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.

               

EUTHANASIA and Two Recent Bengali Stage Productions

EUTHANASIA and Two Recent Bengali Stage Productions

 [Euthanasia is being discussed throughout the world on its moral, legal and social implications.  Euthanasia conducted with the consent of the patient is termed voluntary euthanasia. Active voluntary euthanasia is legal in Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. This particular practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve one from unbearable pain has not got legal sanctions in our country in spite of the long struggle initiated long back by Minoo Masani. This system has its mentions in the old scriptures especially in Mahabharat but as the social norms, religious beliefs and the legal implications do not see eye to eye, we have found a partial sanction granted by Supreme Court in March last year in the case of Aruna Shanbag where passive euthanasia had been allowed. Passive voluntary euthanasia is legal throughout the U.S. In some places like in Switzerland and the U.S. states of Oregon, Washington and Montana the patient brings about his or her own death with the assistance of a physician and the term assisted suicide is used. Non-voluntary euthanasia is illegal in all countries.]

Interestingly, two recent Bengali productions have dealt with the theme of euthanasia that has not been handled on the Bengali stage till date though has been a familiar subject for long in literature and also in cinema.

Much has been said, written and argued but different countries have their own set of views regarding this intentional ending of a life in order to relieve someone suffering from pain and afflictions and have different laws. And as theatre is a mirror of the happenings, apprehensions, ecstasies and expectations of life and epitomises the optimistic approach to living a meaningful life, it is quite natural that such a subject be explored by the people of the theatre. It was quite interesting to find two groups almost at the same time produced two plays which had this subject at the core. Ha-Ja-Ba-Ra-La presented Mrityuheena sometimes in the early part of February while Natakwala presented Maranre Ichhamtityu Ebong.... in mid February.

Ha-Ja-Ba-Ra-La’s production, Mrityuheena, is a stage presentation of the group’s mentor Chandan Sen’s play of the same name. Sen is surely the first Bengali playwright to focus on the theme of mercy death. He very forcefully argues the case of an aged elocutionist who would like to gift his terminally ill beloved wife who has lost her voice, a peaceful death. He has brought in an intriguing sub-plot that fits well with the theme of the play. But the plea of a person to relieve someone whom he loves his heart out and who is painfully in the death bed with no hopes of recovery, by giving her a peaceful death distresses the viewer at the end of the day with the question of how far we are ready to accept such pleas. The human values and the social framing particularly in our Indian context make such decisions difficult.

This problem has further been dealt with in the Natakwala presentation of Maranre Ichhamtityu Ebong.... , a play written and directed by Shyamal Kumar Chakraborty. In this production the story centres on a retired justice who has no one to fall back upon and has been suffering from a painful incurable ailment and has been contemplating death with dignity. At this point of time his childhood friend and now a widow comes to him for help in the treatment of her son who had gone into a comatose state.  The subplot gives a different interpretation of the theme and poised the viewer with some hard-hitting questions. The play is so gripping that the production scores a high marks and is set to get a standing applause of the house.   

The fact that the Bengali theatre scene is throbbing with life is once again proved by these two productions which do not shy away to focus on such issues that are disturbing for the viewers yet are significant.     

Swapnasandhani’s NOTEER PUJA

Swapnasandhani’s NOTEER PUJA

Swapnasandhani has for the last nineteen years been trying to mould out a place for itself in the Bengali theatre world not only as a well tuned performing group but also to prove a purpose. Not that all its projects get the same success but, none the less, they believe in staging dramas with social relevance. From choosing dramas to staging them they spell out very discreetly their socio-political standing and in doing so they do not show any inattention to the art form that is theatre. Their latest production happens to be based on a Tagore’s drama, NOTEER PUJA which Tagore wrote way back in 1926, the theme of which he had dealt with in a poem Pujarini which he wrote in 1896.

But Swapnasandhani felt that it would not be enough to depict the caste conflict in the name of religion that Tagore had depicted in the play. What they did was to include a socio-political issue that has been tormenting the thinking Indian for the last decade though not much publicized. The issue they have amalgamated with Tagore’s is that of the civil rights activist from Manipur, Irom Chanu Sharmila who has been on hunger strike since November 2000 to demand repealing of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 (AFSPA) from the State. The similarities of purpose of Sreemati and of Sharmila placed two and a half thousand years apart might seem very far off to a casual viewer but the socio-political parallels have deep roots in the similar social background.

