SUPPLEMENTARY STUDY MATERIAL: METATHEATRE
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH, M.C.C.
Dr. K. Ganesh &Prof. J. Dinesh Kumar
THE STRUCTURE OF THE CLASSICAL INDIAN
NATAKA
Objectives:
1. To
enable the learner to grasp the structure of the classical Indian nataka in the
context of Indian theory of aesthetics.
2. To
provide with terminologies for the learner to undertake independent analysis of
the performance dimension of a classical Indian play.
THE STRUCTURE OF THE CLASSICAL INDIAN
NATAKA
The
whole essence of Indian poetics is contained in the words: rasa-dhvani-aucitya.
Indian
art evolved with an emphasis on inducing special spiritual or philosophical
states in the audience or with representing them symbolically. Of particular
concern to Indian drama and literature is the term ‘rasa’ referring generally
to the emotion flavors crafted into the work by the writer and relished by a
sensitive spectator\sahrdaya. The suggested words dominates over the words and
their literal sense – ‘vakrokti’(oblique
expression) becomes the essence of Indian poetics.
From
its beginning to its end, the Sanskrit play would reveal an unfolding
continuity and unity in its structural development which commentators have
perceptively compared with the development of a living organism (Coleridge’s
term ‘organic unity’/auctiya bandha).
The
Classical Sanskrit play develops in two major stages. First, there is a kind of
pre-natal stage, which is the ‘prologue’ or introduction. This leads directly
to the second stage, the ‘play proper’. The ‘prologue’ opens with a ‘prayer of
invocation’(Nandi), and the ‘play proper’ closes with a ‘prayer of
benediction’(the Bharatavakyam).
PRAYER OF INVOCATION \
NANDI:
|
The
Nandi must originally have been a simple prayer invoking God’s blessing and
protection for the performance, performers, and audience. However, the
classical dramatists have taken this body of verse and infused it with genetic
elements of the play, itself. The elements are in the form of suggestive
meanings (dhvani) of words and
passages which go beyond the play and suggest something of the nature of the
play. The Nandi, thus, becomes the embryo of the play, its elements difficult
to distinguish(at a first reading or hearing of the Nandi, it would be
practically impossible for the sharpest of minds to make out he suggestive
significance of these elements, but as the play proceeds it becomes possible to
grasp their meaning). It is interesting to note that the BijaVinyasa(the offering of the seed ritual) performed by the
sutradhara at the introductory stage by reciting the Nandi of a classical
Sanskrit play seems to parallel the sacrificial offering to the God. From the
time the sutradhara presents the Bija in the Nandi, the Nataka can be said
slowly to unfold the structure of its microcosmic world.
INTRODUCTORY PLAYLET\
PRASTAVANA:
|
Immediately
following the Nandi, there is a little preliminary playlet in which the
Sutradhara continues the introduction of the play. At this stage, the director
is usually joined by an actress or actor assistant, and through their
conversation, the elements hinted at in the Nandi are developed further. The
title of the play and the author’s name are traditionally mentioned. Not only
in the subject matter of their conversation, but also in their very own
persons, the Sutradhara and his\her assistant foreshadows specific characters
and situational relationships in the ‘play proper’.
The
Sutradhara necessarily becomes the leading male character, in the ‘play proper’
in all of the greatest classical Sanskrit plays. In his physical presence throughout the play,
he carries the strand(sutra) of continuity
from reciting of the opening Nandi sloka through the introduction and then
through the play proper, and it is he who in the end recites the Bharatavakyam
which brings the play to a close. As a corollary, the Sutradhara’s
Assistant(the Vidushaka or Nati) necessarily is one of the major supporting
actors in the play proper. In a sense, the Sutradhara and his assistant are
‘born again’ in the play proper. The Sutradhara does not cease to be the
Sutradhara when he assumes the lead role in the play proper. Strictly speaking,
the flesh and blood actor takes the role of the Sutradhara, who in turn takes
the role of the leading male character in the play proper. The leading male
role of a Sanskrit drama is thus a two dimensional character throughout the
play proper. Analogously, the sutradhara’s assistant is also a two-dimensional
character in the play proper.
What
we have, then, is a play-within-a-play. The play proper is meta-drama(a
self-reflexive work of art) in relation to the drama of the prologue. In one
important sense, the introductory playlet does not end with the beginning of
the play proper. It only ends when the play proper ends.
The
play proper is meta-drama in relation to the drama of the Prastavana or
Prologue. What we have, then, in every classical Sanskrit drama, is a play
within a play. The concept of ‘plays-within-plays’ and that of
‘roles-within-roles’ illustrate how the sutradhara in Sanskrit drama divides
himself into ‘many’ and re-integrates the many, while remaining ‘one’.
