Teacher 1: grow baby plant grow! NOW!

Our gardening group – Guerilla Garders – had been together for about a week last December, when we teachers planned to bring in a wacky lesson. We chose to role play. What was wacky? Children had not seen us doing that, and so we thought we could use that tool.

Background:

As a part of the learning camps that are organised by Project Vision, we were working with about 11 children in a gardening process. The process was physically challenging, where children both boys and girls had to set up plant beds, by mixing sand, and planting little seeds and sapplings. The process was also mentally challenging as children set about building for the group an outdoor classroom, and a pergola which they could use to spring creepers on.

We built a Pergola, and set up three beds and were basking in the happiness of seeing tomato, spinach and marigold shoots. We also had just then planted creepers such as beans, pepper, grapes and passion fruit. Wow. We had laughed all through the week. And we had kept track of our thoughts and the growth of each plant – we had documented every process that we took up during gardening. One of the things that we had planned to do was also to get the children to use art to express themselves using art. And so to introduce the session, we planned a wacky session. A session to be introduced with role - playing of children in the group (by me) and of a seed they had planted by another teacher.

We walked into the class, and I began by saying… “I want to plant a little seed” and went on to put a chair, and pull another teacher (who was acting as the seed) and planted her on the chair. As the planter, I behaved impatiently with my seed, asking it to grow the very next day, I said “grow grow grow”. What ensued was a roleplay of how the seed reacted by saying no no.. and going back into the ground, and me wanting it to grow. After more baby talking and coaxing the seed to grow, it plant began to respond.

Histrionics of this kind not only tickled the kids nerves bring forth a lot of laughter, it kind of made for a great hook – towards a process of play creation by children around their learning from the gardening process.

Harold Pinter is dead!

Harold Pinter died on Wednesday, December 24th 2008 at the age of 78. 

Here he is talking about a poem he wrote about laughter. 

Long live Pinter.

AA DINAGALU!!

I am not a movie goer – thanks to a hectic work schedule. But I wanted to watch Aa Dinagalu, and finally after numerous attempts to get a ticket I succeeded – have I said ‘Finally’? I cannot emphasize the word enough. My keenness to watch this movie was ‘personal’. A friend directed it, and several others acted in it. Some artists I had already worked with, and some.. never mind all this. Lets just say a lot of people I know were involved with this project. It was a newspaper I think, that said that the movie was based on a factual, historical account of one incident of Bangalore’s crime world in the 70s and 80s, the death of Kotwal Ramachandra – a well known and feared lord of the underworld. Agni Sridhar (also a character in the film) wrote the novel – which bears the same name as the film.

First my congratulations to the director, on making a really successful Kannada film which already has passed its first 75 days of showing and also for getting such a rare mix of talents to collaborate on the film. My personal favourite was Atul Kulkarni’s performance of Agni Sridhar’s character, especially with the dubbed voice of ‘tunta Nanda’ synced perfectly– what a heady mix, it made me giddy. Music also needs a mention, Ilayraja – there I have said it. Commercially, this film is a perfect potion to success - love, betrayal, revenge, money, violence, comedy, timing and a strong script.

It actually looks neat the film overall. The 80s reminds of Ramakrishna Hegde, hotel airlines, fewer traffic on the road, the promenade on MG road full of Bougainville infested with cuscuta, Sri Raj Lassi Bar, and a Black Contessa Classic (J). The style of the film is actually “theatrical”. Each important character gives an intro to himself in context of the other. Chaitanya tells the films in various colours too. – sepia to show the past in the film, the blue for the night etc etc.

Content wise, it tells the tale of the underworld in Bangalore during the 70s and 80s, when the then chief ministers ( Devraj Urs & Gundu Rao) employed the services of the underworld lords in making their rule simpler and more effective. The film sticks to the account of Agni Sridhar.

(Still I wonder about the absence of the political hands behind the two dons. Why is there complete silence about Ramakrishna Hedge’s involvement? )

Two underworld dons controlled the ‘motor of Bangalore’ so to speak, and playing these colossal characters on screen are Ashish Vidhyarthi as Jayaraj and Sharath Lohitashwa as Kotwal Ramachandra. The story does not go too much to their beginnings but to that present moment in history. The story of Kotwal Ramachandra in reality is almost Shakespearean in nature. He is very human, despite being a feared and revered. He like Richard the third is vain, cold and brutal and hurts common innocent people to show his might. He displays the insecurities of Othello, and is superstitious, and like Julius Caesar has a Marcus Antonio – Shetty ( Mangalore Dinesh –who is btw is a treat) by his side constantly, he doubts everyone’s loyalty , yet is gullible and susceptible to flattery like Caesar and dies most tragically, in an actual ‘et tu brute’ moment.

Jayaraj on the other hand is more organized, popular and traditional in his values and beliefs. There is a feel of a fair and just warrior when you see him. He is shown as being just, valiant, just and strong. (doesn’t this already make him endearing to the audiences?). He reminds immediately of a Godfather you respect, and take care of. It felt that he was more in touch with the reality and the ‘fate’ that befits a crime lord unlike Kotwal. How did they grow to be enemies? Kotwal was definitely much a junior to Jayaraj, yet when did they actually become enemies? Jayaraj mentions to his partner somewhere in the film the three times Kotwal and he had fought. Yet, through out the entire film, it is just in one scene that the two actually come close to meeting each other – the attack at Hotel Kanishka. This was for me the paisa vasool scene. Kotwal Ramachandra waits attack Jayaraj, who enters with just one aid (Samson) with him. Watch the movie for the details (its worth it – believe me you) – but the part that I call paisa vasool is the part which reminds of classic war tales. Never attack your enemy when he is not prepared (tsk tsk Kotwal) , practice being sangfroid – something that clearly puts Jayaraj apart from Kotwal. Jayaraj does not even turn to look at the commotion behind him – scores of people with laangs and other assortment of metal weapons. (WOW!!)

