TWO UJJWAL CHTTOPADHYAY PLAYS THAT HAVE GOT ENTRY TO THE 26th BHARAT RANG MAHOTSAV

 

TWO UJJWAL CHTTOPADHYAY PLAYS THAT HAVE GOT ENTRY TO THE 26^th BHARAT RANG MAHOTSAV

 

It is unequivocally gratifying to learn that four productions from West Bengal have been selected for the first phase of the 26^th Bharat Rang Mahotsav, 2027. But what is more flattering for the theatre buffs of Kolakta is the fact that, of the four two are plays written by the most prolific playwright of Bengal, Ujjwal Chattopadhyay who also happens to be the director of one of them.

Rangapat’s HEY SINDHUSARAS and Theatre Plus’s TARA SUNDARI are the two Ujjwal’s plays that will be staged at the NSD event in ND. Both have been discussed by me in ‘Desh’. I intend to once more discuss both the plays, in short, here.

Ujjwal’s plays are not simple social commentaries or history retold, or adapted foreign dramas, or for that matter straight forward adaptations from classical literature, they delve into the inner sanctum of the piece in order to extract out the ethical or rather philosophical truths that are relevant for our modern niche. And thus, make them original pieces of dramas bereft of the trappings or rather the essence of the originals. In the play HEY SINDHUSARAS he brings out the philosophical bearings of Anton Chekov in his last six years. And as a subtext sort of he deals with the science of philosophical realism in dramaturgy through a plot surrounding the staging of Chekov’s The Seagull, by Moscow Art Theatre with characters like Chekov, Denchenko, Stanislavsky and Olga Knipper. At the end of the day, we get a perfect play with no loose ends to tie up. As is seen in other Rangapat productions, Tapanjyoti is never stingy in his stage settings, and so the viewers find an elaborate setting that is designed with a perfect theatrical mind. With the use of ballerinas, he has widened the dimension of the play. His strong play-making sense can be seen in his dividing the acting area into different zones by which he could keep up the rhythm and the momentum of the play. Stage, executed by Sanchayan Ghosh, lights by Dinesh Poddar and music in particular by Deb Choudhury where both Western and Indian compositions have been used, add up to a very rich experience for the audience. The performance part of the production is quite strong with Tapanjyoti as Chekov, Senjuti Mukherjee as Olga, Biplanu Moitra as Danchenko and Sanjib Sarkar as Stanislavsky.

The other play for our discussion is TARA SUNDARI by Theatre Plus. This play is also written by Ujjwal. He directs it, too. The play is about Tarasundari Devi, perhaps the most versatile actress of the Bengali stage of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century. She was also a wonder for the performing world as she made a couple of amazing comebacks during her career that stretched a little over four decades and kept her performing standards at her unparalleled best all through. But it is not Ujjwal’s intention to do a biopic of the prima donna. He was looking for the muses who had blessed this actress to excel in acting, singing, dancing and a real connoisseur of the aesthetics of the poetic elements of the classics and the other Indian literature, and thus had done a very detailed research work. In the process he had to depict the different struggles in the actor’s life and the comeback after hiatuses. In the monologue of the actress, he has not only included different dialogues of the different characters Tarasundari Devi had acted in, he has also included songs of those plays, thus making a unique script, justice of which could only be done by an actress of equal talent and versatility. And Gargi Roychoudhuri astounded the viewers with her scintillating performance. It is unfortunate that not much of this actor has been seen by the theatre buffs of our country. Mind you, I have written ‘country’. Another very outstanding section of this production is Prabuddha Banerjee’s music. His background score has an astonishing amalgamation of Indian classical, Western operatic cadences, Indian light and folk tunes. Choreographic design is by Sukalyan. Soumik Piyali’s stage has been illuminated by Soumen Chakraborty. Abhisek Roy’s thoughtful dress designing has helped in the smooth running of the play.

Before ending I extend my very best wishes to the two groups in their forthcoming Delhi trip.    

 

Chakdah Natyajon’s ARANYAK : a review in Bengali

Chakdah Natyajon’s ARANYAK : a review in Bengali 

Quite a few of my blog-readers have requested me to write in Bengali also, especially the theatre reviews. As my reviews in Desh is not being regularly published, so I thought I might as well also write my reviews and perhaps other essays also in Bengali in my blog. As a result, this is my first venture in Bengali blog writing. In this blog I am writing a short review on Chakdah Natyajon’s latest production of ARANYAK, premiered at AFA on 30 October, 2026.

