The Patliputra Chronicles: On the Bahubali hangover - Page 2

My dear Shailaja,

Now this is a nice, ultra-heavyweight counter-argument that really takes the whole 'ahistorical script' criticism apart and scatters it to the four winds of heaven.👏 That too buttressed by imposing names like Freud and Jung and Claude Levi Strauss ( as for the rest, I have not even heard of any of them, bar Derrida!), which, put together, are enough to put anyone reading your post on the defensive!😉

Jokes apart, my dear, you are on very solid ground. In the visual entertainment field, "inspiration" is the name of the game, with or without permission. It is only recently that producers have started taking permission for using material from the productions of others. Even when they do not, most Indian producers do not mind their material being pinched and adapted, probably taking it as an indirect compliment. It reminds me of my Ambassador when I was a First Secretary in our Embassy in Washington. I had re-catalogued the embassy library and was lamenting over the number of books that seemed to have vanished. He laughed at my fretting, and quipped At least someone liked them well enough to pinch them!😉 I am sure that if they happened to see Chandra Nandini, the producers of Bahubali would much like my Ambassador.

This apart, I was greatly interested in the extensive parallels you have identified between Bahubali itself and the Mahabharata. It is renewed proof of a saying attributed to Shakespeare, that there are only six different stories in the world, and that all the fiction that is written consists or permutations and combinations of these six !

We are here to try and enjoy ourselves. Like you, I see no point in continually tilting at windmills like Don Quixote, and perennially lamenting that this or that bit has been borrowed from this or that show.

Shyamala Aunty

Originally posted by: sashashyam

My dear Shailaja,

Now this is a nice, ultra-heavyweight counter-argument that really takes the whole 'ahistorical script' criticism apart and scatters it to the four winds of heaven.👏 That too buttressed by imposing names like Freud and Jung and Claude Levi Strauss ( as for the rest, I have not even heard of any of them, bar Derrida!), which, put together, are enough to put anyone reading your post on the defensive!😉

Jokes apart, my dear, you are on very solid ground. In the visual entertainment field, "inspiration" is the name of the game, with or without permission. It is only recently that producers have started taking permission for using material from the productions of others. Even when they do not, most Indian producers do not mind their material being pinched and adapted, probably taking it as an indirect compliment. It reminds me of my Ambassador when I was a First Secretary in our Embassy in Washington. I had re-catalogued the embassy library and was lamenting over the number of books that seemed to have vanished. He laughed at my fretting, and quipped At least someone liked them well enough to pinch them!😉 I am sure that if they happened to see Chandra Nandini, the producers of Bahubali would much like my Ambassador.

This apart, I was greatly interested in the extensive parallels you have identified between Bahubali itself and the Mahabharata. It is renewed proof of a saying attributed to Shakespeare, that there are only six different stories in the world, and that all the fiction that is written consists or permutations and combinations of these six !

We are here to try and enjoy ourselves. Like you, I see no point in continually tilting at windmills like Don Quixote, and perennially lamenting that this or that bit has been borrowed from this or that show.

Shyamala Aunty

Sorry to butt in but @bold and underlined - 🤣🤣🤣 You cracked me up, Aunty. Still laughing.

I am glad, my dear Ankita, but what is all this "butting in"? It is a free forum, remember?

Shyamala Aunty

PS: I like your dp photo. A deceptively quiet kitten,but I am it has nice,sharp claws like our wildcat, Nandini.😉

Originally posted by: BrienneOfTarth

Sorry to butt in but @bold and underlined - 🤣🤣🤣 You cracked me up, Aunty. Still laughing.

Aunty the fact remains that CN is not completely ahistorical either. There is some amount of historical backing to the script as well. It is the maker's call which version of history they choose to take for the script. How can we dictate the maker to take that version of history we like? Even if they did, there are going to be a whole lot of others who don't subscribe to this particular version of history. Again decrying the ahistorical nature of the script continues!

It is a vicious and never ending cycle. What many of my younger friends fail to understand is that history is also another story. Only it's degree of authenticity is somewhat higher than a perfectly imaginary story. All the same a lot of imagination and creativity is still inherent in it.

Your anecdote on the Indian Ambassador was very charmning. I bet all those film makers whose ideas are being stolen by the makers of TV series will only take it as an intended compliment on the impact their work has created on the psyche of the viewers.

I perfectly agree with that quote of Shakespeare's. There are only so many different stories in existence. The rest are creative imitations of those originals. Only the packaging, flavors added are different. The core ingredients are the same.

