Gandhi (1982)

First to understand Gandhi's principles you must read his autobiography. He has admitted in his book that he was having sex while his father was dying. He admitted this when he was known as Mahatma (a great soul). Who can dare to admit such a thing. He vowed that he will never lie in his life. Is it possible for you and me not to lie in life? He took vow about his cloths and wore same cloths (he was half naked in those cloths) while he was in London in winter!!! Just imagine a freedom fight against Britain without any kind of weapon or violence!!! And he was successful. He gave freedom to India without any army. In fact his principles should be followed in today's world. I must say this movie was not enough to describe his principle. He was more than movie GANDHI. No body can capture his principles in a movie. For me he is like GOD because of his principles.

GANDHI: " My life is my message". " I have nothing new to teach this world, truth and non- violence are as old as hills".

Fmovies: Picture this. Gandhiji walks in a court, accused of influencing the people and starting a movement, the Non Cooperation movement, immediately after Gandhiji broke the fast he started to curb the movement which had assumed violence after Chauri Chora. We walks in alone, unescorted and as soon as he walks in there is an unexplainable silence in the court, and to everyone's surprise the Judge, stands up in respect of the accused ! Seeing him do this the barristers and rest also stand up. This scene though may seem insignificant on paper is one without which this entire movie would have been incomplete. To know whyÂ…Â…read on !

On day of 2nd October they play this movie every year on DD National, Richard Attenborough's Gandhi. I never watched it whenever it was shown since 20 years of 2nd Octobers I had seen. The first few years because I couldn't understand and the next few because I felt that though it's a multiple Oscar winner, how could at the end of the day, a British person understand and do justice to an Indian icon ? After so many years I finally broke the ice and saw the movie in totality right from the first scene of Nathuram Godse, to Hey Ram, and I understood that Gandhi was as British, as much a part of Britain's history as he was of India's, in fact an outsider judged the person better than we ourselves could, hence without doubt this is a masterpiece, because it was always meant to be.

Richard Attenborough like all directors worth their salt uses visual aid as a medium to replace conventional dialogue delivery at times. A picture is worth a thousand words and a scene without words is worth a million. Like the first scene I described and others. In one scene towards the end of the movie, Gandhiji starts a fast until death to stop the communal riots post independence and Nehru goes to meet him. A crowd had gathered near his residence and one of the person in the crowd shouted a suggestion, 'Why don't they kill Gandhi ?', Nehru furiously jumps into the crowd to search for this person and the camera moves in the crowd and for a briefest time and quite unmistakably you spot Nathuram Godse in the crowd. This made me think, 'hey this is what I call good cinema!'.

So what about the outsider theory ? Well you see if Rajkumar Santoshi, Yash Chopra, Raj Kapoor or Mani Ratnam had made this movie they would have fallen under the pressure and the unbearably weight of historical facts, Richard had that advantage. Someone quite ignorant about Indian culture was telling a story of an Indian to an audience even more ignorant. What I mean is that there are things which are skewed up, characters gone wrong and famous words mouthed by someone else. For example the writer has messed the character of the Patel Siblings. Vallabhbhai Patel was never an extrovert and never as polished as shown in the movie, but someone else was and it was his more Birtish, yet less famous elder brother Vithalbhai who in fact introduced Vallabh to Indian movement. Again it is a known fact that Vallabhai continued the Dandi march after Gandhi's arrest, the fact which is ignored. Once again the characters of Kriplani, Maulana Azad etc are all skewed. But at the end of it works, why, because Richard's view is focused. I would notice these mistakes because I am an Indian aware of this, a person in England may never find out and even if he does he would consider it as trivial because this is a story of Gandhi and not the Indian freedom struggle. People say that unnecessary importance is given

This is one that absolutely must go on everyone's "must see" list. One of the truly greatest movies ever made. For those who found it "boring" or "too long," you folks need to just stick to stuff like "Star Wars," "Terminator," "Spiderman," or perhaps reality TV would be more your cup of tea.

For those who like to actually see real human history come to life on the screen, "Gandhi" is a true masterpiece for all times. A excellent summary of one of the greatest and most interesting lives of the 20th. century!

I find it odd that aside from a fine performance in "Shindler's List," that Ben Kingsley has really been a major disappointment as an actor following his role as "Gandhi." Perhaps like George C. Scott in "Patton," he was destined to play just one truly great role as an actor. And this was it!

For those who keep mentioning that Kingsley is "English," well, yes he is, but he is also "Anglo-Indian." His father is from India. In fact his father was born in the same small sea-coast town as Mahatma Gandhi! While filming the movie in the small towns of rural India, there were those older people who actually remembered seeing the original Gandhi who collapsed in shock when they saw Kingsley in his makeup. Hundreds became convinced that he actually was the Mahatma, returned! Also interesting is that Kingsley was born just after the asassination of Gandhi. I mean that's just a tad spooky, no....?

