Simba, la marca de los mau-mau

I don't intend to review the film in its entirety, but rather discuss its treatment of race relations. There is little doubt that it was transgressive by the standards of its time, and, also, it was incredibly raw and often offensive in terms of rank racism, but it was also refreshingly honest and unvarnished. We saw the ugliness for what it was on all sides. We saw the complication. We saw how truly decent people could hold a variety of view and then change them for the better. Most importantly,we saw humanity. I don't think we can achieve that by sanitizing and political correctness. I am grateful that this film is available for viewing and consideration. Just the notion of an accomplished black doctor standing up to a white man in such an astonishing way circa 1955 was amazing. We didn't see anything like it until Sydney Poitier uttered his famous line, "They call me Mr. Tibbs."

Some of the reviews of this movie are too absorbed with the alleged racial content. Although racism was prevalent in the white community, a better approach would be to recognize the white settlers' concern for their safety from murder and home invasion. Some people don't know much about the history of the period, and are too preoccupied with being politically correct by today's standards. The Mau Mau rebellion was an early example of terrorism through brutality and atrocity. Many Kenyans lived in fear of a Mau Mau raid and more than 2,000 were killed by Mau Mau. The blood oaths and secret society of the Mau Mau made the terror all the more extreme. Although few of those murdered were white, many settlers were extremely scared. They were particularly scared at night, and of being betrayed by their household employees. Simba accurately depicts the fear and tension of the period. There are fine performances and the movie is absorbing and exciting.

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.

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.

For the historical-minded, this is by far the best film about the Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya. The mood of the country at the time is very well reflected here. The attitude of the colonials and the Africans are both very accurately portrayed, as is the way in which Mau Mau divided both communities, both African and British. While the un-PC nature of the time may bother some, it is quite accurate. While the style of filming may bother some, if you watch it for the acting and the story you'll enjoy it. Wonderful movie about Kenya. As someone who has spent many of the best years of my life in Kenya, this movie will always be special to me, my father lived in Kenya from 1947-1963, throughout the height of Mau Mau, and he praises the way in which the film really captures the moment as well.