One of the ambitions of Children of the Jungle is to provide a pioneering anthropological study. An early title card states that ‘This film is the first attempt at intimate glimpses of the aboriginal jungle tribes of Central India’, while a later one claims that ‘These customs filmed for the first time are quite orthodox and correct in detail’. The ‘valuable assistance’ of local forest officers is also underlined. The film is structured like a travelogue, giving the impression that it casually recounts the film crew’s expedition among the jungle people. To that end the film’s authenticity is aided by its occasional amateurism. There is no attempt to sequence the most interesting scenes first; some scenes are poorly lit; others are crudely edited; and the commentary occasionally stumbles. Moreover, the crew allow themselves to enter the frame. The progress of their car is shown on film and we see them introducing the locals to the wonders of radio (this occurs during a curious segment that features the forest officers awarding prizes – including empty beer bottles – to the most beautiful villagers).

The viewer also gets a sense of the filmmakers’ activities behind the camera. This film has many sequences that have been staged for the camera. These include posed ethnographical portraits (framed with head-and-shoulders shots which are filmed both face-on and in profile); activities performed by the locals for the camera (a display of fire-making; a scene in which a Gond hunter discloses the possessions that he carries with him); and orchestrated narrative sequences (a panther hunt; the Bhil wedding). These latter sequences are indicative of the more professional approaches of the filmmakers. Several of the filmed events could not have occurred in real time. Scenes are shot from a variety of positions (close-ups, distance shots, reaction shots) thus disclosing the re-framing and repositioning of Children of the Jungle’s lone camera. In addition, some scenes are filmed from ‘unnatural’ positions (filming face-on to a team of archers who are supposedly aiming at a panther), and others from privileged ones (during some of the wedding scenes the cameraman/viewer is granted an omniscient viewpoint). Each of these elements reveals a degree of intervention by the filmmakers.

In his commentary Jepson frequently adopts a jocular tone, which is sometimes sexual (‘Oh mother Eve - what could poor Adam do about that?’) and sometimes sexist (‘The women are adept at doing two or three things at once; most ladies are!). He freely offers his own opinions (‘these ceremonies may seem ludicrous’) and on occasion guesses at the meaning of the activities he witnesses (the ritual of rubbing the prospective groom’s face with turmeric is described as being ‘just to keep him from feeling cold and backing out of it probably’). He makes use of western comparisons to help convey the activities that are on display, but does so in a manner that reinforces a divide: fire-making is described as a ‘little game – better than yo-yo’ and we learn that ‘Mr Ford will never displace the bullock cart from India’. Moreover, the locals are never personalised; it is only General Outram who is referred to by name.

The presumptions of the filmmakers become readily apparent. An opening title card excuses their use of the word ‘children’ by stating that Sanskrit literature refers to the jungle tribes as the ‘children of the forest’. Much of the film strives to show how at one with nature these people are: the Gonds are described as being ‘like their friends the animals’ and they are shown climbing trees ‘like monkeys’. The people are also shown as being hunters, just like the animals around them. For the filmmakers, these people are also children due to their lack of development. The opening title card refers to the fact that they have ‘advanced but little’ and the film focuses on what it perceives to be the people’s more humorous and playful practices (in particular when covering the wedding formalities). The film concludes by describing the people as ‘sturdy, simple, loyal, likeable’. It is also at pains to point out that the tribes are different to India’s castes: a title card states that ‘it must not be supposed that these jungle tribes […] are in any way typical of the millions who constitute the rural population of India’.

The film’s distortions do not negate the fact that it contains much valuable footage. It could even be said to add another layer of interest. It is the gaps in this film – between its professionalism and amateurism, and between its intentions and unwitting disclosures – that makes it as ripe for an anthropological study of its makers as it is of the forest tribes of India.

Richard Osborne (October 2009)