A United Kingdom (UK-US-Czech Republic 2016)

A promotional image for the film suggesting the African-British ‘marriage’

It’s difficult to write objectively and dispassionately about A United Kingdom. I invested a great deal emotionally in watching the film on its release in 2016 and I wasn’t disappointed. For the film to be made at all and with a generous budget and good promotion is in itself a triumph. In fact, my only disappointment was in reading some of the mealy-mouthed and borderline offensive comments about the film submitted to IMDb. I hesitated about publishing my post but now, during something of a furore about Black History Month in the UK it seems appropriate to put my thoughts on record.

A United Kingdom presents a ‘real life story’ about a personal relationship which began in London in the late 1940s and which became the focal point of a story about international diplomacy, ‘End of Empire’ and racism in Southern Africa (and in the UK). While the film’s narrative is constructed mainly from historical facts, there are some instances of ‘artistic licence’ in scriptwriter Guy Hibbert’s version of events. But I don’t think these departures and other slight inaccuracies in any way undermine the thrust of the film’s message. This is a mainstream feature melding elements of romance, adventure, biopic and political thriller with a satisfying dose of social comment. It is also a personal statement by Amma Asante, a British director of African descent, working with David Oyelowo, a British star actor, also of African heritage, both of whom recognised the importance of putting this story on screen. Add to this a passionate and committed performance by Rosamund Pike and here is a film to savour.

The couple meet in London . . .

In 1947 the British Protectorate of Bechuanaland in Southern Africa covered a large area of mainly arid plains (and desert areas) and mountains with a tiny population of under 150,000. As a ‘protectorate’ rather than a colony the local population had certain land rights vested in hereditary rulers, the most important of whom was Seretse Khama. In 1947 Seretse was studying to become a barrister in London while his uncle acted as regent after Seretse’s father died. In London, Seretse met and later married Ruth Williams, a clerical officer at Lloyds and the younger daughter of a lower middle-class family in South-East London. Ruth was a grammar school girl who had driven ambulances as a WAAF in the war. The newly-married couple faced  a great deal of opposition. In London a de facto ‘colour bar’ existed in parts of society. In Bechuanaland, Seretse’s uncle opposed the union because he thought it inappropriate for a future king and when Seretse and Ruth arrived in the country they faced a difficult future. The British government opposed the marriage because of the situation in Southern Africa. Bechuanaland Protectorate was administered locally by a British representative on the ground who was answerable to a Commissioner for Southern Africa – who was actually based in South Africa. South Africa had been a ‘dominion’ in the British Empire since 1910 and a sovereign state since 1931 as a constitutional monarchy with a Governor-General representing the British monarch. In 1948 the Nationalist Party of South Africa returned to power under D. F. Malan with the intention of building an apartheid state – institutionalising segregation and ‘separate development’ for racial groups. The British Government faced the dilemma of accommodating the apartheid state or losing any influence in South Africa at a time when UK foreign policy at the beginning of the Cold War was designed to retain British military bases and allies overseas in a time of austerity. A United Kingdom‘s script neatly demonstrates the insidious nature of apartheid in showing a hotel in Bechuanaland which requires Black Africans to use the back door – with just the one exception of the king, Seretse Khama. There was a real danger of South Africa attempting to annex large parts of the protectorate. The requirement to keep the Nationalists ‘on side’ in the early 1950s meant that Seretse and Ruth Khama were exiled and forced to live in London for several years in the early 1950s.

Jack Davenport plays the British official who obstructs democracy in Bechuanaland and lends support to apartheid South Africa

The key to the political/diplomatic narrative of A United Kingdom is in the land rights vested in the Khama family’s history, so that when diamonds are discovered in the territory, Seretse Khama has a legal claim in the British courts. This would eventually lead to a valuable resource becoming available for the people of Bechuanaland which moved to a peaceful independence in 1966 as the Republic of Botswana – with Seretse Khama as its first President. Botswana has since become a stable state with high levels of ‘human development’. It’s fascinating to see the role of Labour MP Tony Benn in all of this (the Khamas named their second son ‘Tony’). Benn’s role in the film is based on historical fact, but I’m not sure about some of the other Westminster political events depicted. In researching this background I realised that there was a second similar ‘scandal’ in 1956 when the daughter of the senior Labour Party politician Stafford Cripps married a Ghanaian politician just before the country’s independence from the UK in 1957. So, A United Kingdom is actually representative of many stories associated with ‘End of Empire’ – many African leaders of the 1950s and 1960s were in London in the late 1940s and 1950s.

But this is also a romance and a moving family story. I realise now that there is a great deal of similarity between A United Kingdom and Gurinder Chadha’s Viceroy’s House released a few months later. Both films are proudly emotional and passionate about the ‘personal stories’ that represent the struggles of ‘colonial subjects’ in the dismantling of the British Empire. In both cases their directors are shining an important light on episodes of British foreign (and colonial) policy that very much need to be exposed. Both films should become staples in UK education about Empire history. What they also have in common is a criticism in terms of nitpicking about historical accuracy from the right and sometimes disdain from middle-class supporters who refuse to recognise the genre-based cinema of Amma Asante and Gurinder Chadha. There are those who still dismiss popular cinema but both films need to be supported in placing ‘popular’ stories before us.

3 comments

  1. keith1942

    I have to take issue with Roy’s comment about criticism of this film and of ‘Viceroy House’; ‘disdain from middle class supporters’. He may have read examples of this but there has also been justified criticism of the films because of their failure to break out of the dominant values of Britain’s self-satisfied history of ’empire’. I have reviewed both films on my ‘Third Cinema Blog’. There they can be compared with films by indigenous artists from both Africa and the Indian sub-continent. Essentially the films fall somewhere between what Solanas and Getino termed mainstream or ‘bourgeois’ cinema and ‘second cinema’ or auteur works. As Franz Fanon argues, ‘the native intellectual gives proof that he has assimilated the culture of the occupying power’. In the case of ‘Viceroy House’ the film lets Mountbatten and his crew off the hook and makes villains of only Churchill and Ismay. In the Case of ‘A United Kingdom’ the film fails to deal properly with the ordinary peoples of the kingdom, reduced to ciphers.
    Roy is right that these are genre films. But that it no reason for not identifying and criticising their reactionary politics.

    • Roy Stafford

      I did say I was making an emotional response. I don’t disagree with your analysis but I don’t want to blame either Amma Asante or Gurinder Chadha for how their films might be read by those with a ‘self-satisfied view of the history of the British Empire’. These are two British ‘women of colour’ who have tried to tell stories in which they have a personal investment. It’s only a beginning in terms of introducing such stories to a wider public.

  2. keith1942

    Fair comment Roy. But I do think that the directors bear some responsibility, especially as both exercise a high degree of control over their films. I thought Asante”s earlier films were better on class. And Chadha’s film is problematic in the way it handles the Hindu/Moslem conflict; something that it was taken to task over in an article in ‘The Guardian’. The earlier ‘Gandhi’ suffered from a similar problem.
    I reviewed an Indian film, Rangoon (2017) which is also a genre film, full of the tropes of what we call ‘Bollywood’. But it also celebrates the Indian National Army who waged war against the British colonialist in the early 1940s.
    A film that addresses the issues of colonialism and resistance is ‘Concerning Violence’ (2014), which does a pretty good job of presenting the ideas of Franz fanon.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.