The River

It's difficult to argue with Gabridl's remarks about the film - and I'm sure Renoir would have pleaded guilty as charged. Of not making a civics lesson. So, if that's what you want out of art, then this is not the film for you. At all. You will learn nothing of Indian politics, the "exoticism" will drive you mad, and you'd do better to go back and re-read Said's "Orientalism," as Gabridl suggests.

Renoir went to India, and made a film from the perspective of an entranced outsider looking in, creating his own, personalized world - not India, but Renoir's world, where everything is transitory, including beauty and death, and where every sight and sound becomes that much more precious.

I am glad that we have come so far since I've been a kid, when so many ideas and prejudices carried over from the colonial era were still floating through the air, and it's true that no one except that most naive among us would make a film like THE RIVER today. But Renoir was alive in 1950, not now, and he made his film for his time, and that time attaches itself to the film, just like it does to every artwork. I doubt that even Gabridl would suggest that it was the work of a craven exploiter of the masses, and that its "faults" are not the faults of a corrupt man, but of a generous and compassionate one. It's one of the most generous films I know of.

Finally, I would add that while this is a film made by a westerner for other westerners, it was certainly inspirational to Satyajit Ray, who worked as Renoir's assistant.

I believe that both Karina and Gabridl are slightly off when they say that the film is supposed to depict post-independence India. I don't believe this is true and, therefore, Renoir cannot be taken to task for not covering India's independence struggles. Although the film was made post-independence (1951), it does not cover the period of independence itself (late 1930s to actual independence in 1947). Remember, that the film is a "memory film" and is based on the autobiography of Rumer Godden, who was born in 1907. The adult narrator is a grown-up Harriet. A grown-up Harriet in 1951 would be speaking of an earlier time--probably sometime in the 1920s--that was a more peaceful time for the English colonial inhabitants. The clothing and hairstyles can't be used to indicate when the film takes place. Harriet's blue sack of a dress would have been worn by any 13 year-old girl from the 1920 through the 1940s. And Valerie's rather unkempt and flowing hair could be anytime, too.

As for Melanie having an Indian accent. I don't believe that it was ever said that Melanie was educated in England. I believe that the film says she was educated in a convent, and there were certainly convent schools in India in the 1920s. I find it interesting that when it is said that Melanie will probably marry Anil, an understanding that they have had since childhood, she is still wearing her convent uniform. When she develops a crush on Captain John, she starts to wear saris, maybe hoping to attract him through the exotic.

All in all, a beautiful, lyrical film that should not be missed.

A really glorious, spellbinding movie. Filmed in Bengal, India, on the Ganges, it captures the essence of India, the timeless quality of life on the Ganges, without being patronizing.

This is a coming of age movie about three teenage girls, two British and one Anglo-Indian, and how their lives are affected by the arrival of a one-legged American war veteran. It's very easy to fall into sentimentality in a movie like this, but Renoir avoids this obvious pitfall. Though I have to say, I found this film very moving.

It helps that this movie is filmed in Technicolor, and is one of the best uses of Technicolor of that era.

Some of the performers were amateurs, including the actor who played the veteran and some of the children, but overall the performances are outstanding. A fine, low-key performance by Esmond Knight. This was the only film for Patricia Walters, who played Harriet, and Thomas Breen, the war veteran who played Captain Jack, never made any other movies. Watch for Arthur Shields, the brilliant Irish actor, as father of Nan.

I found there to be something of the beauty of one of novelist Rumor Godden's other novels - "Black Narcussus" (1947) in this gorgeously photographed tale of three young women growing up with the Ganges river providing a constant in their lives. Our story is narrated, in part, by "Harriet" (Patricia Walters) who lives an affluent life beside the river with her much younger sisters, brother and with her mother (Nora Swinburne) expecting number seven! The age difference means she spends much of her time with her two friends "Valerie" (Andrienne Corri) and "Melanie" (Radha). "Melanie" is of mixed-race, her father being being British, her late mother a local - and so their's is a more complex dynamic fitting in with a society that was still pretty unforgiving of inter-racial transgressions. The three girls rub along well enough though, enjoying the simplicities of their privileged lives, until the arrival of the handsome "Uncle John" (Thomas E. Breen) who is the cousin of "Mr. John" (Arthur Shields) - the dad of "Melanie". This visitor has, quite literally, been through the wars and has a prosthetic limb to show for it. Psychologically struggling, he has come to hide himself away; to remove any reminders of his former more able existence. What he doesn't bargain for though are these three girls. They take an immediate shine to him and over the course of the latter part of the film we enjoy their growing infatuation and rivalries - all set amidst the colourful and vibrant Hindu community in which they live but with which they have remarkably little but the most polite of involvement. As you'd expect, the narrative delivers an occasional tragedy and it takes a perhaps little too stoic a view on the value of human life - especially when it isn't white - but for the most part the story seems set on avoiding anything politically, or even societally contentious as the plot develops. Essentially, there's not a great deal of actual substance to this story. It's a beautifully photographed and aesthetically pleasing depiction of a dream, if you like - and it's not a great dream for everyone; even "Harriet" - before the timeless Ganges continues on it's way past farms, fields, temples and homes. It looks great on a big screen and if you can, literally, go with the flow then you ought to be able to appreciate it for what it was, when it was written in 1946.

Unlike many western movies i have seen that portrays Indians as if they were some nomadic people who are far from culture and sophistication, this film understands and illustrates the exact philosophy behind every deed that is performed by the Indians.

And also i wonder why can't so many great directors inspire from a film like this to understand that the true culture lies in philosophy and not in their race or color. I suppose it is easy to stick to stereotypes rather than educating through movies.

Therefore, it is not diversity for namesake that is important, but proper the depiction of one's understanding towards the diversity.