Adapted from Mahesh Dattani : SADICHHAR RANGBADAL by Bengaluru’s Smaranik

Adapted from Mahesh Dattani : SADICHHAR RANGBADAL by Bengaluru’s Smaranik

Mahesh Dattani writes plays in English and has made a distinctive style of his own in the English drama scene.  He is perhaps the only Indian playwright who has written for BBC radio apart from being the first English playwright to be awarded with Sahitya Akademi Award and that too at a very young age. He is deeply rooted to the soil that has bred his cultural being and that gives his plays a very well balanced theme touching both the worlds – Eastern and Western. He deals with very sensitive social topics that are though common, not much taken up for circumspection. 

His first full length play, Where There’s a Will written in 1986 has been translated and adapted into Bengali by the esteemed thespian-director Meghnad Bhattacharya as SADICHHAR RANGBADAL for the Bengaluru group Smaranik. Smaranik is a new group though the director, Sayandeb Bhattacharya and some other members have had exposures on the Kolkata stage earlier. No matter, the group put up a good show and proved a lot of well done home work.

The play is designated as a drawing room comedy which in the hand-out of the production also is mentioned as the ‘comedy of the last wish’. The form of the play is certainly as is designated for the play is designed in the apartment space specifically in the drawing room with bits in the bedrooms of a family. The content deals with the predicament of the family centred on a will expressing the last wishes of the head of the family. Though the theme has a pinch of murder mystery, it deals with the positions of the wife, mistress and the daughter-in-law in a patriarchal system. Whatever the description, the play is no doubt a comedy that has a strong base on the play of the dialogues. And this flavour of the Mahesh work has been kept by Meghnad in his translation with very ingenious use of the Bengali language.

The production can boast of good acting as all the members were diligent to do their bits to the best. Apart from a congested stage and faulty lighting, the other aspects of the production scored well. The dress designing needed a special mention. Lastly, it is Sayandeb who deserves applause for handling a play in its true elements.      

An Engrossing Tagore Production: Bhabna’s

BHANUDAR SANGEY

For the last two years or more there has been a spate of various productions on the Kolkata stage with Tagore in the focus. Tagore’s 150th year has prompted groups across the state to work out some presentations that would seem a fitting tribute to the Poet. And then there was a big incentive in the form of financial assistance from the central government. So we found all sorts of productions ranging from staging of his plays without any modifications to adapting his stories and letters and other writings to a credible stage version, and then there has been stage shows that break all probity by marauding, plundering and disfiguring the Poet’s creations and also his philosophy in the name of creative interpretation. However, such works luckily have not been very many and are no more seen on the Kolkata stage except one which is worst of the lot and which had a lot of fanfare at its inaugural shows. I had discussed this production in my first blog.

Recently two of the brightest Tagore works were seen in Kolkata that very strikingly shows that creative interpretation for the stage rests solely on the very good understanding of the source material together with the intellectual perspectives that had given birth to the original writings of the Poet, or for that matter any author. Interestingly both the productions are by new groups with young talents at the helm. Ushnik’s KHELA BHANGAR KHELA has been discussed in one of my earlier blogs. Here we will be discussing BHANUDAR SANGEY another very well crafted production by yet another new group, Bhabna, under the direction of Sumitro Bandopadhyay who though is quite a successful playwright in his own right has this production as his maiden directorial venture. And the hint from this presentation that the viewers have received is that he has come to stay in the realm of direction.

As a playwright Sumitro has a very simple communicating language at his command and so his plays get going easily with the viewers. In this play he has tried to juxtapose Tagore during his stay at Shillong in the 20’s of the last century, when the Poet wrote the novel Shesher Kobita and during the time when he penned the epitome of Indian modern play, Rakta Karabi with the present day life system with all its attachments and corollaries. His intrinsic study of Tagore and his works has made him take the viewers in confidence even in situations where Tagore is seen to confront the modern band music or the cell phone and the laptop or for that matter terrorism of the present brand. The viewers get a taste of the typical Santiniketan cultural ambience on one hand and on the other they confront the deleterious effects of the so-called ‘item numbers’ on the young ones. With the very well designed run of the play one confronts Nandini of Rakta Karabi, Labanya of Shesher Kobita as well as Ranu and Indira, the latter though in a different image. 

Sumitro’s creative designing has given the play a particular engrossing visual treat with many a well crafted theatrical moments. But the performance could have been better if Soumik-Piyali’s stage planning had been more imaginative. The construction on the stage had to be compromised as the new Academy stage has many things wanting. However, things could have been better thought of. Music score by Koustuv Sen Barat and choreography by Sangeeta Ghosh were praiseworthy. But all the young members of the group did their roles – and everyone did a number of characters – with full confidence. And that tells a lot about the competence of the director to build up the teamwork.  The veteran thespian Ashok Mukherjee as the Poet was in his usual mettle.

This was one production that the viewers at the end had a feel-good mood – and that is a rare exception these days.     

Nata-ranga’s JADIDONG: a commendable production

Nata-ranga is a group that has been seriously pursuing the art of theatre since long and their earnestness is reflected by their selection and staging of plays that do not merely tell the mundane stories of our daily life but have always tried to dissect out the complexities and controversies that often crop up as we move on in our lives. Sometimes we feel uncomfortable to even discuss the matters and prefer to sweep them off under the carpet. Interestingly Nata-ranga focuses on such problems and makes the viewers aware of the different ailments that spreads in our society untended. Unhappy marital life is one such agenda that we prefer to sleep upon lest the society blames incompatibility on one’s part. Their latest production JADIDONG is a dissertation on this trait of incompatibility and maladjustment that shatters an otherwise ‘good’ married life.

The present play which is written in a typical satirical form by Sohan Bandopadhyay tells the story of a couple who represents the multitude of ‘broken homes’ that we encounter in today’s world. Here the man and the woman are both well placed in their professional lives and have no strings attached. This has led both of them to have their ‘Shylock’s share’ in the building up of the home. So we find everything divided and bifurcated and that includes from the morning newspaper to every drop of the water that is supplied for the daily chores. The playwright has shown how silly things come up as points of contentions and the persons however civilised and sophisticated never yield in to give the other his or her rightful space.  Such a couple gets hold of a person from the court compounds to get their divorce procedures complete.  But this man is blatant enough to tell the truth about him being a fraudster who takes on the garb of a professional like a lawyer or an astrologer to exhort money from people in distress. But in dealing with this person the couple is subjected repeatedly to situations that point out the follies they are up to and their lack of accommodating the other’s views which in turn would have given positive results.

It would be interesting to note that the name of the play, JADIDONG, is a very important word in the Vedic wedlock mantra that puts conditions on both the groom and the bride. Sohan has deftly brought in this very vital aspect in his content.

The design of the production by Sohan has proved once again the very intense thinking process that always goes behind his every presentation. In the present work there is spectacularity and the form has a comical characteristic that has the very big chance of wandering into a light hearted clownish form. But the acting in the three roles and especially the work of Debshankar Halder as the third individual, who takes in the maximum load, prevents from that ordeal to take shape on the stage. Stage and lighting designs, music support and dress designing contribute equally to this laudable production.   

MORE OF TAGORE

MORE OF TAGORE

One finds quite a number of productions on Tagore being staged lately and all related to the sesquicentennial celebration which is being stretched to a two-year happening, it seems. Though the anniversary had passed off quite sometimes back the doles offered by the central government have come in late and thus the groups had to have some preparation time. This late crop of productions that hit the Kolkata stage is a mixed bag of fares that range from plays written by Tagore to adaptations and presentations based on his writings.    

