Staving off Gattaca

"My father was right. It didn't matter how much I lied on my resume. My real resume was in my cells. Why should anybody invest all that money to train me when there were a thousand other applicants with a far cleaner profile? Of course, it's illegal to discriminate, 'genoism' it's called. But no one takes the law seriously. If you refuse to disclose, they can always take a sample from a door handle or a handshake, even the saliva on your application form. If in doubt, a legal drug test can just as easily become an illegal peek at your future in the company." - Vincent Freeman (Ethan Hawke), Gattaca, 1997

In a surprisingly lucid move, the US Senate is pushing through laws to prevent insurance companies and employers from discriminating against people based on their genetic makeup. So maybe the future depicted in the terrific Gattaca isn't quite on the horizon.

Hang on though, in that movie genetic discrimination was illegal but it happened anyway. I suspect that, eventually, it will happen in reality at some level or the other.

And while I generally abhor the notion, a part of me does wonder whether it might not be logical in some situations, such as working in particular environments or fields. But then, where would one possibly draw the cutoff lines for eligibility? And what of people like the character of Vincent in the film, who wish to do something with every ounce of their being and could perhaps do it better than someone who was genetically more acceptable?

It's a messy question, but I think it's one of those situations where ethics ought to trump cold logic.

*Edited to add the quote & clarity (proofreading is your friend!)

Deadwood - Season 2 (2005)

(Image from Wikipedia)


Deadwood - Season 2 (2005)

I'm quite surprised to find myself pleased with my review of the first series of 'Deadwood', and there isn't really much to add to my assessment of the show with regard to this second series, which maintains the same high standards throughout its twelve episodes. In summation, the primary storylines revolve around the possible annexation of Deadwood to the territories of Dakota and the attempted acquisition of much of the gold claims by wealthy businessman George Hearst. But of course the smaller stories and the characters collectively play such a large part in the show, and these include: Swearingen's debilitating illness; Sheriff Bullock's fragily alliance with Swearingen and his affair with Mrs. Garrett, followed by the arrival of his wife and stepson; Hearst's geologist Francis Wolcott's scheming and sexual dalliances; Joanie Stubb's attempts to start her own brothel; Cy Tolliver's alliance with Wolcott in their scheme to buy out people's claims; Mrs. Garrett's troubles with the Pinkerton's and her clashes with Bullock's wife; and Mr. Wu's problems with the 'San Francisco Cocksucker', amongst many others.

What I love about this show is how it's so rich, so full of detail and atmosphere, and populated with such diverse, interesting characters each of whom has their own unique voice and idiosyncrasies, each of whom plays some small but integral part in the big picture. It's all character driven, and there are a myriad little stories that criss cross and interweave, and yet it all ties together so perfectly in the end - it really is a supreme piece of storytelling. True, the pacing is deliberate and there is a dearth of action, but that's not what this show is about. I think it's all kinds of great, even though I have to confess to finding some of the more complex speeches a little hard to follow!

Once again Ian McShane rules the roost with his commanding portrayal of Al Swearingen, whose presence seems so intrinsic to the town that when he approaches the brink of death it's almost like the town itself collectively holds its breath. McShane is terrific, and spews out verbose commentary and foul language like there's no tomorrow, and it's a joy to behold. Timothy Oliphaunt has somewhat less of a presence but is still great, and the added dimensions of his awkward relationship with both his mistress and his wife and son adding to his burdens as town sheriff and Swearingen cohort. Powers Boothe, William Sanderson, Robin Weigert, and Brad Dourif are the other standouts from the regular cast, but one guy stands out above most of the other regulars - Garet Dillahunt, who plays the creepy, disturbed, very intelligent, and very persuasive Francis Walcott. Dillahunt also appeared in the first season as Wild Bill Hickok's killer, and he was excellent in that role, but his character here is as far removed as possible from that one - in fact, it took me a while to realize that it was the same guy! Truly an excellent performance; this guy ought to be one to look out for - he has popped up in 'The 4400' and 'The Sarah Connor Chronicles' as well, and has minor roles in 'The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford' and 'No Country for Old Men'.

'Deadwood' continues to impress in its second season, and I'm dying to see the third and final batch of 12 episodes. It's disappointing to realize that the series was canceled without some form of finality; reading up on the history of the real Deadwood just can't compare to watching David Milch's foul mouthed dramatization! An exceptional TV series that adds further weight to the argument that HBO are without peer when it comes to gritty, edgy dramatic fare.

