Perspectrum

I read Paul Mavis's DVD review of Gandhi at http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=26896 and...

Racist, shallow bastard.

David Cornelius

Did you just call Mohandas Gandhi shallow and racist?

That's ballsy.

slop101

I didn't get a sense of racism from the review, but I do think it was wrong-headed to compare it to Lawrence of Arabia and judge it from that. I mean, just because a movie's not one of the greatest of all time, doesn't mean it rates 2/5. That, and I think it holds up just fine. Oh, and Doctor Zhivago is a piece of crap that has never "held up" in any way, shape or form.

DieselsDen

While I don't think that the review was necessarily racist, I also strongly disagree with the overall opinion and that the comments (some slightly valid, some simply wrongheaded) are not worth paying any more attention to.

pro-bassoonist

I fail to see why anyone could be tagged "racist" just because his/her opinion happens to be rubbing you the wrong way. While I also disagree with the writer (as I think that neither E.T nor Gandhi were the best pictures that year) but his article clearly states why and for what reason the picture shouldn't have won. This is a simple review expressing an opinion and I don't see how you could attach such a strong word to Paul's persona.

In fact, it is your comment that quite well follows what I find as a very disturbing trend where anything or anyone who isn't politically correct (enough) for the masses gets flagged. I have not seen or read your opinion to respect your claim! All I have seen is a quick jab!

For the record I'd rather read one review that goes against the conventional truth, even if I might disagree with it, than 100 reviews that are telling me what I already know.

Reading should force you to think not put you to sleep. This review might have just done it.

Pro-B

cranberries fan

It's fine flim in my mind.

Joe Molotov

Just remember to add 2 1/2 stars to any Paul Mavis review, and you'll be fine.

Josh Z

Disliking the movie based on Gandhi's life is quite a different thing than disliking Gandhi the man. In light of what was actually written in the review, calling Paul "racist" is just plain ignorant and small-minded, and frankly you should be ashamed of writing that.

Besides which, his review of the film is spot-on to what I've always thought of it. A lousy movie based on a good true story is still a lousy movie.

windidiot

While I tend to disagree with the review and will doubtless pick up the DVD; I do think that the the reviewer makes a good case for his point of view.

I've seen other criticisms of "Gandhi" that point out the relative lack of recognition given to the Indian cast as another issue with the film - so there are definitely some good points for debate here.

rpruthee

When I fist read the review I was angry at Paul. I re-read it and re-read it and now I agree with him, partly though. First, I disagree with comparison to Lawrence of Arabia and Dr. Zhivago (which sucked in my opinion). The only reason why LoA works is for the reasons you mentioned. But it is no way a comparison to a biopic, Gandhi. Second, just because LoA is shown on TCM and Gandhi is not that doesn't mean people stopped caring about this movie. In my growing up India, I have watched this movie every year when it is telecasted on TV. I have watched this movie 25 times. In India, watching this movie is an educational and emotional experience. It brings the sense of independence nostalgia among people.. they share same thoughts when watching this.. they feel the pain and suffering of lot people during the independence movement.

Attenborough's vision for Gandhi, the movie was to express the movement going in India through the eyes of Gandhi. It does not matter what Gandhi feels and how he became what he became. This is where I agree with you that movie lacks this aspect. However, make no mistake there were lot of studies done to understand why what Gandhi did and why he choose this path. The entire nation during those turbulent years believed that Gandhi was born to bring freedom to India. His autobiography "My Experiments with truth" clearly explains why he became what he was in the end. The movie tells what Gandhi felt about the plight of poor people in South Africa. That was the trigger where is got politically active. Later as you commented "Reacting like a naive child slapped" what got him on the path of independence using non-violence. Throughout the entire movie Gandhi talks about non-voilence which is basically he is thinking and feeling.

Your review is bit incomplete on details as you believe that every grand filmaking should be compared to LOA (that is where you lost me as a reader). Some of the comments in your review can be taken as being rascist (i am sure that is not the intent).

Supermallet

What comments are racist? All I saw were criticisms of the film. Unless you count comments like "Gandhi had flaws, just like anyone else" a racist comment.

By the way, Paul, fantastically written review. I loved it.

eXcentris

A rather weak, unsubstantiated argument.

Well written review, but I lost interest in the middle of the meandering comparisons with Lawrence of Arabia.

Comparisons to other films in a review is a double-edged sword. A quick mention of other films might help the reader place the film within a certain genre and/or style and provide some bearings as to genre conventions (plus show that you might actually know what you are talking about ), but when the bulk of your criticism is made using comparisons to other films, then I question whether you are criticizing the film for what it is, or for what you wanted to be. You should be able to analyze/criticize/review a film on it's own merits without constantly resorting to (flawed) comparisons.

Oh, and he's wrong about both Gandhi and Casino Royale.

Paul Mavis

Well, I wanted to be a doctor, but Mom had her heart set on dancer, so...

David Cornelius

I'm very curious by this, as I never figured the film had such an impact in India. (You'd think there would be more locally produced movies on the subject.) So it is viewed in India with respect and a recognition of accuracy? Pretty cool.

slop101

There is, but it's a musical...

rpruthee

The movie had a huge impact in India in 80s and early 90s. But you are right that there are not many movies on this subject. However, there are couple of movies made on principles followed by Gandhi and other freedom fighters unknown to the western world.

Ravid

I don't know how accurate or inaccurate the movie is, but the fact that Indians love it doesn't mean it is accurate. I say that as an Indian. Gone with the Wind is a classic in the US, but it's not exactly the most accurate depiction of the Civil War, is it?

My feelings on the film are mixed. As Rpruthee said, seeing the events unfold on a large canvas like this is an emotional experience for us Indians, especially when the events are relatively recent, but Attenborough does tend to enshrine Gandhi. I wonder if a British person is really the most qualified person to make a film on Gandhi (and Indian independence), no matter how much affection he shows for the man.

There was an Indian movie called The Making of the Mahatma, which I have not seen, but I'm eager to check it out. It concentrates on Gandhi's years in South Africa.

Barry Lane

This film is one of the dullest of Attenborough's pictures, and that took some doing. Paul doesn't come down hard enough. His negative review has nothing to do with racism, but even if it had, the picture is poor enough on its own terms. And while Candice Bergen is particularly lousy, the cast is not the problem. Blame the boss. And by the way, congratulations Paul on the such a perceptive and honest piece relative to something so sanctimonious and self righteous it can leave you comatose.