Sighting the site for Socrates

by Dilshan Boange

The dimensions of defining a theatre performance took on a new meaning in certain ways on April 4 at the Sarachchandra open air theatre of the Peradeniya University, which is more commonly known as the Wala (pit), as the Sinhala production Socrates directed by Pujitha De Mel came alive on the steps of the theatre which reversed the politics of performance space by putting the players on what is otherwise the space of the viewers, the audience.

The production which consisted entirely of students of the Department of Fine Arts of the Peradeniya University put on two shows scheduled for 6.30 pm and 8.30 pm on April 4, and it is the latter performance that is reviewed in this article.

Pujitha De Mel

It was my first experience of seeing a performance at the Wala and it so happened that what I encountered wasn’t one with the usual spatial design intended for a theatre production. The director had conceptualised the drama to unfold as a ‘site specific’ theatre performance, which is somewhat of a deviation from the orthodoxies of the proscenium stage theatre, now catching on in certain parts of the world as a non-mainstream form of performance.

Seats become ‘the boards’

The many tiered stone based seats of theWala became the boards on which the players brought their roles and narratives to life in the gentle darkness of a cool night in Kandy as the circular space at the centralised foot of the theatre became the audience’s space. The production clearly showed that a weighty task in logistics had been part of what the nature of the show had demanded since the ‘angles’ of viewer and performer spaces were reversed and elements such as multimedia projections were also part of the performance.

The audience stood below where the performers would otherwise be at a show in the Wala and the players moved across the heights of the seating steps. This scenario ought to be rather bizarre to the old guard heir to the Peradeniya legacy and its inescapable nostalgias. Pujitha De Mel and his students must therefore be congratulated for making come real the novelty that was seen that day. The story written by Prof. Sunanda Mahendra is about how the great Greek philosopher Socrates is condemned to die for the crime of ‘corrupting the Athenian youth’ as history has recorded.

The performance had three principal narrative threads that were made to converge. The first is what is built around the Greek comedy playwright Aristophanes and his association with the State.

The second is the satirical comic play by Aristophanes, ridiculing Socrates, taking the space of a play within a play, and thirdly the character of Socrates himself and the action that happen with him.

The show, skilfully used the whole width and breadth of the arena line seating space had distinct spots on the tiers to locate the three threads of the narrative as central pinpoints and then had the action that cements these incidents to create the larger picture of the play, be placed between the earlier spotlighted places as well as move to cover the whole space as becoming the stage at once. The most significant of these theatricalised narrative strategy is possibly in the last scene when the people bearing flamed torches arrive to the ‘theatre’ from outside the wall, to the very topmost tier and then descend step by step to the spot where they demonstrate their animosity to Socrates.

This was a production which due to its choice of site and strategy had to rely on various means of lighting. Petromax lamps were moved to certain places adroitly by stage hands to facilitate better visibility of the action as it switched from one spot to another on the stone steps. It showed an aspect of the logistics that were needed to ensure the shift in the placement of the scene did not create disruptions to the fabric of the narrative as a visible picture. What would be the use of listening to dialogue that is veiled by the night since the audience there wasn’t to listen to a radio drama after all.

Lighting and costumes

The essentialness of lighting in a theatre production had thereby not been overlooked or underestimated in this show put on by the Peradeniya Department of Fine Arts. Similarly, playing around the element of light in its different forms was shown in the scene were lit torches became visible against the fabric of the night with only the marginal outlines of the torch bearers who create the mob being visible at the initial moment. The correct strategising of light can work as an element by itself to drive certain effects as suspense, wonderment or intrigue to an audience. These merits of the production must be therefore noted to the credit of the people who put on the play Socrates, at the ‘Wala’ on April 4.

A scene from Socrates

Costumes and their motifs were something that caught my eye and may warrant some commentary. While the characters of the Aristophanes drama in their comical masks showed very pronouncedly the distinctness of a Greek stylised drama where the signs of communication, which come in the form of tonal expressions and gesticulations, and visage, are ‘mould set’, the characters themselves weren’t garbed in a Greek wardrobe. Where are the togas? I wondered watching the figures clad in trousers and shoes and very colourful modern motifs of attire.

Maybe the director didn’t have in mind a depiction of Greek theatre (in Sinhala) per se. Perhaps the theatrical communication made that night was of a more symbolic nature too. Whatever the garb may be, the scenario seen in Socrates isn’t limited to the Athenian legacy. The modernity of the clothing may posit the production as one that didn’t capture the classicality of a drama set in an ancient Athenian context.

But on the other hand the innovativeness may also add to the vibrancy of the production being for a contemporary audience. However it may be looked at, one thing is indisputable in scrutinising the visage of the central character; as far as the descriptive terms tagged on the great philosopher from writings of old go, the Socrates directed by De Mel, ‘Barefoot in Athens’ he was not.

Acting merits

On the merits and demerits of acting it must be noted firstly that the cast was not an ensemble of seasoned theatre practitioners who played out the roles but university students whose primary foundation to the art of theatre is presumably academic. There were a few actors who delivered compelling performances; the actor who played the protagonist being one who deserves a robust round of applause for his performance both as the Socrates proper and the comical Socrates depicted in the play of Aristophanes. The stark difference of pace and pulse, the agilities and tonal variations that distinguished the philosopher from the joker came out appreciably from the young actor.

