Ashoknagar Natyamukh celebrates its pre-Silver Jubilee

 

Ashoknagar Natyamukh celebrates its pre-Silver Jubilee

Ashoknagar Natyamukh celebrated its pre-Silver Jubilee with a well-crafted short play and a seminar that had promises of a serious academic exercise at the Tripti Mitra Sabhagriha.  

The play TWO SOULS is an adaptation of O. Henry’s short story, ‘The Gift of the Magi’. The play has not been localized by Ribhu Chakraborty, and so the American setting, and that, too, of the early 20^th century New York has been kept with all its contexts and references. But the sequence of the O. Henry story of divulging the events to the reader that leads to what Laura Furman says ‘his famous trick – the twist at the end’, has been altered. Though the end has had to be kept as per the original, the magic of the Master gets a bit diluted. Furman notes, ‘the twist is really a wringing out of the plot elements and revealing something that was there all along but the reader hadn’t noticed.’ So, the progression of the plot that leads to the climactic twist matters a lot especially for such a gem of a short story as this one. The two main elements on which O. Henry built the story – Della’s knee-length hair and Jim’s pocket-watch did pose a problem for the adaptation.   

But that does not snatch away any bit of credit from the playwright. It was told that this drama was a maiden attempt on his part in penning a play. Though O. Henry’s couple are down-to-earth and trying to make ends meet on a shoe-string economy, the dramatist has given a poetic treatment to the relationship of the couple using poems and recent band-songs, which for the uninitiated viewer is a pleasant experience.

Abhi Chakraborty’s mounting of the play stressed largely on the visual aspect. So, he used the space of TMS more as a proscenium than as an intimate form. He elaborately put up the acting zone with innovative uses of props which included hanging widow frames, a frame purported to be a looking-glass, a couple of short stools, a short rostrum, a long draping cloth and plastic sheets and maple leaves cut-out from them. His designing thus was very well crafted giving the spectators a delightful treat. He was equally extravagant with lights and the soundscape that gave the production a richness. Though the plot of the story thrived on the frugality of the couple, the maker of the play underlined the love factor of the young couple. He was ably assisted by Shreya Sarkar in sound and make-up, and by Shouvik Modak in lights. The couple played by Sharnya De and Abhipsa Ghosh did their parts as directed.

In the second half of the evening Ashoknagar Natyamukh arranged a seminar entitled ‘Notee’r Katha’ which loosely in English would be ‘The Actress Speaks’. Four of present generation’s actresses, namely Amrapali Mitra, Rituparna Biswas, Indudipa Sinha and Gulshanara Khatun spoke about their experiences working with Ashoknagar Natyamukh under the direct care of Abhi and Sangeeta Chakraborty. But sadly, the seminar which was expected to have been a serious discussion on the process of building up a character and how these young actresses go through that process, turned out to be a very light-hearted frolicking exercise mainly due to an inapt conducting by Debjani Mukherjee.     

Mouna Bansari – a 4-star presentation by Angan Belgharia

 

Mouna Bansari – a 4-star presentation by Angan Belgharia

The eternal love story of Orpheus and Eurydice from the Greek mythology has been adapted by Sanjoy Chattopadhyay for Angan Belgharia for its latest production MOUNA BANSARI. There are a number of versions of this pair’s undying tale of love. These versions give different causes for the death of Eurydice, as also of the character of Aristaeus. In some versions it is said that Aristaeus was a shepherd, while in some other he is described as a bee-breeder. Then in one tale it is said that Aristaeus was attracted towards Eurydice and he chased her in the woods and while fleeing from him she was bitten by a snake. In some versions it is said the on the night of her wedding with Orpheus she was bitten by a snake while dancing in the woods with the nymphs. Chattopadhyay has used the character of Aristaeus to bring in an element of thrill and so what we get is a gripping tale of love and excitement. Choosing from the innumerous situations and characters from the Greek tale Chattopadhyay has chosen seven characters and two main incidents to build his play. The lyre of Orpheus is replaced here with the flute, reminding one of Kazi Nazrul’s ‘Orphius-er bansori’ in the poem ‘Bidrohi’. However, in the first part he deals with the affairs of Orpheus and Eurydice, and the villainy of Aristaeus. In the next part the playwright describes the journey of Orpheus to the empire of Thedas in Hell to bring back Eurydice. And in the process of telling the story he has sharply hinted on the present-day scenario of the lumpen politics of caste and religion that is being methodically injected into our lives. The reference of the ‘Chowkidar’ in the character of Aristaeus in another interesting reference. The character of Orpheus has been given a poetic treatment. The character of Eurydice’s father, Kiriakos has been built in the mould of a sooth-sayer, thus posing a counter-point to the character of Aristaeus. The nymphs play as Chorus. But their songs do not go well with the build-up of the play.

Abhi Sengupta’s making of the play needs to be applauded. His designing has adequately brought out the richness of the script. As the play has two distinct parts there is a chance of a drop of the tempo, but Sengupta has aptly overcome that apprehension by meticulously mounting each of the scenes. though my line of vision was not ideal as the seat allotted to me at the AFA was at a side, I could judge that Debabrata Maity’s stage architecture and its construction by Madan Halder was certanly one of the strong points of the production. Soumen Chakraborty’s lights were perfect to bring out the moods of different theatrical moments created on the stage. He did not go in for dazzling illumination though there were ample scopes and opportunities for it. Alok Debnath’s make-up and hair-do by Tanusree Sengupta or Debabrata Das’s costume designs need mention. The puppets by Samit Das and his choreography together with Minakshi Mukherjee’s dance compositions deserve kudos as do Nilabha Chattopadhyay’s calligraphic artwork.

Samit Das’s Orpheus with his diction and expressions was a creditable performance. Subhashis Dutt’s Aristaeus was exquisite and the actor ably avoided overdoing his part. Mousumi Pal’s Eurydice. Subrata Sarkar’s Thedas and Baby Sengupta’s Queen were done to the director’s instructions. The Director himself portrayed Kiriakos.  