Bratyajan in their festival themselves presented Tagore’s comedy CHIROKUMAR SABHA under the direction of one of the most distinguished directors of today’s Bengali theatre, Debesh Chattopadhyay. His last work DEBI SARPOMASTA had enthralled the audience due solely to his excellent directorial competence. But sadly one finds not an iota of a director’s presence not to speak of any suggestion of his work in this production which happens to be the fourth of this group and the first not under the tutelage of Bratya Basu. Why was the script done by Tagore himself not followed was difficult to comprehend. It was pathetic to watch the members of the group in different roles simply at loss on the stage not knowing what to do except blurting out the lines. The presentation failed miserably and the viewers missed the Tagorean touch that gives this comedy its time-defying popularity. 

Adrija Dasgupta and Senjuti Bagchi have prepared a script for Uhinee’s BEJE OTHEY PANCHAME SWAR that mainly tries to focus on the socialistic thoughts of the poet. In doing so the script is full of long excerpts from his different essays and letters with a few songs and poems, and bits of dramas inserted here and there. And so the script takes up the look of a seminar lecture rather than a stage presentation. Choosing from Tagore’s repertoire needs a lot of extensive study and it becomes rather frivolous if portions of his writings are taken at random depending on a few references or phrases that match up to the theme in mind. The bits of the plays that are presented are more as illustrations of the ‘lectures’ rather than as examples of the dramatic creations. The dialogues are delivered as if in one shot with no pretence of acting with the actors rambling off their lines in faulty intonations and pronunciations. Adrija who had proved her directorial acumen in a number of productions of the group failed in the basic planning in the present production. The stage design initially went well with the run of the play but later the stage with its piled up props was a distraction for the viewers. But lighting design, if there was any, was the biggest culprit.

Gobordanga Naksha’s GHARE BAIRE is one of the better fares that the viewers were able to enjoy among these late sesquicentennial celebrations. Arindam Sengupta’s adaptation of the novel did not attempt to override the original and so for the uninitiated viewer it was pure Tagore though abridged.  Ashis Das, who has created a niche for himself in the Bengali theatre world, has reached another high mark in his career in this production. This is one novel of Tagore that not many have attempted to stage. Ashis with his sheer grit and a very dedicated group situated far away from the city has taken up this challenge that many a well-placed Kolkata group has not attempted. And the brightest point is that there is not an iota of Satyajit influence in the entire production. The characters have been very well presented with the right emphasis to each. The roles have been performed keeping true to the script. Sanchayan Ghosh’s stage though well designed was not fully utilized. Badal Das’s lights and Swapan Banerjee’s music support were just adequate. Panchanan Manna’s make-up and Debashis Dutta’s dress were perfectly done.

Raja Bhattacharya’s Blank Verse wanted to project the multifarious problems that are gnawing the society today through his play THE GREAT NEW LIFE which is primarily aimed as a tribute to Tagore. But in doing so the viewers are led to a milieu of incidents that seem to lose the bearings, and in the process Tagore gets a backseat. But the commendable part of the production is the perfect synchronised acting of the members and a very well executed dress designing, stage, lighting and music planning.

Beadon Street Subham has been working with children and teen-agers since the last twenty five years. As a tribute to the poet they produced two plays. The first one being the poet’s own DAKGHAR and the second one is Subhashis Gangopadhya’s JAKAN DAKGHAR AACHHYE AMAL NEI, a play based on ‘Dakghar’. Under the able direction of Pankaj Munshi the young boys and girls seemed to love doing their allotted roles in the first play and that exactly what the Poet had tried to say all along in his different works. The basic spirit of the play was very well portrayed. The stage planning was though a bit cliché ridden. In the second play Subhashis had brought about a social angle that is very much evident in the present times. He proposes that instead of Amal if Sudha was to grow up in Madhab Datta’s household, she would have to be confined in the room because of the various social stigma that imprison the girl child in our society. Subhashis had kept to Tagore’s play as far as establishing the spirit of the play that we mentioned earlier. It was no need to make Sudha bed-ridden due to a fire in the flower garden. However, such a Tagore based play had not been witnessed in the Tagore celebrations that had just passed off.

 

KHELA BHANGAR KHELA : Ushnik’s unique tribute to Tagore

KHELA BHANGAR KHELA : Ushnik’s unique tribute to Tagore

        The name of the production happens to be a line from one of Tagore songs,   ‘‘ Aaj khela bhangar khela khelbi aaye ’’ where the Poet beckons the world to join him in the celebrations of the Spring time by breaking away from the shackles of the mundane and defying the rage of the Nor’-wester. This theme has nothing to do with the Ushnik production under the baton of the playwright-director Ishita Mukherjee. But the similarity lies somewhere else. The concept of the production has something in common to the Poet’s call to break away from the known path. Ishita views some of the Tagore characters in their changed sexual image. Though the gender of the characters has been mutated in the presentation, the purpose of their being remains unchanged. And that is where she forces the viewers to try to understand the deeper aspects of the Tagorean philosophy.

          Ishita has picked up twelve characters from six Tagore pieces. In each of the instance except one, the viewers confront the characters in the opposite gender to the one Tagore had portrayed them in his works. So we find a young girl instead of Amal and a female singing minstrel instead of Thakurda in ‘Dakghar’. The viewers find that the thirst for the unknown remains the same no matter whether it is a young boy or a young girl, and the dream-merchant can also be of any sex. So are the basic characteristics like love, possessiveness, jealousy, etc., expressed regardless of the gender.  When Labanya becomes an iconoclastic young man in ‘Shesher Kabita’ and Ela in ‘Chaar Adhyae’ recites out ‘Prohor sheser aloye ranga…’ or for instance, Atin speaks out the departing lines like ‘‘Aamar chaitanyer shesh muhortyo tumi-I nao’’ and Sandip of ‘ Ghare Baire’ is a woman who does not hide her ambitious image that is seen amongst many a woman political leaders that we come across very often, or Raghupati in ‘Bisarjan’ is represented by a woman Kali-worshiper who cannot hide her love and care for Jaisingha, the basic human traits are presented no matter what the gender is. Then Ishita as a contrast presents Bipradas and Kumu of ‘Jogajog’ in their original genders and thus proving her point of view strongly. But at the end the tone is disturbed when the young girl as Amal asks a very poignant question which betrays the basics of Tagore’s views of life. Excepting this portion of the script the content has been well dissertated.

       As for the production it can be said to be flawless. There were established actors as well as young talents and everyone did their parts commendably.  In spite of the hassles of presenting a play that the groups are facing after the so-called renovation of the Academy stage Ushnik did a well-done job. With limited props Somnath Dutta’s stage design together with Joy Sen’s lighting plans did help the play especially when bits of different pieces had to be presented in succession. Music by Abul Chakraborty, too, helped in the run of the play. But the most striking feature of the production has been the designing of the dresses of the different characters. Dress designing had been done keeping the context in mind and such meticulous observance is rarely seen in the productions even of celebrated groups.  

Lastly, it should be mentioned that the financial support from the central government has certainly been well utilised.

A FEW NON-TAGOREAN PRODUCTIONS

A FEW NON-TAGOREAN PRODUCTIONS 

      During the last two years almost, not many productions have been put on stage that have no connections with Tagore or with his works in the remotest sense. It is also worthy of mention that of the non-Tagorean plays staged in these times most of them have proved their worth and have received favourable responses from the viewers in spite of the flooding of theatres with Tagorean productions. Most of them have been discussed in my earlier blogs. Presently our discussion centres around a few that we have not discussed as yet. 