চাকদহ নাট্যজন-এর আরণ্যকঃ একটি বিষাদময় অভিজ্ঞতা

বিভূতিভূষণ বন্দ্যোপাধ্যায়ের ‘আরণ্যক’ উপন্যাসটি যে-কোনও বাঙালীর কাছে যেন এক মন্ত্রমুগ্ধকর অভিজ্ঞতা, এবং হেন কোনও বাঙালী নেই, অন্তত আমাদের এবং তার পরের প্রজন্মের, যাঁর কাছে এই উপন্যাসটি তাঁর যৌবনের অন্যতম প্রথম পাঠ ছিল না। কে না সত্যচরণ হতে চেয়েছিল? আবার এই উপন্যাসটিই বেশ কয়েক দশক পর পড়তে বসলে উঠে আসে ভিন্ন অনুভূতি। রবীন্দ্রনাথের গানের মত – এক এক বয়সে এক এক অর্থ নিয়ে তারা সামনে চলে আসে। এই একটি লেখার জন্যই বিভূতিভূষণের নোবেল পাওয়া উচিত ছিল, কিন্তু হতভাগ্য সময়, রাজনৈতিক পরিস্থিতি, এবং অযোগ্য অনুবাদ আমাদের এই ভাষাটাকে সে ভাবে আন্তর্জাতিক মঞ্চের আলোকবৃত্তে আসতে দেয় না।

যাই হোক, সুমন পালের আমন্ত্রণে চাকদহ নাট্যজন-এর প্রযোজনায় অ্যাকাডেমি অফ ফাইন আর্টস-এ আরণ্যক নাট্যটির প্রথম অভিনয় দেখতে গিয়েছিলাম প্রচুর সংশয়, দ্বিধা নিয়ে। তার কারণ এটি এমন একটি উপন্যাস যার নায়ক এবং কেন্দ্রীয় চরিত্র হল প্রকৃতি, তাকে মঞ্চে উপস্থিত করা কি সহজ এক নাট্যনির্মাণ? প্রকৃতি – যে প্রকৃতি আমাদের প্রত্যক্ষ করা সম্ভব নয়, তাকে বিভূতিভূষণ এমন জীবন্ত করে মেলে ধরেন, যে তার ছবি মনের মধ্যে গেঁথে থাকে। তাই পাঠের সময়ে যে ছবি তৈরি হয় প্রত্যেক পাঠকের মনে, তাকে থ্রী-ডাইমেনশনে ব্যক্ত করা অসাধ্য একটি কাজ। তার ওপর এই ছবি এক একজন পাঠকের কাছে এক এক রঙে ধরা দেয়। অথবা বলা উচিত রঙের ভিন্ন ভিন্ন শেড্‌-এ ধরা দেয়। সুতরাং তাকে ফিজ়িকালি তুলে ধরা এক আন্‌সারমাউন্টেবেল চ্যালেঞ্জ। মনে পড়ে শম্ভু মিত্র বলেছিলেন সব সাহিত্যকেই নাট্যে আনা যায় না। ঠিক এমন কথাই সত্যজিৎ রায়কে বলতে শোনা গিয়েছিল ‘আরণ্যক’ নিয়েই। বলেছিলেন সব লেখাই ছবি হয় না। তবে কাজটা দেবাশিস করছেন বলে মনে হয়েছিল হয়তো একটা ভিন্ন ধরনের প্রচেষ্টাতে বিভূতিভূষণকে সম্পূর্ণ ভাবে না হোক তার ছায়াকে মঞ্চে হয়তো খুঁজে পাওয়া যাবে। কিন্তু দুঃখের বিষয়, ওই আড়াই ঘণ্টা সময় ধরে যা ঘটলো তা বিভূতিভূষণের প্যারোডি বললেও কম বলা হয়। কোনও নাট্য দেখতে বসে এতটা হতাশ, এতটা মনঃক্ষুণ্ণ হয়েছি বলে মনে পড়ে না। ধাক্কাটা বেশি লেগেছে হয়তো বিভূতিভূষণের এই উপন্যাসটি এতটাই মনের অন্তঃস্থলে প্রোথিত আছে বলে। তবে সুমনের দল এবং দেবাশিসের প্রচেষ্টা তারিফ পাবে এই কঠিনতম কাজটি হাতে নেওয়ার সাহস, (নাকি স্পর্ধা?) দেখানোর জন্য।     

