Theatre and Cinema in
India:
No Comparing, No Comparing; Only touching, Only Touching
Dr. Mrinal Chatterjee
Let me first explain the weird sounding title. There was
this line from a popular (Ok, call it low brow) Hindi film song: No touching,
no touching; only seeing, only seeing. The title of this paper is inspired (no
copy, no copy) by this line.
Now let me say, what I’ll not attempt to do in this essay
and why: I shall not put theatre against cinema. Why? Because... let me quote from
a blog:
I keep on saying that
comparing theatre with cinema is a donkey work. They are simply different and
no one can prove which of the two (theatre or cinema) has more advantages or is
of greater value. Of course, every person has his own preferences among various
kinds of modern entertainment, but there is no use comparing the art forms
mentioned above. Have you ever tried to compare a hand with a leg, to figure
out which one is more useful? Do you find such a task sensible? The same thing
happens when we begin to place theatre against cinema. These forms of art were
born in different epochs, by different generations. But they both reflect people’s
needs and demands though they employ different techniques, abilities,
professional skills of actors as well as they have different aims and origin.
Theatre gave rise to many other kinds of entertainment including cinema so it
would be too ungrateful for cinematograph to disparage its own ‘mother’.[1]
What I shall try to do is to discuss the relationship
between theatre and cinema in Indian context. My argument is: theatre and film
are not engaged in an inherently antagonistic, mutually exclusive relationship.
They share a very close relationship, much more than Robert Knoff has
suggested.[2]
Knopf has the premise that this relationship "must be based not only on
the history and theory of the two media but also on the contributions of the
artists who have been most influential in them," and that each artist's
contribution is "personal, depending upon the 'lens' through which he or
she views the two media"
I’ll try to go two steps further. First, thematically both
the media are very close. Both try to portray piece of life, experience. Both
aim to engage people’s attention by ‘showing’ a story, by sharing an
experience, etc. Second, both try to experiment with narrative form and
structure almost in similar fashion.
Of course the two art forms are different and the difference
is growing at one level and receding at the other. I’ll try to resolve the
paradox later. First the differences.
·
Cinema speaks to millions at the same time
whereas a theatrical performance at best can cater to a few hundred at a time. So,
the impact of cinema is more than theatre.
·
You see flesh and blood actors in theatre
performing live before you. Cinema is moving pictures, which will remain the
same ten or twenty or even hundred years hence. Cinema stands before time
always judged where as the theatre performance is in a sense ephemeral. Therefore it creates a strong feeling of
nostalgia.
·
More people go to the cinema because it offers
more visual entertainment through visual effects, whereas theatre offers more
speech and real eye-contact.
A brief note about the origin of both the art forms will not
probably be out of place here.
Origin of Theatre in
India
Theatre in India has a tradition going back to at least 5000 years. It
began with Rigvedic
dialogue hymns during the Vedic
period.The earliest book on dramaturgy anywhere in the world Natya
Shastra, i.e., the grammar or the holy book of theatre by Bharat Muni
(approximately between 2000 B.C. and 4th Century A.D.) provides detailed
treatise on drama, performance and visual art form. It talks about rasa and using human body in kinetic
form.
Theatre
in India started as a narrative form with a distinct story line. Besides
acting, reciting, singing and dancing were integral elements of the Indian
theatre almost from the beginning. Theatre in India has encompassed all the
other forms of literature and fine arts into its physical presentation:
literature, mime, music, dance, movement, painting, sculpture and architecture
- all mixed into one and being called natya
or theatre in English. This emphasis on narrative elements and integration of
different performing and plastic art forms made Indian theatre super sensory
right from the beginning.
Hindu
theorists from earliest times talk of two theories: lokadharmi and natya dharmi.[3] Lokadharmi
refers to replicating common men and women and their behavioural pattern. Natyadharmi refers to symbolic, stylised
representation. Both the forms found expression in different format throughout
the country, the former in folk form and the later in classical form.
