Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Brahma Prakash
Asian Theatre Journal, Volume 27, Number 1, Spring 2010, pp. 175-179 (Article) Published by University of Hawai'i Press DOI: 10.1353/atj.2010.0018
Book Reviews
175
ple, while discussing Lins 1904 translation of Tales from Shakespeare, he notes that Lin was not assimilating Shakespeare in order to introduce new expressive modes in the emerging modern Chinese theatre (p. 85). When discussing two reformed jingju plays in 1904 and 1906, he argues that while the nascent Western-style spoken drama was limited to the elite urbanites, xiqu was a popular form of entertainment with a much larger audience and was often used for propagandist purposes (p. 59). These two statements compare cultural practices to the huaju they predated. In his discussion of Jiaos 1942 Hamlet, Huang notes that the production was [s]cripted and not improvised, as many early-twentieth-century Chinese performance had been (p. 135), thus giving the impression that it was a unique case of using full scripts when in fact huaju productions had followed scripts for two decades and the practice of improvisation was limited to the 1910s. While he perceptively notes that the term huaju (literally speech drama) was deliberately chosen in opposition to xiqu (song or music theatre), he somewhat oversimplifies the case by stating, [H]uaju activists were unaware that Western style theater did not always emphasize verbal elements over other elements, such as body movement and mise-en-scne (p. 104). In reality, many of huajus leading playwrights and directors of the 1920s (when the term was chosen) were well exposed to these nonverbal elements, having returned from the United States (where they watched or even participated in Broadway and other professional productions as well as avant-garde performances), Japan (where singing and modernist Western plays were popular in spoken drama), and Europe (where modernism was in vogue). By pointing out these examples, I do not mean to diminish the significant contribution Chinese Shakespeares makes to Chinese studies, performance studies, Shakespeare studies, and other fields. Huangs new framework and his accounting of Chinese Shakespeare studies bring much-needed rethinking and significant new insight to the field. Indeed, scholars and students in all these disciplines will benefit tremendously from his important scholarly endeavor. Siyuan Liu University of British Columbia
THEATRE OF ROOTS: REDIRECTING THE MODERN INDIAN STAGE. By Erin B. Mee. Calcutta: Seagull, 2008. 412 pp. Paper, Rs 495; hardcover, Rs 547. In Theatre of Roots: Redirecting the Modern Indian Stage, Erin B. Mee discusses a theatre movement that seeks to create a new Indian theatre by deriving inspiration from traditional roots. Suresh Awasthi (19182004), the general secretary of the Sangeet Natak Akademi 1 and former chair of National School of Drama, Delhi, coined the term theatre of roots and advocated it against Western-inspired modern theatre in India (Awasthi 1989). In her book Mee has not only challenged critics like Aparna Dharwadker,2 who in Theatre of Independence (2005) attacked this movement as anti-modern (pp. 5, 198), but also criticizes such writers for being (literally) pro-Western. Mees book offers
176
Book Reviews
a detailed and at times persuasive argument, on the theatre of roots, a movement which began in the 1950s against the hegemony of Western-inspired modern theatre in India. She argues for the use of traditional forms as a major step toward decolonization of contemporary Indian theatre, but she ultimately falls short in articulating what is a large and ongoing debate regarding decoloniaization and neocolonial patterns in Indian theatre in more nuanced ways. Mee has largely divided Indian theatre into two conspicuous categories: modern theatre inspired by the Western stage (with an emphasis on text and an exclusion of dance, music, and spectacle), and roots theatre inspired by the Sanskritic tradition. It should be noted that there is much theatre beyond these two categories, and this dichotomization is the major drawback of the text. Nonetheless Mees work provides the best available account so far of the root movement and exhibits articulated scholarship, especially in the discussion of the work of K. N. Pannikar. But this contribution, while significant, may prove limited to sustain itself against the growing radicalism of postcolonial Indian theatre analysis because the book, with its use of these two categories, does not address the broad questions of inherent hierarchies prevalent in forms of caste, class, gender, ethnicities, and nationalities, which must be manifested in their interconnections. The book should, however, be read as a part of an ongoing debate on the theatre of roots movement. Mee herself acknowledges some of the problems, especially in her discussion of Sangeet Natak Akademi and other state institutions, but at the same time she maintains that the roots movement has represented the single most significant attempt toward decolonization of the Indian stage. In her praising tone, Mee acclaims that this movement challenged colonial culture by reclaiming the aesthetics of performance and by addressing the politics of aesthetics (p. 5). With a clear