O Último Vice-Rei

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 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 picture Viceroy's House directed by Gurinder Chadha was screened out of competition at the Berlinale.

The film tells the story of love between Jeet and Aalia set against the historical scenes surrounding partition of India in 1947. Their differing religious backgrounds become a source of conflict as the colonial rule terminates and India gets divided into Muslim Pakistan and secular India.

Queen Victoria's great-grandson Lord Mountbatten arrives to Delhi as the last viceroy; he has the task of trying to make the smooth transition of power. The film broaches serious problems and is a skillful examination of the political turmoil of that time.

The picture is shot in a dynamic fashion, has good camera-work and even has some humor. The film shows well the everyday life of the last viceroy of India, many interesting details create the unique atmosphere which is complimented by the soft sense of humor. It is a lavish production, features many impressive crowd scenes, beautiful interiors and exteriors as well as costumes.

Some flaws of the film include that the romantic subplot was less developed than the historical narrative, which was shown in a more interesting way. Bonneville's acting as Lord Mountbatten is very convincing.

Read more at: http://indie-cinema.com/2017/02/viceroys-house/

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.

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.