Chances are that if you have ever remotely been associated with theatre-acting or watching-and are visiting Mumbai, Prithvi theatres will ring a bell. You would have already heard a lot about it and will have it somewhere on the to-do list. I had it too-fortunately it happened much earlier, unplanned. In less than a week of me moving to Mumbai.
I was at Marriott for the introduction orientation of my job so after hours it just happened-plan made and I found myself headed to Prithvi. It is different from what I had imagined. Completely. Not that I had imagined much but once you reach, a Delhiite will visualize Mandi circle, Kamani, SRC, LTG…... Prithvi is different. It’s an enclosed place amidst Mumbai's old semi dilapidated buildings. Inside, you can see the culture is bit different. The air is comparatively relaxed, people at prithvi café are in a bit unconventional clothes-not exactly the dilli jholawala types though…
Then for the play, there is a queue a little before stipulated time. There is bell announcing play timings and after 2 or 3 bells, you are no more allowed to enter (I was in at first so no clue if 2 or 3) Once you reach, the first question was, is this the main audi? Prithvi has a small hall with laid back wooden stairs around a low platform which acts like a stage. A typical experimentative set up reflecting shallow pockets of artists!
Delhi in contrast has larger auditoriums, big banners, parkings, and a cult apart people whose apparels, gestures, language and flock shout that we are the jhola-khadi generation that only identifies with drama and JNU. Anyway I don’t intend to say which is better. Just a comparison. In the end, what is good is how all size of groups perform here and the volumes of shows -nearly 1-2 everyday keeps the theatre alive in the city.
I watched this play called ‘Two blind mice’ by Proscenium Productions. It is an adaptation of scene 1 of Samuel Beckett’s “Waiting for Godot”. Like so many other things, this too I wasn’t sure if I liked or not. Like in most of the cases-the verdict is-I liked it. The play is special too because it ended up being origin for a special name. Till long I didn’t adapt that name but later realized it was apt and fit well.
It is a play which one must watch after reading the synopsis. Then you can get both meanings. As per the wiki brief, “it is an absurdist play by Samuel Beckett, in which two characters, Vladimir and Estragon, wait endlessly and in vain for someone named Godot to arrive. Absurdist fiction is a genre of literature, most often employed in novels, plays or poems, that focuses on the experiences of characters in a situation where they cannot find any inherent purpose in life, most often represented by ultimately meaningless actions and events. While a great deal of absurdist fiction may be humorous or irrational in nature, the hallmark of the genre is neither comedy nor nonsense, but rather, the study of human behavior under circumstances (whether realistic or fantastical) that appear to be purposeless and philosophically absurd. Absurdist fiction posits little judgment about characters or their actions; that task is left to the reader. Also, the "moral" of the story is generally not explicit, and the themes or characters' realizations—if any —are often ambiguous in nature.”
The play is probably to the core of ‘absurdist genre.’ The two protagonist-Vladimir and Estragon are waiting for Godot and what happens all this while is what play is all about. As it progresses, it is shown how they are not sure if they will be able to recognize Godot, if they are waiting for him at the right place and date-if they really know the date today.
The characters proclaim how they have nothing to do and that is what they have to do till Godot arrives. Meanwhile character called Pozzo arrives with his slave Lucky. I just could not understand how they fit in-other parts I could draw parallel to in life but them, not really. Lucky was ill treated by Pozzo and tethered at neck. He cried in between and kicks too, and then they leave…Before leaving, Pozzo offers help in turn of the two having entertained him. Estragon tries to ask for money but Vladimir cuts short and instead asks if Pozzo can make Lucky dance and think. In the end, a boy comes as a messenger from Godot saying that he will not come that day but will come the next day.
As per wiki, “During Vladimir's interrogation of the boy, he asks if he came the day before, making it apparent that the two men have been waiting for an indefinite period and will likely continue to wait ad infinitum. After the boy departs, they decide to leave but make no attempt to do so. They also contemplate committing suicide at one point of time in the play.
