"A Diary for Timothy" is a short film from 1945 and the director is Humphrey Jennings, the man who made the Oscar-nominated "Listen to Britain" a few years earlier. The contents here are very different with the exception that history had progressed considerably in these 3 years. The Allies had won the war and this film tells audiences again about what life in Britain looked like around that time. It also tells about the upcoming challenges for post-war Britain and the world. For the framework here, Jennings used a little baby and explains this film by depicting the world he was born into as he did not exist yet in 1942 when he made his more known movie. This film here includes some very known British artists such as actors Michael Redgrave, John Gielgud and writer E.M. Forster. I still must say it was not really in interesting watch. I'd only recommend this to British people with a great interest in history, or even historians themselves. Thumbs down from me.

This brief documentary-style film presents the status of Great Britain near the end of the Second World War by means of a visual diary for a baby boy born in September, 1944. Narration explains to "Timothy" what his family, his neighbors, and his fellow citizens are going through as the war nears its end, and what problems may remain for new Englishmen like Timothy to solve.What makes this brief documentary so interesting is how it focuses on Timothy James Jenkins, a real child in England. Thus, this is not just a time capsule, but a commencement speech of sorts -- but instead of following a graduation, it follows the birth of this child.In a sense, the hopes of a nation are seen through one boy... and this, in turn, made the boy something of a cult figure. (On a very, very small scale, of course... but his biography is well-known to anyone who cares to search it out.)

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.

'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.