The Mahabharata

Rating:
Summary: Enormous Epic
Review: Weighing in at 5 hours and 25 minutes, "The Mahabharata" is an epic tale based on the religious text of the same name. While I'm far from ignorant of the Mahabharata, I'm no expert. All I've read is the Baghavad-Gita. You certainly don't need to be well-read on Hindu mythology to appreciate this film. I first saw this film by renting it at a video store specializing in rare and imported videos. I then purchased it through Amazon.com because this was something I just had to have. The film is actually a stage play. But don't let that discourage you into thinking that you will simply be watching actors perform on a stage. This is one extravagent production! The costumes are very rich, the sets are large and realistic, and the camera work is angled and edited in such a way that you'll think you're watching a film instead of a straight stage production. For example, during the war chapter, actual horses are brought onto the stage where dozens of actors fight in a well choreographed manner!
The acting is something that I have never seen before. I don't get out to see many plays, but what I've seen in this is amazing. The camera gets in tight on the actors faces and these actors do a superior job of expressing severe intensity. Especially the two actors who play Krishna and Arjuna; wow!
If you're into Hindu mythology on any level, then I assure you that you will enjoy this film. Despite its length this film never gets boring. Mind you, I wouldn't suggest watching this in one sitting. There are two discs, watch one, and watch the next one the next day.

Rating:
Summary: Listen carefully, and be transformed
Review: Get past the surface, dig deeper into the meaning and spirit of the epic story, and you will surely enjoy it! Or borrowing the line of Robert Langdon Lloyd, "if you listen carefully, at the end you will be someone else!"

This is a masterpiece, no doubt about it. Despite all the superficial 'glitches' such as accents which may take getting used to to really understand; the chronology of events which rather mixed up in some scenes; and the 'colorful' cast (which undoubtedly was the major reason for the various accents heard!), The Mahabharata was a courageous production. It captured the spirit of the great heroic epic. It portrayed the feud between two branches of the Bharatas quite eloquently. Superb acting on the parts of the cast members definitely showed in the portrayal of this feuding family.

Excellent make up job was also shown - since the main characters were supposedly aging from the age of 18 to late adulthood. Andrzej Seweryn's Yudhishthira was an excellent example of this superb make up job. He looked youthful at the fight scene and the archery practice scene with Drona - as if he was a youth around 18. And he aged gracefully as Yudhishthira ascended the throne, lost it to the dice game, and during the war years. Andrzej Seweryn seemed to magnificently portray Yudhishthira's pain during the war, that he seemed to age too prematurely. And he seemed weary and worn at the end scene of "last illusion." They *could* have done better job with Arjuna's aging process, though!

Once you dig beneath these surface of 'colorful' cast and accents, as well as let go of some of the rather mixed-up chronology of events (including the fact that the marriage between Bhima and Hidimbi supposed to have happened prior to the bridal of Draupadi!), you will be sure to enjoy the rest. I had a little regret that Peter Brook eliminated a lot of important parts of the great epic, including the dialog between the dying Bhishma and Yudhishthira, after the great war, which was condensed into one monolog about a man reaching out for dropping honey. I thought it did not do justice to the importance of the two books which made up this part of the epic. Or the elimination of Yudhishthira's anguish upon learning after the war, that Karna was his eldest brother. Or the missing conflict scene between Arjuna and Yudhishthira, immediately preceding the fall of Karna. And many more.

However..., overall this was a very courageous production and a decent portrayal of the great epic that we South and South-east Asians revere as our heritage. And if Mallika Sarabhai was not offended by the above missing scenes and mixed up chronology, neither should I be!

Rating:
Summary: Beautiful DVD
Review: I cannot comment on how faithful this is to the original. Nor can I comment on whether or not it may or may not be offensive to Hindus. I don't know. I hope it isn't, however, because it is certainly a beautiful work of theatre as art. My family begged me to watch this for years and years, but with raising a family, I just didn't have a spare 5-6 hours. Recently, however, I finally had time -- and it was so worth it. The performance was so finely acted and directed. I think especially of the brother who tells a lie for the first time. How he touches his lip after the words are spoken, amazed that untruth could come out of his mouth. I think about the actor who played Krishna -- Wow! And especially, the actor who plays the old blind king. That is just so well done. At any rate, if it is offensive to Hindus, then don't see it. But if it isn't, then it is truly worth the time.

Rating:
Summary: A Mahabharata for the ugly-minded
Review: I didn't realize how good 'Song of Norway' was until I watched this film, which is almost as bad as Gilliam's 'Jabberwocky'. Peter Brook, like Terry Gilliam, is one of the great charlatans of our time. Each man is a self-important destroyer of good literature. Whatever Gilliam touches he turns into boring uncleanness. Whatever Brook touches he turns into a model of his own ininteresting self.
There is neither health nor beauty in Brook's 'Mahabharata'. If you want to watch a proper 'Mahabarata', get the Chopra version. Brook's 'international' version is squalid, boring, and all wrong. It will be enjoyed only by the illiterate and the perverse.
Let me say something in passing. The RSC has been for at least three decades an example of all that is bad in the modern arts world. When will British critics stop treating it as a divine manifestation?
We British have suffered horribly at the hands of our home-grown 'talents' since the 1960s. Some day we'll get a healthy-minded director who will make faithful films of the John Buchan novels. Many of us are fed up with directors whose minds are unclean and utterly dull. The duty of a film-maker is to enchant, to entertain: but Peter Brook has no sense of duty, and so his 'Mahabharata' has zero entertainment value.

