Movies-TV

An update of "The Emporer's New Clothes"

The more I think about the injustices of the British, the more disturbed I feel. I'm referring to the modern British movie makers, not the Victorian imperialists. I understand that it's considered something of a sacrilege to say anything negative about this movie, given the piles of awards and volumes of praise it has received, but then sometimes it's one's moral duty to be sacreligious.

The film "Gandhi" shows a lack of imagination--I don't mean the type of imagination that creates fantasies, but the type that can create a plausible reality. From the earliest scenes, the film makers present Gandhi as a saint in full bloom. We see nothing of his develpment as a person--or as a saint, for that matter, except that he grows older during the movie. He is a plastic, glow-in-the-dark dashboard ornament who displays no worse behavior (during his ENTIRE LIFE, we are supposed to believe) than a few moments of mild anger at his wife, behavior that is immediately mellowed by the romantically misty photography and a soulful look or two from the protagonists. (Gandhi and his wife--now THAT would have been a movie!)

The baddies in the film are every bit as perfect (i.e., stereotyped) in their way as the good guys. Get a load of the leering Simon Legree who seems to be masterminding the assassination, for example. I wonder that the director refrained from having the actor twirl his moustaches as he nodded encouragement to the assassin.

Even India looks phony, as if the whole thing were filmed in Beverly Hills. The bits of carefully applied blood and dirt that are shown are reminiscent of the plastic lepers in "Papillon" or Jeffrey Hunter's shaved armpits in the crucifixion scene of "King of Kings." I'm not asking for hair or dirt or sloppy human emotions because I especially like to see those things. It's just that there's something spiritually twisted--dirty, even--about so carefully sanitizing this story.

The movie makers couldn't even let an Indian play the main role. They must have figured that no audience would sit still to watch a big-eared, hook-nosed, scrawny little brown man for three and a half hours. If true, this says something about the movie makers' faith in their subject. In fact, Gandhi in his photos looks interesting; Mr. Kingsley as Gandhi looks like Mr. Kingsley made up to look like Gandhi. Maybe having an Englishman play the role was England's way of rewriting history to show that She (England) wasn't so bad after all? Sure: Gandhi was at heart just a fine English gentleman, an elegantly handsome English gentleman who shaved and painted his head, rouged his cheeks and powdered his very carefully coiffed moustache. (Maybe Mr. K is an Indian, or part Indian. I don't know. But the point is that he is an actor who needs to be made up to look like an Indian.) One begins to think that such movies are made by blind people, for blind people. And one is reminded of the emporer's new clothes. Do movie makers suppose that audiences can't SEE make-up? Are movie makers that sure of the corruption of our senses as they clearly are of the corruption of our sensibilities?

Why won't movie makers (and other Sunday school teachers) give us a holy man who is also a person? (Well, okay, Pasolini tried once.) If goodness is finally unattainable by mere mortals, then what IS the point of the Gandhi story, or the Jesus story, or any story? If these figures were perfectly detached and ethereal beings, if they had to be worshipped, then they have nothing to do with our real lives on this planet. We might as well go on worshipping Mammon.

It is not a totally bad movie. The truths of Gandhi's actions, of his "beliefs" did shine through the triteness. (But again, if those truths were not in each of us before the movie started, and if holy men are not men, our existence is indeed a sorry joke.) And I did enjoy for a while the scene in which Gandhi first meets with the other Indian leaders. They looked and acted like a bunch of dessicated old queens who had run out of ways to be decadent. At last, I thought, we get some individual detail, some quirky personality. But wouldn't you guess that Gandhi would have them whipped into moral rectitude by the end of the scene?

Maybe we will remember and re-view this movie in much the same spirit that we now watch such past "epic achievements" as "The Ten Commandments," "Ben-Hur" or "King of Kings"--as corny, hackneyed, kitschy spectacles with ocassional flashes of real talent. Maybe not quite: "Gandhi" is a better movie than those. The acting is better. The photography and direction are better. It is well put together: an exciting Hollywood adventure story (even if not made in Hollywood).

Ronald Reagan once said, "Film is forever." If he had been telling the truth (try imagining THAT), he might have said instead, "Hollywood is everywhere." No, thank God (or whatever), film is not forever. It is a transparent, brittle, easily distorted and destroyed medium. It is also by far the most fragile--and the crudest--of art forms. It should be, has to be, handled with care. If nothing else, "Gandhi" proves semanticists wrong: perfection is relative. The movie "Gandhi" is made imperfect by its failure to portray imperfections.

"I'm not sorry at all"

I'm not sorry at all I seen this movie its Brilliant.The nostalgic vibe this film gave to me was incredible it was amazing.The whole sense of Gandhi trying to unite Hindu,Muslim and Sikh was as real then as it is now.

One of the best movies i've ever seen

This is a telling of the late passive-resistance Indian man known as Gandhi. The movie tells a good story of his life, in the time allotted. I was disapointed how the ending was given right away, leaving no surprise to those who know not about his life, however it would have had to go on further had the ending stopped at his death without telling you first about it. A fine movie. Watch it, it will make you question your ways just as Gandhi made the British question theirs many years ago.

Most beatiful song of peace

Ghandi, is the very important pace-man of the century, and the movie is the great tribute of hard labour of a little-big man. Thank por make a film about this. thank again.

Good Film

The Great Mind of Sir.Richard Attenborough brings this film.I really felt the Pressence of Ben Kingsley as Gandhi.the film starts off strongly.Gandhi in this film is Portrayed as a Kindred Spirit of Dr.Martin Luther King.

His spirit lives on forever

This movie was vibrant; full of all the emotions that people all over the world have felt as a result of the big-headedness of the British and their deteriorated crown. I don't condemn the British, that would surely be immature. But their history (or lack thereof) is another story. Jai Hind.

