Gandhi” a film about a man who sought to put an end to stereotypes and discrimination based on race and other factors, but still there are some examples in it that border on stereotyping. This is most apparent in the film’s depiction of the Indian people aside from Gandhi himself. These diverse people of India tend to be represented in large groups and are generally faceless. Instead, on screen they become a giant anonymous swarm and can only be identified by their mass actions and the clothing they wear which marks them as belonging to a particular class. They do not have any real individuality and do not appear to act on anything other mass mentality, which offers a limited perspective on the real situation. Still, it must be remember that this is a biography about Gandhi, not a whole country and thus when one critic suggests that it is “meant to be a noble, idealized portrait dominating an immense series of heroic frescoes, and on that somewhat juvenile level, it works splendidly” (Simon 1983) he does have a point.

Even still, in addition, the people in “Gandhi” are shown as being somewhat fanatical. There are very intense scenes which depict common life; people working in fields, doing their shopping; socializing peacefully with neighbors. Although this was a tumultuous time in Indian history, life did go on as usual. This was not shown, however, and instead all that was seen was religious fervor and great devotion to Gandhi or violent protests. As a result it was almost impossible to get a feel for the country itself since it seemed like nothing more than a battleground. Again, this may have been partially the case, but the people were not fairly represented as people but rather as simple constant reactionaries on one side or another. While this might not be stereotyping per se, it does seem to warrant some notice because it doesn’t give the people of India enough credit or individuality. There is, however, one case of outright stereotyping—that of the evil British man. Although it must be stated that the British authority was indeed cruel, it does seem as though the film paints every British man in power as a complete evil tyrant. In this film, the British are hopelessly (and stereotypically) stiff, oppressive, and cruel. One cannot question that there was a great deal of cruelty enacted during this period, the casting decisions and writing make it seem as though they are all ruthless villains rather than scared people attempting to cling to the last bit of control they have. They are not presented with a human element, which is somewhat unfair since no situation is so black and white to not have some kind of opposition present.

        There are two forms of popular culture presented in “Gandhi”. The first is that of India and the second is that of the West, most notably England. India’s popular culture during the time the film takes place is drastically different than that of the West and elements such as popular music and dress are not really an issue. This is mostly because this is a political film that is not about popular culture and because many of the indicators of culture, such as dress, are narrowly conscripted. For example, the way people dress in India says much about their background. If someone, such as Gandhi in the beginning, is wearing fine British-style clothes then he or she is upper class in India and thus of a more affluent culture. Aside from this, one of the only other elements of Indian culture one can see is the way people come together to pay tribute to a national hero. Gandhi is treated almost as a deity and is given things such as flowers and praise. They treated him much as people might an American or British film or music star and thus it can be said that their culture is visible in how they treat iconic figures.

The culture of the Westerners was easier to see in the film but one has to wonder if this is simply because I am a Western viewer and know what to look for. All of the subtle cues such as the hairstyles and ways of speaking indicate certain things about popular culture. For instance, Martin Sheen’s character uses a great deal of slang words when he is speaking with fellow Americans and British people and one understands that he is not formal or traditional—that he embraces many of the cultural events and music of the 1920s and 1930s. This is a difficult film to use as the basis of a discussion about popular culture since it’s about the formation of a cultural shift itself. It shows the “old” culture that existed in India—one that was rife with tension but not one that was exploding with any visible popular images, music, or other artifacts. Similarly, the British culture that existed was very traditional. The judges dressed formally, the military men walked around in full decoration, and thus the culture was very formal itself. This would eventually change and thus the popular image of the British gentleman in colonial India was on the wane as well.

This film was very informative and taught me quite a bit about the struggles faced in India and South Africa under colonial rule but I was always left wanting more. The film did not delve enough into the deeper meanings and more focused interactions between important characters and it was sometimes a bit shallow. “Every relationship is treated on a superficial level and every character other than Gandhi is virtually a straw figure” (Geduld 1983). This idea of straw figure characters went to support the idea that there was some stereotyping and “lumping” together of entire groups of people for the purpose of the film. Aside from this, although I was keeping an eye out for the answers to some of the questions discussed here, I could not help but be completely amazed by the life of Gandhi. Even though I know who he was and something of what he did, I never realized the extent to which he brought about change in his country and around the world through non-violence. I had always imagined that he was simply a voice or a speaker for the cause of peaceful resistance but did not understand how closely involved he was in the political shaping of his nation. In addition, I was struck by how humble he was and I thought it was amazing that someone who possessed such power could be so human and like everyone else. In general, this film taught me a great deal about the power of peace. Even though Gandhi’s life ended tragically, I did not feel sad when it came to an end as it seemed that he would have been glad to die for his cause and would rejoice in what he had helped his country to achieve. In all honesty, after watching this film I began to wish that our country had such a deep and introspective leader at the helm.

Other essays and articles in the Arts Archives related to this topic include : An Extended Definition of Bollywood Cinema •  “Sex and the Holy City” : Film Analysis  •  Summary, Analysis and Review of the Film “Reel Bad Arabs”

Works Cited

Geduld, H. M. (1983). Celluloid Mahatma. Humanist, 43(3), 37

Simon, J. (1983). Political Antithesis. National Review, 35(4), 269