The
microcosmic world created by the dramatist within the frame of his Nataka
includes: (i) the semi-dramatic world(technically called the Purvaranga)
constituted by the preliminary musical warming up, performance and dance,
followed by the Nandi and Prastavana and (ii) the fully dramatic world of the
main body of the play. The audience thus passes from the world of everyday
reality, with its religious and social aspects, to the dramatic world of the
play proper.
The
play performance achieves this transition with (a) the introduction of music
and dance, (b) the aspect of prayer in the Nandi, and (c) the hinting, within
the Nandi, at the latent seed of the plot in the suggestive speeches of the
Sutradhara and his Assistant which indicate some of the key incidents in the
main body of the play.
Acting
is nothing but a imaginative response to an imaginative stimuli and absolutely
no complete involvement. In order to move audience the actor has to be unmoved
with adequate ‘aesthetic distance’.
Alaukika(theatrical
consciousness) in the context of poetics mean ‘otherworldly’. The prefix ‘A-‘
in alaukika has the meaning of ‘being similar yet different’. We ofcourse do
not experience a different species of emotion. The emotions which are aroused
in the poetic experience resemble the emotions in real life; but at the same
time they are different in the sense that emotions in real life tend to issue
in action, in poetic experience they are entertained without any such tendency
and are ‘tasted’.
“The
work of art asks not to be believed as we believe in things of the practical
world in which we live, submitting ourselves to it. We create an autonomous
world, a blending of the physical with ourselves and therefore a new
reality(virtual reality) within the so called real world; neither believed or
disbelieved but entertained and therefore not acted upon.” – Samuel
Alexander(Beauty and Other forms of value)
Illustration: Nandi & Prastavana of ‘Charudattam’
“Enthroned
on the lotus-face of the poet, her elderly Lord, and as though laughing at him,
Vani,
the Goddess of Speech, triumphs by revealing his whole world as different,
transformed!”
Here,
the Goddess of Speech is represented as mischievously laughing at her husband,
Brahma, who is popularly known in the Puranas as Pitamaha(grandfather). The
elderly Brahma is indicated by the word ‘sthavira’ in the sloka. Further, the
goddess functioning as the voice of the primal poet(Brahma)laughs from there,
and triumphs by revealing the world being created by her husband to be quite
different from what he might have expected. Note: she achieves this triumph
through dhvani.
The
Sutradhara enters telling us how hungry he is after long hours of rehearsing.
He hopes his wife will have his morning meal ready for him, and as he enters
his house, he notes encouraging signs of the preparation of food. This
obsession with food is an element which will be embodied by the comedian
Maitreya, in the play proper. The Sutradhara’s uncertainty about food in his
own home anticipates the speech of Maitreya opening the play proper. Meeting
his wife, the sutradhara asks her if there is food for him in the house. His
wife, the actress, describes various delicious dishes. When he, near disbelief,
asks her if all this god food is really in his house, she jokingly tells him,
‘No, it is available in the market.’ In frustrated anger, he calls her
‘an-arya’(ignoble), and curses her to be similarly frustrated in her hopes. The
dramatic irony here is that in the role of the ‘anarya’ courtesan, Vasantasena,
in the play proper, the actress is going to face great frustration before she
finally attains her desire of becoming the lawful wife of her lover, the noble
and generous merchant, Charudatta(the role played by her husband, the
Sutradhara).
To
return to the prologue, when the sutradhara gets angry with his actress wife,
she tries to calm him down, telling him she was only joking about the food. In
fact, all of the good things she described are ready to be eaten. They are, she
says, part of a ritual she is performing in order to obtain a noble husband.
The Sutradhara is quick to ask his wife whether it is in her next birth that
she is seeking a noble husband. Her answer is ‘yes’. The dramatic irony here is
that the sutradhara will be ‘born again’ in the play proper as the hero,
Charudatta. The actress will be ‘born again’ as the heroine, the courtesan
Vasantasena, and she will eventually win the noble Charudatta as her husband.
At the end of the prologue, after his wife’s exit, the sutradhara is on the
lookout for a Brahmin to officiate at the ceremony of his wife’s ritual(the
metadramatic ceremony which is actually to be the play proper).
Rasa:
The
term ‘rasa’ appears for the first time in the ‘Natyasastra’ of Bharata. Rasa is
a key term without an understanding of which Sanskrit dramatic theory is
totally incomprehensible, and yet for which absolutely no English equivalent is
available. But we need a word for ‘rasa’ and rather than invent one, the
present tendency seems to be to use the original term, transliterated from Sanskrit.
