TORONTO – On Nov. 26, 2008 a major terrorist attack hit the city of Mumbai, India. If you lived in the United States you heard about it, but despite the fact there were American victims, it was a secondary story in the wake of the historic presidential election the nation had experienced just a few weeks earlier. This event was a significant moment in recent Indian history, and the fact the tragedy has been given a cinematic treatment is perhaps the most positive aspect of “Hotel Mumbai,” which premiered at the 2018 Toronto International Film Festival last week.
Based on the 2009 documentary “Surviving Mumbai” by Victoria Midwinter Pitt and adapted by screenwriter John Collee and director Anthony Maras, the movie is a fictionalized account of the events that took place at the famed Taj Mahal Palace Hotel. On the night of Nov. 26, 10 terrorists from an Islamic terrorist group based in Pakistan systematically began strikes on 12 locations in the city. Eventually, a number of them made it to the Hotel where they killed 31 people over four days and kept many hostages while more hid throughout the hotel. There was much controversy at the time over the Indian government’s inability to get a military force to Dubai for an extraordinary amount of time. Credit the filmmakers making sure you don’t forget it.
READ MORE: “A Million Little Pieces” is still full of James Frey’s lies [TIFF Review]
Maras and Collee bring you into the story in a pretty conventional manner by introducing you to some of the employees and guests and hoping you’ll be given enough color to connect with them when things turn ugly. Dev Patel is Arjun, a soon-to-be father who works as a butler in the hotel and desperate to keep his job. His boss is Hemant, played by Anupam Kher, who is strict, but compassionate enough to let Arjun borrow his shoes so he won’t be docked a day’s pay. The hotel visitors include David and Zahara, a couple played by Armie Hammer and Nazanin Boniadi, who in Mumbai to meet her wealthy parents together for the first time. Their newborn baby is looked after by their nanny Sally played by Tilda Cobham-Hervey who just seems thrilled to be there. There’s also Jason Isaacs throwing on a rough accent as Vasili, an uncouth Russian billionaire that puts on wild parties every time he stays at the establishment. The actors do their best (notably Patel and Kher), but there isn’t time to create much depth for their characters before the attack begins in earnest.
The most affecting aspect of “Hotel Mumbai” is how Maras handles and stages said attacks. He shoots them in a conventional manner (no Paul Greengrass shaky camera or long non-cut takes), but his depiction is so brutal it is unnerving. In fact, as the picture goes on it simply becomes too brutal. There’s a line for an audience between conveying the true horror of what occurred and being excessive and Maras barely avoids the latter. There are very few times when Maras lets the killing occur off camera (which can be harrowing in and of itself) and it simply becomes numbing. You cannot argue, however, that both he and his editor, Peter McNulty, show deft skill in cinematically splicing it all together.
What is most disturbing about “Mumbai” is the strange depiction of the terrorists themselves. One, in particular, is shown speaking to his father on the phone and holding back tears when he’s told the money the terrorist organization promised his family hasn’t arrived. It’s a strange juxtaposition to convey that some of these killers (34 people were murdered at the Hotel) deserve sympathy because they carried off these attacks for financial means. There is clearly no justification for their actions, but it’s such a bizarre and frustrating choice. Especially considering this particular character’s actions later on.
As the body count grows the film begins to feel manipulative. Especially a thread focused on the fate of David and Zahara’s baby. Whether that particular aspect of the story is true or not (it’s unclear) it’s inclusion seems only to push buttons in a traditional Hollywood narrative.
In the long run, however, the film isn’t about the guest’s survival it’s about how an admirable staff stood by to help them eventually escape. A title card sequence at the end celebrates the fact the hotel is still open for business (it cooperated with the production) and some of the employees who experienced the attack are still there. Instead of eliciting a moving or joyous response it feels somewhat off-putting. And that certainly could not be what Maras or Collee had in mind. [C+]
Check out all our coverage from the 2018 Toronto International Film Festival here.
