The Times’ criticisms of Stark Nature position the film as part of broader ‘disastrous’ developments in the ‘presentation of Nature films’ (The Times, 21 July 1930, 10). These developments are also apparent in Stampede, which positioned expedition footage within a staged narrative, after Stella Court Treatt determined that a ‘story’ was ‘essential as a peg upon which to hang an “animal” picture’ (Court Treatt, 1930, 3). Stark Nature, with its cabaret dancers, explicitly illustrates this growing desire to sensationalise and glamorise wildlife footage, to incorporate other genres and styles within the nature film, and to interconnect fiction and travelogue within these colonial narratives.

The Times was also critical of the ‘facetious’ commentary and of the comparison between ‘modern and primitive’ within the dance sequences. Yet this structure – constructing a clear division between the ‘modern’ Europeans and the ‘primitive’ Africans – runs throughout the film. On ordering a drink of whiskey and soda in the club, Court Treatt’s friend remarks ‘glad to see you’ve retained some of your civilised habits’, while on setting off for Sudan, Court Treatt talks of being ‘cut off from civilisation for a year’. The Dinkas are described in distinctly British terms as ‘utterly primitive of course, but courteous, pleasant and in fact a jolly crowd’, while their ‘primitive methods’ of making fire are highlighted.

The British are aligned with modern technology, which the British do not entrust to the locals – ‘the natives could easily have made short work of some important piece of machinery’. A further scene depicts the locals listening to the gramophone, laughing and rolling around the floor in apparent disbelief. Publicity reports reiterated this mutual incomprehension between the ‘primitive’ locals and ‘modern’ Europeans. For example, one report explained that on hearing the music from Errol Hinds’ portable radio set, ‘the natives thought it another form of “White man’s magic” and left it at that’ (Stark Nature Press book). The publicity discourses, written accounts of the trip and the film commentary all ascribe western perceptions of local life to the local people. For example the ‘awe-struck Dinkas’ see the British boats and are said to be unsure whether it is a ‘miracle or a conjuring trick’. Furthermore, when the British eat breakfast, the commentary explains that ‘the Dinkas stood at a respectful distance although they must have been amazed at seeing us eat with such strange implements as knives and forks and plates and cups’.

Both the editing – most explicitly in the dance sequences – and the commentary serve to compare life in England to that in the Sudan. This is a common feature of British Instructional colonial films during the 1920s, as the films of The Empire Series – such as An African Derby (1927) – demonstrate, often emphasising for comic effect the differences between British and African life in order to stress British primacy. Stark Nature depicts a ‘shopping expedition’, and shows local Africans sitting outside having their hair braided at what the commentary describes as an ‘Arab beauty parlour’. The travellers visit a ‘desert petrol station’ – which consists of a hollow tree – while a local horse race is compared to the ‘gaiety of Ascot or the cheerfulness of Sandown Park’. The disparity between the spoken word and the image serves to generate a comedy that privileges the European viewer. During a scene of a chief dispensing justice – ‘this crude but no means unjust court’ – the commentary jokingly notes the lack of barristers.

Stark Nature also highlights the changing apparatus of the hunter. In the film’s opening scene, Court Treatt explains ‘I shot hundreds of elephants and thousand of natives’. He then explains ‘we shot them with a camera of course’. Publicity materials emphasised that Court Treatt ‘hunted’ with a camera, and cartoons and comic parodies of African exploration – for example Africa Shrieks (1931) – regularly derived comedy by presenting the modern hunter with a film camera and by playing on this familiar notion of the camera as a gun.

Finally, even though the expedition features a female explorer, the film appears to present clearly delineated gender roles. Major Court Treatt does remark that his wife’s ‘knowledge and usefulness on these occasions equals that of a man’, but while she is fully involved within the expedition, the film focuses predominantly on her maternal role, looking after the pets. She is presented within a domestic context feeding and looking after the baby animals. She assigns names to the animals and when discussing Eggbert, her ant-bear, she says ‘Oh he was a darling. He was such a darling…it almost broke my heart leaving some of them behind’.

Tom Rice (July 2008)