It's said that Vikram Gandhi "impersonated" in Indian guru for this documentary but it seems like the deception he carried out was limited to speaking with an Indian accent rather than his own New Jersey one, wearing robes, and growing his hair and beard -- external elements that his disciples interpret in ways that vastly change their interpretations of the actual content of what he says.

The film starts as a sort of practical expose of false gurus, and it never loses its power in that way -- these people are all very easily led to thinking they have had profound metaphysical experiences after speaking with a complete skeptic who merely looks and sounds like he could provide them with a metaphysical experience -- and who is telling them he's an illusion the whole time.

If that's immoral at all, it's far less immoral than what is done by the countless "actual" gurus who seriously present supernatural claims and use them as a way into people's checkbooks.

A key to the success of this film is Gandhi's performance in his "role" -- giving Kumare an innocence through his reactions and style of movement that endears him to the disciples while they are convinced of his wisdom. Without that their striking reactions could not have been captured. And it is remarkable when he realizes that he can make deeper connections with people and enjoy life more when he is playing Kumare than when he is not.

There is an attempt to show that despite the earthly nature of his teachings, the students' lives have actually improved after their instruction with Kumare/Vikram. I'm not certain how I feel about that, but it's not a scientific claim, and amounts to saying that an admittedly-fake guru can help people as much or more than a supposedly- real one, and that they most needed to be told that they didn't need a guru. And that's fair.

This is a fascinating experiment and a worthwhile documentary.

Vikram Gandhi, raised in New Jersey of Asian Indian parents, became suspicious of gurus and, in order to convince himself (and others) of their suspect credibility, he set out to show that he could fake it. And fake it he did, ultimately establishing a small group of followers in Phoenix, Arizona.

It is not clear just what Gandhi has proved by his experiment. He proved that *he* could pass himself off as an Indian guru, but he had all of the ingredients: his pretend accent (easily come by); his carefully fabricated appearance; his proficiency in yoga to the point where he could conduct classes; his emphasis on meditation; and a message that was generic enough that most anyone could find a way to respond to it, namely that each of us has an inner guru that represents our best and truest self.

I was conflicted in how I felt about what Gandhi did. The only thing that I can see where he flat lied was in his claiming to be from a small village in India. I do have a problem with Gahndi's grand plan to make this into a movie from the start, giving some credence to the opinion that it was not his followers from whom he was wanting to extract money, but rather from the ticket sales to his movie. Just how cynical Gahndi was in his approach is open to debate.

On the positive side, Gahndi would often tell his followers that he was not who they thought he was. As far as I am concerned Kumaré made a perfectly good guru. He had very sympathetic eyes and was a good listener--would that many a psychiatrist do as well as he. And it is not like Gandhi just flipped a switch to try out his experiment; he researched the field and developed a classic guru look and message. I don't see where he did much harm, and could have done good. The big failings of many gurus is their love of money and sex--recall the antics of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh for example. But, as presented, Kumaré was not eliciting sex nor was he apparently extorting money.

If Gahndi set out to make a mockery of gurus, then I don't think he achieved his goal. In fact, after revealing the truth to his followers many of them continued to regard what he had to offer as valuable.

I think that what Gahndi proved is how eager many people are to get spiritual guidance and how appreciative they are to find someone who will take them seriously and listen to them. Initially I viewed Kumaré's followers as foolishly gullible, but on further reflection I found their behaviors perfectly understandable. Compared to some of the far out eccentrics Karmaré ran into (like the sect that believed they had come from another planet),Kumaré seemed well within the bounds of believability.

The highly provocative film Kumare had its world premiere this week at Austin's SXSW Film Festival. The film was very well-received and created a lot of buzz, because of how it was made. Everyone was saying you must see Kumare and not surprisingly it won the Audience Award for Best Documentary.

Kumare is fascinating, because it is somewhere between a documentary and a reality TV show. In the film Director Vikram Gandhi moves to Phoenix, AZ where he pretends to be a wise Indian guru and begins to recruit followers to his yoga sessions. He develops a group of followers and keeps the game going for months. Even though he is making it up, he finds that there are many people desperation for spiritual guidance that are easily convinced and willing to follow him. The film raises lots of questions about spirituality, human gullibility, and the role of spiritual leaders. He certainly shows how easy it is for those with ill intentions to build a cult-like following. The film crew took no money and Kumare attempted to teach a message of self-empowerment to his followers since he always intended to reveal himself to them. The content of the documentary was entertaining, provocative, and humorous. From an artistic point-of-view, the young documentary filmmakers should be commended for raising important questions about human nature and religion.

However, many in the audience seem deeply troubled by their methods of impersonating a guru and lying to people about whom they were and what their intentions. At times, the humor of the film was based on mocking the followers for how easily they were deceived by bogus chants and practices. It was also clear that many people told Kumare intimate details of their lives. While it seems that many of the participants benefited from his teachings of self-empowerment, some were clearly very angry at how they were deceived. While they didn't take money, they were using to advance their careers. There is something deeply exploitative in the way that they were deceived. Kumare raises a lot of interesting ethical questions that should be explored by those who are making documentary films. To put it simply, were the dishonest means that they used to achieve a worthwhile and interesting end appropriate?