CHAPTER II PREOCCUPATION WITH FORM :

Transcription

1 CHAPTER II PREOCCUPATION WITH FORM : Anyone who first approaches dramatic history must ask the same questions he would ask of any unknown phenomenon. What is the best method of definition? What are its constituent parts? How does it work, that is, how is it set in motion, or what must occur and be present? Why is it valued? How is it unique? Basic literary definition or description of drama would be inadequate as drama also satisfies non-literary psychic needs of the audiences. A play, is more than words printed on a page; it is analogous to a blue print which the skilled artist translates into a concrete form. Each stage direction must be transformed through the acting medium into physical movement, spoken word, and character identification. Put in another way, the play text leads to two "hows" of drama, first is the literary dimension revealed in the written dialogue, second is the production inherent in printed words of the text. The principle goal is to understand drama as a literary phenomenon yet because a play must be recognised as an art of character in motion to enact its story, it is important to know, understand and discuss how a performance proceeds from the author's written words. It is undesirable that a major and extremely important phase of our dramatic history has remained elusive. Sisir Kumar Bhaduri was of course never a playwright, nor did he write very much on his methods and experience. A talent of his stature was kept under extreme economic pressures due to his theatre; As a result he was totally preoccupied with the problem of daily financial survival of his theatre. Hence it tis natural that he found not much time or patience for recording the roots and methods of his acting style and production for posterity. But we have seen, that under a lot more constraint and pressure than Sisir Kumar Bhaduri, Girish Chandra Ghosh, with a great deal of care and thoughts, assessed his own as well as most of his contemporaries' acting characteristics, weakness, strengths and attitude in an extremely scientific and analytical way. As \

2 Girish was from the theatre itself, his writing never resorted to euphoric praises and hyperboles, but an analysis. Moreover Girish was also a playwright and at the demand of mammonic theatre owners was forced to present a new play every week. But there was never any laxity in recording acting styles and methods. His articles are the grammars of Bengali drama. It is our misfortune that during Sisir Kumar's lifetime, especially towards the end, the scholars who engaged him in long interviews-not being men of theatre did not delve into relevant or significant aesthetical or practical aspects of the theatre. In fact they made him talk incessantly for hours on the versatility and immortality of Byron. Their priority obviously lay in one-time professor Sisir Bhaduri's lectures on Byron. And the acting style and techniques of the greatest Indian actor of this century is of no real curiosity or interest to them. Moreover it was not in their minds that with the death of Sisir Kumar Bhaduri, the unique, great acting methods and style would be destroyed. Therefore it was a national responsibility to record his thoughts and ideas on the subject. Whether Byron was a great poet or just a man selling his verses for profit has no relevance whatsoever for Calcuttans of this century. The memory of the great acting skills of past generations of stalwarts survive for posterity in books or memories of some old contemporaries. To recreate the history of "Sisir-age" our resorts are the biographical works on him, first hand recounting by a huge amount of magazines and journals, some extremely loyal to him and his school and some intent on destroying his charisma. All these sources, compiled and analyzed may lead to the scientific analysis of his uniqueness in the theatre world. But analysis or reservations is so important in assessing the literary work on Sisir Bhaduri. Unlike Girish Chandra Ghosh, Sisir was the apple of his contemporary intellectual circle, he realized all their dreams about elevating the theatre to a level of fine art, comparable only to the "refined sophistication of the Moscow Art Theatre-the premiertheatre Institute which was revolutinizing the 160

3 International Theatre scene". Something similar to " what Bertolt Brecht was to become to his next generation". Moreover there were no plays written by Sisir Kumar Bahduri to suit the demands of professional theatre except Jogesh Chandra Chowdhury's "Sita" and "Riti-Moto Natak" both guided and inspired by him. Hence he was lucky to escape the literary criticism and measuring up to standards set by great literary geniuses like Bankim Chandra Chaterjee, Rabindranath Tagore, and one of the causes of under-estimation of Girish Chandra Ghosh. The spirit of euphoric admiration which is the main theme of nearly all works on Sisir Bhaduri, is best expressed, both in terms of language and spirit by a tribute paid by the students of the Hardinge Hostel of the Calcutta University to Sisir Kumar Bhaduri - "Oh! the greatest acting-talent of the new age, in the pursuit of dramatic art, the magic you have woven with your talented touch has imbibed us with a new life-force - this huge euphoria has initiated a fantastic revolution in the theatre. Oh the histrionic chameleon! Your hallowed talent lightens the dawn of artistic devotion and presents it before us. To be able to pay tribute to this divine talent with adequate care and love is a privilege for us. Oh the new, the greenness of your heart has transformed into a strength that has broken the conventions of the past, to change the Bengali theatre scene into greener pastoral beauty. By declaring war on the past, oh, the driver of the chariot of the new, you have withstood the insult and persecution alone, for the cause of the great better. You are the deserving courageous one - the glory is yours. To enhance the flow of the dramatic waves, your announcement through the tune of the conches, has brought out a response from the young minds of the land. - this is the greatest solace in your grief and pains, through the journey of life. Oh the admired one, let your devotion be victorious. Please accept our heartfelt 161

4 respect." The students of Hardinge Hostel Year 1333, 8 Magh1 Most of the books on Sisir Kumar Bhaduri quote this letter-other such letters, those written by Abanindranath Tagore, Dilip Kumar Ray, Rabindranath Tagore, Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay. C.R. Das are also quoted; these are evidently the main primary source and are easy rhetorics to reassert their own admiration and respect. But in the process they also place him on a pedestal, where all his work and contributions may be cited as the ultimate ideal but not much help for the next. generation to pursue or learn from. The nostalgia of his friend circles, all leading intellectuals of his times help them to continue in the same vein. Shankar Kumar Bhattacharya, whose book "Natyacaharya Sisir Kumar" is perhaps the most comprehensive in its inclusion of all the printed quotes in support of Sisir Bhaduri. On one occasion he echoes Dr. Sisir Kumar Bandopadhyay, an eminent critic, "Sisir Kumar was not only a unique actor, but in dramatic literature, a rare introspective connoisseur and critic, an extremely learned scholar". Noted Bengali author Achintya Kumar Sengupta's descriptions is another case in point; - "His acting talent is matched by his speech, voice & scholarship. - It may be the history of Christianity or Shakespeare, or Rabindranath's Musicals or it may be something of intimacy, the love of his first wife. All his deliveries were like emanating fireworks or like the musky scent of a deer. To see his acting once in a while may have been a living experience, but we could pass hours on end, awake the whole night, listening to him talk. Is it only the rays of scholarship? Then we would have, felt - sleepy, just like the judge feels to hear the lawyer's speech. No it is not that it contains the depth of feeling, the softness of the poetic mind and the sublimity of his delivery style. Moreover what intelligence, what charisma, what a memory! In a moment we could feel that we are in company of a great personality - under the shades of the plant kingdom "2 For critics like Ashoke Sen, who feel no bones about dismissing Girish Chandra Ghosh as insignificant finds Sisir baboo the glorious contrast. To him only International 162

5 comparison can do justice to Sisir Kumar Bhaduri; - "In Sisir's age, the Bengali stage was much more advanced than British and American stage - it can be so declared without any hesitation. Only the Russian stage or Brecht, partly had that standard Gielgud, Ralph Richardson, Paul Scofield are regarded as good actors. But compared to Sisirbaboo, Nareshchandra, Radhikananda etc.,the stalwarts of the Bengali theatre - they are extremely lifeless 3 " Prabhadevi, is also described to be of similar high standards - It seems there can be nothing either in the past or present to match such standards ; - "In Sisir's age the fulfillment of our theatre had reached its peak and a subsequent downfall is inevitable."4 Such euphoria and ecstatic adjectives adhere to the style initiated by Indra Mitra in 'Sajghar' especially the part on theatre personalities. The latter part of 'Sajghar' is dedicated to Sisir Kumar Bhaduri. Sisir's youth and childhood are described in the vein, so favourite to biographical authors. Sisir Kumar's father was a part time astrologer and he had prophesied that there was no force in the world that could prevent his son Sisir Kumar from becoming a great and famous actor. Another incident very popular with his biographers also recorded in 'Sajghar', is how the young Sisir Kumar and his brother were trying to slip into a theatre, but was duly caught and brought to the manager - director - Amritlal Basu. Amritlal mildly reprimanded them and sent them away. But here the favourite retort is - "They had to come away. Heads hanging they were forced to return. But did Amritlal have any inkling that among those he turned away, one had not come to return from the theatre - he had come to stay forever."5 'Sajghar', continues in a poetic vein - "Depleted Bengali Theatre received fresh blessings from the God of Drama. A new age was unfolding, the flag of the new arose. The victory of the new was declared" - But it is impossible to ignore that it was mainly Sisar who is responsible for the evolution of the new age. Sisir is the pioneer, the path finder."6 The sentimentality of such style, is described by Utpal Dutt as more suitable for obituaries and lamentations following the death of a great personality.7 Ajit 163

6 Basu, in his book, which is somewhat a compilation of quotes, references from contemporary writings and nostalgic memoirs, starts with this sort of an "obituary" - where no assessment or estimate finds space - only a wailing disappointment - "Thirty years have passed since Sisir Kumar departed from this world. 1959,29th June at one o'clock in the night on the first floor of his B.T. Road house. A fatal heart attack left him breathing his last. A long time before, he had directed his son that let him not be carried to any theatre, in the hope of a few garlands & wraths. Let his last rites, in silence be performed at the Kashipur Ratanbabu Ghat where Thakur Ramkrishna & Girish Chandra's funeral pyre had burnt. "But his body was soon covered with flowers. His relatives, friends, coworkers, students, disciples and fans flocked to pay their last respects. Very soon there was a sea of men & people, no place to even stand". Ajit Basu then quotes from all those who paid respect to him tlaat day - naturally a speech laced with grief and hyperbolic in nostalgia; -"Sisir Kumar's contribution to the Bengali stage is unimaginable. Sisir Kumar is among the few who get the rare opportunity to become legends in their lifetime, "said Premendra Mitra, the literary personality. His friend Acharya Suniti Kumar Chattopadhyay paid his tribute by saying - "Bengal and the Country at large has suffered a great loss and this marks the end of the second generation of the great Bengali Theatre artist." Hemendra Kumar Ray, also a close friend, said - "Sisir Kumar's life's devotion to the theatre has been successful - he has revived the glo-y of the Bengali theatre and established it on an elevated level. But the dream of a national theatre to further the cause of the nation, which Sisir was trying to build up when he breathed his last - who of the next generation is going to come forward fo realize it?"8 Such generalized praises heaped on Sisir Kumar Bhaduri, howevertrue and deserving, set the attitude when it comes to analysing his characterization of various roles. But this is where his style should have been studied and the positives 164

7 L and negatives, -the techniques adeptly used by him could have been explained and set as an example to the following generation of theatre enthusiasts - but here the metaphors and similes used are startling in their poeticism and romanticism. Romanticism is acceptable but only upto a point - not where it replaces any in-depth study altogether. Sisir Kumar's most revolutionary and successful production - "Sita1 remains with us as only one of such romantic reminiscences - Achintya Kumar Seaigupta's book "Kallol-yug" is a case in point - He calls Sisir Kumar - "Shilpaditya". The author, Shankar Bhattacharya in quoting Achintya Kumar's views writes "The echoes of intense pain personified by Sisir Kumar Bhaduri as Ram, required poetic expression through the pens of such as Achintya Kumars", - the quotation which follows, runs thus -" Having left the tent at Eden Gardens, Sisir Kumar started performing Sita at Monomohan Theatre hall and entire Calcutta like the rites of spring ("Basanta"), broke out in ecstatic happiness in the flowering of the Ashoka and Palash trees. The pain which Valmiki felt at the arrow piercing the sensuous swans in loving embrace is aptly brought outthrough the expressive voice of Sisir Kumar Bhaduri. The whole of Calcutta flocked to Monomohan. Only by absorbing the histrionics were they satisfied. Not Ram, but it was Sisir Kumar they had wanted to see the human being garbed in the guise of God, whom they were eager to hail and if possible to touch his feet." In those days "Sita" was considered to be a national event, the play however meagre, the acting was what was important. To oring the grief of the gods within the experience of man, or to elevate human grief to heavenly sublimity, what tender, - solemn appearance, what musical waves flow through his voice. How many times I have seen "Sita", but yet so much remains unseen. It is like, John Keats who with fulfilled eyes, stares at the Grecian Urn says - "A thing of beauty is a joy forever." 165

8 "But is it only to purchase a two or three rupees ticket and applause. Can we not ever catch a glimpse of him? Can we not even once step into his make-up room, the inside of his own intimate stage?"9 Ajit Kumar Basu, tries to provide a vivid description of "Sita", but unfortunately based on the hyperboles of contemporary reviews, comments and opinions. How much of realistic imagery can be reconstructed from something which reads like this - "The last scene from 'Sita' - curtain rises - Ramchandra's court lightens up. Unprecedented and fantastic costumes and decorations, mind boggling characters in hypnotising poses, planting of banana trees, sound of the conch shells, smoke from incense - the scene of a holy celebration, in a perfect historical setup and a huge crowd choreographed on stage creates a precious and rare perfection which sends shivers of pleasure up the spines of an engrossed fascinated audience - with full heart they felt the wholeness of a new artistic acting". The last dialogue - "Sita!" "Sita", by his incomparable style of delivery and by his wonderful form of acting he manages to epitomise the moment of repentance which spurts out of a divine pain - eyes full of tears, with a burdened heart, the sublime acting fills the eyes of the audience with a complete tastefull and soothing satisfaction."10 The correspondences of Rabindranath Tagore, Abanindranath Tagore and Chittaranjan Das' as well as letters from most of his famous contemporaries, duly published in "Nachghar" were the primary source material. These letters are published in ditto serve as adequate proof and are self-explanatory. Some poetry by such as Achintya Kumar Sengupta, were composed and duly printed on the charishma of a Ram who had descended on the stage. Such poems are extremely helpful in establishing the myth of Sisir Kumar Bhaduri. Nearly all his characterisations followed this trend of critique making his talent more and more exclusive. A personality cult was replacing a rational and scientific study. But some of his roles earned him more far-fetched praise and adulations than others. Jeebananda in "Shoroshi" and adaptation of Sarat Chandra's classic, was of course one of his major achievements and the biographers and admirers 166

9 were now in an ardent search for epithets and adjectives which could not only match the previous hyperboles but exceed it in rhetorics. Shankar Bhattacharya once again picks on the abundant quotations as selfexplanatory. In fact he takes each of Sisir-babu's productions and provides a small synopsis with cast, but no credits. From there he continues only with such quotations; Sourindramohun described it "In Shoroshi, his Jeebananda, revels such superb acting - although I have not missed any theatre from the time of Girish Chandra -1 feel that I have never seen anything of this kind on the Bengali stage. His greatest enemies too admitted that he revealed talents of a master artist". Amrtlal Bose had said "He is a genius, Only Sisir can provide a wretched character like Jeebananda with dignity. It is enough to say that this is the age of Sisir Just like there was Girish's age or Ardhendu's age, this is Sisir's age. The "Sutradhar" (Prof. Charuchandra Bhattacharya wrote : "What he has given to the role of Jeebananda will remain unmatched in Bengali theatre. This Jeeoananda outsurpassed Sarat Chandra's Jeebananda."11 "Alamgir" too, a myth as far as Sisir Kumar Bhaduri was concerned, also receives the same treatment in Shankar Bhattacharya;s hand; - Achintya Kumar Sengupta writes; - "I have watched the ascendancy of 3 surprising phenomenon ; - one in the sky, one in life and the other on stage. Suddenly one day, after a night of heavy storm I woke up to see a sunrise - even today my heart lights up in happiness at the thought. The second, is when at the break of dawn, Rabindranath in his night attire comes and stands on the balcony - like a still statue - and third is Sisir Kumar Bhaduri as Alamgir".12 What kind of aesthetical study is this? Saurindramohun Mukhopadhyay writes; "How many times we have watched him playing Alamgir- everytime we liked it; it never felt insipid to bore our minds; - how alive and real was the acting. On the first night the poet Satyendranath Dutta and I went to see the acting. It fascinated us into a hypnotic state... We bowed our head in respect." Gaganendranath and Rabindranath was said to have commented that a man has 167

10 appeared who can pick up the remnants of the Bengali stage to make it come alive again. Birendra-Krishna Bhadra, another thatre lover writes - "the whole auditorium remains silent, as a novel and fabulous artistic fineness is slowly revealed through Sisirbaboo's acting." Sri Kumar Bandhopadhyay writes - "His Alamgir is an epitome of an Emperor with appropriate ruthlessness and shrewdness. But behind this iron-clad armours lies an emotionally throbbing, soft humane lonely heart seeking sympathy and begging for affection. The playwright Khirod Prasad hinted at it, but the great actor Sisir Kumar gave it a completeness & convincing imagery for all to apprehend - From the far realms of History, covered in lights & shadows, the mysterious character assumes realistic and convincing proportions. Premankur Atarthi was quoted to have said - "In the first scene itself Sisir stunned the audience to such an extent that the common people were moved and became totally engrossed. Scene after scene went on. All over the stage, there was only "Sisir" and "Sisir". Other actors and actresses were coming and going but people were expectantly awaiting Sisir's appearance. It came to our minds that an incomparable, powerful magician was weaving his spell around the entire auditorium. Each and everybody in the auditorium was stunned into silence by the spell."13 Such hyperboles go on & on - all his characterizations are great and never before has there been anything like it ; - "Such quotations are all over in his biographies. Shankar Bhattacharya while talking about Sisir Bhaduri as Ketanlal in "Shankhadhani" - a translation of the English play "Bells" describes him as having an immortal talent. Then they start comparing him with Irving, the British actor, whose fame started with this play. 14 As of 'Neemchand', ( one of the classical roles played by all coveted artists past and present) - "And how did Sisirbaboo fare in the role of Neemchand?" Charuchandra Bhattacharya is credited to have written - "In Sadabar Ekadesi, Neemchand is an incomparable creation. I have not seen Girish Chandra's Neemchand and therefore cannot compare." Buddhadev Basu is quoted as also having said an "incomparable creation."15 Which role can be omitted from his list of achievements. As "Rashbehari" in 168

11 "Bijoya", Srikumar Bandopadhyay is quoted to have described his portrayal as presenting a "refined inertia." As Digambar in "Ritimoto Natak", "Shilab" is quoted as describing the unique combination of laughter and tears a sequel to the acting of Chaplin in films. For "Jogajog", Rabindranath himself is quoted; - "Having been invited to see Nabanatyamandir's "Jogajog" I was worried. But I returned with happiness in my heart and wonderment,. It is rare to find such complete - in- itself -acting."16 Actually this was the popular literary style of drama appreciation, containing no elements of the aesthetical standards of art criticism. For the Actor Ahindra Chowdhury no adjectives are too little - "Among his unmatched acting style were some natural qualities." His height was good and manly acting suited nim. His features were prominent, jawline sharp and pronounced, his nose like.that of Sir Lawrence Olivier, eyes as sharp and bright as Garrick. His voice like tne roll of thunder. Sometimes like the angry cry of a wounded lion. Like the volcanic lava the voice erupted. At times it is like the clouds atop snow clad mountain echoing within the peaks. Sometimes it is like a war dance of a thunder storm. Whenever I hear his voice, I feel that this voice brings the eternity within reach - the infinite mysteries and wonderments of golden hues glitter and shine. This takes the presert into the past world where the tremendous attack and defence make life a force to reckon with, where because of the prolonged indulgence comes prolonged grief. Where an audacious daring attack by a thunderstorm, is left shattered and having pierced the skyline fall on the earth.17 Numerous such hyperboles are strewn over contemporary or even writings on theatre. These are the sources and unconditionally quoted. It was a cult that was being built and that is what it has remained a matter of pride and glory - unquestionably - but why or how - nobody knows or cares; - Buddhadev Basu's quote conveys the idea of building up of such a myth - "Was there anyone in the educated circles who was not euphoric about Sisir Bhaduri's acting? Was there any scholar, to whom Natyamandir was not on his regular 169

12 itinerary? Meanwhile, within a few short while, he was elevated onto a mythical status - like a fairy tale. Even then we saw him as a subject of stories, above all criticism, on the other side of realistic laws of nature."he has carved a niche for himself in our life, has become an institution, with whom it was compulsory for each and every intelligentsia to make a contact."18 Quite a departure from the past - the intelligentsia who never felt comfortable with Girish's shocking attitude to society, social reformism and women, or his unconventional personal lifestyle, or deliberate defiance of all social norms. Now changed their approach to the theatre. The established intellectual circle had not only kept away from the theatre on moralistic grounds, but wreaked their vengeance by attacking Girish's plays and dismissing them as of no significance. "The process of deliberate commercialism was the persistent trend in the Bengali Theatre from the mid - nineties of the last century till the emergence of Sisir Kumar Bhaduri in the twenties of this century. " The Bengali 'Bhadralok', steeped in exclusive feudal culture could not adhere to this democratization of the stage. Girish Chandra Ghosh's attempts, as we have seen, in amalgamating theatre and jatra was looked upon as rabble entertainment, which could not appeal to fheir finer aesthetic senses. As for Amarendranath Dutt's resort to musicals and spectaculars to attract larger sections of the community, the distribution of lucky gifts and sensational publicity, left them more scandalized. Aparesh Chandra Muldierjee, a contemporary actor, writing his memoirs in 1934 noted a revival of the' half akhrai' and ' tarja ' tradition.19 There were deliberate vulgarization of the attitudes sustaining the theatre. While the Star Theatre audience was expected to remain sober and quite in the theatre, the Classic Theatre audience could be more relaxed; indecent jokes shouted at the top of one's voice, whistlings and loud comments were permitted by Amarendranath, even encouraged by him. Samik Bandopadhyay in an essay - "Drama Movement in Calcutta, " comments on this trend - "There is reason to believe that Amarendranath's family background had attracted a considerable section of the influential Uppercaste Hindu community 170

13 of the city. But his concessions to vulgar taste for sensationalism cheap humour, sentimentalism, facile patriotism and showmanship had alienated trie more enlightened and educated sections of the community while the traditional Jatra retained its hold on the more conservative and rustic sections of the community, and the educated intelligentsia turned away from the theatre in sheer disgust, the commercial theatre catered to a mixed audience of the "rabbles", the fa^iionable baboos and those who came to the city on short visits".20 Sisir Kumar was to change all that - As once again Bandopadhyay points out ; - "Sisir Kumar's emergence led to a revival of enlightened interest in the theatre. In the early twenties he utilized the services of some of the finest creative minds of his time ; there were others who stood close to him, encouraging him contributing in the process to the build up of his image as the initiator of a new age, a revolutionary who made theatre palatable for those with good taste Younger writers were drawn towards him.21 He was a true intellectual belonging tc the core intellectual group - there grew up a natural affinity and fraternity between :hem. He belonged to the premier education institute of the time - Presidency College, Among his college and university class mates were, Dr. Suniti Kumar Chattooadhyay, Dr. Sisir Bandopadhyay, Dr. Sushil Kumar De, Principal Jyotindra Kishore Chowdhuri, Khitish Chandra Sen, NirmalSen, poetbasanta Kumar Chattooadhyay, Hemchandra Roychowdhury, J.P. Niyogi, Sushil Moitra, Someswar Mukhooadhyay, Sachindra Haidar, Ananda Aingha, Nihar Mitra, Prof. Sahid Surahwardy, Jyotindra Gangopadhyay, Kanti Mukhopadhyay, Sambika Mallickand actor Naresh Chandra Mitra -22 Samik Bandopadhay lists Achintya Kumar Sengupta and Bibhutibhusan Bandopadhyay as two younger writers who aspired and were incorporated within the precious circle.23 All the books elaborate on his higher education. Here they quote from Acharya Suniti Kumar - "Sisirkumar in his student days was amongst :he most brilliant. He may not have excelled in his examinations. But in his =avourite subjects,literature - English and Bengali he exhibited a great sense of knowledge 171

14 and judgement. A lot of great literary work, including Shakespeare were in his grasp. He had mastery in both English and Bengali and his manner of recitation was unique". Another quotation also from Suniti Kumar Chattopadhyay, -"He was, as far his studies were concerned not determined enough. He took things easy and that was why he was late for his M.A. by two years. He seemed to enter the examination hall in a light spirit. But it was his fine literary sense and excellent command of English that helped him through"24 All such comments are consciously quoted to present Sisir Kumar Bhaduri as "the romantic mixtures of the hero and the vagabond" the essence according to the critic William Hazlitt of a player's charisma25. Sisir Kumar as a professor of English is also a matter of prideforthem; -"Sajghar" talks about his unique style of teaching, he would come and recite in chaste style a poem from Tagore, and then ask his students to translate it".26 Sisir Kumar Bhaduri, during his academic career prepared notes on the prescribed text. One, named J.L. Banerjee brought out a pamphlet accusing Sisir Bhaduri of committing mistakes -"Mistake?, But Whose Mistake?" Instantly another pamphlet came out by which Sisir Kumar proved that the mistake was J.L. Banerjee's".27 While Girish's vocational training came from the people's poet, Manmohun Basu and was steeped in people's art and yatra, Sisir Bhaduri received it at the University Institute. The Institute was established in 1911 forthe Cultural expression of the University's post graduate students. Men of the stature of Bankimchandra Chattopadhyay, Sir Gurudas Banerjee, Ramesh Dutta, Suren Banerjee, Anandamohun Basu and Pratap Chandra Majumdar had all performed there. The poet Kalidas Ray, also a member of the Institute is quoted as "I feel that was the Augustan age of the Institute. All those who were members, did not remain insipid in their responsibility towards their country and society.28 His teacher here was the Professor Monmohon Basu. It is also significant that Sisir's maiden venture, at the Institute was Claudius and the father's ghost in 'Hamlet'. It was undoubtedly the cultural centre of the Calcutta elite. Sisir Bhaduri was an integral part of the Calcutta elite. He was close to both 172

15 the 'Kallol' group and the 'Bharati' group, once again noted by Shankar Bhattacharya 29. Achintya Kumar Sengupta describes how all the "Kallol" members were invited to see "Sesh - raksha" the very day Rabindranath Tagore came to see it. He calls it, therefore a memorable day. He often threw coveted glances at Tagore to see his reactions and undoubtedly that night's performance was a roaring success. Rabindranath invited both Sisir Kumar as well as the members of the 'Kallol jug' to his house that night to discuss in details. A discussion which may have been an interesting insight and criticism from the greatest mind of our times, but here Achintya Kumar Sengupta suffers a memory loss. He talks about Rabindranath'js charisma and how for a moment they felt at home with men of such statures as Tagore and Sisir Kumar Bhaduri.30 According to Premkumar Atarthi, - "He (Sisir) himself being a distunguished man had no problems of adjusting to the distinguished circle."31 Ajit Basu names the artists who helped Sisir Kumar in the backstage work. The names include men like Rakhal Das Bandopadhyay, Suniti Kumar Chattopadhyay, Jamini Roy, Nazrul Islam, Narendra Deb & Nalini Kanto Sarkar.32 Sajghar too mentions these illustrious names.33 In fact according to Sushil Mukhopadhyay such contacts and help gave Sisir Kumar Bhaduri an obvious advantage over Ahindra Chowdhury and other contemporaries - "Sisir Kumar's friends comprising artists, authors, scholars, and journalists through the likes of Hemendra Kumar Roy's "Nachghar", with their impact and publicity created such an image, that Ahindrababu could never dream of attaining".34 With the literary circle "Bharati", and its popular literary journal, his contact was closer. Shankar Bhattacharya, attributes the success of "Sita" to the fact that Sisir Kumar took on none of the professionals from the insular, contemporary stage. He took a great deal of pleasure from mixing and conversing with connoisseur artists. For this purpose everyday he would pay a visit to the Bharati's literary sessions and spend hours on end there. The famous sessions of Bharati were not 173

16 only adorned by very high class poets, novelists or writers but all classes of literary minded artists. All the backstage work were performed by men from there - the artist who painted the back scenes, the song writer, the composer, the dancing instructor. Moreover Monilal Gangopadhyay helped Sisir Kumar considerably in his directoral work. "Bharati" circle helped Sisir Kumar when 'Star' bought the rights to D.L. Roy's "Sita". Monilal Gangopadhyay, created the dance-drama "Vasanta-Lila" to buy time for Sisir Bhaduri who had hoped to inaugurate 'Natyamandir' with 'Sita'. The songs were sung by the blind singer Krishnachandra De. This was his maiden appearance on a stage. Monilal wrote six of the songs and Hemendra Kumar Roy another six, these were added to old songs and a few Rabindrasangeet. Nazrul Islam recited his poem - "Bidrohi".35 Such help from his artist friends in productonal work continued. This scene in "Sesh-Raksha" which was so much appreciated by the critics was an attempt to include singers in the auditorium with those on the stage. Five singers who were taught the song "Ogo, tomra, sabai Bhalo", by Dinendranath Tagore, used to sit scattered in the auditorium. In the last scene, at Godai s wedding, Sisir Kumar, as Chandrababu would descend into the auditorium and hand out copies of the song while treating them as guests of the wedding. The actors and actresses on stage went on with their roles while the five singers in the auditorium would start humming. Slowly the characters on stage would join in and the song would reach its crescendo when the final curtain fell.36 Writer and critic Moni Bagchi also expressed a similar viewpoint, "He was a born artiste, and the art of acting was natural to him - combined with education and devotion he could casually create a new age... His entente with the leading intellectuals of the time overnight revolutionized Girish's style of theatre. The eyes of the entire educated society were riveted towards the talents of one man. And Rabindranath, Abanindranath, Saratchandra, Rakhaldas and the like were his admirers. 37 This is what is a revolution - inception of a new age. Sushil 174

17 Mukhopadhyay in his article - "Sisir Kumar Bhaduri and Ahindranath Chowdhury (The person & the artiste) dates this new age from 1924, this trend was much more cultured, refined, Histrionically authentic, appealing, with artistically fineness and intelligence. In production application, previous to Sisir Kumar Bhaduri, there was no such aesthetically oriented, artistic, sophisticated or with an eye for detailed observations."38 The euphoria with Sisir Kumar Bhaduri is obviously because of the new standards of aesthetics which he set-to quote Sri Kumar Bandopadhyay, it was nothing less than a "Renaissance. The implication being that the previous period was some sort of a dark age - About the past he writes - "Between the actor and the audience the distance was not only physical, but mental and psychological as well. The sense of self importance of the main actor and actress created an alienated pride, which imprisoned all other actors and actress into a state of deprivation. The common actors and actresses exhibited such behaviour, attitude, insinuations within song and dance numbers a static lustful invitation that it was extremely painful for an aesthetic audience. Along with this the tasteless audience's jeers, ugly jokes and ill-mannered catcalls created a disgusting, atmosphere in the theatre. Hence the disgust and hatred towards the theatre by the sophisticated sections was not totally unfounded."39 Sisir Kumar Bhaduri in this respect was not only to his friends, but to the entire middle class the new messiah of the stage who freed it from the "riff-raff." Of course as we discussed in the previous Chapter, under Girish Ghosh the patronage of the masses was deliberately cultivated and as Aparesh Chandra Mukherjee pointed out theatre was transformed from " bureaucratic to democratic." But the exalted middle-class was only now finding its place in the theatre. "He (Sisir Kumar) infused the entire theatre movement with an inspiration and discipline that cleared the polluted atmosphere completely and made it aesthetically artistic" 40 Shankar Bhattacharya echoes such opinion verbatim - "In pre-sisir age, the educated sections had no connection with the 175

18 theatre. The artistic and moral standards were so low that the connoisseur and educated sections could only harbour disrespect"41 The quotation from "Sanibarer Chithi", seems extremely relevant to Shankar Bhattacharya. "Just like "there could be only one Girish Chandra Ghosh, born onto the Bengali Theatre scene - there could be no second to Sisir Kumar either Sisir Kumar, alone was an institution. The greatest contribution of the institution was to provide theatrical career with a social prestige." The hookah is still the same but both the cover and the pipes are replaced. Just as on stage, there is a change in acting style and nature, in the auditorium too there is a shift in the composition of the audience. The throwing of the "Bel garlands on stage, the"keybat", "Excellent", "Walked over the heart", "Kill him Mary", "Give the boy a suckle" - etc. crude behaviour had disappeared. Only at the instigation of Sisir Kumar, there has been an evolutions the character of the audience. The attraction for a professor, actor educated in Shakespeare -Marlowe - Johnson - Congrieve and Goldsmith were so great that the atmosphere changed and men in the auditorium changed overnight,42 Ajit Kumar Basu talks of the romantic aura because of Sisir Bhaduri's academic past. - "It was no longer shameful to visit the theatre." Here according to Basu, Sisir is comparable to none other than Sri Ramkrishna, whose contribution to social acceptability of the actor is universally acknowledged.43 Sisir Kumar's image remained that of an academician. Strangely enough, although he never wrote much about the theatre, except for the advocacy of an arena stage - like the jatra and some other stray incidents -and an article on Shakespeare. An essay with literary discourses and said to be an educational inspiration to his friends.44 Why only Shakespeare? As Soumitra Chattopadhyay in his reminiscences talk about how on his house calls on Sisirbaboo, he would find the super-annuated man perusing maybe an Oxford Companion, or trying to find 176

19 when some English actor might have come to Calcutta. From Aeschylus to Shaw - to Rabindranath he would talk for hours. He was the one who acquainted Chattopadhyay with Brecht before Calcutta had ever heard of him45 Sisir Kumar Bhaduri was the ideal to the middle-class-theatre goers, a fashion -as a result of which theatre itself became conformist and all criticism died out. Shankar Bhattacharya once again quotes Srikumar Bandopadhyay as "At first some snobbish critics wrote against him, but faced with a towering talent all criticisms petered out 46. To the Bengali middle class he was the reincarnation of the Renaissance heroes whose worship is still a cult with the Bengali middle class. Despite theories substantiating that there was no "Bengal Renaissance" and within such a colonial framework "there could be no Renaissance", the middle class continues to find their inspiration and pride in it. Even the inevitable downfall of the Renaissance heroes appeal to the sense of tragic sublimity, almost like that of Greek tragedies and the fall of its heroes. Shankar Bhattacharya, like others, intentionally build up this allegory and explains it with a quotation from Nripendra Krishna Chattopadhyay - "Only once a storm ran over Bengal, a storm wreaking havoc ran over the nation. An unique historical phenomenon, like nothing experienced before. The storm came with the English, across the seven-seas. The storm blew in the Rail engines, telegraph wires, a Bentham, a Mill. And came, Scotch Whisky and English literature shedding its hold, the horse in madness in full splendour galloped away on the middle of the road. Inherent in its fantastic speed lay seeds of maddening addiction. The addiction struck a young Bengali lad. He jumped on the running horse, holding on to its mane to stay astride. A struggle goes on between the storm and the rider of the storm. 177

20 The rider is thrown off. The storm rages on. For a hundred years it continues to ravage. Whoever has tried to ride, has been thrown to the ground. But each and every courageous rider, with his untimely death have been able to conquer the storm. Having thrown off this last rider, the storm slowly abates. There are no signs of the storm any more. The first rider in the storm - Michael The last rider - Sisirkumar." The circle which starts with Michael is completed with Sisir Kumar. An age is completed"47 The latter-part of Sisir Bhaduri's life, is described by most of his contemporaries, in the light of the image of a tragic Renaissance hero. To Dhananjoy Bairagi, actor and playwright, he is said to have confessed ; - "The twilight of life has descended. This is probably my last year. Sir Henry Irving died at this age, Girish too, now it is my turn... Do you know why my theatre could not survive? I only wanted to present good plays. Have you seen "Parichay"? Have you seen "Dukhir Iman"? I wanted to saywhat I believed in through them but people did not take to it. But I never wanted to create plays only for money"48 It is the same lamentation which originated with the box office failure of 'Tapati', a Tagore play. Author and critic Sourindramohun Mukhopadhyay - "Sisirkumar was intent on producing Tapati, although many raised objections -that those audience on whose box office money the theatres run will not be able to comprehend Tapati - the highvalued rows will be crowded but they are the well wishers & friends - who will not buy ticket to see theatre - they will praise it to the skies. But from a commercial view point it will be a loss - particularly we need cheap sentimentality to compete, with Star's "Mantra-Shakti". Sisir Kumar replied, "I am in business but I am not going to produce Tapati as a business prospect. I will not do plays to intoxicate the galleries, if it means losses, it is fine. Even his financial backers protested but Sisir Kumar 178

21 was adamant".49 Tapati was a box-office disaster. The middle-class who had been bewildered in wonderment had fallen behind and could not match the required aesthetic demand? His higher education and academic rediscoveries left his audience far behind. In this connection we may remember Girish Chandra Ghosh and his desperate attempts to build side by side with theatre, cultivation and elevation of the aesthetic sense of the audience. Sisir Kumar Bhaduri now stood alienated and alone - frustrated and depressed; a man who could no longer identify his creations and creative demands with middle-class demands. His disillusionment and cynicism so apparent in his later years, very aptly portrayed by Soumitra Chattopadhyay in his reminiscence as comparable to "Neemchand"50, the great hero of "Sadhabar Ekadesi", a role played to the hilt by Sisir Kumar Bhaduri. A character described by Sumit Sarkar as the epitome of all that is tragic and cynical, due to the inherent paradoxes of the Bengal Renaissance. He was the proto-type of the man who would hail the lantern of an office of law and cry -" Hail thou, Holy Light."51 This middle class orientation to the theatre was accompanied also by a change in patronage. When Sisir came on to the theatre scene, there was already a shift in theatre ownership and investors. The Parsee gentleman J.F.Madan, a multi-millionaire, with the most successful film Company to his credit also launched out to invest money in the theatre. As his biographer points out he was determined to transform theatre into a glamorous profitable business proposition. He used a great deal of stage stunts and gimmicks to attract the common people to the theatre and at the same time was intent on purchasing all the Calcutta theatres to establish a monopoly business. Naturally the contract, or the entente between such a hard-core business group / and an idealist like Sisir Kumar Bhaduri could not last.52 Later however Madan's son-in-law, helped Sisir Bhaduri to establish his repertoire at the Cornwallis Thatre. Henceforth Sisir Kumar's theatre was more or less seen on individual patronage - men of literature, enlightened zamindars, 179

22 professionals and a part of the inner coterie of friends ; Shankar Bhattacharya writes, "Those who came forward to help with money were the Raja of Natore, Maharaja Jagadindranath Ray and his son-in-law Jatin Lahiri, the zamindar of Nimtita Mahendra Chowdhury, Nirmal Chandra Chandra, Tulsicharan Goswami, the principal of Vidyasagar College, Jatnndrakumar Chowdhuri and Sisir Kumar's very good friend ; Sudhsanghshu Mukhopadhyay 53. Incidentally, this was the composition of financial investmentfor Sita. During his other productions too, such patronage would come forth. A Nachghar issue announces how the Natya Mandir Limited was constituted 1925 : 23 XII registered. Name - Natya-mandir. Value - 5,000,00. Every 100 Rs. X 500 = each share value being Rs. 50/-. Directors included Tulsichandra Goswami, Bar at law, M.L., Nirmal Chandra M.A. B.L. M.L.C., Sisir Kumar Bhaduri M.A., Managing Agents were Messrs. Bhaduri and Company. Auditor: M. Mukherjee and Co. (Government certified auditor). The Bank was announced as the Co-operative Hindustan Bank Ltd. and Solicitors G.C. Chandra and Co. office at 68 B Beadon Street. These were issues being floated for the general public. Here a very interesting comparison can be made with 'Star', which was transformed into "Art Theatre Ltd.", and under the control of a few very rich men. Aparesh Chandra sold the rights of Star and all the properties to them at 50,000 Rs (25,000 - black and 25,000 white). He was retained as director, playwright and manager Probodhchandra Guha, a high officer of Post & Telegraph Division became the Secretary. The directors board included the famous publisher Haridas Chattopadhyay, Nirmal Chandra, Attorney Satishchandra Sen, Kumar Krishna Mitra and the manager of the Bengali National bank - Bhupendra Bandopadhyay.54 Sisir Kumar's affinity with Rabindranath Tagore and his close family circle was enough to make him an object of worship as far as the Bengali middle class was concerned. T agore, the pride of the Bengalis had forced the world to acknowledge his colossal talents. Sisir's biographers and admirers were to use this contact to 180

23 the hilt. Every counter with Tagore is depicted in vivid details and all of them without exception showing Sisir Bhaduri in a favourable light. Sisir, according to Sri Kumar Bandopadhyay was an ardent admirer of Rabindranath and in a chat-circle "Majlish" - formed by Sisir and his friends at the hostel, Sisir would recite Tagore. Tagore which at the time was not a part of the school curriculum. But Sisir Bhaduri was sceptical about those who did feature in the curriculum i.e. Hemenchandra, Nabin Chandra. He was a devoted supporter of the versatility of Tagore." He would force others to acknowledge his greatness, by reciting pieces from Tagore. An admirer Birendranath Pal Chowdhuri asserts that only a man of Sisir's academic calibre has the right to recite the speeches of "Visarjan" and "Tapati". Ashoke Sen, believing this statement comments that such talents are rare and happens only once in the history of mankind; - "Today those who perform Tagore cannot make it discernible whether the play is Rabindranath himself or a ghost of Karl Marx's." To him Sisir achieved on stage what Rabindranath did for literature.55 Rabindranath's first exposure to Sisir's histrionic talents was on January 28,1912, when the members of the University Institute were celebrating 50 yrs. of Tagore's birth anniversary by performing "Baikunthar Khata" Ajit Basu quotes Amal Home's letter in which Tagore had written "Tell your Institute friends that I liked their acting very much. Such fine acting in "Baikunthar Khata" was impossible by anyone except Gagan, Aban and others. "Kedar" is a matter of jealousy for me. Once I had a lot of fame in that role."56 Rabindranath Tagore's visit to Monmohun Natyamandir and appreciation of Sita is the starting point, for nearly all the books in their exaltation of Sisir Bhaduri. It was the fifth night of "Sita" ; 1st Bhadra 1331 (Bengali Year), (17 VII 1924) was a historical night. "After a long time Rabindranath came to see a play and five hours he sat engrossed. At the end of the play he praised Sisir Bhaduri for an original style of delivery.57 About acting Rabindranath, Sisir Kumar once said to Parimal Goswami - "All the 181

24 plays of Rabindranath, I have acted in, I enjoyed pronouncing every word of it. It is a pleasure to all the senses. I have acted better in his plays than he himself." An intellectual's satisfaction at an intellectual exercise. Subsequently Rabindranath called him "Nataraj" - the king of players, while referring to his friends about a request Sisir had made to compose songs for a solemn and tragic play.58 Later he also wrote a letter calling Sisir "Natyadhinayak", "Hero of theatre." About acting Rabindranath, Sisir Kumar once said to Parimal Goswami - "All the plays of Rabindranath, I have acted in, I enjoyed pronouncing every word of it. It is a pleasure to all the senses. I have acted better in his plays than he himself. An intellectual's satisfaction at an intellectual exercise.59 Rabindranath's letter to Monilal, saying that he did like the production Sita, although some people were spreading rumours to the contrary. It has been reproduced in all the books, Shankar Bhattacharya, Ajit Basu, Indra Mitra, in Sunil Dutta's compilation, in the introduction by Debanarayan Gupta for the collection of essays written by Sisir Kumar Bhaduri. What more did his admirers want? Shankar Bhattacharya quotes Amal Home "Rabindranath once told me that the acceptance of Sisir as an actor and producer by the public of Bengal was much quicker than it was in his case as a poet and man of letters."60 The first Rabindranath Tagore & Sisir Kumar Bhaduri combination came in "Viswarjan" - "Rabindranth, Gagendranath, Abanindranath were enraptured by the strength of the cast. Sisir Kumar's determination to introduce Tagore to the theatre public continued with his Tagore productions which included; -Sesh Raksha, and Tapati.61 Rabindranath Tagore died a few months before the establishment of "Sreerangam." Sisir Kumar in honour of Rabindranath wrote an article "Stage and Rabindranath" in an annual Anandabazar number. Once again all books on Sisir Kumar Bhaduri and collection of his own articles pounce on it as one of the rare insights from the pen of the maestro himself - there he laments the absence of 182

25 good playwrights - "there is no dearth of powerful actors in Bengali, but talented, playwrights with finesse are absent. Those who discuss world dramatic history will notice that from Sophocles, Shakespeare to contemporary Noel Coward all playwrights have an indepth and insider's knowledge of the theatre. Several amongst them are actors, some directors, others business tycoons. In Bengal, except for Girish Chandra and Amritalal nobody has the insider's experience, hence to stage their plays careful editing and scrutiny are imperative, otherwise they vitiate the aesthetical senses." Such a long introduction is necessary to explain that for the sake of the Bengal's National Theatre, a playwright like Rabindranath was an urgent neccesity. Rabindranath was at once a poet, actor and director. From his early youth, although not as a professional, he appeared before his enraptured audience as both actor and director. In fact even in his old age his startling innovations were a pleasure to watch. Among our playwrights he was the first to perceive that the audience seated in their auditorium like a judge and the actor on the convicts - stand - like an accused victim could not complement each other. The gap which exists between the audience and the actor, those that Greek tragedies or Shakespeare's theatre tried to eliminate - the gap which two of the greatest contemporary regisseurs are trying to bridge (Meyerhold & Reinhardt was at one time experimented by Tagore. It is our country's misfortune, our theatre's misfortune that the Public Stage did not build up a contact with Rabindranath. I myself tried to motivate him toward this goal, but had to face obstacles from various quarters. The superb talent who transformed every nook and corner of Bengali literature into a glory by its own brightness and made a niche for it among great world literature, only devoted a minor part of his strength and resources to drama. Just like Shakespeare, Ibsen or Hauptman devoted their entire life to the growth of their national theatre - if Rabindranath was allowed to do the same, today Bengali theatre could have established itself. 183

26 Without the stage, there can be no drama, dreams cannot be written. According to our Hindu Poetics theatre is a scenic poetry. Hence a great playwright is he who maintains co-operation with his actors "No playwright has come close with the actor more than Shakespeare." Shakeaspeare's insight while writing plays Tagore possessed. His"Chira-KumarSabha", "Sesh-raksha", "Tapati" all those who have seen the performances or have performed need no further explanation. Establishing close contact with Rabindranath would have won us a fabulous drama repertoire, national characteristics of drama and a healthy relationship between the stage and audience."62 Here Sisir's article is nothing more than the usual sentimental style of obituaries. But from Sisir Bhaduri himself we wanted no hyperboles on Tagore-we do not want to know how much Sisir Kumar Bhaduri admired the greatest literary talent of the century. We wanted a detailed analysis of the contradictions of presenting Rabindranath on the stage. It is undeniable that the audience could feel the character and the actor. Then why was most of Tagore's tragedies not accepted by the audience? What were the problems inherent in performing the tragedy of Bisarjan? We wanted from Sisir Kumar Bhaduri, a study in aesthetics, as far as Rabindranath and the stage was concerned; with reference to their fitness for stage representation. It is a case study of Victorian Dramatic Criticism - a style already established internationally in the 1920s & 1930s as the best style of dramatic criticism. Can we not expect such a style from the great academic who dedicated his life to the cause of theatre? Girish Chandra Ghosh's style of journalism was somewhat closer to this style in the sense that it not only criticized, but activated the critical faculty of the readers and indicate problems such as - all that an actor can portray, is only at a superficial level. Charles Lamb, admits that" it is true that there is no other mode of conveying a vast quantity of thought and to a great portion of the audience, who otherwise would never learn it for themselves by reading, and the 184

27 intellectual acquisition gained this way may, for ought I know, be inestimable but I am not arguing that Hamlet should not be acted but how much "Hamlet" is made another thing by being acted."63 Charles Lamb's description of Garrick being hailed as a great Hamlet, in many ways can be a critique of the euphoria to any great acting; i.e. Sisir Kumar Bhaduri. "Those who tell meofhim, speak of his eye, of the magic of his eye, and of his commanding voice - physical properties vastly desirable in an actor and without which he can never insinuate meaning into an auditory. But what have they to do with Hamlet? What have they to do with intellect? In fact the things aimed at in theatrical representation are to arrest the spectator's eye upon the form and gesture, and so to gain a more favorable hearing to what is spoken. It is not what the character is but how he looks, not what he says, but how he speaks it"64 But cannot one say the same of characterization in Tagore's plays? "I see no reason to think that if the play of Hamlet were written over again by some such writer as Banks or Lillo, retaining the process of the story, but totally omitting all the poetry of it, all the divine features of Shakespeare, his stupendous intellect, and only taking care to give us enough of passionate dialogue, which Banks or Lillo was never at a loss to furnish -1 see not how the effect could be much different upon an audience, nor how the actor has it in his power to represent Shakespeare to us, differently from his representations of Banks or Lillo."65 Can such comparisons instigate us to expect similar doubts and answers from the first professional regisseur who performed Tagore, but also Jogesh Chowdhury, with same if not more commercial success. Such research for an Indian counterpart to Lamb's vital line of criticism is not the motivation of reference, but to exhibit an extremely scientific line of aesthetic thinking, which maybe the laymen could not do, but Sisir Kumar Bhaduri, could have initiated. Lamb gives an insight into the actual complexities of certain famous Shakspearean characters which provides an educational criterion for the reader 185

28 to judge an actor's calibre and power of herementics. He shows the impossibility of Hamlet on stage being able to treat the intrusions of Polonius with harshness and that aspersity which he puts on in his interview with Ophelia -" I have never seen a player in this character who did not exaggerate and strain to the utmost these ambiguous features - these temporary deformities in the character... which utterly degrades his gentility and which no explanation can render palatable; they make him show contempt up the nose at Ophelia's father - contempt in its very grossest and most hateful form ; but they get applause by it. So to Ophelia. All the Hamlets that I have ever seen, rant and rave at her as if she had committed some great crime, because the words of the part are satirical, and they are enforced by the strangest expression of satirical indignation of which the face and voice are capable... The truth is, that in all such deep satisfactions as had subsisted between Hamlet and Ophelia.there is a stock of supererogatory love, which in any great grief of heart, especially where that which preys upon the mind cannot be communicated, confers a kind of indulgence upon the grieved party to express itself, even to its heart's dearest object, in the language of a temporary alienation ; but is not alienation, it is a distraction purely, and so it always makes itself to be felt by that object; it is not anger, but grief assuming the appearance of anger - love awkardly counterfeiting hate, as sweet countenances. When they try to frown."66 Richard III is always potrayed as the wicked man, and kills little children in their beds with something like the pleasure which the giants and ogres in a children's books are represented to have taken in that practice ; moreover, that he is very close and shrewd and devilish cunning, for you could see that by his eye. But it is in fact this the impression we have in reading Richard of Shakespeare? Do we feel anything like disgust, as we do at that butcher - like representation of him that passes for him on the stage. 67 Fear is essentially impossible to be represented on a stage. But how many dramatic personages are in Shakespeare which, through more tractable and feasible than fear, yet from 186

29 some circumstance, some adjunct to their character, are improper to be shown to our bodily eye. The contemptible machinery by which they mimic the storm which he goes out in, is, not more inadequate to represent the horrors of the real elements than any actor can be to represent fear; they might more easily propose to personate the Satan of Milton or Michelangelo's terrible figures68 Theatres of the characters are so much objects of meditation rather than of interest of curiosity as to their action that while we are reading any of his great criminal characters - Macbeth, Richard, lago - we think not so much of the crimes they commit, as of the ambition, the aspiring spirit, the intellectual activity which prompts them to overlap these moral fences. "Tempest is another controversial play to be staged - it is one thing to read of an enchanter and to believe the wonderous tale while we are reading it but to have a conjurer brought before us in his conjuring gown, with his spirits about him, which none but himself and some hundreds of favoured spectators before the curtain are supposed to see, involves such a quantity of the hateful incredible that all over reverence for the author cannot hinder us from perceiving such gross attempts upon thew senses to be in the highest degree childish and inefficient. Spirits and fairies cannot be represented, they cannot even be painted ; they can only be believed"69 Charles Lamb provided a lot of point to answer the analytical questions he himself raises. Questions which start with how can both Mrs. Siddon's Lady Macbeth and much less inferior characterization be describe as great? How can Garrick in Shakespeare and in other inferior plays be extolled to the same heights by critics? Go on to vital discussions which is a lesson in any critic of Shakespeare.70 But Sisir Kumar Bhaduri, despite extolling Tagore as a great playwright does not help in analyzing the problems of in-depth analysis or educating his audience to a level, which would teach them to judge and appreciate Tagore; how their critical faculties should be attuned to Tagore's plays which are so much superior to that of Jogesh Chowdhury's. 187

30 Sisir Bhaduri's first priority was obviously not the contents of the plays and their psychological, mental, social or even political relevance was not that important. Most of his innovative works centre around experimentation with forms, but forms relating to various aspects of the proscenium stage. Here it is interesting that Sisir Bhaduri's articles, however few in number advocate the break-down of proscenium black box and resort to the jatra stage which he calls indigenous and more suitable for our national theatre. In his article - "Natyashala Prasange" he writes, "For many centuries our country had theatre but not a theatre auditorium." The proscenium was a recent English import. He talks about their management and constitution, but it is it's popularity as a form that is interesting to him. "Even today the maximum amount of the country's population see the yatra. Theatre is an expensive indulgence." But for centuries it has remained unchanged and contentwise it was. never 'secular' except for the rare political consciousness of Mukandadas. The 'theatre' he sarcastically comments is like a club for socialising among the English educated section.71 Sisir Bhaduri's discussion on the principal difference between theatre and yatra does show an insight of a true intellectual. Here his thoughts are almost in the same vein as Gordain Craig and Piscator. Sisir in another article titled "Natyar Roop" (Beauty of Drama) reveals his awareness about such new trends in the theatre. But our people who cannot afford to go to the theatre to see the glitter and startling stage effects flock to the yatra. In actuality says Sisir that the special effects is detrimental to the theatre - it spoils the focus of drama that is acting, it diverts the audience's attention. In the West too, this movement was designed to eradicate the concepts of bourgeois realistic sets, and all pretensions of bourgeois realism. Sisir asserts that "when the West is trying to eliminate the picture frame stage, why cannot we utilise our indigenous form and reform it in the light of contemporary relevance."72 In a proscenium stage although the audience is in the 188

31 front and those on stage are to impress the audience, but during the play there is no audience and that is what we convince the mental psyche. To establish this, sets and background with lights are set up to create two separate zones. But in the yatra, when you are the king you must take the "audience into your confidence." This is only possible in the yatra because their position amidst the audience, they are not alienated from it. Such forms have similarity to that of Commedia Della Arte."73 However to Sisir, only the form is important, not its content though in an article "Natyer Roop" he make a passing mention of how jatra has made mythology an integral part of the common's people's psyche.however Sisir Kumar's admirers do not accept his preoccupation with form at the expense of content. They attribute a great deal of credit to him for Jogesh Choudhury's "Sita". According to them, it was his dictate that prompted Jogesh Choudhuri to portray Ram, not as a divine powered god, but a man of blood and tears and happiness. The conflict between the duties of a king, society and of a husband and father leaves him a shattered man with psychological contradictions. Pashupati Chattopadyay denies Tagore's accusation that Jogesh Chowdhury's"Sita" is "no play at all", and asserts that this portrayal of the mythological Ram as a commoner with common problems is a courageous act and unprecedented in Bengali drama repertoire. The controversy with D.L. Ray's "Sita" was a boon in disguise as a play like Jogesh Chowdhury's could be created. According to him choice of the play, its interpretation, presentation and editing determines the director's inclination to the content and in Sisir it took on such revolutionary proportions that he is "no less than an original playwright"74 His editing of "Jana" for example left the play without the clown - one of the greatest clowns of Bengali drama. The "servant" points out another change in the play; - In the final stage, for instance, Jana commits suicide in Mr. Bhaduri's play, whereas in the original, the Goddess Ganga appears from under the water and takes "Jana" into her bosom. Shankar Bhattacharya concludes 189

32 with Rakhaldas Bandopadhyay's assertion that "We are perfectly sure that had Girish Ghosh lived to the present day & tried to reproduce1 Jana' he would have felt the necessity of re-casting it."75. However to "Sisir" only the form is important, not its contents. Although in an article "Natyer Roop" he makes a passing comment of how jatra had made mythology an integral part of the common people's psyche. While Girish, contentwise was determined to discard the petty bourgeois realistic reflection of life and revert overwhelming intensity of passion and a veritable turmoil of events on the stage, Sisir Kumar was intent on maintaining the sophisticated fineness of plays, which would not create wonder and awe, but a sense of aesthetic satisfaction. He is quite sure that English education has changed the taste of the audience who are contemptuous of a folk form like jatra, "the rich and educated started despising jatra and panchali and jatra survived as an entertainment for the underlings. While Girish tried to eradicate all that was vulgar and crude in jatra and bring about an amalgamation of yatra and theatre, both in form and content, Sisir Kumar Bhaduri, despite his theoretical convictions confined himself to creating sophisticated theatre for the intellectually sophisticated. The last scene of 'Seshraksha' was Sisir Bhaduri's practically only attempt to bridge the gap between the stage and audience and here "Sajghar" compares him with "Fuchs, Lettman, Copeau, Meirhold and Reinhardt". They call it a true "Theatrical intimacy" or "unity of action comparable only to such greats". Sisir, is hailed as age-initiator because of his production innovativeness. Many assert that before him there was no stage-craft as such. Pashupati Chattopadhyay, in an essay - ("Sisir Kumar and Artistic stage applications") Sisirkumar O Natya prayagkala" attributes the coinage of the term "innovative - perfection" as far as Sisir Kumar Bhaduri is concerned to Rabindranath. For the first time the word "producer" is used in the proper sense of the term. But it is a little difficult to strain out his particular brand of productional excellence from the general trend of superlatives of his admirers. In most of the 190

33 books the authors are eager describing their own reactions at the spectacle, rather than describing the stage-craft. However, what can be salvaged from the host of quotations and reactions do give some conceptual ideas. The opening scene of "Sita" is a good illustration in the sense that this was the first time a play started on such a note. The curtain opens to reveal subdued light on stage. A small ray of dark-green light is scattered all over the scene. A singing damsel stands on stage, from the South a pin-point beam falls on her. The enraptured audience hears the lines of Rabindranath's song. "Katha Kou, Hey Anadi Ateet, Ananta Rate" - "Speak out, Oh Infinite Past, in this Eternal Night." Most of the literature, books, press, journals ecstatically describe this scene. But the last scene, also a favourite, is not described in such vivid terms and has no value as a record. The curtain rises ; the court is lighted up. "Unprecedented stage design, which enraptured the heart" but what were the specifics, probably they thought required no description. The curtain falls on Sisir Bhaduri calling out "Sita-Sita", is explained on various viewers reactions.77 Sambhu Mitra's comment on Sisir Kumar Bhaduri's superb editing eg. 'Alamgir' is also used by his admirers to prove that his credit was equal to that of the playwright. Sambhu Mitra wrote "When I read the play for the first time, I was enraptured at how Bhadurimoshai made it fit for the first stage. I believe even to this day, anyone who saw its editing would be captivated. How to edit and arrange a play - this was my first lesson in it.76 'Sajghar' gives a better description of the last courtroom scene which is designed on various levels with important personalities on the higher levels and common people in lower. Some stand, some sit, some move, some in words, some only in attitude but in the crowd control there is utmost precision 78 But 'Sajghar' cannot resist to follow this up with two poems by Mohitlal Majumdar and Achintya Kumar Sengupta making the study, a euphoric nostalgia 191

34 again.79 Shankar Bhattacharya himself describes Sita's stage craft a scattering of prominent names. The salient points which can be selected from it include the introduction of the divided 3 dimensional set, which replaced the two dimensional painted scenes. Exits and entrances choreographed according to new concepts. According to Pashupati Chattopadhyay, wings were abolished altogether 80. For the first time,western music was used. The veteran Nripen was replaced as the dance director and a new form of dance was evolved by using various poses from ancient Indian sculptures. According to Shankar Bhattacharya, Uday Shankar would adopt this very style. 81 Hemendra Kumar Roy incidentally also the founder editor of the leading theatre journal of the time, in his article - Sisir Kumar, the sleuth of the new age "NavajugerUdbodhak" Sisir Kumar points out certain other salient points. Points which he has already expounded in his book - "Bangla Rangalay and Sisir Kumar". His points include: 1) A team acting in one specific ideal style ; 2) Eliminating the use of footlights, natural lights come from above or from sides. Hence the lighting of "Sita" was so much more natural; 3) Eradicating the concert which in most cases did not supplement the play but hindered it. He started using background situational music; 4) Abolishing painted scenes, operated as curtains - use of three dimensional sets. Houses not only had length and breadth, but a depth too. Men could pass through the doors. According to Pashupati Chattopadhyay, this is the brainchild of Gordon Craig in the International scene. The scenes (however much was used) were designed according to the style of painting byabarindranath Tagore proportionate to the actors/actresses; 5) Revolution in music and dance; 6) Use of historically authentic sculptures and costumes; 192

35 7) A new style of delivery and voice modulation where bringing out the meaning of the lines were more important; 8) While characters are on stage, they hold their characters, and reacting without detracting from the main dialogue line; This was the first instance of a complete production 82 According to Pashupati Chattopadhyay, this is the brainchild of Gordon Craig in the International scene. The scenes (however much was used) were designed according to the styles of painting by Abanindranath Tagore.83 Pashupati Chattopadhyay adds another point, that is revelation of the open sky. In the very first scene of "Sita" the audience perceived the sky behind the balcony. The effect was created in the half moon shaped cyclorama which covered all the nooks and corners not covered by structures 84 Sisir Kumar Bhaduri's contribution as a trainer of a team of actors and actresses is acknowledged and upheld by all his numerous admirers. Pashupati Chattopadhyay quotes Charusila, who came to the Monomohun to dance, but later acknowledged that till she received her training from Sisir Kumar, she was ignorant. Chattopadhyay insists that in "regulating" crowd scenes and collective acting Sisir Kumar was first of his kind". 85 But once again awe and wonderment prevents any detailed picturisation "In the mythological "S.ita", social - "Shoroshi" and historical "Digvijoy", Sisir Kumar's implementation was expressed at its height what sceneries, what costumes, what acting - from all aspects we saw a complete aesthetic creation on stage.86 The Shanti-Kunja of "Sohoroshi", the temple and its surroundings, the acting of Jeevanando, Shoroshi, Janardan Ray, Shiromoni, Ekkori Nandi etc. add up to recreate the rustic atmosphere amongst which two thirsty hearts yell out for help." 87 Digvijay's stage design is described better. The enormous depth of the Cornwallis stage was added a greater dimension by opening the huge back door and taking the space till the end of the wall within the acting zone. A huge tent on a framework 193

36 on the size of the stage created an effect of grandeur. The back door was the entrance to the royal tent and there the guards were on their beats. Similarly the space behind the wall was used as the road-wall of Delhi and Nadir Shah in the forefront of the stage - symbolized as Jumma Masjid was planning and ordering the destruction of the capital. But while he describes the painful cry for the help of the people of Delhi & the Aravalli scenes, in nostalgia he does not give descriptions. "In only six backgrounds in three hours, the entire history is pictorially depicted. 88 An actor in his repertoire, Kanu Bandopahyay narrates an incident where in the play" Nara Narayan" Sisir Kumar depicts the battle field of Kurukshetra with two broken chariot wheels and a few broken branches." 89 Dr. Ajit Kumar Ghosh in his essay "Shatabarshey Mancha - Parikrama" (A review of the stage in its century) also calls Sisir Babu the master producer but otherthan elaborating on team acting which he regards as Sisir Bhaduri's strength and a comparison between Sisir Bhaduri's and Ahindra Chowthury's acting he does not give anything extra. Sisir Kumar Bhaduri interestingly would analyse the plays and characterisation for all of his co-actors. Moreover he would encourage co-operational acting. Chittaranjan Das, Sarat Chandra Chattopadhya all commented on this elevation of team acting style as a novel acting. His co-actors and actresses in their recollections all commented on the care he took to explain every line, every nuance, every detail to them. Often he would spend entire rehearsals perfecting the acting of one minor character. He would explain the ways a role can be interpreted. Although he would act out each of the roles himself, he would insist - "Don't do what I do. Do what I say." 90 Such rehearsals would go on for about 20 days before they would try out stage rehearsals. Kanu Bandopadhyay also talks of how he would take personal interest in scrutinising everybody's makeup. He talks of how Sisir Kumar would encourage a natural style of acting. Deb Narayan Gupta in another essay, in the same collection, talks of Alamgir, which 194

37 was the play, despite the time period consciously eradicated all rymthmic speech.91 Deb Narayna Gupta in his essay "Proyog Acharya Sisir Kumar" (Production Applications of Sisir Kumar) uses all these illustration to sum up how he was the initiator - he compares pre-sisir phase with post-sisir phase. His discussion centered on six main issues: a) Dance and songs were not to build up the play, but to entertain the audience, b) 3 dimensional scenes, and painted scenes, c) What types of plays and how were they presented, d) Costumes and make-up. e) Stage lighting, f) Acting and acting style. These are the aspects described and admired by the entire literature.92 Other points which "Sajghar" as well as other books raise is regarding the seating rows identification in the auditorium by the Bengali rather than English alphabets, 93 but how far it is a stage innovation is controversial. Shamik Bandhopadhyay in an interview with Sombhu Mitra, exclusively describes the new feeling of pride which the audience felt in coming into the theatre, where music of Shanai would fill the air, the seat numbers in Bengali and then for the first time the auditorium lights would go off - "the audience would think is it a fuse?" 94 Sisir's innovativeness became the ideal. Very soon other theatres adopted his techniques and styles and therein lies Sisir's credits as an age-innovator. But soon while Sisir's productions took on extremely shabby and shoddy appearance, Others by adopting his attitude towards forms excelled in experimentation Ahindra Chowdhury's care in appearances and make-up was much more appreciated than Sisir Bhaduri's Sombhu Mitra, the celebrated veteran of the theatre today, in an interview with Samik Bandhopadhyay admits that the enormously wonderful production applications were in the former part of his life, within the span of his first years. Then, this magical production talent was not expressed again... "I feel that such power according to nature cannot remain forever - that is why the creations of Sisir Bhaduri's which we have seen, changed all our references to theatre"

38 But being an insider of the drama movement, Sombhu Mitra can substantiate with illustrations and logic his assumptions a more scientific study - with a view to educate others in the school of Sisir Kumar Bhaduri's. He very aptly distinguishes between Sisir Kumar's attempts to create "total theatre" and "stunts" which were usual features of the Bengali stage. And here he is the inspiration for not only such like Sombhu Mitra, but the entire new theatre movement. Sita's opening scene is the first example which he cites. "Jana", which he had not seen himself, but heard from Monoranjan Bhattacharya he also regards; In the scene of the "Mayakanan" in the centre of the stage there was a peculiar "cut out" of a red and black forest - the leaves were thick and long, like something out of a primeval age. The heroine is attracting Prabir by seduction and sexuality, and the colours were in a sense the subconscious identification and this created an in-depth significance. In "Naranarayan"; in the open stage, the back curtain was painted, black-green, somewhat a dead colour-a broken, old wooden bark, a chariot wheel reclines on it; - Sisir Kumar sits leaning on it. He also describes the sets of "Digvijay" but also talks of the blue light behind he door of the tent creating an illusion of infinity. As Sisir Babu enters from there, lights on two sides illuminate. Till now it is not possible to see the side lines because of the darkness but as the lights come on we can see the lords and nobles saluting him. Sisir Bhaduri moves downstage asking - "Is Delhi just a day away?" A very interesting production innovation is observed by Sombhu Mitra in "Vishnupriya", where a zone of darkness is used to create a remarkable unknown infinity. Sisir Kumar Bhaduri, as Chaitanya's father, holding his daughter-in-law by hand would disappear down the darkness calling "Chaitanya" "Chaitanya" and reappear again through it, which would at once destroy the so called boundaries of the proscenium stage. But the inadequacy of such rational scientific study mainly because of Sisir Bhaduri's apathy is a matter of irk for such as Somnbhu Mitra. In an article in Chaturanga Sombhu Mitra takes on an extremely critical and angry stand against 196

39 Sisir Bhaduri's complacency in depending on Rabindranath Tagore for good plays. "Even then " says Mitra "he was scared to take up Tagore's later plays like "Muktadhara', and "Raktakarabi". According to Mitra he did not even venture to take up nationalistic themes like" Sirajdaullah", or "Karagar". "He never struggled to establish a new trend in content and that is one of the main reasons our theatre has remained an imitation of fourth grade English theatres.96. True there was no political or social relevance to "Sita", the content of Sita was no more than an emotional domestic story and as Rajendranath Vidyabhushan points out, - "it is a lesson in mythology and useful for our household women, who can free the strength and power of mythology, even without reading". 97 About D.L. Roy's "Pashani" a storm was raised about its anti- Hindu overtones, but it is a revolutionary interpretation of the playwright, and whether it is a conscious choice by Sisir Kumar Bhaduri, is not really known. It is difficult to gauge his attitude. About "Raghuveer" Shankar Bhattacharya writes, Sisir Kumar spent night after night analyzing the political and social relevance of Raghuveer, to his friends, but as is the case, there is no record of it and to us. Sisir Kumar's political attitude remains vague and undefined. Shankar Bhattacharya gives a typical example describing howthe premier of Raghuveer coincided with Gandhi's arrest. The shop which was to supply costumes could not do so and Sisir Kumar and his colleagues enacted Raghuveer by adorning "Khaddar", obtained from a man who owned a shop and somehow the shopkeeper's bio data is listed.98 But conclusions are deliberately avoided. Was the use of Khaddar symbolic? or the task of a professional who has to keep the show on the road? Such a gap about his attitude and apathy towards content creates a vacuum, which leaves ground for iconoolastic denigration. Even his refusal of "Padma Bhushan" is deliberately kept devoid of any political overtones. Hence an anonymous writer - Sudrak - writes an article called "Bidroher Theatre- ey Pratibiplab - "Sisir Bhaduri".("Regression in the Revolutionary Theatre). He strongly comments - "A new age did come to the theatre, but there was nothing new about the drama". He 197

40 talks of two trends in Bengali drama - one the trend set by "Neeldurpan", the other anti - Neeldurpan - the trend representing the interest of the imperial civility of the middle-men, feudals and the new petty business capital. "In his maiden venture he (Sisir Kumar Bhaduri) pushed aside the Neeldurpan trend behind thee wings. He deliberately pushed away the people's influence on the theatre" A theatre is supposed to reflect the political and social aspirations of the common people - it was a time great political upheaval - the nationalist struggle was at its full swing but Sisir Kumar Bhaduri, in his choice of plays was selective in choosing the path of the old - of the traditional and discarded the new ideas and ideologies. "It is undeniable that Sita as a production achieved great heights... but there was no conscious efforts to fight against the political and social enemies... No nationalistic awakening... only complacency and individual glorification, great deal of fame - acknowledgment and height of achievement. Sisir's last days was the climax of this political and social alienation - but then it was really too late. "By glorifying the ruler, the king Ram - by portraying the conflict between the divine monarch and Sita's husband Ram - he was creating an unrealistic situation on stage." Ram's heart was being torn apart on stage, while outside, on the streets, the revolutionaries were being murdered by British machineguns - it is a horrible farce." When the political stage was being overran by murderous, imperialist, corrupt British raj, Sisir Kumar on stage was the personification of the subject - loving divine Ram - what a twist - Is the theatre genuinely a mirror of society?"99 Ironically admirers like Pashuati Chattopadhyay takes his apathy towards contemporary relevance as a positive point; - He is relieved that there was no "ism" then. He admits that it was an important phase of nationalist struggle, with C. R. Das, Jyotindramohun Sengupta and Subhash Chandra Bose, but there was no contradictions no politics which were devastating Bengali cultural life "Men are above all values - there is nothing above it - this humanism was the first priority. This was a period where men are not provided with divinity, but divinity with humanness 10. But Chattopadhyay seems to have deliberately miscalculated the century where such interpretations like that 198

41 of Goethe, Milton, Stendall were revolutionary literature, Sudrak's criticism maybe a little too strong but Sisir Babu's apathy towards any sort of political commitments is well accepted and in the latter days with the stupendous commercial and artistic success of "Nabanna", Sisir Kumar Bhaduri's misapprehensions are well known. Here it is extremely interesting that most of the books, in the general euphoria try to make him the initiator of the new age in theatre. But if we regard the IPTA as the trend which was trying to replace form with content - in many ways he was the antithesis. Sombhu Mitra, in fact accuses Sisir Kumar Bhaduri of leaving behind a scenario, detrimental to the new generation. Any new group, because of him, has to first prove that they are not an indisciplined bunch of kids indulging themselves. Moreover the economics of a theatre, an auditorium being rented in such a manner, thanks to Sisir Kumar Bhaduri, could only help the new groups to only struggle along.101 Sombhu Mitra, being a giant of the theatre could grasp the inner strengths and weaknesses of Sisir Kumar Bhaduri, - but a definite rational, scientific, analytical assessment of Sisir Bhaduri, in the universal style came much later. Here they pick and choose from the enormous amount of reminiscence nostalgia, euphoria, and by editing all that is personal and relevant preserve the essence of Sisir Kumar Bhaduri's uniqueness certainly, there is no such thing as unprecedented, uniqueness. Whatever is most revolutionary has a source - rooted in tradition. From a trend already in existence, sprouts out a spontaneous explosion - qualitative change transform ultimately into a quantitative change. This is the basis of the scientific analytic theatre studies, established by Stanislavski's students in the U.S.A. Here we see such scientific studies initiated by the later generation. Utpal Dutt writes that since the inception of the professional stage there has been two clear trends of acting - the maximum number of actors act emotionally (in this period reflected in Abindra Chowdhury, Danibanoo or Nirmalendu Lahiri's acting) and a handful in modern, creative analytical acting. There is of course a 199

42 third trend, which Dutt remarks sarcastically, irritates us to death" - gimmicky and stunts. Naturally such a trend is beyond our discussion. 102 In the analytical style, also comments Dutt, the actor seems to be in inertia, absolutely indifferent. He never submerges himself into the character, he lights the character from outside. Girish Chandra Ghosh had commented on the style of the much respected, the crown of the actor, Ardhendu is telling everybody -1 am Ardhendu, whatever role you want to see, this is its character - as if he is unraveling the character by engaging the audience in a conversation. What the audience wants to see, he sees, but he also sees Ardhendu.103 In "Prafulla", Girish, as Jogesh has become a legend. But from contemporary critics we do not obtain much more than euphoria and exxageration. But playwright and actor Aparesh Chandra, being a theatre personality,could delve into the source - "Girishchandra's Jogesh - is a systematic analysis of the character of Jogesh.104 Incidentally Dutt, an ardent admirer of Girish and his school of aesthetic analytical study of theatre, attributes the credit of initiating such scientific study in the Indian context.today Brencht- has said similarthings about his "verfremdung" or "distanciation" theory - "The actor does not transform himself into the role he plays. He is not Lear or Harepagon or Schwek. He is only exhibiting them. He pronounces their words / lines as far as possible truthfully and convincingly; by his own capabilities and study of human character he presents their activities. But he never can convince himself and his audience that he has totally been transformed into the character.105 Hence such trend of "alienation" acting which has created so much international hype had been an integral part of Bengali theatre's acting tradition and had been implemented extremely successfully. Sisir Kumar is the best implementor of this trend. Some of his critics often criticized him on the grounds that Sisir was always the same in every role - same in his style of delivery, same indifference, same calm image devoid of physical acting. Ahindra Chowdhury of course made itthefocal points of his histrionics and 200

43 Sushil Mukhopadhyay, comparing the two great personalities of the time - comment on Ahindra Chowdhury's physical flexibility, Exercise, regular sport activities and gymnastics had made him physical strong, sinewy, and capable of physical acting. He was intent on presenting a picture of physical activity and graceful body actions.106 Sisir Bhaduri was more on mental exercise - it was never ever an emotional outburst but in the analytical style of Girish and Ardhendu. Hence just the like the audience saw Ardhendu, they saw Sisir too. The fact that in every scene he took the audience into account was not his weakness but strength - its modernity. Always the emotional actors have dominated the stage. Ahindra Chowdhury boasts of how the doctor had to be summoned to save his co-actress who in the play was to be throttled by him.107 According to Sushil Mukhopadhyay it was not only physical activity but techniques of "Arjun". - whatever that implies. He later explains it as "Spectacular" acting - which engrossing the audiences 108 But Dutt writes that such misuse of techniques only confuse the intelligence of the audience. Hence Sisir Kumar is apparently apathetic - apparently indifferent - a lot could not apprehend his intellectual analytical style. But today, it is an urgent necessity to reanalyze, Sisir's talents in this light - as today only a few of those who had witnessed Sisir survives - and to the others Sisir Kumar Bhaduri has no value. No educational aspects are handed out to them. Sisir will become only a name, a picture in the textbook of drama and in the old, dilapidated theatres of North Calcutta. Dutt provides a few very deep-sighted illustration of how this traditional as well as modernistic style, based on objective analysis and an appeal to the audience's intellect was applied. In "Sadabar- Ekadasi, as Neemchand he visits and drinks on stage into a stupor, but he is never Neemchand. He unravels the social context in which Neemchand operates by the mere strength of his histrionics. We not only see a character being build and broken, but a lot more. We see nineteenth century, Bengal - where the dreams and ideals incarnated in the 201

44 "Renaissance" concept lies broken. We see an entire class, an education proud intellegentia, who recites Milton and Shakespeare to prove that he is of a higher genre than the baboos and their mistresses But Neemchand's colossal intellect is a burden to him.his pride in his education is destroyed, he is pressed to the ground by its burden. Hence he allows himself to be led by the host of baboos and drinks himself into a stupor. When Sisir Kumar as Neemchand speaks to his wine - glass, we see a tired, exhausted intellectual begging for oblivion - because he cannot bear to have his senses about him in contemporary Bengal. Restricting himself to Dinabandhu's dialogues, he could create a parallel world which Dinabandhu could never have imagined. Likewise an actor comes out as a parallel force. If he had submerged himself into the role he could never have portrayed this panoramic social perspective - could not have captured the decadence of society as a whole - this is only possible by keeping himself away - analyzing from outside. 109 Piscator called this very phenomenon - "Epic acting What is written in a play - to create a political and social perspective of that.110 Similarly Sisir Kumar as Jeebananda, portrays an entire age, sinking into darkness - it is an analytical interpretation. When Jeebanands is struggling in pain - we almost perceive the death of feudalism - not because his clothes are lying on the floor or his shawl lies tattered - but by apparent apathy, apparent indifference by sheer acting strength he shows the actual picture of a society on the decline, Sombhu Mitra talks about the detailed analysis in Jeebananda. In fact according to Mitra this sort of analysis of details made him suitable to enact most of Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay's characters - Neelambar, Rashbehari, Ramesh - so successfully. Here comes the question of knowledge, it is a question of scholarship. To capture a character in its social perspective, a close study and in depth knowledge of society is necessary. Michael's social perspective, Neemchand's social perspective, Jeebananda's, Nadir Shah's - here it is not possible to know it or express it through experience. In world dramatic literature too, most of the 202