synthesis, Mee explains the need for the movement, which emerged in response to Western-inspired modern theatre in India. In this context, she correctly argues that modern theatre not only was developed as part of the colonial enterprise (p. 2), but also initiated the commercial character of Indian performance, turning theatre into a commodity rather than a community (p. 2). But it would have been more appropriate if she had pointed out that the roots theatre is being developed as a part of the neocolonial enterprise. Mee emphasizes the destruction of local forms that were influenced by Western theatre and its text-based phenomena, which repudiated the aesthetic tradition of the Natyashastra (p. 3). She feels that it was inevitable, in the process of decolonization, to return to that root of an indigenous, nonrealistic style of production that in turn could be defined as Indian theatre (p. 5). Refuting the anti-modern charges of Aparna Dharwadker, she vehemently argues that, in fact, this new form challenges acultural definitions of modernity that define modernity and theatre in and on Western terms (p. 5). Mee uses three significant directors to characterize the movement: Kavalam Narayana Panikkar (b. 1928), who has used Kalaripayattu martial arts and Kathakali forms of Kerala; Girish Karnard (b. 1938), who uses history and mythology to present contemporary plays; and Ratan Thiyam (b. 1948), who is
Book Reviews
177
well known for the use of Manipuri martial styles. She also discusses the impact of one major state institution: the Sangeet Natak Akademi (est. 1953). The introduction shows that the theatre of roots emerged as an idea of decolonization in post-independence Indian theatre. Chapter 1 gives a background of the roots movement in the nineteenth century from political and theatrical perspectives and also deals with some intriguing questions of cultural appropriation. In chapter 2, Towards Thanathunatakavedi: The Direction of K. N. Panikkar, the author finds Panikkars performance driven theatre (p. 3) based on the Natyashastra as resisting the ultimate authority lies in the text (p. 97) of Westernized modern Indian theatre. Acknowledging the movement on national and regional levels, Mee elaborates on the concept of roots with the help of the productions of Kanada playwright Girish Karnad. In chapter 3 she presents Girish Karnards Hayavadana (Horse-Headed Man) as an exemplary of new hybrid theatre. Chapter 4 addresses the institutional endeavours of Sangeet Natak Akademi, and chapter 5 discusses Manipuri master Ratan Thiyam and notes how Thiyams audience responses change on regional, national, and international levels. The final chapter sees ongoing experiments as the legacies of theatre of roots. While Mees work is important to read, it is limited: she conceives of colonialism only in relationship with British colonialism while undermining the issues pertaining to residue of colonialism and ongoing neocolonialism. Issues not addressed might include full discussion of appropriation of regional forms by artists not traditionally trained in them or outside the culture area concerned. Mee rightly points out that there have been many reasons to reject Western naturalistic acting and dramaturgy. But I would argue that ejecting Western views and adapting an institutionalized and elite concept developed by the Sangeet Natak Academy and other institutions and a limited group of high caste and urban individuals in the theatre of roots is neither a solution nor a way toward decolonization. Many times it can be observed that Mee is forcibly trying to categorize every kind of theatre under the roots category. For instance, Karnad refuses to define his work under this rubric, but Mee includes it solely on the basis that he does not reject music (p. 147). In a similar way for the sake of roots theatre, we cannot simply put theatre of Habib Tanvir with the revivalist movement of the neocolonial state; Mee does not fully interrogate how the movement is promoted by the state; neither the theatre of roots nor Indianness can be a matter of form alone. In Safdar Hashmis words, It [must] be a matter of intention, of perception (p. 205). Although the chapter on K. N. Panikkar reflects her impressive research and illuminates unexplored aspects of Panikkars directing, it gives a canonical reading based on his dramaturgical faithfulness to the Natyashastra. Mee interestingly observes that Panikkars aesthetics defines the self in terms of behaviour rather than essence and as transformative rather than fixed, trains and active and imaginative participant rather than a passive observer, and valorises modes of experience that are beyond language (p. 96). Her succinct remarks on Panikkars use of dramatic text, which she summarizes as,
178
Book Reviews
