Suradit While the movie dealt with the disaster that was the handover of India to it's people and the carnage of partition, the story centered its attention on the ridiculously palatial British Viceroy's House, the farcical pomposity of the British who conducted their business there and the countless number of Indian servants whose behavior and attitudes which reflected those of the Indian population at large.As Churchill said, "History is written by the victors," and thus British colonialism in general, and people such as the Mountbattens in particular, have long been blindly glorified and exculpated. At least this movie helps to expose Mountbatten as the fatuous tool of the politicians that he was, chosen for his gullibility and his obsession with inflating his reputation. His wife and daughter come across as being the sympathetic, but clueless ego-centric do-gooders that they were.The rush to hand over India, as one servant in the movie aptly stated, was because the British didn't want to be accountable for the inevitable carnage. As we were informed at the end of the film, countless millions were displaced and one million died, with the blame conveniently shifted onto independent India. This moment in Indian history, the obvious focus of the movie, and the resultant blood shed, as horrific as it was, would pale in comparison with an honest assessment of the death, destruction, enslavement and exploitation visited on India during the previous centuries of British rule. Shashi Tharoor recently claimed that Britain was responsible for the deaths of 35 million Indians. The accuracy of his numerical claim is irrelevant, but it does provide a contextual comparison.The family of the film's director, Gurinder Chadha, suffered from the partition debacle and from the irresponsible colonial rulers. Possibly the time has come for history to be portrayed by its victims, rather than the supposed victors. Gurinder Chadha has been accused of bias in her film's portrayal of Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Indian Muslims.

hhameed-75235 they are just showing the one sided picture and did not mentioned anywhere the affairs of Nehru and lady Mountbatten and the other genuine things that influenced the whole scenario, it would have been more enjoyable and balanced with all of those missing facts. Otherwise it's just a good watch not a movie to learn a history from.

tomsview "Viceroy's House" is nothing less than fascinating. It was a stroke of genius to set the story around the upstairs and downstairs life in the palace of the last Viceroy during the time India gained independence from Britain, occasioning the largest migration in human history.The film allows for the historical canvas to be set alongside the more intimate story of how it impacted the lives of ordinary Indians.In 1947 Lord Louis Mountbatten (Hugh Bonneville) received what seemed like the hospital pass of all time when he was appointed to overseer the transition of power from the British Raj to an independent Indian government.Mountbatten is portrayed as well-intentioned, although somewhat naive, but is shown to have the support of a warm, capable woman, his wife Edwina (Gillian Anderson). While he deals with the leading players: Nehru, Jinna and Ghandi, the mainly Indian staff is buffeted by the decisions that affect hundreds of millions of Indians.Two members of the household staff, Jeet (Manash Dayal), a Hindu, and the woman he loves, Aalia (Humar Qureshi), a Muslim, represent the divide that becomes the stumbling block to negotiations. Eventually the country is partitioned into Pakistan and India and Jeet and Aalia are separated."Viceroy's House" is well made; the scenes above and below stairs have the ring of authenticity, but it's a film that needed some jaw dropping spectacle; documentary footage is used, but there is nothing to compare to that stunning funeral scene in Richard Attenborough's "Ghandi".Some of the greatest films of all time have intimate love stories played out against the backdrop of awesome historical events; "Gone with the Wind" and "Doctor Zhivago" come to mind; both had powerful endings.However, in this case, the filmmakers opted for an ending that tended to undermine the terrific build up in the rest of the film. A happy ending? The filmmakers blinked. They just couldn't let Aalia disappear in that train massacre like Lara disappeared into the labour camp at the end of "Zhivago", something that would have reflected the real fate of millions.Sam Goldwyn once said that it is the last 5 minutes of a film that makes it memorable. "Viceroy's House", has a brilliant premise and some strong scenes, but just fails at the end to leave the audience sitting stunned in their seats after the curtains have closed.

Quietb-1 If you saw something similar in a high school world history class it would be interesting and effective. As a theatrical movie it misses the mark. It's 1947 time to grant India it's independence but there is a social, religious problem. The telegraphed answer is two countries.The movie is poorly writing and directed with way too many dialogue driven scenes. People sit around and talk about what is happening. On more then one occasion the question is asked and answered by throwing down the newspaper with the dramatic answer. The only time the movie was visual was the last few minutes showing rather then talking about the refugee issues.The house in the title serves as a metaphor for the division of the country with the silver flat wear being proportionately divided. Other scenes in the house seemed forced. The movie is in limited release and available on home platforms. No need to see this in a theater. Free is almost too much to pay for one.