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)

(Image from IMP Awards)


Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)

In a word, disappointing. In another, mediocre. Following in the footsteps of James Cameron's classic 1984 thriller and 1991 action spectacular comes Jonathan Mostow's rather pedestrian third entry in the franchise (and I dread to see what 'McG' will do with the upcoming films). Even though 'Judgement Day' was itself something of a retread, it managed to up the ante and introduced new elements to the basic story framework of the original - two terminators, one ultra advanced assassin and one 'Arnie' model protector, the addition of John Connor himself as a kid, and the concept of taking charge and changing the future instead being resigned to fate. The film also had some good elements of emotion laden drama despite being a little heavy handed. This third entry is basically the exact same formula as part 2, and adds virtually nothing new up until its (admittedly terrific) left field ending.

A new terminator, the feminine TX (Kristana Loken), is sent back to kill future leader of the human resistance John Connor (Nick Stahl) and his lieutenants, including a young woman named Kate Brewster (Claire Danes). The resistance again sends a T-800 (Arnold Schwarzenegger) to serve as a protector for John. Sarah Connor is dead, so John and Kate take it upon themselves to once again attempt to change the future - though they succeeded in stopping Cyberdyne Systems in part 2, John figures it just wasn't enough to prevent the supercomputer Skynet from coming into existence and gaining sentience. So in the midst of running away from the TX, they devise a plan to destroy Skynet before it takes control of the US Military's computer systems and causes nuclear armageddon.

Right from the start, the film is markedly inferior. There's no suspense, everything happens in a purely perfunctory manner like they were ticking off items in a checklist. Monologue opening, check. T-800 arrival and acquisition of clothes from seedy joint, check. TX arrival and acquisition of a vehicle, check. These scenes feel like cheap echoes of the previous films, and while it's true that T2 could be accused of the same thing, T2 was also markedly differently from its predecessor in terms of how those scenes were handled. T3 feels like T2 lite. Watching this, I never felt like the characters' lives were at stake, much less the future of mankind!

The inferiority permeates every aspect of the film. Mostow isn't alone in bearing the blame as the screenwriters contributed some of the film's flaws. Clearly realizing they couldn't really outdo what had come before, they decided to infuse ill advised humour into scene after scene, and much of it falls flat. The characters never really come alive - Connor is brooding sidekick to the T-800 for the most part, and Brewster is mostly just hysterical, and both seem to be merely serving the plot. Mostow's sense of pacing and scene construction are competent but workmanlike, be it the character driven moments or the action scenes. The latter are definitely big, but they often feel lifeless and fall back on CGI on too many occasions. I can't think of a single standout moment in this film, while the first two had so many. The things that are most memorable are the bits that made me groan, like the Elton John glasses and 'talk to the hand' scenes, jokes that really should have been dropped at some stage during the production.

Which isn't to say that everything sucks. On the contrary, the film is on the whole fairly decent and is better than the average sci-fi action flick. The design work, which follows from Stan Winston's originals, is still excellent, for one - those early prototype robots in action are very cool. The basic concept of killer robots from the future wreaking violence and causing massive mayhem is still a fantastic one. And the story framework is solid, even if its execution is less than refined. And the ending... well, the first time I saw it I actually liked the film as a result of that ending, which is such an atypically sober surprise in a summer blockbuster and one that completely wipes away the sense of optimism the second film concluded with.

The performances, unfortunately, are almost uniformly forgettable. Schwarzanegger just coasts through with a distracting sense of self-awareness. He acted a bit goofy in T2, but that was part of the character arc - here, he's just goofy from the outset. Even when he's not approaching parody, he's still not as coolly mechanical or as physically imposing as before; the T-800 is merely a shadow of his former self. Kristanna Loken certainly tried as the TX and she's good on occasion, but following in the footsteps of Robert Patrick's phenomenal turn as the T-1000 is no easy task and the inevitable comparison leaves her wanting. The quirky mannerisms and poses seem forced, and the icy menace just isn't that frightening. You'd think playing cold, unfeeling machines would be easy, but based on the evidence it would appear not to be so.

The only good performance comes from Nick Stahl, who plays Connor as a weary outcast who still possesses a grim sense of determination, although it has to be said that neither the writing nor the performance indicate he has great leadership potential - which is weird when you consider that the 10 year old in T2 did demonstrate such potential! Claire Danes, a fairly good actress, is simply irritating as the initially hysterical and then somewhat bland Kate Brewster.