আসলে এই ধরনের ডেসক্রিপ্টিভ উপন্যাসকে ড্রামাটাইজ় করার জন্য মূল লেখাটির পাঠের জন্য যে পরিণত বোধের প্রয়োজন ছিল তা এই তরুণ প্রতিভাশালী নাট্যকারের পক্ষে সম্ভব হয়নি। দেবাশিসের প্রতিভার পরিচয় পেয়েই বলছি এই কথা। আর কয়েক বছর যদি তিনি অপেক্ষা করতেন তা হলে হয়তো দর্শককে তিনি ফুলকিয়া, লবটুলিয়া, বইহার অঞ্চল এবং সেখানকার বিচিত্র পরিবেশ, তাদের ঐশ্বর্যশালী জীববৈচিত্র, সেখানকার সারা বছরের ঋতুগুলির নানান রূপ, এবং সর্বোপরি সেখানকার হতদরিদ্র মানুষজনের সঙ্গে পরিচয় করিয়ে দিতে পারতেন। কিন্তু সেদিন নাট্যটিতে আমরা পেলাম ওই স্থানগুলির ওই মানুষগুলির উল্লেখ মাত্র।

উপন্যাসটি পড়ার সময়ে একটা যে মেলানকোলি, একটা না পাওয়ার যন্ত্রণা, একটা হারিয়ে যাওয়া পৃথিবীর জন্য আকুলতা, প্রান্তিক মানুষ আর অরণ্যরাজির জন্য হৃদয়ের রক্তক্ষরণ জাতীয় অনুভবগুলি পাঠকের মনে থেকে যায় দীর্ঘ-দীর্ঘ দীর্ঘ দিন ধরে। বর্তমান কাজটিতে এইসবের কণামাত্র উপলব্ধ হল না। উলটে বেশ কিছু অংশে ইন্টারপ্রিটেশনের এমন স্খলন দেখা গেল যে মন ক্ষুণ্ণ না হয়ে পারল না। যেমন মটুকনাথ পাঁড়ের টোলের অংশটিতে, মটুকনাথকে ক্লাউনিশ করে তোলা, অথবা তার না-খেতে-পাওয়া হতদরিদ্র ছাত্রদের অমন নিষ্ঠুর ভাবে প্যাঁকাটি দিয়ে কাকতাড়ুয়ার চেহারা করে দেখানোর কী হেতু থাকতে পারে? অথবা সত্যচরণের ছোট লাইনে ভাগলপুরের উদ্দেশ্যে রওনা হওয়া দেখাতে খেলনার রেলগাড়ি নিয়ে দুই বয়সের দুই সত্যচরণের অংশটি নার্সারি ক্লাসের কোনও পারফর্মেন্সকে মনে করিয়ে দেয়। বিভিন্ন ব্যক্তির সঙ্গে সত্যচরণের ইন্টারঅ্যাকশনগুলিতেও পাওয়া গেল অগভীর, স্থূল সম্পর্কের আভাস বিশেষ করে যেমন গাঙ্গোতা তরুণী মঞ্চীর সঙ্গে একটা অব্যক্ত প্রেমের আভাস নাট্যকার রেখেছেন। সেই সম্পর্কটি কী শুধুই আমরা যাকে প্রেম বলি তাই? নাকি তার ঊর্ধে আর কিছু? নাটুয়া কিশোর ধাতুরিয়ার অঙ্গভঙ্গিতে মেয়েলি ভাব থাকলেও সারাক্ষণ অমন নাচের ভঙ্গি সে করে কেন তা বোঝা গেল না। অথবা শুধু বনকুলের ওপর নির্ভর করা কুন্তা যার মুখ দিয়ে কথা সরে না, তাকে কি দর্শক সঠিক চেহারায় পেলেন? এক মুঠো ভাত যাদের কাছে কহিনূরের থেকেও মহার্ঘ, তাদের দেখা কি দর্শক পেলেন? আর স্ক্রিপ্টে সব থেকে ক্ষতি হয়েছে দুই বয়সের দুই সত্যচরণের রিপ্রেজে়নটেশনে। চরিত্রের এই দুই ইমেজ একে অপরের কমপ্লিমেন্টরি হওয়ার কথা। কিন্তু দর্শক পেলেন একটি চরিত্রের দুই বাইনারি।

