Gandhi (1982)

The sequel was better

The first 30 minutes are great. Then it bogs down and gets boring. If it were made today, it would be made as a 10-episode prestige drama.

He was ugly. Needed to fucking eat!

"The international supporting cast was phenomenal, too! Candace Bergen, Martin Sheen, Roshan Seth, Habib Tanvir, Trevor Howard, Ian Charleson, Saeed Jaffrey, Edward Fox, John Mills, Athol Fugard, Nigel Hawthorne, Geraldine James, Sir Michael Hordern, Pradeep Kumar, John Ratzenberger, Ian Bannen, Daniel Day-Lewis, and Sir JOHN GIELGUD."

Names, darling! Names, names, names!

He was so HOT as Gandhi!!

R4 Names? Sir John Gielgud was not just a name. He was a fucking legend!

Candy Bergen was "a name" but she did well in Gandhi!

Fine movie although Gandhi was a much more complex and contradictory figure than portrayed in the film.

Ben Kingsley gave a great performance. I would’ve fell asleep watching that movie if it wasn’t for him.

Yes, OP, but who was the best Jacob Marley?

Ben Kingsley really deserved his Oscar. One of the greatest performances of all time.

Can anyone sit through Chariots of Fire anymore?

This film was a grave and offensive insult to Five Million Pakistanis!

I spit on this fat Englishman!

I find Chariots of Fire easier to sit through than Gandhi

Edward Fox's role was one-dimensional. Day-Lewis appeared on screen for two minutes.

I thought it was an interesting historical epic, but not exactly inspired movie-making. In addition to being a good actor, Kingsley has the charisma needed for the huge role. A few years later he was equally good as a small-scale hero in "Turtle Diary".

The decor (provided by Sir Lutyens) was the best element in this bloated 'tableau-vivant'.

I watched "Gandhi" once, but at 3 hrs and 11 min, it is a tad too long to sit through on repeat viewing. I feel the same way about "Lawrence of Arabia," "Dr Zhivago," etc. Once is enough.

Ben Kingsley was a virtual unknown before he was cast in Gandhi. In winning his Oscar he beat four veterans: Dustin Hoffman, Jack Lemmon, Peter O'Toole, and Paul Newman.

Two years later Milos Forman would have similar success with Amadeus, which also won Best Picture and Best Director and score a Best Actor win for virtual unknown F. Murray Abraham.

[quote]Once is enough

Once is NOT enough.

Ben Kingsley’s casting would be problematic by today’s standards. Half English man in brown face playing a full Indian.

And of course, Gandhi was a problematic figure too.

Sir Ben surprised me with his turn in "Sexy Beast." The one was unexpected.

Gandhi was a problematic figure.

Yes, he knew all about emotional blackmail. He knew that the English love the underdog.

The partition of India cost FIVE million lives. Every political scientist will tell you they could have had a planned political separation with only half a million lost if Gandhi waited for just five years.

R23 I think the partition was a mistake.

This version had none of the tedious, slow-moving sanctimony of the four hour version.

Seems like the consensus is Paul Newman should’ve won that year for The Verdict.

Gandhi demanding that Britain leave India immediately was as short-sighted as Biden abandoning Afghanistan immediately.

[quote]I think the partition was a mistake.

We don't!!

[quote]Seems like the consensus is Paul Newman should’ve won that year for The Verdict.

The consensus in your head, perhaps. Kingsley won not only the Oscar but also the Golden Globe, BAFTA, Los Angeles Critics Association, New York Film Critics, and the National Board of Review. The only possible competition he had was Dustin Hoffman for Tootsie, but even that was a long shot.

R27 The British really fucked up the Indian subcontinent.

Jinnah was a creep.

Even sanctimonious Bozo Attenborough gives the impression that Jinnah was a creep.

R29 I meant the consensus online. I saw a Twitter thread about the Best Actor nominees in 1982 and most people were saying Paul Newman should’ve won.

R27, R30 You need to tell us about your fornicatory habits.

Two million dead.

The alternative version is equally as over-emotional. But it's 2 hours shorter.

Ben Kingsley has played every ethnicity known to man.

I love this movie and have seen it probably a dozen times. I never found it boring. I find it very moving and fascinating.

They don't make movies like this anymore, and that's a shame.

Gandhi was cinema perfection. From Kingsley's masterful performance, to Dickie Attenborough's expert helmsmanship, everyone was memorable and absolutely perfect. Unfortunately, Gandhi would never have been made in today's fascist puritanical atmosphere, as Gandhi regularly slept with his very young nieces/caregivers.

Those posters crapping on about the partition "dead" and that the British "fucked up" India display complete ignorance about India's brutal history.

R37 A Passage to India as well.

R38 Didn’t he sleep with them (but not actually have sex with them) in order to test his purity or some shit like that?

R38 The WHY has been lost to rumor, innuendo, time/history and agenda. The current operative fiction is as you posted; as a test of the Mathatma's ability to overcome base human frailties.

Erratum R41 Mahatma's

I like all 4 of the other nominated Best Picture films plus Sophie's Choice better.

Nominees were: Missing, ET, Tootsie, The Verdict.

It won an Oscar for Best Costumes?

I mean they just laundered a white sheet.

I've never seen Gandhi but I find it difficult to believe that it was better than E.T. and Tootsie.

Hum...

R45, "Gandhi" was the prestige pic of the year. It was epically long, historical, and had a British pedigree, which automatically made it the Oscar frontrunner. "E.T." is kids fantasy and "Tootsie" is comedy, genres that were usually underappreciated by the Academy at the time. But which of the three are beloved and better appreciated today?

[quote] Perfect in every way. Yet, at the same time it is boring.

OP, 'perfect' and 'boring' seem mutually-exclusive to me.

I think it was the last major epic. Maybe Gandhi or A Passage to India (1984)

Gandhi was gay. He had a German bf.

I didn’t appreciate Gandhi the first time I watched it. Years later, I watched it a second time, and understood its greatness

[Quote] But which of the three are beloved and better appreciated today?

To be honest, all three have been sort of forgotten. Tootsie on Bway brought back interest in the movie.

Watching Tootsie and ET now, they both seem really dated

[Quote] The partition of India cost FIVE million lives. Every political scientist will tell you they could have had a planned political separation with only half a million lost if Gandhi waited for just five years.

That’s Monday morning quarterbacking

[Quote] Candy Bergen was "a name" but she did well in Gandhi!

I recall a mild controversy when the movie studio wanted to list Bergen’s name over Kingsley’s because she was a bigger name

[Quote] Gandhi demanding that Britain leave India immediately was as short-sighted as Biden abandoning Afghanistan immediately.

Except Biden was exactly right. Chaos would never have been avoided no matter how long it took

What strikes me watching it today are the crowd scenes. I cant imagine filming on that scale ever again. Today they would do it in front of a green screen, fill it in with CGI, and call it good.

[quote] the crowd scenes

They were paid a sandwich to appear in those crowd scenes, on the proviso that they not trample each other to death.

[quote]I think it was the last major epic. Maybe Gandhi or A Passage to India (1984)

"The Last Emperor" (1987)

[quote] "The Last Emperor"

The crowd was paid a sandwich each to appear in those crowd scenes.

Nice work if you can get it!

Darfur, were any of your relations in a crowd scene?

Pauline Karl got it right; Gandhi won best picture because Mahatma Gandhi was everything Academy voters want to be: “tan, moral, and thin.”

“Kael”, of course.

Newman, maybe Hoffman because Tootsie was such a massive hit, came in second that year. I know Spielberg was disappointed ET lost, but everyone knew the expectations going into the show that night. Gandhi clicked all the Oscar boxes to win.

Ran was an epic and it was a much better movie than Gandhi or The Last Emperor, although I do appreciate large parts of Gandhi. I especially love the scene where he gives the speech to the Muslims and the Hindus and helps them find common ground in their mutual interest in controlling women. And then the British policemen are forced to stand along with the Indian men as they sing "God Save the King." I often show that scene to students.

[quote] them find common ground in their mutual interest in controlling women.

They both treat them as chattel and rape them when they misbehave?

Here's the scene.

The nominees for Best Actor that year were:

Ben Kingsley - Gandhi

Jack Lemmon - Missing

Paul Newman - The Verdict

Peter O'Toole - My Favorite Year

Dustin Hoffman - Tootsie

It was a VERY strong competition. All the actors gave great performances that year. They were all truly deserving of an Oscar.

R68, at the time both Paul Newman and Peter O'Toole were 0 for 7, having walked away empty-handed yet again.

