Viceroy's House (2017)

India, 1947. Churchill's government has sent Lord Grantham - - sorry -- Lord Louis Mountbatten of Burma (Hugh Bonneville, "The Monuments Men") as the new Viceroy. His mission is to make sure he is the last ever Viceroy, for India is to be returned to independence. But racial tensions between the Hindu and minority Muslim populations are brittle and deteriorating fast. Can India survive as a single country, or will Mountbatten be forced to partition the country along religious lines to avoid civil-war and countless deaths?

Of course, there is little tension in this plot line since we know Pakistan was indeed founded by Muhammad Ali Jinnah (played by Denzil Smith) on August 14th 1947. (In reality, Jinnah's victory was short lived as he died of TB the following year). The rest of India went on to be ruled by Jawaharlal Nehru (played by Tanveer Ghani). What the film does remind this generation of is the extreme cost of that partition, with riots, mass abductions and rapes, over a million estimated deaths and one of the biggest migrations of populations ever seen. (All of this is largely shown through original newsreel footage, which is effectively inter-weaved with the film).

So as an educational documentary it is useful. However, as an entertaining movie night out? Not so much. After coming out of the film we needed to buy some milk at Tesco and I was put on the spot by the checkout lady to sum-up the film: "Worthy but dull" was what I came up with, which with further time to reflect still seems a good summary.

This shouldn't have been the case, since the film is directed by the well-respected Gurinder Chadha ("Bend it like Beckham) and boasts a stellar cast, with Bonneville supported by Gillian Anderson ("The X Files") as Lady Mountbatten; Michael Gambon ("Harry Potter") as General Ismay (Mountbatten's chief of staff); Simon Callow ("Four Weddings and a Funeral") as Radcliffe (the drawer of 'the new map'); and Om Puri ("The Hundred Foot Journey") as former political prisoner Ali Rahim Noor. Playing Mountbatten's daughter is Lily Travers ("Kingsman: The Secret Service"): Virginia McKenna's granddaughter.

But unfortunately, for me at least, the film lumbers from scene to scene, seldom engaging with me. Bonneville's Mountbatten, whilst perfectly sound, was just a re-tread of Downton with added humidity and curry; Anderson's (probably extremely accurate) crystal-glass English accent quickly becomes tiresome; and elsewhere a lot of the acting of the broader Indian cast is, I'm sorry to comment, rather sub-par. For me, only Om Puri, who sadly died in January, delivers an effective and moving performance as the blind father (literally) unable to see that the arranged marriage for his daughter Aalia (Huma Qureshi) is heading for trouble thanks to Mountbatten's man-servant. And no, that isn't a euphemism.... I'm talking about his real manservant, Jeet Kumar (Manish Dayal)!!

As an aside, the late Puri (probably most famous in western cinema for "East is East") has made over 270 feature films in his prolific career, over and above his many appearances on Indian TV. And he still has another 6 films to be released! May he rest in peace.

Probably realising that the historical plot is not enough to sustain the film, the screenwriters Paul Mayeda Berges ("Bend it like Beckham"), Moira Buffini ("Tamara Drewe") and Gurinder Chadha try to add m

Fmovies: OK, I have only watched the first 30 mins but it has been super painful thus far and I'm not sure I can take much more. The dialogue feels like it was written by a teenage drama student and the actors are clearly burdened by it. It feels like a table read (maybe they had no rehearsal time). The direction (shots, staging) is pretty average, with a glut of high/low angles to start with and some incongruous zooms immediately throwing you out of what little story there is. I have to admit I always thought Bend It Like Beckham was overrated but I tried to came to this without bias.

Beautifully made movie with two main story lines: a political-world- line, and a very personal-love-line. Somehow it was so true about how life IS or CAN BE that it moved me and touched my heart deeply. Besides: Great actors (good casting!) and very beautifully spoken language. Whoever spoke was so good at it! (I'm into voices for my profession).The movie is a blueprint-story for all countries that have suffered and had profits from countries that were their 'masters'. It also shows that there are all sorts of 'masters'. Besides, that it's time to become brothers and sisters. the other storyline makes clear that LOVE can be something very special, especially when you live in between millions of countrymen and there's all kind of wars going on.The director points it out very clearly!!Good for her, because this could have ruined the movie, but it somehow didn't. GO!!

Viceroy's House fmovies. The film is beautifully acted and a good sub-plot revolving around staff in the viceroy's house.

However, the central conceit of the movie is complete rubbish (plot spoiler averted)...The film, unwittingly or deliberately, robs the Indians and Pakistanis of any agency in their own fate when, in fact, I-Congress and Jinnah made nearly all the running on what happened at partition. The potential for terrible violence between the two main religious communities was always present in India and not a cunning ruse by the imperial government or the Mughals before them. Less painful to blame third parties...

Anyway, the history aside this is a very well put together movie. It would have got 9 stars if it had not played so fast and loose with the truth, which matters if we are to deal with the hurts of the world.

The picture Viceroy's House directed by Gurinder Chadha was screened out of competition at the Berlinale.

The film tells the story of love between Jeet and Aalia set against the historical scenes surrounding partition of India in 1947. Their differing religious backgrounds become a source of conflict as the colonial rule terminates and India gets divided into Muslim Pakistan and secular India.

Queen Victoria's great-grandson Lord Mountbatten arrives to Delhi as the last viceroy; he has the task of trying to make the smooth transition of power. The film broaches serious problems and is a skillful examination of the political turmoil of that time.

The picture is shot in a dynamic fashion, has good camera-work and even has some humor. The film shows well the everyday life of the last viceroy of India, many interesting details create the unique atmosphere which is complimented by the soft sense of humor. It is a lavish production, features many impressive crowd scenes, beautiful interiors and exteriors as well as costumes.

Some flaws of the film include that the romantic subplot was less developed than the historical narrative, which was shown in a more interesting way. Bonneville's acting as Lord Mountbatten is very convincing.

Read more at: http://indie-cinema.com/2017/02/viceroys-house/

I am a bit of a fan of Gurinder Chadha's work Bhaji on the Beach, What's Cooking Paris Je t'aime and Bend it being my favourites)and was aware that she intended to make this film many years ago and as I also have an interest in the history of India as plundered by the UK I have been keenly awaiting its release.

I had heard some ropy reviews, particularly from BBC radio 3. also a suggestion of being over reaching and 'Downtonesque' from the film 2017 cast. Thankfully this didn't put me off.

Just back from seeing this film.

I am not disappointed, in fact my expectations were far exceeded. one of the features of her films is always love. She has the ability to convey the emotion of utterly horrible things without doing the cliché showing and perpetuating violence.

The highlights for me. the portrayal of the involvement and point of view of his wife, unexpectedly well played by Gillian Anderson ( not that I don't like her, I just couldn't imagine her in this role. The portrayal of the viewpoint shared by the staff - which is of course the point of view of the Indians so roughly treated by the raj and how she puts us in their position so we really see it from their eyes, I felt like I was peeping through doors with them. The history was told clearly and unflinchingly without the violence being centre stage - that's been done and done again. Gurinder showed us the effect on people. All this was made almost palatable and certainly accessible by the device of the young lovers, cruelly torn apart by the partition.

Why 9 points and not ten? well despite illustrating that there was skulduggery afoot amongst the government I do think Dicky was painted a little too upright, straightforward and honest and I just don't believe that. However, I do not profess to know the history so well and may be wrong.