Page 332

Bound by letter

The production of Ashadada Ondu Dina suffered as the lyricism of the play was lost



NOT CONVINCING Though a lot of hard work went into the play, it didn’t seem to add to the overall performance

“Ashadada Ondu Dina” is one of Mohan Rakesh’s most celebrated plays. Originally called “Ashad Ka Ek Din”, the present version has been translated by Dr Siddalinga Pattanashetty. The production comes from t he Bangalore-based Cornea Theatre Group, which performed the same play in English earlier this year. Directed by K Ramakrishnia, the play tells the story of Kalidasa the poet through the eyes of Mallika, his confidante and muse of his later works such as “Ritusamhara”. Mallikaremains central to all three acts. Mallika stands apart for her commitment to literature, poetry and nature. She is the one who prods Kalidasa to seek a job in Ujjaini in the King’s court. Her relationship with Kalidasa comes under scrutiny from another poet (Viloma) who is trying to woo her. Mallika’s devotion for Kalidasa, is contrasted with her marriage to Viloma. Her character is probably one of the most famous paradoxes in Indian literature.

The play is dense in dialogue and biographical in content. The play has a loyal viewership. Though written sometime between 60s and 70s, the play has managed to remain in public memory for long. For most amateur groups that mushroomed in various theatre spaces of the 70s – 80s in India, the play stood as a benchmark for good quality and consistent characterizations. It was a time when plays were studied for their context and connections. Sessions on language structure, motives, were at the core of process towards putting up the performance.

These were unquestionably integral to the process of theatre. Two crucial aspects enmeshed in the play raise the challenge for performers anywhere. One is the mastery with which the play covers the essence with lyrical and romantic lines. If left uncovered, one might just be caught in a fake understanding of the play. The second challenge is thrown by the ever-growing yet scarce viewer ship to this genre of theatre.

It was in the first aspect that the present play struggles the most. This is where the play lacked information, and why the play falls flat. The hard work is visible, however, the style of dialogue delivery seemed to borrow heavily from the style of plays done in certain theatre schools in Karnataka, and yet it does not add to the overall presentation.

The esoteric and almost lyrical lines of Mallika and Kalidasa, and between Manjari and Mallika were simply spoken, without the core understood and therefore remained unconvincing. Actors who played the roles of Anunasika and Anuswara were true to their role of providing comic relief.

The sets and props were good and realistic. The background score could have been a little more audible.

The costumes seemed to go astray. Ambika, Mallika’s mother was dressed to look like the stereotypical tribal woman, while Mallika looked like a south Indian belle and Manjari’s was given a South Indian woman look.

The performance gives the sense that putting a play together alone is not enough. For presenting the essence of the play in a rather un-feignable manner, guided process work seems essential.