45 described social backgrounds are confined to history books. Sisir Kumar's great scholarship was confined in this respect to his talents. 111 As Sombhu Mitra points as the actor may become a co-procreator with the playwright. He recreates the character created by the playwright - by his own strength of feelings, instincts, analysis and interpretration he can practically complete the characterization. In this respect, argues Sombhu Mitra, Sisir Bhaduri is a creator - while the other famous actors are not creators - but creation of the stage. 112 At one time, writes Dutt, some of our great actors - actresses were illiterate - Nevertheless they managed to captivate the audience - but it was merely emotionally based - simply and easily drawn characterization. The complexity of analytic acting his herein - at every opportunity the character must be expressed in the light of history. Behind the dialogues - he must discover the unsaid, the latent. Sisir Kumar's character analysis was dialectical - Never was he satisfied to play it simply. Always the opposites and antitheses would keep them alive. His Chanakya, although by his diplomacy managed to subdue the world - he was always submerged in a sea of grief - he has not attained one thing something is missing - it is almost as if he is the most tragic figure in this world. D.L. Ray after watching Sisir Kumar as Chanakya supposedly said - "The character of my imagination - has proceeded much further by your acting. I can perceive the historical Chanakya almost coming alive." 113 This all pervading sadness is an integral part of his acting style. Losing himself into this tragic stance was the essence of a lot of his acting. The world conqueror Nadir Shah, despite the crown on his forehead is unfulfilled, a man torn apart by worry and pain. Sombhu Mitra makes an interesting insight; - that is as Nadir Shah he adopted a gait of a man who spends most of time on horseback. The gait of a jockey and that of a diplomat cannot be the same. And Nadir Shah was never a diplomat, but a shepherd, fighter and a man of enormous intellegence. 114 When Jogesh realizes that his brother is deceiving him, he submerges himself into a in tragic stupor he looses all incination to prevent the impending 203

46 disaster the devastation of the family becomes inevitable. He jeers and laughs - "My mother does have a precious womb - one son is forever drunk, one a lawyer and one a thief." No one has been able to portray such contradictory ideas only through acting, except perhaps Naresh Mitra to some extent 115 Sombhu Mitra also gives a description from Alamgir, where the Emperor is engrossed in thoughts, when Toybar Khan comes and bows. Alamgir in this perplexed state does not recognise him. Toybar tells his own name - Sisir Bhaduri repeats it at least ten to twelve times, but with each pronouncement, step by step he is delving into his consciousness and very logically shedding his engrossment.116 The expert professional actor always embraces the straight path. Where he is to laugh - he laughs. Where he is to cry, he cries, but a great actor twists it around. The drama critic Birendranath Pal Choudhury, makes two very interesting comparisons which with Dutt's line of analysis can provide a clearer picture. In scene of Act I of Chandra Gupta - Chandra Gupta and Chanakya met for the first time - they both recognise each others complimentary factors immediately. - Chanakya: There is no reason to be afraid anymore. Chandra Gupta arise! Do you realise what I see before me? Chandra Gupta : What Gurudev? Chanakya replies with a beautifully constructed hearty, ornamental dialogue about his vision of an Empire. He ends the speech with - "The founder of the Empire is to be - you, and his priest, the poor and servile Brahmin - Chanakya." Dani Babu would say the lines with sentimental emotion. His volume, pitch would add range, would be so heart rending that the audience would feel intense happiness hearing it. But as there was no attempt to analyse - "And his priest..." He would say it in the humblest way possibly with adequate servility. But Sisir Kumar would say it in a way ;" The founder of the Empire" and would almost stop himself from saying "I" - but recovering himself would say "You". "And his priest" his chest would swell up in pride, eyes would shine in victory - and after a pause would say - This Brahmin 204

47 Chanakya - the words "Poor and servile" deliberately omitted.117 Another comparison which he makes is between Ahindra Choudhury's Shah Jahan and Sisir Babu's.Ahindra Babu's Shah Jahan is the agonised cry of a desperate frustration. The "paralytic physic" of Shah Jahan was well used by him, and his entire left side seemed to be paralysed. He would drag his feet and pull himself along so realistically and with so much physical perfection thatthe common audience found such gimmick or technique extremely acceptable. Sisir Kumar never tried to portray it likewise. Invalid does not always mean paralytic. In medical terms there is an ailment called Paraisis which is a part of invalidity. Organs become weak - not dead. Not dead nerves but weak ones. Moreover Shah Jahan is mentally cripple rather than physically. In Sisir's acting it is this mental cripple which takes prominence. From here Birendra Pal Choudhury goes on to comparing Ahindra Chowdhury and Sisir Kumar Bhaduri with Barry and Garrick respectively and himself becomes extremely nostalgic. What is significant is that such sources can throw light and make way for a scientific analysis when approached with an analytical bend of mind.118 Dutt asserts that Sisir Kumar Bhaduri never differentiated between laughing and crying. These two emotions can never be separated. He searching for the moment where laughter changes into tears, and howling and grief is expressed by a sudden laughter. Sisir Bhaduri, as Jogesh would recite the classic final line as self-derisive laughter - laughter at the game played by fate. Or "ogo - give me a paise, give me, give me" and subsequent exit was also said with a smile; smiling at his own shameful behaviour. The distinguished respectable Jogesh is begging for alms so that he can obtain his quota of alcohol - this discordancy and irony assumes special significance as far as Sisir Bhaduri is concerned. His Jogesh exposes the decline of the social system, the destruction of values, the false sense of middle class dignity, and seeing the impending disasterthat is to befall his class, Jogesh is jubilant. But a great actor's power of analyze or interpretative acting is just the outer 205

48 framework. Beneath lies, rigorous disciplined voice, physique, fragmentation of concentration etc. According to Dutt it is only today that such basics are treated as an important source of good acting. There was no need to mention it during Sisir Bhaduri's times; it was inevitable that anyone who will join the profession-will have prepared his voice and body in advance.119 Sisir Bhaduri's admirers hail his voice and its range as wonderful and almost fantastic, butonce again they are hyperbolic and no technical knowledge is known or described. Sombhu Mitra's descriptions of his voice and speech is the only adequate one. He writes, Bhadurimoshai's voice spread its magic around us. He was so relaxed as if unwell and tired, but in that slow style of delivery, there would be a lot of fine differentiation of pronunciation and modulation. There was no enormous voice projection or intellectual exercise but an excellent part of acting and modulation would occur so naturally, according to emotions, effortlessly" "Such expertise requires a great deal of practice, it does not occur anyhow." 120 A great deal of discipline and training helps the actor to build his own techniques, own method, own style. Everyday the actor cannot find equal inspiration and the armour of technical expertise helps him out. But naturally that technique is great, that which is invisible, it is so fine that it cannot be discerned. Sisir Kumar in this scene was almost perfect, his soft speech, low voice and natural delivery style. He does not announce his presence, on the contrary he seems apathetic. The audience's applause or jeers cannot seem to even touch him; even at the focal point he stands outside. But an integral part of technique is also stunning the audience. And, naturally like an inveterate artist he was not at all abundant with it. Except for one or two particular critical moment he never consciously tried to stun the audience. A lot of other contemporary actors through only fragmented stunts would build a character - they would either unleash a thunder like voice or with a sword would take a huge leap. Such unartistic exaggeration kills the dramatic impact; truly where it is actually necessary. 206

49 Sisir Kumar knew, where and how to stun. Real dramatic stunners brings out the inner significance of a prominent, relevant moment. At once he sheds light on an unravelled corner of the character. In Shoroshi, when the villagers come to physically assault him, Jeevananda takes out a revolver and turns around. Then suddenly with a grimace he puts back the pistol and takes his exit. Surprising, yet measured and artistically stunning. In one moment we can see Jeevananda s anti -life attitude. He has no taste for self-defence - everything is exhausting and meaningless. I n Digvijoy, when Nadir Shah summons an insipid Pathan to pronounce the death sentence, the rebel s chains clang out - the world conqueror Emperor jumps up in fear. Not using a word, in an extremely dramatic form he reveals the irony of a bloody conqueror s hidden fears and cowardliness. When Sisir Kumar as Chanakya, after the defeat and death of Nanda, soaking in blood his hand, dances in madness or when he finds his long lost daughter and in an agonized shout, yells out Atreyi, the entire auditorium shakes. The soft spoken style of Chanakya is a contrast designed to stun the audience by its sheer diversity. The tides of the entire flow of play, takes on the shapes of a flood, an explosion in these two scenes. Sombhu Mitra talks about a similar situation in Raghuvir, where the entire play epitomizes peace - he built up the play by playing on the theme of peace, Raghuvir s sense of peace, a peace attired with perseverance. Hence when like a stormy sea, Raghuvir becomes catastrophic and an upheaval - we are stunned into silence. Raghuvir, with anklets start dancing and yelling Raghua, Raghua - to shed visually all notion of superficial sophistication.121 He is by far the best Indian actor of this century. But what ingredients helped in building up this acting style, wherein lies this styles strength, where lies the restrictions of his school of theatre requires a motivations towards a more rational scientific approach. If Sisir Kumar is our heritage, we must reconstruct through 207

50 scientific study his contributions. We must not only eliminate the euphoria and build on the negligible concrete records left by eye-witnesses but also study contemporary journals in depth, once again, so that we can shake off the euphoria and build on the hard core aesthetics. Otherwise as is the case of a recent autobiography of one of our renowned contemporary directors; who writing in English, takes Bohurupee s name after Rabindranath Tagore, would become a trend rather than an isolated case. THE REGULAR PRESS AND SISIR KUMAR BHADURI Is it possible to identify the following piece as anything different from the euphoria, hyperboles and nostalgia so apparent and so dominant in all literature survey on Sisir Kumar Bhaduri? "Sisir Kumar as Ram, not only in Bengal, but even world wide, is incomparable. The internal attacks and counterattacks of an emotional struggle, the variety and versatility of the voice and expressing emotions so aptly is an incomprehensivetaskto explain. In his acting, Sisir Kumar looses himself and allows Ram to take over his intellect completely. Among the female characters, Prabha, as Sita has revealed an unimaginable credit - she is the only one who can replace the late actress Sushilabala. Sisir baboo's brothers, as Bharat and Laxman, have not been unsuccessful in implementing their characterizations... surprised to see the acting of Shatrughna... under Sisir Kumar s excellent guidance his acting has attained quite a sophisticated solemnity. Durmukh's role was also played beautifully. Maharishi Valmiki in his acting has proved his power to portray the role with a calm naturalistic personality. Despite Basisth being nottoo good, it did not hinder the beauty of the production. Lav-Kush s acting was not only natural but an unique, unexpected way of talent shinning to warm the heart.... although there were abundance of songs and dances like that of the previous era, they were very well performed. In choreographing the dance numbers, the composer has showed such a graceful attitude that his knowledge of the dance form stands revealed."

51 True there is not even a shade of difference in the attitude, in fact this is regarded as one of the source materials to build on the personal cult of Sisir Kumar Bhaduri. It is a primary source of material quoted verbatim, but also used as a model to develop his style of approach. Hence in many ways it was the contemporary press which from the very beginning supported Sisir Kumar Bhaduri as a great talent & somewhat in the genre of who says - Take your hats off boys - here is a genius. 123 In 1921, Sisir Kumar Bhaduri, still an amateur actor participated in the Old Clubs production of Pandaver Agyatavas. The Hindustan writes - The other day we went to see the Old Club s presentation of Girish Chandra s mythological play Pandaver Agyatavas. For various reasons, in recent times we have harboured a great deal of suspicions regarding the histrionic powers of the Bengalis. Leave alone amateur acting, those whose bread depends on acting exposure, can mostly make you sick by their histrironic antics. Those still-faces like masks, the inflexible body like that of stone statues, uncontrolled and distorted voice and mistaken and discordant word pronunciations has subdued my mental setup and infused me with a deep rooted frustration regarding the Bengali stage." When the public stage is in such conditions, the fact that an amateur club can express the acting in any artistic form was not even a distant hope in our dreams. Only the tremendous encouragement and enthusiasm of a friend roused our curiosity to visit the Star that day. We thought we would leave after a couple of scenes. But what we saw, was truly beyond our dreams... the old play like Pandaver Agyatavas captivated us and despite some important appointments. We could not leave. We sat engrossed & hypnotised. What can be a greater praise than this we know not. Sisir Bhaduri appeared in the role of Bhim. We had heard his reputations as a good actor, for sometimes now, although we never had the pleasure to see him 209

52 perform. But I never had much faith in other s praises. But all our reservations fled that very day. Sisir Kumar Bhaduri even before his first professional commitment managed to enlist the support of the press. The critic specifies certain details - when Draupadi is within the grasp of Kichak and Bhim cannot come out of his disguise to save Draupadi (despite her implorations and pleas), the desperate frustration of a fruitless rage is extremely well portrayed by him. In a few words we cannot adequately describe Sisir Kumar Bhaduri s histrionic talents. In conclusion, all that we can says is that even on the professional stage we had not seen such a completely beautiful and natural piece of acting. It was no less than the Editor of Hindustan, Lalitmohan Gupta who was writing this review. Even at that stage he was perceptive of a new trend in production techniques - Till then there was no existence of a producer. And what was production application I am convinced that nobody had any notion. Outside Jorasanko this was the first time, we found an instance of age adequate production techniques. As a critic it was quite an advanced idea to conceive of the production from this point of view. The acting euphoria however continues - The fact that Sisir Kumar s acting even at that stage was incomparable and first grade hardly requires mention... In that acting, the way he portrayed a simpleton, straightforward, generous but audacious, raging giant was excellent. Even as the Brahmin, in such a minor role, he could express so much. An ominous, un-worldly figure, whose utterances spells a horrendous doom. That image, remains in front of my eyes and even to day the Ka- Ka echoes around my ears". The praises heaped on Sisir Kumar Bhaduri never stopped, the tide of euphoria never receded, - Navayug writes - we have experienced a great deal of pleasure in watching Alamgir. As Udipuri, Tarasundari is the conqueress... Bhaduri Moshai s Alamgir is brimming with beauty and feelings... among other characters - Eradat Khan, Bhim-singha and Solanki were played very well

53 The Navashakti writes on Bisarjan Bisarjan s Raghupati is a burning flame, towering in his brahmanical power, intent on re-establishing the past glory of the disappearing brahmanical pride - In Sisir Kumar s acting each aspect was carefully revealed. In the second scene, in the conversation with the king, depending only on his voice, Sisir Kumar expressed an enormous amount of sarcasm, hatred and fury - those who say that the voice is not an imperative necessity should regard this as case study.125 Bangadarshan wrote, Sisirbabu portrayed Raghupati as a devoted atheist and tries to express it through his acting. We feel that Sisir babu has been fully successful in portraying it likewise.126 Dhirendranath Pal Chowdhury s review of Shahjahan in 'Swadhinata - probably comparing him with Ahindra Chowdhury writes, Even though not the favourite of the common audience it has earned heartfelt compliments from the connoisseur. The form in his analytical acting of an invalid has won him a great deal of appreciation.127 Sisir Kumar Bhaduri, thanks to the contemporary press, was a cult figure. The Free Lance advertised as an Independent Evening Daily, ran a headline - Three Greats Meet at Quiet Tea, Dame Sybil and Sir Lewis Discuss Drama with Bhaduri (as masthead) - reported by a staff reporter. The text ran - when two 'GREATS (in all capitals) of the same art from two different parts of the world greet each in the presence of yet another GREAT (again all capitals), also of the same art form, the scene ceases to be a mere formality and takes on the form of a meeting divine."128 The discussions may just have been restricted to mere formalities, but no details are provided except for the ecsatcy & pride of the staff reporter who was allowed to attend it. However, even passing comments, recorded may have been an interesting insight into what the stalwarts thought of as the best and worst sides of each-others culture. Extolling a giant actor into a personality cult seems to be the general motivations of the contemporary press, and such trend naturally comes into its most sentimental 211

54 and nostalgic climax with obituaries. Sisir Kumar Bhaduri s obituaries are a classic examples of this.the Statesman of the day writes - Drama constitutes perhaps the least rich department of Bengali literature for reasons vaguely discernible in the nature of life on the Indo-Gangetic plain. Yet the stage in Calcutta has long been vigorous. To its present eminence in the country a great deal was contributed by Sisir Bhaduri, whose death in the early hours of Tuesday morning may have been mourned by the older generations than by the young whose tastes incline more to the realistic without knowing that these too have been shaped by the same great actor and produce. 129 The obituary views his death in the usual course of obituaries, but a significant point of role is the subheadings given in the Statesman, i.e., Study circles, 'Successful Professor and 'Visit Abroad. The charisma attached to his illustrious academic background is the most important point as far as the Statesman is concerned. His productions are grouped together into there distinct phases. The Amrita Bazar Patrika s headline that day, Actor with Rare Histrionic Gifts narrated proceedings of the funeral and last rites. On Pg3 however the nostalgia surfaced and took over. It started of with - For Four Decades a powerful creative force in the cultural life of Bengal, Sisir Kumar Bhaduri constituted a link between the glorious epoch of the Bengal Renaissance on the one hand and continuous search for new values on the other... Bengal seems to have activated the age when she can produce gifted men capable of guiding society into new channels and decorating life with colour and music. Not an individual, but an age is passing away before our eyes and if we shed idle tears it is but the most natural expression of normal human weakness. His academic career is of course highlighted as is his providing the stage with a better status, The fact that a scholarly, promising young professor had adopted acting as a profession, invested the stage with a new dignity and attracted to it talented men and women who created a new tradition under his inspiring leaders. Amrita Bazar in its typical nationalist style launched on an exaggerated view of nationalism, Sisir Kumar 212

55 was a nationalist to the core. His aim was to give creative expression to the deepest national sentiments through the medium of the stage.130 The Hindustan Standard of the same day - declared him as King of Bengali Actors in its headline while describing the funeral rites. On page six another story - Great Master of Histrionic Act compared him with Lawrence Olivier and Sir John Gielgud - Public recognition of the genius and its achievements came galore and he lived much on it and perhaps gloried in it. As to Governmental recognition, however, which surely was due to him as much as it was to his Kinghted British counterparts, it did not seem to come with the same good grace to Bhaduri... Sisir Bhaduri was a proud spirit that was not to be conquered by either favour or frown. The story of his career is the story of a genius so conscious of itself that it would forego anything how much-ever precious or for any hardship how-much-ever reverse, for the sake of its honour and would not be a purchasable commodity in any circumstances whatever."131 once again his academic background is given priority over his productional aspect. The Bengali papers were more grief stricken and the language is more ornamental. The Basumati, - starts with The Incomparable Actor of Bengal is honoured by millions of his Fans. Later it runs a story called Three Important incidents of Natyacharya s Life. Significantly, they include Rabindranath Tagore s compliments to Sisir Bhaduri after Sita, Bidhan Chandra Ray s proposal about a State theatre and his refusal of 'Padmasree', comparable according to the writer to Tagore s refusal of Knighthood.132 The Jugantar mourns him on the note - The demise of Sisir Kumar Bhaduri would shatter the hearts of all theatre - loving audience. Sisir Kumar was not only a great and incomparable actor and producer and who set his own trend but he is an era personified. He has redecorated dramatic art by overhauling it completely. It is quite clear that in such a summarized version I cannot describe his full talent & contribution and as such is just praises worthy of him.133 Swadhinata, The Communist Party Newspaper, in their euphoria, do not 213

56 hesitate to call him a revolutionary. A short while after the First World War, the enormous popular awakening and freedom struggle which broke out in waves, practically flowed Sisir Bhaduri into the revolutionary arena. Rabindra-genius was at the peak like that of the mid-day sun, Sarat Chandra, by new works was still enrapturing the people, like an explosion appeared Kazi Nazrul Islam. The Bengali stage was gearing up for the appearance of Sisir. He arrived, not only instate, but a state fit for a new age - for a new theatre movement with a group of co-actors and the encouragement of the culturally conscious public, Sisir Kumar revived the nearly extinct theatre... without alienating himself even an inch, by innovative use of forms and content and presentations he elevated the common audience s taste and consciousness. He brought about a revolutionary upheaval in the commercial stage. The strong revolutionary tradition of ourtheatre, because ofthe convictions of Sisir Kumar Bhaduri was invigorated and inspired further.134 Amidst the sea of admirations, respect and tributes however one article, published in Amrita Bazar Patrika stands out in its attempt to rationalize the artistic assessment of Sisir Kumar Bhaduri. The article entitled - Sisir Kumar Bhaduri as a Producer is under the byline of Ranganath. He starts with the evolution of the position of a producer. Although it seems the success of a play depends on its text and acting, the dramatist and actors have very little to do with the production He discusses in detail the role of a co-ordinator, with specific references to Sisir Kumar Bhaduri s work, Sisir Kumar tested the individual worth of a character and gave prominence to this or that one. To take an example, in his Sesh Raksha Rabindranath depicts Indumati in brighter colour than the other women. In the production Sisir Babu so trained Kamalmani and Khantamani that in their acting they always aimed at enhancing Indumati s brilliance. Co-ordination would have been lost if they tried to super exalt in their roles. The next subheading is Characterization where how he gave individual stamp to his roles are described. In this he not only brought out traits which the author gives to a character, but tried 214

57 to imbue a type in the character which the author has but vaguely depicted. Illustrations of such characterizations are given as-alamgir, Balmiki, Lob and Sita. The next subheading talks of humarizing the play - by depriving even his Gods - Naro - Narayon, Ram Seeta Krishna of divinity & by highlighting their humanness. As a true academic - Literature not Lost Sight of (The fourth Subheading runs) and Dramatic Tunes ( the fifth ) are emphasized. Some of the insights here are remarkable and has a greater affinity to the scientific style. They include, descriptions of hermenutics like, how in Chandra Gupta when Chandragupta is appealing to his motherto pardon Nanda and when the moment when his mother is about to succumb to her affections, Chanakya (played by Sisir Bhaduri) interrupts. Chandra-Gupta continues after a pause with his pleas but the intensity of feelings is checked and the chances of Nanda s life gone. In Jana, at Prabir s departure his wife s garland saps. In Prafulla, the auspicious casket - given to Jyanoda by her mother-in-law is made to crash. His pauses, make-up etc. are all treated is an extremely rational way.135 Such cases are exceptions and the nostalgia is what remains. The magazine and press survey throughout out 1989 (celebrated as Sisir Kumar Bhaduri s birth centenary) shows that the trend of nostalgia and euphoria is what dominates. Desh, the leading literary magazine in Bengali, wrote a flattering eulogy.136 Other magazines who brought out tribute issues include - Paschimbanga 137, College Street 138 Atalantik and Ebong Naikatya. All the leading newspapers too ran articles around Sisir Bhaduri s birthday, 2nd October. Some instances of excessive euphorias are as following :- Whereas there is a great deal of pomp in celebrating J.L. Nehru s centenary, we tend to forget that it is also the centenary of a man who enriched our culture and took it forward by a century - Sisir Kumar Bhaduri. He dared to refuse Padmabhusan from a government led by a premier (Nehru) he called half educated. He dared to snub Satyajit Ray and refused the role of Biswambhar in Jalsaghar & refused 215

58 Rs.6000/- donation collected by Prithiviraj Kapoor. He declared that Bertolt Brecht s plays if enacted would enrich our theatre at a time when 99% of theatre pundits of Bengal had not even heard of him.139 Most of the Press too ran features and articles throughout 1989 on Sisir Kumar Bhaduri. His nephew, Chira Kishore Bhaduri, is an enthusiastic contributor. The introduction to his article in Amrita Bazar Patrika ran; - Sisir Kumar Bhaduri strode the Bengali stage like a colossus ever since his appearance on the public stage on 10 Dec But it was not roses, all the way for him. An educationist turned actor, he experienced many a up and down during almost half a century of his theatrical activity. He was awarded Padmabhusan which he refused to accept. He had his cause - surely not as unjust one.140 Jugantar exalts the Martyrdom Syndrome - He never made theatre his Business 141 His culture and the sophistication which goes with such un-capitalist attitude is of course attributed to his education. Haridhan Mukhopadhyay - in Bartaman concentrates on his lectures in college and his inspired teaching method.142 Debnarayan Gupta with a personal note reminiscences about Tagore s admiration for Sisir baboo 143. Saraju bala s, Ajit Bandopadhyay's reminiscences published in Ganashakti are of a similar vien:- The memorial service held in honour of Ahindra Chowdhury on 7 November as reported in Desh discerns the nostalgic trend of theatre discussions as the rule. It starts with, The shade of the oak tree above our heads, have disappeared. And when there is something to know, about acting - we would have rushed to him and received all our answers. In the absence of Natyacharya Ahindra Chowdhury the stage is plunged into darkness. This was a quote from Jahar Ray. It was a gathering of renowned actors and actress from the world of theatre, film and jatra whose life had touched Ahindra Chowdhury some way or the other.144 Sarajubala s grief is a good opportunity to express the typical emotionalism; - she is called the Soul child of Ahindra Chowdhury with tears in her eyes she called it equal to the loss of her father". Most of the speakers commented on his retiring 216 a

59 from theatre at his peak, unprecedented in theatre history. The article is under the byline Pra B-A (Probodhbandu Adhikari)145 CONTEMPORARY PRESS AND RIVALRIES : Eulogizing Sisir Kumar Bhaduri, and his experiments with form, has become a sacrosanct norm. The origin of this trend can be traced to Nachghar the leading theatre magazine of the time and the intellectual sections, who were encouraged to contribute to Naachghar. The literary personalities of the time, also journalists of a section of the contemporary press, brought into theatre journalism as a coterie, an ideal that is to popularize aesthetics and finer points of theatre. Undoubtedly a sharp contrast to Girish Chandra Ghosh and their pioneering efforts. The entire middle-class, shocked at his defiance of all middle-class norms had lashed out at him, ranging from total dismissal of his contributions (by the intellectual sections) to personal scandals (by the conservative sections) to social ostracism. Girish Chandra Ghosh s aim in bringing out theatre magazines was initially a defence, on behalf of the entire theatre fraternity. Gradually it encompassed the defence of his audience-the common people, against the upper-middle class, English educated coterie, who were shocked at democratization of art. Girish countered their intellectual condescending attitude by launching into an attempt to elevate the aesthetics of his audience. Fortunately for Sisir Kumar Bhaduri, the defence came from his friends and intellectual circles. But here too it was a defence against mainstream press. Evidently there was a sharp division within the press, as well as the cultural and literary press. Bangla is of course a typical example of the regular press - one whose loyalties undoubtedly lie elsewhere, rather than with Sisir Kumar Bhaduri. The 'Bangla' on one occasion is absolutely furious with the Forward s columnist who writes the Stage and Screen column. His exasperation is quite clear at the chant Go and see Bhaduri! Go and see Bhaduri! The Bangla asks whether the columnist has lost his head and calls him no better then an agent whose past 217

60 record makes no secret of unpartisan attitude. In fact Bangla ridicules the Forward s columnist s assertion that Sisir Kumar Bhaduri had not added a single line to the play but the omissions, writes Bangla, prompted Daribaboo s nephew to retort that his uncle will not have to perform any more annual rites for Girish Ghosh s soul; his last rites are completed.146 Bangla does not hesitate to make snide comments about Bhaduri. Although it pays an indirect compliment to Sisir Bhaduri, on Sisir Kumar donating the receipts of a performance to C.R. Das memorial, it asks, why he is so late in such matters 147 Bangla s criticism of Sisir Kumar Bhaduri goes over to specific productions - They call Pundarik worse immorally than Pashani and Jana. Just like a Gazi s shops advertisement - Oil and wine, it is an integral aspect of Sisir Bhaduri s productions. About the chorus they accuse their singers having no notions of their basic ABC of music although they insist on breaking out in songs at the slightest opportunity148 Bangla s loyalty to Star and Art Theatre Limited is obvious. They describe the audience raving at Star s 'Jana', and talk of a production completely beautiful. Danibabu s return is welcomed ardently I49. Their review brought out nine daysf later, also concentrate on assessing the positives and negatives of Star s cast. And compare it throughout favourably with Sisir Bhaduri s Jana, calling it a Bramho - Jana" and Art s authentic Hindu - Jana. 150 Art, Theatre Ltd., with its basic conventionalism, and conservatism, was easier for the general press to patronize and support. Their adherence to the Star system was an added bonus - the personality cult of individuals, their charisma were fully exploited. Their portraits were printed very frequently and were extremely well applauded by the public. The stars, acting on both stage and the new popular cinema, fast growing were becoming matinee-idols. Sisir Kumar Bhaduri s unconventionality with form, made him a less saleable prospect, although impossible to be indifferent to this aesthetic refined form however made him the ideal horse 218

61 for the intelligentsia to back. Hence all their articles and even journals founded by them were designed to support Sisir Kumar Bhaduri, a man who was a personal friend, a man whose academic background matched with them, a man with inimtable sophisticated aesthetical sense and a man who was an important part of their elite coterie. The general press as well as cultural and theatre journals were definitely divided into two distinct camps, and a large part of the content reflected the earthy rivalries between the theatres, their directors, Star - actors, patrons and audiences. Nachghar, initially not mentioning name makes a snide remark about an editor, who is a Spokesman, for Art Theatre and whose false accusations that men and women sit together at Natyamandir is motivated in spreading slander. But in the very next paragraph, calling another paper "The dream beater of Star discards all allusions and indirect references and talks of the daily Baikali which has suddenly gone out of circulation. They wonder Whether it is temporary or permanent and in an sarcastic rejoinder calling its one and only friend such "despicable and negligent piece of journalism should exist as a case study of the worst breed of journalism. Whether it is to be revived as a weekly or daily is also to be seen." The change, for all they know, might be better. The next paragraph, passes on to how a rival theatre i.e., Star is practically becoming a daily. To keep up, the Baikali should remain a daily - asserts Nachghar. 151 Nachghar to show Baikali s partisan attitude is intent on proving its close connections with Probodh Chandra Guha, who was also in the management of Star at this stage. Although Probodh Chandra Guha has handed overthe editorship of the paper to Nirmal Chandra Chandra, he is still the financial backer and such obvious partisanship of a journal is undesirable and Suicide is a better proposition, declares Nachghar in a noble rhetorical tone.152 Here the rivalry is a reflection of professional competition and an earthy jealousy. Nachghar is very sure of its loyalties; - it writes Sisir Kumar Bhaduri is a lone 219

62 figure, struggling along, he has our respect. But the very mention of Star, raises their knuckles. Star is soon coming out with ' Ashoke' and 'Bishbriksha' we ardently hope that it will be an improvement on the despicable 'Mrinalini'. 153 The Star s actors were not spared either by Nachghar just like Sisir Kumar Bhaduri was not spared by Nachghar s anti-counterparts. Nachghar in the same issue is disparaging about Danibaboo who joined Art theatre with a very fat salary, while his ex co-actors remain unemployed and poverty-stricken. An obvious salvation could have been Danibaboo performing in a benefit night for them. 154 The previous issue of " Nachghar had given the information that Dani-baboo had backed down from a combination night for the benefit of the unemployed artists of the Monmohan Theatre. 155 Naachghar s criticism is better than mere mud - slinging, it objects to the grammatical mistake calling Danibaboo the 'greatest tragidienne', - a feminine gender. There is nothing shameful about a Bengali s son not to know English or French, but why me ddle with something they are ignorant about and make themselves a target for ridicule? 156 Nachghar s Sardonic criticism of Danibaboo is a regular part of its column Natya - jagat. The Art theatre has no idea what to do with Danibaboo. How to exploit Danibaboo s popularity to win themselves if not a princess, at least half a kingdom. Will they choose a dead play of Girish Chandra s, or an old hit, or a new one to launch him? The solution is in a lucky-draw or lottery, - fate is smiling on them157 Danibaboo s 1 Chanakya', according to Naachghar only appeals to them who have not seen Sisir Kumar Bhaduri s Chanakya. After Girish Chandra s death, Danibaboo has made no new characterizations - his growth has become definitely stunted 158 On another occasion Nachghar states that how can we compare Danibaboo with Sisir baboo, as Danibaboo refuses to collaborate on any occasion with Sisirbaboo. Hired critics will criticizes us for being critical about Danibaboo. But unless Danibaboo changes his very basic attitude, we will not stand corrected 159 Danibaboo, Apareshbaboo and everybody in the 'Star' are brought to judgement 220

63 by Naachghar at the slightest unethical event. Nachghar, pulls up Star's managementfor deceiving the audience, who had flocked to see Sarala because of Danibaboo, who was holidaying in Benaras160. A letter to the editor, in the next issue, signed by Sri Asit Basu, is said to be the audience s point of view, who regard such action by Aparesh Chandra as unethical.161 Naachghar refuses to rejoice at Art s triumphant completion of two hundreth night of Karnarjun, an unprecedented event in any theatre record. But Nachghar is sceptical - it comments Of course it is a rare and unique combination of different factors, such as a limited company Theatre, generous board of directors, the charismatic stars, the calibre of the working secretary, and a manager on very friendly terms. One very important advantageous factor mentioned here is the ownership of a press by Art, a daily and printing set up. There was no chance of it not running so long.162 Nachghar instead prefers to patronize Khirod Prasad s Vidyabinod s Naranarayan, to be named Sri-Krishna and performed by Natyamandir. If Kama is Naranaryan, we greet it with enthusiasm because we believe that in the hands of Sisirbaboo, the role will be justified and the theatre loving Bengali audience will obtain a very high standard of how to present mythology in today s perspective. The play deals with the internal conflict of Kama, who debates whether Sree Krishna and Narayan are one and same person.163 Sarajubala Devi as well as Deb Narayan Gupta ** talks of the Karnarjun controversy in a different light. Khirodprasad Vidyavinod had given his script on the subject to Aparesh Chandra for perusal, and within a month, a very similar version had been launched at Star, but with Apareshbaboo as the playwright, perhaps the most successful venture to his credit. Just like the Art could not do anything right in the eyes of Nachghar, Sisir Kumar Bhaduri could do no wrong - he was their idol and as far as he was concerned, Nachghar had no qualms in iconoclasm. In describing Sisir Kumar Bhaduri s 221

64 success with Sita, despite the obstacles, they attribute to Sisir Kumar the divinity of Ram. 163 Even the fact that Sisir Kumar Bhaduri premiered his play on a Wednesday is a sign of intense courage. According to Naachghar, the enormous crowed at the box office was proof enough that such matters are not important if there is a popular and talented genius like Sisir Kumar Bhaduri 164 In fact the very reasons for which Sisir Kumar Bhaduri is exhalted, Art theatre is criticized. Sisir Kumar Bhaduri, acting in five different roles on five different days is actual proof for them that there can be no one in the contemporary scene comparable to him. The fact that Sisir in one year could do so many things, direct Basanta Leela, Sita, Joydev "Pashani, Alibaba and revive. Alamgir, proves once again that he alone is cent percent."165 However when Art theatre decided to perform on Tuesdays too, the quip was, but then when will they rehearse, morning rehearsals are out as most of the actors need to work elsewhere for basic survival. 166 Moreover when Art advertised four old plays and three new plays as their annual target plan. Naachghar commented that their enthusiasm is enough to wake the dead from the graveyard,167 Nachghar took upon themselves the responsibility to publicize Sisir Bhaduri s work and build up a hype. Although Nachghar is adamant in its claim than it is the only paper that is edited by one who is not a member of any particular repertoire. It is the only paper which has the possibilities of carrying objective reviews. One who is naturally aesthetic, will be captivated by the artistic and tasteful. To him ka, kha, Ga, Gha - all are the Same He will never give K s reaction any importance, but kha s high quality, acting will be given generous complements 168 His Alamagir s popularity is mentioned again and again It is described as unique and a novel experience. The fact that an old revival like. Alamgir, without any new scenes or extra skills or gimmicks of movie technology has not been shown, proves that Sisir Kumar Bhaduri is an authentic phenomenon 169 All his plays are announced, well in advance with a great deal of optimism. The theme, probable 222

65 interpretation and cast is announced. Pundarik s announcement is also accompanied by apprehension of sabotage.170 Tarasundari s casting in Jana is also given a lot of publicity. It is a surety to draw audiences in hoards The greatest actress of the Bengali stage to act in unison with the greatest actor of this generation Sisir Kumar Bhaduri. 171 A point of note is that henceforth Nachghar s attitude towards Nirmalendu Lahiri seems to go through a change. The Natya-jagat columns suddenly places a lot of hope in him and hopes his Arjun in Pandaver Agytavas will be good. 172 Two other aspects may be mentioned in this context, one relates to the controversy over copyright of Sita. Naachghar, although hails the alternative Sita, as creative and equal to the original, it is also determined to expose the machinations and acts of sabotage of the Art theatre behind the controversy. A letter is published by Dilip Kumar Roy, with the objection of trying to reprieve his cousin Nirmalendu Lahiri. But significantly Dilip Kumar Roy admits that it was a deliberate ploy to harm Sisir Kumar Bhaduri,173 In the very next issue the Art Theatre Ltd. protests with a three page letter. They accuse Dilip Kumar Roy of being wary of Sisir Kumar Bhaduri, whom he did not know personally then and hastened to sign the contract with Art on the ground that it is better done before Sisir Bhaduri, comes and demands. Of course Nirmalendu Lahiri took the initiative argues Art theatre. Moreover the fact that two rival theatres desire to produce one play does not necessarily mean that they are out to destroy each other. The course of Dilip Kumar Roy s sudden volteface they believe is that on one occasion, free passes were refused to two of his friends. Not that the authority had any option, Rabindranath was scheduled to see Chira Kumar Sabha that day and there was absolutely no free seats. 174 The subsequent issue finds a letter by Nirmalendu Lahiri, who believes that the secretary of Art Theatre is suffering from loss of memory or is motivated! He, for himself came to know about - Sisir Bhaduri s interests only after the exclusive rights were sold. He himself had suggested that both groups should be allowed to 223

