The 1982 movie Gandhi, starring Ben Kingsley and Candice Bergen had both strengths and weaknesses.

Mahatma Gandhi changed India’s history forever through disobedience. Even though he disobeyed the law he had a good reason to. India was under the British rule and the people were doing as british were telling them to do because they had no other option. Gandhi was the one who didn’t do as the british said, but instead stood against it because he knew that what they were doing was unfair. As he have said, “A man who was completely innocent, offered himself as a sacrifice for the good of others, including his enemies, and became the ransom of the world. It was a perfect act”. He disobeyed the british laws to free

Gandhi is a biopic produced by Richard Attenborough whose lifelong dream was to make the story of the national independence leader’s life into a movie. The movie starts with Mohandas K. Gandhi, played by actor Ben Kingsley, rejecting all material possessions in pursuit of India’s independence. The storyline plays out to highlight important aspect of Gandhi’s life and ends with his assassination, where he utters the famous lines “Oh god.” Critics claim the movie is over exaggerated, however Attenborough does a fine job of bringing a visual of Gandhi’s life into Western eyes. In addition, what could be a bad thing ends up being a good thing for the layman who watches this movie. Attenborough oversimplifies Gandhi’s perspectives and ideas on social justice and religion, which leads to a very simple explanation of Gandhi’s philosophy.

There’s no doubt about it, that Gandhi was a great mean, out spoken and very influential but he wasn’t always that way. As I was reading I learned that while Gandhi was away at school studying law, his mother who he dearly loved and called a saint had passed yet his family did not tell him of her condition because they knew he would be

In conclusion I feel that the film was a great addition to the story and helped a great amount to the understanding of what was happening. Both the film and the story had their similarities but they both came to the same conclusion point. All in all I think that the the film and the story summarized the plot very strongly and that they were very detailed in describing all of the conflict between the different

2. I picked this film because of the strong message it is meant to put across, considering that Lee wanted the world to acknowledge that while society had experienced significant progress up to the turn of the century, people still had a long way to go in order for the world to be a morally acceptable place. Reading more information about the girls killed during the 1963 Baptist Church bombing really shocked me and made me want to discuss this film.

Inspired by Mohandas K. Gandhi’s philosophy of Satyagraha during his strive for freedom from government control, Attenborough depicts this in his film. During Gandhi’s first non-violent protest in South Africa, the cross-cutting between Gandhi burning legal documents outlining the rules of the Indians and the English policemen restraining Gandhi signifies the competing political perspectives that exist on the freedom and rights that should be given to Indians. Attenborough emphasises the concept of Satyagraha through Gandhi’s patience and non-violent rebuttal regardless of the Englishmen beating him. Similarly, following the Amritsar massacre, Gandhi reiterates his idea of fighting for the freedom of his nation as he claims people would prefer ‘their own bad government to the good government of an alien power’ which contradicts to the perspective of the British rulers who feel chaos would ensure if that was to occur. Attenborough motto in the film of “peaceful, non-violent, non-co-operation” highlights Gandhi’s motivation to give his people independence. Gandhi makes a statement on non-violent protests through the symbolic salt march scene where the panning of Gandhi marching

I thought this film was very unique because it shows the true Native American perspective of everyday life, not the usual phony stereotype of Indians such as teepees and bow and arrows. It also showed how much Native Americans are not much different than other cultures. Instead of singling other cultures out or judging people that are different from

I really like the movie and the story was very different than any other movies. Sherman’s way of writing the stories seems very unique and could not tell what would happen next in the movie. When Victor knew about his father’s death I was thinking he would not go to Phoenix to get his remains since he had hatred towards him but he decides to go which was surprising. It was always funny how Thomas kept telling stories about different stuffs to Victor even though he knew Victor don’t like to hear them. The author has tried to show the culture of Indians, the thoughts of people, how they dealt their life through his stories which I really found interesting and something different to learn. The author has showed how life was back then and I liked the fact he tried to show what impact it can have to a child’s mind if he sees his father drinking alcohol and tormenting his mother

Gandhi did not so much use his words nearly as much as Truth did, but his actions spoke just as loud and, just as many people listened. There were many things that Gandhi did that he should be remembered for, one of those things he did was that he would go on hunger strikes. When Gandhi did this, he had many near death encounters due to starvation. The reason being for these hunger strikes was that he was trying to prove that men are just as strong as women, so he showed this by starving himself. Even though this was not the most intelligent decision, healthwise, Gandhi achieved his goal and there is now equality between both sexes in India. Ronald Reagan wanted equality throughout a country that did not concern him

The critically-acclaimed Gandhi was Attenborough's passion project. The film featured British actor Ben Kingsley – now famous, but little-known at the time – in the titular role, and Attenborough both produced and directed the biography. Although he won two Academy Awards, the film itself won eight. Criticized by historians for contributing to “myth-making,” the film was nonetheless a critical and financial success, earning 20 times its $22 million budget. The project finally got off of the ground after 20 years of Attenborough attempting to secure funding. By selling off his possessions and spending “so much money I couldn’t pay the gas bill,” he was eventually able to produce the biopic himself.

Once again, he wanted to show to his friends, comrades and all India that they needed to free there self from the cast segregation, and have a respect for all humans at the same time they were searching from freedom. He taught them that no job or task, therefore man was less important that another, and dignity is not related to money or status.

Everyone else seems to be losing their faith in their ability to change India’s relationship with the British. Gandhi believes that through all the challenges ever faced throughout history has been won by those who believe in justice and truth. Gandhi has strong moral and knows that any challenges that comes there way will be won with fairness and just.

Gandhi premiere on November 30, 1982 in New Delhi, India. The 190 minute film was wonderfully directed by Richard Attenborough and well written by John Briley. I found this film difficult to “briefly” summarize, however I would like to share a short timeline of events through the film’s eyes.

Lets not forget he helped get all Indian women rights. He suffered nights in jail for them. Therefor Gandhi never showed bias, but hoped for a better life for Indians. Gandhi had a grand funeral. His family and the Indian community all gathered and prayed for him.

Second, he is an effective leader because again just like Kamehameha, he was a determined guy. Gandhi declared that he would go to jail or die before obeying the anti-Asian law, this showed that nothing could change his convictions (Nanda, Britannica). This helped him be an effective leader because it showed that he really cared about his people and would do anything to help them. All in all both men were effective leaders by being intelligent and determined.