I think "Ghandi" is a compelling movie experience and an ambitious one. The life of Mahatma Ghandi as he amazed the world with his unique charisma and the power of non-violent protest set against a backdrop of often-brutal historic events.
I am not Indian and have never been to India, although I do converse with Indians from time to time. That's usually when they are trying to reconnect me to the World Wide Web by guiding me through the process of inserting a straightened paper clip into a tiny hole in my modem - before we discover it was an outage anyway.
Mind you, I have never asked them what they think of the movie "Ghandi". The film is in English and seems made for a broad audience although it was mainly filmed in India. I was interested enough to Google what Indians think of the film and was surprised at the response.
Generally it seems highly regarded while acknowledging that only so much could be covered in even a 3-hour plus movie. One response in particular was fascinating.
A commentator revealed that when he was a child "Ghandi" was one of the movies that was shown numerous times on India's national television; watching Gandhi was a part of every major national holiday, a bit like the way "Love Actually" turns up around Christmas in Australia.
A couple questioned the casting of Englishman Ben Kingsley as Ghandi, but most did not, his father was Indian after all.
But this is a magnificently made movie in anyone's language with a showstopping performance by Kingsley as Ghandi. It shows that Richard Attenborough had learned much about filling a big historic canvas. He had two other epics under his belt by then. "Young Winston" was a spectacular and witty take on Winston Churchill's early life and "A Bridge Too Far" emulated the portmanteau style of "The Longest Day" in depicting the WW2 Battle of Arnhem. However I felt both of those suffered from too modern an approach to the cinematography with plenty of zoom and deep focus, which failed to fully achieve a feeling for the period, which we have receive from historic photos and old film.
Not so in "Ghandi". Attenborough keeps his camera comparatively still, adding power to a number of sweeping set pieces. The film also contrasts the simplicity of Ghandi's lifestyle with the richness of the palaces and residences of those in power. Great score too, a fusion of orchestral and Indian music.
Many of Richard Attenborough's British acting buddies received gigs in the film as the ruling British elites. Their performances show the stiff upper lips replaced with looks of dismay as they realise this almost wizened little man in a dhoti is playing a key part in removing India from their control.
Each time I see "Ghandi" the more I find to admire. Artists are lucky if they achieve a masterpiece in their careers, but this was definitely one for Richard Attenborough.
I am not Indian and have never been to India, although I do converse with Indians from time to time. That's usually when they are trying to reconnect me to the World Wide Web by guiding me through the process of inserting a straightened paper clip into a tiny hole in my modem - before we discover it was an outage anyway.
Mind you, I have never asked them what they think of the movie "Ghandi". The film is in English and seems made for a broad audience although it was mainly filmed in India. I was interested enough to Google what Indians think of the film and was surprised at the response.
Generally it seems highly regarded while acknowledging that only so much could be covered in even a 3-hour plus movie. One response in particular was fascinating.
A commentator revealed that when he was a child "Ghandi" was one of the movies that was shown numerous times on India's national television; watching Gandhi was a part of every major national holiday, a bit like the way "Love Actually" turns up around Christmas in Australia.
A couple questioned the casting of Englishman Ben Kingsley as Ghandi, but most did not, his father was Indian after all.
But this is a magnificently made movie in anyone's language with a showstopping performance by Kingsley as Ghandi. It shows that Richard Attenborough had learned much about filling a big historic canvas. He had two other epics under his belt by then. "Young Winston" was a spectacular and witty take on Winston Churchill's early life and "A Bridge Too Far" emulated the portmanteau style of "The Longest Day" in depicting the WW2 Battle of Arnhem. However I felt both of those suffered from too modern an approach to the cinematography with plenty of zoom and deep focus, which failed to fully achieve a feeling for the period, which we have receive from historic photos and old film.
Not so in "Ghandi". Attenborough keeps his camera comparatively still, adding power to a number of sweeping set pieces. The film also contrasts the simplicity of Ghandi's lifestyle with the richness of the palaces and residences of those in power. Great score too, a fusion of orchestral and Indian music.
Many of Richard Attenborough's British acting buddies received gigs in the film as the ruling British elites. Their performances show the stiff upper lips replaced with looks of dismay as they realise this almost wizened little man in a dhoti is playing a key part in removing India from their control.
Each time I see "Ghandi" the more I find to admire. Artists are lucky if they achieve a masterpiece in their careers, but this was definitely one for Richard Attenborough.