1、甘地传观后感篇一：观甘地传有感观甘地传之“绝食有感自古以来，英雄人物总能把自己一生的志向默默地奉献给那些与他不相干的人，于是许多英雄形象也就渐渐地被堆砌的越来越高最后被推崇为神圣的形象来看待了。但是观看完甘地传中的甘地这一英雄形象后，对他似乎心里丝毫没有产生过这种崇高超人之感，反之，甘地这一形象，留给观众的印象总是那么地淳朴与可爱，而对于故事中的那些始终无法明白他心意的国民形象，对于他们成心执拗于这颗赤子之心的偏激行为，甚至因为不解而活生生地扼杀了这颗“民族之魂的愚昧人物，不时，心里为甘地的不幸而产生了一阵阵的悲愤感。甘地的不幸，是这个民族的悲哀，更是一个时代的悲哀。当民族的战火只因宗教不合而
2、弄的人心惶惶、血流成河、民族决裂之时，殖民侵略的烽烟又时时刻刻虎视眈眈地伸延在印度疆土的各个角落里，作为民族的精魂代表人物甘地，他以自己高洁的信仰和孜孜不倦的努力，为整个民族在生死存亡的关头开辟了含着曙光的黎明道路。于是，轰轰烈烈的“绝食运动便以它庞大的感染力教育着整个印度民族的灵魂，面对强大的民族形势，印度教与巴基斯坦回教教徒也因此而被迫停止了暴力复仇方案。但是，甘地的这次“绝食运动的伟大尝试，却在不知不觉中为这个民族的堕落之处蒙上了一层悲哀的基调，它恰如其分地显示了“甘地圣雄的牺牲是时时刻刻都得披上厄运色彩的外衣。因为，在这个充满着愤怒之火的国度中，甘地的做法外表上看来似乎意义重大，而且在
3、当时的那个严峻的国内形势下，他这一做法确确实实是挽救了不少的民族良知，挽救了成千上万条生命。然而，我们不妨在此处再往深处去想想，面对着同种肤色人的复仇火焰，当熊熊的战火燃遍整片国土时，印度的国民对这位民族的“良心又做了些什么呢？当甘地提出要回到朋友家居住时，印度教徒们对他的态度不是破口大骂就是由衷的鄙视与唾弃，只因为他们不知道在甘地的眼中，印度教与穆斯林是同一民族的领土，它们之间就像异卵兄弟那样谁也不能离开谁，而如果他们之间任何一个的离开都将导致印度整个民族的消亡思想。可见甘地的爱国思想是赤裸裸的，是无法言说的。他始终坚持着一个国家的观点，始终认为印度教跟回教是应该站在同一战线上的，因为只有这
4、样印度才能汇成一股巨大的洪流以来反对英国殖民者。但是，甘地错了，他不明白在这些深深烙在国民之间的不解与仇恨，又岂能只因一颗民族“良心的痛心疾首而放下屠刀彻底悔悟呢？“邦分崩离析正是“不能守也的重要原因，甘地懂这个道理，面对这样一个国民冷漠、互相残杀的民族，雄心壮志过后的78岁的甘地在无可奈何之下，只能选择“绝食这条路来唤醒整个民族的整体良知，以求吹灭宗教异派的疯狂战焰。当然，最后甘地的呼唤成功了，印度教与回教极端分子不得不放下手中带着沉重血腥味的武器，站在甘地面前求他原谅与保证以后不再点燃民族之火。那时，躺在床上奄奄一息的甘地相信了，他天真地以为那些极端分子都能改正自新，都能共同站在同一战线上
5、铸成保护民族的稳固城墙，为此他还竭尽心力地告诫这些“罪恶的种子的赎罪方法。但是，多数人的成功并不意味着全部人的成功，甘地的教诲与主张并没有说服全部 的“堕落之子。在甘地绝食后慢慢地恢复身体期间，有一次，他在亲人的搀扶下来到德里作晚祷，突然，一个惊天动地的声音压住了周围的一切气氛，这个声音震撼了整个民族的带有良知的魂灵根基，而这位“圣雄在这一声到来之后，鲜红的血液瞬间燃遍了他那纯白色的俭朴衣服，他的眼睛悄悄地闭上了，他带着一生还未完成的民族独立解放心愿悄然倒在了那块他深爱着的土地上。这是一个民族的起点，更是一个时代的终点。带着满腔爱国之情的甘地，一颗民族的“良心，一个时代的知音，一个浇灌着“非暴
6、力之泉的“圣雄形象，势必将亘古长存于世界英雄走廊之中。篇二：甘地传英文观后感Richard Attenboroughs greatest film is held up like a tent on the tentpole of Ben Kingsleys superb performance as the title character, the prophet of non-violence who was central to liberating India from its British overlords. If not for Kingsley, no one would r
7、emember this film, or ever watch it.Attenborough is of the well-meaning sort that believes making a film about important events and people will automatically instill greatness on his film, too. But this is magic thinking, and making art isnt that easy. The film covers the public life of Mohandas K.
8、“Mahatma Gandhi. As a naive young lawyer in South Africa, Gandhi was shocked to discover, after a sheltered upbringing, the racism and oppression that the British Empire practiced in its colonial states. After becoming a public figure in South Africa fighting against that, he went back to India. Aft
9、er some time becoming re-acquainted with the country of his birth, he emerged as a leader of the movement for Indias freedom. Using his tactics ofnon-violent confrontation of authority, the Indians finally compelled the British to leave.The problems of the film are entirely problems of Attenboroughs
10、 unfocused direction. Attenborough, caught up in the many and fascinating incidents of Gandhis life, is content to merely show them all and let the viewer sort it out. Theres no more dramatic focus than in a Sunday school passion play. When I first viewed this film, way back at a press screening pri
11、or to its initial release in 2023, the projectionist dropped a reel just after intermission, so I saw the film with twenty minutes missing. Some friends and I discussed the odd jump-cut that had occurred, but none of us realized until the film opened and we saw it again that wed missed anything subs
12、tantial. Any time you can cut out twenty minutes of a film and not even miss it, something is seriously wrong with the film.In the immortal words of Jean-Luc Godard, a film should have a beginning, a middle and an end, though not necessarily in that order. “Gandhi does not. Its a string of incidents
13、 that are not glued together by any compelling view or narrative. Its just things that happened.As bad as the dramatic lack of focus is, the historical context is handled even worse. With his great cast of British actors passing through the film, it becomes an historical pageant, where the average v
14、iewer will sit back and wonder what in hell is going on. Okay, its about Gandhi-but wasnt there anything else going on in India at the time Wouldnt it be helpful to understand his life if we understand what some of the other characters are thinking EverAn example of this is the assassination of Gand
15、hi. The film opens with that and then flashbacks to his life. After the triumphal procession the film presents his life as being, its disconcerting when hes killed, and you wait, vainly, for an explanation of why it happened, what the motivations of the killer are. It never tells.And yet it does hav
16、e an impact. A man with no wealth, no political office, and no great power led a movement to great political change though a policy of non-violence and by providing a moral example. The incidents are moving, and you belive them because you believe Ben Kingsley, who is superb in the title role. From a young man in his late 20s who is thrown off the train in South Africa to the slightly sly old man murdered by a fanatic just after independenc