Bahubali has severe undertones of Mahabharata. The maker himself does not deny it. In one of the interviews, I remember Raja Mowli Sir saying that this movie was actually a preparatory towards making his own version of Mahabharata, which he sees as his dream project. I don't know when it will materialize, but whenever that movie is made, it will definitely be a treat to watch.

It is definitely a Quixotic endeavor if we try going about looking for pure, unadulterated history in a TV series. It will not run for even a month before it will be pulled off for lack of TRPs. It is one thing to expect to see something logical and worth our while but at the same time, we should not overestimate the standard of the Indian audiences as well.

If we were to just see what works for Indian audiences one's head would start whirling. At least, even during its worst phases till now, CN was never as bad as that till present. Those of us who watched the sunset days of CAS would know what true ahistoricism, and illogicality of script really means; the four strong mammoth armies and literal confounding geography and earth's gravity, etc. Occasionally Chandra and Nandini fly like bats from hell and stick to the wall like lizards! But illogicality stops at that! It does not proceed further for which I am unduly thankful to the CVs!

Originally posted by: sashashyam

<font face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif">My dear Shailaja,

Now this is a nice, ultra-heavyweight counter-argument that really takes the whole 'ahistorical script' criticism apart and scatters it to the four winds of heaven.👏 That too buttressed by imposing names like Freud and Jung and Claude Levi Strauss ( as for the rest, I have not even heard of any of them, bar Derrida!), which, put together, are enough to put anyone reading your post on the defensive!😉

Jokes apart, my dear, you are on very solid ground. In the visual entertainment field, "inspiration" is the name of the game, with or without permission. It is only recently that producers have started taking permission for using material from the productions of others. Even when they do not, most Indian producers do not mind their material being pinched and adapted, probably taking it as an indirect compliment. It reminds me of my Ambassador when I was a First Secretary in our Embassy in Washington. I had re-catalogued the embassy library and was lamenting over the number of books that seemed to have vanished. He laughed at my fretting, and quipped At least someone liked them well enough to pinch them!😉 I am sure that if they happened to see Chandra Nandini, the producers of Bahubali would much like my Ambassador.

This apart, I was greatly interested in the extensive parallels you have identified between Bahubali itself and the Mahabharata. It is renewed proof of a saying attributed to Shakespeare, that there are only six different stories in the world, and that all the fiction that is written consists or permutations and combinations of these six !

We are here to try and enjoy ourselves. Like you, I see no point in continually tilting at windmills like Don Quixote, and perennially lamenting that this or that bit has been borrowed from this or that show.

Shyamala Aunty

</font>

Oh yes, my dear Shailaja, there is a surprising amount of history in CN so far. I had written about that twice already in my threads, and cited you extensively too. If you have not seen those posts, here are relevant extracts.

A couple of amusing points re: the depiction of even much better documented history onscreen. Ashutosh Gowarikar is a serious and acclaimed director. But in his Jodhaa Akbar,he dispensed entirely with Akbar's extensive harem, and made it look as if Jodha was his only consort! She was also called Malika-e-Hindustan, which was utter nonsense, as Jalaluddin's first wife Ruqaiya Sultan Begum was the Malika-e-Khaas, and he had a second seniormost Begum Salima Sultan as well when he married Jodha. But one would never guess any of this by watching Jodhaa Akbar.

Secondly, why complain about the level of the audience? The noted film critic Nikhat Kazmi did not even know of the existence of the powerful Mahaam Anga, Jalaluddin's wet nurse and a very influential figure during the early years of his reign. She accused Gowarikar of taking too much cinematic liberty with this "imaginary" character!

Shyamala Aunty

Extract from my earlier posts

Now for the general this is a distortion of the real history argument. Here, let us look into two aspects, one, the actual amount of reasonably authentic historical data in Chandra Nandini thus far, and two, the difference between historical fiction and real history.

For the first, if you read serious sources on Mauryan and pre-Mauryan history, you will realise how much uncertainty there is about almost everything. ? For example, were the Nine Nandas the sons of Maha Padmanand or were he and they brothers? The historians are not sure. So, the confusion about whom Chandragupta toppled, Maha Padmanand or Dhananand, is hardly surprising, though most accounts plump for Dhananand.

But one thing seems certain according to serious academics, who go by Buddhist, Jain and Greek chronicles of the period and the Arthashastra, which is that the founder of the Nanda dynasty was either a barber or the son of a barber. That means that Ekta's naapit who became the king is authentic.

Similarly,the Buddhist chronicles attribute royal lineage to Chandragupta, as belonging to the same Sakya clan as Siddhartha Gautama, who later became the Buddha. Piplivahan and Suryagupta fit in here, and are not, as I initially assumed, natakiya rupantar. In fact I was surprised by the extent of historical backing of one sort or another for the narrative so far.