'Rise of the Machines' is a wholly unnecessary film, one whose most meaningful narrative element, its conclusion, could easily have served as some form of prologue to a film about the actual war against the machines (That film is coming soon, but is in the hands of McG, whose greatest claim to fame is directing the Charlie's Angels films). T3, even as a retread, falls well short in every respect. The score is another example of what's wrong with this film - it samples a few recognizable themes from Brad Fidel's distinctive and memorable work and evokes good will by doing so, but is ultimately by the numbers and never really comes alive. And really, the same could be said about the film as a whole.

A dog that's not for life

Holy shit. There's a dog rental service. I'm not sure why I'm surprised to be honest, but somehow the fact that this is really real is just... too much! Yes folks, you can rent dogs for walking and absolve yourself of all the real fun and responsiblity of having a canine companion in the first place! What possible satisfaction can one get out of this? Isn't this like dog prostitution or something?

Most hilarious is the woman who cycles through dogs depending on the occasion, probably in the same manner in which she cycles through shoes. Yet another stark reminder that there are sad sacks in the world desperately in need of a clue. I mean seriously, renting animal companionship to fill some kind of void in your pathetic life or as a status symbol? WTF?

What next, rent a baby? ...For all I know, it's already here.

Coupling - Seasons 3 & 4

Coupling - Seasons 3 & 4 (2002-2004)

Alright, so this isn't the more cogent review I was talking about when I reviewed the first two seasons, and frankly it's because I just don't have the time! The final two seasons of this sex/relationship based comedy series is weaker than the first two overall because of the departure of the Jeff Murdoch character in the final season (he goes to Lesbos believing it to be full of lesbians). The third season is fairly strong and carries on perfectly from where season 2 left off, building on all of the already established relationships. Again, Jeff's antics are the absolute highlight of the season, in terms of both writing and performance. Season 4 replaces Jeff with Oliver, who is amusing but never gut bustingly funny. That, coupled (no pun intended) with the maturing of some of the characters and their relationships takes some of the bite out of the show. These two factors together make the final season decidedly sub-par, and it's probably for the best that it was the last. In fairness however, these seasons did seem to break out of the formulaic storylines that I complained about by establishing more continuity and attempting some stylistic digressions like extended fantasy sequences.

Not quite as good as what came before, but all the seasons taken together make for a very funny, very entertaining comedy series that ends quite nicely (despite not being a true end to all the storylines, they end at a place from which one can extrapolate some finality with little effort).

Animal Farm (1945) - by George Orwell

Animal Farm (1945) - by George Orwell

I first read Orwell's brilliant novella in school, and it's one of those resonant stories that stayed with me over the years, particularly because I began to recognise the elements of the real world that had been incorporated into it. Ostensibly it tells the story of a group of animals on a farm who become fed up of being subservient to their human masters and revolt. They set up a utopian socialist society where the animals are free and share in the farm's wealth. Everything is rosy at first, but things slowly start to change as the pigs, their de facto leaders, slowly and insidiously change the rules in their favour, accumulating wealth and power at the expense of the other animals.

The story is short, running at less than a hundred pages, and is very straightforward in its telling; as an allegory of the Soviet Union under Stalin, it's thinly veiled. Its elegance comes from its simple, matter of fact prose and from the fact that what it describes is completely true. The inexorable shift in the balance of power and the disingenuous justifications, hollow rhetoric, and threat of force that the pigs use to keep the rest in check are all the hallmarks of tyrants that have been witnessed in the real world throughout history.

If the pigs represent the ruling classes in the microcosm of society that is Animal Farm, the other animals represent the other social groups within that society, from the hard working, unquestioningly loyal simpletons to the blind, loud, and devout sheep-like followers (literally sheep in the story), to the intelligent but indifferent or powerless. At every stage the pigs have a strategy to explain their actions and to silence the critics, and over time the animals' lives become miserable. But as their misery becomes the status quo, many continue to believe the lie that life is better simply because they are free of the tyrannical humans, being completely oblivious to the fact that they have traded in one master for another.

Ultimately, the book chronicles the way in which a revolution with the best of intentions and beginnings can be subverted by totalitarianism and fascism and leave the people (err, animals) even worse off than before, and it demonstrates convincingly how those in power get away with it. Despite being superficially simple, the book really whittles down these societal realities to their core. It doesn't have much in the way of plot or characters, nor does it need to; built purely on ideas, 'Animal Farm' is a quick and unforgettable read and an absolute classic.

