Passaggio in India

My interest in caves led me to watch this film. A small, but pivotal, part of the film's plot centers on what happens at the Marabar Caves. While the cave segment was a disappointment to me, I was pleasantly surprised by the film as a whole. It was not the grandiose, pretentious cinematic epic I had feared.

"A Passage To India" tells the story of a young British woman and her elderly traveling companion who journey from England to India, at a time when the British still ruled that country. The film's theme centers on British attitudes toward the people of India. Those attitudes can be summarized as: condescending, snobbish, and racist. It was the English vision of cultural superiority over the Indian people that E.M Forster wrote about in his 1924 novel, upon which the screenplay is based. That cultural vision represents a bygone, imperial era that today seems quaint.

The cinematography here is excellent, though perhaps not quite as sweeping or majestic as in some of Director Lean's previous films. What comes through in the visuals is India's spectacular scenery. The film's acting is competent. And I liked the film's original score.

My main complaint is the film's length. It's a two-hour story stretched to fill almost three hours. I would have cut out most, or all, of the crowd and mob scenes because they are not needed, and because they infuse the film with a "cast of thousands" aura that moves the film implicitly in the direction of epic status. Even as is, the film is sufficiently low-key and personal to be enjoyable.

Never mind whether or not it's as good as "The Bridge on the River Kwai", "Lawrence of Arabia", "Doctor Zhivago", et al.; the point is, it's a great film that was clearly made by the same David Lean that made the earlier masterpieces.

The stuff that usually gets dismissed with a wave of the hand - the art direction, the music (Maurice Jarre reserved his best scores for David Lean, although there's less music here than there usually is), the photography, the editing, the indefinable assuredness of narrative flow - everything that makes up the heart and soul of cinema, in fact - is as marvellous as ever. It's amazing enough when you consider that this was Lean's first film in fourteen years. More astonishing is that it was the first film on which he's credited as editor in forty-two years. Forty-two years earlier, he was working for Michael Powell (the only other British director as good as Lean), who considered him the best editor in the world; and while Lean's wielding the scissors again after all that time may have made very little difference to his overall style, I still think there's something special - even more special than usual - about the way "A Passage to India" flows. Maybe it's that Lean adapted the screenplay, then shot it, then cut it himself, but he has such an strong feel for the pulse of the story, such an unerring feel for what follows from what, that even the several jump cuts - jump cuts are usually the most ugly, the most offensively flashy, and the most intrusive of all cinematic devices - are beautiful, natural, even classical. In a way you don't notice that they're there.

I've never heard it said that two-time collaborators Powell and Lean have much in common - and they don't. But of all David Lean's creations this one comes closest to being like a Powell and Pressburger picture. There's an element of mysticism (threatening as well as comforting) darting in and out of the story with such fleetness and subtlety that it's hard to tell when it's there and when it's not; and, of course, the incident at the caves (explained exactly as much as it needs to be, and no more) could as easily have come from one of Pressburger's scripts as from Forster's novel. If you've seen "Black Narcissus", admittedly a very different kind of film, you don't need me to draw attention to the points of similarity.

Lean's imagery may be less openly bizarre than Powell's but the effect can be much the same. "A Passage to India", although it lacks the beauty of the films of the three Lean films shot by Freddie Young, contains Lean's most disturbingly powerful shots, yet they're of such things as these: monkeys (echoed later on in the film by a startling shot of a man dressed like a monkey - actually, that IS the kind of thing I can see Powell doing), someone clutching her hand to her chest, the moon, the first raindrops of a storm hitting a dirty window pane, even water - simple cutaway shots of nothing but moonlit water.

I haven't read the book, but I do know that if you HAVE to have read the book to see what's wrong with the film, why, then, there's nothing wrong with it. I don't know how much of the book has been lost in the translation but I do know that if too much has been lost to make a rich and powerful film, then whatever has been lost has been more than adequately replaced.

