November 1, 2010

the uprising of hangberg: review by “BD”, source uncredited

Filed under: 2010 - The Uprising of Hangberg — ABRAXAS @ 8:46 pm

councillor jp smith sent this “review” to journalist khadija sharife of africa report. he claims to have had the review forwarded to him from a colleague. he also claims not to know where the “review” was “published”. i have trawled the internet using google but have not been able to locate the “review” anywhere on the web. perhaps it’s from the same disinformation laboratory that concocted so-called photographic evidence that ikram halim and delon egypt were throwing stones on 21 september. interesting…

15 Responses to “the uprising of hangberg: review by “BD”, source uncredited”

  1. helge Says:

    SO an EYEWITNESS account is ‘factually incorrect’? Is BD saying that the eyewitness is lying? If so, how does BD know this so ‘factually’? In whose PAY is BD? Have innocent people not had EYES SHOT OUT? Need I go on?

    Knowing Kaganof’s work a…nd the power of his intuitive insight, not to mention the passion of his commitment to documentation and filming of the HIGHEST ORDER, I think BD has got his/her UGLY knickers in a very silly knot! And if the ‘right to know campaign’ hopes to have any credibility, it had better take stock. The right to know is not an exclusive priority of a few select politicians who decide what it is we need to be fed.

  2. helge Says:

    and in case bd is unaware, kaganof is an award winning film and document maker of international repute. that is fact. i think that in itself speaks volumes.

  3. kid Says:

    Helge’, why the need to defend Kaganof so vehemently?

    From the moment I heard of this docci it seemed like a one sided view, which to me is moot. Present the facts from both sides, let the viewer decide.

    “so an eyewitness account is ‘factually incorrect’?”
    You’re kidding right? Thought so, brah 😉

  4. helge Says:

    there is nothing vehement about this ‘defending’. the ‘review’ is so riddled with a crass lack of insight it certainly begged a really vehement response…and i consider this response muted, certainly by my standards! such bland stupidity irks me and in that sense you are quite right, the brainlessness of bd speaks for itself. but i felt compelled to spell out just a small portion of it and thats just the way i am. and it is not me that is saying the eyewitness account is ‘factually incorrect’ – the statement was taken directly from bd’s utterly trite opening paragraph and implies that all the eyewitness accounts were factually incorrect. so brah, you should read a little more closely and pay attention to detail in the heated context of this utterly outrageous incident.
    and oh kid, by the way, is that your real name? it speaks volumes, real or faked!

  5. ABRAXAS Says:

    what is most intriguing about this “review” is that it was sent to a journalist by councillor jp smith who claims that the “review” was “forwarded” to him by somebody. i could not find this “review” anywhere on the internet, so i am guessing that the city disinformation department wrote this “review” themselves!

    the councillor also declined to meet with dylan valley and i in order to do a filmed interview with him about the police atrocities committed at hangberg. it was councillor jp smith who said that the people who had their eyes shot out deserved what they got.

    it’s rich that a da councillor is too cowardly too meet with an independent film crew in the same week that the da are organising all these protest activities against the government’s proposed media tribunal bill. my guess is that there is very little difference between the da and the anc – both parties are proto-fascists waiting to happen.

    take a look at councillor jp smith’s website:

    the mind boggles!

  6. helge Says:

    it is the same ‘handwriting’!

  7. Dylan Valley Says:

    Yes, who is this BD exactly? And why is JP Smith the only person who has ever seen this review?

    I love how he aligns Greg Louw ( a local entrepeneur and Civic Association spokesperson) to Hitler! That is just funny.

    “Kaganof attempts to show that two of the 3 photos are not the correct people.”

    In the film we have 2 of the actual people in the police photographs confessing on camera that they were “stone throwers” in the picture, and not the people who had their eyes shot out; whom councillor Smith was trying to ‘frame’ in their press conference; with a clear message that the people of Hout Bay got what they deserved, no matter how badly maimed they were. Meanwhile people who not even throwing stones to protect their homes, were shot in the face.

    “The most bizarre part of Kaganof’s piece is… presenting the Hangberg rasta’s as the descendants of the indigenous Khoisan people.”

    Unbelievable…I guess JP Smith would rather have us believe we are all just coloured’s and nothing more???

  8. Dissatified Says:

    Though it was inevitable that this would become a political debate via the comments, and though “db”s comments are fairly heavy handed, I found it very hard to take the film seriously given the extremely shoddy camera and editing skills displayed – the quality of the production almost puts it into a realm of high school student picking up a camera for the first time. This therefore makes it very hard to believe that the film makers are seasoned and really know what they are doing, and with the technical aspects lacking, I can only assume that the story telling skills are lacking too.

    As a resident of Hout Bay I know a fair amount in regard to the unfolding of this debacle, the film is clearly a one sided account and should be honest at the beginning and state that this is it’s discourse.

    But again, I’ll reiterate my view that the film making is so atrocious that most viewers probably won’t make it beyond the first ten minutes anyway.

  9. cherry bomb Says:

    “the film is clearly a one sided account and should be honest at the beginning and state that this is it’s discourse.”

    “dissatified”, I recall the following quote from Archbishop Tutu at the very beginning of the film doing just that:

    “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”

    The film never pretends to be sympathetic to all points of view.

  10. jethro louw Says:

    Thank you for those who commented on the doccie. Great work to Kaganof and the team. We have the right to information and we got that. Those who feel that this is propaganda do not stay in Hangberg. They are not affected but they will soon be infected by the violent approach from the system. Kaganof is an independent source of information and BD has got beady eyes. His approach is otherwise, supporting lies.

  11. greer valley Says:

    this ‘review’ has the marks of the DA’s publicist all over it.
    I spoke to someone the other day who has been a DA supporter for many years & she said the documentary made her question why she was supporting the DA in the first place.
    I think the powerful in that it gives a voice to the voiceless. Who cares about the editing? For me, the story is what’s important here, and I think it extends far beyond the parameters of the film. You guys have captured that – and I am grateful.

    peace in hangberg.

  12. politics hater Says:

    well this is the first hangberg post i am super interested in, was totally disinterested but now i surely want to see the film. “bad” publicity is a wonderful thing

  13. Deon-Simphiwe Says:

    It’s alarming that the film-makers are attacked for their brave efforts of giving the voice to the voiceless. But again, it’s the same old cancerous mentality of this country that says: ‘If you’re not
    directly affected, you don’t have to bother. Create a red herring while you’re in that eternal state of ‘deliberate’ oblivion.’
    Well done to Aryan, Dylan and Greg for documenting this madness.
    The people of Hangberg are deeply wounded and I share in their pain. I felt this affliction when I was also part of the solidarity march that took place last
    month or so.
    The issue at hand is simple. There has been a gross violation of human rights and the aesthetics (or lack of as expressed by some people) in the film won’t help us in any way.

  14. Acoustic Strings: The Uprising of Hangberg film is not an art piece | Hangberg Says:

    […] are those who see the documentary as being one sided, as reflected in this seemingly fabricated review. There may well be individuals who are somewhat aligned to the quoted text from Desmond Tutu that […]

  15. The Uprising | Africa is a Country Says:

    […] propaganda. Affected residents also turned on the DA. So much so that the city, and the DA tried to astroturf the film (see also below) with little success. With local government elections looming in South Africa, it […]