So, this is a production that could easily get a 4-star gradation on my part.    

Khardaha Dwisattik’s Dhusar Otit – commendable job very well done

 Khardaha Dwisattik’s Dhusar Otit – a commendable job very well done

In these times of great intolerance where one faces a peculiar urge to present a play in unnecessary grandiosity with lots of acrobatic feats and gimmickry with lights and sets, and pushing the drama text or the acting element to the back seat, it certainly becomes a very pleasant experience on the part of the viewers when you are made to sit up and watch an almost perfect production unfolding on the stage, and that too in a work by a greenhorn group. Yes, it was a very rewarding experience watching Khardaha Dwisattik present Dhusar Otit (The Gray Past), a play written and directed by Prasun Banerjee at Minerva Theatre.

The play is about the lumpen-ruled anarchic times of Bengal of the 70s of the last century. The script is crispy, taut and slim with no extra trusses nor with any loose ends. The play is thus tuned perfectly to touch the higher chords to reach the intermittent crescendos that give the play its character. At the centre of the story is a political party reared ruffian who has his eyes on the daughter of a retired teacher. He announces that though he is a worshipper of ‘Asia’s Mukti Surya’, purported to be Indira Gandhi, he in fact belongs to that class who takes the shape of the container they are poured into. And he also declares whoever is in power, the backbone of their strength is them, only. For those who have had their slices of experience of the turbulent days of the 70s do find the play authentic, or as Tagore had said about his Rakta Karabi (Red Oleanders), ‘truthful’. And for the younger generations of the spectators the play would be equally engrossing for its crispness. Bereft of any melodrama the dialogues of the characters, too, have no extra tidings. The characters are also very well defined.            

In the making of the play Banerjee has been very cautious not to lessen the tempo in its progression towards the climax which has a surprise stored for the viewers. The last scene where the playwright-maker plays a game with the spectator is very well crafted. A few theatrical elements like the silent acting in the background, or the re-entries of the lout, or for that matter a very quick change of dress by the mother to show a change of time, have very neatly executed.

But the mainstay of the production is the impeccable acting of all the members. Sumit Kumar Roy’s acting acumen has been repeatedly being proved and he has compelled the viewers to take note of this. He restrained himself in many a place by simply applying his cerebral faculty, to tread into over doing his part and make it a typical ‘cinematic villain’. He also is credited as the ‘creative director’ of the production. The veteran thespian Aruna Mukhopadhyay’s helpless mother will remain in the minds of the viewers. This actress has remained in the wings as if, though having given us so many performances since long. This shows our lack of the power of appreciation, of course. Banerjee himself was in the role of the protesting father. But Nibedita Bhattacharya has astounded the spectator by her stellar performance as the daughter. Her subdued expressions in the climactic scene have made the viewer to sit up and take notice.  

Abhijit Acharya’s aptly scored music and Bablu Sarkar’s minimalistic lights with Neel Kaushik’s time-identifying sets have contributed immensely to the success of the production. Kudos is due to Banerjee for his dress designing which marks the era of the 70s immaculately.

The SAYAK Festival & Kaushik Chattopadyay’s BAISHE AUGUST

 

The SAYAK Festival &

Kaushik Chattopadyay’s BAISHE AUGUST

 Recently SAYAK arranged a 10-day Selected Full-length Bengali Theatre Festival at Tapan Theatre. This happens to be their 9^th such festival which they arrange every two years. The Corona crisis had forced them to suspend their programme for five years. The last one was held in 2018. Sayak has most graciously given me the honour to serve as a member of the pannel of judges and I have been trying to serve them for quite a few occasions. The festival was traditionally held at Bijon Theatre, but as history would like to have it Bijon Theatre itself went into its pages, and the 8^th Festival was held at Minerva Theatre.

This year’s prize money that SAYAK had arranged was ‘substantial’ as Shri Rudraprasad Sengupta defined it in his speech at the Prize-giving ceremony held at AFA. The other personality giving out the awards was Shri Ashok Mukhopadhyay. The other three members of the pannel of judges were Shri Bibhas Chakraborty, Shri Soumitra Basu and Shri Debashis Majumdar, who was also the Selector of the ten plays from amongst 121 entries.

The selected 10 plays were Bhanu Sundarir Pala of Chakdah Natyajan, Baishe August of Belgharia Abhimukh, Chhoto Galpo of Hatibagan Sangharam, Raat Kato Holo of Bandel Aarohi, Neel Ronger Ghora of Krishti Ranchi, Palok of Ballygunge Bratyajan, Pet e-Case of Nandipat, Shatabdir Swapno of Uttarfalguni Agartala, Chop Adalat Cholchhe of Sanglap Kolkata, and Ashrunadi of Karimpur Natyapremi.

The awardees were

Best Production – Baishe August of Belgharia Abhimukh

2^nd Best Production – Chhoto Galpo of Hatibagan Sangharam

3^rd Best Production – Bhanu Sundarir Pala of Chakdah Natyajan

Best Director – Kaushil Chattopadyay for Baishe August

Best Playwright – Arindam Mukherjee for Chhoto Galpo

Best Actor – Amit Saha in Chhoto Galpo

Best Actress – Piyali Basu Chatterjee in Palok

Best Backstage Atriste – Ujan Chattopadhyay (music) for Baishe August

     --------------------------------******************--------------------------

Kaushik Chattopadyay’s BAISHE AUGUST

It would be a pleasure to discuss the work that got the Best Production, Best Director and the Best Backstage Artiste (music) awards. It may seem a bit queer to see the name of the playwright-director of the play in my title instead of the group that produced the play. Without curtailing an iota of credit from the group it has become imperative to mention Kaushik Chattopadyay’s name, as the work is indeed a result of a deep passion of the playwright-maker for the content of the play; and who could transmit that emotional attachment to every member of the troupe as also amongst the viewers.

