amol_gh

That Gandhi gave India freedom is as common/major a misconception/myth among the common people as the myth that potatoes make them obese or that the human male was meant to be monogamous by nature.

First, did Ahimsa give India independence? No.

-(An Excerpt from an article by Sanjeev Nayyar, Hindustan Times)- It was none other than Lord Clement Atllee, the British Prime Minister responsible for conceding independence to India, who shattered the myth that Gandhi and his movement gave India freedom. Chief Justice P.B. Chakrabarty of the Calcutta High Court, who had also served as the acting Governor of West Bengal in India , disclosed the following in a letter addressed to the publisher of R.C. Majumdar's book 'A History of Bengal'. The Chief Justice wrote: "My direct question to him was that since Gandhiji's Quit India movement had tapered off quite some time ago and in 1947 no such new compelling situation had arisen that would necessitate a hasty British departure, why did they have to leave? In his reply Atlee cited several reason, the principal among them being the erosion of loyalty to the British Crown among the Indian army and navy personnel as a result of the military activities of Netaji. Toward the end of our discussion I asked Atlee what was the extent of Gandhi's influence upon the British decision to quit India. Hering this question Atlee's lips became twisted in a sarcastic smile as he slowly chewed out the word, "m-i-n-i-m-a-l!" ('Subhash Chandra Bose, the Indian National Army, and the War of India's Liberation-Ranjan Borra', Journal of Historical Review, no. 3, 4, Winter 1982.) Atlee's thoughts were echoed by Fenner Brockway, political secretary of the Independent Labour Party of England, "There were three reasons why India became free. One, the Indian people were determined to gain independence. Two, was the revolt by the Indian Navy. Three, Britain did not want to estrange India, which was a market and source of foodstuffs for her." By the way, what did the concept of Ahimsa as expounded by Gandhi mean? "When a person claims to be non-violent, he is expected not to be angry with one who has injured him. He will not wish him harm. he will not cause him physical hurt.Complete non-violence is complete absence of ill-will against all that lives."(History and Culture of Indian People Vol. 11) Sir Aurobindo said on Ahimsa, "You can live it in spiritual life, but to apply it to all life is absurd." Gandhi did precisely that and more by stretching the ideology of Ahimsa to a ludicrous extent. Few know that even Britain braced itself to face a Nazi invasion in the mid-1940 Gandhi published an "open letter" to "every Briton" urging "cessation of hostilities". Excerpts: "No cause, however just, can warrant the indiscriminate slaughter that is going on minute by minute... I do not want Britain to be defeated, nor do I want her to be victorious, in a trial of brute strength... I want you to fight Nazism without arms."(H. M. Seervai, noted constitutional authority, in 'Introduction' pp.143-144 of his book 'Constitutional Law of India', Supplement to Third Edition, 1988) Speaking on the Defence Budget in the Lok Sabha in 1957 noted Gandhian, Acharya Kriplani said in the Lok Sabha, "The mounting expenses on the Indian Army must be cut down. The followers of Gandhi and adherents of universal peace should not increase military expenditure." What followed was the humiliation of the 1962 in the war against China's invasion of India.

Gandhi had admirable qualities but the problem was that he wanted to be everything to everyone. With Tilak's death in 1920 he assumed leadership of the Hindus. Through the Khilafat movement in 1921 he tried to enlist the Muslims. When Ambedkar championed the cause of the Depressed Classes he sought to become their leader too and coined the term 'Harijan' . For a brand to be successful the consumer must be clear about its attributes, what it stands for. So also for a leader.

...And finally yes, Potatoes do not make us obese and the human male was made for more than one woman ... by nature.

Shakespeare's plays are always a challenge to be adapted as a movie especially with the type English they exhibit. And Comedies are always pose tougher questions than Tragedies. But director Kenneth Brannagh pulled it of very skillfully both as a director as well as an actor. Heavyweight Oscar winner Denzel Washington had nothing much to do in this movie as Don Pedro. Clearly the movie belonged to Kenneth Brannagh as Benedick, Emma Thompson as Beatrice and the surprise package Michael Keaton as the constable. His performance was so expressive and impressive that it's hard to believe this is the same guy who played the role of Batman in 'Batman(1989)'. It's a very cool enjoyable flick and almost as good as any Shakespearian comedy play. Well worth the time engaged in it.

Full and Final:

Much Hype and Hoopla. Low output.

The Only Positive aspect of this movie : The Visual/Sound Effects.

CANNOT match the aura/tough ground-work of the previous Spiderman Prequels as well as 'Batman Begins(2005)'. The most pleasing aspect to watch in a Spiderman movie is not the extravagant fights but just to watch Spidey swing on his ropes among the urban landscape.

And even that was better in Spiderman:1 & 2. Anyways, its an unwritten rule that a Spiderman can never be better or equal to the Batman as a personality; however good the visual/sound effects may be. As much disappointed watching this movie as I was watching 'The Da Vinci Code'. In both cases the material was worthy of a movie adaptation but the execution was poor. I hope Sam Raimi doesn't mess with Spidey 4 and so does not Ron Howard with the truly great novel ' Angels and Demons '.