The actor and character are not one and the sameone is a vehicle for the other (p. 116), is a well-articulated observation. Nonetheless I would argue that the spirit K. N. Panikkars theatre of roots also becomes the offshoot of a canonical version of the Natyashastra. Mee considers the roots movement as a creative synthesis of colonial and indigenous theatre (p. 29). Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that what the theatre of roots has actually resulted in is just the opposite, what G. P. Deshpande calls ethno-theatre (p. 204), or in the words of Safdar Hashmi it is a hollow spectacle of songs, dances, and physical movements (p. 204). These important theatre activists feel that the theatre of roots serves a neocolonial aesthetics, which changed theatre into spectacle. This point is clearly noted by Bandyopadhyay in case of the Chakravyuha (Chariot Wheel Formation), the production of celebrated theatre of roots director Ratan Thiyam: While mainland viewers of Chakravyuha admire the grandeur of the martial arts skills in evidence in the production, Ratan is actively engraved in exposing the barrenness and facile exhibitionism of the tradition, which is fast degenerating into a commodity available for export in neat packages to acting schools in the West for a mere pittance (p. 234). It is true that during the colonial period folk theatre was marginalized by colonial culture and the roots movement was defined by its rejection of the colonial (p. 41). However, while it was trying to reject the colonial at the same it appropriated the folk through intercolonization, functioning under neocolonialism. Acknowledging that, in Mees work, some of these problems are critically discussed. For instance, she acknowledges that SNA (Sangeet Natak Akademi) has reduced traditional performance to a decorative art and by 1989 had turned it into a style (p. 180). She also notes how younger directors and playwrights began to copy artists such as Panikkar and Karnad, creating derivative rather than innovative work (p. 264). However, she does not locate these problems in the fundamental conception of the theatre of roots itself, under the SNA scheme of 1956 in which Indian theatre is defined as traditional performance, traditional performance as indigenous, and indigenous performance as an authentic marker of Indian culture (p. 197). What Samik Bandyopadhyay says about Manipuri theatre fits here well, that there was obviously a politics involved in turning the Manipuri voices into spectacle (p. 234). People like Mahesh Dattani may say that without such artists as Karnad, Panikkar, Karanth, and Thiyam, We wouldnt have a real modern Indian theatre (p. 264). This myth may continue among the upper caste, elite urban practitioners, letting them see the theatre of roots representing the Indian theatre, but it is limited. This book will not be the last word on this movement, yet, for the time being, this book provides the best available account of the Indian theatre of roots, and Mee must be thanked for this detailed research. Brahma Prakash Royal University of London Holloway
Book Reviews
179
NOTES 1. Founded in 1953, the Sangeet Natak Akademi is the Indias national academy for music, dance, and drama and claims to promote and preserve the vast intangible heritage of Indias diverse culture in forms of performing arts. 2. Dharwadker criticizes theatre of roots advocates for dismissing contemporary urban Indian theatre with Western influence as decadent and inconsequential. She sees roots theatre as revivalist, and hence anti-modern. Such binaries practiced by Dhrawadker lead to essentialization. In fact revivalism can be equally carried out through contemporary urban theatretelevision soap opera can be a good example.
REFERENCES Awasthi, Suresh. 1989. Theatre of Roots: Encounter with Tradition. TDR 33 (4): 4869. Dharwadker, Aparna. 2005. Theatre of Independence: Drama, Theory, and Urban Performance in India since 1947. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press.
READING AGAINST THE ORIENTALIST GRAIN: PERFORMANCE AND POLITICS ENTWINED WITH A BUDDHIST STRAIN. By Syed Jamil Ahmed. Calcutta: Anderson House Publishing, 2008. 351 pp., 126 illus. Cloth. This is an ambitious book that looks at selected Buddhist performance genres from Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burma, Nepal, Sikkim, and Sri Lanka. The work has the scope found in relatively few works of the contemporary period but that was more the norm when Fabion Bowers (Theatre in the East [New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1956]), James Brandon (Theatre in Southeast Asia [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967]), and others were establishing Asian theatre studies, introducing multiple theatre genres to an English readership in the postWorld War II era. In that research, authors visited diverse countries and did not normally undertake language or performance training in the genre they discussed. By contrast, research in which the author is more narrowly focused and linguistically, culturally, or theatrically grounded is more the norm in the last decades. Yet Ahmeds culture-crossing text, which introduces forms barely mentioned in theatre literature, reminds me of the joy with which I read those earlier works, which made me realize how little I knew of the diversity of theatre. Broad sweeps have virtues of their own. This text exposes the reader to underreported forms (in English) and describes clearly and specifically what is happening with them today. Because the author, a noted director, looks with the eyes of a theatre practitioner, he sees things that are often missing in reports that come from area studies scholars who often miss movement, spatial, or visual details as they focus on religion