Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.PCS 1/10/84; site ahuta.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!ahuta!ecl From: ecl@ahuta.UUCP (ecl) Newsgroups: net.movies Subject: A PASSAGE TO INDIA Message-ID: <299@ahuta.UUCP> Date: Wed, 2-Jan-85 08:06:06 EST Article-I.D.: ahuta.299 Posted: Wed Jan 2 08:06:06 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 3-Jan-85 03:56:25 EST Organization: AT&T Information Systems Labs, Holmdel NJ Lines: 82 A PASSAGE TO INDIA A film review by Mark R. Leeper David Lean could well be England's most respected director. Starting in 1944, he made films like BLITHE SPIRIT, BRIEF ENCOUNTER, GREAT EXPECTATIONS, OLIVER TWIST, BREAKING THE SOUND BARRIER, AND HOBSON'S CHOICE. Then his style shifted and he began to make more spectacular films, like BRIDGE OVER THE RIVER KWAI, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, AND DR. ZHIVAGO. His 1970 RYAN'S DAUGHTER was something of a misfire and since then, he has been absent from filmmmaking. He has returned with a faithful adaptation of E. M. Forster's A PASSAGE TO INDIA. This certainly seems to be a time for films about India. The last year or so has seen GANDHI, TV's THE FAR PAVILIONS and THE JEWEL IN THE CROWN, and now Lean's film. (I am intentionally omitting INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM, but that film takes place in the never-never land that films called "India" in the Thirties.) Filmmakers have discovered the exotic beauty of India. Also, there is a certain convenience as far as filmmaking facilities are concerned since India has the largest film industry in the world. Not having read Forster's PASSAGE TO INDIA, and knowing only that it was a respected classic, I was rather surprised to discover that the film is basically a story about a trial, though like many such films the story of the trial itself is less important than the background against which the trial takes place. In this case it is India in the Twenties. the film is structured (at least superficially) in the familiar pattern of showing the events leading up to a trial, showing the trial itself, and then showing the effects that the legal action had on the principal characters involved. In this case, it involves two women who have come to India--the mother and the fiance of a British magistrate. An Indian doctor who idolizes the British becomes friendly with them and arranges an expensive picnic to show them some local caves. Something mysterious happens at this picnic and the doctor is accused of attempting to rape one of the women. Victor Banerjee is impressive as Dr. Aziz, whose love for the British betrays him and leaves him a helpless victim of their bigotry. Judy Davis is suitably enigmatic as the repressed fiance. He performance and the camerawork at times give this film much of the same mysterious feel as Peter Weir's PICNIC AT HANGING ROCK. Remarkably, the least convincing part comes just where we would expect the best. It is a David Lean tradition (I think) to feature Alec Guinness. A PASSAGE TO INDIA had no suitable role for him, so they gave him an unsuitable role, that of Godbole, an Old Indian mystic. The same thing happened with LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, of course, and Guinness proved a masterful King Faisal, but there are limits to how different a part Guinness can play and still be believed. The role in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA called for considerably more acting and could somewhat exploit a slight physical resemblance between Guinness and the real King Faisal. Things did not work out as well in A PASSAGE TO INDIA. With less opportunity to act, Guinness had to make it to a greater extent on physical appearance. And he looked like Alec Guinness in make-up. Of the films about (the real) India listed earlier, I have seen only GANDHI, and A PASSAGE TO INDIA has the same major flaw as that film: They both feel like manipulative propaganda films. Don't misunderstand me. History has made its verdict that Britain mishandled its relations with India, and I think I probably agree. But I don't think I want to see many films whose point of view is that Britain's relations were solely dictated by greed, callousness, and bigotry. I feel uncomfortable when a film or a television program tries to tell me that one side of a political issue is 100% or even 95% right. In GANDHI and A PASSAGE TO INDIA the British are bad, bad, bad, and the Indians are good, good, good. This may be accurate to the book, but Forster wrote it in 1924 for an audience that had often heard the pro-British side at a time when India was still under the British thumb. Forster did not need to present the opposing point of view to give a balanced viewpoint. Attenborough and Lean should have, but failed to. Their films make it quite clear that they do not want to risk having the viewer have any sympathies with the wrong side. This attempt to manipulate the viewer to one side of a real political issue, even a closed issue, is as good a definition for a propaganda film as there is. A PASSAGE TO INDIA is a good film. It is a +1 and the -4 to +4 scale. But it was a poor choice for a novel if Lean was trying for another film as great as LAWRENCE OF ARABIA. Superficially it rides the tide of public interest in India, but practically speaking, the book was great because it was written in 1924--the film would have been great in 1924--but politically and dramatically it offers little that is new in 1984. (Evelyn C. Leeper for) Mark R. Leeper ...ihnp4!lznv!mrl