This was a film released in the U.K. just after World War 2 when those of us living there, in a rather battered and sometimes depressing post war environment, had become used to a long series of gritty B/W wartime films, and were more than ready to be blown away by the atmosphere and colour in this film. It has been a treasured memory ever since, and I watch it quite regularly; but I have never commented on it here in case this background might have distorted my artistic appreciation. Now, more than 60 years after its release, I am an octogenarian and believe I can put this concern aside.
I find it sad to think that the vast majority of the people I know today were born long after this film was released and, if they have heard of it at all, they think of it as one of the old classics which are virtually never watched today - like for example "Gone with the Wind" or even "Intolerance" or "Hypocrites". Unfortunately many lesser 'classic films' achieved this status because they pioneered some technological innovation which was quickly accepted by the entire movie industry - the films themselves were often little better than garbage, so movie fans who hired copies from rental outlets often developed an aversion to such classics. This has seriously affected public interest in what I would term the true classics - films where the viewing experience itself was sufficiently intense and memorable to warrant their designation as a classic.
If I were asked to identify one feature which alone marks a film as a true classic, it would be a visual experience that transports the viewer into the world portrayed in the film so convincingly that he or she becomes oblivious to faults, whether in the costumes, the acting, the sets, the camera work, the editing, the dialogue, or the remainder of the sound track including (if any) the score. With such films the viewer undergoes a memorable experience. Books and stage plays can occasionally provide a similar experience, but the greater realism of the cinema usually makes it much more intense. Throughout the history of movies this has remained characteristic of films that carry the mark of a true classic. Laurence Olivier's Henry V was the first film of this type which I ever saw and Black Narcissus was the second.
BN is a film about an Anglican community of nuns serving in a remote area of the Himalayas in Northern India. Both the Mission building and the scenery providing the background to it were shown with a hard edged realism that quickly made one realize the enormous stresses to which the characters soon became subject. Much later, when I read that this was in fact not location filming but a very polished Pinewood Studio production, I found it almost impossible to believe. Even with today's technological advances, including such recent developments as computerised visuals, there are few if any films that can surpass the visual imagery Jack Cardiff achieved here. The photography was superb for its time, and continues to provide a lesson for modern film makers who have so many more resources to play with. But the film did not achieve it greatness from this alone. Acting is always controversial, but critics were almost united in their praise for the acting in this film - I have watched it many times and have still not experienced any sequences which seriously jar my appreciation of it. The last time I played my well used copy was just after Jean Simmon's recent death, which brought this film back to mind again and indirectly has probably led me to pen these comments. Jean was superb in a small part as Kanchi, a local girl who caught the eye of one of the local Indian Princes, played by Sabu in what was probably his finest role. It's star was Deborah Kerr who excelled in an award winning part as Sister Clodagh the leader of the mission, strongly backed up by Kathleen Byron with a superb performance as Sister Ruth whose sanity was gradually undermined by the surroundings - ultimately with disastrous results for the entire community.
Films of this quality released so long ago make it is very difficult to view most modern films without a feeling of disappointment, and impossible to even watch much of the rubbish which is promoted as the latest and the best today. For me, we are rapidly approaching a stage where there are a few hundred films readily available on DVD that completely surpass almost everything which is currently produced. I have just read reviews of the half dozen new films that are being released in my area this week, and cannot but question why I should watch any of these new offerings when I have copies of several films which will provide a far better viewing experience sitting on my shelf? This viewpoint is becomes increasingly common among serious film-goers. Before long the industry will be forced to face the choice of whether to abandon any pretense to artistic merit and concentrate solely on productions that have their maximum appeal for an increasingly limited audience, or to stop its mad rush to produce more such rubbish and re-think the role it should play in providing artistic entertainment in a 21st century world. Hopefully there are signs that an increasing number of independent film makers are beginning to do just this.
I rate Black Narcissus at a very solid 9 stars and cannot recommend it too strongly. DVD's are still readily available, I doubt if this will be true of Avatar in 60 years time.
