INTERPRETATIONS
This blog is about interpretations of stories.
I have been watching "Mahabharat" on Star Plus for the past month or so. The website http://www.starplus.in/mahabharat/ has more information about the serial. The last few days saw drama in the serial as a cunning Shakuni and Duryodhana defeated Yudhistira in a game of dice, leading to the humiliation of Draupadi. What I liked was the fierce independence demonstrated by Draupadi.
As my blog http://fewidlethoughts.blogspot.in/2008/10/review-of-mahabharat-on-9x.html explains, I am a huge fan of the Mahabharat, simply taken as a story. Apart from the ambiguities of dharma and the lessons of the Bhagavad Geeta, I love the way that boons granted to people and curses bestowed culminate in a 18-day war that sets the stage for a new beginning. Different versions of the Mahabharat exist, particularly among its lesser known stories. To me, all of them are fascinating ! The same is true even for the television versions, including the original one shown in the late '80s.
In the one being shown on Star Plus in the episode on 09-Apr-14, Draupadi openly castigates her husbands and proclaims that she does not have any husband, nor does she belong to any clan. To me, it was a scathing indictment of all the courtiers in the assembly including the defenders of virtue like Vidura and Bheeshma. I also liked the fact that after Draupadi is attempted to be disrobed by Dhushasana, the men in the assembly themselves find themselves bereft of their angavastras !
I find that the serial has introduced some nice touches. The original Mahabharat presented characters idealistically, in the sense that Madri was always respectful towards Kunti, Dhritharashtra is shown as a blind and helpless king, etc. In this version of Mahabharat, Dhritharashtra is shown as a proud and self-reliant man, who regrets the fact that he is blind, but who is not bound by helplessness because of it. I feel that this is a brilliant re-invention of Dhritharashtra. Similarly, between Madri and Kunti, it was shown that there was some jealousy and Madri was depicted as a somewhat vain lady also. In a nutshell, the characters appear more human in this version of the Mahabharat.
What I don't like in the serial is the depiction of Bheeshma. He reminds me (physically) of Mukesh Khanna in the original Mahabharat. Couldn't the producers have selected a star who demonstrates the gravitas of the "pater familias" and doesn't bring to mind the Bheeshma of the original Mahabharat ?! The way Shakuni is portrayed is also disappointing. While Gufi Paintal limped and looked like a schemer in the original, Praneet Bhatt appears to merely reprise the act, with the only change being that he shuts one eye at times while talking.
Still, the fact that the characters appear more human, with all their human foibles is a good plus point for the serial. Taken all in all, I am enjoying the Star Plus version of Mahabharat until now.
My second interpretation of stories is regarding Batman and the movie "The Dark Knight rises", shown on HBO recently. In my childhood, I enjoyed reading Batman and Superman comics. Now that I think of it, I still enjoy reading them ! In the comics that I read, Batman was portrayed as a committed defender of Gotham City. In the comics, what mattered most were the commitment shown by Batman to fight crime and also his relationships - not just with his friends, but also with his villains. So, the maniacal Joker becomes a counterpoint to the principled Batman. Other villains like Enigma and Poison Ivy pose challenges to Batman that demand his strength and intelligence. Gotham City provided an important backdrop. At times it developed a character of its own. Still, its primary role was to set the stage for the drama in Batman's life. In the Batman movies, this has changed. In the last couple of Batman movies particularly, rather than the people, the focus is more on Gotham City.
For example, in "The Dark Knight", in the climax, the villain Joker tests the selflessness of the citizens of Gotham. The criminals in a boat redeem themselves by choosing not to blow up another boat. Thus it is the characteristics and humanity of Gotham's citizens which is being tested by Joker. This continues in the final movie "The Dark Knight Rises" where Bane terrorizes the city with a nuclear bomb on the move. In both movies, the city takes center stage just as much as Batman or perhaps even more than him.
In my opinion, some of the comics' focus on Batman the individual and his are required to be shown in the movie. In the comics, Batman leads a tough double life : playboy and rich entrepreneur by day and evening and defender of the city by night. This tires him at times, but it is his commitment that keeps him going. I remember reading in one of the comics that he speaks of not just a second wind (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/second+wind has a good definition of the term), but a ninth wind ! Some of this would make the movies more interesting for me.
