|
|
Review
Archives
1
| 2 | 3
|
|
Today's
Date is:
|
|
GANDHI
|
|
Reviewed
by: |
Christopher
J. Jarmick |
| Genre: |
Drama |
| Video: |
Anamorphic
2.35:1 Widescreen |
| Audio: |
Dolby Digital
5.1, Dolby Digital 2.0 |
| Language: |
Language
Tracks: English |
| Subtitle: |
English,
English (Captioned), French, Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese, Korean,
Thai |
| Length: |
190 minutes
|
| Rating: |
PG |
| Release
Date: |
08/28/01 |
| Studio: |
Columbia/Tristar |
| Commentary:
|
None |
| Documentaries:
|
4 brief Newsreels
containing footage of the real Gandhi are included: Gandhi Goes
to England, Gandhi's Farewell Talk in Europe, Mahatma Gandhi
Begins His Death Fast, and Gandhi Talks: First Talking Picture
Ever Made By India's Famous Leader. |
| Featurettes:
|
Ben Kingsley Talks about
Gandhi is a good informative 19-minute featurette/interview.
Gandhi Goes to England, Gandhi's Farewell Talk in Europe, Mahatma
Gandhi Begins His Death Fast, and Gandhi Talks: First Talking
Picture Ever Made By India's Famous Leader. |
| Filmography/Biography:
|
A well-done and fairly
extensive filmography of most of the major and name cast and
crew is included. Can you spot the mistake? |
|
Interviews: |
None |
| Trailers/TV
Spots: |
The very special 5 minute
long original wide screen theatrical trailer is included. |
| Alternate/Deleted
Scenes: |
None |
| Music
Video: |
None |
| Other:
|
A special
photomontage of production stills and a collection of famous
Gandhi quotes are also included. |
| Cast
and Crew: |
Ben Kingsley,
Candice Bergen, Edward Fox, John Gielgud, Trevor Howard, John
Mills, and Martin Sheen |
| Screenplay
by: |
Written by
John Briley |
| Produced
by: |
Richard Attenborough |
| Directed
By: |
Richard Attenborough |
| Music: |
George Fenton
featuring additional music by Ravi Shankar |
| The
Review: |
Ben Kinglsey's
performance is one of the finest you'll ever see. Not many people
knew the Shakespearean actor was back in 1982, but after Gandhi
everyone knew. Kingsely (born Krishna Bhanji in Scarborough,
Yorkshire, England, UK) was nearly 40 when completely immersed
himself in the role of Gandhi. Kingsley's performance is even
more remarkable when you consider the fact how mediocre the
script for the film actually is . If Kingsley's performance
wasn't as brilliant as it was in this film everyone would realize
how little we actually learn about who Gandhi really is (or
might have been) by the time this long epic is over. The script
doesn't give us a three dimensional portrait but paints Gandhi
as a saint, a deity, and a martyr--forgetting he was a man--a
remarkable man. * * * * * * * * Old film biographies often created
heroes out of severely flawed men, falsified facts and sometimes
made up audience pleasing romances. But that changed especially
when audiences saw audiences saw a new kind of biography film--a
warts and all kind of biography way back in 1970 with Patton.
It wasn't a perfect movie, but it seemed like it was a pretty
honest one (and it took chances with its reknowned opening monologue.
Gandhi is a throw-back to the older type of biographies. It
treats Gandhi not a a human being who wound up doing great things
but as a prophet, as Jesus Christ and reverentially, with as
little controversy as it can get away with, proceeds to show
us historical events he was a part of. This approach does not
let us know who Gandhi was and it even detracts from the dramatics
of his amazing accomplishments because deities are expected
to do great things after all. * * * * * * * * Attenborough worked
very hard to bring this epic to the screen. He developed the
project for nearly two decades and produced and directed the
film. It has the best of intentions all over it. Unfortunately
in his effort to insure the film was well-liked, he shaved all
the rough edges off of the character of Mahatma Gandhi--edges
that would have made him more controversial, a bit more difficult
to like perhaps--but more human. We also never get a sense of
perspective in the film. It's like we are watching a tribute
to a great human being, but no one gets drunk and shares with
us a truly embarrassing moment, no one lets us in on any of
the secrets or tells us a dirty joke. * * * * That's the problem.
