A Passage to India (1984) User Reviews

As an Indian i believe i may help you to understand

[ashishjuyalin · 8/10 · 3 January 2010]

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.

East is East, West is West

[rmax304823 · 8/10 · 24 January 2005]

David Lean wasn't an especially likable guy, despite his over-sized ears. When Guiness arrived on the set, Lean told him he'd been hoping for another actor for the part of Godbole. He was so sadistic to Sessue Hayakawa on "The Bridge on the River Quai," blaming Hayakaway's flawed English for all the delays that Hayakawa's breakdown scene was real. He was impatient with crews too, snapping at them because he was losing the light, as if it were the photographer who was turning them down.

But, whew, what a resume! From "Great Expectations" to this, his last film, and although some are slower than others there is not a clunker among them. (It's hard to believe that more than twenty years have passed since his last work.) His interests were in the story of people involved in cultural clashes and tended to be set against vast landscapes. He was in some ways like John Ford writ large. We get to know the people marching along the skylines.

"Passage to India" isn't his best film but it's a good thoughtful one, with his usual attention to details of weather, furniture, and wildlife. The imagery, as always, is striking. Near the beginning, two English ladies are having drinks on a train and the delicate conversation is suddenly interrupted by a slow, elephantine kathoom, kathoom, kathoom. The ladies look up, a bit surprised. A cut reveals the girders of a steel bridge across a river sliding past the train window. Ba-Boom. Loud and distinct but far away, like an echo of cannon fire from future revolutions. It's hard to imagine another director willing to take a chance with the splendid simplicity of a shot like that.

I'll just mention one more scene in passing, as an illustration of the point. Peggy Ashcroft, as Mrs. Moore, probably best known as the sympathetic and abused farmer's wife in "The Thirty Nine Steps", has met Alec Guiness, as Godbole, the Hindu teacher, only once, and then briefly. But after she leaves, Godbole casually refers to her as "an old soul," in the Hindu sense of one who has led many previous lives. And that's it. They don't meet again. Until an hour of two of screen time later, when Ashcroft leaves India, unaccompanied. As the train pulls slowly out of the station, she stares at the silhouette of a figure that appears on the platform and performs an elaborate ritual salute to Ashcroft. A quick closeup shows us that the figure is Godbole. The scene comes as a complete surprise. It is like watching the interplay between the ghosts of two separate cultures.

I don't know if I should have used that trope because it reminds me of a Samoan friend who found himself hitch-hiking alone at night on an Arizona highway. He was terrified of ghosts. Not Samoan ghosts, because they were back in Samoa. And not American ghosts because he could speak their language. It was the prospect of Indian ghosts that frightened him because he had no idea of what to say! Sorry.

Basically, I guess, in this story we find it almost impossible to doubt the innocence of Dr. Aziz. He's as eager to please as a child. But we have good reason to doubt Judy Davis as Adela Qwested. She isn't exactly sexually liberated, a good stiff clean English woman. When she visits a deserted temple with Kama Sutra sorts of erotic bas reliefs, her presence seems to get the resident monkeys perturbed and they screech at her until she leaves in a near panic. The film also indicates in subtle ways her attraction to Dr. Aziz. (She appears to sweat a lot when she's alone with him.) Of course he has no idea of what's going on.

The rape accusation dissolves in court, along with the dust caking the courtroom skylight as the monsoon rains begin. The English go back to England. Dr. Aziz remains bitter because his reputation is totally shot, until the end when he transcends his anger. As Godbole has been saying, "None of it matters in the long run anyway." Of course he's thinking of the really LONG long run.

The British colonials try to railroad a person of color into jail, and they fail. The theme is a familiar one to most American viewers, I would imagine, except that in American movies they don't always fail. The ending is sad but sweet and a little uplifting too, as the events at the Marabar Caves and the subsequent trial recede into the past. Time wounds all heels, they say, but there aren't any heels in this movie, except a few British racist snobs, who aren't really evil, just products of their age, as are we all. The raucous celebration of the Indians after the trial, what with the fireworks and all, are a little disturbing in light of the wars yet to come between the Hindus of India and the Moslems of Pakistan. It goes without saying that those who knew nothing of the affair -- the Indians who believe Aziz to be innocent and the British who believe him guilty -- are both guilty themselves.

I kind of miss David Lean, as long as I never had to work for him. See this movie and relax and enjoy it.

Adventures occur, but not punctually

[petra_ste · 7/10 · 3 August 2015]

Forster has been lucky as far as movie adaptations of his works are concerned. James Ivory did him justice with A Room with a View and especially with the magnificent Howards End, and having your most successful book handled by David Lean is something every novelist would envy.

A feast for the eyes - with damp jungles, peaks shrouded in clouds and crystal-blue lakes reflecting the sky like polished mirrors - the movie is a tale of social, racial and sexual tension, as in colonial India a British lady (wrongly) accuses a local doctor of attacking her during a visit to an isolated archaeological site.

The female protagonists fare better than their male counterparts. Judy Davis is phenomenal in the lead role of Adela Quested - a nuanced, powerful portrayal of a psychologically distressed individual. Ashcroft is also excellent as Mrs Moore.

Banerjee succeeds at making doctor Aziz likable, but it isn't exactly a subtle performance: he appears too childlike, naive and eager to please. Only in the epilogue some much needed bitterness comes through and paints the doctor as something deeper than a saintly scapegoat. More on target is James Fox as the British educator who sides with Aziz against his own compatriots. Alec Guinness, great as he was, is miscast as a Brahmin.

Not one of Lean's best works, but still compelling and visually rich.

7/10; for a different take (less political, more esoteric) on similar themes - sexual repression, conflict between nature and civilization - see also Peter Weir's Picnic at Hanging Rock.

One of Lean's Best

[mrcaw · 4 January 2003]

David Lean ended his illustrious career on a high note with this haunting love song to the exotic & sensual world of India.

The action takes place during the last days of England's rule over colonial England. Much of the emphasis in the movie is placed on the culture clash between the two countrys.

