Skip to main content

Thandiwe Newton drowns in shame as documentary flops

Thandiwe Newton


Hosia Mviringi


As fate would have it, Thandiwe Melanie Newton, the 49 year old British actress of Zimbabwean parentage, has appeared on British television to issue an apology of shame to fellow black actresses for aparent indiscretions


Thandiwe, in pretending to be sorry, could not hide the shame that inadvertently drowned and overshadowed her rather well meant intentions, if she had any at all.


To conceal her shame and guilt for the greater evil intentions, she pretended to be apologising for the things that never existed. Such things as taking jobs and men away from fellow black actresses, things that never existed as they just came unsolicited from the motor mouth guilty traitorous actress. Nobody had complained over this pettiness.


The background to Newton's latest stunt is that she is co-producer to the documentary 'President', in which Zimbabwean opposition politician Nelson Chamisa is being glorified and portrayed as victim to the  2018 elections which he lost in one of the cleanest manner ever seen on African soil.


He it shamefully touted as the president of Zimbabwe even though he openly lost the elections and subsequently failed to provide evidence of unfair poll practices.


Strange that Newton, who has never set foot in Zimbabwe would claim to know the situation better and pretend to represent Zimbabwean interests.


In the film Newton and fellow executive producer Danny Glover did the film 'President' in sympathy with Nelson Chamisa, but more specifically, the film was meant as a hatchet job mean to embarrass and bash President Emmerson Mnangagwa's image ahead of his appearance at the COP26 Climate Conference in Glasgow Scotland.


But Thandiwe frustration manifested when her film project was rejected by the London Film Festival, one event which was earmarked to blow prominence to the alleged rights abuses, vote rigging and reflect bad light on President Mnangagwa ahead of Glasgow COP26.


In a scathing attack directed at the LFF organisers, Newton blamed them for being political rather than being professional when they rejected her film for lack of merit.

She went on to accuse the London Film Festival for acting to protect President Mnangagwa by throwing out the film.


"Every time it gets into another festival and wins another festival and gets shortlisted for Oscars, I am just thinking London Film Festival, 'Where we're you? And the reason they were not there was because it was a week before Mnangagwa went to Scotland with a delegation of 100 from Zimbabwe, invited by the United Kingdom. That wouldn't have been a great way to have him arrive the week before, right? That's why I think it wasn't screened," said Newton in a scathing attack directed at the London Film Festival organisers.


It is evident that large sums of money were exchanging hands between prominent film industry players, festivals organisers and adjudicators, pointing at the deep seated corruption in the film industry in the UK and USA.


Of course, even though she claims otherwise, her utterances betray the real reason and purpose for producing the documentary.

Of course all evidence point to a premeditated and prepaid project to embarrass President Mnangagwa and possibly escalate the alleged poll rigging and human rights violations to the United Nations.


Of course Newton is angry that the film suffered epic failure when she had already chopped imperialist dollars for the project.


It has become common cause that if it's not Hopewell Chin'ono on the local scene, then it's some dubious characters out there claiming to understand the plight of Zimbabweans, in the process acting to justify continued sanctions imposition.


A consistent trend has been established over the years whereby the United States government will seize any available occasion to justify its sanctions regime on Zimbabwe, especially ahead of major international evnts.


Activists, Actors and actresses, and opposition leaders have become US Ambassadors who now act as advisors to the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Sad reality it is.


Behold, "President" was going to be more than just a film as it was purposely meant to portray President Mnangagwa as the man who stole an election from Chamisa who ironically is framed in the film in the mould of Nelson Mandela. 

My foot!


It was meant to overturn an election result in the court of public opinion and to incite a revolt by Zimbabweans and a change of attitude by international partners to the country.


The film was designed to give prominence to a result that never was. It was meant to create a hero out of a villain.

Thandie's frustrations can be understood though.


Just like many other black Africans in foreign lands, deriding a sitting African Head of State has it's own accolades and Newton had her eyes on the converted price, the Oscar.


She couldn't imagine a film that bashes an African leader, while supporting a host country's favoured candidate, losing at the Oscars. But unforeseen to her, the film didn't only lose, it failed to qualify, much to her chagrin.


"Our selection decisions, which are made three months in advance of the festival, are based on the merits of the film and whether it fits into the overall texture of the program and not guided by external factors," said the London Film Festival organisers in response to Newton's accusations of political interference in the selection process.


The "President" documentary turns out as one of the most eminent foreign sponsored projects targeting the Zimbabwean government and it's leadership, which clearly intended to inflict long lasting scars on the image of President Mnangagwa and the country, all in support of a Western puppet who is touted as an electoral victim in the film.