R69 Oscars are not meant to be Consolation Prizes.

Newman's win a few years later for "The Color of Money" was widely seen as a consolation prize, but I thought he was terrific in that.

Gandhi should have won the Consolation Prize because he was the catalyst for two million deaths due to his impetuous demands.

R72, yes, let’s allow the British off the hook for its idiotic partition. I believe the guy who drew the partition line on a map between India and Pakistan had never even gone to India.

[quote] guy who drew the partition line

But it was Jinnah who drew the line.

The greatest politician statesman of the 20th century. A political philosopher who put his ideas into practice.

The world, starting with his own India, would be been a better place if it had adopted his ideas.

Oscar are sometimes awarded as consolation prizes. A good example is Judi Dench. Nominated as Best Actress from "Mrs. Brown" she incredibly lost to Helen Hunt in "As Good As It Gets." The next year the Academy threw her a bone by giving her a Best Supporting Actress Oscar for a 20 minute cameo in "Shakespeare in Love." She didn't really deserve an Oscar for that, but the Academy figured., hey, we stiffed her last year, she deserves a little something this year.

[quote] The greatest politician statesman

He used Emotional Blackmail to get what he wanted.

You could equally say that this dead child is another "great politician statesman".

Ben Kingsley is luminous.

Song and dance man Gandhi

^

Why did that hoofer choose Gandi?

[quote] I believe the guy who drew the partition line on a map between India and Pakistan had never even gone to India.

That was the ONLY way the Muslims and Hindus would agree to partition. By someone who had no agenda or affinity to the warring parties. There's are several outstanding books about Radcliffe and how he went about partitioning a region he had never physically seen.

When the media were touting Rishi Sunak as the next PM of England, I commented that Gandhi must be laughing uproariously, wherever he is.

^ The tables have turned over two thirds of a century.

I wonder how many Academy voters actually saw the film. This was pre-screeners. You had to go and sit there for 3 hours.

I think they were like ooooo Gandhi. He was a good person. I'll feel more cultured and worldly voting for him than a man in a dress or a alien in some kid's room.

Then they just checked every box it was nominated in (explaining the costume win)

(now I'll go check which Oscars it lost before I get corrected here.)

R81 Wasn't Gandhi a big hit at the box office too? That probably helped.

I think it did ok for the kind of film it was (historical, very long.)

It wasn't a blockbuster like ET or Tootsie. The Verdict probably made more money too.

"Gandhi" made $128 million, "The Verdict" made $54 million.

R86 at least half that gross was probably post Oscar win release. I believe ET & Tootsie were the two highest grossing films that year.

Oh sorry r86.

Who'd have thought a film like that could make that kind of money!

Nowadays it would need to be Gandhi Vs. Spiderman

R87 Definitely. "Gandhi" was playing through much of 1983 in London, pre- and post-Oscar box office bonanza.

[quote] Who'd have thought a film like that could make that kind of money!

Millions of Indians went to see it.

[quote] Millions of Indians went to see it.

Millions of Pakistanis went to jeer at it.

Gandhi was antiblack

R92 But it’s not surprising, most Indians are.

R92 Nelson Mandela said to forgive him.

R93 Not just Indians….

R95 Yeah of course. But antiblackness is ingrained in Indian culture. Darker skinned Indians are treated like shit.

One Indian caste HATES the other castes.

It’s the same thing with Lincoln.

R96 That’s the case In almost every culture though including most black ones. They think lighter skin means more evolved or something.

One African caste HATES the other castes.

R99 Bollywood movies will have you convinced most Indians look like Aishwarya Rai and Hrithik Roshan, when that’s obviously not the case.

[quote] Aishwarya Rai

She is India's Beyoncé.

[Quote] Millions of Indians went to see it.

I doubt this. Most don't watch English language films. The country also has a very low number of theaters per capita. Even if they did, ticket prices are so low they would not have accounted for a lot of the $ box office.

R103 They produced a Non-English language version at the same time.

Just like this other film came out in two versions—

"Viceroy's House" in March 2017 and "Partition: 1947" in August 2017

You're the top

You're Mahatma Gandhi

You're the top

You're Napoleon Brandy

^ Vapid Cole Porter abandoned good sense in order find a rhyme.

But Gandhi and Brandy don't even rhyme.

R44 Everyone laughed at that win at the time.

