Shyam Babu
Research Scholar, Dept. of English,
German poet, playwright, social
thinker, and theatrical reformer Bertolt Brecht (1896-1956) was one of the
highly influential literary figures in 20th century Western Theatre.
He is popular for his avant-garde
experiment in theatre which is known as ‘epic’ theatre.This new experiment has
impressed the theatre practitioners across the world, cutting barriers of
nation, culture, language and so on. Indian theatre in many ways was the source
to the Brechtian epic technique because its ingredients like sutradhar as nat-nati samvada,narrative (i.e.kathavachaka),and employment of
vidushak (clown) and high stylized physical performance etc have been
integral part of ‘epic’ theatre but with some variations. And this Brechtian
theatre has been by virtue of its co-mingling of narrative into drama and
spirit of enquiries instead of emotional involvement in the performance which
he has called ‘illusion of reality’, for the better understanding of the
society, was much acclaimed and sought after. The paper will develop into two
sections. First section illustrates Brechtian concept of ‘Epic’ theatre and the
second discusses Charandas Chor
respectively.
‘Epic’ Theatre: In his
works Brecht is concerned with encouraging audiences/spectators to think rather
than becoming too much involved in the story and to identify with the
characters. So it appeals less to the spectators’ feelings than to their
reason. In this way, the political design of theatre became apparent and the
play going experience became a catalyst for individual and collective change.
His commitment for social change was Marxist legacy where he firmly sticks to
the line of principle of Karl Marx –“philosophers have only interpreted the
world, the point, however, is to ‘change it”. This dawn of change was drawn out
on the different levels and from heterogeneous ways. Brecht was influenced by
many performance traditions including Chinese, Japanese, Indian theatre, the
Elizabethan (especially-Shakespeare), Greek tragedy, German drama fair ground
entertainment, and Bavarian folk play. He abhorred the Aristotelian
theatre and its attempt to lure the
spectators for ‘willing suspension -of –disbelief’ state, a total
identification with the hero to the point of complete self-oblivion and
resulting in feelings of terror and pity, and ultimately an emotional
‘catharsis’. ‘Brecht criticizes the aesthetic tradition initiated by Aristotle
for its preference for dramatic narratives that please but do not instruct or
provide real learning about the sources of human suffering. He attacks
Aristotelian catharsis as a kind of “opium of masses”, arguing that empathizing
with characters prevents viewers from “reflecting critically on the social
causes of human suffering” (Curran: 2001:2).He did not want his audiences to be
emotional rather he wanted them to think and towards this end, he was
determined to destroy the theatrical illusion.
Brecht goes against the
Aristotelian concept of epic meaning i.e. he does not follow any rule of
consistency or logical coherence which is essential to build the structuration
of the Aristotelian plot. Where Aristotle has enunciated: “It should have for
its subject a single action, whole and complete, with a beginning, middle, and
an end” (Butcher: Poetics: xxiii). Instead of tight knit plot Brecht prefers
episodic form of narrative, self contained scene complete in itself. He treated
each scene as an independent entity not subordinate to the whole structure of
the play. He distinguished between the dramatic and epic spectators. Dramatic
and epic theatres have a different construction that were defined by Aristotle,
whose laws, says Brecht “were dealt with by two different branches of
aesthetics”. The dramatic aesthetic is the strong centralization of the story
and momentum that draws the six poetic elements (plot, character, theme, dialogue,
rhythm and spectacle) into a common relationship. The epic aesthetic by
contrast “can take a pair of scissors and cut it into individual piece, while
remain fully capable of life”. For centuries, theatre on the single stage was
thought to be dramatic spectacle, while festival and carnival presented on
multiple and simultaneous sites, was something done outside the theatre
building. However, Brecht’s innovation in staging brought the epic on stage,
and revealed that the relationship of dramatic and epic spectator is not a
duality but a dialectic: there are dramatic aspect to epic pieces and epic
aspect in drama. Epic theatre invites the spectator to take a critical and
intelligent role; the actors and the script purposely do not invite empathetic
viewing.
Epic theatre assumes “that
the audience is a collection of individuals capable of thinking and reasoning,
of making judgments even in the theatre, it treats it as individuals of moral
and embodied maturity, and believes it wishes to be so regarded” (Short Organum: 1948) In his view Brecht
is quite near to Augusto Boal’s concept of spect-actor where audience acts and
observe at the same time. Dramatic theatre assumes just the opposite; the
audience wants to be passive spectators, a kind of a mob, which must be and can
be reached only through its emotions; that it has the mental immaturity and
high emotional suggestibility of mob.
