PINKI BULI & AAMI WEDS AAMI : Two Notable Bengali Productions

PINKI BULI & AAMI WEDS AAMI : Two Notable Bengali Productions

In the post-Puja scene on Kolkata stage two worthwhile productions have engaged the viewers of all sorts starting from the casual to the serious. These productions – PINKI BULI by Sayak and AAMI WEDS AAMI by Nat-ranga stand out of the others because of two very important reasons. The viewers are usually fed with contents that either have strong political message conveyed very crudely or are high browed intellectual stuff that do not find many takers in the audience. Very few shows are staged that tell the audience a simple story in a very fascinating way and in the process present a social problem that influences a large section of the society. These two productions have done exactly that. The second reason for them to be remembered for long is their attractive presentations. Not much of extravaganza was created on the stage but an endearing spectacle was presented in the productions. While the Sayak production did have a stage set-up to supplement the story line depicted, the stage for the Nat-ranga production was absolutely bare of any settings. 

Adapted by Indrashis Lahiri from a story by Amar Mitra PINKI BULI is a simple story of two girls coming from two different worlds. While Pinki is a convent going snobbish teenager of an upper class family Buli is a simple village girl full of exuberance and of the same age who is employed by Pinki’s family to look after her little brother. Nothing seems to click between them as the cultural as well as the mental gaps seem almost impossible to be filled. Buli is simply awe-struck at the life she encounters in the upper class environs that enthuse her to emulate Pinki. But in spite of the differences both have dreams of a fantastic world that are of course different. And in a bid to achieve that blissful world of their individual dreams they become friends. At this point of time there comes a grand old man who shows them the ways to achieve the bliss that would open up the paths to their dreams through the mysteries of the universe, the birth of life and the harmony in Nature that is maintained for the life and its dreams to sustain. What fascinated the viewers was the way Meghnad Bhattacharya created the story to happen on the stage. I have commented in some other place that Meghnad had done magic! Yes, indeed it was a thrill to watch him unfold the inner soul of the drama with all its splendour that has deep roots in the essence of Tagore’s philosophy without even once referring to Tagore or in any way remotely quoting the Poet. He has been immensely helped by Swatilekha Sengupta who has done the background scoring which incidentally is one of the finest examples of this department of a production in the recent times. The presence of Tagore was felt by the viewers in the subtle use of Tagore tunes and even in moments of silence.

The two adolescent girls around whom the drama builds up naturally had to bear a humongous work load and with an unflinching guidance of the director both excelled in their efforts. Rimi Saha as Pinki was made to up-scale her dialogue deliveries so as to accentuate the naive character of Buli. This was indeed a remarkable directorial job that Meghnad Bhattacharya had employed like he had in many other instances. Rimi has efficiently portrayed the change of attitude in the character of Pinki. Bhaswati Chakraborty has but stumped the viewers with awe as the work she has done would pose a challenge even to a senior actor. With pieces of songs and dances chipped in she was excellent in the portrayal that would be discussed for a long time to come. Apart from her Dhurjoti De, Runa Mukherjee, Uttam De and others have done their bits as needed. Meghnad acted in the role of the grand old man. In an earlier production he had done such a surrealist character also and certainly needs no comments. Here, a few words of praise are worth due for Panchanan Manna for the make-up job this man has done for the character of the grand old man. This was one rare instance where the stage lights were taken into consideration while planning the make-up art. But the only department that did not do justice to the production was the stage decor by Shoumik-Piyali. Both structurally as well as visually the stage failed to create any impact.  Accolades are but due to Meghnad Bhattacharya for the sheer joy that the viewers enjoyed during the little over two hour show time.      

A very different production was staged by Nat-ranga entitled AAMI WEDS AAMI which stands out both for the content as well as structure. Sohan Bandopadhyay has chosen on a peculiar subject like he had done in his earlier work. He chooses on subjects that are not normally accepted in the so-called elite societies as they are taboo or socially proscribed. He wrote an original play of this name in 2007 based on a story by Charlie Fish entitled ‘The Man Who Married Himself’ which the latter wrote in 2000. Incidentally, two similar occurrences were reported in the press in 2010. In his write-up Sohan mentions that last May in New York Kevin Nadal married himself and this was reported in The Guardian by Sharon Kram who also reports of a similar marriage in 2009 of Jennifer Hosse in Holland. Another marriage was reported from Taipei where Chen Wei-yih married the love of her life – herself. So Sohan’s play of 2007 can be termed futuristic in one sense.

This is a story of a man who marries himself as he thinks that he himself is the best judge of oneself and can never be ditched or betrayed. He is helped in this endeavour by the priest of his church. This ‘conjugal’ life goes on happily for quite a while till the urge to procreate reaches its natural outfall. This story is so remotely related to our normal lives that we find it as a comedy and would not believe in the predicament of the protagonist. But Sohan has delved into the problem deeply and that is evidenced in his work. Such serious stage dissertations of themes like this by young directors speak of a bright future for the Bengali stage.