We are not here to write a thesis on Chandragupta Maurya, and very little is known about his personal life anyway! So. it would be a good idea not to fret constantly about "history" and instead see whether one likes the acting and the narrative in general. And on both counts, especially the first, above all Rajat's performance, Chandra Nandini is doing very well.

One has also to remember that they were to make a clinically historical Chandragupta Maurya serial, like the 1990 Chanakya, it would not last 2 months.

It is very interesting to read Abhay (history_geek)'s latest about the pre-Mauryan dynasties, especially the Nanda dynasty, as also his earlier one about the origins of Chandragupta Maurya, just for personal information. He is very careful to mention the alternative theories, as he is a serious researcher.

As for the difference between historical fiction and history, I cannot do better that quote in full a recent post by my young friend Shailaja on my last thread, and I am sure she will not mind it.

"My friend you are in the wrong place if you are looking for historical accuracy. It is a costume and period drama. Moreover for the small mercies it is named Chandra Nandini to tell eternal optimists like us that this is a love story and not a history.

I guess the genre definition Historical Fiction ought to enlighten us to the fact that there might be a lot of fiction and very less of history or even nothing of history. According to its very categorization, you could call it a historical fiction if you have a few names and events lifted from history. Your take on them could be entirely different and might not even fall within the historical timeline. Still you would be justified in calling it historical fiction.

You'd perhaps be surprised to know that Shakespeare's Historical Plays adopted a timeline which did not coincide with the historical timeline neither did he stay close or true to history. It was his own imaginary take on history and it was what sold during his times as entertainment. Many famous historical novelists like Walter Scott did the same thing. They too were no pujaris of history. They too wrote what was entertaining and what sold!

If it was a documentary, or a text book on history, I could have understood your logic. Even there, there are times when we find history missing or distorted. Watch the series with an open mind you will find a lot in it to like as well. Dislike also becomes a habit if we give it too much importance. A stage comes when nothing could please us or keep us happy. "

Originally posted by: shailusri1983

Aunty the fact remains that CN is not completely ahistorical either. There is some amount of historical backing to the script as well. It is the maker's call which version of history they choose to take for the script. How can we dictate the maker to take that version of history we like? Even if they did, there are going to be a whole lot of others who don't subscribe to this particular version of history. Again decrying the ahistorical nature of the script continues!

It is a vicious and never ending cycle. What many of my younger friends fail to understand is that history is also another story. Only it's degree of authenticity is somewhat higher than a perfectly imaginary story. All the same a lot of imagination and creativity is still inherent in it.

Your anecdote on the Indian Ambassador was very charmning. I bet all those film makers whose ideas are being stolen by the makers of TV series will only take it as an intended compliment on the impact their work has created on the psyche of the viewers.

I perfectly agree with that quote of Shakespeare's. There are only so many different stories in existence. The rest are creative imitations of those originals. Only the packaging, flavors added are different. The core ingredients are the same.

Bahubali has severe undertones of Mahabharata. The maker himself does not deny it. In one of the interviews, I remember Raja Mowli Sir saying that this movie was actually a preparatory towards making his own version of Mahabharata, which he sees as his dream project. I don't know when it will materialize, but whenever that movie is made, it will definitely be a treat to watch.

It is definitely a Quixotic endeavor if we try going about looking for pure, unadulterated history in a TV series. It will not run for even a month before it will be pulled off for lack of TRPs. It is one thing to expect to see something logical and worth our while but at the same time, we should not overestimate the standard of the Indian audiences as well.

If we were to just see what works for Indian audiences one's head would start whirling. At least, even during its worst phases till now, CN was never as bad as that till present. Those of us who watched the sunset days of CAS would know what true ahistoricism, and illogicality of script really means; the four strong mammoth armies and literal confounding geography and earth's gravity, etc. Occasionally Chandra and Nandini fly like bats from hell and stick to the wall like lizards! But illogicality stops at that! It does not proceed further for which I am unduly thankful to the CVs!

Adwitiya it was a real pleasure reading your post. At times this entire history and lift offs from movies topic completely flies off the handle. It is no longer people trying to watch CN for its own sake. It becomes a kind of futile exercise in which one becomes so engrossed in identifying the parallels and lift offs that one doesn't stop to discuss the number of admirable things that are there in the present story. One completely misses out on them.