There were however some notable shortcomings in several actors whose delivery of dialogue was disappointing. A lack of finesse in modulating voice tones and ineffectiveness in enunciation were drawbacks that affected the impressions about the performance as a whole, to a viewer such as me. How many in the audience of that performance that night may or may not agree with me is of course a matter I cannot venture to comment on. I do not purport to represent a perspective that is collective, but individual.

Site specifics of note

The symbolism for the finale devised through a physical feature of the site had a rather spectacular effect. The lights were directed upwards to the large Tabebuia rosea tree that stands in the midst of the tiers. The lit tree was surely meant to symbolise the giganticness of Socrates who is at the end of the story condemned to die. A tree can be a symbol of life. It could have been meant to show the eternalness Socrates will hold as an ‘enlightener’ to the world.

The texture of a work of theatre can be in this instance of being a site specific work, influenced by the natural ‘atmosphere’ that couches the performance. The beauty of the large Tabebuia rosea tree in full bloom definitely added an element that shaped the ‘feel’ of what was being watched by the audience as those pink flowers gently descended here and there every now and then as if regardless of what tone and pulse the changing scenes carried, there was a natural element that was invited to cast itself on the spectrum of the performance, consistent throughout with its unchanging lull of sereneness.

The choice of site definitely was, as it showed quite plainly, the decisive factor for the ambience that enhanced the experience. Though it may have its threads of aggression woven in the themes brought to life, Socrates isn’t one that carries the themes of bloodthirstiness and morbidity a play like Macbeth does. It is possible in that sense the choice of theme and the nature of the site did find compatibility when De Mel made his decisions. What would the experience be like, I wonder, to see the balcony scene of Romeo and Juliet in such a setting, with pink flowers descending silently, at times perhaps, being gently coursed by the touch of a soft breeze.

Was the experience of watching Socrates on April 4 at the Peradeniya ‘Wala’ a thoroughly fulfilling one? Sadly I cannot answer in the affirmative due to one colossal injustice that was done to the viewers by the persons who put up the show. I believe in this regard the Director Pujitha De Mel and his posse who set the ‘conditions’ for this show deserve censure.

The performance in being conceived as one that would unfold on the tiered seating of the theatre reversed the locations of the performers and viewers and thereby declared what is usually the performance space would be the place for the viewers to position themselves to watch the play. That is not the criticism I have, but the manner in which the organisers deemed the audience as one that could be told they must abide by the ‘conditions’ set in place. The theatregoers weren’t provided seats. The requirement was to stand and watch. To be on one’s feet for an entire hour and ‘enjoy’ the show.

No free show

The organisers however did deem it fitting to provide two rows of chairs exclusively for the clergy at the front of the designated audience space. This differential treatment seemed very unbecoming at a show that wasn’t put on free of charge. I for one do not believe that it is the price of the ticket which was of course a very modest Rs. 50/- that is the determinant of whether or not this issue deserves scrutiny, but the principle of what is acceptable and not from the point of the viewers, the theatregoers.

I and my companions, who travelled from Colombo, paid to see Socrates just like so many others there that night. But in general all in attendance were told before the performance started, by a gentleman from the production, that the drama is to be watched standing and that a chair could be provided to anyone who may have difficulty standing for the duration of the show.

This to me seemed a ridiculous proposition, and one that was demeaning to be cast upon viewers who paid to validate their right of admission. What the people behind the production may or may not have given thought to was that what was put on at the ‘Wala’ that night was not a street drama. And it certainly wasn’t an open air musical show either.

From the outskirts

I do not believe a producer of a show who charges admission from the audience has a moral right to deprive a viewer the very basic facility of a seat. I refuse to watch a play standing up after being admitted upon the purchase of a ticket. Helping myself to a chair that was from a bunch placed in a discreet corner well outside the designated viewer space, I asked very politely from a petite girl who was part of the organisers and positioned in the manner of a gatekeeper, if it would be all right if I took the chair in.

Very courteously in a manner almost apologetic she said chairs are not allowed into the viewer space. Showing that I fully understood that she was merely doing what she was told I smiled in reciprocal courtesy and planted my seat in the grassy slope just outside the rope that demarcated the designated viewer space. Yes, there was a cordon drawn in that sense. And so for the record, this (re)viewer watched Socrates from the ‘margins’, the ‘outskirts’; since I refused to accept the indignity that was cast upon the laity who had to enter the viewer space under the conditions in place.

University affair

The organisers could construe the scenario as justified saying that the show was a university affair. But then what one must also keep in mind is that the show was publicised in national newspapers, and was thereby an invitation or public notice to theatregoers in general, and cannot be meant to be limited to the present university community.

Theatre is as much about the audience and how it connects to them as much as it is about the efforts and pains involved in putting on an appreciable performance.

Would the full worth of a production come to fruition if the viewer, who makes true the reality of a live audience to a live performance, is not shown some very basic courtesies that determine if the organisers did in fact have any consideration for the persons who committed their time and money to watch the labours of the artistes?