[28][29] The film had a limited release in the US on Wednesday, 8 December 1982, followed by a wider release in January 1983. [57], Briley (1983), p. 54, represents Gandhi's final victory in South Africa by depicting. It is decided that the northwest area and the eastern part of India (current-day Bangladesh), both places where Muslims are in the majority, will become a new country called Pakistan. The movie is populated with many familiar faces, surrounding the newcomer Kingsley. Briley (1983), p. 180; in the movie/screenplay, the river is not identified. Parents Guide. Review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes retrospectively collected 59 reviews and judged 85% of them to be positive, with an average rating of 8.15/10. Taglines The film covers Gandhi's life from a defining moment in 1893, as he is thrown off a South African train for being in a whites-only compartment, and concludes with his assassination and funeral in 1948. Indians celebrate this victory, but their troubles are far from over. Two days later, on 2 December, it had a Royal Premiere at the Odeon Leicester Square in London[27] in the presence of Prince Charles and Princess Diana. In 1893, Mohandas K. Gandhi is thrown off a South African train for being an Indian and traveling in a first class compartment. [20][21] Finally in 1980 Attenborough was able to secure the remainder of the funding needed to make the film. In the middle of this epic film there is a quiet, small scene that helps explain why “Gandhi” is such a remarkable experience. The movie is a labor of love by Sir Richard Attenborough, who struggled for years to get financing for his huge but "non-commercial" project. [16][17] Attenborough agreed, after reading Louis Fischer's biography of Gandhi and spent the next 18 years attempting to get the film made. [45] Ben Kingsley's performance was especially praised. 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). Take the episode when the newly arrived Gandhi is ejected from a first-class railway carriage at Pietermaritzburg after a white passenger objects to sharing space with a “coolie” (an Indian indentured labourer). They do it with solemnity, quiet warmth, and perhaps just a touch of shyness; they are simultaneously demonstrating an aspect of Indian culture and touching on something very personal to them both.

Kroll stated that the screenplay's "least persuasive characters are Gandhi's Western allies and acolytes" such as an English cleric and an American journalist, but that "Attenborough's 'old-fashioned' style is exactly right for the no-tricks, no-phony-psychologizing quality he wants. I suspect a lot of us know he was a great Indian leader without quite knowing why and such is our ignorance of Eastern history and culture we may not fully realize that his movement did indeed liberate India, in one of the greatest political and economic victories of all time, achieved through nonviolent principles. His resolve was to work with stalwarts such as Mohammed Ali Jinnah, Sardar Valabhbhai Patel, Professor Gokhale, J.B. Kripalani, Maulana Azad, and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru to ensure first of all to get the British to quit India, and then run an Indian Government under the Congress party. The story begins with the assassination of Mohandas K. "Mahatma" Gandhi in India in 1948. Because of internal religious conflicts between the Hindus and minority Muslims among others, the British believe that an Indian self-government would lead to chaos, which to Gandhi is beside the point. He is urged to take up the fight for India's independence from the British Empire. Patrick French negatively reviewed the film, writing in The Telegraph: An important origin of one myth about Gandhi was Richard Attenborough’s 1982 film. Instead Lean began filming Ryan's Daughter, during which time Motilai Kothari had died and the project fell apart.[19]. "[37]:97 Roger Ebert gave the film four stars and called it a "remarkable experience",[49] and placed it 5th on his 10 best films of 1983. When Gandhi came to know about this, he pleaded with Jinnah to unite the Muslims, even take over as the first Prime Minister with his choice of Muslim candidates for Parliament, but separatist Jinnah had already made up his mind. In 1930, Gandhi protests against the British-imposed salt tax via the highly symbolic Salt March. And Ben Kingsley's performance finds the right note and stays with it. Among the few who took a more negative view of the film, historian Lawrence James called it "pure hagiography"[46] while anthropologist Akhil Gupta said it "suffers from tepid direction and a superficial and misleading interpretation of history. Gandhi agrees, and mounts a non-violent non-cooperation campaign of unprecedented scale, coordinating millions of Indians nationwide. At a time of deep political unrest, economic dislocation and nuclear anxiety, seeing "Gandhi" is an experience that will change many minds and hearts.[24]. Scenes in this central passage of the movie make it clear that nonviolent protests could contain a great deal of violence. The film “Gandhi” begins at the end, however, and shows Gandhi being shot by an assassin at a public event. Now after the much awaited independence was the real test for Gandhi - a test that will make him or break him - as he started a fast unto death to try and stop the violence that was threatening to break out into a civil war. [31] It went on to gross US$52,767,889 in the United States and Canada,[2] the 12th highest-grossing film of 1982. In the DVD edition of the 1998 film Jinnah, the director's commentary of the film makes mention of the 1982 film. He is sure where the right lies in every situation, and he will uphold it in total disregard for the possible consequences to himself.

