Film Review - Viceroy's House ★★★½

Wednesday, March 01, 2017

Viceroy's House brings to life the real life drama of the Partition of India in 1947, with a blunt but moving period piece tribute. Director Gurinder Chadha says you're not supposed to 'enjoy' the film as such, but it's as insightful as it gets, unearthing the bitter truths of a topic we don't get educated on enough. 


As film screenings go, I'd like to firstly shout out The Soho Hotel as a venue because those seats are like, seriously comfy. (Second shout out to Director Chadha for a really good intro to the film and quick chat after!) Disclaimer: My subsequent review has nothing to do with how cosy and comfy I felt in those seats...

Ok, Viceroy's House is the main focus here. Focus, Bev! Speaking about focus though, the film has buckets of it as it delves into the 'behind-the-scenes' discussions, decisions and politics that led to the division of a country into the two independent dominions of India and Pakistan. The Viceroy's House is presented wonderfully with rich colour and wealth, filled with servants who have also built their new communities there. It's through the eyes of these staff - namely Jeet (Manish Dayal) and Aalia (Huma Qureshi) - that we get to see two (of the many) sides to this story. One of the other sides is obviously the Viceroy himself, played by Hugh Bonneville in his element who perhaps brings some Downton Abbey sauce to this dish. He's joined by a very posh Gillian Anderson who plays his wife Edwina (if you close your eyes she sounds like a posher version of the Queen.) The Mountbattens are faced with the pressure of splitting India in the midst of rising violence, as well as the end of British colonial power, and they are portrayed here in a sympathetic manner.


Exit strategies, splits, refugees, migrants, violence and disharmony are all visited or touched upon, making this film politically very relevant. Gurinder Chadha spoke about how she made the film as a British Punjabi after realising her own roots in an episode of Who Do You Think You Are?, and that even though it took seven years to make, it has ended up being released at a poignant point in modern history. It's the fuzzy televised scenes (real and not real) that strike the hardest, as they show the brutal real world outside of the House. Within the palace grounds, the rumour mill and tension and eventual violence between staff is just a small dramatised reflection of reality.

As British figures with titles to their names and badges on their uniforms sit around tables and discuss heatedly, the spotlight shines on Jeet and Aalia's parallel story which is essentially a Romeo and Juliet romance. There's a Muslim-Hindu religious difference, as well as the fact that she is set to marry someone else and doesn't seem interested. We realise in a slightly cringe-worthy reunion that they themselves have history, and thus Jeet begins to follow Aalia around like a lost puppy as she in turn looks troubled and gazes intensely into the distance at any given opportunity. They call out each other's names many times until there's more chemistry and then it becomes the gateway to further dramarama. Still, even though I was less convinced and entertained by this star-crossed love story, it does help to raise the valid point of different backgrounds and the shattering of families. The story of Aalia and her father (played by the late great Om Puri) is pretty emotional too. They are the poster faces of the wider revolution. It actually also leads to a soap-style moment at the end which had me in an expected flood of tears! No spoilers...


Some of the scenes of violence and emotional turmoil are harsh and hard to witness, which makes it hit you even harder when you realise it did really permanently change the lives of millions and led to the largest mass migration in history with millions displaced too. How do you choose your identity? Is it based purely on where you're from? How on earth do you simply draw a line through a country and stand back and watch? There's a scene where the emptying of the palace is visually symbolic, with items being dished out to India or Pakistan. Everything and the kitchen sink is divvied up; that's the tamer representation. Scenes in London (and revelations) also show a different side to the usually-celebrated Winston Churchill - props to Chadha for facing this head-on. 

Although this is a dramatised history lesson, the script often tries to be all-educating and not even Bonneville and Anderson can pull it off, even though they are mostly charming and engaging with their performances. After researching the history further, turns out there's so much that Viceroy's House has barely scratched the surface. Avoiding giving screen time to certain scandals (such as the many affairs of Lady Mountbatten), however, allows the film to focus on the partition events. 

The making of Viceroy's House is an ambitious project and although there are shortcomings here and there, I think Chadha has succeeded in creating a really meaningful film that moved me to tears. A sensitive portrayal of a true story, it's fitting based on her personal connection which is linked nicely during the outro. When I had the pleasure of meeting the Director afterwards, I told her I was really glad she made this film and I mean it. Putting all the Downton drama aside, it comes down to a real story that simply has to be told.

Viceroy's House is in UK cinemas on 3rd March.



You Might Also Like

0 comments