|
MOVIE CRITIQUE:
Gurinda Chadha stumbles a bit in this locale-shifting retelling of the Jane Austen classic novel, "Pride and Prejudice."
Chadha burst on the cinematic scene with her wonderful 2002 film, "Bend It Like Beckham," which was an entirely
original story that delighted me with its great charm. In that movie, the meeting of East and West was done flawlessly whereas
in this movie it seems forced and synthetic.
Before I get into my critique, however, I must first offer a caveat that is a non-caveat. I am a great fan of Jane Austen
in general and a great admirer of "Pride and Prejudice" in particular, a novel which I consider to be one of the
classics of Western civilization. I have read this novel numerous times and I happen to own every film and made for television
version of this novel that is available.
That point being made, I want to assure you that am NOT judging "Bride and Prejudice" on how well it transliterates
the novel. I am not a purist because this movie does not seek to replicate the novel, but rather admits to being inspired
by the novel. This is an entirely different situation. Much like the earlier and more successful film, "Clueless,"
a movie inspired by Austen's "Emma," "Bride and Prejudice" seeks to move on from the Nineteenth Century
origins of the novel to a new locale and a current time frame.
"Bride and Prejudice" starts off as a melange of color and song in Amritsar, India, as the Bakshi family prepares
for a local celebration. Typical of Bollywood productions, many of these scenes consist of song and dance numbers that are
highly improbable, but also highly colorful and entertaining. This only tends to add to their charm, as there is an innocent
naiveté about these scenes that is very appealing to a somewhat jaded Westerner like myself.
Because of these scenes, Chadha succeeds in the first third of the movie, but then she gradually loses her footing as
the filmed locales and story shift further away from India to London and then, finally, to Los Angeles.
It is important to note here that Chadha also served as a co-screenwriter for this movie.
My analysis is that by hiring Aishwarya Rai, the most famous movie star in India, Chadha may have boxed herself into a
corner because she now isn't sure which audience her film is supposed to serve.
Does she make a movie that is sure to be released for theatrical consumption in India, and, therefore, must follow that
country's rigid rules prohibiting any display of overt sexuality, including kissing, on the screen?
Or does she make a film that will please Western audiences with at the very least the display of a passionate on-screen
kiss at the end of the film?
The nature of these divided cinematic loyalties results in a film that is neither fish nor fowl and might not quite please
either side. In fact, I enjoyed the Eastern part of this movie far more than I enjoyed the Western aspects of it. It may also
be that those schooled in Bollywood movies will find fault in the Eastern portions where I found none.
The main problems with "Bride and Prejudice" are immature scriptwriting coupled with equally unconvincing acting,
especially that by Martin Henderson, who comes off as an almost bloodless Will Darcy sleepwalking through this film in a near
catatonic state. Being quiet while still being able to express volumes is an acting trait that Henderson does not seem to
possess.
Neither does Chadha possess the ability to write dialogue that rings to Western ears used to hearing more convincing and
heartfelt life in the spoken language of love.
In her recent interview on "60 Minutes," the point was emphasized that Aishwarya Rai has not yet filmed an on-screen
kiss, and may never do so, as this would be beyond the pale for the Indian film industry. This would tend to create problems
for more "sophisticated" Western audiences, who expect more of their film stars than a chaste hug at the end of
a movie.
Fortunately, Austen novels are a potential gold mine for Indian stars like Rai, as the entire focus of all of Austen's
stories is the meeting of the eventual lovers' minds in love, not the meeting of their bodies in lust.
Much has been made of Rai as supposedly the most beautiful woman in the world, a woman who has some 18,000 web sites devoted
to her that have been created by her huge, mostly Indian, fan base. When someone like Julia Roberts is purported to have claimed
that she herself is the not the most beautiful woman in the world, but that Aishwarya Rai is, then we men tend to sit up and
take notice.
The subject of Rai's beauty has been wedded, as it were, into the publicity for this movie, since this is her first movie
released to Western audiences in which she speaks entirely in English. Because of this, I feel impelled to weigh in on the
subject of Rai's beauty. My personal opinion is that Roberts is incorrect in her assessment that Rai is the most beautiful
woman in the world.
