SHESH MATHATA KATA PARHAR AAGE (transl: Before the last decapitation) of Chaturtha Matra

 

 

I would like to apologise at the beginning of this Blog for having missed to translate the title of Paramik’s play. The title of the play is ROOPANTAR, the translation of the name would be like ‘Transformation’ or ‘Metamorphosis’. Personally, I prefer ‘Transformation’.   

 

SHESH MATHATA KATA PARHAR AAGE (transl: Before the last decapitation) of Chaturtha Matra presented on 14 June 2026

 

Kaberi Basu and Santanu Bandopadhyay presented Chaturtha Matra’s latest production SHESH MATHATA KATA PARHAR AAGE, not at their usual site at Achira in Bolpur’s Phuldanga, but at a newly developed space in the house of the legendary thespian and playmaker Asit Mukhopadhyay at Monoharpukur in Kolkata. The daughters of the great theatre personality have developed his erstwhile 2^nd floor bedroom into an intimate space or a studio space and have named it Asit Mukhopadhyay Cultural Centre. Chaturtha Matra has planned to present performances and other theatre related events at AMCC twice every month.

As part of that programme, they performed this play based on a mini-story by Mojaffor Hossain of Bangladesh. Typical to their genre of theatre, this too is designed in an arrangement far from the conventional theatrical form. Since the last 8 to 9 years, Chaturtha Matra has been regularly practising their type of theatre on the 1^st and the 3^rd Saturdays of every month at Achira. If any of my readers are interested to know about their type of work, they can refer to my Blog of 19 October 2024 where I in discussing about their journal, Theare Journal had talked briefly about their kind of work.   

Mojaffor Hossain’s story is based on a surrealistic Polish puppet animation film, Danny Boy made by Marek Skrobeki in 2010. The fable like story goes like this. One morning a person gets up from his bed and finds everyone in and around, including the young and the old, the blind beggar, roadside salesmen, car drivers, the bank-robber, the street dogs - each and every one of them headless. They have all been decapitated. He finds the whole town in total chaos, and in a hellish disorganised state. He sees people bumping into others, cars colliding and trampling people and such countless deranged situations all around. He finds a helpless headless woman standing in the centre of the road. He brings some flowers to her and moves her aside. Rampant cases of rape, murder and barbarous cruelty make the place the Devil’s paradise. Even the personal world of a person does not remain personal anymore. He comes to understand that everything happening there is the handiwork of the authority in power. As the members of the population are all head-less there is thus no protest, no uproar, no howling, no screams of frightening terror. He seeks legal help, but there too, he finds law decapitated. At the end he too, has his head guillotined.              

Kaberi & Santanu do not care to entertain their viewers with lollipop contents. Instead force them to perceive the morbid conditions they are living in. The contents they choose have strong comments on the system as in this work. Mojaffor Hossain’s symbolic story is a wake-up call for the spectators to fight a totalitarian system that is looming overhead. Their genre is more akin to anti-theatricality. They used the room, the adjoining passage and the balcony, as is their style of mobile space. Four to five co-actors represent the decapitated people of the town by wrapping their heads in plastic sheets. Their physical acting warrants a round of applause. Especially the work of Subhamita Majumdar as a headless pedestrian repeatedly bumping into an obstacle and falling down, needs to be mentioned. The others were Monideepa Goswami and Biplab Gayen. Kaberi was one of them too. At the end she with her silent mime expressed loudly the predicament facing the general mass. A seasoned actor like her could have presented such a gripping moment. Choreographic dance movement in this section by Rupali needs to be appreciated. 

Ropes and transparent plastic packets strewn all around the floor representing the torn out visceral parts of the people is a very telling application of simple prop items. The projection of the original Strobecki film on the background wall and the overhead ceiling was so very distorted that viewing the performance in front was greatly hampered. Was this a deliberate act by Santanu? Who knows.  

 

The next play to be discussed would be LAGAN CHAND by Thealight staged on 20 June 2026

 

          

                      

 

 

          

                       

 

ABU HOSSAIN of Nandiranga: a gem of a work that cajoles one to see it once more

 

ABU HOSSAIN of Nandiranga: a gem of a work that cajoles one to see it once more (staged on 10 June 2026)

Typical musical comedies are the rarest of the rare genre of all the productions in today’s Bengali theatre. Whenever one speaks of this particular category of theatre the first name that comes to one’s mind are those of Girish Chandra’s ABU HOSSAIN and Kshiroprasad’s ALIBABA, both based from the Arabian Nights. One such scarce modern-day representative of the genre penned by Badal Sircar, as a sort of a modern-day adaptation or as he himself said, ‘distortion’ of Giris Chandra’s hilarious musical play.

