Director Richard Attenborough's three-hour plus epic, Gandhi, winner of eight Academy Awards including the Best Picture award for 1982, isn't discussed too much these days. I suspect it's one of those films that many people said would be important for years to come, but which in reality, fade rather quickly from people's memories. Similar epic films like Lawrence of Arabia and Doctor Zhivago still excite modern audiences, and continue to show up on TV and in revival houses on a regular basis, while Gandhi, a film that most critics at the time praised as if they were actually reviewing Gandhi and not the film itself, languishes on the pages of film history books.

Perhaps those previous examples of Lawrence and Zhivago are part of the reason that Gandhi comes up short in terms of "important" films that no longer seem all that great. Anybody watching movies back in 1982 knew that director David Lean, the man behind Lawrence and Zhivago, had wanted desperately to make a film of Gandhi's life. As well, once Gandhi was delivered to the theatre screens, we movie fans were treated to endless stories about how director Richard Attenborough had sacrificed so much to bring his film of Gandhi's life to fruition. When we finally saw Gandhi, it wasn't hard to see that Attenborough's film played very much like "David Lean-lite," with a reliance on so-called "epic" filmmaking techniques that included long, drawn out dialogue scenes, a declarative, obvious script, stolid, square compositions with the occasional sweeping vista shot, and a block-heavy construction that (discreetly) screamed "quality" and "importance" at every predetermined step of the way.

I remember very well a solid core of critics and moviegoers who were less than impressed by Attenborough's attempt here at Lean-like filmmaking. After all, Attenborough had tried epic filmmaking before, with Young Winston and A Bridge Too Far, with decidedly mixed - at best - critical results (I rather like Bridge, though). I remember being essentially nonplused by Gandhi when I saw it in the theatres. It's obviously a well-intentioned film (although, really, what the hell does that virtue have to do with good cinema?), with some pleasures to be found in a few of the performances. But as a true character study, Gandhi leaves its main protagonist a virtual cipher. In Lawrence of Arabia, David Lean took a real person, T. E. Lawrence, who may be the most mysterious and puzzling historical figure of the 20th century, and made the epic film of all time that not only gave true insight into his character (as envisioned by Lean and screenwriter Bolt), but did so against an incredibly broad and rich historical canvas. Whether or not Peter O'Toole's Lawrence was the real Lawrence ultimately was beside the point; we were given a fully-rounded character that inhabited a vast, panoramic story. Attenborough, on the other hand, takes one of the best known, and most discussed, historical figures of the 20th century, Mohandas Gandhi, and utterly mystifies him for us. Treated as a saint who speaks only in polemics, the Gandhi of Gandhi gives us no indication of whom he really is. What made Gandhi the "Mahatma?" What drove this man to achieve what he achieved? What personal foibles or faults did he have (and Gandhi did have them, just like any other man), that would only serve to make him more "human" to us? You won't find answers to any of these questions, watching Attenborough's Gandhi.

It's very telling that at the beginning of the film, there's a title card that basically says, there's no way to tell a famous person's story, and get it all right. That all a filmmaker can do is to get at the "heart" of the person. Well, that's exactly what's missing from Gandhi: the heart. Now, I know some people will say that it's enough for Attenborough to show Ben Kingsley (who does look astonishingly like Gandhi) mouthing the words of Gandhi, while painting broad historical strokes with illustrated mile markers in the famous man's life - that that is enough to show what Gandhi was "about." But I disagree. We all know (or at least should know) the main points of struggle in Gandhi's life: his early fight against racism in white South Africa; his return to India as a hero to his people; his commitment to nonviolent, yet provoked confrontation of the English imperial forces in India, and his numerous jailings and hunger strikes that he used to literally force the English out of India. But what made Gandhi want to be the person he was? What were his thought processes on what was happening to him? We don't know from the film. The movie starts out with Gandhi heading to South Africa, where he encounters first-hand the effects of white racism. Being a London-educated barrister, Gandhi is shocked by his treatment at the hands of a bullying train conductor, who demands he give up his first-class seating. This scene is our introduction to Gandhi, but it rings false from the start, mainly because it's highly unlikely that London-educated lawyer Gandhi would be at all shocked that South Africa was racist (I suspect he was treated with equal contempt in London, as well). Reacting like a naive child slapped in the face by reality, this cinematic Gandhi has been made into a symbol, a symbol of the aggrieved majority oppressed by their minority rulers. And he remains a symbol throughout the film - not a fully-rounded character. Other huge moments in Gandhi's life remain unexplained, literally dropped by the director in favor of moving on to the next gorgeous set-up. When Gandhi returns to India, and determines that he must "discover" India, we're treated not to scenes of Gandhi actually interacting with Indians, but with travelogue shots of India from a train window (not at all unlike similar shots in Around the World in 80 Days). Where is Gandhi's big moment of revelation about India, and his place in that world? We don't know; it's never shown to us.