66 perforin it as it will promote healthy competition.175 A point of note here is that, henceforth "Nachghar" attitude towards Nirmalendu Lahiri seems to go through a change. The Natya - jagat columnns suddenly places a lot of hope in him and hopes his Arjun in "Pandaver Agyatavas" will be good".176 Jana was also nearly turning into a legal matter. Nachghar anticipating an alternative Jana was jubilant, while "Bangla" was extremely sarcastic. In fact at the Court rejection of Danibaboos plea 'Bangla' is surprised, while Nachghar is almost disappointed that once again Sisir Kumar Bhaduri could not prove that he is indomitable.177 The other very interesting aspect deal with conducting audience polls. A box, to be cut out as a coupon, about 8 cms in length and 5 cms in width asked a single question - who is the best actor today? Three preferences, according to priorities are to be given - one, two, three. Readers are requested to send in their recommendations at once, as the poll tally is to be carried in the Puja issue178 The tallies subsequently published, showed Sisir Kumar Bhaduri as the obvious first choice with 2111 votes. Surendranath Ghosh ran second with 2082 votes and Ahindra Chowdhury a very close third with 2070 votes.179 Another similar poll was conducted at a subsequently date regarding the production of Jana. Once again the coupon, box measuring 8 cm x 6 cm, asked the readers to cross of the name of the theatre, which they did not want to recommend. Here the question was, which Jana would you regard as superior. The name of the two theatres were of course 'Star' and 'IMatyamandir'. Here however the name and address of the reader had to be given 18. The results showed Natya-mandir, a clear winner with 480 votes and Art, only 96 votes. It ends all doubts whatsoever, declared Nachghar.181 For Sisir, also an exclusive theatre magazine the equations were different. Sisir Bhaduri was a mere mortal to them and any attempt to put him on a pedestal need to be challenged. Vasantalila is covered with an extremely sarcastic heading - Bhaduri - Theaterer Art Jnan (Bhaduri theatre s knowledge of Art). Although it is 224

67 extremely critical about such a musical montage; and spares nothing, (unpunctuality, poor box office collection, misuse of wings), the opening paragraph of the article is interesting and shows the diverse reactions as far as Sisir Kumar Bhaduri is concerned. Different opinions from different quarters has been maddening - the poet s fights in Baikali, the dream like, poetical analysis of Bijoli, the oscillating tendency of catching the fish without touching water by the Englishmen, Basanti s criticism, the varied opinion of friends the debates, the fights of hostel mates - one section applauding - others hating one section says that Sisirbaboo is like this, then why this, another section says, what do you comprehend by art - this is art etc. While reviewing Alamgir, Sisir writes the conclusion with an obvious air of disappointment - We expect a lot from Bhaduri-moshai, Although Basantalila was not much of a lila, it was our consolation that there was no need to shave his head and pour butter milk, we still keep up the hope that in future whatever we see, we will see a far superior production - we will see a group worthy of Sisir Kumar Bhaduri. All mistakes production faults and technological lapses are listed. 182 Naachghar is however extremely diligent in pointing out Sisir s distortion of truth. Krishnabhimani the actress has definitely decided to join Natyamandir and when Sisir expressed doubts. She herself confirmed it but was ignored by Sisir.183 Art theatre s productions always receive the more favorable reviews - Art theatre s Jana receives a pre-productional publicity, similar to what Sisir Bhaduri receives from Naachghar - Sushilabala and Tarasundari s prospects of portraying Jana are discussed. Sisir is extremely assertive that despite Tarasundari s illustrations past- the present competitors are well matched. Production wise also Sisir, discussing all the relevant aspects marvel at the equality between the two competitors, except for the truncated version of Sisir Bhaduri which tipthe balance in favour of Art s Jana

68 The journals locked in stiff competition with each other, sometimes exceed the competition on stage. Their accustations often take on vindictive overtones surpassing mere earthy rivalries and petty squabbles. For example Nachghar s review of Art s Mrinalini, an unfavourable one of course, triggered off a controversy taking on personal abuses and defamation which far exceeded the mild critical review.185 Sisir, wrote that they have received a lot of protests against Nachghar s review of Mrinalini but could not print them in absence of space. However Nachghar s unfairness to Nirmalendu Lahiri is sometimes which they must mention.186 Shailendranath Bishi, a popular critic of the time, was asked to review Mrinalini as an independent opinion piece, but so pleased was he with Nachghar s review that, while giving his whole hearted support to it declined from adding anything new. But now he is intent on criticizing Nachghar s review. Nachghar is scathing in its reply; - Saileshbaboo should be ashamed of himself, as he decides to write M.A., B.L. he should show a better taste. He has further described Teenkori baboo s acting as Pashupati as great as Macbeth. The fact that Macbeth can be mistaken as an actor, the followers of Shakespeare will be shocked. But if Saileshbaboo, by it has meant that Teenkaribaboo is comparable to Herbert T, the actor who earned his fame by excelling as Macbeth; it is a ridiculous comparison and is absolutely \ valueless to discuss merits at such a superficial level. If we had known that this is the range of his knowledge, we would never have sent him as Nachghar s representative in the first place.187 Another similar controversy, without any apparent professional theatre rivalries, is the conflict between Sisir and Baikali. Sisir in a feature titled Natya-dhurandhar (The cunning Theatre goer) Sisir launches a tirade against Rakhaldas Bannerjee, who has been slandering Sisir through the columns of Baikali, It is a personal attack, a scholar and civilized man like Rakhal Das Bannerjee can ever pronounce such hateful words, which we would be ashamed to print. We refrain from 226

69 indulging in any such mud slinging because if slanderous libel is his monopoly, we do not want to encourage it. He might not know that to question the editor on his family line and father s introduction is a gross misbehavior and goes against all journalistic etiquette. Instead of applying logic, he has insisted on a personal abuse. He does not have any right to demand to know about the editor s father, the editor is not a Brahmin whose fathers married 107 times and the father s name had to be traced. The actual cause of enmity is discussed much later in the article - Sisir asks why suddenly Apareshbaboo s aping Hanukaran" is becoming a physical torture for him. Previously why were you so close to him and surrendered yourself to him so completely? If that notorious director had produced two of his plays, would that great artistic knowledge now be applied to judge. Apareshbaboo s merit. Rejection of your plays, Mr. Rakhaldas Bannerjee has raised your spite as nothing else could have! You are like the venomous snake who is getting ready to sting. Aren t you worse than the anti-socials. If you were not inspired to become a playwright, would you have taken on the responsibilities of a critic?188 Here it is also significant that Rakhaldas Bannerje was an extremely close acquaintance of Sisir Kumar Bhaduri s and contributed a great deal to the setting up of historical authenticity of his productions, hence the attack is in a way inline with the Art company's supporters. The abuse and slander continued in about twelve small paragraphs ridiculing him and abusing him exposing slanderous journalism at its worst. For example one of the them read; - Hey Bapu, you were about to indulge in a physical tussle with an actor of Star. So having discarded the pen at last have you come down to the physical? Good thing, discard your mask, come out with your true image, let us satisfy our eyes by seeing you as you really are. One especially nasty one reads, " Can t you obtain a rope to hang yourself from the ceiling? Shame on your education, shame on your indoctrination, shame on your manners and hundred times more - shame on your humanism. What sort of preacher you are, we have 227

70 found out. Another paragraph reads, Hearing about the shuffle we summoned the actor at once to abuse him. Men fight with men, not with animals, so why should the actor earn a bad name because of that, but he insists that he did not fight. The last paragraph talks about his friendship and love for Sisir Kumar Bhaduri in an extremely sarcastic tone and talks of how annoyed Sisir Bhaduri was that Rakhaldas had forced a friend of his to partake an excessive amount of alcohol. 189 An interesting episode, worthy of mention is Baikali's claim that the reproduction of an original manuscript, signed by Girish Chandra Ghosh in "Nachghar" is forged. Supposedly, Girish dictated his text and never wrote. "Nachghar" is adamant in its stand and name their source as Amarendrananth Ray, whose credibiility is above board. In fact even the script of Macbeth, now inposessionofdebendranath Basu is written in Girish's handwriting.190 The conflicts inside the theatre spilled out into the arena of journalism. In several of the Natya-jagat columns of Naachghar there are attacks and accusations against other journals. All criticisms of Sita were viewed as an effort to victimize and sabotage it. Everyday they publish poems or reviews slandering it, The only excuse we can give is that the specific paper has blood ties with one particular theatre. And if they saw the crowd at Monmohan Natyamandir s box-offices, they will be forced to relax their slanderous pen. Actually the poor things are incapable of understanding that talent cannot be suppressed.191 The same Natyajagat column then talks of how a M. A. passed critic has disputed Nachghar s statement, in a review of Art theatre s Chandragupta, they argue that Nachghar s criticism that Chanakya s reaction at the raging fire was inadequate is not true. How can there be a dispute when the eyes are the proof argues Nachghar. Another'M.A'., Bishi Esquire, is also intent on challenging Nachghar s criticism of Chandragupta. Which class he represents or which group, we were not aware of, but we are not in the habit of countering such inane accusations as part of civilized behavior." The M.A. s of Calcutta are really irritating us. Mr. Bishi, in his 228

71 criticism of Sita said that the scenes are choreographed according to the Ajanta frescoes. Either he has not also seen it or has no idea about Ajanta's style, let alone Art itself."192 Here the use of the educational qualification (M.A.) is extremely significant and the emphasis on aesthetical criterions of judgement.192 Natya-jagat prides in its confession - We are accused of being Sisir Bhaduri s sycophants followers. What is wrong in that? He is of course the greatest talent of our times. We did not know that to give talent its due is a matter of criticism. Has the Bengalis lost their sense of fair play. 193 Any opportunity to hold up Sisir Kumar Bhaduri as an ideal was used. Dilip Kumar Roy s comparison of Sisirbaboo with International actors, letters from illustratious persons praising his work, quotations from his audience, all were displayed prominently. The standard of criticism is too frivolous, and overlooking the whole, critics concentrate on looking for the pimple like the mosquitoes. Sisir Kumar Bhaduri, is a subject sacro-sanct and above board for Nachghar when Forward criticized Sisir Bhaduri in Bhisma for prolonging each and every syllable, they countered by saying that is what the script demands194 Nachghar in fact took great pains in countering the critical reviews of all contemporary papers. Forward s criticism of Shahjahan after is one such case, where after a rather prolonged defence, Nachghar: declares that actually it is not worthy of reply 195 on Pashani too, Forward's negative criticism is easily dismissed as, As ignorant as Navayug, but what can you expect from them, in whose skill God has instilled shit, rather than intelligence. 196 Attacks and counter attacks with Navayug is full of such phrases and jargons. On one occasion Nachghar writes; Hurrah for Navayug s editor, who quotes the personal slanders of Suresh Chandra, who on his own part has searched the files of Sahitya to come up with t criticism against us. Wouldn't it have been easier, argues Nachghar, to quote our contemporary friends who are always painting us black? Why can t we give actors their worth? Nachghar is aggrieved that praise of talent is regarded as 229

72 flattery. Why cannot we give, somebody like Tagore his dues T197 Another brand of criticism which is levelled out against Sisir Kumar Bhaduri is that he has only acted in a limited number of roles. A bewildered Nachghar asks, what does mere quantity prove? Kunjabehari Chakravarty acted in more roles than Girish Ghosh, but does that make him a better actor? Surendramohun Bhattacharya wrote much more than Bankim Chandra, how does it help? 198 Natya - rasik, the famous Calcutta daily claims that Sisir Kumar Bhaduri has followed in the foot steps of Naresh Chandra Mitra and Radhikananda. It is of course challenged by Nachghar, who to prove that Sisir Bhaduri had come far before the other two gives a detailed bio-data of his.199 With Banga-Rangalay too Nachghar gets into a debate. Banga Rangalay s accusation that Nachghar has called Sri-Krishna a poem is challenged Nachghar is justified and it declares that it is quite capable of making the distinctions. It is a term used by the playwright and Nachghar has merely quoted it Nachghar asks Banga - Rangalay, the pertinent question that why has it suddenly changed its policy of only publishing theatre advertisements. They are simply not capable of anything at a higher level 200. Nachghar sees Banga- Darshan and Banga-Rangalay as supporters of other theatres. Banga-Rangalay on another occasion accuses Nachghar of backing Charuchandra; the only consolation to such falsifications is that he is the greatest contemporary artist and was around even before Nachghar was founded 201 As far as Sita s beauty is attributed to Rakhal Das Bannerjee and Suniti Kumar Chatterjee, they themselves would have been shocked Banga-Rangalay has ascended from a paperformere publicitytoslandering papers likeatmashakti, Bijoliand Nachghar. The fact that a letter to the editor, by Anil Kumar Das, of Ramdhan Mitra Lane, comparing Sisir Kumar Bhaduri with Garrick is jeerred at very insultingly.202 Loyalties are decided, camps are divided; an eternal warfare is on. All pretensions of objectivity and neutrality are openly declared to be ideals, devoid of any practical 230

73 reality. Although Nachghar on principle is neutral, in practice declares its stand, justified. Even the letters to the editors printed screech of partisan politics. A letter by a lady, Mrs. N.C.Roy of Elgin Road, Post office Bhavanipur defends Sisir Bhaduri against crude slander like the poem- Bong Eng Not (The Anglicized - Actor) published in Banga - darshan. Mrs Roy accuses the rival theatres of vulgar and cheap tactics. Why can t an actor receive his worth? She notes that only women protest against such gross unfairness. 203 The very next issue gives Mrs. Roy s full name and address as some doubts were expressed, that the letter may have been dictated. Another letter by Mr. Anathnath Basu, in support of Mrs Roy s letter is published with Sisir Bhaduri as a matyr and critics the villains. Mr Anathnath Basu, inspired by Mrs Roy is ready to declare openly his, opinion for those who bear with wrong is as faulty as the wrong does.204 Another letter is explicit about its defence of Nachghar as such. The contributor writes that a couple of contemporary papers are determined to prove "your (Nachghar s) inadequacy in functioning as editors. The audacity of the challenge is ludicrous as the editors for the last years has been associated with literature and has earned these reputations. The accusing paper has a notorious background as far as the editorial section is concerned. The ex-editor of the paper and proprietor had on one occasion even been arrested for printing vulgar matters. Actually the reason for the vendetta is undoubtedly your stand in the witness box is this particular case." The writer of the letter is sure of the fact that no one is aware of this particular editor in the known literary circles.205 Nachghar on its part often stood alone and isolated. Attacked relentlessly on occasions, jeered frequently, it stood loyal to its cause, so much so that the division of the camps were basically with Nachghar on one hand and the contemporary press including the other theatre magazines - Sisir on the other. In this connection a very interesting interpretation can be made to show a conflict and antipathy between the journalists, and the literary intelligentsia, who till date had no 231

74 commitment to cultural journalism and aesthetic upliftment. Bankim Chandra Chatterjee s and Rabindranath Tagore s pioneerinng efforts in this field had been restricted to literary journalism and as far as theatre magazines or dramatic criticism was concerned, no one of any repute had dabbled with it. This was one of the main reasons for Girish Chandra Ghosh to take up the colossal task of not only communicating with the public but to bring about an aesthetical elevation and ability of scientific and artistic appreciation. The intellectual patronage and moral support which Sisir Kumar Bhaduri managed to enlist very successfully filled the void. But unfortunately it could not really bring about a change is the standards and criterions of dramatic reviews and analysis. A scene so much in contrast to the so called Victorian age in England, which was an age of popular theatre as well as increasingly popular journalism. Here too, one manifestation of the journalism was the emergence of the dramatic critic from the anonymity and brevity which had previously characterized periodical treatment of the theatre. The Victorian dramatic criticism was prolific and therefore predictable; what was less expected, though doubly welcome in a century of pot boiling playwrights, was the high quality of its critics, particularly at the start and end of the era. The role of Victorian dramatic criticism is enhanced by the names of Lamb, Leighunt and Hazlitt at one end, and of the mature Beerbohm and MacCarthy at the other. Even if we interpret the term Victorian, precisely its theatre boasted Lewes, James Archer, Walkley, Shaw and Montague among its critics. Since, howeverthe Victorian theatre was distinguished by its acting rather than its drama, dramatic criticisms was developed in performance, rather than treat the play as literature. A very similar case was the Calcutta theatre situation, and the Bengali men of literature, So inspired by English literary trends, was expected to develop along these lines, but instead could not manage to achieve more than following the basic style already in vogue. The only difference being that occasionally names like Stanisiavki, MaxReinhardt, Kachlov, Michaelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Boticelli, Shakespeare, Milton etc. were 232

75 mentioned in at an extremely superficial level, may be just to showtheir intellectual background, But the basic essence retained was one of euphoria, exhalations or mud slinging. There was no high dramatic crusade like the one between Shaw and Irving, which by its sheer depth of criticism took popular dramatic journalism to an aesthetic and literary level. In respect the battle between between Shaw and Irving the greatest actor of the time (a battle in which Irving was for the most part a passive resister) can be seen as a comedy of misconceptions in which both were equally at fault, both equally right. Shaw was right in principle in asking for Shakespeare. Un Irvisgized, he was right in wishing to link the greatest living playwright, Ibsen with the greatest living English actor, Irving. But Shaw was wrong in so far as he singled out for his purposes an inappropriate human instrument. Irving was nobody s instrument but his own. To do Shakespeare as Shaw wanted Shakespeare done, or to do Ibsen at all, Irving would have needed to sink his own personality in theirs and Irving like Shaw was unsinkable.206 Attacking personality cults need not, as shown in the case of Irving and Shaw, degrade into petty squabbles, and personal slander. In fact Hazlitt and LeigHunt s high quality of dramatic criticism, was possible because of the fourtune of the era, dominated as it was by two great exponents of strongly contrasted acting styles, Kemble and Kean. Hazlilt s immediate recognition of Kean s gifts contributed greatly to that actors unique triumph but he was never preoccupied with the technique of acting.207 In a single article he can denounce the slovenly standards of the transpontine Coburg and write affectionately of the country strollers from his youth. 208 Perhaps it was this wide ranging interest which prompted him to make the first analysis in English of the actor s public and private persona is the essay On Actors and Acting.209 In the theatre it was the actor s interpretation of the text that provided Hazlett s ground for judgement of Kean, at his finest, as Othello, he suggests, His lips might be said less to utter words, than to bleed drops of blood 233

76 gushing from his heart and later describes I cannot think but Desdimona s honest as irradiative his countenance with joylike sudden sunshine 21. While this careful assessment of Kemble s career distinguishes between those parts he could interpret acceptably (Cariolanus, Cato, Penruddock) and those in which he failed (including some of Kemble s favourite roles; Hamlet and even Macbeth.211 The bantering tone Lewes adopted as Vivian" of the Leader recalls Hunt s handling of Kemble and Looks forward to Shaw s treatment of Irving, characteristically claiming that Charles Kean makes Macbeth ignoble - one whose crime is that of a common murderer, with perhaps a tendency towards Methodism. But behind the teasing and flights of fancy there was always the recognition of strict professionalism in an actor which prompted his verdict of perfection on Charles James Mathews, a performer of extremely narrow range but impeccable within that range.212 But it was Leigh Hunt who initiated the new era in both theatre and dramatic criticism, and the tone which he adopted, were to be evaluated by his most readable successors, notably Lewes and Shaw, Colloquial, informed, iconoclastic, above all concerned with the technical process of the actor as he strove to adjust himself to the vast amphitheaters of a nation in the grip of the Industrial Revolution, where to gain the attention of an audience is always in some degree to gain their applause. While Hunt s work looks forward to modern dramatic criticism, Lamb s writing on the theatre seems to hark back to the eighteenth century essayist. But if Lamb the playgoer delighted in the theatre, Lamb the scholar distrusted it, condemning the distortion which highest drama seemed to him to suffer in performance. Such notorious statements as The Lear of Shakespeare cannot be acted must be read in the context of a corrupt text presented in a theatre aspiring to crude realism before a largely illiterate audience.213 Perhaps it is the immediacy and excitement of first impressions which set the tone 234

77 of Victorian dramatic criticism. Whatever its early limitations, the Victorian theatre was remarkable for its abundance and vitality and it is these qualities which are conveyed by its critics, whether they are of great acting, as Hunt and.hazlitt were fortunate to do, or the promise of great drama as Archer, Walkley and Shaw had the chance to do. Of course, there were gaps between these peaks, both is theatrical achievement and critical assessment, but if all the critics here represented something of a theatrical era, popular, vigorous and persevering in its painful but determined struggle towards the modern theatre as we still know it, neither they nor their subjects will have been all served. NACHGHAR Nachghar the most popular exclusive theatre magazine of its time, was first published on 26. Baisakh 1331 (Bengali Year) 1924 labeled as 1 st year, 1 st issue. The editors were listed as Hemendra Kumar Roy and Premankur Atarthi. It was priced at 2 paisa per issue and an annual subscription of Rupees three. The proprietor was Messrs M.C.Sarkar and Sons, Sudhir Chandra Sarkar.the signatory in registration. The present propreitor of M.C.Sarkar and Sons, Supriyo Sarkar, states that Hemendra Kumar Roy and Premankur Atarthi, both personal friends of Sudhir Chandra Sarkar, requested him to help them in their mission to protect Sisir Kumar Bhaduri from slanderous verbal attacks, which were vindictive enough to harm him.214 However from the 14th issue of the second year the editor is named as Nalinimohan Roy Chowdhury.215 Again in the fourth year from the first issue we see the return of Hemendra Kumar Roy as the co-editor along with Nalinimohun Roy Chowdhury.216 But from the eight year, fortieth, issue. Hemendra Kumar Roy is back as editor. Most probably the changes were conducted in a cordial atmosphere. The second issue, dated 2, Jaistha 1331 (Bengali Year) listed the rules to which Nachghar will adhere to. They also include the aims and objectives of Nachghar. It is to be published every Friday, with every issue costing 2p, and the annual 235

78 subscription payable in advance will be about 3 Rs. It is strange that a weekly which costs 2 paisa, even if brought out regularly every week should not cost more than 1 Rs 10 paisa.in that case is the amount prescribed includes postage for subscribes or is it because of special issues? Incidentally the first issue was totally in black and white, but from the second issue colour pictures and sub-headings were used. Although ultimately it reverted back to black and white probably because of the cost factor.secondly, Nachghar will publish matters relating to the Bengali stage and Cinema, and other entertainments like dance, song and refine arts. Illustrations and pictures are to be a regularfeature. In this connection a notice declaring that the next issue will be carrying three pictures of Sisir Kumar Bhaduri as Alamgir was also printed. The third point asks all contributions, like articles, letters etc to be sent to the editor at the following address 9/2 A Harrison Road Calcutta. The matters chosen for publication will be on the discretion of the publisher and unpublished matters non-returnable. This announcement may have been preceded by a comment in Sisir which skeptically previewing the maiden venture ask for details. The write -up in Sisir on Nachghar is an extremely sarcastic metaphor and is called "Bahoba Nach" (cheers Nach) which compares the two new editors, who as soon as they appeared on the scene, without any pause, launched on a slandeous crusade-like the animal who kills its children as soon as they are born." It calls the new magazine an agent or worse than a publicity hand out- Is not your habitat in Sisir Bhaduri s green room? You were the ones who sent out the invitations for Vasanta-Lila, you are not outside any group -you cannot exist outside any group ln the second edition of Ranga-Benu you have narrated twelve incidents - which group features in all of them. So are you of a group or not? You are the disciples of Ramchandra You are as honest and virtous as your Ramchandra! According to you the only actor even comparable to Sisirbaboo is Danibaboo - What about Naresh Chandra Mitra? But naturally you were not fortunate enough to see the play. You were born, not long 236

79 back, and being born you leaped up, these are old gossips."217 The size of Nachghar is 9 1/2"x 12 1/2", usually of eight pages. It was brought our every Friday. The Puja issue ran about 32 pages, while on regular occasions it would read pages. The price would of course in that case be enhanced. The regular columns included Natya-jagat a column making small -talk on theatre, competition among theatres and journalistic attacks and counterattacks. It comprised the first pageof Nachghar. Another column Ranga-Renu comprised anecdotes on the film industry, the emphasise shifting more and more on the Hollywood star system. The section printing the letters to the editor is called Dakghar. Other articles on international theatre scene, history of Indian theatre, about the yester year stars were also featured. Reviews were given position of prominence. In this connection it may be mentioned that Nachghar brought out a special puja issue. The advertisement for it was run on 10 Ashwin 1332:218, included facsimile of Girish Ghandra Ghosh s unpublished work, (printed in bold letters). Important contributions were to be made by the literary emperor-rabindranath Tagore, Abanindra Nath Tagore, Maharaja Sinendranath Roy, Sisir Kumar Bhaduri, Dr.Sunti Kumar Chattopadhyay, Monilal Gongopadhyay, Narendra Dev and the editors themselves. A set up of which even a literary magazine would have been really proud of. However in the puja issue there was an apology stating that some of the contributors despite being informed well in advance and constant reminders could not give in the articles. A significant lapse was Sisir Kumar Bhaduri. Instead a play by D.L.Roy was announced. Usually this special issue was followed by a three week leave.219. Sisir, another exclusively theatre magazine was famous as -One Paisa -Sisir, It was definitely an older paper and was founded in 1330 (1923) The approximate size of Sisir was about the same as: Nachghar, even the paper used was more less similar. 237

80 Exclusive Theatre magazines; I.Nachghar 2.Sisir. Cultural journals, with theatre section comprising 20 0/0 of the total paper. 1. Swachirta Sisir 2. Basanti 3. Chanda 4. Bijoli 5. Majlish Literary magazine, with theatre section comprising 15% 2.Bharati Daily newspaper with theatre section comprising over 15% 1.Baikali 220 An important and significant study can be made in this connection of the advertisements published in these of journals. Advertisements, regarded as a source of revenue, also signify financial patronage. Moreover in the excessively competitive field it is a clear indication of layouts. The space allotted, the layout and the copy and visuals used are extremely interesting, in reconstructing theatre history, and taste of the directors. A significant change between the advertisements of the previous era and in the era of Sisir Bhaduri had taken place. The catchy copy headlines- Hai Hai Bypar.Roi Roi kando, Hai Hai stutter, for a Roi Roi matter) was combined with gimmicky and other sales tactics. During this period advertisements definitely became more sedate and deliberately eliminated the ornamental catchy marketing strategy. Now the name of the theatre was followed by address, dates or days of performances, the announcements about the plays, with the important cast. The bottom lines would announce the plans of advance booking. The occasional English slogans used by Amarendranath Dutta were generally omitted. Significantly the name of the director or backstage staff listed 238

81 under credits were hardly ever featured in the advertisements. The advertisement rates for Nachghar initially were; Advertisement rates each issue monthly 1 pg or 2 columns 15/- 50/- 1/2 pg or 1 column 8/- 30/- 1/4 pg or 1/2 column 5/- 16/- 1/8 pg or 1/4 column 3/- 10/- However there is a sharp fall in the rates from the 47th issue of the first year. The revised rates were, - 4th Baisakh 1332 Space Each issue Monthly 1pg Rs.9.50p. 25/- 1/2 pg Rs /- 1/4 pg Rs /- 2/8 pg Rs /- 222 But by the second year, 18 issue 29 Bhadra 1332, there was a sharp hike;- Space per issue monthly 1 pg or 2 column Rs. 18/- Rs.65/- 1/2 pg or 1/2 column Rs. 10/- Rs.35/- 1/4 pg or 2/8 column Rs. 6/- Rs.20/- 3/4 pg or 2/8 column Rs. 4/- Rs.12/- 223 The first advertisement run by Nachghar was a full page advertisement of SITA :224 The 16th issue also ran a full page advertisement on Natyamandir and Sita :225 The 18th issue also saw the appearance of a full page advertisement of Sita and Alamgir.226 Other than Natyamandir s advertisement the 19th issue of 27 Bhadra 1331 included an advertisement of books published by M.C.Sarkar and Sons :227 It is extremely significant that till the 21 st issue of the first years, 1331, there was no advertisements in Nachghar of any theatre other than Natyamandirs For the 239

82 first time a half page advertisement of Jeevan Judh at Minerva is printed. But Sita s advertisements far exceeded the advertisements of other theatres in size and position, (full page advertisements of Sita and Natyamandir)in 23rd issue, 14 Kartick1331 /292 issue 27 Agrahayan 1331,/31st issue, ii Poush 1331 /.These advertisements were the back covers of Nachghar and assumed from its policies, Natyamandir was freed from paying advertisement fees. The first advertisement of a rival theatre came only in the thirty -sixth issue of the first year, 228 when a half page advertisement of Art theatre s Sarala was featured. Before it the only other theatre advertisement than that of Sisir Kumar Bhaduri s was one of University Institute s advertisement for a performance of "Padmini" :219 The subsequent 38 th issue, dated 1 phalgun 1331, also carried a quarter page advertisement of Art Theatre.Henceforth all the theatre s could be seen displaying their advertisements in Nachghar. For example in the fourteenth issue of the second year, dated 22 Sravan 1332, the second last page carried a quarter page advertisement of Star and the 1st page comprising a half page advertisement for Natya-Mandir and a half page of Minerva. In this connection however it may be mentioned that the fall of advertisement rates did not showany significant increase in the number of advertisements butafterthe hike, a marked decrease. Another important point to note in this context is that everytime a critical review is on Art s plays was published, Art Theatre refrained from advertising in Nachghar. The advertisement s sedateness was also undergoing a change. The advertisement for Natyamandir's 'Bisorjon' was anything but solemn. An announcement that this Bisarjan, has been reconstructed and restructured- and in form and content there is a great deal of novelty. Rabindranath himself has advocated these change (an aftermath of criticism centering around the editing of 'Jana'), New songs have been incorporated scenes have been evolved, no scarcity of novelty Correct teaching has made the songs lovely and adept artists have created new scenes. 240

83 Rabindranath s old play has become new."230 Similarly Sisir demonstrated an over abundance of advertisement for Star. Often it would three page- advertisement. The name and address of the theatre is accompanied by a photograph of the theatre building, with the caption- The Premier Theatre in Bengal. The bottom half of the same page carries an advertisement for 'Kamarjun'. The copy is how distinguished persons view Kamarjun and its success. A photograph of Aparesh Chandra Mukhopadhyay, manager of Star theatre accompanies the copy. The second page carries four illustrations! Arjun, addressing Kama Bhisma- offering God his prayers." Fate, Draupadi and Kunti and Kama- at the order of an elder - to kill a brother. The copy in this page comprises three quotations from Englishman, Basumati and Sisir on the next. The first of the third page is also devoted to quotations from reviews of Kamarjun, like from Basanti, Servant and Hindustan. The latter half is an advertisement for Iraner Rani, with the cast given and also quotations from a review, the name of the paper not mentioned. The illustration of Krishnabhamini as the queen is printed.231 Other theatres also run full page advertisements especially Minerva, but nothing to match the three or four or even the double spread advertisements of the Star. One interesting point here is that Minerva s Atma-Darshan features as a regular, full page advertisement in all the current issues - Big sketches are accompained with attractive copy, occasionally with quotations from Sisir, Basumati, Abatar, Bangadarshan and Nachghar. Whether there is any association or not the review and correspondent on Atma-Darshan is extremely favourable.232 It is significant that there is absolutely no advertisements of Natyamandir and Sisir Kumar Bhaduri s repertoire. It maybe due to the mutual suspicion and distrust which existed between the two, or it might not have been affordable for them. AESTHETICS. Theatre in Bengal, at this stage may have been abundant, an initial vitality was not 241

84 lacking either, but how far these were correctly conveyed by the critics and journals of the period, remains doubtful. Although some of the critics, did concentrate on writing and describing "great acting", which they could discern and comprehend, as a defensive stance was expressed more in the form of eulogy, rather than objective analysis of the trends. Actually this trend of eulogizing in effusive language through elaborate rhetorical quotation is what set the precedence for the literary pattern in future.the others were too prejudiced and absolutely incapable of studying the aesthetics of theatre, both at its best and at its worst. There remained an enormous unbrigdable gap between theatrical achievement and critical assessment, both in the positive and negative sense. An article by Amritalal Bose, entitled Journals and Theatre describes the relationship which existed between the theatre and the renowned editors, during the establishment and genesis of the stage. The leading editors of the time Sisir Ghosh, Monmohun Basu and Nabagopal Mitra were so comfortable with the actors and actresses, that they did not hesitate to drop in back stage, on a regular basis. Even the English editors, who usually maintained a distance with the Bengalis, helped out in supporting and patronizing the stage. Amritalal Bose notices the change in the complexion and character of the recent editors - he describes their attitude as a little too pompous and bombastic or a little too flattering The actors as a creed are pampered children who are thrilled at a little praise. If the criticism is made with love, the actor in all his humility, bows his head, but if he appears as a pompous ass twitching his moustache and making condescending sweeping statements, their backs are raised and the skin shivers with annoyance. Amritalal Basu in assessing the quality of drama reviews in simplistic term, laced with the colloquial wit he was so famous for, was quite obviously talking of its deficiency. In comparison with the English papers, these reviews are doubly lacking and Amritalal is extremely sarcastic when he writes - our critics do not 242

85 believe in any principles, or know the means to study it aesthetically and think it is their birth right to criticize, while the younger generation view it as some sort of a military strategy." But he rests his hopes for improvement is this field on the fact that "an educated, academic coterie has joined the theatre both in the performing sphere as well as exclusively in theatre journalism". At least they will concentrate on improving the quality of dramatic criticism. But he also issues an warning. A little encouragement may be good for the theatre and inspire the actors, but too much of it is like an addiction and a speedy rise, meant speedy fall. 233 The educated, literary group which accompanied Sisir Kumar Bhaduri into the theatre scene, determined to compliment his innovativeness and efforts to revolutionize the theatre, symbolized a great deal of optimism. They themselves wrote - A new era has definitely come. Never before has there been so much discussed on dramatic literature and dramatic art. In the past, only Rangalay and Natyamandir, provided a source for information about the theatre. The stalwarts of the theatre made a great deal of sacrifices to make it survive. But today, general papers are not sold if there is no section on the theatre. A lot of people who had kept away, are becoming initiated. There has been drastic changes, theatre is no longer looked down upon. Even among the actors, there are very highly educated, respectful youth and they are capable of becoming the educators of society. The entry of this group of educated youth has initiated a new age and because of their education, theatre today is aesthetical and honorable. Oh Lord please fulfil their wishes and aspirations - we too will promote them. 234 Their promotional strategy, discarded the entire concept of criticism, positive and negative. The style they deliberately cultivated was in the lines of eulogy, euphoria and rhetorics. Personal congratulatory letters were extremely popular to them; Letters, quite obviously harboring no intention of writing for the sake of scientific 243

86 appreciation or trying to educate the reader / audience in the discipline of aesthetical appreciation. For example Abanindranath s letter to the editor of Nachghar; - Would you like to hear-last Sunday how we viewed the performance of Sisirbaboo s Sita, at the Monomohun Natyamandir?-We liked it - if we thought there was any chance to the contrary, we would have abstained from going - but that I liked it; these words conveyed in hand - writing to you cannot explain to what extent I liked it. If you could come here and hear it from my mouth, you would have realized how much I liked the entire performance that day. In writing, do words not only loose their vitality, sometimes the way the reader interprets may change the entire meaning of the word. Yet you want to hear the words of my heart through the pen. If anyone misunderstands, the fault is yours. That year, on another occasion I had visited the Cornwallis Theatre and watched Sisir Bhaduri as Aurangzeb. That time I say, he alone was the play-no co-actor, no actor of the same calibre was on stage. This time, at the Monmohun, I saw Sisirbaboo had trained each and every actor, actress - so that they can reach the same range as him and for their very reason he was deliberately suppressing his own histrionic expertise so that the acting of the others can become manifest. The one who is the elder, wishes for the good of the younger and the fact that he controls his own talent is a novel experience for me. I am sure that no other head of the Bengali stage has ever kept himself so much on the sideline... when talent is aspiring to express itself fully like a bright ray of light, to cover.it requires so much patience and strength which can be witnessed in Sisirbaboo. Once in a while, it appears that the dam is about to burst and cannot be stopped any further. Charuchandra, is a perfect artist, he has created and painted the sceneries with a great deal of care, but to give priority to acting, the background should recede further, but Sisirbaboo has offered him a great deal of space and scope... What expertise in acting, what expertise in training. That day we were introduced to both these sides of Sisirbaboo, and I do thank him for this. If he allowed Sita, 244

87 Tungabhadra, Durmukh etc to attain perfection, before inviting me, he would have deprived me of a great happiness, happiness to view the process of creativity. In the first scene, an incident appealed to me a lot. When Sita is taking her exile as a blessing. I saw not only Ram and Sita, but a student Kneeling in front of her Guru, the small at the feet of the big - the flowers of gratitude were being laid at the feet of greatness and the new. 235 Abanindranath Tagore was naturally asked to express his positive views in a mere letter. Butto a man of his calibre simple praise occasionally assumes an aesthetical approach. His insights into prioritization of Sisirbaboo s production; required more elaborate treatment, which a creative personality and artist like Abanindranath Tagore could do full justice to; instead letter of praise was all that Nachghar desired; it was enough to highlight, Sisirbaboo as being interpreted favorably by the intellectual elite.236 Nachghar s obvious favouritism stands out prominently and is identifiable as a distinct trend in critical analysis; but even papers like Sisir; although attributing pioneer efforts in amalgamating education with drama to Star and its production of 'Karnarjun' harbors a great deal of faith in the new educated sections in bringing about a great aesthetical evolution in drama and dramatic criticism. 237 In reviewing Natyamandir s Jana he starts with an interesting paragraph describing an all round elevation of aesthetics in both drama and dramatic criticism, he writes; In the last three years the Bengali stage has undergone massive changes - it is not an exaggeration to call it a revolutionary change heralding a new age. Some educated actors, who till date had acted in another stage, have with high inspiration and aspiration joined the public stage with a great deal of enthusiasm. A lot of educated, important personalities are intent on supporting them and helping them in the fulfillment of their aims. The best artists of the country are not reluctant to help them.238 Hence the entire dramatic criticism came to be centered around backing personalities, actors and in a way building up a star system. Backing could not stop 245

88 short of unmitigated praise and sky-high metaphors - discerning criticism was a sacrilege. The opponents on the other hand were determined to bring about an iconoclastic denigration. A very sharp contract to Victorian drama criticism, which too concentrated more on acting rather than its drama, and that was the was the most distinguishing characteristic of Victorian drama. There too camps were divided. Each of the illustrious scholars, who took up the cause of dramatic criticism, had their preferences. Hence while the virtues of their favourites were highlighted, you could rely on the others not so favourably disposed to discuss the negative aspects. Together they created a complete study of the actor s school of theatre, of acting power of analysis, inclinations in interpretations etc.hazlitt s favourite was of course Kemble, about whom he writes; - If he had not the unexpected bursts of nature and genius, he had all the regularity of art; if he did not display the tumult and conflict of opposite passions in the soul, he gave the deepest and most permanent interest to the interrupted progress of individual feeling; and in embodying a high idea of certain characters, which belong rather to sentiment than passion, to energy of will, than to logtiness or, originality of imagination, he was the most excellent actor of his time. This praise of him is not exaggerated : the blame we have mixed with it is not individuals 239. Lamb s sympathies were with notthe so-called stars, but the comedians, Munden, Elliston etc, a breed of actors who had to be proficient in their techniques but never given their dues - a type of acting regarded as most difficult and of which very few are capable of. Macready is another favourite of the critics. William Hazlitt, John Forster who reviews his Lear and Coriolanus and Marston who discusses in great details his Richelieu and Macbeth. But as G.M. Lewes points out he is seen as a man of talent, a talent so marked and individual that it approaches very near to genius. But no such, distinctions are made in the Bengali stage. To run down Sisir Bhaduri; we see how even Mediocre talents are eulogized. But when it comes to a true genius; is eulogy justified? G.H. Lewes shows howto assess a true genius, 246

