<p>SMC progresses by juxtaposing the sustained menace of Sakharam Binder with the informal narration of the Tamasha troupe. Exploring this very tension between the two layers, SMC is challenging, rigorous, provocative yet playful. Always distrustful of how the term ‘political theatre’ is understood, Sunil Shanbag prefers to call his theatre a ‘drama of ideas’. <br /><br />You once said SMC was born out an interest in ‘using theatre to explore a slice of history and push it to a more evolved theatrical form.’ What ‘slice of history’ was SMC trying to explore? <br /><br />SMC owes a lot to a two-hour show on Satyadey Dubey that Shanta Gokhale and I put together for the inauguration of the Prithvi Festival in 2008. We created a live performance that explored and contextualised Dubey’s ideas and theatre. I felt this form could be taken further to explore an idea. Censorship — of the state and the ‘moral brigade’ — suggested itself since it is a rising phenomenon today. So, we are looking at the cultural, sociological, political contexts of the attacks on Sakharam Binder and making connections with our own time. We contrast the attacks on an urban work like Sakharam Binder with the sanitisation of the folk tradition of Tamasha to show the sustained effort of the rising middle class to modify a vibrant, irreverent, satirical and bawdy folk form to suit their conservative moral codes and viewing pleasure. <br /><br />The representatives of Tamasha tradition, Shahir and Lavanya, act as narrators. <br />Yes, Shahir and Lavanya are commissioned to present a work on censorship. Shahir sets up the universe of the play, and guides it to its climax. That a person from the ‘little tradition’ of folk theatre is narrating and interpreting the story of Sakharam Binder, set in an urban space, creates an interesting tension in the play! <br /><br />SMC has a slightly unusual form for you, especially the use of video. <br /><br />I don’t particularly like video or over-using technology in theatre. I worry that it makes the viewing experience a bit cold and direct. But in this play it was important to see the cultural context of Sakharam Binder. What was going on in cinema and advertising when Sakharam Binder was staged? What were the grand historical events of the seventies? Video seemed to be the most appropriate way. <br /><br />In recreating this world of the seventies, SMC has acquired an angry young irreverent air. Was this a deliberate choice? <br /><br />I think it was more a logical outcome of the process… One of the writers, Irawati Karnik, is young and irreverent… most of the time anyway! And the other, Shanta Gokhale, has always had an amazing fighting spirit. The actors are all young, that helped too. <br /><br />How did the contrast between the tight formality of Sakharam Binder and the chatty scenes between Shahir and Lavanya work? <br /><br />I consciously contrasted the formality of Sakharam Binder, the play within the play, with the lighter, folksy, informal, chatty tone of Shahir and Lavanya. I worried a lot about how I would play Sakharam Binder because so many great theatre people have done the play in the past. But it finally came into place during rehearsal. Once I decided to use a light, informal, talk-to-the-audience style for scenes with Shahir and Lavanya, it seemed just right to make Sakharam Binder very formal and internal… quiet. <br /><br />What was the experience of performing SMC against the backdrop of the My Name Is Khan controversy in Mumbai? <br /><br />Not just My Name is Khan, but also on Valentine’s Day! It was eerie. Watching the scene when a performance of Sakharam Binder was physically attacked by goons 30 years ago seemed like a scene from television news today. Thirty years ago! Have things gone worse? On the one hand, it completely vindicated the idea of doing this play, but on the other it made me fearful of how much ground we seem to have lost over 30 years. <br />To come full circle and back to your theory of ‘using theatre to explore a slice of history’ — if, as you say, ‘theatre springs from and returns to the community,’ do you think it is possible to offer any serious criticism of the culture of the time through performance? <br /><br />Tricky question! All culture is a manifestation of its time. But if performance is a conscious, reflective manifestation, then it can also be critical of the time. Even of itself. The tragedy of losing a satirical form as Tamasha is that a vibrant form that demonstrated its potential of being subversive was sanitised and cleaned up so it wouldn’t disturb the smug complacency of the urban middle class. That should answer the question, I think! <br />SMC has shows at Ranga Shankara at 3.30 pm and 7.30 pm today. <br /><br /></p>