      Minerva Natyasanskriti Charcha Kendra’s Minerva Repertory’s second production DEBI SARPOMASTA is one of the significant non-Tagorean productions that hit the Bengali stage sometimes in the second half of 2011. Monoj Mitra had written this play many years earlier, perhaps in 1995, but was never staged until the Repertory under the very able direction of Debesh Chattopadhyay made it possible with a bunch of young actors who are being bred as members of the Kendra. Beautifully orchestrated team acting is an asset for the production. It was fascinating to watch the actors utilizing every space available including the aisles of the auditorium, not for the sake of it but on purpose. A lot of kudos is due to the director for having composed very many engrossing frames. In true repertory style the actors took part in the other departments of the production also like sets, décor, lights, music etc.  Basically a musical, the play is based on the sylvan folklore depicting Nature in all its beauty and fury. Dhamsa, madol, flute, dotara and such folk instruments with fitting choreography have been used for designing the music in the folk tradition with the guidance of folk musician Abhijit Acharya.

      Mangalik and Sanglap Kolkata presented two plays on very important social issues plaguing the society today. While the first group presented, MALLABHUMI that pointed at the perils of a common man at the hand of the land promoters and real estate sharks, the other group in its play, NIRASHRAY, dealt with the complex problem that may come to one’s life which may threaten the human relationship that gives shape to a happy family. A very ordinary play by Mohit Chattopadhyay, MALLABHUMI had been turned into a worth seeing drama by sheer devotion and dedication by the members of the group. Samir Biswas had to take a big workload in the role of the protagonist as well as the director of the play. NIRASHRAY, written and directed by Kuntal Mukhopadhyay is based on a story by Sudip Sen.  The viewers are made to involve in the building up of the story on the stage. The production can be credited with an all-round neatness.

      Oihik has been a serious group since it came into being some years back and has been regularly producing dramas worth mentioning. This year they deviated from their trodden path to present a musical presentation named MAHORA CHOLCHHE, designed by Arindam Roy and focussing on the songs of theatres of the bygone era starting from Giris Ghosh’s ‘Chaitanyalila’ of 1884 to Bijan Bhattacharya’s ‘Nabanna’ of 1944. About sixteen songs have been incorporated taking from the works of Amritalal, Kshirodprasad, Nishikanta, Rabindranath, Apareshchandra, and Mahendra Gupta. Each song is acted out as it had found its place in the respective play together with the stories that went around about the actors, playwrights and others who contributed in the history of the Bengali theatre. An in-depth study by Roy and a well designed production have given the presentation a great academic value that also is a pleasure to watch.  

      A very popular drama from Bangladesh was invited in another newly initiated festival organised by Bratyajan. Theatre, one of the most reputed groups from Dhaka presented BARAMKHANA written by Pantha Shahriyar, enthused by Sunil Gangopadhyay’s ‘Moner Manush’.  This group was born way back in 1972 and the legendary thespian couple of Bangladesh, Ramendu and Ferdousi Majumdar has since been a major strength of the group. It is due to Bratyajan that the present generation of theatre-goers of Kolkata got the opportunity of seeing them on stage under the able direction of their daughter, Tropa Majumdar. This reviewer has been fortunate enough to have witnessed way back in 1986, one of their outstanding productions, ‘Payer Awaj Paoa Jaye’, the first lyrical play of Bangladesh written by the famous poet Syed  Samsul Haque and directed  by Abdullah Al-Mamoon. The present play dealt with the problem of how Lalan Fakir’s philosophy is being gobbled up by the coterie of religion, politics and business.

      Bratyajan in this festival had a revival of Bratya Basu’s first staged drama, ASHALEEN. Purba Paschim is credited for choosing to produce this play that Bratya had written twenty five years ago. It was staged in Kolkata in 1996 and Bratya had done the role of the protagonist then. After sixteen long years the play remained as fresh as ever and credit is due to the director, Biplab Bandopadhyay, of course. A very well presented drama with all the departments of the production doing their jobs excellently, this play would certainly merit as one of the most important happenings on the Kolkata stage in the recent times.

      Long back in 1966 a few members of Nandikar disassociated themselves from the group and established Theatre Workshop, and since then they have been incessantly staging plays of different sorts and flavours. But none of these productions compromised on the standard it had set in spite of its prolificacy.  On the occasion of their 46^th anniversary they presented their 50^th   production, a play by Sumitro Bandopadhyay, MUCHHE JAOA DINGULI. A destructive political activism of the late 60’s and the early 70’s that had shattered the very foundation of the middle-class urban society has been focussed bringing horrid memories for the elderly generation, and on the other hand exposing the younger generation to the bitter fall-out of that period. As usual for a Theatre Workshop production, acting of every role is performed to perfection under the very dotting eyes of the much experienced thespian-director Ashok Mukhopadhyay. Murai Roy Choudhury’s music played a vital role.

      Another important production that has no links with the Tagore celebrations is Anukar Natya Sanstha’s SHISYA-UPAKHYAN, drama by Subhas Sengupta. This drama deals with a vital problem that plagues the Kolkata group- theatre world of today without any signs of amelioration. Group-theatres came into being after a long felt need of a purposeful theatre, away from the influences of the fully commercial Hati Bagan genre. And after much struggle giants of the Bengali theatre world could establish this particular genre of purposeful theatre in the 50’s. Contributions to the theatre world by these groups need no introduction and today Bengali theatre owes its existence totally on this culture. But sadly the basic character of the group-theatre is wanting amongst most of the groups and so there is little consistency in the productions. A very demonic commercial outlook has lured the groups to rent in professional actors doing big jobs in cinema and television serials for a production, and thus selling out the house without considering the ideals of the group-theatre culture. The production has all its departments well tuned under the baton of the playwright-director, Subhas Sengupta. 

TASHER DESH of Shohan

TASHER DESH of Shohan

Tagore finishes off ‘Ekti Aasade Galpo’ (An Absurd Story), one of his absurd short-stories in an optimistic note on the ideal situation for a free man in a free society. Roughly translated into English it goes on like this, ‘Instead of remaining an innate innocent under some insurmountable dictum now they are either good or evil according to their own wish’. How better can one describe a free society? After forty years, in 1933 he designed a symbolic play on this short-story of his and named it TASHER DESH. Full of songs with invigorating lyrics with mirthful tunes this drama has become a symbol of a society which revolts against and discards everything that is stale and old and spent up, and welcomes the new wind of change that ushers in new life. In Calcutta TASHER DESH had been a signature production of Suchitra Mitra and Dwijen Choudhury’s Rabitirtha. They even staged a version named ‘Ekti Aasade Galpo’. The then very popular Santiniketan Asramik Sangha under the indomitable stewardship of Kshemendramohan Sen had staged this drama throughout the country and the production had become a benchmark of some sort. Many troupes had produced this drama on the Calcutta stage but in the form of a dance drama with the singers singing behind the stage and renowned danseuse performing the leading roles. These productions did not take care of the Tagorean dramatics that is very much apparent in the drama. During Tagore’s times this drama was produced in Santiniketan and in Calcutta with Santidev Ghosh doing the role of Rajputra and has become a legend both in the forms of dance and dramatics. 

This prelude is for an appreciation of a Shohan production of TASHER DESH that is being staged in Calcutta presently. Ujjwal Chattopadhyay is the dramatist of this version of TASHER DESH. He is a very innovative playwright of our times and has been equally successful in both original plays as well as Tagorean adaptations. Shohan’s earlier production of MANBHANJAN was also his handiwork on one of Tagore’s short stories and I take this opportunity to quote myself from one of my earlier blogs where talking about Shohan’s production of MANBHANJAN I said, “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.” In the present production Ujjwal has done it in the same way keeping true to Tagore. The viewers are comfortable with this version of his as he has never tried to forcefully bring in contemporary or rather present-day socio-political look to the characters. Very delicate nuances in the dialogues communicate social commentaries that bring out the rat-race of the modern lives. Other Tagore songs that fit in well with the run of the play have been added giving the drama its own identity. 