Zodiac (2007)

(Image from IMP Awards)

Zodiac (2007)

Man, I'm way behind on these.

David Fincher's 'Zodiac', his first film since the fairly good but not great 'Panic Room', is a terrific procedural crime drama. He's best known for 'Fight Club' (a film I need to see again), but this is much closer to his serial killer film 'Seven'. It's based on the true story of the Zodiac Killer who terrorized San Francisco during the 1960s, and is a meticulously detailed and apparently quite comprehensive recreation of the investigation into the killings. The film focuses on three men - Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal), a cartoonist at the San Francisco Chronicle newspaper who is drawn to the case by the Killer's cryptic puzzles, Inspector David Toschi (Mark Ruffalo) who works the case, and SF Chronicle writer Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr.), who writes about the killer. Spanning several decades, the film chronicles every significant detail relating to the investigation of the Zodiac Killer and the major players involved in the investigation.

It's a procedural, but one that is devoid of the usual Hollywood gloss that we have come to expect from the genre. I would say that it is toned down even compared to Fincher's own 'Seven', which is an excellent film that is already a decent example of restraint. 'Zodiac' is completely matter of fact and realistic, showing the investigation as something that takes time, tedious amounts of research and legwork, numerous dead ends, paperwork, communication with various - and occasionally uncooperative - parties, and working within legislature and bureaucracy. And often, lots of waiting around for something to happen. There are no convenient epiphanies that lead to exciting chases or shootouts. Despite all of the effort that went into hunting the killer, the case was never and probably never will be solved, even though those involved believed they had their man.

The attention to realism may sound boring - I'm fairly certain some people feel that way - what with there only being a handful of scenes showing the killer in action (face never revealed) and lots of scenes of interviews, meetings, and people throwing ideas around, but I found it to be utterly fascinating and a refreshing change. Having said that, it's not just the crime procedural aspects that make this compelling. The film also tells the story of how these three men become completely and utterly obsessed with their subject, and were unable to rest without following some new angle or another. Such was their obsession that it affected both their professional and personal lives, often detrimentally. These aren't conventional cinematic heroes; these are the guys who'll go through the grind day after day, committed to their quest for answers and closure, and ultimately, justice. The film allows us to experience the sheer scale of their Herculean task, and deals us the same sucker punch they received at the end - we'll never really know for sure who it was.

Cinematically it's like the serial killer version of 'All the President's Men', taking a seemingly mundane aspect of historical events and making it something fascinating and gripping by focusing on making the film atmospheric and believable. There is no narrative trickery and no caricatures. The style is muted with none of the overly showy camerawork Fincher demonstrated in his last few films. It presents a wholly convincing recreation of the era and lets the setting, the script and the actors take centre stage. The performances from the three leads, whose paths cross but who mostly work alone, are superb as they depict men who become, literally, addicted to their work while trying to maintain (mostly unsuccessfully) some element of normalcy in their lives. Ruffalo is no nonsense and street smart as Toschi, while Gyllenhaal unsurprisingly plays the bookish nerd with a proclivity for puzzle solving. Downey Jr. has the least screen time but he's terrific as the egotistical and charismatic star reporter.

All in all, an excellent and under appreciated film that came and went without many people taking notice. Overlong and slow? Hell no - honest and absorbing! 'Zodiac' is definitely one of the better films from last year - immaculately made and a fresh, revitalizing take on a genre that hasn't offered anything nearly as good in the last few years.

Ran (1985)

(Image from IMP Awards)


Ran (1985)

Akira Kurosawa was brilliant, one of the great directors - of that there is little doubt. The only film of his that I've seen that wasn't great (admittedly, I haven't seen nearly enough of them) was 'The Hidden Fortress' , but even that had plenty of redeeming attributes. 'Ran', which translates to something along the lines of chaos, was his last epic film. Loosely based on Shakespeare's 'King Lear', it's a period film set in Japan that tells the story of the aging Lord Hidetora Ichimonji (Tatsuya Nakadai), who gives up his power to his three sons, Taro (Akira Terao), Jiro (Jinpachi Nezu), and Saburo (Daisuke Ryu). Saburo defies him and warns him that this will lead to trouble when the brothers start jostling for power; angered, Lord Hidetora banishes Saburo. Despite being passionate and abrasive, Saburo is right and both Taro and Jiro waste no time in asserting their authority by ignoring their father's wishes and basically kicking him out of his own fortress. Taro's vindictive wife Lady Kaede (Mieko Harada), who was the daughter of a clan conquered (and mostly slaughtered) by Hidetora, is the real schemer behind the scenes, manipulating her husband to assert his authority and take full control of the clan. Events quickly spiral out of control as battles erupt and outside factions, sensing an opportunity for a quick power grab, amass their armies along the clan's borders. Driven half mad by events and his shame for banishing his only noble son, Hidetora finds himself abandoned with only two loyal companions beside him, his androgynous 'Fool' Kyoami (Peter), and his former retainer Tango (Masayuki Yui).