"Gandhi" lost Best Makeup to "Quest for Fire," which makes perfect sense. I don't know why it warranted a makeup nomination in the first place.

The two other losses were for Best Music, Original Score (lost to John Williams for "E.T."), and Best Sound (lost to "E.T.").

How is Candace Bergen in the film? I kind of forgot she was in it. I saw it about 4 years ago. I only know her from comedy. She didn't stand out enough to make me think she was out of place so i guess she was ok. Seems like an odd casting choice though. Was she friends with Attenborough?

It's a small part. She has some lightly comedic lines about him making his own clothes. Given that Margaret Bourke-White was something of a hedonist (she had an affair with a colleague's father during WWII, and that guy was just one of many), it's funny that she showed up to photograph an ascetic.

Attenborough and Bergen were both in an earlier epic, "The Sand Pebbles" (1966). Maybe they stayed in touch.

[quote] How is Candace Bergen in the film? I kind of forgot she was in it

She was only in it for 3 minutes. British producers are always dragging Americans into their films to help the box office in Peoria.

David Lean dragged in two Americans for 'Ryan's Daughter and they killed it.

Which two r113?

The old guy with sleepy eyes who was twice the age of his wife.

The young guy who was so drugged up that he couldn't speak the dialogue and needed to be dubbed.

so they weren't stars r115?

How would that help in Peoria.

Robert Mitchum was the star so they already had an American. (or is he the one you mean?) (Saw the film but don't remember it too well except its so odd when the score uses what became a Liza Minelli song.)

But Martin Sheen was also in Gandhi. He did great as the newspaper report who leaked the story of the British Empire abusing the Indians.

Indira, The Musical was better.

Too long and boring to even recall to memory.

R27 Gandhi demanded that Britain leave India immediately and the Laborites in power (who couldn't cope with governing Britain) gave India away immediately which led to a state of anarchy and two million dead and the assassination of Gandhi.

The little man who couldn't cope with governing Britain was someone about whom no four-hour Technicolour film will be made—

R120 Simplistic nonsense! Hindus and Muslims had been at each other's throats since the Muslim invasion of the sub-continent in the 13th century. The British kept the slaughter at bay during their occupation. Once the Brits packed up and left, Hindus and Muslims went back to slaughtering one another.

The British always played people off each other. It had nothing to do with party politics or the actions of one PM. It blew up in their faces when they gave up their colonies. And they had to do that because the country was broke.

Ben Kingsley is definitely a guy who had to “grow into his looks.” He kind of grew into a “hot daddy,” but damn, when he won his Oscar he was no looker.

What a line up though if nominees. Possibly the best ever and if not very close. I still would have picked Newman of Hoffman though.

[quote] when he won his Oscar he was no looker.

Do you think he had a big nose?

It was just as big as Hoffman's.

an unknown brit sweeps in and steals a 7 time nominee's oscar. Tragic.

[quote]an unknown brit sweeps in and steals a 7 time nominee's oscar. Tragic.

Or you can just play a Brit and beat them at their own game. It’s not that difficult, G.

R124 of course but it’s not just that. Especially a man can still be very good looking with a schnoz. And like I said I do think he did age to be distinguished if not quite “good looking.”

Redford has a big nose too, actually. But his square jaw balances it out.

It seems Ben Kingsley is an egomaniac (according to the acerbic Maggie Smith).

I watched Ben Kingsley just last night. I thought he performed quite well.

1982 ah the year Jess and I won and G didn't. A good year all around.

Pamela Mountbatten was furious at that little weasel shown at R120.

She said the weasel organised and allowed India ( the former 'jewel in the Crown’) to secede from the Commonwealth.

So her father was given the unenviable task of watching over it because the grubby politicians were too afraid to do their 'dirty work' themselves.

R74,Sir Cyril Radcliffe drew the line between India and Pakistan without ever having seen either country

[Quote] Simplistic nonsense! Hindus and Muslims had been at each other's throats since the Muslim invasion of the sub-continent in the 13th century.

Now, THAT’s some simplistic nonsense. While there were Hindu-Muslim skirmished, the entrance of the British heated the antagonism up between the two religions. As it did everywhere, the British divided and conquered.

[Quote] Gandhi demanded that Britain leave India immediately and the Laborites in power (who couldn't cope with governing Britain) gave India away immediately which led to a state of anarchy and two million dead and the assassination of Gandhi.

