The Guru

This is a very good film. I'm not sure what people don't like about it, other than the common complaint that it lacks plot. Obviously that's not valid criticism, since by that measure, we'd have to write off much of Bergman, Buñuel, Fellini, Tarkovsky, Godard, Pasolini, Antonioni, Resnais, Marker, Jodorowsky, Fassbinder, Herzog, Cassavetes, Brakhage, Frampton, Akerman, et cetera. Plot has never been an integral part of the cinematic experience, and so I'm not sure where this very American misconception comes from, other than that it clearly started with Griffith, and evolved over time so much that, for many viewers who haven't opened themselves to the full spectrum of the cinema, it remains an unfortunate reality of filmgoing.

That being said, "The Guru" really doesn't lack plot. Granted, it's not Wyler or Ford or Hawks, but there's as much plot in "The Guru" as there is in most Satyajit Ray. However, I can see how the film might disappoint the plot-addicts of the world, and since that constitutes the vast majority of viewers these days, maybe it was always destined to be an under-appreciated film. Its strengths lie elsewhere, in its themes, its ambiance, and its incredibly lucid depiction of two disparate cultures that have been thrown together since the dawn of British colonialism, but are just beginning to learn to truly live together. In that way, it is very similar to Ivory's last feature film, "Shakespeare Wallah", which was a better film overall, but "The Guru" doesn't miss the mark by much.

Ivory's early work was impressive. He made three beautiful documentary shorts between 1957 and 1964 -- "Venice: Themes and Variations", "The Sword and the Flute", and "The Delhi Way" -- and yet Ivory's best work from this time period was certainly his feature fictions. Clearly influenced by Satyajit Ray (and borrowing his brilliant cinematographer, Subrata Mitra, for all of his early films), Ivory's first feature film was "The Householder" in 1963. It's a lighthearted but emotionally evocative work that calls to mind Ray's "The World of Apu". And while all of Ivory's films from this time period are about India, "The Householder" was notable for being a solely Indian production ("Shakespeare Wallah" and "Bombay Talkie" were American productions, and "The Guru" is an Indian-American coproduction).

While "The Householder" was undoubtedly a very good film, "Shakespeare Wallah", Ivory's second feature (for which he hired Satyajit Ray himself to do the film's music), saw Ivory taking a significant step forwards, and beginning a process that he would continue with "The Guru": the thorough exploration of the relationship between India and western culture (Ivory was the perfect man for the job, given his experience in India combined with his American heritage). I've enjoyed contrasting these two films very much. "Shakespeare Wallah" was a much bleaker film, contemplating the impossibility of these two cultures ever truly coming together in spirit, whereas "The Guru", interestingly, is much more optimistic. The poem quoted in the film says something like, "Your path lies here, and mine there, but how can we ever truly be apart, when we are connected in spirit?" And so without backpedaling on his previous film's ideas (rather, expanding on them), Ivory suggests, in "The Guru", that the shared history of these two contrasting cultures can overcome any barriers that might otherwise separate them. It's a romantic notion, possibly even a naive one, but not by any means an unwelcome one.

"Shakespeare Wallah" was about displacement, depicting a traveling troupe of British actors in India slowly coming to grips with the reality that they no longer belonged in the India they had come to love and call home. "The Guru" is similar in its portrayal of westerners in India, but at its core it's a very different film. In "The Guru", the westerners call England home, and have to assimilate themselves into an unfamiliar Indian culture. In "Shakespeare Wallah", the westerners are already assimilated into Indian culture at the beginning of the film. Despite being British, they call India home, and the unfamiliar culture that they have to come to grips with is the new India, a changing India that no longer has a place for them. And so "Shakespeare Wallah" is a more complex, and overall a better film.

Nevertheless, "The Guru", Ivory's third feature, is a rock solid effort. Once again Ray's influence is felt very strongly, especially in the music sequences, which are somewhat reminiscent of "The Music Room". Here's another good opportunity to compare and contrast. In many ways, Ivory's film picks up where Ray's film left off. In "The Music Room", the protagonist is forced to confront an India in which the country's rich traditions and culture are dying at the hands of modernization and globalization. In "The Guru", that process is virtually complete before the film even begins, and the sudden intrusion of a jet airliner against the tranquil Indian landscape in the opening moments of the film, carrying on it a pop superstar from the west, states that reality to us loud and clear, right from the outset.