Witnessing Nandiranga’s superb production of the same, a few thoughts fleeted by. I remember seeing Shatabdi’s production in the early 70’s which was perhaps the last proscenium work by Sircar. But though that memory has faded, what still remains is the scintillating performance of Pankaj Munshi, one of the most decent theatrical personalities, who left us a few days back. And of course I recollect the pleasant exuberance that excited me for long. With these sweet memories I even today, remember the resentment that filled me during those final years of my school, when all the blockbuster Bengali & Hindi films had to flood the cinema halls of Calcutta. Naturally, it was surely not possible to see most of the films, but the songs thereof, had no barriers to filter in via the radio, and the Puja pandals. Such were the tunes and the lyrics that they stayed with us day in and day out, and as a logical fall-out studies hampered. I can vouch that those of us who appeared for the finals of school in the end of the 60’s and in the beginning of the 70’s could have peaked their careers if such distractions were not there. Certainly, if those songs had not been composed, we would have done …. God knows what!

And Badal-babu used the chartbuster tunes in his play, and that did the trick. He wrote the play in the jatra-pala form. There are numerous songs in the play, while Ghose had used light classical tunes, Sircar has used the tunes of the then popular film songs and folk songs, thus making the play a unique parody, of sorts.

Nandiranga under the able direction of Titas Thakur has kept the tunes of those ever-green songs. And for this viewer it was once again a revisit to the past excitement. Take for instance many a song, 18 to 19 I suppose like ‘Chunri samal gori’ or ‘Dil ko dekho chehera na dekho’ or ‘Aapko pahele bhi kanhi dekha haye’ or ‘Peyar hua haye jabse’, or else ‘Aami kon pathe je choli’, or ‘Pagla garaod kothaye aachhe’ or ‘Aami je jalsa ghare’ or ‘Aami shree shree bhajahori manna’ just caused a euphoria hard to describe.

It was wonderful to see how about fifteen artistes enliven the stage for two and a half hours. And each and every moment of these hours was saturated in music. The smooth change of scenes, and keeping up a speedy rhythm all through speak volumes about Thakur’s play-making skills. These days it has become almost customary to have the players stamping and stomping the stage, as an attempt in the exhibition of ‘performance’. Though in this process ‘acting’ takes a back seat. But for a refreshing change the viewer gets to see good acting even in sundry characters, like those of butties, courtiers, guards, pedestrians, apart from dancers, companions and singers. Hence to keep up the spirit of the script, each actor has to do 7 to 8 roles. And here only one could feel the total dedication and earnestness of every actor to give their best. Shubhankar Bhattacharya as the old Badshah, with a bold voice throw, immaculate diction, and the ability to sing songs need to be applauded, at the very beginning. During the change of scenes, the director makes him sing a couple of lines of the main song on which the parody has been created, on the forestage while shifting and other jobs are undertaken in the back. Arup Mukhopadhyay’s Ujir was better performed than that of the Hakim. Suman Sinha Roy had little to do as Haroon, but was as relaxed as he usually is in his other performances. Shipra Pal as the Begum was also as easy as she typically is. Lipi Saha as Abu’s mother and Mou Roychoudhury as Roshena did their individual roles perfectly. Binoy Dalui, Anirban Deb, Raju Das, Indra Mali and Sukanta Shil did their parts well as the five madmen.                 

It was a real exposé for me to watch one of young acting talents of the Bengali stage Saptarshi Bhowmik, whose quite a few works I have had the opportunity to see. His Abu simply floored the viewers watching in awe the energy level he could attain. He transformed the acting space of the Academy of Fine Arts’ stage into the courtyard of his own house, as if. With his body language and gestures he presented the character in its perfect colour and tone. His diction and vocal modulation could bring the words of Sircar unambiguously to the spectators. The director could be seen to be particular regarding delivery of lines in regard to all characters. The cues and scanning have been done neatly for all the characters of the play.