Hilarious! Britain just said “Let’s leave right now because Gandhi said so”?

The truth is, after WW2, Britain just didn’t have the money to keep its vast empire going anymore. One after another, all the lands broke free rather easily and quickly from Britain’s grasp.

It was the British who brought the world the concept that lighter skin meant better and higher in social class.

[Quote] Yeah of course. But antiblackness is ingrained in Indian culture. Darker skinned Indians are treated like shit.

Vestige of colonialism

[Quote] Bollywood movies will have you convinced most Indians look like Aishwarya Rai and Hrithik Roshan, when that’s obviously not the case.

And American movies will have you convinced that everyone looks like Robert Redford

[Quote] Millions of Pakistanis went to jeer at it.

It was banned in Pakistan

[Quote] One Indian caste HATES the other castes.

And white Americans hate blacks. Caste is everywhere

[Quote] Gandhi was antiblack

All those quotes are from young Gandhi. He evolved highly after that

Why did Ghandi hate blacks?

R141 he grew up in South Africa, where is was the official policy to hate blacks

R131, her mommy had an affair with Nehru

Maybe he saw Chicago.

The city—not the musical.

[quote]And white Americans hate blacks

And blacks hate whites. Probably more.

R146, whites have all the societal power so their hatred affects lives more

[Quote] And blacks hate whites. Probably more.

People tend to naturally hate their oppressors

lol^. Oh lord.

Ghandi knew what was up.

[quote]People tend to naturally hate their oppressors

Blacks hate gays more than whites, but blacks claim white gays are emasculating black men.

R151, please stop your trolling. No evidence of that whatsoever.

In fact the group in poll after poll that hates gays the most is white evangelicals.

Alright, kween^. Good luck.

R150 What do you mean he knew "what was up"?

I got to meet Sir Richard and congratulated him on the Oscar.I told him he scared the shit out of me as a kid in "10 Rillington Place" and he seemed delighted.

[quote] he scared the shit out of me

Did you use that kind of language when speaking to a distinguished Englishman?

[quote]Newman's win a few years later for "The Color of Money" was widely seen as a consolation prize, but I thought he was terrific in that.

The only one who thought Newman's win was a consolation prize is you. "The Color Of Money" was a hit picture directed by Martin Scorsese and had multiple nominations. It was also a sequel to "The Hustler" and Newman was only a few who have been nominated for the same role twice.

The word 'consolation' is Italian and Scorsese is the epitome of Italian Anti-Rationalism and gauche Sentimentality.

[quote]The only one who thought Newman's win was a consolation prize is you.

R157 Um, I said he deserved the Oscar. Guess you missed that, just as you no doubt missed 35 years of commentary referring to his win as a consolation prize.

"Despite being nominated for nine acting Oscars, the great Paul Newman only won once, for his role in 1986's The Color of Money, the distant sequel to 1961's The Hustler, a film for which Newman had also been nominated, playing the same character, "Fast" Eddie Felson. As great as The Color of Money is, Newman's status as lead actor is arguable, since the film follows both him and his young disciple, played by Tom Cruise.

Either way, the fact that Newman won the award for Best Actor was absolutely seen as part of a consolation prize for their failure to champion his jaw-dropping performance in 1967's Cool Hand Luke (Rod Steiger won for In the Heat of the Night), as was his status as recipient of an Honorary Oscar the year before his win for The Color of Money. Other films for which Newman was nominated but lost include Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, Hud, and The Verdict."

Richard Attenborough's finest scene

Newmans win was seen largely as him not clinching it for previous nominations. He won none of the important precursors. Bob Hoskins won all of them in NY, LA, NSFC and the globe. If Newman would’ve won in 1983, or had been not nominated in 1987, Hoskins no doubt would’ve won the Oscar.

[quote]Hoskins no doubt would’ve won the Oscar.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda....that what was so great about The Oscars then. There wasn't 20 movie awards where one person would win the whole thing and absolutely no surprise on Oscar night. Someone would win the Golden Globe and not the Oscar.

All I remember of this snooze-fest was that it was better than Nytol.

Hope I wasn't snoring too loud at Loew's 42nd. I did catch a few giving me stink eye as I was leaving. Guess my loud zzzing woke them in the midst of a pleasant nap.

