Introduction:
Prior to selecting The Householder as our movie of choice, none of our group members were familiar with this film or knew anything about it’s story. However, because of this, it made for an interesting experience in the process of watching the film and gaining some insight about the production of the film.
The Householder, from 1963, was not only the first film by Merchant Ivory Productions, but also the first collaboration of many between Merchant Ivory Productions and writer, Ruth Prawer Jhabvala. James Ivory and Ismail Merchant first showed interest in Ruth’s novel, The Householder, in 1961, and directly proposed to make a film of her novel (Merchant). The film differs from many of the later Merchant Ivory films in that the visual landscape is rather dull and empty (though it does contribute to the film in the sense that it provides an appropriate background for the story). However, the film does possess the typical charm in storytelling that has come to be a mark of Merchant Ivory films.
Although the Special Collections Archives on campus pertaining to Ivory only had one box on The Householder, we were able to find some insightful pieces that helped us understand more about the film. Through careful analysis of these pieces we learned more about several aspects of the film’s creation, including information pertaining to production, promotion and distribution, and exhibition and reception. This research gave us a deeper appreciation, not only for this particular Merchant Ivory production, but also for filmmaking in general. More specifically, it allowed us to dig deeper into the workings of a group of young filmmakers, creating their art under low budget conditions and with limited resources at their disposal.
Synopsis: The Householder (1963; James Ivory)
Shashi Kapoor and Durga Khote
Prem Sagar, the main character in James Ivory’s film The Householder played by Shashi Kapoor, a new teacher at a college in Delhi India. Prem has recently married Indu in an arranged marriage played by Leela Naidu. Prem and Induare still learning ropes of relationships and getting to know each other, when Prem’s overbearing mother played by Durga Khote arrives at the couples house. Indu is not the traditional “woman” figure in India. She is independent and not as domesticated as Prem’s mother would like her to be. She brings many problems to the couple and greatly interferes in the relationship eventually leading Indu to leave Prem to return to the comfort of her own family. “Prem searches for answers from a variety of people, including a Swami (Pahari Sanyal), who reveals the secret of a successful marriage, as a result, he finally gains the maturity to love his wife.” (Wikipedia).
Courtney Koenig:
Throughout my findings in the Special Collections room I was able to find a wide variety of material given we only had one box of documents to look through. I primarily focused my research on distribution and production. The first document I found was a newspaper clipping from an unknown source. This document discussed The Householder being released by two corporate parts. One of those being Columbia Pictures, and one being Royal Films International. It stated that Columbia was to release the film and handle all business outside the United States, primarily meaning India. The next corporate part, Royal Films International, a wholly owned Columbia sales unit, was to distribute the film everywhere within the United States. I found this particularly interesting because I was surprised Columbia chose not to distribute the film worldwide. The next item I found was another newspaper article from The Times of India. This document gives a brief synopsis of the film but also talks a lot about James Ivory as a director. The journalist asks Ivory what it means to be a great director and he responds with charming answers. This article was written when Ivory was thirty-six which was a very pivotal time in his career. I found it interesting that Ivory talks about originally wanted to become a stage designer but ended up perusing directing after receiving his masters degree from University of Southern California. The last and probably most important document I found was a letter written by James Ivory regarding production costs. This letter explains that he and Merchant had originally budgeted to each put twenty five thousand dollars towards the film thinking that would be enough. However, this letter explains that is was not even close. Ismail had to come up with an additional one hundred and ten thousand dollars from “unknown” Indian sources and Ivory actually had to borrow fifty thousand from his own father, this was a lot of money at the time. They ran so much over budget that they decided to take the film to America to find a distributer. This is when Columbia Pictures came into the mix, eventually agreeing to distribute the film and pay any outstanding debts in India.
Paige Ott:
In the course of researching for this project, I found and focused on three different documents, one from production, one from exhibition, and one from distribution. The first is the collection of checks written by James Ivory and Ismail Merchant during the production and exhibition stages of the film. Although these checks were written over the course of the film’s production and post-production, I would consider them to be in the production category because most of the checks written were for the travelling and transportation costs incurred in the process of filming the movie on location in New Delhi. In going through the checks, the budget of the movie and the allocation of the movie became more apparent.