 Sohan has acted brilliantly in the role of the protagonist. As he had to perform as both the wife and the husband he had a lot of load to carry and he has been undoubtedly successful. His two intonations, his two different pitches of delivery, his two different mannerisms are a very well studied portrayal of two different characters. The other characters, too, were equally well done except the one done by Poulomi Bose who seemed a bit unprepared. Nilabha Chatterjee deserves individual mention as he showed restrain in his portrayal of a role that could easily turn into an overdone comic character. The presentation of the main story was done by Sohan as a sub-play and that brought in a novel touch in the production. Apart from a few blemishes that can be corrected this production can claim that the future of the Bengali stage in the hands of the young generation seem secure. 

Tagore's Dakghar : The Play in the Ghetto

There are innumerable instances of Rabindranath Tagore influencing the lives and thoughts of people all around the world with his writings, songs and paintings. On his 150^th birth anniversary it would not be out of place to recollect how one of his most powerful dramas, Dakghar, did wonders to a group of children who were fated to be gassed by the Nazis in Poland by identifying their world with that of Amal. Tagore wrote this drama in 1912 which falls in the beginning of a period which is known as the post-Geetanjali period. During this period of his life one finds spiritualism gradually taking the centre of the stage. Some have classified the play as allegorical while others call it symbolic, but the theme of the play written in a language which he himself called lyrical prose, is the celebration of life and the acceptance of death as a call from beyond. The abstraction is so intense yet so placid that the reader or the viewer experiences the emotive power that the playwright had brought in the play. It would be interesting to go through a letter Tagore wrote to Monilal Gangopadhyay about the urge of emotions he felt that made him write Dakghar.  He writes that he felt that it was time for him to go and before that he would have to travel round the world to know the feelings of happiness and joy and all the exuberance of living that the people have all around. He said that one night when he was all engrossed in the work of his school, he felt that something was coming his way, may be death, and he had to go. And he speaks of expressing this sense of going ....this death...in his Dakghar. But he says he felt no sorrow or no pangs of bereavement and instead there was a peculiar joy that one feels at the time of separation or leave-taking.  These words of Tagore very well sum up the philosophy behind his creation of Dakghar.  The play was translated into English by W.B. Yeats as The Post Office, and this brought the play to the world. The translated version was staged in London the next year by an Irish group. It is interesting to note that Juan Ramón Jiménez translated the play into Spanish. The French translation was done by André Gide and was read on the radio the night before Paris fell to the Nazis.

A Polish doctor of Jewish origin, Henryk Goldszmit (1878 - 1942) who was better known as Janusz Korczak, his pen name as a children's author did wonders with this play of Tagore. The following is a brief account of the doctor’s work.

In 1911–1912 Korczak built Dom Sierot, an orphanage of his own design for Jewish children in Warsaw. When the Nazis created the Warsaw Ghetto in 1940, his orphanage was forced to move to the ghetto. Korczak moved in with them. It was the typical German Ghetto that treated the Jews as creatures fit for the gutters. There were regulations enforced that condemned the inmates to lives of indignity and humiliation.  Terrorizing the residents was the only authoritative governance they could employ. The basic amenities and supplies were dearer and the inhabitants depended on the smugglers to bring them supplies especially bread from across the walls. Things deteriorated fast and in the month of July in 1942 the administration in the name of eliminating smugglers slaughtered people who helped the ghetto inhabitants to get their life sustaining supplies from across the walls. The ambience that prevailed in the ghetto was one of gloominess and despair. This had also percolated into the orphanage that teemed with almost 200 bubbling Jewish kids of all ages.

The doctor was tormented and thought out ways of providing strength of mind to the children so that they can bear any unpleasant eventuality that would come their way. He knew that the children could also confront Death that may come in any guise. He believed that if the kids could be provided with something they could get comfort from they would be ready for any contingency. He planned to present them a metaphysical world which would help them transcend their present state of things. He wrote a fantasy, Strange Happenings, which he dedicated to one of the youngest boys in the orphanage, Szymonek Jakubowicz. Here, he tells the story of an astronomer, Professor Zi, who lives on a planet called Ro. The astronomer could develop moral power with which he could bring joy and tranquility everywhere in the universe except on this Earth where people though living together were fighting amongst themselves. He knew that it would not be judicious to coerce them and force them to change their ways and so he let them develop on their own. He believed that the young Earth would learn when time comes.