Gandhi delivers us a museum piece figure of a special hero.
It barely establishes him as a human being before putting him
up on a pedestal and turning him into someone as holy and special
as Jesus Christ. Only after he is deified does the movie then
pretend he wasn't a God, but only human. It's not convincing.
It's already made him a saint and told us we have a duty to
love and honor this brave and courageous man because he did
so many great and unselfish things, stood for the right cause
and so influential --even on the American civil rights movement.
* * * * * * There were many that idolized him, but Mahatma Gandhi
was very much a human being with quirky habits, interests and
many many faults. It would have been a far more interesting
and valuable film experience if we got a deeper sense of who
Mahatma Gandhi really was, rather than a Classic Illustrated,
Encyclopedia Britannica's like version of this important man's
life. * * * * Considering the time and energy put into the project,
one can understand how important a film this was for Attenborough,
but one can see that if he had the choice to do it all over
again, he probably would have changed little. He didn't get
better with his next "important" biographical film , "Cry Freedom"
(in which Stephen Biko becomes a supporting character in a film
based around his accomplishments), he did a much worse job.
Attenborough feels it is his duty to make the subjects of his
movie as widely acceptable and homogenized as possible. He holds
our hands and quietly over-explains everything to us. It's the
kind of condescension a mediocre school teacher might have for
his classroom of students and it's annoying when a film-maker
insists on presenting his material in this way. A short documentary
perhaps can focus on the good accomplishments of a famous figure,
but an epic film biography ought to play it too safe and over-look
the quirks of a human being. We want heroes but it's a dis-service
to ignore imperfect behaviors, and pretend someone was perfect
when he was not. Revisionist history mis-informs and does nothing
to enlighten. Anyone who picks up a comprehensive book on Gandhi
will learn of his many faults and flaws as a human being--faults
and flaws utterly ignored by the film. * * * * * * * * The film
is as long as a David Lean film, it almost looks as good as
a David Lean film. It doesn't have the Lean perfectionism (but
few films do). Gandhi is not simply a classy and reserved biography
presented with impeccable taste, it's been embalmed and made
to look as presentable as possible. Gandhi is beautifully packaged,
well presented, and for the most part well paced as well. The
film however gets less involving as it progresses, and though
it moves fairly briskly and never seems to drag, we feel like
we know less and less about its central character as it progresses.
We watch wonderful re-enactments of not quite familiar important
events without connecting to the feelings and thoughts of the
man who is at the center of them all. * * * * * The film has
no soul, we don't have a clue that Gandhi really is, because
he's not human in this film. Except that we have Ben Kingsley
performance which is so convincing that at times we are fooled
and believe we are watching something that has some actually
depth to it. The performance has depth, the film does not.*
* * * * * * This is what makes the performance all the more
remarkable. Kingsley manages to fool us into thinking we are
actually watching a three-dimensional living Gandhi. The script
isn't giving us a living breathing character. Ben Kingsley did
so much research and worked so hard to understand and imitate
Gandhi… that even though we don't actually see many of the motivations
or identify with him as a human being or understand where the
strength is coming from. . .Kingsley convinces us it is there…
inside of him. This is not just a brilliant performance in a
rather bland film, and it's more than an imitation of a historical
figure. We forget it's Kingsley playing an under-written Gandhi,
it's as if we are watching Gandhi himself, A Gandhi who is not
allowed to let us all the way inside of him but it seems to
be Gandhi. We keep waiting for him to whisper something in our
ear that has a little edge or weight to it. We know he's capable
of it, so we keep watching feeling like we are almost watching
a real person. * * * * * So while this film is really a well
intentioned failure which shouldn't have received all of the
awards it did and shouldn't have been as highly praised as it
was… Ben Kingsley's performance makes all of that rather un-important.
* * * * * It's not the kind of performance which is based on
star charisma (Kingsley wasn't a star). It's not a performance
where an actor has interesting endearing eccentric tics or a
bag of tricks adding up to a forced humbleness mixed with the
kind of enviable narcissistic egoism which one usually finds
in praised performances particularly Oscar winning ones (and
I find many such performances highly entertaining and praise-worthy).
