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.

This is a lovely film.

This is a quintessentially British film. Another piece in our seemingly unending historic jigsaw puzzle. Trying to chronicle our imperial past, without the constant need for self-flagellation.

The film is set in the Viceroy's House in 1947, during the partition of India. This was obviously shortly after the end of the second world war. When millions of Indians had stood with the British on the battlefields of Europe, in our fight against the Germans. It was now our turn to return the favour, and give India, back to the Indians. It also didn't help that we didn't have the resources to hold on to India anymore, and everyone involved knew it. This meant that the factions within India were no longer scared to make demands.

This is a strong and important story, one, which is rarely told, or taught here in the UK, and it really should be. We need to understand our mistakes, so we're less likely to repeat them again in the future. We also need to understand what we did right, and learn from those decisions as well.

There are a number of good, solid performances here. Hugh Bonneville plays Lord Mountbatten without fault. He comes across as charming, and typical of the fighting aristocracy of the time. He cared about his legacy. He cared about doing what was right. Most importantly, he cared about India, her people, and its long-term future.

Michael Gambon plays General Ismay, an archetypal, political pragmatist. He doesn't care about India. He isn't really interested in her people. He only cares about Britain, and its future.

We also have an ongoing love story between Jeet Kumar, played by Manish Dayal, who's a former policeman and a Hindu, and Aalia Noor, played by Huma Qureshi, who works at the Viceroy's House and is a Muslim.

The love story is used to help the viewer understand the deeply entrenched division between the religions at the time (although let's be honest they haven't improved much since). The film doesn't really mention the Indian cast system, but in real life that didn't help the situation either. It also gives a story, set at the highest levels of government, a more human feel.

A special mention needs to go to Gillian Anderson. Her performance as Lady Mountbatten is wonderful. Many will be shocked that Anderson actually has an English accent, but she has spent a large amount of her life this side of the pond. However, her accent here was a real surprise. The received pronunciation was perfect. It was as if she were the Queens little sister. Her character adds heart, she adds a moral core, to both Lord Mountbatten, and in my eyes, to the film in general. I was impressed to say the least how beautifully she slipped into the role.

I would also like to mention the fact that Gillian Anderson appears to be getting better looking with each passing year. It's as though she stole Dorian Gray's picture, and had it repainted with her own portrait. If she carries on this way, by the time she's 80 her beauty will be so unbelievable, it may very well start a new religion.

Not only is she becoming more beautiful, but her acting ability seems to improving with everything performance. It's getting to the point where I will watch anything she's in, just to see her. I'm just hoping someone gives her the roles she deserves to show that she can be this generations Meryl Streep, or Katherine Hepburn. I genuinely think she is capable of hitting those heights.

All in all, this is a well-cast, well-acted, well-written film with beautiful production values. Visually it's stunning. The buildings used, the props, the costumes, everything looks wonderful. There are some cleaver uses of photo-video cuts. It also uses historical footage nicely.

This has to be Gurinder Chadha's biggest film since Bend it like Beckham, and if this is the level that she's working at now, then I'm really looking forward to her next project.

If you're a fan of historical drama, or just good old fashioned colonial history, then give this film a chance. It may open your eyes to some history to weren't taught at school, and you'll also be able to enjoy a rather charming film.

Honestly looking at the trailer, I was expecting a story that was made for TV but attempted to be bold enough to grace the big screen. I couldn't be anymore wrong. The last viceroy of India is tasked with leading the country before its eventual independence which soon turns into a communal massacre. The Partition of India back in 1947 is an important moment of modern history where this drama serves as a reminder of the monumental loss during the nationwide migration. Over one million souls lost their lives during the violent conflict between Muslims and Hindus, with many families being torn apart through abrupt segregation. Given that the director was the granddaughter of a survivor, there is a personal touch to the melodrama that unfolds. From simple quibbling of deciding which food items, people and furniture remain in India or are sent to Pakistan to the more serious issues of rationing supplies to refugee camps. Chadha deftly embeds the culture of India to the heartbreaking partitioning process, allowing the balance for historical importance and a fictitious romance to coincide together. The latter sub-plot, resembling a 'Romeo & Juliet' scenario, seemed to be the primary focus of the first act which unfortunately detracted from the main and far superior plot of India's independence. However the story gets back on track during the second half which quickly grabs your attention back. Bonneville and Anderson gave satisfactory performances, although occasionally lacked emotional conviction. Also the melodrama became too excessive at times, trying too hard to make you tear up. Credit where credit is due though, I did shed a tear towards the end which was certainly the most poignant act of the entire film. I do love a good "running through the crowd" scene. A slightly uneven start irons itself out towards the end to produce a sumptuous and important historical drama that will leave you reaching for the tissues by its conclusion. Atleast I know what a viceroy is now...

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.

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/