What is appealing and confusing at the same time is the interpretation part of this play. By what I researched, Beckett had few comments-not really making things easier. Mostly suggesting what the play is not about. He says he regrets naming the character Godot as it was often interpreted as God which was not what he meant. Also, when asked what the play was really about: he says 'It's all symbiosis; it's symbiosis.
Psychologically play was seen as a metaphor for the futility of man's existence when salvation is expected from an external entity, and the self is denied introspection. Philosphically, existentialists hold that there are certain fundamental questions that every human being must come to terms with if they are to take their subjective existences seriously and with intrinsic value.
My interpretation was also close to the ones above. People waiting for something unknown and hinging everything on it. Most of the tasks to be done, life to look forward to, was kept at abeyance for something unknown. On delving, one realizes how they are not even sure of that unknown or if they will recognize it when it arrives. It is a clear reflection of how vain we let our lives be. Futile. Pointless.
What however really stuck me while watching was the relation between the protagonists. Their characters are sketched beautifully and unlike the whole play-realistically complicated. They are ashamed of each other at times, at comfort, give precedence to own’s comfort and then for no reason, take up difficult task for the other. They have huge cold, unidentified or realized-by-self difference of opinion and behaviour towards things between them. Still it was given that they are together. Together in waiting for unknown and together in all that was happening.
“At times I wonder it would have been better had we gone separate separate” Says Estragon somewhere after the play begins. Just as a statement. He says that again towards the end, this time more like wondering....and goes with Vladimir anyway. It was brilliant how he repeats it with same sense of ‘wondering how an alternate life would have been if you had made a different choice.’ But knowing that given a chance, you would repeat the choice you made. At times out of comfort for known outcome, at times out of fear of unknown other and other times, simply knowing that since it feels good, it must be right.
Whatever, I find it like full of romance-for once I am using the word for its other literal meaning-‘ A strong, sometimes short-lived attachment, fascination, or enthusiasm for something’ or ‘mysterious or fascinating quality or appeal, as of something adventurous, heroic, or strangely beautiful’
Till long it resonated in my ears, whenever I recalled watching the play…
” At times I wonder it would have been better had we gone separate separate “
I was at Marriott for the introduction orientation of my job so after hours it just happened-plan made and I found myself headed to Prithvi. It is different from what I had imagined. Completely. Not that I had imagined much but once you reach, a Delhiite will visualize Mandi circle, Kamani, SRC, LTG…... Prithvi is different. It’s an enclosed place amidst Mumbai's old semi dilapidated buildings. Inside, you can see the culture is bit different. The air is comparatively relaxed, people at prithvi café are in a bit unconventional clothes-not exactly the dilli jholawala types though…
Then for the play, there is a queue a little before stipulated time. There is bell announcing play timings and after 2 or 3 bells, you are no more allowed to enter (I was in at first so no clue if 2 or 3) Once you reach, the first question was, is this the main audi? Prithvi has a small hall with laid back wooden stairs around a low platform which acts like a stage. A typical experimentative set up reflecting shallow pockets of artists!
Delhi in contrast has larger auditoriums, big banners, parkings, and a cult apart people whose apparels, gestures, language and flock shout that we are the jhola-khadi generation that only identifies with drama and JNU. Anyway I don’t intend to say which is better. Just a comparison. In the end, what is good is how all size of groups perform here and the volumes of shows -nearly 1-2 everyday keeps the theatre alive in the city.
I watched this play called ‘Two blind mice’ by Proscenium Productions. It is an adaptation of scene 1 of Samuel Beckett’s “Waiting for Godot”. Like so many other things, this too I wasn’t sure if I liked or not. Like in most of the cases-the verdict is-I liked it. The play is special too because it ended up being origin for a special name. Till long I didn’t adapt that name but later realized it was apt and fit well.
