Simba

I'm seeing a lot of reviews chiding the creators of this movie for not being politically correct by today's standards. As a Kikuyu (the tribe of the Maumau) I find it's quite historically correct. The Whites treated us like 4th class citizens ( it went, whites, indians, Somalis then the rest of us darkies). they confiscated cattle, stripped our crops, took our land, put us in concentration farms and forced our strongest to fight in WW2. And us on our turn, feeling like we have nothing to lose took to the woods. unleashed a brutal terror campaign against the British and their sympathizers.... Goal was to purge our land of them and for 8 years we used terror and brutality (mostly against collaborators and traitors).

Copyright 1955 by Group Film Productions Ltd. New York opening at the Palace: 21 October 1955. U.S. release through Lippert Pictures: 9 September 1955. U.K. release through General Film Distributors: March 1955. Australian release through British Empire Films: 21 September 1956 (sic). 101 minutes. (Available on a very good Spirit Entertainment DVD). SYNOPSIS: On arriving in Kenya, a British settler discovers that his brother has been murdered by Mau Mau terrorists. NOTES: One of the top ten British money-makers of 1955 in the U.K. COMMENT: Here's a movie that cries out for Rank's Independent Frame process work. Instead the makers have reverted to the cheaper, more obvious and somewhat primitive method of inter-cutting differently graded second unit footage peopled by obvious doubles with studio cut-ins against process screens and glaring photographic blow-ups. Hurst's clumsily heavy-handed direction, its lumbering pace emphasizing every cliché in the banal dialogue as well, further undermines the picture's credibility. Nonetheless, despite all these obtrusive defects of technique, as well as shallow writing and superficial acting (particularly by the three principals, although Sinden is partly exonerated by terrible miscasting), plus the fact that Miss McKenna's role has been built up by Mr. Estridge (she is forced to emote through two or three totally extraneous scenes, whilst others have been padded out way beyond their levels of interest and/or importance); — despite all these problems "Simba" still packs a mighty punch. It's a case of the powerful theme overcoming the triteness of its telling. And it must be admitted that Hurst does handle the horrifying action scenes forcefully, partly by the very unobtrusiveness, lack of involvement and even the clumsiness of his technique. Although some critics complained that Bogarde was being stereotyped in truculently unsympathetic parts, his public didn't seem to mind. He topped both Motion Picture Herald polls of British showmen for 1955, as the top picture-goer magnet among British stars, and as the top box-office star in the U.K. over all.

One of my biggest complaints about American cinema films concerning Africa is that they are complete pulp fiction and give us no real understanding of the continent. How could it since we have no real ties, even colonial ones with Africa. Simba however which is British made and shot on actual location in Kenya Colony which it was at the time this film was made is a good insight to the problems of an Empire in its last gasp and they knew it. Kenya took longer than most of sub-Saharan Africa to be free because of the Mau Mau rebellion. But free it became within a decade of Simba reaching the screen. Dirk Bogarde stars as a young man come to Africa to work with his brother on the family farm in Kenya. But on his arrival he discovers that the brother has been murdered by the Mau Maus. This does engender some racial attitudes in Bogarde, understandable to say the least. Seeing the better angels of Africa's nature is Virginia McKenna the daughter of neighboring farmers Basil Sydney and Marie Ney. Dealing with it from a military point of view is Donald Sinden in charge of the local constabulary which also is staffed with native troops. These players and the rest of Simba's film crew took their lives in their hands going there to make this film. Another American film on Africa, Safari with Victor Mature and Janet Leigh, also dealt peripherally with the Mau Mau movement and was shot there a year later. This is the better product by far. Mention must also go to Earl Cameron playing the European educated black doctor who is caught between the white colonials and his own natives and this violent outbreak which is harming all. Cameron delivers a fine performance, his is the voice of emerging Africa and Kenya in particular. Don't miss this one if it's broadcast.

