Rhodes of Africa was the first screen biography of Cecil Rhodes. Four previous attempts to film his life fell victim to his controversial legacy.  A silent version was abandoned in 1916 because of opposition from the Southern Rhodesian government. Subsequent attempts in the late 1920s also foundered due to opposition from the government of the South African Union.  It was only after the American studio MGM announced their plans to make a Rhodes biopic that British Gaumont was able to persuade authorities in South Africa and Southern Rhodesia to throw their weight behind a British version (Burns, ‘Biopics and Politics’, 110-112)

The impetus behind the film came from Michael Balcon, a staunch patriot who wanted to use his studio to popularize the British Empire at home and abroad. Rhodes of Africa was one of three imperial dramas he made for British Gaumont. The screenplay was based on a laudatory biography by Sarah Gertrude Millin. It was directed by Berthold Viertel. Canadian actor Walter Huston was cast in the title role.  A film unit was dispatched to Southern Africa, though Huston’s scenes were shot on a sound stage in England.  The film premiered in New York in February of 1936 and in London the following month.  It was distributed widely throughout the empire.   

The film inspired an array of critical responses. In Britain an approving Lord Baden Powell and members of his scouting movement attended the premiere.  It received a glowing review in the journal United Empire (‘Rhodes’ in United Empire Volume 27, 1936, 217). The Times recognized its inaccuracies, but accepted these as necessary simplifications for a historical film, and maintained that they were conveyed ‘without any significant distortion’ (Times, March 6, 1936, 12). The Times reviewer commended the film’s clarity in presenting complicated historical issues.

Other British critics were less enthusiastic.  Writing in The Spectator, Graham Greene pronounced the film ‘Sobre, worthy, humourless’. In a review in which he compared it unfavourably to the Eisenstein historical drama October Greene asserted that the film lacked ‘any passionate conviction whether for or against Rhodes and his work in Africa’.  Greene attributed the film’s lack of jingoism to contemporary sensibilities: ‘now as an empire we are too old, the pride isn’t there, the heart seems to have failed once too often’ (The Spectator, March 27, 1936, 575). In the Left Review Elizabeth Coxhead also noted the film’s muted patriotism: ‘There are some interesting signs of the times in the film which Gaumont-British have made on the career of Cecil Rhodes.  It is obviously and curiously nervous’ (Left Review, volume 4, 1936, 349).

American critics faulted the film’s dramatic qualities. The Saturday Review found it ‘dull but painstaking’ (The Saturday Review, 28 March 1936, 416). Writing in the Washington Post, Nelson B. Bell complained that it lacked ‘fire’, though he conceded that it had been received enthusiastically by the audience (The Washington Post, April 17, 1936). The New York Times reviewer likewise found it tame and argued that it demonstrated that the British had lost the ability to make exciting films about their empire (New York Times February 29, 1936, 11). This theme was elaborated in a follow-up piece published several months later: ‘[Rhodes] was made as you may recall, to be a glorification of the Empire Builder. But it emerged as a sympathetic study of Oom Paul Kruger, the Boer President. Oom Paul was shown to be right in every respect, including his cynicism concerning England’s purposes in opening up Africa to colonization. Hollywood would have done a much better job of it, I’m sure’ (New York Times, November 8, 1936, X5).

In Southern Africa the film stirred controversy among white audiences. English and Afrikaans newspapers criticized the film’s historical inaccuracies.  Afrikaners objected in particular to the film’s depiction of President Kruger, though Homolka’s performance had been one of the elements of the film that had drawn praise from British and American reviewers. The controversy inspired the Union government to ban the film to all African audiences (Gutsche, 340).

Huston’s performance received ambivalent reviews. Though his acting was commended by many critics, observers all over the empire were put off by the fact that he looked very little like the real Cecil Rhodes. Huston himself recognized that he bore a striking resemblance to the Labour Prime Minister Ramsay McDonald, a fact which was echoed by reviewers throughout the empire. Most critics commended Huston’s acting while lamenting the highly sanitised characterisation of Rhodes as both dull and historically inaccurate. Oscar Homulka’s performance as Kruger was cited by many critics as the best part of the film, though others found him overly theatrical. The one performance in the film that was universally complimented was that of Ndaniso Kumala as King Lobengula, who won praise throughout the empire.  Much was made in the popular press of the ‘weird’ rituals Kumala participated in throughout the filming, as well as the actor’s relationship to Lobengula, who he claimed had been his uncle.    

Rhodes of Africa was the last biopic to be made of the man for sixty years. In 1996 the SABC produced a six-hour made for television biopic based on a critical biography by Anthony Thomas.