MovieChat Forums > Mahabharat (1988) Discussion > Why isn't Krishna blue (or black)?

Why isn't Krishna blue (or black)?

posted 19 years ago by Iamb_180
1 reply | jump to latest

From what I've read and seen from various Hindi art, Sri Krishna should be the color of a rain cloud, meaning that his skin should be dark (perhaps black, grey, or blue). But in Chopra's Mahabharat, he has about the same complexion as everyone else.

I found it a bit odd that in episode 15, Balram (Krishna's older brother) tells Krishna that his skin is much darker than his parents even though Balram has a darker tone than Krishna, who's skin has more of a golden hue like his adoptive parents.

For me, it would have been a bit easier to know who Krishna was if he had that darker skin (I was initially introduced to the series right before the great battle of Kurukshetra, as Krishna began speaking to Arjun). I know there is a budget involved, but would it have hurt to use some type of blue/black makeup for the actor(s) that played Krishna?

[–] nas_escobar04 19 years ago

He wasn't blue. He looked human, he was just dark-skinned. The producers probably felt that Nitish Bharadwaj was excellent as playing the role of Lord Krishna, that they weren't going to replace him with a darker actor who wasn't as good. Krishna is supposed to be dark, and Balaram is supposed to be fair. They didn't focus much on appearance. In fact, even Draupadi was dark-skinned, (she was known by the name of Krishna also, in the actual Mahabharata), but again she is the same as everyone else. They aren't physically correct on everything. I don't think it took much away from the series, but it would have been good.