Gandhi Movie Analysis

1029 Words 5 Pages
The movie Gandhi addresses one of the most important times in Indian history. It follows the story of Gandhi, the leader of the independence movement in India against the British. Directed by Richard Attenbrought, the movie follows Gandhi’s adult life until he died. The movie does not explore Gandhi’s childhood or university years. Attenbrought use symbols and techniques to help convey his message. Through this film the director hoped to portray Gandhi as a holy man with all positive attributes. In doing so however, Attenbrought created flaws in the story. Over all however, I thought this movie was well done and educational.

The central story of this film focuses on India’s journey to independence through the story of Gandhi. The story
…show more content…
He used a number of techniques and symbols to portray his opinion. Through symbolism Gandhi is made out to be a auspicious figure. The movie begins and ends with the setting of he sun over the Ganges River. This river is understood in Indian culture as a “holy river”. This river is a clear symbol of Gandhi’s auspicious nature. Furthermore, Attenbrought painted Gandhi as holy by only showing him in a positive light. The only appearance of negativity with Gandhi is when his wife and him fought in the beginning of the movie. In this scene however, Gandhi is not portrayed as wrong for fighting, instead he is regarded as morally understanding as he advocates on behalf of untouchables. Even in his death, Gandhi appeared faultless. The viewer is never given a reason for Gandhi’s death. Since it is unclear why Gandhi was shot there is nothing to suggest that he did anything wrong. Gandhi is portrayed as holy through his ability to influence the masses through the threat of him dying. Through these symbols and techniques Richard Attenbrought hoped to portray Gandhi is as a shaman. However, in doing do he created problems in truly understanding …show more content…
Gandhi had a major influence on Indian politics and the Indian constitution. I believe that sharing Gandhi’s political accomplishments, as part of the story is important to understanding India today. In not explaining the politics key and important aspects of his story is lost. However, politics are a more sensitive topic and perhaps this is why the director chose to leave most of Gandhi’s political influences out. This created some gaps in the story and made him out to be more of a spiritual leader then a political larder. While it is clear that the directed wanted to portray Gandhi positively I think it limited the authenticity of the movie. Showing both the good and the bad of people in critical to understand someone. Gandhi, one of-if not the, most important person in Indian history should be understood fully. Lastly the director seriously undermined and insulted the story of Gandhi by using a white British actor to act out his journey. It was an interesting decision to use a well-known British actor and made me question if he was trying to use this actor to symbolize the continuation of British influence within India. If the director had used an Indian actor, provided more of a political backstory, and explored the more negative aspects of Gandhi I think this movie would have been much more well

Related Documents