The Gandhi of Gandhi exists only to serve Attenborough's square, airless rendering of historical highlights in the great man's life. This film doesn't let you breathe; all of our reactions, all of the so-called insights into Gandhi's life, are predetermined for us. It's an amazingly pedantic, declarative script. When Gandhi's wife says to Gandhi, "You're human. Only human," it's supposed to be this revelatory moment, but how can it be when Attenborough treats us like children by having the wife actually say that? How about showing us that Gandhi is only human? The whole movie is like that; when a broad stroke must be painted about Gandhi, it's usually done by an actor staring into the camera and telling us what we need to know - and what we need to feel. "Classical" moviemaking techniques have given way here to baldly melodramatic theatricalities. There's no room for discovery on our parts; it's pre-digested, and presented on a gorgeous plate for us to admire from a far.

If you want to watch Gandhi for the spectacle (indeed, many people don't think Dr. Zhivago is necessarily a "good" movie, but as a spectacle romance, it has few peers), you may be impressed with the costumes and the size of some of the shots, but it's not an overtly "grand" film. Many of the carefully (some might say obsessive) composed shots focus on faces here, not sweeping locales, so don't expect the expanse of say, Lawrence. It's hard to say a lot about the performances in the film, as well, mainly because everything is so locked down tight, I doubt there was room for unplanned artistic expression. Kingsley got the most notice when the film came out; he carries the film and appears in almost every scene, but truth be told, I wasn't that blown away by his performance (I preferred Paul Newman that year in The Verdict, or Peter O'Toole in My Favorite Year). But the Academy likes costumes and elaborate makeup, so Kingsley was tapped for the award. Indeed, if you read some of the articles I read back then, you would think criticism of his performance amounted to criticism of Gandhi himself (I recall Roger Ebert writing a particularly hilarious, over-the-top piece that reviewed not so much the film, but the real Gandhi's message). It's not that Kingsley gives a bad performance, it's just that it's not a terribly interesting one, mainly because the character he's given has nowhere to go but straight to heaven. When your role starts as "saint" on the character arc scale, and never deviates, where do you go with that as an actor? The various big name British actors all do their stiff-upper lip shticks (John Gielgud, Trevor Howard and John Mills all showed up, but honestly, a couple of hours later, I don't remember what they did or said). And the American contingent wasn't much better. Martin Sheen is all sincerity and total colorlessness. And Candice Bergen is, as we always knew she would be, totally hopeless in a role that asks nothing more of her than to hold a camera convincingly - which she still can't do. The only person who really riveted me was Edward Fox, in a chilling cameo as General Dyer, the commander responsible for the infamous Massacre of Amritsar. There's a moment where Fox, on trial for his crimes, is staring at the judges, where a true, blank psychosis comes right through the camera. It's an amazing scene, and it makes you wish the rest of the movie had that kind of juice.

