SHAlINI SAKSENA speaks to actors and directors to find out what makes Mahabharat such a popular script that SS Rajamouli may be considering a trilogy on it
Speculation is rife that Bahubali director SS Rajamouli’s next project may be the epic Mahabharat. Reports suggest that the film would be made on a mega budget of Rs 400 crore and will be released in three languages — Hindi, Telugu and Tamil and that the shoot is tentatively scheduled for 2018. Reports also suggested that Rajamouli wants to cast Amitabh Bachchan, Mohanlal and Aamir Khan in lead roles.
This won’t be the first time that a director would be making a film on the epic, the first being made back in 1965 starring Abhi Bhattacharya as Krishna, Pradeep Kumar as Arjun and Dara Singh as Bhim. The film was directed by Babubhai Mistri and the title song was sung by Mohammed Rafi. Then there was the 1989 version directed by Peter Brook.
Not far behind is Mohanlal’s announcement that he will be a part of a film based on MT Vasudevan Nair’s novel Randamoozham, called The Mahabharat, which is said to be sitting on a mammoth budget of Rs 1,000 crore.
According to Nitish Bharadwaj, who played lord Krishna in DD’s Mahabharat directed by BR Chopra back in 1983, though he is yet to hear any official statement on the project, he does know that it is based on the adaptation of Mahabharat by Nair’s Jnanpeeth Award-winning novel Randamoozham (The Second Turn). Nair, he tells you, is one of the finest authors of India and if this film is based on his novel, it would have a well-researched screenplay. “I welcome this film,” Bharadwaj says.
So what is it that makes this epic so sort after that not only are there films, but over the years even TV has had three different shows — some brillaint some not so greatIJ
One is told it is because producers and directors feel it is a sureshot hit. “Yes, it is so, provided their research is in-depth. Otherwise, they will fail even with the best possible screenplay written by Maharshi Ved Vyaas,” Bharadwaj opines. The BR Chopra version, he points out, became a landmark due to the best creative team of Pt Narendra Sharma (screenplay), Dr Rahi Masoom Raza (dialogues), Bhring Tupkari (lyrics), a team of historians, Raj Kamal (music) and Chopra’s vision of focussing on human relationships, interplaying aspiration/emotions and the greyness of characters in the epic.
“I must also credit the sincerity of actors. We sometimes shot and dubbed day and night. The creative freedom given to us by BR uncle and Raviji helped,” Bharadwaj tells you.
Nitish, the self proclaimed 5000-year-old man, has been missing from modern TV serials because typical soaps do not interest him. “Nothing unusual was offered to me. The only channel making quality entertainment is Epic. I would love to perform in some shows on this channel. Also, I came to TV from cinema. I learnt cinema since my childhood. Now I am directing films, my debut being a Marathi film with Tanuja, based on a short story by Sudha Murty of Infosys. I am busy casting for my Hindi directorial film which will go on the floor soon,” he says. Another film Yaksh — a psychological thriller set in modern times — is expected to release this year.
Coming back to Mahabharat and the various versions made over the years, Nitish tells you that most had to compete with BR Chopra’s version. Most get enamoured with VFX and forget to focus adequately on research, characterisation, language/vocabulary, dialogues and the essence of the epic.
“As a filmmaker I believe that the CGI, visual effects and opulent costumes are merely backdrop. The real thing is emotion and the audience identifies only with the emotions of the characters,” Nitish asserts. He has been playing Krishna in a much acclaimed Hindi play Chakravyuh for the last two years and the audience has been applauding him. He would love to play lord Krishna again on celluloid.
Another reason for recreating this Epic stems from the fact that the story has been written in a manner that it has a message for today’s generation as well.
Nitish insists that the Mahabharat is relevant today because it is a timeless story of characters of kalyug. “Aren’t we surrounded by Dhritarashtras, Duryodhans, Dusshasans, Shakunis and Bhishms even todayIJ Each one of us in India is looking for that Krishna who will spearhead and guide modern politics towards dharma. To me, the meaning of dharma is, equality, truth, justice, sense of duty, intellect, knowledge, morality, faith and honesty,” Bharadwaj says.
