Technically, the World Window films represent a significant stride forward for documentaries shot in the sub-continent. Their use of Technicolor transforms the way in which India can be seen. Rajputana is known for the bright dyes used in its clothing, and Jack Cardiff takes full advantage of this in filming the saris of the Indian women, as well as the block-making process by which certain costumes are made. He also illuminates his scenes by shooting them from a variety of positions. A wrestling match, for example, features distance shots, close-ups, point-of-view shots and shots from reverse angles. Cardiff is adept in his use of panning and tracking shots, which are employed extensively but not intrusively. These devices do however have an effect on the structure of the film; panning and tracking shots are both used so that the camera can gradually bring more visual elements to the picture. For example, a backwards tracking motion in the opening scenes captures the opposing forwards movement of some worshippers as they arrive at the village temple.

The cumbersome Technicolor equipment, together with accepted documentary practice at the time, may have influenced the fact that several of the film’s scenes are staged. In order to have been captured effectively with tracking and dolly shots, scenes would have needed to be rehearsed and choreographed. This can sometimes jar slightly, as when Indian villagers are employed to re-enact their superstitions, scenes that are largely staged for the western audience’s amusement. Similarly, the climax of the film, in which the village is set alight to illustrate the dangers of fire, comes across as overly dramatic in this purported documentary.

There is no attempt to distinguish this Indian village from any other. Moreover, the commentary attempts to lump together all of the world’s peasants. The film begins by disclosing that ‘The world over, villagers and peasants have something in common: their skins may differ in colour; their clothes may be of a different pattern and the climates they live in may differ to extremes, but everywhere peasants are akin in their love for the soil they till and the animals they raise’. It concludes by praising ‘the gift of stubborn tenacity, peculiar to peasants’. Village life, in this film, is regarded as consisting primarily of subsistence, religion and superstition. What is more, villagers are regarded as being satisfied with their lot: ‘They are content if they can build their houses, clothe themselves and cook their food from the materials yielded by the jungle forest on the fringes of which they live’.

This line of narrative is followed by an image of a villager using a spinning wheel. Spinning homespun cloth was advocated by Gandhi as a political act; a symbolic and economic rejection of colonial power (Gandhi had felt it wrong that many Indians brought their clothes from industrial manufacturers owned by British interests).  The appearance of the spinning wheel in this village is indicative of the fact that the locals had ambitions beyond the limited horizons that have been described. Moreover, the film even admits to Gandhi’s influence, stating that ‘Since the advent of Mahatma Gandhi weaving and spinning have been re-established’. It does not, however, detail the thinking behind this act. Instead, the narrative moves directly on to British attempts to increase crop yields (once again indicating that village life is not free from outside interference). ‘Owing to the enormous importance of the working of the land’, the commentary states, ‘British administration is trying to educate villagers to a more modern manner of farming’.

Nevertheless, the film does not come across as being a propaganda exercise for the British. Instead it is an odd assemblage. It presents a universalised village in isolation. It combines factual information with staged sequences. And it is driven more by the desire to capture Technicolor images than by the need to convey a rounded portrayal of Indian village life. This is not necessarily a bad thing, as today the cinematography enables us to experience the colours that were central to village traditions. It should be noted, however, that this wasn’t necessarily how critics originally viewed this film. While the Kinematograph Weekly noted that the ‘Treatment [is] somewhat pedestrian but colour photography very good’ (KM, 5 September 1940 23), Today’s Cinema praised the ‘agreeably restrained’ commentary, noting that it is ‘unaffected yet well-informed’ (TC, 7 August 1940, 12).

Richard Osborne (October 2009)