This film was set in Kenya during the middle of the decade-long Mau Mau uprising--a radical movement bent on self-rule through occasionally violent actions. Interestingly, the actual number of Europeans killed by the Mau Maus was very tiny and the number of suspected Mau Maus killed by the British colonial government very, very large--though the intensity of the anti-Mau Mau actions were minimized in "Simba". From this film's standpoint, it appears that the lion's share of the killings were by Mau Maus and its sympathies appear to be more with the white settlers. The story begins with Dirk Bogarde coming to Kenya to see his brother. Sadly, the man was killed just before Bogarde's arrival. Viewers' attitudes about the killing quickly change from outrage or sadness to understanding why it occurred, as you hear the imperialists referring to the natives in such paternalistic and pejorative terms. I loved how during a dinner party, the white Africans sat there talking about how stupid and child-like the blacks were--as several black servants stood there among the guests listening!! Heck, had I been one of these black men, I would have probably lopped off a few heads....or at least tinkled in their drinks! So, even though some accuse the film of minimizing the evil of colonialism, this was still a very gripping and poignant scene, as the white settlers were so oblivious and cruel. I commend this film in showing this, as although it tends to favor the colonials, it is not without criticism for them as well. I can't believe these scenes were not intended to provide some balance....some. As for Bogarde, in some ways he's likable. However, he's also angry and filled with hate for the Mau Mau--which is natural considering the film begins with the murder of his brother and other friends are killed throughout the film. But, since it's often an action film, you also don't get a great chance to see what a fine actor Bogarde was. However, despite this, it's a good and often exciting film--even with its faults. By the way, there was a bit of a mistake in the film. A man was drenched in blood and had dragged himself along the ground--yet there was no blood trail at all in this scene. Not a huge mistake...but a mistake. Most Americans know nothing about the Mau Mau uprising nor a lot about colonialism in Africa. So, from this standpoint it's nice to see a film that actually addresses it--even if it is biased (and most any film would have been). As more of an outsider, I certainly could NOT condone colonialism and the paternalistic notion that the Africans were so 'childish' that they needed enlightened white men to 'care for them'! Sadly, though, as a history teacher I know that in many cases the self-rule that followed colonialism was as bad--if not worse (amazing atrocities in Sudan, Rwanda and Uganda quickly come to mind)! I am not defending colonialism--just making a comment about the sometimes horrific governments that have taken its place.

Dirk Bogarde, poorly regarded brother of a Kenyan farmer, comes to Kenya to find his brother killed by the savage Mau Mau group led by the mysterious SIMBA. Will he find true love, a sense of responsibility, and a proper regard with the indigenous people who are revolting against colonial rule? Though this a painfully sincere movie illustrating the hardships of being a white farmer in a countryside full of people who do not want white farmers, its hard not to be somewhat appalled by a movie that poses the question -- do the native Kenyans who were part of the Mau Mau deserve to be regarded as men, or simply as savages. While, fortunately, it does feel like the movie makers are making the case for thinking of the Kenyans as humans, it's a bit of a close issue, as the lead farmer is allowed to rant about savages, and the police commissioner trying desperately to keep order, seems to have ill-concealed contempt for the natives revolting against his authority. The acting is all good, and the direction keeps this particular plot moving. The opening sequence is shocking. The final sequence really is quite tense, and the way the filmmakers choose to end this film makes some rather unpleasant and unpalatable points quite well. The problem is this. Do you really want to see a movie made from the point of view of the earnest but colonialist occupiers? Are you willing to tolerate something that looks like the film the French in Battle of Algiers would have made, had they access to a camera and clipped British accents? If you aren't, don't watch. You really will get angry. But, if you want to see viewpoint of the English establishment just before colonialism was ended, this might be as good a place as any to find it.

This movie may be accused of racism.Perhaps so.But you could also blame "stagecoach" and a lot of westerns before "broken arrow" as well :the Indians were the villains,just as the natives are here.Let's be serious!It was half a century ago and at the time the writers had not the hindsight we have today.The precedent user saw the movie through the eyes of the 2004 audience obviously the politically correct one.Judging by the rating,there are users who disagree and I'm one of them. First of all,"Simba" is not poorly executed,it has a good screenplay,fine actors (Bogarde and Virginia McKenna),beautiful landscapes...That the Africans should be shown as primitive,cruel and mindless does not prevent some of them from becoming educated and wise:"I studied for six years ,the black doctor says,to save lives ,not to destroy them".Two years later in "something of value" ,Richard Brooks showed a native afraid of thunder!"Simba" is the British forerunner of Richard Brook's work.In "Simba" anyway ,the White are not necessarily the heroes.See how Bogarde refuses to shake hands with the doctor.And the last picture of the movie is a black child's face ,a curious choice for a would be racist flick.

