by Chris Marshall:
Gandhi is a film
that brings me back to Oscar winners of old, in that they take an Indian man, a
man who devoted the second half of his life entirely to securing India’s
independence from the British Empire, and they cast an actor (Ben Kingsley) who
is white and British. I’m sure there’s some kind of symbolism in that. I’m just
not sure what it is.
That being said, Kingsley was fantastic as Gandhi. In the
first part of the film, which takes place in South Africa, everything seemed a
little off. Honestly, though, I think that has more to do with seeing Gandhi
(who was an attorney, after all) wearing suits and other European clothing. I’m
so accustomed to seeing him in his traditional Indian garb that it just seems
wrong to see him wear anything else.
After Gandhi returns to India, by which point he has already
overcome grave injustice toward his fellow Indians in South Africa, Ben
Kingsley stops being Ben Kingsley and transforms entirely into Mohandas K.
Gandhi. I don’t think anybody ever doubts his acting skills in general, but if
they do, they need look no further than this film.
The film is really just a vehicle for his performance. It
honors Gandhi, yes, but it would be quite an achievement to portray him in a
negative light, unless you’re a British imperialist or something. I genuinely
believe that Kingsley’s acting, more than anything else, won Best Picture for
this movie.
The production was a collaboration between the British and
Indian film industries and was directed by Richard Attenborough, who, like his
character Dr. John Hammond in Jurassic
Park, spared no expense. Although Kingsley singlehandedly made the movie’s
reputation, the filmmakers didn’t want to take any chances, and they turned it
into a classic Oscar Bait movie all around. A biopic with a tragic ending that
lasts over three hours? That’s already been done three times to this point.
Remember The Great Ziegfeld, Lawrence of Arabia, and Patton?
 |
| Kingsley would reprise this role in 2000's Sexy Beast |
The plot is a fairly straightforward retelling of the latter
half of Gandhi’s life story, so there are no real surprises. It’s not like I’m
some kind of Gandhi scholar, but I knew most of the high points. As good as
Kingsley is, I still think it dragged at points, which is the same way I felt
about the aforementioned biopics. It’s important to be comprehensive, but it’s
also important to keep the audience’s attention.
Besides Kingsley, the rest of the cast also contains some
familiar faces. Ian Charleson and John Gielgud are both back in minor roles from
Chariots of Fire, and Indiana Jones
fans will recognize Nehru (Roshan Seth) and Khan (Amrish Puri) from Temple of Doom, where they played
Chattar Lal and Mola Ram, respectively.
Gandhi is a very
good film, no doubt about it, but you will certainly need to be in the right
frame of mind to get through it one sitting. I watched in three separate
chunks, and even then it felt very, very long. At 191 minutes, it’s only the
fourth longest to date and the sixth longest of all time, but it feels longer
than any of them except The Great
Ziegfeld, and you already know how I feel about that. Still, I harbor no
ill will toward this movie. I think Gandhi’s life deserves such a treatment[1],
even if it’s not always the most fun thing in the world to watch.
[1] I’m
going to go out on a limb and say that Gandhi merits more time and attention
than Florenz Ziegfeld did.
No comments:
Post a Comment