Aishwarya Rai is a lovely woman, but she is most certainly not THE most beautiful woman in the world. Her form is not
exceptional in any way, although this can hardly be the categorical statement on this matter since Rai gained 20 pounds in
preparing for a role for which she felt she should lose her model-like figure and look more like a normal girl next door.
So her fame has to rest on her admittedly dazzling face, which is certainly strikingly lovely. If truth be told, however,
she possesses only two major features of great beauty, and they are her flawless complexion and her captivating off-color
eyes that seem to change from gray to green to blue. With the addition of eye makeup specially used to accentuate these features,
Rai certainly creates a favorable impression, but not necessarily that of the most beautiful woman in the world.
Another actor of great interest present in "Bride and Prejudice" is Naveen Andrews, who plays the role of Darcy's
good friend, Balraj Bingley. Andrews is currently starring as Sayid in the ABC television hit drama, "Lost." His
presence in this film is a welcome surprise, but I warn you that his role here is quite a minor one.
"Bride and Prejudice" is a modest film that may be of interest as another attempt to bridge the cultural gulf
between Eastern and Western movie audiences. However, for my money, "Monsoon Wedding" is a much better example of
a movie of this type, as it excels on many more levels. I would suggest that you rent that wonderful film if you have a taste
for spicy Indian cinema.
-----------------
MOVIE SYNOPSIS:
The Bakshi family lives in Amritsar, India, a small town that is notable for little else other than the presence of the
greatly revered Hindu Golden Temple.
Mr. Bakshi (Anupam Kher) and his wife (Nadira Babbar) are the parents of four daughters, all of eligible age, so it is
fortunate that they live a solid middle class lifestyle as farmers and large landowners. The family lives with a few servants
to attend to their daily needs in a large, older home that is in a state of some disrepair.
Jaya Bakshi (Namrata Shirodkar) and Lalita Bakshi (Aishwarya Rai) are the eldest and second eldest daughters and they
are devoted to each other.
This is helpful since Jaya has not yet found a husband and her lack of prospects is holding up the potential marriage
plans of her three younger siblings.
The family is preparing for an annual festival during which there will be dancing and celebrating, and all break out into
curry and cumin colorful dance numbers that spill out into the downtown streets and stores of Amritsar. That evening the celebration
continues with food and music and more dance numbers at the finest hotel in town.
During the evening's festivities, the Bakshis are introduced to Balraj Bingley (Naveen Andrews) and his sister, Kiran
(Indira Varma), both of whom have grown up in Great Britain. Balraj now works for a wealthy British hotelier, Will Darcy (Martin
Henderson), who has emigrated to American and now runs the family business interests out of their headquarters hotel located
in Los Angeles. They are presently in India to scout out a prospective hotel on the east coast of the Indian Ocean in a city
further to the south that his chain might be interested in purchasing.
Balraj is introduced to Jaya Bakshi and the two spend the rest of the evening sharing in the delight of each other's company.
As well as they get along, however, it is exactly the opposite for Lalita and Will Darcy, who commences his meeting with Lalita
by making demeaning references to the small town atmosphere of Amritsar, Lalita's home town, and Indian life in general. Lalita
finds Darcy to be a snob entirely ignorant about life in India, and tells him so.
Jaya's parents are thrilled that their daughter has finally met someone who is eligible, so they are eager to promote
their romance. Balraj kindly invites Jaya to come with them to visit the new hotel that he and Will are in India to investigate,
and the Bakshi parents give their permission as long as Lalita is able to go along to chaperone her sister.
The hotel on the coast is more than gorgeous with its wide sand beach and luxurious accommodations. Of greater interest
to Lalita is her meeting Johnny Wickham (Daniel Gillies), another tourist from England. Here is a man who is as friendly and
Darcy is reserved, as polite as Darcy is imperious, and as thrilled by Indian life as Darcy seems to be bored by it.
In all the huge subcontinent of Asia, how likely is it that two tourists from England turn up at the same hotel on the
same night and know each other? Lalita cannot help but notice that Darcy and Wickham eye each other with surprise and then
ill-disguised disdain. There is a story here, and it has turned out badly. Wickham's mother was employed by Darcy's parents,
but a deathbed promise of employment for him was denied after the death of Darcy's father.
As if she needed another, now Lalita has one more reason to despise Darcy. What is slightly perturbing her, however, is
why he continues to eye her so intently.
|