I don’t know how the underworld works, and I don’t ever want to know (believe me) but I still hazard a doubt about certain motives in the film. Why was Bachchan keen on killing Kotwal? If it is ever revealed it is in a small one minute conversation right at the beginning of the film, where he says he does not want to fight for Kotwal anymore and wishes to do something about it. Similarly with Shetty’s motives - the only thing Shetty says is , “he is mental.. and that is abuse enough” So the risk question here is – are the motives of the underworld junta so simplistic? In a conversation with Chetan in the Tumkur farm, Kotwal reveals that he has to benefit financially from any deal. In a previous scene , you know just before the hotel Kanishka attack, when Jayaraj’s men play carom and are talking, they discuss why they were not taken to the meeting – “probably because he (Jayaraj) did not want to reveal how much he was earning from Kumar, lest they (his men) get greedy”. Both situations, the motive of gains is clear and well established – so its really disappointing to see Shetty, the aid getting into the plot for – abuse – in all fairness Shetty does say that he has lost his family, but, (sorry) somehow hearing it did not create the impact of Kotwal being so crazy and ‘mental’. He seemed paranoid, he seemed superstitious, yes but with himself. Where was the abuse then?

From the principles to the supporting actors, the cameos - must say star cameos, small or whole ensembles – they do what they are asked to do well and with flair. Chaitanya ensures we all say – “Oh what a film!!! Wonderful!!” one way or the other, but I have to ask why I was not sufficiently engaged or moved by Kotwal’s death. I waited for it with baited breath, to see this mammoth character fall, be butchered, to gasp at the result – really and metaphorically.

When I came back home and discussed the film with people who remembered those days, they all said how the public waited to hear where he (Kotwal) had disappeared off to. What happened to him? Kotwal for them was a larger than life figure, a celebrity of sorts, some one they feared and yet know was a mere puppet in the hands of politicians and bigwigs – a simple boy from Shimogga who dreamt of things beyond his reach, the hero of a tragic play – and his death therefore something to tell of. The murder as shown in the movie is perhaps true to Agni Sridhar’s account of the day. And he did have scores to settle with him and may be still carries a little bitterness towards the man, but what about what Kotwal Ramachandra was to the public. His death in all its irony was rather fast and done. He is beaten at his own game, and is caught when he is unprepared and contemplative- I know it seems like I am nitpicking may be I expected a grandiose exit for the character that has remained in public memory for so long. I don’t recall what Jayaraj says exactly at the funeral, but he perhaps is the only one who values the life.

The last question I require clarification for is why the director used a third voice to tell the story and not the voice of Sridhar who penned the novel? Atul Kulkarni’s voice after all resonated well, and I personally would have loved to see him in a few more frames.. But hey that’s just me.

Well, I will take great pleasure in revising my view the next time I see the film (which I think will be in the near future), but I earnestly hope this is part 1 of a trilogy. Is there hope to see what happened to Jayaraj and Oil Kumar? (What happened to their relationship post Kanishka?) Ashish Vidhyarthi has always been a treat to watch and learn from, so has Achutta, who perhaps is in his own 'golden age' right now – but the greatest surprise so far is in Sharath’s portrayal of Kotwal – the intensity and the nuances and what a comic – chuppa rustum. Overall, as I said, I am waiting for Part 2 – in the mean time you guys go watch it for yourself. It runs at Triveni and PVR.

Tata

Deepthy Shekhar

Intersting websites:

• http://in.rediff.com/news/2001/aug/14diary.htm
• http://asterix786.wordpress.com/2007/12/14/km-chaitanya-director-of-an-underworld-film-speaks-out/ (for things you did not know about Chaitanya)
• http://indianmovies-gossip.blogspot.com/2007/11/aa-dinagalu-is-dj-vu-atul-kulkarni-is.html
• http://www.mouthshut.com/product-reviews/Aa_Dinagalu-925076027.html
  

A quality festival

The festival of plays presented by Toto Funds The Arts showcased three very different versions of quality English theatre

INTERESTING PLOT The Hare and The Tortoise was visually engaging

Toto Funds The Arts recently presented a festival of three plays at Ranga Shankara. TFA, Rafiki and Adishakti Laboratory presented works of Ionesco (Exit the King), Fugard (The Island) and an original play called The Hare and The Tortoise directed by Anmol Vellani, Rafiki and Veenapani Chawla respectively.

"Exit the King" by Ionesco presents no new surprise or twist. The king, Berenger (Sanjay Iyer) is a larger-than-life king who has lived 400 years. On the day of his death — when the play begins — however, he is no longer the king whose domain captured millions of people, but rules a failing kingdom. His only desire, however, is to live on forever, and he will barter his kingdom for longevity, even if it means living alone for an eternity.

What is special about the play is the way Ionesco connects death and its inevitability to the politics of the day. Berenger is very relatable to leaders of the past as well as the present. The people around the king also nicely represent society at large. Heightening the effect were some beautifully executed moments, such as the end, where Berenger's first wife Margarite (Suman) leads him into his after life. The production, for the most part, tried to stay true to the absurd and farcical nature of the original play, setting the play in an old jazz bar with contemporary techno music. Sanjay Iyer as the King Berenger brought great energy to the stage and occupied much of the limelight. His portrayal of the narcissist king, alternating crisply between bouts of pathos, enthusiasm, fear and confidence, was captivating. Suman's singing parts and the lighting also helped make the play memorable.

Athol Fugard's "The Island", performed by Sachin Gurjale and Anish Victor was possibly the highlight of the festival. Though highly verbose in its construction, the play manages to hold one's attention easily. Like most of Athol Fugard's plays this one too centres on the struggles of African men in the time of the Apartheid. Here two common men are trapped in a jail, for rebelling against the Apartheid. They have to perform a piece form the Greek play Antigone in front of their officers.

The play is beautifully written to show the conflicts between the heart and the head, between feeling and the reason - the same conflict in Antigone. Being personally right and politically wrong is true to the prisoners as to Antigone. Gurjale and Victor as John and Winston present this subtle yet strong similarity with much ease. The longing for freedom, the anxiety of a father, lover, friend and son, jealousy and angst are all evoked powerfully. What is also interesting is the way in which light has been used realistically almost like a character in the play. There are parts when the actors are submerged in darkness, like at the very beginning when the two prisoners work on the beach as a part of their punishment for rebelling in the prison.

It however was disheartening to see that play did not see a full house like the other two plays.What gives "The Hare and the Tortoise" dramatic shape is the question or notion of `the race'.

"The race began simultaneously, but I reached instantly," sums up the "way" that forms the central notion of the piece. "Are there answers outside knowledge?" is one predominant question setting the pace of the play. The play works through stories of characters like Ganapati and Kartik, the hare and tortoise, Ekalavya and Arjuna and Hamlet, winners and losers in a variety of tales. Visually the play is thoroughly engaging. The play is a combination of sketches that use a variety of media, and verbal and physical texts. Music and light are used beautifully to create surreal moods and images. The contemporary jazz music played during the performance is instrumental in defining the concept of "now" as opposed to the "past" that Hamlet is preoccupied with. Acrobatic movements and contortions of artists Nimi Raphel (as Arjuna and Ekalavya), Vinay Kumar (Hamlet, The Hare), Suresh Kaliyath (Ganapathi) and the animated voice work of Arjun Shankar and Arvind Rane, coupled with the deftly-played music of Suresh Kaliyath, Pascal Sieger, Arjun Shankar and Arvind Rane stunningly enhance the ensemble work.

DEEPTHY SHEKHAR

© Copyright 2000 - 2006 The Hindu

Failed craftsmanship

Date:19/04/2007 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/mp/2007/04/19/stories/2007041901630400.htm

The play Five, put together by workshop participants, disappointed at multiple levels

DISPARATE ELEMENTS There were five stories in the play involving people from different walks of life

Join the Dot's recent performance of "Five" raises critical questions about the notion of performance, workshop productions and feedback. The play was put together by participants of previous workshops conducted by the group. The actors together created the scripts and rehearsed over four weekends to put up the Sunday afternoon performance for a full house at CFD's Nani Arena. Also, this was the first-performance opportunity for most actors on stage.

The name of the play, "Five", corresponds with the number of stories in the play. Is there a connecting theme between the stories? No. The stories are disparate and are of people from all walks of life. The narrator (Rahul George) introduces each of these stories, as the actors set the stage for the other scene. The five stories are somewhat like this — the first story "Love Lost" introduces the story of Andrew, a wildlife photographer and his love for Enzima, a tribal girl in a matriarchal tribal land, who chooses to stay with her tribal group called Mundugamo. Andrew leaves the tribal lands and becomes a writer. The second story, "Khel Khel Mein" tells the story of two brothers, similar to Cane and Able. The third story, documents the story of two MBA graduates trying to impact changes in their village, the fourth, beginning with a poem, tells the story of a physically challenged adult who begins to look at life differently and the fifth is the story of life situations and changes ina family of three.

All the stories are constructed by the participants themselves and there is no doubt of the singular potential of the actors, but the collection of plays failed in execution and disappointed on many fronts. The only story that stood out in content and performance was "Khel Khel Main". Both the actors playing the modern Cane and Able were powerful in their performances. Content wise, there were many glitches, for example, the wildlife adventurer in the first piece aims at a bird with a gun and shoots it to impress the woman he loves. The loosely weaved script and dramatic depiction threw up serious questions. It was disturbing to see villagers being depicted as a group of bhang smoking individuals, or the clichéd depiction of tribal people. Rahul George's performance as the narrator was clumsy. The performance was subsumed by a kind of humour that elicits immediate laughter from the audience, and dangerously tips actors into a trap of repeating the same till the very end of the sequence. The play, directed by Join the Dots team members Mahesh and Meenakshi, needs a lot of work, if it has to go in for repeat performances.

DEEPTHY SHEKHAR

© Copyright 2000 - 2006 The Hindu

Great show

Date:30/03/2007 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/fr/2007/03/30/stories/2007033001790300.htm

---

Performed again nearly two decades after it's debut, Mukhyamanthri nevertheless had a contemporary resonance

SOME FAULTS Even a bang-on execution could not camouflage the glitches

Kalagangothri, one of Bangalore's oldest amateur Kannada theatre groups, recently performed one of their oldest and most popular plays "Mukhyamanthri" at Ravindra Kalakshetra. Translated to Kannada by T.S. Lohitashwa from the original Hindi text (written by Ranjit Kapoor) nearly two decades ago, the play has since been performed regularly since then by Kalagangothri. What's more, veteran actor Mukhyamanthri Chandru has played the protagonist in every staging of the play.

The play begins at the end of the story, with turmoil in the political circles of Udayachal state. The chief minister Krishna Dwayapalana Kaushal (Mukhyamanthri Chandru) loses the confidence of his party, at the end of his five-year term. He is, however, retained as "Caretaker" Chief Minister for a period of 48 hours, after which voting in the next elections begins. From the start, it is clear that Sudharshan Dubey, the president of the party, plots to overthrow Kaushal and become the next chief minister. But not wanting to give up, Kaushal launches a series of well-planned schemes to hold onto power. Directed by B.V. Rajaram, the play is a study of political intrigue, highlighting the strategies employed by the chief minister to win back confidence within 18 hours.

Perhaps the greatest testament to the play's storytelling is the ease with which audiences have been able to relate it to contemporary politics over the years.When the play was first staged, it was considered a commentary on the life of the then Chief Minister Devraj Urs. Now, the same is said regarding the present Chief Minister. This clearly speaks of the currency the play evokes even today, despite being written nearly two decades ago. Although it manages such a powerful universality, however, the play does not have many abstract political discourses and is rather fast paced in its movement, showing the most crucial day of the leader's life.

The cast is off and running from the beginning, working a nice staccato between them, despite the play being rather verbose. Mukhyamanthri Chandru as the Chief Minister easily holds attention as he segues from one conversation to the next with impeccable comic timing .

Kalagangothri Kitti performs well as the prodigal son of the Chief Minister, as do Srinivas Meshtru as Durgabhai, M.S. Vidhya as Suhasini and Krishne Gowda as Dubey.

However, even a bang-on execution could not camouflage some noticeable glitches. Many of the other artistes in the play, although having small roles, betrayed a lack of effort in both characterisation and delivery. Also, seeing actors turn to the wings for instructions was rather disturbing. These difficulties did not much reduce the effect, however, as audience members were heard holding forth on current political intrigues much after the curtains dropped.

