A Diary for Timothy

A fascinating idea from Humphrey Jennings, to take a baby boy as representative of a nation soon to face massive decisions, is scuppered by the misguided choice of E.M. Forster as author of the narration.

Young Timothy proved to be incapable of holding the interest throughout a fairly long film, so other representatives were drafted in: a miner, a farmer, a train driver and a fighter pilot, to create an overwhelmingly masculine vision.

But not heroic. Forster's prose might have made a brilliant essay, but his Bloomsbury condescension and contempt for his fellow Britons, particularly the bourgeoisie and the working class, seems glaring in the democratic medium of film. He seems to regret that these very Britons being celebrated were on the verge of winning the war - consistent with his pessimistic statement in 'Two Cheers for Democracy' that "if fascism wins we are done for, and that we must become fascist to win."

The spectacularly downbeat section where the terrible defeat at Arnhem is juxtaposed with Myra Hess playing Beethoven's Appassionata sums up Forster's attitude. His internationalism may seem far-sighted and principled from a distance, but was this a message that needed to be drummed so unsubtly into his audience (many of whom would have been bereaved in battles such as this) at this particular time? "If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country", as he famously remarked in 'Two Cheers'. Well, if I was faced with such a difficult choice, I hope I would be less dogmatic about it than E.M.

The narration, contrary to the opinion of most of the other reviews, is terribly ill-judged. Declaimed in a gloomy monotone by Michael Redgrave, the viewer is left with the impression of moral equivalence between the allies and the Nazis. The hope represented by Timothy, that the form of the film forces Forster however reluctantly, to concede, is a slender thing indeed.

A thoughtful record of the bleak final winter of World War II. My mother remembered hearing doodlebugs passing over Norfolk and I have a two year-old nephew currently oblivious of the present crisis; while what is now, as in wartime, known as the air raid siren ("I hope you'll never have to hear that sound, Tim") was ironically still a familiar sound to me as a child twenty years later as the maroon that summoned the fire brigade and lifeboats. So my own life spans the gap between both the events unfolded here and the current dark days we are living through three-quarters of a century later. Young Timothy was born on 1 September 1944, and there are still prominent figures in politics both here and in the United States (including the Democratic challenger in this autumn's elections) who were already born before he was.

(Modern viewers may criticise the lack of black faces, but Churchill remarkably is also absent from the film.)

'Diary for Timothy' is that most precious thing - a snapshot in time of ordinary people, their hopes and aspirations. It is considered by many to be Jennings's masterpiece.

The film is constructed around the first year of life for a baby, born in the closing stages of the war. There are two radical elements that distinguish this from his previous films. Firstly, the very literate narrative, written by E.M. Forster, no less! Secondly, the characters who appear are allowed to speak for themselves, almost in the form of soliloquy. Here are the voices of Britain, and one is reminded of Chesterton's poem in that they 'have not spoken yet'.

The mood of the film is very subtle. Although not strident, it and the characters in it argues the necessity for a better world and a fairer society (anticipating the Labour landslide).

What is really poignant is the realisation that many of these hopes have not been realised.

This is one of the last of the wartime documentaries from Humphrey Jennings.As usual he puts together a number of stories about men from various communities.I think that its aim is to show the resilience of the British people in coming through the war.

This is a short film about the young life of Timothy--a child born in 1944 as well as European events of this and the following year (to almost the end of the war). No mention is made of the war in the Pacific--that is a bit odd.

Apparently, this short film has fallen into the public domain and I found a copy online. I would love to know more about the origins of the film--who financed it and what was the purpose for making the film. It seemed to me that the film was like an introduction to some socialist utopia the film makers envisioned for post-war Britain and the whole thing seemed to have a definite agenda. Scenes of school children singing in front of giant banners of the Soviet Union and lots of talk of Russian forces liberating Poland (though they didn't mention the slaughter of dissenters within Poland that also occurred in the process--a rather substantial omission) made me feel the film had a strong American involvement in socialist or Labor bent--very, very strong. No mention was made of assistance from the Free French and far less was said about American assistance than that of the Soviets. No mention is made of US or British assistance to the USSR (both countries fed and supplied the Russian people and military) and this does seem to show a strong bias. Perhaps the film was intended as a specific thank you and to be shown in Russia or perhaps the film makers wanted the UK to become a socialist or communist paradise as well.

Now despite the leftist leanings of the film, the quality of the short was exceptional. The narration was very lyrical in a way and was almost like a long poem to the future. And, the narration was exceptional. Obtaining E.M. Forster to write it and Michael Redgrave to narrate it is quite the pedigree. It is a lovely short film--very optimistic. It's just a shame that all the wonderful notions about this utopia never really came to be and it wasn't more balanced.