সামগ্রিক উপস্থাপনা প্রায় ত্রুটিমুক্ত থাকলেও মঞ্চের সাজ বা আলোর কাজ অতি সাধারণ। ঋতুর পরিবর্তন বা রাত দিনের তফাৎ অথবা বণাঞ্চল বা রুক্ষ প্রান্তর ইত্যাদি কী বোঝা গেল? তবে আবহর কাজটি তারিফ পাবে যদিও যেসব গান ঢোকানো হয়েছে তা একেবারেই বিভূতিভূষণ বা সত্যচরণের সঙ্গে যায় না। বিশেষ করে মঞ্চীদের বিদায় নেওয়ার অংশে সত্যচরণের গানটি তো ভয়ানক ভাবে ‘আরণ্যক’-এর স্পিরিটের সঙ্গে বেখাপ্পা লাগে। তবে যে তিনজন সংগীতের দায়িত্বে ছিলেন তাঁদের অবশ্যই সাধুবাদ প্রাপ্য। কলাকুশলীদের নাম না জানায় তা দেওয়া গেল না।

অভিনয়ে প্রত্যেকেই তাঁদের নিজের নিজের চর্চিত রোলগুলি সুনিপুণ ভাবে সম্পাদন করেছেন। কয়েকটি চরিত্রকে কেন উত্তুঙ্গ স্কেলে নির্দেশক বেঁধে দিয়েছেন তা বোঝা গেল না। এর ফলে এই চরিত্রগুলি তাদের স্বাভাবিকতা হারিয়ে ফেলে। যুবক সত্যচরণের চরিত্রটিকে নিখুঁত ভাবে ফুটিয়ে তুলেছেন অভিনেতা। তাঁর সংলাপ উচ্চারণ, বিরামের ব্যবহার অথবা অভিব্যক্তি প্রকাশে শহুরে শিক্ষিত মানুষের গাম্ভীর্যের ছাপ রেখেও পারিপার্শ্বিক মানুষজনের কাছ থেকে অভিজ্ঞতা সঞ্চয় করার সত্যচরণের যে আকাঙ্ক্ষা তাকে তুলে ধরতে পেরেছেন। মঞ্চীর চরিত্রের কাজটি দর্শকের তারিফ পাবে। কুন্তা অথবা ধাতুরিয়াও নির্দেশকের নির্দেশনা মেনেই সম্পাদিত হয়েছে। যুগলপ্রসাদ, মটুকনাথ পাঁড়ে, রাজু পাঁড়ে বা রাজা দোবরু পান্না বা ভানুমতি চরিত্রগুলিও সেইভাবে সম্পাদিত হয়েছে। সুমন নিজে ধাওতাল সাহুর চরিত্রটি অসাধারণ দক্ষতায় মঞ্চে এনেছেন একটি টিপিকাল ভোকাল ম্যানারিজ়মকে রেখে। তাঁর নকছেদিও তারিফ পাবে।

তবে প্রযোজনার যেটি সব থেকে বিষাদময় বিষয় সেটি হল মেঘনাদ ভট্টাচার্যর লেখক সত্যচরণ চরিত্রে অভিনয়। এই কিংবদন্তি অভিনেতাকে এতটা অসফল এতটা অপ্রস্তুত হতে দেখতে হবে তা কল্পনাও করা যায় না। সংলাপ নির্ভর এই অভিনয়ে তিনি সংলাপ বলতে গিয়ে বেশ কয়েকবার স্খলিত হয়েছেন, ভুল শব্দ বলেছেন এমনকি মঞ্চ ব্যবহারেও তিনি স্বচ্ছন্দ ছিলেন না। তাঁর সংলাপ ছিল মূল উপন্যাসের বর্ণনার সাধু ভাষা সুতরাং প্রথম থেকেই এক ধরনের আড়ষ্টতা আমরা দেখতে পাই। সেই সংলাপের শব্দের ওপর মনোযোগ দিতে গিয়ে অভিনয়ের অন্য বিষয়গুলি যা স্বতঃপ্রনোদিত ভাবে তাঁর এসে যায়, সেখানেও স্খলন নজরে পড়ে। একজন একনিষ্ঠ মেঘনাদ-ভক্ত হিসেবে এই অভিজ্ঞতা আমার কাছে ব্যক্তিগত ভাবে অত্যন্ত কষ্টের।