Gandhi

This movie is a story of a simple man who changed the world with his moral and willpower. He showed to the world that truth, morals and nonviolence are the most powerful weapons.

Great Film

This is one of the great movies made in the last fifty years. This movie is the kind of film that any student of history should watch. It is a good introduction to the topic of Indian Independence from Britian. It does not cover all the issues centered around Indian/Pakinstaini Independence, but it is only three hours long.

Highly recommended.

A GREAT FILM

This film, while overlooked by critics, deserves to be recognized as one of the greatest epics and biographies of all time. While some may be drawn away by the 3 hrs.+ time, this movie will keep you interested and deeply involved. The portrayal of Gandhi was done beautifully by Kingsley, who gave this epic a base for acting. I cannot reccomend this movie enough.

A compelling classic

I'll put it this way. I am 25, have the attention span of a gnat, and I was riveted for the entire 3-4 hours of this film. That says a lot. The story is fasciating and inspiring, and gave me a tremendous respect for one of the greatest people in history.

A Rich Tribute

Tracing the Mahatma's (Godly one) life backwards from his assassination was indeed a directorial masterstroke, as if attempting to explain how he came to meet with such an end. A superb movie, it offers a bird's eye view on India's war for Independence, a glimpse of forgotten greats in the war like Gokhale (shown here as Gandhi's mentor), Tilak, Sardar Patel, Kriplani and many more. Obviously intended only for those interested in India, Indians, spirituality beyond conventional religion and Gandhian philosophy, it certainly substantiates Albert Einstein's description that "Generations to come will find it difficult to believe such a man in flesh and blood walked upon this Earth". This movie proves he was infinitely more than just a "fakir in a loin cloth from India" as per one of Churchill's poor judgments.

A captivating movie about an immortal man

"Ghandi" has to be one of the best movies in history. Richard Attenborough depicts the life of the Mahatma with such brilliance that it captures the essence of why motion pictures are made. The emotional bond to this film is overwhelming even if you know the ending.

There is a difference

There is a difference between respecting Gandhi, and appreciating the merits of a film that portrays Gandhi. Keeping in mind that this film was sponsored by the government of India, we should take the cinematic facts with a grain of salt. The movie does not address at all the sense of insecurity of muslims in India, which was a great regret for Gandhi, and which culminated into overwhelming support for partition. Also, it is deplorable the way muslim leaders are portraited. Suhrawardy, the charishmaatic leader of Bengal was shown as a gangster, initiating the Calcutta riot in 1946, and coming to Gandhi with hat in hand as if asking for forgiveness. He was the one who tried with Satyen Bose to keep the country (Bengal) intact when congress leaders supported partition.

This film is full of other historical inaccuracies and a good prpaganda for Indian government riding on Gandhi's popularity all over the world.

Excellent screenplay and acting

This movie should be seen if for nothing else, for the direction, screenplay and acting. A great adaptation of a long and illustrious life into a 4 Hr. film. The Oscars are well deserved. An all time great movie.

Brilliant!!! A triumph in film making!!!!

Truly a masterpiece. The whole cast is remarkable in this tremendous story of one of the biggest and most controversial leaders of our times. The ending -which is actually the beginning- is very sad. Ben Kingsly was perfectly cast as Gandhi and mixes comedy and drama into one great and Oscar-winning role.

(Why should e listen to this reviewer from Copenhagen if he/she can't even spell "garbage"?)

this movie sucked. do not waste your time on this garbige

this movie is the worst movie I have ever seen. and the acting please

A Sheer Brilliant look into history

The movie showed in depth the struggle on an entire nation looking for freedom within their own home land. Through the film you also see the making of the Civil Rights movement in America.

Rating would be lower if not for Kingsley's performance

I have a lot of respect for Gandhi, but this movie is plagued with one sided views and historical inaccuracies. The oscars are just another instance of Hollywood's love of epics.

The film glosses over unpleasant but inconvenient facts which are not in line with the simplistic theme of the movie.

A key example is the Jallianwala Bagh (Amritsar) massacre - the film shows Gen. Dyer court martial but doesn't mention Dyer's heroes welcome on return to England. This biased portrayal completely distorts facts about how the Indians and the British felt about the event.

Gandhi's murder and the motives behind the act are not addressed, something becoming more relevant with the current rise of Hindu fundamentalism in India.

The movie wants us to believe that the best way to confront evil and win your basic rights is through non-violence. A dangerous recommendation - don't try it against the Nazis. The sub continent won its freedom not from non violence, but because it had leaders which were smarter and more determined than the politicians heading an empire reeling from the disasterous Second World War.

A powerful film with important messages about true goodness.

Gandhi is a film which gives the audience two powerful things. First, it shows the true story of how one man was able to use non-violent methods of passive resistance to drive out the English rulers, inabling India to have home rule. Second, in Gandhi's effort to unify the Muslims and Hindus of India, he teaches the audience a special lesson about the difference in religion as a person's way of serving God. He talks about seeing a religious leader reading from both the Muslim and Hindu books of worship at the same service, with the only important factor of God being worshipped. He says, "I am a Muslim. I am a Hindu. I am a Christian. I am a Jew." This shows the audience the true important lesson from Gandhi, that we should be good people and love God in our own special way.

An accurate portrayal of the life of Gandhi.

I'll keep it brief - I loved this film. I thought that every aspect of it was well portrayed, and Ben Kingsley was absolutely brilliant. The scenes were the men marched against their oppressors, only to be knocked down time & time again was tear-jerking at the least, and other scenes, such as when Gandhi fasted to attempt to preserve peace was very emotional. Wonderful.