Rating:
Summary: Changed my life
Review: I first heard of the Mahabharata when I was reading reviews for the video of the play, Nicholas Nickleby. I was rather interested in it. I finally bought the DVD last year because I felt like I had to have it for some reason.

It was worth every penny.

Everything about this movie is perfect. The sets are gorgeous. I love all of the natural elements like water and rock and fire everywhere. And the sand is pretty cool too. Out of all of the performances, two of them are my absolute favorites, Mallika Sarabhai as Draupadi and Mamadou Dioume as Bhima. Had this play opened on Broadway, these two actors would have won Tonies for their parts. Peter Brook and Jean-Claude Carriere created an amazing piece for the stage and for film. There were some moments of the film where I just sat in silence spellbound. One example is when Krishna (wonderfully played by Bruce Meyers) stands above Arjuna (another great performance by Vittorio Mezzogiorno) revealing his true form. The symbolic gestures are stunning and the special effects are enchanting without losing theatricality. Most of all is the overall message of the poem itself. The poem dares to explore all aspects of human life, something that epics like The Iliad or The Odyssey just don't do. Peter Brook is a theatrical genius.

Especially informative is the behind the scenes featurette. It's fun to watch people hearing their views on doing the play and working with Peter. Mallika Sarabhai is even more likeable offscreen than on as we see when she's speaking in the documentary and offering insight on how The Mahabharata is not just religion but pop culture in India. I believe Yoshi Oida (the amazing actor who plays Drona) puts it perfectly about what The Mahabharata has to offer, "In (the) film, we are playing greater (people), greater than us. So, I feel that if I imitate (these people) every day, maybe I (will) become (a) greater person." Yoshi, I intend to do the same thing.

Rating:
Summary: timeless narrative saved from mindless bollywood treatment
Review: I grew up being mesmerized by the Mahabharata stories while growing up in India. The modern Indian treatment of this narrative invariably suffers from the Bollywood touch. Thankfully, there are no inanities in Peter Brook's enchanting version. I have seen the Indian versions which some reviewers prefer. I cannot understand how any of these could be preferred, except due to a cultural myopia, and a retiscence to seeing "heroes and gods" without all the Bollywood gold, palaces and cliche wisdoms.

I have always thought that this epic touched on truly universal motifs, and not just those peculiar to the Indian civilization. I am very pleased that someone of the calibre of Peter Brook took this project on, in his typically big hearted way.

Rating:
Summary: Putting this on my wishlist right now
Review: I rate this a 4 only because I haven't seen the DVD yet, but a friend once loaned me the VHS version. I think I watched it three times over the course of a couple months. In one case, I watched all 6 hours straight through (minus bathroom breaks of course). Another reviewer used the phrase "life changing", and I agree completely. I have continued to draw inspiration from this film for 5 years. With the DVD, maybe I can go for another 50. PS: The soundtrack for this film is out on RealWorld. Also recommended.

Rating:
Summary: Captures the essence of the Mahabharata
Review: I too grew up hearing stories of the Mahabharata and watched this adaptation on the BBC a few years back. This is theatre at its best, and it truly captures the essence of the Mahabharata. The stories and concepts are all covered, but those who are expecting an all Indian cast wearing traditional garb will be sorely disappointed. Hinduism is a way of life, a faith of choice and plurality. These ideas are reinforced with a multicultural cast. When I first heard that it was not an all Indian cast, my expectations for the play dropped dramatically, but I can assure you, what Peter Brook has done is astonishing. I look forward to watching this with my children, though after they have been inundated with bedtime stories from the Mahabharata.

Rating:
Summary: an abysmal failure
Review: I was completely disappointed by this Mahabharata. To compress this work into five + hours too many significant events had to be left out and the story as told here is unintelligible, even for someone versed in Hindu philosophy. The acting is stilted, amateurish and completely unbelievable. I have no idea what such a talented director as Brook was thinking when he created this work, but it is an abysmal failure.

Rating:
Summary: Essence captured
Review: I was entranced by The Mahabharata, as presented by Peter Brookes. Since my childhood, I have heard, read and seen The Mahabharata in my mother tongue, English and Hindi. Irrespective of the medium, it has always impressed with the great canvas on which human yet larger than life characters are etched but the grandeur of the drama has often masked the underlying philosophy - that the difference between humans and gods is infinitesimal, that every person is imbued with some qualities that are god-like (so that depending on circumstances anybody can appear god-like), even the so-called gods have human frailties and can be touched and befriended.
Peter Brookes has successfully denuded the characters of their physical attributes and forced us to really understand this philosophy that we too can become gods depending on which qualities we care to nurture within our selves.