1.30.2004
"Africa Speaks"
When I'm looking to kill some time and since my DVD player is kaput (thanks a lot HP--I bought this machine in July and to fix it they want me to send it back to the states which would mean a minimum of two months before I get it back, yeah right) I sometimes go to this website where they've posted films that I guess the studios have released the copyright on. Mostly stuff from the 1930's or so and which, for one reason or another, will never be shown on tv.
It's quite interesting simply because I think there's a lot of history there. Not that they're particularly good movies, but a major reason I can see for letting the copyrights lapse is that a number of the films are patently racist and offensive. No I guess this stuff shouldn't be on TV except maybe as clips in a documentary or something. But the thing that fascinates me about it is that these were considered "mainstream" a mere 70 years ago. In a sense I think they should be preserved, which I guess they are partially online.
So yesterday I decided to see what qualified as a documentary in the 30's and watched Africa Speaks which claims to be a document of the first trans-African trek by motor vehicle. A dubious claim but it does contain quite a lot of interesting footage of Africa in the 20's actually. To create continuity the studio shot a number of filler scenes in a studio showing the "explorer" Paul Hoefler and his cameraman ostensibly in Africa filming and commenting on the action which, even in the 30's had to look wired...who's filming the cameraman? Of course the narration is predictably bad. They make fun of Pygmies, including one off-hand comment that was just wired about the king's wives, "They're shy...when the king's around." ?!?!?
But the part that really disturbed me is that at the climax. They visit a Masai tribe and the king offers to have his son help them look for lions to film. Then, according to the film, the boy gets eaten by a lion. It's obvious that this part is re-enacted (assuming it happened at all, which is a stretch), but they do, in the reenactment, actually shoot a lion to death. You can see it curl up and then slowly extend it's limbs as the life goes out of it. And their only comment, perhaps meant in stoic fashion but it doesn't come off as such, "It's going to be hard to tell the old king about Keiga."
In retaliation the tribesmen gather and hunt down a lion, but the fact that they kill the lion and don't rejoice seems to baffle the Americans. They chalk it up to the fact that the men respect the lion. Um, just an idea here but maybe they're a little upset about Keiga? Then the Americans start to get nervous that maybe they're going to get it next. About the only intelligent reaction they had.
It's quite interesting simply because I think there's a lot of history there. Not that they're particularly good movies, but a major reason I can see for letting the copyrights lapse is that a number of the films are patently racist and offensive. No I guess this stuff shouldn't be on TV except maybe as clips in a documentary or something. But the thing that fascinates me about it is that these were considered "mainstream" a mere 70 years ago. In a sense I think they should be preserved, which I guess they are partially online.
So yesterday I decided to see what qualified as a documentary in the 30's and watched Africa Speaks which claims to be a document of the first trans-African trek by motor vehicle. A dubious claim but it does contain quite a lot of interesting footage of Africa in the 20's actually. To create continuity the studio shot a number of filler scenes in a studio showing the "explorer" Paul Hoefler and his cameraman ostensibly in Africa filming and commenting on the action which, even in the 30's had to look wired...who's filming the cameraman? Of course the narration is predictably bad. They make fun of Pygmies, including one off-hand comment that was just wired about the king's wives, "They're shy...when the king's around." ?!?!?But the part that really disturbed me is that at the climax. They visit a Masai tribe and the king offers to have his son help them look for lions to film. Then, according to the film, the boy gets eaten by a lion. It's obvious that this part is re-enacted (assuming it happened at all, which is a stretch), but they do, in the reenactment, actually shoot a lion to death. You can see it curl up and then slowly extend it's limbs as the life goes out of it. And their only comment, perhaps meant in stoic fashion but it doesn't come off as such, "It's going to be hard to tell the old king about Keiga."
In retaliation the tribesmen gather and hunt down a lion, but the fact that they kill the lion and don't rejoice seems to baffle the Americans. They chalk it up to the fact that the men respect the lion. Um, just an idea here but maybe they're a little upset about Keiga? Then the Americans start to get nervous that maybe they're going to get it next. About the only intelligent reaction they had.