শেষ করার আগে দর্শক সম্পর্কে কিছু কথা বলতেই হয়। আমি নিজে একজন নির্ভেজাল দর্শক বলেই এই কথাগুলি বলার স্পর্ধা রাখি। সেদিন অ্যাকাডেমি ছিল কানায় কানায় পূর্ণ। বহু অসাধারণ সব নাটকের ক্ষেত্রে দেখা গেছে নীচের তলাই ভর্তি হয় না। সব ক্ষেত্রেই যেটা দেখা যায় সেটা হল নামের পেছনে লোকে দৌড়য়। এক্ষেত্রেও বোঝা গেল দেবাশিসের আছে এক বিরাট অনুগামী সংখ্যা। মনে আছে সৌমিত্র চট্টোপাধ্যায়ের একটি কাজ দেখে ওঁর সঙ্গে দেখা করতে গিয়ে বলেছিলুম, সৌমিত্রদা নব্বই সতাংশ দর্শক কিন্তু এসেছিলেন সৌমিত্রকে দেখতে, নাটক দেখতে নয়। সৌমিত্রদা উত্তরে বললেন, না না একেবারেই ঠিক বলছ না সুব্রত। আমি একটু লজ্জায় পড়ে গেলুম। উনি বললেন, ওটা নিরানব্বই শতাংশ হবে। সেদিনও অ্যাকাডেমিতে দেখলাম বেশ কিছু ভ্রান্ত নাট্যাংশে দর্শক হাততালি দিয়ে উঠছেন অথবা বেখাপ্পা স্থানে উচ্ছ্বাস প্রকাশ করছেন, বেশ কিছু করুণ অংশে যেমন মটুকনাথের টোলের অংশে দর্শক ওই কাকতাড়ুয়া সাদৃশ ছাত্রদের দেখে হেসে উঠছেন, বা মঞ্চীর উদ্দেশ্যে সত্যচরণের প্রেমের গান গেয়ে ওঠাতে হাততালি পড়ছে। আর সব শেষে এক প্রবীণ অভিনেতাকে যখন দেখলাম গড় হয়ে নাট্যনির্মাতাকে প্রণাম করতে তখন বুঝতে আসুবিধে হল না যে প্রতিভাকে বিকশিত হতে সুযোগ দিই না আমরাই যখন তাদের বেড়ে ওঠার সময়ে মাথায় তুলে ফেলি।

অনেকেই হয়তো এই লেখাটা পড়ে অসন্তুষ্ট হবেন। তাঁরা বৃদ্ধের প্রলাপ বলে লেখাটিকে ফেলে দিতে পারেন।  

THE 39TH ISSUE of SAS NATYAPATRA: a very significant addition to the Bengali theatre library

 

THE 39^TH ISSUE of SAS NATYAPATRA: a very significant addition to the Bengali theatre library

It is a ritual sort of for the theatre folks to await eagerly the latest issue of SAS Natyapatra mainly because the finicky, scrupulous editor Satya Bhaduri flashes out fresh new plays written by well-known, little known and not-so-known playwrights, of which it is seen that some are originals, some adaptations, while some are translations. Another point of attractions has been the fare of articles that Bhaduri assigns different persons to pen. And so, what results is a very good feed for the hungry readers.

The present issue which happens to be the 39^th is strikingly noteworthy for its editorial. The editorial piece is a very worrying commentary on the present political scenario of our country which is virtually under a hegemonistic, xenophobic one-party rule that tolerates no disagreement, no opposition, and fans a fire of hatred towards sections of the society, be it religious or intellectual, that they fear would shake their flimsy foundation of ultra-nationalism. The piece gives a clear and loud call for remonstrations and protests. One may wonder why is a theatre journal has such a political editorial piece. Theatre is always a political statement and those who do theatre, and those who watch theatre, and those who write about theatre and think about theatre are all political. Yes, those who question why should a theatre journal have a meticulously written political editorial, are so to say also asking this politically, may be unknowingly. The ostrich-view of things around us only supports tacitly what is being served.

A very warm congratulations to Satya Bhaduri, indeed!

There are five original plays in this number. Amongst the playwrights Ratankumar Das, Ujjwal Chattopadhyay, Tirthankar Chanda and Sekhar Samaddar are names pretty well known while that of Sumit Dasgupta is less known, at least to me. I resist from discussing the plays and let the readers enjoy them first-hand. A translation play is included in the collection, and that would be quite interesting for the readers. The actor-lyricist-screenwriter-NSD grad Piyush Mishra’s Jab Sahar Hamara Sota Haye has ben translated by Arindam Dasgupta.

The third instalment of the serial by Siddartha Chakraborty entitled Bharat Rahasya Sandhane is the first article of the seven articles in this issue. The next one Bharatiya Natysahityer Byaktigata Pathakrom is by Hindol Bhattacharya. As the title suggests this essay gives the reader a very personal interpretation of the long theatre journey touching the milestones that described and decorated the long path. Rudradip Chakraborty’s piece about his journey around the world discovering Ratan Thiam’s theatrical philosophy as reflected in different countries. For the average theatre-loving readers like the present writer, it reveals many a thing that remained unknown till now. So is the essay by Arindam Ghosh who writes extensively about Thomas Edward Bond, the English theorist-playwright, about whose book on drama theory, I came to know while writing my Theatrer Darshak Darshaker Theatre, but did not delve into any further. Then it was after Bond’s death I got to know fleetingly about this socialist playwright. Arindam, as his quite a few previous essays have shown, has done an expansive discussion of great academic value with detailed references. Subhendu Sarkar has written about Brecht and Dario Fo, while Soumi Sen has discussed about theatre in England specifically in the present-day Globe Theatre and Barbican Centre in London. The section on articles finishes off with a not very significant write-up about my theatre reviews.

