Gandhi: Dynamic, Epic Character Study? or, Well-Acted but Overly Long Biopic?

Richard Attenborough’s 1982 epic Gandhi is most certainly a biopic for the ages. Is it long? Yes. Drawn out and methodical? Yes. Is it a brilliant masterpiece? Absolutely, as this film could not have possibly been done any other way. With a life as sweeping and legendary as was the life of Mohandas Gandhi, this would have been a very difficult film to present in a small, intimate scope. However, despite that, this film never lacks in intimacy or character development as so many epics oftentimes do. Why? Richard Attenborough can certainly be credited with masterfully taking on such a daunting task. However, the major credit must be given to Ben Kingsley for all of the care, craftsmanship, dignity, and heart that he fills this performance with. While the film spans the majority of his career, from a young lawyer in South Africa to his assassination, the major focus is on his role in the creation of India. The beauty of this film is that, while it does not shy away from the controversial issues surrounding the creation of India and Pakistan, it remains accessible to most audiences (albeit audiences with long attention spans). My hope is that you did not watch this film in pieces, but instead that you embraced the journey that this sometimes exhausting, yet never dull, film sends the viewer on. The strong scenes of the film are too many to speak of. I would like to point out, however, just one scene, that remains one of the most powerful scenes of the movie for me, and really one of the most powerful critiques of the two-state solution to the Hindu-Muslim rift in India. Near the end of the film, the viewer is taken to a remote borderland between the newly formed India and Pakistan. One vividly sees thousands of people moving in opposite directions, Muslims in the direction of Pakistan, Hindus in the direction of India. What is made impossible for the viewer to figure out, however, is who is who. All it takes is one loss of temper, and the viewer is forced to witness a nightmarish border clash. Why did the gentleman lose his temper? Who is affected by the clash that ensued? What is the powerful force that divides this people? Is there a long history of such hatred in the region of South Asia, and if so why? These are certainly valid questions in a discussion of this film. Again, in a film such as this one, there are scores of scenes that can and should civilly and respectfully be discussed. I will look forward to discussing such scenes with you in this forum. If you enjoyed this particular film by Richard Attenborough, you may also consider viewing his 1987 film Cry Freedom, dealing with the subject of apartheid in South Africa. If you were completely awestruck by Ben Kingsley’s performance, just know that he is an actor that, in my opinion, can do no wrong. That being said, check out any of his films, and you will not likely be disappointed, but also keep in mind that Gandhi still remains his crowning achievement. If the subject matter of decolonization in India intrigues you, you will be hard pressed to find a better film than this one. If you do know of one, I am eager to hear about it though. I personally long for a film that explores, in greater depth, the rivalry and relations of Nehru and Jinnah.

Amistad: Insightful Look into the History and Conditions of the Middle Passage? or, Overproduced Hollywood Entertainment?

I must first of all honestly say that my feelings regarding Steven Spielberg’s 1997 film Amistad are mixed. While I generally enjoy the work of Mr. Spielberg, this film is decidedly missing something for me. Could it be that the film takes some artistic licenses with the history it is supposed to be depicting? Well, nearly every film does this to a degree. Could it be that the very presence of Matthew McConaughey seriously bothers me, regardless of what the film is? Well, this is a possibility as I find him to be agonizingly irritating in this film as he over-acts (that’s what bad actors do when they’re actually trying) his way through the every single scene, to no emotional effect on the part of the viewer. Could it be that the script is incredibly uneven, spending too much time on some issues and not enough on other, more important, issues? I honestly cannot put my finger on as to why I feel incomplete when I’m finished watching this film, but perhaps it is a combination of all of the aforementioned factors. So why, you may ask, did I even assign such a film? Quite honestly because Mr. Spielberg has managed to capture some of the most realistic depictions of the journey through the Middle Passage that have ever been put on celluloid. The images are appropriately graphic in showcasing the gross inhumanity, the disgusting display of cruelty, and the damaging journey that was the Middle Passage. When we arrive at the point in the year when we discuss issues regarding the Atlantic brand of slave trade (keep in mind the actual institution of slavery is as old as civilization itself), it is these images that I would like you to keep in your mind, as painful as they are. The film does have a couple of other merits as well. While I loathe even the sight of Matthew McConaughey on-screen, I was thrilled with both Anthony Hopkins’ (as John Q. Adams) and Djimon Hounsou’s (as Cinque, a slave aboard la Amistad) performances. Hopkins, as he always does, brings realism to a legendary president, a president whose legacy is mixed, both for his presidency and his legislative career. Additionally, this was really the first film in which Hounsou introduced his acting talents to the world (he furthers his repertoire in films like Jim Sheridan’s In America). What is remarkable about Hounsou’s performance is that he manages to bring humanity to a character that would otherwise be typecast into a faceless African slave (as Hollywood has tragically always done), forcing the audience to empathize, not with a faceless slave, but with a man. Unfortunately, aside from the extreme realism in his depiction of the Middle Passage and two tour de force performances, Mr. Spielberg fails to offer, in my opinion, anything new in this, one of several in his long list of historical dramas. The subject matter is perfect for a stimulating and challenging discussion. However, because Mr. Spielberg yet again is afraid to dive into the ambiguities of history, the message is what his message always is—standing up for what is right in the face of adversity, and the ability of the human spirit to overcome even the most insurmountable of odds. I am not knocking these themes (they are noble and important), but they are old and tired themes that have been explored since the invention of film. If you feel there is more to this film, please feel fee to disagree with me and discuss your thoughts. If you liked Mr. Spielberg’s take on history, you may want to check out some of his other films that take on history, most notably the much better, much more challenging, yet still a bit over-praised Schindler’s List (for my money Roman Polanski’s The Pianist is a better film), his highly overrated Saving Private Ryan (I know that will anger some of you, but Terrence Malik’s The Thin Red Line is a much more challenging WWII film, and it gives the viewer much more to think about), or his very under-rated Munich (now that is challenging history for you). If you would like to see a more challenging film regarding the Atlantic slave trade system, I would recommend… hmm… I seriously have nothing as this is a subject that Hollywood (or any other film industry for that matter) has tragically failed in providing anything fresh, challenging, and thought-provoking. If you disagree and have something for me, I can’t wait to read about it in your discussion.

