Viceroy's House

Maybe, I am not fair. But , more than a decent film , it represents for me, nothing more or less. It is a good introduction to one of the most siignificant events after the end of WWII. It is a good example of beautiful performances and inspired script. But the mixture between political problems and the love story of a Hindi young man and his Muslim girlfriend it seems, for me, a mistake, used for give more force to dramatic side. It is a touching film and that is the result of the final confession of director but , the high desire to impress is, in few scenes, too much. Sure, it is a film for see. A moral lesson about a century more than about a country. But, something is missing and something is too more. Conclusion - a decent film about dramatic events.

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!!

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/

This is a slightly 'potted' version of the events of 1947 when Lord Louis Mountbatten was sent to Delhi to preside over India's transition from unruly colony to full Independence. Mountbatten and Nehru wanted a single nation of two faiths, but Whitehall - for reasons which the movie attempts to explain, briefly and simplistically - preferred the option of Partition, creating the new Muslim nation of Pakistan, with a down-sized India populated mostly by Hindus. As we know from our schooldays - and other (better) movies like Richard Attenborough's GANDHI - millions of citizens died in clashes and massacres as Muslims migrated to Pakistan and Hindus to India. This new movie chooses to show the carnage of Partition via newsreels rather than reenactments.

Gillian Anderson gives a vivid portrayal of Lady Edwina Mountbatten, terribly 'posh' but genuinely concerned for the displaced natives during the violent transition. Hugh Bonneville, still trapped in his Downtown Abbey character, is rather wooden as Lord 'Dickie' (who was probably a bit wooden too). There is no hint of the much-gossiped- about affair between Lady M and Mr Nehru and likewise no hint that his lordship may have been an acquaintance (if not quite a Friend) of Dorothy. We see enough of Nehru and Jinnah to understand what was at stake in 1947 but for some reason Gandhi is largely written out of this screenplay.

To give the movie a bit more box-office appeal there is a Mills & Boon romance between two of the staff in the Viceroy's House, a beautiful Muslim secretary and a Hindu valet (also rather lovely). This soap-opera element brings unavoidable echoes of the (enormously superior) Jewel in the Crown and a dash of Upstairs, Downstairs which was one of the many addictive pleasures of Downton.

There's not a lot that's wrong with Viceroy's House and much to enjoy: the costumes, the spectacle, the splendour that is colonial Delhi. The movie does offer a 'History-lite' version of the birth of a nation. I remind myself that this is exactly what GONE WITH THE WIND did with the American Civil War - but (forgive me, please) I've never been a great admirer of GWTW.

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.