Incidentally I have had the opportunity of seeing this drama way back in 2021. And that experience still ‘haunts’ me as it was agonising for the spectators to withstand the deep emotional pain as the play culminates to its known but deeply moving finish. The conclusion of the play is made known to the uninitiated viewer at the very beginning itself, thus it makes it more difficult to travel the path as if, to the specific culmination at the appointed time. The mental stress that one experiences certainly makes it difficult to follow the last couple of scenes. May be this is due to some sort of shortcomings on my part as a viewer. It should also be noted that the perception-cognition system that works in the viewer, has certainly a limited carrying capacity.

Now let us start our discussion of the play and its staging.

The 1953 novel of the American novelist Howard Melvine Fast, ‘The Passion of Sacco and Vanzetti’, from which Kaushik Chattopadhyay has penned this play, is based on the true story of two Italian immigrants who were falsely convicted of robbery and murder and were electrocuted to death in 1927 after seven years of trials that has been termed as a mockery of justice in the pages of history. Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti who belonged to an Italian anarchist organization and were stamped as radical communists were victims of anti-immigrant, anti-anarchist and anti-communist prejudiced political and judicial system. There had been a flooding of protests worldwide since the trial began. As a reaction to this the Lithuanian-born artist Ben Shahn who was one of the members of the Social Realist movement did a series of paintings in 1931-32 which he titled ‘The Passion of Sacco and Vanzetti’.

Though an ardent Leftist the title of Shahn’s series had an association with the Passion of Jesus and Shahn had shown the Christian last rights in one of his paintings of the series, where the bodies of Sacco and Vanzetti are seen in coffins with mourning ladies purported to be the wife of Sacco and the sister of Vanzetti. Fast had kept this title for his book where he describes the last eighteen hours of the two convicts through which he tells the story of the last seven years of their sufferings and the denying of justice and truth. And through the story he poses some eternal questions in front of the power that rules.

Chattopadhyay had adapted the novel and named his play Baishe August.  He questions the ruler but what I would call in a modest non-militant tone through the different incidents seen today that are equally distressing and smacks of anti-semitsm in a different garb, be it the anti-CAA protest, or the saffron terror in Jamia Milia Islamia, or the Shaheen Bagh incident or may be the killing of George Floyd in Minnesota. He has added five characters in his adaptation. Two of them are two commentators through whom he brings today’s issues in the foreground. Two clowns and a time-keeper are three very important elements that Chattopadhyay had executed to give his idiom a strong voice. But what sets this play apart is the amount of passion that Chattopadhyay had poured into its making. And this gets transmitted so quickly amongst us, the spectators. This ‘passion’ is not the emotional feeling. Chattopadhyay wants the viewers to feel the ‘pain’ that Sacco and Vanzetti had suffered for the seven long years. The mental pressure is too much to withstand for an intense viewer of the play.

Apart from Hiran Mitra’s stage designing or the low-key, realistic lights by Dipankar De, or the choice of colour grey in the designing of the dresses, excepting the colourful clowns, by Mom Bhattacharya, which made the total mise-en-scene work wonders, Ujan Chattopadhyay’s music was stunningly a revelation for the spectators. This is because Ujan had shown how the score can heighten the dramatic moments yet keep its own soul in its place. His use of Italiano melodic pieces with his own gave the run of the play its own tune and rhythm. Incidentally, Ujan is the son of Kaushik.

Jyotirmay Chatterjee’s in depth research on the subject derives kudos.     

I am Hamlet is Aajker Hamlet in Khardaha Dwisattik’s production

 

I am Hamlet is Aajker Hamlet in Khardaha Dwisattik’s production

Richard James’s one-act black comedy I am Hamlet is a play that has an element of a suspense thriller and has a few important qualities that makes it popular for any small group to stage it in any space, be it the proscenium or the black box. The play requires a couple of actors who ‘can act’, very little properties to handle and to top it all has a very well-structured dialogue form. Khardaha Dwisattik a new group under the stewardship of the veteran actor Prasun Banerjee staged the play at Minerva Theatre.

Banerjee has localized the play to a Bengali setting. So, the character of the director of a theatre group Tom becomes Abhay Roy, and Simon who comes to join the theatre group that is preparing to stage Shakespeare’s The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, and seeks to play the title role, in the absence of the regular player, becomes Hemant Bose. But this process of Bengalicization has posed a few problems naturally. There are quite a few of Shakespearean references in the dialogues, and as both James’s language and that of Shakespeare belong to the same linguistic family, the subtle nuances of many a word or phrase get lost in Banerjee’s script. Phrases like ‘wooden O’ or ‘shit sandwich’ never ever fits into the colloquiality of the Bengali tongue. On the other hand, the signet ring is a very common element in the western society, or for that matter Prentice is a not-very-common English surname as Bose is in the Bengali society. It was equally not a bright idea to change the original coffee into whiskey. Moreover, one may get the idea that whiskey is a very common drink during the rehearsals of a Bengali theatre group! Another point of disagreement is the relevance of the Bengali translations of the Hamlet-dialogues, as Abhay had decided to stage Hamlet… in the Shakespearean language. This has certainly hindered the progression of the play. Bringing Shakespeare’s tragedy into our modern times and in our midst is the basic flavour of Richard James’s drama and that has been maintained in Banerjee’s script, though. And perhaps that is the reason he has named his play Aajker Hamlet which literally translates into Today’s Hamlet, though I would have preferred to name it Anya Hamlet or the Other Hamlet.  

One may believe reading my afore comments that I must have disliked the efforts of Banerjee and his team. On the contrary the entire production is up for high appreciation. Sumit Kumar Roy’s mounting of the script did keep a very steady rhythm. The use of Gertrude’s portraiture in the form of a queen in a pack of cards or the use of the cape bearing a cross show the innovativeness of the maker. He got good support from Bappa’s stage planning and his limited use of lights. Partha Pratim Roy’s music helped to build up the required mood.