We
need the word because we know that emotion experienced in the theatre is
somehow subtly different from that emotion which goes by the same name in real
life. We experience pity in theatre and enjoy the experience, but pity in real
life is annoying and irritating. The difference between ‘tasting’ the emotion
and ‘experiencing in real life’ is summarized by the word ‘rasa’.
‘Natyasastra’
describes rasa as ‘a dispassionate delight created in the minds of the audience
by a skilled playwright’. Each rasa experienced by the audience is associated
with a specific ‘bhava’ portrayed on stage. He refers by ‘bhavas’, the
imitations of emotions that the actors perform and the rasas(emotional
responses) that they inspire in the audience. Rasas: adbhuta(marvelous), hasya
(comic), srngara (erotic), bibhastsa (odious), vira (heroic), Karuna
(pathetic), bhayamaka (terrible), raudra ( furious), and shantha (peace).
The
word ‘metatheatre’ was coined by Lionel Abel and although the term has entered
into common critical usuage, there is still much uncertainity over its proper
definition, and what dramatic techniques can be included in its banner. Given
its etymology(greek prefix ‘meta’- a level beyond the subject it qualifies),
metatheatricality is generally agreed to be a device whereby a play comments on
itself, drawing attention to theliteral circumstances of its own productions
such as the presence of the audience or the fact that the actors are actors.
‘Metatheatre’ can also include the use of the play within a play, which
provides an onstage microcosm of the theatrical situation, and such techniques
as the use of parody and burlesque to draw attention to theatrical conventions,
and the use of the theatrum mundi trope. There is one type of drama in
particular that foregrounds the epic element of self-reflexivity(reference to
itself). A ‘drama about drama’(Hornby); a dramatic form that explores the
notion that life imitates art (drama) rather than the other way
round(Aristotle’s assumptions). Often metadrama uses a theatrical location as a
setting, and a rehearsal or a play within a play, as part of the action. This
topos is also known as the theatrum mundi(world as theatre) motif. “All the
World’s a stage\And all men and women merely players\ That have their exists
and their entrances.”(Jacques, ‘As You Like It’).
A
play is a multimedial form designated to be staged in a public performance. A
play is ‘multimedial’ in the sense that it uses both auditory and visual media:
a play’s audience has to use their eyes as well as their ears(a novel, in
contrast, is monomedial form). [Sravya: heard; Drsya: visual; a word uttered
must translate into action: ‘metalanguage’- gestural language).
Dharmis: (diversity in language – alternation of prose
and verse in a good play)
Lokadharmi
and Natyadharmi generally mean qualities pertaining to the nature of the world
and to the stage respectively. The two may be translated as ‘world-ways’ and
‘stage-ways’ which refer respectively to what is there in the actual world and
that which is in the world of art. It is important to note that what is called
‘natyadharmi’ is not mere crude or meaningless conventions but an imaginative
handling and beautification of the things of the world. For example, in the
vacika abhinya mere utterance of words indicates lokadharmi whereas if the same
words are musically rendered we have an instance of natyadharmi.
Lokadharmi(realistic) which involved the reproduction of human behavior on the
stage and the natural presentation of objects, and natyadharmi(conventional)
which is the presentation of a play through the use of stylized gestures and
symbolism and was considered more artistic than realistic.
Natyadharmi is stylistic and lokadharmi is realistic in
nature. Natyadharmi pertains to the conventions of the stage, for example, the
use of dance and drama or walking is an artistic or appealing manner.
Lokadharmi has no hype, and is executed in the form of simple actings that
involve natural behavior. It does not even involve much of expression.
Abhinaya:
The
word ‘abhinaya’ has been derived from the root word ‘ni’, which means ‘to take/
carry’, with the preposition ‘abhi’ meaning ‘towards’. As per the traditional
slokas, the root ‘vi’ with the preposition ‘abhi’ gives the word abhinaya,
which means ‘to carry the performance towards the audience’. Abhinaya is a
four-fold art. There are two modes of abhinaya: natyadharmi and lokadharmi.
Lord
Shiva is praised as the embodiment of the four types of abhinaya:
“We
bow to Him the benevolent One
Whose
limbs are the world,
Whose
song and poetry are the essence of all language,
Whose
costume is the moon and the stars.”
Angika
Abhinaya: It comprises of the various physical expressions. It is of two kinds:
Padarth abhinaya is the expression of word to word meaning, while vakyarth
abhinaya is the expressions of a general idea of a sentence or mood.
