Asoka v.s. Akbar-Jodha


Which movie do you think will be better? I loved the movie Asoka, but this could possibly top it, even though this is more of a love movie than Asoka. As long as Akbar-Jodha has at least some good battle scenes, it can be good. What do you think?

reply

i think Akbar-Jodha might be better, i liked asoka too but it could have been a little more historically acurate, and they should have spent more time on asoka conversion to budhism and less time on dancing and singing

reply

To be honest, i really didn't like Ashoka. I wanted a real feel of what Ashoka was like and the ruthless streak in him didn't come out all that well in the movie (though it was really sad that the little kid/king died) and the compexity in Ashoka's personality was missing. Ive got a feeling that Ashutosh will script this film really well, and hope he concentrates more on the complexity of Akbar's character and his conquest of India.
yahooziwotsit

reply

TOTALLY agree! I luuuuurved Asoka, but i think this movie can be much better! And by the revelation of exactly how much research has been put into it, it hopefully should be!

reply

you can't compare Jodha-akbar unless you don't watch it,
wait untill it release to theatre than compare it with some good historical movie like Mughal-e-azam or taj mahal etc

reply

wish ashutosh signs santosh sivan for the cameras
his work in dil se and asoka were just too good !

reply

ahutosh is hireing someone from overseas with better graphics in the battle scenes. If you really wanna know than the film is mostly war...

reply

When we talk of Ashutosh's movie, whatever it be for that matter, don't compare it with a movie like Asoka. Its an offense. Ashutosh has been giving very good movies, no matter whether they are hits or flops.

reply

Asoka was the WORST historical movie I have ever seen in my life. It was absolutely awful, an insult to the memory of the emperor, and generally absolute nonsense.

1) Although I am fond of SRK, he cannot - CANNOT - act in a role as epic as Emperor Asoka. All he did was play the Comedian, Emo Dude, and Goofy Lover. It was appalling.

2) In the movie, SRK is romancing a fictional princess. Let me repeat that: a FICTIONAL princess. While the emperor's real Buddhist queen - who was instrumental in his spiritual transformation - was completely sidelined in the movie. In fact, a huge part of the movie was wasted with SRK romancing this fictional princess (played by an idiotic Kareena Kapoor) while ignoring his actions as a warrior and conqueror. Kalinga was randomly squeezed in at the end. We never saw much of how Asoka killed his brothers for the throne. The Buddhism was hardly touched on at all.

Asoka was a disgraceful movie. I am pretty sure Jodhaa Akbar is better, though I have yet to see it.

reply

I have watched both films so please allow me to compare. Ashu's JA had a huge Asoka hangover. In both the romance took up a bigger chunk of the story than the history. In both the female protagonist princess was a sword wielding maiden. In both there were many scenes of battle of various proportions - some hand to hand, and some large army battles. In both a major character - the princess's brother was shown to be shot with multiple arrows in the back as he tried to make his way to the Princess/King. The arc of arrows along the back was an almost identical scenario in both cases. In both cases the brother goes through a long death scene!

1. Historical accuracy - in the case of Asoka the written history comes from the Buddhist perspective and was written many hundred years later - there was no written history from that time. The only authentic information from that time itself is in the rock edicts that Asoka got erected and carved around his empire. In the case of Akbar, detailed diaries of his rule were written during his reign in the Akbarnama. Translations of the Akbarnama are available from the British museum and other sources to all. Based on these facts we can say that:

a. There is no mention of any woman called Jodhaa Bai in Akbar's life. His son was married to a Jodhaa though. Akbar's Rajput wife converted to Islam. The Jodha of JA demands and retains her faith. He had 300 other wifes and Jodha was not his first wife. In the film we see one queen in his harem - Jodhaa. Is JA accurate? You be the judge.

b. The only WIFE (yes wife!!) of Asoka mentioned by name in his rock edicts is Kaurwaki and she is mentioned as being of low born or fisherwoman blood. It is also mentioned that he had a Buddhist wife (no name) who gave birth to twin children - these children were instrumental in the spread of Buddhism. One other wife (no name) is mentioned. Is Asoka accurate? I think so, but it does somewhat skip over a wife.

c. Akbar created a new religion called Din-e-ilahi but it was later in his reign. The movie does not touch on this aspect of his reign at all. It ends prior to this. Asoka saw the carnage of war and converted to Buddhism. Then he, but mostly his children spread that religion. The movie ends with his conversion to Buddhism, and a commentary on what he did to spread Buddhism.

