What the? Hardly any discussion of this great film! - Peter Brook's the Mahabharata (1990) Discussion

[–] biscuit_buscemi 18 years ago

I saw this film (in English, with French subtitles) in Paris a few days ago - my friend and I were utterly delighted by it! Alas, we missed the first half hour or so of it, and so were quite baffled for a while, but it was enchanting to try and follow it, and when a film contains the immortal quote:

"The blood of my enemy is more delicious than my mother's milk!"

you know you're onto a winner. Intriguing, amusing, and profound by turns.

-----------
It's shocking to see how many PotC fans are unable to spell the word "eunuch".

reply

[–] pink_summers 18 years ago

I laughed so much when I saw this movie for no reason.

It was on Tv and I loved it, so I wrote it down. Sad how a
thirteen year old girl like me loves this sort of movies.

reply

[–] MFdeez_the_gypsy_catcher 17 years ago

it is strange indeed. i loved this mini series when it came out (i was like 5 or six). just got a copy on dvd.. sweetness.

"is that shakespeare?"
"no its porco"

reply

[–] masterkage 17 years ago

this movie was embarassingly bad and an insult to hindus anywhere. Please please avoid it.

reply

[–] rudradev64 16 years ago

Please...elaborate. How was this an "insult to Hindus everywhere"? And, in what way(s) was it "embarrassingly bad"? Just curious about your unsupported, blanket statement.

reply

[–] kiasmus 15 years ago

Your remark is difficult to understand. Please explain what you mean.
This film has a majestic pace and a breathtaking beauty. It conveys a real sense of wonder and remoteness, and avoids any tempation of cheap orientalism. The international cast -with figures such as Ryszard Cieslak, Grotowski's favourite actor-, works like no other "intercultural" mixture I've ever seen. All actors, -remarkably beautiful and expressive men and women-, are superbly directed by Mr. Brook. The cinematography is stunning, with its marvelous earthy, terra-cotta colours. And finally the scenario, written by Mr. Brook in collaboration with Jean-Claude Carrière, long time Buñuel co-screenwritter, flows as smoothly as the river Ganges. So, would you mind to tell us where's the insult?

reply

[–] sleepi321 15 years ago

I'm a hindu and I definitely do not agree with your statement.

If anything, we hindus should be flattered and honoured that this epic story was produced with a well renowned international cast.

As a 2nd generation Hindu living abroad, I found this adaoptation a lot easier to comprehend than the traditional Indian versions, in which the background music dominates the majority of the tale.

I think the beauty of Peter Brook's version is that it doesnt adhere to racial boundaries and who knows, the Mahabharat could have been set at a time where all races were in one place co-existing as brothers and sisters. This is something India could learn from. The cast system in India is not a result of religion, but mainly society. Peter Brook has taught us that a beautiful story can be portrayed regardless of race, creed and cast.

At the end of the day, this version was not intended to be a hindu narrative, but a drama production in which it succeeded.

reply

[–] troza 14 years ago

This movie deserves much more discussion as it is a worthy production.

Not offended by this interpretation as a Hindu.

reply

[–] ducdebrabant 13 years ago

How could any Indian or Hindu single out this film for scorn, when so many Indian films based on classic sources are so vulgar and ridiculous? The crude acting, the crude special effects, the tacky art direction, confirm every stereotype about lazy, complacent, Philistine Bollywood filmmaking. You guys go right ahead and enjoy that crap. If I watch any film based on the Mahabharata, it sure as hell won't be one of yours. You turn your own national epics and classic literature into what look like early episodes of Dr. Who, minus the irony and wit. It's like saying the National Theatre's Euripides productions insult the Greeks, because you prefer Hercules and the Princess of Troy (1965). The Mahabharata was not written by present-day Indians. It belongs to the world. Indians of the present day have no right to impose their own bad taste on foreigners who want to read it, film it, or watch films based on it.

The Republican Plan: repeal all reform; collect payoffs; go yachting (but not in the Gulf).

reply

[–] jacksflicks 13 years ago

Brilliant reply. There's this fashionable attitude that a group's culture is their turf, and all outsiders must obtain their approval before treading on it. It's a form of adolescence.

reply

[–] pinturicchio_juve 10 years ago

@ducdebrabant:

That seems a bit harsh. Agreed, a lot of Indian films fit the description you provide about bad sets and costumes and over the top acting. And it is also true that we Indians cannot lay claim to the Mahabharata being our own. But it is my opinion that we would understand it better than foreigners since we have been exposed to stories similar to it as part of our religion from a very early age. Almost every Indian Hindu grows up listening to this great epic and like it or not, just finds it unable to ignore it.

I have not seen the Peter Brook version and hence have no right to comment on its quality. But the fact that it is not all that famous, unlike films such as Troy (A Greek myth which became a blockbuster when it was filmed in 2004), Ben Hur(1959)or Spartacus(1960) only substantiates my opinion that not many outsiders connect with the Mahabharata. Otherwise, considering that it is supposed to be a really good film, more people would be talking about it , won't they?