The doctor devised other methods, too, to involve everyone around to uplift their spirits. He asked the children to write diaries that would act as a catharsis for their inner feelings and also to work for each other. He knew that these were not enough and was in search for more ideas. He knew he needed superhuman power to save the children and ultimately he found the solution in the play, The Post Office, by Rabindranath Tagore. The story of the play was about a dying orphan, Amal, who enriches the lives of those who comes in contact with him. Korczak found the content so close to what he had thought about all these days. Yeats in his preface to the play had mentioned about the deliverance sought and won by Amal. This was exactly what Korczak wanted to deliver.

Esterka Winogron, who used to assist Korczak on his medical rounds of the orphanage, volunteered to direct the play. Auditions were held and the lead part of Amal was given to Abrasha, a popular boy who played the violin. Three weeks of rehearsals were scheduled, and the performance date set for Saturday, July 18.

The large room on the first floor of the orphanage was filled with friends and colleagues intrigued by the invitations written in Korczak's unique style:

We are not in the habit of promising anything we cannot deliver. We believe that an hour's performance of an enchanting tale by one who is both a philosopher and a poet will provide an experience - of the highest order of sensibility.

Appended to the invitation, with which admission was free, were a few words by Korczak's friend, the young poet Wladyslaw Szlengel, who would gain posthumous fame after his death in the Ghetto Uprising:

It transcends the test - being a mirror of the soul.
It transcends emotion - being an experience.
It transcends mere acting - being the work of children.

The night before the play there was an incidence of mass food poisoning that spread through the house. Korczak tended to the children throughout and luckily the children pulled themselves together in time for the performance at 4:30 the next afternoon.

The audience was captivated and could discover allegories and to identify to the world around. It was clear from the hushed silence at the end of the play that Korczak had succeeded in providing the adults as well as the children with a sense of liberation from their present lives and had lifted them at least momentarily, to some realm not only beyond the walls of the ghetto but beyond life itself. The children could identify Amal as their ownself and saw the King who did not appear in the play but remained present all through as the Angel of Bliss.

When asked why he chose that play, Korczak is reported to have said that he wanted to help the children accept death. In his diary he makes only a short notation about the afternoon:

The children had seemed so natural in their parts that he wondered what would happen if they were to continue in their roles the next day: If Jerzyk were to imagine he really was a fakir, Chaimek a real doctor, and Adek the lord mayor?

On  July 18, Saturday, The Post Office was performed in Korczak's orphanage and on  August 5 (some say August 6), 1942, German soldiers came to collect the 192 (there is some debate about the actual number and it may have been 196) orphans and about one dozen staff members to take them to Treblinka extermination camp. Korczak had been offered sanctuary on the “Aryan side” of Warsaw but he refused to leave the children saying that he could not abandon his children. Korczak with most of his children were exterminated in a gas chamber upon their arrival at Treblinka.

STAGE ADAPTATIONS OF TAGORE SHORT STORIES......a glimpse

STAGE ADAPTATIONS OF TAGORE SHORT STORIES......a glimpse

Though the theatre goers of Bengal have seen quite a few of Tagore’s short stories been adapted for stage productions in all these years, not many have been adapted on the 150^th year of the bard’s birth celebration.  Only a very few – 5 or 6 at the most – of the 100 short stories almost, that Tagore had written have been taken up by the theatre groups for stage presentations this year. There have been quite a few commendable productions earlier where a few others of the stories were adapted but the number had never been more than a dozen or so. However, in these earlier productions there was not much experimentation done and were almost faithful dramatisations of the stories. The presentations were not always of great standards but had the ardour of keeping to the original as far as possible.

 Lately, there has been a trend that tries to break away from the original structure of the story and, may be in the process, give the content of the story a different bend. Here, someone may ask, how devoted or loyal are they towards Tagore. Witnessing such productions one is sad to note that allegiance towards the writer in minimum. On the other hand, the productions which try to keep to the original as far as practicable with some minor modifications that are needed for stage are so aptly adapted that the viewers get the Tagore flavour. But this is, no doubt, a tough job and due to this reason, perhaps, not many Tagore short stories are found to be worked unaltered for stage presentations, if one compares it with respect to the number of novels that have been adapted. A significant characteristic of Tagore short stories is the paucity of words to convey the writer’s imaginations. The reader, on the other hand, can very well develop an imagery that is impossible to match any transcreation on stage. Apart from productions where the play has kept faithful to the story, there are productions where the basic structure of the story has been developed into a more elaborate drama. Then there are productions that drift into a different story with major alterations even to the perspective that acted as a background drop for the story. All these attempts are not always successful and, in some, have resulted in real disasters.