Vachika
abhinaya: Vrittis is the abhinaya of speech, gesture and emotion. Satvika
abhinaya: It is the most important yet most difficult mode of expression. ‘Sat’
means mind. It is the outcome of the psychological state of mind. Its most
important aspect is characterization wherein the actor must feel the various
situations and mentally get involved in them.
Natya
means visual representation(abhinya) in its four-fold forms such as using parts
of the physical body(angika), verbal utterances(vacika), costumes and
ornaments(aharya) and physical signs of mental states(satvika).
Abhinayam
is the art of expression. Bhavata explains “exhibiting the meaning of that
which expressed in ‘abhi’ meaning forward and ‘nayam’ meaning to lead forward
the characteristics of a character is abhinayam.
Angika
Abhinayam: This abhinayam is so called because it is related to the body as a
whole. It is expressed through angas, pratyangas and upangas. Hence it is
called so.
Vachika
abhinayam has a place with regard to kavya, which are made up of ‘speech’.
Aharya
abhinaya is expression through decoration such as costumes, ornaments or make
up. In aharya abhinayam dresses should be worn according to the sentiments and
colour.
Sattvika
abhinaya can express the real natural emotion caused by external events.
Sattva: purity. Here the state of mind is natural emotion such as crying,
perspiration, change of voice and colour, fainting, trembling, tears, etc.
|
Focusing
on the playwright, we can see that it subdivides into two types of text: primary
text and secondary text(terms coined by Ingarden, 1931)
The
‘Primary Text’ of a playscript consists of the speeches of the characters,
including prologues and epilogues, if any. A prologue is an introductory
speech; an epilogue is a concluding speech.
The
‘Secondary Text’ of a playscript consists of all textual elements that donot
belong to the primary text; specifically, the play’s title, subtitle,
historical notes, dramatis personae, stage directions, speech, prefixes, edtc.
(Genette calls these as ‘peritextual elements’ – as situated on the periphery
of the text).
The
‘Stage Directions’ may either be ‘readerly’ catering to the needs of ordinary
readers, or ‘actorly’ catering to the needs of theater practitioners.
Even
though, in ordinary circumstances, the terms person, character and figure are
often used indiscriminately, modern theatrical discourse makes an effort to be
more distinct and accurate.
A
‘person’ is a real-life person; anyone occupying a place on the level of
non-fictional communication. Authors, directors, actors and spectators are
persons.
A
‘Character’ is not a real-life person but only a ‘paper being’(Barthes, 1966) a
being created by an author and existing only within a fictional text, usually
on the level of action. Eg. Hamlet in ‘Hamlet’.
An
‘actor’ is the person who, in a performance impersonates a character.
‘Figure’,
also a type of being created by a fictional text. Often the term is used just
as a variation of ‘character’; however, some theorists use it with specific
reference to the narrator(on the level of fictional mediation). Eg. Gower is a
‘narrator figure’ in Shakespeare’s ‘Pericles’.
The
main divisions within a playscript or a performance are acts and scenes.
Act
– a major unit(or structural divison) of a dramatic text. An act consists of a
sequence of smaller actions called ‘scenes’. An action unit within an act.
Usually, transistion from one scene to another involves a new stage situation
and a fresh episode, marked either by a change in time and /or location, or by
an empty stage, or by characters entering or going off stage.
Characters
and setting are the main ‘existents’ of a dramatic fiction. There are two terms
that specifically refer to setting-related features as represented in a
performance.
Set:
The objects and the backdrop making up a stage scenary (Eg. Table, a couch,
three walls of a room). In a playscript, the set is usually described in an
initial block stage direction.
Properties/Props:
Generally, the set of movable objects needed by the authors. In a technically
oriented or (actorly) playscript, the disposition of these objects is sometimes
described in a textual section called ‘property plot’. While many props are
simply realistic decoration, some serves as characteristics attributes (a pearl
necklace, a crown), some propel or motivate action(a sword, a gun), and some
may have a richly symbolic value(the mirror in Richard II).
SUPPLEMENTARY STUDY MATERIAL: MAHENDRA TRANSFORMS THE
SEEMINGLY PETRIFIED FIGURES OF THE TRIVIKRAMA PANEL INTO THE ACTIVE PERSONAS OF
THE PLAY
Dr. K.Ganesh, J.Dinesh Kumar
The artistic dextrosity of Mahendravarman
lies in his skill in transforming the petrified figures of the Trivikrama panel
into the active personas of the play. Though this is not a self-reflexive work,
yet the artistic consciousness can be examined at ease by the readers. He has
effected the transformation from ‘architecture’ to ‘theatrical
performance’(performance text) with just one stage prop – that of the painted
panel itself and with a minimal use of
characters – herein only Sutradhara and Nati. The ‘dhvani’ aspect of the
play gains significance herein, as the playwright has fully exploited the
narrative mode and with a judicious use of the dramatic mode.
