Peter Brook's the Mahabharata (1989–1990) User Reviews

Grandiose yet Human

[martin_g_karlsson · 8/10 · 20 November 2006]

We follow the Indian great families of gods and demi-gods, and the conflicts that arise between them. Yudhisthira is a righteous man, but can succumb to great foolishness when it comes to gambling. Arjuna the great warrior hero, is prepared for war but yet is besieged by doubts. Is war unavoidable, and is it possible to fight a war without losing? Krishna takes on an ambiguous trickster role, as he proceeds in guiding the Pandava family, but towards what?

This is very much a theatrical version of the story, do not expect any special effects or such, you wont get any here. The stripped down production gives it a timeless feel, and it has its logic, after all how do you do visual justice to gods and great mysteries? The acting is strong, some of the characters are fantastic to just listen to, and more or less the whole cast manages to tread the thin line between the grandiosity and humanity, that the characters possess.

I am a little annoyed that the full version is not available on DVD. Isn't DVD about putting things out in their full length and then some? It feels like an unnecessary loss that we don't get the see the play in its full.

I love these great epics, but the Mahabharata in particular can be a pain in the butt to try and read, in its enormous length, so to get condensed version of it as a play, this well executed and acted out, is well, a god-send.

A modern take on the great Indian masterpiece- the Mahabharata

[kar1411 · 9/10 · 29 October 2006]

Peter Brook's magnum opus- The Mahabharata is a film everyone should watch- not only does it magnificently translate a difficult play on screen, it captures all the inherent philosophies of what is perhaps the greatest epic ever written. The acting is top notch and the style of storytelling unique- the 5 hour running time slips past unnoticed.

One scene which deserves particular mention is the story of Ahbimanyu and the magic disc- it is so wonderfully handled and serves as one of the high points of the movie.

Perhaps the ending slackens the pace a bit, but is still apt and a fitting one.

A fable for grown ups!

[DukeEman · 9/10 · 16 September 1999]

A small scale epic based on the Indian version of the bible, Sanskrit, the biggest book in history. This tells the story of two rival families who do battle. Plenty of philosophy and enlightenment. At times campy and the set productions are minimal, but hey, this is a fable for grown ups which will leave you memorised with all its wisdom.

a wonderful realization of one of the world's great religious-mythic epics

[Bobbyh-2 · 10/10 · 11 April 2005]

I can't recall anything Peter Brook has done that wasn't at least worthwhile, and most of his oeuvre is far more than that--including his Mahabharata. To my great disappointment I never got to see the stage version, but did see the film, as presented on TV. It was cut down (!) to a mere 6 hours, and the only word for it is stunning. The international cast is as good as any ensemble I've seen: they're always right on target, never over the top, and I think I could watch the whole 6 hours without ever getting restless. I've read the Mahabharata in a very good American adaptation that trims the enormous length--15 times the length of the Old and New Testament combined!--to manageable size. While some fine material was necessarily excised from Brook and Carriere's version, the essence seems to be there. By turns, it is amusing, touching gripping, and always absorbing. I believe it is still available on videocassette and may well be on DVD as well. .I notice that, with only one exception, all the users who have written appreciations share my feelings, and I suspect that most others will feel the same way. I won't bother to mention individual performers or scenes; it's all of a piece and a great accomplishment. Next time I watch it will be my seventh or eighth time, and it won't have lost any of its appeal. This is a work of art to savor and treasure.

superb mythographic projection

[geroldf · 10/10 · 19 January 2002]

Brooks has done an amazing job of distilling the monumental indian epic into less than a 6 hour film. In the process, a lot of good stuff had to left out, but what remains is pure gold.

The style is spare and theatrical, with fairly minimal sets. Rather than detracting from the sense of immediacy, however, the lack of background serves to throw the characters into bolder relief. And what characters! Arjuna, Yudhisthira, Draupadi, Bhima, Krishna - marvelous characters all. And the 'bad guys' are nearly as good - flawed, but complex and even somewhat sympathetic. The minor characters too are arresting - bhishma and drona especially.

This movie translates the power of myth to the screen better than any other by far. Maybe when LotR is complete that will change, but for now Mahabharata reigns supreme.