Gandhi fmovies. Thinking back, I suppose I have now seen many (sometimes good) films that follow the same recipe: One man makes a difference.

But this film is an exception in so many ways:

1) It was made in 1982, so it came before many of them.

2) It has amazingly well-displayed historical significance.

3) Great performances in a near-flawless, frank scrpit.

This film does not bother the viewer with an opening montage of scenes of the main character at various ages ("Dragon", I'm looking at you). This is an amazing film that anyone of any religion, race, or nationality can and should appreciate. With its subtle relevance to today's situations in that part of the world, this is a history buff must-see.

Watch this film and see great performances (an obvious oscar went to Ben Kingsly), excellent cinematography, and a wonderful inspiring story, whose essence soars well above the corny, do-gooder mentality of other pitiful efforts of "bio-pics".

10/10

The life of the legendary man from India (dominant Oscar-winner Ben Kingsley, who was a total unknown theatrical newcomer at the time) who gave up work as an attorney to defy British rule throughout the first half of the 20th Century before falling to an assassin's bullet in 1948. Long, opulent, breath-taking and completely memorable take on one of the most important historical figures the world has ever known. Oscar-winning director Richard Attenborough obviously studied David Lean's epic film-making masterpieces from the 1950s and 1960s as we have similarities galore with "The Bridge on the River Kwai" and much more importantly "Lawrence of Arabia". An all-star cast of very old-time Hollywood legends (John Gielgud, Trevor Howard, John Mills) and relative newcomers who were on the rise (Candice Bergen, Martin Sheen, Edward Fox, Nigel Hawthorne and a super quick glance of a very young Daniel Day-Lewis) blend in a desert landscape of cinematic brilliance. Make no mistake of it though, "Gandhi" works because of Kingsley as he weaves a colorful tapestry of cinematic performing ungodliness with a totally convincing take on his role and the complex subject matter. Running nearly 190 minutes, "Gandhi" still just uses flash-points to under-score the importance and significance of the major topics within. Those familiar with advanced world history will likely get more out of the film, but still a movie whose glitter continues to shine as bright as ever. 5 stars out of 5.

In her diary entry of Saturday, February 27, 1943, Anne Frank wrote in passing (translated from the Dutch): "The freedom-loving Gandhi of India is holding his umpteenth fast."

It's a comment at once mildly comical and respectfully admiring, one I think the Mahatma would have appreciated with a twinkle and a laugh. He and Miss Frank are linked with the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., as the civil rights spokesperson-giants of the 20th century. And civil rights, and the reversal of the institutionalized violation of the same, are a large part of what the last century's politics were all about. Movie viewers are apt to find in the diary remark a distillation of their experience of the Richard Attenborough film. A recommendation is that it be followed by rentals of Saving Private Ryan and The Long Walk Home, which together convey the investment put into the respective causes the trio represented.

At the beginning of Gandhi we confront these words: "No man's life can be encompassed in one telling. There is no way to give each year its allotted weight, to include each event, each person who helped to shape a lifetime. What can be done is to be faithful in spirit to the record, and to try to find one's way to the heart of the man...."

John Briley's screenplay accomplishes that faithfulness, and one probably has to be a scholar of the subject to sort out what is his and what is Gandhi's. Not that it really is of relevance, given what we learn from the movie about the value of eclecticism. Looking out over the bay at Porbandar, Gandhi (Ben Kingsley) tells Walker (Martin Sheen): "The temple where you were yesterday is of my family's sect, the Pranami. It was Hindu of course, but the priests used to read from the Muslim Koran and the Hindu Gita, moving from one to the other as though it mattered not at all which book was read as long as God was worshipped." In a preceding scene, similarly, confronted by young toughs on a South African street, Gandhi defends for his Christian friend Charlie (Ian Charleson) the New Testament intelligence of turning the other cheek. A worried Charlie states, "I think perhaps the phrase was used metaphorically. I don't think our Lord meant...," and is interrupted by a movie shot of the approaching menace. Gandhi replies calmly, "I'm not so certain. I have thought about it a great deal. I suspect he meant you must show courage--be willing to take a blow--several blows--to show you will not strike back--nor will you be turned aside.... And when you do that it calls upon something...that makes...hate for you diminish and...respect increase. I think Christ grasped that and I...have seen it work."

The script is replete with these kinds of memorable words, and with others that reflect its subject's political acumen and strategical cleverness.

Kingsley is sublime in the lead role. Saeed Jaffrey, Roshan Seth, and Alyque Padamsee do well as Gandhi's pro-independence collaborators. Ditto, Athol Fugard ("Assuming we are in agreement?") and John Gielgud ("Salt?") as two of his adversaries. Charleson, in his clerical collar, looks like he has walked in off the set of the preceding year's Academy Award winner, Chariots of Fire (where he played the Scottish sprinter-missionary, Eric Liddell).

This movie won eight Oscars, with Attenborough, Briley, and Kingsley all earning honors. No other film biography I ever have seen works so well. It