Finally, I would like to write about Sherlock Holmes. Again, I go back to my childhood and the TV serial starring Jeremy Brett. The serial stays loyal to the stories penned by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. The stories show Sherlock Holmes and his unique traits : his addiction to cocaine, his disdain for theoretical knowledge like the revolution of the earth around the sun and his specialised knowledge in sciences that help in deduction. The original TV serial brought Victorian England to life. I find it difficult to think of another Sherlock Holmes better than Brett's portrayal in the series.
The movies starring Robert Downey interpret Holmes and Watson differently. Dr. Watson is more hands-on and not just a chronicler as intended by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. In the books, Watson's role is mainly that of being a confidante of Holmes and being the narrator of his tales. Probably, the story where he plays a vital role is in the long story "The Hound of Baskervilles". On the other hand, in the serial "Sherlock" and in the movies, Dr. Watson is shown as a spirited friend, quite willing to take up the gun and protect Holmes. In this case, I prefer the movies. I quite like "Sherlock" the T. V. serial that places Holmes in today's world. So this modern Holmes uses the Internet and can hack mobile phone networks so that SMSs can be sent to journalists at a press conference hosted by Scotland Yard's Lestrade. Game on, Holmes !
In "Sherlock", all Holmes characters are re-imagined with twists for today's world. Mrs. Hudson is the widow of a hanged criminal, Dr. Watson's wife is a foreign spy (perhaps !), Holmes' brother Mycroft is an important bureaucrat and plays a significant role in the serial. It sounds like that the original characters are twisted and distorted, but I feel that this version builds well on the classic Holmes as portrayed in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's book.
All variations in stories bring forth new interpretations of old tales, with new contexts. The changes are more from the author or director's perspective or from a change in the environment of the story. Sometimes, these variations provide fresh insight and a new way of looking at set ideas. At other times, the variations are unnecessary and only act as irritants making one wonder what the director or author was trying to do ! In either case, I heed the words of Voltaire's friend S. G. Tallentyre who said that Voltaire's attitude was : "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." For interpretations of classics (and comics !) that is the essential attitude to possess !
This blog is about interpretations of stories.
I have been watching "Mahabharat" on Star Plus for the past month or so. The website http://www.starplus.in/mahabharat/ has more information about the serial. The last few days saw drama in the serial as a cunning Shakuni and Duryodhana defeated Yudhistira in a game of dice, leading to the humiliation of Draupadi. What I liked was the fierce independence demonstrated by Draupadi.
As my blog http://fewidlethoughts.blogspot.in/2008/10/review-of-mahabharat-on-9x.html explains, I am a huge fan of the Mahabharat, simply taken as a story. Apart from the ambiguities of dharma and the lessons of the Bhagavad Geeta, I love the way that boons granted to people and curses bestowed culminate in a 18-day war that sets the stage for a new beginning. Different versions of the Mahabharat exist, particularly among its lesser known stories. To me, all of them are fascinating ! The same is true even for the television versions, including the original one shown in the late '80s.
In the one being shown on Star Plus in the episode on 09-Apr-14, Draupadi openly castigates her husbands and proclaims that she does not have any husband, nor does she belong to any clan. To me, it was a scathing indictment of all the courtiers in the assembly including the defenders of virtue like Vidura and Bheeshma. I also liked the fact that after Draupadi is attempted to be disrobed by Dhushasana, the men in the assembly themselves find themselves bereft of their angavastras !
I find that the serial has introduced some nice touches. The original Mahabharat presented characters idealistically, in the sense that Madri was always respectful towards Kunti, Dhritharashtra is shown as a blind and helpless king, etc. In this version of Mahabharat, Dhritharashtra is shown as a proud and self-reliant man, who regrets the fact that he is blind, but who is not bound by helplessness because of it. I feel that this is a brilliant re-invention of Dhritharashtra. Similarly, between Madri and Kunti, it was shown that there was some jealousy and Madri was depicted as a somewhat vain lady also. In a nutshell, the characters appear more human in this version of the Mahabharat.
