ecl@ahuta.UUCP (ecl) (01/02/85)
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!mrlatul@ut-ngp.UUCP (Atul Arya) (04/14/85)
Mr. M.Friedman @ Bell Comm. Res., Piscataway, NJ writes (with reference to "A Passage to India"): >I was really sickened by this portrayal of yesterdays India. To this day >I still can't figure out how this atrocity recieved so many Academy Awards. >The film lasted for a period not exceeding 3 hours. Ten minutes into the >film we were ready to leave, but after paying $4.00 a piece we refused to >leave the theater, without a full refund... >Granted the director got together 100's of the lowlife's from India to >shoot the film, just like Ghandi... Big f*uckin deal! >My advise is to stay away from Assage to India...... I am deeply offended and angered by Mr. Friedman's comments about "A Passage to India". His comments are irresponsible and racist to say the least. As an Indian living in this country for many years I am honestly surprised and shocked by his remarks about Indian people. Now, Mr. Friedman what was it that offended you so much about the movie? Do you know that David Lean has also made some of the finest movies in last thirty years including "Doctor Zivago", "A Bridge Over River Kwai" and "Lawerence of Arabia". Do you have or have cared to acquire some knowledge about India before 1947 (she became free from British rule on Aug. 15,1947)? What was so "atrocious" about the movie? And by the way the movie received only two Academy Awards. That probably is too many for your taste. What made you judge the movie in only first ten minutes? I do not deny the fact that there are problems with the movie. But there are so many good things that the drawbacks are only small and not very conspicuous. Anyone who has read the masterpiece by Forester will be disappointed to some extent. But I can safely assume that Mr. Friedman has never heard of the book or of E.M.Forester. Perhaps one of the best things about the movie is outstanding performances by the entire cast. I hope Mr. Friedman realized that "one of the lowlife's from India" played the central role of Dr. Aziz. Victor Banerjee (Dr. Aziz in the movie) is one of the finest Indian actors today and he definitely proved his caliber in the movie. (His fans will have another chance to see him in the forthcoming Satyajit Ray movie "Home and World"). And I am yet to come across a single person who did not like Dame Peggy Ashcroft's portrayl of Mrs. Moore. I gather from Mr. Friedman's remarks that he did not like the movie "Gandhi" either. (By the way it is "Gandhi" and not "Ghandi"[ugh]). Maybe it will be beneficial for him to stay away from movies concerning India (considering his "special" feelings towards Indians). In conclusion I can only hope that Mr. Friedman's comments will not dissuade anyone from seeing "A Passage to India". I also hope that in future members of this network community will refrain from posting irresponsible comments on net.movies. And as my grandmother used to say: "For a frog in a well, the well is the whole world", and that seems to be the case with some people. Atul Arya Dept. of Petroleum Engineering Univ. of Texas at Austin
greg@olivee.UUCP (Greg Paley) (04/17/85)
> In conclusion I can only hope that Mr. Friedman's comments > will not dissuade anyone from seeing "A Passage to India". I also > hope that in future members of this network community will refrain > from posting irresponsible comments on net.movies. I didn't agree with the opinions expressed in the original article either, but I'm not about to suggest that people with strong opinions which conflict with mine should refrain from posting them. How do you define "irresponsible" in this case? Are posters to the net "responsible" for anything beyond the expression of their ideas? A paid critic in a major publication has to weigh his words carefully because, particularly in this case of young or "unknown" performers, careers can be made or destroyed based on such reviews. I hardly think that's the case with regard to the net. If you disagree with something, fine - post your argument. Just remember that preserving your right and freedom to post your feelings, however wrong, offensive, racist, stupid, or whatever they might be to someone else, is only done by allowing the other guy the same right. - Greg Paley
rajeev@sftri.UUCP (S.Rajeev) (04/21/85)
> > In conclusion I can only hope that Mr. Friedman's comments > > will not dissuade anyone from seeing "A Passage to India". I also > > hope that in future members of this network community will refrain > > from posting irresponsible comments on net.movies. > > I didn't agree with the opinions expressed in the original > article either, but I'm not about to suggest that people with > strong opinions which conflict with mine should refrain from posting > them. How do you define "irresponsible" in this case? Are posters > to the net "responsible" for anything beyond the expression of their > ideas? A paid critic in a major publication has to weigh his words > carefully because, particularly in this case of young or "unknown" > performers, careers can be made or destroyed based on such reviews. > I hardly think that's the case with regard to the net. > > If you disagree with something, fine - post your argument. > Just remember that preserving your right and freedom to post your > feelings, however wrong, offensive, racist, stupid, or whatever > they might be to someone else, is only done by allowing the other > guy the same right. > > - Greg Paley I agree that theoretically speaking everybody has the right to say anything they want on the net. Freedom of the press, no censorship and all that. However, along with the right comes the responsibility to use the net wisely. For instance, I am perfectly capable of making a virulent and vituperative attack on Herr Friedman (the poster of the original attack); to which he'd feel obliged to respond in kind; to which I'd reply even more strongly; and so on ad nauseaum. The rest of the net community will be innocent and incensed witness to this exercise in tastelessness; to say nothing of the thousands of dollars wasted by the various machines in forwarding this nonsense. Eventually some person in authority will feel obligated to censor both of the perpetrators. (This is not hypothetical: if you read net.singles, there's been a similar scenario recently -- the moderator of the group is trying to remove a Mr. Williams from the net!) A certain amount of self-censorship (or "responsibility" or tact) would thus prevent considerable grief to all concerned. Furthermore, "your rights end where my nose begins", as one of my anti-smoking friends used to say :-) -- ...ihnp4!attunix!rajeev -- usenet ihnp4!attunix!rajeev@BERKELEY -- arpanet Sri Rajeev, SF 1-342, Bell Labs, Summit, NJ 07901. (201)-522-6330.
jsq@ut-sally.UUCP (John Quarterman) (04/21/85)
> If you disagree with something, fine - post your argument. >Just remember that preserving your right and freedom to post your >feelings, however wrong, offensive, racist, stupid, or whatever >they might be to someone else, is only done by allowing the other >guy the same right. While everyone *can* post just about anything to USENET, there are several other things to be considered when posting: USENET is a voluntary association of people, machines, companies, and schools. The distribution of your postings is paid for by lots of other people. Net.nlang.india is an international newsgroup. Some countries (such as Canada) have laws against the public advocation or even public expression of hatred or racism. This could cause problems for people in those countries whose machines carry such articles. This was mentioned in the recent European decision to no longer receive net.politics (yes, I know that wasn't the reason cited for the discontinuance, so don't flame me about it). Some of the readers of your articles may turn out to be potential employers. Or to have been potential employers. USENET news is not as ephemeral as it might appear: several sites save *everything* *forever*, and anyone who wants to can save a copy of anything anyone posts. USENET and more traditional media are not unrelated. There is at least one television station on USENET whose people follow USENET and read net.nlang.india, in particular. And flames beget flames. So, when posting something, it is worthwhile to think not only of what *can* be done, but what *should* be done, and what the possible effects of a given article might be. Note that I am not advocating that some participants suppress what others might want to post: I am advocating that each poster consider the context and possible effects of their own postings beforehand. -- John Quarterman, jsq@ut-sally.ARPA, {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!jsq