For this, Brecht deployed
many theatrical devices or paraphernalia that helped promote to get alienation
effect or making strange the spectators instead of giving air to empathy that
was his recurring motives for theatre. So that, they could not identify the
actors with them and would understand life critically and more comprehensively.
Among the devices he deployed to offer the idea of alienation are:
historification of the text, use of narrative, rendering the text into third
person, use of songs that check the flow of the actions, gest (or Gestus),
loose plot structure in the form of episode and each complete in itself, special
use of set design and lighting effect, highly stylized performance, use of mask
and mime, masquerade and dialects and regional folk myth as parable, mixing
human and non human elements etc. All together these efforts were made to pull
down what he called the fourth wall. Major concept of epic theatre is
alienation effect which is being discussed below:
Alienation effect: The
corner stone of epic theatre is, Verfremdungs
effect variously known as estrangement, disillusionment, making strange or
alienation effect but by whatsoever name it may be denoted, its relevance lies
as he himself likes to quote the pudding analogy ‘the proof of the pudding is
in the eating’. It was to make the spectators adopt an attitude of enquiry and
criticism in his approach to incidents shown on the stage’ (Willett:1964:177)
He saw Chinese performance and was impressed by its artful act of self-
alienation that stop the spectators from losing himself in the characters
completely and lent a splendid remoteness to the events (ibid.19). He might
have also got simulated from the Russian Formalist Viktor Shlovsky’s concept of
‘making strange’ (priem ostranenniya)
and Marx concept of ‘Alienation’ which has a bit different connotation. In its
totality ‘verfremdung’ was a weapon
in his theatre mission to describe the way in which art ‘by its own means’
could further the great social task of mastering life’ (ibid: 96). Thus, it
endeavours making the spectators to think instead of shedding tears on illusion
of reality shown on the stage and thus triggers the process of change in
society.
Thus, Brechtian concepts of
alienation effect, strange making, simultaneous looking at the incidents,
pedagogic bent of the story, catering nature of play by topsy-turvy and folk
theme and so on, are hall marks of his theatre which are seemingly seen a tool
of appropriating epic theatre in the play Charandas
Chor. This becomes, indeed explicit when we view Tanvir’s opinion in
connection with Brecht: “I respect Brecht very much. He has deeply impressed
me. I see many similarities in his German theatre and in our Hindustani
theatre. Brecht wrote ‘to establish the new creative principle, we should begin
with the necessary task of radical changing because it inherits the probability
of reconstruction of the society. In this, we assess the complete interpersonal
behaviours and relationship and it is but essential to observe every thing from
social angle” (Saapeksh: 2006:34, translation mine.)
Habib Tanvir (b.1924) is an
eminent director, actor, playwright, poet and literary personality who began
his career as a journalist as early as in fourties, and has been actively
associated with Indian People Theatre Association and Progressive Writers
Association from its very inception. Though he has widely experimented and learnt
form many sources-from Shakespeare to Brecht and from Indian Classical theatre
to Parsi theatre, he is world wide known for his tremendous works in folk
theatre especially Chhattisgarhi folk culture with rural people of
Chhattisgarh. Hence, he writes and performs plays in Chhattisgarhi (a dialect
of Hindi which is spoken in the state).His are the many brilliant plays like Agra Bazaar ,Mitti Ki Gadi, Gao Ka Naam
Sasural, Mor Naam Damaad, Dekh Rahe Hai Nain, Hirma Ki Amar Kahani and Charandas Chor which is his major
breakthrough in Indian drama after independence.