Highly stylized epic for the mind and soul

[rmfought · 10/10 · 30 November 1999]

This production of the epic Indian poem describes the war between the Pandava and Kaurava, opposing branches of the same family. The 5 brothers of the Pandava driven by light, the Kaurava driven by darkness, though they both exists somewhere in the grey area between good and evil. This enforces the point that they are one in the same. Before the final battle, Krishna shares with Arjuna the knowledge of the Bhagavad-Gita, the Hindu equivalent of the Bible. Brooks does a fantastic job - the minimalist sets focus the attention on the players, and the multinational cast make this production a lesson for all of humanity, not just Hindus. It is more in the style of a play than a movie, which makes it more enjoyable artistically. The 6 hour full-length version seems daunting, but it is all well worth it.

At The End You'll Be Someone Else

[mail-2217 · 10/10 · 7 September 2013]

As Vyasa (the storyteller) says at the beginning. "If you listen closely, at the end you'll be someone else." Shakespearean layer upon layer of meanings. Gives westerners a glimpse (sometimes shocking) into the different mindset of the East.

All our western ideas of 'good' and 'evil'; 'truth' and 'justice' are flipped on their heads.

And the acting... particularly Krishna,,, is subtle and sublime.

Rather than try to render the 'cast of millions' they strip it down to a minimalist production where only the barest essentials are there. This puts the acting on full display and these people, from around the world, do not disappoint.

Unforgettable. Unique. Incomparable.

A Masterpiece

[Alex77 · 10/10 · 29 November 1999]

It's not just an "epic" or "fable". It is a unique and great work of art. It's a masterpiece for those who can understand the special and complex language of Brooks' narration. And this picture will especially interest those who love and understand modern theater (don't forget - it's not just a movie, it's a TV-version of a stage presentation). I saw it four times (all 5 and a half hours at once) and all the time I was literally mesmerized by the greatness of "Mahabharata".

A great version

[albertochimal · 10/10 · 4 February 2000]

This adaptation of the original play by Juan-Claude Carriere, which was three hours longer (and was in turn the adaptation of the classic poem, which is 15 times the size of the Bible!) will be, for many, the only version they will ever know of the Mahabharata. But rest assured, the essential is all here: all the wisdom, passion and emotion of one of the three or four truly immortal works of literature. This should not be viewed as a feature film, but as the filming of a theater play. Then you will be able to appreciate better the great work of almost every actor and actress, and the sheer boldness of their performance and the director's vision. A clue is the great variety of nationalities and accents: the Mahabharata is a literary work that belongs to all of us.

Get ready to fly

[luca-concone · 10/10 · 24 May 2006]

Very simply get a comfortable chair and be ready for a magnificent journey. You will get "inside" the movie and not realise that 5 hours have gone by when it will end. This is one the best movies ever, not only it is entertaining but it will help you get a glimpse of a very foreign culture. The characters will talk to you on an immediate and direct level and, unusually, they will stay with you for a long time. You will find yourself thinking back at this movie, from time to time, and compare what you are living in real life with what happened in the movie. Peter Brook is master and I definitely think this is his best movie ever. Just relax and enjoy.

Masterpiece theatre

[tatafinch · 13 October 2004]

This movie was a MASTERPIECE! i loved it. The variety of characters really made my mind work to the degree it was meant to. I must say the best scene of the entire movie was when she(forgive my memory has forgotten her name)was giving birth and her maid had to hit her across the stomach with an iron rod and then a ball came out of her. BOY what a creative idea! I must say the entire movie was extremely well done, everything from the characters to the story line, nothing at all was boring about it. The only complaint i can give is that it was WAY TO SHORT. there were so many unanswered questions and i never wanted the movie to end! I give it 4 stars and two thumbs WAY UP! Good job director Peter Brook!

Unwatchableness epitomized

[galensaysyes · 1/10 · 24 August 2000]

For me this film defines "unwatchable." I had missed the stage version through my own ineptitude; it was twice as long, stretched out over two nights, and would have been monstrously expensive, especially when calculated by the minute, given the number of minutes I would have been able to take it. My angel must have been on duty that day.

When the film turned up at the nearest art cinema, I rushed to see it, and by practising isometric exercises and mentally compiling a grocery list was able to stay in my seat for 45 minutes; but that was it. By the time the film made it to public TV I had gained enough discipline to sit it out as far as an hour. After that it may go on to become one of the masterworks of our age, but if so I'll never find out.