Gautam Ghosh’s music required a little more intervention though it went well with the performances. Hiron Mitra’s stage had much to be desired as was the dress-designing and colour schemes though Ashok Pramanik's lights were without fuss. Teamwork of the actors on the stage is perfectly coordinated and it is without any inhibition that one would agree that such disciplined movements are a rare treat. Everyone acted their hearts out, so as to say. Such spontaneity in each of the actors could only be achieved when the Tagorean spirit is infused into the members by the director. Anish Ghosh has once again proved his mettle in composing scenes on the stage and is, no doubt, successful in handling a production that is very much different from an ordinary drama. 

MACBETH – Shakespeare & Swapnasandhani

MACBETH – Shakespeare & Swapnasandhani

The first reference one gets of the staging of a Bengali translated version of Shakespeare’s Macbeth is of an attempt by Giris Ghosh after he took over the charge of the Minerva Theatre. That was in the year 1893. It was an outright flop. The theatre-goers of the then Calcutta did not like the production. Excepting for Ardhendu Sekhar Mustafi who performed in four roles – Witch, Porter, Old man and Doctor – none of the actors could satisfy the audience who were no less Giris fans. Later in 1897 Giris staged Hariraj, a Bengali adaptation of Hamlet – and it was an instant success story. Giris had interpreted the failure of his Bengali Macbeth as a failure on the part of the ‘uneducated and uninitiated’ Bengali viewers to grasp Shakespeare. He also commented that the viewers were relieved to witness Abu Hossain, the production that followed Macbeth. In 1919 the Bengali version of Othello was equally rejected though the first night was a bumper. It was the great thespian of that age Amar Dutta who could identify the main reason for the audience apathy for some Shakespeare productions. He said that the viewers loved and enjoyed the adapted versions instead of the translated ones. He produced Saudagar, a Bengali adaptation of Merchant of Venice and it was a hit.  Whenever Shakespeare or for that matter any foreign drama was adapted to an Indian setting to which the audience could identify themselves – the production was a success.           

One finds Sisirkumar Bhaduri in his long association with the Bengali stage had never attempted a Shakespeare. In the later years there have been a number of Bengali translated productions of Shakespeare, Macbeth also being among them, and  of which this writer had seen a few –  but they have not registered in his memory as such.  But it is also true that many of the original Shakespeare plays have flopped in London itself. And among them are highly starred productions like the one of no other than Sir Laurence Olivier.  It is interesting to note that in the context of the freeing of Haiti, Orson Welles produced his first stage production, Voodoo Macbeth. And Akira Kurosowa’s The Throne of Blood has been a milestone among classic movies.

Recently the Kolkata theatre scene is witnessing a spurt of Shakespeare plays. Among them is Swapnasnadhani’s Macbeth. The play has been adapted by Ujjwal Chattopadhyay. William Shakespeare, it is believed wrote The Tragedy of Macbeth sometimes in 1605-06 and the earliest performance of the play is recorded sometimes in 1611. What-so-ever, this play is regarded as the ‘bloodiest’ of all Shakespeare tragedies as there are a number of cold-blooded murders all of which are directly or indirectly committed by the ‘hero’, Macbeth.  The portions of the original that have been kept in Swapnasnadhani’s version have been aptly translated. Swapnasandhani as a very serious group involved in theatre activism always attempts to mirror the socio-political scenario prevailing in West Bengal. In this present production, nonetheless, one never fails to identify the worthless,  good-for-nothing Duncans in our polity, or the over ambitious ‘immortal’ Macbeths, or the Lady Macbeths who help Macbeths to achieve their aims and then they themselves commit suicide, or the Macduffs who remove the Macbeths from the throne and put Malcolms instead, or who the immature inept Malcolms are, who get the throne, rather by default. However, one may say that the interpretation of the play as done by Swapnasadhani without distorting the original structure, surely is one of the appropriate ways to present Shakespeare to a non-Anglo audience.

In performing in Shakespearian roles especially in the key ones, the actors are constantly challenged to keep to a form of acting that would fit in to the contemporary style of acting without treading on to melodramatics that the form of the play would always entertain. The rhyming and the lyricism in the long monologues and dialogues in the Elizabethan language tend to weigh heavily on the actors. This is equally true in translated versions as well. All the various aspects of the art of acting like,  physical movements, facial expressions, speech enunciation with appropriate diction keeping to the desired syntactical form of the compositions, voice modulations and pitch variation, have to be perfected in order to portray a  Shakespearian role such as that of Macbeth or the Lady. Undoubtedly, Koushik and Reshmi Sen have proved just that to the Bengali theatre-world. Koushik has set a standard, a benchmark, in portraying the pivotal role of a Shakespeare tragedy. The Bard had created Macbeth as the hero whose ambition turns him into a villain, and for whom he imbibes a pinch of remorse and empathy in the heart of the viewers which, as a matter of fact give the play its tragic tone –  Koushik has impeccably created this multilayered complexion of the role. Kudos – unlimited – is for him. Reshmi had a very difficult role to portray as the viewers would never have the slightest feeling for Lady Macbeth who for them is an outright villain. Among all of Shakespeare’s female characters the Lady is his cruellest and the most complicated. A lady who is ready even to discard her feminity to make her husband kill the King requires an actor who can bear a very heavy work-load on the stage. Reshmi has made it with full confidence. Praises are galore for her.

As for the others, the actor, whose name was not available, in the Porter’s role was praiseworthy. So were Siddhartha Banerjee’s Banquo, Nabanita Basu Majumdar’s Gentlewoman waiting on the Lady, Ashok Ghosh and Dibyendu Nath as the two Murderers. Kanchan Mullick’s Macduff, Sushanta Basu’s Duncan and Subhro Saurav Das’s Malcolm were a bit weak portrayals. Special mention should be made of Paramita Saha, Riddhi Sen andSudarshan Chakravarty as the three Witches. 

As Shakespeare has never elaborated on the stage-settings in his plays, it requires imaginative planning, and Soumik-Piyali’s stage and Joy Sen’s lights did well to create the perfect ambience and give the required visual support. Gautam Ghosh’s music as well as Reshmi Sen’s dress designing, too, enhanced the relevancy of the content. Koushik Sen’s directorial capabilities reached another height in this production as planning and execution were perfectly done for this magnum production.

Before signing off let me as a viewer extend my deep apologies to the team for disruption created by a fellow viewer who could not resist exchanging pleasantries with his acquaintance on the cell-phone at the middle of a scene being performed on the stage. God help us!!!!           

MONOJ MITRA’S FUNTASTIC ASHCHOURJYO FUNTOOSI

MONOJ MITRA’S FUNTASTIC ASHCHOURJYO FUNTOOSI

The Bengal theatre world is elated!

Once again Monoj Mitra has come on stage with his latest play AASHCHOURJYO FUNTOOSI produced by his team Sundaram. After Jaa Nei Bharate it has been quite a few years that the Bengali theatre viewers have been deprived of his FUNTASTIC stage presence. It is Monoj Mitra the playwright-actor-director all the way as usual in this latest production. So it is nonetheless an occasion to rejoice for the theatre lovers of Bengal.