Originally posted by: durgeshnandini

<font face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif">I have never visited your threads before but I definitely read your comments on Shymala Aunty's threads, I think I must visit your threads more often now!</font>

<font face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif">I very much agree to what you have got to explain and I have already posted a comment on Aunty's thread in this regard. It's alright if the viewers expect to see certain amount of logic going into the scenes and various tracks as the show proceeds. I also understand that the use of CGI is at times unnecessary and even irritating to some extent.</font>

<font face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif">But one must not forget it's a mass entertainer at the end of the day. Many people watch it just like any other serial and cater to the trps. Plus, not everything in history makes a good visual treat - so much is controversial - neither the viewers, nor the actors or even the makers have seen Chandragupta or Chanakya, even the historians who write books haven't. So how can one guarantee authenticity?!</font>

<font face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif">Regarding the topic of your thread, maximum box office earning entertainers do copy - films copy from novels, epics or foreign films, serials copy from films and this works in a cycle - on and on. We cannot accuse Ekta for copying coz, she never swore, she wouldn't be doing so. As far as disappointment due to Bahubali hangover, well, accept or not, it doesn't matter to everyone - it matters only to those who have watched Bahubali!!</font>

<font face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif">Reading your post was a pleasure,</font>

<font face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif">Adwitiya.</font>

This apart, my dear Shailaja, I am tempted to remix Pontius Pilate and ask What is real history?

The answer is that no one really knows, especially about the pre-Mauryan period, because of the extensive destruction, during the invasions from Central Asia and the Delhi Sultanate period, of huge treasure troves of original sources - as in the great libraries at Nalanda University, destroyed by Bakhtiyar Khilji, and Takshashila University, as also in the over 84000 Ashokan rock and pillar edicts, of which only a few dozen have survived.

A propos this issue, while I do not myself know how or why I landed up on this thread😉, I have posted a longish (so what is new?😆) take at

https://www.indiaforums.com/forum/chandra-nandini/4737298/facts-about-chandragupta-and-chanakya

You will surely find it of interest.

Finally, it would be a brash academic who speaks confidently and assertively of "real history" . Serious ones always qualify their findings and their interpretations.

Shyamala Aunty

Originally posted by: shailusri1983

If it was a pure historical show, all the allegations made by blue cool and switer would hold good. But CN is a historical fiction. Its very classification gives the makers the freedom and license to recreate history. It is enough if they take just a few names and events from history. Their take on it need not be historical. It could be entirely fictitious and imaginary.
I guess many of you might want to see more of history and less of fiction. But the truth remains, we are looking for history in the wrong place if we are trying to find it in a TV series like this purely meant for entertainment. It is the call of the maker who invests his/her money in it, how much of history and how much of fiction we get to see in a series. They are here to make money and not enlighten us. It is a purely business proposition to them. Bahubali was a super duper hit. So they thought why not cash on it.

Very true aunty! I remember this post you made and my reply too. But you have always been the voice of sanity to us. I remember there were many occasions in CAS when I too got carried away and my personal likes and dislikes used to get in between my assessment of things without the backing of appropriate facts or reasons. I know it happened rarely but it used to happen in that forum occasionally. My dislike for CAS Kauravaki at times simply blinded me. I didn't bother too much about JA, but the very few times I watched seriously Jodha mata bugged me off. But then I never joined IF to discuss it!

Originally posted by: sashashyam

<font face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif">Oh yes, my dear Shailaja, there is a surprising amount of history in CN so far. I had written about that twice already in my threads, and cited you extensively too. If you have not seen those posts, here are relevant extracts.

A couple of amusing points re: the depiction of even much better documented history onscreen. Ashutosh Gowarikar is a serious and acclaimed director. But in his Jodhaa Akbar,he dispensed entirely with Akbar's extensive harem, and made it look as if Jodha was his only consort! She was also called Malika-e-Hindustan, which was utter nonsense, as Jalaluddin's first wife Ruqaiya Sultan Begum was the Malika-e-Khaas, and he had a second seniormost Begum Salima Sultan as well when he married Jodha. But one would never guess any of this by watching Jodhaa Akbar.

Secondly, why complain about the level of the audience? The noted film critic Nikhat Kazmi did not even know of the existence of the powerful Mahaam Anga, Jalaluddin's wet nurse and a very influential figure during the early years of his reign. She accused Gowarikar of taking too much cinematic liberty with this "imaginary" character!

Shyamala Aunty

Extract from my earlier posts

</font>

<font face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif">Now
for the general this is a distortion of the real history argument.
Here, let us look into two aspects, one, the actual amount of reasonably
authentic historical data in Chandra Nandini thus far, and two, the difference
between historical fiction and real history.



