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.
10 Reviews
WhiteWash Of History...
xerses1318 November 2008
CECIL RHODES played by Walter Houston in RHODES OF Africa (1936) is another of those odes too Empire. Most of these have to do with 'The British Empire' which "the Sun never sets on" and that includes this film. These films were very popular prior to World War II and every studio participated in making them. Though curious casting of a American actor for a then British hero. No doubt to give box office clout in the U.S.A. for this British made film.
Made at 'Shepherds Bush' the film purports to show CECIL RHODES career from his taking over of the diamond business, through empire building and too his death. His main opponent as shown is 'OHM' PAUL KRUGER played by Oskar Homolka, President of the South African Republic. Reading their histories neither would be too modern eyes likable or enlighten characters. Though in their era they had many admirers and wide spread popularity. It is best to read their histories then to depend upon this film for a informative view.
As 'Empire Films' go this a minor league entry. For a British film it has none of drive and spectacle that can be found in the films of Alexander KORDA. Movies like THE DRUM (1938) or THE FOUR FEATHERS (1939) are a far better watch. From the U.S.A. you should view Paramounts THE LIVES OF A BENGAL LANCER (1935), Warner Brothers THE CHARGE OF THE LIGHT BRIGADE (1936) or RKO's GUNGA DIN (1939). Even the minor league entry by Universal THE SUN NEVER SETS (1939) gives you better viewing value. The caveat is view these films for entertainment, for History go elsewhere.
Made at 'Shepherds Bush' the film purports to show CECIL RHODES career from his taking over of the diamond business, through empire building and too his death. His main opponent as shown is 'OHM' PAUL KRUGER played by Oskar Homolka, President of the South African Republic. Reading their histories neither would be too modern eyes likable or enlighten characters. Though in their era they had many admirers and wide spread popularity. It is best to read their histories then to depend upon this film for a informative view.
As 'Empire Films' go this a minor league entry. For a British film it has none of drive and spectacle that can be found in the films of Alexander KORDA. Movies like THE DRUM (1938) or THE FOUR FEATHERS (1939) are a far better watch. From the U.S.A. you should view Paramounts THE LIVES OF A BENGAL LANCER (1935), Warner Brothers THE CHARGE OF THE LIGHT BRIGADE (1936) or RKO's GUNGA DIN (1939). Even the minor league entry by Universal THE SUN NEVER SETS (1939) gives you better viewing value. The caveat is view these films for entertainment, for History go elsewhere.
somber "documentary" Rhodes goes to Africa
ksf-219 November 2008
From Gaumont Pictures,UK, Rhodes of Africa stars Walter Huston, Oskar Homolka, and a whole lot of British actors that Americans probably don't know. Huston had won his Oscar for "Treasure of the Sierra Madre" with Bogart. Homolka had worked in England and Hollywood on some biggies, like "Sabotage", "Seven Year Itch", and "War and Peace". Right from the beginning, we know the film is about the life of Cecil Rhodes, who explored and conquered South Africa. It opens with (uncredited) narrator describing what south Africa was like, prior to and during Rhodes actions, and the discovery of diamonds there. It runs like a documentary, but as others have noted, probably much white-washed from what actually occurred. Very serious mood at all times, they highlight the obstacles faced by Rhodes and his plans.
A card at the opening acknowledges the cooperation of the people of Rhodesia "for making possible the realisation of the African scenes", but it is not made clear what exactly that cooperation entailed... Directed by Berthold Viertel in 1936, this was the last film he made, although he lived almost another twenty years. IMDb shows he only directed 15 films.
A card at the opening acknowledges the cooperation of the people of Rhodesia "for making possible the realisation of the African scenes", but it is not made clear what exactly that cooperation entailed... Directed by Berthold Viertel in 1936, this was the last film he made, although he lived almost another twenty years. IMDb shows he only directed 15 films.
Cecil Rhodes was a terrible person
pieeye-129 June 2012
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.
Cecil Rhodes 1853-1902
bkoganbing1 December 2014
90 minutes is hardly long enough time to tell the story of a most complex man. Cecil Rhodes was a combination robber baron and adventurer who amassed a fortune by being the last man standing in a war to control the diamond mining industry in South Africa. But Rhodes was a guy who dreamed big and wanted nothing less than control of sub Sahara Africa and if he had lived another two decades he might have had it.
