pressures, the view of this theme as radical is certainly plausible. I doubt, though, whether such a generalised con- ception of a theme has much significant political meaning. What productive political consciousness is it supposed to promote? What 'enquiry' is it likely to 'encourage'? It is dangerous to abstract, so generalised a theme from its context in the overall discourse of the film. We need to remind ourselves that bewil- derment and disillusionment are generated in the film by the monstrous ingratitute of imperialism's response to the eagerly- helping hands that are volunteered in its cause, without any question as to the validity of this cause - either before in- gratitude or afterwards. We need to remind ourselves, too, that there are far more significant aspects to the 'reality of imperialism' than are highlighted in the perhaps rather facile confrontation between the naive enthusiasm of the 'good little colonials' and the cynical brutality of the imperial system which catches the radical fancies of P.S. and K.T. Indeed it is my suggestion that, crucially, the specific con- frontation with which Speaker Korant is concerned has the property of inhibiting the development of questions concerning the basic rationale of imperialism. A final comment is, I think, called for on the use to which P.S. puts the concept of the 'popular' in connection with Brs:'