When a movie attempts to recreate recent human history it has two responsibilities — to portray its scenario with historical accuracy and to entertain while doing so. A couple of years ago Selma was lauded by many (including myself) as compelling history, yet I also felt that it sacrificed some of its entertainment value to its reach for nobility. Now Selma‘s star, David Oyelowo, has made another foray into political and social history with A United Kingdom, and I feel it has the same dramatic outcome. It’s an honorable film about honorable characters, but it isn’t particularly commanding.
Amma Asante’s film introduces us to Seretse Khama (Oyelowo) in London after the Second World War. He is finishing his education before returning to Africa, to Bechaunaland, to become its king. In London he falls in love with white woman Ruth Williams (Rosamund Pike) and marries her. They move to Bechaunaland, but Seretse is denied the throne because of his marriage. Political and personal turmoil ensues — for years — before he is allowed to ascend to leadership and is accepted by his people, in what would become more familiar as Botswana.
The film is widely considered to be historically accurate and dramatically sound; the acting of Oyelowo and especially Pike is quite solid. Its script describes and presents the racism and prejudice of everybody involved in tasteful, almost benign terms, pointing to the future with the knowledge that eventually the inertia of time will wear down the opposition to an interracial marriage. All that is fine, and convincing because that’s what actually happened, but it isn’t particularly dramatic or exciting. This film often plays more like a dry TV documentary recreation of events than a passionate, turbulent tale of love denied, at least partly because Seretse and his wife were separated from each other for so long due to governmental interference.
What works is the historical context: the arrogance with which Britain tried to control its “colony” even while the will of Botswana’s people was ignored. As a history lesson the film succeeds, illustrating how global and regional politics overwhelmed the choices and freedoms of public personages of the time. Dramatically it is interesting, but rarely compelling, which is a shame because its lead performances are so authentic. ☆ ☆ 1/2. 14 April 2017.