solid history lesson

Rating: 8/10 (31 May 2009)

Had never seen this movie until this week, probably because I suspected it would just be one of those sanctimonious emotional films that feels more like an advertisement for a political figure than a real movie with actual characters. But I was really pleased with the way that the director and Kingsley managed to make Gandhi into a real flesh and blood human being, one who we could admire without feeling that he was remote or too perfect for reality. It was Gandhi's humility that really got to me, how when the Martin Sheen reporter character told him he was an ambitious man he said, "I hope not." Of course I couldn't have spent all these years talking and reading about film without hearing the Legend of Ben Kingsley. That he was so great in this movie, that it was one of the best performances, etc. But at least up until I saw "Sexy Beast", I had never really been impressed with him as an actor. I doubted his ability to restrain his energy, even (or especially) after "Beast." But ladies and gentlemen, I couldn't have been more wrong. He's wonderful in the role and watching him is a delight in and of itself. The Indian actors who play in support roles are also really excellent, and I especially enjoyed Roshan Seth as Nehru and Rohini Hattangadi as Gandhi's wife. I think they should have been billed higher, but whoever was paying for the movie obviously felt like they needed Candice Bergen's name up there as if to tempt the audience with sex appeal. Bergen adds almost nothing to the movie with her typically cardboard performance, and Geraldine James is barely an actress at all.
I wouldn't say it's a really great movie overall though. The style that Attenborough uses is exceptionally dry and straightforward. I don't think a director with more "flourish" would necessarily have made a better film, and in fact it would have been a huge risk, but it kept the movie from being what it could have been as a piece of cinema. Compare it to David Lean's style in "Lawrence of Arabia" or Edward Zwick's style in "Glory" and it seems a bit dull. The other thing was that it seemed like the screenwriters had gone to great efforts to make sure that there were white characters on screen at all times. It seemed very contrived to me, having this whole scene where Gandhi tells the priest (Ian Charleston, who was also scandalously under-billed considering the importance and quality of his performance) that he has to leave because whatever is done must be done by Indians, and then there's really no explanation as to why he's bringing this British woman to India to help him take care of his house. Then just as the movie is coming to a close, we have Candice Bergen strutting around flirting with Gandhi and it sets a very odd tone to some scenes that probably could have been done better with a more serious actress. You have John Gielgud in a role that could just as easily have been played by just about anybody. So there's a lot of wasted talent in a sense, and all these actors getting top bill over some of the people who had real roles in the film leaves a bitter taste in the mouth. Not enough however to really over-ride my overall enthusiasm for this film, which has a handful of really exceptional scenes at least to make it worthwhile. At the very least, it made me want to learn more about Gandhi, who I never had much interest in as an esoteric religious leader but who seems much more interesting as a human being.