To address your points: I think SRK did a good job as Prince Asoka who grew to be an emperor by killing his brothers. The playful romantic prince was converted to a cruel emperor when his step brothers conspired to kill him and managed to kill his mother. Their deaths at his hands were shown in great detail. And Kalinga giving shelter to one brother was the reason he went to war with Kalinga.

If you are looking for historical accuracy and no distracting romance then it will be best to stay far away from JA - there was a disclaimer at the beginning that this was not historically accurate, and the fictional romance with a fictional princess was the mainstay of JA.

I also think the war scenes in Asoka was better picturized than those in JA. JA was a romance between two beautiful people in good looking settings. It was worth a one time watch on the big screen and had no profound historical underpinnings.

'A wed wose, how womantic'

reply

On the whole I agree with SRani. Asoka was a brilliant film in which, like in JA, the formative period of Emperor Asoka was shown. Very little is known about Asoka's life. In fact till the beginning of the 20th century historians did not even know that the edict pillars were Asoka's doing. It was a British scholar who made the connection. It is true that Kaurwaki is mentioned as the beloved queen who did good works. The Buddhist queen is not mentioned. The film filled the gap of the young Asoka who converts to Buddhism convincingly and through very good acting from SRK. Also there are obvious comparisons or similarities with JA.
Jodha Akbar shows the formative phase of Akbar's life when he is throwing off the burden of tutelage of Bairam Khan and Maham Anga and making his Rajput alliances - conquering and pacifying Hindustan. Historically the film is as close as you can get to the written history of the period. There is plenty of historical material and Gowarikar makes excellent use of it.
The romance is beautiful and lyrical. Hrithik Roshan is absolutely splendid as Akbar- very regal, restrained and does not put a foot wrong. My absolute favourite scenes are 1. Akbar goes to Jodha's tent to hear her conditions- His reaction of calm in the face of what must be a very unusual request and his minimum words are simply fabulous. Similarly his reaction to Jodha's rebuff on the wedding night speaks of generations of culture and restraint. Beautiful!

reply

I definitely agree...Asoka was painful to watch. Mostly because SRK (as much as I love him) cannot and should not try to play serious and dramatic roles. He just isn't good at them...what he is good as though is the more light-hearted, comedic type for which he is excellent.

So yes, needless to say I though JA was much better as Hrithik surprisingly really stood up to the task of playing Akbar.

JA as a story had more depth too...Asoka though perhaps dealing with the full picture more, was just not emotive enough for me. I came out not caring at all.

reply

Since this is a board for a Gowarikar film I will suggest you watch Swades to see how a serious role is played.

JA had the depth of a teaspoon compared to Asoka - and as much historical accuracy. See my long post above - but maybe it was too long for some folks!

'A wed wose, how womantic'

reply

Asoka is better

reply

Jodhaa Akbar best movie i've seen in a long time!

reply

Asoka was twice as bad as JA. And Asoka had a number of wives, Kaurwaki never became his wife, according to some historians. Not to mention the Hamming.

reply

Perhaps yopu have trouble reading, but please read what I wrote about Kaurwaki in my post above - she is his only wife mentioned by name in the rock edicts. You could try going to the Wiki to verify what I said. Some of us go beyond movies to get our history lessons. According to all historians (not some) Akbar had 300 wives that were missing in the zenana, Asoka had one other that was not shown in the film. There was no hamming, because these actors were not relying on mesmerizing us with their looks.

'A wed wose, how womantic'

reply

YUp apart from hamming, SRK has no mesmerising qualities either, And no Asoka had more wives than 2. Check your facts firs and then lecture me about your stupid lack of history.

reply

To be honest, other than Mughal-e-azam, there is nothing within Bollywood that compares to the epic sweep of JA. JA is possibly the most epic film Bollywood has produced recently.

Asoka is not really an epic film, it is more of a historical drama, with an artistic kind of treatment and mounted on a rather small scale.

reply

There is no other epic ever made in Bollywood other than Mughal-e-azam....Jodhaa-Akbar an epic-you must be joking...it was an at best an attempt at being an epic and I think Ashutosh did not want to make an epic....And if he did I must say he failed miserably...

For starters read what wiki says about what an epic movie generally means

"Generally speaking, the term "epic" refers to movies that have a large scope, often set during a time of war or other conflict, and sometimes taking place over a considerable period of time. A historical setting is commonplace, although fantasy or science fiction settings are known"

Yes JA is set at the time of war and had large scope...but it mostly deals with the love between J and A....The war scenes shown are of very poor quality...The one thing good about JA was Hrithik and Ash were good even though Hrithik didnt look like a Mughal....and it was actually a simple love story where the hero was incidentally Akbar..thats all.

Asoka on the other hand was not an epic at all...but whatever it was it was good to see.

reply

[deleted]

Ashoka!!!! was there anything in that movie to remember? I understand we dont have a lot of good historical hindi movies to compare with Jodhaa-Akber.. But that doesnot mean you start comparing it with any trash.

reply

Unfortunately there is too much bad stuff to remember in JA so that is the most apt comparison.

1. Akbar wrestling an old old elephant - why?
2. Akbar bare chested practicing swordplay outside Jodhaa's chambers - why?
3. Akbar in Deewane-aam (the common man's audience hall) hearing the bhajan singing coming from Jodhaa's bedchamber, followed by a multitude of string instruments! Was she give a chamber right next to the Deewane-aam and not in the zenana which was farthest from public exposure?
4. Jodhaa calling Akbar Shahenshahji - as though she was Komal Chuatala from Haryana!
5. Azeemoshan Shaenshah - and it was like some bit school parade of performers. What a way to downgrade a beautiful number.
6. Khwaja mere Khwaja - the entourage of singers wearing clay flowering pots on their heads were like people tripped on some madness drug, but fortunately Hritik tripping with them saved the episode somewhat.
7. Akbar dying of an arrow - Jodhaa running to pray to Krishna, voila - miracle!
8. The shopkeeper talking of prices set by zameendars - did no one associated with this film know who started Zameendari and when?

Baradwaj Rangan's review was quite hilarious - he wondered why Ashu bothered with the history at all. He could have had his beautiful lead pair pose among various beautiful historical monuments for two hours and people would still have watched the film!!


'A wed wose, how womantic'

reply

SRani stop writing crap..just agree that u r too dumb to understand the movie


u cant even dream of directing a movie..austosh did his hardwork for 3 years

stupid people like u..always see the opportunity to make fun of someone's hard work

the thing wit srk fans is ,they go on any length to defend their fav star movie


u dont know nuttin abt indian histoy or culture,y cant u just shut ur mouth




reply

Ha ha ha ha very well said aryan-rules...
I wish someone could say this in her face.

Bande me tha Damm
Vande Mataram

reply

*Unfortunately there is too much bad stuff to remember in JA so that is the most apt comparison.*
Fortunately and the entire Asoka was crappy.


1. Akbar wrestling an old old elephant - why? You got a problem with that? He did rather battle a stuffed tiger?


2. Akbar bare chested practicing swordplay outside Jodhaa's chambers - why?You got a problem with that too? Jodhaa didnt have one, so whats your itch?

3. Akbar in Deewane-aam (the common man's audience hall) hearing the bhajan singing coming from Jodhaa's bedchamber, followed by a multitude of string instruments! Was she give a chamber right next to the Deewane-aam and not in the zenana which was farthest from public exposure? Jeez stupid ridiculous blooper you chose to see.

4. Jodhaa calling Akbar Shahenshahji - as though she was Komal Chuatala from Haryana! So? whats the big deal?
5. Azeemoshan Shaenshah - and it was like some bit school parade of performers. What a way to downgrade a beautiful number.- I agree with this
6. Khwaja mere Khwaja - the entourage of singers wearing clay flowering pots on their heads were like people tripped on some madness drug, but fortunately Hritik tripping with them saved the episode somewhat. - Apparently your lack of cultural dressing appalls me. But ofcourse, you hardly go out of your room dont you you psycho-srk-lover who cribs online 24 hours a day?
7. Akbar dying of an arrow - Jodhaa running to pray to Krishna, voila - miracle! - Bloody movie
8. The shopkeeper talking of prices set by zameendars - did no one associated with this film know who started Zameendari and when? - you have an idea about it? dash a email to ashu and correct him

Baradwaj Rangan's review was quite hilarious - he wondered why Ashu bothered with the history at all. He could have had his beautiful lead pair pose among various beautiful historical monuments for two hours and people would still have watched the film!!

Reviews like Rangan are so freaking stupid and jealous, cause they can never come out with something like this. All they need is to sit back, and review a movie, based on their disgusting point of view, and spew filth.

reply

LOL! Obviously I have to be able to direct a film before I can critique it, cook a restaurant meal before I can critique it, write and epic before I can critique it etc etc. Until I do that I bloody well have to say that anyone who makes ANY FILM, WRITES ANY CRAP is doing a great job. Thank you for educating me.

Critiquing a film is not spewing filth. Making a bad film is spewing filth. But JA was not a bad film so it does not fall in that category. That was Dhoom 2.

'A wed wose, how womantic'

reply

I noticed the very same things you did. To answer your questions: Hrithik probably wrestled with the geriatric elephant because it would have been more dangerous with a young one, don't you think? I actually liked the bare chested swordplay scene, its hard to believe any other red-blooded woman wouldn't. ;)Isn't proper utilization of talent allowed in Hindi movies no more?? :D
I think the people at the Deewan-e-aam hearing the bhajan coincided with the Muslim whatzisname telling Akbar that nothing Hindu should take place in the fort. It was meant to be a joke. Instruments accompanying it was ridiculous. And I noticed it when it happened. But what're you gonna do? It's a Hindi movie and Gowarikar has always been given to some Hindi movie cliches. Same with the praying and Akbar surviving the arrow. I never even noticed what Jodhaa called Akbar because it was irrelevant. To be honest I found the video of Khwaja downright funny. The pots, the weird orchestrated clapping looked more like a PT class to me. The part that was hilarious is when Akbar gets hit by a light from the sky and he jumps up and starts twirling along with the qawwals....that was incredibly funny to me. I know for a fact that others really liked it. I didn't like the song in itself either even though I'm what I get called a Rahmaniac.

HOWEVER, Asoka in comparison....was a disaster. SRK SUCKS!!! He can't act at all, and he looks terrible. The dialogues were bad, the actors and actresses even worse.

Don't you think you're focusing too much on only the negative aspects of the movie. I liked the way the romance was treated between the lead pair, the court intrigues, the actions, the locales, the picturization. Everybody seemed rather stiff, but that was something I noticed in Swades too, seems more to do with the regal bearing the everybody is supposed to have in the movie. All other scenes were shot very well, I think Hrithik did a great job of looking good (which he always does) as well as acting (which he normally makes a decent attempt at). Azeem wasn't as bad as you make it out to be, but I must admit I really liked the way In Lamhon was picturised. Rai I've always maintained has the capability of acting out 3 emotions. Sadness, happiness and elation. She never does justice to even those 3. I wasn't expecting much of her, but she still ended up bugging me with her endless crying.

There are very few movies that are perfect. This one definitely wasn't one, but I'd go back and watch it anyway just because the overall product was pretty darn good.

reply

I almost stopped reading at this point:
SRK SUCKS!!! He can't act at all, and he looks terrible.

But I continued and am glad, as I got a good laugh out of this part:
I think Hrithik did a great job of looking good (which he always does) as well as acting (which he normally makes a decent attempt at).

Hritik's one decent attempt in Lakshya was way back in 2004, and I don't know when he acted before that. He does always look good though - no doubt about that. Thank you for making my day.

'A wed wose, how womantic'

reply

listen SRANI, i think you rock in terms of SHAMELESSNESS, plz dont compare JA with that crap ASOKA, even if it has your 'all-time greatest actor' in it,and i have started believing that you are blind, and may be thats why you missed out a film called KOI MIL GAYA, which had hrithik almost equalising the standard set by tom hanks in 'forrest gump' and was the obvious choice for national awards, even your hero( and thanks to GOD, a more broad minded human being) SRK,admitted that fact everywhere..............SRANI writing here,'why'???....i will start respecting you a bit if you stop writing PLEASE..

reply

And I should care for your respect because? Why should I stop writing here or anywhere? KMG was a horrible performance, pathetic ET ripoff film. His best was Lakshya, followed by JA - WTF do I care what SRK thought? I am talking of what I thought. SRK also loved that horribly bloated Black, but I have no control over his bad taste. I only write about what I think - not others opinions (unless I am clearly quoting someone). I was responding to someone's questions - so please go back to your pacifier and let a civilized discussion proceed.