Tanvir's theatre journey reaches its high water marks
with his play Charandas Chor, which
has almost become a classic of contemporary Indian theatre repertoire. The play
has an interesting background which involves experimentation and improvisation
until it reached in the final shape in 1975.Tanvir took up the Vijaydan Detha’s
Rajsthani folk tale and gave a mould to it according to his purpose. In
Detha’s version, the thief is killed for his vows and the queen’s offer is
accepted by the guru who becomes the king thereafter. The playwright, having
the consummate artistic sensibility uses this tale not only as a narrative
which is bent itself upon contemporary socio-political realities but also as
the very structure of the meaning in the text. He does not stick him to the
original form of the story but makes the variations and dramatically ends on
the highest dramatic point of the thief's prosecution. And thus, with the
chorus the play closes with an anti climatic note. The play has been staged
across the Western world where it has also received the Fringe First award in
1982 at International Drama Festival in Edinburgh
Charandas
Chor (Charan, the Thief) was first performed
in original Chhattisgarhi by Naya
theatre (writer’s theatre company) at Kamani Auditorium, New Delhi
Charandas is an ordinary thief but of
unique quality. Playwright did not romanticize or produce the protagonist in a
conventional style i.e. heroic but rather as ordinary man of lopsided who on
account of ‘naivete, ignorance, conservative nature, and old fashioned belief
in vows’ meet his final undoing. Though he is scared of death and shows all the
fears that a common man has, he is at the same time has caught up in the web of
vows, no matter he had taken it non-seriously or inadvertently. In development
of the play his oaths are crucial which intensify the story and lead to
the denouement of the play. His four simple, paradoxical vows are – (i) he
would never eat in a golden platter, (ii) he would not ride the elephant back,
(iii) not ever he would be the king, and (iv) lastly he would never marry a
queen. Realizing the hypothetical day dreams, his guru took pity to add a new
-never to
tell a lie.
The curtain rises with the songs of Satanami Panthi (a religious sect) and guru’s eulogy:
"Praise
the guru, he one greets
Who alone
brings down to us?
The
Devine nectar of Truth.
This
nectar will redeem us
Brought
down from high –
Where
pure truth resides –
By our holy guru.”
(Charandas Chor.: 55)
And ends with the
same kind of praise of hypocrite guru which is very akin to the invocation of Vakratunda (crippled) Ganesh (who drives
all hindrance away and solve the problems) for peaceful performance in Karnad’s
play Hayavadana and epic pattern (of
India).But still the play is not religious. The setting of the play is a rectangular
plate from centre stage about 6’ft deep, 12ft wide, and 9 inches high. The
places created by this austere architectural design are used in different ways
throughout the production. For the opening scene between police man and the
thief, only the fore stage is used. But in the guru dakshina scene, the entire stage comes into the use with guru
and his followers sitting on the entire platform and the rest scattered all
over the stage.
In an innovative and
visually planning method, the plat form on the stage is approached some times
in rectilinear fashion (as in guru
dakshnina scene) and some times diagonally (as in the temple scene). This
creates interesting variations in the spectator’s perception of the stage,
which appears psychically altered. Stage props are kept to the minimum. The
objects which are actually used in the action are – such as the treasure chest
or the idol or the sacks of rice. Change in the locale is suggested almost
entirely through changing the grouping and not by any physical rearrangement of
the stage. During the early scenes, the stage is quite flexible and informal.
But after half of the play, it suddenly takes on a formal and sharply defined
quality in order to present the royal treasury, the queen’s court and bed
chamber.
The texture of the play
lies in the organizing skills of the actors and improvisations. This minimalist
stage prop reinforces the sense of the openness that is in the soul of the
story. He used simply stage props, like a triangular plat form with just one
tree, which was continued till some shows. But finally he deployed only two
bamboos, and a little foliage piece, the branch of a tree connecting them. As
Tanvir has commented: “Then I got rid of even that, keeping only one bamboo,
one branch, and it stayed at that. In other plays also, the bare minimum,
absolutely simple” (Katyal: 2004:48). Unhampered by any physical changes in the
scene, the action unfolds briskly and grippingly from scene to another action
of the folk or mythical tale, until the final episode when its serious import
all of a sudden comes into focus.
Thematically this story is full of
contradictions and paradoxes. Charndas earns his bread and butter by gulling
and robbing people off and flouting the laws and order (as his pious duty). Charandas,
the protagonist of the play first comes before us after the opening Satnami song with heavy bundle of
clothes on his head .He is caught by the Hawaldar who is in the search of the
thief of the golden platter. He escaped away from his clutches by bluffing.
