The Positives: Videography and photography are absolutely astounding and are what make this film worthwhile to see. The sights of India are well-represented by the giant screen and excellent angles and shots of the photography crew. Because the land's physical terrain is so diverse, the travels of Neelkanth Varni (a young Hindu yogi who later establishes the Swaminarayan Sampradaya) truly reveal the natural beauty of 18th century India.
I also thought Peter O'Toole did a good job explaining (though its VERY brief) the basic characteristics of ashtanga-yoga, the fundamental practice of classical Hinduism and Buddhism.
The Negatives: Because the film's goal was to sample the culture, natural beauty, and spirituality of India, none of the topics represented got enough exposure, in my opinion. The film tried to do a little TOO much by covering every topic it possibly could. I thought that if they followed the story of Neelkanth a little more closely, the film would be a little more successful in both exposing the art and architecture of India and the inspiring accomplishments of Neelkanth Varni.
The other major negative persists throughout the film: the tone of the commentary shows an idealistic India, when in actuality, Hinduism was experiencing a significant decline in the early 18th century. Though the portrayal of Neelkanth was based on factual history, the film is a romanticized synopsis of Hindu thought and culture.
The goal of the film is to show India in all its beauty and diversity. I think it accomplished that goal overall. It's definitely worth seeing.
I also thought Peter O'Toole did a good job explaining (though its VERY brief) the basic characteristics of ashtanga-yoga, the fundamental practice of classical Hinduism and Buddhism.
The Negatives: Because the film's goal was to sample the culture, natural beauty, and spirituality of India, none of the topics represented got enough exposure, in my opinion. The film tried to do a little TOO much by covering every topic it possibly could. I thought that if they followed the story of Neelkanth a little more closely, the film would be a little more successful in both exposing the art and architecture of India and the inspiring accomplishments of Neelkanth Varni.
The other major negative persists throughout the film: the tone of the commentary shows an idealistic India, when in actuality, Hinduism was experiencing a significant decline in the early 18th century. Though the portrayal of Neelkanth was based on factual history, the film is a romanticized synopsis of Hindu thought and culture.
The goal of the film is to show India in all its beauty and diversity. I think it accomplished that goal overall. It's definitely worth seeing.