Ms. Meena: After-thoughts

There are somethings that money can't buy. But is justice one of them? Or, can it be bought? What is the price of a person's life? of his lie? What all can credit/loan do?

These are some of the questions which the play, Ms. Meena, revolves around. Ms Meena, a play by Chennai based Perch group, written by Rashmi Ruth Devadasan and directed by Rajiv Krishnan, is inspired by Der Besuch der alten Dame (The Visit) by Friedrich Dürrenmatt. The play revolved around Ms Meena, the protagonist of the play.

Ms. Meena, is a very successful film star who has made a fortune in her 20 years career. The play starts with the news that Ms Meena is visiting Pichampuram, the village where she hails from. The village is under abject poverty. The villagers are hopeful that she would be able to bring in money to the village. The villagers are convincing Ravi, her Pichampuram day's lover, to talk Ms. Meena out into helping the village.

Ms. Meena, finally, arrives. The village is overwhelmed and hopeful. Ms. Meena announces that she would make a movie on her life and will shoot it at Pichampuram. This would bring in a lot of tourists to Pichampuram, thus, making it prosperous. However, she, has a condition. She wants Ravi to be dead in return.

The audience then discovers that Ravi had ditched Asha (who later one went on becoming the uber-successful Ms. Meena). He had refused to marry her even after finding that she was carrying his child. He went on to marry the daughter of a Kirana store as that would boost his career. So, Asha had come back to the village to take the revenge.

The whole village, initially, supports Ravi and says that he has nothing to worry about. However, the expectation of fortune led the villagers buy a lot of things on credit and they were soon under debts. Also, their personal ambition of working in a movie made them take Ms. Meena's side. Finally, the movie is made. The villagers kill Ravi and his life-size statue is put of at the entrance of the village.

The story of the play is not unusual. It has an expected ending and an expected flow. What made this play different is the way the artists created the sound and the landscapes. We get the first glimpse of this when the artists made sound of a helicopter heralding the arrival of Ms. Meena. The artists, throughout the play, seamlessly transforms from human characters to the elements of the surroundings - like waterfall, birds, trees, etc. The first time i had heard of artists becoming non-human characters was in the sitcom Sarabhai Vs Sarabhai. [This is one topic - review of Sarabhai Vs Sarabhai - which i have been thinking of writing on from a long time]. My second, and first-hand encounter was with the theatre workshop i attended conducted by "Yours Truly" Group, of which yours truly is a part. There we became basin, commode, wax in the ear, etc. I found it very funny and strange until later i figured how it fell in place. Anyway, The perch of the birds, the gushing of the wind, the sound of a moving bus, the sound of a moving train were all done by the artists. Their transformation from a bus to a train to normal villagers was something i saw as an audience for the first time.

The one thing that struck me the most about the play was the vulnerability of humans beings. The fact that Ms. Meena was successful in giving her own justice outside of the legal system is due to the gullibility of the villagers. This reminds of the recession and the sub-prime crises that started from Sept 2008. People had easy availability of loan. This made them buy things which they couldn't afford. But the math needs to be worked out. The money had to come form somewhere. Unfortunately, there was no such source. This eventually led to the recession*. Imagine, if some Ms. Meena would have offered to create wealth in the market in lieu of someone's life - i wonder how many people would have denied. Essentially, Ms. Meena took advantage of the poverty of the people (for which she was responsible) to serve her own purpose. I guess, a lot of politicians do this. Ms. Meena, in principle, bought justice - regardless of whether or not Ravi 'deserved' punishment.

If I were to remake this play, I would remake it from Ravi's perspective. I find Ravi's character very interesting. What would have gone through him when he ditched Asha for career advancement, when Ms. Meean enunciated 'her justice' and when the villagers were after his life? These are complex feelings and would be interesting to develop and portray.

Overall, it was a good play. I was hoping for a 'heavier' play and hence the light-hearted treatment of the play couldn't strike a chord with me. But the different style of presentation was good to watch.

Cheers!

*A very simplified/crude description

Sex Morality and Censorship: After-thoughts

Last weekend i caught up with a play, Sex Morality and Censorship (SM&C), at Ranga Shankara. The play, as the name suggests, raises questions on censorship - what and how much should be censored, if at all. This play is analogous to 'documentary movies' albeit much more interesting and gripping. SM&C is about Vijay Tendulkar's controversial play, Sakharam Binder. Sakharam Binder was banned in 1972 by the censor board. This play, SM&C, digs into the series of events that took place in censoring the play and show them in the light of the actual play, Sakharam Binder.

Vijay Tendulkar's Sakharam Binder, is the story of a very ordinary book binder, Sakharam and so is his portrayal - very ordinary. He, like any other 'ordinary' person staying in the slums, uses 'khadi boli'. The story starts with his bringing in a woman (Lakshmi) into his house whose work is to do the household chores and 'all' other responsibilities of a wife in return for daily bread and two sarees a year. However, due to some problem he 'discards' her and brings in a new woman - Champa. Champa is all what Lakhmi wasn't (except for their bitter past) outspoken (and that to in 'khadi boli') and boozes. Lakshmi enters again. She coaxes Champa by saying that she would do all the household chores. Once (and he had done often before) Sakharam comes in drunk and demands Champa to let him vent his carnal frustration out. Champa's refusal started a fight in which she boozed and hit Sakharam. Lakshmi's character takes a 180 degree turn. She tell Sakharam that Champa has been hanky-pankying with his friend. Sakharam in his uncontrollable anger kills Champa. [You can find the detailed story on the Internet].

Such was the story of Sakharam Binder. Obviously, his right portrayal didn't fit into the family-drama plays category which was in vogue then and perhaps even now. Also, in the early 70s Emran Hashmi wasn't even born. So, people were not used to portrayal of unholy relationships - however aesthetic. Showing Champa boozing and hitting Sakharam, the implicit portrayal of their relationship (how else do one show this - bringing together of two flowers? It was not an expression of love - it was an expression of hatred and frustration), the 'explicit' language - allegedly led the censor board to ban the play.

SM&C showed three different sequences. First, was the play itself. The story of SM&C is very simple. A Delhi based student of Culture comes to a local Marathi Tamasha group to do a study on history of survival of the art over the years. He then along with the Shaahir (narrator) takes the other member of the group, a Lavani dancer, through the history of censorship of Sakharam Binder. Another sequences is the play - Sakharam Binder. The explanation of the Shaahir is complemented by the original play. The third sequence is the portrayal of the series of censorship events which happened - the court case, the moral policing vandalism, the cultural convention and the threats. Sakharam Binder play and the censorship hullabaloo was enacted in parallel to Shaahir's narration.

Kudos to Sunil Shanbag for the amazing direction and seamless transition from one sequence to the second to the third.  Nagesh Bhosle played the role of Shaahir and Sakharam Bhosle very well - the characters were so very different but Bhosle managed to portray both the characters without re-takes in one go. The music also added to the over-all experience.

The play raises some very pertinent questions on censorship. Why is it required. What is to be censored? Who decides what to show and what not? How is it decided? What about the freedom of expression?

Censorship is a different topic of discussion altogether as these questions don't have a straight forward mono-syllabic answer.