Yes exactly – Kahani Kiske Mahabharat Ki?
I am in no way an authority on the great epic Mahabharata but that doesn't stop me in any way from putting my two-pence in here.
In yesterday's episode I saw something and was appalled – Bheeshma Pitamaha shooting an arrow at a soldier from behind? Is this acceptable? The very concept of Bheeshma being Bheeshma is that he is upright on his morals and that includes giving a fair chance to the enemy. Isn't that the reason it was possible to kill Bheeshma on the battlefield? Because his principles came in the way? So what is this nonsense? Why is Ekta Kapoor degrading one of the icons of the Indian pantheon by showing him to be a backstabbing wimp?
In fact, the entire rigmarole that is going on in the name of Mahabharata in the hallowed Ekta Kapoor's serial is nothing more than "trumpery", as one of my friends learned in Mahabharata told me. And I corroborate. Check out some of the inadequacies I found out, apart from the appalling Bheeshma Pitamaha shooting from behind:-
1. Draupadi was known for her long tresses. Her hair was the subject of one of the great vows that were resolved at the Kurukshetra. What is this Draupadi with? A Mithibai college haircut?
2. Bheeshma never NEVER shot anyone from behind, let alone a smalltime crook. Sorry for repeating this, but I cannot digest it.
3. What about Kunti's boons that she got from Durvasa? The boons that gave her her three children – Yudhisthira from Dharmaraja, Bheema from Vayu and Arjuna from Indra. Did Ekta Kapoor mention that in her serial? I only briefly caught Dharmaraja in one of the bhajans. But what about the others? Isn't it important to show in detail how these children were born? Instead, in that episode, she shows Shakuni having a funny incident with his wife, which is nowhere mentioned in the Mahabharata. How will the great valor of the Pandavas be justified if their birth is not shown in detail?
4. You get my point. Major events of the Mahabharata are trivialized, and events that did not happen at all are shown in boring detail.
There are so many more of these, but I cannot recall all right now. If you do, please put them in the comments section.
Among the actors, I am really impressed with Ronit Roy who plays Bheeshma Pitamaha. He has the grace and the poise required for this great role, which may well be the role of his lifetime. I don't want to compare him with Mukesh Khanna of B. R. Chopra's Mahabharata because the latter was backed with Dr. Rahi Masoom Reza's strong dialogs.
Draupadi is a disappointment. I am sure when she will actually come on screen(not just the Vastraharana as was shown), people will turn off the television sets. Draupadi needs a killer grace, a look in her eyes that's both of hurt and of revenge and a subtle innate beauty, none of which Anita Hassanandani has. What a waste! She will certainly kill the serial if it survives till then.
About the other actors from Ekta Kapoor's stock harem, the less said the better. But I would like to say about the side-actors, the ones who do not count. The milkmen all have six-pack abs and the milkwomen all have hair shaded with L'Oreal. That's something I can say. Even Gandhari has it. What's that? L'Oreal-tinged hair or Garnier-tinged?
And what's with the camera movements? These zooms, pans, sweeps, etc. all look very VERY incongruous in the serial. Actually, when I was watching one of the earlier episodes, when Shantanu saves Devavrata from being drowned into the river by his wife Ganga, the camera zip-zap-zoomed exactly eight times, from eight different directions. If someone did not know the Mahabharata, they must have thought that Shantanu saved all his eight sons right then and there!
Please, Ekta, let our Mahabharata remain sacrosanct. You have corrupted an entire generation of Indians and God knows what more you are going to do. Keep your commercialism to yourself; let us have the culture we are proud of. It makes me cringe that people all over the world and even our new generation will watch this idiocy you call the Mahabharata and get wrong ideas. Forget acquiring a cult status like B. R. Chopra's Mahabharata has even today, you will be condemned to the deepest annals of hell for this perpetration on our culture. And that's what I say.
Just to detox myself from Kahani Hamare Mahabharat Ki, I am downloading the entire B. R. Chopra's Mahabharata. It will take me a fortnight to download everything completely, but I need the detox. Badly.
I guess Ekta Kapoor wanted to make something like the movie 300. That's modernism in mythology, by the way. 300 is the true authentic version of a part of the Iliad(someone in the Comments section has told me this is not true and I apologize if it isn't, I am not conversant with the Iliad much). What is this Kahani Hamare Mahabharat Ki? Modernism or mockery?
All the same, I will keep watching Kahani Hamare Mahabharat Ki. I want to see what depths it can go to.
Sorry for the ranting, but I think this is a place where you can speak your mind.
Additional Info:
Some more points just crossed my mind-
Was Shakuni married? And even if he was, was his wife in Hastinapura? I am not sure about that. Will someone with knowledge about this let me know?
And what was this episode about Krishna fighting Trinavata in the same space as Duryodhana being led to slaughter? If I am not mistaken, nothing such happened in Vyasa's original text. And, of course, Krishna did not visit Hastinapura till he killed Kansa. He did not even leave Gokul until then. I am sure about that.
Was there any incident where Bheeshma threatens everyone that he will leave Hastinapura? I am sure such a thought will not even have occurred his mind because of the very staunch oath he had taken to protect Hastinapura. See, by even making Bheeshma think like this, Ekta Kapoor is spoiling his perfect dedication towards his(literal) motherland.
Yesterday's episode saw one more stupidity:
Gandhari, in complete soap opera style, tells Shakuni to leave and go back to Hastinapura. And Shakuni actually packs his bags! Dhritarashtra comes and stops Shakuni, again in soap opera style. Now tell me - was Shakuni a man of such weak principles that if his sister yelled at him(screeched actually), he would let go of his vendetta and go back to his land? Of course not! By showing this, the dfirector has shown Shakuni to be a man of WEAK PRINCIPLES and that completely dilutes the effect of the character.
My second observation is in connection with this. Dhritarashtra would never stop Shakuni. As far as I know, Dhritarashtra and Shakuni never spoke to each other. No self-respecting man will ever appreciate his wife's brother staying at his house. Dhritarashtra was not evil, he was only a victim of the circumstances. The whole characterization is gone awry here in a bid to make the Mahabharata a soap opera.
No character here has the strong forbearance and fortitude that Veda Vyasa etched them out with. All characters, good or bad, look like thin and weak diluted versions of what they really are.
