Golden Ivory

"The White Huntress" (original British title "Golden Ivory") was shot on location in Kenya in 1954, and first released in the US in 1957. While it is true that the American ad campaign was misleading, there is a brief (one minute) sequence which features a huge python crawling across the neck of our sleeping heroine (Susan Stephan), who calmly reaches for her knife and stabs the reptile to death. I went in expecting little, but I must say that it didn't bore me, simply accepting it for what it is. Scriptwise, there's nothing we haven't seen before, but the location shooting makes for a more authentic African adventure than Hollywood could ever muster, and there appears to be no stock footage that's been seen in countless cheapies before or since. The two brothers do lead the settlers into danger, but only the good one (Robert Urquhart) falls for the heroine, the other too preoccupied with booze and greed to notice much beyond fool's gold. I would surmise that most viewers may wish that the filmmakers had concentrated on the behind-the-scenes action that resulted in a movie that few people would have wanted to see. This appears to be one of those color films that saw TV exposure only in cheaply done black and white prints, until the advent of full time color resulted in these titles falling into even greater obscurity. That is also the reason why this, and other color films like "Manfish" (1955), are only available today in B/W. "The White Huntress" aired just once on Pittsburgh's Chiller Theater, as the first feature on November 14 1964 (paired with 1957's "Blood of Dracula").

I first heard of this a couple of years ago, mainly due to the fact it features Susan Stephen in it. Originally released as Golden Ivory in 1954, it later changed it's name to the less apt White Huntress when it was bought up by American International Pictures and released as part of a double feature with Naked Africa in 1957 to corner the sexploitation market. There is a reason why they bought this up (I'll get to that later on), but bizarrely they released it in B&W and cut 15 minutes from the film. The original full length colour version is hard to come by, but I was fortunate enough to come across it. However, if you are expecting a daring and risque film, you are going to be severely disappointed.

Indeed, this is one of those average adventure films that they used to churn out in the day. The story starts intriguingly enough when a chap staggers across the African landscape to a hut where he collapses and dies holding a parchment. The native who finds him shows it to two brothers, Jim and Paul Dobson (Robert Urquhart and John Bentley), who realize it gives details of an elephant graveyard where precious ivory can be found to make their fortune. Soon after they latch themselves onto a party of settlers who are going across Kenya to set up a new life and offer to help lead them over the dangerous terrain. Their real intentions are clear: they are plotting to find the elephant graveyard, but a spanner is thrown into the works when brother Jim falls for the daughter of one of the settlers, Ruth Meecham (Susan Stephen) and his focus becomes more on her and the settlers safety.

Already there are some features that will grate with modern audiences. A story of ivory hunters would certainly be frowned upon today, as would the pioneers going out into Africa to find a new life in someone else's country, and the settlers attitude to the natives and the uprising Masai rebels, who are a little peeved about them claiming parts of their land for themselves. But in watching old films viewers should remember that it is portraying a part of life in history, whether good or bad - just the same as many who happily watched TV series like Rome or Spartacus where those pesky Romans colonized other countries and kept slaves. As it is, the main problem they should complain about this film is that it is just so dull! The film is only 1hr 20mins long, but it feels longer. Along the way the group encounters a number of dangers, including tiger and snake attacks, a couple of native uprisings, plus the arrival of Mr Seth (Alan Tarlton), a mysterious stranger who tells a story of surviving a massacre, but who leaves the viewer uncertain whether to trust him or not. But each incident feels like a set piece, like going from A to B, and a couple of these incidents look a little comical - especially the scene where Mr Seth wrestles with a deadly snake (Tarzan, eat your heart out!). And speaking of snakes, one of the film's posters features a woman wrestling with a giant snake, but the reality in the film is somewhat more tame compared to the poster. Yes, Susan Stephen does encounter a snake in a scene where it crawls over her while sleeping, but she makes short work of killing it (probably later turning it into a fashionable handbag). It's not the only time she encounters a snake in the film, but both times she is more than prepared to tackle it herself rather than wait for a man to rescue her. Indeed, she gets stuck into whatever Africa has to throw at her, and is as equally comfortable shooting Masai rebels as she is in dealing with deadly animals. The film deserves some credit for portraying independent women, and all of the women in the film are equally adept at looking after themselves - an interesting premise in 1954.

