list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Gandhi on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Gandhi/12952/default.aspx Title: Gandhi
Year: 1982
Director: Richard Attenborough
Plot: It was Richard Attenborough's lifelong dream to bring the life story of Indian political and spiritual leader Mahatma Gandhi to the screen. When it finally reached fruition in 1982, the 188-minute, Oscar-winning Gandhi was one of the most exhaustively thorough biopics ever made. The film begins in the early part of the 20th century, when Mohandas K. Gandhi (Ben Kingsley), a British-trained lawyer, forsakes all worldly possessions to take up the cause of Indian independence. Faced with armed resistance from the British government, Gandhi adopts a policy of "passive resistance," endeavoring to win freedom for his people without resorting to bloodshed. In the horrendous "slaughter" sequence, more extras appear on screen than in any previous historical epic. The supporting cast includes Candice Bergen as photographer Margaret Bourke-White, Athol Fugard as General Smuts, John Gielgud as Lord Irwin, John Mills as the viceroy, Martin Sheen as Walker, Trevor Howard as Judge Broomfield, and, in a tiny part as a street bully, star-to-be Daniel Day-Lewis. Gandhi won eight Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Actor, and Best Director. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 36
Number of Lists: 25
Number of blog posts: 4
Number of discussion threads: 2
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Wed, 06 May 2009 20:23:01 GMTGandhi1982Richard AttenboroughIt was <a href="/players/P____80152/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Richard Attenborough</a>'s lifelong dream to bring the life story of Indian political and spiritual leader Mahatma Gandhi to the screen. When it finally reached fruition in 1982, the 188-minute, Oscar-winning Gandhi was one of the most exhaustively thorough biopics ever made. The film begins in the early part of the 20th century, when Mohandas K. Gandhi (<a href="/players/P____38383/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Ben Kingsley</a>), a British-trained lawyer, forsakes all worldly possessions to take up the cause of Indian independence. Faced with armed resistance from the British government, Gandhi adopts a policy of "passive resistance," endeavoring to win freedom for his people without resorting to bloodshed. In the horrendous "slaughter" sequence, more extras appear on screen than in any previous historical epic. The supporting cast includes <a href="/players/P_____5591/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Candice Bergen</a> as photographer Margaret Bourke-White, <a href="/players/P____25251/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Athol Fugard</a> as General Smuts, <a href="/players/P____26803/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>John Gielgud</a> as Lord Irwin, <a href="/players/P___102933/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>John Mills</a> as the viceroy, <a href="/players/P___111083/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Martin Sheen</a> as Walker, <a href="/players/P____33529/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Trevor Howard</a> as Judge Broomfield, and, in a tiny part as a street bully, star-to-be <a href="/players/P____17559/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Daniel Day-Lewis</a>. Gandhi won eight Academy Awards, including Best Picture, Best Actor, and Best Director. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide36Tag Target (>10)25423http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t91297k6veq.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Gandhi/12952/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/groups/Coming_Soon/Time_Travel_Aliens_and_Biopics_New_movies_12/216/38083/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: SkyPilot
Post To: Coming Soon
Post Date: 12/8/2008 4:30:05 PM
Body: TIME TRAVEL: A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT Bad Guys Will Always Have Time Travel, so Good Guys Should Have It Too -- 5 Movies That Prove This Argument 1. Timecrimes (NEW) -- Watch the trailer. Read the review, listen to the interview. 2. Time Bandits (1981) -- Watch the trailer. My good friend Kevin (porcupine) loves this flick. That's good, because his parents named him after one of the characters. Would it be less cool if he were named after Kevin McAlister from Home Alone? Something to ponder. 3. Time Cop (1994) -- Watch the trailer. I remember this Jean-Claude Van Damme vehicle was pretty violent and included some gratuitous nudity; I was only 13 when I saw it in '95, and that's all I remember. Are there fans who've seen it more recently? 4. Back to the Future Part II (1989) -- Watch the trailer. Remember how future Biff went back in time to give the gambling results book to 50's Biff, then 50's Biff became rich by never losing a bet at the horseraces? Who besides me wished they could do that? 5. And of course, there's the mo-fo'ing Terminator series. Man, I can't wait for Terminator: Salvation. Read the notes from the Comic-Con press conference. WHOA: KEANU REEVES, ROCKIN' IT 3. The Day the Earth Stood Still (NEW) -- Read about the press conference with Keanu and Jennifer Connelly. I won't lie, I'm excited for this one! Not only am I nuts about Jennifer Connelly, I also think Keanu could be fantastic at playing a non-human. (Just like how Swarzenegger was always best at playing a robot.) Recast the original, you might win a t-shirt. 2. A Scanner Darkly (2006) -- Really good movie from Richard Linklater. It's rotoscoped like Waking Life, but it has a story! It's funny and sad and paranoid (it's about narcs and drug addiction). The trio of Keanu, Woody Harrelson and Robert Downey Jr. make it a buddy tragi-comedy. 1. Point Break (1991) -- Watch the trailer. Time to watch it again. When Hot Fuzz came out, I'm so glad they paid homage to this lovable turkey. CHE & OUR FAVORITE BIOPICS Che (NEW) -- Read Karina's review and the Steven Soderberg press conference. This is not one of Karina's favorite biopics. Find out why Karina's review pissed off older bloggers. What are your favorite biopics? I asked some friends at Spout about their favorites, and one said, "Does Braveheart count?" Here are some others they listed: 6. Gandhi -- Watch the trailer. I dig that Ben Kingsley. I haven't seen this though, what do you guys think of it? 5. Into the Wild -- Watch the trailer. Haven't seen this one either. 4. Evita -- The musical with Madonna. I don't know if I could handle it. 3. A Beautiful Mind -- Watch the trailer. Haven't seen it. 2. I'm Not There -- Watch the trailer. Careful with this one, because if you don't know a lot about Bob Dylan's life, the film will just be confusing and frustrating. If you do know your Dylan, this is beautiful and a real heart-breaker. 1. Amadeus -- Watch the trailer. This one I need to watch again. I remember it as an interesting movie for anyone who feels like a Salieri when they meet a Mozart. GOOD MOVIES THAT COME FROM PLAYS 3. Doubt (NEW) -- Watch the trailer. Great cast, with Philip Seymour Hoffman, Meryl Streep and Amy Adams. 2. My favorite Shakespeare movies: for the comedies, Love's Labour's Lost and The Merchant of Venice. For the tragedies, I really like Titus and Roman Polanski's Macbeth. How about you guys? 1. Rope (1948) -- Jimmy Stewart is great in this thriller from Alfred Hitchcock. It all takes place in one apartment. WEIRD-ASS LOOKIN' ANIMATED MOVIE Delgo (NEW) -- Watch the weird-ass trailer. OTHER NEW MOVIES You know something juicy about these? Hit us with it!What Doesn't Kill You -- ..."makes you ugly." That's the saying, right? Stars Ethan Hawke and Mark Ruffalo, who play old friends trying to dodge gangs and a detective (Mark Wahlberg) in South Boston.Nothing Like the Holidays -- Watch the trailer. Alfred Molina! Where God Left His Shoes -- Stars John Leguizamo, who's trying to find an apartment for his family on Christmas Eve, after they've lived in a homeless shelter for a few months. Dark Streets -- Watch the trailer. I love that guy Elias Koteas. While She Was Out -- Kim Basinger's a housewife fighting for her life out in the woods (looks like some young men are trying to get her).$9.99 -- Stop-motion animation, starring Geoffrey Rush.
]]>Mon, 08 Dec 2008 21:30:05 GMTSkyPilotComing Soon12/8/2008 4:30:05 PMTIME TRAVEL: A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT Bad Guys Will Always Have Time Travel, so Good Guys Should Have It Too -- 5 Movies That Prove This Argument 1. Timecrimes (NEW) -- Watch the trailer. Read the review, listen to the interview. 2. Time Bandits (1981) -- Watch the trailer. My good friend Kevin (porcupine) loves this flick. That's good, because his parents named him after one of the characters. Would it be less cool if he were named after Kevin McAlister from Home Alone? Something to ponder. 3. Time Cop (1994) -- Watch the trailer. I remember this Jean-Claude Van Damme vehicle was pretty violent and included some gratuitous nudity; I was only 13 when I saw it in '95, and that's all I remember. Are there fans who've seen it more recently? 4. Back to the Future Part II (1989) -- Watch the trailer. Remember how future Biff went back in time to give the gambling results book to 50's Biff, then 50's Biff became rich by never losing a bet at the horseraces? Who besides me wished they could do that? 5. And of course, there's the mo-fo'ing Terminator series. Man, I can't wait for Terminator: Salvation. Read the notes from the Comic-Con press conference. WHOA: KEANU REEVES, ROCKIN' IT 3. The Day the Earth Stood Still (NEW) -- Read about the press conference with Keanu and Jennifer Connelly. I won't lie, I'm excited for this one! Not only am I nuts about Jennifer Connelly, I also think Keanu could be fantastic at playing a non-human. (Just like how Swarzenegger was always best at playing a robot.) Recast the original, you might win a t-shirt. 2. A Scanner Darkly (2006) -- Really good movie from Richard Linklater. It's rotoscoped like Waking Life, but it has a story! It's funny and sad and paranoid (it's about narcs and drug addiction). The trio of Keanu, Woody Harrelson and Robert Downey Jr. make it a buddy tragi-comedy. 