This performance is that of a master chameleon that has completely
inhabited the character he is playing. The movie itself should
have been, could have been much better, but the performance
itself could not have been. The script should have let us see
more, but Kingsley finds ways to let us see anyway. We know
there is a lot more to the man than what we are seeing. We know
even though the film insists he's a Saint that he is not a Saint
and we know there is great deal more going on than what we are
being shown. * * * * *. The film won a ton of Awards and several
coveted Oscars, but that is never a guarantee of either merit
or quality. The Oscar awarded to Ben Kingsley doesn't begin
to tell you just how exemplary his performance truly is. The
Oscar rewarded to John Bloom for his editing was deserved and
I the one Attenborough's direction is understandable if you
look at the film as a worthwhile achievement. The Oscar for
Best Picture is not really deserved but it doesn't matter and
it's also water under the bridge. * * * * * The film is good,
instead of great. There are many opportunities the film had
which have been frustratingly overlooked. Some of them you can
even understand--there was a lot of story, a lot of twists and
turns to tell in Gandhi's life--others are decisions which reveal
a combination of lack of talent, ability, underestimation of
audiences intelligence and marketing considerations. * * * *
* * The worst mistakes the film makes is in short-changing several
important Indian characters and making English and American
characters more important in the film than needed. We shouldn't
spend much time at all with the American Journalists Candice
Bergen and Martin Sheen, or watch that long cricket game scene
to show how arrogant and pig-headed those Brits can be. Was
it really necessary to manipulate events somewhat to avoid taking
any chances with material? Was it necessary to have several
characters portrayed as melodramatic bad guys (Geilguld's character
for instance) rather than paint them with shades of gray so
we could get a more complex, thought provoking and accurate
historical picture of what was happening and appreciate fully
how courageous and dangerous the decisions Gandhi made truly
were? * * * * * * Gandhi the film delivers the important parts
of Gandhi's life beginning with Gandhi as a highly educated
Hindu Lawyer in South Africa who sees racism toward Indian immigrants
first-hand on a train which leads to him organizing his countrymen
into the first publicized non-violent campaign of passive resistance.
This is the best and most effective part of the film. Gandhi's
efforts are successful and he returns to India to organize and
lead a peaceful revolution to free India from the suppression
of centuries of British rule. There would be hardships and plenty
of bloodshed but this non-violent movement proved ultimately
victorious. However without the British, the gap between India's
two main religious groups the Hindu majority and the Muslim
minority, widened. The country divided into India and Pakistan
and violence erupted. Gandhi threw himself at the problem with
everything he had. He was successful in stopping some violence,
but not all and in the end a Hindu fanatic killed him. The film
covers 50 years of Gandhi's life and attempts to tell the history
of the re-birth of a modern nation--India. Obviously it must
leave out a lot of detail. Unfortunately rather than developing
a point of view or showing for instance that Nehru's views of
an independent India were different than those of Gandhi's,
it forges ahead by ignoring certain complications and trivializing
others. A lot of this is to be expected, but we spend far too
much time with American reporters (played by Martin Sheen and
Candice Bergen) then we should. We are shown a few somewhat
loveable eccentric quirks that Gandhi has, such as his insistence
of dressing in peasant clothes, but not other more controversial
eccentricities--like his obsession with bowel movements and
his need to lie naked with young woman, or his bouts of crippling
depression. * * * * * * * The few attempts where Attenborough
actually attempts to show the more human side of Gandhi are
portrayed as if they are loveable eccentricities (his wearing
of traditional simple peasant class clothes for instance). There's
a scene where Gandhi orders his wife to leave the commune because
she won't clean the toilets. It's an well-acted scene and interesting
how Gandhi who fights to make everyone equal treats his own
wife like a servant who is expected to obey his commands. The
argument is almost immediately and too easily settled and Gandhi
becomes even more perfect and saint-like. * * * * * * In a film
that runs nearly three hours I think one should not have to
put up with overly thin characterizations. Unfortunately the
film portrays most of the British as arrogant The British are
blamed for nearly all of the countries problems--and we know