Another vital sector of this production is the music department which was beautifully handled by Subhajit Das. In the tradition of Sircar form, the musicians are stationed on the stage performing as accompanists to the songs sung by the actors, or doing the background score. On the harmonium was the veteran Subir Sanyal, and accompanying him was Soudeep Chakraborty in the percussions, Neelargha Dutta on the banjo and Srinath Mukherjee in the drums. Vocal support was given by Ritambhara Ghosh. Lights were done by Sadhan Pari, but there were quite a number of slips in his job! Bilu Dutta’s stage was a neat job. The dance compositions and choreography need a round of claps.      

As is the common trait in today’s theatre shows, there were a handful of spectators present to see this non-celebrity presentation of Nandiranga. It is unfortunate. No, I did not express this sympathy for the present situation of the Bengali stage, but for those who did not (care to) see such a gem of a work.

 

I will come back next with SESH MATHATA KATA PARAR AAGE of Chaturtha Matra staged on 14 June 2026.

 

ROOPANTAR of Paramik Barrackpore: an adaptation of Max Frisch

 

ROOPANTAR of Paramik Barrackpore: an adaptation of Max Frisch (staged on 1 June 2016)

Paramik presented the play ROOPANTAR at the Academy of Fine Arts under the direction of Subhajit Bandopadhyay. The play has been written by Anirban Sen, one of the promising young Bengali playwrights. He has adapted this play from Swiss playwright and novelist Max Frisch’s drama The Fire Raisers also known as The Firebugs. Long back a group had staged this play in its translated form.

The original story of two arsonists in the garb of salesmen coming to a house of a businessman and planning to blow it up, and is helped by the owner of the house, who represents the common ‘everyman’, and who is totally ignorant about the plan, has been transformed into a different narrative by Anirban. In his version a revolting ‘terrorist’ party worker decides to visit every household and awaken the good sense of the common man. So, Frisch’s ‘everyman’, who prefers to stay naïve and avoid facing the looming dangers all around, and yearns for a comfortable bourgeoise life, becomes the general common man here, Frisch showed that this complacency, moral irresponsibility unknowingly acknowledges a totalitarian system. In Anirban’s story we find a very highly placed bureaucrat who as part of the government enjoys all the fruits of power, and nurtures the organised corruption and decadence of the society. He also incites his own daughter to take to dishonest and corrupt ways to promote herself in her field of work. But the daughter who due to the upbringing that she got from her mother resist this. Anirban tells us that lady’s father is a communist believing in strong moral values. After the previous change of government, he is shown to be coerced by a lumpen student leader. At the end of the play, we see that youth revolting against the bureaucrat and go out on his mission to change the system, but is killed in a police encounter. And the wife of the bureaucrat, too, take the path to bring change. At the end a few questions come up in the viewer’s mind. If the youth is not Frisch’s arsonist, then why was the terror ambience built up at the beginning? Was it to suggest a fake encounter? Or why was the youth shown to be a Muslim?                  

Frisch had written this drama in the early ‘50s, almost at the same time that Ionesco wrote Rhinoceros. These black comedies had the touch of absurdity and were like parables aimed at Fascism and Nazism. As the situations throughout the world stands, these forces are very much active. But Anirban just missed the bus as his play though had the political touch, had drifted to a melodrama that diverts the viewers’ point of view.

Subhajit has, I should say, very unnecessarily stressed on designing. With a very promising start the play then meanders into a mire of confusion. The chair, table, stool and three bamboos draped in plastic do not help in the stage craft. The entrances and the exits are kept non-specific. The use of a trolley in the conversation sequence of the mother with her daughter is unexplainably pointless. Excepting for Saheb Sanyal’s lights, the stage design nor the background score help the play.

As the cast-list was not available individual performances can not be discussed. It is presumed that Bratin Gangopadhyay did the bureaucrat and Swagata Sengupta the wife. Both appropriately did their designated roles. It can also be assumed that Subhajit did the youth’s part. He could well bring the casualness of the character. Others did as told to.               

In the next Blog we will be discussing ABU HOSSAIN of Nandiranga staged on 10 June 2026.

See you till then.

 

I had to come back….

 

I had to come back….

 

In my yesterday’s Blog I had said that I would be back after two days. But today’s (17 September) issue of Desh compelled me to get back to my Blog.

Today’s issue of Desh carries two of my reviews, one of Belgharia Rooptapas production of SHANKO, and the other of Newtown Bratyajon’s MARSHUMER EKDIN.