In a play like this one both the actors had to be in perfect complement with one another otherwise the entire effort would fall flat. Readers might well understand why I wrote who 'can act’ in my opening remarks. The experienced Banerjee as Abhay and the promising Roy as Hemant were faultless in defining their own spaces. What is commendable is that the two characters are built up keeping a very fine balance, where Tom/Abhay in the beginning is ahead in the power of balance, but gradually gives way to Simon/Hemant, as the play progresses. This is very well portrayed by the two actors and that gives the viewing a pleasure.                  

Sumitkumar Roy and Palash Adhikary create a world of Wonder and Magic

 Sumitkumar Roy and Palash Adhikary create a world of Wonder and Magic

The much-read short story BHUTO by Satyajit Ray was given an outstanding theatre treatment by ‘Kabyakala Manan o Deabantara Arts’ [KMDA] at the AFA.

The art of ventriloquism though is at the centre of the story, the eternal conflict of the old and the new where the old denies any space for the new to breathe, is the piece de resistance with a dollop of Ray-style mystery and a garnishing of his style of comedy gives the story its richness of flavour. And Antara Chatterjee has done a wonderful job in adapting this short story to a full-length drama. Her acumen in this field had been well established in her adaptation of Khaled Hossaini’s classic ‘The Kite Runner’ into the stage idiom. It was also produced by this group about four years back and remains as a magnum opus in Bengali theatre of the recent years.

Chatterjee’s imagination and her power of adaptation has given the play a wider expanse that has very well merged with the Ray story-line. Excepting the initial episode in the introductory scene which seemed utterly irrelevant and which very few of the viewers would care to remember after the play is over, the dramatist steadily builds up the play where the mystery thickens up and the climax is reached in a perfect theatrical style. She very dexterously accelerates the conflict between the protagonist, the greenhorn ventriloquist Naveen and his adversary, the senior Akrur using the change of their respective spaces in the entertainment world. The dialogues apart from the ones one comes across in Ray’s story, have been very well written keeping the comical savor of the Ray-story.

Chatterjee’s script has been superbly translated into its stage version by Sumitkumar Roy. An excellent actor Roy has proved himself also to be a very powerful play-maker. I have had the privilege to witness a few of his works, but I must admit, the present work has put Roy himself in a tight spot, in the sense that he has heightened the bar, no doubt, to a height that would even be a challenge to any seasoned maker. The reader might find this acclaim a bit too pompous, but one has to believe in what one witnesses.

Roy’s mounting of every scene speaks of the amount of thinking he had put in to essay the scenes. He has used the physical space of the stage to portray the conflict part. His use of the door frame is a very effective ingenious theatrical element and somehow becomes a motif sort of, of the clash of the two persons. The use of the flats, too, need to be applauded. He heightens the climactic portions with a crafty design of lights and a sinister soundscape. The flight of the talking doll Bhuto across the stage is a theatrical moment that will remain etched in the minds of the viewers.             

But the whole project could not have taken shape so exquisitely without the outstanding performance of Palash Adhikary, one of the leading ventriloquists of the present time, in the role of Naveen. His execution of this extraordinary art form bowled out the spectators, as expected, lock stock and barrel. But what intrigues one is his expertise in acting both physical as well as vocal, which as a matter of fact was in four different voices. And that too with perfect diction, with pauses and perfect expressions, and to top it all with perfect modulations. The other character of Akrur was done by Abhijit Ghosh.

The lighting design was by Dipankar De, while the sets were done by Debabrata Maity, and the background score was by Partha Pratim Roy. It is needless to mention that these departments were the mainstay of the production. Make-up was by Surajit Pal and dress was by Nabanita Mukherjee Das, though I have some reservation with the look of Akrur. However, a special mention is due for Scenographica (or is it Scenografica?) for the execution of the puppet.

It should be especially reiterated that through theatre like this one, another performing art which is in the endangered list, like that of ventriloquism has been given a space, and that enough is a good reason for ‘KMDA’ to get a standing ovation.

[As a post-script note: From an article by Robert Young, entitled ‘Ray, Ventriloquism and Illusion’, I came to know that it is believed that Ray had seen ‘Dead of Night’, a 1945 anthology of horror movies while in London, and the Michael Redgrave starer of a story of a malevolent ventriloquist and his talking doll Hugo, might have been his inspiration to write Bhuto.]             

However, before ending yet again we stand in reverence to the great man and thank KMDA for providing us with this opportunity.

Sansriti’s HAYBADAN

 Sansriti’s HAYBADAN

 The play Haybadan of Giris Karnad is a frequently visited play in the Bengali theatre world. In spite of the fact that many a group has attempted to stage this play in different adaptations, in different forms and in different names, I had somehow missed all of them. So, Sansriti’s work on this play is my first experience of the play in the Bengali language.

The adaptation in Bengali by Shankha Ghosh has been kept unaltered by Debesh Chatterjee. This for me posed a difficult situation to handle as a viewer. Let me explain my predicament. Firstly, it is the content of the play that confronts the viewer with some deeply philosophical questions. The German Nobel laureate Thomas Mann had written a novella named ‘The Transposed Heads’ taking a cue from a tale in ‘Kathasaritsagara’, that he had found in a book on Godess Kali by a German Indologist Heinrich Zimmer; and Karnad had put a few queries in this 1971 play of his regarding the real face of Man’s existence. Does his existence reside in his thinking, in his intellect? Or it resides in his physique or in his physical identity? The basic existential conflict between perfectness or completeness versus imperfectness is at its basis. My second point of mental pressure was the language of the play. A play transcreated by Shankha Ghosh will certainly have the magic of the Bengali language, and would I be capable to enjoy the lyricality and flavour of his language, and for that matter his choice of words, while I am in the process of viewing the drama? Here I would like to further explain this fact from what Shankha Ghosh had written about the failure of Bohurupee’s staging of Tagore’s Bisarjan. He had said that the obsessive power of the poetic language was a bar for the play to succeed on the stage. The third reason of my anxiety was while enjoying the drama created on the stage by Debesh with all his theatrical ingenuity, would it be possible for me to appreciate the two topics mentioned earlier? With all these concerns at the back of my mind I sat to see the play that evening in February at the Academy of Fine Arts, and was simply swept away witnessing a perfect execution of the script.

As a freak of Nature, the heads of the two friends, the poet Devdutta and the strong son of an iron-smith, Kapila both of whom are in love with Padmini, gets transposed. On the other hand, a horse-faced man wanting to become a complete man, turns into a complete horse. The play begins with a Ganesha-vandana which seemed to be the perfect intro for the play. The play ends with the man turning into a perfect horse laughing his heart out and the baby son of Padmini feels the air with his joyful laughter.

Karnad had used the traditional folk form as his idiom for the play. Debesh did not try to out smart Karnad by implementing other forms. He has kept Karnad’s form but has used a style of his own in the mounting of the play. While Karnad used the traditional Kannada folkplay form of Yakshagaana, Debesh has replaced it with the traditional Dinajpur folkplay form of Khhan. He smoothly amalgamates the folk form with the modern idioms of theatre. Music plays a very strong role in the drama, and it has been excellently handled by Debesh himself. His scenography has been immensely supported by Sudip Sanyal’s lights. Choreography by Piyali Dasgupta and puppets by Sudip Gupta, together with dress designing by Anik Ghosh and make-up by Md Ali need appreciation.

Acting by every member was executed with sincerity. Tathagata Choudhury as Devdutta was spontaneous in his diction and delivery. Abhra Mukherjee’s Kapil was equally satisfying. Monalisa Chatterjee’s Padmini was quite a challenging role, and she went through it with elan. The character’s relation with her husband and the other person who happens to be her husband’s friend is not that one encounters normally in films and stories. Padmini was never the reason for the estrangement of the two friends, and Monalisa was quite alert not to make the character of Padmini coquettish.                

                  

Bhaan’s Jamai Barik and Durgapur Bhimroti’s Bhangoner Pathe; and a note of discontent

 Bhaan’s Jamai Barik and Durgapur Bhimroti’s Bhangoner Pathe; and a note of discontent

A couple of days back I had gone to Minerva Theatre to see two short plays by two lesser-known groups. The first produced by a group called Bhaan is an excerpt from the play Jamai Barik by Dinabandhu Mitra. The other one, Bhangoner Pathe, is a sort of a political commentary staged by the group Durgapur Bhimroti.

Mitra, better known for his play Nil Darpan, wrote Jamai Barik, a play taunting the process of husbands putting up at the in-laws and spending idle time, doing no work, in 1872 to celebrate the birth of the Bengali commercial theatre. Bhaan in commemoration of that great event produced this play, adapted and directed by Gouranga Dandapat. A very small portion, the first three scenes of the second act of the drama was selected, wherein Padmalochan the husband is seen having a hell of a lot of misfortune in satisfying his two wives, Bagala and Bindubasini. His brother Abhay and a thief make his predicament more so. Dandapat has shown ingenuity in his presentation where at the beginning he brings in a character who gives an introduction to make those uninitiated spectators who may not be aware of the play, informed about the background of the play. The director has very imaginatively and so very smoothly starts off the play using this character. He finishes off the play, too, using this same character through whom he breaks away from the Mitra script to rationalize his selected portion of the main drama. Dandapat showed his acumen in the role of the husband, with perfect diction, modulation, and a lot of well-designed physical acting. Both actors in the roles of the wives showed spontaneity in their performances. The player in the role of Abhay also acted as the thief, in which role he was excellent with his lanky physique and a fitting make-up. The introducing character was also perfect in her diction and expressions. The stage décor was appreciable so was the minimalistic lights and suitable background score.

The second presentation deals with the present political as well as the social depreciatory state we are living in. Picking out two events in the recent years Dipankar Sen builds up this presentation. The source materials, as announced, are two Facebook posts by Parimal Bhattacharya and Arka Bhaduri, respectively, on the beheading of the bust of Vidyasagar and the predicaments of the migratory workers. These two subjects have been dissected upon to reach to the basic denominator factor that defines the rampant and fast decadency that can be seen in every sphere of our society. And the form that Dipankar has resorted to, to narrate this is a form that may remind one of the Kathakata style, more or less, that was a common form for religious discourses once upon a time. But the basic point of departure was that elements of other forms of performance like dance steps and a few mudras, as also elements of   theatrical performance mainly acrobatic movements have also been incorporated. The performance of the actress did carry quite a heavy load.

Before signing off I would like to mention something not connected to the two productions.

In the break time between the two productions a member of an organization who are lately quite active to voice their protest against sexual abuse in theatre, was allowed to speak to the viewers. This is where I have a reservation. One may subscribe to the issue they are fighting for, and may have things to speak about also, but the theatre stage during a show is not the right space or the right time to voice the protest. The activists could well have met the spectators outside and speak to them. A spectator who has come to see a performance should not be forced to sit and listen to a speech from the stage in between the show. Moreover, at the end of her speech it was startling to hear that they have been told earlier in their respective groups to suffer such ignominy and go on working! It was a point of contention, but the listener had to keep mum for the sake of the show. Do such statements go well with the tradition of the group culture of our theatre world where iconic groups and their iconic mentors had made our theatre proud, and some of whom are still nurturing their groups, or for that matter the next generation of groups and their mentors, and even the generations after?

It was quite a disheartening experience that certainly mired the evening’s viewing.

Akdin Mandire Jaoar Pathe: An outstanding production of Sansriti

Akdin Mandire Jaoar Pathe: An outstanding production of Sansriti

Satish Alekar’s Marathi drama Ek Divas Mathakade has been adapted into a very powerful Bengali version by Debesh Chatterjee for his group Sansriti. He has fittingly given it a Bengali name – Akdin Mandire Jaoar Pathe. Before I go into the details of my observations of the work, I would like to recollect what the British Theatre theoretician and a practitioner Brian Way had said to distinguish theatre from drama, that theatre is a communication between the actors and an audience. Theatre connects the viewer with the actor, or rather it should be the other way round, the actor with the viewer. Therefore, as the actor actively makes the theatre to happen and to reach out to the viewer, the viewer too should have the onus to be equally active to receive what the actor is transmitting, in order to make the theatre happen. At the Academy of Fine Arts where I had gone to see the Sansriti production on a February day I was a bit surprised to see a very poor attendance of viewers. Seeing the work, it was clear that this was not the regular run-of-the-mill type play. It was of a different class. Was this the reason for the meager attendance?

According to the play-maker Debesh, this happened to be the fifth staging in these last three years of its premiere. One wonders that this is in spite of the fact that the production has one of the stalwarts of the present Bengali stage, Meghnad Bhattacharya in the lead role, one of the promising young talents Arna Mukherjee in a supporting role, the renowned artist Sanchayan Ghosh’s stage installation, the outstanding light artist Sudip Sanyal’s light designs, and one of the best music directors of the present time Abhijit Acharya’s background scoring. And to top it all the total work of scenography and making of the play was in the hands of Debesh Chatterjee. It can simply be said that each and every department of the production was so well orchestrated that this production can be sited as a bright example of perfection in theatre-making.

Another feature of this production is that it remains as a rarest of the rare examples of the viewers experiencing a ‘beyond drama’ effect after the end of the play. So, the question remains, why is this apathy and reluctance amongst the viewers? Is there any dearth of communication?

This requires an in-depth analysis.

The narrative of Satish does not have a story-line of the sort. Basically, it is a long almost never-ending dialogue of an aged man. A young man and a woman appear as if to complement the very existence of the aged man. One may question that whether these two characters – the youth and the woman have any existence of their own? The aged and the young man may or may not be father and son. But there is a common bereavement sort of that affects their lives. The aged is a widower and the young man has lost his mother. Both of them seem to have undertaken a journey to overcome the vacuum in their lives created by a death.

The interior monologue of the old man which is like a stream-of-consciousness compels the spectator to reject the absolute value and have faith on the delusion of resolute truth and to sought out the relative truth. This is where modernism traverses into the realm of post-modernism. And hence the viewer has to be ready and conscious to imbibe the monologue. If one tries to literally decipher the meaning of the individual words of the dialogue one may take it to be a delirium sort of, of a widower. Meghnad expresses the loneliness and solitude of the character in an unattached, inaccessible manner sitting in the left flank of the stage in those 22/23 minutes of his monologue. He deconstructs himself as well as the character in a semi-realistic, postmodern way. It is an ideal example of executing Stanislavsky’s emotion memory and imagination process.

Arna has put in an element of passivity that beautifully expresses the introvert nature of the character. All through the monologue of the old man Sukanya Chakraborty sits still, and that demands kudos.

A totally verbose play, though the type of verbosity that we encounter in a solo performed play or the form of dialogue we are accustomed to is not to be found here. The dialogues are accompanied by projections of some pictures and portions of some old nostalgic songs. The total mounting of the play gradually moves the play to its peak with a gradually increasing rhythm. This keeps the stage dynamic, in spite of very little movements. This post-postmodern design of the play-maker creates a post-dramatic theatre which is a very rare genre in our theatre world. And more so, the common viewers are yet to accept this.

So, in spite of recognizing the great need for such a theatre, I have had to admit that Debesh had taken a big risk in essaying this outstanding work.      

Sansriti’s BRAIN

 

Sansriti’s BRAIN

Sansriti’s production of BRAIN at the Academy of Fine Arts in February this year was in fact a very mournful nostalgic journey for all those connected with the production, be the actors, the people behind, or the spectators who have had the chance to see the production eleven or twelve years back when Debesh Chatterjee first staged it for his group. Of the three people acting out the three characters, one was Pijush Ganguly the natural talent of the Bengali stage who met with a fatal accident back in 2015. And so, for those who had worked with him on the stage or behind, or had seen him executing the role of a character who gets killed at the end of the play somehow experience an emotional feeling as the play progresses. And for those who were seeing the play for the first time experience a shock at the end of the play, theatrically.

Chemistry of our senses, of our sensibilities is in the core of the play written by Debesh. Debesh’s dissertation on Theatre and Neuroscience gave birth to this play which tells the viewers that whatever a man as an individual or as a social being does in reference to his surroundings and to those who belong to that surrounding and with whom he communicates and responds to, be it his wife friend or an outsider is a result of the neural chemistry of the brain. The playwright in the process of developing the play tells us how in human relationships this chemistry is so very unstable in nature. The storyline which has the excitement of a gripping mystery thriller binds the viewer to his seat and never lets him realise that a very deep and complex subject has been delivered with such ease.

Sarbajit, a film-star has an extramarital relationship with Damini, wife of his friend Santanu who is a non-compromising dramatist-playmaker. Lately Santanu has developed an interest on the brain and its working science. He explains to Sarbajit how the behaviour of a man, his gestures, his physical signs reflect his mind’s desires, his longings, his carnal greed. And frolickingly the Sarbajit-Damini relationship is exposed, and an unexpected climax awaits the viewer.

The subject of brain science and the way it performs is very unpretentiously communicated by Santanu to the viewer through very simple uncomplicated dialogues as well as some non-verbal hints. In a very simple linear story-telling progression Debesh mounts and builds up the play without indulging in gimmicks. The viewers enjoy the hidden suspense till the penultimate sequence. In the climactic scene the dramatist Debesh with the play-maker Debesh plays a game with the viewer’s suspense. The viewer’s brain is unprepared to comprehend what he sees on the stage, and so is a bit bewildered. And there wins the play-maker in the game with the viewers.