89 not by eulogy alone, but by constructive criticism The greatest artist is he who is greatest in the highest reaches of his art, even although he may lack the qualities necessary for the adequate executions of some minor details. It is not by his faults, but by his excellencies that we measure a great man. The strength of the beam is measured by its weakest part, of a man by his strongest. Thus estimated, Edmund Kean was incomparably the greatest actor I have seen, although even warm admirers must admit that he had many serious defects.his was not a flexible genius. He was a very imperfect mime - or more correctly speaking, his miming power, though admirable within a certain range, was singulary limited in its range. He was tricky and flashy in style. But he was an actor of such splendid endowments in the highest department of the art, that no one can be named of equal rank. 240 Lewes continues to give a fair assessment of one he regards as the greatest of his contemporaries. The positive aspects of Kean s acting, according to Lewes is his inimitable power to portray passion. But no audience could be unmoved; all defects were overlooked or disregarded, because it was impossible to watch Kean as Othello, Shylock, Richard or Sir Giles Overeach, without being strongly shaken by the terror, and the pathos, and the passion of a stormy spirit uttering itself in tones of irresistible power. Kean excelled in emotional encounters. It was only from the third act onwards all was wrought out with a mastery over the resources of expression such as has been seldom approached. Kean was what is regarded as a consummate master of passionate expression, and was also of the realization which belongs to the truth of passion, namely the expression of subsiding emotion. The waves are not stilled when the storm has passed away. In watching Kean s quivering muscles and altered tones you feel the subsidence of passion. The voice might becalm, but there was tremor in it; the face might be quiet, but there was vanishing traces of the recent agitation. Pauses were used to portray the subtle truths." 247

90 Lewes, as a dedicated critic cannot be satistified with merely pointing out the positives. He talks of the followers of Kemble school who were shocked at Kean s want of dignity, and at his fitful elocution. His range of expression was very limited. His physical aptitudes were such as confined him to the strictly tragic passions. He had little power of elocution unless when sustained by a strong emotion; and the long narrative was the kind of speech he could not manage at all. He was a real innovator but the parts he could play were in few - he had no gaiely, he could not laugh, he had no playfulness of this kind. His was the gaiety of Richard III. He had tenderness, wrath, agony and sarcasm at command But he could not be calmly dignified, nor could he represent the intellectual side of heroism. He failed as Hamlet, yet, according to Lewes it is the easiest of all Shakespeare s great parts for an actor of moderate ability. Othello, which is the most trying of all Shakespeare s parts, was Kean s master piece. His Shylock was far from faults and indeed was a marvellous performance.. Anything more impressive than the passionate recrimination and wild justice of argument in his Hath not a Jew eyes? has never been seen on our stage.241 Other assessments of Kean also follows the basic principles of measuring the positives against the negatives to show his genius and a scientific analysis of his powers. Hazlitt s assessment of Kean as Shylock (The Morning Chronicle 2 Feb 1814), Kean as Richard III by Hunt (The Examiner 26. Feb 1815), and Kean as Othello by both Hazlitt (The Times 27 Oct 1817) and Hunt (The Examiner 4, Oct 1818), Negative criticisms can easily be constructive and complementary to the positive. Hunt s criticism of Kemble together with that of Hunt s praises is as good as a total picture of Kemble s histrionics. Hunt s accusations are based on how over application of study can lead to derailment of a characterization, while Hazlitt sees it as providing a deep insight into the role for the audience. Negative criticism is also an important aspect of dramatic criticism and Shaw s crusade against Irving 248

91 is a case in point. Shaw saw in I rving, as appropriate and worthy cause for criticism - not iconoclastic denigration. Shaw was constantly aware of Irving s greatness and never dissembled his awareness. Indeed, he declared it by casting Irving for the part, Shaw thought most important in the theatre of that time; the part of the saviour of dramatic literature - through Shakespeare and Ibsen. The greatest living actor, he claimed, should serve the greatest playwright of the sixteenth century and the greatest playwright of the nineteenth century. Irving on the other hand, looked upon - playwrights as servants of the actor and upon their works as study to be pressed into the mould of the actor s personality. If in the pressing the work became distorted no matter. Though Irving was the most prolific through several decades, he had no practical respect for the plays as Shakespeare wrote them. He cut and patched to suit his own taste, his own ablities, his own idiosyncrasies, his own limitations. The public approved and applauded. Shaw objected and this objection gave a new dimension to International dramatic criticism.242 But of which the Bengali trend of criticism lay apathetic and uninfluenced. Shaw s negative attitude towards Irving was converted into a positive when applied to drama reviews. Shaw was passionately convinced that Shakespeare s genius lay in mastery of word music, in the magic of poetry.' Why', Shaw asks, ' why should we, the heirs of so many greater ages, with the dramatic poems of Goethe and Ibsen in our hands, and the music of a great dynasty of musicians, from Bach to Wagner in our ears-why should we waste our time on the rank and file of the Elizabethian and, or encourage foolish modern persons to imitate them, or talk about Shakespeare as if his moral platitudes, his jingo claptrap, his tavern pleasantries, his bombast and drivel, and his incapacity for following up the scraps of philosophy he stole so aptly, were as admirable as the mastery of poetic speech, the feeling for nature, and the knack of character-drawing, fun and heart wisdom which he was ready, like a true son of the theatre, to prostitute to any subject, any 249

92 occasion, and any theatrical employment.243 To those whose attachment to Shakespeare is strongly emotional this attitude may still appear outrageous; and insufficient heed will still be given to Shaw s praise of the poetry. Shaws quarrel with the current literary interpreters rested upon his refusal to accept Shakespeare as a man of ideas serviceable to the Nineteenth and Twentieth Century. The contemporary stage in Shaw s judgement, was an intellectual vacuum; and as he saw it, actors and managers with a vested interest in the victim were holding off the one contemporary playwright, Ibsen whose ideas could fill it. When occasionally some non-commercial organization staged an Ibsen play, Shaw s determination to encourage the enterprise could induct him to welcome the players as the revellers to London of much greater dramatist than Shakespeare - greater, that is to say, as a man of ideas valid and fruitful in contemporary life.244 The review of Little Eyolf by Shaw 245 may be regarded as one of the best case studies in dramatic criticism. The review starts with the defence of Ibsen, against Clement Scott (another important critic), who has called Ibsen a suburban, Shaw in his brilliant prose style - turns the table and describes it as the happiest and truest epithet that has yet been applied to the Ibsenian drama. Shawon the point explains the demography of England in midst of an Industrial revolution which had changed the very concept of core, urban metropolitans and suburbs, Suburbanity at present means modern civilization. It is in the suburbs that the conflict and contradictions lie shorn of all sophisticated veneer. Shaw very apply provides a demographic background, not to one, but several of Ibsen s plays ; But if you ask me where you can find the household, the Helmer household, the Alners household, the solenness household, the Rosmer household and all the other Ibsen households, I reply Jump out of a train anywhere between Wimbledon Haslesmere, walk into the first villa you come to and there you are." Shaw believed Ibsen, though already a power in Europe, is reluctantly and warily received by the English - although it is a subject as significant for the English :

93 Shaw, points out the common denominators which exists in all Ibsen s plays, and in reviewing one provide the picture of the entire Ibsenian repertoire. Enter then our old friend, Ibsen s divine messenger. The Ratwife, alias the Strange Passenger, alias the Buttom Moulder alias Ulrik Brendel, comes into ask whether there are any little gnawing things of which she can rid the house. They do not understand - the divine messenger in Ibsen is never understood, especially by the critics. 247 Shaw is also very astate about criticising the social parasites, so socially relevant in Ibsen s plays; the suburban ladies and gentlemen with nothing to do but enjoy themselves. Shaw in most of his Ibsen reviews also draws the line which the ordinary playwright would have left offat, and just where an Ibsen play would begin. In Little Eyolf it is only after marriage, that the husband begins to make the discoveries, which Shaw argues everybody makes except apparently the critics. 248 While reviewing John Gabriel Bookman; - once again Shaw points out that Ella s moving speech of I have never known pity... It is you that have created an empty barren desert within me - and without me too.! What is there in this speech asks Shaw, that might not occur in any popular novel or drama of sentiment written since Queen Anne s death? But Ella Rentheim does not stop there;" You have cheated me of a mother s joy and happiness in life, and of a mother s sorrows and tears as well. And perhaps that is the heaviest part of the loss to me. It may be that a mother s sorrows and tears were what I needed most." 249 Shaw explains how the Ibsenian drama is preeminently the drama of marriage - If dramatic criticism receives it in the spirit of the nurse s husband in Romeo & Juliet, if it grins and makes remarks about the secret of the alcove, if it pours forth columns which are half pornographic pleasantry and the other half sham propriety, than the end will be, not in the least that Ibsen will be banned, but that dramatic criticism will cease to be read. And what a blow that would be to English culture! 250 Shaw s reviews of Ibsen together with the criticism of his own plays, can transcend 251

94 mere reporting of theatre. Instead it is possible to view Shaw as the real disciple and successor of Ibsen, the only one to continue the fight against romanticism effectively and to deepen the great European discussion of the century. The unmasking of the romantic hero, the shattering of the belief in the great theratrical and tragic gestures is explained in the dramatic criticism very aptly. William Archer s review of Arms and the Man goes beyond the performance at Avenue Theatre, it shows how Shaw, like Ibsen views everything purely decorative, grandiosely heroic, sublime and idealistic as suspect, and all sentimentality and refusal to face reality is revealed as humbug and fraud. 251 Max Beerbohm, reviewing the "Devil s Disciples premiere goes on to discuss with deep insight how the psychology of self deception is the source of his art, and he is not merely one of the bravest and uncompromising, but also one of the most buoyant and amusing unmaskers of the self-deceivers 252 J.T. Grein s review of Mrs. Warren s Profession; points out that the worst thing is not that they think irrationally they often think only too rationally but that they have no sense of reality, that they refuse to admit facts as facts. 253 From these reviews, it is possible to discern that it is realism, and not rationalism that is the object of Shaw s striving and the will not the reason, that is the faculty Matresse of his heroes.254 That also partly explains why he became a dramatist and found the most adequate medium for his ideas in the most dynamic literary genre. Very rarely did reviews come down to the mundane details about sets, sceneries or mere acting. Of course they featured in the reviews, for example Shaw is extremely antagonistic towards the Ibsenian acting school, and thinks they are detrimental for even Ibsenian plays. He is an ardent supporter of what is known as the Beautiful school of Acting. He does talk of bad use of incongrous furniture for John Gabriel Borkman and with his typical wit offers to donate some of his own or if required a ten pound. 255 But the criticism of this period goes beyond mere performances, they delve into the essence of the plays and playwrights. Wiliam 252

95 Archer reviewing Oscar Wildes A Woman Of No Importance while admiring Wilde and arguing that it must be taken on the very highest plane of modern English drama, and furthermore that it stands alone in that plane, in intellectual calibre, artistic competence, he is ruthless in his criticism regarding Wilde s apprehensions such as his pyrotechnic wit, or his lack of irony, in which Archer suggests more Quixotism and wariness with prose. There are quite explicit in describing thetypical English dandy, whose European counterpart in this period is the bohemian. 256 As Arnold Hauser points out, Oscar Wilde is the successful bourgeois writer, so long as he seems endurable to the ruling class, but as soon as he begins to disgust them, he is mercilessly 'liquidated. Hence we see this liquidation through other reviews of the time.257 Even the so called commercially successful Mr Pinero, despite his popularity at the box - office, receives his true assessment from the critics. Archer is extremely scathing when he reviews the Second Mrs Tanqueray - I am no despiser of childish art, so long as there are brains in it, and I am far from urging that the stage should shows us nothing but Second Mrs. Tanquerays. I have not out grown my taste for lollipops, if only they be delicately flavored, and not too heavily loaded with plaster of Paris; but one cannot eat nothing but candy, year out year in, and yet preserve one s self respect and one s digestion.258 Shaw s review of The Notorius Mrs Ebbsmith, gives a more explanatory style to Pinero's box-office popularity, - In this way he conquered the public by the exquisite flattery of giving them plays they really liked, whilst persuading them that such appreciation was only possible from persons, of great culture and intellectual acuteness.259 But it is this very child psychology and appeal to the sense of childhood which has been described by Max Beerbohm in his review of Peter Pan (Sat Rev, 7 Jan 1905), and in his revelation of child ego state of the actor Barrie.260 Actually dramatic criticism at this time reached an all time height. So much so, that Wilde not only accepts Mathew Arnold s view that it is the critic who determines the 253

96 intellectual climate of a century, and not only assents to Baudelaire s statement that every genuine artist must also be a critic, he even places the critic above the artist and lends to look at the world through the eyes of the critic.261 This, according to Hauser explains the fact that his art, like that of his contemporaries usually seem so dilettante. Everything they produce seems like the virtue playing of very gifted people who are however not professional artists. But that was, if one may believe them, precisely the impression they wanted to create. It is not commercialism but aestheticism they seek. But how complacent and coquettish this foregoing of the artist s honour and fame is, is shown by the stage combination of dilettantism and aestheticism which typifies the English. Arts, had never really been taken so seriously before; never had so much trouble been taken to write skilfully chiselled lines, a flawless prose,, perfectly articulated and balanced sentences, It is not for nothing that Wilde speaks so enthusiastically of Husyman s jewelled style, Colours like the jade green piles of vegetables in Covent Garden etc. G.K. Chesterton remarks some where that the scheme of the Shavian paradox consists in the all her saying light green grapes instead of white grapes. Wilde, who in spite of all the differences with Shaw, also bases his metaphors on the most obvious and trivial details, and it is precisely this combination of the trivial and the exquisite which is so characteristic of his style. 262 Never had beauty the decorative element, the elegant, the exquisite and the costly played a greater role in art, never had it been practised with so much preciosity and virtuosity, and the entire dramatic movement in this period is identified as aestheticism. The purpose of analyzing the line of International dramatic criticism, is not for comparison. There can be no comparision. But to show how oblivious the socalled well educated, academically-oriented sections, steeped in colonial education were to the progress of International trends. In England and Europe, in this period, drama had ascended from mere discussions of the pros and cons of a play to the 254

97 level of a brand of literature, termed as criticism of the aesthetical school. As far as the standard of criticism was concerned here there was no assessment of the pros and cons. Either the critic loved it, or hated it, just like they either idolized the actor or believed in iconoclastic denigration. Ifthey liked play, onlythe positives are listed and of course praised to the skills. Everything about it had to be great, all probable criticism had to be defended, anything which suggested innovativeness were regarded as the initiation of a new age in theatre. Even the description of the cast which features prominently in the reviews, would be extolled as nothing like it. At the most, one or two characters would be said to be not upto the mark. The review of Alamgir (revival) by Nachghar is a typical example of such praise. The review starts with how awestruck the critic was at the success of an old revival like Alamgir, where no new scenes or new skit or gimmicks of modern film technology has been applied. It is marvellous that it has run for twenty three nights at a row, and is heading for a jubilee celebration. 263 Sisir pronounces on this comment to ask, what jubilee, a copper one may be. 264 Nachghar attributes the entire success of the play to the genius of Sisir Kumar Bhaduri. Then there is a detailed description of how good the cast is and as a defensive conclusion adds, who spread the rumour that the co-artists of the Bhaduri group are negligible. Without exaggerating we can openly declare that although there are no screaming advertisements publicising famous names, they are a match for any contemporary scene.265 Not that the negative criticism was any better from the point of view of dramatic literature. It was quite obviously criticism for the sake of side-tracking somebody. Otherwise the pattern was more or less the same. The introduction talks of Sisirbaboo s decline, in popularity, when even the Eden Gardens previously would boast a housefull, but now there were empty seats all over. They talk of the great hope that was Sisir Kumar Bhaduri and the great optimism with which they went to see the play. We thought, that not only in his acting, but in all the roles, we would 255

98 be able to glimpse his greatness. We hoped that in casting, in scholarly aesthetics we would be seeing Sisirbaboo s talent expressed. The rest of the review talks of how the actors and actresses failed in the roles they were cast in.268 In the next issue Sisir once again ran a feature called. Alamgir Samandhe Jotkinchit, A few points on Alamgir which is basically a long list of 25 points on technical and productional defects, written by one Harigopal Basu. This list almost resembles a directorial note at the dress rehearsal, making a point of lapses to be corrected. Is it by any chance a check - list for Sisir Kumar Bhaduri?267 On Mrinalini, both Nachghar and Sisir harboured exactly the opposite points of view, yet the reviews read together, provide the same inadequate picture of the production. Nachghar, is insistence that despite the elaborate sets, scenes, costumes and stars it is not popular and cannot be regarded as a box-office hit. According to Nachghar, the repertoire and the director lacks the sophistication and education to comprehend Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay. A hint that in academics there cannot be any comparison to Sisir Kumar Bhaduri. Once again there is a detailed description of the cast.268 Sisir praise Art for the role it has undertaken to reform and reconstruct the theatre movement; how or why is not mentioned. Once again a discussion on the cast follows; even though at an extremely superficial level like Srijukta Nirmalendu Lahiri has appeared in the role of Hemchandra. Some say he is good in these roles, others say he is a little stiff and hence his acting could not be totally beautiful. The so-called brave man, who at every word can physically abuse a woman despite a sincere love, is the sort of a person one can assume!!! There is nothing more on Hemchandra but goes on to discussing the merits of Mrinalini.269 When it comes to other groups, where camp loyalties and defences are not applicable the review is just plain narrative Nachghar, reviewing Bapika Biday" and a Sketch which goes with it. Here the simplest form of telling the story, and describing a few of the characters are regarded as reviewing. The review on 256

99 Bapika-Biday, starts with how versatile Amritalal Bose still is with his pen and though the play has some resemblances to another of his plays Khasbadal, he has very clearly dealt with the dialogue so that the similarity of the theme is not so apparent. There is no discussion or comment on the type or school of comedy, instead a line which says - After the farce Khasbadal I have not found any other comedy so entertaining. Acting is appropriate for the comedy, followed by a line or two on each of the characters.270 A review of comedy can take on such educational overtones, that it practically gives the entire historical and social background of comedy as such. A typical example is of course Charles Lamb s review of The School For Scandal published in The London Magazine April He not only explains the entire artificial comedy and the great exponents of this school, Congrieve and Farqunor, but traces the decline of comedy as such. We carry our fire-side concerns to the theatre with us. We do not go tither, like our ancestors, to escape from the pressures of reality, so much as to confirm our experiences of it; to make assurance double and take a bond of fate. Lamb in a way criticize the entire concept of bourgeois realism - We must live our toilsome lives twice over, as it was the moreful privilege of Ulysses to descend twice to the shades. Lamb too talks positive of the sheer entertainment he receives from a comedy; I come back to my cage and my restraint the fresher and more healthy for it. I wear my shackles more contentedly for having respired the breadth of an imaginary freedom. I do not know how it is with others, but I feel the better always for the perusal of one of Congrieve s - nay, why should I not add even of Wycherly s comedies. I am the gayer at least for it; and I could never connect those sports of witty fancy in any shape with any results to be drawn from them to imitation in real life. In comparison, modern bourgeio is realism is to him like Cato s pit of desire, where he must adopt the standard of police in the measure of political justice." The entire review follows this line of Comedy as escapism as opposed to Bourgeois realism. It transcends 257

100 the mere realm of dramatic review and takes on overtones of literature.271 The ultimate alienated and apathetic review is that of Sisir Kumar Bhaduri s Pashani. Sisir a little modified does not come out too strongly against the play, although it talks of how they had placed a great deal of hope on Sisir Kumar Bhaduri and his scholarship, but this time, more than disappointment, it is an indirect compliment that he dared to do a play like Pashani, which had never been performed on the stage. Other than that, Sisir in its original review makes no comment on the controversial content of Pashani,272 Nachghar in its typical euphoria does mention the different interpretation made by D.L. Roy in portraying Ahalya as a sexstarved female, craving male attention. The success of the play, states Nachghar centres around her and goes on to describe Prabha in hyperboles273 Sisir a little less euphoric does praise her efforts. Sisir Bhaduri as Gautam and Indra is praised by both Nachghar and Sisir, but is different degrees. The controversy regarding the interpretation came much later; incited by the conservative journals and Nachghar especially came out in strong defence. But it is an ironic reflection on the standard of reviews who could remain oblivious to the sociological and religious impact as interpretation like this can have. The reviews of Jana, in this context is an interesting study as both Art Theatre and Natyamandir performed it and both Nachghar and Sisir attributed a great deal of space and importance to it. The rivalry here came to be manifest in the competition first to win Tarasundari, who was being wooed by both Art and Natyamandir. Nachghar of course had only positive things to say about her comeback, Sisir is more or less pessimistic, but once again its apprehensions are not explained. A very interesting comparison can be made with William Hazlitt s wariness at the return of Mrs. Siddons to play lady Macbeth opposite Kemble - her past achievements, her present positive points stemming out of sheer experience 258

101 - but the slowing down of speech, movement and how detrimental it can prove, maybe compared not with the real Mrs. Siddons at her prime, but the myth she had become.274 Art Theatre s Jana is not liked by either Nachghar nor Sisir. Sisir points out in a listthe productional defects to prove ita mediocre production.275 Asecond review following the first one however concentrates on the merits and demerits of three actresses playing Jana. T eenkari, of course Girish s protege, is hailed as the only successful one. Sushilabala s audacity is shocking for them.276 Natyamandir s Jana" of course gets more significance in both Nachghar and Sisir. The first review in Sisir, starts with their favourite topic - the hope that was Sisir Kumar Bhaduri and the great euphoria he managed to create by performing at the Eden Gardens. Then continues to talk of how theatre scene has changed in the last few years, and the rest of the review is how Tarasundari is to adapt to the new age and how the audience will accept her now. Her acting seemed a little nervous to the critic. But while the beginning was frustrating for the audience, she excelled in the latter part.277 A second review which immediately follows the first is under the byline - Amarendranath Ray starts of on a slight different vein. Here he first eulogizes the play - "the new taste of ancient mythology so adeptly adapted into a play, is unique in Bengali theatre repertoire." He shows Jana as perhaps the best exposition of mythology, comparing it with other such subjects. But Ray is furious at Sisir Kumar Bhaduri s editing of the play. Such a truncated version does not stand a chance of becoming a good production.278 Nachghar however sees the editing as extremely appropriate and think this is the only way Girish Ghosh could be presented in the modern context and practically attribute to Sisir Kumar Bhaduri a parallel position with Girish Chandra Ghosh in recreating a play.279 But Amarendranath Ray insists that at times it did not seem that they were watching Jana but a musical. The clown is grossly missed. Nachghar however is silent at the omission of the classic clown of Jana, made legendary by Girish Ghosh and Ardhendu Shekhar Mustafi. 259

102 But the actual role of the clown is not discussed. An interesting parallel in this respect can be made with John Forster s review of Macready as Lear (the Examiner, 4 Feb. 1838). 280 In this connection it maybe mentioned that Jana s clown as more often than once been compared with Lear s Fool. Forster congratulates Macready for restoring the original text of Lear and resurrecting the Fool. Previously as Forster calls him - a notorious poet laureate, Mr. Nahum Tate had edited Lear and in the process omitted the character of the Fool altogether and that version had been accepted by Boheme, Quinn, Booth, Barry, Garrick, Henderson, Kean and Kemble." " The Fool in the tragedy of Lear is one of the most wonderful creations of Shakespeare s genius. The picture of his quick and pregnant sarcasm, or his loving devotion, of his acute sensibility, of his despairing mirth of his heart-broken silence - contrasted with the rigid sublimity of Lear s suffering, with the huge desolation of Lear s sorrow, with the vast and outspread image of Lear s madness - is the noblest thought that ever entered into the mind and heart of man. Nor is it a noble thought alone. Three crowded audiences in Covent Garden Theatre have now proved by something better than even the deepest attention that it is for action - for representation: that it is necessary to an audience as tears are to an overcharged heart; and necessary to Lear himself as the recollection of his kingdom, or as the worn and faded garments of his power. We predicted some years since that this would be felt, and we have the better right to repeat it now. We take leave again to say that Shakespeare would have as soon consented to the banishment of Lear from the tragedy, as to the banishment of his Fool. We may fancy him, while planning his immortal work, feeling suddenly, with an instinct of divinest genius, that is gigantic sorrows could never be presented on the stage without a suffering too frightful, a sublimity too remote, a grandeur too terrible - unless relieved by quiet pathos, and in some way brought home to the apprehensions of the audience by homely and familiar illustration. At such a moment that Fool rose 260

103 to his mind, and not till then could he have contemplated his marvellous work in the greatness and beauty of its final completion. The Fool in Lear is the solitary instance of such a character, in all the writings of Shakespeare, being identified with pathos and passion of the scene. He is interwoven with Lear - he is the link that still associates him with Cordelia s love, and the presence of the regal state he has surrendered. The rage of the wolf Goneril is first stirred by a report that her favourite gentleman had been struck by her father for chiding of his fool - and the first impatient questions we hear from the dethroned old man are where s my knave - my fool? Go you and call my fool hither. - Where s my fool? ho! I think the world s asleep. - But where s my fool? I have not seen him this two days. - Go you and call hither my fool. All which prepare us for that affecting answer stammered forth at last by the Knight in attendance - Since my young Lady s going into France, sir, the fool hath much pined away. Mr. Macready s mannerofturning off atthis with an expression of half impatience, half ill-repressed emotion - No more of that -1 have noted it well - was inexpressibly touching. We saw him, in the secret corner of his heart, still clinging to the memory of her who said to be his best object, the argument of his praise, balm of his age, most best, most dearest. And in the same noble and affecting spirit was his manner of fondling the Fool when he sees him first, and asks him with earnest care - How now, my pretty knave? How dost thou? Can there be a doubt, after this, that his love for the Fool is associated with Cordelia, who had been kind to the poor boy, and for the loss of whom he pines away? And we note even then, prepared for the sublime pathos of the close, when Lear, bending over the dead body of all he had left to love upon the earth connects with her the memory of that other gentle, faithful, and loving being who had passed from his side - unites, in that moment of final agony, the two hearts that had been broken in his service - and exclaims - And my poor fool is hanged!281 Having dismissed the issue of the clown the rest of the review of Jana goes back 261

104 to the comparison between the three Janas, one original and the two present, but Ray finds Sushilabala as good as Tarasundari. There is a follow-up article in Sisir by Srikrishna Prasad Ghosh who tries to now justify the editing of Jana. A rather surprising point of view for the conformist Sisir, he refuses to accept it as sacrilege and goes on to a rather complicated comparison with Europeans who edit Shakespeare ruthlessly, quoting one English critic called Hudson, whose The Study of Drama he holds in high esteem and goes on to prove that Sisirbaboo has generally maintained the standard set by Hudson - the plot or the dramatic effect and interest is maintained. Moreover he supports Sisirbaboo s modification where till the end you do not know that Jana is going to jump into the Ganges he thinks that by keeping the outcome as a suspense, Sisirbaboo has maintained a lasting impression - whatever it means. It reminds one of the ridiculous accusations Girish had to face regarding such issues. The author Krishnapada Ghosh is extremely confident that Girish himself would have supported such modifications and it opens up way to explore the plays of Girish even further.282 The reviews more or less take on the set framework. Sisir s reviews of Chirakumar Sabha at Star or, Pundarik at Natyamandir and Chandrasekha at star. The beginning is usually on the economic viability and then an elaborate description of the cast. Sometimes as in Pundarik, the story is summarized. 283 The review of Chandrasekhar also contains comparison between Sushilabala s Saibalini with the yester-year Tarasundari s who had excelled in the role.284 Nachghar on its own part was also becoming far more lenient towards Art theatre. Its criticism was far more held and modified, especially as Natyamandir had shut down and Sisir Baboo remained inactive for prolonged periods, Nachghar s disillusionment with Natyamandir and the theatre movement as a whole was beginning to set in. Its space had to be filled with discussions on Art theatre Ltd and Nachghar" found it itself to applaud its professionalism. 262

105 Art s later production of serious plays also appealed to the aesthetically refined Nachghar. The critic is elated at the prospect of Ibsen being played on Bengali stage for the first time. He is thrilled about the adaptation, he is euphoric about Aparesh Chandra s contribution in bringing International great drama repertoire into India - his gratitude takes on overtones of eulogizing. He is ashamed of himself and other educated theatre personalities who neglected their duty in this. Of course the production is also promoted in the most complimentary terms.285 But the range of discussion required to launch Ibsen, as we saw in, Shaw and Ibsen s other successors is missing. The critics are oblivious of their duty of providing the hermeneutics to the reader/audience, for whom it is imperative to appreciate Ibsen. Ibsen although popular, is according to the Victorian critics like Shaw and modern day critics like Hauser, very difficult to appreciate. Shaw as a critic believed that Ibsen s outlook on life, shot through with a profound contradiction must be first apprehended by the audience before they could even learn barn to sit through Ibsen.286 His fight against conventional morality, bourgeois prejudices and the prevailing society on behalf of an idea of freedom in the realizability of which he himself did not believe, need to be discussed and explored. According to Hauser, the audience must be aware of him as a crusader without a faith, a revolutionary without a social ideal, a reformer who finally turned out to be sad fatalist.287 Therefore only optimism and euphoria for an enigma like I bsen is on the whole extremely detrimental for dramatic criticism and dramatic movement as a whole. The trend of criticism, which was oblivious of his duties to its public, was quite evident. Hence dramatic criticism was on the whole still at an elementary stage with no stress or inclination towards any aesthetical study. It was a paradox that while there was a spontaneous growth and improvement in the theatre, which many regarded as the coming in of a new age - the criticism of theatre had lost its vivacity and appeal. In fact even if theatre, especially acting, which had fallen into decay at the 263

106 post Girish age was somewhat revived, in the sphere of criticism there was absolutely no rebirth or renaissance. The aesthetics of the Victorian era, which we are citing as models had more similarity to Girish Ghosh and his contemporaries pioneer journalistic works. The aesthetical approach was much more pronounced in his work, as well as a conscious effort to elevate the aesthetical senses of his mass audience to a level where they could appreciate the aesthetical, that is historical, philosophical and even the mythological content in his plays. In this connection the deficiency of this particular period maybe because of the deficiency of a good repertoire of plays. Despite Oscar Wilde s assertion that the critic is one who sets the literary standards, great dramatists must put up the plays with content which requires aesthetical criticism. Victorian England saw the emergence of Shaw and Oscar Wilde, as well as the greatest European dramatist of the century Ibsen. In the Bengali theatre scene it was an age of revivals, rediscovering D.L.Roy, while Amritlal Basu and Khirod Prasad Vidyavinod at the fag end of their lives were trying to keep the stage alive with new plays. Jogesh Chowdhury s plays incited and encouraged by Sisir Bhaduri, as dramatic literature occupied a very low rung, and the greatest literary genius of the times, Rabindranath Tagore only half heartedly gave his plays to be staged by the public theatres. In this context, one vital question that crops up is whether only improvements on production and acting, without a great repertoire of new plays can inaugurate a new age in the theatre in any concrete way. The absence of good plays, especially in Sisir baboo s theatre is a point emphasized again and again by Sisir. His choice of Alamgir, as a revival is criticised by Sisir, which writes; - We have no wish to discuss the dramatic qualities of the play Alamgir. It is an old play and for a long time this play has been subject to a tugof-war on stage. Only this much is enough to say, that the historical greats that are being staged on Monmohun, has Alamgir in the first place. Although the play is written by Khirodprasad Vidyavinod, the creator of' Pratapaditya', the father of 264

107 Nandakumar. We feel sorry for the Pundit, even more sad for Bhaduri-Moshai to see the selection of the play. We are extremely aggrieved to say that his credibility which was hampered at this choice of Vasantalila is similarly harmed by the choice of Alamgir. There are lot of plays in Bengal, it is imperative for us to point out that Sisirbaboo has made a mistake in his selection.288 The choice of Alamgir is a sore point with Sisir. In the next review of Alamgir Sisir takes on a more sarcastic tone of voice and listing the defects of the production, writes, Does Khirodprasad respect Bankimchandra? After Bankimbaboo s Rajsingha how could he muster the audacious courage to write on the same subject. Why did Sisirbaboo select this play - affection or scarcity? 289 Sisir Bhaduri s repertoire always suffered from this scarcity. Sisir Baboo s preoccupation with D.L. Roy and Khirodprasad Vidyavinod is mainly because of a lack of original plays. Overall Sisirbaboo was never too keen about the content; it was form which was more important to him, - experimentation with forms. In fact even Nachghar still in its initial euphoria, was extremely disappointed in the lack of good plays; - while praising Alamgir to the sky, it was quite conscious of the fact that only old plays are running and there is a dearth of new and good original plays.290 Nachghar is even more disappointed that the old plays are not even given new interpretations at times. The Monmohun Natyamandir s performance of Joydev on Janmastami was expected to take on new interpretational dimensions, in the hands of a scholar like Sisir Kumar Bhaduri. But with a pessimism they note that it was quite obvious that the production was not given adequate attention, rehearsals were obviously not exhaustive and the purpose was a commercial one. The intellectual idol had for a time toppled from the pedestal. Nachghar writes - We know Sisir Kumar as the worshipper of the Goddess of Art and hence we do not expect such business-like attitude from him, we want him to restage it, with a new interpretation and in his own perspective. 291 Bhisma too receives a similar 265

108 treatment,292 Howeverto befairto Sisir Kumar Bhaduri, originally he was enthusiastic about new interpretations. Even though Sita written by Jogesh Chowdhury, was much more inferior play than D.L. Ray s it developed the line of interpretation suggested by D.L. Roy much further. Most probably, this was a line encouraged by Bhaduri himself. Nachghar enthused by this new interpretation also carries a great deal of discussion on the reinterpretation of Ramayan. Particularly an article called Shastriya-Sitaram shows how epic characters were domesticated by Krittivas and how Ram and Sita s emotional tussles can be made more comprehensible by such reinterpretation. It is more in vogue with bourgeois realism to bring down the larger than life epic characters to the level of the middle class. Arnold Hauser sees it as an universal trend and very suitable for the new middle-class public, and with which the bourgeoisie feels very much at home. Girish Ghosh s epic and mythological characters stood for everything that was opposite to the bourgeois ideals of realism but with Sisir Bhaduri, the trend which Hauser discusses finds expression. The world of the epic characters is now taking new place in the world of the public for which they are written and no longer in the remote world of Saga. The plots are now made to revolve around love, a love very human. According to Hauser the love motif of bourgeois drama is perhaps the most bourgeois feature about it, since the lovers struggles, not against gods and demigods but against the apparatus of bourgeois society - public opinion 293. Sisir Bhaduri s Ram is a man torn apart by realistic problems and human emotions, incapable of the epic, larger than life hero, but very convincing to the bourgeois public. 'Pashani' carried the love theme still further; - the whole apparatus of love intrigue reflects the disenchantment and rationalization of life which always goes with the triumph of money economy and the commercial spirit. 294 Hauser sees it here all divinity is torn away from Ahalya and her human sensuality is highlighted. A sexuality and sensuality as scandalous as Lady Chatterly s lover or Oscar Wilde s 266

109 personal lifestyle was to the moralistic public. To show, one of the revered satis of Indian mythology as sex-starved triggered off a great moralistic debate. Navayug, described by Nachghar as the paper of the newfangled youth and religion refuses to accept the interpretation of the myth and insists that Ahalya did not intentionally take Indra into her room., Indra had come in the guise of the Guru and hence Ahalya did not commit any sin. It is sharp in its criticism of the critic whose knowledge confused epic with Puran. Firstly, Sisir Bhaduri is above any criticism as he is neither the author nor the reinterpretor of Ramayan, D.L. Roy as the author may have stressed the sensuality, which was already inherent in the original. Ahalya is full of lust and in her wooing of Indra is just like a common prostitute who gives herself up without any repentance. Extensive quotations from the Ramayan are given as proof & the accusations that Sisir Bhaduri and D.L. Roy are Brahmos, do not stand upto logic. "They are by far better Hindus than the critic of Navajug.295 One point here which Nachghar misses out is that the choice of this play by Sisir Bhaduri is significant in his general outlook. The defence of Sisir Bhaduri s choice of Pashani continues as art should be judged as art and not through moralistic values. What is ugly should be discarded but there is nothing ugly about Natyamandir s production. I n fact original mythology shows Ahalya as more ruthless D.L.Roy has shown her as Pashani" - stone hearted in her murder of her own son. But Sisir Kumar Bhaduri from the point of view of aesthetical beauty has softened the sadism and masochism of Ahalya.296 Nachghar refuses to accept it as anti-religious because in the end sin is punished and the virtuous is rewarded. Ahalya is repentant and the heroic martyr Gautam finds it in his generosity to forgive her.297 Forward and Navajug is shocked at the fact that such a minor incident of the Ramayan, should even be necessary to be elaborated and presented in this fashion. Navajug insists that as Krittivas has omitted this incident, why could not D.L.Roy ignore it. In fact according to Navajug" D.L.Roy in later life had changed 267

110 his opinion? But Nachghar refuses to believe it. If common people do not read original Ramayan, is it the fault of D.L.Roy? Nachghar continues to ask some pertinent questions such as was Balmiki a Hindu. Is it anti-hindu to read Ramayan in the original. The ones who criticises themselves are not Hindus but mlechchas" in the guise of Hindus. For the first time in this period do we see overtones of a religious crusade - We are Hindus, but not slaves to superstitions. 298 Sisir, without revealing its support for either side takes on a rather righteous stance. All that we need to know about the mythological authenticity of Pashani and D. L. Roy s interpretation we have read in the opposite claims of the contemporary journals. Bhadurimoshai by acting this play has given ample evidence of his new ideas and manliness, but when the countrymen together are protesting against its bad taste - Bhadurimoshai should shut it down. He will only prove his magnanimity at such a gesture. And if he insists on continuing can he not omit the controversial parts. Please think about it"299 But soon the crusade is discarded, though the controversy over the theme of sexuality remains and is revived in Pundarik. Sisir abandons its neutrality and call Pundarik probably the most disgusting play performed on the Bengali stage. The rape scenes are described as repetitive, crude and vulgar. We do appreciate Sisirbaboo s sense of aesthetics but must he subject his audience to this unfruitful art. Otherwise he would not have become so unpopular to the common people. By enacting this play the taste he has expressed is sure to bring him down in the eyes of the public. 300 Other than the blatant sexuality the content of Pundarik has not much to offer. This basic decline regarding the content of his plays is continued in the future by a complete lack of interest. The revivals of his historical plays also took on more and more a lackadaisical approach. Except for new interpretations by his analytical 268

