Something of Value

This movie is really something of value.Rock HUdson's character says "we steal their earth and their religion,we 've got to give them something of value instead".Actually,Richard Brookes applied to Africa what he 'd done two years back with "the last hunt" where the white men killed the buffalos and starved the Indians.They even despised their belief by killing even the White animal.

Preceded by "Simba" an English movie starring Dirk Bogarde the screenplay of which

shows a lot of similarities with "something of value' Brooks 's work seems nevertheless superior ,because it has very strong scenes:Poitier,smashing the mirror with disgust after the killing,the informer killed on the barbed wire by the other prisoners;the old man ,afraid of thunder.This last scene may seem naive ,nay insulting for the natives ,but it was fifty years ago.People who criticize the movie should think about it:in 1957,it was a courageous movie,as "the last hunt" was.

I first saw this movie at a Saturday afternoon matinee in 1957 at the age of ten. Seeing it 60 years later, I'm amazed that it was considered a suitable movie for children at a matinee in that era of rigorous censorship.

There is strong stuff in this film about the Mau-Mau insurrection in Kenya in the 1950's. It was a film I remembered vividly, especially the scenes of Mau-Mau rituals, but also for the haunting background music and for Dana Wynter who just seemed so perfect.

At the time, colonisation was ending. Britain, which had coloured so much of the globe pink, would sometimes just haul down the flag and sail away, but in some African countries with generations of white farmers and landowners, things were trickier.

That was the background to Richard Brook's film of Robert Ruark's novel.

Peter McKenzie (Rock Hudson) and Kimani (Sidney Poitier) have grown up together in Kenya, but find that their different skin colours and cultures are forcing them apart.

There is interesting information on the making of the film in "Tough as Nails: The Life and Films of Richard Brooks" by Douglas K. Daniel. Brooks and his crew went to Kenya and although some of the film was shot back in Hollywood, the location footage gave the film its authentic look. In an act not without danger, Brooks and Hudson went to a secret location to meet members of the Mau-Mau.

Brooks could be a bully and alienated cast and crew except for favourites such as Sidney Poitier whom he protected from discrimination in segregated Kenya. He was rude to Dana and harsh with Rock, but he created tension to get the reactions he wanted from the actors.

Miklos Rozsa, the epic film score maestro, came up with different music for this film. Composed mainly for chorus, sometimes male, sometimes female depending on the mood, it is a fascinating impression of African music and one of the most memorable things about the film.

"Simba", a British film about the Mau-Mau rebellion was made in 1955. Also shot in Kenya, it too featured Mau-Mau attacks on white farmers, but the whole thing seemed condescending towards the Kenyans while Brook's film is more even-handed with treachery and massacres on both sides.

Both films end with a scene of a Kenyan baby, symbolising the key to the nation's future.

"Something of Value" is a film about the so-called 'Mau Mau Rebellion' which took place through much of the 1950s in Kenya. The fact that it was made there and the uprising was still going on do make this an unusual movie.

The story begins by showing the contempt that many of the white British colonists have towards the native Kenyans. Because of this, it's very easy to see how these black men and women would become disaffected by British rule...and Peter (Rock Hudson) can see the wicked way these folks are treated. He is especially appalled to see his friend Kimani (Sidney Poitier) slapped around and treated like dirt. At the same time, the film tries to look at both sides and shows the brutal way in which the Mau Maus tore apart the white colonists. How will all this resolve itself and what will happen to these two friends who are now on opposite sides in the conflict?

This is generally a very good film, though I wonder why Rock Hudson was chosen for the movie. After all, he sounds about as British as a talking taco! But he is very good despite this. As for Poitier and Juano Hernandez and many of the other black actors, they were more convincing in their roles and at least approximated the right accents. Some seeing it today might feel a bit torn, after all, I was. Who would you root for in the film when BOTH sides seemed in the wrong. And, you certainly could applaud the locals' rights to self-determination. Well worth seeing.

This film is an interesting memento of a period seemingly long ago, but actually in the recent past. It raises some of the same questions brought to mind in "The Battle of Algiers," specifically, what methods is it justifiable to use to further a just cause, especially the cause of an oppressed people. Another question, should all members of the oppressor class, in this case whites of British ancestry and citizenship, be regarded and treated as oppressors, even if they are sympathetic to the cause of the oppressed? To its credit, the film doesn't oversimplify. One character, Matson, is a cardboard villain, but the whites are generally portrayed sympathetically. And, although at the time this film was made Kenyan independence was only six years away, it is clear that, to almost all the whites, independence and black majority rule are still unthinkable. It is clear that many of the whites regard the land as just as much theirs as it is the blacks'; most of them were born there. The film doesn't make a case for independence, just for equality of treatment.

The film moves along and is never boring. It tells a good story and is generally well acted. It's too bad that Rock Hudson didn't, or couldn't, attempt a British accent. Although it's clear that all the whites in the film are British, Hudson just moves right along with his American accent, quite un-self conscious about it all. (Maybe it's just as well; he might have ended up sounding as ridiculous as Marlon Brando in "Mutiny on the Bounty.") This is in stark contrast to Sidney Poitier, who manages an African accent quite well. Poitier is actually superb in his role; this was well before he assumed the persona of the saintly characters so superior to everyone else that he played to excess in the 60s. This film appears not to be available on video, so you'll probably have to wait until it appears on Turner Classic Movies again. 8/10

I read Robert Ruark's book twice, Once before I went to Kenya in 1968 and once after my return. I had never seen the movie until recently. While in Africa, I was told by the Black Kenyans and the British Kenyans that the story was exaggerated, but this often happens to keep the interest alive. Having visited there, I thoroughly enjoyed the scenery and remembering many places where I had been and the animals running across the plains with Mount Kenya in the background. It was a treat to see young Rock Hudson, beautiful Dana Wynter and the talents of Sidney Poitier and Wendy Hiller. The action and the supporting actors are fine and I think I will watch it again before I return the tape to the video store.