DEEPTHY SHEKAR

© Copyright 2000 - 2006 The Hindu

The Original Last Wish Baby

Americans! This is a great topic to make play about, especially if the play resembles a Michael Moore or a Dubyaman commentary and is in the genre of black comedy. William Seebring's "The Original Last Wish Baby" is one such play and was performed recently at the Alliance Francais de Bangalore by Dramanon, a Bangalore based theatre group. The play is directed by Sharanya Ramprasad. The relatively new play by Seebring, tells the story of the capitalistic America that encashes on anything that is worth commercializing. In this case it is a miracle in modern times, of a baby born without a heart in Ohio, and the news of a woman in another part of the world delivering a heart, without really knowing she delivered it. The characters in the play are everyday people, and the play is a parody, on American life. It shows normal, everyday people as being manipulative, even in their well meaning acts, and the media as seeking to scintillate, even the smallest of acts, if it proves to provide those fifteen minutes of fame. If seen closely, the metaphor of the 'heartless baby' is quite an example in itself of an industrialized, corporate world, quite reminiscent of the literature from the industrialization period. There are also some really interesting debates in the script, like towards the end, the play highlights the issue of death. Subtly the question of brain dead people, are portrayed. In a restaurant scene, a man asks for a table for him and his brain dead, yet alive wife- it also moves into absurd frenzy when an anti – 'funaralist' cult demands right for extended life and elect the dead Ronald Regan as their leader. The lines and scenes fly easily without much lag in the plot. This however becomes the biggest setback in itself, as was seen in the recent performance. The play by itself is rather insidious in nature, in that it easily traps the performers into certain invisible traps.

The treatment of the play itself is an illustration of this factor, meaning that here, the satire or the spoof is misunderstood in its interpretation. All characters, leaving one had a rather 'Simpsonisque' treatment. The locale seemed more like Springfield rather than as Ohio, or any other part of America. The drunk in the bar (Vinoj Zacharia) evoked a lot of memories of Homer Simpson. The trap was exactly here, in creating a spoof about the American life the way Americans have already done it. The medical professors were shown as nerds and one particularly reminded of Eddie Murphy in the Nutty Professor. Also, what is noticed how one easily correlates "image consultants" to lipstick applying "gay men". Or that a sex worker, is sassy, and the Guatemalan maid is raunchy and loud. The play does not seem to be written to be performed stereotypically. There are many areas where these leanings could have been avoided, but one must admit, that such portrayal did provide laughter from a majority of the audience. One wonders if literal caricaturing of characters helped the performance, and so the question is, is this all that we can do with a black comedy about Americans? Play it the way Americans have played it?

The second trap is the accent. There were varying accents heard in the play. It seemed like the team could not take a calling on what kind of accents to use in the play or perhaps, it was probably to show a cosmopolitan culture in America, or may be not. Third, movements. All seem fine when the actors are moving to line blocking, but what does not fit in is the robot like movements at the end and beginning of each scene. If each of the actor is playing a certain American character, why not enter in the same way?

Even though the play presented many questions regarding the way it has been dramatized, some parts of the play demand a proper mention. The light (Harish Seshadri) and sound (Anirudh Kidambi) execution were smooth. The audio visuals were captivating. The original soundtrack (by Anuragh Shanker and Thanglian Khup) and the images that were compiled by Rahul Prabhu were well chosen, and portrayed a certain angst in the mind of the American playwright that the performance somehow did not show. The six actors who played up to forty roles managed their costume changes well, and in time. While five of the actors play the various characters in America, a narrator weaves a story between the scenes they create, sometimes providing assistance within a scene. Anand Ramprasad, as the narrator was good especially in his voice work, but it seemed he could have been used better in the play. The antics of other actors, Deepanjan Dey, Sitara Menon, Serena Punch, Suraj and Vinoj provided a great deal of laughs for most of the audience, but sometimes were too in the face.

The risk with performances such as this one is that usually audience laughter is taken in by the team as appreciation for good acting. Also the greater risk is that a good script still remains hidden.

Laughing all the way

Date:02/02/2007 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/fr/2007/02/02/stories/2007020201480300.htm


Yashwant Sardeshpande's play All the Best had the audience in splits

SOARING POPULARITY CHARTSAll the Best has seen nearly 450 performances in the country and abroad

Last Sunday's performance of Hubli based Guru Nataka Mandali's All the Best at the Kuvempu Ranga Mandira, Avalahalli, evoked memories of yesteryear play performances in Bangalore. It was a familiar scene: the open-air auditorium thronged with eager beavers, waiting for the early evening performance to begin. All the Best has seen nearly 450 performances in the country and internationally. It follows all the tricks of touring popular plays. It is a comedy set in the house of three bachelors, who come with their own set of mannerisms and characterisations. Chandru is a cook at his own local Chinese push cart, and is hearing impaired. Dilip works at a bookstore, and is speech impaired, and Vijay is visually impaired and works in a telephone booth. The three have their own ways of interacting with each other that make for a lot of laughter. The house has been designed to suit their special needs. There are two sets of calling bells, to suit the hearing and the visually impaired. In the midst of all this walks Mohini, a well-meaning, friendly woman, for whom all the three men fall head over heels. They are competing with each other to gain her attention. The confusions and the punch lines by the three actors generated most of the laughter.

The success of this play lies in the portrayal of relatable characters. The sets are simple and look neat. Foldable walls with built-in windows and doors, posters of Amitabh and Aishwarya Rai created the image of bachelor pads. The costumes were realistic too. Most of the actors did a good job, but Yeshwanth Sardeshpande as Chandru was a stand out. The good lighting and sound system added to the effect. Like most popular plays this one gets the audience high on laughter.

DEEPTHY SHEKAR

© Copyright 2000 - 2006 The Hindu

Age cannot wither...

Orange Sky's production of Cleopatra was strong on costume and sets though the performances were slightly unconvincing

PASSIONATE QUEEN Cleopatra's costume was grand as befitting the royal everyone loved to hate

William Shakespeare's tale of love and deception along the shores of Nile and Rome, has captured the imagination of writers for centuries. Anthony and Cleopatra is as strong as its protagonists and is packed with intrigue, love and war. In a recent attempt, Bangalore-based Orange Sky presented their version of the famous play.

Adapted by Reshma Tonse and directed by Kanak Narayan Sen, Cleopatra was performed at the St. John's auditorium. The play was executed well, with only a few technical hitches. The scenes moved rather swiftly between Cleopatra's palace and Rome.