111 acting., flashes of inspirations, he seemed to have lost interest in seeking new subjects with some contemporary relevance, be it political, social or religious. But the papers were too distraught and superficial in trying to grasp the new interpretations he was trying to convey through his acting. Nachghar" realizing this apathy and worried about the lack of good plays shows signs of frustration. The initial questions like why no social plays are performed at Natyamandir? 301 and what happened to the play promised to Sisir Bhaduri by Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay? Questions are answered as a consolation to reader audience that Pallisamaj and Datta are to be staged.302 But in the third year we see a rather strong editorial about the decline of original plays. "It is a vital question that is being asked today everywhere - why no progress in dramatic literature is being made along with the progress in dramatic performance? Even today the formulae used for writing plays is that which set by Marlowe, Shakespeare, Ben Johnson. Galsworthy or Shaw is too distant a possibility. Even Ibsenian techniques have failed to create a slight impact." The reason is of course the absence of good playwrights. Although there has been a flowering of Bengali poetry, literature and language, thanks to Rabindranath, it is exclusive of drama. Why are the young authors so reluctant to write plays? What follows is a note of utter despair - Will then there not be the rise of any new playwright? Will the dramatic literature of this country be for ever destined to a depleted and crippled inertia? Will not the theatres of Bengal ever be welcoming the procession of the new revolutionaries? We are waiting with abated breath for this appearance. Who will bring about the salvation of the six hundred millions? Who will save the theatre - we need new actors - new strong playwrights. The plays of the yester years cannot fulfil the great cravings of the present audience whose cravings know no bounds. They are eager to see the evolution of a new creative genius. But who will supply? Provide the poor and low dramatic 269

112 literature with resources and riches. Who will accept it as a mission to serve the cause of their mother tongue?" The author then talks of a personal encounter with a famous author who asked why he abstained from writing drama, he supposedly replied with a smile - Who will enact my plays, the plays I will write will not appeal to the professional. They are scared to accept anything that does not adhere to their beaten track. After reading my play they will sit in judgement and nod their head and say thatthe public will not take it, is an insult I would rather avoid. He then goes on to describe the harassment a prospective playwright has to face to get his play accepted by the relevant authorities. The author sees the third-rate plays as not only detrimental to the nation but to the talented actor as well: - the deficiency of the playwright in creating a character with original dimensions, in compiling incidents, in psychological expression and also in expressing the flow of language, cannot bring out the best in the actor. And by acting in such third grade plays he, however talented, looses his expertise, perfection, the range of his voice, the flexibility of his physiques and subtle psychological conflicts. Sometimes oblivious to himself he starts taking the easy way out and that becomes a bad habit he can never get himself rid off. "Today, the new theatre, with their new actors and actresses staging new plays in a new way can obtain success. Only those who can proceed with the new times can hope for victory and success. A few years ago, a lot of people had believed that the time had come for uplifting of the stage - A Renaissance of Histrionic Art and Dramatic Literature were in the offing-because after so long in this country young actors with impecccable refined taste, high education and cultural resources are joining the theatre. Hence they are sure to discard the traditional beaten track, and explore unknown routes and expose so many new ways to the audience. They were supposed to let open so many of the hidden windows facing the south, in the theatres, that the fairy-tale 270

113 demons will like magic come and awake the unconscious princess personifying the sleeping conscience of the people s aestheticism by touching her head with the golden stick. Then the golden rays the Sun will shine on the kind of actor s of Natyamandir and cover them with the glow of the first ray of the sunrise."303 The discontentment was infections. The next issue of Nachghar (20 Phalgun ) featured a letter from Jagadhatri Kumar Bandopadhyay. The co-secretary, Sabuj Sangha; who congratulates Sisir Kumar Bhaduri receiving the honour from the inmates of the Hardinge hostel but talks of his expectations of Sisirbaboo. They are still waiting for him to come out with new plays. Even the plays of Rabindranath Tagore which are unexplored and not performed because of no commercial prospect in them like Raktakarabi, Muktadhara and Dakghar. He is impertinent enough to point out that the artist is he whose one object is perfection and not profit. The author, writing in the previous issue, about the lack of plays also harped on the idea that a good play may not mean a run away success, in fact in the name of commercial success and public demand we abstain from accepting new plays. The writer who had expressed his discontent in the practical problems of writing a play, had also expressed an extremely condescending statement, I would have nothing to do with those who select plays according to the taste and demands of the public -1 do not want to waste my time and energy in catering to the mass demands.304 The middle class orientation, from the very outset had made a sharp division between commercial viability and artistic pursuits. Broadly speaking, that is the category of difference between Sisir Kumar Bhaduri and the ArtTheatre Ltd, While Nachghar viewed this in a positive light for Sisirbaboo, Sisir and other papers regarded it as impractical and irresponsible But the middle class, especially the educated middle class revelled in this distinction. From the beginning Nachghar wrote about how theatre was becoming important business prospect and how new entrepreneurs were looking into it. Sisir Kumar Bhaduri fitted the image of the 271

114 selfless hero who was ready to sacrifice all commercial gains for the sake of art, even extended on occasions to the comfort of the audience while describing the renovations of Monomohon Natyamandir, Nachghar is thrilled at how the seats for the women were being made more comfortable, how their problems of coming or sitting alone was being solved. Otherwise the stage, wings were being subject to massive changes to accommodate his production innovations. Whether the innovations are to appeal to the public is doubtful, but Sisir Kumar Bhaduri is not too anxious about it, Art is bigger to him - profits can never measure to the quality of art. We too want him to proceed according to these lines."305 On such stage renovations and its effect on the public, Victorian dramatic criticism has a lotto offer to as an interesting model. The renovations at Drury Lane theatre and the Covent Gardens have been treated with different annotations by different ascetics. The theatre at Drury Lane undergoing extensive renovations are hailed by Leigh Hunt. The stage innovations and replacement of foot lights and introduction of gas lights not only in front of the stage, but at the various compartments on both sides is appreciated from the productional point of view. The improvement which can now take place in theatre lighting are discussed elaborately. A very interesting point of note is that now not only more varied lighting effects can be made, but more effective use of the shadaw can be made. A concept to be of course developed and perfected by no less than Edwin Piscator. However the pretentious Chinese decor of the boxes are described as horrendous. But the redecoration of Covent Gardens is met by Leigh Hunt with opposite sentiments. Because here prices have been raised to 4s (in the pit) and 7s in the Box and if the town at last expected an increase of comfort in the opinion it was to be disappointed The Grecian lamp, Ionic Pillars, Rossis state of Shakespeare and bust and antiques of Minerva, Venus, Bacchus, Apollo de Medicis and Farnesian Flora prove superficial magnificence but a sad abridgement of comfort. The fact that size of the pits have been reduced to make more boxes is evidence of the 272

115 mercenary motives which Hunt that refuses to endorse.306 Unlike the Victorians, Nachghar sees in the renovations a clear dedication to Art viz-a-viz the profit motive. Sisir Kumar Bhaduri s image is connected to such changes; - A lot of people may ridicule us as this can only be the priorities of the imaginative poets, business cannot be run on this. Whether business flourishes or not, we would like to assert that when drama is an integral part of Fine Arts, it is a part of the poetic imagination - aesthetic - its creator is the poet. Its spontaneity, its expression, its fulfillment depends on the blooming heart rending lotus of poeticism. We are not ready to give any priority to the money element." 307 The concept of lateral thinking in this connection is really unique, from something as practical as renovations - discussion channelizes into absolute rhetorics. While to Nachghar, Sisir Kumar Bhaduri s priorities were clear, so was Art s. Art was always accused of giving priority to the business side rather than the artistic side and therefore Art never featured significantly in the aesthetical context. When the Bengal Theatre was closing down, Nachghar reveals surprise that despite the great enhancement in the sheer number of audiences - Karnarjun running two hundred nights, other theatres are closing down because of the lack of it - but we do not believe in spending a minimum, to keep profit margin higher, but insulting the Goddess of Bengali art. Nachghar blames Art theatre for its weakness regarding business. Of course it is a weakness few can disregarded, except perhaps the true artist.308 But Sisir uses audience popularity as a standard of criterion for measuring the success of a play. Sisir Kumar Bhaduri is often described as financially irresponsible and the poor box-office collections are a matter of great grievance to Sisir. While criticising ' Vasantalila' the critic of Sisir writes - While the connoisseur may approve of it, will the masses be satisfied with it? But does the Bhaduri theatre have any connection with the public at large? Can they also deny their connection to the public s pocket? While the amateurs can kick the public on the eye, can the 273

116 professionals ever afford to do it? What way does the Business ignorant Sisir Bhaduri adopt we are eager to see. We may be petty but not outside the public. To participate in Vasantalila we too have doled out some cash - although we may not have any claims, we can claim some education. We hearthat no one without an Intellectualist, cultured, artistic taste can appreciate Vasantlila but cannot we demand some explanation even as a student.? 309 A very interesting point which Sisir makes in its review of Art s Mrinalini - the song sung by Subhasini as Girija, was enough to make the tickets priceworthy. Just listening to these songs makes the money spent worth it. 310 An interesting study may be a comparison of the reviews of Grihapravesh in Sisir and Nachghar. Nachghar who was apparently changing its attitude towards the Star and giving it a full hearted support to its so called intellectual elevation is ecstatic about it. Sets are described with great enthusiasm, and the realistic drawing room set was upheld as the ultimate and best. Picture of the set accompanied the review. The storyline is explained with great vigour, though no attempt has been made to go on to the philosophical and psychological analysis, so importantto a play like Grihapravesh. Ahindra Chowdhury, Teenkari, Sushilabala s acting are praised and explained in great detail. Star according to Nachghar has practically scored over Sisir Bhaduri in its choice of Grihapravesh. 311 Sisir however announces it as a futile intellectual exercise quite obvious for anybody who has read the play. They are quite frank in that Rabindranath Tagore s plays, except for 'Chirakumar Sabina' is not really appropriate for the public stage. The Art Theatre authorities, very educated and knowledgeable by presenting Tagore will surely win the gratitude of the Bengali theatre-going intellectual audience, but what right do they have to play around with the audience like this. The vague hope we still had that Art in conjunction with Thakurbari may create a reasonably interesting production was soon dashed to the grounds. The Sisir critic notes that the auditorium was practically empty, there were empty seats in all 274

117 the categories and the performance started one hour after the scheduled time, maybe in the hope that current sale may occur. Discussing the content, Sisir writes, there are no ingredients & spices in the drama. There was no conflicts in the play only Jatin s groans of pain - how long can the audience bear the groans and moans -it becomes monotonous after a while. About the production, the disregard is not so pronounced - it is described as not too bad. Ahindrababoo, was a big disappointment and neither his make-up nor acting was authentic for a man in his deathbed. The rest are also judged as moderate. The man whose credibility stands most endangered as far as Sisir is concerned is Tagore himself. If his followers now try to prove it as the eighth wonder of world they will really harm their God. It is disadvantageous as well as advantageous to have fan following. All great idols have once in a while been endangered by their fans. We are warning Rabindranath in advance about it. 312 All the comparisons are superficial and fail to record dramatic progress and history or even distinguish between the schools of acting. Epithets and adjectives are used in abundance without helping to recreate a concrete picture. Reviews of Prafulla, both in Nachghar and Sisir are more interested in discussing it from a literary point of viewand the assessment of the cast.313 Even then Sisir Bhaduri s analysis of Jogesh, so important in the evolution of acting on Bengali stage has received nothing more than great or never before like this. In fact in most cases even Nachghar is surprised at why Sisirbaboo interpreted a role like this. Ahindra Chowdhury s obvious interpretation with physical distortions are more comprehensible than Sisir Bhaduri s psychologically invalid - interpretation.314 Shahjahan they launch on a long critical comparison between the four Shahjahans of the contemporary stage; Ahindra Chowdhury, Sisir Bhaduri, Naresh Mitra and Monoranjan Bhattacharya - but comparisons are not analysis only superlatives i.e., 275

118 good, better, best or not so good, bad, worse, worst etc. The one review, which somewhat adheres to the criterions applied in Victorian dramatic criticism is the review of Digvijoy in Nachghar. The review starts off with the contradictions of the historical character of Nadir Shah, whose ambitions, character, personality are best expressed in the proposal of marriage between his son and the daughter of the Emperor of India. Tell them that he is the son of Nadir Shah, the son of the sword, the grandson of the sword and soon, till they have a descent of seventy, instead of seven generations he is not only the conqueror but also creator". Such contradictions inherent in the play, are duly pointed out; the conflict between the destroyer and creator, between fire and water, between the horrendous and the simplicity of a child. How such conflicts are applied to the modern context is explained in the review and the subtle nuances interpretations, productions and acting are discussed. In fact one of the main reasons why Nachghar recommends the play is because of its subtlety which distinguishes is as high drama as opposed to melodrama.315 I mplied in the controversy between Art and business is that real art is the antithesis to popular appeal. Real art, can in this case exist without public patronage. Consumption of art by the majority is not imperative to judge the standard of art. In such case the public is looked upon condescendingly. A deviation from the time of Girish Chandra Ghosh, when the public was generally wooed and cultivated to come to the theatre. This period, however showed a general apathy so much so that the complacent intellectuals, smug in academic pursuits lost the mass public and restricted itself more and more to the typical middle class audience. Nachghar is extremely disdainful about the taste of the audience. Although it is what draws the public to the theatre, glitter and pomp of scenes and sceneries is not very artistic. Germany and U.S.A. has revolted against such painted scenes. 276

119 Instead they have successfully experimented with using one colour curtain - a colour for each scene to suit the mood can we not expect such changes here too? Nachghar regrets that our audience is not like their western counterparts. Raja, Dakghar and such refined plays are regarded as burdens by the audience. In the West, it is these extremely sophisticated plays, such like the ones by Ibsen, Strindberg and Materlink which are popular. The Russian theatre movement has formally discarded all action - oriented plays. But our audience is still very immature and crave for melodrama. The main responsibility of the theatre is to elevate the taste of the Bengali audience and free their insular mind. 316 Sisir expects Sisir Kumar Bhaduri to cater exclusively to the higher educated sections; - of three of the songs of Vasantalila, Sisir writes; - these songs are of the lower grade. By incorporating them Sisirbaboo has not exhibited good taste. He himself is highly educated and it is the higher classes who are expected in his theatre. 317 Nachghar writes further about the taste of the audience; - The time to be proud of a good play as well as well produced has not yet come. In the last couple of years we can see that despite the absence of good plays, the theatre has made a great deal of progress in acting. Again, even if the play is not of too high a quality but there are ingredients to capture the imagination of the audience, and through acting and stage craft if the play can be reasonably well presented then the play can turn out to be a run-away success, as proved by Karnarjun, Sita and Atmadarshan s success. A point of note here is the euphoria about Sita seemed to have diminished to a certain extent as far as Nachghar is concerned. In practice the problem faced by the authorities is that the majority of the audience has not progressed enough, or has not become refined. A lack of education and good taste has created such a deficiency in their aesthetic sense that they cannot accept Rabindranath. Raja-O-Rani cannot attract them. They are unable to 277

120 comprehend Griha - pravesh They cannot grasp the essence of Bisarjan But Moghul and Pathans can excite them. Misor Kumari can enrapture them Bage Bargi attracts them. In this case if the theatre management prepare a feast of Polao & Curry, to a person on a diet of rice soaked in water, will it not be some sort of an imposition? We must aim at slowly changing theirtaste. Through an evolutionary process their aesthetic sense must be made more refined and sophisticated. It is the responsibility of the theatre management Nachghar significantly claims no responsibility in this respect. Nachghar however offers a suggestion, among the weekly four performances, one performance must be dedicated to the pursuit of higher drama. 318 On another occasion, an article by Gurdas Chattopadhyay quotes Sisir Kumar Bhaduri who had said There are no people in this country who are ready to pay to see good theatre, otherwise I would have shown that how plays other than the mythologicals and historicals can run. 319 Nirmalendu Lahiri writing an article - AdhunikAbhinay O DarshakdigerKartavya (Modern Acting and the responsibility of the audience) also talks of educating the audience so that they can appreciate theatre and cultivate a sense of aesthetics. He quotes a leading contemporary actor, whose acting had hypnotized the audience, as saying - Acting is nothing but tricking the audience in most cases. - To a certain extent it is true, argues Lahiri, I have seen the audience being tricked -1 myself do it. Often they appealed at the insignificant, but manifestations of high-class art often simply eludes them. In this connection it may be mentioned that although aware of the deficiencies of the common audience Lahiri sincerely believes in concrete means to help the audience - the responsibility of the audience is tremendous and they must be made aware of it. They must be shown how they are often being tricked - they must be taught to distinguish between gimmicks designed to win cheap applause and real in-depth 278

121 analysis. Theatre is a responsible entertainment and the role of the audience is important. The fact that our theatre is not progressing but in regression, to certain extent is also the audience s responsibility." He suggests a preliminary reading of the text before going to see a play for example only a perusal of' Prafulla' will acquaint them as to why Jogesh, begging could never be a common beggar or not expect Chanakya when going to see Buddhadev,320 Significant here is that by making a perusal of the text a basic criterea for good judgement, he too is demanding a certain educational background enough to read and apprehend Girish and D.L. Roy s drama "if not higher classics". Nachghar on one occasion ran a column called Darshak-Durpan, ( Audience - mirror ) where it is almost ridiculing the mass audience because of their simpleton behaviour. A classic example of the middle class audience s attitude towards the mass audience. The column lists seven anecdotes; A rich man had presented his domestic staff with free tickets to Star s Griha-pravesh. The servants all dressed up for the theatre departed, but almost instantly returned. The master asked the cause for their early return - Was there a lot of crowd did you not get seats? The servants replied that an accident has occurred in the theatre, there was no-one in the audience, Ahindrababoo, had fallen ill and was sitting on stage while Teenkaribaboo and the ladies were ministering to his illness, Two salient points here are the absolutely empty house and Tagore is not acceptable to the general public staste." Sita was on at the Natyamandir. There was a great crowd. A group of audience however was very excited. They were eagerly awaiting the appearance of Hanuman. When their neighbour tried to tell them to calm down and that Hanuman does not come in this play, he was met with outrage and disbelief. How can the Brave Hanuman not feature in a play on Sita. It would in that case be a violation of the Hindu religion. Suddenly they started applauding, Durmukh had appeared on stage. When the neighbour gentleman tried to explain about Durmukh, they 279

122 wouldn t hear him instead they tried to explain that because he was without his tail, he could not recognise Hanuman. Mitra Theatre, was staging Durgeshnandini with Tarasundari as Ayesha. Nirmalendubaboo and Tulsibaboo as Jagat Singha & Osman. A young audience from the pit was heard asking his brother, whether the two men were fighting over their grandmother".implications are that only the audience in the pit could ask such a question. Two ordinary audience at Minerva s Bapika-biday were overheard saying, that they had been deceived, it was the same play Khasdakhal which they came to see a second time. When asked by the other man, how could he think that? He replied that he could identify the actors and actresses who had appeared now in only a new guise. Only one of these anecdotes is about a mistake committed by an educated man, a professor, even then it is a genuine mistake and the joke is not on him, but the author is laughing with him.321 However, ultimately even Nachghar cannot avoid mentioning the box office, while trying to prove Sisir Kumar Bhaduri s popularity. About Sita s popularity Nachghar writes, "the maximum number of seats are open every night for the public, and tickets are always sold out in advance. Sisir Bhaduri never found it necessary to fill up his auditoriums with invitations. 322 Announcing Tarasundari s comeback Nachghar expects audiences to flock in hoards to the theatre.323 Nachghar counter s the argument that Bengal Theatre is closing down because of a lack of audience. Nachghar says that in today s context such excesses are irrelevant. Even three years before no play could even dream of running consequently for 200 nights.324 Nachghar refuses to believe that a good play produced capably will not attract audience, other papers insisting that the plays were of high standard, as they have been praised by Nachghar in their reviews although in the box-office was a flop. Nachghar asks whether the play had been 280

123 praised, or the production was praised or whether both were acclaimed by Nachghar is not mentioned 325 Box-office draw is an important criterion in the inter-camp rivalry too. Mrinalini at Star is criticized, and its box-office is also described by Nachghar to prove the credibility of its criticism Despite elaborate sets and scenes, costumes and stars, Mrinalini bombed at the box-office.326 Sisir uses the criterion of box-office draw even more profoundly than Nachghar. It in facts describes the condition of the box-office in each and every one of its review. In the review of Alamgir, for example, Sisir writes - we were stunned to see the house. The face of Sisir Bhaduri which could attract enough audience to fill Eden Gardens to the brim, in this new theatre in the heart of a city failed to attract even a moderate crowd. The few heads scattered around could be counted easily. True there were other diversions that very evening, but the reappearance of Sisir Kumar Bhaduri, could not have been less attractive.327 Sisir on another occasion discusses the prospects of box office draw in parallel theatres running performances simultaneously there Sisir s loyalty towards the Star is exposed - How many theatres can run simultaneously in Calcutta has been a much debated topic. Previously we had seen one theatre would run very well, another would run moderately, the third would just about struggle a long. Now, probably only one is running, we do not say that the others are not running, whether they are running well or not, we do not say. If anothertheatre runs well, it is definitely a good sign 328 The insinuations that Sisir Kumar Bhaduri was loosing his mass appeal was more and move evident in such comments - in the controversy over Vasantalila, Sisir argues against its the critic who has called it popular We felt like asking him, that night how many audience were there of course not next to him, as there were no two people sitting side by side - and among the scattered few how many were enjoying the show?

124 During the Pashani controversy, Sisir in a rather bewildered tone asks, what is the use of carrying on such a play, where even the audience is deliberately abstaining? 330 But when similar comments cannot be avoided about the Startheatre, the general loss of the mass audience becomes clear Sisir while reviewing Chirakumar Sabha The premier of a Rabindranath s play was expected to be a big draw. But we were very disappointed There was not much of a crowd is the Rs.1 and Rs.2 seats, the seats of higher rates - invitation or ticket we do not know - were better filled The hopeful sign was that day a lot of important and highly educated people had come to the theatre,... The anxiety is such that the section of the audience who has for so long kept the Bengali theatre alive, will not appreciate such a play why they do not like it or will not accept it we cannot say may be they are unable to digest such artistic acting. The audiences are not ready for such advanced art, yet we do not hesitate to declare that Art theatre in their venture has exhibited a great versatility and aesthetic taste and will win the gratitude of the audience. 331 If mass appeal is lost, gratitude of which class will they be cultivating? A class which can appreciate Rabindranath Tagore. Star s failure with Raja O Rani according to Nachghar is because it did not adhere to the sophisticated standards required of a Rabindranath s play. In fact any attempt to commercialze it and make it more appealing for the masses is pure sacreilege. 332 But Nachghar is happy about Star s Chira-kumar Sabha. A letter by Girija Kumar Basu requests Star to perform the more cerebral plays of Rabindranath too, i.e., Raja or Falguni. As for Grihapravesh, Nachghar is ecstatic and its euphoria is almost equal to that of Sisir Bhaduri in his heydays 333 Ironically as far as Nachghar is concerned its preferences for a play seems inversely proportion to its mass appeal. Nachghar revels in the concept of intellectual alienation of an intellectual theatre Nachghar ran largish feature on the Russian actress- Garmanova and describes 282

125 her performance in Rabindranath Tagore s King of the Darkchabker. Nachghar cannot understand why Tagore who is being performed so successfully in Germany, Denmark, Russia, England and U.S.A. is not more extensively performed here. The answer is obvious- By performing such plays, the pockets of the theatre authorities will not overflow, but will be the best possible test for the new generating educated actors and actresses. - To the connoisseur, Such happiness is not meagre - what is the harm in forgetting the business prospects from time to time in the sphere of art.334 In one column of Ranga-Renu, he ver y proudly talk of how Max Reinhardt requested the people to restrain from applauding. The Moscow Art Theatre too disapproves of its often applause is nothing but a jeer or a taunt and should not be encouraged by our actors who revel in it and hence falls into a trap of their own making. It definitely breaks the mood of the scenes, especially if it is of the soft and fine variety. The applause originates in the galleries, the place for the non-connoisseurs and such audience has no connection with art-only profits are dependent on gallery and the pit. Their applause is enough to chase away the dreamlike beauty of a scene or make the goddess of art faint with shock.335 The theatre, oblivious of its loss of the pit audience remained complacent in cultivating the middle-class audience, an audience whose intellectual level will be at par with them and who will be worth the intellectual effort which theatre was to become - a trend extremely reminiscent of the Bengali reformist trends, following in the footsteps of the so-called Renaissance. The appeal of the pit audience is something they wanted to ignore. The enthusiasm and an eagerness to appreciate so evident in the common audiences is something the so-called stalwarts were happy to forget. Their sheer 283

126 vivacity was somehow discordant in the sophisticated intellectual atmosphere, they were seeking, Charles Lamb in his Playhouse Memoranda. (The examiner, 19 December 1813) considers it a state though a very true remark; that I have constantly found the interest excited at a play -house to bear an exact inverse promotion to the price paid for admission, he is extremely frank about his admiration for the so-called pit audience of whom he writes; "Formerly, when my sight and hearing were more perfect, and my purse a little less so, I was a frequenter of the upper gallery in the old Theatres. The eager attention, the breathless listening, the anxiety notto lose a word, the quick anticipation of the significance of the scene (every sense kept as it were upon a sharp lookout), which are exhibited by the occupiers of those higher and now almost out of sight regions (who, going seldom to a play, cannot afford to lose anything by inattention), suffer some little diminution as you descend to the lower or two-shilling ranks; but still the joy is lively and unallayed, save that by some little incursion of manner, the expression of it is expected to abate somewhat of its natural liveliness. The oaken plaudits of the trunk-maker would here be considered as going a little beyond the line. In the pit first begins that accursed critical faculty, which critical faculty, which making a man the judge of his own pleasure, too often constitues him the executioner of his own and others! You may see the jealousy of being unduly pleased, the suspicion of being taken in to admire; in short, the vile critical spirit creeping and diffusing itself, and spreading from the wrinkled brows and cloudy eyes of the front row sages and newspaper reporters (its proper resident), till it infects and clouds overthe thoughtless, vacant conveyance of John Bull tradesmen, and clerks of counting-houses, who but for that approximation, would have been contented to have grinned without rule, and to have been pleased without asking why. The sitting next to a critic is contagious. Still now and then, a genuine spectator is to be found among them, a shopkeeper and his family, whose honest titillations of mirth and generous chucklings of applause, cannot wait or be at 284

127 leisure to take the cue from the sour judging faces about them. Hapiy they never dreamed that there were such animals in nature as critics or reviewers; even the idea of an author may be speculation they never entered into; but they take the mirth they find as a pure effusion of the actor-folks, set there on purpose to make them fun. I love the unenquiring gratitude of such there spectators. As for the Boxes, I never can understand what brings the people there. I see such frigid indifference, such unconcerned spectatorship, such impenetrability to pleasure or its contrary, such being in the house and yet not of it, certainly they come far nearer the nature of the Gods, upon the system of Lucretius at least, than those honest, hearty, well-pleased, indifferent mortals above, who from time immemorial have had that name, upon no other ground than situation, assigned them. Like the Bengal Renaissance martyrs the audience they craved for was not only restricted to the Bengali middle class, but their ideal was in their European and Soviet counterpart. The more divorced they became from the mass audience, the more refuge they sought in comparing the Indian middle class theatre goer with that of the West. They were trying to grasp Internationalism as a solace for their practical frustrations. A dilemma facing Nachghar, for example was how to continue eulogizing Sisir Bhaduri, despite the commercial decline of his theatre. A very popular means was to compare him with the great Western stars- a better credibility for an educated actor than the typical appeal of a star. Edeshi o Bideshi Abhinay ( Indigenous and Foreign Acting) was mainly trying to evaluate. Take the play-house altogether, there is a less sum of enjoyment than used to be. Formerly you might see something like the effect of lovely upon a citizen, his wife and daughters, in the Pit; curiosity upon every new face that entered upon the stage. The talk of how they got in at the Indoor, and how they were crowded upon some former occasion, made a topic till the curtain drew up People go too often now-a days to make their engross or egress of consequence. Children of seven 285

128 years of age of five or six? It was Artaxerxes. Who played, or who sang in it, I know not. Such low ideas as actor s names, or actors; merits, never entered my head. The mystery of delight was not cut open and dissipated for me by those who took me there. It was Artaxerxes and Arbaces and Mandanethat I saw, not Mr. Beard, or Mr. Leoni, or Mrs. Kennedy. It was all enchantment and a dream No such pleasure has since visited me but in dreams. I was in Persia for the time, and the burning idol of their devotion in the Temple almost converted me into a worshipper. I was awe-struck, and believed those signification to be something more than elemental fires. I was, with Uriel, in the body of the sun-what should I have gained by knowing (as I should have done, had I been born thirty years later) that that solar representation was a mere painted scene, that had neither fire nor light in itself, and that the royal phantoms, which passed in review before me, were but such common mortals as I could see every day out of my fathers window? We crush the faculty of delight and wonder in children by explaining everything. We take them to the source of the Nile, and show them the scanty runnings, instead of letting, the beginnings of that sevenfold stream remain in impenetrable darkness, a mysterious question of wonderment and delight to ages."337 Lamb may have been a seasoned pit goer with an astute understanding of their sense of aesthetical delight, but Max Beerbohm, as a rare pit -goer, eager howeverto use a byline like An old Pittite also delights in narrating his experience. The letters in the papers by an old Pittite is something that has always fascinated him.- And such letters, so oracular, permeate with so notable a pride, it had often been borne in on me that there must be in the pit something -some mystic gracethat enables a man to judge more surely, to take himself more seriously, and to spend a happier evening, than elsewhere."336 The revelations are a lesson in appreciation for an acknowledged critic. His entire concept of analysis changes it was a strain on the ears and eyes. Actors who had seemed clownish from the boxes were the only ones whose gestures could be 286

129 discerned. Concepts of elocution and voice projection changed drastically. The plot could barely be followed and Beerbohm is shaken out of his intellectual complacency, "man in the pit may seem like violent over-acting to the man in the stalls. And what seems like restraint to the man in the stalls may be a mere blank, a vacuum, to the man in the pit, Everything depends on the point of view. The relativity of things occupied my mind throughout the entr actes of the play. Here was I, who am accustomed to occupy a comfortable stall without paying anything for it, and to see the mimes life-sized, and to hear them quite distinctly. And yet I seldom enjoy a play -nearly always have to console myself with the reflection that I am going to be paid ;by this Review for my presence. Here, on the other hand, were people who are accustomed to pay for their uncomfortable seats, and who are not going to receive any payment for sitting on them and restraining their eyes and ears for sight and sound of distant marionettes. And these people, obviously are not rebellious. They really are glad to be there. Strange! For the constant pitite, no doubt, the strain of eyes and ears is less than for me. His eyes and ears must have been somewhat habituated by time. Moreover, if he has never happened to sit in a stall, he will not be conscious how much of the play and of the performance he is missing.like Plato s cavemen, who knew naught but the shadows cast against the inner wall, and who would have been sorely puzzled by the realities, the constant petite, doubtless, accepts as real creatures the tiny puppets vouch-safed to him. He accepts them, I mean, as the nearest approach that can in a playhouse be made to reality. I imagine that as seen from the gallery, and even from the upper circle the puppets must be still less life-like than as seen from the pit. And, since these three parts of the theatre hold the majority of the audience, I began to understand why there is so little demand for dramatic truth to life. To me, sitting in the stalls, the persons of a play look very like human beings, and I want them to be allowed to behave accordingly. I am in a position to take them 287

130 seriously. But to the majority of the audience they are little more than performing fleas. If I went to criticize a troupe of performing felas, I should not write and attack their trainer because their performance had not closely tallied with my experience of human beings. I should not go to be instructed. I should to be amused. It is in this spirit, necessarily that the majority of people go to the play. They know that they cannot see anything that will remind them ;of actual life. What matter, then, how great be the degree of remoteness form reality? The marvel to me, since my visit to the pit of the Garrick, is not that the public cares so little for dramatic truth, but that it can sometimes tolerate a play which is not either the wildest melodrama or the wildest farce. Where low tones and fine shades are practically invisible, one would expect an exclusive insistence on spillages of garish colour... I shall in future be less hard on the public than has been my wont."338 Contrastingly Dilip Kumar Roy, son of D.L.Roy, is quoted as saying that Sisir Bhaduri is great even according to global standards, and in his recent European tour, the only actor he found equal to Sisir Bhaduri s calibre was Kachlov Nachghar congratulates Dilip Kumar Roy in being able to free himself from racial prejudices and servile attitude to the whites, I ndians are so infamous for. None can compare with Sisir Bhaduri's histrionic talent except for Danibaboo who is not too close a second. Such talent cannot have any equals, It is natural that there is to be a great gap between Sisir and even his co-actors and actresses. Whoever assess the talents of Denebourg, Favieres and Laurent on the same level with their contemporary co-actors like Irving, Forbes or Robertson. The others merely help him in exhibiting his great talents. As for the Soviet actors, they are by far the best in the world today and according ;to Gordon Craig there is no comparision to Stanislavki his group of actors. The Russian and French theatre is a.lot superior to the English stage. D.L.Roy himself had said that Irving was not much letterthan Girish Chandra Ghosh, though he was the only English actor with a touch of the 288

131 genius. :339 The Russian stage and the new theatre movement appeals to their imagination and Nachghar carries discussions on how the revolution has freed the theatre from being the luxury of a few of the upper strata of society. Now it is to become the most important educational force inculcating new social doctrines. May be also their ultimate dream for the Indian theatre, but there was no practical objectives ever drawn towards fulfilling the goals :340 A subsequent Nachghar issue is seen defending D.L. Roy s statement about Sisir Kumar Bhaduri s being comparable to Katschalov of course concedes Nachghar Katschalov is also inferior to a couple of other Russian actors. 341 D.L.Roy in a letter of protest to Nachghar reaffirms that " although Katschalov may not be acknowledged as the greatest classical actor; he is undoubtedly the leading actor and the best in Moscow today. Just as Sisirbaboo is in India today". :342 The letter is followed by a comment from the editor who quotes Gordon Craig as the authority on the gradation of modern Russian actors- Moshkin, Artem, Leonidov, Katschalov, WischnewskLetc. Is it not logical to assume that Katschaalov even by present Moscow standards is rated fourth. Craig explicitly designates Stanislavski, the numero uno position and Craig's credibility is above board, he is the universally regarded genius and the greatest force in the theatre since Ibsen. Nachghar in lieu of journalistic principles, state that such generalizations are not correct. In Eastern Europe or somewhere else in the world, there maybe someone as great as Katschalov. Whether correct or not, such comparisons are inadequate in setting aesthetic standards to the reader /audience. There is a definite shift in the target reader/ audience, whose tastes are accepted as adhering to international drama standards. There is a tendency of name throwing and psuedo -intellectualism involved in mentioning Stanslavski or Craig. There is absolutely no intention of going into the 289

132 works of these great stalwarts or explaining the revolutionary changes they wrought. In comparison, whenever Girish Chandra Ghosh had written on an English actor/actress he would take great pains in not only explaining the courses of their greatness, but what school of acting they belong to. In this period however names were mentioned, trends for example like "Meiningenism" and "Acualism" mentioned casually in passing :343 One typical such article is Sisir Kumar and the role of Production in Dramatic Art and here they now make the classical distinction between Girish Chandra Ghosh and Sisir Kumar Bhaduri and of course Sisir Bhaduri scores over Girish who is regarded as a mere actor, but he was no procucer or a regisseur, a concept which had not been known before Stanislavski and Reinhardt. Girish Chandra Ghosh, according to Dilip Kumar Roy would have applauded Sisir Bhaduri s contributions in bringing about a reawakening after a particularly dark age. C.R.Das appreciated his revolutionary changers and in this Sisir Kumar Bhaduri is comparable to no less than Bankim, who is not just a literary figure but an age personified. Pre Sisir, the situation in the theatre was such that no educated actor would come to work in the theatre, the audience had no discipline, education or finer senses, there was wholesale religious antagonism, educated sections harboured suspicion, actresses exposed a rustic manner. The person who changed all this and imparted education, fineness, sophistication and finesse and finally good appearances is definitely an object of gratitude. He is comparable to Beethoven in the sphere of music, Ibsen in European plays Rodin in sculpture, Corotin Art and he is Sisir Kumar Bhaduri in theatre. :344 In fact the name throwing and comparisons take on absolute illogical dimensions. In trying to prove that Sisir Kumar Bhaduri as an age innovator and not a mere talent, he is further compared with Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay as opposed to Ramesh Chandra, Michael M.S.Dutt as opposed to Hemchandra. Phididas as opposed to Praxitele, Raphael; as opposed to Donatello, Leonardo da Vinci as opposed to Baticelli, Shakespeare as opposed to Marlowe. 290

133 Shelley as opposed to Byron, lbsen as opposed to Strinberg Romain Roiland as opposed to " Materlink :345 To the common people these names are mostly Greek and it is logical to assume that it is targeted at the leadership who can identify the works with these great artists automatically, but how does it help in the study of the period; an attempt to develop a study of theatre in aesthetical lines which is expected from a paper of Nachghar s calibre. This occasional references to western standards becomes more and more frequent and a fashion for the journals. Sometimes Western standards are blindly and superficially followed. Krishna Prasad Ghosh s (B.A) defence of Sisir Bhaduri s editing of Jana refers too some vague and pompous rules by an extremely minor critic like Hudson s The Study of Drama is quoted as the gospel;-now a comparison of any modern version of one of these plays (Shakespeare s plays) with the original text will reveal many points of differences. It will be found, that numerous passages and even whole scenes are cut out entirely, that scenes which Shakespeare separated are brought together, that the order of events in the plot is sometimes changed. The rule being that every character should be so presented as to appear absolutely adequate to all the demands which the plot made upon it dramatic criticism is inclined to insist as Professor Tolman says that only these characteristics of the hero or indeed of any personage should be made prominent which really influence the course of the action and these characteristics should be unmistikable.:345 Hudson's suggestions by even contemporary standards were ludicrous and had been formally discarded and condemned by all important international critics as distortion for the sake of bourgeois realism (Edward Gordon Craig) Shaw s crusade against Irving had spent out the extinction of such nonentities as Hudson346 The more pessimistic the intelligentsia became abut the theatre, the more they were drawn to western rhetorics and aesthetical standards of the west. It was 291

134 natural for them to blame the unpopularity of Ibsen in Calcutta as the cause of their maladies. :347 Talks of Renaissance, Historic Art & Dramatic Literature became more frequent a legacy of the alienated reformist trend of intellectualism, which existed in Bengal since Raja Rammohan Roy and the young Bengalis. It had always been an easy escape to drown their agony in alienation by taking refuge in Western ideals. In such cases failure takes on the appearance of martyrdom. The indisposed Sisir Kumar Bhaduri fits the image of a broken tragic hero very well. At the twilight of his career he comes on again as Jeevananda, too be performed on a regular basis- such colossal task for a man broken in health and spirit, is cruel and sadistic" to Nachghar but despite his physical disorder he excelled in the role so much so that Gardon Craig would have been forced to change his mind (that an actor must retire before he looses the perfect flexibility of his body).348 Sisir Kumar Bhaduri striving on as a warrior who had lost his battle, is the picture the paper paint and there is no attempt of denial as for as the decline of not only Sisir Bhaduri is concerned but the theatre as a whole. A theatre which had lost its common public deliberately. But a theatre which was proud of its middle class patronage. But somewhere the alienation had also lost them a considerable section of the middle class and restricted itself to an exclusive intellectual coterie. This was a trend which could be traced back to the tragedy of the Bengal Renaissance and the era of the middle class alienation. The alienation as pointed out by Sumit Sarkar is such that they even lack the sense of agony and going back ; to the people initiative.:349 Sisir Kumar Bhaduri and all of his contemporaries accepted their alienation with deep sighs and martyrdom. There was no cynicism, no correction of their line in fact a very peculiar characteristic of this age is an absolute apathy towards the political, social or even religious scene. None of these were reflected through the plays none of the conflicts as shown in the play had contemporary relevance. In 292