Newton desperately tried to distance herself from the politics behind the production of the film even though it is crystal clear from a distance that the film was politically driven from the start to finish. 

To betray her conflicted state of mind is a lame excuse for her involvement in the film project.


"I have never wanted to speak out about Zimbabwe because speaking out politically has always been, " You are speaking out against Zimbabwe".


"That's why I've never wanted to get involved because it's not political. I don't know enough to comment on who should vote for who. If you don't live in the country, you can't say".


Newton quickly engages default mode and reveals her interest in Zimbabwean political affairs through the film;


" But my appeal as a human rights activist is this - I would assume that the leader of the country would want to know who is hurting his people. There are mysterious deaths, abductions and torture. I would have though that the leader of a country would want to know and I don't see enough happening," she continued.


The difference now is that she confesses that she doesn't see efforts by the Zimbabwean government to remedy the issues raised.

Yet in the preceding statement she confessed that as a non-resident.


One then wonders how she can lead a protest against things she is not even aware of! 

It betrays the usual hand behind the production by people who probably have not been to Zimbabwe.

Newton is a peculiar product and beneficiary of the well documented George Soros destabilising funding in Africa.


Newton left Zimbabwe as a baby to Zambia where she could only live until she was only 11.

She has lived in the UK and USA since then.

She can't then claim to have a recollection of events in Zimbabwe.


The failed film could have become a handy tool to launch the CCC onto international prominence. Indeed it represents a failed attempt by Newton at becoming CCC ambasador in Europe.

But, yes it was a dismal failure and a pale shadow of what it could be become.


Of course with the launch of this film, Newton quickly morphs from being a competitive actor into a political rights activist. What a regressive feat!


Chati homu chareva.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

After 23 years, UK-ZIM relations thawing

 #SundayMussings  Prof. Jonathan Moyo It's International Relations 101 that a penchant for and infatuation with trivialities is not part of diplomacy, it's trivial pursuit. With this in mind, one does not have to hold a brief for anyone to understand that the coronation of King Charles III was essentially a showcase of an archaic and obnoxious tradition of hereditary rule - frowned upon in most parts of the world now under republican rule of one sort or another, while still a big deal in the United Kingdom of once upon a time, Great Britain - that dates back some 1,000 years ago. There’s therefore nothing geopolitically significant or even interesting about that primitive culture, where someone called Charles was crowned head of state by virtue of his birth at a ceremony where "His Majesty's Government" had no qualms about displaying the full repertoire of imperial loot like the stolen African Star and majestic gold from former British colonies, many of whose lead...

In defence of Lindiwe Sisulu - SA Constitution not Sacred, Judges not demi-gods

            Professor Arthur Mutambara The SA Constitution is not Sacred and SA Judges are not Demigods.   By Arthur Guseni Oliver Mutambara 13 January 2022   Minister Lindiwe Sisulu penned an opinion piece on 7 January 2022 titled: ‘Hi Mzansi, have we seen justice?’  It was quite a refreshing critique of the challenges confronting South Africa.  Sisulu’s right to express herself and the content of her remarks must be vigorously defended without equivocation or ambiguity. On 8 January 2022, soon after I read the opinion piece, I publicly expressed the following remarks: ‘Wow, what a piece by Lindiwe Sisulu. I am pleasantly surprised that some in the ANC still get it and are prepared to articulate it eloquently. The issue is how to get such incisive thinking to influence the ANC and the country's direction. Is it a lost cause?’ I stand by these utterances. There has been quite several articles and remarks attacking Minister Sisulu. The ba...
LAWYERS DEMO : DELIVERY OF JUSTICE OR PROTECTING THE CASH COW ?   By Hosia Mviringi 31 January 2019 On 29 January 2019 the nation woke up to the news that Lawyers under the banner of the Law Society of Zimbabwe was demonstrating against lack of or misdelivery of justice in the Courts in Zimbabwe. I write this article with a heavy heart knowing that my brother is a loyal member of the fraternity.I will try to be professional and speak my mind. What baffles the mind is the fact that the Lawyers are officers of the same Courts which they have served under the Law Society of Zimbabwe in defence of the accused for many years since independence.They have not seen this so called misdelivery of justice until only yesterday after the violent demonstration of the 14th of January 2019. What has changed now to warrant the demonstration by the Lawyers against the same Courts to which they have served or are serving as officers and partners ? Lets try to unpack the conundrum. Soon...