"She felt too much like a superwoman figure, and therefore inaccessible to us mere mortals."
If one is to inspire non-violence in the face of violence, one must remain calm.
In addition, she is Buddhist, so doesn't make an ego show of,
"Pay attention biographers: Right now I'm feeling this!"
She isn't the story, outside the context of her public life. The point is made that her housemaid respected her privacy, so neither discussed with the other their families, because considered private.
What you want is a Western "hero" who does it for personal attention, for Western "reasons".
The emotional depth wasn't enough? You mean she didn't cry enough for your purposes?
Have you ever been knocked to the floor with grief, as is shown at the end concerning her husband's death?
Most bizarre, perhaps, are the US reviewers who comlain that it's a "love story". Well, gee, duh: of course it's a love story:
It's about love for and of family, and love for and of country. It shows that even during years of separation, her husband not only fulfilled his professorial responsibilities, while raising their two sons, but also campaigned, around the world, in support of her and her efforts.
But you want the film to be about her, personally, and to show her emotionally out-of-control? There is nothing of her biography as an individual missing from the film, the early years -- education in Delhi, India; education in Oxford, England (sufficient is shown of her childhood, when her father was assassinated; and of her time as a mother and housewife) -- not actually being germain to the reason she is known.
reply
share