No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 January 2009
The classical theatres of southern Asia are variously treated with the reverence thought due to sacrosanct and immutable forms – or as rich sources for plunder by western theatre-makers in search of intra-cultural building-blocks. The rights and wrongs of this latter approach have been much debated, not least in the pages of NTQ; less so the intrinsic desirability of leaving well alone. At the symposium on Classical Sanskrit Theatre, hosted in Dhaka by the Centre for Asian Theatre in December 1999, an unexpected consensus sought ways in which classical theatre forms might best meet contemporary needs, not only by drawing upon their unique qualities – but also by respecting the injunction in the Natyasastra that the actor must combine discipline with a readiness for improvisation. John Russell Brown here supports the conclusions of the symposium that the qualities of Asian theatre which differentiate it from western forms – of a quest for transformation rather than representation, a concern with emotional truth rather than ideological ‘meaning’ – can best be pursued by such an approach, restoring to the theatre ‘its enabling and necessary role in society’. John Russell Brown was the first professor of Drama and Theatre Arts at the University of Birmingham, and subsequently Associate Director at the National Theatre in London. More recently he has taught and directed in the USA, New Zealand, and Asia, and is now Visiting Professor of Performing Arts at Middlesex University. The most recent of his numerous books is New Sites for Shakespeare: Theatre, the Audience and Asia (Routledge, 1999).
1. Nilu, Kamaluddin, Introduction, programme for Natyotsav (Dhaka: CAT, 1999)Google Scholar.
2. Ibid.
3. Indian Performing Arts (New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House, revised edition, 1994), p. 13.
4. ‘History, Politics and the Modern Playwright’, Theatre India, I (1999), p. 91–2.
5. Vatsyayan, Kapila, Bharata: The Natyasastra (New Delhi: Sakitya Akademi, 1996), p. 36Google Scholar.
6. Chapters 9 and 10 of Zarrilli, Phillip B., Kathakali Dance Drama (London; New York: Routledge, 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, give a clear account of these developments.
7. The Way of Acting: the Theatre Writings of Tadashi Suzuki, trans. Rimer, J. Thomas (New York: Theatre Communications Group, 1986), p. 69–72Google Scholar.
8. A simplified encounter with Kutiyattam, similar to Suzuki's, with No in Paris, is recorded in the present writer's New Sites for Shakespeare: Theatre, the Audience, and Asia (London; New York: Routledge, 1999), p. 71–82Google Scholar. Performing without make-up and dressed only in a loincloth, Margi Madhu, like Hisao, awakened an imaginary experience in his audience that ‘went beyond’ any ordinary response to physical reality.
9. In a paper on Anubhava at the Dhaka symposium, Niranjan Adhikary translated rasa as that ‘which is capable of being tasted’; in her Bharata, Kapila Vatsyayan translated it as ‘aesthetic relish’ (op. cit., p. 103).
10. Indian Traditional Theatre (New Delhi: National Book Trust, 1980), p. 186,189.
11. The Natyasastra, trans. Ghosh, Manomohan (Calcutta: Manisha Granthalaya, 3rd ed., 1995), Chapter VI, p. 77Google Scholar.
12. According to The Natyasastra as ‘translated by a Board of Scholars’ (New Delhi: Indian Book Centre, 1986), the text leaves ‘ample scope for inference (for full comprehension)’.
13. Op. cit., p. 38.