This May Well Be The Best Bio-Pic Ever Made

Rating: 10/10 (26 January 2012)

Do not be put off by the length of this movie. At a little over 3 hours it is a rather long movie, but it's wonderfully made, surprisingly accurate and never dull. It also deals with one of the more fascinating figures in history - Mohandas Gandhi (or the Mahatma) - a Hindu disciple of non-violence and human equality who was one of the leading figures in the movement for the independence of India, and who - as many have suggested - was (even as a Hindu) a better disciple of Jesus' teachings than most professing Christians are. Gandhi is a fascinating character, and a wholly appropriate subject for a film of this length and depth.
I give credit to Richard Attenborough, who was both the director and the producer of this film. In an opening written message, he acknowledges that no movie can do justice to a man's entire life, and that his hope is to be able to offer at look at the heart of the man. In that he succeeded admirably. After the shocking opening sequence that depicts Gandhi's tragic assassination at the hands of a Hindu militant who objected to his attempts to reach out to Muslims, we are transported immediately to Gandhi's early career in South Africa. Arriving as a lawyer to assist in a case, he's introduced immediately to the racial realities of South Africa, and he becomes a leader in the struggle for racial equality in that country (at the time, a part of the British Empire.) At that point in his life, Gandhi is a figure of a more cultured, upper-class Indian (or "coloured" in South African parlance) and he has a great commitment to the British Empire and a pride in being a citizen of the Empire. He trusts the Empire and its system to look out for his people's interests. He also works out his essential philosophy of non-violent resistance in South Africa. The South African part of the movie is a backdrop to the more important story of Gandhi's work in India, but it's vital to understanding who he was - and who he became.
Gandhi arrives in India just at the beginning of the First World War - at a time when the movement for an independent India was just getting off the ground. He becomes committed to that cause, and increasingly disenchanted with the British authorities, but always remains a disciple of non-violence. He associated with the lowest of the low - the "untouchables" of the Hindu caste system (even dressing like them, or even more modestly than them) - and he tries to maintain unity and friendship between Hindus and Muslims, believing both to be essential to India's future. In India we see his campaign of non-co- operation with the British, which tragically dissolves into violence toward the British (which is only stopped when Gandhi goes on a fast, vowing to starve unless peace is restored) and then we get a fair bit of background about the Salt March, as Indians join with Gandhi to illegally make salt in their own country - where salt was under a crown monopoly.
Finally, the movie portrays the debates around Indian independence, and the ultimate tragedy of a divided India rapidly dissolving into religiously motivated violence, as the country ends up divided between Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan, before finishing once again with the portrayal of Gandhi's assassination.
One might quibble, I suppose, with the casting of Ben Kingsley as Gandhi rather than using one of the many very talented Indian actors in the role, but clearly Hollywood wanted a "name" - someone familiar to American audiences. And even if one quibbles with the choice of Kingsley, one cannot quibble with his performance. He was perfect in the role; he became Gandhi in this picture. Indeed, as Attenborough suggested was his goal at the start of the movie, Kingsley captured for us the heart of the man. The other performances faded into the background in comparison with Kingsley's. I was a bit surprised by (of all things) the credits that rolled at the end of the movie. Actors who played (in the overall scheme of things) minor characters (like Americans Martin Sheen and Candice Bergen and Brits John Gielgud and Trevor Howard) were given credit ahead of the actors who played truly important figures such as Nehru (Roshan Seth) and Jinnah (Alyque Padamsee). I found it a bit disturbing (and perhaps not in keeping with the heart of Gandhi) that the "ethnic" actors who were truly central to the story seemed to be given second place behind American and British actors in lesser roles.
I can't really bring myself to mark the movie down for that indiscretion, though. This is a marvellous movie - possibly the best bio-pic ever made. (10/10)