The world is a stage
Alamgir Khan appreciates a book on acting
Raahman Chowdhury is a foremost playwright and theatre critic in Bangladesh. He has written several plays, including Mohabidroho O Samrat Bahadur Shah and Kriranak, published by Bangla Academy. His Ph.D thesis Rajnoitik Natyachinta O Swadhinota Poroborti Bangladesher Mancho-Natok has also been publsihed by Bangla Academy and this thesis created a stir for revealing some bitter truths about theatre practices in Bangladesh. His recent book is Choritro Sristi O Obhinay (Portrait of a Character and Acting) published by Jatiya Sahitya Prakash in 2011. Noted theatre personality Mamunur Rashid has written the preface of this book and his praise for Chowdhury's efforts is overwhelming. This can be called a complete book on acting, encyclopedic in nature and story type in form. The writer has described the history of acting from the time of Thespis in 6th century BC Greece to modern times. Acting in the Bengali theatre has covers 56 pages out of 350 in his book. Other chapters are not divided according to country or continental category, but those have followed the history of acting style and theory. Throughout the book, great actors of the world are mentioned and discussed, though in a few words. Discussions are not about the personal lives of actors, but their styles of acting. The major theme of the book that takes forward this story of acting is the ever-existing debate: acting from the heart or mind. The basic question in acting is whether the personality of the actor would be lost in the character s/he portrays or s/he would remain aloof in respect of emotion from the character portrayed in the drama. Proponents of either of these two styles have earned great fame in their lives. Many famous actors have made a mix of heart and mind in their acting, different people mixing these two in different proportions. And tens of thousands of actors are lost from human memory because they could not reach a point where their performance could be called art. When does acting become an art and an actor an artiste is a question the answer to which is sought in this book. The creation of a character is the factor that draws the line of distinction between when acting becomes an art and when it does not. According to the author, one needs brains to do this. To be able to act naturally, to act in theatre as one acts in the real world is not enough to make oneself an artist. If it were so, a dog or a horse in a cinema could have been called a good actor, which it is not. Acting by middle class boys and girls in television dramas that portray middle class lives is not worthier than that. The problem does not lie so much with the players as with the dramatists and producers who cannot think of anything beyond the boundaries of their lives. This work on acting also tells a lot about different isms in the history of art such as romanticism, naturalism, realism, etc. The history of acting has been divided into a broad category --- of drama to see and drama to hear. In ancient Greece and for many years in Europe, theatre was to be enjoyed through listening and so it was mainly dialogue-based. Mime turned theatre into an art that has to be enjoyed by watching. Afterwards, dialogue again reestablished itself in the western theatre. Modern theatre places equal emphasis on the actor's dialogues and gestures. The ancient Indian theatre was vision-based. Therefore, it was called drishya-kabya. Afterwards, when Bengali jatra and theatre emerged, absorbing the influence of the west, it became a thing for listening. The author has, therefore, called the period of Bengali theatre srutikabyer kal, a period of recitation, in his discussion. This is a very valuable chapter because it has discussed almost all great players with their different acting styles in the Bengali theatre up to Rabindranath Tagore, Rabindranath not as a poet but as the greatest actor from 1891 to 1901 of that period. The next chapter is on the realistic acting method of Stanislavsky. The last chapter deals with the Brechtian method of acting that calls for deep knowledge and acute political awareness of an actor. Raahman Chowdhury strongly opposes the way acting is taught here in Bangladesh. In most cases, learners are taught to use their body and emotion and little of their intelligence; and they are hardly persuaded to earn knowledge. Here, the way Bharat's Natyashastra is mentioned by theatre teachers who themselves have either not studied it or not found anything worthy from it is ridiculous, according to the author. Mamunur Rashid writes in the preface that today's busy actors in Bangladesh are running after easy success in the market-oriented economy and are averse to reading books for earning knowledge. He says such a book working on so large a canvass of acting has not been written in either of the two Bengals. In his view this is a book worthy of study by players as well as playwrights, directors and teachers of dramatics. He suggests it should be studied in the drama departments of universities in the country.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments