Movie review - "A Passage to India" (1984) **1/2

 The British film industry rediscovered India in a big way in the 1980s - this, Gandhi, Octopussy, Staying On, The Far Pavillions, Jewel in the Crown. I've read E.M. Foster's novel, which was strong - vigorous prose helps. This isn't as good. It's a fake rape accusation movie - there were so many of them around back in the day. It's not a genre I like. Also there's so many white heroes whose superiority is emphasised - Peggy Ashcroft, Judy Davis and James Fox. Fox is especially irritating. Lean wanted Peter O'Toole for what part who would've been better.

Alec Guinnes pops up in brownface. Old habits, etc.

It's not as artfully shot as other Lean films - apparently he wanted widescreen but it had to be done in TV format (HBO picked up a lot of the budget). It's still visually stunning. Some gem performances: Peggy Ashcroft, Victor Banerjee (in what should've been a star making performance for Hollywood), Judy Davis. Others not so good. James Fox was so annoying. His performance, his character, walking around being smug. I did like seeing Lean's real life wife play Fox's wife at the end.

The film could be read as a gay love story. When Banerjee visits Fox, Fox is in the shower and Banerjee seems to perv on him. The two men are very devoted to each other and when Banejee finds out Fox is hanging around with Davis he gets jealous. I'm sure I'm not the first writer to notice this.

I remember when this came out. Lots of talk about epics and spectacle. I recall feeling proud that Judy Davis was in it. And the low hanging fruit of white leading characters being superior to racist white support characters.

It went too long. Too dull. I kept seeing bits that could be cut out. It's good when it goes to the caves, and the charges come in, but there's no tension because Banerjee is depicted as being so innocent and Davis is nice so you know she'll get good at the end and the bad Brits are capital B bad.

It's tasteful. Loos lush. Good acting aside from Fox. Worth watching. I didn't much like it.

Movie review - "Tarzan Goes to India" (1962) *** (re-watching)

 This has two interesting concepts neither really developed - Tarzan a stranger in a strange land, in this case India, and Tazan is played by someone over 40, in this case Jock Mahoney.

He's helping delay a dam which is a slightly lumpy story. In Africa Tarzan always had a personal stake. That's not the case here.

It looks beautiful, was shot on location, John Guillermin directs well. There's a cute Sabu-esque Indian kid, and some sympathetic Indian grown ups but the main villains are white as well as Tarzan and most of the Indians are extras. There's no love interest which is a shame.

The action is well done and Mahoney looks like a Tarzan.

Movie review - "Northwest Frontier" (1959) **** (re-watching)

 Rank's attempt to conquer the world markets were much mocked but it did result in some of that studio's best movies - this and A Night to Remember are among the best.

This gives Kenneth More one of his best roles, a cheery engineer in 1905 India. He is a bit patronising and refers to the natives as children. There's a lot of defensive paternalism going on here - saying the British are needed to keep Muslim and Hindu tearing each other apart, etc.

I enjoyed his romance with Lauren Bacall - she's a sensible no-nonsense governess, a little wry about the British. But they are both sensible and respect each other.

I.S. Johar is full of life and energy as the train driver, though he's required to say "I feel like banging my people's heads together". The rest of the support cast is strong - Herbert Lom, Wilfrid Hyde White, Ursula Jean etc.

I liked the Macguffin of the kid (dubbed voice). I wish the death toll had been higher - surely that arms dealer could've gone? And the crew could have used a second traitor. Or someone other than a half-caste Muslim.

The location filming is spectacular - CinemaScope is well used. Production values are splendid. It starts with a bang - maybe a mistake to then go to the safety of the British cantonment (or that should've been wiped out). Has some very solid action sequences, and a suspenseful walk across the rail tracks.

Rousing music score.

Movie review - "King of the Khyber Rifles" (1954) **

1954 feels a bit late in the day for a British Empire epic, but I guess Kim had been a box office hit and Fox were keen to do something which was ideal to exploit CinemaScope, their new big screen process. They have Tyrone Power play a half caste (they slap on a bit of brown make up), which have it some novelty. Still, it's a bit whiffy.

Its set in 1857 just before the Indian mutiny and the last act concerns an uprising - it's not terribly exciting. The screenwriters (its credited to the team of Ben Roberts and Aussie Ivan Goff) raid some Indian history (there's stuff about the sepoy rumour that the cartridges were dodgy)... it's a shame they didn't do more. The best bit about this movie is the final act, which involves a raid on an Indian compound - this is suspenseful and well done.

But the first two thirds is a hard slog. It's stuff at the fort with Power romancing Terry Moore, daughter of commander Michael Rennie. Moore is about as convincing in British India as Power - but has more spunk and energy about her. And she seems in to him - whereas Power doesn't seem that in to her. (It strikes me that it's been a few times that I've written that - Power never seemed that interested in his female co stars, but he worked as a lust object for them eg The Razor's Edge).

There's also stuff about prejudice faced by Power which seems uncooked, in part because Power so so unconvincing.

I wish there had been two other big action set pieces instead - the opening patrol, for instance, they could have made more of that attack sequence. And I think they missed a trick not doing a siege sequence - there were some serious sieges during the mutiny, and all that Moore-Power romance would have played a lot better if they'd been, say, holed up at a fort, with people outside trying to kill them.

There are pleasing vistas - it's nicely shot. But there's too much dead time on screen.

Script review - "Lion" by Luke Davies

I'll put my hand up and admit I didn't think the idea of the film was that amazing - absolutely, a decent story... but was there enough for a feature? You've got the getting lost sequence, the Google Earth sequence, then.... what?

But I was wrong. The opening sequence is a punch to the solar plexus - every small kid/mum/family's worst nightmare, getting lost on a train. The adventures being lost are pretty good too (how much of this was made up?). Things slow down when the story moves to Tasmania - inevitably in part because the stakes are lower but also because the characters, based on real people, are not that interesting. The girlfriend remains pretty much "the girlfriend" (although there is charming dialogue), and dad is "dad" - mum does get one really great scene, which is presumably how Nicole Kidman agreed to sign on. The last "act" for lack of a better word - tracking down via Google Earth - doesn't take very long. But things are fleshed out by mum and unexpectedly the story of the main guy's adopted brother. This is what really elevated this work for me. A very moving, well written piece.

Movie review - "The Rains of Ranchipur" (1955) ** (warning: spoilers)

The 1950s were a time of studios remaking their old hits in colour with Cinemascope - this one also benefits from real Indian locations but suffers by still having the main Indian character in brownface (Rchard Burton!), and changing the dramatic point.

I've never heard a good thing about this movie so my expectations were low and I found some pleasant surprises: Lana Turner is very well cast as the girl about town who finds true love with Burton; she's not a good actor but has been photographed well and is effective. Burton is good as the prince, despite the make up - he's got soul, sex appeal and charisma, which was what that part needs. Joan Caulfield works well as the young girl who falls for a dissolute man; I don't know much about Caulfield's career, but here he's fresh faced and winning.

That dissolute man is played by Fred MacMurray, who was a great villain but is uncomfortable as a drunk and a character in India and as someone dissolute. Some of his scenes are really amateurish such as when he tells off Turner for falling in love with Burton. George Brent was better  in the original.

They also made a big mistake changing the story of Turner's character. In The Rains Came she went to nurse flood victims, devoted herself selflessly to the cause, got sick and died. Here she doesn't nurse and just leaves. It means she doesn't love Burton and he doesn't love her (because if it was true love they'd try to find a way). 

Also she's not redeemed because she doesn't so any nursing - Burton says there's a lovely person inside but we don't see it. They also don't kill off her husband - played here by Michael Rennie. He delivers this sexist misogynist speech at the beginning slamming her then mostly disappears for the film and comes back at the end to go off with Turner.

So they departed from the original and suffered accordingly at the box office. A mistake. Still, not as bad as I'd heard.