The issue has a memorial section on those who have left us last year impoverishing our theatre world. Remembrance of Vijaya Mehta is done by Siddhartha Chakraborty, of Teejan Bai by Sushanta Chattopadhyay, of Bhadra Basu by Siddhartha Sen, and of Soumen Raychoudhury by Dilip Duuta. The editor has mentioned the very recent sad demise of Pankaj Munshi in his editorial.

The cover designed by Nilabha Chattopadhyay demands special mention. He has done a collage of different brochure covers of different celebrated national and international productions that ranged from Bohurupi’s legendary Rakta Karabi, PLT’s Tiner Talowar, Namdimukh’s Paap Punya, Padatik’s Sakharam Binder, Rangakarmee’s Kashnama, Karanth’s Hindi translated production of Hayavadana, Theatre Academy Pune’s Begam Barve and (?) Ghasiram Kotwal, Chorus Repertory Theate’s When We Dead Awaken to Arayank Dacca’s (?) Raraang, and quite a few European and American productions of legendary plays like Six Characters in Search of an Author, La P…respectueuse, Antigone, Waiting for Godot, Death of a Salesman, The Crucible and others. Nilabha’s concept and designing is commendable but the lay-out needed to be spaced out a bit, so that each of the cover-pieces could be effortlessly identified.

Before ending, a word for the respected editor. It is rumoured that he is planning to retire and the present issue would be his signing-off issue. He is believed to have expressed to his near ones that it is difficult for him to acquire advertisements that actually sustain the production and other costs of publishing a journal of such high esteem. This predicament that he faces is irrefutable. But on the other hand, it is also certain that SAS theatre journal would cease to exist if Satya Bhaduri caps his pen.

Hope a way-out would save the situation. And we would be happy to get the 40^th issue of SAS NATYAPATRA.        

 

 

TINTE – SHAREH-CHHATA HOUSE FULL : Debashis Roy : an invaluable addition to the history of the Bengali stage (pub. Aajkaal Publishers Pvt Ltd, June 2026)

 

Debashis Roy of New Town Bratyajon has written a very resourceful book entitled Teen’te - Sare Chha’ta Housefull on the commercial theatre of Calcutta that had once reigned the Bangla theatre world. The book is sort of an anthology of the most productive period of the Hatibagan stage which spanned from the 50’s to the 80’s of the last century, catering the theatre buffs with varied fares of productions, that had diverse range of contents and performances. What has made the book invaluable is that Roy has very scrupulously given a social or a political backdrop behind some of the eminent productions of that time. Together with this information the readers get to know behind-the-scene stories, or the circumstances and situations that prevailed in their stagings, and also for that matter the sudden cessation of some of the popular productions. Then there are discussions on the magical lights and the settings created by the wizards of the stage. the like of which can no more be seen by the spectators of today. The author has authenticated the facts by quoting those who had actually done those magical deeds. He has also included excerpts from writings of different eminent personalities connected to the Shyambazar stage in those years as well as from various articles published in journals and newspapers of that era.

For septuagenarians like me the reading of the book is like rolling back in time to those magical days when every family diligently performed the ritual of going to the theatres as an essential part of any family function like weddings, and anniversaries; not to speak of the festive seasons. Star Theatre, Biswaroopa, Rangmahal were the main three destinations where plays with wholesome storylines would be enacted by celebrity actors of whom many were silver-screen idols. Minerva Theatre was another important haunt but it had never been a favourite one for those seeking family entertainment though it was a permanent LTG site till the late 60’s. Then there were Kashi Biswanath Mancha, Rangana, Bijon Theatre, Circarina, Pratap Memorial Hall, Tapan Theatre, Sujata Sadan, etc. But these halls catered plays that did not have that universal appeal as the ones that were featured in the three iconic commercial theatres. People would just purchase the tickets in these halls without knowing even the name of the play that was being staged. But on the other hand, people would go to the other halls to see a production that is being talked about. That was the magic of the Hatibagan theatre.