We would pick up five productions for our discussion which illustrate the different adaptations seen on the Calcutta stage this last year. First in line would be Sohan’s Manbhanjan, an adaptation of the story with the same name. The primary point that strikes the viewers is the diligence with which the group tried to present Tagore without any attempts of overstepping. It is a difficult job well done and requires a carefully crafted dramaturgy, done here by Ujwal Chatterjee that included necessary additions and alterations without tampering with the Tagore flavour. The director Anish Ghosh, with his imaginative improvisation and a commendable application of stage sense, has worked hard to maintain an honesty in spite of the limitations that is inherent in the group as in any other such groups. Nastaneer by Kalapi Natyamancha is on the other hand stands in bare contrast as dramatist-director Sekhar Samaddar could not get out of the grips of a work by Satyajit Ray which, no doubt, had a sweeping effect on the cultural thought process of post-1964 generations. This has immensely upset the stage adaptation of the story, so much so that, one is made to doubt whether it is but a stage adaptation of the film, Charulata excepting the end where Sekhar keeps to the story ending. The depictions of Amal, Bhupati and Charu are all affected by the screen portrayal of the characters. References of Dakghar’s Amal or of Kadambari Debi seemed completely out of place and only showed dearth of thoughts in play-writing.

It was interesting to watch two groups working out two different plays adapted from the same story. Muktir Upaye, a satire written by Tagore some 120 years ago has been adapted as Mukti! Mukti! by Sayak and as Robi Thakur o Puspamala by Kristi Sansad. This only demonstrates how Tagore has influenced the Bengali stage as neither staged the play as Tagore himself had adapted but have ventured to stage their individual versions of adaptations. Chandan Sen’s dramaturgy in Sayak’s production is worth emulating for those who works on transforming stories into plays, for here is an example of how the printed words can be given a definite shape on the stage, and that too not trying to transgress the imagery created by the story writer. Chandan has strived to uphold the true Tagore essence in building up the play which is not a true stage-copy of the story but a play based on the story by Tagore. He has taken the liberty to add to the storyline but these modifications have not extended beyond a limit and so Tagore is omnipresent throughout. He has brought in present day references through a surrealist character he has introduced in the play. This character which he calls Rasik is a prototype of a character that is found in many of Tagore’s works but in different names and also as in the same name in two of his dramas. This archetypical character is always seen as the central character manifesting the philosophy of the writer. Meghnad Bhattacharya’s directorial acumen needs little to be proved and in this production he has excelled both as an actor in the role of Rasik as well as in conducting a neatly orchestrated team on and off the stage. In Robi Thakur o Puspamala by Kristi Sansad one finds another adaptation of the same story. Sangramjit Sengupta has taken resource materials from Tagore’s different writings, letters, etc., and has developed a play that attracts the viewer’s attention because of its presentation. Puspamala is a character through whom the playwright unfolds the story on the stage. But in a few instances the basic nuances of the satire is missing or has been changed and that has resulted in the production not achieving the desired benchmark that it had promised initially.

   Another production that warranted attention is Ha-Ja-Ba-Ra-La’s Abagunthita. The play written by Chandan Sen has been developed on the short story, Tyag. The focus of the story had been the caste system that has spoilt the very fabric of the society. It shows how the caste variance can ruin a relationship and bring in enmity amongst people. This picture has not changed much even in the present times but Chandan has brought in another burning problem that is prevalent in our country – that of honour killing. Thus, a different drama is staged with the shadow of the Tagore story looming in the background. In order to give more credence to the problem the characters of the story have been presented in a coarser form with a few more characters added. The play ends in a far different way than that of the story. The playwright has taken this liberty as he has written a new play altogether and did not dramatise the story.  

PLAYS ON TAGORE’S WORKS....a different interpretation

PLAYS ON TAGORE’S WORKS....a different interpretation

On the occasion of Tagore’s sesquicentennial year, plays on Tagore pieces ranging from his dramas to novels, novellas, short stories and even poems have been staged by different theatre groups.  Adaptations and diverse interpretive versions of the plays were staged that clearly indicates the deep influence Tagore works have cast on the present generation of young theatre-makers.  These works are not to be classed with the productions which tend to dismantle the original works and build a new one in its place yet not acknowledging the truth. However, the four works that I have picked for our discussion are based on three of Tagore’s plays and the fourth one has been worked out on a poem by him.