Movie review - "Northwest Frontier" (1959) *** (warning: spoilers)

In the late 1950s the Rank Film organisation made a concerted effort to take on the international market, turning out lots of action/adventure tales, usually in colour with at least one Hollywood name, co-production with a Hollywood studios, in CinemaScope and set in an exotic corner of the Empire. This was probably the best, an elaborate and enjoyable train movie, well directed by J Lee Thompson at his peak.

It stars Kenneth More in cheery action hero mode, very Douglas Bader. He's a British officer asked by a Hindu ruler to escort his young son across country with Muslims in pursuit. Most of the story takes place on and around a train, with a cross section of passengers snapping at each other in between action sequences.

This is at its best when focusing on the action stuff. There's some terrific spectacle (teems of extras rushing in attack, scores of corpses at a railway station), good action (the initial escape, starting the train, crossing a desolate bridge) and impressive production values. The story could have done with a bit more of a death toll though - one or two of the good characters dying would have made it more exciting, if only because we'd be less sure who would survive. (Even the people running the fort who are left behind are allowed to live.)

It's not as good with the talks on the train. The film sort of tries to acknowledge the changes to Britain's position in the world since the war but does it defensively. British policy and hypocrisy is criticised, but by a journalist who turns out to be a murderous fanatic, a gun runner, and a governess who falls for a soldier and comes to realise how awesome the British are, so it's not really a fair fight, and the Brit characters always have the last word. There's a fascinating defensiveness and sookiness about attitudes to British imperialism in this movie: "half the world is only civilised because we made it so", "that's all the thanks we ever get", etc.

Herbert Lom is a surprisingly sympathetic villain - although that old hoard standby, a half-caste (and a Muslim a boot), who tries to kill a child (several times - he keeps whimping out), you do feel for him because he just wants a country where he belongs. Wilfred Hyde White and Ursula Jeans sip tea and act pukka (why not kill off one of them) and I.S. Johar is funny as the train driver.

Lauren Bacall is professional as always but I couldn't help feeling she was miscast - she's too contemporary or something (Bacall isn't in that many period films). Her romance with More never quite works - maybe this is part of the reason why the movie never enjoyed the same success in the US as it did in Britain.

Movie review - "Slumdog Millionaire" (2008) ****

The influence of Charles Dickens hangs over this tale with it's orphans, rumbustious kids, mother dying young, extremes of poverty and wealth, corrupt officials, vicious crooks, childhood true loves, impossible dreams and plucky heroes. It's done with verve and energy, and it's a tribute to all those who championed it.

The device of the quiz show works very well as a way to flashback - even if the questions are kind of easy. Dev Patel is a likeable enough hero, but the kid who plays him as a little one is amazing. Freida Pinto is beautiful in a role that requires her to be beautiful, and there are some excellent support performances from the guys who play the cops, gangsters and game show host.

It's quite a harsh look at Indian society - the cops torture (and they're not bad cops), the host is a bit nasty, the gangsters are really mean. There's no kindly middle class characters who pop up in Dickens - the universe is a harsh place. But there is energy and laughter and it's a truly epic saga that the cinema doesn't often tackle any more.

Movie review - "Harry Black and the Tiger" (1958) **

Stewart Granger is a hunter in India trying to track down a man eating tiger - his old war mate Anthony Steele is a local company official. So far so exciting (an opening sequence involves the tiger eating a woman in a village) but the movie is far more interested in a pseudo-Francis Macomber love triangle between Granger, Steele and Barbara Rush (her accent is explained as being Canadian), and flashbacks to Granger and Steele escaping a POW camp in World War Two which results in Granger losing his leg. This is dull stuff. And Steele and Rush have this small boy who is dubbed into the most agonising, hideous brat I can remember - you beg for the tiger to eat him.

Although this is set when India was independent it feels like a Colonial movie, with Steel running the shop and the natives helpless without Granger (there is a feisty Indian nurse character and an Indian doctor). Granger is helped by I S Johar who is well known for his performance in North West Frontier. 

