"FLAME OVER INDIA" (1959) Review

"FLAME OVER INDIA" (1959) Review

I have seen my share of movie and television productions set during the heyday of the British Empire over the years. They have featured narratives that range from being rabidly pro-Imperial to being highly critical of British Imperial policies and society. Recently, I re-discovered an old movie that seemed to straddle between the two styles of this genre, the 1959 adventure film, "FLAME OVER INDIA aka NORTH WEST FRONTIER".

Directed by J. Lee Thompson, "FLAME OVER INDIA" began in the North West Frontier of 1905 British India, when a Hindu Maharajah asks British Army Captain William Scott to take his young son and heir, Prince Kishan, to the safety of the British Governor's residence in Haserabad, due to a Muslim uprising in his province. Accompanying them is the prince's nanny/governess, an American widow named Mrs. Catherine Wyatt. They leave shortly before the rebels storm the palace and kill the Maharajah. Upon their arrival in Haserabad, Captain Scott and Mrs. Wyatt learn that Muslim rebels threaten to overrun the Residency, due to knowledge of the young prince's arrival. The Residency's Governor, Sir John Wyndham, informs Captain Scott that he must take Prince Kishan to the safety of Kalapur. Scott discovers an old train, the Empress of India, and decides to use it to get Kishan and Mrs. Wyatt to safety. Because of the danger of developing siege in Haserabad, other passengers join Scott, Mrs. Wyatt and Kishan on the journey:

*Gupta - the Empress of India's driver
*Lady Wyndham - Sir John's wife
*Peter van Leyden - a Dutch biracial anti-Imperialist journalist
*Mr. Bridie - one of Sir John's government aides
*Mr. Peters - an arms dealer who does business with all sides
*Two Indian sergeants acting as Captain Scott's aides

There are some aspects of "FLAME OVER INDIA" that did not particularly impress me. Actually, I can only think of two. In one scene, the Empress of India's passengers had come across a train that had departed Haserabad earlier in the film. Apparently, the rebels had massacred all of the train's passengers, leaving behind one infant still alive. Now, I realize that this scene is supposed to be some kind of allegory of the religious strife that marred Britain's partition from India in 1947 and its role in that strife. The problem is that this scene would have been more suited for a story set during that period, instead of a movie set in 1905. I also had a problem with the film's final action sequence. It is not terrible, but it struck me as a bit anti-climatic. Especially since it ended with the Empress of India's passengers evading capture by the train's entrance into a two-mile long hillside tunnel that led to the safety of Kalapur.

Overall, I thought "FLAME OVER INDIA" was a first-rate movie that seamlessly combined the elements of two genres - action and drama. At first glance, it seemed Captain Scott using a train to convey young Kishan to the safety of Kalapur offered no real challenges - especially against pursuers on horseback. Scott and Gupta had initially planned to sneak the passengers out of Haserabad by freewheeling the Empress of India down a gradient and out of the rail yard, but the train's whistle unexpectedly blows, alerting the rebels to their departure. The screenwriters ensure that the Empress and its passengers encounter other obstacles to make it difficult to evade their pursuers - including torn up tracks, the train's nearly empty water tank, the train full of massacred passengers, a bomb-damaged viaduct/bridge and a spy in their midst. If I had a choice for my favorite action sequence, it would be the one in which the Empress of India passengers attempt to fix the sabotaged tracks in the middle of a gun battle. It is a pity that this incident occurred midway in the film.

More importantly, "FLAME OVER INDIA" is an excellent drama in which the political situation - the rebellion within Kishan's province - served as a reflection of the divisions in British India around the turn of the 20th century and the Britons' role in its origin. In fact, this topic manifested in a tense scene featuring an argument between Captain Scott and Peter van Leyden following the passengers' discovery of the train massacre. Earlier, I had commented that "FLAME OVER INDIA" seemed to straddle between those rabidly pro-Imperial movies to those highly critical of British Empire. The quarrel between Captain Scott and van Leyden over the train massacre and British Imperial policy seemed to personify this "no Man's Land" between the genre's two styles. But the movie also featured other characters who seemed to represent not only these two positions on Imperial policies, but also that middle ground. Even Captain Scott's characters seemed to be on the verge of that middle ground by the film's end.

I have seen "FLAME OVER INDIA" on many occasions, but it finally occurred to me that it reminded me of another film. I noticed that one of the screenwriters was Frank Nugent, who had written the screenplays for several of John Ford's movies between 1948 and 1963. Although Nugent never worked on one of Ford's best films, "STAGECOACH", I realized that "FLAME OVER INDIA" bore a strong resemblance to the Oscar winning 1939 film. Like "STAGECOACH", this film is about a group of people who undertake a long-distance journey through dangerous territory. And like the 1939 movie, it is also a strong character study of people from different backgrounds, personalities and philosophies. Whereas "STAGECOACH" seemed more like an exploration of class (and regional) differences between late 19th century Americans, "FLAME OVER INDIA" is more of an exploration of the impact of the British Empire upon the movie's main characters - the Europeans, one American, one Eurasian and two Asians. The ironic aspect of the film's theme is that even young Kishan, who served mainly as the movie's catalyst, had the last word about the British presence in India, near the end.

