NINE HOURS TO RAMA
UK, 1962, 125 minutes, Colour.
Horst Buchholz, Jose Ferrer, Valerie Gearon, Don Borisenko, Diane Baker, J.S. Casshyap.
Directed by Mark Robson.
Nine Hours to Rama is a Hollywood attempt at re-creating the clashes and tensions in India after World War Two. The focus of the film, however, is the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. The film was criticised as being conventional Hollywood material, perhaps expectations were high for a more reverent treatment of Gandhi himself. However, the story is interesting and reflects an aspect of 20th century history. Perhaps there are too many Hollywood stars impersonating Indians which detracts something from the atmosphere.
The film gains strength from the performance by J.S. Casshyap who looks very much like Gandhi and plays like him. The film was directed by Mark Robson, a veteran director of all kinds of Hollywood films ranging from the horror film Bedlam in the 40s through several blockbusters in the 50s and 60s, From the Terrace, The Prize, Valley of the Dolls to Earthquake in the 70s. A similar film with Anglo-Indian? background was George Cukor's Bhowani Junction, 1956.
1. The overall impact of the film? The interest, involvement? The interest in history? What was the purpose of the filmmakers?
2. Audience presuppositions about India, Gandhi? Attitudes of respect and interest towards such a figure as Gandhi?
3. The contribution of colour, widescreen, music, sets, stars, Indian atmosphere?
4. The impact of the structure for audience involvement; suspense, the structure of a day, the search for the assassin, the picture of the assassin, the explanation by flashback, the sense of fate and doom, the focus on Gandhi.
5. How important was the focus on Gandhi? How did he emerge as a person, his dignity, his principles, his role in India, the clash between Hindus and Moslems, the significance and content of his speeches, his attitude towards fate and death, to non-violence? The dramatic impact of his death, its consequent significance?
6. Naturam: as a character, his lack of balance, presented as a villain? How much understanding of his character did the film offer? The significance of the flashbacks: his childhood, the deaths, the rejection by the Army, his work on the newspaper, his political involvement, his love for Rani and the political clashes? His relationship with the fanatics? The decision to assassinate Gandhi? His relationship with his companion? His growing desperation? How much doubt about the worth of the assassination? The violent encounter with Sheila?
7. The impact of the assassination itself? Its effect on the people? The dramatic significance of the aftermath with Naturam himself?
8. The film's picturing of the police: a balance against the fanatics, the detail of their methods, the contacts for the discovery of the assassin, the Chief's attitude towards violence and the protection of Gandhi, his failure to persuade Gandhi?
9. The picturing of Indian politicians and industrialists? Their pragmatism against Gandhi's principles? Who was right and wrong? Long term results versus short-term results?
10. The portrayal of India and its way of life? In the 40s? The culmination of a heritage? British withdrawal? Indian independence? The visualising of the crowds, the trains, riots etc.?
11. The role of the women in the film? How convincing was Rani? Sheila and the violent reception by Naturam? Her contact with the police?
12. How convincing was the film as a picture of history? Or did it remain on the film adventure level?
