Mahabharat is Back and How!

After a long long saga of saas-bahu serials there comes some relief with the return of Mahabharata though I know that is not the name of the show. The only one serial that I enjoyed watching was Sarabhai vs Sarabhai which for some reason discontinued and never came back even after rumours of a second season. Since then I went back to being Homer Simpson, switching channels and occasionally saying 'Boring!' while doing so. 

However, now that Mahabharata is back, I end up watching at least one Indian television show apart from the other American and Australian ones (Yes. Masterchef Australia. Already drooling).

I strongly believe that mythological shows always work better as compared to any other shows. More often than not, everyone knows the story or has read about it at some point in life and wants to see what it will look like and how close it is to their imagination. It is a lot like how people wanted to watch Harry Potter after reading the books and if it exactly the way like we imagined it in our head.

The new Mahabharat on Star Plus is sure a breath of fresh air from the everyday drama on television (or at home). Everything is high definition and better than the previous ones (though some of my graphic designer friends might say otherwise) I quite enjoyed the story all over again since the one by BR Chopra. It begins from Shantanu, the Kuru King of Hastinapur and as the story began to unfold I began to lose interest. It got really confusing.  

Though some of the fight sequences were pretty good I seriously think that they could have been much better, the question of who is whose child still remains unanswered. The acting gets worse with the introduction of every new character. (Please someone do something about the guy playing Shakuni. He is unbelievable. No really, I don't buy it and he is awfully annoying.)

Yet another thing that really irked me was, how is the narrator, Krishna, so fair? There are just too many questions that go unanswered like who Maharishi Ved Vyas really is or who really fathered Dhritarashtra and Pandu. These facts have been conveniently left out. For someone who hasn't ever watched it before can get really confused with everything. My enthusiasm to watch that show is not coming back anytime soon and I am back to the Homer mode of switching channels. 

The Purpose of a Critique

It is an established fact that everyone has an opinion to almost everything and are entitled to it. You either agree, disagree or agree to disagree. A new movie is out and there will be innumerable people talking about it. Some might mention it on Twitter or Facebook, some others might take to blogging about it apart from those reviews printed in the news media. It is not essential that the review on a personal blog is not as reliable as that given in news media. Instead, there have been several occasions where personal blogs have been more critical of a movie and more accurate with their observations. While interpretation of a subject can be different, it's credibility can be judged by the facts and reasoning that support it.

It made me wonder after all, why criticism is necessary if everyone is going to have their own opinion about everything that is thrown at them. Deciding for the people about what to watch and what not to is downright dictatorial but there are certain things that we must understand. Our education system has been kind enough to teach us how to earn our daily wage and to evaluate whether something is worth our time and money. However, it hardly ever laid any emphasis on if we really do need it and is not simply a funda of following the herd.

The amount of information available to be processed today is simply mind numbing. It becomes the responsibility of the media professionals who possess more information than a lay person to tell you what is worth consuming and what is not considering they are aware of how to critically analyse the subject in question. It would be great to know why I shouldn't be wasting my time watching a movie like Housefull 2 but rather not miss a movie like Lunchbox. 

The Role of A Critic

Everyone wants to be a critic. One of the  main reasons for this is the kind of influence such a person has on those reading or listening to what a critic has to say. Be it a movie or even a dance performance, there is always an expert ready to throw his comments on it to decide for the people whether the subject in question was good enough or not. These people are usually considered in high regard than most people who have an opinion about something. It is a very powerful position to be in. This position is often taken for granted with many taking to negative criticism causing much difficulty for the truly talented to put up their work to be critiqued.

The animated movie, Ratatouille contains a dialogue from its renowned food critic, Anton Ego, towards the end of the movie where he says, "In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face is that, in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defence of the new. The world is often unkind to new talent, new creations." I felt these words somehow sounded quite relevant for today, explaining how a critic can make or break an artist or a piece of work.

The role of a critic is more than just giving people his/her opinion on a piece of art or a performance and is a huge responsibility. It also includes the willingness to do extensive background research apart from simply experiencing the subject. It is suppose to be much tougher than simply giving your opinion about something. It has to be backed with facts at all time and not something that you can be flippant about as there is a lot at stake.