This time playwright Monoj has based his plot taking a leaf out of Ramayana. The epic of Valmiki has been modified in its sub-content, so to say, in order to elucidate a very important point-of-view that Mitra finds pertinent as well as relevant in the body of the basic text. Instead of focusing on the plight of Sita in the hands of her captor Ravana, Mitra delves into the predicament of all women in the patriarchal society  that exists today as was in the supposedly Rama’s times. So the playwright decides to introduce a female character to emancipate the women folk tied in fetters. In the original text it is the Hanuman who leaps out to Lanka in search of Sita but Monoj has preferred to replace the mighty ape with his female edition with the name Hanumati keeping to the logic of the nomenclature followed in cases like Sreeman-Sreemati and such others in the Bengali language, and also keeping to the conviction that women’s problems can best be solved by women themselves.

The original text of Valmiki fell in the hands of a thief who brought about the different changes and adapted it for his theatrical group which in turn has been performing this so-called ‘Sita-haran Pala’ for generations. The play tells this adapted story of the abduction of Sita and the subsequent freedom of all women. Hanumati goes to Lanka in a Mayurpakshi boat and finds a whole lot of women members of Ravana’s household confined to different situations not to their individual likings. She finds a gouty Mandodori deserted by Ravana, a forlorn hash-addicted Bajrajwala frustrated in her conjugal life with the perpetually sleeping Kumbhkarn and the ambitious Sarama who never finds her match in Bivisana. For Hanumati it is a revelation to find that these ladies are no better than Sita confined in the Ashoka forest. So she decides to rescue all of them together with Sita and sail out of Lanka. Kalnemi gives them his newborn girl child so that she will grow up a free individual. Sita tells them that she will not go back to Rama as she had been a prisoner of sorts in the Ram-rajya much before Ravana abducted her. So they steer the Mayurpakshi away from the fiefdom into a new world.

The different un-Ramayan situations like Hanumati creeping into the bed under the mosquito net and the blanket of the sleeping Kumbhkarn or the Chief of Ravana’s army courting Sarama at the top of his voice as he is used to shouting out orders to his men, bear the typical signature of Manoj Mitra; and that gives the play its characteristic flavour.  

Excellent performances by Mayuri Ghosh as Mandodori, Dipak Das as Ravana, Aditi Ghosh’s Hanumati, Subrata Choudhury’s Achari Baba, Dipak Thakurta’s army chief as well as the performances of Priyojit Bandopadhyay as Bivisana, Krishna Dutta as Bajrajwala, Arpita Sen as Sarama, Samar Das as Adhikari and Biswanath Dutta as the Thief  gave the production a great support. Manoj Mitra himself in the role of Kalnemi was in his usual self. Dress and music played important roles. The songs written by Manoj Mitra and put to tune by Soumitra Roy were well executed.

It was an enjoying evening with some thoughts to bring back home.

ANANDI of Abhaash vs BOSTOMI of Tagore

ANANDI of Abhaash vs BOSTOMI of Tagore

It would take the world yet another 45 years to start a movement for the emancipation of women. And there was Rabindranath, way back in 1914, penning seven short stories and a novel to present some of his famous woman characters who would bring a sea change in our outlook on the society and the related gender discrimination. Bengali literature till then had not expressed such bold and intrepid narrations of the experiences of women who strived to break the shackles of male-dominance-oriented social taboos. Damini from Chaturanga, the novel, Haimanti from the short story of the same name, Anandi from the short story, Bostomi, Mrinal of Streer Patra, and Kalyani from Aparichito are a few of his immortal creations. Pundits say that each of these characters is shaped on women whom he had seen from very near.

But such has always been true for any creator though it would be interesting to note that the creator himself reveals in the case of the character of Anandi in his short story, Bostomi, the familiarity of the character with someone he had met long time back. In one of his letters many years later, in 1931, he writes that this character of the Bostomi is in many ways true. He says that this woman used to visit him often and used to narrate stories to him. This particular Vaisnavite lady who had renounced her family and comfort, and lived by seeking charity singing praises to Chaitanya Mahapravu was named Sarbakhepi. According to the descriptions by Sachindranath Adhikary, a consort of the poet during his Silaidaha days this elderly woman would visit the poet in his Kuthibari everyday of his stay and would partake of the leftovers of his meal as prasaad. She also would bring garlands of white Gandharaaj flowers for the poet and would refer to him as ‘Gour’. These particulars are found to have been incorporated by the poet in his story.

Abhaash presented this story of Rabindranath as a part of its ‘Robir Chhayaye Natak Mela 2012’ organised to commemorate the conclusion to the 150^th birth anniversary of the poet. The play has been written by Sekhar Samaddar and has been named as Anandi. Sekhar has proved his proficiency as an original playwright in many of his plays as well as a very sensible and apt adaptor of Tagore pieces as evidenced in the Purba Paschim production of Chaturanga. But in this particular production he chose to drift away from the original and stuffed in loads of substances of his own imagination as well as from Tagore pieces remotely connected to the storyline or for that matter the theme. This has resulted in a play that tells the story of a writer who never ever fits into the image of the story-teller of the original story and who is undoubtedly the poet himself; and of a woman who also is alien to the Anandi that Tagore had conceived in his story. And so what the viewer finds is the writer purported to be the poet involved in a scandalous relationship with a woman having a not too strong morality. So for the uninitiated viewer it is a far cry from the basic philosophy that Tagore had depicted in his story and the character of Anandi gets a naughty impish touch instead of the bold emancipated woman of Tagore.

But as a production it is praiseworthy and Sekhar has once again has proved his acumen as a director. It is interesting to note that I have been following his works since 1988 when I used to do review articles for The Telegraph and have found him maturing into one of the important dramatist-director of the present time. Every single member of the group had acted out their designated roles commendably. The stage planning was creditably done by the director himself but the faulty handling of the lights could not deliver the desired effects. Music by Swapan Bandopadhyay played an important role admirably.

Nonetheless the production is certainly an important event in the theatre scene of Kolkata.          

IN MEMORY OF THE POET-PLAYWRIGHT, MOHIT CHATTOPADHYAY

IN MEMORY OF THE POET-PLAYWRIGHT, MOHIT CHATTOPADHYAY

Kironmoy Raha while talking about the contemporary playwrights in the chapter on the ‘other theatre’ of his book, ‘Bengali Theatre’ writes, “To a greater extent than any other contemporary playwright, Mohit Chattopadhyaya uses poetic and symbolic devices. His characters have an extra-real dimension and he lets them – and the play – develop tensions by a deft use of imagist language and surreal situations.”  Very seldom one finds such thrifty use of words to explicitly and exactly describe a person’s body of works. This was way back in 1978 when Mohit was in his first phase of his creative writing for the Bengali theatre world. Mohit Chattopadhyay passed away at the age of 78, after a protracted suffering on 12 April just a day before the first death anniversary of another theatre giant of our time, Badal Sircar. Both were poets to their core and both wrote plays steeped in poetry of their individual genre. The Bengali stage has been impoverished and the likes of them would never be seen once again. 

Mohit was born in Barishal and migrated with his family to Calcutta just a few months ahead of the partition. An avid lover of literature and a compulsive writer of poems, his college days in Scottish Church saw him amidst a group of budding poets like Sunil Gangopadhyay, Phanibusan Acharya, Shibsambhu Pal, Sakti Chattopadhyay, Sandipan Chattopadhyay and Soumitra Chattopadhyay amongst others. One of the founders of the Krittibas group, Mohit published his first book of verses, Aashare Shrabone in 1956. His contemporaries found in his poetries a class that had a very individualist style and were certain that this young companion would be their co-traveller in their journey to discover a poetic idiom in the post-Tagore (and post-Jibanananda?) era. But a chance reading of Luigi Pirandello’s Six Characters in Search of an Author opened up for Mohit a hither to overlooked world of theatre and he found a very different language to communicate his thoughts which he thought was much stronger and more passionate a vehicle than poetry. According to him, he felt bogged down in his poetic pursuits and was not finding the ecstasy and the delight in writing the verses that he used to enjoy in the initial days of writing poems. He said that he was looking for a space where he could express his feelings more openly, and he found theatre the ideal spot.  He wrote his first play, Kanthonalite Surjyo in 1963 and then the flood gates opened that gave Bengali theatre a lease of fresh life in the post-Giris era. 

