Kumaré

Kumare is an extraordinary documentary. Vichram Ghandi (Kumare) has done such a great job directing as well as being the main character of this film. The questions that are being discussed in the documentary might have passed your thoughts before. Most people search for guidance in spiritual connections between them and God and the closest thing to that is a guru. Now I'm not sure if it's staged or not but Vichram is a genius for being able to handle such character. Each one of us has been in that phase of questioning our faith and I think it's important to watch documentaries that discuss such topics to reduce that sense of negligence in ourselves.

So much irony in some of these comments here. Much to the contrary of what Kumare preaches, we seem to be quick at judging (more like guessing) others and their intentions, but never quite have the time to look into ourselves.

Yes what he did wasn't the nicest thing and the initial goal he had in mind certainly wasn't to help anyone find himself. What I see is a somewhat brilliant young man looking for himself and searching for answers after being disappointed with all the fake gurus and superstition.

He gradually finds out that Kumare is in fact his ideal self and that he is slowly becoming the real Kumare. He finds a deep connection with people as Kumare that Vikram has never experienced. He finds himself and sees the importance of helping others find themselves too.

I didn't watch the movie with the intention to judge him. I watched it hoping to learn something from it, and I did. Watch it with an open mind, and it will touch your heart.

"Kumaré" is a bit like a Hindu version of "Marjoe." And like that movie, we end up wondering if the audience, too, is being taken on a ride. Deceptive charisma can cut both ways. Most documentaries rely on a certain amount of editorial manipulation to create a coherent narrative. Sometimes the business of creating narrative crosses the line between events that happen and events that are constructed. Many instances during the film raised doubts about documentary fidelity:

1. The participants seem unaware of the camera, even when it is right in front of them. Were they coached so successfully that they never glanced at it?

2. How did Gandhi get signed legal release forms from all these people? Were they compensated for their participation?

3. Was ALL the footage real-time recording or were some of the scenes reenacted? Was any of it scripted or rehearsed?

Gandhi probably could have withheld the final reveal from us until the end of the movie. He decides instead to clue us in on the deception from the beginning (and that's where Gandhi's role as a reliable narrator comes into question). Doing so allows the use of circular form -- starting the movie near "the end" and backtracking to the setup and then proceeding forward again until we catch up with the opening scene. The problem with that, however, is that waiting well over an hour to see how an "unveiling" to which we are already privy will play out begins to wear on the viewer's patience. This would have been a stronger film at half its unnecessarily drawn-out length.

The film's strongest aspect is the implied examination of the strife between rational and emotional epistemology. Rationalists want to know whether or not the Emperor is actually wearing new clothes as a point of objective and external reality. Emotionalists want to see beauty in the new clothes that the Emperor may or may not be wearing and are willing to create an internal reality that feeds their expectations. Winnowing out what is real and what is not may not be at the epicenter of belief acquisition for everyone.

In the end, we see that spiritualism is a kind of stone soup. The characterization may be a deception because the stone has no taste, but the soup is still flavorful because of the bits of meat and carrot and potato that the believers bring to the broth. People yearn to be in fellowship with others. Almost any stone that can make that happen is going to attract people. But it shouldn't take 84 minutes to underscore that point.

I just saw this movie, and I encourage you to see it if you're drawn to the subject at all. The premise sounds mean-spirited, and one would expect the movie to be all about poking fun at the gullible followers of the fake guru, but it's not like that. Surprisingly, the director (who plays Kumare) does not come off as a jerk who's looking down on the followers he's managed to rope in. He seems surprised, as the audience is, that it's so easy to be accepted as a fake guru, and there is a lot of humor surrounding that. But I thought the jokes were aimed at Kumare more often than his followers, many of whom come across as likable and even accomplished. In a way, the real stars of this movie are the followers, because it's their sincerity that makes the film something other than what it started out to be.

The subject is a necessary truth and is right on time. The reason the rating is low is because someone gave the movie 2 stars based on personal disagreements rather than on the film's quality. There is no way this is a 2 star movie. I think it deals with a very important subject and there are fake gurus out there, and it just shows humanity's deep need for spirituality, as well as their profound gullibility. I have written a book about shamans and it sort of deals with the same side of the story. My book is called shamans and healers, if you are interested. In short, the movie is definitely worth seeing, and is more gutsy than I would be able to pull off. Good film.