Ujjwal Chattopadhyay who has done the script has very smartly introduced the Tagore poem while adapting the Tagore play for the production. The bringing in of King Ajatsatru to Sreemati has very well built up a crescendo that goes very well with the intentions of the production. Ratnabali’s cunningness, Malati’s innocence and Lokeswari’s agony have very well been brought out. But the character of the Brahmin extremist Madhavacharya seems absolutely out of place as the religious leaders never take the centre stage in fuming hatred and instead they employ the political big wigs to do the filthy things. In the original Tagore it was Devdutt, a royal consort, who was made to do the black deeds but Tagore never brought this character on to the stage. Then it was absolutely needless to depict rape and murder of Utpalparna as the mention of the incident would have brought about the same reactions in the viewers. But the one instance that goes against the tide of the production is the stripping off of the garb of the danseuse to reveal the ascetic’s attire of the Buddhist sect in the climactic scene. This has been done beyond the view of the viewers and so the impact that is supposed to be created gets lost.     

Magadh, the setting of the plot has been brought about on the stage with all its grandiosity and this is one point that the production can boast of. Kaushik Sen, the director, has once again proved his competence in improvising situations that extends beyond the written words of the scripts. His use of jewellery and the excellently executed different masks for the different characters would be remembered for a long time by the viewers. The sets designed by Sanchayan Ghosh using the reclining Buddha figure and the famished Gandhar figure without the head well illustrate the creative thinking that has enriched the production. But the bamboo and linen work for the upstage failed to get the visual support and instead played obstacle for the characters to enter the acting zone from the back. Ashok Pramanik’s lights helped in creating the right ambience. Reshmi Sen’s costume and Soma Gupta’s jewellery are two very strong points as is Chandra Mukherjee’s music support. The choreography by Sudarshan Chakravarty had much to be desired particularly in Sreemati’s rendition in the climactic moment of the play.

Titas Bhowmik’s Ratnabali was excellently done with the correctness in expressions and modulations of voice. Siddhartha Banerjee’s Ajatasatru though a short portrayal was well done. Kanchan Mullick’s Madhabacharya was overdone and almost infringed into the jatra acting form. Ditipriya Sarkar’s Lokeswari, Chandra Mukherjee’s  Utpalparna, Debarati Sikdar’s Malati, and Shrabasti Banerjee’s Shukla were organised well and each contributed their shares in the success of the production. Sreemati demanded a lot from Arpita Chatterjee which she could not deliver primarily because Sreemati has a set of shades in her character which ranged primarily from that of a dancer to that of a liberator. Moreover, the present drama gives this character a hue of a positive activist in the role of Sharmila. So it is not an easy job to handle. Arpita had certainly tried to render her best but the spirit of the character at the end did not find articulation in her performance.

At the end, Swapnasandhani is once again applauded for giving us yet another thought-provoking production.               

REVIEW OF 2011: A VERY ACTIVE YEAR OF PROMISES

REVIEW OF 2011: A VERY ACTIVE YEAR OF PROMISES

The Bengali theatre scene in the year just ended was very colourful as it saw presentations of veritable works of different groups many of which showed promises for a bright future of good theatre viewing. I for myself could see as many as thirty-six productions that ranged from rural to foreign ones. Festivals have been arranged by many groups apart from the State sponsored one by the Paschimbanga Natya Akademi that helped the Calcutta viewers to have a taste of the works that are being persuaded in places quite remote to the cultural capital as well as in other states. It is quite heartening to note that serious Bengali theatre is being cultured in other states that have a very predominantly non-Bengali way of life.  