Leela Naidu
The second item I focused on was a review of the lead actress, Leela Naidu, by Time Out magazine. The review was a very positive one and would fall into the exhibition/reception category of research. In the review, Naidu is described as “totally unaffected, and utterly beautiful” and the film is described as an “old fashioned domestic comedy of Indian manners. marital adjustment, and clash between traditional and new” that has been movie magic’d into “a universal charmer.” Although this is only one review of the many in the research box, it is a good indicator of the positive reviews the film received.
The final item I focused on was a series of telegrams written back and forth between Ivory/Merchant and Columbia pertaining to the international distribution rights for The Householder. The letters illustrate a slow and complicated process of negotiations between the two parties and the struggles Merchant Ivory encountered during the distribution process. Many of the letters are firmly worded and it is clear that Merchant feels Columbia is not giving the film proper attention, calling them “shamelessly greedy” and seeking advise from lawyers. After much argument and debate, the final telegram reads Columbia “will pay advance and distribute in India as per contract.”
Taylor Nunez:
I chose three different pieces from the Ivory Papers pertaining to The Householder. One that relates to distribution, one to exhibition, and one to reception. The distribution piece is letter addressed to Violet Alva from L.F. Noronha. The letter expresses concern over some distribution disagreements. Merchant Ivory Production entered into two different agreements for distribution of the film: one with Colombia Films of India Ltd. to distribute in India, and one with Colombia Films International Corporation to distribute globally. However, as the letter suggests, Colombia Films of India Ltd. seemed to have disagreements with the negotiations and Noronha asks of Violet to give Ismail Merchant advice or assistance when he visits Dehli to sort out the issues. After doing some web searching, I found out that Violet Alva was an Indian lawyer and politician. However, I was not able to find clues as to the identity of Noronha. I assume he had ties in the production of the film though, because one line in the letter reads, “The fact is a lot of my own money is blocked in the production of this film over for over two years and until Colombia pays…I cannot realize my investment” (L.F. Noronha).
Another piece I looked at was an exhibition piece, and what seemed to be program sheets that profiled the film. The program is associated with the Asia Society, which is an educational organization dedicated to promoting, understanding and strengthening partnerships among people, leaders and institutions of Asia and the United States in global context across many mediums (“About Asia Society). The program was titled “Images of India: A Merchant Ivory Retrospective,” and it lists the cast and production credits, as well as an overview of the film. One highlight is that it states, “..what was really significant about “The Householder” was that for the first time Western audiences were given a glimpse of a kind of middle class life which is representative of India today…” (“Images of India”).
The last piece I looked at was a reception piece: a film review in Film and Filming magazine by Gordon Gow. This review had generally positive comments about the film. He commends Ivory for portraying a universal situation and being able to represent India to the world. At one point he states, “it is evident that Ivory is a useful link between Indian cinema and us” (“Films and Filming”).
Pedro Abdala:
There were many documents pertaining to exhibition and reception in the archives for The Householder. A thorough analysis of these documents has led to some intriguing insights on the film. The first document was a set of program notes from a screening of the film. On the header of the program notes was written “National Film Theatre Programme notes”. Based on the spelling and a brief internet search it appears that this theater must have been in London, and was therefore the location for this particular screening of The Householder. The front page consisted of basic information about the primary players in the cast and crew (National). On the back of the program notes was a review by David Robinson extracted from the Financial Times newspaper. This review of the film was very positive. The reviewer made several comparisons to Shakespeare Wallah: “like ‘Shakespeare Wallah’, The Householder has a naive quality that is altogether deceptive” (Robinson). He also praised James Ivory’s style and nuances, saying that “…the director imposes upon it a consistent and compelling warmth and feeling for locale and character” (Robinson). What is intriguing about this particular part of the document are the repeated references to Shakespeare Wallah; it seems to indicate that even though The Householder was made before Shakespeare Wallah, it was released (or at least seen by critics) after it. The second document was a review by a critic by the name of Allegra (there is no last name included in the article’s signature). This review was unfavorable towards the film. The author critized many aspects of the film, including James Ivory’s directing, Ruth Jhabvala’s writing, the camera work, the content, and the acting. One sentence from the review summarizes the author’s overall opinion of the film: “The Householder is flat, drab, dull, naive and much too nice to be true, even for the cinema” (Allegra). The third document analyzed was a review written in The Spectator newspaper. Much like the first document, this reviewer showed favorable feelings toward the film and drew several comparisons to Shakespeare Wallah. In contrast to the review by Allegra, this is what this reviewer had to say about James Ivory’s directing: “…it looks as if Mr. Ivory is managing his (perhaps rather facile) power to make us smile, weep and delight in what we see” (Quigly). She also had good comments on the writer: “it has been adapted from her own novel by Ruth Prawer Jhabvala, that excellent observer of the Indian bourgeoisie…” (Quigly). Overall, these documents allow one to develop a vision of how The Householder was received. Although there were some negative reviews, the majority of people appear to look upon the film in a positive light.
