mnaquvi
Lifetime Total
1+
IMDb Member
18 years
Reviews
Dharm Adhikari (1986)
An Unrealistic portrayal of Life
I think Dilip Kumar accepted this role as an experiment in that the entire dialogue that Dilip has delivered was written in in proper Hindi. That is all Persian/Arabic words that have become current in everyday Indian spoken language were replaced by specific Hindi words.
That has made the film unrealistic. Even though, Dilip has delivered his dialogue effortlessly, the rest of the film is artificial. There is some specific contrast in the story where a conflict is shown between Hindu Dharam and modern secular social ideas. The whole set up of the story is very unrealistic - a police no go area in the middle of modern India.
It is this kind of portrayal that has made the film unacceptable for the masses. That is why the film failed on the box office in spite of Dilip Kumar being the main character.
That has made the film unrealistic. Even though, Dilip has delivered his dialogue effortlessly, the rest of the film is artificial. There is some specific contrast in the story where a conflict is shown between Hindu Dharam and modern secular social ideas. The whole set up of the story is very unrealistic - a police no go area in the middle of modern India.
It is this kind of portrayal that has made the film unacceptable for the masses. That is why the film failed on the box office in spite of Dilip Kumar being the main character.
Gandhi (1982)
Wrongly Taken as Accurate History, Many Real Characters Uunder-Rated and maligned
This is supposed to be a true biography of Gandhi and his times.
From that point-of-view, it is filled with historical inaccuracies and the portrayal of certain characters is unrealistic and bordering on dishonest.
BEN KINGSLEY's Gandhi is good for the screen but not accurate and realistic. Ben Kingsley's acting really deserved the awards and accolades he has received over time.
Gandhi in real life wasn't all that is shown in the film. He has been overly glorified and many other characters has been maligned and under-rated against Gandhi's characters.
Nehru was a much more handsome, articulate and impressive persona in his real life than Sethi's portrayal of Nehru.
Jinnah has been much maligned. He was gaunt, good looking, tall and and immaculately dressed person in his real life. He would usually stun judges on the bench by his logical speech let alone an ordinary person. In the film he has been played by and ugly old man.
This film should be seen as a film, just as a story to get the full enjoyment from it, not s an accurate record of actual history.
Indian National Congress was started by an Englishman to create good relationship and communication between the ruling British and the subject Indians. It later grew up into a political instrument by which India got its freedom from the British. Many great Indians before Gandhi had worked in the organization to give it direction. JInnah joined the INC as one of the most successful lawyer of his time and a patriotic Indian in 1906. He worked alongside Hnidus, Parsis and Christians in the Congress working for freedom. Then Gandhi arrived from South Africa to India in 1915. He was welcomed in India as a Hero. IN the scene in the film, he is introduced to Jinnah as the leader of Muslim League.
That is totally wrong. Jinnah was a part on the Congress at that time. Jinnah had full active support for the Congress because of the pluralistic Character of the party. There were no undertones of religious passions of any kind in the leadership neither in the workers.
Gandhi introduced the call for RAM RAJ in the freedom movement, thus giving it a Hindu religious character to the movement. That alarmed the activists and workers belonging to other religions. Most notably, Jinnah was dismayed by this injection of religious passion in the political movement, which so far has been totally secular.
He tried to counter it but was defeated by some more nationalist Hindu leaders joining in with Gandhi in the religious passion. Jinnah left the Congress totally annoyed by that. He went to England for a while.
Jinnah was a secular parliamentarian in his political views. That is why he had avoided joining the Indian Muslim League at its inception in 1906.
He left the INC in disgust when Gandhi came and injected Hindu religious nationalism in the party. He became the president of Muslim League only in 1916, when he had left the Congress and had seen with his own eyes that Congrees under Gandhi will not give any benefit to the Muslims in a free India.
His work for a new Muslim Country, which created Pakistan, was an action of last resort to protect the political and social future of Indian Muslims.
All indications after the 1945 end of the SEcond World War were that the British were a tired and exhausted rulers by that time, India was going to be freed anyway. To give all the credit of achieving freedom to one man, Gandhi, is inaccurate at best and really historical dishonesty.
Watch and review the film just as another film, not any kind of accurate historical record, if you want to enjoy it.
From that point-of-view, it is filled with historical inaccuracies and the portrayal of certain characters is unrealistic and bordering on dishonest.
BEN KINGSLEY's Gandhi is good for the screen but not accurate and realistic. Ben Kingsley's acting really deserved the awards and accolades he has received over time.
Gandhi in real life wasn't all that is shown in the film. He has been overly glorified and many other characters has been maligned and under-rated against Gandhi's characters.
Nehru was a much more handsome, articulate and impressive persona in his real life than Sethi's portrayal of Nehru.
Jinnah has been much maligned. He was gaunt, good looking, tall and and immaculately dressed person in his real life. He would usually stun judges on the bench by his logical speech let alone an ordinary person. In the film he has been played by and ugly old man.
This film should be seen as a film, just as a story to get the full enjoyment from it, not s an accurate record of actual history.
Indian National Congress was started by an Englishman to create good relationship and communication between the ruling British and the subject Indians. It later grew up into a political instrument by which India got its freedom from the British. Many great Indians before Gandhi had worked in the organization to give it direction. JInnah joined the INC as one of the most successful lawyer of his time and a patriotic Indian in 1906. He worked alongside Hnidus, Parsis and Christians in the Congress working for freedom. Then Gandhi arrived from South Africa to India in 1915. He was welcomed in India as a Hero. IN the scene in the film, he is introduced to Jinnah as the leader of Muslim League.
That is totally wrong. Jinnah was a part on the Congress at that time. Jinnah had full active support for the Congress because of the pluralistic Character of the party. There were no undertones of religious passions of any kind in the leadership neither in the workers.
Gandhi introduced the call for RAM RAJ in the freedom movement, thus giving it a Hindu religious character to the movement. That alarmed the activists and workers belonging to other religions. Most notably, Jinnah was dismayed by this injection of religious passion in the political movement, which so far has been totally secular.
He tried to counter it but was defeated by some more nationalist Hindu leaders joining in with Gandhi in the religious passion. Jinnah left the Congress totally annoyed by that. He went to England for a while.
Jinnah was a secular parliamentarian in his political views. That is why he had avoided joining the Indian Muslim League at its inception in 1906.
He left the INC in disgust when Gandhi came and injected Hindu religious nationalism in the party. He became the president of Muslim League only in 1916, when he had left the Congress and had seen with his own eyes that Congrees under Gandhi will not give any benefit to the Muslims in a free India.
His work for a new Muslim Country, which created Pakistan, was an action of last resort to protect the political and social future of Indian Muslims.
All indications after the 1945 end of the SEcond World War were that the British were a tired and exhausted rulers by that time, India was going to be freed anyway. To give all the credit of achieving freedom to one man, Gandhi, is inaccurate at best and really historical dishonesty.
Watch and review the film just as another film, not any kind of accurate historical record, if you want to enjoy it.