Prachyanat, a group from Dhaka, Bangladesh, presented Raja....ebong onyannyo in the 27^th National Drama Festival of Nandikar, as a tribute to Tagore. As the name suggested the Dhaka production did not proclaim that it was an original Tagore piece but was based on one of Tagore’s very difficult symbolic plays, Raja. This play along with other symbolic and allegorical plays was the fruit of Tagore’s spiritual enlightenment that was evident in his works in the Geetali-Geetimalya-Geetanjali era, and thereafter. He had written to C.F.Andrews in 1914, the year The King of the Dark Chamber, his translation of Raja, was published, that the prying inquisitorial mind would always fail to accept or acknowledge the simple ways of life. In the drama, too, this was what he had wanted the world to see. Azad Abul Kalam, the director, writing about the play he had composed says that “Humanity has become the major casualty in this era of extreme decadence. Every moment we are tempted not to believe ourselves, our senses. Lack of respect for other race, religion, rights, and rites has resulted in social transgression, cultural subversion, and economic and political aggression. The contextual relevance of ‘Raja’ in modern society has inspired and emboldened me to integrate novel dimensions to the proscenium concept of Tagorian performance. ”

And so one finds a different ambience even before the play starts. The door to the auditorium has a poster inviting immigration to USA and a number of men in military mufti with machine guns in hand loitering in and around the auditorium as well as on the stage. The play takes the viewers directly into the environment of uncertainties, mistrust, distrust and lust that has been the order of the present international scene, especially post-9/11. The director introduces all the Kanchi kings of the present world at the very beginning of the play. He finds a similarity in the new face of American terror with that of the attempts of the Kanchi kings to seize Queen Sudarsana with the help of the imposter Subarna. The play did have the prospects to be a strong commentary on the present world situation but in spite of a very lavish presentation failed to get the viewers’ praise because of a very poor performance.

While discussing Raja a reference could be made of another production that handled a modified version of the play, done by the playwright himself. This particular play, Raja, which Tagore wrote in 1910, was the second drama in the genre that he had started in 1908 with Sarodatsab. This genre had a unique lyrical structure that was miles apart from what the viewers or, for that matter, the readers had experienced till then. Attempts had been made to stage these dramas but had more or less remained a rarity, sort of. Tagore had himself tried a number of times to stage these plays but felt that they were not as successful as they deserved to be. Perhaps this thought led him to write an abridged form of Raja which he thought would be easy to stage. He named this concise version Arupratan. In 1935 he staged it in Calcutta and himself acted in the roles of Thakurda and Raja. Bohurupi, under Shombhu Mitra, in the 50s and 60s of the last century had presented plays of this genre and they still remain as milestones in the Bengali stage history. 

Saptak, a group from Santiniketan, staged this play as a tribute to Tagore on his 150^th year. One should remember that not many performances of Arupratan are recorded as a high degree of creativity is needed to stage this play as the structure or form of the drama is far too weak than the content or substance of the play. Then there are a couple of characters in the drama whose manifestations on the stage requires a tall order that can rarely be seen. So, it is natural that the deep theatrical sense of the director and a strong acting potential, aptitude and competence are missing in a group which is not proficiently tuned to perform with a professional feel.  Nevertheless, the director Amartya Mukherjee deserves praise for an enterprising attempt to stage this play.

Dakghar is supposed to be the best drama of Tagore according to some pundits. They say that in this drama Tagore has included elements that give the piece the credentials of a true drama. This play was written in 1912 in the post-Geetanjali period. He did not have any songs in this play which happens to be the only exception in his works of that period. He proved to his critics that he could transcend his readers or viewers to his world of subjective realism without the support of music as it was thought in those days.  Some have classed it as allegorical while others call it symbolic, but what attracts the ordinary viewer to this play is the deep message it gives, that of existence in this world and beyond. The celebration of life is the foundation of all of Tagore’s philosophy and in this play that message is communicated to the viewers in a language which he calls lyrical prose.  The abstraction is so intense yet so placid that the ordinary viewer experiences the emotive power that the playwright had brought in the play. It would be interesting to go through a letter Tagore wrote to Monilal Gangopadhyay about the urge of emotions he felt that made him write Dakghar.  He writes that he felt that it was time for him to go and before that he would have to travel round the world to know the feelings of happiness and joy and all the uchhas (no fitting English word comes to mind, exuberance might fit in) of living that the people have all around. He said that one night when he was all engrossed in the work of his school, he felt that something was coming his way, may be death, and he had to go. And he speaks of expressing this sense of going ....this death...in his Dakghar. But he says he felt no sorrow or no pangs of bereavement and instead there was a peculiar joy that one feels at the time of separation or leave-taking.  These words of Tagore very well sum up the philosophy behind his creation of Dakghar.    

In their production entitled Journey to Dakghar Rabindranath Thakur, Kasba Argya tries to bring on the stage the different aspects of the drama itself. It is not the enactment of the play that is central to the production. The thrust of the play by Manish Mitra is more on an academic discourse about the drama that Tagore wrote. He relates the different experiences of people like Abanindranath Tagore who took active part in the stage decorations in the various staging of the play by Tagore himself, together with the eye-witness account of persons who were fortunate to see these shows like Rani Chanda. Then he very skilfully brings in the fact of the Polish doctor, Henryk Goldszmit, better known as Janusz Korczak, who made the Jewish children of a Warsaw ghetto to stage the Polish translation of The Post Office done by him, a week before their extermination in order to embolden them to face Death as it comes. Side by side Manish presents the play itself in parts keeping to the spirit of the original drama though in a complete different form. This production certainly opens a new trend in the field of Tagore plays.

