Experimental play on a historical background
During my schooldays I disliked history as a subject taught in the
school. Perhaps recalling the past I feel that the history which we were
forced to study was full of kings, queens, rulers, ministers, days,
years and events.
But later on I found history as a stimulating source as it could be
interpreted in terms of literary works. I came to know that certain
narratives were known as historical novels, and some plays especially
written by Shakespeare were known as historical plays.
We also had the counterpart in novels of W. A. Silva such as Vijayaba
Kollaya and Daiva Yogaya and plays of John de Silva such as Sirisangabo
and Sri Wickama. These creative works too had the added force of
kindling and interest in finding the original sources, and especially
the chronicles such as Mahavamsa and Rajavaliya.
In this direction it is observed that history plays a major role as a
knowledgeable creative source for playwrights and other creative writers
who so yearn to reinterpret in the best possible manner.
The latest playscript titled 1617 written by Lucien Bulathsinhala,
and performed as teaching and learning project of Ruhuna University is a
good example of a creative work which needs attention.
In the first instance the playwright Lucien B, who also had conducted
a theatre workshop with the undergraduates had taken the chance to
select a crucial era in the history of our country.
The period being the Portuguese period, which had quite a lot of
trials and tribulations both from a cultural and economic standpoint. I
have not seen the play in performance, and as such my stance remains as
a reader of the printed text of 1617 (Godage 2010).
As the play opens it is rather enigmatic as to where it happens. Then
gradually we come to know that the place and period are all in the up
country, and several characters that became talking points among the
masses come to the forefront.
They are the King Senerat, who disrobed in order to be the heir to
the throne, and his brother King Wimaladharmasuriya, and the queen
consort named Kusumasana Devi, more known as Dona Katirina, and her two
daughters and two sons.
What actually happens in the play may not have happened in the
historic past. But a playwright and a director (both handled by Lucien)
has the liberty to interpret to elucidate a central humanistic point.
What Lucien has in mind could be summed as a conflict between the power
and individual, at loggerheads.
The pivotal point is the kingship and what is wanted is the ruling
power as against the individual liberty one wishes to obtain in a human
frame.
This is sensitively captured in the character portrayal of Dona
Katirina who comes to be known as Kusumasana Devi. She is made to reveal
what had happened to her, in whose confession she tries not to defend
King Wimaladharmasuriya, instead says that her mind and body were
polluted by him, who gave a child each year, and consequently got her
brother Senerat to disrobe and protect them, for his own benefit.
It looks as if Lucien as a dramatist uses language and situations
challengingly giving vent to liberal imagination than attempting to
screen historical Puritanism.
In this manner the playscript as a text is an alternative creation to
this more accepted well made structures. He utilizes as a theatrical
techniques the Brechtian alienation with a local flavour of making use
of a singer cum announcer, who is not just a Pothe Guru but an extension
of his function.
Songs and announcements are interspersed in order to retain the
experimental structure of the historical message.
There is also a certain attempt on the part of the playwright to
universalize his theatrical material by drawing parallels in the world
history.
But I am not too sure whether it had been fulfilled as intended. I
feel that playscripts are written not to be read but to be produced on
the stage and seen by an audience. Anyway experimental plays have to
crop up from time to time, and this particular attempt on the Ruhuna
University is commendable.
[email protected] |