Mahabharata by Peter Brooks
I know this is an old movie, and Namit Arora reviews it after giving it a second re-view:
… I consider it one of the greatest dramatic productions of all time. Its notable lack of appeal to Indians, except to a sliver, may be because it is in English and stars mostly non-Indian actors (including, heaven forbid, some black Africans in major roles!), not to mention that it treats the epic simply as a great work of literature, without the cloying religiosity that has informed most Indian dramatizations (with predictable “box-office” success).
























5 comments
Arun
July 23rd, 2007, 4:13 pm | #
“(including, heaven forbid, some black Africans in major roles!)”
??!!!!? What’s the point here? Is Mahabharata and Indian culture more dishonored because of this? If so, isnt this blatant racism?
Abi
July 23rd, 2007, 10:35 pm | #
No, Arun. Please read Namit’s post carefully before making such accusations.
sirensongs
July 24th, 2007, 3:27 am | #
Sounds like a very cool movie - can’t believe I have never heard of it. I took Abi’s comment about “heaven forbid” to be tongue in cheek.
On that subject, the personal assistant to James Merchant (an Indian) told me that Merchant-Ivory’s planned movie starring Tina Turner as the goddess Kali, to be shot in Kerala, was cancelled after repeated objections by the VHP that a Black woman could not portray the black goddess. Funny, how the same people who are always trumpeting the universality of Hinduism are also the first to object when someone like Brooks or Merchant Ivory truly tries to portray it as universal!
Arun
July 24th, 2007, 10:46 am | #
@Abi: I did read it fully and am aware that the review is a positive because of diversity. My reaction was overstated although I certainly did have doubts which i think i tried to convey. I still think it is quite carelessly worded - even if pointing/poking at general tendencies of some people. Let us just say it is not the best way. Nor it is that much of a rare thing or a surprise for actors of African descent to excel in drama and fine arts in the west to warrant such kind of a mention (this was the main reason why I commented). However, perhaps a wink i.e.
could have helped.
BTW, i think I have seen this play on public television in US lo..ng ago. Don’t remember much except that it seemed like an odd Shakespearean imitation with characters having non-Shakespearean names, doing non-Shakespearean things, and hence seemed like an oil-and-water mix. But I am certainly no patron of drama and so probably was looking at it peripherally. I also wonder whether selective interpretations like this are common in drama works which are not original (in story). I mean is there a source for Mahabharata which did NOT have religious and philosophical underpinnings? I guess anything is possible.
Revathi
July 26th, 2007, 4:14 am | #
I liked this play a lot,it follows the wonderful version of Mahabharatha by Jean Claude Carriere- no problem with african actors (a lot of indians are as dark as africans)but krishna was portrayed by someone who looked, kind of anaemic, and so pale,in short a real anti hero. If you are brought up with “maduradhipate akhilam maduram” it is hard to see this Krishna. It is like portraying christ like a fat sumo wrestler,
Leave a comment
Comments are closed for this post.