Search Results for: downton abbey

The Munshi: Why “Victoria and Abdul” should focus more on Abdul Karim and the colonialism he faced

This post is about Victoria and Abdul, the latest in a long line of “special person of color befriending or otherwise humanizing a cold white woman” films. From the outset, this, a film based on the biography by Shrabani Basu, looks like a Driving Miss Daisy version of a small moment of Queen Victoria’s life. In actuality, equating it to Driving Miss Daisy isn’t actually saying the movie is bad, necessarily—there are plenty of reasons to like Driving Miss Daisy, and I’m sure there are plenty of reasons to like Victoria and Abdul. However, with that said, we’re getting a bit long in the tooth for films that make white characters out to be the classic “good white person.” Therefore, this post will be solely about Abdul and the man who plays him, Bollywood superstar Ali Fazal.

First, in case you’re interested in Victoria and Abdul, here’s the official description:

The extraordinary true story of an unexpected friendship in the later years of Queen Victoria’s (Academy Award winner Judi Dench) remarkable rule. When Abdul Karim (Ali Fazal), a young clerk, travels from India to participate in the Queen’s Golden Jubilee, he is surprised to find favor with the Queen herself. As the Queen questions the constrictions of her long-held position, the two forge an unlikely and devoted alliance with a loyalty to one another that her household and inner circle all attempt to destroy. As the friendship deepens, the Queen begins to see a changing world through new eyes and joyfully reclaims her humanity.

Reading that last line—“As the friendship deepens, the Queen begins to see a changing world through new eyes and joyfully reclaims her humanity,” seems as sappy and innocuously racial as anything from Driving Miss Daisy, and after reading more about Abdul himself, it seems like much of the film’s viewpoint will be from the value Abdul brought to the Queen, not what Abdul himself thought about his situation, his standing, or England’s volatile “relationship,” if you will, with India, a place colonized and subjugated by the English monarchy, which includes Queen Victoria’s reign.

Even in Queen Victoria’s own words, it seems like she’s more enthralled by his exoticism and his being an outsider with different opinions than all the other cronies she’s used to dealing with in her circle.

Judi Dench and Ali Fazal in “Victoria and Abdul.” (Focus Features)

According to Abdul’s biographer, Sushila Anand, the Queen’s letters about her conversations with Abdul were one of “[b]oth head and heart,” focusing on philosophy, politics, and other topics close to the Queen’s heart. However, Anand also writes that Queen Victoria was fond of Abdul, her munshi or teacher, because of “a connection with a world that was fascinatingly alien” and because she viewed him as “a confidant who would not feed her the official line.” One line she wrote in her journal, “I am so very fond of him. He is so good & gentle & understanding all I want & I a real comfort to me,” says everything I need to know.

She did see him as a value to her, but she’s still seeing him from a very colonial-centric viewpoint. Abdul was a fine man to talk with and befriend, but did Queen Victoria really view him as an equal as much as biographers and historians might like to make it out to be? I’m no historian, but coming from my personal viewpoint as a person who has lived under the remnants of slavery, I don’t see how she could view him as an equal and still keep India under colonial rule. She could have most certainly viewed him as a friend and confidant and most loyal of subjects, but at the end of the day, he was still a subject—someone under her law who, in his case, benefitted from the shadow of her power. Slaveowners also had dear confidants who were also slaves, but at the end of the day, they were still slaves.

Judi Dench and Ali Fazal in “Victoria and Abdul”. (Focus Features)

This is just my point of view. But take the point of view of Ben Croll, who reviewed the film for IndieWire. His entire review speaks to how much colonialism shadows the film and becomes the elephant in the room the film doesn’t want to address. Croll writes that the film wants to be the breezy, Downton Abbey-esque costume drama, “[e]xcept it can’t be, thanks to that damned question of colonialism, the legacy of which is still being felt today.”

“In the film’s formation, both Abdul and Victoria are innocent actors, two parties on the far extremes of a troubling system run by callous white men…But that structure never stands up because the film never grants the slightest interest in Abdul’s perspective,” he writes. “While Dench gets a number of speeches and confrontations, dramatizing Victoria’s position as both all-powerful and basically powerless, Fazal is just asked to smile. Abdul is good-natured and charming, happily there to serve. He’s eager to teach her Urdu, or recite for the Koran, much to Victoria’s delight and her advisor’s dismay, but what’s going on inside his mind? What’s it like to go from the basement of colonial prison to a seat of Imperial power? Well, aside from the fact that he seems to appreciate the wallpaper, we never really know.”