It is thus quite befitting a title for Roy’s book. Another interesting feature of the book are the pictures of the actors who had ruled the Kolkata commercial theatre stage. Photographs of the advertisements that were printed in the newspapers and a few cinema journals of those years, with their different compositions and styles of letter settings of the titles of the plays, bring back memories of a time when publicity had its own language.

And all this has made the book an authentic and invaluable addition to the history of the Bengali stage.

A CORIGENDUM

 

A CORIGENDUM

In response to my Blog on Rangalok’s CORNER PLOT, Shyamal, its creator informs me that the first production of the play was not by Rangalok but was by Roopdarsan, and it was staged around 1998-99. Roopdarsan is no more in existence, but its memory is still there, and it would have been wrong on my part not to have acknowledge them in my Blog.

So, I stand corrected, and thanks to Shyamal for correcting me.

CORNER PLOT of Rangalok: a renewed presentation of a genuine satire

 

CORNER PLOT of Rangalok: a renewed presentation of a genuine satire (staged on 5 July 2026)

 

After quite a long time it was enjoying to witness an example of an archetypal satire, that punches holes into the façade of a supposedly fool-proof and faultless societal and administrative system. And it does this with any speck of innuendo towards any political party. The stupidities, the pretenses and loads of unethical vices that are embedded in the systems themselves stand bear open as Rangalok’s latest play CORNER PLOT unfolded on the Giris Mancha stage. This very play by Loknath Bandopadhyay was staged around the beginning of this century by Rangalok under the direction of the helmsman of the group Shyamal Chakraborty, who even acted in the pivotal role. This time it is a renewed presentation of the same play but in a new package that fits well with the changed time.   

A typical ‘common man’ Joydeb suddenly gets to own a single storied vacant house in the suburb as a munificent act of a rich well-wisher. The house happens to be on a corner plot, and so his wife and his two daughters and son are all very happy. He does a few renovation works and arranges a house-warming ceremony. A priest is brought and the puja is performed in full earnestness. None of their relatives nor friends are informed nor invited. But two of Joydeb’s office colleagues get to know and arrive there to join the party. This puts Joydeb in a very embarrassing situation. But some bigger surprise was waiting for Joydeb’s family. The Prime Minister was supposed to come to that place to inaugurate a fertilizer plant that has been built nearby. The ruling party wants to welcome the PM and felicitate him. The opposition party on the other hand wants to stage a protest and show him black flags. Both the groups plan to erect their stages in the compound of the house as it has an advantage of being at the corner position of the main road through which the PM’s motorcade would be going. Joydeb had consented to both the groups for he was helpless. Then comes the PM’s security force, and according to them as the house is in a very strategic position, they would take over the house for the day. This lands Joydeb in a boiling soup. Meanwhile taking advantage of this doldrum and chaos, the boyfriend of the elder daughter comes in the garb of a terrorist to visit his sweetheart. Joydeb decides to abandon the house for the time being with his family. They are ultimately saved by the benevolent well-wisher.  

A very well spun comedy is presented brilliantly by Shyamal with all the resources needed to make the production a success. It is said that timing is utmost important in comedy acting. But this is true, I believe in those parts where speech is less and silent physical acting has more space. But in a verbose play, comedy can be effected if the actors can grasp the comic sequences through which the playwright wanted to get to the point and for which he has given his dialogues a particular structure. This results in the expressions and gestures of the actors, that eventually leads the spectators to break into feats of laughter. Sanjeeb Sarkar has simply excelled in his presentation of a totally confused Joydeb. The viewers have rarely seen such a flawless comic acting. His expressions, his delivery of lines with perfect scanning, together with immaculate timing in sequences that required him to have physical precisions. He could imbibe the joy with which he performed his role into the spectators, and that is what acting is all about. Shyamal had done this character in the earlier version. It was good to see that veteran Aparna Biswas as the wife Menoka has kept her skill intact. The well-wisher Sadananda was aptly portrayed by Shyamal Sarkar in a flamboyant colour. Abhisek Roy as the son, Shiropa Roy and Puja Dutta as the two daughters, Swaraj Dutta as the priest, and Baishakhi Kundu and Sourav Kundu as the two colleagues did their respective parts as directed. Biswajit Ghosh Majumdar as the boyfriend demands a round of applause for his performance. In sundry roles Gopal Ghosh, Sisir Ranjan Roy, Bibhas Banerjee and Swarnabha Goswami were neat in their acting, and with just a simple change in their attire and in their gaits, Shyamal could very well separate the two political groups. And that tells how intent was Shyamal to put up a commendable presentation.             