It also carries Shubhankar Bhattacharya’s very well-written theatre review of Bengaluru’s Smaranik’s production of Indrashis Lahiri’s play DRISHTIKANYA. What amazes me is that this same production of the same play by the same group under the same director had been reviewed by me way back in 2014. It, though not often, happens that the same play staged by two, or sometimes three, or may be more groups like in the case of Tagore’s RAKTAKARABI, have been reviewed. This aptly reflects the diversity of thoughts and interpretations amongst the groups. But a presentation of the same play by the same group has little to suggest other than acknowledging a new set of actors doing some of the parts. I may mention that this play had been produced by Indrashis himself for his Chena Mukh, a long time back. I had mentioned this in my review twelve years back.  

Another point of indignation that I find has garnered in me. Lately I find that they have their own system of pronunciation of Western names or English words, that does not go with my way of pronunciation. Like for instance, I pronounce Brecht in the English way as BREKHT, as Shombhu Babu used to pronounce. In fact I learnt this diction of the name from him. Some pronounce it in the voiceless velar fricative sound (ch) like in the German way. As a result, I had been writing the name in Bengali script as BREKHT since long. Suddenly in a recent issue I found the word had been edited to BRESHT! On enquiry I was told that they have adapted their phonetic system of spelling of foreign words. But for that to be implemented the correct diction needs to be known.

But the ultimate of it all has been for the word ‘visual’. In my review of SHANKO, I had written ‘visual’ in the correct diction as ‘vizhual’ in the Bengali script as ভিজ্যু়য়াল. But to my horror I found the word has been changed to ভিশুয়াল !

I believe this is sheer unbearable torture, of sorts.

May God help me!!!

 

JATRAGOPAL of Chakdah Natyajon: a fitting dramatization of an excellent script

 

JATRAGOPAL of Chakdah Natyajon: a fitting dramatization of an excellent script (staged on 28 May 2026)

 

Before beginning my discussion, I would like to apologise for having missed mentioning about this play at the end of my last Blog. Sorry folks, as they say!

The prolificity of Chakdah Natyajon can be easily measured, if I am permitted to use the yerm, by looking at my list of unpublished reviews of plays, fourteen in all, staged since February this year that I had mentioned in my first introductory Blog of the present session that was published on 8^th of this month. Of these 14, two happen to be of this group steered by Suman Pal. Their EKTA ISHKOOL has been discussed in the Blog of the 11^th. Their other production, Ujjwal Chattopadhyay’s JATRAGOPAL is directed by Sudipta Dutta and was presented at the Academy of Fine Arts. They presented this play remembering the legendary Jatra-emperor Shantigopal. In the title role was Sanjeeb Sarkar, accompanying him on the stage were Suman himself, Urbi Bhattacharya, Moubani Poddar and Dipak Nayek.

The play is built around Nitai Bhattacharya who is an ardent copyist of the Jatra-emperor. He enacts the roles played by the legend in rural areas and villages as the cheap edition of Shantigopal taking up the moniker of Jatragopal. Copying the legend’s creations of Lenin, Marx, Hitler as well as that of Shahjahan he gets his share of popularity. Though he gets a good number of calls and advance payments thereof, his income is but meagre. Nantu, a journalist of a small paper comes to get his interview in his rented room, the rent of which is lying in default. That room happened to be the room of Nantu’s former lover, Purnima who had since been married off as Nantu could not afford to start a family life with her. But she has come back to her father’s house after estranging her husband. Nantu finds this encouraging. Purnima now wants Nitai to vacate her room but she develops a liking for him and has a sensual attraction towards the veteran thespian. This jeopardises Nantu’s future plans. However, on his request Nitai does pieces of Lenin, Marx, Hitler in full attire and Nantu video records them for his professional needs. The young girl Shabnam who comes daily to supply food for Nitai is raped and killed by two hooligans. This devastates Nitai and he ponders whom should he choose to counter this situation – would it be Hitler’s fascism, or will it be Marx’s communism or may be Lenin’s socialism. Or, will he do his long-dreamt  ‘Aami Subhas Bolcchi’ and take the path of armed militancy?

Ujjwal has discussed in detail the dialectical relationship of the actor with the role he enacts, making it the central theme of the present play. He has touched upon this subject in some of his recent plays. Without taking pieces from the original Shantigopal pala-s, he has used the main characters to design his dialogues, and thereby firmly establishing the central philosophy. Witnessing each of the scenes developing on the stage, one could feel how challenging is the job of the playwright. There are scopes of some editing which I believe would tighten up the script further.   