            Swapnasandhani, a serious theatre group of Calcutta, staged Birpurus  which was declared very categorically in their publicity material that it was a play inspired by a Tagore’s poem of the same name. So there was no intention to outwit the viewers. Here, Kaushik Sen brings in Tagore’s Khoka but a different one who fights terrorism in order to save the ordinary folks. Very unambiguously the play narrates the predicament of the ordinary people of Jungalmahal who are subjected to tortures both from the so-called ultra left revolutionaries and also from the joint action force. The play portrays Khoka of Tagore’s Birpurus as a symbol of resistance against all kinds of atrocities and violence, and the play ends on an optimistic note. Poems of Subhas Mukherjee, Nirendranath Chakraborty, Sankha Ghosh have been used fittingly and this enriches the production, no doubt. But what is important is that a play has taken birth from a poem of Tagore, and this is a new path worth pursuing by other groups.    

TWO TAGORE PLAYS REVISITED

TWO TAGORE PLAYS REVISITED

The plays by Tagore that have been staged by different groups on the occasion of his 150 birth anniversary can broadly be distinguished into two main categories of productions. One type undertook to present the plays with very little editing or modifications. Here, one finds that, there is an effort not to venture or to drift away from the original form or for that matter from the original structure. The other group preferred to go their own way and try to bring in the so called modern outlook and a contemporary perspective to the pieces. These efforts, one sadly finds, in the name of experiments were solely aimed with a hidden agenda to project the director’s ingeniousness, rather than heed to what Tagore had conceived. It seemed to satisfy the urge of crossing the limit and there by ‘be different’ as the ketchup company advertises. These productions have not done any good to the Bengali stage as these so called experiments have obscured Tagore to such a point that one may find him go missing at times. The point that has been overlooked in the excitement of ‘deconstructing’ Tagore is that Tagore, himself, had not gone in for experimenting or compromising on his own works when he found that he was not getting what he had wanted for staging the play. This was seen in the case of Raktakarabi which he did not go in for staging at all.

Here, some may argue that Tagore plays need to be edited and revised or else Tagore would remain in the dungeon of the past and would fail to relate to the present times and the present situations around us. Of course innovative adaption, as Natyacharya Shombhu Mitra in 1978 had commented in one of his letters to the then Vice Chancellor of Visva-Bharati, needs to be done to make the presentation ‘meaningful’ to today’s viewers. By ‘meaningful’ he meant to present the play by bridging the distance of the time Tagore wrote his plays and the present time, which would give the viewer an unambiguous view of the playwright’s concept. He had practically showed the world how this could be done in his Bohurupi production of Raktakarabi.

Let us revisit two different productions of Tagore’s plays which would amply illustrate the conjecture made in the above lines. Both the two productions, namely, Jogajog produced by Paschimbanga Natya Akademi and Raktakarabi by Purba Paschim, have been handled by experienced directors and both have had a good star-cast. Of the two the former one did not have many shows as it is a state government regulated production and so frequent staging are not possible for obvious reasons. Further, it was a production that went rolling in the last few months of the erstwhile regime and was staged a few times during that period. It has not been staged, perhaps, since the new government had taken charge and the new policymakers have not indicated as yet of any prospects of it being staged in the near future. But frankly speaking this play should be presented more often for it is a production that carries the rare charm of watching a Tagore play – a charm that the Bengali theatre goers had experienced a few decades back in the Bohurupi productions.

Ashok Mukherjee kept to the original play that was scripted by Tagore himself. As the dramaturgy was done by Tagore himself after the original novel was published in 1929 and as the production kept to the original, it gives the viewers an opportunity to witness the novel, so to say, being enacted in the two and a half hour duration presentation. The finer shades of the characters and the hints and nuances that their dialogues convey can be perceived more lucidly than the written words would portray to the uninitiated readers. When Kumu tells Biprodas, ‘‘there are certain things that cannot be lost even for one’s son’’ (Blogger’s translation) referring to her dignity and self esteem, when Biprodas reminds her that she cannot abandon Madhusudan as her son’s future was at stake, becomes more poignant than the written words in the novel though the words remain same. Humbly, I would like to ask those who think that Tagore has to be ‘updated’ in order to be accepted by the so-called modern minds, that are we ready to accept such striking dialogues which would put the so-called modern minds look puritans of the of the medieval time.

