GeoChic (documentary review)

Documentaries are one of the most diverse styles of cinema, they can be used for education, like David Attenborough’s wildlife programs, or as a cinematic masterpiece, like Asif Kapadia's documentary films such as Diego Maradona.

This review will look at GeoChic, an aspiring documentary that aims to hit multiple targets, tourism and culture.

Themes:

While it doesn’t have a story like in films and television, GeoChick still provides a narrative through its stunning images and interviews. There is a theme in this narrative, and that is to show the culture of Cape Town and South Africa and change the stereotypical view of it while acknowledging the past and current problems that it’s trying to surpass.

The film manages to do this by relying on its cinematography and photography to deliver beautiful pictures of the city of Cape Town. It shows the buildings, the restaurants, the sights, the beaches, and some of the wildlife. One of the images is of the sunset with people of different colors watching. Combining these images transforms the stereotypical view that Africa is a savage place where only animals live in a country that is civilized, modern, and perfect for people of all races to live in and does its best to keep its still lingering past behind it.

Notes:  

The film’s purpose is to promote South Africa and Cape Town as a place for tourists, to shine a light on South African culture, and to show how the country is evolving despite its current social and racial problems.

As mentioned before, the cinematography and photography are the highlights of this film. The cinematographer Davide Valenti and director Leonardo V did a wonderful job in showing Cape Town’s beauty.

The film chose its hosts nicely, as it interviews business owners, actors, singers, and other influencers in Africa’s culture that show how other cultures have influenced them and how they, in return, influence Africa. Most of these interviews are enjoyable, as the interviews show how important their business is to them, how they reflect Africa’s culture, and how the culture affects them. Despite overall success in this area, there are several flaws. The first is with the interview with Kim Syster, who had roles in Cape Town and Deep Blue Sea 2. The interview was one of the fastest in the film, while it did manage to give us her background and she dreamed of becoming an actress, it didn’t give any information on cinema’s influence on Africa and its culture or how Africa wants to influence cinema, despite doing that in other parts of the documentary. Another problem with this interview is that it has been cut short. It’s probably the shortest interview in the film.

The second includes two chefs, one who owns a restaurant and one who teaches cooking. In my opinion, there wasn’t a need for two chefs to get their points across, as the first chef did a good job of doing that. It would have been more sufficient if the film interviewed a well-known professor, a doctor at a famous hospital who shows how medicine has evolved, an author who talks about African literature, or even an athlete.

Finally, while the film does interview some of the locals and famous celebrities, it would have been perfect if they interviewed some of the natives who could give insight into how life has been in the past, how it is now, and what they want people to know about Africa, whether it’s for sightsing or any other purposes. 

In terms of places, the film mainly focuses on places people may want to visit if they go to Cape Town, like the beach, restaurants, art galleries, etc. While these places fit the description perfectly, it would have been the icing on the cake if they filmed during a carnival or gave us a tour inside a famous library.

But the biggest problem this documentary has is with its use of running time. The film uses 55 minutes of its 1 hour and 2 minutes for the interviews and shooting but leaves 6 whole minutes for a post-credit interview with the models involved with the film. This, I believe, was not a wise choice as they could have interviewed all of the modules in the same shot or scene and given the remaining extra time to the actress or to another interviewer who covers an area they may not have had the time to cover.  

Despite these flaws, The film’s cinematography, photography, and narrative make up for these flaws achieve its purpose, and provide and become an enjoyable film.

Conclusion:

Geochick is a viciously stunning documentary. Its beautiful cinematography and photography give it the narrative it needs to deliver all of the points it wants to viewers.

Despite its flaws with the interviews and its bad choice in time management, it still was able to be enjoyable and interesting to watch.

While the purpose of its existence is to promote a tourist place, a job that has been done well, the cinematography and photography created something special for viewers to enjoy and appreciate.