Judy Davis stars in one of her earliest films as a woman who travels to India on what she imagines will be a romantic adventure to meet up with and marry a waiting fiance.

The great Dame Peggy Ashcroft portrays the fiance's mother who accompanies Davis on her "Passage To India".

Alec Guiness is along for the ride in a culture-bending role as a Hindu spiritual man. Guiness's role is in turn played for laughs then for dramatic punch when needed.

The major conflict in the movies arrives from an ill fated tourist jaunt to the Marabar Caves some miles away.

What does or does not happen there becomes a legal and moral crisis that involves all the film's key players as well as the entire city.

The movie is played with sensitivity as well as allowing for the usual David Lean broad strokes of color and light.

It's one of my favorite movies and definitely appealing to more than the "Merchant & Ivory" crowd.

a disappointment

[jg1972 · 7/10 · 24 March 2003]

David Lean has made some of the best films of all time (viz. "Dr. Zhivago" and "Lawrence of Arabia"), and E. M. Forster is a delightful writer (viz. "Howards End" and "Room with a View"). This film, however, turns out to be a disappointment. While some other reviewers have loved it, I suspect that they have not read the novel. Moreover, as a pure story, it does not match up to Lean's earlier work.

The very essence of the story is the question, can Indians and Britons be friends? That is the heart of the novel, as Dr. Aziz and Mr. Fielding struggle to be friends as their societies conflict and they offend each other through misunderstandings. This is not really shown in the film. In fact, in some ways, the chief Anglo-Indian relationship in the film is a latent love between Dr. Aziz and Miss Quested. Lean leads us to believe that they secretly long for each other, but society (and they themselves) will not allow such a relationship. Additionally, Lean has changed much of the focus from an Indian story (about Dr. Aziz and his search for a place in colonial society) to a British one (about the place of British colonials in an alien place). This is reinforced by the invented opening scene of the movie, which is not in the novel.

I watched this film with a friend who had not read the novel, and she had a hard time following many of the plot twists.

Considering the novel as the premise, this is not an epic tale, and it was not suited for Lean's grand style. The more intimate style of Merchant-Ivory would have been appropriate here. Lawrence's "Seven Pillars of Wisdom" and Pasternak's "Dr. Zhivago" were epic novels needing broad strokes to appear on screen. Forster's novel mixed subtle satire with poignant portrayal of the dilemma's facing a Western-educated Indian under the British Raj. Most of that is lost in this film.

A dream. A nightmare. A new world. A battle with one's demons. A work of art!

[Freddy_Levit · 10/10 · 9 June 2005]

Steven Spielberg claimed his greatest inspiration in becoming a director was Sir David Lean. In motivating him in making a film, a Lean epic would lift his spirits and inspire ideas. Evidence of his marks of appreciations are in famous Indiana Jones shots, an eye for breathtaking vistas - Empire Of The Sun being most evident (which was originally a David Lean project). The legendary British director, who's larger than life approach to film exhilarated audiences around the globe with immortal classics as 'The Bridge On The River Kwai', 'Lawrence Of Arabia' and 'Doctor Zhivago', made an unexpected return in 1984, 22 years following the last epic with one of the most mythically dream like productions ever to grace the silver screen. He took us on a journey to picturesque India with his trademark scope in crisp cinematography which filled our lungs with the most breathtaking scenery. The new generation must rediscover the works of this great human being who bestowed upon us some of the most memorable, fantastic, larger than life epic experiences that have inspired countless directors in their work. 'A Passage To India' is no exception. It is a heart-wrenching, nightmarishly beautiful film, at the same time so dream like, it transports you to another world that penetrates through the spirit of self discovery.

Reminiscent of a famous Australian film "Picnic At Hanging Rock" containing similar themes, a masterpiece directed by the poetic film maker Peter Weir, this powerful entry is one of the most memorable films of the 1980's.

The film follows the intersection of two unlikely people, English lady Ms. Adela Quested (Judy Davis) and an Indian man Dr. Aziz (Victor Banerjee) during India's British rule in the roaring twenties. It is Adela's first time out of England as she is on her way to visit India to meet her fiancé who's a judge in colonial British territory. Accompanying her is her friend and future mother in law Mrs. Moore (Peggy Ashcroft) who shares common interests with Adela in wanting to see real India - in experiencing the countryside and meeting real Indians. To their astonishment however, they soon realize that the occupying English populace aren't as enthusiastic about the idea of making close contact with these everyday Indians, believing India is best experienced at a distance. But to Adela's hesitation to her surroundings, she insists on organizing an expedition for sight-seeing. Her new found friend and school teacher Richard Fielding (James Fox) assembles a group of well-read, knowledgeable Indians to guide them throughout the expedition, composing Professor Godbole (Alec Guiness) and Dr. Aziz (who by chance acquainted himself with Mrs. Moore the previous night). It isn't long before Adela and Aziz begin to explore interests in one another, but in an untouched natural overwhelming utopia that is India, what happens to Adela in a mystical cave far from home ends as a controversy that threatens to tear Indian/British relations into chaos.

The film explores the themes of repression, illusion, racism, tolerance, forgiveness, self-discovery and justice all piled up into an unforgettable symbolically and visually breathtaking masterpiece.

What we have here is one of the most emotionally engaging character studies in film history. The film's setting is genius in portraying self discovery in an unfamiliar place far from home. Like in 'Picnic At Hanging Rock', there is strong emphasis on repression and loss of place and time, creating a most delusional reality. Most importantly, it points out the political oppression to perfection, clearly showing English attitudes toward the very people they invaded. Human nature is the film's primary focus. Adele Quested and Dr. Aziz both learn important lessons the hard way, but never-the-less become stronger human beings.