An epic film, 'Ran' features lush production values, stunning visuals, and some incredible battle sequences. It also tells a riveting story, and being based on Shakespeare it's tragic and (surprise!) a load of people die by the time the credits roll. There's a streak of hopelessness in the film, which presents a world that is indeed filled with chaos and devoid of happy endings. It's full of scheming, treachery, and familial strife, with honour and loyalty occasionally making an appearance but ultimately failing to balance the scales. The decent, good intentioned people in the story always end up paying the price for their ways, and the seemingly wisest character who often sees things as they truly are - the Fool - is always ignored as the tragedy unfolds. Hidetora is the central character and the key tragic figure, the one who is brought down to his knees both physically and mentally by betrayal and forced to confront the shameful actions from his past. It all sounds quite morose - and it is - but the film is often quite entertaining and holds your attention from start to finish. Visually it's also surprisingly colourful and bright, though this does have a habit of highlighting quite effectively all the blood that is spilled. Speaking of blood, the action sequences really do deliver in spades; they're massive and awe inspiring, and of course completely devoid of any digital trickery.

While sometimes very theatrical, the performances are great, especially that of Tatsuya Nakadai as Hidetora, who transforms from a powerful and commanding presence to a broken man who virtually loses his mind. Peter (that's the guy's credited name!) is irritating but effective as the 'Fool'. Mieko Harada's Lady Kaede is perhaps the best of all, a woman who is intelligent, cold, and calculating, and seething with hatred - she veers between stoic and formal, deadly, and seductive as the situation demands, even within the same scene. Last but not least is Saburo as played by Daisuke Ryu, a charming roguish hothead who could have easily been played by Toshiro Mifune. But Ryu is great in the role and it's a shame his character disappears for such a prolonged stretch of the film.

'Ran' is a magnificent film by any standard. It's a huge epic brimming with action, but one that has a thematically rich and involving story and complex characters, a combination that makes for great drama. It might not be as great as 'Seven Samurai' or 'Rashomon', but those are admittedly tough acts to follow. It's a classic in its own right, and definitely worth checking out.

Scotoma

A scotoma is "an area or island of loss or impairment of visual acuity surrounded by a field of normal or relatively well-preserved vision". In other words, a blind spot. And yours truly developed one a few weeks ago. My vision looked something like this:



Though, not as bad as in that picture. I had a light grey spot, not a black one. Thankfully, it's all but gone now thanks to the medication I was on (I'm still on some eyedrops and vitamins), but I have to confess it had me freaked out for a while there.

It appeared without warning one evening - it was the end of a particularly tiring day, and I sat down at my computer only to discover that everything was horribly blurred. I was marginally concerned, but put it down to tiredness and went to bed. It was, as I had hoped, better the next morning. In fact, I thought it had disappeared completely, but then I noticed that it was still a little difficult to read and that sometimes people's faces appeared blurred. Also, my eyes felt strained all the time. I still couldn't couldn't pin down what the real problem was, as it just seemed like slight irregular blurriness; I could still make things out clearly when I focused hard enough. Being the fool that I am, I thought I'd give it some time to go away on its own before seeing a doctor.

About a week later, I figured out what it was by chance. Incredibly, up to this point I hadn't tested each eye individually. Well, actually, I had but not with text. When trying to read with my right eye, I noticed that letters were horribly blurred. After a little experimentation, the grey spot suddenly stuck out like a sore thumb! When I blinked a black spot stood out for a fraction of a second before my eye apparently compensated for it (marvelous, eh?) and turned the spot grey. It was especially conspicuous when looking at white. Naturally, I googled the phenomenon and learned that it was called... a scotoma! At this point I was a little worried because it appeared that scotomas could be associated with all kinds of things - multiple sclerosis, tumours, brain injury - and some scotomas are apparently incurable. Needless to say, an urgent appointment with an eye specialist followed.