 

Steel's role is really emasculating - a coward, useless, idiot... who however is allowed to keep the girl (because of that annoying kid). Location shooting in India helps.

Movie review – “Elephant Boy” (1937) **1/2

Robert Flaherty spent a year in India shooting location footage and discovering Sabu the elephant boy, before Alex Korda turned the taps off and had the rest of the film completed back in England in studios with director brother Zoltan. The result was a big hit, chiefly because of the location footage and Sabu’s performance – but would it have been without the nuts and bolts narrative imposed in London. Yes it’s creaky and weak but try imagining the film without it. At least there's some sort of story.

Sabu’s performance remains a marvel – cheeky, natural, sympathetic, touching (especially when his father dies, killed by a tiger), likeable… It’s no wonder he became a sensation. The rest of the performances are okay at best, particularly from the English officer who leads the elephant hunt that makes up the “plot” of the movie. (I kept expecting him to be the baddie but he’s very sympathetic; the villain is an Indian hunter.) The elephant actors are very good.

Movie review – “Om Shanti Om” (2007) ***

A Bollywood film to out-Bollywood Bollywood films, complete with a plot that revolves around filmmaking and a cast that features several Indian stars in cameos. It’s bright and cheerful with some terrific production numbers (often very poorly motivated plot wise), a good heart and a good knack for emotion. It goes on for almost three hours and the last bit – the Hamlet-esque “let’s send them mad” section – goes on far too long. Also some of the songs could have been better placed eg the title track really belongs at the end.

Movie review – “Bride and Prejudice” (2004) ***

An attempt to make a Bollywood movie that crossed over to the West. It would seem to be a half-success – I couldn’t quite put my finger on what was wrong, the casting isn’t quite 100% or something. Aishwarya Rai is very beautiful as Elizabeth Bennett – perhaps too beautiful, she lacks a little spark; Martin Henderson is handsome Darcy, though again without a twinkle. It is still bright, colourful and very entertaining, and Jane Austen adapts brilliantly to Indian culture. Gurinder Chadha likes a bare chest and the blokes here are pretty thoroughly exploited. The supporting cast are all fine and I didn’t mind the tunes.

Movie review - "Lagaan" (2001) ****

Bollywood movies really are the modern day equivalent to 60s beach party films - wholesome, predictable musicals that are a lot of fun. Curiously, both genres place a lot of emphasis on the group, though they have heroes. This goes for three and a half hours though it didn't need to be. It has a strong Syd Field plot, with its set up, hero, overcoming obstacles, complications etc. The hero has a great intro scene trying tosave deer from hunting Britishers; the baddy gets to show how evil he is forcing a vegetarian Raja to eat meat and also killing a bunny rabbit.Although the baddy is really evil his sister is nice - she falls in love with the Indian and teaches him cricket. Jolly good. And the head Britishers aren't bad, even though many of the Indian cricket team are very anti-British (the British umpires make several decisions in favour of the Indians - there's no implication of bias).
What's nicest about the movie is its sense of inclusion - the Indian team comprises of a crazy fortune teller (the most Aussie of the cricketers, like a cross between Rod Hogg, Dennis Lille and Ian Callen - I love his send offs of the British players), an older doctor, a Muslim, a combative fast bowler, and most touching of all an untouchable with a withered arm who is a hopeless batter and fielder but an at times unplayable spin bowler(what makes it especially moving is that there was a player like that,Chandra - only I don't think he was an untouchable).
The final cricket game is a joy, very gripping, and shows how well cricket adapts to cinema - there is sledging, a beamer, dropped catches, fours and sixes,a dramatic last wicket stand, a runner (NB who is Mankadded and because he's a small boy I think we're supposed to feel sorry for him - but he deserved it, really, he was out of his crease a long way, its cheating),he's and hitting a six off the last ball. Entertaining tunes and production numbers.

