The Mahabharata, an epic believed to be composed by the sage Vyasa, is
often described as the fifth veda. Perhaps this was Vyasa tooting his
own horn, but repeatedly the reader is told that if they read the whole
Mahabharata, they need not bother with the four vedas for in this one
epic lies all that is needed to feed human consciousness.
To many, the Mahabharata is a religious text. To some, it is a fabulous
tale, teeming with myths and ancient lyricism. However you see it, the
Mahabharata is a triumph of storytelling and the imagination. There must
be thousands of details that have been lost over the thousands of years
of oral storytelling but by the same token, thousands of nuances have
been added by different storytellers. What we have inherited is a
fascinating tapestry of ideas and beliefs. This is why it’s particularly
disappointing that in the 21st century, the retellings of the
Mahabharata are so terribly lacking in finesse and imagination despite
our sophisticated arsenal of technology and storytelling devices.
The newest take on Mahabharata is for the silver screen. Produced by
Kushal Kantilal Gada and Dhaval Jayantilal Gada and directed by Amaan
Khan, this animated Mahabharat states at the very start of the film that
it’s an edited version of the epic and its intention is to promote
Indian culture among the youth. This prepares the audience for large
chunks of the epic to go missing, but not what does lie ahead.
A poster of the film.
A poster of the film.
Some of Bollywood’s biggest names make up the voice cast of this film:
Vidya Balan as Draupadi, Amitabh Bachchan as Bhishma, Ajay Devgn as
Arjun, Anil Kapoor as Karna, Sunny Deol as Bhim, Jackie Shroff as
Duryodhan, Shatrughan Sinha as Krishna – this is a star ensemble. And
just in case you can’t recognize the voices, the characters have been
drawn to vaguely resemble the actors providing the voices.
I say ‘vaguely’ because until I saw Mahabharat I had no idea what Balan
would look like if she were ever zombified. Now I know and it ain’t
pretty. I also know how Kapoor would look without eyebrows or eyelashes
(definitely not pretty). Also, having seen Devgn’s face turned milky
white by the power of animation, I now have evidence to support my
long-standing belief that being fair doesn’t magically transform one
into a good-looking man (or woman). If you close your eyes and just
listen to the film, the actors haven't done an abysmal job of voicing
these characters. Unfortunately, this is not an audiobook.
Mahabharat is, according to the film’s publicists, the most expensive
animated movie India has produced. This isn’t because of the fees
charged by the A-list actors, most of whom waived their fees, we are
told. Perhaps the producers spent the money persuading distributors to
surrender Dhoom:3 slots to Mahabharat because the money was definitely
not spent on hiring professional artists or animators.
The artwork in Mahabharat is appalling and the animation is worse. From
the movements of the characters to the visual effects – like two arrows
going at each other – it looks like a pirated and outdated version of MS
Paint was used to create the film. Each time a character opens their
mouth to talk, you can see their molars (no doubt this was an attempt to
be biologically accurate).
The movements of the characters are awkward and jerky, making it look
like the mythical heroes learned how to walk from Godzilla. The battle
scenes are not only badly drawn and animated, they’re also boring. A
girl and a boy in front of me in the preview screening actually started
playing Candy Crush Saga on their parents’ phones while the battle of
Kurukshetra played out on screen, raising their heads only when Deol
bellowed, “Duryodhan!” They’d rather squelch virtual candy rather than
watch an epic battle. That’s how bad Mahabharat looks.
But more disappointing is the mediocrity of the imaginations responsible
for Mahabharat. Krishna is an absurd man-child who is fair and has a
beefy body topped by a pudgy face that is reminiscent of Marshmallow
Man. Add to that Sinha’s growly baritone, and you have a Krishna that
will inspire only mockery and laughter. The continuity from scene to
scene is godawful. For example, Draupadi has reddish hair – cut in
steps, if you please – in one scene and in the next, it’s black,
distinctly step-less and longer.
The freedom offered by animation makes it a wonderful medium for myths
and epics. The shackles of location, realism, physics don’t affect your
storytelling. Whatever you imagine can be brought to life. And this is
where most of our modern attempts at retelling epics like Mahabharata
have failed, whether it’s in literature, cinema or television.
We’re unable to go beyond the clichéd imagery that started with vintage
comic books. The women wear the same little triangular tiara and
dhoti-type skirts with a panel of pleats in the front. The men have
floaty dupattas and completely impractical armour (why would armour
leave a warrior’s neck and arms so vulnerable?). There are little
explosions of light when two arrows collide. We’ve been seeing these
images for decades and if it’s boring to older folk like me, then just
think how yawn-worthy it must be to children who have grown up with an
inventive visual culture of gaming and fantasy fiction.
This new Mahabharata isn't so much a kid-friendly version as one made
for dummies, by dummies. It’s awkward, sanitised and dissatisfying to
those who know the epic and to those who don’t, it’s boring and ugly.
What we learn about Indian culture from this Mahabharata has more to do
with our present than our past: we’ve lost the imagination that we were
supposed to have inherited from antiquity. Do your kids a favour. Tell
them stories from the original epic and steer clear of this film.
Tuesday, December 31, 2013
Home »
» Mahabharat review: Made for dummies, by dummies 2013
0 commentaires:
Post a Comment