It is a play which one must watch after reading the synopsis. Then you can get both meanings. As per the wiki brief, “it is an absurdist play by Samuel Beckett, in which two characters, Vladimir and Estragon, wait endlessly and in vain for someone named Godot to arrive. Absurdist fiction is a genre of literature, most often employed in novels, plays or poems, that focuses on the experiences of characters in a situation where they cannot find any inherent purpose in life, most often represented by ultimately meaningless actions and events. While a great deal of absurdist fiction may be humorous or irrational in nature, the hallmark of the genre is neither comedy nor nonsense, but rather, the study of human behavior under circumstances (whether realistic or fantastical) that appear to be purposeless and philosophically absurd. Absurdist fiction posits little judgment about characters or their actions; that task is left to the reader. Also, the "moral" of the story is generally not explicit, and the themes or characters' realizations—if any —are often ambiguous in nature.”
The play is probably to the core of ‘absurdist genre.’ The two protagonist-Vladimir and Estragon are waiting for Godot and what happens all this while is what play is all about. As it progresses, it is shown how they are not sure if they will be able to recognize Godot, if they are waiting for him at the right place and date-if they really know the date today.
The characters proclaim how they have nothing to do and that is what they have to do till Godot arrives. Meanwhile character called Pozzo arrives with his slave Lucky. I just could not understand how they fit in-other parts I could draw parallel to in life but them, not really. Lucky was ill treated by Pozzo and tethered at neck. He cried in between and kicks too, and then they leave…Before leaving, Pozzo offers help in turn of the two having entertained him. Estragon tries to ask for money but Vladimir cuts short and instead asks if Pozzo can make Lucky dance and think. In the end, a boy comes as a messenger from Godot saying that he will not come that day but will come the next day.
As per wiki, “During Vladimir's interrogation of the boy, he asks if he came the day before, making it apparent that the two men have been waiting for an indefinite period and will likely continue to wait ad infinitum. After the boy departs, they decide to leave but make no attempt to do so. They also contemplate committing suicide at one point of time in the play.
What is appealing and confusing at the same time is the interpretation part of this play. By what I researched, Beckett had few comments-not really making things easier. Mostly suggesting what the play is not about. He says he regrets naming the character Godot as it was often interpreted as God which was not what he meant. Also, when asked what the play was really about: he says 'It's all symbiosis; it's symbiosis.
Psychologically play was seen as a metaphor for the futility of man's existence when salvation is expected from an external entity, and the self is denied introspection. Philosphically, existentialists hold that there are certain fundamental questions that every human being must come to terms with if they are to take their subjective existences seriously and with intrinsic value.
My interpretation was also close to the ones above. People waiting for something unknown and hinging everything on it. Most of the tasks to be done, life to look forward to, was kept at abeyance for something unknown. On delving, one realizes how they are not even sure of that unknown or if they will recognize it when it arrives. It is a clear reflection of how vain we let our lives be. Futile. Pointless.
What however really stuck me while watching was the relation between the protagonists. Their characters are sketched beautifully and unlike the whole play-realistically complicated. They are ashamed of each other at times, at comfort, give precedence to own’s comfort and then for no reason, take up difficult task for the other. They have huge cold, unidentified or realized-by-self difference of opinion and behaviour towards things between them. Still it was given that they are together. Together in waiting for unknown and together in all that was happening.
“At times I wonder it would have been better had we gone separate separate” Says Estragon somewhere after the play begins. Just as a statement. He says that again towards the end, this time more like wondering....and goes with Vladimir anyway. It was brilliant how he repeats it with same sense of ‘wondering how an alternate life would have been if you had made a different choice.’ But knowing that given a chance, you would repeat the choice you made. At times out of comfort for known outcome, at times out of fear of unknown other and other times, simply knowing that since it feels good, it must be right.
Whatever, I find it like full of romance-for once I am using the word for its other literal meaning-‘ A strong, sometimes short-lived attachment, fascination, or enthusiasm for something’ or ‘mysterious or fascinating quality or appeal, as of something adventurous, heroic, or strangely beautiful’
Till long it resonated in my ears, whenever I recalled watching the play…
” At times I wonder it would have been better had we gone separate separate “
Comments
Post a Comment