The characters are presented keeping their distinctive personalities as Tagore had constructed them in his novel. This is facilitated by keeping the individual dialogues as written in the play unaltered. This in turn helps in the smooth progression of the play on the stage. One of the striking features of a Tagore work is the sparing use of words be it in a description or a dialogue. This feature has been imaginatively transcreated on the stage by the director and it is no easy job. One may think that such a difficult task might be a big reason why such productions have not been seen for a long long time on the Bengali stage. This aspect of handling Tagore is worth learning by the students of theatre. The viewers are enthralled at the deftness with which the characters are analysed in the limitations of the stage.  Another aspect of the production is worth a mention. The scenic value or the viewing perspective of each scene of the production is of a high standard. Every scene is so well designed that the viewing of the scenes which are always charged with the psychological conflicts between the characters never tends to fall below the desired tension level, and the viewers are carried smoothly to the end.

While Jogajog again proved that you do not require Tagore to be ‘updated’ and a stunningly attractive stage production can be presented keeping to the original script, the second play that is being revisited, Raktakarabi by Purba Paschim, stands in stark contrast. It mutates Tagore’s original play into a form which is not only unrecognisable but also a visual sore, to say the least, though lavish production cost is evident in every department of the production. This play was drafted ten times by Tagore and he changed the title of the play three times. All these changes and modifications he made were not results of banal whims or eccentricities that one might believe.  He did have reasons for all these changes which definitely indicate the evolution of his basic concept of the play which is the conflict of two civilisations, the agricultural and the industrial.  It has been more than eighty years now that this drama which remains as modern and as contemporary as any play penned by today’s playwrights, both in content and form, is being discussed and studied in the field of world theatre. As the content has a political undertone and the structure has a symbolic form which requires a lot of cerebral exercise in application, the staging of the play has been a great challenge for any theatre worker. Not many productions either in Bengali or in other regional language or for that matter in English which Tagore himself had translated as The Red Oleanders are recorded that are worth mentioning. Incidentally, this is the only play of Tagore which he himself never staged during his lifetime. Some fifty years ago the only production which is still discussed today and is acknowledged as the first modern drama staged in India was that of Bohurupi. Lately, a few groups have ventured to stage this play in their own styles. But in each of these productions instead of manifesting the Tagore work the director’s interpretation is highlighted. The latest and the most ugly of this exhibition of blatant egoism were seen in Purba Paschim’s production. Elaborate media coverage was arranged so that a euphoria could be raised and a drive made to have more viewers. The background music score was done by the sons of Ustad Amjad Ali Khan. This might have helped in the box-office returns but contributed very little for the play itself.

The filmmaker Gautam Halder has directed this play with a lot of editing in the form of additions to the script. These additions are far away from what Tagore had conceived while writing this play.  No one would have complained at this impudent trespassing on Tagore’s work if the title had been something else than what the original play had or if it were mentioned that it was an adaptation of the original play. Instead what the viewers were subjected to in the name of Tagore clearly infringes on the aesthetics of theatre viewing. To illustrate the preposterous changes that devastated the play and failed the production, a few can be mentioned. Instead of the lyrical opening scene of Kishor calling out at Nandini there were people with guns pointing at the auditorium. The last scene showed a dead Nandini being brought to lie beside Ranjan instead of Tagore’s way of finishing the play where her image of freedom and deliverance defies the suggestion of her mortal death. Showing the mortal remains of Nandini simply shows that the poor director missed the basic concept of the drama. The all powerful King is seen to have multiple hands and the literal manifestation of his being as old as the frog was done by someone dressed as a frog leaping across the proscenium, and the King wearing a pair of goggles to depict Nendini’s assertion that his vision is barred. 

It would not be impertinent to recapitulate what Utpal Dutt had to say about Raktakarabi. He had said that Raktakarabi had reached for the basic question of the modern society and that Rabindranath has pulled at the very foundation of today’s life. Dutt says that whenever he tried to find out the similarities with the present system he found Raktakarabi had transcended to a higher lyrical world. To him Raktakarabi though is of the modern times has but an eternal appeal.

                Before signing off I would like to remind the readers what Tagore had to say regarding the crisis depicted in his Raktakarabi. He said that, there in nothing called the crisis or predicament of the present times; the entire crisis faced by man is eternal. And so as long as oppression, deprivation, tyranny of the so-called civilized world stays, Tagore believed, the protesting voice of man would be raised. So, it would only spoil the play if ‘politics’ is additionally injected into the body of the play. What was required was objectivity on the part of the director which was sadly missing in the production under the scanner.      

TAGORE PLAYS ON HIS 150 YEARS: a few thoughts

On the occasion of the 150^th birth anniversary of Rabindranath Tagore quite a good number of productions have hit the Bengali stage. Having got the opportunity to see many of these stage productions a few thoughts have come to mind. The first thing that strikes a regular viewer of Bengali theatre is that there has been a great deal of enthusiasm amongst the groups to stage Tagore this last year.  The reasons are there but it is a situation in the Bengali theatre world that has to be pampered so that Tagore gets his share of credence as a playwright from the groups who would benefit from doing so. This needs to be explained.