<p>SMC progresses by juxtaposing the sustained menace of Sakharam Binder with the informal narration of the Tamasha troupe. Exploring this very tension between the two layers, SMC is challenging, rigorous, provocative yet playful. Always distrustful of how the term ‘political theatre’ is understood, Sunil Shanbag prefers to call his theatre a ‘drama of ideas’. <br /><br />You once said SMC was born out an interest in ‘using theatre to explore a slice of history and push it to a more evolved theatrical form.’ What ‘slice of history’ was SMC trying to explore? <br /><br />SMC owes a lot to a two-hour show on Satyadey Dubey that Shanta Gokhale and I put together for the inauguration of the Prithvi Festival in 2008. We created a live performance that explored and contextualised Dubey’s ideas and theatre. I felt this form could be taken further to explore an idea. Censorship — of the state and the ‘moral brigade’ — suggested itself since it is a rising phenomenon today. So, we are looking at the cultural, sociological, political contexts of the attacks on Sakharam Binder and making connections with our own time. We contrast the attacks on an urban work like Sakharam Binder with the sanitisation of the folk tradition of Tamasha to show the sustained effort of the rising middle class to modify a vibrant, irreverent, satirical and bawdy folk form to suit their conservative moral codes and viewing pleasure. <br /><br />The representatives of Tamasha tradition, Shahir and Lavanya, act as narrators. <br />Yes, Shahir and Lavanya are commissioned to present a work on censorship. Shahir sets up the universe of the play, and guides it to its climax. That a person from the ‘little tradition’ of folk theatre is narrating and interpreting the story of Sakharam Binder, set in an urban space, creates an interesting tension in the play! <br /><br />SMC has a slightly unusual form for you, especially the use of video. <br /><br />I don’t particularly like video or over-using technology in theatre. I worry that it makes the viewing experience a bit cold and direct. But in this play it was important to see the cultural context of Sakharam Binder. What was going on in cinema and advertising when Sakharam Binder was staged? What were the grand historical events of the seventies? Video seemed to be the most appropriate way. <br /><br />In recreating this world of the seventies, SMC has acquired an angry young irreverent air. Was this a deliberate choice? <br /><br />I think it was more a logical outcome of the process… One of the writers, Irawati Karnik, is young and irreverent… most of the time anyway! And the other, Shanta Gokhale, has always had an amazing fighting spirit. The actors are all young, that helped too. <br /><br />How did the contrast between the tight formality of Sakharam Binder and the chatty scenes between Shahir and Lavanya work? <br /><br />I consciously contrasted the formality of Sakharam Binder, the play within the play, with the lighter, folksy, informal, chatty tone of Shahir and Lavanya. I worried a lot about how I would play Sakharam Binder because so many great theatre people have done the play in the past. But it finally came into place during rehearsal. Once I decided to use a light, informal, talk-to-the-audience style for scenes with Shahir and Lavanya, it seemed just right to make Sakharam Binder very formal and internal… quiet. <br /><br />What was the experience of performing SMC against the backdrop of the My Name Is Khan controversy in Mumbai? <br /><br />Not just My Name is Khan, but also on Valentine’s Day! It was eerie. Watching the scene when a performance of Sakharam Binder was physically attacked by goons 30 years ago seemed like a scene from television news today. Thirty years ago! Have things gone worse? On the one hand, it completely vindicated the idea of doing this play, but on the other it made me fearful of how much ground we seem to have lost over 30 years. <br />To come full circle and back to your theory of ‘using theatre to explore a slice of history’ — if, as you say, ‘theatre springs from and returns to the community,’ do you think it is possible to offer any serious criticism of the culture of the time through performance? <br /><br />Tricky question! All culture is a manifestation of its time. But if performance is a conscious, reflective manifestation, then it can also be critical of the time. Even of itself. The tragedy of losing a satirical form as Tamasha is that a vibrant form that demonstrated its potential of being subversive was sanitised and cleaned up so it wouldn’t disturb the smug complacency of the urban middle class. That should answer the question, I think! <br />SMC has shows at Ranga Shankara at 3.30 pm and 7.30 pm today. <br /><br /></p>