And speaking of snakes, Susan Stephen also encounters bad brother Paul (John Bentley), who forces his attentions onto her in one scene after preventing her from tackling a snake in a tree. Part of the film's selling point is a love triangle between Susan's character Ruth and the brothers Jim and Paul Dobson. But it's clear to see which one she will choose, even though there is very little spark between any of them. Robert Urquhart makes for a rather bland lead as Jim Dobson, while Susan herself doesn't offer much enthusiasm in her role of Ruth. That goes for much of the cast, who all go through the motions in a film that does much the same, with the notable exception being John Bentley as the far more interesting brother Paul. Considering that Bentley is better known for his hero roles as The Toff and Paul Temple, he is remarkably effective cast against type as the bad brother who has little qualms about seducing Ruth, stealing liquer from the wagons or even betraying the others in his bid to find the elephant graveyard. But even he cannot quite enliven this film. There is however one scene that will certainly generate interest and that is a midnight swim that Susan Stephen takes about an hour into the film. Although she is in her underwear, the result when she rises after being told that crocodiles are in the river is so see through that it leaves very little to the imagination! You don't expect to see that in a film from 1954 and even proved a selling point in one of the posters in a clinch with Robert Urquhart used to advertise the film. It is doubtless what American International Pictures saw when they bought up the film to sell as part of the sexploitation market, but apart from that scene there is very little else to get excited about in this film.

When not even Susan Stephen taking a revealing dip in the water can maintain interest in the film you know you are in trouble. Granted, it is a standard adventure film that does have moments of drama, and at least two of the settlers die on their way to Blood Mountain, just to show that the pioneers won't have it all their own way. But most of the cast perform as if they are half dead anyway, and if they can't really be enthused about appearing in this film then what hope does the audience have? For John Bentley fans, this offers an interesting performance against type. For Susan Stephen fans, there is that midnight dip. For everyone else, there is little else to recommend it. It's an average adventure yarn that makes the cardinal sin of being just too dull.

Quick and colourful African western concerning English settlers getting to grips with the perils of native Kenya. Essentially a glorified faunalogue in which reluctant hunters on horseback stalk the savanna in search of game, whilst mild romantic undertones simmer in the background.

Urquhart is the more amiable of the contracted hunters, trying his best to manage his alcoholic brother (Dobson) and the attentions of a nubile female passenger (Stephen, whose rather revealing moment bathing in a river late in the movie appears to have been missed in the editing room). Local beauty Maureen Connell also appears in her film debut before becoming an occasional female lead in Britain in the late 50s.

Tussles with leopards, lions and snakes offset by lighthearted moments admiring giraffe and tree monkeys, but there's tension on the horizon as the intrepid adventurers attempt to cross a treacherous river and must survive local tribes unhappy with colonialist encroachment.

Economical British safari is generally well acted standard fare, akin to any number of traditional second-bill westerns of the 50s, although there's an unexpected twist at the climax before justice is served. No frills, just the usual threats punctuated by inert-looking wildlife and tepid romance.

British western set in Kenya in 1890. Two brothers who are hunters join a caravan inland to Masai country looking for the legendary meeting place of elephants.

It follows the normal western storyline, that is, of a group in search of something (in this case ivory), betrayal and intrigue, a few encounters with animals, someone important dies unexpectedly, and a romance with a young ingenue.

Susan Stephen has a bit of a surprise for the boys in the cinema.

While by no means the cream of the crop of safari adventure flicks such as the earlier Weissmuller Tarzan pictures or Hatari, "White Huntress" has its share of thrills and intrigue with a healthy amount of snake attacks and tribal warfare thrown in. The only real trouble one is bound to run into with this film is its curious lack of anything even remotely resembling a white huntress - no such character or plot twist exists in the film. I rented the DVD expected a jungle girl flick along the lines of the Nyoka vein, and although I was not terribly disappointed by the film I ended up watching, I cannot for the life of me figure out how it ended up with such a ridiculously misleading title. 7/10