135 Nachghar there is just no mention of any subject on political or social issues. Except for one occasion, where the elevation of the social position of the actor is praised. Other than that all that can be somewhat related to national pride etc. was a discussion as to why theatres, an important part of the national heritage has English names. It is a shame to our national consciousness and a kick on its head. Those who do not hesitate to give it English names do not accord it its due respect. A campaigning is required against it. Sisir Bhaduri by naming his theatre Natyamandir in that case was the only national hero as far as Nachghar is concerned 350 The outright contribution of our national theatre on the national movement is irrelevant. Nachghar is dismissive about Star s "Bande-Mataram" a sketch on votes and elections, an interesting political comedy Nachghar picks on the metaphors as stupid and criticizes Amritalal for loosing his touch in his old age351. As far as Sisir Kumar Bhaduri s choice of play, contents of the play were concerned there are absolutely no political or social relevance, actually not consciously. In fact the classic argument of Art for Art s Sake often has its own repercussions and we see Sisir Bhaduri getting more and more into plays revolving around personal relationship, ultimately taking on themes which are dominated by distorted and perverted emotions, i.e. Pashani and Pundarik. The human psychological contradictions, abnegated from any political, social contact, is bound to take on such perverted proportions and aggravates the alienation further. Sisir on the other hand, is more conscious, although maintaining an objective silence during the religious hue and cry concerning Pashani. Sisir talks of how under General Nadir, some sort of an entente has been worked out in Afghanistan - and no one has heard of cow slaughter. 352 On another instance, Sisir quotes the surprise of the Kaiser that Mahatma Gandhi has not been able to popularize Khadi as yet - a bad reflection on Indian mentality and talks of how the English admirers regard khadi as much a sacrilege as cow 293

136 slaughter353 An interesting observation in this connection is that the plays were mostly tragedies; Sisir Kumar Bhaduri never played a comedy A comedy must reflect social or political criticism. In fact Sisir Bhaduri eliminated the character of the fool from Jana completely Sisir asks the question whether the new group likes comedy or not. We have asked this question to Sisir Bhaduri, a number of times, but have received no reply which basically shows their apathy.354 Star, we hear will give their reply by producing comedies. Very important for a comedy to be successful means immediate audience response. Actually the indifference to the mass audience is a sure death knell for this form of drama."354 If not a total death; there was a decline - a general all round deterioration in plays (content), form, popularity and the initial spurt of enthusiasm and innovativeness had long died out. But the nostalgia made it difficult to face reality and escaped in the euphoria of the beginning which had long since disappeared. A vicious circle of poor plays, mediocre productions, loss of mass appeal, commercial debates, loss of theater engulfed the age and there was no recovery at least as a far as the public stage was concerned and the later revival would come through nothing less than political mobilization. ATTITUDE TOWARDS PRODUCTION & FORM ; A study of aesthetics have shown that theatre in this period traced a line of decline from popularity to alienation, from great optimism to pessimism, from dramas of a new age in theatre to a theatre bombing at the box office. Lack of good plays, alienation of the public, alienated middle class complacency, absence of any aesthetical education all contributed to the decline and in this the responsibilities of the theatre journals cannot be underestimated. (They failed to bridge the gap between the theatre and audience and there were no signs of efforts that they were even trying to). But to be fair to them it may be said that content, audience cultivation, aesthetical elevation of common people, social, political or religious 294

137 responsibilities cannot be regarded as the strong point of theatre of this age. In fact after the death of Girish Chandra Ghosh, the theatre had gone through a general downfall. Whatever the achievements of this age; it had to do with forms, experimentation with forms, production techniques (lighting, costume, Music, dance), and acting. The theatre journals in this sphere had a responsibility towards recording the productions in enough detail to pinpoint the areas of innovation and the extent of it. In Victorian Dramatic Criticism, we have seen how performance records can be maintained - in fact it remains one of the few means to record theatre progress and visually recreate the genius of theatre personalities - an elusive task any how. Productional aspects, of Sita, we have seen in autobiographies, reminiscences, books etc, was what shook Calcutta and heralded the initiation of the so-called new age in the theatre. It had brought Sisir Kumar Bhaduri into the limelight and inspired all the hopes and enthusiasm of the Bengali intellectuals. About Sita, however, all Nachghar offers is Sita is a combination of immortal acting, songs, dance costume, set, sceneries and light. Not only us, but quite a few newspapers and practically all the connoisseurs of art agree with us openly. 355 The effective use of background music, to create dramatic situations. Another defence of stage craft in "Sita" described it as unprecedented on the Bengali stage and is the best, though some critics cannot bearto give it its due. Instead they dig out faults in minor details, why the colour has come off, or some lock is visible when it should not be, etc. - To search for pimples is a characteristic of a mosquito." 356 Other than this, very little can be gauged about Sita s stage craft. Even the reminiscences and eyewitness nostalgia gives a better picture in reconstructing the scenes. However two points, which Nachghar does point out, albeit indirectly, and which are important aspects in reassessing production qualities of the stage craft are firstly; the initiation of Charu Chandra Roy, the artist into the theatre as Art Director and secondly how his influence and Sisir Bhaduri s ideas changed the entire 295

138 concept of stage craft. The fifth issue of Nachghar as a news item had given - Sisir Bhaduri has enlisted aid of Charuchandra Roy B.Sc., in designing sets and costumes - a man well educated, adept and an acknowledged expert in his field; a disciple of no less than Abanindranath Tagore. 357 In the ninth issue in an extremely defensive note Nachghar starts; - At Alfred, a lot of people accused Sisir Bhaduri of not showing any innovative ideas in stage craft. But now the famous artist Charuchandra Roy and his co-artist Ramendranth Chattopadhyay is getting new scenes ready. We were enamored by the specimens. Although there is no evidence of art, authentic of the Epic age, the artists have used the most ancient art style and created designs extremely authentic. Indeed a novelty on the Bengali stage. 358 A departure most probably from the realistic drawing room sets. It was important in such case to describe the paintings as, whether they were symbolic or what did they exactly depict. Why could not Nachghar reproduce the designs and sketches? As educated artistic people they should have realized the importance of such innovations. The twentieth issue, makes up this deficiency to a minor extent by giving details and pointing out how Charuchandra s style distinguished Sisirbaboo from the traditional style, still adhered to by the Art Theatre, although in a modified form. Charuchandra abolished foot lights and hence freed the stage from the artificial, unaesthetic and an ugly effect that it created. In the West, David Belasco had wrought such changes, a long while ago and now all good stages avoid footlights. The plastic sets used by Gordon Craig and Adolf Appia eliminated all false perspective and the so-called bourgeois realistic sets. But in Calcutta, two dimensional sets in a peculiar stunted appearance were still used. Charuchandra discarded these disproportional sets and started reconstructing houses, jungles, trees, pillars, doors, windows, steps in natural proportion to the people on stage. According to Nachghar Charuchandra did for the Bengali stage what Gordon Craig had done for the West. They quote Towards a New Theatre - I think you 296

139 will very seldom see things here in perspective, avenues leading up to goodness knows where and on which no one could walk... When I came to design scenes for myself. I avoided putting any place in my picture which could not be travelled into actually by the actor. 359 While they do not hesitate to hold Craig as the ideal, why do they not follow Craig's system of recording all his designs, with ground plans, sketches, blocking diagrams etc. A very important base on which western theatre developed. Charuchandra s influence on contemporary Bengali stage is mentioned more than once. While reviewing Atma-Darshan at Minerva, Nachghar they call it almost a new theatre. Sita s sceneries have influenced them360. But then the description they give of the dance-room at Chowringhee is more remniscent of a realistic reproduction, with all the glitter and pomp, about which Nachghar had previously criticized. While reviewing Star theatre productions, Nachghar is critical abouttheir traditional ideas in stage designing. In Mrinalini's criticism they write, that the glitter and pomp of the stage fails to redeem the production in any way.361 In reviewing Chandrashekhar they point out how the taste of the audience has changed completely and scenes are expected to be refined painted with imagination and knowledge. 362 The minds of educated artists behind scene designing are now expected by the public. But with Charuchandra taking over the responsibility of Art theatre s scenes and costumes, Nachghar described it as a remarkable change. But also notes that the artist in designing the sets for the production of Sree Krishna may not have been given absolute freedom and certain discordancies are apparent, amongst which is the childish velvet and Zardosi handbands and feet band of both the Pandavas and the Kauravas. They warn, - too much interference with the artist spoils harmony of vision. 363 Nachghar is an ardent supporter of Charuchandra and when "Bijoli" and Atma- 297

140 Shakti attribute s set designing credits of Lakhtaka to Jamini Roy, they correct it that it was Charuchandra and reprimands the other papers for not confirming their source. But Nachghar" asks why the Art Director s name is not mentioned and is their some controversy in the air?364 Not that such comments help that much in providing an appropriate picture of the quality of innovativeness. Howeverits review of Navajauvan is an exception, and the description of the fair scene is very adeptly given; - the picture of a fair ground is depicted authentically, on one corner are the caged birds, on another pots and pans are being sold, fruit and savoury vendors are scattered all over the stage, just as the snake charmer, the santal dancers, the little boy dressed up as Sree Krishna, and the crude village belle dancing troupe fills up the stage. The movement of the crowd is also explained.the second scene, that of Darpanaryan s two storey house with garden is also described to show what a good effort it was.365 Nachghar makes a rather delayed assessment of stage innovations - somesort of a summing up; - Even a few years ago the condition of our theatres was a little bit like a lunatic asylum - any scenes would be applied to any play - even costumes would be used haphazardly there was no effort to use sets or props - lighting was very poor make-up was regarded as unnecessary, the tune of the songs was an exercise in indiscipline, the dance westernized had taken on crude and vulgar postures... but now time and place relevance are maintained while recreating costumes and sets. Artistic and authentic furniture and props are being used, the magic of discipline is working in the songs and in dancing an aesthetic softness is making an appearance. From here Nachghar goes on to its usual congratulatory style; - "we are ready to ignore a great deal of their lapses and deficiencies and sympathise with the new life givers, the youth who like the rising sun, has been welcomed gladly by us - we encourage them in their endeavour - we have richly congratulated them - singing their song of victory they have embraced the new. 366 In dance form, a real revolution had been wrought. There was an abundance 298

141 of songs and dances in the play and Nachghar describes very aptly how Sisir Kumar Bhaduri, helped by no less than Abanindranath Tagore changed the traditional style. The old maestro, Nyapa was replaced. Nachghar believes it to be more like a rediscovery and modification of Ancient Greek dance, evolved in contemporary International scene by Raymond and Isadora Duncan. Then Nachghar launches into an explanation of the ideology behind the Duncan s style, labelled popularly as plain living and high thinking. The essence was to capture the simplicity of ancient society and defy the indulgence of modern civilization. Their ideology was not only restricted to their dance but also a part of their lifestyle. In dance, they adopted postures from the sculptures of Louvre. 367 Here by comparing Sisir Kumar Bhaduri with the Duncans, Nachghar, although exhibiting an aesthetic approach definitely is exaggerating. Hemendra Kumar Roy himself makes an astute observation in one of his Padopradiper Aloke (Before the footlights). He talks of how a total theatre can be created and of course quotes western experts; - Endeavour to keep acting, speech, gesture, costume, scenery, and lighting all focused in the same psychological direction. He says that though the Bengali stage is screaming their heads off discussing application of production techniques.which new plays concentrates diligently on all these aspects, I know not off. In my opinion plays which have used production techniques successfully to some extent are Natyamandir s Sita and Jana, and in Star's Chirakumar Sabha Grihapravesh and Shodhbodh. 368 Except for these few story references and praises, criticism also in cases - there is not much stress on stage-crafts and other related aspects. Even in the reviews, it is regarded as of minor importance, as discussed before, the emphasis is mainly on acting. For example in a review of Nara-narayan, running four pages, sets are mentioned in one-paragraph, the last one. "The young artist Ramendranath Chattopadhyay s brush creates a dream of Hastinapur palace, which brings about 299

142 a trancelike state engulfing us in total enrapturementthe same artist s strokes create the multicoloured and multi-dimensional, gold engraved letters adorning the Pandav tent which welcomes us so aesthetically. Kama s dark and dissolute room, from where the Sun has been deliberately ousted provides the play with a new dimension. Kama s adornments, his lucky charm, his crown, Vaijanti necklace and other accessories are also attributed to the genius of the artist. 369 But the three page review on Star s "Bama-Chandidas", carries not even a passing mention of set designing other such examples, where sets are not described include Star s Bapikaviday, Lakhtaka and Prafulla of Nara-rajya" a skit played with Bapika-Viday, the one line also upperview comment is that despite being a mere skit, costumes and scenes have not been neglected. 370 Even the review of'digvijoy', written with a lot of painstaking care just does not mention stage-craft, although in our literature survey we have seen interesting use of talent and a gateway, at a level which on stage seemed infinity. What could be the reasons for this gradual disinterest in sets? Why is it so underplayed? How did the productional technique euphoria drain out so fast? This is undoubtedly more pronounced in the theatre journals, rather than in other secondary and primary sources. It is co-incidence as far as the theatre journals are concerned with the gradual picture of decline. The optimism regarding experimentation with forms was being replaced by pessimism regarding content of plays, especially lack of good plays. The general atmosphere of depression had its repurcussions on stage-craft in a rather big way, and despite the inner circle s continued euphoria as expressed in their writings there was an all-round decline. Sita did not turn out to be the initiator of a series of revolutionary changes, but one glorious production. There were other productions of a similar rank but not in the direction of an evolution or progress. Sisir is more that eager to point out the lapses and note the process of gradual decline. In discussing Sisir Bhaduri s Vasanta-lila, Sisir points out "the leaves 300

143 were half dried and though the complimentary card holders could afford to overlook them, those of us who paid for the tickets could not let it go without mentioning it. Another lapse Sisir mentions The authorities had themselves justified the use of only two scenes and only four pairs of wings on the grounds that it was a new production in a rented theatre and there was a lack of time".371 The second part of the discussion lists another fifteen lapses of which seven involve stage craft. They are why is a red curtain hung to hide some pre-painted pictures ; moreover most of the times the curtains were blowing away to reveal those pictures, intended to be hidden; while the proscenium contains Indian art the rest of the drawings follow Western art; giving it a discordant note; the shifers were walking about on stage; in fact for the first few rows, there was nothing Behind the Scenes for them, everything could be seen; Make-up was very negligent and white spots could be seen on the faces even on the old man-phagun s bald patch. A man in the scene Phagun legeche Bone Bone although sporting a white beard, has the physique of a youth, especially enhanced by a tight costume; jewelry are often worn as a mixture of ancient and modern designs, not looking too artistic, lighting was weak and was not falling on the appropriate zones, moreover the use of red-green-blue colour had no logic and created no effect whatsoever; Men and women s dhotis were worn in the same style and looked silly etc. etc. 372 The title of the discussion very significantly is called Bhaduri s Theatre s Knowledge of Art. On Alamgir too Sisir gives a list of production lapses, some of them logical, others centering around the great debates on realistic versus symbolic sets. Right at the beginning he pounces on a vindication of the realistic atmosphere because of misuse of the painted wings. Such lapses had become moribund on the Bengali stage and in a sarcastic tone asks. Is it a part of the revival Back-stage indiscipline is again pointed out; Alamgir s make-up although of a high standard sported a torn sleeve, make-up is again not up to the mark; the Sakhis sporting red faces looking absolutely ridiculous etc. 373 A significant point made here is that 301

144 such lapses were a recent occurrence and a warning that Sisir Kumar Bhaduri was loosing his will for caring for details. Sisir at this stage was more favourably inclined towards Star and its traditional style of stage-craft, costume etc. In its review of Mrinalini it praises the diligent attention that has been devoted to the picturesque scenes, beautiful costumes etc. It is aesthetical and beautiful. 374 But Sisir's attitude was also gradually changing from traditional to the modern; in its review of Pashani, it accredits Sita as an ageinnovator because of its set-scenes. Other than that as a play it is of an inferior quality. 375 Sisir acclaims Sisir Bhaduri s experiments with D.L.Roy, but in its review of "Pashani", does not talk of sets, costumes or even make-up. Here the lapses pointed out by Sisir are mostly in the singing. While reviewing Art s Jana, Sisir comes out with strong criticism especially about the stage craft. The use of Roman balustrade and promenade in the second scene is a matter of bewilderment for them. Then the temple used, in many parts they claim resemble a mosque. The critic is extremely sarcastic in asking whether it is intentional. The Kailash mountain in the hands of the artistic master producer of "Art" looks like a school bench. Basic costume lapses like Crowns and head gears for men of the royal family were missing and to crown it all a lot of women appeared without covering their hair. In fact Kam & Rati in half pants, eighteenth century blouses and some sort of a pinafore dress looked more foreigners to India than the immortal characters. According to the Critic lapses such as these insults Hindu Culture, religion and scriptures.376 In criticising Naytamandir s Jana, the critic is even more shocked and scandalized by its editing. Such sacrilege is enough of a blasphemy on religion - no need to pick on productional details. It is a subject of minimum priority as far as drama criticism is concerned.377 Even Sisir seemed to loose its interest in pointing out the lapses. The review of Star s Chirakumarsabha" 378 Natyamandir s "Pundarik" 379 Minerva s Atma- 302

145 Dashan 380 and Stars "Chandrasekhar"381 has no mention of stage-craft what soever. Even the follow up articles and letters are devoid of any such mention Griha- Pravesh s realistic set is praised as probably the only redeeming feature in an otherwise disastrous production.382 The disinterest, lack of innovativeness, negligence and lapses paint vividly a picture of decline, although literature survey defies it vehemently, as it threatens the fail of their middle-class idol from the pedestal. But actually it is this very middle-class orientation which at one time could not accept Sisir Bhaduri s symbolic sets or historical sceneries and props now see it as progress. Progress and good sets were becoming unanimous with realistic sets. Nachghar s euphoria about the Griha Pravesh s realistic sets and even Sisir s praise of it is significant. Hence the Bengali theatre was moving towards advocating bourgeois realistic ideas regarding stage-craft, when the International scene was being shaken by open war against bourgeois realism. Regression in sets and forms had set in, making the decline a reality. One article, published in Nachghar relating to back stage worthy of mention is Prompter : written by Professor Monmohon Basu. It is an interesting article written with a great deal of understanding and insight. The prompter is truly depicted as a man victimized by the theatre system, he is never praised, and never mentioned, no credit is ever given to him and he is not allowed to emerge from the shadows and discard his invisibility. He is abused, if the actor because of his own shortcoming fail to catch the lines, or is unable to memorize his lines. If the prompter is too loud, the audience picks on him, he is a common target for insults and abuses. He remains unacknowledged unsung and unhonoured the debts even many a great actors owe him remain unpaid".383 Significantly other than one isolated incident, the back-stage crew is never mentioned. Credits are hardly discussed either in the reviews or the advertisements 303

146 run in these papers, unless they are B.A., M.A. in brackets etc. In one sphere, where all the eulogies and hyperboles may be justified is in the sphere of acting at least as far as Sisir Kumar Bhaduri is concerned. Two of his most famous successors, Sombhu Mitra and Utpal Dutt acknowledged him as the greatest actor on the Bengali stage and Utpal Dutt saw in him a somewhat of a Renaissance in the school of analytical acting viz-a-viz emotional acting. But this is a distinction, which helps in identifying specific schools of acting and styles. In this respect, while the journals, especially in reviews, concentrate on acting there is no scientific rational in-depth study. Great, Greater, Greatest are enough for them and leave alone modelling their acting criticism on the school which created Stanslavskian style of acting into a school around this time in U.S.A. it failed to even follow Victorian criticism, with its distinct emphasize on performances. Even Victorian Critics often found it difficult to study and discern schools of acting, though they all had their favourites, and their pet hates. As William Hazlitt, one of the stalwart critics of the time realize - It has been considered as the mis-fortune of first rate talents for the stage that they leave no record behind them except that of vague rumour, and that the genius of a great actor perishes with him, leaving the world no copy..." 384 In such cases hyperboles and idolizing becomes a fashion against which G.H. Lewes writes, on Macready s retirement; - we want no more black letter. We want no more hyperboles of admiration. We want the dramatic excellence and defects illustrated and set forth. 385 Lewes wants Macready himself to undertake the task - It would be a delightful object to occupy his leisure; and it would settle the question as to his own intellectual claims." In conclusion he writes. The foregoing was written in This year, the Reminiscences and Diaries of Macready have been given to the world by Sir Fredrick Pollock, which almost reads like an echo of what Macready himself expressed. In those volumes we see the incessant study which this eminently conscientious man to the last bestowed on every detail connected, with 304

147 his art; we see also how he endeavoured by study to make-up for natural deficencies, and how conscious he was of these deficiencies.386 It takes an actor to discern & identify another actor s school of acting- what Girish Chandra Ghosh aesthetically discerned in Ardhendu Shedkhar s style, but Sisir Kumar Bhaduri had no such theorist like Girish, neither did he write himself. Unlike Macready he did not think of it as a responsibility and none in his intellectual circle was ever associated with acting. In fact one of the main reasons Sisir Bhaduri is eulogized by them, is because he brought them to the theatre, for the first time. Hence critical standard remained nothing more than consideration for the feelings of actors, actresses, managers and playwrights and written too much between the lines. 387 In a rather negative essay about why Shakespeare should not be acted, Lamb writes. "As for as distinguishing types and schools of acting, the maximum endeavour has been made to point the differences between gimmicky acting vs. good acting and good acting here is solely emotional acting - the most popular style for moderately good actors." 388 Such distinctions are rather elementary ones and the theatre journals are content to delve basically on this aspect. An article featuring in Sisir by the actor Nirmalendu Lahiri, while concentrating on this distinction, however gives it colour by narrating true experiences. It is the best example of an actor, ora man actively in the theatre and his insight in this dilemma. He very scornfully describes how stage tricks are in fashion although once in a while it may be necessary that some actors simply characterize roles by creating one gimmick after another Actually there are hordes of so called great experts, who know every trick in the profession - all are geniuses, all are originals, all are Garricks and Irvings - all think themselves better than Danibaboo or Girish. They do not regard training important or necessary, which a true actor goes through a 305

148 prolonged period of training. Once when Mr. Lawrence Irving was asked to describe the best method to become an actor, he was supposedly quoted as saying that how couid he talk of training, as after thirty years in the profession, he himself is still under training. Lahiri further talks of how an actor is expected to show his originality immediately by starting off as Garrick plus a thousand rupees salary He goes on to describe how some actors win instant fame because of packing their histrionics with too much distorted acts. They fling their hands and feet abundantly and do not believe in any control any restraint. A vice against which Shakespeare himself objected ; - 'O except not the modesty of nature & Do not saw the air too much with your hand - only those gestures are required which are the outward manifestations of the inner turmoil. Nirmalendu Lahiri quotes some great authorities on this subject such as Mrs. Bancroft who had supposedly said; - The performance of a moving situation without the ring of sensibility in the actor must fail to affect any one. Here Lahiri talks about good emotional acting, where the actor establishes full empathy with the role. He further quotes Beerbohm Tree - I do not believe that any emotion can satisfactorily be portrayed outside unless the inside emotion exists also; and I think that the effect upon an audience will generally be in proportion to power of self-excitation possessed by the actor. All great actors, comment Lahiri including Sir Henry Irving, Mrs. Wilson Barrett, Mr. Lionel Brough, Mrs. Siddons, Lady Martin, Madam Sarah Bernhardt agree that good acting requires full sympathy with the character and the outward manifestations must be just the result of the inner feelings. Lewes is quoted in this respect; In art simplicity is economy, its meagerness: it is the absence of superficialities, not the expressions of essentials; it rises from an ideal generalisation of real and essential sensibilities guided by an exquisite sense of proportion" All but really great actors are redundant in gesticulation; not simply exploring the significant but able to repress the insignificant moments... If actors study fine models they will learn that gestures to be effective must be significant and to be significant they must be real. 306

149 Mrs. Ellen Terry is quoted as having said repose is at once the most necessary and the most difficult thing to cultivate. This repose is very important and Lahiri points out one of the first principles of acting is to learn to stand still. He talks of how Voltaire had once tied up the hands of the actoress to control her constant movement, but in one case when moved by emotions, she unconsciously tore the rope to gesticulate. Voltaire the director applauded at the spontanity of the movement. He talks of how Girish Chandra Ghosh acted by the minimum use of movements. Macready had to consciously use a method to rid himself of the trap - he lay prostrate on the floor or stood straight against the wall - I was obliged also to have frequent recourse to the looking glass... being under the necessity of acting out the passion close to a glass to restrain the tendency to exaggerate its expression, which was the most difficult of all. The easier an actor makes his art appear, the greater must have been the pains it cost him. Although such differences seem obvious it was a necessary comparison for the contemporary stage, where gimmick and stunts in acting were also being hailed as great. Where actors took pleasure in writing about how acrobatic movements even somersaults were applied to provide colour to a character. Where physical flexibility was regarded as an expression of genius, where the higher one could raise his voice and blast they ear-drums was regarded as the mark of a true great actor - where Ahindra Chowdhury's brand of acting was graded over Sisir Kumar Bhaduri s analytical style.389 What Nirmalendu Lahiri merely implies, Rakhal Das Bannerjee accuses by name. His article in fact is called Natyashaiay Dhanustankar meaning Tetanus in the Theatre. Rakhal Das Bannerjee makes a distinction between two prevalent types of acting popular on the contemporary stage - the stoic invalid and the other crippled. "The invalid do, not find it necessary to move hand and feet too much, neither does he change his facial expressions frequently and the fashionable actor believes in exaggeration of all this; - both these groups have their own theatre, 307

150 both have their own newspapers, both their own audiences and their advocates." The two groups he names as that of Sisir Kumar Bhaduri and that of Ahindra Chowdhury. Among other actors who fall in between, and in the process get lost are Danibaboo, who too does not have the crippling ailment and is very natural. Other good actors who are not given their true worth in this competition are Nirmalendu Lahiri and Teenkori Chakravarty. Rakhaldas Bannerjee is also criticising the critic P.N. Bishi who shows his obvious preference for Ahindra Chowdhury and accuses him of unfairly playing down the others. In fact", says Rakhaldas Bannerjee "because of Ahindra Chowdhuri s well known mannerisms his death scene as Prabir bordered on the ridiculous... If throwing your limbs about you could portray courage, Ahindra Chowdhury is a warrior, But to the man with intelligence it is Nirmalendu Lahiri who was the real warrior." "In comparison when Sisir Bhaduri, occasionally moves his arms & begs in somewhat unreal fashion it is because of the inner turmoil of the character. But three actors who are totally free of such mannerisms, remain under estimated in this competition between'the stars." The author of the article mentions that because of his comparisons between Ahindra Chowdhury and Sisir Kumar Bhaduri, some may become annoyed. But Rakhaldas Bannerjee points out that there is no harm in comparing two stalwarts of the same profession and in such contexts it is healthy to compare. In fact the sharp contrast in styles of acting compared are the only source of distinguishing schools of acting, particularly in the lack of such generalized articles like that of Nirmanledu Lahiri, which could have sparked of an interesting study.390 Nachghar makes comparisons based on some of the more famous roles, Chanakya, Shahjahan, Prabir and Jogesh Chanakya is a role worthy to prove one's talents and has been performed by the four stalwarts of the times; Sisir Bhaduri, Naresh Mitra, Teenkori Chakravarty and Danibaboo. "Danibaboo was the first to establish the potentiality of the role, but now he is to old and makes wrong 308

151 stresses. He has moments of greatness but other than that he is a failure, especially compared to Sisir Kumar Bhaduri". Nachghar aware of its own mission and loyalties, fails to give an in-depth study wherein lay Sisir Kumar Bhaduri s greatness, how he interpreted the role is not mentioned. 391 Sisir s apparently apathetic but actually analytic style is not the subject of such a comparison and therefore it is a futile comparison. Most of the comparisons are made at a superficial level and in accord with the rivalries. For example a controversy was triggered off by a comparison between Naresh Mitra and Viswanath Bhaduri and Nachghar in an apologetic tone says they had no intention of slandering Naresh Mitra.392 While comparing the two Shahjahan s however certain incongruity can be discerned. While reviewing Shahjahan at Star, Ahindra Chowdhuri s acting is held as the only redeeming feature except his pauses. :393. Yet with Sisir Kumar Bhaduri s appearance as Shah-jahan Nachghar declares, before seeing Sisir Kumar in the role we could not imagine that the role of the Indian emperor Shahjahan could become so alive and burning" and then back to the same old rhetorics; How could it be possible? Such a heavenly voice, and hypnotizing hundreds of audience by the magic of histrionics is a rare talent, which only Sisir Kumar Bhaduri, as the greatest Bengali actor till date possess ":394 Surprisingly there is not even a mention of how he converted physical disabilities into mental ones. However a letter published, in Nachghar makes a better in depth comparison between the four Shahjahan's. Ahindrababoo was the first to make the role popular and played it perfectly showing the physical manifestations of a crippling disease. His costume and make-up was also perfectly put together and in these two spheres he outshone all the others. But if the real characterization criterions are an affectionate father, loving husband, senile and broken spirit, Ahindrababoo's shortcomings are obvious. The main criticism against Sisir Kumar Bhaduri is that he did not exhibit adequate physical disabilities.but Sisirbaboo had interpreted it as an internal disability-and too much concern about physical manifestations may 309

152 in the long run be detrimental to characterization. Nirmalendu Lahiri is regarded more of a balance by incorporating both physical disabilities with the characterization of a loving and affectionate father.395 As for 'Prafulla' and the characterization of 'Jogesh', once again we see a comparison, which makes some sort of a distinction, but fail to make scientific and rational study which can follow from such comparisons. Here it remains restricted to loyalties, inter-theatre rivalries and at the most a description of competent emotional acting.danibaboo as Star theatre's Jogesh is praised because of his sincere emotion which were more than apparent. In fact an excessive emotionalism, in the first part, argues Nachghar is, what is required especially to emphasize the trance like unemotional desert which Jogesh is reduced to - From the beginning to the end, the way Danibaboo has by his unmatched talents made Jogesh into a living, emotional man is a thing to be felt and not only be seen. I request the connoisseurs to see it once and witness his real strength You can find a lot of happiness, if nothing else, in the portrayal of the role which has become a classic. :"396 But herein a dilemma is apparent-they do not know, or cannot understand how to compare Sisir Bhaduri s Jogesh They find it difficult to pin point the actual style of analytical alienated acting, where Jogesh is a very important case study. A letter published in Nachghar protesting against Nataraj s suggestion that Sisir Bhaduri s Jogesh would have fared better if he followed Danibaboo s style s says ; Comparative study, is almost always odious but I feel that Sisirbaboo s Jogesh is a pure creation.":397 Why? The answer is that there is an artistic touch in his speech and special movements as well as a natural grace." A ludicrous method of distinction no doubt and the entire controversy comes down to whether the psychological state of Jogesh was of a drunkard or not. Despite such superficial and elementary conceptions about acting it is something which is given unprecedented importance. Most of the reviews run pages and 310

153 pages on acting, but of course at similar superficial levels and the criterions are voice, speech, movement; facial expressions, emotional expressions and of course audience applause. Negative as far as Nachghar is concerned and positive as far as Sisir is concerned The review of Alamgir in Nachghar is dominated by Sisir Kumar Bhaduri s immortal portrayal of the Emperor, It is regarded as Unique, a novel experience and with his appearance the play takes on a different tempo. There are no apparent signs of effort and the basic attitude includes all gestures and dialogues, even the subtle finger movements 398 It is an interesting observation of attitude acting where the attitude and entire mental set up is given priority -this is a reminiscent of what is known as the Stanislavskian school of acting. But other than a passing mention there is not much emphasis on this observation and the review goes on to Sisir Kumar Bhaduri's style of delivery, regarded as a middle path between Girish Chandra Ghosh and his rhythmic style and Ardhendu Shekhar and his absolute naturalness. Then they launch into some sort of western intellectualism and describes "Alamgir" as emanating a flavour of aesthetical emotion which Croce is supposed to explain as physical stimulants to aesthetic reproduction and the consequent is that gestures are deliberate manifestation of feelings. It is the differences between temporary fleeting emotions and a permanent emotion which exists throughout the performance." Sisir in its review also cannot find doubt with Sisir Bhaduri s Alamgir and says that they are unable to find suitable epithets." It is not enough to say wonderful. In acting, in his voice, in his personality, in his posters, in his gait, his unimaginable personality comes out. We have not seen anything close to it on the Bengal stage since ages. If a few actors like him descend on the stage, the entire equation will change. Sisir Kumar is incomparable and unmatched" One point on which Sisir makes a sharp observation is that Sisir Kumar s presence is unique to him, he never looses his personality with that of the character. 311

154 Sisir, grievance is against the group which surrounds the mountainous genius. Their deficiency have harmed the performance gravely. None had equal calibre to Sisirbaboo, but even there was none who could be a mere soldier. Sisirbaboo aware of this deficiency in fact overplayed his own role, damaging the entire performance. The inadequacy of the other characters are mentioned individually by name. "Nachghar on the other hand labels Kambaksh, Eradat and Ramsingha as promising and calls them new discoveries.399 The review of "Lakhtaka also emphasizing the acting, praise Abindra Chowdhury for giving the role a characterization which is unique -and a type, which made him excel as Chandrababoo in Chirakumar Sabha," His versatility is a matter of constant surprises and does not cease to make us wonder 400 But Nachghar is always conscious of Sisir Bhaduri's superiority, though they never give it an in depth analysis. A letter by Amarendranath Mukherjee, defends Sisir Kumar Bhaduri against the magazine Lekha which grades Ahindra Chowdhury higher in the scale of success. Lekha s reasons are connected to Ahindra Chowdhury s control over his voice and his larger range. But that is hardly a criterion, especially as this very advantage of voice turned into a disadvantage in Kumar Sen, Prabir& Dara. Moreover the letter -writer argues against Lekha s grievance that Ahindrababoo has not received his due, in fact argues Mukhopadhyay he has been overestimated -401 Hemendra Kumar Roy s assessment of Sisir Kumar Bhaduri is significantly written in a similar idolizing vein. - To do so many varied roles at the same time, I do not believe is possible for any actor. He has all the ingredients to make a great actor, which no other Bengali actor possess. Looks, voice, personality, creativity, all this characteristics combine to make him incomparable in the theatre today. If he had retired after participating in only two plays (Pandover Agyatavas and Sita), he would have remained immortal in the theatre. Sisir Kumar s Brahmin is an excellent creation. He managed to convey the entire horrendous quality of the Kurukshetra 312

155 through that minor character and his inhuman croaking, I will never forget it in my life. The eternal bloody soul of Kurukshetra echoes in the mouth of the Brahman and turns the blood into ice. I do not know how the audience comprehend this role but it affected me like none of the bigger roles. Brihanalla and Jaysingha expressed the recitational strength. Bhim s huge voice was also faultless and here his attitude is completely different. I would have liked to say a lot more about these characterizations but in the absence of space I have to restrain myself."402 Even Sisir's effusiveness remained more or less constant. In Pashani his Indra was portrayed as wonderful. His Gautam is also good though we expected a little better". Again names and characters are mentioned. Prabhadevi is given credit for her performance. Sisir Bhaduri's training is apparent there. About others Sisir" is not too happy some like "Srimati Nirada cannot sing too well. Charushila is unnatural." "Monoronjon Bandopdhyay is good, although exhibits gimmicky comedy from time to time." Except for a long opening paragraph the entire review discusses acting.403 'Sisir's' effusiveness with Sisir Kumar Bhaduri is almost equal to that of the Art Theatre s stars in fact not more. "Mrinalini's" review too, except for the opening paragraph deals with the actors and actresses. Teenkari Chakravarty s Pashupati, Nirmalendu Lahiri s Hemchandra, Niharabala s Mrinalini, are all regarded as very good.404 In fact it seems that when Sisir" likes a play most of the important cast is praised, when it doesn't the blame is on the casttoo. i.e Jana. But Sisir Bhaduri s Jana also receive practically similar criticism. Sisir devotes a great deal of time and space to a comparison between Teenkari s Jana, Tarasundaris and Sushilabala s but doesn't, of course, talk of difference in conceptions. The judgement seems, almost predetermined, Teenkori trained under Girish Ghosh himself cannot but be the best. Tarasubdari mediocre, (the former part exhibited nervousness, the latter very good) and Sushilabala s audacity in even accepting the role asks for criticism,

156 This was the general mould of criticism and except knowing who played what and whether it was good or bad, nothing more is forthcoming; Reviewing "Chirakumar Sabha" - Tenkoori baboo as Akshay is great and natural. Durgababoo as Puma was at his very best. His make up was very good. Compared to him Radhikababoo and Indrababoo s acting was uninspired. Sushilasundari was lifeless. Ranisundari is bearable... on the whole acting was quite good. 406 In reviewing Chandrashekhar Danibaboo s acting was not judged to be in the standard of his predecessor and his guru. "Ahindrababoo as Nawab was graceful."407 In reviewing Pundarik; - Sisir Bhaduri has shown unusual power -and he was really wonderful, although we do not want to see him as a villain. Tarasundari. as Sati although great had not much scope to prove her histrionics. Charushila s dances were great but unfortunately she has lost her originality and copies Sisir Kumar Bhaduri s etc." Most of the reviews read the scene as far as acting is concerned.408 The main accusation as far as Sisir Bhaduri s repertoire is concerned is that his co-actors were too inferior to him and it was nothing more than an one man show. :Nachghar bravely tries to defend it first by saying that all actors, however great will seem insipid compared to an actor of the stature of Sisir Kumar Bhaduri. Secondly : Nachghar tries to back his co-stars. Hemendra Kumar Roy in his assessment of Sisir Bhaduri mentions Viswanath Bhaduri as 'Sree-Krishna' and 'Kichak' where he managed to overcome the apparrent vulgarity by assuming a dignity. Manoranjan Bhattacharyas s Raja in' Visarjan' is also creditable.409 Surprisingly, in reviewing Naranarayan Viswanath Bhaduri s, Krishna has been described as surpassing even Sisir Bhaduri s expertise. Kurukshetra s shrewd manipulator, Mahabharat s great master of ceremony, the mysterious God, played with such unexpected expertise by Viswanath Bhaduri charmed and 314

157 enraptured every one. In his calm-solemn pronouncement, in his unmoving calmness the divinity of Krishna has assumed mortal proportions without loosing the divine immortality :410 Is it a significant deviation from the idol worship which had hitherto been the motto of :"Nachghar"? Is it the search for a successor on whom can be heaped all the adulation the newspapers hope to bestow? Or is it a reassertion that Sisir Kumar Bhaduri has not lost his charisma as a great director producer or is it part of the general pessimism when Sisir Bhaduri s for the first time, even by the loyalist Nachghar is not hailed as the greatest. He is no longer the best -internationally, nationally, etc., but despite ill-health, struggling along bravely. Grihapravesh scast is hailed as practising acting as an intellectual exercise, Sisir Bhaduri is no longer the giant who alone can intellectually interpret roles, says Nachghar. 411 The swan-song of a failing career was of course Digvijoy. Nachghar once again, after a long hibernation, comes out with its rhetorics. Sisir Kumar in the role of Digvijoy - The Victor! "What are the suitable ways to describe? How do you explain the inexplicable? Has correct description been accorded to the Tajmahal, the creator of Tajmahal himself may not be able to express it. Digvijoy s acting is like the Tajmahal -1 am incapable of a description: I can only give two or three suggestions." "A lot of people ask me whether Nadir Shah is as great as his Alamgir-there is no answerto such questions. If Tagore s Parash-Pathar reminds one of Sonar Tari it does not mean anything. The fact that Alamgir is not like his Nadir Shah is the proof of his greatness. How subtle was Nadir Shah s acting. In many instances Sisir Kumar by a subtle body movement or variation of voice has conveyed so many dimensions but whether all were comprehensible is doubtful. To appreciate Sisir Bhaduri as Nadir Shah the audience must be alert and ready. If he is a little distracted he may loose a lot. 315