Siddharth Kumar Tewary, who created the epic in 2013 for a TV series on Star Plus, seconds this. “The basis of this epic is that what is found here can be elsewhere but if it is not here it is not anywhere. There is no story angle, nothing that you can image, that is not there — from the story to the characterisation. The idea is that if one is reading the Mahabharat, there should be no need to read the Vedas. There is a wholesome learning here and that is what makes it so relevant. The more you read it, the more you understand it. That is why something that was written thousands of years back still holds today,” Tewary explains.
But for all subsequent Mahabharats, work was cut-out for the makers to ensure that it was not a remake and was told from a fresh perspective. It meant that there was need to understand what the team was doing and how one would have to look at the story. “If you go to the market you will find 20,000 books with their own interpretation on The Geeta. The same holds true for Mahabharat. Our aim was to tell the story in a way that connected with the people. I found that it could no longer be just creating what was written. Those who watched this series were mesmerised by how we told the story. The focus was to make it much younger and newage, present it in a way that people would remember,” Tewary tells you.
But he agrees that he was well aware of the fact that comparisons will be made with the 1983 version and he was preapred for it. To insert fresh perspective, it was imperative not to replicate characters from the original TV series.
“The effort was to not cast a face but actors. I was aware people would be out with daggers if we didn’t out-do what was done in the past. People have visual imagery and it is difficult to fight that. The actors had to believe in what they were playing, it was not just another work. None of the actors was a known face. There were comments like, ‘how can Krishna be fair. Krishna was dark’. But I knew people would ultimately find a connect with our version especially those who had not seen BR Chopra’s,” Tewary tells you.
Indeed, when it comes to epics, it is not so much about the story but how you transport the audience into another era. When Tewary set out to make his version, technology made a lot of difference. “It is difficult to create a canvas like this and it is all about how one paints it. The writing has to be different. For anybody to make a film on this epic, it needs to be really big,” Tewary feels.
Best known Bhishm Pitamah Mukesh Khanna, currently chairperson of Children’s Film Society of India, agrees. “To be a success, it has to be grand. When I saw the climax of Bahubali Part 1, I thought, this is Mahabharat war. We could not do it because of budget constraints. If and when Rajamouli decides to convert this epic into a film, he will have to keep its soul alive. If you see Bahubali, the weakest point is the story — it is a simple story of a king. It became big because nobody ever thought of making it on such a huge canvas — people loved the visuals. Rajamouli can’t make another Bahubali in the name of Mahabharat. A Mahabharat with only visual effects will not work,” Khanna opines.
As a child, Khanna was fascinated by the story of the epic and had read it at a tender age. “My favourite books were Chandrakanta, Mahabharat and the typical jasoos thrillers. So when I joined the BR Chopra unit as Bhishm, I knew more about Mahabharat than anybody else on the sets,” Khanna recalls.
What made the 1983 TV series so popular was few knew such detailing. “There was a newness about it. Fewer knew that Santanu had eight sons and Bhishm was the eighth. They only knew about Krishna, the war, Bhishm’s pratigya and The Geeta. No one knew the details shown in the series. People identified with it and found a similarity with what was happening in real life. Ramayana, on the other hand, was being played every year as a play. People watched it with a lot of faith. They would sit with folded hands, distribute prasad etc. Mahabharat, on the other hand, was fast-paced and hence popular,” Khanna says.
The problem, he feels, with the post-Chopra versions was that they depended on models, six-packs and big sets. He almost filed a PIl to stop Ekta Kapoor from coming out with her version of the epic — Kahaani Hamaary Mahabharat Ki. Khanna insists, there is no way one can modernise sanskriti. “Jis din karogey, sanskriti will be over,” he says.
“Then came another Mahabharat wherein Krishna said things never did. A lot of liberties were taken. Daily soap were created from the epic,” Khanna says.
“Our serials show the childhood of people like Ashoka, Prithvi Raj Chauhan, Jhansi Ki Rani and Rana Pratap. But nobody asks if what is being aired has any ring of truth to it. Kids who watch these serials say Ashoka was Shah Rukh and Kareena Kapoor having fun in a lake. Do not tamper with history and fictionalise it. It is not enough to give a disclaimer. The minute you say it is Mahabharat nothing gives them the power to change what has been written,” Khanna says.
“No one can make a TV serial as well as BR Chopra did. Classics should not be touched. You can’t remake Sholay or Mother India. When you did, disastrous results were there for all to see,” Khanna says.
