Rhodes, O Conquistador

Cecil Rhodes is NOT an easy guy to like here in the 21st century. While back in his day he was hailed as a hero, he was also the guy who started De Beers (the diamond monopoly) and was the poster boy for colonialism--having been the leader of Cape Colony (South Africa) and having started Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe)--two of the more racist nations at the time. He also had a huge part in orchestrating the bloody Boer War at the turn of the 19th century. So, it's not surprising that we don't see more biographies of the man--pro-colonialism films died out a long time ago.

This 1936 film is not especially good. First, it is dry as dust and often looks more like a documentary instead of a feature film--a very DRY documentary. Second, how good could such a biography be when they cast the VERY American Walter Huston in the lead?! Sure, he was a very fine actor...and totally wrong as the British Rhodes. Third, while the film SHOULD have been beautiful an expansive, it's obvious that the film was made in a studio--not the lovely South African countryside. And, the film lacks music that might have made the whole thing look and SOUND grand. Instead, it was just flat and dull.

By the way, Rhodes was, perhaps, the strongest supporter of colonialism in history and hoped to one day have Britain take control of Africa, the Middle East and even return the United States to its colonial empire! Now I would have loved to have heard this in the film!

Cecil Rhodes was a terrible person who exploited Africa. Anyone with enough time should read up on his life. He double-crossed friends and foe alike. Many of these old films were like so much propaganda films for the white man mentality of stealing and swindling to get rich while making the person look like some kind of hero. I guess you could make a film about Hitler or Saddam Hussein in a favourable light also.Cecil Rhodes thought Africa should belong to White men. He believed it was the white man's destiny to rule the world.Actually most movies of this age and most now don't reflect reality. Just what the people want to believe. Watch any movie you see with a grain of salt.

In a boring drama about mining South Africa for all its natural resources, Walter Huston stars as the title character, the real life founder of many South African colonies. Sure, it's a typical role for the grand actor who excels in boisterous characters, but the movie is so boring, it could easily have been paired down. And since it's only seventy minutes, it probably already was paired down.

The start of the movie shows an ill Walter getting a death sentence if he doesn't take it easy and slow down. Of course he doesn't, and a title card comes up displaying "Ten Years Later". He's fit and healthy, and raring to go. Diamond mining, colonizing, farming, setting up towns, dealing with politicians-none of these things fall under the category of taking it easy, but Walter does all these things. As a result, Rhodesia was named after him, and the production was filmed there. Personally, I never find these types of movies very interesting, and not even Walter Huston could help me out.

A remarkable film with remarkable performances by Huston infusing the character of Rhodes with a suggestion of madness, by Oscar Homolka as Kruger, a rare opportunity to see a fairly young Peggy Ashcroft and most of all the performance by Ndaniso Kumala as Lobengula. A remarkable man, a remarkable face, remarkable expressiveness. There's nothing else like this performance anywhere in movies. I was unable to find anything about him on line.

The location scenes, evidently shot in Rhodesia are stunning. One can only imagine what they would have been like in color.

The politics of the movie...don't pay too much attention. Rhodes was a complex character and according to present day morality a bad lot: a racist; and imperialist. But who he actually was, should have nothing whatever to do with the enjoyment of this unique and remarkable movie.

Anyone interested in the British film industry of the 1930s in general and this film specifically should read "The Unknown 1930s" edited by Jeffrey Richards and published by I.B.Tauris in 1998.In particular read Chapter 10 commencing on P201 entitled "Berthold Viertel At Gaumont British".Pages 212-215 give detail about the making of this film.It is rather funny in view of the parts that he played that just before filming was about to begin it was realised that Arliss did not resemble Rhodes.The part went to Walter Huston a friend of Mark Ostrer who was one of the major shareholders in Gaumont British.Oscar Homolka was cast because he had worked with Viertel before and shared the same agent.It is ironic that i am the first person from the UK to review this film,since it is unseen and forgotten here.The other reviewers seem to think that this is a Boys Own Adventure in the same vein as "The Drum" or "Gunga Din" which it is not.It is a biography.In fact the only set action piece is truncated half way through.It is an attempt to tell the story of the statesman Rhodes and at the same time extol the virtues of the Empire.it fails on both counts.It suffers the usual problems of such films of having too little time to tell too big a story.One dissolve covers a period of 10years.Rhodes was an aggressive colonist and treated the natives as children as is admitted by the film.Looking at the film in the 1930s these were perfectly acceptable sentiments.Today we can but wonder whether the ills of the continent were to an extent the responsibility of Rhodes.This film was part of a programme designed to woo American audiences.However in June 1937 the company announced that they had lost £98000 the previous year,a colossal amount,production was topped immediately and Lime Grove studios were shut down.This left Gainsborough to turn out Will Hay and Crazy Gang comedies.Balcon went to Ealing Studios via MGM Borehamwood and the rest is history.