158 In the first act the way Nadir Shah proposes to Sitara is so unique and original that before seeing him I would never have thought it possible, How beautiful! How beautiful. No attempt to show any artificial or forced affection -no distorted voice, no gimmicks to make the scene more colourful-yet how easily the old love theme assumes a newness which cools and charms the heart. For the first time :Nachghar attempts an insight into howsisir Bhaduri experimented with analysis after the fourth act, when the Bharat-nari" a lady epitomising the nation pleads with Nadir Shah, his exit, by dragging his feet -could be well appreciated by the connoisseur audience. A distinction is attempted between Sisir Bhaduri and a common actor. A common actor would have run around and expressed his worries through intensive movements, but will the common audience give it its worth... To appear in a new role. Sisir Kumar uses his brains to extract the subtle nuances and details and the fact that his conscious brain never gets submerged in emotions... we never see an actor as Nadir Shah but a history -its blood bath, the heat of flesh, the dance of the heart and it rouses our conscious level - we wonder, we are scared, we are stunned by its sublimity.412 Sisir Kumar s style of acting is for the first time being analyzed. The critic compares interpretation of Sisirbaboo s Nadir Shah with Napoleon who was striving to attain the refined manners of the aristocrat and the shepherd. Nadir Shah s situation was further aggravated by his illiteracy and by very subtle indications Sisir Bhaduri was trying to show the conflict between his inferiority and superiority complexes. No examples of depiction are however given, but in the end of his career a scientific assessment of sort was somewhat attempted- an assessment which took on more rational methodology.413 To be fair to the contemporary admirers of Sisir Kumar Bhaduri it needed a lapse oftimeto assimilate the violent impact of his personality and then analyze them to formulate a rational scientific methodology. It was bound to take some time. GENDER ATTITUDE: Girish Chandra Ghosh and the National theatre s 316

159 role in rehabilitating the actresses was remniscent of the social reformist trend, which played an important role in womens issues. Although Sisir Kumar Bhaduri and his age in many way be regarded as a continuation of the reformist trends of the so-called Renaissance era- this is the period where more-or-less alienation had intensified to such an extent that there was a prominent lack of social commitment or even consciousness. It was this very basic attitude that was reflected on the gender issue too. Apparently however, whatever little features in the magazines on the gender issue, in comparison reveal a progressive stand there is a general acceptance of actresses on stage, even true assessment of their histrionic abilities, and a defence against social prejudices. Yet most of the progress on this issue had been consciously fought and achieved due to the pioneer efforts of Girish Chandra Ghosh and his contemporaries. Here the situation was a plaleau, a stalemate. The main proof of the stalemate is that a degree of ostracism was still evident. Nachghar writes that "although theatre is regarded as a higher form of art, actors and actresses are still disregarded, the position of the actresses are still not exalted. In the West, actresses are accorded royal prestige and are often wooed by artist and connoisseurs of art on a social level. They are very much in demand in all social gatherings and parties." The situation remained, what was at the fagend of the Girish- age. Nachghar elaborates on the issue Today actors are regarded as part of the civilized sections and receive invitations from all social stratas. But actresses are still in the sea of darkness. Society still perceives them as street girls and hate them. Their dues as artists are never paid by society. Such unfairness is encouraged by Prabasi Modern Review and Sanjibani.Significant is that the, period still existed in mainstream society. The actress is a devotee, worshipper of an art form, from which she earns her means of livelihood with hard labour. If Pravasi and Sanijibani, instead of pushing them further into the gutter by sheer abuse help them to lead a moral path, they can lead a good life. 317

160 "But it maybe mentioned that the theatre provides a greater opportunity for free mixing of men and women and Cupid here may be a little too active. It is true of western theatre also but there the actresses tie the holy knot of matrimony. The responsibility now lies with the young actors and unless they adopt a moral lifestyle, the reforms may lapse back 50 years. If they can muster self -control and dedication, they will earn the respect of the future generation."414 An interesting proposal in this context is the formation of a group comprising gentlewomen and ladies of good families. But the efforts on for five years could not be fruitful because of lack of financial resources.415 Although the acceptance of women on stage was more profound among the theatre going audience in non-theatre circles the scandalized and moralistic attitude smacked of conservatism. A news item in Nachghar reported are the locals of Sreerampore, inspired by some local saints boycotted the performance of the Minerva Theatre on the grounds that prostitutes will act on stage. Nachghar s retort is that - Does it mean all the women of Sreerampore are Satis and Savitris? 416 Such accusations also come from the urban higher society too and the most surprising one is from Sarala Devi, who accused the public stage of contributing to decline of morals among contemporary youth. Nachghar is shocked at the prejudices of a supposedly enlightened mind. Moreover it was said out of context in a memorial service. Nachghar asks whether the moral standards of the Bengali youth were higher in the past, before the theatre was established. Has not the contemporary youth surpassed the youth of the past in every sphere of life? The youth who are being accused today, were they not the crusaders in bringing about all round progress. If one says that the prostitute class is responsible-it is logical. But it actresses are to blame-it is not only a misconception but a gross mistake. "Most experienced persons are aware that the zamindars and the richmen often 318

161 take on actresses as protege, and is enraptured by them. How many actresses are within reach of middle class youth? Hence to say that the public stage is the graveyard for the youth may sound good in an oratory, but has no basis in truth." A significant point here is that middle class is quite safe as far as actresses are concerned and therefore Nachghar prefers not to make it into a social issue. Nachghar continues At the theatre, the audience concentrates on the acting and praises and criticize it accordingly. The actress's beauty or figure ceases to be important. It has been proved that beautiful actresses have been hissed out of the stage, while actresses devoid of a figure has been appreciated because of her talents and has managed to get an important place in the heart of her admirer 417 When the poet Girija Kumar Basu charmed likewise by Niharabala s versatility published a poem, greeting her with namaskar and calling her a Devi-a weekly made some snide and crude remarks about it. Nachghar comes out in his defence and calls it the artistic privilege of an artist -they refuse to see it as anything other than an artist paying respect to another."418 Of course physical attributes of the actresses cannot be totally ignored. As the fascination with the West and Hollywood multiplied the basic concept of physical beauty was going through a massive change. Interestingly enough Nachghar the more urbane sophisticated magazine was more influenced by it than the conformist Sisir. Nachghar holds the western actresses attention to her physique and the rigorous exercise programmes as applaudable. On another occasion, they talk of how actresses renowned all over the world for their beauties have the ideal figures. Features may not be perfect but it is the figure and shape of the body, which is the criterion of the judgement of beauty. To preserve their figure, points out Nachghar they must go through a vigorous exercise programme and warns the Indian actresses against neglecting all the rules of beauty

162 A letter, by Anupam Chowdhuri, talks of how the audience's mentality is put to test by casting actresses in role of which belies any physical suitabilities He cites the example of Prakashmani as Jahanara, who is described as beautiful as the light of the universe, while the actual Prakashmani was physically unattractive.420 Another interesting anecdote recorded in Rang-Renu is how a fashion has been imported to England from U.S.A. It is some sort of an earring message, where if the girl wears earrinngs in her right ear, it means she loves someone, if she wears a pair, it indicates she is married and if there are no earrings evidently she is ready to get involved.421 Such socially irrelevant gender attitudes are featured all over, but the only write - up which even talks of women liberation is a letter by the actress Prabhadevi. Significantly except for this letter by her there are absolutely no contributions from actresses. Significantly in the preceding age both Binodini and Tarasundari were regular contributors of poems and Binodini s autobiography featured in Natyamandir was the next logical step of an artist who was dying to express herself. But neither "Nachghar" nor" Sisir encouraged such activities. Otherthan this letter by Prabhadevi, there is only one instance of a lady sending in two letters in defence of Sisir Kumar Bhaduri. Prabhadevi s letter starts with the comment of the famous actress Spinelli, who despite being unmarried, has discovered some of the characteristics of men which a lot of women despite intimacy with men cannot discover. Her objectivity is her strength. For she is frank in her confession quotes Prabhadevi that she hardly ever thinks of men or is curious about them. Yet itistohercreditthatshecanmake such deductions. She says, men create such machines that break down, such engines that destroys cars, such ship that often sinks, women never seem to be involved in the creative process and if she did it would merely mean following in the footsteps of men. Men are spendthrift, prodigal and squander away their income, but here 320

163 Prabhadevi adds that the main reason for which men wastes money is to cater to the demands of women and on that depends their life s safety. About 90% of partnerships are incompatible and marriages break-up. But the fault lies neither with the man or the woman, but God. May be a man - woman relationship has the ingredient which does not allow it to be peaceful - like oil and water. Prabha-devi on principle agree with Mrs. Spinelli, that men excel in making blunders while marketing, or in a love affair, or in maintaining domestic accounts, but Prabhadevi does not agree with the comment that they are rubbish. But without the men, in marketing, on the roads, in trains, in ship in entertainment, women miss them. Him dropping coffee on the carpet, closing the door with a bang, not to arrive in time for dinner- provides variety into an otherwise monotonous human existence. Men are easily discerned to be the same, this may deprive one of romance, but that way is easier to comprehend. Women on the others hand are versatile, but that often makes them a matter of suspicion. But the crucial question is that how long can women survive without men? Prabhadevi in an extremely matured style is trying to strike a sensible balance.422 Other than this, the only other instance where Nachghar took a positive stand on the women s issue was the defence of Pashani, where the theme of sensuality and virginity is inherent in Indian mythology. The accusations of Forward and Navayug" are first replied with;- But what to do with those whose skull has been filled with shit instead of brain?. Then Nachghar goes on to a rather rational analysis of the characterization of Ahalya in original Ramayan. The five ideals of Indian women - Kunti, Tara, Mandodori, Ahalya and Draupadi do not adhere to any of the so called prudish ideals. Forward and Navayug s insistence that a woman who surrenders herself without love, cannot be a Sati - is an insult to the Hindu religion and the Epics423 If we regard this period as the rise of the middle classes, a corollary to this 321

164 contradiction is the singular inability of the petty-bourgeoisie to write a great love scene.the irony lies in the fact that you cannot conceive the power of love, unless you first admit the equality of man and woman. The masses of India, in the depth of their ignorance, hunger, disease and everything else, have still managed to create love myths of Heer and Ranjha and Laila and Majnu (imported from Turkey) of Lakhinderand Behula. But since the learned, and healthy bourgeois started their thousand-year Reich in India, one cannot recall off-hand a single story worth remembering of tumultuous love and tragic sacrifice. The petty-bourgeois scribe is incapable of it, because the woman to him is merely a housekeeper and sexual animal. From this follows a prediction of rape-scenes in drama beginning superbly from the Neel-Durpan - The Indigo-Mirrors. To select rape as the means to rouse. Indians mass-hatred, against English brutalities show how well the dramatist understood his own class. The effect was electric and the play was banned. Our modern playwrights who shy away from love have pounced on rape, not so much, one feels, to rouse, hatred, but to express their own anxieties, and they seem to believe that the primary form of exploitation in modern society is molestation of the peasant s wife. It exposes the petty-bourgeois writer s male chauvinist views, the crude threat he holds out to women if they venture out of the home. 1. Basu Debkumar (edited), Sisir Kumar Rachanasangraha, Calcutta, June, 1987 p-ch 2. Bhattacharya Shankar, Natyacharya Sisir Kumar Calcutta-1993 p Bhattacharya Ashutosh Dr. and Ghosh Ajit Kumar, Satavarshe Natyashala, Calcutta, 1973 p Bhattacharya Ashutosh Dr. and Ghosh Ajit Kumar, op. cit p Mitra Indra, Sajghar, Calcutta 1367 (Bengali Year) p Mitra Indra, op. cit p Basu Ajit, Natyacharya Sisir Kumar O Bangla Rangamancher Sarna - adhyay, 322

165 Calcutta p 4 8. BasuAjitop, cit p Bhattacharya Shankar, op cit p Basu Ajit op. cit p Bhattacharya Shankar, op. cit p Bhattacharya Shankar, op cit p Bhattacharya Shankar, op cit p Bhattacharya Shankar, op cit p Bhattacharya Shankar, op cit * p Bhattacharya Shankar, op cit p Bhattacharya Ashutosh Dr. and Ghosh Ajit Kumar, op cit p Basu Ajit, op cit. p7 19. Mukherjee, Aparesh Chandra, Rangalay Tirish Bachar p Sinha Surajit (ed), Cultural Profie of Calcutta, Calcutta : 1972 p Sinha Surajit (ed), op cit p Bhattacharya Shankar, op cit p 4 23.Sinha Surajit (ed), op cit p Bhattacharya Shankar, op cit p Rowell George, Victorian Dramatic Criticism, London : 1971 p Mitra, Indra, op cit p Mitra India, op cit p Bhattacharya Shankar, op cit p Bhattacharya Shankar, op cit p Bhattacharya Shankar, op cit p Bhattacharya Shankar, op cit p Basu Ajit, op cit p Mitra Indra, op cit p

166 34. Dutta Sunil & Sheel Deepti Kumar, "Sisir Kumarer Natyacharcha, Calcutta 1980 p Bhattacharya Shankar op cit p Basu Ajit, op cit p Dutta Sun Land Sheel Deepti Kumar, op cit p Dutta Sunil & Sheel Deeptikumar, op cit p Bhattacharya Shankar, op cit p Goswami Parimal, Patrasmriti Calcutta 1971 p Bhattacharya Shankar, op cit p Bhattacharya Shankar, op cit p Basu Ajit, op cit p Basu Debkumar op cit p Dutta Sunil and Sheel Diptikumar, op cit' p Bhattacharya Shankar, op cit p Bhattacharya Shankar, op cit p Bhattacharya Shankar, op cit p Bhattacharya Shankar, op cit p Dutta Sunil & Sheel Deeptikumar,op cit p Sarkar Suneet, A critique of colonial India Calcutta, 1985 p Goswami Parimal, op cit p Bhattacharya Shankar, op cit p Nachghar, 15 Magh 1333 llnd year, 33rd issue 55. Bhattacharya Ashutosh Dr. and Ghosh Ajit, op cit p Basu Ajit, op cit p Bhattacharya Shankar, op cit p Bhattacharya Shankar, op cit p Goswami Parimal, op cit p Bhattacharya Shankar, op cit p

167 61. Bhattacharya Shankar, op cit p Anandabazar Patrika (annual issue) 1348 (Bengali Year) 63. Rowell George, op cit p Rowell George, op cit p Rowell George, op cit p Rowell George, op cit p Rowell George, op cit p Rowell George, op cit p Rowell George, op cit p Rowell George, op cit p Basu Debkumar, op cit p Basu Debkumar, op cit p Basu Debkumar, op cit p Bhattacharya Ashutosh Dr. and Ghosh Ajit, op cit, p Bhattacharya Shankar, op cit p Parichay, (An Interview with Sambhu Mitra by Shamik Bandopadhyay), Sravan 1351 (Bengali Year) 77. Mitra Indra, op cit p Mitra Indra, op cit p Mitra Indra, op cit p Bhattacharya Ashutosh Dr. & Ghosh Ajit, op cit p Bhattacharya Shankar, op cit p Bhattacharya Ashutosh Dr. & Ghosh Ajit, op cit. p Roy Hemendra Kumar, Bangla Rangalay O Sisirkumar, Calcutta, 1986 p Bhattacharya Ashutosh Dr. & Ghosh Ajit, op cit p Bhattacharya Ashutosh Dr. & Ghosh Ajit, op cit p Bhattacharya Shankar, op cit p

168 87.Goswami Parimal, op cit P Sutradhar, Atha, Nat, Ghatio, Calcutta 1367 (Bengali year) p BasuAjit, op cit p Bhattacharya Ashutosh Dr. & Ghosh Ajit, op cit p BasuAjit, op cit p Basu Debkumar, op cit p I 93. Mitra Indra, op cit p Parichay, Sravan 1351 (Bengali Year) 95-Parichay, Sravan 1351 (Bengali Year) 96. Chaturanga, Baisakh, Ashwin, Bhattacharya Shankar, op cit p Bhattacharya Shankar, op cit p Dutt Sunil & Sheel Deeptikumar, op cit p Bhattacharya Ashutosh Dr. & Ghosh Ajit, op cit p Chaturanga, Baisakh Ashwin Epic Theatre, 1-6, Ghosh, Girish Chandra, Collected Works Vol III p Mukherjee, Aparesh Chandra, op cit p Brecht, Bertolt, "Upperr Theatre" Leipzig, 1966 p Dutt Sunil & Sheel Deeptikumar, op cit p Chowdhury Ahindra, Nijere Haraye khuji., 1884 (Saka Year) p Dutt Sunil & Sheel Deeptikumar, op cit p Epic Theatre, 1-6, Piscator Erwin, The Political Theatre, New York, 1978 p Epic Theatre, 1-6, Parichay, Sravann, 1351 (Bengali Year) 113. Bhattacharya Shankar, op cit p Parichay, Sravan, 1351 (Bengali Year) 115. Epic Theatre, 1-6,

169 116. Bhattacharya Shankar, op cit p Bhattacharya Shankar, op cit p Bhattacharya Shankar, op cit p Epiic Theatre, 1-6, Basu Ajit, op cit p EpicThetare, 1-6, Navajug, July-August Hindustan, 25 June Navajug, 4 Dec, Navashakti, 8 Jan Bangadharshan, 1st year: 42week 13 Ashad Swadhinata, July The Free Lance, Feb 11, Statesman, 1 July, Amrita Bazar Patrika, 1 July, Hindustan Standard, 1 July Basumati, 1 July Jugantar, 1 July Swadhinata, 1 July Amrita Bazar Patrika, 1 July Desh, 30 Sept Paschimbanga, October College St., 1.X Ebang Naitkatya, Oct-Dec Amrita Bazar Patrika, 24 October Jugantar, 25 April Bartaman, 30 April Ganashakti, 1 October Ganashakti, 3 October

170 145. Desh, 14Agrahayan 1381 (Bengali Year) 146. Bangla, 29 Jaistha 1332 (Bengali Year) 147. Bangla, 29Sravan 1332 (Bengali Year) 148. Bangla, 5 Bhadra, 1332 (Bengali Year) 149. Bangla, 20 Chaitra 1331 (Bengali Year) 150. Bangla, 29 Chaitra 1331 (Bengali Year) 151. Nachghar, 2Sravan 1331 (Bengali Year) 152. Nachghar, 3Ashwin 1331 (BengaliYear) 153. Nachghar, 30 Jaistha 1331 (Bengali Year) 154. Nachghar, 23 Jaistha 1331 (Bengali Year) 155. Nachghar, 16 Jaistha 1331 (Bengali Year) 156. Nachghar, 23 Jaistha 1331 (Bengali Year) 157. Nachghar, 20Ashadh 1331 (Bengali Year) 158. " Nachghar", 6 Bhadra 1331 (Bengali Year) 159. " Nachghar", 13 Bhadra 1331 (Bengali Year) 160. " Nachghar", 10 Magh 1331 (Bengali Year) 161. " Nachghar", 1 Phalgun 1331 (Bengali Year) 162. " Nachghar", 22 Sravan 1332 (Bengali Year) 163. " Nachghar", 26 Baisakh 1331 (Bengali Year) 164. " Nachghar", 23 Sravan 1331 (Bengali Year) 165. " Nachghar", 18 Poush 1331 (Bengali Year) 166. " Nachghar", 20 Ashadh 1331 (Bengali Year) 167. " Nachghar", 23 Jaistha 1331 (Bengali Year) 168. " Nachghar", 31 Bhadra 1333, (Bengali Year) 169. " Nachghar", 16 Jaistha 1331 (Bengali Year) 170. " Nachghar", 11 Poush 1331 (Bengali Year) 171. "Nachghar", 1 Phalgun 1331 (Bengali Year) 172. "Nachghar", 21 Sravan 1333 (Bengali Year) 173. "Nachghar", 22 Sravan 1332 (Bengali Year) 328

171 174. "Nachghar", 29 Bhadra 1332 (Bengali Year) "Nachghar", 2 Ashwin 1332 (Bengali Year) "Nachghar", 2 Ashwin 1332 (Bengali Year) "Nachghar", 20 Chaitra 1331 (Bengali Year) "Nachghar", 3 Ashwin 1331 (Bengali Year) "Nachghar", 19 Ashadh 1331 (Bengali Year) "Nachghar", 19 Bhadra 1331 (Bengali Year) "Nachghar", 26 Bhadra 1332 (Bengali Year) Sisir, 23 Chaitra 1330 (Bengali Year) "Nachghar", 24 Ashadh 1333 (Bengali Year) Sisir, 28 Chaitra 1331 (Bengali Year) "Nachghar", 23 Jaistha styr. issue Sisir, 10 Jaistha 1331 (Bengali Year) Sisir, 6 Baisakh 1331 (Bengali Year) Sisir, 20 Baisakh 1331 (Bengali Year) 189. Sisir, 20 Baosakh 1331 (Bengali Year) 190. "Nachghar", 19 Ashwin 1331 (Bengali Year) " Nachghar", 6 Bhadra st Year 162 issue " Nachghar", 6 Bhadra 1331 (Bengali Year) " Nachghar", 29 Sravan 1332 (Bengali Year) " Nachghar", 28 Kartick 1331 (Bengali Year) " Nachghar", 4 Poush (Bengali Year) " Nachghar", 18 Poush 1331 (Bengali Year) "Nachghar", 27 Kartick 1332 (Bengali Year) " Nachghar" 3 Ashwin 1331 (Bengali Year) " Nachghar" 20 Bhadra 1331 (Bengali Year) " Nachghar" 28 Jaistha 1333 (Bengali Year) " Nachghar" 3 Ashadh 1333 (Bengali Year) (Bengali Year) 202. " Nachghar" 10 Ashadh 1333 (Bengali Year) 329

172 203." Nachghar" 27 Kartick 1332 (Bengali Year) 204 "Nachghar" 4Agrahayan 1332 (BengaliYear) 205. " Nachghar" 13 Bhadra 1331 (Bengali Year) 206. Shaw, Bernard : Plays and Players, Theatre Essays, London 1963 pxiii 207. The Morning Chronicle, 2 February 1814 The Times, 27 Oct The Examiner, 16 June The Examiner, 15 Jan The Times, 27 Oct The Times, 1st June Lewes. G.H., On Actors and the Art of Acting, London 1875 p The Reflector, No. IV In a recorded interview for this particular dissertation, recorded Nachgha, 22 Sravan 1332 (Bengali Year) 216. Nachghar, 26 Baisakh 1334 (Bengali Year) 217. Sisir, 3rd Jaistha 1331 (Bengali Year) a* 218. Nachghar, 10 Ashwin 1331 (Bengali Year) 219. Nachghar, 18 Ashwin 1331 (Bengali Year) 220. Private collection of veteran playwright and director Deb Narayan Gupta 221. Nachghar, 2 Jaistha 1331 (Bengali Year) 222. Nachghar, 4 Baisakh 1332 (Bengali Year) 223. Nachghar, 29 Bhadra 1332 (Bengali Year) 224. Nachghar, 23 Sravan 1331 (Bengali Year) 225 Nachghar, 6 Bhadra 1331 (Bengali Year) 226. Nachghar, 20 Bhadra 1331 (Bengali Year) 227. Nachghar, 27 Bhadra 1331 (Bengali Year) 228. Nachghar, 17 Magh 1331 (Bengali Year) 330

173 229. Nachghar, 20 Agrahan 1331 (Bengali Year) 230. Nachghar, 10 Ashadh 1333 (Bengali Year) 231. Sisir, 28 Ashadh 1331 (Bengali Year) 232. Sisir, 16 Sravan 1332 (Bengali Year) 233. Swachita Sisir: 1st year, 2nd Volume 1924 : 72 week 234. Nachghar, 16 Sravan 1331 (Bengali Year) 235. Nachghar, 30 Sravan 1331 (Bengali Year) 236. Nachghar, 16 Sravan 1331 (Bengali Year) 237. Sisir, 21 Ashadh 1331 (Bengali Year) 238. Sisir, 23 Jaistha 1332 (Bengali Year) 239. The Times, 15 June G.H. Lewes : On Actors and the Art of Acting The Journal of a London Playgoer, Rowell George, op cit p Shaw, Bernard, op cit p V 244. Shaw Bernard, op cit p Shaw Bernard, op cit p Shaw Bernard, op cit p Shaw Bernard, op cit p Shaw Bernard, op cit p Shaw Bernard, op cit p Shaw Bernard, op cit q p Shaw Bernard, op cit p Rowell George, op cit p Rowell George, op cit p Hauser Arnold The Social History of Art London, 1951 p Shaw Bernard, op cit p Rowell Bernard, op cit p Hauser Arnold, op cit p

174 258. Rowell George, op cit p Shaw Bernard, op cit p Rowell George, op cit p Hauser, Arnold, op cit p Hauser Arnold, op cit p Nachghar, 20 Ashadh 1331 (Bengali Year) 264. Sisir, 21 Agrahayan 1331 (Bengali Year) 265. Nachghar, 20 Ashadh 1331 (Bengali Year) Sisir, 13 Baisakh 1331 (Bengali Year) 267. Sisir, 20 Baisakh 1331 (Bengali Year) 268. Nachghar, 13 Ashadh 1331 (Bengali Year) 269. Sisir, 17 Jaistha 1331 (Bengali Year) 270. Nachghar, 31 Ashadh 1331 (Bengali Year) 271. Rowell George, op cit p Sisir, 28 Agrahayan 1331 (Bengali Year) 273. Nachghar, 4 Poush 1331 (Bengali Year) 274. Rowell George, op cit p Sisir, 28 Chaitra 1331 (Bengali Year) 276. Sisir, 28 Chaitra 1331 (Bengali Year) 277. Sisir, 23 Jaistha 1332 (Bengali Year) 278. Sisir, 30 Jaistha 1332 (Bengali Year) 279. Nachghar, 4 Poush 1331 (Bengali Year) 280. Rowell George op cit p Rowell George, op cit p Sisir, 10 Ashadh 1332 (Bengali Year) 283. Sisir, 6 Bhadra 1332 (Bengali Year) 284. Sisir, 20 Bhadra 1332 (Bengali Year) 285. Nachghar, 2 Poush 1333 (Bengali Year) 286. Shaw Bernard, op cit p

175 287. Hauser, op cit p Sisir, 13 Baisakh 1331 (Bengali Year) 289. Sisir, 28 Kartick 1331 (Bengali Year) 290. Nachghar, 13 Bhadra 1331 (Bengali Year) 292. Nachghar, 14 Kartick 1331 (Bengali Year) 293. Hauser Arnold, op cit 294. Hauser Arnold, op cit p 118 p Nachghar, 11Poush1331 (Bengali Year) 296. Nachghar, 18 Poush 1331 (Bengali Year) 297. Nachghar, 3 Magh 1331 (Bengali Year) 298. Nachghar, 18 Poush 1331 (Bengali Year) 299. Sisir, 2 Phalgun 1331 (Bengali Year) 300. Sisir, 6 Bhadra, 1332 (Bengali Year) 301. Nachghar, 15 Phalgun 1331 (Bengali Year) 302. Nachghar, 16 Sravan 1331 (Bengali Year) 303. Nachghar, 13 Phalgun 1333 (Bengali Year) 304. Nachghar, 16 Sravan 1331 (Bengali Year) 305. Nachghar, 30 Jaistha 1331 (Bengali Year) 306. Rowell George, op cit p Nachghar, 30 Jaistha 1331 (Bengali Year) 308. Nachghar: 16 Sravan 1331 (Bengali Year) 309. Sisir, 30 Chaitra 1330 (Bengali Year) 310. Sisir, 19 Jaistha 1331 (Bengali Year) 311. Nachghar, 6 Poush 1335 (Bengali Year) 312. Sisir, 26 Agrahayan 1332 (Bengali Year) 313. Nachghar, 5th Ashadh 1334 (Bengali Year) 314. Nachghar, 7 Agrahayan 1335 (Bengali Year) 315. Nachghar: 6 Poush 1335 (Bengali Year) 316. Nachghar, 26 Baisakh 1331 (Bengali Year) 333

176 317. Sisir, 30 Chaitra 1330 (Bengali Year) 318. Nachghar, 10 Bhadra 1333 (Bengali Year) 319. Nachghar, 3 Agrahayan 1333 (Bengali Year) 320. Sisir, 6 Baisakh 1331 (Bengali Year) 321. Nachhghar, 6Poush,1335 (Bengali Year) 322. Nachghar, 3Ashwin1331 (Bengali Year) 323. Nachghar, 1 Phalgun 1331 (Bengali Year) 324. Nachghar, 20 Kartick 1332 (Bengali Year) 325. Nachghar, 10 Bhadra, 1333 (Bengali Year) 326. Nachghar 20 Ashadh st year: 9th issue (Bengali Year) 327. Sisir, 13 Baisakh 1331 (Bengali Year) 328. Sisir, 14 Agrahayan 1331 (Bengali Year) 329. Sisir, 2 Phalgun 1331 (Bengali Year) 330. Sisir, 28 Agrahayan 1331 (Bengali Year) 331. Sisir, 9Sravan 1332 (Bengali Year) 332. Nachghar, 3Ashwin 1331 (Bengali Year) 333. Nachghar, 6 Poush 1335 (Bengali Year) 334. Nachghar, 6 Poush 1331 (Bengali Year) 335. Nachghar, 2Sravan1331 (Bengali Year) 336. Rowell George, op cit 337. Rowell George, op cit 338. Rowell George, op cit p 182 p 197 p Nachghar, 30Sravan1331 (Bengali Year) 340. Nachghar, 23 Sravan, 1331 (Bengali Year) 341. Nachghar, 13 Bhadra 1331 (Bengali Year) 342. Nachghar, 27 Bhadra 1331 (Bengali Year) 343. Nachghar," 29 Bhadra 1331 (Bengali Year) 344. Nachghar, 29 Sravan 1332 (Bengali Year) 345. Nachghar, 29 Sravan 1332 (Bengali Year) 334

177 346. Sisir, 13Ashad 1332 (Bengali Year) 347. Nachghar, 13 Phalgun 1333 (Bengali Year) 348. Nachghar, 30 Agrahayan 1334 : IVth year 27th issue 349. Sarkar Sumit, op cit p Nachghar, 27Ashadh1331 (Bengali Year) 351. Nachghar, 27Ashadh1331 (Bengali Year) 352. Sisir, 10 Sravan 1331 (Bengali Year) 353. Sisir, 24 Sravan 1331 (Bengali Year) 354. Sisir, 24 Jaistha 1331 (Bengali Year) 355. Nachghar, 6 Bhadra 1331 (Bengali Year) 356. Nachghar, 26 Baisakh 1331 (Bengali Year) 357. Nachghar, 23 Jaistha 1331 (Bengali Year) 358. Nachghar, 20Ashadh 1331 (Bengali Year) 359. Nachghar, 3Ashwin 1331 (Bengali Year) 360. Nachghar, 29 Sravan 1332 (Bengali Year) 361. Nachghar, 20Ashadh1331 (Bengali Year) 362. Nachghar, 29 Bhadra 1332 (Bengali Year) 363. Nachghar, 29 Bhadra 1333 (Bengali Year) 364. Nachghar, 10 Bhadra 1332 (Bengali Year) 365. Nachghar, 21 Ashwin 1333 (Bengali Year) 366. Nachghar, 29 Phalgun 1331 (Bengali Year) 367. Nachghar, 30 Jaistha 1331 (Bengali Year) 368. Nachghar, 21 Ashadh 1331 (Bengali Year) 369. Nachghar, 24 Agrahayan 1333 (Bengali Year) 370. Nachghar, 31 Ashadh 1333 (Bengali Year) 371. Sisir, 23 Chaitra 1330 (Bengali Year) 372. Sisir, 30 Chaitra 1330 (Bengali Year) 373. Sisir, 13 Baisakh 1331 (Bengali Year) 374. Sisir, 17 Jaistha 1331 (Bengali Year) 335

178 375. Sisir, 28 Agrahayan 1331 (Bengali Year) 376. Sisir, 28 Chaitra 1331 (Bengali Year) 377. Sisir, 23 Jaistha 1332 (Bengali Year) 378. Sisir, 9 Sravan 1332 (Bengali Year) 379. Sisir, 6 Bhadra 1332 (Bengali Year) 380. Sisir, 30 Sravan 1332 (Bengali Year) 381. Sisir, 20 Bhadra 1332 (Bengali Year) 382. Sisir, 26 Agrahayan 1332 (Bengali Year) 383. Nachghar 13 Ashad 1331 (Bengali Year) 384. Rowell George op cit p Rowell George p Rowell George op cit p Caroll, Sydney W, Some Dramatic opinions, New York 1968 p Rowell George, op cit p Sisir, 6 Baisakh 1331 (Bengali Year) 390. Sisir, 12 Baisakh 1332 (Bengali Year) 391. Nachghar, 16 Sravan 1331 (Bengali Year) 392. Nachghar, 13 Bhadra 1331 (Bengali Year) 393. Nachghar, 13 Agrahayan 1331 (Bengali Year) 394. Nachghar, 23 Sravan 1331 :1 yr. (Bengali Year) 395. Nachghar, 7 Agrahayan 1335 (Bengali Year) 396. Nachghar, 9 Asadh 1334 (Bengali Year) 397. Nachghar, 23 Ashadh 1334 (Bengali Year) 398. Nachghar, 16 Jaistha 1331 (Bengali Year) 399. Sisir, 13 Baisakh 1331 (Bengali Year) 400. Nachghar 23 Jaistha 1331 (Bengali Year) 401. Nachghar 31 Ashadh 1333 (Bengali Year) 402. Nachghar 24 Bhadra 1331 (Bengali Year) 403. Sisir-28 Agrahayan 1331 (Bengali Year) 336

179 404. Sisir -17 Jaistha 1331 (Bengali Year) 405. Sisir 28 Jaistha 1331 (Bengali Year) 406. Sisir 9 Sravan 1332 (Bengali Year) 407. Sisir 20 Bhadra 1332 (Bengali Year) 408. Sisir 6 Bhadra 1332 (Bengali Year) 409. Nachghar 20 Bhadra 1333 (Bengali Year) 410. Nachghar 24 Agrahayan 1333 (Bengali Year) 411. Nachghar (Bengali Year) 412. Nachghar 6 Poush 1335 (Bengali Year) 413. Nachghar 27Ashadh 1331 (Bengali Year) 414. Nachghar 27 Kartick 1332 (Bengali Year) 415. Nachghar 28 Kartick 1331 (Bengali Year) 416. Nachghar 9 Sravan 1331 (Bengali Year) 417. Nachghar 25 Chaitra 1333 (Bengali Year) 418. Nachghar 20 Phalgun 1333 (Bengali Year) 419. Nachghar 23 Sravan 1331 (Bengali Year) 420. Nachghar 12 Bhadra 1332 (Bengali Year) 421. Nachghar 31 Ashadh 1333 (Bengali Year) 422. Nachghar 29 Sravan 1332 (Bengali Year) 423. Nachghar 29 Sravan 1332 (Bengali Year) 337

180 Illus. VII: First issue cover of "Nachghar" dated 26 Baisakh, 1331 (Bengali Year). Illus VIII A page from Naachghar depicting news of Russian theatre. Familiarizing Indian audience and Soviet aesthetics, dated 11 Poush, 1331 (Bengali Year) Nachghar depicting news of Interanational theatre reader to Western dated 13 Baisakh, 1381 (Bengali Year) 338

181 Ulus X : A specific cover of "Nachghar" dated 23 Jaistha, 1331 (Bengali Year). Popularizing Indian aesthetics also. Illus XI : A page from "Nachghar" An audience/reader survey intent on promoting Sri Sisir Kumar Bhaduri. Dated 19 Ashadh 1331 (Bengali Year).... A <Tf«"'«an 1. an «(«** ',"'" W v.,,r.. MM.«* «W"" ei-i m snj/.nfar* I «r«f,& SHI >a» nftnan* **r^ * i......v... a* a " '*7. ', «S a- «" "* "*7 77. «. ; «r«* c- Tf >»*»«I **CK11... n -* <-««>«", trt. sflf Nn«.«'i ** a... «>«*> *"«* '" '"'..u <*'a«n <,». wimm Sr. f»n «* ^ M ft..iiti.fi.snm... m*. ' '-.a, - WJrM...»**>*««< * *««1 V-*, ' 1 T»~ ^ 339

182 1 / I rwi J&j \ : i r I l* T^' "* \ 1 i r i 1 ***** -" **** 1 jfrs* fl i 1 [ ^ 1 «-. 1 1»«&U ;',U lllus XII : A full page advertisement from "Nachghar", dated 13 Baisakh, 1331 (Bengali Year) of Sisir Kumar Bhaduri's "Sita" lllus XIII: Another prominent advertisement of Sisir Kumar Bhaduri's production of "Jana", published in "Nachghar", 10, Bhadra, 1332 (Bengali Year) 340

183 lllus XIV : Advertisement of books and publications.significantly promoting stalwarts of the cotterie Published in "Nachghar" dated 5 Ashadh, 1334(Bengali Year) «*< f r Sl«t»w»w««>* *' mat; f1*11 fr'"*.» «f» «* « > «"* «* fir* ^frll i ri<rrw 3c»t*iwrr» «i» cttsn:*)?. si,g mwl* ;«IT53C* *t*t SC3I 3y. f»c *W sf»l,(.3 ^.pcs^ss 3cMr*it»ra fl* Jl rj, J1 «ren 3T»«T». arc xj > «w»r «r. ^1 n crt*#t a' St *^ i /i at», 3Tfa»»*-«' fa, 1!^!* «ru«fi*. J*fK r «i i l> *' f3 *h"* i Jf? 4?fS ) wtm tt, s c#s WIFI^tVl n. *r*. ffhww. ««" * rt ** \ i*a (I T>*»** ** \ -T^r, -rrri «r» *1 t*«nur <-** *«* -«\. «cwrea w«n c**w «rfw n, t«** W W«CfTC** V* w ««t- * * **n «w * r"t* f'* n *! t 3H33l«3l>3W I * 11 1 *r *t Srawsw*! wwnntmw «rt anfwajb*5 wti *t tf««saait S. >jfa _3 V"»N «%»»j a net C aft^-f^cw't^ ft* % H«4U, fa, tw* ** ^»..** ittfmp effs, lllusxv: The Advertisement of a rival theatre (Minerva) published for the first time in "Nachghar" dated 26 Baisakh 1331 (Bengali Year) lllus XVI : Cover of "Nachghar" depicting Durgadas Bandopadhyay, a rival star of a rival theatre. Nachghar, dated 19Bhadra, 1332 (Bengali Year) 341