The year started with two excellent productions that were enough to indicate a rich fare to follow in the year to come. KANYADAN by Ballygunge Swapnasuchana and JOGAJOG by Paschimbanga Natya Akademi would certainly go down in the annals of Bengali theatre for their brilliance in production. After a pretty long time the Calcutta viewers had the opportunity of seeing a Vijay Tendulkar play and Bijoy Mukherjee with his Ballygunge Swapnasuchana deserves praise. The play KANYADAN written by Tendulkar in 1983 is one of his more celebrated ones and requires a good and strong acting prowess for the portrayal of the four main characters. His works had touches of melodrama that would infringe into over-doing of the roles if the actors are not kept guarded by the director. Bratya Basu’s finely tuned editing together with his very well executed directorial work has made the production worth its name. Meghnad Bhattacharya, Swatilekha Sengupta, Sohini Sengupta and Bratya himself did brilliantly in the four roles, and I would even place the production way above the one by Padatik Reperatory with Shyamanand and Chetna Jalans in the cast, that I had viewed in 1987.

The other production that ushered in a very promising year was Paschimbanga Natya Akademi’s Tagore play, JOGAJOG. The presentation excelled in almost all the departments of the production, the foremost of which that needs special mention is, no doubt, the director’s. This particular piece of Tagore has not been handled by very many theatre groups as this is one of the writings of Tagore that bears the hallmark of Tagore’s stringency of words through which he could convey the many intrigues of the human mind. So it requires a deep study of Tagore in order to portray the characters he had penned with utmost care in these plays and novels. It would not be wrong to say that Ashok Mukhopadhyay had handled the play with such ability that one would be reminded of Bohurupi productions of Shombhu Mitra. His directorial work merits a serious observation for students of theatre. Keeping truthful to the original Tagore dialogues requires great sense of acting for the actors to depict the characters and for the director to plan each scene so the visual quality of the writing is kept intact. One of the most complicated characters created by Tagore is that of Madhusudan which has a very big chance to become a typical villain if not dealt with judiciously and it has been aptly rendered by Debesh Roychoudhury in this production. Apart from others special mention should be made of Jhulan Bhattacharya as Motir Maa and, of course, of Sohini Sarkar as Kumu. Both of them have come to stay and indications of a brilliant prospect are undoubtedly spelt out. 

A production that would be mentioned every time Tagore would be referred to in the theatre world is that of Kasba Arghya’s JOURNEY TO DAKGHAR RABINDRANTH THAKUR presented in the second half of the year.  This production would certainly stand out as a milestone in this genre.  Based on the drama Dakghar itself it is an attempt to present a play about a drama. The spiritual enlightenment that one observes in the post-Geetanjali period is theatrically manifested in the play, Dakghar, and this thought process has also contributed to his diverse creations since then. This is the thematic essence of the play by Arghya. The play narrates from the different writings of Tagore about the mindset that made him write the play. It tells about the preparations that were made for the play’s first few shows that Tagore had arranged himself and also informs the viewers about the observations of those who were fortunate to witness the stagings. Manish also brings out the thematic parallels in other Tagore works. And lastly he narrates the episode that happened in the Warsaw ghetto where Dr Janusz Korczak presented the play in Polish with the children of his orphanage. (See my blog Tagore’s Dakghar: The Play in the Ghetto, dated 27 October 2011) Thus this play by Manish Mitra has a great academic value that deeply scrutinizes the play itself. It is a great job done very efficiently by the whole cast under the very able direction of Manish.  This group has proved many a time that they mean serious business. They had also presented Michael Madhusudan Dutt’s epic MEGHNAD BADH KABYA in five acts keeping the original textual form almost intact with music and different Indian dance forms. The production speaks volumes of the diligence of each member of the group and the directorial job of Manish Mitra.   

Apart from these three productions another outstanding production deserves accolades and that is PINKI BULI by Sayak. Meghnad Bhattacharya has done wonders in this production where he transcends the viewers to a world of pure bliss and joy. A play that has the ability to impart a sense of fulfilment to those who have come to witness a performance on the stage needs unbridled praise as such experiences are rare.  Swatilekha Sengupta’s music score has ably helped in this venture. Bhaswati Chakraborty and Rimi Saha in the two roles of teenage girls have brought with them a great promise for a bright future.  Meghnad himself plays in a surreal role with an amazing make-up by Panchanan Manna. Another production that attracted the viewers’ admiration was BISMILLA presented by Green Room Theatre, a group from New Delhi. The group can very well boast of a very rich collection of actors who are deft in both delivering of dialogues as well as in physical acting. Shinjini Banerjee’s role of the protagonist had much load to carry which she did marvellously. Many of the players showed their acumen in songs and dances, and Debu Bhattacharya’s music certainly played an important role in the production. Anjan Kanjilal’s directorial work proved his mastery over the subject. Viewers in Calcutta would certainly love to be a witness to the promise this group from New Delhi has posed for the future.