It is needless to say that a very strong acting skill together with a very deep involvement with the character being played is required in such psychological drama. The change-over of the character of Sarbajit is brilliantly done by Sujan Mukhopadhyay, and that requires some cerebral involvement. Damini by Bidipta Chakraborty is perfect in her delivery of dialogues and her expressions, particularly in the silent parts. Santanu, which was originally played by the late actor Pijush Ganguly, is portrayed by Debesh himself. His performance is a study of truthfulness as because through this pivotal character he could deliver his understanding of the subject on which he himself has done some academic studies. The parts where Santanu confronts Sarbajit would certainly remain etched in the minds of the viewers for long.

Hiran Mitra’s stage, Sudip Sanyal’s lights and Mayukh Mainak’s background score did help Debesh in furthering his design.

Parable of Autocracy: Sansriti’s KHOKKOS

 

Parable of Autocracy: Sansriti’s KHOKKOS

Browsing through different sites during the Russian aggression on Ukraine, I came across an article ‘Parable of Autocracy and the Human Spirit’ by one Cathy Young, where she states that on February 23, 2022, the day just before the Russian troops invaded Ukraine there was an article in the ‘Economist’ where it was written that to comprehend autocracy and ‘its corrupting effects on the human soul’ in the modern times, one should read the 1944 fairytale drama by the Russian children’s writer Evgeny Shwartz’s The Dragon which she says is ‘a trenchant political and philosophical parable in the guise of a fairytale’. She writes that the drama could be ‘an allegory for Vladimir Putin’s war’. But what intrigues one is that when Shwartz wrote the drama it was held in Russia as an allegory for Nazism!

The common man’s fight against an autocrat has been a common element whenever there has been a revolt in any country against the oppressive forces. History has shown us that the people’s indomitable strength always crushes the evil force whenever it tries to regulate the common man’s life according to its wishes and design. So, whenever and in whatever ways, in whatever language this play is produced it remains relevant as the force in power always rears a monster to do the dirty deeds. Many years back Ashok Mukherjee had done a play entitled Danab based on this Shwartz drama. At that point of time, one felt it was very relevant in the perspective of the then political scenario, just as this Sansriti production of the play Khokkos, penned by Arpita Ghosh localizing Shwartz’s play, seems absolutely relevant in this Modi era of religious monstrosity.

Watching the play at Academy of Fine Arts one felt that the play has been effectively successful in exposing the fascist monster that the saffron government in the garb of religion and in the name of preserving the cultural heritage of India is breeding and rearing. The viewers are assured that some day a prince would come and tear off the multi-faced mask of the ruler. It is sad that this Bengali play could not be updated as it was staged a few months before the ruler declared himself to be the son of God!

In the mounting of the play Debesh Chatterjee’s design adequately brings out the spirit of the play. With the consorted effect of his handling of acting, background scores, music and other theatrical ingenuities he could communicate something more than that is in the script. A few of these like the cat-nap and stretching of the cat before the start of the actual play, or the use of songs in between the scenes, or the sellers selling tidbits as happens during a football match in the sequence where the people watch the battle, or the cartoon-character secretary of the fashion-conscious ruler, are immensely enjoyed by the viewers as well as sensing the connotations they indicate.

The songs written by Anirban Bhattacharya and set to tune by Rupam Islam have been pleasing to the ears and also helps in the run of the play, as well. Shreyan Chatterjee’s background score has helped in building up the mood of every sequence. Make-up by Md. Ali and Debjit Pal is commendable. The light arrangements in the total scenographic design by Debesh need special mention. But Sanchayan Ghosh’s stage designing was clumsy enough to hinder a smooth viewing of the play.

The agility, the gestures, the diction as well as throwing of the dialogues of Abhra Mukherjee in the role of Roopkumar was simply marvelous, to say the least. He kept two of his fingers of both hands folded all through, to resemble the three fingers usually seen in the cartoon characters. this feat itself was outstanding. Buddhadev Das’s Khokkos and Korak Samanta’s Cat were equally good. So was Aniban Bhattacharya’s King and Nibedita Bhattacharya’s Manimala. Debshankar Haldar as Swapankumar was done in his own style. 

A Fresh Look at Pirandello: Sansriti’s Kothakar Charitra Kothaey Rekhechho

A Fresh Look at Pirandello: Sansriti’s Kothakar Charitra Kothaey Rekhechho

 

It has been six decades that the theatre goers of Calcutta had had the opportunity of experiencing a very new genre of play that googlyed them clean bowled. It was Nandikar’s 1961 production of Natyakarer Sandhaney Chha’ti Charitra, a play adapted by Rudraprasad Sengupta from Luigi Pirandello’s 1921 play Six Characters in Search of an Author, and made by Ajitesh Bandopadhyay. In spite of being aware of the fact that the afore said sentence does not give the reader any new information, I feel elated to reiterate the dry facts just because it gives me a chance to pay my homage to the great playwright, to the man who adapted the play to a Bengali setting, and of course to the man who took the risk of staging such an unconventional play in such an experimental form and that too, for a new theatre group. I had been fortunate enough to have been an awe-struck viewer of the Nandikar creation in the later years of its production; but that is history.

Once again, I have had the occasion to be a witness of a very fresh and brilliant work of the same play entitled Kothakar Charitra Kothaey Rekhechho staged by Sansriti on their 31^st under the baton of Debesh Chatterjee at the Academy of Fine Arts.

Debesh has kept the version of Rudraprasad almost unaltered except for a few additions and adjustments for the sake of his presentation, and of course kept it unadulterated. This is a very significant point to be noted as it is common to find doctoring and morphing the original in the name of a face-lift. It is shocking to find even Tagore goes under the scalpel in an attempt to ‘give the play a modern perspective and look’! However in this case the viewer should thank Providence that Debesh had his senses in place.

