Abdellatif Kechiche, a Tunisian film-director, forces viewers to travel back in time to 19th century France or England with Venus Noire. This new theatre is where scientific breakthroughs are regaining their relevance in academia. This new science may appeal to the White wealthy elite. However, these findings are only Social Darwinism, disguised as sound and methodical conclusion. Georges Cuvier presented Saartjie, also known as the Hottentot Venus, to his audience. The story of Hottentot Venus’ capture begins to unfold only as the movie goes on.
Five years before Cuvier’s lecture, we are taken to London to see a circus. Saartjie is a primitive fool who then lets the audience touch her buttocks. Caezar’s show is too much for her, and officials started to wonder if the exhibition was actually slavery. For her safety, Saartjie refuses to face any charges against Caezar. Caezar then exchanges cash with Reaux for Saartjie’s work. Saartjie does not have time to consider her future as she is already performing at the same disgusting shows, but this one in French salons. She rebels, and she is eventually used as a prostitute. Saartjie then sells to French scientists, who keep portions of her body and preserve her body in a plaster model. The movie ends with us coming full circle to Georges Cuvier’s lecture, which we first saw at the start of the film. We are more familiar now with the struggle for such a rare specimen.
Venus Noire still has a bit of humor, but it’s not as lighthearted as the painful routines Saartjie faces. Caezar is a true man by his oppressive treatment of Saartjie. His attempts to keep control of her are a symbol of European nations’ efforts to colonize Africa.
d in the status-quo. Reaux invites audience members to touch Saartjie’s sexual organs in a later show. It is a strangely familiar scene from Orwell’s Brave New World. It is more than just consuming material to be thrown out. Overindulgence is evidence of a cycle where consumer products are consumed, then degraded at each step.
Venus Noire takes its viewers to the margins, giving them a view from the wall. As viewers, we are forced to sit on the sidelines and watch every scene. Scenes that are set in London effectively make us the audience. We then go to Paris and become part of the French salon which defiles Saartjie’s sexual organs. Finally, in horror, Saartjie dies of lack of effective medical treatment. We are tired and numbed by these disturbing images. Saartjie’s remains are not yet put to sleep. Instead, it is kept for scientific research.
Kechiche’s directing of Venus Noire is a forceful exercise. Kechiche breaks down Saartjie’s character by dividing it into three parts: her career in London, Paris and prostitution. Finally, she is made a scientific curiosity. Kechiche is very open about his blindness to the outside world, showing how awful life can be. Kechiche doesn’t take any prisoners. But it’s difficult to argue Venus Noire isn’t a case study in the horrific history of European colonialism.
Despite this, Kechiche’s direction with Venus Noire isn’t surprising. The movie is too long. It drags on for almost three hours and becomes an exhausting marathon, which eventually ruins the viewers’ patience. Kechiche did a good job of showing us a section of Saartjie’s history. Variety Reviews does raise an interesting point regarding Venus Noire’s placement of the British under a different light to the French. It seems that British law is trying to protect Saartjie as well as the French from her abuse. This is unfair considering that the British were just as guilty of colonialism.
Saartjie was known for her unusual qualities, including her near-silence. Saartjie, despite being an unconventional protagonist, is more passive than her quiet counterpart. The audience is not given much insight into Saartjie’s emotions and decision-making process. Despite these situations being realistic, movie-goers are left without any tangible, moral reward after the film ends. Yahima Tores, the actress playing Saartjie, argued that her character is usually in an environment where she cannot communicate Afrikaans. Torres claimed that Saartjie might find peace in silence. This argument is a flop. When Torres pushes her beyond her emotional limits, Saartjie remains the lonergy individual Torres supports during her time with Caezar. She is silent in other situations, even when she is in an Afrikaans-friendly environment.
Reflecting on Saartjie’s pain in Paris and London, it is troubling that her story has been told without any background information before she arrives in Europe. Although Venus Noire shows Saartjie’s inability to control where she performs, Kechiche completely forgot to explain to her audience what conditions forced her to go to Europe. Because Venus Noire already depicts Saartjie, a character who is unable to express herself and her thoughts, as a oppressed character. This dissonance only makes Saartjie more of a movie’s protagonist. This is a surprising position for two reasons. First, it defies convention of storylines that require steadfast protagonists. Second, it forces movie-watchers to follow the storyline of an increasing unknown stranger.
While the movie does require an audience investment, Kechiche has a unique effect on viewers. Venus Noire challenges viewers to rethink what watching movies should be like. It forces them to think about what they actually gain from it, and what it means for them as protagonists in a story. Although Kechiche’s direction is subject to criticism, his approach is captivating. While the question isn’t whether colonialism is beautiful, his distance from Saartjie allows movie-goers to observe her character in a more organic way.