This movie has just been issued on an R4 PAL disc available through Australian retailers so it's nice to see a pristine copy of it at last rather than a very well worn Beta tape. It has come in for some unfair criticism as a racist tract which it isn't at all. The good or bad old Colonial days existed, like it or not, and its just anachronistic to apply todays values to life some 50 years ago.The film makes the Mau Mau out to be the villains, the Hamas of their day,and so thought the settlers. Only the most prescient of them saw independence ahead; this is set several years before McMillan's Winds of Change speech. Rank stalwarts Borgade and McKenna give good performances as lovers and besieged farmers and Donald Sinden looks great as the local police chief. View it for what it is. We can't erase history, good or bad, like we can airbrush cigarettes from old photos.

"Howard" (Dirk Bogarde) arrives in colonial East Africa just as the Mau-Mau rebellion is gathering pace. His farm is adjacent to that of the "Crawford" family - Basil Sydney, Marie Ney and daughter "Mary" (Virginia McKenna). Fairly swiftly, their community starts to more fully appreciate the increasing dangers they face. As the native population become more audacious with their activities many want to flee, many want to try harder to work and share with their dispossessed African neighbours whilst others want to use the full force of "Insp. Drummond" (Donald Sinden) and his thinly spread police force. Stuck squarely in the middle of this scenario is the doctor "Karanja" (Earl Cameron). A man who has studied hard for six years and who wants, above all, to avoid murderous conflict. When a man is critically injured by the insurgents, "Karanja" is suspected of expediting his death before he can talk and with trust in short supply, this pot really begins to boil. It's a story that illustrates the best and worst of British administration and attitudes contrasted with a determination amongst the local people to reclaim their homeland - brutally and ruthlessly if needs be, and though the political detail is a little scant, it's not a bad attempt at showing the writing on the wall for empire. Save for quite a poignant effort from Cameron, none of the other acting here is up to much, nor is the writing, but the external cinematography (and the audio) are impressive and the story - though copping out slightly at the end - works quite well. Such films never date well, the language and superiority complex of the colonists can be quite hard to stomach nowadays, but it's still worth a watch.

Some subject matter is offensive in itself when it is cinematically constructed as popular entertainment, and this effort at ' dealing ' with the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya is one of them. It is sensationalist right from the start with an injured man being hacked to pieces, and to avoid an adults only certificate you do not see in closeup the death throes, but imagination is strong and in a way you have seen it. You know it is happening and this repetitive hacking of live bodies happens three times in the films running time. Of course it is the frightening Mau Mau are doing it either to the white population or to others who do not want to join them. Briefly the story is of a young man ( Dirk Bogarde ) who comes to Kenya to join his brother on running a farm, but the brother has been killed and a woman friend played extremely well by Virginia McKenna meets and falls in love with him. They have opposite opinions about the Mau Mau and love has to overcome this. Bogarde cannot ' do ' romance well as an actor, and he comes over as a rather nasty, character cold in his relation to others and distinctly racist. There is a lot of racist dialogue in the film, and one of them is ' 60 years ago they had hardly come down from the trees. ' That of course is the population in Kenya before the whites arrived. This to me is sensationalist dialogue, and very provocative in the mid-1950's. But to get away from the basic subject matter it is a brutal, cruel film and it had popular actors of the time, including Donald Sinden to get the popcorn crowd in. To sum up, relatively recent history needs clear vision, and I think this film is foggy in its approach and possibly harmful for an impressionable child to see with an adult. Maybe it had cuts to get it an ' A ' instead of an ' X ' certificate but then the English have always been easy going with violence. To verify that watch ' Camp on Blood Island ' and how it approached the Japanese. Again popcorn fodder for an audience willing to believe anything it sees as long as it is entertainment. It too was made in the mid-1950's , a period in my opinion of many prejudices that can damage a viewer for life.

Many people in their reviews have called this movie/story racist. Obviously these people do not know their history. This period in Africa actually happened as many other events in other countries did at the same time or earlier periods. I even just read today that at the Alamo in San Antonio they are trying to remove the names of certain people who were killed there because they kept slaves. History cannot be changed only in the future Dan we all try to make the a better world. SIMBA is a remarkable story with top British actors of the 50s and wonderful visuals. The violence is portrayed as it really happened. I lived through this period. Even one of the Producers was born in South Africa and lived through the Mau Mau wars.