james-337

Incoherent, meaningless, historically inaccurate and ultimately completely pointless. What was it trying to say or achieve? What was it about? Why was such a stellar cast wasted on this? Personally, I have no idea.

And for the record: regiments were either British or Indian (with British officers), not mixed; Indian sergeants were known as havildars, never as sergeants; British soldiers do not and did not wear beards; and Indian regiments were officered by British officers of the Indian Army, not officers who didn't understand their men and regarded them as 'savages', assisted by Indian native officers, not one of whom was in sight. Much of this was a blatant politically correct attempt to show how appallingly treated the Indians were. Many Indians, incidentally, were decorated for bravery, including with the Victoria Cross, so the idea that an act of gallantry by Indian troops would be ignored is complete fabrication.

The Indian troops who fought in the Great War certainly deserve a film tribute, but they deserve better than this.

The biggest question has to be why this film was banned for so long. Is the rape scene really that disturbing? Many worse scenes have been filmed since. Many have said that the most disturbing aspect is that Amy appears to enjoy the first rape. But is she actually raped by Charlie? He does not actually appear to force himself on her beyond tearing her clothes. It seems more like a willing moment of adultery than an actual rape, despite her half-hearted protestations. The second man does indeed rape her, but she is certainly not shown to enjoy that.

The biggest problem I found with this film was the unsympathetic nature of the two principle characters. Until his final act of protecting Henry, David is arrogant, self-centred and rude (do Americans never actually say 'please' and 'thank you', or is it just that movie Americans never do?), with that typical (movie) American way of treating anyone who earns less than he does as a servant (and they talk about the British class system!). Amy is portrayed as equally self-centred and arrogant. These are just not people we can easily feel sorry for.

The film is, quite frankly, extremely tedious until the final denouement. We see a group of stereotypical yokels (with appalling excuses for Cornish accents - didn't dialect coaches exist in 1971?) and an equally stereotypical arrogant middle-class 'outsider' couple not really doing very much. The violence at the end has been surpassed in many films since. Disturbing? Why is it so disturbing? This film certainly doesn't deserve its notoriety. It's not awful, but it's certainly not great either.

And one question. The tagline says that seven men died. I only counted five male deaths (the four local yobs and the major). Who were the other two?

Macho Italians without a single brain cell to rub together between them swear at each other. Meanwhile, an infamous murder case happens very much in the background and gets referred to from time to time. Believe me, the murders are infinitely more interesting than the main plotline, which we have seen before many, many times. If New Yorkers are really like this (and I suspect that they must be, since that's how they're always portrayed), remind me never to go there.