Did you see a special screening? The Lowes 42nd St opened in 1999. "Gandhi" opened in 1982.

I remember a lady talking when I first saw Gandhi at the movie theatre. At the intermission another guy went up to her and told her she ruined the movie for him. She left

Here are extracts from Attenborough's archive—

"David Lean had first asked Guinness to play Gandhi in the mid-50s, and when that project failed to get off the ground, Guinness "washed [his] brain of the whole idea"; he didn't have the stamina.

Guinness wrote to Attenborough directly in October 1963: "I'm too old too old too old too grey-eyed too heavy and just plain too old."

Attenborough persevered. The film would focus on Gandhi as an old man, he argued, so really age was not a factor. Guinness insisted. "Incidentally," he added, "this is the fourth time I've been asked – no, maybe fifth – to play Gandhi".

Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward were often critical of the Academy. I may have won sooner had they not been so antagonistic towards them. (I think it stemmed from his being overlooked for a Best Director nomination for Rachel, Rachel when it was nominated as Best Picture and Best Actress.)

[quote]While there were Hindu-Muslim skirmished, the entrance of the British heated the antagonism

R133 MORE simplistic nonsense. The antagonism between Hindu and Muslim arose from the fact that Muslims were conquerors/occupiers of Hindu land, an antagonism that was already extant/heated for 400 years before the Brits rucked up. To the Hindus, the Brits were just another conqueror; to the Muslims, Infidels usurping power from Muslims on Muslim land. The Brits gave both a focus, a basis for common enmity, from the main game, seething hatred for one another. A hatred that continues to this day.

[quote] Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward were often critical

R167 Perhaps they were a little precious. Here he is tryng to read a book by the English intellectual Margaret Drabble.

[quote] A hatred that continues to this day.

That's another reason why the Attenborough's Gandhi movie is SO unsatisfying.

The hero was ineffectual and the hero gets killed at the climax.

[quote]The hero was ineffectual and the hero gets killed at the climax.

Reality is often unsatisfying. Especially about a larger-than-life figure like the Mahatma. Attenborough wanted to idealize the myth and did a first-class job of it. Gandhi had served his purpose, as it were, getting the British and the vast majority of Muslims out of India, allowing for the first time in 800 years, Hindu dominion over their own country, free from invaders/occupiers. If Godse hadn't assasinated Gandhi, someone else would have, as he was in the way post independence, a stumbling block to the various power players, including Nehru and his clan.

R168 Newman was never the front runner for the Oscar. Even the year he won, Bob Hoskins won all the precursors. I’ve always wondered how close Hoskins came to beating him, considering they gave Newman an honorary one the year before.

The Verdict is one of favorite movies. It Paul Newman deserved an Oscar as did James Mason.

Robert Mitchum was the best thing about Ryan’s Daughter but go on .

R174 John Mills was better.

Re R169: Margaret Drabble's first husband was the actor Clive Swift (aka Richard Bucket on "Keeping Up Appearances"). He and Drabble moved from London to Stratford-upon-Avon for a year, where they worked for the Royal Shakespeare Company (Drabble herself had a short career in acting). "The Garrick Year" is a short novel based on their experiences in Stratford, mostly backstage drama and love affairs. There's not much to the novel, it's a light, easy read that would require no intellectual stamina to digest between takes on the set.

R168, the very fact that the Bristol’s negotiated separately with the Muslims and the Hindus shows in vivid color that the British worked the division for its own advantages. Typical divide and conquer.

Prior, there were Hindu-Muslim skirmishes but nothing like the all-out war that occurred after the British arrived. The British stoked it.

R177 What is "The Bristol’s"

OK, R177, you typed 'the Bristol’s' when you meant to say 'The British'.

Gandhi was a vociferous racist.

I watched it again last night. Ian Charleson had a bigger part than I remember.

[quote]Margaret Drabble's first husband was the actor Clive Swift (aka Richard Bucket on "Keeping Up Appearances").

It's pronounced Bouquet.

On my watch last night, Candace Bergen is probably in five minutes of a three hours film. Martin Sheen had maybe ten minutes. Ian Charleson probably twenty.

British luminaries John Gielgud, John Mills, Trevor Howard, Michael Hordern, Nigel Hawthorne, Richard Vernon, and Edward Fox are glorified cameos.