Then he came across a peasant who was carrying edible thing tied in a
piece of cloth. He also snatches his purse tucked into the waist and hand
of his loin cloth and threat him away. Charandas now got a chance to loot
a wealthy merchant’s wife and instantly he caught the site with amazement:
Charandas: Arrey baap rey! What a load of
jewellery! (ibid: 61)
Though he would have taken
all the jewels of the woman easily, he took pity on woman and handed over her ornaments.Charandas is the
protagonist of the play but does not come from the higher or noble descent
family. Above all, he accomplished the task of masquerade or clown from time to
time and produces the hilarious comic sense in the play. His double role is
meaningful from two fold perspectives. First, as a noble and kind hearted who
lives a life of values of human dignity like truth and strives for betterment
of the poverty stricken people and secondly as a jest or masquerade who is
fraud and deceitful and consequently dies out of his mocking pledges. Hence his
portrayal as victimizer and victimized offers the viewers to look on the
incident with altogether an objective or detached perspective. And here it
paves the way for simultaneity and complex consciousness which ‘epic’ theatre
is intended to put forth to spectators.
In scene 2, we notice guru
sitting on the platform spreading his mat. All his disciples including drunkard
and gamblers touch his feet. Guru tries his best to solve their problems e. g.
smoking, gambling, drinking, and stealing etc, but on the charge of the guru dakshina. According to the sum of
the Dakshina, he gives guru mantra for their welfare and happiness .Because
without money nothing is possible in the world:
Guru:
You’ll have to give guru dakshina.
Smoker:
No problem! I’ll just give it to you. Here! (Hands over his gamachha with something knotted in the corner).
Guru:
Here is a true disciple! How much is there, beta?
Smoker: A
full bundle of twenty –five, guru-ji.
Guru:
(undoing the knot). Arrey, what’s this? I thought it was twenty five rupees,
but you’ve given me bidis! - - -
Guru: Look, beta, nothing happens without
guru dakshina .It’s a must.
Smoker:
But I don’t have any money, gurudev.
Guru.
(Begs): Beta, if nothing else, at least fork out a few coins for a cup of tea.
(ibid: 69)
And ultimately
smoker has to pay guru dakshina unintentionally .Then comes Charandas followed
by hawaldar (policeman). He tells about his profession. Guru coaxes him to give
this job up and take ‘only one’ vow which is not to tell a lie. But Charandas
is willing to take four pledges (analogous to four Arya Satya as has been stated in Buddhism) that is mentioned above.
And guru from his behalf adds a new –not to tell a lie.
But he is also a man
of commitment and principles. His strong sense of social justice and humanly
and sympathetic treatment with the impoverished and the poor, makes him no less
than a social reformer, to some extent virtuous man. That's why the chorus
announces "Charandas is not a thief, no way?”(ibid: 84).
Stealing for him is a sacred duty. It
has become as essential as the breathing itself for Charandas. On asking about
his promises and stealing (the things), two contrary things by the queen, he
gives breathe taking answer: “but it is my dharma! How can I give up my dharma?
(101.)
On other question and his
oaths which astonished to Rani and seemed absurd, he speaks frankly so as
to expose the hidden theft and deep corruption prevalent in the ruling
mechanism and governmental institutions:
Charandas: Good or bad, every one steals rani-sahib.
Queen
: What do you mean?
Charandas: Others steal on the sly, while I do it in
broad day light, with great fanfare. That‘s the only difference. (ibid:
99)
The wretched
condition of the poor is deteriorating .The peasants are compelled to starve
and die .However, landlord has so much who did not bother about the poverty of
the his Ploughmen. Instead, he is interested in seeking the way to
spend on like merrymaking and feeding the animals like horse. The irony that is
visible in the conversation between landlord and peasant is pathetic and
shocking:
Peasant:
My children have not eaten for three days. They’re half-dead of starvation. If
you could spare a kilo or so of rice, it would save them, malik…
Landlord:
Am I under obligation it save everyone’s sons and daughters?
Peasant:
By the grace of god, you have so much, malik! I’ll repay every bit as soon as I
can .Save my children!
Landlord
: Just because I have plenty, doesn’t mean I start giving it all away to the
likes of you! (ibid: 80)
And so, the entire thread of the play has been
woven into the fabric of socio-political ideology.