there is more to it because the movie continues beyond the scope
of British rule. We can certainly understand the difficulty,
frustration and sadness the aging leaders and Gandhi feels when
the violent riots and religious fighting continues even after
the British are gone, but the deep rooted cultural reasons aren't
explored or even discussed. The Pakistani leader is written
one dimensionally and shown as someone that couldn't possibly
lead or inspire people--yet obviously did. The movie lets less
historically knowledgeable audience members believe the British
influence is to blame for all the turmoil. As the film progresses
the simple explanations stop working and yet nothing takes their
place. It's lazy of the filmmakers to do this and their lack
of confidence in the audience's ability to understand complexity
is disheartening. A film about a man who devoted his life to
having people understand and accept and treat each other equally,
doesn't give us enough information to understand the people
or problems it portrays. You can try to justify the decision
and let the filmmakers off the hook by saying it's a movie not
a documentary or it's a movie not a history lesson-- but the
movie insists it is IMPORTANT and even eschews a definitive
point of view and depth of character in favor of showing us
50 years of history, then simplifies that history to such a
degree that no understanding of events is actually achieved.
We are then left with a too thin biography of an important historical
figure that recreates important events without helping us to
understand with any accuracy why the events happened in the
first place. * * * * * * * There are also some scenes, which
don't work very well at all. The lengthy scene with Gandhi and
his wife repeating their wedding vows and the wife's death are
long scenes that play even longer than they are because we are
reminded that we don't have an actual sense of who these people
really are. There are scenes that work in the archetype type
ways any scene depicting marital discourse or sacrifice will
give us, but there's nothing really there beyond the surface
---- except within some of the performances. Performances like
Rohini Hattagandy as Kasturba, Gandhi's wife or Roshan Seth's
Nehru. Alyque Padamsee as the Muslim politico Ali Jinnah who
became Pakistan's first leader is also memorable--even though
the character is written without dimension. Saeed Jaffrey is
playing what amounts to the comic relief role as Gandhi's good
friend Sardar, but we then get less convincing performances
from Trevor Howard and surprisingly from John Gielgud -- not
to mention Martin Sheen and Candice Bergen. * * * * The film's
flaws however are ones you can understand. This is an important…
as in IMPORTANT film that NEEDED to be made. A serious somewhat
accurate film biography of Gandhi was long overdue. After all
a generation or two of people might have forgotten that it was
Gandhi's ideas of non-violent protest that were adopted with
great success by Martin Luther King. Revolutions occurred in
several countries as a result of the important impact and influence
of Gandhi. India has only been independent since 1947. Gandhi
was against the caste system and the gap between the classes.
Wasn't this an influence of the British to further control the
population? The British encouraged the fighting between the
Hindus and Muslim as part of their Divide and Rule policy to
keep the factions in India from uniting and fighting them. Gandhi
fought back by fasting, gaining attention and campaigning for
tolerance and an end to violent religion-based clashes. One
of Gandhi's life-long struggles was securing India's independence
from Britain and fighting for the equality of people.* * * *
* * * The film ignores Gandhi's other lifelong struggle however.
And that's the struggle that would have made the film more than
the well-intentioned failure it is. Gandhi's other lifelong
struggle was more personal and it was to be liberated from his
worldly desires. It is why even in his 80's he slept naked with
the young woman who were always around him. Gandhi in real life
could be very stubborn, tyrannical, difficult to communicate
with and almost impossible to please. He was an abusive father,
he demanded his wife be utterly obedient and subservient to
him, was obsessed with the working of his and other peoples
bowels, suffered long bouts of depressions and sometimes would
not talk to anyone around him, letting his associates bicker
and quarrel and create problems amongst his friends and allies.
* * * * * * Gandhi is not a documentary film, so muddying up
some facts is to be expected. This film however doesn't have
the spark it needs and buries its head in the sand rather than
risk being offensive or even controversial. * * * * * * One
of the people the film is dedicated to is Nehru. And Nehru himself
said: "Gandhi was too much of a great man to be deified. * *
* * * Unfortunately, Attenborough's Gandhi does exactly that.