The Mission: Rare Gem Capturing 18th Century Latin America on Film? or, a Slow Methodical Snoozefest?

If you chose to watch Roland Joffe's The Mission in its entirety, you were hopefully in for a treat. If you find colonial Latin American history intriguing, or if you are simply a Robert DeNiro fan and you were interested in seeing him in his younger days, this film likely was quite an experience for you. The opening scene is captivating, as an unknown man tied to a cross is seen rapidly floating down a river that is descending into a waterfall, and of course the mortal plunge that follows. The film does slow down a bit for the first half, but this, in my opinion, is important for character development purposes. Father Gabriel, played by Jeremy Irons, is a Jesuit missionary that is commissioned to build a mission in a remote part of South America, apparently Brazil, as the land is eventually sold to the Portuguese during the film. Rodrigo Mendoza, played by a young Robert DeNiro, is a former slaver and newly converted Jesuit that is commissioned to assist in the building of this new mission and convert the natives. The beauty of the film lies in the forced assimilation of the natives that one witnesses as one watches the film. We know that the Spanish had a clear agenda coming to the Americas, often refered to the 3 Gs- God, gold, and glory. The question remains though, was the agenda exactly in that order? In fact, what really was "the mission" of the Spanish, as it were, in South America? The film explores just that question, and while the film doesn't force any conclusions, no doubt the viewer arrives at some bitter, and at times conflicting, conclusions. One scene in particular that hopefully will stir some dialogue in this discussion is the scene of the young children singing hymns that they have been taught. As beautiful as the harmony is, one cannot help but look further into this scene. Are these children willing participants? Is this brainwashing or is this part of the process to create a better and more orderly society? Is what we are witnessing part of a bigger agenda? Why is it children in particular that are portrayed in this scene? These are questions that must be discussed. In addition to the thought provoking story that The Mission contains, this film has other merits that I would like to point out. I especially find the musical score of this film to be completely riviting, especially in the monumental concluding 30 minutes. Although the film sets off at a slow pace, the final half moves lightening quick, and it truly does create a fist-clenching sense of suspense. If you enjoyed this film, Roland Joffe previously directed another film of historical significance entitled The Killing Fields in 1984. The film takes a candid and graphic look at the oftentimes overlooked genocide campaign in Cambodia during the 1970s. Viewer beware! This film is not for the faint of heart, and I would not recommend it to squeamish viewers. However, it does serve as an important reminder of the darker side of the human condition, one that, if not held in check, can be enormously devestating. Is there a similar theme that runs through The Mission?

A Man For All Seasons: Beautifully Tragic Tale of Moral Integrity? or, Stuffy British Costume Drama?