Gradually he stopped writing poems and concentrated on this new idiom. Often he was asked that why did he stop writing poems? He would say that he has not stopped writing poetries but what has actually happened is that the form has changed from verses to dialogues, scenes and acts. Here, Mohit differed greatly from Badal Sircar. Sircar denied the fact that he was a poet to the core of his existence and believed that he was basically a dramatist while Mohit acknowledged his own poetic talents. More than a hundred plays, full-length as well as one-acts have been penned by this great poet-playwright and have been staged by almost all groups of Calcutta. The readers and the viewers of his plays found that he created wonders in each and every drama he finished. His translations and adaptations of foreign works which ranged from Boudhayan and Shudrak to Arbuzov, Brecht and Kafka amongst others, have been so high in intellectual exercise that these plays have acquired the innate flavour as found in his originals. In the initial years his dramas were mainly centred on the individual human existence and its inner world. They and did not comment on the surrounding system – its polemic and politic. He very consciously changed over to his later phase where he vociferously though never losing his unique refinement, became a great critic of all inequalities, disparities, unfairness and the ills that have denigrated the society around us. In this phase as he concentrated more on the content the structural elements of the plays were less complicated. His play of words in constructing dialogues for his characters was one of his fortes and that attracted Mrinal Sen to collaborate with him in scripting many of his films in Bengali, Hindi and in Oriya.  

Mohit received the Sangeet Natak Akademi award in 1991 but that is never a yard-stick to gauge the colossal talent that he was. He remained a poet-playwright all through and never ever tried his hands in the production of any play, neither as a director nor as an actor. This proved his intense commitment to his work as a dramatist.

[I wrote this piece after returning from a beautiful programme arranged by Paschimbanga Natya Akademi at Madhusudan Mancha on 3 May, 2012 to remember this giant poet-playwright who would be regarded as one the foremost dramatist of this century.]

               

CHHARIGANGA: A BISTAAR BY SOUMITRA CHATTOPADHYAY, THE MASTER OF THE STAGE

CHHARIGANGA: A BISTAAR BY SOUMITRA CHATTOPADHYAY, THE MASTER OF THE STAGE

Way back in 1981, I remember, Soumitra Chattopadhyay in conversation with yours truly had said that before stepping on to the stage to act out a character in front of his viewers, he studies the character and he thinks about it, and then like the bistaar in a kheyal rendition he gradually unfolds the character on the stage. His words resonated after these thirty years later the other day when I had gone to see, rather experience yet another sterling work of this master of the stage.

Sanstab presented Chhariganga as their latest production with Soumitra Chattopadhyay directing the play and doing the role of the protagonist. A couple of days before the day the show was staged at Tapan Memorial Theatre, or it would be correct to say that I had the opportunity to see the staging, the central government had announced that this year’s Dada Saheb Phalke awardee would be this thespian who had gifted innumerable scintillating performances since his first shot as Apu ushering in his newly-wed wife, Aparna to his dilapidated roof-top room beside the railway yard fifty three years back. A national award for acting had come his way for the first time just four years back and that, too, after fifty two years of our sheer disregard to choose and acknowledge a gem from the coloured glass beads. This shame has been somewhat lessened by this announcement of the award. But to many theatre-goers like me Soumitra Chattopadhyay is an outright stage person who also acts in films. Unfortunately we have not given him his dues for we have failed to gauge the immense depth of his capabilities on the stage.

    

Jointly written with Amit Ranjan Biswas, the play has those poetic qualities that are the benchmarks of a Soumitra play. It tells the story of a scientist who though having international recognition is out casted because of his shifting into the field of quasi-science world of alchemy to probe into the origin of the Creation. His eccentric pursuits had led to the death of his wife and for which his daughter who lives abroad comes to him in his many feats of hallucinations and holds him responsible. Driven out from the professional and the social worlds he lives secluded in his ancestral dilapidated mansion far away from the city and on the banks of the huge Chhariganga lagoon. A person who also has a past to hide visits him to help him out in his daily chores and, thereby, giving him company at least for some part of the day. Both the characters are like the backwaters of Chhariganga – isolated from the main stream. At the end his daughter comes to take him with her and thereby release him of his bondage from isolation and dejection.  

As a drama it has not much novelty to boast off, and that makes the production much more significant. But the presentation on the stage will make the production worthy of mention as a major event on the Bengali stage. The two characters or rather three as the character of the daughter portrayed by Poulomi Bose, the thespians daughter in his real life, has two appearances – one as the real daughter of the scientist and the other as the one who comes in his hallucinations – are entwined so perfectly in the body of the play that there is no difficulty in their perspectives as against the protagonist. The role of the person who gives company to the scientist is excellently executed by the elderly stage personality, Dwijen Bandopadhyay. This senior actor has been contributing immensely to the Bengali stage for quite a number of decades and has developed a particular style of his own and it was interesting to note that in this particular character he was bereft of that style.  That proved his versatility once again. Poulomi on the other hand was immaculate in rendering the daughter’s character both in the real and surreal forms. For both the actors it is needless to say that sharing the stage with the master is a real challenge and with the directorial support from the master, himself, the work becomes a finely tuned piece.

And as for Soumitra’s presentation of the character it was an experience for the viewers as is usual in his all other works. Here he was creating a character of a man of science with outstanding intelligence but who has lost his battle to get to the truth of something he believes is at the core of existence, and is living a castigated life of a recluse. His work can best be described taking his words in reference. As a viewer one experienced the bliss of listening to a master expressively interpreting each note of the raga in the bistaar of a kheyal. As such works of art can never be emulated nor can be repeated it remains an experience of a life-time for those who witnessed the performance at that point of time. In subsequent staging, it is natural that the master would render the same dialogues but the resonance that would be created in the viewers of that performance would be something different, something unique. And so the concept of stage performance gets a very different meaning, a different connotation when such masters are on the stage. Then to top it all there is a nuance, an overtone of poetic lyricism in the structuring of sequences or moments that carry the undoubted signature of the director. For the students of theatre such works unveil a thousand texts for them to imbibe.

The other aspects have been well handled. Soumik-Piyalis’ stage design has significantly contributed to create the ambience which did help in the run of the play. So did the light design by Badal Das as darkness and the lantern lights played important roles in creating the surreal effects. Dishari’s background score was kept to the minimum. The dress designs and their colours were very well thought out. The maroon robe and the staff in his hand gave the scientist’s appearance a medieval look which certainly brought out the perspective of the character. Though Md.Ali’s make-up was well done there seemed to be some sort of discomfort for the master thespian in a few instances. But that certainly did not hamper his act.                   

What did hamper the production is the constant disturbance of the ringing of the cell phones of the so-called culturally superior viewers of Kolkata most of whom sadly had gone to see ‘Soumitra’ rather than to appreciate and dunk in the awe-inspiring performance of this great master of stage.   

A TRIBUTE TO A POET WHO WROTE PLAYS: BADAL SIRCAR

A TRIBUTE TO A POET WHO WROTE PLAYS: BADAL SIRCAR

Very recently on a call from the organisers of a UGC-sponsored National Seminar entitled “Modern Indian Drama: Theory, Practice and Criticism” I contributed a paper on Badal Sircar. The title of the paper was A TRIBUTE TO A POET WHO WROTE PLAYS:  Badal Sircar. I am putting up a shorter article with excerpts from the paper for you to enjoy the poetry that Sircar created in his plays.

