I saw a promo for this film on TCM, was intrigued, looked it up here, saw tons of glowing 9 and 10-star reviews and set the DVR, expecting that I'd soon be watching a masterpiece.
Well, the location is exotic, the technicolor is gorgeous, some of the cinematography is very nice (although a bit static), and the depiction of Indian holidays and customs is interesting but this is really just a very simple coming-of-age story. All the usual teen-angsty stuff is here; the infatuation of the 3 girls with the mysterious stranger, Harriet's feeling like an ugly-duckling next to her more attractive friends, Melanie's struggle with her mixed ethnicity, Valerie's desire to test the power of her sexuality and her apprehensiveness of the consequences. I don't think it's particularly deep, despite all the river-as-life stuff and I suspect that it might not be as highly-regarded as it is if it had been directed by someone other than Jean Renoir. That said, I do like the film, I just don't think it's a "masterpiece".
There seems to be some confusion as to the setting of the film. I'm no expert on India but I don't think it's set during or after Independence as some have suggested. The movie is based on Rumer Godden's memoirs and she was born in 1907, stayed in India during WWI, was sent to school in England in 1920 and didn't return until she was 18. The film is somewhat timeless, due to the absence of popular music or trendy fashions that would tie it to a particular decade, but there are some clues. Melanie returns from boarding school in a horse-drawn carriage, Harriet's family plays records on a wind-up gramophone, etc.
As to the comments that the film is somehow "offensive" or lacking for not depicting the poverty of the natives or the politics of the time... Please! It's the story of a few months in the lives of three teenage girls, not a documentary or a portrait of India. Is "Grease" offensive because it takes place in the U.S. during the 1950s and it doesn't address the civil rights movement?
Reviews and message board comments suggest that this is a film that most people either love or hate. Obviously, it will not appeal to those who only go to blockbuster films full of superheroes and/or explosions or who have limited attention spans. I've read lots of negativity here about the performances and even appearances of some of the actors. The only performance that's problematic for me is that of Radha, who plays Melanie. I get that the character is more enigmatic than the other girls and doesn't wear her angst on her sleeve but her monotone delivery and habit of staring straight ahead come across as expressionless. I think Patricia Walters gives a great performance for someone who never acted before. As far as looks go, early on Harriet describes herself as "an ugly-duckling, determined to be a swan." She's not supposed to be ravishing, it wouldn't work if she were. Captain John is no model but he's not hideous either. Narrator-Harriet explains that visitors from abroad were usually old and married so the arrival of any young, single man would've been exciting. He had the added cachet of being a war hero and an American.
Call me crazy but Harriet seems to undergo a sort of metamorphosis during the scene on the boat with Captain John. I don't know if it's the lighting and camera angles or the fact that she's smiling more than usual and looking happy and content but from the moment she tells him that Victoria had said something similar to his comment about being born until they leave the boat she suddenly looks quite pretty. It seems symbolic, as if his saying that she wasn't the type of person to lay down and die, that she could begin again, and that one of her poems might still be alive 2,070+ years in the future gave her a new confidence that was manifested in her appearance.
Not quite a masterpiece but enjoyable.
Well, the location is exotic, the technicolor is gorgeous, some of the cinematography is very nice (although a bit static), and the depiction of Indian holidays and customs is interesting but this is really just a very simple coming-of-age story. All the usual teen-angsty stuff is here; the infatuation of the 3 girls with the mysterious stranger, Harriet's feeling like an ugly-duckling next to her more attractive friends, Melanie's struggle with her mixed ethnicity, Valerie's desire to test the power of her sexuality and her apprehensiveness of the consequences. I don't think it's particularly deep, despite all the river-as-life stuff and I suspect that it might not be as highly-regarded as it is if it had been directed by someone other than Jean Renoir. That said, I do like the film, I just don't think it's a "masterpiece".
There seems to be some confusion as to the setting of the film. I'm no expert on India but I don't think it's set during or after Independence as some have suggested. The movie is based on Rumer Godden's memoirs and she was born in 1907, stayed in India during WWI, was sent to school in England in 1920 and didn't return until she was 18. The film is somewhat timeless, due to the absence of popular music or trendy fashions that would tie it to a particular decade, but there are some clues. Melanie returns from boarding school in a horse-drawn carriage, Harriet's family plays records on a wind-up gramophone, etc.
As to the comments that the film is somehow "offensive" or lacking for not depicting the poverty of the natives or the politics of the time... Please! It's the story of a few months in the lives of three teenage girls, not a documentary or a portrait of India. Is "Grease" offensive because it takes place in the U.S. during the 1950s and it doesn't address the civil rights movement?
Reviews and message board comments suggest that this is a film that most people either love or hate. Obviously, it will not appeal to those who only go to blockbuster films full of superheroes and/or explosions or who have limited attention spans. I've read lots of negativity here about the performances and even appearances of some of the actors. The only performance that's problematic for me is that of Radha, who plays Melanie. I get that the character is more enigmatic than the other girls and doesn't wear her angst on her sleeve but her monotone delivery and habit of staring straight ahead come across as expressionless. I think Patricia Walters gives a great performance for someone who never acted before. As far as looks go, early on Harriet describes herself as "an ugly-duckling, determined to be a swan." She's not supposed to be ravishing, it wouldn't work if she were. Captain John is no model but he's not hideous either. Narrator-Harriet explains that visitors from abroad were usually old and married so the arrival of any young, single man would've been exciting. He had the added cachet of being a war hero and an American.
Call me crazy but Harriet seems to undergo a sort of metamorphosis during the scene on the boat with Captain John. I don't know if it's the lighting and camera angles or the fact that she's smiling more than usual and looking happy and content but from the moment she tells him that Victoria had said something similar to his comment about being born until they leave the boat she suddenly looks quite pretty. It seems symbolic, as if his saying that she wasn't the type of person to lay down and die, that she could begin again, and that one of her poems might still be alive 2,070+ years in the future gave her a new confidence that was manifested in her appearance.
Not quite a masterpiece but enjoyable.