Bamber in the film also reveals the truth that during the times of Mughals, when Europeans used to visit India, they got very impressed. Even the Europeans got mesmerized seeing the beautiful creation of the Mughals and also their way of administration. This documentary gives you a truer explanation of the most important events during Mughal rule in India. Another eye-catching moment comes when Bamber Gascoigne travels to India and visit the palaces and forts he was referring to in his film. This gives you a very clear explanation of what had happened. Plus, the extra effects make the watch more exciting. One of the examples from the film is when Bamber Gascoigne was present in Rambagh and he was referring to it and at the same time, he compared
…show more content…
The first one is that Bamber Gascoigne is an amazing art historian, who has guts to put the arts of the great Mughals into perspective in such a way that they are well defined in the mind of the reader/watcher. He shows his immense desire to dig up the history by visiting every fort and palace and deeply examining it by taking into account every other aspect. This shows his level of interest and also he takes the watcher to that level as well. The second one is that Gascoigne named the movie as “The great Moghuls” but I thought that he did not end it the way it should have been. He ended the film on the death of Aurangzeb who was the sixth and the last ruler, he could have also talked about how the successors of Aurangzeb were unable to grasp the throne and the consequences of the death of Aurangzeb that lead to the decline of the family who had been ruling for almost 300 years. He discusses the life and the period of six great Moghuls and leaves the seventh one to epilogue, believing that the grandeur and influence of the Mughals declined so fast that they could not stand next to their forbears. This describes enviable confidence of the author, but it will be injustice to disagree that Gascoigne's brevity made the film much interesting and whole. Even though it was a brief documentary but it contained whole of the Mughals
The first one is that Bamber Gascoigne is an amazing art historian, who has guts to put the arts of the great Mughals into perspective in such a way that they are well defined in the mind of the reader/watcher. He shows his immense desire to dig up the history by visiting every fort and palace and deeply examining it by taking into account every other aspect. This shows his level of interest and also he takes the watcher to that level as well. The second one is that Gascoigne named the movie as “The great Moghuls” but I thought that he did not end it the way it should have been. He ended the film on the death of Aurangzeb who was the sixth and the last ruler, he could have also talked about how the successors of Aurangzeb were unable to grasp the throne and the consequences of the death of Aurangzeb that lead to the decline of the family who had been ruling for almost 300 years. He discusses the life and the period of six great Moghuls and leaves the seventh one to epilogue, believing that the grandeur and influence of the Mughals declined so fast that they could not stand next to their forbears. This describes enviable confidence of the author, but it will be injustice to disagree that Gascoigne's brevity made the film much interesting and whole. Even though it was a brief documentary but it contained whole of the Mughals