Ganakrishti’s Taar Pratikshaye and Godot: Waiting for ‘Nothingness’

 

Ganakrishti’s Taar Pratikshaye and Godot: Waiting for ‘Nothingness’

When the present trend in theatre production is to present a visually rich stage show, it is quite amazing to find Ganakrishti presenting a play bereft of any visual splendour and having little box-office value, or perhaps it would be prudent to say, a play with no entertainment value at all. On the occasion of their 42^nd anniversary, Ganakrishti presented a very well-done adaptation of Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot as Taar Pratikshaye. One wonders why in these difficult times when the theatre world has taken the worst battering, a group would dare to produce a play that is considered as one of the most difficult plays in the absurd genre.  

The answer to my perplexity lies there-in. The time we are going through is perhaps one of the worst since man’s history. Yes, Covid is a cause, and may have turned out to be the main cause since the beginning of this year. But the world, especially a few big nations like ours, has been enduring a rightist, and a repressive and a fascist-like political and economic crisis since quite a number of years. And conditions have depreciated markedly to a point of crackdown where the quality of life has reached an ebb, and the only parameter of living out a life for the common man has become the degree of ‘depression’ one experiences. think of Gogo and Didi. And thus, the resultant situation is like living with ‘nothingness’. And that is what Taar Pratikshaye tries to reiterate. And that is where Ganakrishti walks the extra mile.

Before going into the discussion on the relevance of the play in today’s situation, let us review Ganakrishti’s staging of the play. The production is worth remembering for a number of reasons, four to be precise. Firstly, Amitava Dutta’s reworking of the English script of Beckett into the Bengali lingo overcomes the great challenge of transcreating the nonsensical dialogues. The Anglican and Biblical references, of course, did pose a dilemma for Dutta. The second reason is his mounting of the play, that surely warrants accolades. He was particularly very careful in keeping the audiences’ attention in what can be called the ‘non-happenings’ on the stage in conjunction to creating the pestilent monotony and repetitiveness that is characteristic of absurdism. Then thirdly, the actors – Swarnendu Sen as Agaa (Gogo), Sukanta Shil as Bagaa (Didi), Dipak Das as Podu (Pozzo) and, of course, Raju Das as Lakka (Lucky) who astounded the viewers with the excellently rendered long tirade that was also excellently penned by Dutta – all showed astonishing ingenuity in portraying the characters. Lastly, a special word of applause is due to Gautam Ghosh for his very subtle yet very profound background score that could bring out the sense of uncertainty and that of voidness that define the play. 

But what relevance has this play in today’s situation? We can say, the play teaches us to wait for ‘nothing’. And that is the truth of existential absurdism which seems to be the secret of living a purposeful life in this world ruled by ‘dangerous minds’, to borrow a phrase from the title of a book by Roger Williams and Robin Munro.

As Rebecca Camilleri in her 2015 dissertation paper entitled ‘Waiting for Nothing: The experience of the live event in Samuel Beckett’s play Waiting for Godot and Marina Abramovic’s performance The Artist is Present’, calls the play a philosophical dialect, we find that Beckett’s minimal use of objects (he uses just a tree on the stage) and the use of space and time have least rationality. They ‘create a sense of waiting which seeks to unite performer and spectator in a sensory experience’. But this experience is dependent on the interpretative stance of the spectator, according to Camilleri.

We find Agaa (Gogo) and Bagaa (Didi) failing to find a meaningful relationship with their surrounding and also between themselves. They are constantly conversing but they communicate nothing. The viewers join them to experience their waiting – waiting for someone or for that matter, waiting for something. Two more characters Podu (Pozzo) and Lakka (Lucky) are introduced to compound the contemplation process. But the question that the four characters, as well as the viewers seek is ‘who is Godot?’

Godot is not a character and the name signifies nothing. Godot is a concept that makes us question the meaning of our existence. The non-existent concept is a revelation of the absurdity of the time and the prevailing situation. It, however, keeps us – the Agaas (Gogos) and the Bagaas (Didis) on tenterhooks, waiting for the WORSE to come. Of course, one can argue and say, be optimistic and expect BETTER to come and not the WORSE. But judging from the present situation that is represented by the two impoverished, both economically and intellectually, characters of Agaa (Gogo) and Bagaa (Didi), and the way Godot keeps them waiting eternally, one can never expect anything better than the WORSE to come. And to add to this is the character of Podu (Pozzo) who represent the exploiting class and that of his lackey Lakka (Lucky) who represent the oppressed, a true representation of today’s society is complete.

Thus, Ganakrishti with their latest production Taar Pratikshaye has done a tremendous job of waking us up from the stupor and make us ready to face the WORSE and expect NOTHING. And that would keep us moving on to achieve the BETTER. Remember Gogo and Didi at the end, did not make their exits in spite of deciding to leave.