Why? Well, it shows, by counter-example, the great value of art, which I hadn't previously recognized. Real art, that is, that has evolved historically into forms, with the techniques and conventions demanded by each. Real art; not proto-art--and especially not imitation proto-art. That's what The Mahabarata is. It isn't a real film, although it's on film; its performers are reciting a text that isn't drama, poetry, or novel, and performing movements that aren't dance. The casting is cross-cultural and cross-everything-else, so that the performers don't look, speak, or move like the persons they're supposed to be playing. Male may be female, old may be young, white may be black, indiscriminately. Yes, they're demonstrating universality, one is all and all is one, googoogajoob. But by the same token, this robs them of all particularity, which is the reason for watching and listening to _artists_. In the theatre, they may have got away with it; indefiniteness can work there. But so can air.

Someone will like it, I know; there's always someone who likes _every_thing. But to me, it's simply an extension of the Emperor's new clothes, where there are not only no clothes but no Emperor.

A Story About Life

[wookier · 10/10 · 3 February 2002]

Adapted from the great Indian Epic, The Mahabharata from Peter Brook is a true masterpiece. Not only is the story carefully worked out (remember that the Mahabharat actually consist of many different stories together, each about a specific theme of life), but also the characters are superbly cast. It looks like actually they ARE the characters they are playing. Because you can recognize each of the characters within yourself it is difficult to play just that aspect without having an overlap with other characters. The atmosphere which is created is done in a simple manner, without special effects. Although you can feel while watching it is played inside, the intimate setting gives you the feeling of actually looking into the hearts of the players/characters. Each player got the freedom to express the character according to there own cultural background which gives it the extra dimension to recognize these characters in our daily life and within yourself. It is romantic as well as philosophical, full of depth that even watching the great epic (it takes over 6 hours!!!) for the fourth time it feels like a wonderful journey and a meditation at the same time.

One of the best films I've seen

[thesnowleopard · 10/10 · 19 October 2002]

I've liked this series since I first saw it back in 1990. The use of an international cast is startling, and gives a mythic atmosphere to the story. Like Star Wars, the Mahabharata happens long ago and far away. There is a great deal of action--especially in the last half-- and the acting is as kinetic as it is stylized. The faults of the characters, both heroes and villains (and these designations can be foggy) are what drive the story, and excessive virtue can be as evil as excessive vice. How does one tell one of the largest stories in history in less than ten hours? With subtext and acting. Instead of trying to transcend the rituals of the stage, this story revels in them. A single actor telling us what he sees, and a single scarf or a simple backdrop, shows us things that would look cheap even with the most advanced CGI. This one is definitely worth a look.

Personal comment on the film The Mahabharata

[giusebardaro · 10/10 · 20 September 2006]

I have Just had the opportunity to see in Turin the version of the film lasting six hours. The plot , the actors and the director are excellent. It is not easy to bring this wonderful poem in the theatres and in the cinemas. The film gives the chance to get to know this Indian poem all over the world. The messages for the modern "Arjunas" are: 1. action 2. knowledge 3. devotion. Men should act without attachment, ignorance is a great limitation for the human kind, the vertical line expressed in the act of devotion puts men in an attitude of respect towards the reigns of nature and the divine reigns. The Mahabarata contains a pearl: it is the Bhagavad Gita where Krishna instructs the disciple how to cope with the everyday life in harmony with the universe towards the progress.

A masterpiece directed by a true master of theatre (Peter Brook)

[troza · 10/10 · 30 December 2001]

Based on an classic Indian epic, Peter Brook & his international team have created masterpiece film. Peter Brook captures not only the story/plot but conveys the nuances & philosophies within this Indian epic. It is amazing that Mr. Brook captures the essence of the characters even in the "stylized" filming. If I am not mistaken, the full version is nine hours long. Nonetheless, it captivates the audience. Peter Brook is a great director. Excellent!!!

Unique masterpiece

[Red-125 · 10/10 · 9 September 2021]

The Mahabharata (TV Mini Series 1989-1990) is an immense epic co-written and directed by Peter Brook. Brook is renowned as a very creative director, and I think that this movie supports that renown.

According to Wikipedia, The Mahabharata is the longest epic poem in the world. The TV series listed on IMDb is 5 hours 18 minutes long. We saw it on DVD, where is was 3 hours and 10 minutes long. I think the DVD version covered all the major points of the plot, but obviously we missed whatever was shown in the additional 2 hours 8 minutes.

The DVD also contained "The Making of The Mahabharata," which was fascinating. The movie is in English, but Brooks brought in actors from all over the globe. He knows what he wants in an actor, and their performances were outstanding.

We are accustomed to the epics we know--The Iliad and the Odyssey. Gods come down from Mt. Olympus and engage in conversations and give advice to humans. However, when that occurs in The Mahabharata, it appears strange to us.