'A wed wose, how womantic'

reply

'KMG was a horrible performance, pathetic ET ripoff film.'
- now i get it, your brainlessness comes due to your lack of eyesightness SRANI, sorry for calling you 'shameless',its not your fault actually, GOD bless your poor soul....

reply

His non-mainstreamers have always been good. From the very beginning with Fiza and Mission Kashmir to the current JA. The last good movie of SRK I saw was probably DDLJ, which btw was a Hollywood ripoff too (A Kiss Before Dying). His acting skills may have been good but he let himself get into that rut and he's been stagnating for a while. All his attempts at being anything but lover boy have been very far from decent. He plays the same darn role over and over again. We all know he's star material not really acting material. I'm not saying Hrithik isn't, however atleast he TRIES to act. Hence the usage of the term "attempt". That's more than can be said for SRK.

Personal vilification of your opponent in a debate shows that you're getting defensive which means you don't quite have all the facts. There were no personal comments directed at you in my last posting, I'd appreciate it if you could reciprocate with the same.

Glad I made your day.

reply

I do not think you are watching the right kind of films. SRK in Dil se is 1000 miles ahead of anything Hritik has achieved to date, and in KANK and CDI gives an acting lesson to all. He is so not stuck in the romantic rut - CDI, SWADES, Dil se, KANK are romantic? Why use the term attempt when th the goal of fine acting has been achieved?
The last good movie of SRK I saw was probably DDLJ, which btw was a Hollywood ripoff too (A Kiss Before Dying).

DDLJ is nothing like a Kiss Before Dying, I suggest you see both films again. Do you even know what a Kiss Before Dying was about?

'A wed wose, how womantic'

reply

There is no other epic ever made in Bollywood other than Mughal-e-azam....Jodhaa-Akbar an epic-you must be joking...it was an at best an attempt at being an epic and I think Ashutosh did not want to make an epic....And if he did I must say he failed miserably...

For starters read what wiki says about what an epic movie generally means

"Generally speaking, the term "epic" refers to movies that have a large scope, often set during a time of war or other conflict, and sometimes taking place over a considerable period of time. A historical setting is commonplace, although fantasy or science fiction settings are known"

Yes JA is set at the time of war and had large scope...but it mostly deals with the love between J and A....The war scenes shown are of very poor quality...The one thing good about JA was Hrithik and Ash were good even though Hrithik didnt look like a Mughal....and it was actually a simple love story where the hero was incidentally Akbar..thats all.

Asoka on the other hand was not an epic at all...but whatever it was it was good to see.

reply

DDLJ is nothing like a Kiss Before Dying, I suggest you see both films again. Do you even know what a Kiss Before Dying was about?

I think he meant Baazigar.

reply

You are right.

I think Jasmine read something like that somewhere before and is now confusing Baazigar with DDLJ...Ha Ha Ha

reply

MeA was not an epic either. Nor was it factual. Nor (pardon me fans) was it great movie making. I think Ashutosh is miles ahead of K Asif and Jodhaa Akbar is much better than MEA. I have yet to see all of MEA without falling asleep and no way can Hritik replicate Dilip Kumar's mind-numbingly dead performance. It would take a lot of acting to be that bad. In the Aishwarya Madhubala competition Madhubala comes out ahead. She was mesmerizingly beautiful, a dance girl so they could exploit all her dancing skills, and she emoted most beautifully throughout culminating in her dying scenes in Mohabbat ki Jhoothi kahani pe roye. Given a choice I would watch JA any day over MEA.

And Asoka was not of epic proportions either but it was eminently watchable. I bet many comments are just like Jasmine's DDLJ/AKBD example - read something against the film and have started bad mouthing it. BTW Baazigar was not that similar to AKBD either. Throwing a girl off a roof does not make films identical. About my taste in films and which are people's best films - there is no doubt that Swades is Ashu's best film. Look at the IMDB ratings and judge for yourself. There is also no doubt that Khamoshi followed by HDDCS are Bhansali's best films. So you guys wanna debate my taste in films or discuss JA?


