Schüsse in Batasi

I discovered this film, quite by chance, whilst looking through the early evening schedules for BBC1. Billed in the newspaper as a "Second World War drama" it is anything but, actually being set in early '60s East Africa just after countries like Kenya achieved independence from Britain. Richard Attenborough is splendid as the RSM who worships "spit and polish" as much as he does HM The Queen. (Odd to think she's still on the throne and "reigning" over the same but very much changed realm.) Attenborough's characterisation of the type of man who ran the British Army is spot on. Are such men still with us? Flora Robson also gives a entirely believable performance as the naive and opinionated Labour MP. We know such women are still amongst us. The supporting cast of actors portraying the sergeants and reluctant conscript give this film great credibility. Mia Farrow is an unexpected guest and we can only envy Wilkie for getting his wicked way. Jack Hawkins, as ever, gives a stock performance as the officer who remains stiff upper-lipped in the face of adversity. Altogether an unexpected treat.

I'd never even heard of Guns at Batasi before but I was amazed to find that it's a superlative film. I was expecting standard British stiff-upper-lip fare that the British did so well in the 1950s and '60s, but what I wasn't expecting is that a film I'd never even heard of rivals and even exceeds top-notch British dramas like Sidney Lumet's 'The Hill'.

The film stands squarely on Richard Attenborough's pitch-perfect performance as a Regimental Sergeant Major - the performance of a lifetime, especially when you consider that Attenborough is the complete opposite of the character he plays in this film - in reality he's soft-spoken and unassuming, yet the character he's playing is not at all those things. To say that this role was a stretch somehow doesn't do the performance justice - Attenborough literally becomes the RSM, and every moment he's on screen is incredible. Some reviewers assume that his performance is over-the-top, but I can assure everyone that British NCOs do act like this - or at least they did in the 1960s - I had the honour of knowing one of them.

Not that Attenborough is doing it all alone - the other performances are perfect too, as is the direction. The fact that the film was made in a studio in England makes you realise what a great job a truly great crew can do for a film - there's no way you'd think this movie wasn't made in Africa.

Altogether a fantastic movie - probably the best new film (new to me anyway) I've seen in the last two years. This blows everything else out of the water.

Oh, and for those worried that it's a war film - definitely not. It's a drama set in a military barracks, but psychological drama is what we have here, and unlike a lot of those kinds of films this one has a heart and a sense of humour. Don't miss this one!

About the only British war film I can think of that was more tension-filled than "Guns at Batasi" is "Zulu"--and that puts it in awfully good company. In addition, Richard Attenborough has a terrific performance as a very rigid and very traditional Sergeant Major.

The film is set in Africa in one of the nations that is still a member of the Commonwealth--though it has achieved the distinction of finally having its own government. However, like so many nascent African nations, it's unstable--and soon after the film begins there is a coup and the government topples. The problem is that a group of British soldiers are stationed there and the new leaders want the Brits to give up their weapons as well as surrender a man to them. But, the tough-as-nails Sergeant Major isn't about to do either of these unless he has a direct order to do so. And, it doesn't matter if there is a know-it-all member of Parliament (Flora Robson) telling him to do this--she is not his superior officer and he is not about to break the chain of command.

As I said, it's a very tense little film. You may not appreciate the Brit-focus (after all, they were a Colonial nation until just before the film took place) nor casting an unnecessary sex interest (why include this--isn't there enough action already--plus who stops to have sex when they are facing what appears to be certain death?!). I could look past these things and just saw it as a darn fine action-adventure film. Worth seeing.

I enjoyed this film considerably. The production values were nice, the acting good, and it had a good sense of humor I wasn't expecting. The Sergeant Major's character was obviously clichéd, but they rounded him out enough to save him from being a mediocre character. There are some really nice touches in the script, and many of them are humorous. I though that the wounded captain's collapse just as he's giving himself up to his African countrymen is a bit coincidental, but dramatically speaking, he needs to be kept in the mess hall. And for what it's worth, and although I've never been a big fan of hers, Mia Farrow has never looked hotter.

In 1957 with the independence of the Gold Coast renamed Ghana as a new nation, the various colonial powers were getting shed of their colonies as World War II left them unable to hold on. If you looked at a map of the world the year before you would see in Africa the various colonial entities depicted in the same color as the power holding on. By the end of the Sixties you can see Africa as color coded without reference to a mother country.

This phenomenon started for the British when they left India to her own devices in 1947. It started with Ghana in 1957 and Guns At Batasi starts as a scene being repeated over and over in Africa, British regular army forces packing up and turning their military installations over to the new African armies of whatever country they were in.

But there's a bad political situation brewing here. The Africans that the British have turned the country over to are now being threatened themselves by a military coup. As RSM Richard Attenborough and his mates are just enjoying some last hours at their Sergeant's Mess, wounded Captain Earl Cameron seeks refuge. His lieutenant Errol John is part of the new government and he wants Cameron as a war prisoner.

There's a bit of racist attitude in Attenborough and his peers, but they have been in Africa for years and know the temper of the people. A great deal more so than Lady MP Flora Robson who knew Errol John as a student in London and feels she can reason with him. She gets disabused of that notion rather fast.

It's a delicate political situation that Attenborough doesn't need reminding of. Still he shows some good initiative in his response.

Guns At Batasi is a snapshot in time of the changing face of Africa. And even more interesting is the fact that the film was shot in the United Kingdom without setting foot in Africa. The producers could get away with it because most of the film takes place in and around the sergeant's mess. And Africa was replete with Batasi like incidents to make location shooting not a good idea.

Although he's backed by a superb cast which also includes Jack Hawkins as the local army commander and Cecil Parker as the former colonial administrator of the area, Guns At Batasi is the film of Richard Attenborough. He really does become the spit and polish, all army RSM. It is said that the high non-commissioned officers really run the army in an country and with people like Attenborough you can believe it.

Errol John is wonderful in his role as well. A few years earlier this was a part earmarked for Sidney Poitier, but now many black players were getting their due. John should have had a great career.

Guns At Batasi is a great film about the declining days of the British colonial empire. This was when the sun was finally setting.