Hollywood takes Sudan
out of Africa
By Gabriel Packard
New York, New York, Nov. 30 (IPS)— It may not be
possible to exclude Sudanese history altogether from a historical
film set there, but The Four Feathers comes close.
Sudan, whose name means “land of blacks,” is the
largest country in Africa. But like most places in that continent,
it is little known, apart from reports by the United Nations
or the US State Department on torture and slavery, both of which
are reported to be a major problem there.
This latest Hollywood blockbuster set in Africa will do little
to increase viewers’ knowledge of the place. The Four Feathers,
the seventh film incarnation of A.E.W. Mason’s 1902 novel,
has been greeted with lukewarm reviews and cries of “Nice
combat scenes, shame about the politics.”
Shekhar Kapur, the director of this year’s re-make, is
an Indian, so his reverence for the British Empire came as a
surprise to many.
OK, the movie does offer treats for the eye. Oscar-winning
cinematographer Robert Richardson clearly earned his keep, especially
with a masterful set-piece battle scene.
But on the whole, The Four Feathers, like most movies, doles
out a meager ration of food for thought.
The film is set in 1884, a time when “a quarter of the
earth lies under the British Empire,” as the opening title
card tells us. The plot follows officer Harry Feversham (played
by Heath Ledger), his best friend, Jack Durrance (Wes Bentley)
and their unit in Queen Victoria’s army, a self-proclaimed
agent of God and Empire.
After the obligatory love-triangle is set up (Harry is engaged
to Ethne, but Jack secretly loves her too), the troop is ordered
to leave for its maiden mission. They are to fight in Sudan,
where General Charles “Chinese” Gordon is trying vainly
to hold Khartoum against the uprising of the Mahdi, a fundamentalist
Muslim leader.
The other boys are jubilant at the prospect of going to give
Johnny Foreigner a good hiding. But Harry, who has been pressured
by his family into joining the army, doesn’t want to fight
and resigns his commission. For his perceived cowardice, three
of his army pals and Ethne each send him a white feather, the
ultimate condemnation for a man who will not fight for Queen
and Country.
In response, Harry embarks on a wholly unconvincing escapade.
He heads to Sudan and disguises himself as a native northern
Sudanese Arab. (The film keeps pretty quiet about southern Sudan,
which is populated by blacks.)
The plot marches on, and Harry, still in disguise, catches
up with his former troop and launches a series of devilishly
daring, undercover attempts to save his old chums from the incipient
carnage, at the same time hoping to prove that he isn’t
a coward.
Harry is assisted in his adventures by the only major black
character in the film, a former African slave named Abou (Dijimon
Hounsou), who before latching onto Harry, somehow managed to
pick up a North London accent.
The only thing the film tells us about the British occupation
of Khartoum, Sudan’s capital, is that the troops and their
masters believed they were doing God’s work in civilizing
the heathen masses.
The film does probe this idea superficially, in a scene juxtaposing
the two sides praying before battle — emphasizing that
both armies believed they were acting on behalf of God, truth,
and justice.
But disappointingly, the plot steers clear of mentioning what
the British actually were doing in Sudan in the first place,
and avoids addressing the less holy reasons why it would have
been useful to crush the Mahdi. Like, for instance, Egypt’s
recently completed Suez Canal, which was of crucial importance
to British trading and would be threatened by the Mahdi’s
dervish hoards.
Of course, this is a feature film and not a historical documentary.
We need a love interest, and we are supposed to sympathize with
the hero. That much we can allow the director. But what is difficult
to stomach is the way he laces his film with what looks like
an endorsement of the Imperial way of life.
Not only does Kapur avoid tackling the historical issues of
colonial Sudan, he also sits daintily at the sideline and cheers
coyly for the favorite team.
A long sequence at the opening of the second act, for example,
seems carefully designed to assure us that the British soldiers
are all jolly good blokes.
This is the first time we see our boys on duty in Sudan. A
lone native sniper takes pot shots at the British soldiers,
who then pursue and surround him. He is given multiple opportunities
to surrender, and the commanding officer repeatedly orders his
men to hold their fire.
Only after all of these warnings (in English and native translation),
and only after the sniper loads his rifle and takes aim, does
the officer shoot him down. The sniper was aiming at the officer,
so the killing is purely an act of self-defense.
How thoroughly decent.
What confirms this film as a celebration of the Empire, though,
is its central character. By the end, Harry has experienced
first hand the torments and beatings that the natives suffer
at the hands of the British. His life has been saved on numerous
occasions by the black Abou, who is the most selfless and humane
figure in the whole film.
But does this teach Harry anything? Does he have an increased
empathy for black people? Does he show any hint of increased
insight into the situation of other races? Nope. Having exonerated
himself by posing as a native to save his buddies, he just returns
to his former position in the society that had mistreated him
while in disguise.
If we can set aside this rickety ideological framework, The
Four Feathers is actually an enjoyable adventure film. What
Kapur does well is give the epic-movie consuming public what
it pays for: battles, scenery, and daring-do.
The main objective of a Hollywood movie, of course, is to make
money, not to give a historically accurate picture of events.
But for Africa, which outside Hollywood and news reports of
famine and war gets very limited media exposure in the West,
the effect is to strengthen negative stereotypes.
Poster image courtesy fourfeathersmovie.com
|