Answering to a question in a programme on the National Television channel, long time back, he had very explicitly said that he disliked poetry. Then how is it that such wonderful poems glitter his dramas? Sircar said those he had to write for the sake of the plays he wrote and nothing more. Such was this giant intellectual who preferred to keep a low profile and abhorred ‘show off’s. This was evident from his works which spanned from full length plays to skits. He was aware that his works might not get the treatment with all its fairness that they ought to. He also knew that the people around may even fail to comprehend what he was trying to tell. And as a matter of fact he did fall a prisoner of his own choice in his own kingdom. But he was least bothered. He was honest to himself and kept to his unflinching integrity till his death last year at the age of eighty six.

This was a person who liked to tread the path that differed from the usual. He was always the ‘outsider’, very akin to his most memorable character Indrajit. He very knowingly suppressed his identity of that of a poet and regally stepped into the world of play-writing. After a few comedies he had stopped writing and then there was Ebong Indrajit, the play that started the New Wave movement in Indian theatre. These two worlds of poetry and plays merged in him so intimately that one would experience the beauty of poetries in his plays. But restless as he was he would soon go into the world of play-direction and then turn into an ardent theatre-activist. It is needless to say that the Bengali drama world was impoverished the day Sircar stopped writing his signature plays and concentrated on street skits for his third theatre. But his sudden transitions from one art to another were always spontaneous and were undertaken when he was at the pinnacle in that specific field of creativity he was leaving. This spontaneity is apparent in his different plays and, perhaps, this naturalness has placed him as the most important playwright in the post-Tagore period. His plays necessarily speak of the human values and are essentially optimistic in character. But it is poetry that exudes once the play is read or the drama enacted.

His dramas did not carry any slogans as basically he was a poet. What he did was simply portray that section of the society about which he had a first-hand familiarity. He had done a very delicate dissection of the educated middle-class, and depicted their plights and their drudgery for a mediocre life that had no variety and their innate naivety that indulges escapism. But what made Sircar’s works unique was the music that he could imbibe in his lines, however mundane the contents are. But his works were misinterpreted and were tried very sparingly, as the general audience lacked the imagination, sensibility and patience that is required to read his ‘poetries’. Way back in 1989, in a review article on his play Shes Nei, I had written, “Keeping in mind the immense contribution of Badal Sircar in enriching the Bengali theatre and his unique form of dramaturgy, one sadly notes a certain lack of interest in recent years in his work. Based on strong socio-political themes, all his plays have ample scope for creative improvisation.” [The Telegraph, 10 November, 1989] 

His full-length serious plays have an innate lyricism in them. This gives his plays a quality which insists that the players as well as the viewers exercise their cerebral faculties to do justice to their individual roles. The lyrical qualities of his plays are so daintily woven in the body of the plays that a serious reading puts the reader in a trance, as it were.

A dissertation on this particular aspect in one of his plays, Sararattir (The Whole Night), would give the reader an idea, perhaps.

Sararattir was written in 1963 during July to August when Sircar was staying somewhere in the eastern part of France. This full-length play has three characters with two drops in between. Debotosh Ghosh, the senior most thespian in the Bengali theatre world today recalls in a conversation with this author that Badal Sircar after returning from France read out the play to Shombhu Mitra. Ghosh who was the only other person present that day at that reading session remembers that Mitra after listening Sircar’s reading was very enthused and had wanted to stage the play. But it did not materialise and till date this play has never been attempted on the stage except for a few amateurish ones in the early seventies. A few excerpts from the play inaptly translated by the author might give a hint of the lyrical qualities of the drama. 

The stage opens to a very shabbily arranged, very poorly lit room in a house with a dilapidated look in some sequestered place, and is stacked with paraphernalia of a typical household. A couple takes shelter in the room from the torrential rains outside. Apparently there was no one in the room but they find a few of the words they utter echoing back to them. And then there emerges an old man from the shadows and welcome them to the house and informs them that he stays there all alone. He arranges all possible comforts for them. And then he baffles them by correctly telling their age and the number of years they are married from a theory he has developed taking seven as a unit. The husband, established in life and contented with the mundane life, is materialistic in his outlook and goes to sleep in a bed prepared by the old man for the couple. The sensuously emotional wife spends a sleepless night and ultimately opens up to this old man to bare all her pains and longings.

The uniqueness of this play is the poetic qualities that the dramatist has provided in the surreal character of the old man and his interactions with the young wife. In order to accentuate this quality he has made the husband a total failure. Thus, the three characters have three different structural qualities. Apart from these three characters there is another character that unlike the others is not presented on the stage. The three main characters that are seen on the stage have not been given any names but the character that is referred to by the woman as her ‘paramour’ has a name. The name given to this character is ‘Ranjan’. This particular name has a very strong romantic presence in the Bengali dramaturgy. In Tagore’s Raktakarabi or The Red Oleander the dramatist introduces this character in absentia but the viewer feels his strong presence mainly through the eulogising dialogues of the protagonist Nandini who describes him as the champion of life who can tame the turbulent waters of the unruly river by his sheer strength. So ‘Ranjan’ has thus come to symbolise the ideal ‘superman’ in the Bengali theatre-goers psyche. Badal Sircar has brought this character in referential terms. The viewer has every reason to doubt the actual existence of this character just as he doubts the existence of the old man. 

It would be interesting to observe how Sircar brings in this romantic character from the following excerpt from the play where the woman passionately speaks out to the old man. The conversation has the qualities of a serenade and the reader drifts into a musical ambience.    

Old man: Do you know Ranjan?

Woman: Only that much which is possible for me.

Old man: Do you love Ranjan?

Woman: (Smiles) Loving Ranjan – do I have that courage in me?

Old man: Does Ranjan love you?

Woman: Does the star in the sky love the flower here on the earth?

Old man: Is Ranjan so far away?

Woman: I think so.

Old man: Why?

Woman: What do I have? I am very ordinary.

Old man: Is Ranjan extraordinary?

Woman: To me, yes.

Old man: You have built Ranjan up in your dreams – in your imagination. Ranjan is not what you believe.  

Woman: Ranjan is exactly that. I have seen Ranjan. The sky and the earth cannot bind him. Ranjan is the breeze, I can feel him, but cannot touch him. Ranjan is everywhere. His two eyes travel beyond the earth, beyond every moment of the days, beyond the horizon. He has the world in his eyes, the whole big world. It is so big that it does not fit into the nitty-gritty of our daily life.

Old man: He has the world in his eyes – his are all ablaze. And that is why his eyes are eternal and never wink. His eyes keep open, in the dark, every night. The fire in his eyes burns him. It gives him pain. It kills him. Ranjan is old. Ranjan is finished. Forget him.

Woman: I crave him.

Old man: You crave him?

 Woman: Yes I crave him. So many nights and midnights, my twenty eight years have gone up in smoke; have vaporised out of the window to mix with the air outside. I have groped to find it – to find the worth, to find the means, to find the price. I could not bear his nonexistence. I have restlessly and aimless tried to find out. But I failed to understand then. Today on this wakeful night all the sleepless windows of the midnight have merged in this room. All my emptiness all my bareness are all here in this room, and in the fire of this wakeful night a very sharp desire has been cast, moulded and welded. I yearn for him. I desire Ranjan.

Old man: What about your husband?

Woman: I don’t know.

Old man: Your world?

Woman: I don’t know.

Old man: And Ranjan?

Woman: I don’t know.  Ranjan does not want me. He won’t need me. He cannot want me. But what does it matter? In my want – he is mine. In my want – he is me. As long as I never knew – I was empty. Today I know – I am full. Today I have a meaning. Today I am. From today on I shall live.

