Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.........1869-1948

Rating: 10/10 (5 February 2011)

Films do not come any better than this. The impact of this singular life is still being felt in the world. This man of peace who toppled a mighty empire and caused it to leave his country. Many study his teachings, most importantly the Reverend Martin Luther King for the civil rights movement in America, not enough follow them, especially in Gandhi's own corner of the world. His monument is now a growing and prosperous India that is slowly eradicating poverty form its borders. Gandhi would approve of that, he was not just for independence for the sake of independence, he was deeply interested in the kind of society that would result after the British left India. India's growing prosperity would please him, the religious and ethnic struggles still prevalent in that part of the world would not.
The problem in discussing a film like Gandhi is that discussions will overlap into the life of the subject as opposed to the quality of the film. Richard Attenborough having lived a lot of his life during the time when these events took place remembered them well. He's got an eye for the sweep and grandeur of the story, but the life of Gandhi here is never overwhelmed by the spectacle of the film. And Ben Kingsley's Gandhi dominates the film, no wonder he received his Oscar for Best Actor. Ironically enough one of his competitors was Paul Newman who got a nomination for The Verdict which I consider his best performance and my personal favorite of his films. For me to say Kingsley deserved it over him is quite an admission.
Gandhi was a devout Hindhu, but he was a man of vision who saw some of the injustices of fundamentalist and exclusionary religious beliefs. Born in the Brahmin caste, he fought against the caste system where social status was stratified by religion in ancient times and people could not rise from it. He was a believer in a land of opportunity, careers that were open to talent. He also was against male domination and treated women as equals. Note that scene where after he's arrested the British soldier offers to take Mrs. Gandhi to shelter, but says she will make the same seditious speech her husband intended to make and they might as well arrest her too.
Of the many varied roles in the film by British and Indian players and a couple of Americans as well, the one that really stands out was Edward Fox as General Dyer. Some of the violence during our civil rights struggles in the American south was nothing compared to the Amritsar massacre when as the British commander he opened fire on a peaceful rally and slaughtered hundreds of men, women, and children. We put Nazis to death for atrocities committed in World War II, yet little happened to Dyer except he was put on the shelf and buried like an embarrassment which he certainly was. Fox in that small role captured the haughty military mind and cold blooded ruthlessness that one has to be born with.
The ironic thing is that after India did send troops to fight in various theaters in World War I the Indians, Moslems, Hindus, et al, expected independence. They thought it would be peaceful, but Amritsar made revolutionaries of a lot of people. And the sentiment in the British population was for independence. But some politicians like Winston Churchill and press barons like Lord Beaverbrooke whipped up a lot of fear in the Tory ranks for granting independence. It was a stupid and incredibly shortsighted opinion that we still feel the effects of today.
Gandhi won several Oscars besides Kingsley's including Best Picture for 1982 and Best Director for Richard Attenborough. The best review I can give Gandhi is that the film is great and worthy of the great man in portrays.