It deifies Gandhi and makes him a great man to stand back and
admire rather than to embrace, understand and accept. * * *
* Somehow Ben Kingsley's performance breaks through all that
and touches us. It is nothing short of remarkable and I strongly
recommend viewing the film to see one of film's greatest performances.*
* * * |
| Image
and Sound |
Gandhi
is presented in an anamorphically enhanced 2.35:1 widescreen
print. Over all it looks very good and is a vast improvement
over the VHS version. However there are some distracting flaws
on the disc. The black levels seem to vary throughout the film.
Sometimes the contrasting colors or shadow to light representation
creates problems. Other times the picture loses details during
scenes taking place in low light situations. Colors for the
most part look bright and Indian deserts look quite insufferably
hot. There is visible grain through much of the film but it
doesn't distract from the viewing experience. It is after all
a film that is nearly 20 years old.* * * * * * The audio is
presented in both Dolby Digital 5.1 and 2.0. Some effort has
been put into the 5.1 re-mix, which uses the surround channel
ability quite effectively. Ravi Shankar's music has never sounded
better and the various sound effects will sometimes move around
the room. The dialogue is bright, clear, and easy to understand.
|
| The
Extras |
There
are several extra's on this disc which is kind of surprising
since this is a one disc package which includes the three hour
movie AND several extras. * * * * The best of the extras is
Ben Kingsley Talks About Gandhi, which is a 19-minute featurette
in which Kingsley details his involvement from the film. He
discusses with much detail how he researched the life of Gandhi
and tried to understand everything he could about whom he was
playing through the various periods of his life. Extras on the
film set actually wound up treating him as if he was Gandhi
himself. It is shown in full frame with 2.0 Dolby sound * *
* * * The Making of Gandhi PhotoMontage is a five-minute collection
of numerous production photos, which automatically change and
are accompanied with some Ravi Shankar music.* * * * The Words
of Mahatma Gandhi is a display of quotes shown against a plain
background and with more of Ravi's music. * * * * The Newsreel
Footage section has four sections, which show actual footage
of the real Gandhi as captured by Newsreel cameras. The clips
include: Gandhi Goes to England, Gandhi's Farewell Talk in Europe,
Mahatma Gandhi Begins His Death Fast, and Gandhi Talks: First
Talking Picture Ever Made By India's Famous Leader. * * * *
* The quality of the footage is actually pretty poor and the
sound isn't very impressive but it's a nice extra to be able
to see and I enjoyed seeing this very much.* * * * * The theatrical
trailer I'll make a special note of , because it is a longer
5 minutes trailer and is presented in its original aspect ratio
of 2.35.1 with 2.0 Dolby Digital sound. * * * * The filmography
section is much better than usual in terms of representing a
large number of the people involved with the film. It would
have been nice to have more information on the Indian actors,
but I suppose one can't everything. I mentioned earlier there
was a mistake in the filmography. If you go to Trevor Howard
you will see a picture of John Mills and John Mill's picture
is a group shot featuring Kingsley. This probably will increase
the value of DVD considerably someday.* * * * * |
| Commentary |
None |
| Final
Words: |
This epic film was a labor of love
for it's director-producer Richard Attenborough and it is
a frustratingly flawed and play-it-too-safe documentary. It
tries to look like a David Lean film but it isn't in the same
league as a Lawrence of Arabia. * * * * * However, Ben Kingsley
more than makes up for the film's flaws by delivering one
of the greatest film performances you'll ever see. * * * *
* The DVD presentation technically is good and there are some
very choice extras on this disc making this a film to consider
putting into your personal collection and certainly worth
a rental.
* * * * * Christopher Jarmick,is
the author of The Glass Cocoon with Serena F. Holder a critically
acclaimed, steamy suspense thriller. For information on Author
readings/signings or availability of special autographed editions
of the novel email: glasscocoon@hotmail for details. * * *
* Original portions of this review Copyright© Christopher
J. Jarmick 2001. The above work is protected by international
copyright law. * * * *
|
|
|
|
