Robert Kingston-Davies argued that his films in East Africa were intended to show the ‘transition from African to Western civilisation’ and in particular the effect of this transition on ‘everyday life’ (Colonial Cinema, June 1947, 39). For the most part, The Story of Omolo appears to follow this formula, creating a clear division between African and ‘Western civilisation’ and emphasising the necessary ongoing role of the British within Africa.

First, the film sets up a complete contrast between Omolo’s village – unenlightened and outdated – and the modern methods of the Bukura school. The British commentary highlights the lack of change or development within Omolo’s village – the Bantu people farm ‘as they have always done’, Omolo ‘works on his land as his father did, using the same tools, the same methods’. Likewise, the commentator further emphasises their ignorance of, what the films presents as, routine British methods – the local people have ‘yet to learn’ about sanitation and ‘know nothing of proper pasturing’. The film stresses the physical distance between the ‘remote and isolated’ village and Bukura – they walked for ‘many miles’ – almost mythologizing Bukura as the commentator explains that the headman of the village ‘had heard that there is a farm’ provided by the government. On his arrival, Omolo immediately sees the ‘neat, and strong and inviting’ white houses, which are compared to those of the village – he sees houses ‘he has never seen before’ – and discovers new ploughing methods that are ‘much better than anything Omolo knew at the village’. In contrast to the African village, Bukura is represented as a British initiative, as a European officer initially welcomes Omolo, who again speaks to a European man when he later seeks ‘expert advice’.

Monthly Film Bulletin complained that the film was less clear in outlining the specific details of the scheme, but as a film seemingly intended primarily for British audiences, the specific details were less important than the general rhetoric of British development within the African colonies. In showing the work of the Bukura school, the film represents British development in familiar terms. The Europeans provide ‘good health’ – although the annual report suggests otherwise – teach modern farming methods and provide classroom instruction. Indeed the film combines many of the subjects addressed in other Crown and Colonial Film Unit productions, such as demonstrating the building of new brick houses. These houses are ‘bright and clean and good to live in’ as the film again promotes the role of the British in bringing sanitation and cleanliness to Africa.

The British commentary ensures that this message of continued British supervision and instruction permeates the film. This is achieved not only through the script, but also through the mode of address, as the commentator talks directly at the characters within the narrative, instructing and warning them: ‘Quickly, quickly Omolo, your house and all your possessions are burning’. However, the film does ensdorse a message of gradual change and self-development within Africa. The commentator remarks that the students at Bukura ‘would one day become teachers’ and, in showing African teachers, acknowledges a move towards self-government. Yet this move is a very slow one. At the film’s conclusion, the commentator states that in most of East Africa ‘ignorance and disease still live unchallenged in the mud huts and impoverished fields’. Such a representation of an undeveloped ‘primitive’ Africa serves to validate the ongoing British presence in the area, as the film staunchly proclaims the primacy of the British methods and concludes that ‘every opportunity must be given for the people to learn the new ways of life’.

Tom Rice (September 2008)