Could you clarify which one you're interested in, or if you're looking for something else entirely?

from the stage to the screen, focusing on Brook’s use of passion and power dynamics. The New York Times Review : Contemporary reviews from 1989-1990 discuss the film's cultural impact

For Western audiences in the 1980s, this was often the first exposure to the source material. Brook famously bypassed the exoticism of Bollywood, aiming for universality. The cast’s diverse ethnicities—none of them Indian—were a deliberate Brechtian choice to suggest that the Mahabharata is a "mirror of all royal families." This remains controversial. Yet, for a generation of filmmakers (from Terrence Malick to Alejandro Iñárritu), Brook’s Mahabharata became a masterclass in how to film the un-filmable: a story about time, fate, and the shattering cost of vengeance.

: This is the most comprehensive filmed version, running approximately 312–330 minutes (roughly 5.5 to 6 hours). Theatrical Film : An abridged version running roughly 171 minutes (just under 3 hours). Stage Play : The original theater production was nearly 9 hours long Available Products

The production was also released on DVD and video, allowing audiences worldwide to experience this monumental work. The Mahabharata has since been recognized as a milestone in the history of theatre, influencing productions of classical epics and inspiring new adaptations.

In 1989, Brook adapted this stage epic for the screen. The result was two distinct cuts: