This is a fine documentary. If you don't know anything about it,
this is nice intro to one slice of the story of Osho. Those who made it have I'm sure earned the gratitude of a large number of diverse people, in many towns and countries. For that they must be congratulated.
I am impressed by how the documentary does a great job of humanizing the people in it. People in it are not cardboard cutouts, but complex characters with rich personalities -- a mixture of vulnerability, beauty, lust, fear, attachment, psychopathy, love, power, repulsiveness, openness, warmth, intelligence, arrogance, greed, anger, stupidity, bigotry, entrepreneurship -- it's all there. It achieves this in part by employing a light editorial touch, in which it for the most part juxtaposes some remarkable historical footage with a set of main protagonists speaking at length from their own point of view. Only as the last episode comes to its conclusion does it make a pretty blunt point about one of the most important protagonists, Ma Anand Sheela. In this instance, I think that point is warranted, and needs to be said. Her lack of empathy for others is deeply revealing.
One thing the documentary does not do is situate the Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh (Osho) historically. I mention this not as a criticism, because that would mean a different documentary. I mention it to merely point out that the film does not attempt to explain the rise and fall of Osho historically, culturally, or religiously as an Indian man within India who only late in his life comes to the West. He is indeed an Other, but we don't really know what kind of Other he is. We see in rich detail the cultural and religious clash between Oregon and Osho. But we know nothing of who else Osho may have resembled in 20th century India. Why did he succeed in growing a large movement, when many others failed? Why did so many Westerners venerate him -- was it because they didn't need to renounce the world of sexual lust and material greed to follow him? What was up with Osho's denunciations of Mahatma Gandhi, and what led him to embrace violence, division and intimidation? Did he always lust after material objects and powerful weaponry? To what importance should we assign his background as an intellectual teaching in a university? In what ways did his teachings and life deviate from those of other Indians who came to the U.S. in the 20th century to teach Americans about Indian religious practices?
There is much more to say, but I'll leave it at that.