The Trivikrama panel of the Varaha II cave
temple of Mamallapuram depicts the Trivikrama form of Vishnu and with other
Gods worshipping his cosmic form, and this is developed into a full-fledged
play.
Plot(conflict in plot), dialogue and
characters are important for any play. Herein, Mahendra has transformed one
panel(citrapata) into a full-fledged play performance by
re-narrating(expanding) on the plot, with the much essential conflict(plot
tension). The tension in the plot arises when Bali decides to keep up his word,
as against the warnings of his well-wishers to fulfill the deed to the Kapada
Vamana brahmachari, who is none other than Lord Vishnu himself transformed
himself to teach a lesson to Bali and to humble his pride. The Vamana
brahmachari transforming himself to the Trivikrama form comes the climax with
his dance of measuring the earth by one foot and the sky and heaven by the
other foot. The plot revolves around the one single flaw in Bali’s character –
his pride, yet that becomes his redeeming feature as –“He asks me, then I, who
am committed to the vow of truth will certainly give.”
The plot is intensely concentrated upon the
conflict between the good and the evil – and so the Sutradhara has
mentioned(cultural reference) the Queen of Bali, but has not developed her into
a full-fledged character.
The playwright is not only able to catch up
in his play, all that is narrated, but also that is narrated and dramatic at
the same time. The typical narrative voice of each of the characters, by
enclosing the words uttered by the play’s character within the frame of
sentence.
The plot is a direct conflict between good
and evil. The frozen petrified figure becomes active through various means
adopted by the playwright. Plot and dialogues alone will not make a good play,
characters are also equally important. The Sutradhara makes the audience to
hear the authentic , personal identifiable voice of each of the characters
referred to in the play like – Khara, Mura, Naraka, Namuchi and others.
[ Also read about the ‘myth’ – explain the
intention and actions of supernatural beings ]
Critical Reading Hints:
1.
The plot substance of the play
seems to reflect the panel substance of the Varaha Ii cave temple at
Mamallapuram. By writing a ‘citrapata’, Mahendra transforms architecture into
drama.
2.
Mahendra transforms the
seemingly petrified figures of the ‘Trivikrama’ panel into an act with personas
of the play. These personas, brings out the typical dramatic tension which the
plot of the play, by its very nature is expected to bring out.
3.
Mahendra is able to catch both that
is narrated and dramatic in the play at the same time. We could hear the
typical voice of the Sutradhara but also be able to differentiate within it,
the individual voice of the characters such as Bali,…..
Eg.: Sutradhara: Then,
intoxicated with pride in his prosperity, and rather thoughtlessly, the
Demon-King said, “I’ll certainly give it.”
4.
The audience is made to hear
the authentic personal identifiable voice of each of the characters referred to
in the play.
5.
The Sutradhara is made to
enclose the words uttered by the various characters in the play within the
frame of each of his sentence.
MYTH
CRITICISM:
Most
myth critics would probably subscribe to the following as general principles.
First, the creating of myths, the mythopoeic
faculty, is inherent in the thinking process and answers a basic human
need. Second, myth forms the matrix out of which literature emerges both
historically and psychologically. As a result, literary plots, characters,
themes, and images are basically complications and displacements of similar
elements in myths and folktales. How myth gets into literature is variously
explained by the Jungian racial memory, historical diffusion, or the essential
similarity of the human mind everywhere. Third,
not only can myth stimulate the creative artist, but it also provides concepts
and patterns which the critic may use to interpret specific works of literature. Knowing the grammar of myth, it is argued,
gives a greater precision and form to our reading of the language of
literature. In recognizing that mythic features reside beneath as well as
on the surface of a work, myth criticism differs substantially from earlier
treatments of the mythological in literature. Fourth and last, the ability of
literature to move us profoundly is due to its mythic quality, the mystery in
the face of which we feel an awed delight or terror at the world of man. The
real function of literature in human affairs is to continue myth’s ancient and
basic endeavour to create a meaningful place for man in a world oblivious to
his presence.
The
question of what myth criticism is leads logically to what it can do. Foremost
is the capacity it shares with all good criticism, to materially sharpen our
perception of theme, structure, and character in specific works. An equally
important facet of this criticism is that it affords a unifying point of view
which more nearly than any other devices from literature itself.
“The
richness of drama is most fully experienced when the reader is simultaneously
aware of the structural and performance dimension of the play.” – Scanlan, ‘Reading Drama’.
No comments:
Post a Comment