Review: A Passage to India

Based on the classic E.M. Forster novel and set in the 1920s, Judy Davis stars as young Miss Quested, who travels to British-governed India with the elderly Mrs. Moore (Dame Peggy Ashcroft), who is most excited to see something of the ‘real India’, not the British-tainted stuff. Nigel Havers plays Ashcroft’s magistrate son, and Miss Quested’s intended, who just doesn’t understand their curiosity with India. Much more helpful is the rather liberal, educated Dr. Fielding (James Fox), who introduces the women to his good friends, the cheerfully and eager to please Dr. Aziz (Victor Banerjee) and the elderly, somewhat daft Hindu teacher named Godbole (Sir Alec Guinness!). Dr. Aziz and Miss Quested get along famously, and in a moment of haste, Dr. Aziz suggests taking her on a trip to some local caves. Unfortunately, something happens to Miss Quested inside the caves, and she later emerges to accuse Dr. Aziz (who seems to have a sweet infatuation with her) of attempting to rape her, and the good doctor finds himself on trial. Needless to say racial tensions flare up to buggery over the whole thing. It seems highly unlikely that the cheerful, seemingly harmless Dr. Aziz could be guilty, and Dr. Fielding certainly believes in his innocence, but just what in the hell did happen to Miss Quested in those caves? Art Malik has an early role as Dr. Aziz’s best friend, who helps defend him alongside Roshan Seth, and Richard Wilson plays the opposing counsel.

 

One of the main problems with this highly-decorated 1984 David Lean (“Lawrence of Arabia”, “Dr. Zhivago”) film is that not only does it treat its subject in a manner that has dated since it was released, the fact is, it’s extremely old-fashioned for 1984 as well. I’m not saying this subject matter shouldn’t have been touched in 1984, but perhaps David Lean (who also scripted and edited the film) wasn’t the right guy to touch it. Capable of making very fine films (“Bridge on the River Kwai”, “Hobson’s Choice”, and especially “Oliver Twist”), Lean’s approach to this already historical subject, has seen it age progressively worse with time. It’s a very old-fashioned film (from a director whose last film was fourteen years prior), and it seems a decade or two out of touch at least. About the best thing I can say is that Sir Alec Guinness’ performance as an elderly Indian man is not only rather entertaining, but he narrowly gets away with it too, partly due to the rather light application of makeup on him. Ben Kingsley got an Oscar for doing so in “Gandhi” don’t forget. Yes, he has Indian heritage, but would you have known that from looking at him outside of the film? Nope, so casting a Caucasian or biracial actor isn’t always a bad thing. Anyone who has seen Mickey Rooney in “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” surely can’t be too harsh on the comparatively subtle Guinness here, whose quite respectful, non-caricatured performance is actually more interesting than the rather trivial character he actually plays.

 

However, other aspects of the film have not aged nearly as well and aren’t nearly as interesting or entertaining. Characters here that are seen as rather liberal or forward-thinking for the time the film is set, don’t seem all that worldly or cultured for the time in which the film was released, and even less so now. India and its people are treated by those people in the film as somewhat of a quaint little curio, and in turn, by the filmmaker, it seems. It has aged so much that while there may have been that difference between the time the film is set and the time in which it was made, that difference doesn’t seem all that substantial today, I guess is the best way of putting it. As such, the film really only comes alive in the final quarter when it at least turns into an intriguing mystery/courtroom drama. This part of the film has its flaws (it seems like two films in one, and not seamless at all), but at least it’s intriguing enough to keep one awake, probably because it’s a tad similar to one of my favourite books, To Kill a Mockingbird, though obviously with a much different setting.  Unfortunately, there’s one fatal flaw that even this section of the film cannot escape; The tragic, albeit Oscar-nominated, miscasting of Australia’s own Judy Davis in ostensibly the lead role. It’s not so much that she isn’t terribly attractive that’s the problem. In fact, her rather plain looks are made into an issue within the film later on. That’s fine. However, anyone who has ever seen the head-strong Judy Davis give any performance in any other film will tell you that she is all kinds of wrong for this role (The fact that she got into heated arguments with the director and hurled profane insults at him is further proof. Sure, some actors can play people opposite to their own personalities, but Judy ain’t one of ‘em). She’s far too hardened, and tends to be cast in cynical, strong women roles. That’s because she’s rather good at that kind of thing. This fragile and naïve role is requiring something in the vicinity of Julie Harris, or even the likes of Lee Remick/Lee Grant with a British accent (Though obviously a younger version of those actresses). Sure, Lee Grant was known for playing shrill bitches too, but she was also known for playing fragile women prone to emotional hysterics, which is a key part of the character here that Davis fails to make credible. Judy Davis would be the one slapping the shit out of that hysterical woman, and her casting plays even more wrongly decades later. She’s just not fragile or dainty enough to work in the role. I’ve seen her play neurotic in Woody Allen films, but really, a fragile ingénue (albeit not an absolute stunner) would’ve been better. Or better yet, make the film in the 60s and cast Julie Harris for cryin’ out loud.

 

The supporting cast around Davis is thankfully solid enough to ensure the film isn’t a bad one, just uneven. Oscar-winning Peggy Ashcroft, and especially Victor Banerjee are particular standouts. James Fox is also rock-solid, Richard Wilson does his best with a rather one-dimensional part, and it’s always good to see character actor Clive Swift, however briefly. The excellent cinematography by Ernest Day earned an Oscar nomination, and helps lift the film a bit.

 

A film set in the 1920s (based on a book that was penned in the 20s as well), made in the 1980s, but made by a veteran filmmaker very much of the 50s and 60s, this is a lumpy and dated film. It has a few merits, but it’s not a terribly easy watch in 2014 (The wild monkeys rampage is awfully on the nose, I have to say). Tragic central miscasting does not help one iota. A very uneven film. Having said that, it’s also not my type of film at all (the East-West cultural clash thing is pretty tedious to me, aside from “Gandhi”), and one should probably keep that in mind. You may very well have a different opinion about it to me. It was nominated for the Best Picture Oscar that year, after all.

 

Rating: C+