Posted:
Preface: I sincerely do not intend to unjustly criticize anyone's beliefs or insult their worldview. This is merely my attempt at articulating something I struggle to understand. I feel I should also include my identity as an atheist, as that may explain the difference in opinions.
Mahakaali is by no stretch of the imagination a "perfect" show. I immensely enjoy it as a refreshing departure from the customary dramatizations of the Ramayana or Mahabharata; a mythological serial with Kali as its nucleus is tremendously overdue. Additionally, Pooja Sharma is a mesmerizing presence on screen, and her execution of the juxtaposed goddesses (Kali and Parvati) is commendable. However, it certainly carries flaws: notably, its VFX effects could use improvement, particularly in scenes wherein the effects are integral to manifesting an environment or atmosphere. I also agree there are perhaps slight issues with pacing. That said, as a biweekly finite series with an emphasis on exploring Kali's supposed "hidden" canon, it requires some sacrifices (unfortunately).
Where I diverge from the constructive criticism, however, is the apparent expectation by some for Mahakaali to dutifully and impeccably mirror the sacred texts. As a mythological show, it has a greater range of creative liberties. In fact, as a mythological serial it isn't obligated to rigidly follow whatever literary canon it resembles. A mythological serial is just that -- it portrays stories that sought to simplify and explain otherwise abstruse or confusing phenomena.
The Puranas are definitively crucial to exploring the roots and evolution of India's spirituality. Yet, they are not indisputable fact or gospel truth. The Puranas simplify the esoteric philosophies of the Vedas; the contained myths metaphorically explain topics that were otherwise protected (unjustly) by the religious elite. This is exemplified by their characteristic inconsistencies and malleable nature. For example, there are 17 variations of Narsimha's narrative across different Puranas, and different denominations can discriminate between these variations. Similarly, Kali's modern canon is glaringly distinct from the goddess' primeval canon: originally, she was not a repository of femininity and motherhood, but a frightful representation of the impartiality and merciless hunger intrinsic to nature.
Now, if Mahakaali completely subverted Vishnu's identity or "revamped" Brahma, there would absolutely be cause for objectively criticizing the serial. However, minor or ineffective deviations should not detract from the experience (messy editing, however, should). Shiva's character is not "incorrect"; the serial has instead emphasized his identity as a yogi and sporitual guide. Additionally, Parvati discovering her divinity is referenced in different Puranas.
Ultimately, everyone is entitled to how they perceive the serial, and that's how it should be. No one should be forced to like something they disagree with. I just disconnect from those who criticize Mahakaali for deviating from a canon that is itself highly inconsistent. Furthermore, no mythological serial should be expected to disseminate the contents of the Puranas; the texts are still readily accessible on the Internet. If those who are unfamiliar with the Puranas turn to television, they should instead be directed to the sources themselves. It's akin to telling someone unfamiliar with the X-Men to simply watch the movies.
Web Series
Kabhi Neem Neem Kabhi Shahad Shahad