Other matters in the film are unusual to us, but, I assume, they are not unusual to people from India. For example, a woman marries a blind king. In order not to be able to see what he cannot see, she wears a blindfold for the rest of her life.

A mother tells her five sons that they must marry the same woman. Muslims may practice polygamy, so why shouldn't Draupadi--a important character in The Mahabharata--practice polyandry? (In fact, if you look up polyandry in Wikipedia, you'll see an Indian painting of Draupadi and her five husbands.)

My guess is that someone educated in India will follow the intricacies of the plot. I was able to understand most of it, but sometimes I got confused about which cousin was killing which cousin. Very complex, but still very interesting.

There were so many actors in important roles that I can't single any out, with one exception. Mallika Sarabhai portrays Draupadi, and she is fascinating. (Ms. Sarabhai has a Ph. D., and she is a dancer and choreographer as well as an actor.)

This movie would work better in a theater, but it worked well enough on the small screen. The Mahabharata has a very strong IMDb rating of 7.8. I thought it was even better than that, and rated it 10.

"Even the creator takes sides"

[Bernie4444 · 10/10 · 12 January 2024]

This is the creation of the poem to engrave drama in the hearts of man, which culminates in the 18-day war between the noble Pandava princes and their scheming cousins, the Kaurava kings that decide the fate of mankind.

We see how free will and fate can co-exist. Notice that Krishna has an agenda that may or may not be that of the other players in the game. Even in the 18-day war, every rule is broken every value is destroyed, leaving no difference between who is good or who is evil, who is an enemy, or who is not. As Krishna does throughout the movie, we see that the only way the Pandava can win is to use any means.

Peter Brook encapsulated the essence of the Mahabharata in a 9-hour play. Then the play was adapted to this six-hour visual media presentation. Visually and melodically stunning this presentation is so well presented that you hardly realize the effort that went into making this representation reflect the true Mahabharata.

Mahabharata literally means Great (Maha) India (Bharat), yet its meaning is the story of mankind, as one would see that mankind started in India.

There are other films and book versions of the story some better some not as good however this is a brilliant work and should not be missed.

In book form, I suggest as a good starting place "Mahabharata" -The Acclaimed new rendering of an immortal epic of war and destiny. Retold by William Buck.

Also, do not overlook Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth (1988)-- by Joseph Campbell, Bill Moyers.

Excellent acting; good interpretation of the story

[lillisj · 28 January 2007]

Excellent. Calm when calmness is required, and furious and angry when fury and anger are required. Star of the show is Georges Corraface (Duryodhana) who dies proving Krishna a treacherous hypocrite. It's hard to condense the incredibly prolix Mahabharata to six hours of show but it's hard to see how it could have been done any better. Just like the Mahabharata itself, it dodges the crucial question of whether Dusashana actually cheated or if Yudhishthira foolishly kept gambling and losing without being cheated. This point is crucial to the story because if Yudhishthira was cheated, then his subsequent actions seem justified; if not, he was simply a chump and doesn't deserve the aid of Krishna.

They worship Krishna!?!

[jglillis-1 · 9/10 · 24 February 2008]

Fascinating! Brook has assembled a terrific cast which does a most creditable job. Standouts are almost too many to list but I was impressed by Duryodhana, Amba, Vyasa, Draupadi, and Drona. Sakuni was suitably oily and Dushasana (sp?) satisfyingly craven. Jeffrey Kissoon as Karna, the most pitiable and conflicted of the characters, gave a memorable performance.

One wonders, though, after seeing this adaptation, why Krishna is considered a "good guy". He advises Bhima to contravene the rules of engagement established before the war begins, just in order to win by striking Duryodhana below the waist (although, of course, after Duryodhana's display of his thigh to Draupadi after the dice scene, it's seen as a suitable comeuppance for him). Krishna contrives to have Yudhishthira, who never lies, lie at a crucial moment to gain an advantage. The lesson one learns, if one tries to learn a lesson, is that the end justifies the means.

To me the whole moral lesson of this epic rests on whether Yudhishthira was actually cheated at dice. If he was not, and continued out of stupidity or addiction to wager away all his assets, then his side did not deserve to "win" the war. Only if he was cheated does he have moral standing here, and the epic is ambiguous about that.

Thought-provoking and well worth watching.

Gets the story not the depth!

[savanvyas · 3/10 · 19 April 2012]

The director clearly has great sense of story about the epic that 'Mahabharata' is but the execution and depth is lacking in epic proportions. The real Mahabharata's Kurukshetra's war is fought with 4Million people and the poem itself is four times the size of bible. There are so many back stories to each character which are important. Peter Brookes has definitely understood the basic tale but he hasn't been able to catch the depth of it, like how come 'Pandavas' defeated the army almost twice is size, motives, aims and a lot more which remains untouched due to length.