            Talking of groups from other states one is reminded of a number of such groups that had come with their fares in the 28^th National Theatre Festival of Nandikar held in December. I saw two such productions. One of them was a production, ADAL BADAL, of Delhi’s NSD TIE. Co. This Theatre in Education programme of the National School of Drama is doing invaluable service in grooming young theatre workers. K.G. Krishnamurty on behalf of the company presented one of Swedish author Göran Tunström’s fairy-tales that dealt with the simple theme of a mother’s love and care. The other production that I feel fortunate enough to see was STREER PATRA PRESENTED by Seema Biswas from Mumbai. It is an adaptation for the stage in Hindi of one of Tagore’s unique short stories in a letter format written by the protagonist Mrinal after having abandoning her marital life in protest against the exploitations and atrocities meted out to the women folks in a Bengali upper-middle class family. With a very innovative stage setting Seema does the play alone bringing out the different characters of the story individually and thereby putting into motion the story of Mrinal’s life. It is, perhaps, one of the best solo-acting I have seen. Enad, a group from Bangaluru, came down to Calcutta to present their latest play, SIMANTINI, based on Somerset Maugham’s The Constant Wife in a festival organised by Sayak. Bengali adaptation done by Meghnad Bhattacharya the play has been directed by his son, Sayandeb.

Then there were a couple of foreign productions that attended Nandikar’s NTF. This is, perhaps, for the first time that the Calcutta viewers witnessed a work from Israel. Mica Dvir presented FIN-LAND, a play in English created and performed by her and another actor, and is about the experience of a person recollecting the past and in the process trying to control time as well as space. Though it had no indications of the country of its origin, it did indicate the present trend in the thinking process of the theatre world of that country. The other foreign production was that of Bangladesh. Aaranyak of Dhaka presented RARAANG, an excellently presented drama depicting an uprising by a Santhal sect of the northern region of Bangladesh. Written and directed by Mamunur Rashid it is a vast production having songs and choreography playing vital roles. Every actor of the huge cast is well versed with his or her role. No doubt this production has been in the top echelon of the theatre scene in that country for quite a few years. Another group from Bangladesh, Theatre Art Unit from Dhaka had come down to present AMINA SUNDARI, in a festival organised by Nandipat dedicated to women theatre directors. Based on one of the innumerable folklores of about three hundred years old the play has been designed basically in a stylised choreographed format. Rokeya Rafique Baby has been imaginative in the use of the songs and in the planning of costumes. It had been a revealing experience for the Calcutta viewers. Speaking of the folk form, BILASIBALA, of Gobordanga Naksha comes to the mind. Ashis Das used the almost extinct form of Astak, a chorus form performed by eight artistes in the play giving it a typical rustic ambience. It is a very well tuned production, no doubt.

As this year happened to be the closing year of the 150^th birth anniversary celebrations of Tagore there were a number of Tagore based productions of which JOGAJOG of Paschimbanga Natya Akademi has been mentioned earlier. Another of Tagore’s novels, GORA, has been staged not very successfully by Abhas under the direction of Sekhar Samaddar and with Debsankar Halder overdoing in the title role. Sekhar also dramatised and directed Kalapi Natyamancha’s production of NASTANEER, one of Tagore’s short stories that seemed an unsuccessful stage adaptation of Ray’s Charulata. Shohan presented MANBHANJAN, another of Tagore’s short stories dramatised by Ujwal Chattopadhyay and ably directed by Anish Ghosh. Kristi Sansad presented ROBITHAKUR O PUSHPAMALA, an adaptation by Sangramjit Sengupta, who also directs the play, of yet another Tagore short story, Muktir Upaye. Another work deserves mention and it is Rangakarmee’s CHANDALIKA. This is the first time Usha Ganguli took up Tagore in thirty five years that her group has been doing serious plays in Hindi. A translation by Usha of the dramatization of the dance-drama by Debashis Mazumdar has songs and dances as an important component of the production. Interestingly, Tagore songs other than those of the original dance-drama have been used giving the play its own identification.