Other reviews have reiterated the same concerns.

“[Lee] Hall’s script mildly pokes fun at courtly pomposity, while eventually treating the relationship between Victoria and Karim as a balanced friendship—when surely the truth was more difficult,” wrote Dave Calhoun for TimeOut London. “It’s pretty obvious where the power lies here, yet most of the complexities are sidelined…This is kid-gloves historical storytelling.

“…[T]he central relationship in ‘Victoria & Abdul’ never pretends to be one of equals,” wrote Owen Gleiberman for Variety. “Abdul, as a man, remains dutiful, devoted, saintly, obsequious, servile. Maybe that’s accurate, maybe not, but in a mainstream middlebrow drama coming out in 2017, it gives one a bit of pause, because it reinforces a point-of-view toward the British colonization of India that comes off as myopic, and, frankly, a little too old-fashioned for comfort.”

If there’s any reason for me to watch this film, it’d only be to support Fazal in the hopes that my watching the film would keep Hollywood interested in him and could eventually propel him to other American films. Fazal has already starred in Furious 7, which has cemented him as an international star, but a film like Victoria and Abdul could push him even further in the stratosphere. Fazal himelf seems to agree.

“I definitely feel they [Hollywood] have an eye and they have a democratic eye for talent. We’re making some great stuff here as well,” said Fazal to News18.com. “I speak for a lot of Indian actors—the new actors and the actors who have been there and doing their job and who [are] far better than so many others, that yes, Hollywood is opening up and globalizing.”

“I’m not giving them credit because they were closed up for a long time themselves but I think now because they follow protocols, they know they can’t mess with stuff. They can’t have a blonde play a Chinese woman! James Bond today can be a black person playing or a person of any colour playing. They’ve become open to that world.

What would be great if there could be a film exploring the life of Abdul as a person instead of the role he played in Queen Victoria’s life, as if he’s a talking object. However, maybe Victoria and Abdul is the launching pad for Fazal in a number of exciting roles, such as James Bond, a Star Wars Jedi, or anyone else that has been relegated to white Hollywood. So it goes.

Victoria and Abdul will be in theaters in NY and LA September 22, and will expand to more theaters September 29 and October 2.

Loved this article? Follow JUST ADD COLOR at @COLORwebmag and on Facebook!

Review: “Still Star-Crossed” is fun, needs to find its mojo to be even better

Lashana Lynch as Rosaline. (ABC/Manu Trillo)

Synopsis (IMDB): A period drama that picks up where the famous story of Romeo and Juliet leaves off, charting the treachery, palace intrigue, and ill-fated romances of the Montagues and Capulets in the wake of the young lovers’ tragic fate. Based on the book by Melinda Taub.

My thoughts: Okay, so first things first, I like the bare bones this show has to offer. There’s a good story here and, seeing how apparently well-loved the YA novel it’s based on is, it has all of the elements there for the adapting. Basically, it should be a slam-dunk. “Should” being the operative word.

I’m going to start with the positives. I’ve talked about how people of color should be in more historical fiction, from books to TV to movies. The big draw Still Star-Crossed has for me is that its a show filled with people of color in Shakespeare’s classic story, Romeo and Juliet. Lashana Lynch stars as our heroine Rosaline Capulet, who lives with her sister Livia (Ebonee Noel) in the home of their uncle Lord Silvestro Capulet (Anthony Head) and hateful aunt Lady Guiliana Capulet (Zuleikha Robinson). In an effort to end the violence that only increased after the elopement and deaths of Romeo (Lucien Laviscount) and Juliet (Clara Rugaard), Prince Escalus (Sterling Sulieman) proclaims that Rosaline should marry her blood enemy, Benvolio Montague (Wade Briggs), the son of Lord Damiano Montague (the scene-chewing Grant Bowler, who seems to know and embrace the type of campy show he’s in).

Sterling Sulieman (ABC/Manu Trillo)

Lynch, Noel, Laviscount, Sulieman, and Medalion Rahimi as Prince Escalus’ sister Princess Isabella cement the series as one that will frequently showcase various POC in roles they rarely get in Hollywood. On that level alone, Still Star-Crossed is important. We as an audience need to see more men and women of other ethnicities in roles like this to help erase the “history is white” narrative we’ve learned throughout our lives. History is not only full of white folks; it’s full of all kinds of people, making their marks in the world.

