★★★☆☆
THIS amiable and perfectly enjoyable, if rather safe and unremarkable, account of how India separated from British rule comes from British-Indian director Gurinder Chadha, best known for light, crowd-pleasing comedies such as Bend It Like Beckham and Angus, Thongs and Perfect Snogging.
She takes us back to 1947, a tumultuous time in India’s history and a particularly important part of the director’s own family lineage, something which does ultimately give the film a dose of weight that’s somewhat lacking throughout the drama.
Lord Mountbatten (Hugh Bonneville), the last Viceroy of India, arrives with his wife Edwina (Gillian Anderson) tasked with handling the transfer of power from British rule to Indian independence. Would that it were so simple… This immediately causes divisions (literal and otherwise) between the Hindu, Sikh and Muslim population which, as history tells us, caused the largest mass migration in history with 14 million people displaced and a million dead.
The somewhat simplified drama brings us into the world via a Downton Abby-esque portrayal of the difference between those in power with wealth – Bonneville and Anderson charm with authentically stiff-upper-lip portrayals of the affluent couple – and those who serve at the behest of decisions made half a world away under British rule.
But that’s never something that’s delved into that deeply; you can feel the struggle in the script to handle the weight of all the themes and real world crises born out of Partition suddenly thrusted upon a complex nation. While it breezes along nicely and is never less than watchable, you feel like there’s something deeper for which the film just isn’t equipped to dig.
Taken on the level for which it largely aims, Viceroy’s House works as a charming and broadly told history lesson that gently invites interest in the subject – a veritable Sunday afternoon, tea and biscuits sort of picture. But it’s the knowledge that this really did happen a mere few generations ago, rather than the way it’s cinematically portrayed, that ultimately does all the heavy lifting.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here