HISTORY PROJECT

FILM REVIEW
GANDHI (RICHARD ATTENBOROUGH)

[1]
 INDEX
SL NO TOPIC PAGE NO

[2]
 Acknowledgement
I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my
teacher (RUNA DUTTA) who gave me the golden opportunity to
do this wonderful project on the topic (FILM REVIEW:
GANDHI [RICHARD ATTENBOROUGH]), which also helped
me in doing a lot of Research and I came to know about so many
new things I am really thankful to them.
Secondly, I would also like to thank my parents and friends who
helped me a lot in finalizing this project within the limited time
frame.

[3]
 A FILM REVIEW
TITLE OF THE FILM: GANDHI
RELEASE DATE: 30 November 1982
DIRECTOR: Richard Attenborough
PRODUCER: Richard Attenborough
CAST: Ben Kingsley
Candice Bergen
Edward Fox
John Gielgud
Trevor Howard
John Mills
Martin Sheen

[4]
 PROLOGUE
Gandhi is a 1982 period biographical film based on the life of Mahatma
Gandhi, the leader of nonviolent non-cooperative Indian independence
movement against the British Raj during the 20th century. A co-
production between India and United Kingdom, it is directed and
produced by Richard Attenborough from a screenplay written by John
Briley. It stars Ben Kingsley in the title role. The film covers Gandhi's
life from a defining moment in 1893, as he is thrown off from a South
African train for being in a whites-only compartment, and concludes
with his assassination and funeral in 1948. Although a practising Hindu,
Gandhi's embracing of other faiths, particularly Christianity and Islam,
is also depicted.
Gandhi was released in India on 30 November 1982, in the United
Kingdom on 3 December, and in the United States on 8 December. It
was praised for a historically accurate portrayal of the life of Gandhi,
the Indian independence movement and the deteriorating results of
British colonisation on India, and also for Kingsley's performance, its
production values and costume design.
The movie is a labour of love by Sir Richard Attenborough, who
struggled for years to get financing for his huge but "non-commercial"
project.
The film received a leading eleven nominations at the 55th Academy
Awards, winning eight (more than any other film nominated that year),
including for the Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Actor (for
Kingsley).

CONTENT
Beginning with the End: The majority of the film is presented in
flashback. The first scene, which transpires on January 30, 1948, shows
the assassination of an elderly Mahatma Gandhi (Ben Kingsley) after
[5]
evening prayers. The canvas then seamlessly shifts in time and place –
to 1893 South Africa, where the 23-year old Gandhi begins his lifetime
of nonviolent protesting by campaigning for equal rights for Indians in
the country. After meeting with success (although not before enduring
multiple setbacks), he returns to his home country of India, where he
joins the disparate ranks of those struggling for independence from the
British Empire.
Amritsar Massacre (1919):
The first half of the film follows Gandhi‟s career from his political
awakening in South Africa through to the Amritsar Massacre. On 13
April 1919, British Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer cornered several
thousand men, women and children in a walled garden in Amritsar,
where they were listening peacefully to political speeches. Without
warning, he opened fire. Even the low official figures admitted at least
379 were killed, 1,200 injured. Richard Attenborough‟s recreation of
this event is gut-wrenchingly horrible and precisely accurate. As the
film correctly implies, Amritsar immediately radicalised Jawaharlal
Nehru, among others. It does not acknowledge that the effect on Gandhi
was slower. His first reaction was to criticise the victims for having
„taken to their heels‟ rather than face death with composure. It was over
a year later when he finally handed back his British Empire medal and
declared himself in favour of independence.
Round Table Conference (1931): The film‟s most glaring bias is its
depiction of Mohammad Ali Jinnah, leader of the Muslim League and
ultimately founder of Pakistan. It shows Jinnah sitting around with
Congress leadership in Gandhi‟s ashram after the 1931 Round Table
Conference, being mean to the Mahatma: „After all your travels, after all
your efforts, they sent you back empty-handed.‟ Jinnah attended the
Round Table Conference, from which everyone came away empty-
handed, including him – so this would have been an odd thing to say.
It‟s even odder to picture Jinnah casually hanging out with Congress
[6]
leadership in the 1930s: he had left the party in 1920, deploring
Gandhi‟s „pseudo-religious approach to politics‟. The film writes him
off as a motiveless baddie, seemingly making a career out of hanging
around looking sinister while wearing natty suits and smoking
cigarettes.
World War II (1939): From 1934 until the outbreak of war in 1939,
Gandhi left the struggle for political independence to others. He began
traveling through India again, working with women and children,
helping untouchables, and promoting use of the spinning wheel. During
World War II, Gandhi is shown saying sadly that „Jinnah has cooperated
with the British.‟ He did, but let‟s not forget that – whatever their
crimes as imperialists – the British were on the right side in World War
II. At the time, Jinnah‟s cooperation was viewed by many as more
morally defensible than Gandhi‟s non-cooperation. The film steers well
clear of exploring Gandhi‟s thoughts on Axis powers, some of which
might have made a western audience choke on its popcorn. For instance,
his suggestion that Jews should sacrifice themselves to Hitler to
demonstrate their moral superiority: „I can conceive the necessity of the
immolation of hundreds, if not thousands, to appease the hunger of
dictators,‟ he wrote in 1939, adding in 1946 that „the Jews should have
offered themselves to the butcher‟s knife. They should have thrown
themselves into the sea from cliffs.‟
Partition: After Partition, Calcutta was ripped apart by Hindu-Muslim
violence. Gandhi announced he would fast until it stopped. It did, in
little more than a day. Surprisingly, the film downplays this, showing
Gandhi weakened and struggling in Calcutta. In real life, this fast was
one of the most stunning demonstrations of the moral power for which
he was justly famous. As Lord Mountbatten, then Governor-General of
India, wrote to him: „In the Punjab we have 55,000 soldiers and large
scale rioting on our hands. In Bengal our forces consist of one man, and
there is no rioting.‟ That, surely, is a great soul in action.
[7]
 CONCLUSION
In my opinion, it is fairly historically accurate. It takes a few artistic
licenses to convey the point (like the court scene with the judge standing
up) but overall it is a landmark movie in how close it got to history
while still not being boring. Most movies about heroes are faulty to
show the heroes in a good light.
It is never easy to explain a man's 78 year life in 3 hours. And this man
is the Mahatma - with 10 million things to talk about. There was a lot
attention to details in clothing and settings. The movie is also noted for
its actor selection - especially the Indian cast. However, there is some
criticism on the English cast - as most of them don't make a mark.
There were some fictional characters like Vince Walker (based on
Webb Miller) but overall it was an amazing well-made movie. A small
group of critics has criticized that the movie doesn't go deep to explore
Gandhi's grandeur, but that is unreasonable to expect.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
 When Great Movies Fail The History Test, By Alex von Tunzelmann
18th OCT, 2015
 Roger Ebert January 01, 1982, Review on “Gandhi”
 James Berardinelli, October 22, 2019, Review on “Gandhi”
 Philip French, Sun 5 Dec 1982, “The Guardian”
 Richard Attenborough‟s Gandhi://en.wikipedia.org › wiki ›

[8]