Gurinder Chadha’s
latest film commemorates the 70th year of the partition of our
country. It is an ode to her family’s migration from Pakistan to India. Despite
her connection to the subject, her film fails to capture the emotional turmoil
of the affected people.
Chadha has made a name
for herself by successfully capturing the inherent ‘desi-ness’ of the Indian community
living abroad. Having enjoyed her big-ticket films like ‘Bend it Like Beckham’,
I was looking forward to this British-Indian filmmaker’s take on the traumatic
events of 1947. Unfortunately, she didn’t deliver as per my expectations.
The film is set entirely in the Viceroy’s House (which is the name of the original English version of
the movie), in the early months of 1947. Lord Mountbatten, (played by Hugh Bonneville) the new Viceroy of colonial India, is given the explicit task of facilitating
India’s independence, making sure all concerned parties are satisfied with the
outcome.
With this background,
two separate narratives follow. One story line is concerned entirely with the
political machinations that lead to India being divided into two nations. The
second one focuses on a romantic relationship between a Hindu boy (played by
Manish Dayal) and a Muslim girl (played by Huma Qureshi), working at the
Viceroy’s House. Their slightly forced love story develops against all odds. It
attempts to be a metaphor of the love and bonding between people of different
religions, despite political decisions made in higher echelons.
The movie fails as it
is neither an intriguing political narrative, nor a heartrending love story.
The characters are wooden, with badly dubbed Hindi dialogues, failing to
capture any sentiment. The romance is clichéd, and perhaps unnecessary. The
actors attempt to do their job well; especially Bonneville, Qureshi, Gillian Anderson (who plays Lady Mountbatten), and Om Puri in his last outing on
silverscreen, as Qureshi’s father; but the stilted dialogue and rushed script
seriously hinder their performances. Tanveer Ghani is particularly disappointing
as Nehru, making the Pandit’s stately character into a caricature.
I was kindly invited to
a private screening of this movie, by the 1947 Partition Archive at The Bikaner House. The screening was followed by an insightful discussion with the
director, the leading lady, and some eminent historians. Sadly, Chadha’s
vision, as described by her, wasn’t clear in the film itself. She attempted to
use the Viceroy’s House as a symbol for the unrest in India, during this
period. She hoped to capture the upheaval and suffering of the people who lost
their homes, their livelihood and life as they knew it. Alas, by solely concentrating
on the seat of government, she failed to touch hearts.
When a film on a distressing,
painful topic doesn’t ignite any emotion in the viewer, it is fundamentally flawed.
Despite the intensive research and expert editing, the movie doesn’t inspire. I
would recommend it only to die-hard history buffs, for an alternate view of
what led to the division of an entire nation, and the consequent largest mass
migration in the world.
