Der Stern von Indien

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.

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.

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...

An entertaining and well-acted movie covering (a version of) the events around partition. The problem with these historical movies is 1) they are skewed to the narrative of the production team and 2) they do not capture the scale & complexity of the geopolitical realities prevailing at the time. Nonetheless, the atmosphere of chaos as the sub-continent is divided is well portrayed and underpinned by some stunning archive clips.

The partition of India is a fascinating piece of post-war history, and one that can be told from all manner of viewpoints. So you'd expect any historical retelling of the events to have some real drama and tension. Viceroy's House doesn't quite manage that, generally settling for a more visually lush depiction of the history that only gets into the heavier side of the true events very late on. It's still a historically interesting watch, and with good performances and directing, a pleasant one too, but not quite the fiery historical drama that it could have been.

Let's start on the plus side, however, with the visuals. If there's one thing that this film does really well, it's capture the vibrant real-life locations of both the Viceroy of India's residence and the streets of India. Filmed entirely on location, the grandeur of the main stage is fantastic to look at, whilst the costume design that ranges from Viceroy Mountbatten's decorated military attire to the colourful uniforms and dress of the Indian people is central to the film's more pleasant atmosphere.

Another thing that helps to make this a pleasant watch is the performances. The screenplay doesn't really bring any depth of character to any of the main players, and I can't really say any of the lead actors did much to bring that about either, however the likes of Hugh Bonneville and Gillian Anderson as Lord and Lady Mountbatten, as well as Manish Dayal and Huma Qureshi in supporting roles, give this a very confident and classy atmosphere that stands up well on screen.

However, that's where the positives start to end. Although I can say that the film does a good job at telling the facts of the end of British rule in India, and is interesting for anyone who wants an education into the time period, it doesn't really manage to do it with any sort of vigour or passion.

Throughout, this feels like a collection of good actors reading out the final chapter of a school history textbook about British India in the real locations. It's interesting to see, but it's by no means a cinematic masterclass.

That's where the directing and writing should have come in to make something more memorable out of the history. Unfortunately, the screenplay offers very little in the way of emotional or dramatic character depth, which means that the conflicts that arise don't have any sort of power, and the directing is more focused on the visual aspect of the film, rather than giving it a solid pace and riveting atmosphere.

And that remains the case for almost the entire movie, save for the very final act. If there's one part of Viceroy's House that does the gravity of the history justice, it's right at the end, and features the only few minutes of the film that are both informative and emotionally engaging.

On the whole, I had a nice enough time with Viceroy's House. It's not as dramatic nor passionate a retelling of India's independence as it definitely should be, and with average writing and directing, there's not much to really grab onto. However, with some delightfully vibrant visuals from start to finish, as well as some good central performances, this is a pleasant watch.