Movie - Gandhi.

Posted on March 9, 2010 at 11:05 pm.

I had to watch Richard Attenborough's 1982 film Gandhi for a class I'm taking. In regards to cinematography and historical accuracy, yes the movie is reasonably well made and accurate. As it stands, the central issue of this film, as is the case with most Gandi-related media, is the ability to achieve justice via peaceful means. The gist of the story is known to all, one Gandhi, preaches non-violence and passive resistance, and in doing so liberates his homeland of India from the horrible and oppressive British rule. Rejoice, ye, free-loving people of the world, your salvation be at hand. All hail Saint Mahatma, and so on and so forth. The movie of course goes into more detail and paints Gandhi as a real person, not just a heavenly being.

Unfortunately, the message of this film is a logical fallacy, namely a red herring. More specifically it is an appeal to emotion, as opposed to an appeal to reason. The movie uses the natural human desire for and appreciation of justice, the western tendency to side with the underdog, and graphical depictions of violence as well as serene imagery to force the viewer to take sides that are not necessarily well argued for. This is not to say that the movie twists any truths, or turns the events upside down. However, it does use every trick in the book, including, once again, logical fallacies, to prevent the audience from critically evaluating the events.

What is worse, the movie reinforces an already prevalent idea, which also happens to be very much false, that all conflicts can be solved via non-violent means. People who firmly believe that, usually find themselves at the receiving end of various implements used to project force. It is also usually a surprise for them. Because of this it would have been better if the film actually took care to accurately explain the political and social situation in India at the time, and tried to show Gandhi not as a saint, but instead as a clever and shrewd politician, who knew exactly what he could and could not do.

Specifically, it would serve well to make clear that Gandhi's resistance was only possible against the British - a noble and law-abiding nation, that produced and adhered by the concept of fair game. Men who saw it fit to keep firing into defenseless crowd were few and far between, and condemned by their own. On the other hand, should Gandhi have attempted the same tactics against the Russians (who murdered millions of their own people and kept 10% of their population in concentration camps at the time) or the Belgians (whose ghastly colonial cruelty is unsurpassed to this day,) the results would have been different.

Gandhi along with his associates would have simply been slaughtered. Anyone not content with that would have been slaughtered as well. India is a very large country with a lot of people. Belgians, Russians, and others would think nothing of purging a few millions to keep the rest in check. The genius of Gandhi was in realizing how he can manipulate the most civilized nation on Earth. Particularly of note is the fact that when it came to negotiations between Hindus and Moslems, Gandhi was nowhere near his usual effectiveness. He himself considered the separation of India and Pakistan a dramatic failure. In that he was correct.

None of this is to say that Gandhi was not a brilliant statesman. None of this is to belittle his achievements. While it is highly questionable whether the British rule was bad for India, everyone can sympathize with the desire for independence. Still, Gandhi's role is not very well shown for what it really was. His true achievements go unsung as far as this film is concerned. What the audience is shown, is yet another "obscurity to greatness to martyrdom" epic, which is hardly at all about Gandhi. Replace India with a fantasy kingdom, and no meaning will be lost. The true meaning and story is not shown, however.