At the height of the British Empire, just after the turn of the 20th century, a war torn India is on the brink of civil war. A large group of Muslim rebels have killed the maharajah and seek to kill his six year old son to effectively end Hindu rule in the country. Seeking to maintain law and order the British Army is ordered to get the young prince out of the country and safely into British-controlled territory. The only way to do this, however, is with a very old locomotive which barely functions and can't hold much weight. It is up to Capt. Scott (Kenneth More) to see the child and the party to safety.
Also on board is the child's American governess (Lauren Bacall), two English aristocrats, an arms merchant and a disagreeable journalist named Van Leyden (Herbert Lom). In the style of American cowboy pictures of the time this train journey pits them against all kinds of dangers including the attacking rebels and blown up train tracks. The action is thrilling when it needs to be, very well paced and full of fun, but it is the political implications of the film which make it shine.
The film is chalked full of great actors and each of them plays their role expertly, deftly navigating through dangerous territory of race, religion and the usefulness of the British Empire. The first half of the film is good when it is simply nothing more than dime-a-dozen action flick on the great frontier, but the second half becomes that much more intriguing once personal motives begin to reveal themselves inside the quarters.
This film is amazing in its relevance today. I was struck by parallels between the issues presented here and those in Israel, Afghanistan and the debates surrounding the United States' and China's role in our globalized world. This film did an good job of choosing sides and being heavy-handed about it, but still presenting solid alternative views. These, of course, happened to come from the enemies of the British and the prince, but they were still thought out and logical making this film all too short to address necessary questions.
The movie was at once pro-monarchist, anti-imperialist, multiculturalist and humanitarianist. Even in an odd way the actions of the villains were done out of a pursuit of peace. I suppose, though, that one could argue that Al Qaeda wages their holy wars against the Western World in order to establish a peaceful Muslim world. This film does not condone violence and nor do I, but the film does make the clear message that these sorts of events don't take place because people are ruthless and bloodthirsty. In their own way they fight for a goal for the greater good, however warped that good may be.
At the same time, "North West Frontier" is very dated in its views towards race, making the actions of some characters a bit more difficult to make sense of. The rebels--and by extension the Muslims--are referred to as "uneducated children". One lady scoffs at that statement and that is supposed to alleviate the tension for the viewers. However, the engineer of the train is an affable but ignorant Indian man who plays the character we would have as a black man in current films, the lovable buffoon. He is a main character and a sympathetic one, but we care for him because of his childlike geniality.
The list goes on in this film about all of the problems of class and politics of the time which makes for a necessary second viewing. Issues of the nature of war, women in politics, free-thinking and intermarriage are all addressed, which presents us with so much to discuss. But through what some might consider to be dry material this film remains exciting and well shot. This motley crew of upper-class characters takes the adventure and the hardships that go with it with a concrete, stiff upper lip. It is always in their favor--not a single "good" character is killed, but I think that made it all the more enjoyable. It wasn't a challenging film in that sense, it left all of the drama for the kitchen table.
3/4
No comments:
Post a Comment