"Theatre will never die"

BROUGHT up in an urban middle class household of Delhi, Devendra Raj Ankur, showed an inclination towards literature right from his younger days. As he mastered the intricacies of stagecraft at the National School of Drama, he also gradually began to see the limitations of the traditional proscenium theatre. If elaborate sets have to be erected or lavish costumes and props are to be used, then why not do films? But Ankur was not interested in films because he loved live audience. Moreover, being a great lover of literature, he wanted to present his favourite stories without dramatising them or adapting them for stage. After spending many sleepless nights, inspiration finally struck him, and a new style was born which he chooses to call Story Theatre.

Ankur has performed and conducted workshops extensively in India, and all over the world in countries as diverse as Japan, China, the former Soviet Union, Denmark, Hong Kong and Sri Lanka. And the amazing fact is that he took stories from these countries, took their local actors, and performed in their local language. With his wide creative and administrative experience, Devendra Raj Ankur is currently Professor, Extension Programmes, NSD. With hundreds of performances over the years, he is a force to be reckoned with in Indian theatre. Kuldip Dhiman met him to find out what directions theatre was taking at the turn of the century, and what Story Theatre is all about.

About 25 years ago, you started presenting your novel experiment Kahani Ka Rangmanch or Story Theatre. How is it different from proscenium theatre?

After graduating from the NSD, I thought that since I was deeply interested in literature as well as theatre, perhaps there could be a way of synthesising them. As I went along, I hit upon the idea of presenting short stories in the form of short stories, and novels in the forms of novels on stage. Nirmal Verma’s three stories called Teen Ekant was my first production. It was received with unprecedented appreciation. And 25 years on, I have produced 175 stories and 15 novels. I have staged novels like Kashinath Singh’s Apna Morcha, Krishna Sobti’s Dar sey Bichrey, Mannu Bhandari’s Mahaboijh, U.R Anantamurthy’s Samskara and so on.

Could you elaborate a little on your technique? Suppose a story like Usney Kaha Tha or Malbey ka Malik is given to you, how would you go about presenting it in your Story Theatre?

First of all you have to choose a story that moves you. In my style, the story that I choose is also my performance text; I do not adapt it or dramatise it. The idea is to revive the oral tradition of storytelling. Your grandmother might have told of you stories, and such tradition is there in all regions and it has existed for centuries. Then came the printing press and stories started getting published. As a result, you began reading stories in the privacy your home. Although reading can be tremendous fun, yet the direct interaction between the storyteller and the listener is lost. Through my experimental work, I am trying to re-establish that link between the teller and the listener by showing the story to a live audience.

I take a number of stories to a performing troupe and then we sit down and have a brainstorming session. From this, their relationship with literature begins. For a week, we sit down and read about 50 stories. The performers may not have done this before in their lives, but because of this experience they get a deeper understanding of literature.

I set two or three conditions to them before they perform. In the first version, the actors will do it intuitively among themselves without much input from me. The second condition, as I mentioned earlier, is that they will not make any changes in the original. The third thing I tell them is that if they can totally avoid the elements used in proscenium theatre, well and good, but if they really must use them, then they must be used as sparingly as possible: no lighting, no makeup, no sets, and no props. I believe if an actor can recognise what he has in himself, then all the external elements become totally unnecessary.

Our theatre is highly mobile and economical because we do not have a huge baggage of props and costumes. We use things in such a way that they become simple to use and present. That doesn’t mean it becomes Nukkad Rangmanch or what is known as street play. Street plays usually tackle contemporary issues; Story Theatre presents literature undiluted.

Could your style of performing be called theatre in the first place?

Yes, but on its own terms. You see, we don’t perform a story as a play-- that is why I have called it Kahani ka Rangmanch. The story itself becomes the play. You could call it Narrative Theatre or Story Theatre. In a play, the story moves ahead with the aid of dialogue, but Story Theatre uses the power of words.

How different is it from a story reading session?

