Not the Man

Rating: Null/10 (31 May 2004)

Attenborough is a British Altman. He doesn't make a film because the story is good (though here he claimed it was his life's mission), but rather he makes derides the social structure. His 'Bridge Too Far' wasn't 'MASH', it was better and more cinematic. Why the Brits don't catch on is beyond me. He later emphasized his point with 'Chaplin.'
This is your only spoiler warning...
Unfortunately, most of that talent is lacking here, Unsworth died and Gibbs went on to other things. Also, Attenborough shifts the focus from the man (Gandhi) to the masses, thus the framing of the assassination. Interestingly enough, though Gandhi is our hero, our narrator is Martin Sheen. Just watch him giving his cable, taking our reactions and putting them in words. Unfortunately, it's rather redundant.
In 'Bridge' there was an infatuation with transportation. Think about it. The angelic grace of the airplanes. The tight rumble of tanks. The skittishness of jeeps. None of that is here despite the plethora of cars, ships, planes, and trains. I bet its because the two photographers were more interested in focusing on people than transportation and it shows how visually dull this is. Filming a nice sunrise/sunset to change the boring landscape does not constitute great cinematography. Why wasn't David Watkin hired for this one?
One scene does stand out, the massacre. Here the fluidity of 'Bridge' returns as we intercut between the soldiers (different angles), the crowd, Ed Fox, the spent casings on the ground, and the fleeing mob. Eisenstein must have been popular in Britain in the early 80s as this and 'The Wall' show.
The whole racism issue is as insipid as those in "Mockingbird" and "Mississippi Burning." Spielberg tried learning from this movie, but in all the wrong ways.
Final Analysis = = Midrange Material