Welfare with its Finger Out illustrates both the camaraderie of the RAF servicemen and the efficiency of its Welfare Units. It presents a clearly structured narrative, from the construction of the cinema through to the booking, screening and finally, in the last shot, the departure of the film by aeroplane. The depiction of the local population’s role within this process offers significant insights into colonial attitudes.

Intially the film appears to reinforce traditional representations as the local workers are defined purely in relation to their function of helping the British. The Indians perform two roles within the film. They serve the RAF men drinks, as the 'dope sheet' suggests, and most significantly, they construct the cinema building. Supervised by a British officer, carrying a stick, the local people are first shown cutting down trees. The land is cleared, and the Indians are working, literally, to provide entertainment for the British. At a time of extreme famine and disease, the welfare is directed not at the Bengalis, but rather at aiding the RAF servicemen. The cinema building, appearing here as a symbol of western affluence and development, is closed to those local people who construct it. There is a stark contrast between what is shown – the construction of a cinema – and the probable reality of life away from the camera for these Indians.

The film does, however, inadvertently highlight the expertise and skill of the local population in performing what the commentary describes as ‘perhaps the most sophisticated aspect of RAF work’. The film also attempts to position this as important work within the context of the war, as the ‘bricks are carted metaphorically under Japanese noses’. The Indians are thus incorporated within the war effort. 

The film foregrounds the speed and efficiency of the RAF operation. The personnel are relaxed – the one female character, a secretary, sits on the corner of the desk – and shots of local colour are included (most notably a monkey). However, this is a distinctly masculine world. It is ironic that the film showing at the cinema should be The Gentle Sex. This Leslie Howard film attempts to dismiss, albeit in a rather patronising manner, female stereotypes, in order to promote the essential role of women in the war effort. The point seems to have been missed in this film, as the men stare at the poster (‘Ho ho, what’s this?’). It is an entirely masculine audience, with the commentary further emphasising the homosocial dynamics here (‘…can’t hold hands in these pictures’). The attitudes displayed within the film thus suggest that The Gentle Sex is enjoyed for its voyeuristic depiction of young women – for example in dormitory scenes and in trying on their uniforms – rather than for its promotion of the female war effort.

Tom Rice (February 2008)