Gandhi realizes that Indians have been made into second-class citizens in their own country, and he begins a program of civil disobedience that is at first ignored by the British, then scorned, and finally, reluctantly, dealt with, sometimes by subterfuge, sometimes by brutality. There are complexities here; “Gandhi” is not simply a moral story with a happy ending, and the tragedy of the bloodshed between the Hindu and Muslim populations of liberated India is addressed, as is the partition of India and Pakistan, which we can almost literally feel breaking Mahatma Gandhi's heart. After numerous arrests and the unwanted attention of the world, the government finally relents by recognizing rights for Indians, though not for the native blacks of South Africa. I imagine that for many Americans, Mahatma Gandhi remains a dimly understood historical figure. Together, for the benefit of a visitor from the West, they reenact their marriage vows. ", and then falls dead. He, thereby, angers many dissidents on both sides, one of whom (Godse) is involved in a conspiracy to assassinate him.

Various actors were considered over the years for the all-important title role, but the actor who was finally chosen, Ben Kingsley, makes the role so completely his own that there is a genuine feeling that the spirit of Gandhi is on the screen.

Nehru approved of the film and promised to help support its production, but his death in 1964 was one of the film's many setbacks. Having made a name for himself as a motivator of peaceful action which he does not want confused with passivity, Gandhi returns to India in 1915, when he has now abandoned his western clothing for more basic self-made garb of shawls and loincloths. After numerous arrests and unwelcome international attention, the government finally relents by recognising some rights for Indians.[8].

Gandhi was adamant that “respectable Indians” should not be obliged to use the same facilities as “raw Kaffirs”. Scenes in this central passage of the movie make it clear that nonviolent protests could contain a great deal of violence.

A co-production between India and United Kingdom, it is directed and produced by Richard Attenborough from a screenplay written by John Briley. It is hoped that by encouraging the Muslims to live in a separate country, violence will abate. [18] Attenborough reluctantly approached Lean with his own Gandhi project in the late 1960s, and Lean agreed to direct the film and offered Attenborough the lead role. [56] In 2010, the Independent Film & Television Alliance selected the film as one of the 30 Most Significant Independent Films of the last 30 years. Too weak from World War II to continue enforcing its will in India, Britain finally grants India's independence. It stars Ben Kingsley in the title role. [13] Gandhi is cremated and his ashes are scattered on the holy Ganga. Ultimately, the project was abandoned in favour of Lawrence of Arabia (1962). According to the Museum of Broadcast Communications there was "a cycle of film and television productions which emerged during the first half of the 1980s, which seemed to indicate Britain's growing preoccupation with India, Empire and a particular aspect of British cultural history". The point, I think, comes in the quiet smile with which Gandhi says the words. The film was screened retrospectively on 12 August 2016 as the opening film at the Independence Day Film Festival jointly presented by the Indian Directorate of Film Festivals and Ministry of Defence, commemorating the 70th Indian Independence Day. It also became a commercial success grossing $127.8 million on a $22 million budget. In 1915, as a result of his victory in South Africa, Gandhi is invited back to India, where he is now considered something of a national hero. This is the sort of rare epic film that spans the decades, that uses the proverbial cast of thousands, and yet follows a human thread from beginning to end: “Gandhi” is no more overwhelmed by the scope of its production than was Gandhi overwhelmed by all the glory of the British Empire. The movie is a labor of love by Sir Richard Attenborough, who struggled for years to get financing for his huge but "non-commercial" project. [10] Indians celebrate this victory, but their troubles are far from over.

It was shown tax free in Bombay (known as Mumbai since 1995) and Delhi. He petitioned the authorities in the port city of Durban, where he practised law, to end the indignity of making Indians use the same entrance to the post office as blacks, and counted it a victory when three doors were introduced: one for Europeans, one for Asiatics and one for Natives.[52]. "[47] The film was also criticised by some right-wing commentators who objected to the film's advocacy of nonviolence, including Pat Buchanan, Emmett Tyrrell, and especially Richard Grenier.