Phase
I, the classical period includes the writing and practice of theatre up to
about 1000 A.D., almost based on rules, regulations and modifications handed by
Natya Shastra. They apply to the writing of plays, performance spaces and
conventions of staging plays. Playwrights such as Bhasa, Kalidasa, Shudraka,
Vishakhadatta and Bhavabhuti contributed to a great measure through their
dramatic pieces in Sanskrit. They based their plots on the epics, history, folk
tales and legends. The audience was already familiar with the story. Therefore,
a theatre language required a visual presentation through gestures, mime and
movement. The actor was supposed to be well-versed in all the fine arts. In a
way, it was a picture of total theatre. The noted German playwright and
director Brecht evolved his theory of ‘Epic Theatre’ from these sources.
Phase II involves theatre based on oral traditions. It was performed from about
1000 A.D. onwards upto 1700 A.D. and beyond. Emergence of this kind of theatre
is linked with the change of political set up in India as well as the coming
into existence of different regional languages in all parts of the country.
Several regional languages emerged during this period. As the languages were
new, it was too early to expect any writing in those languages. That is why
this whole period is known as folk or traditional, i.e., theatre being handed
over from generation to generation through an oral tradition. Another major
change in the domain of presentation also took place with this kind of
traditional theatre. The classical theatre based on Natya Shastra was much
more sophisticated and rigid in its form. It aimed at an elite audience with a
heightened sense of aesthetics. Folk or traditional theatre evolved out of
rural roots. It aimed at unbridled entertainment without much attention to the
grammar and rules. Though folk theatre used music, mime, movement, dance and
narrative elements, it was more simple, immediate and improvisational even to
the extent of being contemporary. Moreover, whereas the classical theatre was
almost similar in its presentation in all parts of India at a particular time,
the traditional theatre took to different presentational methods.[4] Another factor that
contributed to the change was invasion. During the Middle Ages,
the Indian
subcontinent was invaded a number of times. Unlike
in most other places of the world, the invaders here stayed on and made the sub
continent their home. This played a major role in shaping of Indian
culture and heritage
as medieval India experienced a grand fusion with the invaders from the Middle East
and Central
Asia. It impacted the theatre form too both thematically and
presentation wise. What emerged was a kaleidoscope of performing arts, known by
the umbrella term folk theatre.
Phase
III of theatre in India was again linked with a change in the political set up.
The time span of about 200 years under the British rule brought the Indian
theatre into direct contact with the western theatre. For the first time in
India, the writing and practice of theatre was geared fully towards realistic
or naturalistic presentation. Realism or naturalism was not totally absent in
our tradition. However, in this phase, realism got an extra dimension. The
usual storyline underwent a change. It was no more woven around big heroes and
gods, but had become a picture of common man. It portrayed a new and immediate
reality. This phase also saw theatre used as an instrument of protest and mass
uprising against alien rule. To resist, the British Government imposed "Dramatic
Performances Act" in 1876. From the latter half of
the 19th century, theatre in India experienced both horizontal and vertical
growth. But ironically there were inner conflicts over several key questions
like: a. the purpose of theatre: entertainment or education, b. the form:
realistic or stylistic, c. the narrative style: Indian or western, d. the funding:
state-sponsored or audience-paid. The conflict grew after independence.
The
theatre in contemporary India encompasses a combination of the three different
phases of its evolution. The post independence theatre incorporated much of the folk and the Sanskrit
traditions but,
in
essence, retained the realist western tradition. Play wrights like Badal
Sarkar, Shambhu Mitra, Vijay Tendullcar, B.V.Karant, Ibrahim Alkazi, Girish
Karnad and Utpal Dutt etc. made new experiments in the theatrical devices.