This almost mythical film absolutely drew me into this world David Lean so brilliantly brought to the screen. One of the films greatest highlights was the moving, magical, subtle and haunting score composed by legendary Maurice Jarre. It influenced the film's atmosphere so vividly, it fascinates every time I hear it. The cinematography came as no surprise to me and this is David Lean at his indisputable best. I was left grasping for air following the film's poignant conclusion. You feel almost like you're there every time. He is the master at creating an unforgettable atmosphere on an epic scale. This film was literally like a Passage To India.

The cast was expertly selected. Judy Davis is perhaps one the greatest actresses that ever walked into a film set. Her commanding physical presence extracts such unforgettable performances, it leaves people in awe of her talent. Her portrayal of Adela is extremely realistic and you feel her emotions with such power. James Fox turns in a very convincing performance as the man who stands for justice, for those who can't gain it. Alec Guiness is arguably out of place as an Indian scholar, but I believe he brought a nice touch to the film - he is one of the greatest actors in the world. Besides, his role wasn't big enough to criticize. Peggy Ashcroft gave in a marvelous performance of a woman who sees the injustices only too well and can't stand the fact that little is being done to compromise.

Everything about this film suggests it is the makings of a true artist. And everything about this film suggests that David Lean was a perfectionist who never lost his touch. It is easily one of the most beautiful, haunting, mystical and awe inspiring films ever made. I recommend it to anybody who loves film and better yet, to whoever hasn't seen a David Lean film before. This is the perfect place to start.

Sentimental Technicolor Cliff notes

[pekinman · 6/10 · 2 January 2005]

David Lean was unquestionably a great director, and 'A Passage to India' is one of his more entertaining productions, albeit homogenized and clichéd.

No complaints about the cinematography in 'A Passage to India', it's beautiful, almost too beautiful. You can't smell the place or feel the heat. For a fully rounded sensual portrayal of India watch Christopher Morahan's great television series 'The Jewel in the Crown' made about the same time as this film, and also starring Peggy Ashcroft and others in Lean's film. Having recently viewed that classic mini-series, Lean's Technicolor excess is diminished by comparison.

The casting of Lean's film is clever but doesn't always work. Alec Guinness does one of his "look what I can do" turns, and he does it very well. His Professor Godbolly is amusing and he performs all the trade motions of an ersatz guru with dead-pan aplomb, but he's not real at all. I kept thinking of Peter Sellars singing "Boom Titty Boom Titty Boom..." from an old joke record my parents had in the 60s.

Most of the cast is Masterpiece Theater calibre, that is, excellent, but predictable.

Judi Davis is by far the most effective performer. She fully captures the spirit of an Edwardian girl just venturing out into the world from her room of books back home. She's curious, has a mystical bent and is suffering under the burden of awakening sexual desires, and India sets her spirit on fire, to dire results.

Dame Peggy Ashcroft's character is as clichéd as the other Mem-sahibs only Mrs Moore (Ashcroft) is a liberal spirit vexed by the rigid hypocrisy of her own generation. She delivers one of the best lines in this film to chilling effect... (something like...) "I am old, and like old people I wonder if we aren't just random creatures in a Godless universe."

This is the kernel of the story, the difference between East and West is not one of race but of something greater than humanity, something the East perhaps appreciates more than we do in the West, where commercialism captures every new religious fad with a zeal.. note the "new age" movement and how lucrative it was for so many, something that would be incomprehensible to the Eastern mind, though they appear to be learning.

This film moves along at a placid pace, not boring, exactly, but somnolent. None of the characters, beyond Ms Quested (Davis) and, to a lesser degree, Mrs Moore, are developed very much beyond the "what you see is what you get" approach. Dr Aziz, well-played by Victor Banerjee, is presented as a sort of clown. Childish, adolescently over-sexed and immature in his emotional responses. It's a charming portrayal but not very believable. James Fox is the stiff-upper lipped liberal college professor who also abhors the Pukka Raj crowd at the club, but his character comes off as a bit soppy. I fault the script for this.

The screenplay covers most of the main bases of the book but interrupts itself too often with sentimental moments of travelogue. You can always tell when one of these scenes is coming because the sitar music stops and Maurice Jarre's banal musical score swoops in and the characters stop moving and take up nobly profiled stances, gazing in awe at the scenery. At these moments this film becomes a National Geographic Special and one is whisked back to 10th grade geography class. This sentimentalism of Lean's is often the cause of flaws in his films, but they are beautiful to look at, as is 'A Passage to India'.

Not a great film but a top-drawer "comfort" movie.

Treads the borderline of historical fiction and fantasy with breathtaking skill

[Spleen · 10/10 · 24 May 2003]

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.

Very disappointing

[senortuffy · 6/10 · 9 December 2003]

When I think of films by David Lean, I think of sweeping grandeur and bigger than life characters, but this is a rather clumsy film about British colonials behaving badly in India. Whatever subtleties E. M. Forster had in mind were lost in this adaptation of the novel.

Adela Quested (Judy Davis) travels to India with her future mother-in-law, Mrs. Moore (Peggy Ashcroft) sometime in the early 20th century to meet up with her fiance, the local British magistrate. She and Mrs. Moore are appalled at the attitudes of the colonials towards the local people and want to meet some Indian people socially.

Richard Fielding (James Fox), the head of the local university arranges a gathering at his home for the two English ladies and two Indian men, Dr. Aziz, whom Mrs. Moore has met already and requested attend, and Professor Godbole from the university. Dr. Aziz is honored by the two ladies accepting him as an equal and to reciprocate invites them on a day trip to a famous Indian cultural site, some caves in the nearby mountains.

During the trip - an elaborate picnic complete with an elephant and coterie of servants - Miss Quested and Dr. Aziz have occasion to be alone outside one of the caves high up on the mountain. Miss Quested enters the cave while the doctor is off smoking a cigarette, has a bad reaction to the heat and the echoes inside the cave, and runs off in a panic. She is met by one of her countrymen and driven back to the British compound where she is coerced into telling a story of rape by Dr. Aziz.

