A hugely engrossing and powerful indictment of racism, imperialism, colonialism and violence

Rating: Null/10 (13 September 2015)

A generally historical accurate account of the life of the Mahatma, this is an absolutely brilliant and hugely engrossing film which acts as a powerful indictment of racism, imperialism, colonialism and violence, political or otherwise. The script by John Briley is beautifully written and full of marvellous dialogue while Richard Attenborough's direction is never less than fantastic. This was Attenborough's dream project and I am delighted that it was such a success, winning him both Best Picture and Best Director. It was the only time that one of his directorial efforts was nominated for either award.
As strong as the writing and direction are, the film would not have been nearly as successful had it not been for the casting of Ben Kingsley in the title role. A comparative unknown before the film was released, he plays Gandhi between the ages of 23 and 78 and is never less than mesmerising in the demanding role. Over the course of the film's more than three hour running time, he goes from being an inexperienced young lawyer with no idea of how to handle people to the one of the most revered and respected men in the world. Gandhi is depicted a man of great integrity, humility, courage, compassion, wisdom and intelligence. The strength of Kingsley's performance, which deservedly won Best Actor, means that the audience never doubts why so many Indian people follow him. I suspect that this would be the case even for the admittedly few people who didn't know who Gandhi was before watching the film. However, the script also humanises him when it shows his anger at his wife Kasturba's refusal to clean the latrines in the ashram in South Africa and, decades later, when she tells Margaret Bourke-White that he neglected her in favour of his activism, albeit not in so many words. This behaviour is not exactly admirable but it is very human and I think that the film needed that human dimension to ground its portrayal of Gandhi.
In its depiction of South Africa and the British Raj, the film does not pull any punches when it comes to the institutionalised racism that existed in both states. One of the most powerful scenes in the film is the deeply moving and disturbing recreation of the Amritsar massacre of 1919 in which as many of 1,000 men, women and children were killed in the space of barely ten minutes. It is a great illustration of Attenborough's skill as a director. The massacre was easily the worst and most infamous atrocity ever perpetrated by the British Army and is generally considered to be one of the major events which paved the way for Indian independence. One thing that is not depicted in the film is that many in Britain hailed its chief perpetrator General Reginald Dyer and felt that it was necessary to maintain discipline. However, the majority of the British people saw it for what it was, namely mass murder, and Dyer was forced to retire soon afterwards.
That said, I think that Gandhi was correct in describing Dyer as an extreme example of the racism which existed towards the Indian people on the part of the British administration, though this is a criticism that could be just as fairly levelled against every colonial power of the day. In spite of such acts of extreme violence, however, Gandhi continually relies on non-violent resistance to obstruct and even shame the administration. While some of his followers suggest the use of violence to achieve their aims, he is appalled by the idea. Jinnah says that he would rather be ruled by an Indian terrorist than an English one when Gandhi and Nehru point out that an Indian campaign of violence would leave them with deeply unsuitable leaders, to put it mildly, if and when India became independent. Unfortunately, this is a lesson which people in many other countries have failed to grasp. Speaking of Jinnah, his extremely unfair depiction as a sneering, sometimes even frightening, villainous figure is certainly the largest historical accuracy in the film. In this respect, I think that the filmmakers knew what side their bread was buttered on as a third of the budget was provided by the Indian government, then led by Nehru's daughter Indira Gandhi, through the National Film Development Corporation of India.
As he always did, Attenborough was able to assemble an excellent cast in roles of varying size: Rohini Hattangadi as Kasturba Gandhi, Roshan Seth as Nehru, Saeed Jaffrey as Sardar Patel, Alyque Padamsee as Jinnah (I can't fault his performance, even if the character is not depicted accurately), Ian Charleson as Charlie Andrews, Candice Bergen as Margaret Bourke-White, John Mills as Lord Chelmsford, John Gielgud as Lord Irwin (better remembered as Lord Halifax, who had a left hand in the film but not in reality), Martin Sheen as Vince Walker (the only notable fictional character), Edward Fox as General Dyer, Trevor Howard as Lord Broomfield, Athol Fugard as General Smuts, Günther Maria Halmer as Dr. Hermann Kallenbach (who doesn't seem to age in 50 years!) and Geraldine James as Mirabehn (who died only four months before the film was released). It was features great appearances in smaller roles from Michael Hordern, Richard Vernon, John Savident, a very young Daniel Day-Lewis, the director's brother-in-law Gerald Sim, Amrish Puri, Terence Hardiman, Nigel Hawthorne, Richard Griffiths, Bernard Hill, Ian Bannen and Shane Rimmer. Attenborough had such a great eye for casting.
Overall, this is a wonderful epic film which deservedly swept the boards at the Oscars in 1983. While it is not my favourite Attenborough film since I preferred both "Oh! What a Lovely War" and "A Bridge Too Far", it is one of my favourite biopics and historical films. A triumph for all concerned.