The decade after the
seventies witnessed an important development when theatre broke out of the
auditoria and surfaced on the open streets and lanes. This heralded a
significant change in the world of theatres by adding a new dimension. But it
did not in any way diminish the significance of the stage based plays. The
eighties and nineties saw the growth of television, which impacted theatre in
several ways. From content to form to the very nature and level of engagement
of the theatre persons with their art- television and film impacted theatre in
every which way.
Theatre in India is going
through an interesting phase now, a phase of myriad influences and churning,
reflecting myriad hues.
It was in the Phase III of theatre in India that cinema
emerged. Therefore in initial period cinema in India was heavily influenced by
theatre both in content, narrative style and form. The larger than life
presentation of the hero, the melo drama, over the top acting, use of music and
dance- they are all influences of theatre in India. Parsee theatre impacted
early Hindi Films quite heavily. So did Bengali and Gujarati theatre.
In fact, theatre impacted early cinema everywhere including
Hollywood. The reasons are simple, really. The play wrights, actors, musicians,
music directors of theatre were engaged in cinema and they brought in their bag
of skills and tried to see if it fits the new medium. Some fitted, some did
not. Gradually cinema evolved as a separate medium of art with its own grammar,
narrative style and own space. Interestingly, it is now, more than a century
after the first cinema hit the screen- it is trying to rediscover the
techniques of theatre. About that, later.
Origin of Cinema in
India
History of Indian cinema dated back to the year 1896. The
Lumiere Brothers first demonstrated the art of cinema to the sub continent.
Bombay was the first Indian city that screened Cinematography, six short films
by the Lumiere Brothers. The success of these films led to the screening of
more foreign films, for instance, Vitagraph by James B. Stewart and
Moto-Photoscope by Ted Hughes.
The initial period of Indian cinema saw the pioneering
efforts of Save Dada (Harischandra Sakharam Bhatavdekar). He made two short
films as early as in 1897. The first short films in India were directed by
Hiralal Sen, starting with Flower of Persia (1898). In 1900 the Indian
entertainment sector underwent huge changes. It was Dadasaheb Phalke, who took
Indian cinema to new heights. Thus the path breaking film of the silent era, Raja Harishchandra, was released in
1913. During this time and the era of the talkies the main sources for Indian
films were the mythological texts. The introduction of new technology in this
domain and the rapid growth of the Indian cinema led to the end of the silent
era and ushered in the era of the talkies. Now one could hear the actors and
actresses talk, laugh, sing and cry. It changed the way people used to engage
with cinema. Forever. Initially films were made in Hindi, Tamil, Bengali and
Telugu and these films proved to be phenomenal successes. [5]
Later, films were also made in other languages. Colour films began to be made
in 1930s. By the next millennium, technology had advanced. Films were made in
3D for more realistic, almost ‘real-like’ feeling. From bulky celluloid cans,
films were stored and distributed in digitized format through internet.
Technology played (and continue to play) an important role in the development
of cinema.
Thematically, the initial Indian films heavily depended on
mythological and historical stories. Gradually social theme, contemporary
issues found place. By late 1940s films in India were made in various languages
but the religious influence was predominant. With struggle for independence the
entire scenario altered. Indian cinema now saw films based on the then contemporary
social issues. Movies no longer were limited to the periphery of entertainment;
they were now potent instruments to educate the masses as well.
By 1960s realistic cinema gained much ground. There was a
strong movement and market for socially relevant cinema till 1970s. Mainstream
cinema always cared for entertainment. But the packaging usually catered to the
whole family, and usually it revolved round a good story. Things began to
change in 1980s with the emergence of VCD (Video CD Players) and television in
India. VCD made viewing films easy. One
could see a film at one’s convenience sitting at home. No longer had one had to
visit a movie hall at a particular time to watch a movie. Television serials became popular in 1980s
and cable and satellite television started beaming cinema to people’s drawing
rooms. These factors held the ‘educated, middle class, family viewer’ audience
at home. Movie halls gradually lost audience. It was a challenge for mainstream
cinema producers. They had to attract audience to movie halls. In this
situation they looked at the lowest common denominator factor in entertainment.
