their films in 25 years.” Why is the arrival of Viva Riva! on an international stage noteworthy? Surely Chetty’s international reference alludes to the same “universalism… created by modernity” he is at pains to dismiss.

    As Chetty himself might say, “If you dislike my perspective, you are cordially invited to kiss my ass.”

    Thumb up1   Thumb down 0

  7. Kavish says:

    @anonymous

    1. “good job, old chap” etc., are in quotation marks precisely to signify that they are imagined (comic) quotations of a haughty bourgeois and not my own opinion, therefore your first paragraph is irrelevant.

    2. I did not say western middle-classes “developed African literature”, but that – and it would help to read the full sentence here – “developed African literature as an object of desire”. Therefore, your second paragraph is irrelevant. (your introduction of “commodification” is presupposed, and expanded in the example of the tourist)

    3. I wrote “the very *method* of telling an African story is itself not African”, not as you accuse me of, “the *stories* filmed as not truly African.” The difference is as elementary as form and content, and your third paragraph is thus irrelevant. (you may want to read David Atwell’s “The British Legacy in Anglophone African Literary Criticism”, which will reveal how complex what you libel as “Chetty’ simplistic theory” can be when exposited in an academic journal, as opposed to a streetwise youth culture portral)

    4. “I” was not “at pains to dismiss” the question of modernity and universalism – again, you need to read more patiently – but said that “many would loathe the suggestion”. Also you wrote I begin criticsing the modern West – where? does a select comparative tendency to refigure non-Western art in a Western idiom condemn the far more enormous and overdetermined “West”, or even modernity? To answer, it doesn’t. Second you linked this criticism to my remark on Congolese cinema having not had representation for 25 years. Re-read what you’ve written, and then try to convince yourself that this is not a non-sequitur. Your fourth paragraph therefore is also an irrelevant criticism.

    Dear Anonymous, you have imagined your own target, as your inability to read my piece correctly has you shadowboxing your own projected presuppositions. You’re going to need to get more sophisticated than that if you want to get serious with me.

    Thumb up0   Thumb down 1

  8. Anonymous says:

    Um, anonymous, textile workers and shop stewards are not the middle-class, they’re the working class. That seems pretty obvious.

    Thumb up0   Thumb down 0

  9. Lauren Beukes says:

    And plain fucking fun to read this review. Can’t wait to see the film.

    Thumb up0   Thumb down 0

  10. Alex. P says:

    ^^ The Anonymous above is me, sorry.

    Thumb up0   Thumb down 0

  11. ijeoma says:

    Hi, I’m ijeoma, I’m Nigerian and I saw this movie in Ghana last year during an awards judging cycle and I want to kiss you! Your critique is so on point. Wish I could see it again but I doubt Nigerian cinemas would have the balls to show it. Or be allowed to. Yup, I live in a pseudo-religious society.

    Thumb up0   Thumb down 0

  12. Steven says:

    Hi Ijeoma, the film will be released in Nigeria and Ghana from 1 December. Follow release news at http://www.facebook.com/pages/Viva-Riva-directed-by-Djo-Tunda-wa-Munga/171324356251092?ref=ts

    Thumb up0   Thumb down 0

  13. kaizer says:

    The film is a breath of fresh air! Thanks Kavish for the review.

    Thumb up0   Thumb down 0

  14. we must be more ruthless! says:

    this film simply kicks fuckin ass! Its energy negates the attempt to bog it down in intelectual posturing. It doesnt care who invented the camera. It says I AM ME, IF YOU DONT LIKE IT, FUCK OFF! …and I liiiiike it.

    Thumb up1   Thumb down 1

  15. SA boy says:

    Kavish, great review, people who can see clear through great things can improve what they do… If Africans want to make our cinema famous as americans are doing, we need to paint our own environment and realities, not trying to make the USA in Africa.
    Totsi is one of those SA movie who painted SA reality and it was great… Kavish i’m a Congolese living in SA and with friends(one working for Etv) we planing a series mixing SA and other nations living in SA painting the SA live reality if you will like to know about it and work with us conact me: esscris@yahoo.fr

    Thumb up0   Thumb down 0

LEAVE A REPLY

Loading...