1. Point Break (1991) -- Watch the trailer. Time to watch it again. When Hot Fuzz came out, I'm so glad they paid homage to this lovable turkey. CHE &amp; OUR FAVORITE BIOPICS Che (NEW) -- Read Karina's review and the Steven Soderberg press conference. This is not one of Karina's favorite biopics. Find out why Karina's review pissed off older bloggers. What are your favorite biopics? I asked some friends at Spout about their favorites, and one said, "Does Braveheart count?" Here are some others they listed: 6. Gandhi -- Watch the trailer. I dig that Ben Kingsley. I haven't seen this though, what do you guys think of it? 5. Into the Wild -- Watch the trailer. Haven't seen this one either. 4. Evita -- The musical with Madonna. I don't know if I could handle it. 3. A Beautiful Mind -- Watch the trailer. Haven't seen it. 2. I'm Not There -- Watch the trailer. Careful with this one, because if you don't know a lot about Bob Dylan's life, the film will just be confusing and frustrating. If you do know your Dylan, this is beautiful and a real heart-breaker. 1. Amadeus -- Watch the trailer. This one I need to watch again. I remember it as an interesting movie for anyone who feels like a Salieri when they meet a Mozart. GOOD MOVIES THAT COME FROM PLAYS 3. Doubt (NEW) -- Watch the trailer. Great cast, with Philip Seymour Hoffman, Meryl Streep and Amy Adams. 2. My favorite Shakespeare movies: for the comedies, Love's Labour's Lost and The Merchant of Venice. For the tragedies, I really like Titus and Roman Polanski's Macbeth. How about you guys? 1. Rope (1948) -- Jimmy Stewart is great in this thriller from Alfred Hitchcock. It all takes place in one apartment. WEIRD-ASS LOOKIN' ANIMATED MOVIE Delgo (NEW) -- Watch the weird-ass trailer. OTHER NEW MOVIES You know something juicy about these? Hit us with it!What Doesn't Kill You -- ..."makes you ugly." That's the saying, right? Stars Ethan Hawke and Mark Ruffalo, who play old friends trying to dodge gangs and a detective (Mark Wahlberg) in South Boston.Nothing Like the Holidays -- Watch the trailer. Alfred Molina! Where God Left His Shoes -- Stars John Leguizamo, who's trying to find an apartment for his family on Christmas Eve, after they've lived in a homeless shelter for a few months. Dark Streets -- Watch the trailer. I love that guy Elias Koteas. While She Was Out -- Kim Basinger's a housewife fighting for her life out in the woods (looks like some young men are trying to get her).$9.99 -- Stop-motion animation, starring Geoffrey Rush. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/8/11/33867.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 8/11/2008 4:00:43 PM
Body: Lists of movies within movies are fairly common on the internet, enough that I now realize I need to finally see Bowfinger simply because I’ve counted about a million list makers in love with something titled “Chubby Rain.” And the lists are likely to keep on coming thanks to this week’s hot release, Tropic Thunder, which actually features two movies within (the Vietnam War film “Tropic Thunder” and the festival-winning making-of documentary “Rain of Madness”), as well as the upcoming How to Lose Friends and Alienate People, which has spawned a popular fake movie trailer for an NC-17 film titled “Mother Theresa: The Making of a Saint” (previewed above). Yet until someone makes a Wikipedia page for “List of Fictional Films,” these blogged and forumed lists are necessary to keep us movie fans remembering those non-existent movies we wish existed. Narrowing down to ten seemed to be difficult — fictional films have been at least nominally been created for tons of films about filmmaking, otherwise reflexive films, sketch comedies, spoofs, etc. — until I realized that a lot of these films within films are appropriately nominal or trailer- or clip-sized gags and would in reality be terrible (imagine actually watching the entirety of “Asses of Fire” from South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut). Even “Je Vous Présente Paméla” (”Meet Pamela”) from Day for Night and the sci-fi film being made in 8½ would probably be major disappointments in actuality if you expected from them the work of Truffaut and Fellini, respectively. So, I went mostly with fictional films that would probably be bad, but would at least be amusingly bad — though I purposefully avoided fictional porns, including those from Boogie Nights and The Big Lebowski, of which there are literally thousands: “Gandhi II” from UHF - There’s just something about watching good people gone bad. But while the idea of the Good Will Hunting sequel, subtitled “Hunting Season”, thought up for Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back is pretty ingenious, it just doesn’t have the same level of ludicrous exaggeration that a bloodletting follow-up to the Oscar-winning Gandhi has. Dude drives a Ferrari, can punch completely through a guy’s abdomen, and of course he knows how to party. He even eats meat, now. It’s not only funny because it’s the antithesis of what the Indian leader was all about, it’s also funny because it reminds me of all those straight-edge and vegetarian kids you knew in high school who now drink way too much (oh, yeah, I’m one of them). “Odyssey” from Contempt - When Fritz Lang showed up as himself in Jean-Luc Godard’s Contempt, he’d already given the world his final film as a director (The 1,000 Eyes of Dr. Mabuse). If only he’d really given us this one additional adaptation of Homer’s epic poem. Either as an art film, as Lang originally intends, or as a more commercial picture, as desired by the American producer played by Jack Palance. “Ants in Your Pants 1938″ from Sullivan’s Travels - The other famously named film within this film, “O Brother, Where Art Thou?” was, at least in title, already made by the Coen brothers (see the side-by-side comparison in the video above — interestingly enough, their O Brother, Where Art Thou? is also an adaptation of Homer’s “Odyssey”, uniting #2 and #3 of this list). But I always try to imagine what a film titled “Ants in Your Pants 1938″ would have looked like. I always picture a cross between the Marx Brothers and Busby Berkeley, yet it’s got to be more shallow than that, according to how it’s referenced in Preston Sturges’ movie. “Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure” from Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure - What fan of the real Big Adventure wouldn’t like to watch it all over again as an action picture starring James Brolin and Morgan Fairchild? Maybe it wouldn’t be as good, but it does have ninjas. Anyway, because I love to relate seemingly unrelated movies via lists, let it be known that an episode of Pee-Wee’s Playhouse was titled “Ants in Your Pants”. And now that I think about it, that show was kinda like a cross between the Marx Brothers and Busby Berkeley. Kinda. “Habeas Corpus” from The Player - It’s a common staple for lists like this, and pretty much all Bruce Willis movies from the first half of the ’90s were awful (obviously Pulp Fiction is an exception), but I’d definitely watch the whole of this fake film, even though I’ve already seen how it ends. As with Fritz Lang’s “Odyssey”, I’d be curious to see both the originally planned version and the commercialized final version. “Crossed Sabres of Truth” from The Big Picture - Forget “Home for Purim”, that lame movie within a movie from Christopher Guest’s For Your Consideration. This earlier satire of Hollywood from Guest had far greater fake films, most of them fake student films, such as this one, made by the full-of-himself character played by Dan Schneider. It may not have starred Elliott Gould (as does “The Trial of Janet Kingsley”), or been an overly avant-garde work titled “Afterbirth of a Notion” (which reminds me of the opening to Pee-Wee’s Playhouse), or the actual winner of the National Film Institute’s student film award (that would be Kevin Bacon’s character’s “First Date”), but it has the fat kid from Head of the Class and Better Off Dead riding a horse in a 19th century war movie. How could you not want to see more? “See You Next Wednesday” from The Kentucky Fried Movie - I’m probably a bigger fan of weird movie theater gimmicks than the average moviegoer, but that’s probably because I didn’t get a chance to live through things like Smell-O-Vision, which sound neat in theory but which were reportedly very obnoxious in reality (I recently wrote elsewhere about how the return of Smell-O-Vision in pre-show advertising sounds terrible). The joke about “See You Next Wednesday” (a fake movie title referenced in most of John Landis’ films) is that it’s in “feel-around”, a gimmick that’s clearly annoying to experience. I’d definitely be willing to try it out once, though. Especially if it’s the closest thing I could get to one of the Feelies (tactual motion pictures) from Huxley’s “Brave New World”. “MANT” from Matinee - Movie theater gimmicks also have me curious about experiencing the schlock horror film shown in Atomo-Vision and Rumble-Rama. This is one of those film within a films that you get to see more than enough footage of, but I want to actually suffer it as it’s intended to be seen. “Jews in Space” from History of the World, Part I - Mel Brooks eventually did make a Star Wars spoof, one that featured a lot of Jews in space (Spaceballs), but that doesn’t mean this earlier parody idea wouldn’t also be worth seeing. I’d even settle for seeing the apparently hilarious 2005 Argentine film Jews in Space Or Why Is This Night Different, which unfortunately doesn’t seem to actually take place in space nor, tragically, involve spaceships shaped like the Star of David. “Those Darn Amigos” from ¡Three Amigos! - Because the synopsis of Tropic Thunder reminds me of the plot to Three Amigos, I feel it appropriate to include one of the fake films from the underrated comedy. At the beginning of the movie, we see one of the silent movies starring the Three Amigos (see the clip above), but I’m more interested in the trio’s flop, which diverted from the usual premise to be about three wealthy Spanish landowners who take a little vacation in Manhattan. If it didn’t appeal to the masses, I’ll probably love it. I’d also settle for seeing one of the early shorts featuring Ned Nederlander (Martin Short) known as “Little Neddy’s Knickers.” Considering ¡Three Amigos! is set in 1916, and Short was in his mid-30s, I believe it impossible that Ned could have been a child star of any younger than 30, so I’m pretty curious. BONUS: “The Man Who Killed Don Quixote” from Lost in La Mancha - It isn’t a fake film, but it is technically a film within a film. And it’s so far non-existent, really. Terry Gilliam’s attempted loose adaptation of Cervantes was actually being made, with Johnny Depp in the lead. However, due to multiple complications, the production was canceled after shooting had begun, and all that remained was Keith Fulton and Louis Pepe’s depressing documentary Lost in La Mancha. Because sometimes the gods are good to us Gilliam fans, though, it was recently announced that the film is on being attempted again, reportedly still with Depp and possibly also starring Michael Palin. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 11 Aug 2008 20:00:43 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com8/11/2008 4:00:43 PM Lists of movies within movies are fairly common on the internet, enough that I now realize I need to finally see Bowfinger simply because I’ve counted about a million list makers in love with something titled “Chubby Rain.” And the lists are likely to keep on coming thanks to this week’s hot release, Tropic Thunder, which actually features two movies within (the Vietnam War film “Tropic Thunder” and the festival-winning making-of documentary “Rain of Madness”), as well as the upcoming How to Lose Friends and Alienate People, which has spawned a popular fake movie trailer for an NC-17 film titled “Mother Theresa: The Making of a Saint” (previewed above). Yet until someone makes a Wikipedia page for “List of Fictional Films,” these blogged and forumed lists are necessary to keep us movie fans remembering those non-existent movies we wish existed. Narrowing down to ten seemed to be difficult — fictional films have been at least nominally been created for tons of films about filmmaking, otherwise reflexive films, sketch comedies, spoofs, etc. — until I realized that a lot of these films within films are appropriately nominal or trailer- or clip-sized gags and would in reality be terrible (imagine actually watching the entirety of “Asses of Fire” from South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut). Even “Je Vous Présente Paméla” (”Meet Pamela”) from Day for Night and the sci-fi film being made in 8½ would probably be major disappointments in actuality if you expected from them the work of Truffaut and Fellini, respectively. So, I went mostly with fictional films that would probably be bad, but would at least be amusingly bad — though I purposefully avoided fictional porns, including those from Boogie Nights and The Big Lebowski, of which there are literally thousands: “Gandhi II” from UHF - There’s just something about watching good people gone bad. But while the idea of the Good Will Hunting sequel, subtitled “Hunting Season”, thought up for Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back is pretty ingenious, it just doesn’t have the same level of ludicrous exaggeration that a bloodletting follow-up to the Oscar-winning Gandhi has. Dude drives a Ferrari, can punch completely through a guy’s abdomen, and of course he knows how to party. He even eats meat, now. It’s not only funny because it’s the antithesis of what the Indian leader was all about, it’s also funny because it reminds me of all those straight-edge and vegetarian kids you knew in high school who now drink way too much (oh, yeah, I’m one of them). “Odyssey” from Contempt - When Fritz Lang showed up as himself in Jean-Luc Godard’s Contempt, he’d already given the world his final film as a director (The 1,000 Eyes of Dr. Mabuse). If only he’d really given us this one additional adaptation of Homer’s epic poem. Either as an art film, as Lang originally intends, or as a more commercial picture, as desired by the American producer played by Jack Palance. “Ants in Your Pants 1938″ from Sullivan’s Travels - The other famously named film within this film, “O Brother, Where Art Thou?” was, at least in title, already made by the Coen brothers (see the side-by-side comparison in the video above — interestingly enough, their O Brother, Where Art Thou? is also an adaptation of Homer’s “Odyssey”, uniting #2 and #3 of this list). But I always try to imagine what a film titled “Ants in Your Pants 1938″ would have looked like. I always picture a cross between the Marx Brothers and Busby Berkeley, yet it’s got to be more shallow than that, according to how it’s referenced in Preston Sturges’ movie. “Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure” from Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure - What fan of the real Big Adventure wouldn’t like to watch it all over again as an action picture starring James Brolin and Morgan Fairchild? Maybe it wouldn’t be as good, but it does have ninjas. Anyway, because I love to relate seemingly unrelated movies via lists, let it be known that an episode of Pee-Wee’s Playhouse was titled “Ants in Your Pants”. And now that I think about it, that show was kinda like a cross between the Marx Brothers and Busby Berkeley. Kinda. “Habeas Corpus” from The Player - It’s a common staple for lists like this, and pretty much all Bruce Willis movies from the first half of the ’90s were awful (obviously Pulp Fiction is an exception), but I’d definitely watch the whole of this fake film, even though I’ve already seen how it ends. As with Fritz Lang’s “Odyssey”, I’d be curious to see both the originally planned version and the commercialized final version. “Crossed Sabres of Truth” from The Big Picture - Forget “Home for Purim”, that lame movie within a movie from Christopher Guest’s For Your Consideration. This earlier satire of Hollywood from Guest had far greater fake films, most of them fake student films, such as this one, made by the full-of-himself character played by Dan Schneider. It may not have starred Elliott Gould (as does “The Trial of Janet Kingsley”), or been an overly avant-garde work titled “Afterbirth of a Notion” (which reminds me of the opening to Pee-Wee’s Playhouse), or the actual winner of the National Film Institute’s student film award (that would be Kevin Bacon’s character’s “First Date”), but it has the fat kid from Head of the Class and Better Off Dead riding a horse in a 19th century war movie. How could you not want to see more? “See You Next Wednesday” from The Kentucky Fried Movie - I’m probably a bigger fan of weird movie theater gimmicks than the average moviegoer, but that’s probably because I didn’t get a chance to live through things like Smell-O-Vision, which sound neat in theory but which were reportedly very obnoxious in reality (I recently wrote elsewhere about how the return of Smell-O-Vision in pre-show advertising sounds terrible). The joke about “See You Next Wednesday” (a fake movie title referenced in most of John Landis’ films) is that it’s in “feel-around”, a gimmick that’s clearly annoying to experience. I’d definitely be willing to try it out once, though. Especially if it’s the closest thing I could get to one of the Feelies (tactual motion pictures) from Huxley’s “Brave New World”. “MANT” from Matinee - Movie theater gimmicks also have me curious about experiencing the schlock horror film shown in Atomo-Vision and Rumble-Rama. This is one of those film within a films that you get to see more than enough footage of, but I want to actually suffer it as it’s intended to be seen. “Jews in Space” from History of the World, Part I - Mel Brooks eventually did make a Star Wars spoof, one that featured a lot of Jews in space (Spaceballs), but that doesn’t mean this earlier parody idea wouldn’t also be worth seeing. I’d even settle for seeing the apparently hilarious 2005 Argentine film Jews in Space Or Why Is This Night Different, which unfortunately doesn’t seem to actually take place in space nor, tragically, involve spaceships shaped like the Star of David. “Those Darn Amigos” from ¡Three Amigos! - Because the synopsis of Tropic Thunder reminds me of the plot to Three Amigos, I feel it appropriate to include one of the fake films from the underrated comedy. At the beginning of the movie, we see one of the silent movies starring the Three Amigos (see the clip above), but I’m more interested in the trio’s flop, which diverted from the usual premise to be about three wealthy Spanish landowners who take a little vacation in Manhattan. If it didn’t appeal to the masses, I’ll probably love it. I’d also settle for seeing one of the early shorts featuring Ned Nederlander (Martin Short) known as “Little Neddy’s Knickers.” Considering ¡Three Amigos! is set in 1916, and Short was in his mid-30s, I believe it impossible that Ned could have been a child star of any younger than 30, so I’m pretty curious. BONUS: “The Man Who Killed Don Quixote” from Lost in La Mancha - It isn’t a fake film, but it is technically a film within a film. And it’s so far non-existent, really. Terry Gilliam’s attempted loose adaptation of Cervantes was actually being made, with Johnny Depp in the lead. However, due to multiple complications, the production was canceled after shooting had begun, and all that remained was Keith Fulton and Louis Pepe’s depressing documentary Lost in La Mancha. Because sometimes the gods are good to us Gilliam fans, though, it was recently announced that the film is on being attempted again, reportedly still with Depp and possibly also starring Michael Palin. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/dibot/archive/2008/8/2/33467.aspx Post By: dibot
Post To: dibot Blog
Post Date: 8/2/2008 10:44:46 PM
Body: Alfred Hitchcock ("Family Plot") remakes his own film, The Man Who Knew Too Much, and it is quality. I haven't seen the earlier version, so I cannot compare. In this one, Jimmy Stewart ("The Big Sleep") gets mixed up in an assassination plot and his son gets kidnapped. So he and his wife, the blonde Doris Day ("With Six You Get Egg Roll"), end up taking things into their own hands. Very well shot, very suspenseful. Day sings "Que Sera Sera " alot. Not the greatest Hitchcock, but still very good. The Ruins is one of the better horror movies I've seen lately, and I'm not even that scared of plants. While on a trip to South America, a group of teens gets invited to visit an archeological dig. But once they reach the site, some natives trap them on a Mayan pyramid, and shoot anyone trying to leave. So there's that threat. Then the kids have to figure out why. Then there's tension and very gross painful things. Very enjoyable. Definitely, Maybe is probably (ha ha ) the worst romantic comedy I've seen in a long time. Granted, I don't venture into this genre often, but I thought Ryan Reynolds ("Chaos Theory") would keep me safe. Wrong. Reynolds is a funny guy, but writer/director Adam Brooks ("Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason") works really hard to keep him dull. There are a few laugh-out-loud moments, mostly when Reynolds is with Abigail Breslin ("Kit Kittridge: An American Girl"). And then there's the story. It should be interesting, how Reynolds ended up with Breslin's mother, but it's just not. I groaned over much of the dialogue. Avoid. Mysterious Skin is glorious and disturbing. Director Gregg Araki ("Smiley Face") explores the lives of two boys who both experienced traumatic events as children and how that effected their lives. This film covers topics from child abuse to alien abduction. It's never easy, but it is gloriously shot and Joseph Gordon-Levitt ("Stop-Loss") is acting his pants off, sometimes literally. Awesome. What to say about Gandhi? Ben Kingsley ("The Love Guru") disappears into his role of Mahatma Gandhi, who led non-violent protests against the British in India. The film covers much of Gandhi's life. The sheer scope of it is overwhelming. I felt the film was long and sometimes moved slow, however, I couldn't stop watching it. Deserving of all the love it receives.
