Stanley and Livingstone (1939)

Second viewing (first one: November 4th, 1990).

In the 19th century, a newspaperman goes to Africa in search of a missionary who has gone missing.

I found everything odious in this film, but I have a clear distinction in my mind between an odious film and a bad one, and this is not a bad one. Putting aside minor improprieties like a totally artificial and out-of-place love story, we get to the main issue: Stanley and Livingstone is entirely an ideological fiction, and on occasion it is a factual lie also (e.g. the real character of Stanley was far more controversial than what the film shows). The importance which is attributed to finding this person called Livingstone is something impossible to be understood, except in the light of the inversion of values which has been one of the main characteristics of the capitalist press ever since its origins. There is a particular scene which shows ideology at work in a very neat way: an African native is caught stealing a small object from Stanley's bag, and is punched in the face for it. Stanley is then scolded by Livingstone for his violence, and then lectured about the efficacy of softer methods. The opposition between Stanley and Livingstone poses a certain conflict which excludes tacitly the reality of the situation, namely, that in the native's culture there is not the concept of stealing, simply because there is no private property as the Europeans know it. The real violence is the imposition of the European culture. Why then I consider it a good film (within its artistic limits, of course)? Because it is a coherent lie, and as such it somehow gives a smart viewer a glimpse of the truth it conceals. It is not a great film, obviously.

Rating: 57 (down from 63)