I am not sure if you are aware of this, but a TV series called "Mahabharat" was made in Hindi and shown on Indian television in the late 1980s. That show had an entirely Indian cast and crew, and was widely appreciated for its good direction, costumes, dialogues and accurate depiction of the story. It was even subtitled in English and broadcast in the UK by the BBC and earned about 5 million viewers per episode, which is the highest for any subtitled show in the UK, statistics say.

It could also be that the Mahabharata is too complex and long to be compressed into a two hour film - hence the reason why this version is close to five hours in length. It would be more ideally suited as a TV series, which is why "Mahabharat" was such a resounding success.

As for other Indian films based on mythology, there are quite a few good ones out there. You must remember that Hindi (the medium of Bollywood films) is just one of the languages in India - there are many regional films which have handled mythological stories pretty well.

reply

[–] jacksflicks 13 years ago

He doesn't reply to the polite inquires, doesn't elaborate, just passes his gas, then flees. I think this pretty well sums up the value of his post.

reply

[–] damastro 13 years ago

To be fair, masterkage's post is a few years old

reply

[–] jacksflicks 13 years ago

You're right. Kind of futile. I think I was just adding my 2 cents to posters since him. And I do agree with the OP. This is an amazing play. Put it together with Kenneth Clark's Civilization and Joseph Campbell's Transformations of Myth Through Time, and you can get a complete humanist education.

reply

[–] mail-2217 10 years ago

I dunno about 'Hindus', but in the intro Brooke talks about how the 'eastern' outlook is so different from the absolute 'good and evil' of western religion.

The fact that each main character has a valid POV and seems right...and wrong at various times has never left me.

reply

[–] troza 15 years ago

See my postings about this movie.

Peter Brook is a brilliant director.

Based on an classic Indian epic, Peter Brook & his international team have created masterpiece film. Peter Brook captures not only the story/plot but conveys the nuances & philosophies within this Indian epic. It is amazing that Mr. Brook captures the essence of the characters even in the "stylized" filming.

Although many have criticised this version and despite its flaws or minor inaccuracies, this is truly an artistic production. Relatively low budget and at time "stagy" but Peter brook captures the the essence and communicates the nuances as well as concepts brilliantly.

I believe, the stage version was nine hours long. Nonetheless, it captivates the audience. In my opinion, Peter Brook is one of the greatest director. Excellent!!!!!

Note: my review is based on the previously released DVD and I am hoping that this version includes extra features "Making of The Mahabharata" and additional footage.

REVISION: I just realized that this version of the DVD is only three hours long. I do have this abbreviated version on VHS and must agree with the other reviewer that this version does NOT deserve the ***** (five star) ranking I posted earlier. At best, a two star and I am being generous I had assumed that this was a longer version along with extra features. PATHETIC!!!!!

reply

[–] gerold-firl 14 years ago

Good question sartor - I see a few reasons:
1. It's long. It's too long to show in theaters, too long to show on tv, and too long for the abbreviated attention span of the unwashed masses. It has all the wrong dimensions for commercial success, and as a result, very few people have ever heard of it. And many of those who have heard of it still haven't seen it.
2. It's ethnic: the Mahabharata is THE national epic of India. Many non-Indians see it as outside of their orbit and sphere of interest. They feel like it's too specifically Indian, or too Hindu, like it's a religious text that couldn't possibly be relevant to anyone else. (Big mistake!)
3. Abstract staging: even viewers who manage to get past the length and the Indian-ness can look at the staging and react with scorn. To their impoverished gaze, the stagy backdrops look low-budget, and the theatrical delivery can offend the ear of those raised on sitcoms and blockbusters.

This movie will be watched 100 years from now, and will be loved by generations unborn.

reply

[–] mixmastermind 13 years ago

I think the main problem is that the film costs freaking 45 dollars anywhere I've tried to find it.

reply

[–] Exar-Sama 13 years ago

Watched this just yesterday. Saw the length and thought I'd split it up over 2 days. Unfortunately, the story, acting, direction, and music was so engrossing I just kept it on and watched the entire film. 9/10 Very recommended.

Random trivia: Many of the actors in this were in Revolution francaise. Krishna was Couthon, Arjun was Marat, etc. It was amusing at first, but all of the actors are excellent in this. It was a great multi-ethnic cast they assembled.

Also, I think the music and imagery from this was "borrowed" or at least inspired Julie Taymor's Titus.

Team Edgington - I don't watch TB for Sookie, Eric, or BEEEL. Tiffany?

reply

[–] mail-2217 10 years ago

Indeed. It's the single finest filmed play I've ever seen.

In the beginning Vyasa says something like, "If you listen carefully, by the end you'll be someone different." Very true.

reply