            One of the more significant productions of last year was Swapnasandhani’s SEI SUMOULI written by Indrashis Lahiri. With a strongly political content this play has appealed to the viewers for its very well crafted stage application done by Kaushik Sen.  The political transition in the state is depicted through a story that is itself a commentary of the state of affairs in the state. Rajatava Dutta and Debdoot Ghosh play out the main two characters but the former deserves a little more of the accolades as he has to carry much more work-load. All the other characters however small were very well executed. Ashok Pramanik’s lights helped Sanchayan Ghosh’s stage design which did help the play to develop on the stage. Of the plays with typical political contents two productions come to the mind. Ha Ja Ba Ra La of dramatist Chandan Sen presented one of his latest works, SAHID SIKHAR. The play focussed on grabbing of land by the government associated with atrocities in Odisha for the multinational Posco. It was strange that the play instead of talking about the similar affairs in West Bengal preferred to move on to the neighbouring state. But what was significant was that the play dealt a heavy blow on the party who had put all its protests and revolutionary attitudes to the back seat and has taken up the garb of the ruling class. Total Theatre’s BISWASGHATAK is a play by Santanu Bandopadhyay which in trying to portray a very independent view of the political change of guard in the state commits to being a bit too overzealous and creates unnecessary controversies by slandering against few people who are part of the present set-up for reasons not much of significance. It is a production better to forget.

Two other significant jobs well done last year were Nat-Ranga’s BEOKUF EK CHAND and Ensemble’s LAAL BAKSHO.   Sohan Bandopadhyay and his Nat-Ranga has been in their previous productions have been projecting hard realities that the society prefers to avoid discussing for their hard-hitting truths. Earlier this year they had presented another play, AAMI WEDS AAMI, which though is an adaptation of Charlie Fish’s The Man Who Married Himself, is a story of a person who failing to find an ideal match weds himself but finds it difficult to reconcile when his urge to procreate comes and this has, in fact, been reported quite a number of times in the media. Nat-Ranga’s BEOKUF EK CHAND does not go for hard-hitting realities and instead takes the viewers on a fantasy based on a very simple love story. The production can boast of a very well executed presentation all complete with music and imaginative stage settings and lights.  Kudos is due to the playwright director Sohan Bandopadhyay. Sohag Sen’s Ensemble presented LAAL BAKSHO which is a collection of five playlets each featuring a red box or a packet or a bag around which terror develops amongst simple folks. This play portrays the very fragile fabric of the society as a result of terrorism that has spread its ugly head all around.   

           Kathakriti’s MUKHAR RATRI brought Ashapurna Devi on the Bengali stage after a long time as Bratyajan brought the two literatures Bibhutibhusan Bandopadhyay and Saradindu Bandopahyay in the two plays, CANVASER and BYOMKESH, respectively. But Bratyajan failed to keep up to the standard it had created for it with Ruddhasangeet though Poulomi Bose’s acting in BYOMKESH attracted the attention of the viewers. In this connection mention should be made of Ohik who presented this year’s festival with literature as the theme. They themselves presented TEEN NUMBER BENCH on the story with the same name by Sirsendu Mukhopadhyay and TEEN EKKE TEEN, a collection of three short stories by Banaphool, Shibram and Premchand. Theatre Workshop under the direction of Kamal Manna presented another of Sirsendu Mukhopadhyay’s stories, GOENDA POABARO, a children’s story.

Sanstab and Natyaranga presented two plays on very important social problems. While the former presented, MONOSCHOKHHU, a play by Ujjwal Chattopadhyay and directed by Dwijen Bandopadhyay dealt with the mental stress an urbanite faces due to the different social tensions. The production would be remembered for an exquisite characterisation of a psychologically stressed psychoanalyst by the director himself. In Natyaranga’s SWAPNO PARAS the playwright Snehashis Bhattacharya deals with the solitude that the urban man finds himself in. Murari Roychoudhury’s music is a department very well handled.

On the whole it was quite a good show last year and so it is natural that it leads one to believe certainly in the bright future Bengali theatre promises to cater in the year 2012.