Gandhi

Rating:
Summary: Superb film about Britain, India, and the man in between
Review: Notwithstanding his having been a great man, Gandhi is not necessarily an example for our times. This is a beautifully made film; one of the most moving ever made, but not for its perceived "Lessons". Rather, this film is great for what makes any film great: wonderful acting (phenomenal on Mr. Kingsley's part), skilled direction, great camera cinematography, lighting, editing, and pace. The sceenplay and story, of course, are highly contributory herein, but even were this fiction the film would still qualify as a great film. It is simply a great film however you look at it. You needn't read too much into this film to enjoy it; or see in Gandhi's example, say, a panacea of sorts for our world of today. Passive non-violent resistance worked for Gandhi first in South Africa (to some extent) and then India mostly because his adversary was a civilized one. Gandhi, let's remember, basically used British law against the British themselves. He was able to succeed not simply because his cause was noble and/or because passive resistance is inherently effective. I grant you that his campaign was a brilliant one, skillfully engineered; but against most any other country save Britain, it would have only ended in his imprisonment and/or disappearance. Disregarding some fellow reviewers herein, do you honestly think a Gandhi would have had any chance resisting the likes of a Kaiser Wilhelm, Lenin, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin or even a Mugabe, Duvailier or Hussein? (How long do you think, to modernize this issue, would the Dalai Lama remain free were he to land in Tibet and attempt to lead a campaign of non-violent resistance against Red China?) I have read Gandhi's autobiography and I give him his just due. I'm just saying that Imperial Britain's historic traditions and norms of behavior had an important role herein as well, and this ought be recognized (and no, I'm not British myself). Gandhi is an example in one way (and maybe we'll see the likes of another Gandhi somewhere, someday), but "His Example" isn't one we should deceive ourselves as being applicable across the board within the chaotic world in which we live. In short, this film is a supurb treatment of an important historical episode (particular to a rather specific period and set of circumstances) and, as such, well worth your time viewing. Cheers!

Rating:
Summary: A most remarkable life
Review: "Gandhi" is an amazing movie about an amazing man. Through out his entire life he preached non-violent, civil disobiedince in order to fight colonialization by The British Empire. He preached peace even in the face cruel beatings from British soldiers, two World Wars, and even when facing civil war between Indian Hindus and Muslims (which sparked the fued between India and Pakistan that exists today). Ben Kingsley heads an excellent cast (including Candice Burgan, Martin Sheen, Edward Fox, ect.) as Gandhi throughout some odd 45 years of his life from Africa to India. The make-up to age Kingsley is wonderfully subtle, I admire the job. Richard Attenborough did a marvelous job of balenceing the wide picture, more epic aspects of the script (the politics that Gandhi was involved in) with the personal story (like with his wife and his best friends). If anything else, watch this movie just for the facinating history it tells. I realize that I am being too short with such a fine movie as this is, but "Gandhi" is a movie I can not tell you about, you have to watch it and take from it what you will.

Rating:
Summary: Fantastic, but might have been better without Ben Kingsley
Review: Oh, don't get me wrong, Ben Kingsley was FANTASTIC as Gandhi! He totally deserved his Oscar. Still, a little known fact is that Ben Kingsley wasn't the movie company's first choice to play Gandhi. Do you know who their first choice was?

Charles Nelson Reilly.

That's right - Charles Nelson Reilly, the beloved star of Match Game. Apparently the producers of Gandhi desperately wanted Charles to star as Gandhi, but he was already committed to play Don Don Canneloni in Cannonball Run 2. He couldn't get out of it, so they went with Ben Kingsley instead.

Oh, they made a good second choice. The movie is still wonderful as it is. Still, I can't help but wonder how much more wonderful it might have been if Charles Nelson Reilly had starred in it.

Granted, Cannonball Run 2 probably wouldn't have been the classic it is without Charles, but just imagine what Charles could have done as Gandhi! No offense to Ben Kingsley (like I said, he was great) but this movie would have been totally different if it had starred Charles Nelson Reilly.

It's still a 4 star movie...but it could have been a 5 star movie.

Rating:
Summary: AN AWESOME MOVIE !
Review: "Gandhi" is superb....Attenborough's multiple Oscar winner; including the Best Picture, Best Director, Cinematography, Costume Design, Art Direction, Film Editing, Screenplay, and Best Actor. Ben Kingsley realistically performs as Mohandas K. Gandhi who was a man who made humility and truth more powerful than empires.