A trial ensues where the British attempt to railroad the doctor into a conviction, but Miss Quested recants her deposition and Dr. Aziz is free. Bitter about his treatment, he rejects the friendship of Mr. Fielding and goes off to Kashmir to practice medicine away from all Brits. But in the end he and Fielding reconcile and he accepts that all has turned out well.

I know this is a rather simplified summary of the plot, and I'd tell you more about the character development, but there really wasn't much to it. Judy Davis plays Miss Quested as a high strung enigma. Much of her behavior is unexplained, so the central character in the story is weak and the film suffers because of it.

The very underrated James Fox is excellent and nearly pulls it all together, but the other two main characters don't add much complexity. Victor Banerjee (Aziz) isn't a very good actor, and Alec Guinness, who is, is wasted in the role of Prof. Godbole. The viewer is asked to assume too much in the relationships of all these characters, and it's unclear from the film what Forster really intended.

It has its moments, but if you didn't see David Lean's name in the opening credits, you'd be hard pressed to realize this is a film by one of the masters of cinema.

Lean's silent scene suggests reason for court case.

[jrcadams · 10/10 · 10 April 2006]

Films based on novels (as in this case) must rely on screenplays which condense the material, and supply either voice-overs, or visuals to explain what is going on in a character's head. Usually, a voice-over is a cop-out. David Lean has provided a brilliant substitute for a voice-over in the scene where Adela wanders on her bicycle into the bush to discover a Hindu temple. A central mystery in the book as well as in the film is the ambiguity of the cause for the court case. Forster said that judgment was up to the reader. Lean was a reader, and in my view, he made his decision, and provided us with a clue in that scene (which is not in the book). Here is that scene: Adela leaves the safe British compound on an exploratory trip with a bicycle. She leaves the highway, and cycles down a path through the weeds. The sign- post, which had appeared quite natural when she looked at it, now looks like a Christian Cross when she leaves the road and goes down the path. The music changes from a major key to the minor, suggesting mystery, or menace. She is leaving her familiar culture and riding into the unknown. She sees a fallen sculpture. A voluptuous sculpture. She doesn't turn back. As she rides farther, the weeds grow higher. She is being engulfed by India. She dismounts as she approaches a copse, and walks into the shadows. She sees a ruined Hindu temple covered with erotic sculptures. Amourous couples are coupling. She stares at these apparitions, so abandoned, and so alien to her proper Victorian up-bringing. She is attracted by the spectacle, but she is frightened by her attraction. Suddenly she hears a noise, and looks up to see a troop of monkeys. They chatter menacingly at her and begin to scamper down the temple, over the erotic sculpture, and in panic she flees. Could the monkeys symbolize that emotional, sensual, animal nature that lives in everyone but is supposed to be suppressed in Englishwomen (and American ones, for that matter!)? Are they saying, "This is our land, the land of emotion; you do not belong here"? India attracts her. It awakens hidden desires. It menaces her. She flees to the familiar, visibly shaken. Back at the bungalow, with her fiancé, she says "I want to take back what I said at the polo," which was that she wanted to delay the wedding. She was so frightened by the feelings rising in her as she tasted a bit of Indian culture that she wanted to put a stop to passion by marrying! And all of that was said in the film without words. It provides us with a rationale for believing she later suffered an hallucination, which is at the core of the plot.

Awesome and gorgeous film with drama , social habits , historical events and spectacular outddors from India

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 9 November 2020]

A ambitious rendition of E.M Foster complex novel about a young : Judy Davis , who goes India to find her boyfriend, Nígel Havers, along with his mother : Peggy Ashcroft . Revolving around about Brit and Indian relations , as well as accussations against an Indian doctor , Victor Banerjee, while serving as a guide in some rather ominous caves of Marabar .

A drama about guilt and innocence , dealing with relationships between Brits and Indians in the 1920s. Once again David Lean indulges his taste for great scenarios, a wonderful India, demonstrationg an abiity with utter scale throughout the story. The film is pretty well, but occassionally flags , especially on the trial scenes , furthermore , being really overlong . Here David Lean has assembled his strongest cast in years. As it features strong performances from veteran Peggy Ashcroft with a long cinematic career , Judy Davis as the foolish hysteric Miss Quested , Victor Banerjee as a doctor is fine , though he overacts , at times . Other notorious secondaries and giving top-drawer acting are the following ones : the great Alec Guinness , James Fox , Nígel Havers, Saeed Jaffrey, Art Malik, Pemberton, Seth , Richard Wilson, among others .

It contains a brilliant and colorful cinematography by Ernest Day shot on location in actual Indian landscapes and impressive palaces and buildings . Moreover, an evocative and rousing musical score by Maurice Jarre , David Lean's regular , including enjoyable leitmotif . The picture was compellingly directed by David Lean. This classic director made a large number of good films and masterpieces, such as : Bridge in the River Kwai , Brief Encounter, Dr Zhivago, Lawrence Arabia, Oliver Twist , Summertime, Great Expectations, Hobson's Choice, ,Ryan's daughter, among others. Rating : 7/10. Notable. The picture is commendable for the literary purists, outdoors lovers and drama enthusiasts.

Culture and race and one thing you might not notice.

[alecwest · 10/10 · 24 November 2005]

Sometimes, what you don't see can be of equal importance to what you do see in a film. David Lean's film is no exception ... but more on that later.

A film of epic quality, it follows two travelers on their journey from England to India during the Raj colonial period of the 1920s. For Adela Quested, it's her first time out of England to anywhere. For Mrs. Moore, it's a chance to visit her son, Ronny, who is expected to marry Adela during the visit. But, their visit is not without incident.

What both Adela and Mrs. Moore discover is an India ruled by British bureaucrats (Ronny being one of them, a city magistrate) who exude personal and cultural superiority over Indians. This was a shock to them since they both expected to find Indians and Britons meeting socially and on friendly terms. The only exception to that rule appears to be Fielding, principal of a college.

