Burma Victory has a different outlook and different ambitions to many World War II documentaries, affected by both the broad time period it covers and by the film’s long gestation. Because the war had concluded by the time the film was released its propaganda values were diminished. Ian Jardine has argued that Burma Victory instead served as ‘a record, a portrait, a history, rather than an urgent plea to command public support’ (Jardine, 2001, 127). The film aims to provide a comprehensive account of the Burma Campaign, employing various devices to underline its authority. There is a repeated use of maps, which outline each stage of the military project. In addition, the film employs multiple narrators, each commentating on different areas of the country as though providing on-the-spot reports. Jardine nevertheless argues that Burma Victory’s historical credibility is ‘worse than useless’ (Jardine, 2001, 68). His main complaint is that the filmmakers’ needs to balance both American and British interests as well as to entertain Mountbatten’s various demands led to biases and falsities.

It was not only the politics of the production that led to distortions and omissions: key elements of the campaign had not been captured on film (see Best, 27 February 1945). To rectify this some parts of the action were recreated in the studio. These provide some of the weakest moments in the film, such as Mountbatten’s overdubbed speeches and the awkward conferences among the military leaders. There is also a discrepancy between those parts of the film that could be planned ahead (such as the activities of the Chindits) and those for which the filmmakers were reliant on the rushes provided by military units (including some of the major battle scenes).

A wide distribution was desired for this film and this also affected the way in which it was constructed. Lord Burnham, Director of Public Relations at the War Office, warned the Ministry of Information  that ‘The picture must be good entertainment or it fails before it starts. If it is not extensively booked and widely seen it has no value’. He was particularly conscious of the viewing practices of American audiences, stating that ‘The American public are allergic to official material of any kind and a version of an official dispatch illustrated by indifferently relevant visual would not go with a swing. It is therefore advisable to include some things which the purist might think “not quite nice”’ (Burnham). To this end the film repeatedly features the corpses of Japanese soldiers.

Burma Victory employs two major narrative devices. Maps and a third-person commentary are used to detail the wider scope of the war. Used alone, this material may have been too dry for a cinema audience. The film thus also follows the actions of one particular soldier. As the advance upon the Japanese gets underway, the film recounts the action through a diarist’s entries. This device brings a ‘liveness’ to the images that are on display and it also provides a character with whom the audience can identify.

The construction of the film was also affected by the nature of the war in Burma. The campaign ended somewhat abruptly; the Japanese surrendered due to the atomic bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki rather than because of the battles in the field. Perhaps as a result the Japanese role in the Burma campaign is downplayed. There is instead an emphasis on the natural discomforts that the soldiers had to battle - ‘malaria, dysentery and typhus – enemies more deadly than the Jap’. The subject with which the film opens, and which recurs throughout the film, is the struggle against monsoons. The Japanese, nevertheless, are clearly depicted as being an enemy. When the film moves away from its dispassionate third-person commentary it employs some harsh language. For example, in his overdubbed speech Mountbatten refers to ‘the Jap’ as ‘an unintelligent slum-dweller’.

Despite its constraints, the film provides a fascinating account of the campaign in Burma, not least in its portrayal of the subjects of the British colonies. Although there is no mention of Burmese politics, the film does offer glimpses of the Burmese during the war. There is footage of what appears to be the genuine gratitude and excitement of liberated peoples. The film also depicts a Pwe festival. Here the diarist narrator contrasts the pleasure of the Burmese, who ‘certainly made a day of it’, with the bemusement of the white military troops - ‘saw Bill Slim, looking a bit self-conscious, with victory garlands around his neck’. The film also provides a more unwitting display of colonial attitudes. Although it carefully outlines the multinational composition of the Allied forces (the scenes of Mountbatten’s speeches deliberately depict as many different military units as possible), Asiatic people have a clear place in the chain of command. For example, the parties involved in the construction of the Ledo Road are demarcated as follows: ‘On the heels of the fighters came American engineer reconnaissance parties […]. Behind – the first Bulldozer […]. Last – the builders. Chinese, Shans, Kachins, Karens, Indians, Nepalese, Nagas – men, women and children’. The film also foregrounds the activities of British personnel, most clearly in its staged material such as the diarist’s entries or the jungle camp at night. This despite the fact that Indian troops made up the largest proportion of 14^thArmy personnel (see Allen, 1984, 634).

Finally, the film maintains a distinct attitude towards Burma itself. From the outset the country is portrayed as being anything other than a foreign paradise. Here the film’s opening is particularly interesting. It begins with a soldier reading about the charms of the Burmese landscape, climate and people in a travel brochure. He then adds bitterly ‘would you believe it?’ and the sound of a monsoon increases in volume. This comment on how media can distort is complicated by the fact that it is itself a staged scene, filmed in Pinewood studios. From hereon there is a repeated stress on the hostility of Burma - ‘what a country this is!’ exclaims the diarist. This part of the Empire is consistently depicted as being alien to the British.

Richard Osborne