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，对于他们故意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计划。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，甘地的做法表面上看来似乎意义重大，而且在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过自新，都能共同站在同一战线上铸成保护民族的坚固城墙，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 Attenborough's greatest film is held up like a tent on the tentpole of Ben Kingsley's 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 remember 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 isn't that easy. The film covers the public life of Mohandas K. "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. After some time becoming re-acquainted with the country of his birth, he emerged as a leader of the movement for India's freedom. Using his tactics of

non-violent confrontation of authority, the Indians finally compelled the British to leave.

The problems of the film are entirely problems of Attenborough's unfocused direction. Attenborough, caught up in the many and fascinating incidents of Gandhi's life, is content to merely show them all and let the viewer sort it out. There's no more dramatic focus than in a Sunday school passion play.

When I first viewed this film, way back at a press screening prior to its initial release in 2011, 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 we'd missed anything substantial. 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. It's a string of incidents that are not glued together by any compelling view or narrative. It's 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 viewer will sit back and wonder what in hell is going on. Okay, it's about Gandhi--but wasn't there anything else going on in India at the time? Wouldn't it be helpful to understand his life if we understand what some of the other characters are thinking? Ever?

An example of this is the assassination of Gandhi. The film opens with that and then flashbacks to his life. After the triumphal procession the film presents his life as being, it's disconcerting when he's 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 have 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 20's who is thrown off the train in South Africa to the slightly sly old man murdered by a fanatic just after independence has been achieved for India, you believe him every step of the way.

And there are slight flashes of good inpidual scenes, which

maddeningly don't tend to build on each other, as you want good drama to do. But the memorable scenes stick with you: James Fox as a thuggish British army officer who had his men open fire on a civilian crowd without warning, admitting his actions with no concern or sympathy for the victims; Gandhi as an arrogant young man being thrown off the train in South Africa, Gandhi re-emerging in India at a convention, telling his fellow

progressives to stop fooling themselves; and, best of all, the scene with a fanatic in 1947, when India was being partitioned into India and Pakistan.

The man has been carried away in blood-lust during the riots, and is convinced he is going to hell. Gandhi looks at him and tells him he knows a way out of hell. In this one mesmerizing scene, you get a better sense of Gandhi's personality and real wisdom than in almost all the rest of the film, and a stronger feeling of why people followed the man.

Sometimes, one great scene can redeem even a bad film, and this film isn't bad, merely so-so. But its great scenes and great performances make it very much worth seeing, even while you keep wishing David Lean had been

in charge rather than Attenborough.

篇三：甘地传观后感

甘地传观后感

甘地传>观后感（一）

下午观看电影《甘地传》心中久久不能平静。这样一位印度的贵族公子哥，在英国取得了律师资格证，有着丰衣足食的生活及美好好的前程。可是他却置这些于向外，用他心中的真理和爱领导印度各个教派的信徒和大英帝国对抗。

甘地的指导思想是：当我绝望时，我会想起，在历史上只有真理和爱能得胜。历史上很多暴君和凶手，在短期内或许是所向无敌的，但终究就总是会失败。好好想一想永远都是这样。

我不会为任何主义而杀人，不论他们怎样对待我，我们绝不还击，绝不杀人。但是我们绝不印指纹，谁也不印。他们会把我关起来，没收我们的财产，可是只要我们坚持，绝不能抢走我们的自尊，我们承受一切痛苦，他们就会看清自己的不公正。这和攻击他们一样具有杀伤力。他们可以折磨我，可以打断我的骨头，甚至杀了我，而他们所得只是一具尸体，而不是我的屈服！

他深受基督教义中的人要忍受一切痛苦，当有人打你的左脸时，请你把右脸也伸过去的影响。从年青时代在南非组织印度劳工争取权利开始，他的一生都在用宽广的胸襟，坚强的意志带领人民做不屈不挠的斗争。他的伟大精神不仅得到全体印度民众的理解和支持，也博得了>对手的赞许。最后的胜利属于甘地。

一生的努力终于换来了印度的自由和独立。他对真理和爱的追求超越了宗教信仰，超越了国家和民族的界线，成为全人类的榜样。

对我感触最深的他那句，在历史上只有真理和爱才能得胜。我们所从事的教育工作，就要把真理和爱洒向民族的未来，祖国的花朵。培养他们追求真理，爱满天下的高尚精神。

甘地传观后感（二）

印度甘地，被人们称为“圣雄”，曾为印度的独立立下不巧的功勋——这是我在看该影片之前对甘地和印度唯一的了解，从不曾关心过印度这个国度，更不曾想过在这个国度生活的人们，甘地又是怎样一个圣雄。最近我开始喜欢看人物传记的电影，于是我选择性的下载了几部影片，其中之一为《甘地传》。我先是看了影片的介绍——该片是由英国拍摄的彰显印度民族精神的影片。看到此种介绍，我下意识地好佩服英国精神。导演查德·安顿巴罗酝酿了整整二十年，他苦心孤诣、费劲心思终是成就了他迄今为止最高的荣誉。同时，饰演甘地的本金斯用他高超的演技让“圣雄”重生。该影片获得了 1982 年第 55 届奥斯卡最佳导演、最佳影片、最佳男主角、最佳剪接、最佳服装设计、最佳摄影、最佳创作>剧本七项奥斯卡奖。基于以上这些，我熬夜看完了片长为三个多小时的《甘地传》。

搜索“diyifanwen.net”或“第一范文网”即可找到本站免费阅读全部范文。收藏本站方便下次阅读，第一范文网，提供最新观后感甘地传观后感全文阅读和word下载服务。