Through Fielding, Adela is introduced socially to Professor Godbole (a Hindu holy man) and Dr. Aziz (a Muslim physician). Mrs. Moore met Aziz in a previous scene but had not yet met Godbole until that moment. One note on that (a film flaw). During the mosque scene where Mrs. Moore meets Dr. Aziz, Aziz never once mentions his name to her ... yet later, Adela knows his name as mentioned to her by Mrs. Moore. Perhaps his name was mentioned in a brief scene that ended up on the cutting-room floor. But, that omission is trivial and in no way detracts from the enjoyment of the film.

During this social introduction, Aziz invites Mrs. Moore and Adela on a journey to the Marabar caves, a tourist destination. On the trip, and tired from all the activity, Mrs. Moore stays at the encampment near the lower caves and encourages Aziz and Adela to explore the higher caves alone.

Then, something happened ... and I won't tell you what (grin). Suffice it to say that Aziz finds himself in police custody. A court trial ensues that pits culture against culture, race against race, and clearly demonstrates the differences in attitudes between resident British citizens and Indians. But the trial's climax isn't the most moving part of the film. Lean has risen the film's denouement to a higher level ... one that leaves you smiling and crying at the same time. But what Lean does NOT mention in the film is equally interesting.

In today's world, India is beset by inter-sect angst between Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, and persons of other faiths. In theory, this inter-sect rivalry has been around since before India became a British colony. But, this rivalry was not mentioned once in the film. It is perhaps a testament to the novelist (E.M. Forster) and Lean to realize a potent underlying force in the story ... that British colonial rule held these rivalries in abeyance ... uniting Indians of all faiths into a common bond that eventually forced colonialism to end in India.

The film is a masterpiece on every level and remains one of my favorites of all time.

P.S. Closing comment to those (like me) who own region-free DVD players that render both PAL and NTSC DVDs. For some reason unknown to me, it's over $10 cheaper to buy the DVD from Amazon.co.uk than it is from Amazon.com ... even after overseas shipping is added in. That's where I ordered mine (from the UK).

Brief comment on Alec Guinness's performance

[flippo · 7/10 · 6 June 2001]

The contradictory comments here all have some truth in them. The movie is long, the 'obsequiousness' of Dr Aziz is painful to watch because it is difficult for a Westerner to understand the strong idea of deference to authority that exists for some people in some Asian cultures. (I am qualifying so because I have only spent 5 years in Asia long after the 1st colonial period ended)

But, to the point: Guinness as a Brahman. A certain Professor Godbole... the foreigner's singsong emulation of the Indian... the world's oldest religion summed up in a sentence by a man who is always rushing off to plunge his feet in the school's pool of water... Best to laugh when our visions of the East are so well sent up.

Certainly my favorite part of the movie. Godbole. lol

7 / 10

A real disappointment

[Nigelees · 3/10 · 26 October 2008]

I have had this film in my collection for a number of years and sat down last night to watch it for the first time - I should have left it on the shelf!! The plot was obvious, the themes of British Colonial buffoonery and repression were overdone and unrealistic. The performance of Dr Azziz which switched from his hand wringing subservience to proud but embittered nationalist was just totally unrealistic. But the worst was the totally miscast performance of Alec Guinness as a Indian professor - it was comical in the worst possible way, he would have been more at home in a Benny Hill episode! Any Indian person watching this film must feel insulted at this completely inept portrayal and is easily his worst performance. However, the casting manager must take the blame when there are so many good Indian actors hopelessly underutilized in the film. I have read many of the other reviews and have to agree that this is not one of David Leans best and the Academy must have either been drunk or high when they made their Oscar nominations. If you like well shot scenery, this is for you, otherwise avoid.

Mercifully, This Is No Epic

[Lechuguilla · 5 August 2005]

My interest in caves led me to watch this film. A small, but pivotal, part of the film's plot centers on what happens at the Marabar Caves. While the cave segment was a disappointment to me, I was pleasantly surprised by the film as a whole. It was not the grandiose, pretentious cinematic epic I had feared.

"A Passage To India" tells the story of a young British woman and her elderly traveling companion who journey from England to India, at a time when the British still ruled that country. The film's theme centers on British attitudes toward the people of India. Those attitudes can be summarized as: condescending, snobbish, and racist. It was the English vision of cultural superiority over the Indian people that E.M Forster wrote about in his 1924 novel, upon which the screenplay is based. That cultural vision represents a bygone, imperial era that today seems quaint.

The cinematography here is excellent, though perhaps not quite as sweeping or majestic as in some of Director Lean's previous films. What comes through in the visuals is India's spectacular scenery. The film's acting is competent. And I liked the film's original score.

My main complaint is the film's length. It's a two-hour story stretched to fill almost three hours. I would have cut out most, or all, of the crowd and mob scenes because they are not needed, and because they infuse the film with a "cast of thousands" aura that moves the film implicitly in the direction of epic status. Even as is, the film is sufficiently low-key and personal to be enjoyable.

Should not have been made

[hitchs · 7/10 · 22 July 2001]

Ultimately, A Passage to India is probably unfilmable, but surely they could do better than this trite adaptation. Almost everything that made the novel great - the perfect blend of historical, psychological and symbolic approaches to show that all of them fail to provide a passage to the true India, because India is so much greater than all of them - is either ignored or trivialised. The incident in the Marabar caves, far from being the dramatic high point it should have been, is simply a depiction of a woman's incomprehensible hysteria.

Ironically, Forster's masterpiece - possibly the greatest English novel of the 20th Century - has become the least of his movies. In the interests of justice, it should never have been made.

An odd and mesmerizing entry among Lean's films, and his last

[AlsExGal · 8/10 · 4 July 2015]

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.