Movie review - "Bhowani Junction" (1956) ***1/2

When people talk about "ruined films" this one often doesn't get much of a guernsey (cf The Magnificent Ambersons) but I would love to see it in its original conception because what remains is fascinating. 

This is one of the few Hollywood movies to tackle Indian independence, and it was a gutsy call from MGM - it's not an inherently glamorous period in history, there was little American involvement. I got the feeling they picked it because its (a) a good story and (b) provides a wonderful role for Ava Gardner.

Ava plays a half-caste (as they were known then) Indian who arrives home after four years of war service and gets involved in various adventures at the time of Indian independence. She's loved by a fellow half caste (Bill Travers, a terrific role but he's not very good), a Sikh (Francis Matthews, very good) and local British officer (Stewart Granger, very effective - director George Cukor apparently wanted Trevor Howard but I think Granger works better than Howard would have, maybe not as good an actor admittedly but more charismatic).

She also has to ward off a lecherous British officer (Lionel Jeffries), political pressure from the Sikh's radical mother, and the abduction of an Indian communist - oh, and there's pressure from an English dad and Indian mother. The stereotypical image of Indians on screen is of lady like creatures but Ava's Ava - she's clearly done a bit of living, is comfortable in bars, shrieks and yells at people and sticks up for herself against all the boys (I would be interested to see a feminist reading of the film), all these blokes fall under her spell. She good be playing herself - it's a very effective performance.

The film falls into that brief-lived sub-genre, the cinema of decolonisation. There were a handful of these films in the late 50s and early 60s, most of which shared the same elements - large budget, based on a novel, set during the declining days of Britain's power, which all said the same thing: it's a good thing the British were leaving but the British were better than the communists who often hijack decent nationalists; there was a sympathetic white hero, who had a scene where he was superior to a racist white British supporting character (Something of Value, Exodus, The Seventh Dawn).

There is plenty of spectacle (teaming extras, etc), good meaty arguments, and a surprising amount of action (with George Cukor showing himself surprisingly apt at the bang-bang and suspense stuff, showing he was more versatile than his reputation).

Granger's narration is a bit clunky and I wish they'd re cut this and do a revised version (which apparently included some erotic scenes and which had Ava wind up with Travers - which you know considering Travers' poor performance wouldn't have worked either).

Movie review - "Bride and Prejudice" (2005) **1/2

The world of Jane Austen adapts comfortably to Indian society - no kissing, and lots of class division, with mum worried about marrying off her three daughters. It's bright and colourful and a bit dim with some not very memorable songs - the lead girls are all stunners and it is good natured with a lot of Austen's dark stuff removed (even the idiot sister comes to realise the bad man is bad by the end). All the shots of the male torsos here indicate the "female gaze" from its director.

Movie review - Errol #38 - "Kim" (1950) ***

The second of two films Errol Flynn made at MGM, following That Forsyte Woman (apparently the studio also wanted him for King Solomon's Mines and Ivanhoe, a double that could have really turned his career around).

This is a decent-ish adventure film that occasionally threatens to take off but then goes back down to the tarmac - the pacing is slightly sluggish and the various plots create a sort of meandering feeling. One only wishes that it had been made under the virile hand of a producer like Thalberg or Sleznick at his peak (mind you, that might have meant we would have had a Freddie Bartholomew or Mickey Rooney as Kim).

Dean Stockwell is alright in the lead, a bit too American but most of the cast are; his character is a little bit of a snot at first (getting food by making a baby cry by shoving a bindy against its backside) but becomes more likeable once they shove him into a snooty boarding school and send him to spy academy.

The relationship between Stockwell and lama Paul Lukas is meant to be the heart of the story, but far better are the scenes involving spying and derring-do; the finale is quite exciting. Errol pops in and out of the film as a swaggering Muslim horse trader (!) who spies for the British. Another Aussie expat, Cecil Kellaway, also plays a British spy. The colour and location filming are pluses.

(NB this is another Errol Flynn film with Errol as a dream big brother, like The Prince and the Pauper, i.e. poor Errol gets no romance - which makes it officially a kids film I think.)