Summary:
A commentary on cultural mistrust and British colonialism. A high-class English woman travels to India for adventure (and possibly love), but things go awry when she takes an expedition to the Marabar caves with a local named Aziz.
My Thoughts:
I read E.M. Forster’s A Passage to India about two years ago and to be honest I wasn’t entirely impressed. I went into the book pretty blind, knowing only that the book was a classic and wanting to give Forster’s prose a chance. As far as prose goes, Forster is pretty good; he’s got a few lyrical moments in this book in particular, but the story was rather slowly paced and eventless (and that’s coming from someone whose favorite book is Crime and Punishment by Dostoyevsky), and the underlying theme was a little bleak. Forster was clearly taking a stab at the British occupation that took place in India from 1757 to 1947, and that makes sense for the time when the novel was written in 1924. Now, however, it’s been seventy years since Britain occupied India, and that topic has largely faded from memory (if it ever even crossed the minds of most Americans). But while the British occupation of India is over, there are other countries where the same kind of thing is happening. I urge you to think about this film from another perspective, which might give the film a bit more depth: American troops occupying Iran or Iraq. Forster was taking a stab against the occupation of foreign soil by governments that have no right to be there- India and Britain’s disputes may be a long time passed, but this story is still relevant today.
“Adventures do occur, but not punctually.”
Adela Quested (Judy Davis, “Naked Lunch”) and Mrs. Moore (Peggy Ashcroft, “The 39 Steps”) travel from Britain to India to visit the magistrate of Chandrapore, Ronny Heaslop (Nigel Havers, “Chariots of Fire”). Ronny is Mrs. Moore’s son and Adela’s fiancé. Once in Chandrapore Mrs. Moore wanders into a mosque and meets Aziz Ahmed (Victor Banerjee, “Bitter Moon”) a friendly doctor with whom Mrs. Moore soon makes friends. Wanting to see the ‘real’ India, Adela and Mrs. Moore ask Aziz to take them to the Marabar Caves, and he gladly agrees to do so, but when something happens at the cave, the new friendship is put to the test. Also starring in the film are Alec Guinness (“The Bridge on the River Kwai”) as the Indian scholar Godbole and James Fox as Richard Fielding, an English school superintendent.
So, first and foremost I want to address the bits of this movie that have not aged well; primarily the Indian makeup used to make some Caucasian actors look Indian. The biggest problem is the makeup used for Alec Guinness, as he’s a character that actually pops up in multiple scenes. Almost every time he came onscreen I cringed. The practice of whitewashing has started to draw some real criticism in the recent years, and unfortunately, when going back and watching some old Hollywood films, you have to know that that was not something they really took issue with thirty years ago. While I do appreciate that Victor Banerjee was cast as Aziz, it makes it awkward when he’s standing next to Caucasians made up to look like Indians. If this makes you uncomfortable or infuriates you, I’d stay away from this film, there’s a lot of it.
There are some good parts in this film that do make this film that make it worth watching, and a lot of that has to do with the great David Lean. Some of my favorite scenes in this film were the scenes that conveyed ideas completely with images, and there were a few that were done really well. There’s one scene when Adela is bored, so she wanders off the beaten path looking for adventure and wanders into some ruins where animals are scurrying about. The scene is probably five to seven minutes long, but there isn’t any dialogue throughout the entire thing. Adela’s emotions are conveyed completely by Judy Davis’s acting and the way the images are shown to us. We get the idea that at first she is curious, and then a little bit frightened of what she sees; the scene sort of mirrors her feelings on the entire trip. There’s another scene that comes to mind when Adela is lying in bed at night, ostensibly bored and thinking about some statues depicting sensual acts; the scene again conveys exactly what Adela is thinking without any dialogue. There is a ton of great cinematography in this film; lots of shots of sweeping landscapes, beautiful sunsets, exotic locations, and many of the shots incorporate wonderful matte paintings and models.
As far as acting goes, everyone did a fine job. I thought Banjeree was a standout as Aziz; he was pretty much the only personal attachment to the Indian side of the argument we have, and his character is incredibly sympathetic. We feel for him not only because he wants to impress the English, but also because of the way he views his own life. Aziz was raised in a world where he was told he was essentially a second rate citizen, and he accepted that until the events of this film transpire and change his mind. His character is the most dynamic, but though his position on the British being in India changes, his character never becomes angry or violent towards the British. Peggy Ashcroft won an Oscar for her portrayal of Mrs. Moore, the elderly woman who befriends Aziz, but then leaves him on his own when the going gets tough. She did a great job of portraying a woman confused with how to approach the situation. I believe that Forster intended her character to be a representation of the British who lived in Britain, and had no opinions on their country occupying another. Her character comes off as a little cold, but the way Ashcroft played her was wonderful. Judy Davis was fine as Adela, though knowing what would happen in the story led me to not really like her character from the beginning. Davis was nominated for an Oscar for her role in the film, which is ironic because she apparently had frequent fights on the set with David Lean, accusing him of having lost his touch since he hadn’t directed a feature since the tepidly received “Ryan’s Daughter”, fourteen years earlier.
As a story, I found both this book and the film to be a little boring (just being honest). It’s not like I haven’t given it a shot; I just find that the whole story could’ve been retitled: “Much Ado About Nothing.” The story is a fable, meant to be a commentary on occupations of foreign countries. The message is important, but the way it’s handled doesn’t completely grab hold attention, especially when the film encroaches on three hours. For those who are drawn to films with lavish cinematography and extravagant costumes and production design, this film might really intrigue and interest you. For me, this movie was fine. It’s nowhere near the brilliance of “Lawrence of Arabia” or “The Bridge on the River Kwai”.
Verdict:
This movie was fine. Not bad, not good; fine. It’s too long and says too little for me to ever recommend this movie to anyone, but at the same time, it’s made with such craft that I’d never hate on this movie either; it simply didn’t work for me as well as I’d have wanted, and that’s okay. See this movie if you want, skip it if you want. Lean is a great director, and this was his last film; if you’re a cinephile, that importance alone might make it worth watching.
Review Written By: