Attenborough's Gandhi

To evaluate my assignment click here

Name                  :     Jeel   j. Vyas
Roll No                :     11.
Paper No            :    11.  The postcolonial Literature.
Class                    :     M.A. Sem – 3.
Topic                   :     Salman Rushdie's  view on
                                   Attenborough's Gandhi.
Enrolment No   :    2069108420190045
College               :   Smt.S.B.Gardi Department of English.
Email ID             :    jeelvyas15@gmail.com
Submitted         :    Department  of English
                                M. K. Bhavnagar University.







Abstract  :   Attenborough’s Gandhi is  essay written by Salman Rushdie. In this essay he talks about the movie Gandhi  which is directed by Richard Attenborough. That is why the title of the essay is Attenborough’s Gandhi. This Movie has won eight Academy Awards and also nominated for eleven category. He won awards include Best picture, Best Director and Best screen play. This Movie covers Gandhi’s life from 1893 defining moment as he thrown out of South American train. This film is best film of the its time. And that is the thing attract the Rushdie to write on the movie. This movie also got appreciation from critic but Rushdie do not appreciate the movie he actually criticise  the Movie and also say that,

“Gandhi shows us a saint who vanquished an empire. This is Fiction.”

              ( Imaginary Homeland p : 105)
 Apart from this he also make bold statement that,

“ If this is the best film of 1893, God help the Film industry.”

              ( Imaginary Homeland p :105)

Basic information about the collection Imaginary Homeland :
     
             Imaginary Homeland is essay as well as the title of Rushdie’s book which is collection of his essay, seminar paper, article, movie and book review. The essay Attenborough’s Gandhi is also the part of this collection.

             In Imaginary Homeland there are 70 pieces divided into 12 sections. The first three parts of Imaginary Homelands gather Rushdie’s thoughts on what he calls “Sub Continental” matters from the assignation of Indira Gandhi to the work of novelist Anita Desai, a particularly representative essay, “Common Wealth does not exit” angrily rejects the marginalization of   non British writers of English. Section-4 contains Rushdie’s response to T.V and movie subjects, such as Indian director Stayjit Ray and Richard Attenborough’s Oscar winning “Gandhi”. Section-5 examines a frequent unhide concern, the condition of third world migrates in Britain and Section-6 focuses on British politics. The next five parts reprint Rushdie’s reviews of boos by authors from around the world and the finale five pieces should be linked to ‘Satanic Verses Crisis’. Rushdie remarks hopefully in his preface that,
“Reason is slowly replacing anger at the centre of the debate”.

Attenborough’s Gandhi : 

                    About the Movie Gandhi which is directed by Attenborough Basic details I have mentioned above. Now in this part I will talk about the Rushdie’s view in Movie.

                   Rushdie began his review with the word Deification.  The word Deification means, you treat a person as a god, the person regards with very great respect and not criticize at all. According to Rushdie Deification is Indian disease. He say that if the Indian do the Deification then that is not new but what is in mind of this English man and ask question why this English man is doing this ?
             Rushdie say that Attenborough  portage Gandhi as Mahatma and Avatar will come and do something good for human. This Indian diseases to console human sole and  depend on Avatar. Attenborough knows that what Indian like and for what Oscar-Nobel committee would be like and for that he has just put the image of Gandhi as a Mahatma and has avoided Nathuram Godse’s speech, political thriller also absent in the movie.               

                  Further by himself he try to give answer of the question that why English man try to do Deification of Gandhi. He say that may be by making this kind of Movie he may try to satisfies certain longings of Western psyche.

1. The exotic impulse, the wish to see India as fountainhead of spiritual-mystical wisdom.
2. Christian longing for leader dedicated to ideal of poverty and simplicity.
3. There is liberal- conservative political desire to here it said that revolution can and should be made purely by submission and self sacrifice and non violence.

He further say that to make movie appealing he santified and turned into Christie. Rushdie’s say that as Britisher has always mangled the same thing Attenborough has done In movie he change and mangled and odd fate for crafty Gujarati lawyer and history of the century’s greatest revolution.
                  He also question that why he doesn’t include character like, Tagore, shubhash Chandra Bose. He also including  argument that may film makers answer that it is not possible to include all the characters. But he question that what about the artist creation.
                   In the next half also talk about the Jaliyavala bag  hatyakand. Here he say that the he done good job. His  artist creation can be seen. But he question that what about the Major Dyer has got the greetings. He also question that why he got grand welcome in the England. He got Hero's welcome in England.
                   Another thing he talk about the assassination of Gandhi. He say that this thing Attenborough has shown in beginning and end but during the another three hours there is no any talk about that. Rushdie question that thing that why there is no me of assassin? Not even the name of organization. Nor even the motive of killing shown  in the movie.
                   Then further Rushdie say that the person who killed Gandhi is Nathuram Godse. The organization for which he works is  Hindu Fanatic RSS. They blame Gandhi for partition.
            After giving this information he also interpreted the seen of Gandhi’s assassination. He say that in film the killer is not different than crowd he simply walks from Crowd with gun and kill Gandhi. He say that this thing have three Interpretation.
1. Godse was represenat the crowd. That because if partition people now against the Gandhi.
2. Godse was one lone nut who is under the influence of sinister looking sadhu in rickshaw.
3. Gandhi is Christ in a loincloth, and the assassination is crucifixion.
He say that here Attenborough try to make Gandhi's killing as mystical killing. But Rushdie say that this killing is not Mystical killing but a political killing. He also include that Godse represenat the Crowd because he did not work alone.
          Rushdie including that we are told that this biography not political work. Then the question remains that if biography then must include the awkward aspects of the subject also which we can not able to see in this. The brahmacharya experiments of Gandhi are omitted as well as the It  Gandhi's fondness Billionaire industrialists. Here he talk about Gandhi’s death in Birla house which is the house of richest industrialist of the time.
                    According to hum Gandhi present the false portraits of the leader of independence struggle .He also say that the coming of patle across as a clown is not good where as he was hardest of hard man. Further he add that portray Jinnah as count Dracula is witty. But the most important change is in personality of the Nehru and to erase Boss from history. He also say that in this both the case Dramatic intense has been sacrificed.
                       Nehru and Gandhi are equal and argued fairly. Their debate was also important or we can also say that central part of the freedom struggle.  On the one hand Nehru was the man of urban sophistication who wants to industrialize India in order to bring modern age. On the other hand Gandhi was the Man of rural handicrafts loving person. India has to choose between them India has chosen Gandhi which is according to Rushdie not good but when come to politics India chose Nehru which has brought benefit to India.
                     Further Rushdie add one can understand nothing about the nature of India's independence unless one understands the conflict between these two great men. The film, by turning Nehru into Bapuji's acolyte, manages to castrate itself.
              About the ignorance of the  character of Bose Rushdie says Bose is selected out. Bose the guerrilla, who fought with the Japanese against the British in the war, Bose whose views could have provided another sort of counterweight to Gandhi's, and so improved the film. But Bose was violent, and the film, if it means anything, seeks to mean that non-violence works, and that it could work anywhere, in any revolution. All counter-arguments are therefore rigorously excluded.
             Rushdie further add that the movie provide massage that best way to gain freedom is to line up, unarmed, marched towards the oppressors and permit them to club you to the ground.  If you do this for enough time they will embarrassed and go away. According to Rushdie this idea is non sense. He also talk about the non violence and say that,

“Non-violence was a strategy chosen for a particular people against a particular oppressor; to generalize from it is a suspect act.”

               At last he say that Indian people do not won because they were more moral then British. They won because they were smarter, craftier, they have better fighting politici9 the there opponent. He also say that by narrating Gandhi like this they wants to show that because he was good fakir so they give empire as gift. But truth is that they are more smarter then Britisher so that they take empire.
                 Rushdie at last say that whatever this film has said is not considered as good biography. But rather a fiction. This movie has won the ocear but  as  I have mentioned in my abstract that Rushdie says this if this is the best film of 1983 then God help the film industry.
                     So this are the views of Rushdie about the movie Gandhi and also asked se of the question regarding the movie and basis of it he also criticize movie.