First of all, my congratulations to those of you who decided to watch this film despite the fact that the film was made in 1966. You will find that the year a film was made is absolutely meaningless if real quality is present, and this is certainly a quality film. Fred Zinnemann's A Man For All Seasons is a powerful film on many different levels. It is first of all necessary to understand the cultural backdrop of the film. Up until the point of King Henry VIII, England was a Catholic state officially. However, the winds of change are blowing all over Europe as the Protestant Reformation spreads throughout the region. England's impending reformation, though, is a far cry from the doctrinal disputes that took place in German speaking areas of Europe, heavily influenced by Martin Luther. Instead, Henry VIII is rejecting the Catholic Church, not for doctrinal reasons, but for the political reason of wanting a divorce, one which the church vehemently opposes. Therefore, Henry VIII decides to steer England on an uncharted course, creating his own Church of England, making himself the head of his church, therefore making his divorce guaranteed. Enter Thomas More, Henry's friend, confidant, and newly appointed chancellor. More is portrayed with a moral fiber rare in most human beings, one of incorruptibility, even in the face of death. More chooses not to publicly denounce the king, but instead decides to remain silent on the issue, a position that the king sees as treason. All More has to do is simply pay lip service to the king and publicly endorse his decision, whether he truly believes what he is saying or not. So many important questions are raised here, the foremost being: When your personal beliefs conflict with the law of the land, at what lengths would you go to stay true to your beliefs? Would you maintain your integrity even in the face of death? Is such a death heroic or a nonsensical show of moral stubborness? Should obedience to the law ever supercede obedience to one's conscience? As a society, do we see consciencious objectors as admirable or law-defying citizens? At what point does a person become a martyr as a consciencious objector? Can martyrdom even be clearly defined, and if so, who defines it? What do you think? These are all questions that should be assessed in a discussion of this film. I also want to take the time to give due attention to the performance of Paul Scofield as Thomas More. Scofield handles this very challenging role with much dignity and care, never coming across as reckless, but never overtly prudish either. It truly is one of the great on-screen performances, especially driven home by a monologue for the ages near the end of the film, a monologue that never fails to send chills down my spine, as many times as I've seen this film now. If you were impressed by Paul Scofield's performance, you may also consider checking out Scofield in his older age, but still pitch perfect, in Robert Redford's 1994 film Quiz Show. If you enjoyed this film as a whole and enjoyed the challenging nature of Zinnemann's directing, I would recommend that you check out two of my all time favorite films, both directed by Zinnemann. One would be the 1953 film From Here To Eternity (this is the Pearl Harbor film that you should see, as opposed to the insulting, repulsive mess of a film that was Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor in 2001). My other recommendation would be the 1952 film High Noon (this is really one of the definitive films of the western genre, never over the top, always challenging, and with an amazing Cold War backstory that brings life and depth to an already masterful screenplay). Finally, if the issue of conscience in the face of government opposition is an interesting topic to you, I would also recommend one of the best films of this decade that few have seen despite George Clooney's star status, that being George Clooney's 2005 film Good Night, and Good Luck.

To Live: A Masterful Chinese Language Period Piece

I will start off this discussion by saying without any apologies that this indeed is my favorite film of the ten films I assigned. Zhang Yimou's To Live is a complete work of art and beauty to this viewer. First of all, the acting is pitch perfect. Gong Li is one of the greatest actresses of our generation that few Americans know anything about (save possibly for her dynamic role in the otherwise flat and tepid Memoirs of a Geisha). Her character, Jiazhen, is beautifully portrayed, believable, and all-together heartbreaking. You Ge is also outstanding as Fugui, one of the best character studies that you'll see in Chinese film. As a character study, the film works fantastically well. Where To Live really shines though, in my opinion, is as a vivid historical piece of 20th century Chinese history that Americans are generally (and sadly) not exposed to. The first shining moment of the film where terms like masterpiece start popping into my head is during the Chinese Civil War. Zhang Yimou could have easily fallen into the trap of overproducing epic battle scenes, but instead he focuses in on the human aspect of war (something tragically missing from the majority of Hollywood blockbusters). We then go from Nationalist to Communist China after the war, and we get to see the vast changes that the country experiences through a single family. The emotions in the film are raw and brutally honest, especially as we see Fugui's children grow into adolescence and later adulthood, with all of life's setbacks and bad breaks, and all the while China's dramatic political serves as a important backdrop. The film's final scene is one of the painful reality as to where Mao had truly taken China by the Cultural Revolution. This film was banned for years in China and the final scene brings some sense as to why. I know of no other film that gives audiences such a candid look at the Cultural Revolution as this one does. Bernardo Bertolucci came close with The Last Emperor, but not even that grand acheivement is able to wring raw emotion from one's soul as does this film. When most adults and really all intellectuals have been ousted from their positions in society in a grand overhaul, what happens to society in general? Who will your doctors be? Should that be a real concern, especially in situations such as the delivery of a child? This is a film that explores those thoughts. It does this, remarkably, without ever being overtly judgemental and without shoving a message down the viewer's throat. That, and so much more, makes this film one of the unsung masterpieces of the 1990s. If you enjoyed this film, I would recommend checking out some of Zhang Yimou's other work, some of the best would include Raise the Red Lantern, Hero, and one of my favorites of his that never gets recognized, Happy Times.

Stay up to date with the news

Please consult the net daily to stay up to date with the news. The following are your best options for credible, objective news in the english language...

news.bbc.co.uk

http://www.npr.org/

Welcome!

Welcome to AP World History! Here's to the best year yet.