Where's the passion in this story of monumental struggle and strife? Certainly not in Gandhi, or at least, in this cinematic Gandhi. There's no attempt to make him a fully developed, multi-dimensional character; he exists as profound from the start, and only becomes more saintly as the movie interminably grinds on. The film declares that Gandhi the man made us ask questions about ourselves, but the film never questions Gandhi the cinematic character. There's no shadings shown, no criticism of his actions or beliefs (and there were plenty of both during his actual lifetime). Instead, we're increasingly presented with a Gandhi that functions as a Bartlett's Quotations, doling out pungent little witticisms, while the various big-name British character actors get a chance to do their little phony, outraged or confused, reaction shots - another form of theatrical shorthand that's easier to present to the audience than genuine complex drama. One of the most vibrant, alive moments in 20th history is turned into a stilted bore of a marathon that one endures rather than celebrates. If you think I'm being harsh on the cinematic qualifications of Gandhi, one has to go no further than one of the featurettes included here on this 25th anniversary disc of the film. Richard Attenborough, in discussing his astonishing upset at the 1982 Academy Awards, when Gandhi beat out the odds-on favorite, E. T., flat out states that E. T., as a cinematic work, was "miles ahead" of Gandhi, and that he never dreamed that it would beat out Spielberg's masterpiece. Attenborough states here that Gandhi was a "major piece of cinematic recording of circumstances and human beings" (my italics), and not really a work of "cinema." I can't think of a better piece of criticism in describing the fatal cinematic and dramatic drawbacks of Gandhi - except for perhaps the film's true title, as it appears at the film's beginning: Richard Attenborough's Film: Gandhi.

The DVD:

The Video:
The 2.35:1, anamorphic widescreen video image of Gandhi, remastered in Hi-Def, is a startlingly clear presentation of the 25-year-old film. The colors look exactly as I remember them in the theatre, and the bright, sharp transfer here makes the film look brand new.

The Audio:
The Dolby Digital English 5.1 soundtrack is beautifully rendered here on this disc. The scintillating music of Ravi Shankar and George Fenton are beautifully captured here on this active audio presentation. Subtitles are available in English, Korean, Portuguese and Spanish.

The Extras:
There are a copious amount of extras included on this special 25th anniversary edition of Gandhi. First off, on disc one, we have a full-length director's commentary. Director Attenborough gives an incredible amount of background info on the film, and he's really a most interesting and engaging companion as he goes over the three-plus hours of the film. On disc two, there are quite a few short featurettes that go into the production of the film. Under the heading Designing Gandhi, three one-minute shorts describe the various production problems in creating the look of Gandhi: Building the Ashram, The Tent, and Finding Trains. These featurettes, however, are so short as to be almost useless as background information. In Search of Gandhi is a nine minute look at Attenborough's quest to make the film. Looking Back is a eighteen minute featurette that gives us a sense of the impact that the film had when it premiered (but telling, not since its premiere). Madeleine Slade: An Englishwoman Abroad is a fairly pointless nine minute look at one of the supporting players in the film, who essayed a crucial figure in Gandhi's life (and who comes off, as do most of the characters in the film, as totally inscrutable). Reflections on Ben is a nine minute look at casting Kingsley in the role. Shooting an Epic in India is an eighteen minute look at the production problems that occurred during the actual shoot of the film. The Funeral is a thirteen minute overview of the gigantic funeral procession, and the logistical problems that went into shooting it. The Words of Mahatma Gandhi is a two minute text featurette that gives us quotes from Gandhi, set to Indian music. And Newsreel Footage gives us four brief clips from vintage newsreels featuring Gandhi: Gandhi Goes to India, Gandhi's Farewell Talk in Europe, Mahatma Gandhi Begins Death Fast, and Gandhi Talks.

Under Interviews on the second disc, there is a nineteen minute interview from 2000, Ben Kingsley Talks About Gandhi, featuring Ben Kingsley talking about, who else, Gandhi. Two interviews, called From the Director's Chair, look at the film's casting problems, as well as the music used in the film. Under the Galleries section, you can look at some vintage lobby cards from the films (don't you wish they still did lobby cards for films?), as well as The Making of Gandhi (Video Montage), which is just a photo gallery of various stills from the film. Milestones in the Life of Gandhi is an interactive timeline that gives you highlights of the Mahatma's life. The original five minute trailer for the film is included here, as well. In all, it's quite a bit of background on the film, and most welcome.

Final Thoughts:
It's inaccurate to say that time has not been kind to director Richard Attenborough's Gandhi; it was never that good to begin with. Sincerity and good intentions don't make classic films; good filmmaking makes classic films, and Gandhi suffers from all of the pretensions that go along with setting out to make a unimpeachable film for the ages. Rent it to keep your credibility when you're talking about epic films or the Academy Awards, but if you've already seen it, chances are you'd skip it in a second for something else -- 191 minutes is enough time out of one person's life with Attenborough's Mahatma. Rent it.