DM168

Alas, poor Oscar, we knew you once

By Rebecca Davis 29 November 2020

Oscar Pistorius leaves the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria on 14 June 2016 after a sentencing hearing. Pistorius was convicted of killing his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp on 14 February 2013. (Photo: Charlie Shoemaker/Getty Images)

A new series presents the Pistorius trial as the tragedy of a nice white boy. Rebecca Davis holds back the tears.

Rebecca Davis

First published in the Daily Maverick 168 weekly newspaper.

Is there anything left to say about Oscar Pistorius and the night on which he took the life of Reeva Steenkamp? The British makers of an exceedingly long new four-part documentary series currently airing on DStv appear to think so. Those of us who lived through the minute-by-minute coverage — or, for our sins, produced that coverage — of South Africa’s most notorious true crime event may disagree.

The series, tellingly titled The Trials of Oscar Pistorius, comes trailing international backlash. The BBC had to withdraw a trailer for it in the UK after the preview managed to avoid naming Reeva Steenkamp altogether. Who is Steenkamp to the story, after all, other than the woman who selfishly ended Pistorius’s glittering athletic career by getting in the way of the four bullets he pumped through a toilet door on Valentine’s Day 2013?

Director Daniel Gordon has fuelled the fire by giving interviews in which he said he hadn’t quite made up his mind about whether Pistorius knew Steenkamp was in the famous bathroom. Such ambivalence may have been kosher back in the Dark Ages of 2013, but seven years later social media tends to be less tolerant of this kind of indecisiveness. In truth, though, the documentary series itself strongly suggests that Gordon has very much settled his internal debate in Oscar’s favour.

For evidence of this, you need look no further than the fact that excerpts from Pistorius’s testimony in court are broadcast in the fourth episode of the series with the accompaniment of heart-rending string music. I had to fast-forward through those bits. Other journalists who covered the trial seem to have felt similarly. I texted a media colleague who was even more immersed in the saga than I was to ask if she’d seen the series. “Honestly, I couldn’t watch it all. I hate that story,” she replied.

Watching the series evoked many reactions in me, but none more strongly than a sense of unreality. Did this all really happen, or was it some sort of insane fever dream? Did radio stations really broadcast Pistorius’s bail hearing live? Did people really cluster around wirelesses to listen, as footage from the time suggests, like a scene from World War II? Had we all lost our collective minds?

Reeva Steenkamp’s mother, June Steenkamp during a question and answer session based on her book “Reeva – A Mother’s Story” on March 10, 2015 at the University of Johannesburg in Johannesburg, South Africa. Steenkamp announced plans to launch a foundation against domestic violence in Reeva’s honour but she refused to comment on whether she believed her daughter had been abused by her boyfriend, Oscar Pistorius. (Photo by Gallo Images / The Times / Moeletsi Mabe)

Consider that, in the seven years since then, we have seen former president Jacob Zuma and ANC secretary general Ace Magashule both appear in court. EFF leader Julius Malema has been in and out like a fiddler’s elbow. On none of these occasions can I recall the business of the nation essentially grinding to a halt as South Africans pressed their ears to radio speakers.

Of course, the question of why the Pistorius case held the country’s attention in such a stranglehold has been endlessly unpacked. Sportsmen are our truest celebrities; the downfall of the rich and famous is thrilling; the victim and the protagonist were young and white and attractive; fear of crime brings us all together; we all hunger for news that isn’t about politics. Fine.

But looking back now, the level of fascination around this story still strikes me as utterly bizarre. Would it happen that way again today? I suspect not. We may not feel like a very different country from South Africa seven years ago, but in some ways we are. On Valentine’s Day in 2013, to give one example, the EFF was still five months away from its launch as a political party. One senses somehow that the EFF in its current incarnation would do its level best to derail a national obsession with a white-on-white crime.

Or would the Fighters descend on the Pretoria courthouse to induce some kind of theatrical showdown? At the time, we had to make do with the sedate green-bloused ladies of the ANC Women’s League – which, for the benefit of our younger readers, is an arm of the ruling party ostensibly dedicated to the upliftment of women.

More surreal memories surface with every episode. Watching the footage of the bail hearing, one hears a yelled “Yes!” as Pistorius is granted bail — and recalls that the triumphant shouter was businessman Kenny Kunene. Was it plausible that Kunene and Pistorius were really pals? Given the deplorables that were eventually to emerge as bit players in the Pistorius story, quite possibly. Spare a thought for soccer bruiser Marc Batchelor, who couldn’t be interviewed for the series on account of meeting his end in a hail of assassins’ bullets in Johannesburg last year.

Time has been kinder to other protagonists. The series reveals that defence attorney Barry Roux has lost some weight – or perhaps it’s that we’ve never seen him uncloaked from his black robes? Valiant state prosecutor Gerrie Nel is AWOL from the documentary, presumably too busy running private prosecutions for AfriForum.

A troop of representatives from the Pistorius family do duty on camera, all helping to build the meticulously constructed portrait of the athlete as a sensitive and loving young man who overcame all the odds blah blah. If I’m breezing over this bit, rest assured that the documentary does not. It pinpoints the source of Oscar’s great tragedy as being the death of his mother, and also, possibly, apartheid. It takes a particular straining of the imagination to present a white boy born in 1986 as being one of apartheid’s victims, but if the series does not explicitly state as much, it certainly gestures in that general direction.

