I’m trying to learn for my History class and I’m stuck. Can you help?
answer the following question:
A: Which is more accurate, Attenborough’s Gandhi or Markovits’s Gandhi? only 3 paragraphs.
B: also answer wether you agree or disagree with this statement. explain in few sentences. “In my opinion, Claude Markovits’ Gandhi provides a more faithful representation of the life and times of the man in question than Richard Attenborough’s film of the same name. The reason for my position is twofold; firstly, Markovits’ text spans a much greater degree of time, covering Gandhi’s life (and afterlife) in its entirety, including his youth and time in England studying to be a Lawyer, which is not shown in Attenborough’s film; secondly, the latter offers a somewhat sensationalized and romanticized portrayal of Gandhi, a notion which Markovits interestingly considers (though not that film specifically). I imagine that the latter would argue that Attenborough’s film is the manifestation of one of the many ‘reinventions’ of Gandhi which draw from the semi-legendary aura which surrounded his life. Like any great work of art, it inspires; but does it tell the truth?“
C: answer wether you agree or disagree with this statement. explain in few sentences.“Part of what prepared Gandhi to be a leader in India is his education and his experience and training acquired in South Africa. He said in his autobiography that he went to South Africa to travel and to escape war and to earn a living, but he also found himself in search of God in a quest for self-realization. The movie about Gandhi starts off with him leaving South Africa as a young lad. It doesn’t even really talk much about the time he spent there. According to Markovits’ book, South Africa was under British rule around the same time that Gandhi travelled there to study (82). In addition, Markovits mentions that he was fine with the British system early in his life, up until the moment he was kicked off the train, and even expressed admiration for the British constitution. Eventually, he returned to India with nothing but allegiance towards the country. Now admittedly, both the book and the movie focus on his admiration for Muslim culture and even held them up as compatriots. That’s virtually one of the only similarities, though. With a movie, you can’t pack the entire story of a person’s life within just two hours. In the end, I would have to say Markovits portrays Gandhi more accurately.“