Stanley and Livingstone

Stanley and Livingstone is maybe not the most accurate historical movie presented,but nevertheless a very interesting experience. Spencer Tracy is very good in this one,portraying his character in the naturalistic style he was famed for.Cedric Hardwicke is Dr. Livingstone conveying the concern and love for humanity as a dedicated missionary would have.The treatment of the Africans in this movie would feel very racist today,but I think the attitudes of white supremacy was very true to life since this movie is set in the 1870's. Walter Brennan's comic supporting part is a bit annoying and Charles Coburn's British newspaper editor is a caricature.The African footage is spectacular,especially the native attack on Stanley's caravan. This movie is also crying out for a DVD release

Spencer Tracy is on top form in this story of the British-born American journalist Henry Stanley who is despatched by his editor into the uncharted reaches of the African interior to track down the famed explorer David Livingstone, rumours of whose death having been reported by reputable British newspapers. Armed with plenty of money and his reliable sidekick "Slocum" (Walter Brennan) they set off and with some help from the rather fever-ridden British consul in Zanzibar find themselves crossing Africa staring the most beautiful and dangerous travails head on. The screenplay is based in fact, as we all know, so there is little jeopardy in regard to the results of their trekking, but the film takes it's time to develop a bit more of a look into what motivates both men, and how these motivations evolve as their exposure to the dark content and it's peoples moulds and changes opinions and priorities. Sir Cedric Hardwicke is convincing as the missionary explorer who has an innate, if middle-class, decency about him, as is Charles Coburn (Lord Tyce), the publisher of a rival newspaper all too eager for Stanley to fall flat. Though one could never describe him as versatile, the usually charismatic Brennan delivers consistently too. The on-location filming gives us a grand scale vista of their escapades and Tracy and Hardwicke's thoughtful and considered delivery makes this well worth a watch.

This is an interesting movie for a couple of reasons. It suffers from coming out in 1939, which may be the great year of movie releases in history. Its history might be quite different if it was not buried amongst the movie icons that also came out that year.

The first thing I found worth noting was how Hollywood converted the basic western format into an African safari. You could see/hear so many western standard devices as you viewed the film. It was once stated that all movies can be converted into a cowboy movie. This movie was a very short trip in that respect.

The second, and best part, was the whole historical concept of the story, despite the difference from the actual story, which were so eloquently detailed below. The story of this journey, along with the journey of Lewis and Clark, or one-armed Capt. John Wesley Powell through the southwest, especially the Grand Canyon, make up some of the greatest adventures of modern times.

All in all, this movie is a good adventure.

If any of you have read some of my reviews of other films, you'll note that I've said that Jim Bowie of all the colorful frontier characters in American history gets the biggest whitewash in films. The man was a notorious scoundrel and half of this film is devoted to another scoundrel.

Henry M. Stanley was just such a scoundrel. The film does not go at all into his later life as a paid shill of King Leopold of Belgium and his brutally administered regime in the Belgian Congo. Nor does it mention when he came to America, he enlisted and deserted from both sides of the Civil War.

Stanley found his calling as a reporter for the New York Herald where on the strength of his reporting on the American Indian wars, editor James Gordon Bennett decided he was the guy to send to Africa and scoop the English papers in a search for famed missionary Dr. David Livingstone.

Whatever else he was, Stanley was a brave man and his explorations into Africa added considerable knowledge for the Caucasian world about that continent.

As for Livingstone, by all indications he was a Christian who did walk the walk in his beliefs in life and probably would have been aghast at Stanley's later activities with the Belgian Congo.

Spencer Tracy plays Stanley as if he was doing one of his roughneck characters who finds the piety of a Father Flanagan in the African jungle. Cedric Hardwicke is a very proper and pious David Livingstone. Hardwicke's portrayal is the truth and Tracy does put his characterization of Stanley across, false though it is in real life.

This was Spencer Tracy's only film away from MGM for the time he was under contract to them. It was for his former studio 20th Century Fox and he certainly never got as big a budget on his previous films with them except possibly Dante's Inferno.

Though the film takes incredible liberties with the facts, fans of Spencer Tracy might like this story of a scoundrel in search of a saint in the jungle.

Hollywood brings us Uganda, Kenya and Tanganyika as it will never be seen again. The scenery is electrifyingly beautiful. But this is no story for the sake of a travelog...It is a beautiful account of the true historic struggles of newspaperman, Henry Stanley to find "lost" missionary, Dr. David Livingston.

Spencer Tracy, Cedric Hardwicke, Charles Coburn, Nancy Kelly and Walter Brennan bring us wonderful performances full of humanity and depth.

One fine scene in the movie when Stanley encounters extremely hostile adversaries on his way to find Livingston is just about one of the most exciting sequences I have seen on the screen and should there be only one reason to see this movie, then this is it. It is electrifying to see what certainly must have been true African citizens partake in such a very authentic looking ambush. No disrespectful depiction of Africans as seen so often in Tarzan movies will you see here.

Rarely does Hollywood brings us such respectful detail in its depiction of the African citizen as he was when they encountered outsiders. Also, the citizens do not have that awful spurious look that most depictions of Africans are so prone to have from Hollywood in its racism of the past. But then 1939 was a landmark year, wasn't it?

There is so much history that we are inclined to forget too easily and relegate to the dust of the shelves of history.

This is one story that must be heard - if not for anything else than for its sheer humanity.

Exhilarating, Tender, Human, Awe-Inspiring, Wonderful, See It!