]]>Sun, 03 Aug 2008 02:44:46 GMTdibotdibot Blog8/2/2008 10:44:46 PMAlfred Hitchcock ("Family Plot") remakes his own film, The Man Who Knew Too Much, and it is quality. I haven't seen the earlier version, so I cannot compare. In this one, Jimmy Stewart ("The Big Sleep") gets mixed up in an assassination plot and his son gets kidnapped. So he and his wife, the blonde Doris Day ("With Six You Get Egg Roll"), end up taking things into their own hands. Very well shot, very suspenseful. Day sings "Que Sera Sera " alot. Not the greatest Hitchcock, but still very good. The Ruins is one of the better horror movies I've seen lately, and I'm not even that scared of plants. While on a trip to South America, a group of teens gets invited to visit an archeological dig. But once they reach the site, some natives trap them on a Mayan pyramid, and shoot anyone trying to leave. So there's that threat. Then the kids have to figure out why. Then there's tension and very gross painful things. Very enjoyable. Definitely, Maybe is probably (ha ha ) the worst romantic comedy I've seen in a long time. Granted, I don't venture into this genre often, but I thought Ryan Reynolds ("Chaos Theory") would keep me safe. Wrong. Reynolds is a funny guy, but writer/director Adam Brooks ("Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason") works really hard to keep him dull. There are a few laugh-out-loud moments, mostly when Reynolds is with Abigail Breslin ("Kit Kittridge: An American Girl"). And then there's the story. It should be interesting, how Reynolds ended up with Breslin's mother, but it's just not. I groaned over much of the dialogue. Avoid. Mysterious Skin is glorious and disturbing. Director Gregg Araki ("Smiley Face") explores the lives of two boys who both experienced traumatic events as children and how that effected their lives. This film covers topics from child abuse to alien abduction. It's never easy, but it is gloriously shot and Joseph Gordon-Levitt ("Stop-Loss") is acting his pants off, sometimes literally. Awesome. What to say about Gandhi? Ben Kingsley ("The Love Guru") disappears into his role of Mahatma Gandhi, who led non-violent protests against the British in India. The film covers much of Gandhi's life. The sheer scope of it is overwhelming. I felt the film was long and sometimes moved slow, however, I couldn't stop watching it. Deserving of all the love it receives. http://www.spout.com/blogs/usesoap/archive/2008/6/22/31524.aspx Post By: usesoap
Post To: usesoap Blog
Post Date: 6/22/2008 7:36:58 PM
Body: Since Mike Myers latest abomina... I mean, character, “The Love Guru,” is rather fond of acronyms for followers in his self-help dynasty, let me sum up his film accordingly. Those expecting even the slightest twinkle of comedy from “Wayne's World” or “Austin Powers” are in for a lot of “Crotch References and Agonizing Puns.” If you are a big fan of “Funnies from Anally Released Thunder” jokes or a focus on “Woefully Aggrandizing Narcissism Guffaws,” then “The Love Guru” is right down your darkened alley. In fact, anything below the belt is the go-to source of snickers for Myers here. With the subtlety of a toddler discovering his genitalia for the first time, Myers seems fixated south of the equator, offering more crotch-centric comedy in 90 minutes than Adam Sandler's entire résumé. Myers star as the eponymous self-help expert with aspirations on becoming America's next top spiritual advisor. To do this, he must appear on Oprah like his rival, Deepak Chopra. And to do this, he must reunite a hockey player with his estranged wife. It should be noted that the athlete is played by Romany Malco, a black comedian, because, you know, a black man playing hockey is apparently hilarious in Myers comedy playbook. The team is owned by one Jane Bullard (played with tapioca intensity by one Jessica Alba), who Pitka warms up to in a romantic way. Pitka lives a comfortable life in his Los Angeles ashram. Pitka an American child raised (for no real apparent reason) by an Eastern guru (Ben Kingley, accepting another role that serves as steel brush to polish that Oscar of his). The master is cross eyed (for no real apparent reason) and his name is Tugginmypudha. If your knees are red from slapping them after reading that last name, again, run to the theater a get your ticket. Pitka is given a chastity belt (for no real apparent reason) only to serve as a gag involving a clanging sound every time he achieves an erection. He greets everyone with the mantra (for no real apparent reason) “Mariska Hartgitay.” By the way, you'll never guess who shows up for a cameo! To Ms. Hargitay's parents' credit, at least her name has some thought behind it (it means “bitter” in Herbrew). Myers, who also co-wrote the film, litters it with less-inventive names such as Dick Pants and Coach Cherkov (seriously, Mike, were you even trying?). The latter character is played by Myer's “Austin Powers” co-star, diminutive actor Verne Troyer. He's cast for no other reason than for Myers to squeeze out whatever little person jokes that didn't fit in the “Powers” films. I have stated in my column before that I am no prude and do enjoy an occasional wallow into the muddy waters of crude humor. But, honestly, “The Love Guru” is one school grade away from using a comeback of “doody-head” as a punchline. Myers' character is tested in that he has to learn to love himself before others, but that does not seem to be a problem for the actor himself. Shamelessly mugging, laughing at all his own jokes and flailing like a sleep-deprived child mid-tantrum, calling Myers a ham would be a disservice to the pork industry. First-time director Marco Schnabel does little more than point and shoot, allowing scenes (and Myers) to go on much longer than necessary. The other truly odd vibe of “Guru” is its presumption of intended audience members (boys under age of the PG-13 rating, or adults with an IQ of 13) have actually seen a Bollywood muscial, read a Deepak Chopra book or even fondly remember hair-metal band Extreme's music video to their power ballad “More Than Words” (it's better not to even ask about that last one). This derision all comes from the saddened heart of a Myers fan — someone who found the original “Austin Powers” and “Wayne's World” hilarious and who still recalls with a smile several of the perfomer's “Saturday Night Live” skits. But there is little to smile about in “Guru.” For even if you remove all the references to fetid bodily functions, you are still left with a “Totally Underwhelming and Rancid Diversion.”
]]>Sun, 22 Jun 2008 23:36:58 GMTusesoapusesoap Blog6/22/2008 7:36:58 PMSince Mike Myers latest abomina... I mean, character, &ldquo;The Love Guru,&rdquo; is rather fond of acronyms for followers in his self-help dynasty, let me sum up his film accordingly. Those expecting even the slightest twinkle of comedy from &ldquo;Wayne's World&rdquo; or &ldquo;Austin Powers&rdquo; are in for a lot of &ldquo;Crotch References and Agonizing Puns.&rdquo; If you are a big fan of &ldquo;Funnies from Anally Released Thunder&rdquo; jokes or a focus on &ldquo;Woefully Aggrandizing Narcissism Guffaws,&rdquo; then &ldquo;The Love Guru&rdquo; is right down your darkened alley. In fact, anything below the belt is the go-to source of snickers for Myers here. With the subtlety of a toddler discovering his genitalia for the first time, Myers seems fixated south of the equator, offering more crotch-centric comedy in 90 minutes than Adam Sandler's entire r&eacute;sum&eacute;. Myers star as the eponymous self-help expert with aspirations on becoming America's next top spiritual advisor. To do this, he must appear on Oprah like his rival, Deepak Chopra. And to do this, he must reunite a hockey player with his estranged wife. It should be noted that the athlete is played by Romany Malco, a black comedian, because, you know, a black man playing hockey is apparently hilarious in Myers comedy playbook. The team is owned by one Jane Bullard (played with tapioca intensity by one Jessica Alba), who Pitka warms up to in a romantic way. Pitka lives a comfortable life in his Los Angeles ashram. Pitka an American child raised (for no real apparent reason) by an Eastern guru (Ben Kingley, accepting another role that serves as steel brush to polish that Oscar of his). The master is cross eyed (for no real apparent reason) and his name is Tugginmypudha. If your knees are red from slapping them after reading that last name, again, run to the theater a get your ticket. Pitka is given a chastity belt (for no real apparent reason) only to serve as a gag involving a clanging sound every time he achieves an erection. He greets everyone with the mantra (for no real apparent reason) &ldquo;Mariska Hartgitay.&rdquo; By the way, you'll never guess who shows up for a cameo! To Ms. Hargitay's parents' credit, at least her name has some thought behind it (it means &ldquo;bitter&rdquo; in Herbrew). Myers, who also co-wrote the film, litters it with less-inventive names such as Dick Pants and Coach Cherkov (seriously, Mike, were you even trying?). The latter character is played by Myer's &ldquo;Austin Powers&rdquo; co-star, diminutive actor Verne Troyer. He's cast for no other reason than for Myers to squeeze out whatever little person jokes that didn't fit in the &ldquo;Powers&rdquo; films. I have stated in my column before that I am no prude and do enjoy an occasional wallow into the muddy waters of crude humor. But, honestly, &ldquo;The Love Guru&rdquo; is one school grade away from using a comeback of &ldquo;doody-head&rdquo; as a punchline. Myers' character is tested in that he has to learn to love himself before others, but that does not seem to be a problem for the actor himself. Shamelessly mugging, laughing at all his own jokes and flailing like a sleep-deprived child mid-tantrum, calling Myers a ham would be a disservice to the pork industry. First-time director Marco Schnabel does little more than point and shoot, allowing scenes (and Myers) to go on much longer than necessary. The other truly odd vibe of &ldquo;Guru&rdquo; is its presumption of intended audience members (boys under age of the PG-13 rating, or adults with an IQ of 13) have actually seen a Bollywood muscial, read a Deepak Chopra book or even fondly remember hair-metal band Extreme's music video to their power ballad &ldquo;More Than Words&rdquo; (it's better not to even ask about that last one). This derision all comes from the saddened heart of a Myers fan &mdash; someone who found the original &ldquo;Austin Powers&rdquo; and &ldquo;Wayne's World&rdquo; hilarious and who still recalls with a smile several of the perfomer's &ldquo;Saturday Night Live&rdquo; skits. But there is little to smile about in &ldquo;Guru.&rdquo; For even if you remove all the references to fetid bodily functions, you are still left with a &ldquo;Totally Underwhelming and Rancid Diversion.&rdquo; http://www.spout.com/blogs/shaunhuston/archive/2007/7/7/13308.aspx Post By: ShaunHuston
