The Durbar itself is related in chronological order, beginning with a march of veterans from the Indian Mutiny, followed by the arrival of the king, the obeisance of the Princes, and the royal proclamation. As Stephen Bottomore recounts, Gaumont were privileged in being assigned three separate camera positions on the day: shooting from the roof of the spectator’s enclosure; from ground level within the enclosure; and from a platform within the arena itself (Bottomore, 1997, 320-21). Their filmed sequences cut between footage shot from all three of these positions, with a bias towards the cameraman occupying the arena platform. Nevertheless, even from this position much of the action takes place in the distance. In addition, people often stand in front of this camera, obscuring its intended view. It is notable that each of the cameras remains trained on events taking place within the arena area: the vast watching crowds are throughout only visible in the far distance.

What the camera captures instead is the vast scale of the military display (both on the day of the Durbar and in the presenting of colours and the review of troops), and the splendour of the regal formalities. The King and Queen are both in full regalia, wearing crowns and ermine-lined robes. They are being fanned and shaded by a large retinue of Indian serving people, and as they manoeuvre young Indian pageboys carry their trains. As Bottomore notes, the cinema viewer is as divorced from proceedings as a spectator in the stands would be. He states that ‘Perhaps distant camera positions were designed to mirror the respectful human distance with a respectful photographic distance between commoner and royalty’ (Bottomore, 1997, 336, emphasis in original).

The 1911 Durbar nevertheless provided a major cinematic event: the Gaekwar incident. Unlike other media, it was argued that the film footage could provide precise documentation of what had taken place. The Bioscope stated that in doing so the cinema proved its ‘immense superiority over the illustrated newspaper’ (Bioscope, 4 Jan 1912, 11). Gaumont were aware that the public would have come to see this action, and consequently they signal its approach with a intertitle that proclaims, ‘HOW THE GAEKWAR OF BARODA PAID HOMAGE TO KING GEORGE’. However, rather than providing conclusive evidence, the Durbar films caused confusion. In the Gaumont film the sequence begins abruptly and ends inconclusively; it is hard to tell whether the Gaekwar’s actions are intentional or not. In addition, there is footage of the Begum of Bhopal, who also turns her back on the King and Queen. Moreover, there was at least one other Prince who during the ceremonies turned his back on the royal party: different film companies identified different individuals as the Gaekwar. Bottomore believes that the Gaumont film has it wrong, and instead shows the actions of the Maharaja of Mysore (Bottomore, 1997, 334). On seeing the film evidence, some sections of the British press argued that they now believed that the Gaekwar had not made an intended snub (Nuckolls, 1990, 529-59). Nevertheless, regardless of this confusion the images still retained some power: when the Barker Company’s film of the Durbar was shown in Calcutta their footage of the ‘incident’ was edited out (Bottomore, 1997, 331-33).

Richard Osborne (February 2010)