Hi I commend Michelle McGrane on her Janet van Eeden interview. It is anon-intrusive lens into Janet's process and a fascinating glimpse into hergift with story. The interview allows the writer¹s vision andself-reflection to bubble forth. Affording Janet the space and comfort toexpress her method and what inspires her was simply a pleasure to read. Yes,a far cry from the grandstanding that many movie critics indulge in whenfiring inane questions while sloughing toward the limelight. I recently attended a movie indaba with mostly top movie critics on a paneltasked with comparing Zulu Love Letter and Mr. Drum. Predictably neitherfilm got much of a mention. Wisely no directors or funders pitched. Thewhole session became a display of which critic wore their ubuntu mostsublimely on their sleeve. A case of watching apologist ham in full flutter.The audience of course could all make much better films, correct 350 yearsof history and knew exactly how to make SA film travel. But that¹sJo¹burgSand hey, in case you wondering, I¹m not defending either film. But,here's the rub, who on the panel or in the audience, many of whom do getfunding, have written 9 screenplays or taken over a year out to research asingle story? Janet's work needs to be seen on local screens.
Original interview on this site: http://www.litnet.co.za/teater/mcgrane_van_eeden.asp