A half-blocked passage

[paul2001sw-1 · 6/10 · 13 March 2003]

David Lean made many fine films, but "A Passage to India" struggles to be considered among his best. Somehow, a true sense of India, either as a place or as a people, fails to come alive: some odd casting probably doesn't help, with Alec Guinness playing a Hindu seer while Victor Banenerjee is absurdly over-eager in the key role of Dr. Aziz. Moreover, the film is slow, lacking the zim with which Merchant-Ivory have brought other books of Forster to life. The film only gets going towards the ending, which is full of the subtleties one expects of Forster, though there remains an absence of crucial detail about what should be the key event of the story. Peggy Ashcroft is great, but one can't help but wonder whether an Indian director could have made more from the same material.

There'll Always Be a Raj-------NOT

[bkoganbing · 9/10 · 25 October 2006]

A Passage Through India tells a story about the radicalization of a native Indian who happens to be a Moslem. This was in the days before the idea of a separate Pakistan took hold in the independence movement.

Victor Bannerjee plays Dr. Aziz Ahmed and as you see by his title he's a professional man. But he's still looked down upon by most of the British who are ruling India. He's befriended by Peggy Ashcroft who is visiting India with her daughter-in-law to be, Judy Davis. Peggy's son is a magistrate. Bannerjee is also friends with James Fox who is an administrator at a local college.

He's warned against fraternizing with the British by his friends and family, but Bannerjee goes on a picnic with Ashcroft and Davis and Davis has a horrifying experience in the historic caves at Marabar. It's only her claustrophobia acting up, but Bannerjee winds up accused of rape. And his trial becomes a cause celebre for the Congress Party. Note that Bannerjee has two defense attorneys, a Moslem and a Hindu.

E.M. Forster who wrote A Passage to India brought two elements of his background to the writing of this novel. He served as a private secretary to a local maharajah so he knew the customs of India as well as the political scene. Most in the United Kingdom wanted to see India free after World War I. A few very powerful folks like Winston Churchill and some influential press lords, most prominently Lord Beaverbrook did not. There opposition kept India a British colony until after another World War.

Secondly Forster was a closeted gay man. His homosexuality was not publicly revealed, he wasn't 'outted' until after he died in 1970. One of his relationships was with a Moslem Indian who died at a young age. He's the model for Dr. Aziz. The India Forster writes about is not Rudyard Kipling's India. A place where the native population is made to feel like outsiders. Forster identified with them in a way Kipling could never conceive.

Peggy Ashcroft won a Best Supporting Actress Award for her role as the kindly Mrs. Moore. I've got a sneaking suspicion that Forster modeled her character on his own mother who lived with him until she died in 1945. Judy Davis got a nomination for Best Actress and A Passage to India was nominated in a whole bunch of technical categories.

A Passage to India is a disturbing look at a bygone era in a place where you can see a lot of the problems we face today being nurtured.

Can't We All Just Get Along?

[evanston_dad · 7/10 · 6 March 2008]

I read the E.M. Forster novel between viewings of "A Passage to India," and found that my impression of the film was somewhat diminished the second time as a result. But there's an old-fashioned splendor to David Lean's style of film-making that I love, and so I very much admire this film despite its faults.

Judy Davis and Peggy Ashcroft play two English ladies, one young, one old, who travel to India in search of a true Indian adventure. While exploring the mysterious Marabar caves with a doctor who both ladies befriend (Victor Banerjee), something enigmatic unhinges both of them, and the doctor is accused by Adela (Davis) of attempted rape. The resulting trial brings the already simmering tension between the English and Indians to an angry boil.

Forster's novel is deeply complex and psychological. The film only skims the surface of the inner lives of its characters, and focuses instead on the more tangible plot points. As a result, the movie doesn't make as much sense as the book, mostly because we never fully understand Davis's character, and it's on the inner workings of her mind that the whole story hinges. But the film does successfully ask the same question as Forster's novel, which is not how can the English and Indian cultures integrate, but rather whether or not such a thing will ever be possible.

"A Passage to India" does have all of the elements that immediately identify a film as being of David Lean's canon: the exotic locales, the traditional Hollywood feel, the glorious Maurice Jarre score, and even if less than in the novel, a level of character development that is frequently lacking in big-screen epics.

Grade: A-

Another Daivd Lean Masterpiece

[Hancock_the_Superb · 10/10 · 5 November 2006]

Adela Quested (Judy Davis) is a young English girl who arrives in 1920's India to marry the local magistrate, Ronny Moore (Nigel Havers). Falling in with Ronny's mother (Peggy Ashcroft), she decides to partake in exploring the "real India". Meeting with a gentle doctor (Victor Bannerjee) who is just as curious about the English as Adela is about India, and an intelligent though dotty Hindu mystic, Godbole (Alec Guinness), the group decides to partake in an expedition to the Marabar Caves. After an ambiguous incident, however, Adela comes to accuse the Doctor, Aziz, of attempt rape, and the resultant tension nearly leads to an explosion of violence between the Indians and British. Only Mr. Fielding (James Fox), the good-hearted local college professor, seems willing to put aside his prejudices and think things through logically - but ultimately, what happens is on the shoulders of Adela.

Having read E.M. Forster's novel and heard the very mixed reviews which exist around this film, I wasn't sure what to expect, so I watched this film with an open mind. Boy, was I rewarded! I was absolutely swept away by it; this film is honestly in the same league as David Lean's other masterpieces, "Bridge on the River Kwai" and "Lawrence of Arabia", and I would definitely rate it ahead of "Doctor Zhivago".

The film tackles a difficult subject that is pertinent to this day, if perhaps not as immediate as when the book was written: racism and colonialism. Forster's argument is that the English and Indians can't get together without something negative happening, and the film shows this perfectly. At first, both sides are eager and willing to bridge the gaps between them; but as the film progresses, the prejudices and mutual loathing between Indians and Whites rise to the surface, with explosive results (though if you're looking for an action-packed film, you need look elsewhere). The only flaw in Lean's rendering of the story is that he overlooks the internecine conflicts between Indian Muslims and Hindus which did take up a good portion of the book, but given that this is a film and not a novel, it's a forgivable omission.