Sudipta’s making has not many flaws, and he did keep a steady pace in the progression of the play. As because the texture of the drama changes in the second half it was a difficult job for him to maintain the rhythm. He did it well. His scheme of the use of the stage needs applause.

As I was witnessing Sanjeeb in the role of Nitai and doing the various historical personalities, I remembered that in 1977 Pele had come to Calcutta to play for Cosmos Football Club in an exhibition match against Mohan Bagan. But the giant played a very dismal football, and people said this was not the monarch playing but it must have been Shantigopal in the garb of Pele. Shantigopal did have that unique acumen to impersonate any character in his behaviour, gait, way of talking etc., so much so that it is not possible for any actor to equal his versatility. Even then Sanjeeb taking an unimaginable work-load played out in four characters - Nitai, Lenin, Marx and Hitler. And in each part, he kept the individuality of the characters. Of course, he did get the help of the script but representing the personalities in their individual characteristic traits talks volumes about the proficiency of this brilliant actor. Another perfect representative performance was by Suman as Nantu. A little stuttering in speaking enlivens the character, but at the same time Suman was careful not to overstep and make his performance jocular. Urbi was flawless as Purnima. She has proved her mettle in previous productions of this group, but this job had a different texture, and her cerebral application has given her success in a number of challenging situations in the play. Moubani in the role of Shabnam was free of any inhibition and did her role with a natural spontaneity. Dipak owner of the house was apt in his performance. All these four actors with slight change of dress acted as co-actors in the different pala-s that Nitai enacted. Likewise, Nitai with the help of dresses, wigs, moustache and beards change into the historical personalities at the wink of the eye.

Manoj Prasad’s lights and Surajit Nandi’s background music demand mention, as is Sudipta’s design of two big red salu cloths overhead on the two sides of the stage, one with sickle and hammer, and the other with swastika painted on them. Wouldn’t it have been more appropriate if the sickle and hammer cloth was on the left side, and the swastika on the right side? 

    P.S. Now that reviews of the plays staged till the month of May have been done with, I propose to space out the next reviews over a couple of days in-between each. So, I’ll come back a couple of days later with my next Blog with a review of ROOPANTAR of Paramik staged on 1 June 2026. 

See you till then.         

 

SHESH BASANTA (transl: The Last Spring) of Naihati Rangasena: a stunning production that speaks volumes.

 

SHESH BASANTA (transl: The Last Spring) of Naihati Rangasena: a stunning production that speaks volumes. [staged on 27 May 2026]

After a long time, I experienced a revealing work of a lesser group and that too, from a group stationed about 45 km from Kolkata. I was stunned to see how a production could be presented exclusively with the help of dramatic elements handled aesthetically and without the use of gimmicks and stunts. It was simply astonishing to find the playmaker Dhrupad Ghosh with sheer ingenuity in designing of the play set aside the numerous limitations that Tapan Theatre poses to put up a spectacle yet devoid of opulence.  

The story ‘Shastha Ritu’ of the kirtan singer Krishnabhamini is one of Samaresh Basu’s outstanding creations. Subrata Nag has done a commendable job in adapting it into a drama, renaming as SHESH BASANTA. For the sake of dramatization, he had to do some extensions of parts of the story which are complemented with pieces of kirtan. Then in the dream sequence and in the last scene on the banks of the Ganges, he has brought in touches of surrealism that give the narrative a hint of spiritualism. He had also introduced a new character like that of the Mokshada, the maid of Krishnabhamini. Through this character he has elaborated the character of Radha. Subrata has kept the form and the flavour of the writer’s literary essence in constructing the dialogues.        

The additions and alterations may have given a sense of completeness to the drama, but at the same time it has prolonged the play, too. But that does not make the viewers tiresome. And that is due to an excellent transformation of the script to its stage form by the maker applying a matured theatrical sensibility to keep up a steady rhythm and pace. There are many a scene and sequence that the viewers would treasure in their memory for a very long time. Especially the composition of the dream scene and in the use of lamps. The dexterous use of the two side steps of the stage and the space in front of the viewers deserve appreciation. It was a treat for the eyes to see the floating of the lamps in the water of the Ganges. And the emergence of the boy Krishna in the last sequence was a laudable application of a theatrical mind, no doubt. The light and the stage designing had no superfluousness in them so the ambience of the drama blended with the steady progression of the play. A very imaginative dress designing gave the viewers a visual pleasantry.

