Abstract

This article examines representations of colonial subjects within two forms of ‘empire films’ of the 1930s: popular ‘entertainment’ empire films widely consumed by audiences in Britain and the colonies, and documentary films about empire produced by the Empire Marketing Board (EMB) and the General Post Office (GPO) film units. These two types of film at first glance seem markedly different, with the one featuring the sensational colonial villain, and the other emphasising a docile and peaceful workforce in the colonies. Yet if we consider these two types of film within a large media landscape intent on courting the ‘human interest’ of audiences between the wars, the particularly racialised boundaries of this term comes into focus. This article examines the seemingly divergent portrayals of colonial subjects across these films and in conjunction with responses of audiences in both England and the colonies, and early discussions at the EMB about the appeal of empire narratives. The appeal and endurance of the figure of the colonial villain in entertainment films and the perspective of documentary producer John Grierson on film, human interest, and empire asks us to consider the state’s role in refashioning empire in this period. This article asks whether the state was truly invested in refashioning a modern empire in the interwar period, as some historians have argued, or if it was content to affirm the limited portrayal of colonial subjects on screen.