Review by Dragan Antulov
1 star out of 4
Long time ago the author of this review has fallen in love
with Australian cinema. This was due to the group of very
talented Australian film directors that made plenty of
extraordinary films in relatively short period of time from
mid 1970s to early 1980s. Many of those directors later
continued their respective careers in Hollywood, usually
failing to reach the high standards that they had set while
working in their native country. One of them was Bruce
Beresford and, although he had been somewhat more successful
than the rest of his countrymen, he had his share of
failures and disappointments. One of them is GOOD MAN IN
AFRICA, 1994 screen adaptation of satirical novel by William
Boyd.
Protagonist of the film is Morgan Leaffy (played by Colin
Fliers), low-level British diplomat recently assigned to the
post in newly independent African state of Kinjaja. For him
the mission in African hellhole is equal to punishment, but
his problems are only starting when he receives an important
task from his ambitious boss Arthur Fenshawe (played by John
Lithgowe). He must convince country's Professor Adenkule
(played by Louis Gossett Jr.), country's most powerful
politician, to give lucrative oil-drilling rights to British
company. Another problem is local superstition that risks
create major diplomatic scandal. Leaffy's efforts to solve
those problems are hindered by his own womanising habits and
some really embarrassing health issues. The only person who
might aid Leaffy is Dr. Alex Murray (played by Sean
Connery), altruistic Scottish physician.
Despite having truly impressive international cast and
novel's author William Boyd working on the screenplay, GOOD
MAN IN AFRICA is a big disappointment. It seems that someone
or something sucked out entire satirical edge out of the
original novel. What remained is the bunch of dislikeable
characters with whom the audience can't sympathise. That
includes even Sean Connery, who, despite playing the most
noble of the characters, never had less likeable screen
personality. The only remarkable thing about this is
Beresford's colour-blindness in such approach - the same
misanthropic vitriol in which he painted British as former
colonial masters is reserved for their subjects, portrayed
either as superstitious savages or shrewd cleptocrats. The
quality of humour in the film leaves much to be desired, and
the ending is especially disappointing. All in all, GOOD MAN
IN AFRICA is a film bearable to watch, but hardly anything
above it.
Copyright © 2001 Dragan Antulov
|