For the first, if you read serious sources on Mauryan and pre-Mauryan
history, you will realise how much uncertainty there is about almost
everything. ? For example, were the Nine Nandas the sons of Maha
Padmanand or were he and they brothers? The historians are not sure. So, the
confusion about whom Chandragupta toppled, Maha Padmanand or Dhananand, is
hardly surprising, though most accounts plump for Dhananand.</font>

<font face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif">
But one thing seems certain according to serious
academics, who go by Buddhist, Jain and Greek chronicles of the period
and the Arthashastra, which is that the founder of the Nanda dynasty was either
a barber or the son of a barber. That means that Ekta's naapit who
became the king is authentic.



Similarly,the Buddhist chronicles attribute royal lineage to Chandragupta, as
belonging to the same Sakya clan as Siddhartha Gautama, who later became the
Buddha. Piplivahan and Suryagupta fit in here, and are not, as I initially
assumed, natakiya rupantar. In fact I was surprised by the extent
of historical backing of one sort or another for the narrative so far.



We are not here to write a thesis on Chandragupta Maurya, and very little
is known about his personal life anyway! So. it would be a good idea not
to fret constantly about "history" and instead see whether one likes
the acting and the narrative in general. And on both counts, especially
the first, above all Rajat's performance, Chandra Nandini is doing very well.



One has also to remember that they were to make a clinically historical
Chandragupta Maurya serial, like the 1990 Chanakya, it would not last 2
months.



It is very interesting to read Abhay (history_geek)'s latest about the
pre-Mauryan dynasties, especially the Nanda dynasty, as also his earlier one
about the origins of Chandragupta Maurya, just for personal information. He is
very careful to mention the alternative theories, as he is a serious
researcher.



As for the difference between historical fiction and history, I cannot do
better that quote in full a recent post by my young friend Shailaja on my last
thread, and I am sure she will not mind it.



"My friend you are in the wrong place if you are looking for historical
accuracy. It is a costume and period drama. Moreover for the small mercies it
is named Chandra Nandini to tell eternal optimists like us that this is a love
story and not a history.



I guess the genre definition Historical Fiction ought to enlighten us to the
fact that there might be a lot of fiction and very less of history or even
nothing of history. According to its very categorization, you could call it a
historical fiction if you have a few names and events lifted from history. Your
take on them could be entirely different and might not even fall within the
historical timeline. Still you would be justified in calling it historical
fiction.



You'd perhaps be surprised to know that Shakespeare's Historical Plays adopted
a timeline which did not coincide with the historical timeline neither did he
stay close or true to history. It was his own imaginary take on history and it
was what sold during his times as entertainment. Many famous historical
novelists like Walter Scott did the same thing. They too were no pujaris of
history. They too wrote what was entertaining and what sold!



If it was a documentary, or a text book on history, I could have understood
your logic. Even there, there are times when we find history missing or
distorted. Watch the series with an open mind you will find a lot in it to like
as well. Dislike also becomes a habit if we give it too much importance. A
stage comes when nothing could please us or keep us happy. "


<font size="3"></font>


</font>

On one can Deni this fact that they are recreating jodha Akbar scenes in Chandra nandani as different way. 😉

We know without melting history with little fiction
U can't get trp and we also know that Chandra nandani is fiction love story.
Some people are saying that we want pure history from ekta.
And which will be very boring , I know it.

I also read post of sashashyam aunty on it

I don't know others what think about it.
But talent bhi kisi chidiya ka name hain.
U can show real fact as dramatic way using your Wise and talented mind other than copy paste things.
I know films and serial use to inspire each others.
But when u r showing any story which is life based on any history legend then
U need to use your talent to show it instead copy paste scenes.
I m not against this serial but they r recreating scenes in this serial from bahubali film and jodha Akbar serial.

Entry of Chandra in maghadh palace was same like jalal entered in amer on jodha's marriage announcement.
Chandra ran away from maghadh jail as like jalal ran away from amer jail.
In jodha Akbar jodha put sword on jalal's neck , in this serial Chandra doing same but with other purpose 😉.
And how can any one forget snake scene of jodha Akbar when jodha thinks same about jalal as like nandani thinks.
But instead snake's place they used lizard 😉
I only want that instead of copy pasting of scenes , CV can use their talented mind in creating new fresh scenes
For this fiction historical show.
We don't want perfect story as history basis because we will not get it because female lead of this serial is also fictional
Who's little inspired by original.

But they can create fresh and logical scenes for this serial.
Instead poor VFX and copy paste.

I don't think it is not good to demanding such thing.
Because we are not a blind followers , who can digest any thing on name of entertainment 😉 😆
And rahi baat trp ki to jab " saath nibhana saathiya" top ten mein ho sakata hain.
Then this serial can also gain trp rating in future 😉
But I want some fresh ideas in such as historical shows because saas bahut ke dramas se him log pak chuke hain.
🤪