The film, as is expected in any Lean movie, is filled with memorable images: the parade of Sikh lancers in the opening; beautiful shots of the Ganges River at night; the expedition up to the caves with the beautifully painted elephant; the sexually-oriented statues (and monkeys) that Adela encounters while on a bike ride; the rioting crowds of Indians (including, disturbingly, several men painted as lemurs) who confront Adela when she arrives at the court; the monsoon which accompanies the moment of Aziz's triumph. In visual terms alone, this is one of the greatest films ever made - but as mentioned above, it does have an excellent story to back it up. Maurice Jarre's sweeping main theme seems somewhat out of place for the setting; but his incidental music is certainly among his best work.

On the whole, the acting is excellent. Judy Davis gives a difficult though ultimately solid performance as Adela. Lean interpreted her as a young woman first becoming aware of her sexuality - which is different from Forster - and Davis does all she can to bring this to life, showing a confused and tormented young woman who has to chose between doing the right thing or letting the "machinery" of the trial go on. James Fox is a revelation as Fielding, the fair-minded professor who does not understand the racial differences inherent in colonial India and wants genuine justice; Victor Bannerjee is excellent as Aziz, going from naive and friendly young Doctor to a bitter Anglophobe; and, arguably the best of all, Peggy Ashcroft, who brings a warm humanity to Mrs. Moore, the Englishwoman who is somehow above all of the conflicts presented therein. Alec Guinness is convincing enough as an Indian, and in any case his part is so small it hardly makes an interest. The smaller roles are filled out by equally fine actors: Nigel Havers as Adela's fiancée Ronny; Clive Swift, Michael Culver, and Richard Wilson as bigoted English officials; and Indian actors Art Malik, Saeed Jaffrey, and Roshan Seth as various Indians who become embroiled in the case.

"A Passage to India" is a fitting farewell for the one of the greatest film makers ever. While not as fondly remember as Lean's other films, his final effort is an intelligent, challenging, and simply astounding epic that deserves recognition for the classic it is.

10/10

Classic British period film.

[ihrtfilms · 6/10 · 2 January 2011]

This is one of those very British films I remember watching as a kid, the kind that always seemed to be one television. Set amid the British colonial rule if India, two British ladies visit India and with their liberal thinking are shocked at the divide between the whites and the Indians, a gap that is vast, discriminatory, and ultimately will bring change to the country.

The two women, strive to see the real India, to meet real Indians but to start everything is presented in a very prudish and English manner, not the real side of things they yearn for. Then they meet a young Indian doctor, who bonds with both women and agrees to take them on an excursion to the Marabar caves, where events take a terrible turn and the divide of race and class are brought to the fold.

It's quite an epic tale, one based on E.M. Forster's novel, one that starts with an air of lightness as the we see the British behave in that colonial way, foppish and above everyone else. Mrs. Moore and Adela, provide a different insight into this world, one that they seem to loathe and that they see isn't either suited to where they are nor what they hoped to experience. There's a lovely moment, when at the club, Adela Picks up a cucumber sandwich and throws it back down with disgust, as if to suggest that she didn't sail half way around the world to eat cucumber sandwiches.

The trip to the caves provides further highlights at the divide and the level of racism and even more so once the doctor, Aziz is accused of rape. The trial is full of tension and sickening racism and brings the film from a lighter side to a much darker one, which is quite tragic.

With a stellar cast and lush landscapes of India, the film looks terrific. The scenes at the caves with the ghostly echoes, have the same mystery and sense of foreboding that is felt in Picnic At Hanging Rock. I do find it odd that the role of Indian professor Godbole was played by a 'blackfaced' Sir Alec Guinness or maybe just inappropriate. The film clearly tells a tragic tale of broken trust and betrayal, misconceptions and prejudice and yet unfortunately whilst it does convey these topics well, it never packs the punch that it should, it isn't nearly as powerful as the story should be.

More of my reviews at my site iheartfilms.weebly.com

David Lean's swansong is a very good one

[TheLittleSongbird · 8/10 · 12 August 2015]

Rewatching A Passage to India after a few years, it is not one of my favourite David Lean films like Lawrence of Arabia, Great Expectations, Bridge on the River Kwai, Brief Encounter and Oliver Twist are, but for a swansong of a great director (one of my personal favourites actually) it's a very good one, but I do remember liking it more on first watch.

A Passage to India is not perfect, it ends anti-climactically and parts feel overlong and stretched with some drifting storytelling. This is also a rare case where the normally great Alec Guiness felt wasted and miscast, he never convinces in his very underwritten role and the performance is filled with uncharacteristically over-stated mannerisms.

However, Lean directs superbly and the film is lavishly made with typically luscious cinematography, lavish period detail and some of the most gorgeously evocative scenery of any Lean film (in a filmography of films filled with gorgeous scenery). Maurice Jarre's music score has been criticised for being an ill-fit, for me while lacking the Indian flavour and a tad too jaunty in the credits it is sumptuously scored, soaringly epic, sounds glorious and evokes a lot of emotion. The script is literate and very beautifully written, capturing the essence of Forster's writing while not feeling overly wordy or heavy, while the story is rich in atmosphere and explores the important themes of colonialism, relationships between cultures and the British Empire and its imperialism in a subtle but powerful way.

The film has been criticised for its pacing, and while there are a few draggy moments due to a few scenes feeling too stretched the main reason for the deliberate pacing was most likely for the viewer to soak up the setting and its atmosphere, A Passage to India does this brilliantly (and this is true for Lean's work in general as well). The part covering the trial is mostly fantastic but could have been longer, and the characters and their interactions are fascinating and well-realised. The acting is truly excellent, Peggy Ashcroft rightfully won an Oscar for her divine performance (especially in the temple scene) and Judy Davis is every bit her equal in a difficult but impulsively and movingly played performance. James Fox is remarkably thoughtful and sympathetic in his role, and Victor Banerjee gives his caricature role a real expressivity.

