In testifying in his own defense while on trial, he says simply "Non-cooperation with evil is a duty, and that British rule of India is evil." In speaking with British officials, he says "In the end you will walk out, because 100,000 Englishmen simply cannot control 350 million Indians, if those Indians refuse to cooperate - and that's what we intend to achieve - peaceful, nonviolent, non-cooperation, until you yourselves see the wisdom of leaving." He tries desperately to hold Hindus and Muslims together in the aftermath, but is frail and then is of course assassinated.
He eschews pomp, embraces poverty, and demands authenticity. Who can possibly not be moved by this great man, whose simplicity and nonviolent approach to oppression and violence inspired Indians and the world? He endures beatings without raising a hand, and his moral rectitude and dignity never waver in dealing with the British, his countrymen, and his peers in the 'Home Rule' movement. This epic movie has beautiful shots of India and is beautiful in spirit.
However, I have to say, those who focus on these omissions miss all that was absolutely accurate - and truly inspiring - in the film. Just one example of the latter was his very naïve attitude towards Hitler, which I chalk up to the limits of his idealism more than anything else, not evil on his part - but that would have been 'fair ground' for a more accurate and balanced portrayal of the man.
As Einstein said about Gandhi, a quote included at the end of this movie, "Generations to come will scarce believe that such a one as this ever, in flesh and blood, walked upon this earth." Critics of this film will say that's in part because of the mythologizing of Gandhi, which director Richard Attenborough contributes to by not showing us questionable aspects of Gandhi's personal life, or some of the opinions he held.
0 kommentar(er)