The stage is set to suggest these two locations with two Roman Coliseum like structures at the two ends of the front stage, and a pharaoh's chair at the centre for Cleopatra and the actions happen in the appropriate areas.

Most of the stage was used well. The music too, occupies scenes between Anthony and Cleopatra, but ended rather abruptly every time.

The costumes were grand. Cleopatra was dressed in shimmering gold, and the rest of the cast in black. Keeping a basic style of the toga, the actors were given different styles in black. One can understand the need for neutral costumes and colours to avoid costume changes especially with same actors playing two roles, Tonse plays Charmaine and the soothsayer and the three main male characters — Agrippa, Anthony and Octavius Caesar — merged with other characters.

Structurally, the production followed the main plot of Shakespeare's play.

So how is this play an adaptation? First, maybe in its attempt to recreate the classic to a modern audience, Tonse has retained the main characters in the play, doing away with more than a score characters in the original.

The director also suggests that the adaptation focuses on Cleopatra's (Sudarshana Gupta) emotional trials, caught in self-doubt, vanity and fear. The plot in the adaptation is not far from the original. So are the characterisations. The single flaw? The performance seemed rather dilute and unconvincing. The strength and resoluteness of Cleopatra even in her emotional shifts, vanity and diffidence is missing. Rajiv Gupta, as Anthony was his confident self, Jaiprakash stood out as Agrippa, and was consistent.

While none of the actors had any problems with lines, they too struggled somewhere with being convinced themselves. Sudarshana Gupta's work is apparent, nevertheless, her struggle to seem convincing as Cleopatra, only suggests that a play of Shakespeare, even if adapted, becomes in many ways both the best and the worst play for those who are working on it for the first time. Admittedly a difficult script such as this requires a lot of authorial and characterization support, otherwise faces the risk of showcasing good, potential talent, which ultimately does not touch.

DEEPTHY SHEKHAR

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Jan 18, 2007

Spectacular form

REAL TRIUMPH The performance presented an altruistic dimension to the demons

The seven-day Yakshagana festival in Bangalore recently was sparklingly refreshing.

In most traditional art forms the subject is usually mythology or the epics. It is all about spectacle, colourful costumes, lilting tunes, dances, the war between gods and demons, and the triumph of good over evil.

Such a spectacle was created for the audience recently, when the Gopalkrishna Yakshagana Mandali, toured and performed seven pieces from mythology keeping with the traditional Bayalaata (open air theatre) form for seven days in Bangalore recently.

Unlike the growing trend in the cities — of performing Yakshagana in a proscenium theatre — this weeklong festival took place in Girinangar, Bangalore.

The stage and the open-air auditorium were simple in design. A rectangular stage supported by four pillars was put together in the middle of the road. The audience, on chairs and on the floor, viewed the play from three sides of the stage, as always with any Bayalata.

Wide range
The seven plays, ranged from some well-known mythological stories or prasangas like Bhukailasa, Krishna Parijatha, Girija Kalyana, Jambhavati Veeramani, and Damayanti Swayamvara, some regional stories like Bappanadu Kshetra Mahaatme and Raaja Soudaasa.

Even while the stress is on the victory of good over evil, the real triumph of these performances is the manner in which they present altruistic dimension of the demons. For instance, in Bappanadu Kshetra Mahime, Daarikasura (the demon of the streets) is benevolent, a giver. Like most classical plays, the plays in the festival were male centric. The all male cast, a characteristic feature of Yakshagana, plays both the male and female roles. The Vidhushaka, or jester plays another prominent role in Yakshagana. Mijaru Timmappa and Balakrishna Maniyani as jesters were most enjoyable.

Eshwar Bhatt easily slipped into the female roles of Mandodari and Girije. M.R. Navada, stood out as Ravana and Daarikasura and managed several mid-air twirls in his performance. The 34 artists troupe was a good mixture of experienced artists and novices.

Time travel
Conventionally, a Yakshagana or a bayalaata performance, begins late in the evening, and is performed till about early hours of the morning.

However, this time round, the troupe began the performance at 6.30 p.m. and ended by 10. 30 p.m. This was obvious, because traditionally they are practiced and performed for over eight hours, but in this case had to be drastically condensed to three hours. There is no written script in Yakshagana, but the Bhagavatha, the lead singer, and for all purposes, the conductor or the director of the play, follows a song script, which traces the entire story line. The characters constantly interact with the himmela and the bhagavatha.

The Bhagavatha on his part renders the play and takes it to its end. It is probably this interactive nature of Yakshagana, that allows for the social focus to set in. Sometimes they even connect the mythological story to a local incident.

For many in the audience, this was probably the first brush with the ancient folk form.
Over the seven days, the performances were packed. and local patrons like Krishna Bhatt sponsored the whole festival.

DEEPTHY SHEKHAR
The Hindu
Friday, 5th January 2007

Out of the mouth of babes

Gumma Banda Gumma uses the Grips philosophy to craft an engaging play

The Grips school of Children's theatre - observes children as young people with opinions, and preferences and uses theatre to provide audience with a glimpse of how and why children think.In the 80's the Grips approach to children's theatre was introduced in India by Mohan Agashe, and subsequently in Bangalore by the Sanket group, which led to the writing and performance of new plays like Gumma Banda Gumma and Gagrayyana Friends.

With the establishment of Ranga Shankara's own, in house children's theatre programme, `A Ha!', the Grips Children's theatre finds its way into the broader realm once again. In November 2006, the programme conducted a workshop for the youth, culminating in the present performance.

German adaptation

Gumma has been adapted from the German play Max Und Millie, by S Surendranath, and has been directed by Vibhavari Deshpande, who coordinates the Grips programme at the Maharashtra Cultural Centre, Pune. The play is about identifiable realities of a child including fear of the dark and parental disapproval.The play, is fast moving and with scenes changing from the children's room to the park. Two of the three children in the play are siblings Putta (Ganesh), Munni (Arundhati) while Gunda (Satya) is the boy they befriend in the park. While the siblings are from an affluent family, Gunda comes from a slum around where they live. Munni is the younger sister that both the boys can relate to, annoying at times, their best friend at other times. With each turn in the play, the children find themselves dealing their fears of being punished. The basic need of children to bypass punishment pushes them to find creative ways of finding solutions while remaining within the limits set by their parents.