Released in 1985 and directed by David Lean from E.M. Forster's novel, "A Passage to India" is a historical drama/adventure about a young English woman, Adela Quested (Judy Davis), who experiences culture shock when she travels to India circa 1920 to possibly marry her betrothed, a British magistrate (Nigel Havers). Her companion for the sojourn is his mother (Peggy Ashcroft). With a kindly Indian, Dr. Aziz (Victor Banerjee), they take an excursion to the mysterious Marabar Caves. But something strange happens at the caves and Aziz' world is turned upside down when Adela accuses him of a crime. James Fox plays Aziz' English friend while Alec Guinness is on hand as an Indian sage.

This was David Lean's last film and, as far as I'm concerned, it's as great as his other films, like "A Bridge on the River Kwai" (1957), "Lawrence of Arabia" (1962) and "Doctor Zhivago" (1965). To appreciate it you have to favor his epic, realistic, not-everything-spelled-out style.

The movie's about the clash of British arrogance & Victorian propriety with a fascinatingly alien and more wild Indian culture. It's thematically similar to 1993's "Sirens," highlighted by Davis' stunning lead performance and only hampered by Guinness' miscasting as an Indian (but that's a minor cavil).

The film runs 164 minutes and was shot in India.

GRADE: A-

***SPOILER ALERT*** (Don't read further unless you've seen the movie)

The movie goes out of its way to show that Aziz is innocent of attempted rape without spelling it out. So what happened to Adela in the caves? She suffered a panic attack due to culture shock and the mounting apprehension of marrying a prim & proper coldfish she doesn't love. The scratches she suffers are from the cacti she runs into while fleeing the caves. Aziz was her subconscious scapegoat. But, give her credit, she was able to resist immense social pressure, realize the truth, and boldly declare it, despite the negative social ramifications.

Beautifully filmed, David Lean's 'A Passage to India' adapted from E.M. Forster's novel is a visually splendid. The visuals themselves are quite simplistic and yet the way they are portrayed is remarkable. It excellently captures the enigma and raw beauty of the Indian landscape which is exactly how Adela and Mrs. Moore see it.

'A Passage to India' quite epic. Yet, it doesn't look like any other typical Hollywood epic feature and I think that's mainly due to Lean's effective and efficient use of his tools. It's as if the country itself is enough to make it look epic. It is this mysterious country that seduces Adela and drives her over the edge. Lean uses plenty of silence. While much of the dialogue is brilliantly written, it is the quieter moments and glimpses between the words that stand out.

Peggy Ashcroft, Judy Davis, James Fox and Victor Bannerjee are outstanding as they deliver sincere and subtle performances. Even tough there have been complaints about the film's length, I thought the editing was great and I liked that Lean took his time rather than rush in telling the story. The score is minimally used. Lighting is terrific and sound is very good.

In the end, 'A Passage to India' is exotic and sensual without the need to show a skin or sex, poetic without words and haunting without the usual thriller ingredients.

I've always loved this film.This film has a lot of truly fascinating character development. Dr. Aziz goes from the kind of easily intimidated and emotionally battered employee that the British must have loved to have as a compliant colonial subject, to a frightened defendant who has had injustice snatch him from his lonely but well-ordered life, to a bitter and empowered man who thinks identifying with the plight of his fellow Indians means he must abandon all friendships with westerners, in particular that of the compassionate Richard Fielding. Sir Alec Guiness plays the minor but important role of Professor Godbole, a man whose beliefs puzzle Fielding. When Aziz has been unjustly accused of raping Adela Quested, a British woman, Fielding wants to mount some kind of campaign, to perform some kind of action on Aziz' behalf. Godbole calmly insists that although he cares about Aziz very much, nothing he or anyone does will matter - the whole thing has been predetermined. This is one of the issues that plays like background music in the film - that of Western views of human action and divine purpose working synergistically versus Eastern views on the same themes - karma versus Christian endeavor. I truly believe 1984 was a year in which the Academy got it right - Amadeus was indeed the best picture. However, this film is a photo-finish second and I highly recommend it.