It was heartening to see Shyamal has kept the original stage design done by Ranajit Chakraborty, with Sudip Sanyal not adding any extra lights. Likewise, Swapan Bandopadhyay too kept the background score unaltered. Make-up work by Biddhatrideb Sarkar and the artwork by Nilabha Chattopadhyay deserve appreciation.

 

Since the viewing of this play on 5 July I did not see any play till date, because of some unavoidable reasons.

So, I have no other plays in hand for discussion. I hope to once again start haunting the theatre halls very soon, and would be happy to share my thoughts about them with you.

Till then I will be blogging on other topics related to this world.

So, see you soon.

Cheerio….e original stage design done by Ranajit Chakraborty, with Sudip Sanyal not adding any extra lights. Likewise, Swapan Bandopadhyay too kept the background score unaltered. Make-up work by Biddhatrideb Sarkar and the calligraphic work by Nilabha Chattopadhyay deserve appreciation.

LAGAN CHAND by Thealight: a good theatre staged in a good way

 LAGAN CHAND by Thealight: a good theatre staged in a good way (staged on 20 June 2026)

 

On the conclusion of their year-long silver jubilee celebrations Thealight staged their latest play LAGAN CHAND, written by Atanu Sarkar based on a storyline by Prasanta Ghosh at Giris Mancha. Under the able guidance of Atanu, they prefer to stage their stage productions solely for theatre’s sake. They treat theatre as a typical form of art, rather than a didactic tool to teach the masses. The present work, too, is an example of what Shombhu Mitra wanted ‘to stage a good theatre in a good way’.

Lagan is a raddiwala who goes about in his bicycle buying old newspapers and selling them to the scrap dealer, and somehow work out a living for him and his pregnant wife in a shanty. A person advises him to start buying and selling rejected articles instead of old newspapers, as in this trade the profit is more. Lagan starts afresh and in the first shot buys and sells an old harmonium, that fetches him a good profit. Next, he buys an old teakwood bed. But in the meantime, his wife meets with an accident and the child is aborted. To look after his wife Lagan has to stop going out in his trade, thus he faces a crisis. After his wife recuperates he once again goes out with his cycle to buy rejected articles. He meets an old gentleman who has a liking for him. From him he learns that he would be selling off his house as he has disinherited his son who has settled abroad, and would like Lagan and his wife to shift from their shanty and live in the house. He tells he wants to write-off the property to Lagan, in exchange Lagan has to provide space for him to stay in the house. Lagan tells the gentleman that as he deals in rejected articles and things he would agree to the gentleman’s proposal if he is given the rejected paternal love that he used to give to his son.

The sentimentality of the story would certainly attract the viewers. The play has a few loose ends that did not allow it to be fully baked. The section of the person on whose advice he had diversified his business seemed superfluous. So were the bazar scenes and the hospital sequence. Or, for that matter the off-stage situation that was designed with a kid was totally redundant. The concern of the director to provide every member of the group with something to do on the stage, was felt. On the other hand of course, there are a number vey well crafted scenes that Atanu had provided for the spectators. Especially the scenes of Lagan and his wife, or the dream-like sequence of the gentleman imagining his grand daughter in his house. Viewers would have liked to see these sequences a little more elaborated. Atanu should be credited for not having given any patronage to melodrama in his script.

Making the famous ‘Ei duniaye bhai sobi hoye, sobi hoye – Sob sattiy, sob sattiy’, the thematic refrain, Atanu has given his play a surrealistic touch. Such golden oldies have been used by the playmaker, that transports the audience to the pre-mall times of old Kolkata. He has kept his stage abstract, perhaps keeping to the theme of the drama. Adrish Kumar Roy has done the stage, his work with the poster is commendable. Soumen Chakraborty’s lights were good but here too, we find the design fails to avoid smoke. Background score is designed by the playmaker and has been implemented by Samson Mathur Chakraborty.

Apart from Shampa Das Sarkar in the role of the wife and Shanku Kumar Das’s Lagan, no one else could impress in their works. Shampa has once again exhibited her talent with her expressions and gestures though having a very limited stage-time. Shanku had to bear a lot of weight as Lagan, and skillfully he could express the different moods of the character. Others especially Soutindrakrishna Deb as the gentleman, and Sukumar Das as the person who advised Lagan to diversify, were mechanical in their dialogues and expressions. Little Alankrita Sarkar was easy, fluent and had no inhibition in her work.

 

Rangalok’s CORNER PLOT will be my next play for discussion.