Old man: You want to live for only one wish?

Woman: (Her eyes sparkled) Yes only for one longing. The emptiness of twenty eight years has drifted down to this sedimented desire, and you say it’s only a single want?

                    (The old man suddenly stretches out both his hands)

Old man: Ranjan! Just listen.

.................

The character of the old man is a purely surreal character that Badal Sircar had presented in his unique style, though surrealism in plays is a difficult tool to handle. Sircar was master in playing with the psyche of the reader/viewer. Through this character Sircar expresses the functioning of the thought of the woman as well as that of the husband.

A few excerpts from the play will illustrate this point.

Man: You – stay here all alone?

Old man: It seems you can’t stop thinking about it.

Man: No, I mean, here, like this –

Old man: Why I stay here, is that what you want to know?

                (The man makes an unintelligible grunt. It is understood that was exactly his question.)  

Woman: Why do you ask him repeatedly? He might have reasons not to tell us.

                (The old man looks at the woman and smiles.)

Old man: No, I have no reservations, but not all things can easily be said for others to        understand.

Woman: Why not?

Old man: If I ask you – why do you live alone? Can you answer that for me to understand? 

Man: But she does not stay alone.

                (The old man stares at the woman as if he did not hear the man)

Woman: I – we do not stay alone.

                (The intonation is softer than that of the man)

Old man: Yes yes, right. You people don’t stay alone. Right you are.

                  (To concede to this may seem like being ridiculed. As a matter of fact, the old man had a touch of ridicule in his words all along.)

                  People may think seeing you that you are just married.

Man: Yes, many have said so.

Woman: You have not thought so it seems.

                  (She grins, but she is a bit annoyed. She was used to the mistakes that the people made. The old man smiles – a leer of owning up a crime.)

                  Guess how many years we are married.

Old man: Should I tell you? (He observes both of them) Seven years. (Both of them look at each other) Is that correct?

Woman: Do you practise astrology?

Man: Tomorrow is our anniversary. We will be completing seven years.

Woman: I have heard a range from three months to three years. Till now no one has said more than three years. I wonder how you said that.

Old man: I did not think much. I have a theory about seven years. I believe seven-year is a unit in man’s life.  It’s a unit, a module, a yardstick – whatever you may call it. Seven ones are seven, seven twos are fourteen, seven threes are twenty one, seven fours are twenty eight, seven fives are thirty five – just think of the ages – seven, fourteen, twenty one, twenty eight, thirty five, forty two. Each of them is like the different crossroads in our lives – the end of the old perception and the beginning of a new consciousness.

Man: That could be done with any other number.

Old man: Like?

Man: Take, take five?

Old man: Think of it – five, ten, fifteen, twenty, twenty five. Do they go like those of seven? 

                (They think. It’s not happening)

Woman: All right – eight?

                (The old man said nothing. They think of eight, sixteen, twenty four.)

Man: (Elated like almost has won) But five eights are forty!  

Old man: So your age is thirty five.

Man: How did you know?

Old man: Usually at thirty five the number forty gets to the head. Almost like a terror. Apart from that I have a leaning for the unit – five sevens are thirty five.

Woman: Right, now tell me what is my age?

                (The old man rises up. There is no grin now.)

Old man: One shouldn’t guess the age of a lady. Otherwise I would have told you that you are of that age when the woman sits to take a detailed account of the past life.

Woman: How much?

                (May be some difficulty in hearing but the intonation is like a whisper. It seemed that the woman took some time to ask the question.)

Old man: Four sevens are twenty eight.......

...........    

A little while later the man ridicules his wife as a poet and the old man retorts:

Old man: .....With their feet on the ground those who can fly on the wings of poetry are the most satisfied of all. What do you say?

Woman: Satisfaction?

Old man: (Suddenly stops) No, I was wrong, it isn’t satisfaction – something else – something much bigger than satisfaction. What is it? Happiness? (Turning to the man) You must not be liking this? Want to play cards?

Man: Cards? You have cards? (The old man takes out a pack from his pocket) But how do we two play?

Woman: I can’t play cards.

Old man: I see. Then? Want to see card tricks?

Woman: (With a childlike interest) Can you show magic?

Old man: Of course! Pick one from this pack. Don’t show me.

                (The woman picks one card. The man did not show much interest. Still glanced at it from behind)

                Have you seen it well? Well keep it inside the pack wherever you want. Now shuffle the pack. 

                (The woman shuffles it like a novice. The man takes it from her and does it with great style. Then he offers it to the old man.)

No, no don’t give it to me. See if the card is there or not.

(They try to find it.)

Woman: Where is it, it is not there?

Old man: It is not there? Have you thoroughly looked for it?

Man: No, it’s not there. 

Old man: Not there? It is lost? (Taking the cards.) Well now here is another magic –

Man: How about finishing this one?

Old man: Which one?

Woman: Won’t you get the card out?

Old man: Which card?

Woman: The one that I picked.

                (The old man stood up and looked straight into her eyes.)

Old man: (With a serious tone) You picked it. It is lost. Do you think if you look for it you’ll get it?

                (The woman could not retort.)

Man: Then why call it a magic?

Old man: (Looking at the man) You can’t relax till you get it back?

Man: Unless you get it back the game isn’t over.

Old man: You insist on an end to this game?

Man: Of course.

Old man: And whatever the end might be? If I return the card all crumpled, crushed, smashed,   battered, pounded – you still want an end?

.........

The old man tries to give the couple whatever comfort possible in that situation.  He gives the woman a fresh sari to wear. She comes back to the room in a fresh sari and overhears the old man telling her husband something about the whole night.

Woman: What about the whole night?

Old man: I have been awake, all night.

  Through the long and dark night.
    I’ve been awake ,watching.

   My eyes sleepless and awake.

  The sleepless eyes looking into the night,
  watching, feeling, learning the night.

[Translated by Mrinalini Ghosh]

Woman: (Almost in whispers) What did you learn?

Old man: Learnt what one shouldn’t know, something that shatters the serenity. Compassion    collapses. Dreams crumble.

Woman: And if you learn of it?

Old man: Yes, if you learn.

  My innocent dreams,

   I have crushed them

  My sleepless eyes have driven them away.

  With these anguished eyes,

 I have seen this night, known this night, believed this night.

[Translated by Mrinalini Ghosh]

Woman: And then?

Old man: Then there is nothing.

Woman: Yes there is. Certainly there is.

..........

At the end of the play the dramatist makes the woman open up to the old man. The husband feels cheated as he fails to synchronise to the refrains of his wife’s longing for life and her denial to the process of mere existence. The rains had stopped and the night had passed off, as the surreal world gradually disappears.

Old man: The rains have stopped and it will be dawn soon. The sun would come up. The waters   would subside and the path for your return would once again be usable. The long night will end.

Woman: And what about Ranjan?

Old man: Ranjan is a night – a long wakeful night. He is an impossible wakeful night in an impossible room. If you don’t want to forget then don’t.

Woman: No, I will never forget – never ever. This night is mine – this one night – one long night – the whole night.

Old man: Come what may. Tonight at last

                    at long last, these eyes

                    have realised their dreams.

                    So what if this is the end. At least this Night

                    would know the possibility of what is impossible. 

[Translated by Mrinalini Ghosh]

Badal Sircar in this play as in his other works used the language as his tool to define, explore and build the idiom which has become his signature style. No one since him has been able to use this idiom with such flair as is evident in his plays. Very little work both in the academic field and on the applied side has been done and it is time we acknowledge the importance of this poet-playwright in the art and world of theatre.