Walter Huston was imported from America to play Rhodes who never married. So single minded and intense was he in pursuit of his goals he didn't make time or wasn't interested in a family. If he had done that the immense fortune that he acquired would never have gone to Rhodes scholarships for instance.
Obviously Gaumont British films wanted him to be a hero, but there just was too much bad in what he did to create his fortune to make Huston as Rhodes a sympathetic figure. His great adversary Paul Kruger leader of the Transvaal Republic of the Boers played here by Oscar Homolka comes off as more sympathetic. By accident Gaumont British did what UFA Studios in Nazi Germany did on purpose in their film Ohm Kruger where the same story is told from the Boer and hence anti-British point of view.
With an independent and majority black led South Africa now, the Cecil Rhodes if filmed today would be markedly different. Probably a whole lot better as well.
Walter Huston was imported from America to play Rhodes who never married. So single minded and intense was he in pursuit of his goals he didn't make time or wasn't interested in a family. If he had done that the immense fortune that he acquired would never have gone to Rhodes scholarships for instance.
Obviously Gaumont British films wanted him to be a hero, but there just was too much bad in what he did to create his fortune to make Huston as Rhodes a sympathetic figure. His great adversary Paul Kruger leader of the Transvaal Republic of the Boers played here by Oscar Homolka comes off as more sympathetic. By accident Gaumont British did what UFA Studios in Nazi Germany did on purpose in their film Ohm Kruger where the same story is told from the Boer and hence anti-British point of view.
With an independent and majority black led South Africa now, the Cecil Rhodes if filmed today would be markedly different. Probably a whole lot better as well.
Not a great film, by any means, but
blrnani22 October 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Nevertheless an important documentary portrayal of one of the the most fascinating characters of a Victorian era that was full of fascinating characters.
The modern tendency to heap scorn on such people is no more than empty virtue signalling by people too lazy (or too ideologically brainwashed) to do the research necessary to actually look into and understand the times.
That is a great disservice to history, as it misses out everything it has taken humanity to get to this point in time and fails to give proper recognition of the evolutionary process and how much attitudes have changed over just a couple of centuries. After all, it was not so very long ago that slavery was considered a normal practice (it had been going on for millennia, after all) and the inhabitants of continents other than Europe were regarded as ignorant savages - unless they proved otherwise - who needed to be educated and brought into the Christian fold (perverted as it was [is?] by the primitive Old Testament values that Christ was trying to change).
When watching the film it is worth bearing in mind that it was the Boers who introduced the policy of apartheid into South Africa.
Above all, note how Rhodes was admired and honoured by the native African people of his time. That surely justifies any Rhodes scholar today to be proud and seek to do justice, in modern terms, to that legacy.
A hard film to like--especially in this day and age.
planktonrules18 January 2012
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!
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!
Made an impact all right, but not in the intended way.
mark.waltz22 December 2023
Warning: Spoilers
I had high hopes for this British biography of the British born explorer Cecil Rhodes whose diamond mining company led to the civilizing of Rhodesia, located in South Africa. This doesn't give a positive light to his accomplishments, and just because he managed to accomplish a lot in spite of the fact that his doctor only gave him six years max to live (if he lead a restful life; six months if he continued as he was living at this point), that's not enough to make him a historical figure to praise.
For Walter Huston, this probably seemed like a perfect film while he was at the height of his career, but coming out the same year as his masterpiece "Dodsworth", it's nowhere near as powerful as that Samuel Goldwyn classic. This seems cheap by comparison, rather episodic and nothing more than showing a capsule of his life. I found it rather cumbersome to watch, with Basil Sidney and Oskar Homolka trying hard, along with Huston, to make something meaningful out of a piece of history that only proves that sometimes the wrong people were involved in it.
For Walter Huston, this probably seemed like a perfect film while he was at the height of his career, but coming out the same year as his masterpiece "Dodsworth", it's nowhere near as powerful as that Samuel Goldwyn classic. This seems cheap by comparison, rather episodic and nothing more than showing a capsule of his life. I found it rather cumbersome to watch, with Basil Sidney and Oskar Homolka trying hard, along with Huston, to make something meaningful out of a piece of history that only proves that sometimes the wrong people were involved in it.
Pretty boring
HotToastyRag22 September 2018
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.
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 bio-pic about Cecil Rhodes, probably best known today as the founder of the Rhodes scholarship.
jeffgillman25 April 2012
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.
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.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