The film is gorgeously shot, with magnificent use of color, and its atmosphere and ambiance are fantastic. The final, end-credits sequence is among the most beautiful imagery I've seen in some time. Overall, the film is a delightful meditation on the struggles of two cultures to know each other, to accept each other, and to live together in harmony. It is comprehensive in its observation of all the obstacles that stand in the way, and sympathetic to both cultures, without condemning or condoning anything along the way.

"The Guru" is not a masterpiece, but it's a very good, perhaps borderline great film that deserves much more love than it's been given. And while it may not be Ivory's best, for anyone looking to explore his oeuvre, this film is absolutely a significant piece of it.

RATING: 8.33 out of 10 stars

This is based loosely on George Harrison's (of the Beatles) first visit to India in September 1966 to study with Ravi Shankar.

I'm pretty sure that all the interactions of the main characters are fiction, including the entire Jennifer character.

But the overall framework is mostly accurate (he first stayed in a hotel in Bombay, he did have a famous girl friend named "Patty" ,not "Patsy", and note the passing motorist who says "It's All Too Much"). And all the minor characters and scenes of India are incredibly accurate and authentic.

All the locations in India are filmed exactly as stated - I've been in most of them! (The Ganges boat ride gave me a strong sense of deja vu, as I've done exactly that trip.)

Michael York in one of his first roles, is good as the Beatle, albeit a trifle too low-key, although that perhaps may be part of the direction or the times.

The soundtrack is excellent and is written and performed by perhaps the best sitarist in India, Ustad Vilayat Khan.

The film's lack of success is probably due to the fact that it was too artsy for Average Joe, but too elementary for those Westerners who were already interested Indian music, culture or philosophy. Perhaps, in 1969, it reached a segment of the younger audience who were just becoming interested in the concept of being a hippie...

Utpal Dutt is very good as a master sitar player in India who doesn't seem to get much respect or adoration from his own people, but soon finds himself saddled with two British students: a wide-eyed, worshipful young girl interested in musical and spiritual enlightenment, and a carefree pop superstar who doesn't care if he gets enlightened or not. Lots of incredible sitar playing (notice how many different pronunciations of 'sitar' there are!) and mod '60's fashions, but a meandering story that makes all its points within the first half-hour. Dutt is both compelled and repulsed by the pop star's decadent world, and their like-hate relationship becomes a spiritual tug of wills. Michael York, sporting a thick crop of cinnamon-colored hair and talking with a Limey accent, plays the visiting celebrity with a snide kind of casual indifference, which is perfectly right for the character, but it does nothing for the audience and he elicits little interest; Rita Tushingham (reunited with York from 1967's "Smashing Time") overworks her perky nature and large, round eyes, yet her character hasn't been given many dimensions beyond what we are made to quickly sense (that her aimlessness led her to India and what she really needs is a man in her bed). As directed by James Ivory and produced by Ismail Merchant--who would become long-time partners and filmmakers--"The Guru" isn't bad; the locations are great and there are intermittent bits of satire that are certainly fashionable (for 1969, especially), yet ultimately there is too much ambiance and not enough plot. ** from ****

Aside from the great Indian music in this film, and some noteworthy cinematography, I think the takeaway for me was the study in preconceptions held by the British and Indians about each other.

British perception of Indians: stoic, wise, untouched by materialism. Reality: Indians can be as materialistic, petty and emotional as Westerners.

Indian perception of the British: foolish, intriguing, wasteful, decadent. Reality: The main British character (Tom Pickle) is arguably the wisest character in the film.

I'd recommend this to anyone wanting to learn about a moment in time when East and West began opening up to each other, and learning each others' strengths and weaknesses.

The kind of mistake that James Ivory, Rita Tushingham, Sayeed Jafrey and Michael York would rather forget.

James Ivory is a wonderful director and we have him to thank for many superb films about and featuring India, but this is not one of them. So-oo 60's! Rita Tushingham's eye makeup makes her look like a character in the Peking opera. Just bury this one in the vault and forget about it.