The narrative line is drawn from ancient but well known folk
lore, elements of which have found expression in multiple forms including
literature, dance, drama and song, in traditional form and modern, stylized
rendering and everything in between.
It’s a legend but one which has real, historical characters. It is mythical but in it we find ourselves
and people we know, both well-known and nondescript. It is about gods and demons, men and women,
the classic encounter between weak and strong, good and evil, but laced with
the nuance that tease out complexity from the clash of stark categories.
The story will be read as per the preferences, cultural
location, sensitivity and readiness of viewer, like all performances of
course. Prof. Ariyaratne Athugala who
authored the script and is also the director, a keen student of culture,
history and the arts, seeks in this endeavor to obtain entrance to how the
human mind gathers, distills, synthesizes and reconfigures experience and
knowledge. His is an exploration,
therefore, and one which draws from the traditional art forms which he believes
were heavily laden with philosophical, social, cultural and political meaning.
Athugala is of the view that if there was a ‘great(er)
tradition’ it came to a halt after Sarachchandra’s endeavors and other efforts
of that generation which sought a fusion of opera, the Japanese dance-drama
genre kabuki and the nadagam
and related forms. While he acknowledges that there have been
excellent productions of the more classical forms of theatre, he believes that
we are yet to forge a truly Sri Lankan operatic form.
‘Today, theatre has been reduced to political satire where
“hacking” is what’s offered and what’s embraced heartily. This is not a bad thing but theatre is much
more than that. There’s politics and
politics, and not all political commentary is about politics of the day. You can speak of broader issues. Power is just one element. There is ideology and philosophy. And then there’s the overriding need to
entertain that must be addressed. The
engagement can be made richer if we draw from a wider range of intellectual and
cultural resources.’
Athugala believes that the great tradition has been
submerged by a lesser one but not necessarily for a better theatrical
experience:
‘Aesthetics has fallen by the wayside. There is very little
study of the theatrical art form and therefore its rich treasury of devices are
unknown and under-utilized. We are yet
to see a situation where theater in general makes maximum use of language,
music and style. I believe there is a
dire need for a theater that goes beyond words, dialog, routine
characterization and use of stage.’
The older native tradition is often dismissed as ‘ritual’,
but such dismissal indicates a certain poverty in seeing meaning and therefore
potential for contemporary rendering.
‘Masks,’ Athugala points out, ‘is not just about religion or exorcism;
we see masks all the time and everywhere too’.
Faces, he says, are in fact masks or rather they are made for all kinds
of masking, all kinds of (mis) representation.
Today, however, ‘masks are there to show white people’. Athugala points out that none of it was
‘decoration’ as is often held. Every
element was inscribed with meaning that included psychological considerations
quite apart from cultural, political and religious significance.
‘Mahasamayama’ draws from the ‘Mahasona’ story. ‘It is not about Ritigala Jayasena, the
figure that some associate with Mahasona.
It is a story involving Ishwara, Vishnu, Basma Asura, Mahasona, the
consort Sona and Gotaimbara, one of the ten yodhayas
(giants) who served King Dutugemunu.’
Naturally, he had to engage in extensive archival research
prior to writing the script. This
exercise also involved a revisiting of theater history and digesting of a
plethora of traditions. ‘There were
elements in the traditional yathukarma that
Sarachchandra himself did not use.
Framed by all this the script had to be rendered in a manner
that was grandiose, or rather it was more conducive to an operatic
performance. ‘Nelum Pokuna,’ Athugala
maintains, was made for productions such as this. ‘The facilities are unmatched and moreover
are ideal for the visual enhancement of what’s in the words, the story and the
dramatic articulation’.
‘We need to reach and maintain international standards of
quality. “Nelum Pokuna” offers an
opportunity to reach those. But it is
not just about location, obviously. It
is about performance. It is about a team of professionals working together,
complementing one another. It is about
relentless pursuit of perfection. Hard
work.’
It was not easy, he confessed, to handle such a big
cast. The main characters are played by
highly accomplished actors and actresses.
Scheduling had been a problem.
Rehearsals were held over 5 months, he said. Most of the players belong to the security
forces. Given the stylistic preferences
of ‘Mahasamayama’ he had to secure the support of accomplished choreographers,
musicians and other important theater functionaries.
Channa Wijewardena and Ravibandu Vidyapathi, who play
Ishwara and Asura respectively, were in charge of the dancing and choreography.
Jackson Anthony (Mahasona), Sriyantha Mendis (Gotaimbara), Chathurika Peiris,
Indika Upamali, Badini Malwatta, Nissanka Diddeniya, Kumara Thiramadura as well
as other accomplished theater personalities dominate the stage, while Samantha
Perera is in charge of music.
Channa considers this a landmark production. ‘There is drama, there is ballet and it is
operatic. The emphasis is on movement and not word.’ He referred to earlier productions such as Karadiya, Moodu Puththu and Nala
Damayanthi, but insisted this was different and unique. ‘It can be said that this was designed for
‘Nelum Pokuna’. If there is high-tech we
should use it. This script allows it.’
He believes that the main players, Jackson, Upamali and
Sriyantha have their own unique styles.
‘What we did was to use this unique character and create a different
color.’ The costumes, he said, are
modern. ‘It might not be easy to pick up the characters immediately. But they are designed to bring out the
character.’
Channa had to work with security services personnel. ‘They were disciplined. They were good dancers. What they lacked was inexperience when it
comes to dance exercises. This is very
necessary to obtain freedom of movement.’
Working with Athugala was easy, he said. ‘It was in the style of a workshop,
really. A lot of what you will see in
the performance was developed on location.
Athugala in his inimical and unobtrusive way would make
suggestions. He seemed to have studied
the two of us, myself and Ravibandu (with whom I was choreographing for the
first time), very well. What we produced
will require a new name!’
For Jackson Anthony the entire exercise has been extra
special.
‘First of all the grandeur is very striking. For generations we were limited by the
dimensions of the stage. We danced
within those confines. The giants among
our teachers, Chitrasena, Makuloluwa and Khemadasa developed productions that
were made for theaters like Nelum Pokuna but had to be played in smaller
places.
‘Secondly, the roots, the source. This has been drawn from folklore, our very
own yathukarma. Athugala has taken the uppaththi kathava (birth-story) of the Mahasona legend and
developed a philosophical and political text.’
Ishwara, the destroyer in the Hindu Trinity, is key
here. However, Jackson points out that
Athugala has given a new reading, a Buddhist one, to the notion of destruction,
end or death.
‘Destruction is really evolution, destruction is not
“end”. Mahasona rises from the
ashes. Now that’s a materialistic
angle. But Athugala adds or rather marks
the political dimension as well. The
defeated is an entity that is in transformation, evolving and not dying. There are often embers in a fire that is
thought to have died. Circumspect is
called for, therefore.
Mahasona is not ‘foreign’ to Jackson. He has played the ‘Mahasona’ of the ‘Handae Samayama’
in a Kaluwamodara hut. He said that he
is familiar with the experience of ‘possession’. And here, he plays the ‘Mahasona’ in a modern
theater. ‘There is a difference; but
both are born of the same root, the same soil’.
It is about root, then.
And movement. A
from-here-to-there. A death that is
not. A real life story in which we are
told we can recognize ourselves, in our current avatar, our former selves and who we are likely to become. As
individuals and collectives. A political
text. A philosophical treatise. Theater.
That’s entertainment, put together, we might conclude.
0 comments:
Post a Comment