"FLAME OVER INDIA" struck me as a colorful looking film, thanks to its technical crew. The movie was shot at Pinewood Studios, and also on location in India and Spain. And I must say that cinematographer Geoffrey Unsworth did a beautiful job with his photography for both locations. And I must admit that I really admired how he balanced his close-up, far-shots and zooming . . . especially during the film's opening sequence that depicted the Muslim rebels overrunning the palace of Kishan's father. I was also impressed by Frederick Wilson's editing of J. Lee Thompson's direction of the action sequences - especially the opening sequence and that featuring the repair of the damaged tracks. Between Thompson and Wilson, they managed to fill the movie with a great deal of action, suspense and drama. I also enjoyed Yvonne Caffin's Edwardian costumes for the film. But like her work for the 1958 movie, "A NIGHT TO REMEMBER", they did not strike me as particularly mind-blowing, but they certainly did not look cheap or straight out of a costume warehouse.

The 1959 movie did not exactly have a large cast . . . unless one would consider the number of extras. But I have to say that I did not have anything negative to say about the performances in "FLAME OVER INDIA". The movie featured solid performances from the likes of Ian Hunter, Jack Gwillim, and Basil Hoskins. Both S.M. Asgaralli and Sam Chowdhary, who portrayed the two sepoys under Scott's command, had spoken at least two or three lines between them and still managed to effectively convey the idea of competent soldiers. And Govind Raja Ross gave a very charming performance as the young Prince Kishan. He was not the best child actor I have ever seen, but I found him charming.

However, the film's best performances came the major supporting cast members and the two leads. I cannot say that Ursula Jeans gave a complex performance. After all, I could never regard her character, Lady Windham, as flexible. But Jeans did an excellent job in conveying the conservative, yet ladylike "memsahib" of the British Empire. Eugene Deckers gave a very entertaining performance as the witty and cynical arms dealer, Mr. Peters. In fact, I would say that Deckers gave the most entertaining performance in the film. Wilfrid Hyde-White gave a charming, yet poignant performance as the mild-mannered, yet very open-minded government aide, Mr. Bridie. Hyde-White did such a good job in conveying his character's likability that even a hostile character like Peter van Leyden recognized him for the tolerant person he was. While checking I.S. Johar's filmography on the IMDB site, I noticed that he made very few English-speaking films, one of them being the 1978 Agatha Christie movie, "DEATH ON THE NILE". Personally, I believe his role as the effervescent, yet skilled train engineer/driver, Gupta, to be a breath of fresh air, in compare to his role in the 1978 murder mystery. Johar not only gave a first-rate performance, he managed to create a crackling screen chemistry with leading man Kenneth More.

If I had my choice for the best performance in "FLAME OVER INDIA", I would choose Herbert Lom's portrayal of the biracial journalist, Peter van Leyden. Lom did an excellent job in conveying his character's intelligence, penchant for confrontations and complex anger toward the British presence in India and European colonialism in general. Lom's Peter van Leyden may have been an unpleasant character, but what he had to say about colonialism and the British attitude toward the subcontinent's natives resonated with a great deal of truth. The producers of "FLAME OVER INDIA" had originally considered Olivia de Havilland for the role of Prince Kishan's widowed governess, Mrs. Catherine Wyatt. However, the former was unavailable and they turned to American actress Lauren Bacall to portray the role. One would not expect an American character in a film set in British India. And yet . . . Bacall gave such a first-rate performance as the forthright, yet slightly cynical Mrs. Wyatt that I never gave it another thought. More importantly, she also managed to create a strong, yet natural screen chemistry with More, which took me by surprise. Speaking of Kenneth More, he gave a strong and intelligent performance as the movie's leading character, Captain William Scott. In a way, More's portrayal of Scott struck me as rather odd. Superficially, his Scott seemed like the typical British Army officer who believed in the righteousness of the British Empire and regarded its Indian subjects as children. And yet, Scott seemed to be a bit more complicated. He preached like a typically bigoted colonial and behaved like a more tolerant man who had a tight friendship with the likes of Gupta and treated the two sepoys (soldiers) under him as competent fighting men, instead of children who needed to be constantly supervised. Like I had said, More's Scott proved to be something different from the usual military character in a British Imperial film. Then again, the movie had been made over a decade after India's independence.

I may have a few quibbles about "FLAME OVER INDIA", but overall I really enjoyed the film. It might be one of the few British Empire movies that I truly enjoyed before the more ambiguous Imperial films of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. The film's screenwriters also created a first-rate adventure film that also proved to be a complex drama and character study. "FLAME OVER INDIA" also benefited from first-rate cinematography from the legendary Geoffrey Unsworth, excellent acting from a cast led by Kenneth More and Lauren Bacall, and superb direction from J. Lee Thompson. I believe there is nothing further for me to say.