Dhrupad executed the role of Krishnabhamini. A cerebral application in doing the part was evident throughout. In the first part when Krishnabhamini is trying to ignore her age she finds that a ‘heterogenetic tangle develops’ in her voice as she attempts to sing a song, Dhrupad brings about an elderly cracked tone in the voice. As the cast & credit list was not available no names can be mentioned. The teenaged girl in the role of Radha had to take a lot of loads, and did her part as directed. The actor in the role of Gagan needs special appreciation. Every other actor, it was evident, did their parts with full sincerity.

Music is a vital part in this production. Quite a few old kirtans have been used together with few common ones. In the last scene the use of Bhanusingha Thakur’s ‘Marnre tuhu mama shyamasaman’ can be called a brilliant application. The person controlling the sound needs special applause as there were a number of overlapping sounds needed for the sake of the play. And he was successful in this job.

Before ending I should mention that despite some amateurish management problems of the group, they have done wonders that I believe groups, even established ones, should take lessons on how brilliantly a play can be mounted even stationed miles away from Calcutta.

P.S. The reader must have noticed that the storyline has not been discussed. I was so emerged in the making of the play; I found it irrelevant to talk about the story that Basu had written. It was however fitting to stage his story on his centenary year.                           

PRATHAM PARTHA of Sansriti: a poetic treatment of a Buddhadeb Basu’s poetic drama

 

PRATHAM PARTHA of Sansriti: a poetic treatment of a Buddhadeb Basu’s poetic drama (staged on 13 May 2026)

 

Every theatre buff would acknowledge that it is very rare for a production to give the viewers an unqualified pleasant experience so that they are compelled to repeat viewing the play immediately on the next staging. And that happened exactly to me after seeing Buddhadeb Basu’s poetic drama PRATHAM PARTHA by Sansriti at the Academy of Fine Arts. I once again saw the play in their next staging at Giris Mancha. Such an immaculate classical presentation of a classical text is a rare happening in the Bengali theatre world.   

What struck me foremost was the aspect of the drama on which the playmaker put the weightage on. Debesh Chattopadhyay’s emphasis was not on what transpired on the eve of the Kurukshetra battle when the royal mother Kunti confronts Karna and divulges the truth of his birth to him, but on the psychological analysis of the characters involved. An exhaustive reading of the script by Debesh including the between-the-lines connotations that the poet-playwright had fashioned to adorn the play, did the magic that compels the viewer to repeatedly come back to the play. The meeting of Karna with Kunti though is narrated in the epic, the tryst of Draupadi with Karna came to Buddhadeb’s imagination as a possible happening that could be deduced from a few earlier indications in the narration of Mahabharat itself. This part of the drama has been taken to a different level of dramaturgy by Debesh simply by applying human psychological interpretation, but at the same time keeping true to the text. Let us see an illustration of this from a sequence in the play. Draupadi tells the two elderly Brahmins that she was a bit hesitant to meet Karna – ‘My mind too, was but divided into two. On the way my feet had stopped a few times – there were a lot of hindrances, lots of doubts.’ Since her entry we find Draupadi walking with a limp, as if there was some thorn stuck to her feet. A little later as she prepares to go for the tryst, she plucks out the thorn from her feet. Debesh masterly uses Radha’s Krishnabhisar episode as a syntax to mount this episode of Panchali’s rendezvous, which gives a surprising yet a refreshing twist to the depiction of the incident. If one goes over the script of Buddhadeb one would come across indications of such a tryst in her conversation with the Brahmins. Draupadi says that she is in doubts whether she would recognise Karna. This is like hiding one’s paramour from others. Before she leaves for Karna, she is seen to make herself as presentable as possible by straightening out her dress and managing her dishevelled hair, etc. She, then in a very secretive amorous gait approaches Karna. She tells Karna, ‘All of a sudden I wanted to see you again.’ Then she blurts out in an earnest entreaty, ‘Isn’t it possible, Karna, isn’t it possible – here at this hour, under the sky, just for a moment in this silence, for a few moments …. We share our love with each other?’ There is a distinct tone of a sense of hurt pride or, so to say touchiness, in the words of Draupadi. Karna’s ineffable, or rather inexpressible attraction towards her is palpable. And from all these the playwright had indicated a very subtle extramarital attraction between the two. It is for the students of theatre to see how Debesh has manifested this psychological tension between two paramours on to the stage.