Post To: ShaunHuston filmblog
Post Date: 7/7/2007 1:03:14 AM
Body: Richard Attenborough’s Gandhi (1982) begins with dedications to Motilal Kothari, the Indian man who approached Attenborough about making the film, Louis Mountbatten, the last British Viceroy of India, and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, and a disclaimer about the inability of any film to capture all of the people, moments, and events in a person’s life. The dedications expose both a key strength and critical weakness of the film—its status as an “official” or “authorized” text—while the disclaimer uncovers the challenge of any biographical picture: namely, how to distill a life into a feature length film, even one that runs for over three hours. The issue is not whether corners will be cut, but which ones and in what manner. Revisiting the film 25 years after its initial release and Oscar triumphs, Gandhi appears notable both for the ways in which it clearly crystallized the current form of the biopic, and how it is different from subsequent films in the genre. Despite the impossibility of capturing a life in a film, biographical movies still seem to be animated by the desire to do just that. This is one reason why biopics are known for their length. More importantly, it leads to narratives that, while selective, nonetheless span decades (over half of a century in the case of Gandhi). However, whereas many of the films that have followed it reach back to the childhoods of their subjects, Gandhi is firmly focused on its protagonist’s adult life. This choice is notable as much for what it excludes as what it includes. The increasing fascination with childhood, which can be seen in the recent Kinsey (2004), Ray (2004), and Walk the Line (2005), as well as in earlier films such as Attenborough’s own Chaplin (1992) and Spike Lee’s Malcolm X (1992), is clearly related to the psychologization of biographical subjects. Not content to merely show their protagonists in action, biographical filmmakers seem moved to “account” for their characters, and referencing childhood events, traumas, friendships, as well as sibling and parent relationships, is the universal default explanation for why someone became who they did. The focus on childhood also relates to a heightened interest in the private lives of the leaders, artists, musicians, etc., who are routinely profiled on film. Even works such as The Hurricane (1999) and Ali (2001), which avoid psychological speculation on the significance of childhood, participate in exploring the private travails and flaws of their central characters. While people often become curious about the private lives and formative years of the those featured in textbooks and on the news, such curiosity is largely rooted in the facts of someone’s public life, and not in the details of what they do in the privacy of their own homes or in the anonymity of their pre-fame existence. To the extent that audiences are interested in Alfred Kinsey’s domestic life, or Johnny Cash’s or Ray Charles’ drug use, or Muhammad Ali’s failed marriages or Malcolm Little’s life of crime, it is because of what they did, and do, for public consumption. The private lives of these figures are no more intrinsically interesting, or worthy of a film, than anyone else’s. And yet details from that side of their identities consistently fill out the running time of biographical films. In contrast to the examples above, Gandhi steers clear of its subject’s childhood and private life. Attenborough, writer John Briley, and editor John Bloom, seem to appreciate that it is Gandhi’s contributions to Indian, world, and British history—not his private demons or peccadilloes—that make him notable. There is one domestic spat in the entire film, but even it is over an issue where the personal clearly overlaps the political. Is it likely that the only argument that Gandhi (Ben Kingsley) and his wife, Kasturba (Rohini Hattangadi), ever had was over whether she should be required to “rake the latrine” like everyone else in the ashram (intentional community)? No. Does it matter? Again, no. To be sure, if there were serious contradictions between Gandhi’s public and private lives, then delving into the one in order to explore the meaning of the other would be interesting and perfectly justifiable, perhaps even necessary. This is, arguably, the rationale for the first half of Malcolm X to be devoted to Malcolm Little’s life of crime and debauchery, but that film arguably crosses the line between setting up Malcolm’s conversion, not just to Islam, but to a life of service and activism, and wallowing in the prurient details of his youth. In much the same way as dwelling on Gandhi’s personal life would have distracted from dramatizing his public persona, pointing to his childhood—“He was bullied in school! He vowed to never let that happen again! But he would not become like his tormentors!”—as an “explanation” of his role in history would have been absurdly reductive and facile. The makers of the film were smart to avoid that path, and one suspects that they were never tempted by it, either. At the same time, it is here that the film’s dedications signify a barrier to imaginatively reconstructing how Gandhi became the leader and political philosopher that he did. The “25th Anniversary” DVD includes a brief, optional introduction by Richard Attenborough that underscores the extent to which Gandhi was conceived and delivered as a means of honoring the Mahatma. Taking an avowedly reverential approach to its subject clearly opened doors for the filmmakers, and aided in securing cooperation and blessings, particularly, from the Indian government and Gandhi’s family, friends, and associates. It also clearly prevented Attenborough and company from departing too far from the public and official record of Gandhi’s life. The result is a movie edited like a highlight reel of speeches, homilies, and notable events. The film implies, and in some cases explicitly tells the audience, that there were critical moments in Gandhi’s political development, but it does not stop to show and explore those moments. For example, after spending time in a South African prison, shorn of his Western lawyer’s clothes and signs of his social attainment, incarcerated with Indians of different faiths and classes, he emerges as a more modest, self-effacing figure attired in “traditional” clothing. This is conveyed in an exchange with General Smuts (Athol Fugard) wherein Gandhi refuses food because he, “dined at the prison”, and exits in his prison garb after having, essentially, begged for taxi money. The impression of personal and political change from the prison experience is reinforced as he arrives in India, dressed in simple clothing and humbly greeting an expectant crowd, but failing to deliver the big speech many seem to want. What happened in prison? What were his interactions with others like? Who did he speak to? What did they talk about? The filmmakers offer the barest of imaginings regarding these questions. The most egregious example of the film’s dramatic failures is in its representation of Gandhi’s tour of India. While many in the Congress Party seem to have expected Gandhi’s arrival to be a momentous event, Gandhi himself, according to the film at least, felt himself too much a stranger in a strange land to immediately assume the mantle of leadership in the struggle for Indian independence. Instead of attending party meetings and strategy sessions, he set out to “discover” India. The filmmakers turn this voyage into a sight-seeing tour, encapsulated as a musical montage of the countryside as seen from a train. This is precisely the way of seeing India—detached, distant, safe—that Gandhi is presented as being critical of and was attempting to get past himself. He comes away from his trip with a profound class consciousness and a belief that the fight for national liberation necessitated a bridging of the social gaps between the urban, educated professionals in the Congress Party and the peasants in the countryside. Once again, the substance of this transformative experience is not dramatized. Even worse, it is turned into an almost purely aesthetic moment. The lowest point in this sequence is reached when the film plays on the fears of its presumptively white audience as Gandhi’s English companion, Reverend Charlie Andrews (Ian Charleson), is invited onto the roof of their train by some “shifty” looking Indians just as they approach a tunnel. Everything works out okay, of course, but not without turning the “shifty” Indians into deferential clowns, appealing to yet another Western stereotype. The film is similarly clueless when it comes to the internal dynamics of the national liberation movement. Partition becomes not just a tragic, but an irrational event, perhaps only explainable in terms of Mohammed Jinnah’s (Alyque Padamsee) grasping after power. The creation of independent India and Pakistan is rendered as a spectacle of mindless violence. Gandhi may have been committed to a united India, and been deeply dismayed and disillusioned by partition and the violence it sparked, but there is no indication that he would have written off his country’s ethnic, religious, class, and regional fault lines as nothing more than atavistic and reasonless savagery. Even within the confines of the film, he clearly understood these as very real boundaries between people, but boundaries that could be