The Gandhi Nobody Knows by Richard Grenier

http://eserver.org/history/ghandi-nobody-knows.txt

Interesting reading, about the inaccurate portrayal of Ghandi in the ocsar winning 1980's movie.

 

No doubt Ghandi, like every other human being had flaws, and made mistakes. But that can't take away from his very real achievement, or from the inspiration he has given to millions across the world.


Just 2 points I'd pick up - Ghandi was certainly against the caste system, and
in admiring the discipline of British soldiers - how was that wrong? If you're going to have an army at all. it better had be disciplined.

 

The article is about the wrong portrayal of Gandhi in the ocsar winning 1980's movie. Not that any of the above is wrong or right. The fact is many people's opinions of Gandhi in the west are based on that movie.

It's an article about the film of Gandhi. It doesnt make any judgements about Gandhi's life. The article states his real life actions differed from what was portrayed in the film.

 

Many so called 'bio-pics' are like that. I suppose if you're going to make a movie, you have to show a certain side of someone's character. If people are gullible enough to believe that what they watch on films or tv is an accurate representation of reality, then they're always going to be mis-informed.

That's the nature of the media.

 

I am a bit fed up with attempts by hack journalists to assasinate posthumously the characters of anyone who is seen as a positive symbol of hope. That's a bit what this looks like to me. Even if the film was very pro Ghandi, and glossed over mistakes etc, it is still an inspirational film. The more sophisticated viewer will realize that not everything about Ghandi is brought out.
But really, this reminds me of attempts by US journalists to dis-credit Martin Luther King by alleging he was an adulterer. Even if he was, so what? Does that make his words less than they were ?
Same with Ghandi. He wasn't perfect, and a lot of the mythos comes from the Indian tendency to deify any great or outstanding person. Perhaps the film is just another step in that process. But still, there are so many films which depict warfare and so on in a positive light, which is far more unreal than the portrayal of Ghandi on screen.

 

I'm not sure BBB. If someone is made out to be saint and he isnt, then I would prefer to know. Maybe all the saints through history are not the prefection they are made out to be. If saintliness is only in writing and movies, then maybe it will stop making others feeling so guility for not matching up to the ideal.

 

What is a saint? There are many definitions. I really can't say if Ghandi was a saint or not. I do know however, that he was the inspiration behind the non-violent movement to free India from British rule, and that he was prepared to go to jail, and to go on hunger strike to the point of near death in order to obtain objectives which were way beyond his own ego interest.
In that, he remains an inspiration to others who seek change by non-violent methods.
But I don't doubt he made mistakes. But many others who are definitely regarded as saints, and to whom prayer for intercession is made, have made far worse mistakes.

But also - on re-reading the quotes above - there is at least one mistake there. It says the word 'hindu' isn't mentioned during the film. Yet there is one scene I recall from the movie, when Ghandi gets the idea of the salt march, he's talking to a journalist if I recall, and he tells how as a child he went to a temple where the Koran and the Gita and Bible were all read side by side - but he admits his up-bringing was 'hindu'. There is also the scene where Ghandi and his wife go through their marriage vows for the benefit of the western woman (?) who joins him - all very hindu.

 

I'd just prefer to watch a film warts and all. The film made him out to be perfect in everyway. I have no doubt that Gandhi could be called a saint, but I am no fan of the white washing of history. There is no benefit in being ignorant of the truth.

More the fact the Indian government wouldnt let anything be included which would raise the eyebrows of westerners. I would prefer the eyebrows raised.

 

Just seems a shame to me that the writer of this piece can't even get his facts straight about the film - it makes me wonder how accurate his other statements are - my take is simply that here we have another non-creative writer trying to make a buck.

 

believe me, if you made a movie with gandhi being anything less than a super hero, folks wouldn't go to see it... anyways, i am less interested in people than in the ideas they present and for sure gandhi had some great ideas and too perhaps, some not so good ones

 

Have you seen the Hitler film 'Downfall'?

What if someone wrote an article saying that Adolf was actually a good guy - a vegitarian, for instance, who loved children etc. Could you then expect others to dismiss everything else they know about Hitler and agree that the film is too negative in its portrayal?
As molly says, Ghandi has to be shown in a positive way, so Hitler has to be shown in a negative light - otherwise, not only would no-one go to see the film, but it would bring down a ton of criticism - and rightly so, as it is ideas and not really personalities that are important.

Just one more thing though - ok, many think of Ghandi as a saint, but he wasn't primarily a religious figure, but a political one, although un-orthodox.

 

No i havent seen the film 'Downfall' yet but i've heard it's good.

I just feel it would be healthier if people were portrayed accurately.

It's a criticism of Hollywood films not Gandhi.

(I agree about the article, I have no idea how accurate it is or the motives. It just seems that most Hollywood films are a white wash of the real events)

 

In the end it's all about money with films - esp. Hollywood.

It's another function of the capitalist system that only products which are likely to make money are produced - and I think thats how we have to see films - as products of the system. Lots of cash goes into these big budget productions, and the investors want to see a return for their money. Truth is subordinated to profit. Even where the filmaker has a personal 'message' as with Attenborough and Ghandi, it's still only their view you're getting.

It's a sad state of affairs.

I recommend the 'Downfall' movie though - it's gruesome at times, but I guess that does reflect the way it was at the end of the war.

 

yes i think its on c4 soon, so I'll watch it then. I've been buying too many dvds lately, need to stop that addiction

 

I found the quotes quite offensive myself, as I am sure the insinuations about MLK would have offended many blacks. I fail to see any sourcing or proof of the authors claims about a great soul.

 

Well I have no idea if the sourcing is true or not. I was wondering whether anyone here had an idea. As my only knowledge of Gandhi came from that film I was a little shocked by what the above article said.