While the three children are candid in their views of each other, the actors display a good understanding of how children behave and are successful in building a good rapport with the audiences.

The play integrates good writing with good acting.The actors as children run and cycle around in circles in the park, and effortlessly slip into dance, and singing. Their uninhibited performance probably instigates the rapport building process. There is no slips there, may be just a few warbling voices- but it adds to the play. Rajalakshmi as Putta and Munni's mother, and Jagadish as Gunda's father add to the characterization of the adults, sometimes unreasonable, impatient, but caring and trapped in their own realities. The sets by M.S. Satyu are innovative and simple. The only weakness - the time taken to change the scene from the room to the park, is a tad too long in some parts.

***

Abhinaya Taranga (School of dramatic Arts) presented Ramachandra Deva's Kalemba Kambhavu at Ranga Shankara as part of its silver jubilee celebrations. As always, the actors in the present play are students of the evening and weekend school of dramatic arts at its campus in Hanumantha Nagar. B. Suresh, theatre and small screen actor, directed the play.

The play is an assemblage of mythology, fantasy and a near real story. Three stories involving these three styles in different time frames are in the quest of love.

The first story is a metaphor for another metaphor. It is the story of the feud between the Lord Narayana and his weapon of destruction- the Sudarshana Chakra. Their debate about who is powerful, the weapon or its user fills out the first part of the play. The second part centers around a king who is keen on using his son as a pawn in a political battle with another country. The prince is a rebel, and is jailed for refusing to marry the daughter of the king's ally and for further vexing him with his homosexual preferences. The story turns to fantasy when two birds, smuggle the princess of China (the daughter of the King's adversary) to the jail cell where the prince has been imprisoned. The play ends with the emphasis that love triumphs over war.

The styles change with the stories seen. There is a mixture of Yakshagana and contemporary movement based histrionics. The connecting link between the three disparate stories is the Himmela, the chorus, who change the colour of the drape they are bound in, to suggest the movement in the story. Narayana, his wife Lakshmi and the Sudarshana Chakra (in Human form) are introduced on stage in moving trolleys pushed by their men clad in black costumes. Their presence seemed wasted in this part of the play, which used such a powerful movement based art form like Yakshagana. It seemed that the costumes were used only to set apart the story from others and to suggest its mythological nature. Although the costumes of the three main actors in this part (Narayana, Lakshmi, Sudarshana Chakra and the Demon) and thecolours impress, the characters were rather languid. The war scenes have some smatterings of the traditional style of dance.

Baffling turn

The second part is baffling. Is it about war, restlessness of the youth, homosexuality, emotional blackmail by parents, political schemes and plots?

The play also uses stereotypical images. The story of the birds reminds of a folk tale, and moves to show how in the absence of man, love prevails. However the original metaphor of the weapons of destruction taking over the world was lost towards the end.While the execution of the play was good, too many profound lines from the Himmela miss the mark. The Himmela need to be more synchronized in their movement and dialogue delivery.

The dances and the duels are engaging. The sets, music and singing are good. The hard work of the actors is obvious. It is perplexing to see Abhinaya Taranga choose such a play.

DEEPTHY SHEKHAR
The Hindu
29th December 2006

Play on life

Gender and community polemics were highlighted in the plays

Benaka, recently performed Chandrashekhara Kamabar's Jokumaraswamy at Puttana Chetty Town Hall, as a part of the Bengalore Habba celebrations. It was heartening to see the troupe performing to a full house, especially at the Puttana Chetty Townhall, which theatre troupes seem to have forgotten. One wonders why this auditorium was chosen for Kannada plays in the Habba. B.V. Karanth directed the play in 1972, for a high profile cast ranging from Girish Karnad to Nagabharana, who then was a young upcoming actor himself. Jokumaraswamy is about a bully, anostentatious zamindar, called Gowda (T.S. Girish), who is keen on keeping superstition, fear and illiteracy intact in his village. He has a roving eye and does not spare any woman. He woos Ningi (Nandini Murthy) for six months, before being overpowered by Gurya (Pavan). However the reality, denied by him, yet obvious to all is his impotency.

He is impotent not just in the matter of women but other areas as well. His wife Gowdti (Vidhya Venkataram) pines for a child. The tale is set around a day that is auspicious to Jokumaraswamy, the unseen protagonist and the god of virility.

The play shows Gowdti moving from being a devoted and neglected wife to one who accepts the love of Basannya (Mico Manju) a victim of the Gowda's scheming ways. The play in itself does not judge the love between the Gowdti and Basannya. Gowda instigates the objection and the final murder of Basannya.

It seemed that the set of the play was kept simple to highlight Gowda's massiveness. The costumes immediately create the feel of the folk. T. S. Nagabharana, easily set the pace of the play.

Gowda's four flunkies were energetic, while Gowda was commendable and Mico Manju powerful. Vidya Venkataraman was a tad disappointing as Gowdti.

The mention of the parrot was lost, and probably not understood by an audience not acquainted with the play. Pavan stands out as Gurya, with his perfect comic timing and his acting abilities. Nandini Murthy as Ningi shows potential.

The songs are melodious and hummable. However, the constant discussion among the members of the mela was distracting. As singers, the mela, led by Kalpana Naganath, Srinath and Vijaya performed well.

Benaka's attempt to train new, young artists for the play, keeping B.V. Karanth's original directorial design is commendable. However one wonders if there are chances for fresh ideas to emerge by younger directors within the team?

Roopantara performed Mussanje Katha Prasanga based on P. Lankesh's novel. The play directed by KSDC Chandru was scripted by Basavaraj.

The play, about the Veershaiva community, ridicules characters like Barmanna (Eshwar Dalla), who lay down the tenets to be followed by the people of his community. "How can Rangamma (Y.N. Uma) a milk seller and money lender ask for interest from the people of her own community?" "What about her daughter Savantri (Poornima), how can she marry a low caste man?" The play speaks of man's low tolerance for successful women. Schemes and plots are made and executed. But all fall flat in front of the strong resolve of Rangamma not to succumb to the men. She easily lashes out her loud and acerbic tongue.Paradoxically, the play throws open hypocrisies of the men of the village who point fingers at Rangamma, who is the harbingerof what they perceive as ills. While Rangamma's tirades do generate laughter, one wonders at the extremely abusive language she uses. The black humour goes completely unnoticed. The first part of the play is engaging. However, with the introduction of the characters Udupa (Chandru) and Mumtaz (Vinuta) the play loses its innate strength. Also wished the play wasn't so long.