Without tampering with even a single phrase or word of the original text Debesh has his actors delivering their lines – and this too, is an aspect to note. He discarded the usual melodic tone of reciting the poetic lines, and instead made the actors to scan their lines in the general conversation mode. Without losing a bit of the poetic texture of Buddhadeb’s lines the characters assume a normal way of conversing.

Turna Das speaks her lines with flair yet keeping each word of her dialogue in its proper perspective. With faultless articulation and play of voice she portrays the role together with her easy flowing use of the stage and her physical expressiveness. And so, the central female character of the epic as a tormented lover with her anxiety and her yearnings come alive on the stage. She has once again shown how with pure acting talent can bring about a character live onto the stage regardless of the mere physical appearance of the actor.

Talking of physical appearance, it is needless to say that none of the actors can match the physical look as described in the epics. The character of Karna, for instance is defined by its firmness, determination, inflexibility and resilience of his personality as well as by his persona. But that is an impossible proposition for any actor. Though in this production Arna Mukherjee took up the challenge head on. And he did his job brilliantly. He exhibited outstanding skill in his delivery of lines as well as in his physical expressions where he had to display a restrained countenance. Especially noticeable was his expressive hands. In Krishna’s case the question of physical look is irrelevant. The character’s mainstay is political shrewdness and diplomacy. And that needs masterly delivery of the lines with variations in inflection and pitch, accompanied with facial expressions. Rajatava Dutt with his constrained and controlled performance was the perfect choice for the character, and he did a marvellous job by not treading into melodramatic theatrics. Physical aspect does not matter in the case of Kunti. What makes the character unique is together with the required royal grace and elegance, she carries pride and disgrace of a motherhood that pervades the entirety of her being. Senjuti Mukhopadhyay has imbibed the soul of the character so deeply into her that she deliberates her lines with the required tone, that is not an easy job to perform. In the sequence of Kunti revealing to Karna the mystery of his birth Senjuti’s exposition is akin to a musical refrain. The viewers would treasure this wonderful performance in their memory. One wonders how could she nurture her position of significance in the Bengali theatre world without any interruption for so long a period. Abhra Mukhopadhyay and Shyamashis Pahari as the two Brahmins should be lauded for their scope of performance were limited to a set of dialogues only, which they delivered impeccably.                

At the end a few words about Debesh’s work. As stated, he did not tamper with the original script, but in a couple of places his intervention I believe has enriched the script. This I say with all due respect to Basu.  After Kunti being turned down by Karna leaves, we see Karna deep in thought. We believe that he must have been engrossed in his conversation with Kunti. At this point of time Draupadi calls out to him from behind. This startles him and he retorts, ‘Mother?’ Another such a beautiful dramatic element could also be found elsewhere, too. The second interference is in the last scene where he totally discards the concluding remarks of the two Brahmins. After the exit of Krishna, the two Brahmins enter but without a single word stare at the audience and then leaves the stage slowly.

The total scenography has been designed obviously by Debesh himself. He magically transforms the stage into the banks of the Ganges in Hastinapur with two teak tress and undulated forest floor with a suggestion of the river done with blue web and ropes. A few dry teak leaves strewn on the forest floor are used as props in a few specific dramatic moments. Normal lights can do wonders has once again been proved by Debesh in this production. His meaningful use of the blue and red lights needs applause. Lights were handled by Tapas Bhattacharya and Alip Mullick. For the background score he used esraj, sarod and flute. This aptly created the melancholic mood of the play as well as few euphoric moments, too. The sounds of horses’ hoofs in a few of the moments need appreciations, too. Sound was operated by Anindya Nandi. Appreciations are also due for the make-up artistes Md Ali and Debjit Pal. There were no signs of stinginess in Anik Ghosh’s dress-designing. The black coat, like that of the lawyers for Krishna who had just returned from the mantranasabha or the Advisory Council meeting was a master stroke to identify Krishna.

An exquisitely enjoying experience, indeed.

 

The next Blog will be on SHESH BASANTA (transl: The Last Spring) of Naihati Rangasena staged on 27 May 2026.