Term Paper
GEK1048 – Midterm Assignment
Richard Attenborough’s Hollywood production of the life of Mohandas K. Gandhi has undoubtedly received mixed responses from various audiences; with criticisms ranging from aspects of its cinematography to the extent of which it adheres closely to the historical truth. This paper will focus on the latter. Attenborough, being an inspired fan of the Mahatma, I believe, had every intention of portraying him in the most exemplary manner possible; depicting his selfless personality and divinely-inspired ideologies, a saint of our times. However, this does not necessarily run parallel to factual authenticity. What is effective and most clearly depicted in Gandhi is the political career of the Mahatma; from his days in South Africa as a young barrister to the iconic advocate of freedom and equality he emerges as in his homeland, India. The movie had rather distinctively focused on this aspect of Gandhi’s life and did an excellent job illustrating it. It depicted, with proper emphasis, the various meetings, congregations and political incidents which showcased the foundations upon which Gandhi formed his methods, though only in an elementary sense. For example, the episode where Gandhi was so violently thrown off the train at Pietermaritzburg due to his reluctance to move to a third-class cabin and remain in first-class as was due him very evidently revealed Gandhi’s sentiments on being racially discriminated against; the first of a series of non-violent retaliations screened throughout the movie. Though the portrayal of the origins and development of Gandhi’s ideologies was impressive, the biggest flaw in Attenborough’s film was, ironically, the misportrayal of certain historical personalities, most evidently in the character of Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Dressed up in the role of the “villain”, he is shown to possess sinister notions. Slit-eyed, pock-marked, monocle and English-sounding, Jinnah obstinately opposes Gandhi’s gentle ways,
Richard Attenborough’s Hollywood production of the life of Mohandas K. Gandhi has undoubtedly received mixed responses from various audiences; with criticisms ranging from aspects of its cinematography to the extent of which it adheres closely to the historical truth. This paper will focus on the latter. Attenborough, being an inspired fan of the Mahatma, I believe, had every intention of portraying him in the most exemplary manner possible; depicting his selfless personality and divinely-inspired ideologies, a saint of our times. However, this does not necessarily run parallel to factual authenticity. What is effective and most clearly depicted in Gandhi is the political career of the Mahatma; from his days in South Africa as a young barrister to the iconic advocate of freedom and equality he emerges as in his homeland, India. The movie had rather distinctively focused on this aspect of Gandhi’s life and did an excellent job illustrating it. It depicted, with proper emphasis, the various meetings, congregations and political incidents which showcased the foundations upon which Gandhi formed his methods, though only in an elementary sense. For example, the episode where Gandhi was so violently thrown off the train at Pietermaritzburg due to his reluctance to move to a third-class cabin and remain in first-class as was due him very evidently revealed Gandhi’s sentiments on being racially discriminated against; the first of a series of non-violent retaliations screened throughout the movie. Though the portrayal of the origins and development of Gandhi’s ideologies was impressive, the biggest flaw in Attenborough’s film was, ironically, the misportrayal of certain historical personalities, most evidently in the character of Muhammad Ali Jinnah. Dressed up in the role of the “villain”, he is shown to possess sinister notions. Slit-eyed, pock-marked, monocle and English-sounding, Jinnah obstinately opposes Gandhi’s gentle ways,