The film is three hours long, and despite this, it is also explained at the beginning of the film: the film cannot summarize the whole life of the characters, and can only intercept the fragments for later viewing and evaluation. First of all, I think this is a very good film work, and Ben Kingsley also contributed quite superb acting skills. The various scheduling of the film itself is very reasonable, and it brings a lot of emotional infection to the audience at the same time. The Oscar for Best Picture is well deserved. Here's a compliment on Kingsley's acting skills.
I didn't know who Ben Kingsley was until I saw the movie starring list...
? Isn't this the trash man in Iron Man? And it looks so vicious, it is completely impossible to see that this is Mahatma Gandhi himself, but why is he acting so similar? !
It can be said that similar to Gary Oldman, in "Gandhi", Ben Kingsley also contributed "plastic-level" acting skills. And the two are different. Gary Oldman only played Churchill at a single point in time when he became prime minister; while Ben Kingsley contributed to Gandhi's life, from the young and handsome South African lawyer, To the aging and vicissitudes of the kind old man, every wrinkle on Kingsley's body interprets Gandhi's image and the superb acting skills of the Chinese-Indian actor, as well as the hard work and effort he has put in to play a good role. Therefore, whether it is the movie itself or the selection of characters, the whole movie is a superior work.
But I still want to say that the film's description of Gandhi and the portrayal of the background of the times is a bit too one-sided. It is true that the beginning of the film tells about the progress of Gandhi's speech skills and infectious ability, but it is only a passing comment, and the sudden rise of his appeal is somewhat unpredictable. At the same time, Gandhi also has shortcomings. For example, in the later period of the "political blackmail"-style hunger strike, although it is very inappropriate to say this, both Churchill and the Congress Party represented by Nehru are emotionally attached to Gandhi. The hunger strikes were very unpleasant, and it was not until finally that the Congress Party agreed to pay Pakistan’s compensation in rupees, but at the same time, Hinduism and Islam also achieved a very short-term but commendable temporary peace. This is very difficult for the filming of the film, because after all, this is a biography, and the rich feelings of the vast Indian people and the political correctness of the academic school must be considered. Too intuitive description will inevitably hurt Both sides, so to take a biased compromise in the film, a bit of a coincidence, but very successful.
In terms of the background of the times, Gandhi's non-violent non-cooperation movement was supported. In fact, a large part of the reason was the restraint of the armed forces in India. Moreover, non-violent movements were easier to suppress than armed riots. As a person, Gandhi's self-discipline, fraternity and charisma are basically impeccable. Why do you say "basically", because Gandhi has some lovely stubbornness, which is seen in many masters, but he has non-violent thoughts on himself The stubbornness is the reason why I can't like him. Gandhi's various activities and remarks in his late period were somewhat unpleasant - for example, when dealing with Jews, he advocated collective suicide of Jews in exchange for the sympathy of the Nazis; he was even more rude to China, except that he refused Chiang Kai-shek's sympathy in China without any wiggle room. In addition to the construction of a strategic material transportation road between India and India, it is believed that the Chinese give up their resistance and drop their guns to awaken the conscience in the hearts of the Japanese, and the Japanese have become the slaves of the Chinese...
I think the old man was just a little stubborn, so that the non-violence in the end had the shadow of the ostrich spirit, but I have to say that Gandhi's contribution to India and the cohesion of the entire South Asian subcontinent may be in addition to great leaders in the world. No one other than Chairman Mao. Gandhi was indeed a great man, and he deserved the title of Mahatma.
And the second reason I don't like it has nothing to do with Gandhi himself, but his non-violent demands that can never be realized in the political soil of China. First of all, China’s entire social environment has been steeped in violent revolution for a long time, and non-violence has no corresponding ideological foundation. Compared with the religious asceticism and abstinence in India, the ideology cannot be completely matched; the second point is the face The problem is that although it is a pioneer of colonialism, the British government is shameful. In the face of vigorous non-violent movements and resistance, the United Kingdom will indeed shoot, but it will not confiscate the cameras of domestic and foreign journalists, and those who order the shooting will also be arrested. Sending it to a military court, let alone driving tanks to unarmed flesh and blood; followed by freedom of the press in Britain, John Mill's "On Freedom of the Press" was published in the United Kingdom in the seventeenth century, and China's related I am afraid there is only the more ancient political tradition of the Literary Prison; the last point, and perhaps the most important, after all, China has had a similar practice, but it ended in a tragic failure - sometimes, you can remove the body, but you can't. The ghosts on Chang'an Street; the blood on the tracks can be washed away with great effort, but people's memories cannot be erased.
So I don't like things that can't be achieved in China, such as our ultimate goal, and the idea of non-violence and non-cooperation that are both utopias, but this does not prevent me from admiring and disliking Gandhi coexist, because of fans and reading The amount is pitifully small, so I dare to say the above nonsense, but this does not mean that I am looking forward to the collapse of this political party and country. I hope that they can apologize one day, and my family told me that the people who participated in the year Soldier, after returning, everyone will have a camera, so I also hope that these things can be returned to their original owners, so that I will feel that she will live long and prosper, not because of a media-rated "Amazing" My *", what kind of self-confidence and pride came from the bottom of my heart.
So much off topic, let’s end with Einstein’s comment on Gandhi. Although it’s a bit outrageous to say so, what he said is very consistent with what I thought: “In the future era, there may be very few people who believe that such a Flesh and blood once hurried across the earth."
View more about Gandhi reviews