overcome given the opportunity for self-governance. The filmmakers, once again, choose to aestheticize, rather than dramatize, Gandhi’s politics. In contrast to conventional biopics like Gandhi, works such as Amadeus (1984), Immortal Beloved (1994), and Capote (2004) are exceptional and interesting for the manner in which they jump into their subject’s lives from a single entry point—respectively, Antonio Salieri (F. Murray Abraham), a mysterious love letter, and the writing of In Cold Blood (1966)—rather than with the intent of covering as much as possible in two to three hours. What these films lack in breadth, they gain in depth and imagination. They are concentrated evocations of character. Standard biographies such as Gandhi are outlines, outlines that ultimately suggest multiple, and potentially more provocative, films. In this case, Gandhi’s time in South Africa, and possibly his prior legal education in England, his journeys in the Indian countryside, the organization of the movement for Indian independence, and the struggle over partition are all rife with cinematic possibility. The fact that the makers of Gandhi are willing to signpost the impossibility of telling the whole story of their title subject can be read as an admirable admission or as a cop out. In either case, consideration of an alternate approach, refusing to carry the burden of complete-ness in the first place, seems like an obvious alternative, albeit not one that appears to have much traction within the Anglo-American movie industry. One reason for this, no doubt, is how actor-centered the biopic genre has become. Once one person has managed an effective portrayal of a historical or famous figure, it is difficult, even laughable, to imagine another in the same role, particularly if that figure is the central character in a film. Ben Kingsley’s performance in Gandhi was instrumental in turning biographical films into acting showcases. And like Kingsley, more often than not, the men, and it still usually is men who are the central focus, are at least admirable, and sometimes transcendent (Kingsley is remarkable, especially given how physically passive the characterization of Gandhi is in the movie, but for me, it is Denzel Washington in Malcolm X who truly elevates this film beyond its well-meaning, lavishly produced, but deeply flawed nature). One actor, one film. This is the general rule for biographical filmmaking, and one need only look at Infamous (2006), and how it was necessarily marginalized by the mere existence of Capote, to see the exception that proves this rule. If, more likely than not, there is only going to be one shot at a person’s life, it is undoubtedly difficult to turn off the impulse to tell their whole story, let alone secure funding for anything less. The “25th Anniversary” DVD of Gandhi comes with two discs. Disc 1 has the film, the aforementioned introduction, and a director’s commentary. Disc 2 includes nine “featurettes”; seven about the making of the film and two about Gandhi’s life and politics, three interviews, two stills galleries, an interactive map with important dates and places from Gandhi’s biography, a trailer, and the url for the Wikipedia entry (!?) on “Mahatma Gandhi”. While Attenborough’s introduction is brief and simple, his commentary track is wide ranging. At turns he provides additional historical detail about Gandhi and the times and places in which he lived, insight into the film’s history and its creative challenges, and thoughts on the actors and other craft elements. Near the end he also reflects on his Oscar experience, a reflection that is strangely fixated on the issue of whether he cried on stage during the ceremonies or not. This oddity aside, the director’s commentary clearly expresses Attenborough’s intelligence and deeply held commitment to the film. That commitment is also reflected in the best of the extras on disc 2, “In Search of Gandhi”, which chronicles the 20-year process it took to get the film made. Attenborough is an engaging narrator for this story. The other extra features are fine, but it is hard to imagine that there is a demand for this much material about this film (and, really, the Wikipedia url seems like the kind of “extra” that desperate DVD producers slap onto a disc). It is also hard not to be struck by the lack of Indian voices in the additional features. Aside from a few brief appearances from Saeed Jaffrey, who plays Sardar Valabhhai Patel in the film, the interviews and featurettes provide a steady stream of British filmmakers not only recounting how the movie was made, but also expounding on the significance of Gandhi and the film, including what both meant to India. Gandhi has a reputation as one of the worst, or at least most uninspired, Best Picture winners in the history of the Academy Awards. The film’s length, and its staid and serious tone are no doubt largely responsible for this judgment. Kingsley’s performance notwithstanding, it is also true that Gandhi generally lacks for innovative or challenging filmmaking. It is, however, thoroughly professional and sincerely felt. It is also fair to call it the last grand epic of the “analog” era, and, for better or worse, it has set the form for two plus decades of biographical films in Hollywood. Despite its superficialities, it remains eminently watchable a quarter of a century after its original release. Would that this were true for every movie that earned its place in history with the backing of Oscar. This review was originally published at PopMatters on 6 April 2007.
]]>Sat, 07 Jul 2007 05:03:14 GMTShaunHustonShaunHuston filmblog7/7/2007 1:03:14 AMRichard Attenborough&rsquo;s Gandhi (1982) begins with dedications to Motilal Kothari, the Indian man who approached Attenborough about making the film, Louis Mountbatten, the last British Viceroy of India, and Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, and a disclaimer about the inability of any film to capture all of the people, moments, and events in a person&rsquo;s life. The dedications expose both a key strength and critical weakness of the film&mdash;its status as an &ldquo;official&rdquo; or &ldquo;authorized&rdquo; text&mdash;while the disclaimer uncovers the challenge of any biographical picture: namely, how to distill a life into a feature length film, even one that runs for over three hours. The issue is not whether corners will be cut, but which ones and in what manner. Revisiting the film 25 years after its initial release and Oscar triumphs, Gandhi appears notable both for the ways in which it clearly crystallized the current form of the biopic, and how it is different from subsequent films in the genre. Despite the impossibility of capturing a life in a film, biographical movies still seem to be animated by the desire to do just that. This is one reason why biopics are known for their length. More importantly, it leads to narratives that, while selective, nonetheless span decades (over half of a century in the case of Gandhi). However, whereas many of the films that have followed it reach back to the childhoods of their subjects, Gandhi is firmly focused on its protagonist&rsquo;s adult life. This choice is notable as much for what it excludes as what it includes. The increasing fascination with childhood, which can be seen in the recent Kinsey (2004), Ray (2004), and Walk the Line (2005), as well as in earlier films such as Attenborough&rsquo;s own Chaplin (1992) and Spike Lee&rsquo;s Malcolm X (1992), is clearly related to the psychologization of biographical subjects. Not content to merely show their protagonists in action, biographical filmmakers seem moved to &ldquo;account&rdquo; for their characters, and referencing childhood events, traumas, friendships, as well as sibling and parent relationships, is the universal default explanation for why someone became who they did. The focus on childhood also relates to a heightened interest in the private lives of the leaders, artists, musicians, etc., who are routinely profiled on film. Even works such as The Hurricane (1999) and Ali (2001), which avoid psychological speculation on the significance of childhood, participate in exploring the private travails and flaws of their central characters. While people often become curious about the private lives and formative years of the those featured in textbooks and on the news, such curiosity is largely rooted in the facts of someone&rsquo;s public life, and not in the details of what they do in the privacy of their own homes or in the anonymity of their pre-fame existence. To the extent that audiences are interested in Alfred Kinsey&rsquo;s domestic life, or Johnny Cash&rsquo;s or Ray Charles&rsquo; drug use, or Muhammad Ali&rsquo;s failed marriages or Malcolm Little&rsquo;s life of crime, it is because of what they did, and do, for public consumption. The private lives of these figures are no more intrinsically interesting, or worthy of a film, than anyone else&rsquo;s. And yet details from that side of their identities consistently fill out the running time of biographical films. In contrast to the examples above, Gandhi steers clear of its subject&rsquo;s childhood and private life. Attenborough, writer John Briley, and editor John Bloom, seem to appreciate that it is Gandhi&rsquo;s contributions to Indian, world, and British history&mdash;not his private demons or peccadilloes&mdash;that make him notable. There is one domestic spat in the entire film, but even it is over an issue where the personal clearly overlaps the political. Is it likely that the only argument that Gandhi (Ben Kingsley) and his wife, Kasturba (Rohini Hattangadi), ever had was over whether she should be required to &ldquo;rake the latrine&rdquo; like everyone else in the ashram (intentional community)? No. Does it matter? Again, no. To be sure, if there were serious contradictions between Gandhi&rsquo;s public and private lives, then delving into the one in order to explore the meaning of the other would be interesting and perfectly justifiable, perhaps even necessary. This is, arguably, the rationale for the first half of Malcolm X to be devoted to Malcolm Little&rsquo;s life of crime and debauchery, but that film arguably crosses the line between setting up Malcolm&rsquo;s conversion, not just to Islam, but to a life of service and activism, and wallowing in the prurient details of his youth. In much the same way as dwelling on Gandhi&rsquo;s personal life would have distracted from dramatizing his public persona, pointing to his childhood&mdash;&ldquo;He was bullied in school! He vowed to never let that happen again! But he would not become like his tormentors!