There have been perceivable efforts on the part of the government as well as the corporate sectors to pump in finance into projects designed to work on Tagore. As such like all other sectors theatre, too, has been a beneficiary. But the aspect that has been overlooked is that very little screening had been done before the sponsorships were doled out. Thus, there are groups which have jumped into this Tagore-play bandwagon without any preparation that is an essential prerequisite of handling Tagore. As a result in many productions one finds Tagore in the back seat while the arrogance of self-exhibition takes the centre stage. Then there are other big attractions among which the most lucrative is the prospect of travelling to other places, inside the country as well as abroad as there has been a boost among non-resident Bengalis in sponsoring groups especially from Kolkata and that, too, with  a Tagore production.

Doing a Tagore play or adapting his writings for stage is, no doubt, a different job for the groups as there are certain elements in Tagore’s works, be it his plays or his other writings that require an extra effort, a special preparation, so to say, to get hold of the nuances that is not easily recognised superficially. The additional homework that is essential is a thorough understanding of Tagore’s philosophy. One should not forget that in all his works, his plays, novels, novellas, and short stories, all the characters that he had built together with their agonies, ecstasies, strife, conflicts, bliss and happiness have  been the direct manifestation of his life’s experiences soaked in his philosophy of life. Here, one may question, does it really matter to delve into all this to present a one or a two hour long Tagore piece? The answer is, yes, for it would be futile to utter the words penned by Tagore on the stage if the inner meanings of the words with their finer shades are not conceived by the actor.

But the noteworthy point worth noting is that, for whatever reasons, almost all the theatre groups of Kolkata have produced Tagore pieces. This is a significant departure in the Bengali theatre scenario. Even a few years back there were not many Tagore takers in the scene. And even prior to that period the Bengali theatre was almost an apology of western stage with mostly, barring some, flop imitations and adaptations of foreign plays doing the rounds. This state of affairs where unsuccessful replication of alien productions was preferred to our very indigenous Tagore does have a historical backdrop. Since his time, Tagore has been branded as a poet who can never be a playwright and a tirade was in circulation that his plays were though good for reading but were totally unsuitable for stage- acting. The reasons for this campaign against Tagore were very many but the most accepted one, that is the one that pundits of literature and drama believed, was that Tagore plays dealt with concepts that were far from reality, and ,thus, according to the pundits, none of Tagore plays could qualify as dramas in the real literary sense. If by realism one means the depiction of the daily chores of life then, of course, Tagore plays were far from it. But it can never be denied that whatever classification we may undertake to categorise Tagore works there is no denying the fact that each and every work has reality in its core. As there is a compulsion on the part of the reader to prepare himself for the play he is reading similarly there is a responsibility for those who are presenting the play to prepare themselves so as to convey the right perception to the viewers. One may ask what this ‘right perception’ is. It is that which helps the viewers with ease to recognise the truth and to appreciate the aesthetic qualities in the works. The viewers, too, do have the obligation to make themselves ready to imbibe what is being offered. And that comes through regular viewing of theatrical works. Once again the onus comes on the actors and their groups to cater quality products to the viewers.  

Another rationale that is put forward for not going in for Tagore is that the dialogues in his plays are too lyrical and though are enjoyable to read but are impossible to utter on stage while acting. This particular characteristic of Tagore language has, I believe, made Tagore one of the greatest playwrights of the world. The language of his dialogues uses so few words to express such deep feelings yet they have a lilting effect that creates the exact impression on the viewers. This was beautifully illustrated by Natyacharya Shombhu Mitra in his Bohuroopi productions of Tagore the most striking of it being Raktakarabi. It would not be out of context to listen to the Natyacharya what he had said in the hand-out published on the occasion of staging Chaar Adhyay. He says that the poetry in the language of acting is not the poetry of language but of emotions, and so a moment of silence on the stage can also be lyrical. In the case of Tagore’s use of language in his works, the Natyacharya says, it is a challenge for the actors to transform the spring of poetical words into the poetry of acting. And he believes that this transformation can never be done in songs, in paintings, in writings but can only be done in acting. So it is amply clear that it is the actor who has to convey that ‘poetry’ to his viewers. And thus he must get himself ready for the job.

Reviewing the situation one finds that there is a great need to continue the support that has been extended to the group theatre on this special occasion in their efforts to stage Tagore. There is also an urgent need in this state to build a Centre for Studies in Tagore Drama under the aegis of Paschim Banga Natya Akademi, which would provide to all the big and small groups the opportunity to study Tagore culture and drama.  The Centre would undertake trainings, workshops and productions and thus a strong base for the Tagore genre could be evolved.