The real meat of the movie are the scenes with the Indian actors; Roshan Seth as Nehru, Alyque Padamsee as Jinnah, Pradeep Kumar as Menon, and Saeed Jeffrey as Patel.

But the movie belongs to three people: Ben Kingsley, Rohini Hattangadi, and Richard Attenborough.

The cameos were there solely to entice people to go see a 3hour plus movie.

R184 It worked. Despite was R14 says, Edward Fox has a good role as ruthless General Reginald Dyer who caused the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre in 1919.

I just can’t believe they gave away the ending in the first five minutes of the film!

CAND[bold]I[/bold]CE

Dickie Attenborough would cry at a moment's notice.

He was a gushing virtue signaller and luvvie.

[quote] Luvvie is a humorously depreciative term for an actor, especially one regarded as effusive or affected. The reference is to a stereotype of thespians habitually addressing people as ‘lovey’. When the OED revised its entry for ‘lovey’ in 2008, this sense, which had by then become established in the variant spelling luvvie, was made a separate entry. The earliest quotation found at the time was from author and actor Stephen Fry in 1988:

This is one of those movies I always intended to see but never got around to it before. Thanks to this thread, I watched it today. Ben Kingsley‘s performance was nothing short of epic, and he blew away all of his Oscar competitors (and I did see all of those movies for which they were nominated). An incredible and depressing film.

[quote] Richard Attenborough's finest scene… 'Guns at Batasi'

R160 I remember that movie. It was obviously filmed at Shepparton Studios and the actors looked suitably sweaty by sitting in a sauna for five minutes before the cameras rolled. It also featured the interesting Dame Flora Robson and the American fruitcake Mia Farrow.

[quote] If Godse hadn't assasinated Gandhi, someone else would have

R171 India seems have habit of assassinating its leaders.

[quote] But the movie belongs to three people: Ben Kingsley, Rohini Hattangadi, and Richard Attenborough.

R185 None of us have a clue who the second of those two persons is.

Would it work as a Broadway musical?

R191 The film of 'Gandhi' covers 45 years but this show with music covered 30 years and it was a great success.

It ran for 405 performances in the West End and featured a cast and crew of over three hundred.

[quote]Oscar are sometimes awarded as consolation prizes. A good example is Judi Dench. Nominated as Best Actress from "Mrs. Brown" she incredibly lost to Helen Hunt in "As Good As It Gets."

R76 Helen Hunt's win wasn't so unbelievable. She won SAG and GG (Musical/Comedy). Not to mention that AS GOOD AS IT GETS was a huge hit (#6 of 1997) and a Best Picture nominee. She was also the only bona fide star of the bunch -- both in movies and on TV. The previous year, TWISTER had been a blockbuster (#2 of 1996) and she had already won two consecutive Emmys for her hit sitcom MAD ABOUT YOU. At SAG and GG, she was nominated for both AGAIG and MAY.

Judi Dench won GG (Drama) and BAFTA, but the latter were held in the spring, post-Oscars, until the 2000s so they held no sway in the matter.

Helena Bonham Carter for WINGS OF THE DOVE won LAFCA.

Julie Christine for AFTERGLOW won NYFCC.

Kate Winslet for TITANIC didn't win anything, but she was in the #1 movie of the year and a Best Picture/Director nominee.

[quote] R174 John Mills was better.

Dear Lord that was one of those embarrassing Oscar of all time. Not because of the perfectly nice John Mills’ but because the Academy voted for that tic-filled, miming nonsense.

Mrs Brown was a terrible movie. Judi Dench did what she could but it stank.

R108 I was only 2 then, but I have an older friend who was in his twenties at the time, and he called that win "101 Ways to Wear a Sheet." 😂

The other nominees were: SOPHIE'S CHOICE, LA TRAVIATA, TRON, VICTOR/VICTORIA.

Wednesday, 1/12---TCM---12:30 a.m.---"Gandhi."

(Preceded by "Some Like It Hot.")

My heart bleeds for Paul, r159.

Gandhi was a vile racist toward Africans and African descent people, as are most Indians. He was no saint.

As many have witnessed here in the US (particularly if you live in a certain area of NJ), Indians come from a culture where they deem themselves far superior to others and place their needs above all others ,especially other black and brown people.

"Gandhi moved to South Africa in 1893 to represent an Indian merchant in a lawsuit and went on to spend 21 years in the then-British colony. During the two decades he spent in South Africa, most of his actions and words demonstrated his anti-Black racism.