The Kings the armies, everything is done is a very very very small budget and if you not going to use the full story and use the right resources than one shouldn't have used the real name of the epic book.

The war scenes explained in book has amazing depth in it there are war tactics used on each day like 'abhimanyu's death" or the eagle shape army formation or the rules of the war which where decided among the people. It is just an awful dumb down version of the real epic. I suggest you to wiki search 'Kurukshetra war' and you will get a slight hint of the war.

If you liked this version than you would be blown away by the actual book as this doesn't even do 5% justice to the book. Also Mahabharata is story of 3139 B.C so one must imagine the culture and heritage India has preserved over the years(5000+ years).

Also the actors are real bad actors and its just torturing to watch. Most people in the west would like this version rather than the 'Mahabharat' TV series (rate it 6/10) made in India which was 94 episodes of 45mins and lasted two years. It was the most watched TV show with more than 300million viewers tuning in when it was originally aired. You can watch all those episodes on you-tube. If you want to hear a good tale you need to have time to hear it and that is why many people in west may find it boring or too long but it is a much better version. However I would suggest not to see any of this TV shows but read the book instead. The only reason TV shows or movies are made is to bring this larger than life characters to life and this small budget, tightly-timed tale by Peter Brooks just won't do it! I come from the Lineage of the original writer of 'The Mahabharata' and that is why i strongly feel this story doesn't do justice at all to the story! All and its good to get the story and only scrapes on the surface of the depth 'Mahabharata' book has in it!

Karna and brothers

[godwatch · 10/10 · 11 February 2022]

Got to know about the great history of India.....the land of Lord Rama and Karna... Where the glories of Lord Rama and Karna are sung often.

Mahabharata epic is the story of Karna and his brothers.....Yudhisthira, Bhima, Arjuna, Nakula and Sahdeva.... The 6 main characters of the epic are representation of an ideal being.... Karna, the possessor of all qualities of his brothers is the great hero of epic.

Lacks Essence

[CriticGirl91 · 1/10 · 13 March 2016]

I completely understand the desire for a Western Adaptation of the most fascinating epic of all time. I also understand the several changes made in terms of costume, weaponry, ethics, etc. made to make the tale more relevant and plausible to a different culture. What is unforgivable, however, is the omission of the essence of the magnum opus-its core values.

I overlooked how the characters addressed seniors as if they were friends. I also overlooked how the actors refused to emote visibly even in the face of the most terrible of crisis. I also overlooked what the actors wore-far from anything authentic (especially Draupadi wearing complete attire claiming to wear only a single robe). I also overlooked the most mundane of sets, deprived even of the most vital apparatus to the story. I also overlooked how some of the most lovable characters like Bheem were reduced to tribal of some kind. I overlooked all of this considering that the epic was to cater to a remarkably distinctive audience. After all, if the heart is in the right place, nothing else matters.

But I was wrong. And that is what made me quit this affair only after watching one half of it. I simply could not overlook the unnecessary alterations in the story, like all of the significant events happening at the same time, as if spreading out the events would have made them any less important. Hidimba asking Draupadi for Bheem, Ghatotkach being born as an adult, Hidimba running away from Bheem for apparently no reason left me furious. Arjun acting desperate to prove himself (and taking over Karn in this matter) was unacceptable. Yudhisthir sitting like he could not care less about what was happening and being insulted by everyone around made me wander what justification the director had in mind for him being the protagonist of the tale. Draupadi making merry all the time made me feel absolutely no connection to any grievance of hers, whatsoever. Krishna came and went like a visitor, or even worse.

If I had not known Mahabharat, this effort (or rather the lack of it) would have killed my desire to know anything about it. Yes, emotions are what make a story click. And morals are what this epic is all about. This particular version had neither soul nor body.

What an absolutely horrifying idea!!!

[imankundu2007 · 1/10 · 21 December 2021]

A superficial mishmash of blatant appropriation. Nothing fleshed out. Ill-informed since the creator or anyone related to this project probably had little to no idea of what is the culture and history behind Mahabharat. What does each character represent? What is the story trying to tell you beyond the events? Just heartbreaking to see that one of the most beloved epic mythological tale is appropriated so badly and went to win Emmys?! Please this is not the Mahabharata. This is just an imposter show. So sad.