| Reviewer Roundup |
| 1. |
 | Dragan Antulov |
 | review follows |
 |    |
| 2. |
| Brian Koller |
| read the review |
|    |
|
Review by Dragan Antulov
3 stars out of 4
Some films are remembered for the wrong reason. Case in
question is GANDHI, 1982 epic by Richard Attenborrough, a
movie which slipped from everyone's memory, except for the
rabid Spielberg fans, who never forgave Academy's snubbing of
E.T. The author of this review, on the other hand,
encountered another GANDHI-related outrage. But this time,
the man outraged was the old critic who lives in my home
town and who was deeply disturbed and saddened by an article
written by one of his young hot shot colleagues. According
to the article, GANDHI shouldn't have won the Oscars, but,
instead of praising E.T. like almost anybody else, the young
critic said that CONAN THE BARBARIAN, violent fantasy epic
by John Millius deserved "Oscars" more than GANDHI. The old
critic was shocked to see someone preferring film that
praises questionable Nietzschean values instead of epic with
the positive message of non-violence and religious
tolerance. The author of this review agrees with the young
critic; Millius in fact did make better film than
Attenborrough. On the other hand, I can sympathise with the
old critic, especially after some most unpleasant historical
experiences that enforced the need for more Gandhis in this
world. This little anecdote illustrates one of the biggest
problems that any critic can find with GANDHI - whether to
appraise the movie strictly by artistic standards, or by the
messages that it may carry to the audience.
The movie deals with biography of Mohandas Karamchand
Gandhi, one of the greatest and most influential men of the
20th Century. Film follows the most important parts of his
biography, beginning with Gandhi as Hindu lawyer in South
Africa. After experiencing racism towards Indian immigrants,
Gandhi assembles his countrymen and begins fight for equal
rights, making that the first non-violent campaign of
passive resistance. After his first political victory,
Gandhi returns to India where he would lead the peaceful
movement to liberate that country from centuries of British
rule. Under his leadership, the Indian independence movement
would adopt the strategy of non-violence that would later
prove to be the unsolvable problem to the British. During
the course of years, there would be bloodshed and setbacks,
but at the end India would acquire the independence.
Unfortunately, Gandhi's charisma wasn't strong enough to
bridge the widening gaps between India's two main religious
communities - majority Hindus and minority Muslims. Gandhi
was forced to witness his country partitioning into India
and Pakistan, and the indescribable violence that followed.
Desperately trying to stop the slaughter, Gandhi fell from
the hands of a Hindu fanatic.
Richard Attenborrough, British actor and director
specialised for biographies of great historical figures or
movies about important historical events, prepared more than
a two decades for this film. The film is dedicated to the
two great historical figures that didn't live to see
fulfilment of that dream - Gandhi's comrade and future
Indian statesman Jawaharlal Nehru and last British viceroy
of India Lord Mountbatten (both of those characters appear
in the film). The sheer amount of time and energy invested
in this film was enough to brand it "larger than life".
These days, that phrase is reserved for the movies that
contain big pyrotechnics, special effects and hardly
anything else. In good old days, that GANDHI helps to
recreate, movie "larger than life" meant the movie that
possessed an inner greatness and that engaged viewers'
emotions in order to make them sit through the three hour
experience. Despite Attenborrough clearly not being able to
cover Gandhi's life and personality in its entirety (the
fact that the author admitted in the credits), this film
achieves that. Through those three hours we are indeed
engrossed with the events and feel the strength of Gandhi's
character and his ideals.
One of the reasons for that is the main lead. Hardly any
actor in the history of the movies managed to achieve such
identification with the character, as Ben Kingsley did with
Gandhi. That identification was so strong that even the
Indian extras during the shooting used to fall on their
knees like they were dealing with the real Gandhi instead of
the actor. Kingsley was good in that role - he made us feel
his triumphs, his doubts and finally his personal tragedy in
the end of the film. All other actors were shadowed by him -
giants like Trevor Howard or John Gielgud are reduced to wax
cameos. On the other hand, some Indian actors had
opportunity to excel, because their characters were more
developed - Rohini Hattagandy is good as Gandhi's wife
Kasturba, Roshan Seth is very believable Nehru, while Saeed
Jaffrey even brings some comic relief as Gandhi's comrade
Sardar Patel. Unfortunately, Attenborrough was forced to
ignore some of the Indian characters in favour of Western
ones, mostly in order to bring the character of Gandhi
closer to the Western audience. So, some of the very
important episodes of the film are seen through the eyes of
American reporters - played by Martin Sheen and Candice
Bergen.
The other major flaw of this film lies in the fact that the
biography of one man, no matter how important and grand,
can't substitute the history of a nation. The screenwriter
John Briley chose to concentrate on Gandhi solely, so in
many instances the complex history of India under British
rule was simplified or ignored. Such problems become
especially visible in the second part of the film, where the
independence struggle suddenly turns into senseless
religious slaughter. The film also lacks the proper
antagonist, necessary for any drama. British are presented
as series of clueless and incompetent bureaucrats; the only
exception is Ali Jinnah, Muslim politician who would become
the first leader of Pakistan (played by Alyque Padamsee).
The film authors implicitly blame him for the partition, and
such impression is given by confronting his manners of upper
class politician with the simple virtues of Gandhi.
Screenplay also failed to address the differences Gandhi and
Nehru had in their visions of India's future - the film
authors take Gandhi's views about Indian rural utopia for
granted. On the other hand, such omissions can be justified;
the film is powerful anyway, and making Gandhi's story more
complex would just alienate the viewers. And the world,
which would mark half a century without Gandhi in couple of
weeks, really needs this film.
Copyright © 1998 Dragan Antulov
|