British Paramount News 1173 operates on a number of different and sometimes conflicting levels. The first thing that is notable about the film is how it casts its cameraman as its star. Ford’s name is featured in the credits; he is soon introduced in the commentary; and with this introduction he is also featured on screen, shown rotating his Newman Sinclair camera in a posed studio shot (his movement here neatly mirrors 180° panning shots that are included in the film). He makes further filmed appearances in the newsreel, and the commentary often stresses his involvement in what is taking place on screen.

Ford is credited with supplying the ‘film and story’ for this news report. It nevertheless remains difficult to determine the extent to which it was shaped by Paramount News. On the one hand, there is the evidence of Maurice Ford’s ‘dope sheets’, which are held at the Imperial War Museum. These record Ford’s thoughts regarding the material that he was shooting; here he appears to be following his own leads and the film’s eventual commentary can be seen to be largely consistent with his beliefs. On the other hand, it has been discovered that the editors of Paramount Newswould often plan out their stories in advance, and that the cameramen would often be expected to illustrate previously written commentaries (Hiley and McKernan, 2001, 192). Although Ford is credited with writing the film’s script, he does not speak it. It is difficult to know what decisions were made by Paramount in editing the material, or whose idea it was to centre the film around its cameraman.

This decision causes problems in the resulting film. Although the film provides valuable and often exclusive footage of the retreat through Burma, the story is edited in accordance with what is portrayed as being Ford’s personal philosophy. Early in his script he recalls Kipling’s ‘East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet’, which he now counters with‘one touch of high-explosive makes the whole world kin’. Consequently, the film attempts to present the Burmese as our fellow citizens, both of the world and of the War. Footage of Rangoon’s own ‘Piccadilly Circus’ is shown as an indication of this commonality, and the film is careful to give the Burmese nothing but praise. They are commended for taking their fate philosophically, and there is no disapprobation for them abandoning their cities: ‘all they did know is that unless they cleared out they’d be bombed again: that’s the sort of thing that’s understood just as well in Burma as in Plymouth or Rheims or Coventry’.

The film isn’t always consistent with comments that Ford makes in his dope sheets. From these we can see how the story was simplified in order to make it more positive. Ford reveals his knowledge of Burmese people who are ‘doing their best to help the Japs’, a subject that is not mentioned in this film (‘Burma and Bridge Protection’). In addition, he captured footage of Burmese ‘fifth column blokes’, whomhe filmed in handcuffs at the Irrawaddy River, but those images are not to be seen (‘General Yu & Ships Leave Rangoon’).

Despite its attempts at simplification, the film’s message remains unclear. Some of the images that are meant to show commonality also show difference (for example, the Burmese Piccadilly Circus has nothing of the hustle and bustle of the junction in London). Elsewhere Ford is drawn to images that contrast east and west (at one point he provides a carefully choreographed shot in which one of the Allies’ modern military vehicles passes by the camera to reveal the ‘ancient irrigation gadgets’ of the Burmese). Moreover, there is a fundamental difference in the ways in which Ford’s commentary and camerawork treat the Burmese people and the way they treat the Allied troops. Ford admitted that ‘They [the Burmese] don’t like to be photographed’ and that for them the process could be ‘rather humiliating’ (‘Docks at Hi-Speed’). Unfortunately, this is borne out in his ethnographic shots of the Burmese men who are working the irrigation system: they grimace awkwardly for the camera.

It is Ford’s presence in the film that does most to disturb its portrayal of the commonality between east and west. At one point in the film Ford provides individual portraits of members of 113 Squadron; here the commentary gives us a roll call of the airmen’s names and they smile pleasantly for him. Ford is familiar with these airmen and he stresses his involvement in their actions; in doing so, however, the film reveals his lack of a similar relationship with the Burmese people (none of whom isnamed). While the airmen are being highlighted, the commentary informs us of their home countries: Southern Rhodesia, Nova Scotia, Ireland, Wales, Australia, England, Scotland. Although they have varied backgrounds, they are all white; it therefore comes as a surprise tohear them described as ‘pretty much representing the whole Empire’. It is also curious that among these men was Karorilal Bhatia of the Indian Air Force, who was filmed but ended up on the cutting room floor (‘Burma Blenheim Bomber Boys’).

Indian troops are featured in the film: we are shown the activities of Punjab engineers, who are described as being ‘better men a good deal I should say than the Japanese’. However, they are shown operating as a self-contained unit and, for once, the commentary does not mention Ford’s involvement in the action taking place on screen. Despite the ostensible intentions of this film, west and east are seldom seen to meet.

Richard Osborne (July 2010)