&rdquo;&mdash;as an &ldquo;explanation&rdquo; of his role in history would have been absurdly reductive and facile. The makers of the film were smart to avoid that path, and one suspects that they were never tempted by it, either. At the same time, it is here that the film&rsquo;s dedications signify a barrier to imaginatively reconstructing how Gandhi became the leader and political philosopher that he did. The &ldquo;25th Anniversary&rdquo; DVD includes a brief, optional introduction by Richard Attenborough that underscores the extent to which Gandhi was conceived and delivered as a means of honoring the Mahatma. Taking an avowedly reverential approach to its subject clearly opened doors for the filmmakers, and aided in securing cooperation and blessings, particularly, from the Indian government and Gandhi&rsquo;s family, friends, and associates. It also clearly prevented Attenborough and company from departing too far from the public and official record of Gandhi&rsquo;s life. The result is a movie edited like a highlight reel of speeches, homilies, and notable events. The film implies, and in some cases explicitly tells the audience, that there were critical moments in Gandhi&rsquo;s political development, but it does not stop to show and explore those moments. For example, after spending time in a South African prison, shorn of his Western lawyer&rsquo;s clothes and signs of his social attainment, incarcerated with Indians of different faiths and classes, he emerges as a more modest, self-effacing figure attired in &ldquo;traditional&rdquo; clothing. This is conveyed in an exchange with General Smuts (Athol Fugard) wherein Gandhi refuses food because he, &ldquo;dined at the prison&rdquo;, and exits in his prison garb after having, essentially, begged for taxi money. The impression of personal and political change from the prison experience is reinforced as he arrives in India, dressed in simple clothing and humbly greeting an expectant crowd, but failing to deliver the big speech many seem to want. What happened in prison? What were his interactions with others like? Who did he speak to? What did they talk about? The filmmakers offer the barest of imaginings regarding these questions. The most egregious example of the film&rsquo;s dramatic failures is in its representation of Gandhi&rsquo;s tour of India. While many in the Congress Party seem to have expected Gandhi&rsquo;s arrival to be a momentous event, Gandhi himself, according to the film at least, felt himself too much a stranger in a strange land to immediately assume the mantle of leadership in the struggle for Indian independence. Instead of attending party meetings and strategy sessions, he set out to &ldquo;discover&rdquo; India. The filmmakers turn this voyage into a sight-seeing tour, encapsulated as a musical montage of the countryside as seen from a train. This is precisely the way of seeing India&mdash;detached, distant, safe&mdash;that Gandhi is presented as being critical of and was attempting to get past himself. He comes away from his trip with a profound class consciousness and a belief that the fight for national liberation necessitated a bridging of the social gaps between the urban, educated professionals in the Congress Party and the peasants in the countryside. Once again, the substance of this transformative experience is not dramatized. Even worse, it is turned into an almost purely aesthetic moment. The lowest point in this sequence is reached when the film plays on the fears of its presumptively white audience as Gandhi&rsquo;s English companion, Reverend Charlie Andrews (Ian Charleson), is invited onto the roof of their train by some &ldquo;shifty&rdquo; looking Indians just as they approach a tunnel. Everything works out okay, of course, but not without turning the &ldquo;shifty&rdquo; Indians into deferential clowns, appealing to yet another Western stereotype. The film is similarly clueless when it comes to the internal dynamics of the national liberation movement. Partition becomes not just a tragic, but an irrational event, perhaps only explainable in terms of Mohammed Jinnah&rsquo;s (Alyque Padamsee) grasping after power. The creation of independent India and Pakistan is rendered as a spectacle of mindless violence. Gandhi may have been committed to a united India, and been deeply dismayed and disillusioned by partition and the violence it sparked, but there is no indication that he would have written off his country&rsquo;s ethnic, religious, class, and regional fault lines as nothing more than atavistic and reasonless savagery. Even within the confines of the film, he clearly understood these as very real boundaries between people, but boundaries that could be overcome given the opportunity for self-governance. The filmmakers, once again, choose to aestheticize, rather than dramatize, Gandhi&rsquo;s politics. In contrast to conventional biopics like Gandhi, works such as Amadeus (1984), Immortal Beloved (1994), and Capote (2004) are exceptional and interesting for the manner in which they jump into their subject&rsquo;s lives from a single entry point&mdash;respectively, Antonio Salieri (F. Murray Abraham), a mysterious love letter, and the writing of In Cold Blood (1966)&mdash;rather than with the intent of covering as much as possible in two to three hours. What these films lack in breadth, they gain in depth and imagination. They are concentrated evocations of character. Standard biographies such as Gandhi are outlines, outlines that ultimately suggest multiple, and potentially more provocative, films. In this case, Gandhi&rsquo;s time in South Africa, and possibly his prior legal education in England, his journeys in the Indian countryside, the organization of the movement for Indian independence, and the struggle over partition are all rife with cinematic possibility. The fact that the makers of Gandhi are willing to signpost the impossibility of telling the whole story of their title subject can be read as an admirable admission or as a cop out. In either case, consideration of an alternate approach, refusing to carry the burden of complete-ness in the first place, seems like an obvious alternative, albeit not one that appears to have much traction within the Anglo-American movie industry. One reason for this, no doubt, is how actor-centered the biopic genre has become. Once one person has managed an effective portrayal of a historical or famous figure, it is difficult, even laughable, to imagine another in the same role, particularly if that figure is the central character in a film. Ben Kingsley&rsquo;s performance in Gandhi was instrumental in turning biographical films into acting showcases. And like Kingsley, more often than not, the men, and it still usually is men who are the central focus, are at least admirable, and sometimes transcendent (Kingsley is remarkable, especially given how physically passive the characterization of Gandhi is in the movie, but for me, it is Denzel Washington in Malcolm X who truly elevates this film beyond its well-meaning, lavishly produced, but deeply flawed nature). One actor, one film. This is the general rule for biographical filmmaking, and one need only look at Infamous (2006), and how it was necessarily marginalized by the mere existence of Capote, to see the exception that proves this rule. If, more likely than not, there is only going to be one shot at a person&rsquo;s life, it is undoubtedly difficult to turn off the impulse to tell their whole story, let alone secure funding for anything less. The &ldquo;25th Anniversary&rdquo; DVD of Gandhi comes with two discs. Disc 1 has the film, the aforementioned introduction, and a director&rsquo;s commentary. Disc 2 includes nine &ldquo;featurettes&rdquo;; seven about the making of the film and two about Gandhi&rsquo;s life and politics, three interviews, two stills galleries, an interactive map with important dates and places from Gandhi&rsquo;s biography, a trailer, and the url for the Wikipedia entry (!?) on &ldquo;Mahatma Gandhi&rdquo;. While Attenborough&rsquo;s introduction is brief and simple, his commentary track is wide ranging. At turns he provides additional historical detail about Gandhi and the times and places in which he lived, insight into the film&rsquo;s history and its creative challenges, and thoughts on the actors and other craft elements. Near the end he also reflects on his Oscar experience, a reflection that is strangely fixated on the issue of whether he cried on stage during the ceremonies or not. This oddity aside, the director&rsquo;s commentary clearly expresses Attenborough&rsquo;s intelligence and deeply held commitment to the film. That commitment is also reflected in the best of the extras on disc 2, &ldquo;In Search of Gandhi&rdquo;, which chronicles the 20-year process it took to get the film made. Attenborough is an engaging narrator for this story. The other extra features are fine, but it is hard to imagine that there is a demand for this much material about this film (and, really, the Wikipedia url seems like the kind of &ldquo;extra&rdquo; that desperate DVD producers slap onto a disc). It is also hard not to be struck by the lack of Indian voices in the additional features. Aside from a few brief appearances from Saeed Jaffrey, who plays Sardar Valabhhai Patel in the film, the interviews and featurettes provide a steady stream of British filmmakers not only recounting how the movie was made, but also expounding on the significance of Gandhi and the film, including what both meant to India. Gandhi has a reputation as one of the worst, or at least most uninspired, Best Picture winners in the history of the Academy Awards. The film&rsquo;s length, and its staid and serious tone are no doubt largely responsible for this judgment. Kingsley&rsquo;s performance notwithstanding, it is also true that Gandhi generally lacks for innovative or challenging filmmaking. It is, however, thoroughly professional and sincerely felt. It is also fair to call it the last grand epic of the &ldquo;analog&rdquo; era, and, for better or worse, it has set the form for two plus decades of biographical films in Hollywood. Despite its superficialities, it remains eminently watchable a quarter of a century after its original release. Would that this were true for every movie that earned its place in history with the backing of Oscar. This review was originally published at PopMatters on 6 April 2007. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/moving/MemberTagFilms.aspxmoving
Number of films tagged: 286