Have I mentioned that I'm paranoid? Probably. As you can imagine (or probably can't, actually), all kinds of nightmarish scenarios ran through my head, even though the rational part of me knew that, apart from the symptoms, I didn't have a clue about what was wrong. What if I needed surgery? What if it was permanent? Such were the thoughts that overwhelmed my fragile psyche. I'd rather lose a limb than an eye, or so I told myself while sitting outside the doctor's office. Actually, I still believe that - except for my right arm, which is quite useful (I know this last comment leaves me exposed to a very obvious joke, but so be it). After an interminable wait, it was finally my turn to see the doctor; following a brief examination using high powered lenses the doctor informed me that there was a swelling in my eye that was probably stress related, and that I should take the prescribed medication and take it easy for a while. I assured her that I wasn't stressed, but she seemed skeptical of my claims. Having dwelled on the notion for a while now, it occurs to me that perhaps I was fooling myself, because even though I don't have nearly as many problems as a lot of other people, I spend way too much time worrying about the ones I do have (and sometimes about ones I don't have). So it is entirely possible that I am, in fact, stressed.

Long story short, the medication alleviated the blurriness and strain within a few days, and the scotoma itself faded away to almost nothing after a couple of weeks. It seems to be all but gone now, though I have to continue treatment for a few more weeks. During my follow up visit I was assured by the doctor that it wouldn't recur and was also reminded once again about the importance of relaxing. Which is easier said than done!

Ah, the vicissitudes of life. I can't wait to see what curveball comes my way next. Actually, strike that - I can wait. I can wait a very, very long time, as a matter of fact...

A Passage to India (1984)

(Image from IMP Awards)


A Passage to India (1984)

Based on E. M. Forster's classic novel about English colonialism in India, this adaptation was acclaimed director David Lean's last film. I'm not a big fan of his epics - Lawrence of Arabia, Bridge on the River Kwai - and haven't seen his earlier works, but this one was quite enjoyable, doubtless in part because I enjoyed the book.

The plot follows the book fairly closely - barring the usual omissions that are a necessity in film adaptations - but the ending is different as is the perspective from which the film is largely told. In the book, there was a greater focus on the Indians, particularly Dr. Aziz (Victor Banerjee) and his friends and their perspectives on British occupation. The film shifts the focus greatly to Adela Quested (Judy Davis) and Mrs. Moore (Peggy Ashcroft) as they arrive in India with the intention of having Miss. Quested marry Mrs. Moore's son, Ronny Heaslop (Nigel Havers). Upon arrival, the two women are horrified to discover the schism that exists between the English and the locals, with the former treating the latter with contempt and an air of superiority. The two women, seeking to be get to know the locals better, wind up in the company of Dr. Aziz and the one Englishman who likes the Indians, Richard Fielding (James Fox), headmaster of the local college. Dr. Aziz proposes a trip for all of them to the famed Marabar Caves nearby (which none of them has bothered visiting before), during which an incident occurs that leads to Aziz being incarcerated and charged with rape. The subsequent trial brings to the fore all of the cultural and racial tensions between the two groups.

There's more to it than that of course, but as a synopsis that ought to suffice. The film lacks a lot of the texture of the book, though I can see why it makes sense from a narrative point of view to show things from the English women's point of view instead of the more fractured manner of the book - it flows better and allows the milieu to be more easily introduced. But, the loss of the Indian perspective does in some ways devalue the story and diminishes the commentary on colonialism that permeated the book. On the other hand, in both the book and the film Aziz and his friends come across as a fairly insufferable, whiny bunch, so perhaps this is a good thing. Judy Davis's take on Miss Quested is more sympathetic than in the book; an improvement in my opinion as it makes her behaviour after the Marabar caves more forgivable. Fielding as portrayed by James Fox as the gentleman with an unflappable streak of decency is pretty much spot on. Banerjee's portrayal of Aziz as a hapless fool also is accurate and very entertaining. The rest of the characters are well represented in their somewhat diminished roles - Alec Guiness in blackface as the Hindu Professor Godbole is, despite being initially distracting and amusing, particularly good.

Strong performances and an atmospheric, believable recreation of a time and place lend weight to the story's themes of colonialism and racism. It's fairly slow and quaint and won't set your pulse racing, but it's a worthwhile film and a very good adaptation. As for the ending, I personally think that the more optimistic ending is apt for the post-colonial era in which the film was made, even if it isn't true to the original story, which was written during occupation. The film is more Hollywood, but it works, and it's one of those changes I can get behind.