However, the biased portrayal of Muhammad Ali Jinnah as a Muslim leader who wanted a separate homeland only for his own political aggrandizement, is quite disappointing. Jinnah's claim that the Muslim League represented the Muslims of India was substantiated in 1946, when in the elections for the Indian constituent assembly, Muslim League won all the seats assigned to the Muslim electorate. In truth, Jinnah was a brilliant man with great intellect, iron-will, eloquence and perseverance; a man with total integrity as quoted in a contemporary Time magazine.

Regardless the crap done about Jinnah, this movie is worth-seeing. For those who are interested in the history of sub-continent, "Gandhi" and "Jinnah", both are useful resources about the independence of colonial India from the British rule.

Rating:
Summary: A Movie To Transend Time
Review: Just as Mahatma Gandhi's teachings will always live on in the heart and minds of all humans, so should this movie withstand the test of cinematic time. For those who have no other resources, this movie is also a standing testament to Gandhi's real legacy. First of all, Ben Kingsley, who plays Gandhi, does the best job portraying a historical figure on screen than anyone else I have ever seen. True, Jamie Foxx portrayed Ray Charles really well in the recent Ray, but the eyes are always what differs an actor from the subject, whereas Foxx was always wearing sunglasses. Here, Ben Kingsley not only portrays the eyes, but the walk, the voice, the look, even the squiggly vein on the side of his head that both he and Gandhi share. Second, this is one of the best epic movies ever made. More extras were used in this film than any other is history (of course before digital multiplication of extras) because of the willingness of the Indian people to re-enact their patron's life. The movie has a grand scale and teaches us all the meaning of peace and non-violence, just as Gandhi would have us do. Richard Attenborough has captured the essence of India pre-independence and shown us not only the hostility but the humanity of the British without totally turning them into monsters, as Gandhi did not see them that way. Everyone should see this movie, everyone.

Rating:
Summary: History at its best
Review: Although one person's view, this movie highlights Mohandas K. Gandhi's life and shows what struggles both India and Pakistan went through before their independences and how Gandhi was one man whose drive made it all happen. Stellar performances by both Ben Kingsley as well as Roshan Seth (who shows a remarkable resemblance to) and takes on the role of Jawaharlal Nehru. On the long side (at three hours+), but still definitely worth watching and adding to your collection.

Rating:
Summary: "We must become the change we want to see..."
Review: "...in the world."-Mahatma Gandhi

This past 9-11, I went to a small memorial service in my neighborhood at a congregation, non-christian, which was very moving, reflective not war-rallying and this quote of Gandhi's was on the one page flyer containing the order of the service. I had to think upon this quote for a while, and then I realized that what he was really describing was the new birth Christ talks about in John 3. Gandhi studied all religions and in his way was inspired by Christ's teachings and life. To conquer the darker side of our psyches, we must exercise the good side, and by that good example influence others. Violence only breeds more violence. Coercion only breeds discontent.

Today is Gandhi's birthday, October 2, my birthday too. I was fascinated with him as a young girl, remember reading in the dictionary that he was a great spiritual leader, remember thinking what one sentence would describe my life, would it be as remarkable? Given the violence that continues throughout the world, it seems important to reflect on his life, his philosophy. Gandhi was a devout Hindu; his given name Mohandas was changed to Mahatma which means in English great soul. I got this quote from today's Times of India:

"Today, when we hear the term 9/11, we think instantly of September 11, 2001 - a day that unleashed a cycle of death and destruction that still continues. But the date has a different significance for Indians...On September 11, 1906, Mahatma Gandhi launched the first non-violent campaign the world had seen, in Johannesburg, South Africa. He initiated a movement against the Natal government's effort to disenfranchise Indians, by proposing the unprecedented course of meeting violence with non-violence." The writer of this article urges others to get involved in continuing Gandhi's program of "non-violent defense", to not just reflect on his life, but put that program into practice.

I love this movie. It documents his entire life, and there are so many memorable scenes. It's an excellent movie all around, the acting, directing, filming. A MUST SEE.



Rating:
Summary: Basic Introduction to Achieving World Peace
Review: Edit: The core point below is that clashes of millions of adherents of different religions, i.e. Catholic versus everyone else, Muslim versus Hindu, are not new, and the past does indeed demonstrate that force of arms is an ineffective means--indeed a pathological means that makes it worse--for addressing such schisms. Gandhi, and Gandhi alone, has shown the way with proven success at the level of Nations and Peoples.