Charandas’s effort is also
to bring in the limelight the irregularities of the beurocrats of the kingdom
of rani. In the case of gold coins theft, he confessed his guilt of stealing
the coins and hence enforced the high officials to investigate impartially and
exclusively in the matters. And thus, helps puncture the false system of ruling
class and their hierarchy with utmost frankness. The playwright employs many
elements like chorus, which renders commentary through songs; stage is devoid
of all sets, minimal props are used and panthi
tunes of satnami religious sects are
incorporated. Again this "complex consciousness” principle presents a
complex and dialectical process of things in such a way that its underside also
becomes visible. This is explicit in the three representations which run simultaneously. Firstly, the
Guru Dakshina scene where there is mass gathering but to serve only their own
grinds by hooks or by crooks .There is almost a lack of discipline and
understanding between ‘guru’ and ‘shishya’ (the traditional concept of Ashrama
Parampara in the Hindu religion). The guru ashram has turned into a safe place
for drunkards, gamblers and thieves and many of the like.
The second stance is quite visible in
the Arti scene where everything is
religious except the faith in the deity. Police man and thief’s coming in and
out of the crowd throughout the "arti' undermines the religiosity and
invokes us to think over with critical distance. Is there any religious
sanctity in the prayer? This spirit of enquiry reaches to its climax when the
prayer celebration ends away with the stealing of idol itself.
The third stance, which is also the
end point of the play, is Charandas’s prosecution. . He was a life long
thief but became a canonized saint after death. His Samadhi is to be erected
and floral tribute is to be offered. However, clearly speaking, we are persistently
made alert to the contexts of the play as a whole. We are familiar with the
process of getting sainthood of a man from the troublesome thief over all the
enactment of the performance.
The play appears out and out hilarious
because of Charandas’ actions are intimated as masquerade or gest till the end
of the story. And suddenly death strikes Charandas. We are left speechless and
spectators are suspended and emotionally disturbed. There is a total silence in
the last due to the prosecution of him-a strange silence. Tanvir has spoken at
length on the experience of performanve in the interview “People got up
thinking, when the next line will come? Disturbed. The restive, Delhi
Charandas
Chor is also premised
on the principles of carnivalesque and reversal, the principle of a world
upside down where hierarchies are blurred. This reversal of hierarchies
particularly on moral and ethical levels that of truthfulness, honesty,
integrity, ethical values and even profession efficiency are shown to belong
exclusively to a thief.
Thus, the play is steeped in comic
irony and incites us for ‘complex seeing’. The way in which Charandas is
confronted with the choices that oblige him to keep up the pledges that he
had mockingly taken; the very co-existence of honesty and sincerity in a thief;
the guru’s acceptance of stolen goods as ‘guru
dakshina’, narrative pattern of the play, religious songs which punctuate
the flow of the action, minimal props and bare stage manager - these are the
elements which contribute towards the illusion of reality, the idea that leads
to what Brecht has called ‘A (alienation) effect’.
References:
Ø Agrawal,
Mahaveer.2006.Habib Tanvir Ka Rang
Sansar: Saapeksh- 47. (Ed.) Chhattisharh.
Ø Butcher’s Poetics xxiii cited in Twentieth Century European Drama. (1997)
ed.Pronoti Singha, Santiniketran, Vishwa Bharati
Ø Counsell, Colin and
Laurie Wolf.2001.Performance Analysis: An
Introductory Course book. (Ed) London & New York
Ø
Curran, Angela. (2001).Brecht’s Criticism of Aristotle’s Aesthetics of Tragedy: The
Journal of Aesthetics of Art Criticism59; 2 spring p.2.
Ø Dalmia, Vasudha.2006.Poetics, Plays and Performance: The Politics
of Modern Indian Theatre.New Delhi, Oxford University
Ø
Dharwadker, Aparna Bhargava .2006.Theatres of Independence: Drama, Theory, and
Urban Performance in India Since 1947.New Delhi, Oxford University
Ø
Fuegi, John .1972. The Essential Brecht. Los
Angeles
Ø
Katyal, Anjum. June 1996. Seagull Theatre
Quartly, Calcutta
Ø
Maharishi, Dr.Anjala.2000.A Comparative Study of Brechtian and
Classical Indian Theatre. New Delhi , National School
Ø
Tanvir, Habib.2004.Charandas Chor. Calcutta &New Delhi
Ø Willett,
John.1964.Brecht on Theatre: The
Development of an Aesthetic.11 New Fetter Lane London Methuen
Ø
Wright, Elizabeth.1989. Postmodern Brecht: A Re-Presentation. London
&New York
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.