Gandhi
(1982)
Directed by
Genre
: Drama (more)Plot Summary and Critique:
The 1982 film, "Gandhi," and its makers were praised by their peers in Hollywood, as it received or was nominated for numerous awards, such as Best Actor (Ben Kingsley), Best Picture, Best Director, etc. Most of the reception in the general audience was as expected, with much praise and in sync with the Oscars and Hollywood. "Ben Kingsley’s greatest performance," and the "most deserving Oscar winner of best picture in the 1980’s," are some of the comments critics have made about this film.
However, as praising as some reviews were, there was a sizable batch of equally negative reviews. Many claimed that the film was historically inaccurate in many cases, even though many of the positive reviews commended the exact opposite. "A historically accurate account of the most significant personality of the 20th century," raves one critic while another claims that it has a "flawed script," and that "Gandhi" is a "despicable piece of propaganda."
Movies that are based on true stories or events often have
inaccuracies, whether by fault or intent (for dramatic purposes), and this
has always been the case. Many glorified "based-on-fact" films
have major flaws, and are still received by the audience positively.
Another portion of the film that is criticized is the portrayal of Mohammed Al Jinnah, another Revolutionary and Gandhi’s equal in the Muslim world. The Muslims and Hindus worked together to free India from British rule, but then failed to continue that cooperation after the British left, regardless of Gandhi and Jinnah’s efforts to form a peaceful India. However, Jinnah is portrayed as a terrible person, unwilling to help to forge cooperation between the Hindus and Muslims, according to the critics. The critics accuse the filmmakers for catering to the Film Board of India, (which partly sponsored the film), and their desires to influence the portrayal of Gandhi and Jinnah. "Gandhi had flaws too, and he was not always right and some critics say that he is not portrayed as such. The film portrays him basically without flaw, when it should show his whole self.
Although the majority of people view the film "Gandhi" as one of the greatest films of all time, a masterpiece of Richard Attenborough and Ben Kingsley, some say, "A large part of the film really is propaganda." Nevertheless, it was honored with awards from Hollywood, and continues to be a beloved film shown time and time again on cable channels.
Discussion of Context:
In the beginning, Mohandas Gandhi was a lawyer who studied in England. Before he returned to India, he started a movement for civil rights in South Africa and succeeded in changing some rules there. Because of his work in South Africa he was known as a hero in India. He developed a philosophy of struggle for human and political rights. While he studied law in England, Gandhi dressed as an Englishman would, but after he returned from South Africa, he began to dress like an Indian farmer would. His philosophy was that all are equal and everyone should do all kinds of jobs.
Gandhi’s philosophy of struggle against the British was non-violent
non-cooperation. He demanded from the Indians to restrain even if the
British forces physically attacked them. He advised Indians to boycott
anything British including British made garments, British universities,
British courts and to refuse to follow respect and abide by British laws.
He sometimes resorted to hunger strikes. Gandhi succeeded in sweeping the
Indian people after him like no other Indian leader did before him.
One of the famous Gandhi campaigns was the salt march (to view a clip of this march from the film click here) . According to British law Indians could not produce salt, a basic food ingredient, but could only buy it from licensed salt factories, all of them were British owned. Gandhi organized a day march to the see, and produced salt from the sea. Hundreds of thousands of people gathered behind him and gave him support.
Gandhi became the leader of the Indian National Congress in 1920, but he did not always lead the Indian Nationalist movement. This is because there were periods of time where he was arrested and completely isolated from the movement. In the 1930s Gandhi resigned from the Indian National Congress because of growing criticism against his leadership.
Gandhi also had rivals outside the Congress who defied his political philosophy. His main rivals outside the Congress were Hindu nationalists. There were many riots between the Hindu’s and Muslim’s, where many people were killed. During the riots Gandhi tried to be the middleman between the Hindu’s and Muslim’s. Many Hindu’s did not like his stand and saw him as a traitor. Hindu nationalist blamed the Congress and especially Gandhi for India’s partition. Gandhi sometimes attacked the Indians because they weren’t being fair towards Muslims and towards Pakistan.
Gandhi had the intention of moving out of India and spending the rest of her life in Pakistan. On January 30, 1948, a Hindu nationalist shot him to death. The critics gave this movie 5.9 stars out of 10.
Historical Accounts:
This film is amazingly historically accurate to a certain extent, in a sense that it gives an account of the life and struggles of Mahatma Gandhi. It starts with his first political awakening and finishes with his tragic death. The events that occur in the film are a fairly true depiction of what really happen, but like many other film biographies there is a twist of inaccurate Hollywood action imbedded within the plot.
In the beginning of the film Gandhi, directed by Richard
Attenborough, Mahatma Gandhi is thrown off a South African train because
he refuses to go back to third class due to his color, even though he has
a first class ticket. This account is historically accurate according to
Vinay Lal, Assistant Professor of History, at UCLA, who states that in
1893 Gandhi was "thrown out of a first-class railway compartment car,
though he held a first-class ticket, at Pietermaritzburg." After this
confrontation in South Africa, Gandhi drafted the first petition sent by
the Indians to a South African legislature. This happens in the film, but
in the film Gandhi is helped by a priest named Charles Andrew who is not
noted in any biographies, or in the autobiography of Gandhi. Therefore
this character must have been drafted by the mind of Attenborough to help
with the plot. Gandhi then goes to India in 1915 to help conditions in his
own country. As depicted in the movie, he discovers the serious condition
that India is in for the first time and begins the struggle for home rule.
He then led a successful "satyagraha" campaign in 1917 for
rights of peasants on indigo plantations in Champaran, where he defied an
order to leave an area in April, and was arrested at Motihari and tried,
but the case was withdrawn because
of his practice of non-violent
protesting (for an audio sample of Gandhi speaking click
here). After a Massacre that happened in Anitza, Gandhi fasted for
civil rights and was jailed for sedition. He was then jailed again in 1930
after breaking the Salt Law. He broke the law by making salt at the
seashore. The film skips about ten years of his life. It then picks back
up with a trip to London to speak out against the war. In 1940 Gandhi
launched an individual civil-disobedience campaign against Britain's
refusal to allow Indians to express their opinions regarding World War II.
This campaign caused 23,000 persons to be imprisoned within a year. After
a 1947 border fight between Muslims and Hindus, Gandhi fasted for
twenty-one days until the fighting and riots stopped. He was then
assassinated in his 78th year, at Birla House, by Nathuram Vinayak Godse.
To this day, Gandhi remains one of the most significant figures in the
history of the world. All that he stood for is a symbol of equity and
strength in a sometimes harsh and cruel world. This is the reason he has
gained the respect of so many people everywhere. Gandhi will continue to
remind us of the history that comes from our great past.
Source: The Gandhi Reader, edited by Homer A. Jack Samata Books, Madras, 1984.
Questions for Discussion:
Many have said that "Gandhi" is a very biased, pro-Hindu film, (as it was sponsored in part by the Film Board of India), and the Muslims are portrayed unfairly. Do you agree? If you were making an adaptation of the story of the life and times of Gandhi, how would you go about portraying it and how would you make it seem fair to both Hindus and Muslims?
What is the strategy behind the peaceful, non-violent protests?
What is General Dyer’s motivation to order his men to fire on the protest?
Throughout the history of mankind people have often been troubled by
certain weaknesses. Do you think the hatred can be so intense (as we see
in Gandhi), that it would cause mankind to lead away from rationality?
More Informative Hyperlinks:
page by Michael Hofland, Michael Fischer, Diana Foszpanczyk, and Josh Zuleger