'A wed wose, how womantic'

reply

It is a fact that Baazigar is a copy of A Kiss Before Dying. SRK himself says so in his book "King of Bollywood". He says when he first met director duo Abbas-Mastan, they gave him the video cassette of the movie asking him to watch it as they were going to 'freemake' it with him in the lead.

reply

While this is not relevant to a discussion on JA at all, please tell me if you have seen AKBD? Here is what is similar - he romances two sisters and he throws one off the roof - but there too differences abound. In Baazigar he is romancing them simultaneousy! If you believe that was all of Baazigar then maybe you need to see that one too :-) If you have seen both then we can see discuss what exactly is similar. SRK never wrote a book so I do not know what that is all about either.

'A wed wose, how womantic'

reply

While this is not relevant to a discussion on JA at all, please tell me if you have seen AKBD? Here is what is similar - he romances two sisters and he throws one off the roof - but there too differences abound. In Baazigar he is romancing them simultaneousy! If you believe that was all of Baazigar then maybe you need to see that one too :-) If you have seen both then we can see discuss what exactly is similar. SRK never wrote a book so I do not know what that is all about either.

http://www.anupamachopra.com/book-srk.htm

Ever heard of this book written by Anupama Chopra (wife of film-maker Vidhu Vinod Chopra) in consultation with SRK himself? What kind of a fan are you if you know nothing about your star other than some crap movies he acted in. What a pity?

reply

There is no point arguing with this lady. She just is such desperate wannabe sucker of SRK, she roams around boards of great films which do not star her pathetic idol and tries to reason with them anyhow. I am sure OSO, K3G are all masterpieces. According to her ashutosh and bhansali have made 2 great films (swades and devdas) and rest are pathetic!! You don't need a rocket scientist to know why.

I am sure she is a good for nothing wannabe whose main motto of life is to waste time on blogs and raise a flag for her loud mouth idol. GO GET A LIFE.

reply

***DDLJ is nothing like a Kiss Before Dying***

You're right there, I was thinking of Baazigar.

***SRK in Dil se is 1000 miles ahead of anything Hritik has achieved to date, and in KANK and CDI gives an acting lesson to all.***

LOL, ROFL, ROTFL!!! Dil Se BOMBED, no thanks to SRK. It's weird how you point out the particular movie that emphasized his lack of acting talent. Here he was, handed a great role in this great movie with a critically acclaimed director, and he did a terrible job, better than his other performances but still terrible. The film did horribly both commercially as well as critically.

He's acted in how many movies now? 60-odd? How many have you named? 4? Swades - Lord have mercy(!), the story was great, even the execution was great. The best actor in that movie was Kaveriamma, SRK was surprisingly so toned down that he was stilted, and did not deliver. KANK? honestly? acting lesson to all....I do believe what you consider good acting is very different from mine. Let's leave it at that.

What is it with SRK fans, they can't accept the fact that he's star material, not acting material.

***Why use the term attempt when th the goal of fine acting has been achieved?***
No points for guessing who achieved the goal!! Come off it. Also stop comparing SRK to Hrithik. If you want to compare him to someone , compare him to his contemporary - Aamir Khan. They both have about the same experience, but who is the better ACTOR, not the most popular one? For a person with his experience, he's a pathetic actor. And that's putting it mildly.

Hrithik, for someone who's been in the industry for 8 years, is doing great. He has done a fine job in the movie. You can nitpick all you want about it, but he does a good job when given the right opportunities.

reply

Whether people like Asoka or Jodha Akbar more is upto them.

But who can call Asoka crap??? Whatever it was, historical epic or love story or drama, it was mesmerizing and beautiful.

reply

Well said ChocolateIsMyDrug.

'A wed wose, how womantic'

reply

But who can call Asoka crap??? Whatever it was, historical epic or love story or drama, it was mesmerizing and beautiful.

I fully agree with ChocolateIsMyDrug and SRani. For me "Asoka" is currently the best film that I know, even better than Eisenstein's historical dramas "Ivan Groznyy" and "Aleksandr Newskiy" and my former favourite Kubrick's "2001 - A Space Odyssey".