The light and music design of the play seemed to borrow greatly from the company style of plays. The stage setting was good. However, the production needs more refinement before it makes an impact.

DEEPTHI SHEKAR
The Hindu
22nd December 2006

The native tale

Rafiki's performance of Woza Albert! effectively captured the zeitgeist of the Apartheid



BLACK HUMOUR The play used laughter to bring out grim reality

`Woza Albert!' immediately reminds you of Apartheid. The play deals with the frustration, struggles and desperation of native blacks in South Africa, finding a way out of their oppressing situation. The setting is simple. The locale could be anywhere in South Africa; the jail, the brick factory, the butcher or the barber's shop, and the situation is the same. The sense of humour camouflages the pain.Each of the scenes rebuilds the conflicts of the people.The play is an outcome of one such discouraging situation, where the original actors of the play (Percy Mtwa and Mbongeni Ngena) were denied their right to perform once, due to the lack of a work permit. That is the point where the play was born. "What would happen if God came to South Africa?" Several discussions and debates with the locals became the raw material of the play, which was directed originally by Barney Simone, the director of the Market Theatre, Johannesburg.

It was therefore interesting to see Bangalore-based Rafiki perform Woza Albert! The troupe in the past has performed plays of Athol Fugard, one of which (Sizwe Bansi is Dead) inspired the present play. After many years of hiding, Rafiki performed the play on November 14 and 15, 2006, at Ranga Shankara. This play is directed by Ashish D'Abreo, who was a part of the Sizwe Bansi production. Rafiki's focus on process work with the script and actors is reflected in the performances of Anish Victor and Sachin Gurjale. They were effective in portraying the poignant reality through the dozen stories of common people, in fast moving scenes.

Can Morena (Jesus Christ) save the black men? Each character develops imaginative stories, depicting how people will react if Morean did come to South Africa. While the Blacks ask for basic rights, of education, fair work, food, shelter, the white men with clown noses, are seen changing loyalties. At first, they are glad, that Morena is coming to South Africa, and then wonder if Morena is actually Saddam Hussian or Osama, and then imprison him in the famous Robben Island.

Victor and Gurjale easily got in and out of the various roles, and were even able to come close to the true accent of the people. The study and work behind the play is obvious. This is the interesting part of their work — the fact that the troupe began working on Woza Albert! nearly eight years ago, under the guidance of Hartman d'Souza and from the past two years with Ashish D'Abreo, is refreshing.

Both the actors bring out the humour quite skilfully, almost camouflaging the dark realities behind witty lines, and funny gestures. The disparate yet connected sketches are moving and remind of a Chaplin-like treatment to the script. For music, Victor and Gurjale, both use the part of the sets as percussion, and sing some good African tunes. One area at the centre of the stage is the locale of the play, and the actors do not go beyond, making the play possible to be performed in smaller places. There are no bright colours, usually used in a lot of African influenced work. The entire play stands out for its simplicity, and good execution, and we need to see more performances of the same around Bangalore.

In the post-performance discussion, the troupe revealed that they still regard the performance as an ongoing process and would sometime consider completely adapting the play to the Indian scenario.

DEEPTHY SHEKHAR

Losing the plot

An excellent play was marred by listless performances and shoddy coordination

LOST CAUSE The excellent plot was let down by unconvincing execution

Dream Scope in collaboration with The Forum presented The Afghan Women recently. The play, directed by Puja Goyal, was written by William Mastrosimone in the aftermath of the World Trade Centre bombing. It is therefore a play of the `present' plight of most in Afghanistan.

The changes that emerge from war mean different things to different people. All the characters struggle with misplaced identity. The loss of the burkha for the women, the struggle of the men to hold on to their tribe, and the loss of `belonging' for a new generation of men who can easily follow the path of hegemony are included in the plot.

Plots, counter plots

A warlord, Hamood (Terrence), seeks protection from the new government in an orphanage even as he plots to overthrow it.

The Afghanistan-born, America-raised physician Malalai (Sabreen Baker) sees its futility, and convinces three local women Wajma (Yamini), Gulalai (Gangamma) and Nahid (Ashika Devi) and Hamood's son Omar (Nabeel), schooled in the ways of war, to overthrow him.

At the core of the plot stands the naked truth of all wars, that a conflicted country probably is the best judge of the right solution.

Going beyond

Mastrosimone's work transcends from being a play just about women to the lives of the men in the tribes, and of people at large facing war and death every day.

The lines are witty, profoundly light, and develop the characters well, and move between modes of despair and hope rather interestingly.

Which was why it was disappointing to see it performed without conviction and just as publicity vehicle to promote a shopping fest. The audience was made to wait for 45 minutes so that the chief guest could arrive and then again during the interval for nearly 25 minutes for introductions.

The performance that followed both times was listless.

The three women (Yamini, Gangamma and Ashika) merely spoke their lines to static moves. The main actors were either standing or sitting. The music was abrupt and sparse. What really jarred was the use of lapel mikes that had problems. What about actors projecting their voices? Even internationally, in musicals (from where the idea was probably taken), where lapel mikes are used, the actors project their voices. In this case, some actors were inaudible even a few feet away from the stage. There also seemed to be lack of coordination between the technical support group and the actors, evident in the constant sounding of `checks' in the lapel mikes and the long gaps between the scene changes (nearly five to seven minutes) when the actors were heard conversing backstage!

The death of Hamood was comical and diluted the essence of the scene where the women take over, and claim their power.

There is clear potential Baker, Nabeel and Terrence who showed some interesting work. The intention of the performance, to donate the proceeds to International Orphan Care for the Afghan children, which is supported by the playwright, was laudable.