Overall, a very good swansong from Lean and a very good film. 7.5/10 Bethany Cox

Handsome and competently made, but no masterpiece

[JamesHitchcock · 7/10 · 30 November 2007]

A common cinematic phenomenon is the cycle of films on the same or related topics. This film, unusually, belongs to two separate cycles. During the eighties the British entertainment industry was going through a cycle of productions about the British Raj in India; Attenborough's "Gandhi", Merchant-Ivory's "Heat and Dust" and television versions of "The Jewel in the Crown" and "The Far Pavilions". A film of "A Passage to India" fitted in well with this trend. It also, however, started the British cinema's E.M. Forster cycle. Before 1984, no film had ever been based on his works; over the next eight years, four of his other five novels were to be filmed.

In the British-ruled India of the 1920s a young Englishwoman, Adela Quested, travels to the city of Chandrapore in order to meet her fiancé, local magistrate Ronny Heaslop, accompanied by her future mother-in-law, Mrs Moore. On an expedition to visit the Marabar Caves, a local beauty spot, Miss Quested accuses Dr Aziz, the Indian doctor who organised the expedition, of attempted rape. Aziz is arrested and put on trial.

Which brings us to the main problem. Aziz, as played by Victor Banerjee, seems far too decent a young man to contemplate such a despicable act. Miss Quested, as played by Judy Davis, seems far too decent a young woman to make a false accusation. Yet it seems that we must accept that one or the other has taken place.

E.M. Forster's original novel was rather ambiguous about what actually happened at the caves; we never even discover exactly what Aziz is accused of. The word "rape" is never used, and he is merely said to have "insulted" Miss Quested- a Victorian euphemism that could cover several sexual offences of varying seriousness. (According to one, probably apocryphal, account, Forster was unable to explain what was supposed to have happened because, as a lifelong homosexual born long before sex education formed part of the national curriculum, he only had the most hazy idea of the female anatomy or the mechanics of heterosexual intercourse). The film does not take a definite stand, but leans towards the explanation that Aziz is innocent and that Miss Quested suffered some sort of hallucination, brought on by the heat, the curious echo in the caves and her own overwrought erotic imagination.

All the entries in the great Raj Cycle dealt with relations between the colonial masters and their Indian subjects, and this film is no exception. The attitude of the British, such as Ronny and the police chief MacBryde, towards Indians is condescending, snobbish and racist. Although they are hard-working and conscientious, they frequently express opinions which today would be highly offensive but which in the twenties probably seemed unexceptionable. The two main exceptions are Mrs Moore, who sympathises with Indian aspirations, and the liberal schoolmaster Richard Fielding, who goes out of his way to befriend Indians, often preferring their company to that of his countrymen.

Yet to my mind Fielding came across as less admirable than either Forster or the film-makers probably intended. He may be liberal on racial issues, but far less so on sexual ones. Whereas the other Britons automatically assume that Aziz is guilty of the charges against him, Fielding, on no more evidence, automatically assumes that he is innocent, for no other reason than that Aziz is a personal friend of his. The allegations made by Miss Quested are serious ones and deserve to be investigated seriously, not dismissed with a quiet word in the police chief's ear, which would be Fielding's way of disposing of the matter. In the event, despite the prejudice which many members of the British community feel against Aziz, he is given a fair trial before an Indian judge, with Indian lawyers of his choice to defend him, and is eventually acquitted. Perhaps without meaning to, the film pays a back-handed tribute to the British Empire; it is doubtful if similar standards of justice would have been extended during this period to a black American accused of raping a white woman.

This was David Lean's final film, made fourteen years after his penultimate one, "Ryan's Daughter". Although in the forties Lean made some small-scale, intimate films, such as "Brief Encounter" and "Great Expectations", in the latter part of his career he became best known for large-scale epics set against tumultuous historical events, such as the two World Wars, the Russian Revolution and the Irish independence struggle. He brings a similar approach to "A Passage to India", even though the story is set in the relatively quiet decade of the twenties. This was possibly the wrong approach. Although he touches upon the Indian independence movement, Forster's novel was more concerned with personal relationships than with great historical developments, and the film might have benefited from a more intimate touch.

Lean was also noted for his ability to get the best from his leading actors, but there are few outstanding performances in this film, even though it stars some of the best-known names of the British cinema. The one exception is perhaps Peggy Ashcroft's performance as Mrs Moore, for which she won a "Best Supporting Actress" Oscar. Lean is said to have quarrelled with Alec Guinness (who had appeared in several other Lean films) after several of his scenes ended up on the cutting-room floor). It might have been kinder if Lean had excised Guinness's role as Professor Godbole altogether. Although he is never quite as embarrassing as Peter Sellars' "Goodness Gracious Me!" attempt to imitate an Indian doctor in "The Millionairess" twenty years earlier, we are always uncomfortably aware we are watching a white man, especially in the scene where Guinness is bathing his legs in the pool and some of his make-up washes off, revealing white skin underneath. Overall, "A Passage to India" is a handsome, competently-made film, but it is emotionally uninvolving and certainly not a masterpiece like "Dr Zhivago" or "Bridge on the River Kwai". 7/10

Heavy-Handed British Snobbery Film

[ccthemovieman-1 · 4/10 · 4 July 2006]

The first 45 minutes of this was great, thanks to some wonderful cinematography, which is no surprise since it is directed by one of the best ever: David Lean. The muted colors were pleasing to the eye in a very peaceful way.

However, once the trip to the caves got underway, the movie began to become unappealing. The gist of the story - a young woman (Judy Davis) accusing an Indian of raping her in the cave - doesn't happen until halfway through this 163- minute film and even that is under question because nothing is ever shown. The rest of the film is a talky bore with the typical theme is so many of modern-day British films: class snobbery.

Also, Alec Guiness, no matter how much makeup he puts on, does not pass for a credible Indian man. It reminded me of all the white men playing American Indians back in the '30s-50s. In addition, we get the heavy-handed plug for re- incarnation and other obvious Liberal theological leanings.

An overblown, overrated English literary piece. Stick with the Merchant-Ivory films for similar but much better efforts.