Leela Naidu and Shashi Kapoor
Conclusion:
In the production process, the letters pertaining to the production costs and the checks written over the course of the film showed the limited budget and constraints of the film, including that which came from Ivory and Merchant and their families. The article about James Ivory as a director gives us a clearer look into an important time in the young directors career and his film experience.
There was more information in The Householders research box pertaining to the distribution of the film than any of the other categories. This is mostly due to the Columbia controversy regarding the international distribution rights to the film. Much of the information and communications on this topic are seen through telegrams and are therefore very choppy and incomplete. Nevertheless,although we all found different bits of information about the negotiations between Merchant Ivory and Columbia, together we were able to come up with a clear picture of the process of difficulties, and eventually success, in distributing the film internationally.
Finally, there were many reviews from various papers and magazines, as well as program notes from a screening that provide interesting insight into the reception of the film and its impact on Bollywood cinema. Based off the pieces of reception we looked at, it’s clear to see the commending appraisal toward Ivory and his work, especially as an American director with such flair for storytelling through Indian cinema.
Work Cited:
Primary Sources
“L.F. Noronha to Ismail Merchant.” James Ivory Papers. Box 1, Folder 10. Col 283. Special Collections University Archives, University of Oregon, Eugene, Or. Accessed May. 5, 2014.
“Images of India.” James Ivory Papers. Box 1, Folder 14. Col. 283. Special COllections University Archives, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR. Accessed May. 5, 2014.
“Films and Filming review.” James Ivory Papers. Box 1, Folder 16. Col. 283. Special COllections University Archives, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR. Accessed May. 5, 2014.
“Leela Naidu.” Time Out Magazine. James Ivory Papers. Box 1, Folder 16. Coll. 283. Special Collections & University Archives, University of Oregon Libraries, Eugene, OR. 5 May, 2014,
“Letters between Ismail Merchant Productions and Columbia.” James Ivory Papers. Box 1, Folders 10-11. Coll. 283. Special Collections & University Archives, University of Oregon Libraries, Eugene, Or. 5 May, 2014.
Allegra. “Yoga, Yogurt.” Rev. of The Householder, dir. James Ivory. The Century 3 October 1964. Print. Box 1, Folder 15. Coll 283 James Ivory papers. Special Collections & University Archives, University of Oregon Libraries, Eugene, OR. 9 March 2014.
*National Film Theater Programme Notes. Print. Box 1, Folder 14. Coll 283 James Ivory papers. Special Collections & University Archives, University of Oregon Libraries, Eugene, OR. 9 March 2014.
Quigly, Isabel. “Ivory Power.” Rev. of The Householder, dir. James Ivory. Spectator 4 March 1966. Print. Box 1, Folder 15. Coll 283 James Ivory papers. Special Collections & University Archives, University of Oregon Libraries, Eugene, OR. 9 March 2014.
*Robinson, David. Rev. of The Householder, dir. James Ivory. Financial Times 25 February 1966. Print. Box 1, Folder 14. Coll 283 James Ivory papers. Special Collections & University Archives, University of Oregon Libraries, Eugene, OR. 9 March 2014.
*The article by David Robinson is included on the back of the National Film Theater Programme Notes, and thus they are actually both part of the same document.
Secondary Sources
“The Householder.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 05 July 2014. Web. 15 May 2014.
“About Asia Society.” Asia Society. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 May 2014. <http://asiasociety.org/new-york/about>.
Grant, Andrew . “Milestones in Bollywood Cinema: 1960-1965.” . About.com, 1 Jan. 2013. Web. 9 May 2014. <http://worldfilm.about.com/od/topbollywood/tp/milestones1960-1965.htm>.
Ivory, James, and Robert E. Long. James Ivory in Conversation: How Merchant Ivory Makes Its Movies. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005. Print.
Researching Merchant Ivory Films 