DEEPTHY SHEKHAR

© Copyright 2000 - 2006 The Hindu

Evading the issue

Surnai's production of Jameela Bai Kalaali closed the Ranga Shankara Theatre Festival. The play is adapted from Mario Vargas Llosa's La Chunga, and set in rural Rajasthan. Like the original, the name of the adaptation is also the name of the protagonist and the bar she runs. The present adaptation seems filtered taking in only the story from the original play, and not the underlying themes. The lesbian overtones have been played as a fantasy of the men who come and drink at the bar. The turning point of the original play is in the silence of La Chunga. Many people see the silence as the key to the story of the young girl's disappearance and her fate. "What did you do with her? When will you tell us?" the men ask La Chunga and her only response is her silence. At this point the playwright begins to play with the fantasy of the audience at large.

However, in Jameela Bai Kalaali, two things about the way the plot and themes are dealt, are disappointing. One, a scene detailing what actually happened to Chameli is explained. Later, Jameela Bai explains to the audience that her love for Chameli is of a maternal kind.

Jameela Bai Kalaali joins a list of plays that don't want to address homosexuality. This play stands proof of the fact that merely conforming to a story does not make for a successful adaptation. The `tall ageless woman' of Llosa's La Chunga is subverted. While talking of the changes, Ila Arun, who adapted the play says in Theatre Alive "... and with Rajasthan comes the colour and music of the state which I thought was perfect for the play." Strangely though, the play had a mix of recorded and live singing, which seemed out of place. The lead actress, Ila Arun, a singer and performer let down her audience by not singing live on stage.

Ila Arun as Jameela, remains cold on stage. While one can interpret this as Jameela's defence against the men who taunt and provoke her, the coldness in speech and facial expression continue in her interaction with Chameli (Rajeshwari Sachdev). On her part, Sachdev was trying very hard to fit into the role of Chameli. K. K. Raina, Ravi Jhankal, and Mitwa stood out with their energetic delivery and movement in their individual scenes with Arun and Sachdev. They were convincing in their portrayal of common thieves. Rajit Kapur was good as Jabra. Though his Hindi had an urban touch to it, his obvious study of a village thief and pimp, showed well in all the scenes. For a play that has been performed for nearly eight years prior to this performance, Jameela Bai Kalaali displays unacceptable glitches, like not camouflaging the lights on stage. On the whole, Jameela Bai Kalaali was disappointing.

Deepthy Shekhar

© Copyright 2000 - 2006 The Hindu

Seemingly Farcical

I asked a friend to come watch the fifth play of the Ranga Shankara theatre festival 06 with me. The play was in Marathi, and after the Cotton 56, Polyester 84 experience, I was ready for more. It was called Makdachya Hati Champagne, (Champagne in a Monkey’s hand)and promised to provide a lot of entertainment. But my friend, refused to come to watch the play since it was in Marathi. His complaint was not new. I had heard it many times from many people. “How can I waste time over play in Marathi or any other language? I wont understand anything. It is wasted viewing,” he concluded. I wondered about this the matinee show began. Do I need to know a language to understand a play? My preparation, to get a head start in understanding helped me.

I knew this play was a political satire. I had read the promotional material Ranga Shankara had made available, but I was keen on understanding how a political satire could be set in a bachelor pad in Maharashtra. Three men live there, all addressed by names matching their personalities. ‘Chaku’ (Vivek Bele) is uncouth and blunt, Pustak (Sandesh Kulkarni) is a book worm obsessed with Bernard Shah’s ‘My Fair Lady’, and then there is ‘Makad’ (Anand Ingale). He is called Makad – Monkey. Why? “Let me explain with an example.” He is Makad like the monkey who cut off the nose of the king, while trying to kill a housefly. Creating chaos. Makad works as a television reporter, and craves for news all the time, when there is no news happening, he churns it, like Makad in the king’s story –making a mountain of a mole hill – 24/7. Enter Pencil (Sharvani Pillai). The girl Chaku woos. She is called Pencil because, her past is erasable, and yet has no refill. She also has not cap to cover her mistakes.

The play can seem to be a slapstick comedy. Yet look beneath the layers. Each scene begins with the television. There are glimpses of political strife that consumes the Maharashtra Government. In the play- similar tensions revolved around Pustak and Chaku, both contenders for Pencil’s attention and love. Pencil not only loves all the attention she is getting but she takes it further by arranging the contest to select the man she wants to marry. The external and internal strife are similar. The play depicts the manipulation and the schemes of all the parties involved.

So what is Makad’s role in all this? How does he gain? He does not love or woo Pencil, neither does he gain her love or suffer at the loss. So what is his motive or gain? The playwright projects the idea current in these times. He introduces the ‘opportunist’ here. “Just be available at all times” is his mantra. Pustak’s marriage to Pencil, the threat of the divorce and surprisingly bigamy with Chaku, are too familiar political occurrences of ‘vote of no cofindence’, and the coalition governments. And like the political dramas turning sour, because of the middle man’s intervention, the proposal of bigamy / coalition government falls flat, and suspends into a limbo state. A marriage not ending in divorce (vote of no confidence) or moving towards bigamy (Coalition Government).

The play has been constructed as a satire with a lot of imagination. The playwright introduces various concepts and philosophies –“be available” and “conceptual spying” and other hilarious examples of ‘political strategies’ are interspersed with witty lines. The performance was entertaining. The 180 minutes does not seem heavy, when the audience is kept on its toes. For people like me to whom the language is foreign, the high energy of the play and the involvement of the audience kept me going. I laughed when the audience laughed, mainly enjoying their joy, and realized that I did not need a translator after the first few minutes. This is also because, what can seem to be a highly verbose play also had a lot of physical enactment. Pustak’s, who can be made stereotypically stiff in his body postures, moved like an inspired dancer, Makad – true to his creed of middle men was an actor with in the play and worked his voice and face effortlessly. And Chaku, who is unlike all the unimaginative portrayals made in the past of ‘uncouth and unversed’ people.

One thing that stood out in the performance was the effortless ease in which the entire execution was handled. There was no fumbling of lines. The set was constructed to use the space of the stage appropriately. Three beds, changing wall murals, a television, an illuminated wine cabinet and even a sink were fitted beautifully, and the actors moved between all this in ease. The coordination between the actors and the sound was perfect. The actors Sandesh Kulkarni, Anand Ingale, Vivek Bele, and Sharvani Pillai not only enjoyed themselves, but performed for a highly energetic audience. My friend – he missed an opportunity for a good laugh. It is all in the ‘being available!’