9-11 focused some of us, but not enough of us, on the monumental issues of war and peace such as have not occurred since World War II--the Cold War being, as Derek Leebaert documents so well in "The Fifty Year Wound", a false war, one with enormous costs to all mankind.

I bought this video recently--having seen it many years ago--to refresh my memory on the essence of Gandhi and his proven concept of non-violent resistance. The DVD capped several years of reading in the non-fiction national security arena (see my other 470+ reviews on war and peace), and has proven to be the ultimate primer as well as the ultimate Master's Seminar.

This is the movie to watch if you want to get down to fundamentals; Gandhi's three basic lessons of war and peace as shown so beautifully here are these: 1) the only devils are in our own minds; 2) the separation of Pakistan and India, like the separation of Palestine and Israel, violated the civil order between Muslims and Hindus, and destroyed all that Gandhi had achieved: peaceful coexistence of peoples within a single nation; and 3) in the end, after great pain, truth and love inevitably triumph.

Although I was tempted to fast-forward to the current six-front 100-year war between radicalized Islam and militarized America on the one hand, and between impoverished billions and corporate America on the other, I paused to reflect on the past first. It was the Spanish who first committed genocide against the American Indians, who expelled the Muslims and then the Jews, who sponsored the Inquisition and the Crusades. It was the British who stupidly pitted Muslim against Hindu in their attempts to assert their imperial will--nothing makes them look as stupid as the movie's coverage of how the "Empire" forbade the locals to take salt from their very own sea: the Indian Sea.

Now I fast forward to our current circumstances, with special reference to Jonathan Schell's "Unconquerable World," perhaps complemented by Clyde Prestowitz' "Rogue Nation" (the US), and Chalmers Johnson "Sorrows of Empire"--and the other 470+ books relevant to war and peace today. Bottom line: boy, have we screwed this up. First off, invading Afghanistan made Al Qaeda stronger, not weaker. Second off, invading Iraq has made America weaker, not stronger, and inflamed the Middle East, Central Asia, Eastern Africa, the Pacific Rim, and the Muslim populations in the Americas.

We need a Gandhi. I cannot think of any modern leader who is even close, although the current Pope has certainly tried. This movie depicts, in terms stark and relevant, the opposite of 9-11--the clash of mobs driven by ideology or religion, completely oblivious to the core facts that Gandhi tried to teach: non-violence, love, truth, the Golden Rule. All else is evil.

If you have time for just one serious DVD, this is it.

Rating:
Summary: Outrage at Several (Stupid?) Comments
Review: I can't believe what some people think.
I understand that we all have our own personal opinion, but earlier in the reviews someone likened Mahatma Gandhi, nonviolent peace and freedom fighter, to an anorexic Paris Hilton. That is impossible for me to understand. Just how are Paris Hilton and Gandhi alike?

Additionally, that review also stated that Gandhi had no point. Hmm, let's see. What happened as a result of Gandhi's fasting and walk to the sea? Freedom for the entire Indian subcontinent! I can understand criticism of the cinematography, photography, and other details (which in this movie were excellent), but I can't grasp the reviewer's point. Perhaps freedom for an entire subcontinent is only as important as racy entertainment (if not less important). Only Time will tell.

-Concerned Observer

Rating:
Summary: An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind.
Review: Richard Attenborough's "Gandhi" is on the short-list of great cinematic biographies. This depiction of one of the most important political figures of the last century is not only an inspiring tale but also a dazzling and triumphant filmmaking accomplishment.

London-educated lawyer Mohandas K. Gandhi (Ben Kingsley) experiences discrimination first-hand while in South Africa. In response, he organizes a passive resistance campaign against the government. His actions come to the attention of important figures in India who seek Gandhi's help in freeing their country from British rule. The march toward independence is slow as there is difficulty in convincing the Hindus and Muslims to work together for a common cause. However, Gandhi manages to maintain the peace and keep everyone united. His efforts eventually pay off as India succeeds in breaking free from its colonial status.

"Gandhi" is a mesmerizing film primarily because of Kingsley's uncanny performance. It is eerie to see an actor so perfectly recreate a historical figure on-screen. Kingsley is literally perfect in his role and essentially becomes Gandhi for the duration of the picture. He not only delivers one of the greatest performances of the Eighties but one of the greatest performances in the history of film. The supporting cast also is wonderful with Rohini Hattangady a particular standout as Gandhi's wife. Oftentimes a life story can become dull and dreary when chronicled on the big screen but Attenborough manages to hold your interest for the entire 188 minute running time. That's a tribute to both the director's talent and the fascinating life that the real Gandhi led.