Der Stern von Indien

"Our time frame for leaving won't work!" Lady Mountbatten (Gillian Anderson)

Some would say the final partition of India creating Pakistan never worked, albeit a solution to the violence between Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs was needed with the pending quitting of Britain from rule in 1947. The historical and humane Viceroy's House takes us nimbly yet sometimes brutally through the Solomon-like assignment of Lord Mountbatten (Hugh Bonneville) to bring peace and partition.

Although this fascinating film could be accused of being more Masterpiece Theater than history, it brings home in the best period-piece fashion the almost insoluble task of stopping the fighting among factions and fairly apportioning the sub-continent. Mahatma Gandhi's (Neeraj Kabi) opposition, as he favored a unified continent, was the counterbalance to the raw pain of partition but unrealistic given the prevailing hostilities. The film does not oppressively dwell on the philosophy or the brutality: They are just there as if they always were.

Helping the transition is A. R. Rahman's musical score appropriately classical and grave at times and then lightly Indian as the time draws near. Viceroy's House has a workman-like period piece feel to it. It also has a soap-opera like romance between Muslim Aalia (Huma Qureshi) and Hindu Jeet (Manish Dayal), an attempt to provide a figurative representation of the cultural clashes borne of tradition and the impending upending with Britain's leaving.

The spiritual presence of Churchill, who ended up being the actual architect of the partition, left an independent Mountbatten to come to Churchill's solution without even knowing about it. The various bloody factions are well-perceived as unavoidable given the massive population and the complex challenges of partition.

The oil and coastal-protecting motives are there in muted acknowledgment of the inevitable political background of the largest mass movement of human beings in history. Here is a history worth knowing if only to clarify the prevailing hostility between India and Pakistan and the allure Pakistan has for trouble-prone world powers.

If for nothing else, enjoy the period costumes and settings. Downton Abbey would approve.

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 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 film is beautifully acted and a good sub-plot revolving around staff in the viceroy's house.

However, the central conceit of the movie is complete rubbish (plot spoiler averted)...The film, unwittingly or deliberately, robs the Indians and Pakistanis of any agency in their own fate when, in fact, I-Congress and Jinnah made nearly all the running on what happened at partition. The potential for terrible violence between the two main religious communities was always present in India and not a cunning ruse by the imperial government or the Mughals before them. Less painful to blame third parties...

Anyway, the history aside this is a very well put together movie. It would have got 9 stars if it had not played so fast and loose with the truth, which matters if we are to deal with the hurts of the world.

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.