Gandhi(1982) clocks in at 3 hours and 10 minutes so you'd think we'd get an epic story. I mean the movie is shot like an epic, Richard Attenborough clearly inspired by Lawrence of Arabia set out to make an epic but when it was all said and done I was left with a feeling of coldness.
The film is unique in the sense that it's not really a historical drama because we often fail to get the context of each historical instance. Time moves at a very strange pace as the story really focuses on the three acts of Gandhi's life, his role in South Africa, his commune in India, and the fall of the empire. Any one of those parts of his life would have been enough to tell his story, Attenborough chooses to be greedy and crams all three films into this one story. He also doesn't establish Gandhi's early years and relationship to his wife. This is once again a three hour film and all the supporting characters just feel like one dimensional place holders.
But this is not to say the film is bad, it's a gorgeous film and Ben Kingsley is given the job of carrying 40 years of Gandhi'slife for this film and he does an incredible job.
Did the film deserve the Oscar for Best Picture:
Nope...1982 was one of the best years ever for a number of filmmakers. It was in my eyes not worth a BP nomination, Fanny and Alexander, Missing, ET, My Favorite Year, Verdict, The Draughtsman's Contract, Blade Runner, Tootsie and The Thing