Fiji Return is a film of stark contrasts. It depicts the Pacific islands of Fiji as a demi-paradise, and the Pacific Islands of Bougainville as a stark battleground. There is a clear and admitted difference in the way that these two locations are shot. The footage filmed on Fiji is carefully orchestrated – both visually and musically. Meanwhile, the footage on Bougainville is rough and ready; it is shot in the thick of the action. What makes the film effective, however, is the way in which it manages to link these two places. We learn that the women of Fiji are thinking of the war experiences of their men, and we see the men communicate their experiences when they return to their home island. Moreover, the sexual bond between the men and women is implicit throughout. There is a longing in the way that the Fijian women look out to sea. We also get to witness the coy first contact as the soldiers and their women are reunited. In this segment we also witness the babies that have been born while the soldiers were in the field. A further factor that helps to dovetail the two types of footage is the way in which the film is edited. The dramatic images of the Bougainville battle are not situated as the climax to the film, instead they arrive half-way through (or, more correctly, half-way through the footage that remains).

The film thus has a tripartite structure: it shows the partners of the soldiers, then the soldiers in battle, and then the reunion upon the soldiers’ return. It does not correspond with dialectical notions of thesis, antithesis and synthesis, however. The battles have not been resolved; we are informed that ‘other Fijian forces are still in action’. In fact, the most powerful result of placing the military action in the middle of this documentary is to illustrate how much a part of daily life the fighting now is. It has also affected daily life, creating a degree of separation between the men and women. After having seen the graphic military action, we are shown one of the returning soldiers visiting a knitting circle. Here it is underscored just how different the lives of the men and women have become. The film closes with a group of soldiers returning to their village and being accorded a celebratory feast. The men do not sit with their women, but are instead placed apart as guests of honour.

The commentary informs us that the military footage is an ‘uncut record’ of a band of Fijian soldiers as they advance against the Japanese. Therefore we get a full account of a small segment of the World War II campaign in the Pacific. The cameraman is with these soldiers as they come under fire and he also helps them to fetch supplies of grenades. We see the soldiers’ injuries and both their bravery and their fear. There is an immediacy to this impressively captured footage, and its authenticity is underlined by the inclusion of intertitles featuring the cameraman’s reports. What we do not get is any explanation of the overall military strategy. We are told that the Fijian soldiers are ‘decent fighters, perfectly fit and beautifully trained’, but we do not learn why they should wish to support the campaign. We also get to see the New Zealand Commanding Officer and some New Zealand troops, but learn nothing more of the structure of command.

Similarly, life in Fiji is shown in fragments and it is not contextualised. There is a brief depiction of the mixed European/Indian/Fijian life in a town and we glimpse a game of rugby football. We are quickly informed, however, that ‘the real life of Fiji is in the villages’. From hereon there is a focus on the traditions of the native islanders. We witness tribal dancing and music, and the preparation and consumption of a ‘patriotic’ feast, including the narcotic soup of kava. In this British film there is no condescension towards the traditions of Fiji. The islanders are not shown in need of aid, technology or political interference. There are a few shots of the British governor, Sir Philip Mitchell, awaiting the return of the first battalion of troops, but greater screen time is awarded to the local chief, Rahu Siguna. The British are barely mentioned; instead the term ‘Allied’ is more frequently used. Ultimately, what comes across most strongly in this film of contrasts and linkages are the common feelings experienced by soldiers and their partners no matter where they are in the world.

Richard Osborne (June 2009)