Number of people who tagged: 68

Number of times used: 160

]]>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:15:30 GMT28668160Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/revolution/MemberTagFilms.aspxrevolution
Number of films tagged: 1036

Number of people who tagged: 42

Number of times used: 68

]]>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:32:33 GMT10364268Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/abuse/MemberTagFilms.aspxabuse
Number of films tagged: 760

Number of people who tagged: 38

Number of times used: 74

]]>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:57:35 GMT7603874Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/freedom/MemberTagFilms.aspxfreedom
Number of films tagged: 454

Number of people who tagged: 38

Number of times used: 60

]]>Wed, 16 Sep 2009 23:55:18 GMT4543860Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/lawyer/MemberTagFilms.aspxlawyer
Number of films tagged: 1764

Number of people who tagged: 35

Number of times used: 82

]]>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:55:09 GMT17643582Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Best-Picture/MemberTagFilms.aspxBest-Picture
Number of films tagged: 83

Number of people who tagged: 26

Number of times used: 118

]]>Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:16:34 GMT8326118Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/historical/MemberTagFilms.aspxhistorical
Number of films tagged: 47

Number of people who tagged: 26

Number of times used: 52

]]>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 21:32:41 GMT472652Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/oscar/MemberTagFilms.aspxoscar
Number of films tagged: 110

Number of people who tagged: 24

Number of times used: 103

]]>Tue, 07 Jul 2009 01:03:17 GMT11024103Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/independence/MemberTagFilms.aspxindependence
Number of films tagged: 300

Number of people who tagged: 20

Number of times used: 29

]]>Tue, 08 Sep 2009 04:06:08 GMT3002029Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/activism/MemberTagFilms.aspxactivism
Number of films tagged: 651

Number of people who tagged: 17

Number of times used: 27

]]>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:02:59 GMT6511727Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/biopic/MemberTagFilms.aspxbiopic
Number of films tagged: 27

Number of people who tagged: 17

Number of times used: 41

]]>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 22:23:31 GMT271741Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/peace/MemberTagFilms.aspxpeace
Number of films tagged: 324

Number of people who tagged: 16

Number of times used: 64

]]>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:07:18 GMT3241664Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/think/MemberTagFilms.aspxthink
Number of films tagged: 34

Number of people who tagged: 16

Number of times used: 43

]]>Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:22:54 GMT341643Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/politician/MemberTagFilms.aspxpolitician
Number of films tagged: 1569

Number of people who tagged: 14

Number of times used: 25

]]>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:02:59 GMT15691425Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/truestory/MemberTagFilms.aspxtruestory
Number of films tagged: 23

Number of people who tagged: 13

Number of times used: 31

]]>Fri, 15 May 2009 23:47:03 GMT231331Tag