It is pointless to discuss this iconic play of Pirandello. Every keen theatre enthusiast knows how this play creates a magic by intermingling the real world and the reality of the make belief world of theatre. The dramatist questions which of the two are real – the actor or the character he is playing? The question in other words could be that if realistic acting is a truth in itself then isn’t truth too an illusion? Pirandello was in fact in quest of the relativity of truth in the perspective of subjectivity. Truth can never be absolute. One may wonder perhaps that was the reason why Einstein after seeing the play told Pirandello, ‘We are soul-mates’.

One can go on babbling for hours about this play. But at the same time, it should also be acknowledged that it is one of the toughest jobs in world-theatre to stage it. Debesh has done it. He has amazingly blended realism with absurdism, as well as discerned objectivity from subjectivity with such deftness. This gives the uninitiated viewer a lesson in the way of life. He has done this in his process of building the play. In the making process, the play-maker has extracted out the deeper undertones that hid in between the lines of the written script by the dramatist. This only helps to bring the profound meanings, the suggestiveness, the hints and cues that Pirandello wanted to communicate into the perception of the viewers. The totality of the dramatic performance and the associated elements had to be flawless in order to do this. Debesh in his mounting could achieve this impact. He has been very watchful on both the physical as well as the verbal departments of acting of his players. He has also through his scenographic designing given substantial importance in working out the space on the stage, and its sharing between the players. A perfect mise-en-scene is very important in staging of such plays, and this production is a lesson for the students of play-making, no doubt.

He has kept spontaneity as well as extemporaneity in acting as they are integral to the realistic acting form. As the script requires the make-belief aspect of expression, he does it so dexterously that the viewer is confused to get hold of the situation happening in front of him. But Debesh’s handling of the realistic acting of the theatre group and that of the intruders is astonishing as there had to be a textural difference in the delivery of dialogues and gestural expressions of these two sets of actors. This could be possible due to his creative understanding of the characters. The concept that Pirandello puts forward that reality changes with time is a lesson by itself for the viewers and thereby they too become members of the troupe as if.

A very tight scripting has helped in maintaining the rhythm of the play which has been very well supported by Sudip Sanyal’s lights and Anindya Nandi’s music. Perfect execution of the director’s ideas was excellently done by each and every actor for whom their individual roles were more or less challenging. Ashim Roychoudhury’s father, or Monalisa Chatterjee’s step daughter excelled in their verbose acting. On the other hand, Tamali Choudhury’s mother or Korak Samanta’s son were as sensual in their succinct performances. Abhra Mukherjee or Shouvik Majumdar or Chandan Ghosh were immaculate in their portrayal as were the others.

Once again kudos to Sansriti for such a truthful presentation of Pirandello’s concept of Truth.           

Two short length plays by Kathakriti

 

Two short length plays by Kathakriti

Kathakriti staged two short length plays at Girish Mancha in February this year as their latest production. The first of these, Ekta Galpo Shunbe… (Will You Listen to a Story…) is adapted from Krishnachura, a poetical drama penned by Shyamal Ghosh. It was a pleasant experience for the viewers to watch the play very well crafted by Sanjib Roy. The script, too, was done by Sanjib. The storyline centres around a middle-aged man and a woman who loved each other during their college days suddenly chance to meet each other in front of New Market. They had once dated in a caffe, or at Outram Ghat, or in the Maidan under a Krishnachura tree. They decide to revisit those days at the same caffe, on the strands of the Hooghly River and under the same tree in the Maidan. the storyline has no dramatic twists nor any punches or any climactic points to make the viewers engrossed. But even so Sanjib’s building up of the play together with the subtle expressions of the emotions of the two characters compel the viewers to share the nostalgia. Sanjib touches a sort of metaphorical note in mixing the yester years of the couple with the present time. He mounts the play taking a non-conventional path in his mounting of the scenes where in the back projection the different sites like the caffe, the river side or the Maidan is presented while the couple is stationed on one side of the stage and their young age is presented on the other side. With the help of a female commentator-like character reciting poetry and the woman’s inner soul singing songs, he bridges the time, as if. The sequences are so aesthetically composed that they seem to come out of a framed painting.

The aged couple are exquisitely portrayed by Sharmila Basu and Siddhartha Chakraborty. The young ages were presented by Sneha Mitra and Abhirup Choudhury. Himi Sharma’s rendering of songs and Bingsati Basu’s poetry gave the production its finesse. Sanjib’ stage design was aptly executed by Madan Haldar, while Souvik Bhattacharya’s lights and background score designs were commendable. 

The second work, The Hidden Sin, is a Bengali translation done by Debabrata Dasgupta, of James Yaffe’s adaptation named The Deadly Game of the Swiss writer Friederich Durenmatt’s novel ‘A Dangerous Game’. On a stormy night a person takes refuge at the house of a retired Judge where apart from the Judge three other persons are also present. These three are a retired Public Prosecutor, a Defense Attorney and a hang-man. The Judge and his three associates meet there everyday to play a game of mock trial whenever a stranger comes in, accusing the later of a crime. The game starts with arguments and counter arguments the result of which it is revealed that the stranger is responsible for the death of his boss. Though Sanjib builds up the dramatic sequences with care, but the desired impact remains missing. The fault lies greatly on the script that hampers the run of the play as well as fails in the reasonings of many a point. Especially in our Indian set-up the hangman dose not fit into the frame. The executioner in the Western society is far from the societal background of an Indian hang-man. This character could have been treated in a more rational way. But the performance of Kajal Shambhu deserves kudos. Bidyut Chakraborty’s Stranger or Souvik Bhattacharya’s Prosecutor were well executed. Sanjib acted as the Judge. But Abhirup Choudhury’s Defense Attorney was much wanting. The stage design by Sanjib and lights by Jayanta Mukhopadhyay brought out the right mood on the stage.