A Passage to India (1984)

What makes it different from others?

Most undeservingly overhyped movie of all time??

Best movie ever!

a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

The answer to a movie is like icing on a pudding with sugar coating that tastes sweet to the tongue and smells like frosting on a cake but in 'A Passage To India' the 'London Bridge is falling down, falling down' does not make sense because colonial India had the government in the British control with third world Indians who learned the first English from the British. Arguments like for our sake sums foreign educated elites like the pioneers of certain institutions whom have trusted us with bringing prosperity to the Ashram where we've studied did not allow us to leave but to take a trust to return. Returning or the passage to the Ashram is without furthering the influence of the outside world at the Institutional level. The warm receptions of a Naipaul Classic novel at universities though not in the syllabus is the academic assurance that 'a passage to India' is a masterpiece in adventure.

Pros 1. I can definitely see why Peggy Ashcroft won a Supporting Actress Oscar for her role. She stands up for the rights of local Indians to be treated as human beings but does so without losing the decency and dignity expected of a British woman. It doesn't surprise me at all that Mrs. Moore could inspire a huge crowd to call out her name in desire for her to return.2. A Passage To India was Sir David Lean's cinematic swan song and his first film in 14 years but he showed no sign of rusting with age. The visuals in this film are as unforgettable as any scene of the Middle East in Lawrence Of Arabia or of Russia in Dr. Zhivago. Lean also wrote the screenplay and the dialogue is endlessly fascinating. 3. Sir Alec Guinness is no stranger to Lean films and he really gets a plum role as Professor Godbole. Godbole's insistence on destiny sometimes makes him seem indifferent and uncaring (especially with his refusal to help Dr. Aziz) but there seems to be some truth to what he preaches. It's too bad a scene of Godbole performing a Hindu dance was cut from the movie.4. I liked that they didn't make Ronnie a complete monster, he just wants to act in a way that allows him to maintain his job. To his credit, he does apologize to his mother for a particularly rude display in front of Mrs. Moore's new Indian friends. He also deserves credit for taking it so well when Adela keeps changing her mind on whether to marry him.5. I am a big fan of Keeping Up Appearances so I was delighted when I saw Clive Swift was in this movie. He was in it very briefly but I relished every appearance he made. His character appears to be single (if only Richard Bucket were so lucky). I liked that Swift's character doesn't really say anything anti-Indian. Most of his lines are about concern for Adela or Ronnie's health (Clive Swift plays a doctor) and a brief conversation with the head of The British in India.6. When the police come to arrest Dr. Aziz he moves to flee but Richard the kind teacher tells him "don't act like a criminal". I wish OJ Simpson had a friend like that. There is some similarities between Dr. Aziz being accused of raping a Caucasian woman and OJ being accused of killing 2 Caucasians. They both certainly causes a lot of racial tension. At least Dr. Aziz's acquittal was more accepted and less suspicious.7. I loved how Godbole honored Mrs. Moore as she took the departing train ride. The only actor to win an Oscar for a Sir David Lean film saluting the only actress to win an Oscar for a Sir David Lean Film.8. Best Line Any line spoken by Clive Swift's characterCons: 1. Sir Alec Guinness is a great actor but did he have to play an Indian? Is their no caucasian role he could have taken?2. I would have liked more information on what happens to Adela in the years after the trial. I don't think it's even mentioned if she left India. After the ordeal at the caves she doesn't seem to have a lot to do until her big scene at the trial. 3. Even in their most angry state, I have a hard time believing a British woman in the 20's would say "b----" in public4. I don't get why the hotshot lawyer charges Dr. Aziz 20,000 pounds after the acquittal. It was clearly established the lawyer would do it pro bono. Dr. Aziz refuses Adela's aid in paying the lawyer but it's not mentioned how Dr. Aziz pays the fee.

It's been quite some time since I've seen this film but finally got it out for another look. The word I can best use to describe it is "Splendid" Considering it was made in 1984, it's really hard to believe. The setting, costumes, and style of speaking really has you believing this film was shot in the 1930s or 40's. But that is the style of David Lean. From the story line, direction, and style of filming, this is definitely a David Lean film. A lot of people may not like it because of it's old fashioned style, but it is indeed a splendid film. No bombs, no special effects, no dismembered limbs, just a story told on film. Splendid.!

I enjoyed the film but not the story. I have been to India many times for work and I am fascinated by its history. I realize this isn't a historical film but it did capture the time of the Brit Raj rather well. I also saw some of the typical Western Traveler that gets caught up in the social views and their feeling of pity for the Indian. No need they are a strong people. Anyhow it bugged me that they used Alec Guiness for Godbole. I kept thinking WTH is he doing. He added nothing and it could have been done much better by any of Bollywoods top tier. I just couldn't get over his being there. And the scene at the caves was painful the acting forced. I still have no idea what she was doing they paid no real attention to flesh out what went on with her. A missed opportunity. Anyhow, it is a good movie to see what life was like at the time but the story and directing was pretty bad. Not to mention Alec in his creepy scenes.