Attenborough’s Gandhi
Literature
is self-validating. That is to say, a book is not justified by its author’s
worthiness to write it, but by the quality what has been written. There are
terrible books arise directly out of experience, and extraordinary imaginative
feats dealing with themes which the author has been obliged to approach from
the outside.
Salman Rushdie is a provocative
writer who likes to remain in controversy for one or the other things.
He compares migration to translation .‘ Imaginary Homeland ’ is a collection of
Rushdie’s essays . Reading ‘ Imaginary Homeland ’ is an collection essays ,
review and interview which were made for
1981 to 1996.these essays deal with Political, Social, and literary topics. Rushdie's in his essay colonialism and the ironies of
culture, film, politicians, the Labor Party, religious fundamentalism in
America, racial situation and the
preciousness of the imagination and of free expression.
The film is about a biography,not a political
work .even if one aspects this distinction, one must reply that a biography, if it is not turn into
hagiography,(see only one side) aspects of the subjects as well as loveable
side.Attenborough’s Gandhi –essay deals with the Indian leader called Mohandas
Karamchand Gandhi.
Looking at
Postcolonial wayIn this essay he deconstruct the movie ‘Gandhi’ by
Attenborough. Ben kinglsy has played role of Gandhiji this movie. Beginning of
the essay he saying that “ Deification is an Indian disease”. In India , Gandhi
is higher than anyone but he has a question (Postcolonial mind always with
questions)which he asked to people many a time – “ why should American academy wish to help him
by offering in temple eight glittering statuettes to a film.”inanswer
Rushdie might be viewing Gandhi as a mystical
person. India is the fountain head of the spirituality .Gandhi is the
famous figure and leader of India. Here in the movie Attenborough has compred
Gandhi with Christ. He also said that anything can be achieved through
submission, self-sacrifice, and Non-violence.
First of all, why they have chosen
Gandhi? Not any other patriotic figure or spiritual figure like Sardar Patel?ShubhaBhose?
Why no Tagore? The answer is that theey want to represent Gandhi as Torch-
bearer of Non-violence .if the opposition and the independence movement is
important they can choose Bose, but Bose is not chose as he is enough strong
and intelligent that he could push out to the Britisher with Violent.
In the Attenborough has not presented
Gandhi’s thought about ‘ Brahmcharya’ . The book ‘ My Experiments with the
truth ’ is not fully justified we know Gandhiji’s notion and practice about
Brahmcharya, the matter is of ambiguity .Jwaharlal Nehru has been presented as
the disciple of Gandhiji. While actually he sharing the same stage with
Gandhiji. In this movie he is very minor character and follower of Gandhiji. Mohammad
ali Jinnah is presented as villaneous figure for India .actually Jinnah has
same intellect and passion for India as Gandhiji as ,in movie his character
presented as Count Dracula.
In the movie , Attenborough
didn’t include speech of NathuramGodse Because
he knows that no one like to watch or listen NathuramGodse as he has
killed ‘ Mahatma’ in that case Nathurama villain and if he has included this
portion into movie than this movie might not be selected as a Oscar winning
movie .here we can say that Richard Attenborough has chosen the events in the
movie is distorted history.In the movie NathuramGodse is not named , he is a
member of the Hindu-fanatic RSS, who blamed Gandhi as a reason for the Partition
.in the movie he is in crowd that represents him differently.Godse was not the
representative of the mob because he was not alone in his work .movie also
omits Gandhi’s fondness for Indian billionaire industrialist. He died in Birla house in Delhi.
Rushdie Criticizes the Amritsar massacre Dyer’s
action at Jallianwala Bagh.
There are many powerful
sequences in this movie. For example the Amritsar massacre. In court martial an
Englishman asks the question about Jallianwala Bagh to Dyer. The scene say that
his actions were those of a cruel and immediately after condemned by
Anglo-Indian. It was false. The British in Punjab in 1919 were afraid of Second
Indian mutinity. When Dyer goes to
England , he has welcomed as a hero. So meaning was completely changed .
Thus Rushdie gives his reviws
about Attenborough’s film and at end ,he writes that a very significant line.
“ Rich men like emperors, have always had a
weakness for tame holy men, for saints”
No comments:
Post a Comment