Le conquérant des Indes

Ronald Colman isn't really anywhere near his best in this rather dry biopic of the founder of the British Raj in the 18th Century. He is embarrassingly spared the worst consequences of a duel in Britain and arrives in shame, as a lowly clerk, in a country still a collection of Princely states. It's when he becomes besieged, and his betters haven't a clue how to defeat their advancing enemy, that he emerges as a bit of a soldier and, soon married to "Margaret" (Loretta Young) he climbs the ranks of the East India Company adding wealth and prosperity to all he meets. It's his last visit that facilitates huge expansion of British rule but earns him the enmity of the petty back in London who wish to impeach him and rob him of his honour and his considerable wealth. His return home to face Parliament is the final insult to a man who had put his commitment to India ahead of just about everything else. Like most biopics, it's not especially critical of the man - and in ninety minutes there isn't really time, either. What it does offer us is a rather potted history of his life that might stimulate further reading, but in itself delivers little. He and Young must have commanded most of the budget for there are perilously few action scenes as the detail of his military successes are largely left to the inter-titles. It's nice to see Montague Love given a slightly bigger speaking part and if you're eagle eyed you might spot Cesar Romero in the turbaned guise of King Mir Jaffar, bit for the main part this is just a vehicle for Colman to go through the motions of an hero with some stilted dialogue supported by the sparing appearances of an unremarkable Young.

Historical biopic from 20th Century and director Richard Boleslawski. Ronald Colman plays the title role, a somewhat self-destructive office clerk who impulsively joins the British army, travels to India, and engineers a spectacular military victory against an Indian uprising. That's just the start of his colorful career as a Defender of the Realm against a number of native rebels and tyrants. He also struggles to balance his time between his service and his wife (Loretta Young), who wishes that he would settle down.

Colman seems well cast as the seemingly impetuous Clive, who disregards the rules and societal proprieties in the service of his country and personal glory. But his part seems poorly written at times, more childish than daring, and his performance suffers for it. As does Young, who I normally like, especially in her 30's films, but who here seems phony and a bit overdone. Director Boleslawski seems to manage well with drawing room scenes of debate and heavy dialogue, but fails miserably at the war scenes, of which there are few, a glaring absence given the material.

Oftentimes, instead of dramatizing plot developments in a compelling way, the filmmakers opted for written title cards explaining the outcomes of decisions, which inevitably leads to anti-climactic disappointment. Still, the production values are good, and there are some well-done scenes.

'Clive of India' follows the career of Robert Clive (Ronald Colman) from East India Company clerc to military leader and Westminster politician; his wife Margaret (played by Loretta Young) has very little to do except being the patient, faithful and child bearing woman at his side. The sets and costumes are fine - in part even lavish - and the acting is mostly alright. What mars the picture are the poor script, the awkward dialogues and even more the uneven pacing. The structure is episodic: we get a glimpse of what Clive did here and what Margaret or someone else said there, but these scenes do not follow each other like in a coherent story. Rather, the film uses either title cards (a lot of them) to explain what went on in between, or forces Colman to make pompous statements that serve the same purpose. The result is a picture that fails to stir much interest in either its plot or in its characters. You sit through it and somehow it feels like a relief when you have reached the end.

I love the period from the 1920s-1940s in film, however, there are a couple genres within this that I am less than fond of and try to avoid--such as musicals and costume dramas. Of course there are exceptions to the rule, but in general these are among my least favorite old films. With musicals, often the story seems unimportant and the songs dominate and with costumers, too often the tales look great and have nice sets and clothes but seem emotionally sterile.

"Clive of India", clearly, is a very sterile and dry film. Despite starring the wonderful Ronald Colman (one of my favorites), the picture comes off as episodic and amazingly dull. This is a shame, as the real life Sir Clive was an amazing man and as an American I am glad he fought in India and not North America--otherwise, we might still be a British colony! He was talented and yet also very screwed up (his suicide comes to mind) and how all this managed to be so dull is beyond me. I think it's because so much energy is spent on the sets and making it all look good that little attention was given to the script--the characters just seemed wooden and lifeless.

Overall, you can watch it if you like, but I suggest you'd get more out of Wikipedia on this one!

Funny in the last 20 min or so when Clive and his wife meet the General and an officer just back from India...to request Clive return for a 3rd time to fix things again

Notice on the garden table his wife has left her laptop pc open during much of the scene. Hahaha....