|
Magazine
PERFORMING ARTS
An ancient world comes alive
|
Young theatre directors are reviving Sanskrit classics in refreshingly new and interesting ways H.S. SHIVAPRAKASH
|
Innovative: A magnificent production on contemporary stage.
Revival and re-enactment of Sanskrit classics has been one of the most significant facets of modern Indian drama and theatre. The old masters made classics come alive in their own inimitable ways.
Habib Tanvir, in his fascinating production of “Mrichchakatikam” transformed the classic by foregrounding the text’s socio-political subtexts; Ratan Thiyyam, in his versions of Sanskrit classics, particularly those of Bhasa, injected into them themes of existentialist angst; Kavalam brought to his productions of Sanskrit drama the rigor of classical structure.
Perennial charm
Innovative: A magnificent production on contemporary stage.
That the perennial charm of Sanskrit classics was irresistible to younger talents in Indian theatre is clear from some landmark productions in the recent past. Prasanna’s version of “Uttararamacharitam” replaced the mythical story of Rama and Sita into an essentially human domestic drama played out not in the larger-than-life mode of the source text but in our own anthropocentric modern world; redeemed not by divine intervention as in the source text but by the poet’s human imagination.
K.S. Rajendran’s recent production of “Mrichchakatikam” with the students of National School of Drama this winter needs to be seen in this context. Two winters ago he had done a memorable production of Kalidasa’s little-performed classic “Malavikagnimitram”, an enchanting dramatisation of the unabashed erotic (sringar) element predominant in Kalidasa’s youthful romantic comedy.
But this time he chose a very different text. “Mrichchakatikam” by Shudraka, is the most multi-layered of extant Sanskrit classics. The poignant love story of the courtesan Vasantasena with an incredibly virtuous but bankrupt Brahmin merchant Charudatta is set against the intricate web of several socio-political subplots that , apart from reflecting the complex processes in Shudraka’s time, resonates with many ills of our own world: nepotism and corruption in institutions of power and justice, the upward struggle of the marginalised, the passionate intensity of the wicked, the ineffectual benevolence of the good, the conflict between tyranny and revolution and so on.
In a nutshell, “Mrichchakatikam” is a lot more difficult to stage than, say, “Malavikagnimitram”. The director’s note succinctly stated the thrust of the production: “The emphasis throughout had been on the process than on the product, as it is a production meant for the students to learn, design and perform Sanskrit classics. We discovered in the process how this ancient text is surprisingly contemporary.”
The “surprisingly contemporary” meanings that Rajendran’s production tried to read were different from those in earlier productions given that Sanskrit plays are ‘contemporary’ in more ways than one way. The production venue was the intimate theatre space of Bahumukh in NSD. This space, eminently suited to the theme of intimate love at the heart of “Malavikagnimitram”, was perhaps less suitable for Mrichchakatikam. However, H.V. Sharma’s excellent sets and imaginative multi-dimensional stage designing, suggesting the diverse locales of scenes, attempted to overcome this inadequacy.
One of the great strengths of Rajendran’s productions is the close critical attention to the subtleties of the text. Mohan Rakesh’s elegant and urbane translation was punctuated by other verbal footnotes. Sanskrit dialogues popped up, pointing to the multi-lingual nature of the source text. Apart from songs translated into Hindi by VK, original Tamil songs were used to underline moods of love, and these were taken from devotional love lyrics of Andal from Thiruppavai and Nachiar Tirumozhi. All this added to the efficacy, variety and richness of the verbal content. Negotiating a recondite play like “Mrichchakatikam” demands that the director wade through different textual variants. Rajendran did a fine job; in fact he had retained many portions, which were never used in earlier productions.
The non-verbal elements were also handled with great expertise. Aharya (make-up) is elevated to the levels of one of the techniques of acting in Sanskrit drama. The alluringly rich costumes designed by Amba Sanyal were a delight with their impressive chromatic harmony.
As in his earlier production, Rajendran used movement patterns of Bharatanatyam competently devised by choreographers Anjana Rajan and Lokesh Bhardwaj. The visual and kinetic values were complemented by Anjana Puri’s impassioned music. All the components of the production contributed towards making the ancient world come alive as a magnificent dream on contemporary stage.
Evocative
While earlier productions of “Mrichchakatikam” tended to stress socio-political dimensions, Rajendran’s production laid greater emphasis on the erotic (sringara). This is not without any basis in the text. The passionately sensuous handling of love between Charudatta and Vasantasena, mostly de-emphasised in all earlier productions except perhaps in Girish Karnad’s film “Utsav”, was the hallmark of this production. In keeping with this emphasis, the romantic scene of Charudatta and Vasantasena walking on a rainy night through Ujjayini’s dimly lit streets was the most deftly worked out portion of the production. The costumes, the lights, the lyrical movements added to the overall magic. This is the portion that Shudraka dramatises through a large number of evocative stanzas borrowing haunting images from nature. The employment of erotic sculpture poses suggesting stages of physical love accentuated the attraction.
Another innovative aspect of the whole production was the simultaneous rendering of acts seven and eight on stage depicting how the hero and heroine end up in two unintended destinations, transforming the sequential into parallel action. The imaginative conception of this scene was further intensified by the pathos of the hero transforming into the paradoxical symbol of a tree at a crucial time when the heroine’s rape is attempted by the villainous Shakara. The gradual shifting of this scene into the last court scene without fade out was another tour de force.
The writer, a Kannada poet and playwright, is Professor of Arts and Aesthetics, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi.
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Magazine
|
