Wajid Ali-Shah, the king of Oudh, India’s
“bastion of Muslim culture”, where this film is set, is prompted to wonder whether there
is another monarch in the world at that time whose subjects delight in singing the songs of their
ruler’s composing. His soul searching on the subject of good rulers begins when he learns
that the “Company”, short for the East India Company, and
synonymous with English rule, intend to assume power over his dominion. In fact,
the Company already hold de facto
power, and his kingship is merely an artefact of an earlier treaty
that established “eternal friendship” between the Nawab rulers of Oudh and the rulers
of England.
Early in the proceedings, we learn how this friendship has been manifested over
the years in Oudh’s supplying to the Company
whatever it feels it needs to finance its ventures all over the Indian
subcontinent, and the English condoning the Nawab's kingship of Oudh in return. Such
historical facts underpin the whole story, and the chess players of the title
have their own story line that complements the larger political issues taking place,
the game of chess itself - "The game of kings, the king of games" - is employed as a clever way to tie all the various
strands together.
The filmmakers take a multmedia approach in their
storytelling. Pythonesque animated sequences are used alongside historical
documents and paintings. Music, dance, dress and locations all seem genuine, as
do the customs, of both the Company and the Indians, and those customs that
pertained to the occasions of their official meetings. A narration acts to give
another perspective from which to view unfolding events. The cast of characters is chiefly made up of
the ruling-classes of both nations. The chess players are wealthy landowners
from the wealthy kingdom
of Oudh. Wrapped up in
their constant gaming like the comfortable drapery of their expensive robes, they
are successfully portrayed as distinct characters that share a strong trait of assumed
self-importance that they perhaps do not merit. Much of the story pertains to
the character of the king, Wajid Ali-Shah. Historical documents that
suggest he was a “bad” king, particularly the Sleeman report, which the Company
used as moral support for their one-sided revocation of a key treaty, are
somewhat at odds with other sources, which tend to suggest that he was loved by
his subjects. The evidence here is similarly mixed but, when the dust has
settled, the opinion we’ve formed is basically favourable.
Some aspects of the editing are not on the same level as
other aspects of the filmmaking, and the pace might be a little on the
leisurely side. Richard Attenborough, who plays General Outram, tasked with helping
to bring about the abdication of the king gets the character but botches the
accent. However, if this is the most wrong with a movie, that means there is a
lot here to recommend.
archive h☼me