The Viceroy's House

[Dave2002]

I thoroughly "enjoyed" this film, though it is also very interesting to read the reviews in the newspapers, the Radio Times, and also some opinion pieces such as Fatima Bhutto's Guardian article. I suggest reading most of them. Some have viewed this as a glossy Downton Abbey sort of film, while others have seen other things in it. Some feel it has downplayed the problems which existed before 1947, and that there isn't really enough portrayal of the violence and difficulties which existed before.

To me this seems unfair, as it is hard to see how such a vast subject about a vast country could be handled much better in a "short" film of only 106 minutes. One possible "improvement" would have been to cut the film short, about 3-5 minutes before the end, but perhaps I'd better not suggest why at this point [spoiler].

Personally I thought it was a fascinating film, though some would only see the glossy "exterior", rather than the very disturbing undercurrents. I'd be happy to revisit any discussion in a while, but for the moment all I would suggest is to see it.

[Barbirollians]

I understand it proceeds on an absurd hypothesis that Churchill had already decided to partition India in 1945- which as India was partitioned under the Attlee government only when they reached the conclusion it was impossible to reach agreement between Jinnah and Nehru is nonsense and puts me right off going to see it .

[Nick Armstrong]

Although it was used as the catalyst for yesterday afternoon's 'Sound of Cinema' on R3, and the AR Rahman score extract did sound good, Matthew Sweet took the opportunity to dismiss the film itself as having a script that's beyond clunky, consisting of long passages of people telling each other things they already know. On the other hand Mark Kermode was reasonably complimentary about the film on the BBC News 'Film Review'... "surprisingly charmed" by it, were his words.

[Dave2002]

I understand it proceeds on an absurd hypothesis that Churchill had already decided to partition India in 1945- which as India was partitioned under the Attlee government only when they reached the conclusion it was impossible to reach agreement between Jinnah and Nehru is nonsense and puts me right off going to see it .

You may be right, but I wouldn't rush to dismiss what you describe as an "absurd hypothesis". I did write that the whole issue relates to a very large country and over an extended period, and obviously the film only touches the surface. I would still very much recommend the film, whatever preconceptions you may have. If you are not an expert on Indian history and the relationship between Britain and India it may enlighten you somewhat, and if you are then I'm sure you'll find some interesting holes to pick in it and can report back in due course.

[Richard Tarleton]

Terrific Graun article, thank you for the pointer Dave.

A previous attempt to film the love triangle between Louis, Edwina and Nehru had the plug pulled by the Indian government after 9 months of pre-production, apparently.

[Dave2002]

Amazing article that one - from the Mail - truly shocking! Thanks.

[Richard Tarleton]

I didn't know about Edwina and Flash Harry! I take it that this angle is not explored in the new film??

[french frank]

Amazing article that one - from the Mail - truly shocking! Thanks.

No sources quoted but seems (?) to be based on a biography by Stanley Wolpert which is criticised by other biographers. There's a jstor review which unfortunately I can't read in full, but which raises alarm bells: " … it is especially sad that as [Wolpert] nears the end of a highly successful career, he does so with a biography so poorly written and researched as his one on Jawaharwal Nehru. [ … ] He seems to have used Kitty Kelley as his literary model rather than James Boswell."

Another review appeared in Prospect magazine, possibly (possibly) less objective since it's written by the biographer of Nehru's daughter, Mrs Gandhi.

[Dave2002]

I didn't know about Edwina and Flash Harry! I take it that this angle is not explored in the new film??

Not a spoiler, but actually no hint of any such goings on at all in the new film. If you expect racy side scenes with Edwina and others you'll be disappointed. Very prim and proper. Perhaps rather less than historically accurate then.

[Dphillipson]

The practical point omitted (it seems) by both The Viceroy's House and the book that inspired it is that the Government of India Act promised in 1935 dominion status to India, albeit at no fixed date. In practice, India had taken part in all the imperial conferences since 1887 as if a self-governing dominion, although its government was appointed rather than elected, simply because India by itself constituted half the resources of the whole empire. In 1942 Churchill had, however reluctantly, sent the Cripps Mission to India to judge whether immediate dominion status would help the war effort or hinder it.

What British politicians always avoided (1867-1942) was any formal doctrine how democratic a colony needed to be in order to govern itself. Canada and Australia looked like useful precedents for Irish Home Rule, but such theory could not supersede the uniquely Irish features of that situation. When Jinnah changed his mind, to insist on outright separatism rather than any sort of federation for India, the quiddity of Indian history took charge.

Canada and Australia assembled successful federations because their politicians' local traditions (e.g. accommodations since 1790 between French Catholics and British settlers in Canada) met current demands for democratic self-government (even before women got the vote.) India's customs and history (including the detention of Hindu Congress leaders in wartime) provided no similar basis for agreement; and the only British "contribution" available in 1947 was Mountbatten's approval of partition (which the 1935 Government of India Act had never envisaged).

Prof. Peter Hennessy wrote acutely as early as 1992 "The Mountbattens in India is the stuff of which movies are made." Of course TV producers had their turn long before the Viceroy's House team assembled and found the necessary money.

[vinteuil]

The practical point omitted (it seems) by both The Viceroy's House ...

... but then the film was not really trying to replicate the twelve volumes of Nicholas Mansergh's Constitutional Relations between Britain and India: The Transfer of Power, 1942-1947.






.

[Cockney Sparrow]

Just happened to be listening to Radio 4 yesterday:

Throwing out Nehru

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b090xxxk

Historian Dr Zareer Masani's father......began as a close confidante of India's first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, but ended up leading opposition to him in the 1950s and '60s. Now, as India turns 70, Zareer asks why present-day Hindu nationalists are so keen to eradicate the legacies of the country's founding father and even to airbrush his name from school textbooks.
Nehru was the most charismatic leader of India's nationalist movement against the Raj and the founder of a political dynasty that survives to this day. But there are huge changes sweeping India, and they're also sweeping away Nehru's socialist and secularist legacies. Zareer asks: was the Nehru era a half-century of wasted economic opportunities and false starts, or did he lay lasting foundations for Indian democracy, science and technology? Are his critics throwing out the baby with the bathwater?
Zareer wrote a biography of Nehru's daughter Indira. His analysis of the Nehru legacy is laced with personal anecdote and insight and interviews with prominent Indian cultural and political figures. He talks to senior politicians and pundits, as well as to academics and students at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, about the shifting reputation of a man whose name still dominates the Indian skyline. He finds that attitudes to Nehru and his legacy are key to understanding the direction of Indian politics and culture today.