They tried to put in masala to
attract the kind of audience who, they thought would visit movie halls.
And the masala was: sex and violence. Thus emerged the violence, the
sensual depiction, the item numbers, etc. Not that these were not there in Indian films
earlier. It was. But now it became the main course. The staple.
Things began to change to some extent by the new millennium.
Interestingly, television was mainly responsible for the change. It provided a commercially viable outlet for
‘different’ films. So did the multiplexes. Cinema in India is in a very
interesting and fluid phase. ‘Different’ is the new mainstream now.
Before I elaborate this point, and try to highlight the
‘touching’ points of cinema and theatre, let me tell you that in India, like in
Hollywood and many European countries films have been made out of plays. Girish
Kannad's Nagmandal has inspired
several movies. The recent Hindi movie Oh
My God is based on a Gujarati drama. Among the Theatre artists who have
made big in Cinema are Balraj
Sahani, Utpal Roy, Nassiruddin Shah, Om Puri, Amrish Puri, Bijoy Mohanty
(Odia).
Present Status and
can we make the relationship more intimate?
Theatre and films have had close relationship as art forms
engaged with storytelling and visual presentation. Though both have grown and
experimented further in exploring its strengths as performing and visual
medium, the relationship exists at a metaphorical level.
Can the relationship be made more intimate, which can help
both media in their engagement with audience, in their growth? I am leaving the
question: is it at all desirable to further debate and offering some
suggestions, based on experiments carried out elsewhere.
Theatres can be
filmed and released as regular cinema. As Charles Spencer says, watching
theatre on a cinema screen can be even better than the live event.[6]
He writes:
When the National Theatre
unveiled plans to film productions and relay them live by satellite to cinemas
in Britain and 21 other countries, I was sceptical. I feared the results would
seem excessively stagy and lack the excitement of watching actors in the flesh.
How wrong I
was. The Esher Odeon was almost packed, and the performance of Dion
Boucicault’s hilarious 19th-century comedy London Assurance was as entertaining
on screen as it had been in the theatre. What’s more, there was a real sense of
the live event about it. The cinema audience actually clapped at the end, and
there was a sense of shared laughter and genuine community one rarely
experiences at the flicks.
Can we try something like this in India? Doordarshan did try
something like this when it put on air plays. But as far as I know, it has not
been attempted on regular cinema halls. Can we film Bibhas Chakravorty’s Hamlet and screen it across the country.
Technologically it is possible now in a cost effective way, thanks to
internet-based distribution system. Will the audience love it? I do not know.
But it is definitely worth a try.
The reverse can also be tried. Let us stage a Bhuter Bhabisyat or even a Dabang.
The contemporary opera parties in Odisha and West Bengal have done
something like this. Can the avant-garde theatre
directors think about this?
***
The author, a journalist turned media
academician writes fiction, plays and television screen play. He presently
heads the Eastern India campus of Indian Institute of Mass Communication
(IIMC), located at Dhenkanal, Odisha, India.
20 December 2012
Sanchar
Marg, Dhenkanal 759 001, Odisha.
E-Mail: mrinaliimc@yahoo.in|Mobile: 91 94370
26194
[1]
http://groupa.ucoz.co.uk/publ/theatre_vs_cinema/1-1-0-13
[2]
Theater and Film: A
Comparative Anthology, Edited by Robert Knopf, New Haven, Yale University
Press, 2005
[3]
http://www.culturopedia.com/Theatre/theatre_intro.html
[4]
There is, however, a pattern. All the folk and traditional forms in northern
India are mainly vocal, i.e., singing and recitation-based like Ramlila,
Rasleela, Bhand Nautanki and Wang without any complicated gestures or movements
and elements of dance.
[5]
http://www.indianetzone.com/2/history_indian_cinema.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment