The political attack on this film is bewildering and annoying; it's such a parody of outraged liberalism that I can't help wondering if it's not the work of right-wing trolls pretending to be liberal to anger readers here.
At any rate let's knock down the most obvious fallacies of this attack: 1. In the "Trivia" section here, it is charged that the film was made under an apartheid regime because John Wayne supported it. Hatari was filmed in Tanganika, and there was no apartheid in effect in that country at the time. ("Apartheid" was a legalized caste system only ever in effect in South Africa.)
2. While the native African populations are kept largely in the background, there are no denigrating remarks made concerning them, but instead an insistence that their traditions be respected. The film's social structure is actually constructed to emphasize cultural pluralism - the focal group is made up of a German, several French descendants, a Swiss-Italian, a Spaniard, a Native American, an American Jew (Buttons as "Pockets") and of course Wayne - an Irish Catholic playing the only WASP in the group.
3. The "homophobia" charge directed against the film has to do with a single line, when Dallas asks Pockets why Wayne's character "doesn't like women," and Pockets says she suffers under a "misapprehension." I'm sorry, this is "homophobic?" I watched this movie several times over the past 40 odd years and I never noticed this until I read it on IMDb? Well, maybe it's not really there.
4. It is charged that the film has been "censored" for homophobia, sexism, racism and smoking (?!) in television broadcasts. Maybe in the troll's fantasy world. The film has occasionally been shortened due to it's length.
5. The film, it is charged, is sexist, using women as mere objects. Of what? Dallas, the female lead, is aggressive about her job, about her desires to experience Africa, about her sexuality. And she's hip and intelligent, intimidating the older (and old-fashioned) Wayne on a number of occasions. If this defined sexism, there would never have been any need for feminism.
6. Smoking - it should be pointed out that smoking is as much a right-wing issue as a liberal concern (it insults fundamentalist Protestant aesthetics). There's no denying that a lot of smoking takes place in this film. It was made when the preliminary studies on the dangers of smoking were just coming out and their veracity contested by the tobacco companies, and after a long tradition of heavy smoking in the cinema. The smoking behavior of the characters is just one of the things one tolerates if one wants to see a good film of the era.
7. It is suggested that the animals - especially the elephants - were mistreated during the film and killed off afterwards. There's no evidence to suggest this, reports that the actors themselves were involved in the capture of the animals are counterfactual evidence against this charge (what you see is largely what actually happened), and it is known that the baby elephants died four decades later of natural causes in zoos.
Now onto the film itself: The acting is largely insufficient (as plagued most Hawks films of the '60s). It is episodic. The plot, such as it is, meanders. The conclusion does feel somewhat artificial.
But it's largely a fantasy about a real way of life that most of us hardly knew existed before watching the film. And it's a fascinating way of life, fantasy or real.
The film is a kind of "Western" set in Africa, without a villain but with chases aplenty. It's an adventure film and a romantic comedy. Its canvass is wide, its strokes are broad. And it is character centered - if you like these people (and I do) you will have no problem liking this film.