What I don't like in the serial is the depiction of Bheeshma. He reminds me (physically) of Mukesh Khanna in the original Mahabharat. Couldn't the producers have selected a star who demonstrates the gravitas of the "pater familias" and doesn't bring to mind the Bheeshma of the original Mahabharat ?! The way Shakuni is portrayed is also disappointing. While Gufi Paintal limped and looked like a schemer in the original, Praneet Bhatt appears to merely reprise the act, with the only change being that he shuts one eye at times while talking.
Still, the fact that the characters appear more human, with all their human foibles is a good plus point for the serial. Taken all in all, I am enjoying the Star Plus version of Mahabharat until now.
My second interpretation of stories is regarding Batman and the movie "The Dark Knight rises", shown on HBO recently. In my childhood, I enjoyed reading Batman and Superman comics. Now that I think of it, I still enjoy reading them ! In the comics that I read, Batman was portrayed as a committed defender of Gotham City. In the comics, what mattered most were the commitment shown by Batman to fight crime and also his relationships - not just with his friends, but also with his villains. So, the maniacal Joker becomes a counterpoint to the principled Batman. Other villains like Enigma and Poison Ivy pose challenges to Batman that demand his strength and intelligence. Gotham City provided an important backdrop. At times it developed a character of its own. Still, its primary role was to set the stage for the drama in Batman's life. In the Batman movies, this has changed. In the last couple of Batman movies particularly, rather than the people, the focus is more on Gotham City.
For example, in "The Dark Knight", in the climax, the villain Joker tests the selflessness of the citizens of Gotham. The criminals in a boat redeem themselves by choosing not to blow up another boat. Thus it is the characteristics and humanity of Gotham's citizens which is being tested by Joker. This continues in the final movie "The Dark Knight Rises" where Bane terrorizes the city with a nuclear bomb on the move. In both movies, the city takes center stage just as much as Batman or perhaps even more than him.
In my opinion, some of the comics' focus on Batman the individual and his are required to be shown in the movie. In the comics, Batman leads a tough double life : playboy and rich entrepreneur by day and evening and defender of the city by night. This tires him at times, but it is his commitment that keeps him going. I remember reading in one of the comics that he speaks of not just a second wind (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/second+wind has a good definition of the term), but a ninth wind ! Some of this would make the movies more interesting for me.
Finally, I would like to write about Sherlock Holmes. Again, I go back to my childhood and the TV serial starring Jeremy Brett. The serial stays loyal to the stories penned by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. The stories show Sherlock Holmes and his unique traits : his addiction to cocaine, his disdain for theoretical knowledge like the revolution of the earth around the sun and his specialised knowledge in sciences that help in deduction. The original TV serial brought Victorian England to life. I find it difficult to think of another Sherlock Holmes better than Brett's portrayal in the series.
The movies starring Robert Downey interpret Holmes and Watson differently. Dr. Watson is more hands-on and not just a chronicler as intended by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. In the books, Watson's role is mainly that of being a confidante of Holmes and being the narrator of his tales. Probably, the story where he plays a vital role is in the long story "The Hound of Baskervilles". On the other hand, in the serial "Sherlock" and in the movies, Dr. Watson is shown as a spirited friend, quite willing to take up the gun and protect Holmes. In this case, I prefer the movies. I quite like "Sherlock" the T. V. serial that places Holmes in today's world. So this modern Holmes uses the Internet and can hack mobile phone networks so that SMSs can be sent to journalists at a press conference hosted by Scotland Yard's Lestrade. Game on, Holmes !
In "Sherlock", all Holmes characters are re-imagined with twists for today's world. Mrs. Hudson is the widow of a hanged criminal, Dr. Watson's wife is a foreign spy (perhaps !), Holmes' brother Mycroft is an important bureaucrat and plays a significant role in the serial. It sounds like that the original characters are twisted and distorted, but I feel that this version builds well on the classic Holmes as portrayed in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's book.
All variations in stories bring forth new interpretations of old tales, with new contexts. The changes are more from the author or director's perspective or from a change in the environment of the story. Sometimes, these variations provide fresh insight and a new way of looking at set ideas. At other times, the variations are unnecessary and only act as irritants making one wonder what the director or author was trying to do ! In either case, I heed the words of Voltaire's friend S. G. Tallentyre who said that Voltaire's attitude was : "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." For interpretations of classics (and comics !) that is the essential attitude to possess !
Comments
Post a Comment