Absent are Steenkamp’s parents, who have reportedly taken to demanding vast sums of cash for media interviews. Good for them, I say, given how many people continue to extract pounds of flesh from their daughter’s murder. What the documentary has no shortage of is British people holding forth about South Africa. Never before has our beloved country seemed so much like the heart of darkness, albeit that half of England spend their summers throwing back white wine in Cape Town.

There are no new revelations in the series, as far as I can tell, except for some previously unseen photographs of Oscar brandishing guns – which one assumes the defence went to great lengths to keep out of the public eye during the trial. How Pistorius is doing in prison is largely glossed over, though former schoolteacher Bill Schroder says he went to visit Oscar in the clink and was disappointed to see he’d taken up smoking. Of course he has, Bill! It’s prison!

The documentary ends with the information that Pistorius’s release date is “yet to be determined”, which probably gives international viewers the impression that in our banana republic nice white boys can be incarcerated indefinitely.

Most revealingly, the final word is given to Oscar’s uncle Arnold, dolefully predicting that people’s perceptions of his nephew can “never be fixed”. Unfair as it might seem, that’s one of the consequences of murdering someone.

Some might say that a more appropriate note on which to end might have been to refocus the tragedy on Reeva Steenkamp. But if this documentary is anything to go by, her life is doomed to fade while Pistorius’s story is repolished into brightness. The more things change, the more they stay the same. DM168

You can get your copy of DM168 at these Pick n Pay stores.

Gallery

Comments - share your knowledge and experience

Please note you must be a Maverick Insider to comment. Sign up here or sign in if you are already an Insider.

Everybody has an opinion but not everyone has the knowledge and the experience to contribute meaningfully to a discussion. That’s what we want from our members. Help us learn with your expertise and insights on articles that we publish. We encourage different, respectful viewpoints to further our understanding of the world. View our comments policy here.

All Comments 12

  • How very uninteresting that the director hasn’t decided whether Oscar knew Reeva was in the bathroom or not. Maybe in 7 years he will be asked if he has decided yet whether Biden won the 2020 US election or if Zuma was behind State Capture.

  • Thanks for this. I was repulsed by the trailer and have avoided the entire thing, thankfully. I suspect this was bankrolled by the Pistorius clan. Shameful that anyone else got involved, though

    • Not one Pistorius family member benefits by this. It wasn’t initiated by them, nor did any one gets any money from this documentary.

  • Just putting in a word for the weak-willed and intellectually dishonest cowards who, like me, haven’t been able to make up their minds yet. It used to be known as open-mindedness.

  • Thanks for the review, now I definitely won’t watch it.
    There is a saying in Hollywood (based on statistical evidence) that, “If you want to win an Oscar, play a disabled person”. In the Pistorious case Trevor Noah provided us with another quote at the time of the event, “And the Oscar goes to………….Jail!”
    The essential premise of the sporting movies that are churned out by Hollywood is of a disadvantaged sports person overcoming all sorts of hurdles to eventually attain success. This documentary appears to use the same premise to engender sympathy for its main subject – the trial being yet another huge ‘hurdle’ that the protagonist, Pistorius, needed to overcome. That Reeva is simply lumped in, nameless, with the other ‘hurdles’ is shocking in its callousness.

  • Hehehehehe! Really enjoyed this. Love the witty and humorous way you tackled some controversial issues. I thought it was very well written, thanks.

  • What everyone seemed to ignore and in the trial very little emphasis was placed thereon, was that there was an argument heard by other residents before the cold-blooded killing. With Pistorius having a very short fuse and his apparent love of weapons, he intended to shoot Reeva Steenkamp – there’s no doubt in many peoples mind about his culpability. He hasn’t explained why he shot her. He tried to hide behind his House Intruder theory which was shown to be a blatant lie. Perhaps he could also explain how an intruder placed himself in a 1m x 2m toilet cubicle and why would an intruder do that. The only access to that location by an “intruder” would have been via the window on the second floor where there were no ledges or hand holds. If he wanted to have all believe that an “intruder” entered via a step ladder that was in the garden then that ladder would have been against the wall or lying in the garden at right angles to the wall.

    There should be NO PAROLE for this liar

    • I feel sorry for you, who doesn’t know, that he doesn’t know. Please get hold of the official court verdict. For sure Oscar is found guilty on murder, but found not guilty for murder of Reeva.

  • What a sad saga. To have a daughter, any daughter, cut down in such a cruel manner must be intolerable for her parents. When I wake up in the night, I always notice whether my partner is there or not. If I hear a noise it’s the most natural thing to first check if she’s safe. I don’t walk around with “zombie-stoppers” loaded. Whatever story has been spun, here we have someone who’s life was ended in a utterly cruel and heartless manner and I can’t get beyond that. Who is the victim? It cannot be the shooter.

  • OUR BURNING PLANET

    New poo hits the fan as chemicals company puts pressure on Durban to reopen polluted beaches

    By Tony Carnie