If I had to compare Still Star-Crossed to anything other than the costume BBC drama it’s analogous for, it’d be the 1997 Cinderella adaptation. I, like many black girls, loved it because a black girl finally got to be the princess for once. But I also liked it because there were so many different people playing roles they wouldn’t ordinarily get. Anyone could literally be anything, from the royal family to a random townsperson. That was cool.

Of course, one of the biggest complaints people had about that adaptation is “How are these people related to each other?” Again, this could be seen as a positive–I’m sure Cinderella spoke to many adopted kids or kids in blended families in which there were racial differences. The same goes for Still Star-Crossed; there are families in which race isn’t defining factor, and that means a lot in the conversation about how media can better portray families with a mix of racial backgrounds.

However, even though I am putting my weight behind this show, I am hoping that it gets its act together, speaking bluntly. Like I said, there are a lot of fun historical fiction tropes that would be right at home on a “traditional” historical fiction show like the critically-lauded (but actually spottily-written) Downton Abbey. However, just like how I came down on Downton Abbey for its infuriatingly precious treatment of Lady Mary and it’s stagnant dialogue (i.e. how many times did characters in love say, “Shut up and kiss me”? AARRGGHH!!!), I have to throw the book at Still Star-Crossed for is choppy script and even choppier transitions.

Medalion Rahimi (ABC/Manu Trillo)

I feel like as a pilot, Still Star-Crossed suffers from severe Pilot-itis. What I mean is that it wants to impress so badly that it falters on basic pacing and even basic characterization. Escalus and Rosaline love each other, because….why? What kind of characterization does Isabella have? What’s her motivation? How did Livia escape the melee at the funeral? These things are important to the story, but they’re glossed over.

I don’t know where the book drops us in the story since I haven’t read (I didn’t even know about it until this show came out). But from where I’m sitting, it seem that it would have made a lot more sense to just start Still Star-Crossed at the moment Romeo and Juliet die. For the most part, we already know the story of Romeo and Juliet, or at least, we know the important parts–two kids die of dueling families because their love is forbidden. Since we know they’re dead at the end of the Shakespearean story, why not just start at the moment of the funeral? Then we’d have more time to spend with Escalus and Isabella, understand more of their motivations and Escalus’ background with Rosaline, have quick flashbacks to the roles Benvolio and Rosaline played in Romeo and Juliet’s elopement, etc. etc. Also, maybe the will-they-won’t-they romance-ish thing the show’s trying to set up with Rosaline and Benvolio could have more grounding? IDK, but those are my thoughts.

At the very least, it’d be great if the show decided AGAINST those weird transitions. The zooming into the town square during the ball, the zoom towards the palace, the awkward high angles over the city, etc.–I get that the show is trying to give us scope, but it would seem Still Star-Crossed is trying to do BBC-style presentation with a small ABC budget (not to small, mind you, since this was shot in Spain). However, just because there’s a small budget doesn’t mean that BBC-style presentation can’t happen. Even though shows like Father Brown and Call the Midwife are considered “prestige shows” by American standards, it’s not like they have lavish The Hollow Crown budgets. Yet, they still give viewers a sense of escape and production value. Still Star-Crossed has enough production value inherent in its story, filming locations, and costuming/set design without trying too hard. Adding what seem like CGI transitions make the show look more like a TV movie rather than a high production value TV show.

Lucien Laviscount (ABC/Manu Trillo)

Hopefully, the show will even out these problems and tell a much smoother story as the show goes on. Still Star-Crossed is a show that definitely deserves to be told in this way, and it definitely deserves its shot to get the story right. With Shonda Rhimes’ clout at ABC, hopefully this means ABC will give Still Star-Crossed the time it needs to shake off its rough edges.

NBC Bringing Underground Railroad Miniseries to TV with EP Stevie Wonder

There’s been a little rumbling going ’round about BET’s upcoming event series, “The Book of Negroes,” which I’m really excited about, but that’s not the only slave-based miniseries coming to TV. The Hollywood Reporter is stating that NBC has announced they’re developing a miniseries about The Underground Railroad based on Forbidden Fruit: Love Stories From the Underground Railroad by Betty DeRamus. But the biggest surprise withiin this surprise is that Stevie Wonder (!) is an executive producer.