In fact, he rose to prominence in colonial South Africa, not because of his anti-racist activism, but his efforts to reconfigure existing racial hierarchies for the benefit of his own people.

One of the first battles Gandhi fought after coming to South Africa was over the separate entrances for white and Black people at the Durban post office. Gandhi objected that Indians were “classed with the natives of South Africa”, who he derogatively labelled as “kaffirs”, and demanded a separate entrance for Indians."

R58 what about DANCES WITH WOLVES? It was a three+ hour epic Western that was the 4th highest-grossing film of 1990 and was nominated for a slew of Oscars (winning 7, including Best Picture and Best Director.)

"Dances with Wolves" wasn't an "epic". It was a vanity piece for Costner and his ass. The white man made noble by exposure to native people is the Oscar bait part.

The native people acted as 'Magic Negroes' to Mr White Guilt.

DANCES WITH WOLVES is most definitely an Epic Western.

Anything over 120 minutes is an epic.

Every man over 35 wants a happy bladder.

DANCES WITH WOLVES is most definitely an Epically Bad Western.

Out Of Africa is an epic film.

'Out Of Africa' is 161 minutes of bladder time.

Out of Africa is 2 1/2 hours of Streep at her most "technical", plus Redford--basically melodrama with location shooting. Gorillas in the Mist comes closer to being and epic, considering Fossey's zeal and Weaver's assertion of it.

R206, 207, 208 Klaus Maria Brandauer, in my opinion, gives the best performance in the movie.

Pauline Kael's line made me laugh: "I cam out of Gandhi feeling like the British when they left India. Relieved and exhausted!"

Daniel Day Lewis's charisma was evident in his short scene in Gandhi. On an unrelated note, it is really bizarre hearing someone else's voice coming out of John Ratzenberger's mouth.

Gandhi’s idea that you must love your oppressor as yourself, yet not cooperate with him, but instead let him beat you and imprison you until even his own heart rises up and will not condone doing more violence to you — that took the most incredible physical and moral courage. And I thought Kingsley played it perfectly. I didn’t find the movie boring; I found it heart wrenching.

Ben was good in Bugsy (1991).

R201

[quote] "Dances with Wolves" wasn't an "epic". It was a vanity piece for Costner and his ass

I saw if first on TV where it was interrupted by commercials. I enjoyed the wonderfully-schmaltzy score by John Prendergast but I missed the nude scene.

I remember my friends telling they could see the weal from his underwear's anachronistically-rubberised waistband on his soft buttock flesh.

I agree with everything you said except the movie doesn't bore me at all. I've seen it numerous times.

[quote] Daniel Day Lewis's charisma was evident in his short scene

He only spoke four words.

[quote] Ben Kingsley was a virtual unknown before he was cast in Gandhi. In winning his Oscar he beat four veterans: Dustin Hoffman, Jack Lemmon, Peter O'Toole, and Paul Newman.

I know Hoffman was considered to play Gandhi. You're not suggesting those other three, are you?

Those names you present would have turned this piously-solemn epic into a veritable comedy movie. As hilarious as 'Mommie Dearest'.

My take..ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. Wake me when it's over.

Early Woke, virtue signaling, white guilt

Read up on Mr. G. enlightening.

EG here who never saw this movie until a few days ago. ET and Tootsie were better movies, but I do think Gandhi was a good ,not great, movie. Terrific performances by most of the cast, a solid screenplay, excellent cinematography and efficient direction. Where it failed for me is not getting inside the head of the man and not giving us much in the way of insight as to what made him who he was.

[R20]: I saw Kingsley onstage in 1970, as Demetrius in the Peter Brook “Midsummer Night’s Dream,” where he had shoulder-length black hair, and a dark skin color, certainly more brown than white.

After getting his Oscar, I again saw him on Broadway in the solo play, “Kean,” in 1983, in which his skin color seemed more Caucasian.

R219 who do you think did not give a good performance?

[quote] who do you think did not give a good performance?

Candice Bergen for one.

R222 I thought Bergen gave a good performance. Who else?

Trevor Howard's cameo as Lord Justice Broomfield was good.

[quote] Trevor Howard's cameo

That's all Trevor could manage in his last 30 years on earth.

R225 Sir Trevor!