But I also think, the verdict depends on the expectations of the beholder. Anyone who thinks SRK can only act as a lover boy and feels wrong as a tartar like in "Baazigar" or as meanie in "Hum Tumhare Hain Sanam" will not like "Asoka". Anyone who dislikes any acting of SRK cannot like "Asoka" in any part. Anyone who sees the historical Ashoka (of whom astoundingly few facts are known, especially if one compares it to the Greek Alexander, who lived even earlier; as SRani already said in principle the only hard facts are the stone engraved edicts where for instance the only named queen is Karuvaki) only as the supporter of Buddhism will be disappointed. Yet, the edicts show that Ashoka only tried to use Dharma as the unifying brace of the empire not Buddhism itself. Anyone who thinks the Buddhist tales tell historical facts will feel let down by the new myth that Santosh Sivan has spun. If you expect of a movie - advertised with the picture of a sword-gripping Ashoka shown above a rider attack - only battle scenes you will dislike the love story, if you want to see a love story because you know SRK only as a lover boy you will be frustrated by the second part of "Asoka". And so on.

A person like me, who likes to read myths like the "Sigurd saga" or Homer's "Iliad", never heard anything of the historical Asoka, and found the first Indian movie ever seen "Lagaan" neither enticing nor convincing, was stunned by "Asoka" and went in search of more Indian movies. I have even read since then Keay's "India - A history" and Thapar's "Early India" as well as "Asoka and the decline of the Mauryas"(according to Thapar's Asoka-book Devi, the mother of the Buddhist missionaries, was not even legally married to Asoka). So, again, it all depends of the structures your mind is built of. Certainly there are many people who detest "Asoka", but there also a few for whom "Asoka" is a good film. For me it is a future classic. And I am very disappointed that Santosh Sivan has no great Bollywood projects to follow. For me it is really not understandable that such a good director (for me "The Terrorist" was also extremely convincing) fails to get Bollywood support.

Sorry for this long post. As so many persons who like to watch Indian movies detest "Asoka" I always try to take up the cudgels for my favourite movie .

--- each brain develops its own preferences ---

reply

[deleted]

listen elanor-3, you seem to be a literate human being, why bring yourself to the group of the other two fools called SRANI and Chocolateismydrug above you? btw, 'ASOKA' too was a big FLOP, and failed to get bolly's support completely....

reply

btw, 'ASOKA' to was a big FLOP, and failed to get bolly's support completely

Yes, I know that "Asoka" was a big box office flop. But in my view, box office success is not the criterion for a good film. "Raja Hindustani" was a huge box office success and is for me nevertheless one of the worst Indian movies that I have seen so far. As far as I know "Citizen Kane" - considered by many to be the greatest film to ever come out of Hollywood - was not a huge box office success.

I think: to like "Asoka" you have to have other expectations of a movie than you have of ordinary Bollywood films. "Asoka" to me seems to be a mix of Bollywood craftsmanship and real artistry. For instance in "Asoka" the chorus of the three soldiers is disliked by many. For me it is a very good device to make the story feel classical (it reminds me of the chorus in antique Greek theatre) and to give the viewer with a few words important background information (for which reason the chorus was used in the great Greek tragedies). I have no knowledge of classical Indian plays so I do not know if the chorus device is there used as well.


--- each brain develops its own preferences ---

reply

listen elanor, i agree with anyone about anything as long as its not because of any agitation, so i delightfully accept your point of view, i personally feel that this is a stupid topic we are writing in, and am only writing in it because some stupid fellows are turning it to be that old 'fictitous' rivalry between HRITHIK and SRK, GOD knows when they will understand that they are two different human beings, why do this just because you have to do something?

reply

There is no rivalry between Hritik and SRK - this is not about that. And I am not that kind of fan to run around reading rags and buying books about actors. So yes - can someone tell me exactly how Baazigar resembled AKBD? Maybe SRK saw the video so he could copy Matt Dillon's expression as he threw Sean Young off the roof! And since Matt Dillon is a bogus actor he really need not have bothered.

But I am a history fan and I have read John Keay's India: A History instead ;-) Why is it so hard to accept that Asoka had less history to go on and so could have more imagination, while Akbar;s reign was well recored and so this film needed to pay more attention to facts.

The film starts with a narration about 100 years of Moghuls in India. Is that true for when Akbar was 13? Why did that factual error creep in when it was not necessary to any part of the story?


'A wed wose, how womantic'

reply

some stupid fellows are turning it to be that old 'fictitous' rivalry between HRITHIK and SRK


It's not about Hrithik and SRK, it's about JA and Asoka. And please read the thread title - that's what this discussion is meant to be about.

reply