Passagem para a Índia

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.

In 1885 Lord Macaulay in very planned way introduced English as an official language of India, a plan equally dangerous like thousand years of third Reich in Europe. Macaulay himself explained during a speech in Kolkata in 1885 that "I have travelled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. He added "with such a high moral, spiritual cultural heritage and ancient Aryan education system (Language Sanskrit) I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of education system of this nation.

However Macaulay's language experiment resulted very strange. It not only fractured the complex Indian society but divided the schools of thought into fraction. In movie Dr.Aziz symbolically represents the agonised face of so called modern educated Indians.

The director of this movie is very talented person who exactly know this problem. Now what exactly happening in the movie is a British young woman fascinated with ideas of elephants, snakes, tropical forests and mysteries is travelling across India. Moreover she is young and deep inside she is contemplating the true meaning of love. While in India she meets Dr. Aziz who on other hand is a product of Macaulay's language experiment. Dr Aziz is an educated person who has nothing to with Indian national movement (background is of decade of 20's) or in other words he is a simple nice Muslim man who do his job, earn comparatively better than other poor Indians and has a good social status in the local community. However he remains depressed with the surrounding atmosphere which is full of dirt, poor people etc. Symbolically he is a face of new crop who thinks and if given a chance, act like elite English. Unfortunately since he is just an average person and not an intellectual, he can not see that a British who is a foreigner in his country do not see any difference between him and other poor. He works hard and do not miss any opportunity to proof that their is a difference and it exist.

Movie reaches to the height of climax when Dr. Aziz gets an opportunity to take Ms Quested to an excursion to Malabar caves. And then comes the most beautiful, suspenseful and artistic scene of the movie. For few moment in that silent lazy afternoon, Ms Quested learn during an exceptional personal interaction (An interaction which was not supposed to be happened between an Indian and a English) about Dr. Aziz's love for his wife who died few years back. Already hypnotised and surprised with the Indian culture she gets locked with a strange feeling when she learn that Dr, Aziz never saw his wife before getting married. Back to her life she never imagined if being in love/marriage with someone whom you have never seen was possible. After all due to her basic human tendency, she for a fraction of moment imagined Dr. Aziz as a perfect man. Her extreme imagination takes her to indefinite trauma and suddenly everything looks ugly, horrible, dark and hopeless. Now gushed with guilt feeling she can not justify her imaginations in a real world.

In case of Dr. Aziz he is again in a gloomy world because Ms Quested without giving any notice is now out of his reach. An innocent human to human interaction becomes a case of racial dominance & national extremism.

Fanatic Indians have coloured it with Indian national moment whereas British are convinced that Indians doesn't matter educated or uneducated are on same line. Ironically Dr. Aziz who is surprised, frustrated due to silence of Miss Quested is no longer an old simple man. He too now believes that English are corrupting his country. Ms. Nobody knows the internal truth.

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.

E.M. Forster's multi-layered masterpiece is on the surface the story of a young woman and her passage through India. On another level it's the story of India's independence from British rule. And there are other themes as well: mysticism, reincarnation, the clash of eastern and western cultures and religion. Only master director David Lean could reveal all the levels and he succeeds in this film.

You can watch this film once for each of the levels and always see something new. The sequence of the trip to the Marabar Caves and what happens there is one of the most mysterious in all of film.

Like Kubrick and Hitchcock, Lean can tell a story yet somehow depict things beneath the surface which ads to the richness of the film and gives it a depth all other films lack. It's not an epic like Lean's masterpiece Lawrence of Arabia but it's still a terrific film.

Alec Guinness is superb as Professsor Godbhole, teacher/guru/who is he really?. With Judy Davis as Adela Quested, Victor Banerjee as Dr. Aziz H. Ahmed, Peggy Ashcroft as Mrs. Moore, and James Fox in a terrific performance as Richard Fielding.

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.