When you read a story, you are usually alone or perhaps an author might read it for you at a gathering. Someone reads and you listen. But here while reading, I have a team of actors, who will perform what is being read. So we have a third extension here — reading, listening, and seeing. The impact is tremendous, and my audience say that they get the pleasure of watching a play, or watching TV or film. The actor says that it is the first time he has realised his inner hidden faculties. On stage there is a readymade structure, there is a character that he has to portray; but here one moment he is the character, one moment he is the narrator. It goes on changing — it is a lot more exciting for the actor; he is more free here.

What sort of problems do you face while presenting literature as drama?

The biggest problem is to handle narration. Since most of the audience find narration a bit uninteresting, I thought why shouldn’t narration also be dramatised. This dramatisation of narration proved to be extremely effective.

You let actors improvise and find solutions to the problems themselves, where does the director fit into this?

He is the prime inspiration, the prime motivator. If actors could do everything, then why don’t they become directors? The director is the catalyst, critic, observer, the first audience, friend, teacher, and a lot more without making them feel that there is a dictator watching over them.

Where does contemporary Indian theatre stand today?

Modern theatre in India is about 150 years old, and what has been happening in the past 50 years can be called post-Independence contemporary theatre. Before this we have had about 5000-year old theatre tradition which is the oldest in the world, and which even western scholars acknowledge. We had classical theatre, folk theatre, then about a 150 years ago we had the Parsi theatre that lasted until the 40s or 50s. And today’s theatre is the one that has people from the middle class, educated people, teachers, students, and other professionals.

Painters and sculptors or writers and poets, don’t hate each other so much; in fact someone might be a novelist as well as a poet, or a painter as well as a sculptor. Why is then there animosity between theatre and cinema professionals? Why can’t they work together and be complimentary to each other?

I am glad you put this question. Tell me, who has created this animosity? Certainly not the actors or the directors; it has been created by critics. There was never any antagonism, there never is, and there can never be because both theatre and cinema need actors, script writers, technicians, and directors. This animosity is peculiar to Hindi theatre. If a Hindi actor wishes to act in films, he has to leave his home base and go to Bombay which is not a Hindi region. In other regions of the country, when a theatre person wishes to do a film he doesn’t have to leave his home. He does it there, his audience is there, so there is no animosity. Once you leave your base, it becomes very difficult to return. So people who leave and are not able to come back are seen as anti-theatre. This is an irony, but there is also a positive aspect to it. If you look back about 20 years, you will notice that theatre actors are very well respected in the film world today. Be it Naseeruddin Shah, Ashish Vidyarthi, Manoj Bajpayee, Neena Gupta, Manohar Singh, or Uttara Bavarkar, they are all former theatre personalities who have adapted very well to films. And if they are getting work and recognition in films and making money, I don’t see any reason why anyone should hold a grudge against them.

You said that Hindi actors have to leave home and go to Bombay which is not a Hindi region. Don’t you have Hindi theatre in Bombay?

Look, who is doing Hindi theatre in Bombay, tell me? I would like to know from you. With the exception of one Dinesh Thakur, who is doing Hindi theatre there? Yes, Marathi and Gujarati theatre has had an excellent tradition in Bombay, and it has not been so far matched by Hindi theatre.

Who is to be blamed for this? If you don’t give them good plays, how can you expect people to pay and watch them?

You are right, Hindi theatre that is being done in Bombay is of such a poor standard that it fails to attract anyone. Why people who are doing Hindi theatre there are doing it out of sheer helplessness. They are doing theatre because their entire effort is to somehow get noticed by the film world. Well, if your main aim is to be in the pictures, why don’t you go there directly, why are you trying to make theatre your via media?

With the explosion of the electronic media, the Internet, films and TV, will theatre be able to stand on its own in the next century?

Yes, this question is arising at the turn of the century not only here but also in the other parts of the world that what is theatre going to be like in the future. On the one hand, we have films, video, TV, computer, Internet; on the other hand, an interactive media like theatre. If you look back a little, cinema was born merely in 1895 and within a hundred years its death was announced. Today, even the big film companies have to think hard before releasing a film. They have to consider what type of film to make so that people leave their videos and go back to the cinema-halls. On the contrary, because theatre is a live medium, has a live cast performing in front of a live audience, there is one-to-one interaction between the artiste and the audience. This is not possible in any other medium. This is the power of theatre, and this will make sure that theatre will never die.