Laughter or intrigue?

Theatre audience in a Balancing act

By Dilshan Boange

What purpose does theatre serve today in Sri Lanka? Is it one that serves the purpose of lucrative entertainment or some other objective, such as being a catalyst for social transformation? The latter is somewhat difficult to be effectively achieved perhaps if married with the former.

Actor Gihan de Chickera told me that when Sri Lankans go to the theatre they want to laugh. It is part and parcel of being a people in tropical climes one may suppose. Some splash of ribtickling would ensure the viewer feels there was some gain for the money he paid to watch the show.

And interestingly veteran actor and drama director Namel Weeramuni once told me that when people call the the Punchi Theatre, to inquire about an upcoming Sinhala play, the two unfailing questions asked would be, Who are the actors? and Does the show make you laugh? The average theatregoer in Sri Lanka, over the years, seeks mirthfulness by making a date with the theatre.

Last week the Sunday Observer’s Youth Magazine ran an article by Sureshni Pilapitiya titled ‘Reaching for the Stars’, a feature interview with young thespian Ruvin de Silva. From my observations de Silva can be seen as a practitioner involved in the more avante guard sphere of theatre in our country.

Activity

And there is a significant amount of experimental vanguard ventures now coming up as a better supported area of activity and gaining ground when compared to the more ‘conventional story’ stage play drama in which laughter and intrigue abounds, catering to the more popular audience expectations.

One answer by the interviewee in the article, which strongly drew my attention, was his answer to the question of whether he sees a difference between English and Sinhala theatre.

I have reproduced here his answer –“There is a huge difference. Sinhala theatre is far ahead of English theatre. But English is also catching on. I think they have their pluses and minuses.” I found this response thought-provoking when juxtaposed with what Namel Weeramuni told me in an interview. Weeramuni said he was firmly of the view that English theatre is far ahead of Sinhala theatre of present and that the real thought-provoking innovations in Sri Lankan theatre comes from the present day English theatre practitioners.

There is a stark difference in views here, but each surely is based on reasons that seem to best validate their perceptions.

In terms of volume, the Sinhala theatre produces a far greater number of plays in a year, against which the English theatre may seem dwarfed or downright Lilliputian, if compared solely on the basis of number of productions per annum. The Sinhala theatre also has indubitably a far wider base of human resources to draw on.

But in respect of how much innovation in terms of stagecraft or boldness in terms of exploring new frontiers in both performance style and new subject matter, I wonder how far ahead would the Sinhala theatre actually be when compared to productions from English theatre troupes actively producing plays with goals of seeking to achieve artistic depth and newness in expression.

Exploration

I do not by any means say that the Sinhala theatre is void of vanguard experimentation and new frontier exploration, but in comparison to what is observable as Sinhala theatre productions, which seek to push boundaries for innovation and depth of meaning, the number of such productions would be comparatively lesser when juxtaposed with the works that can be seen produced by English theatre practitioners.

To me Weeramuni cited how Sinhala theatre today is more focused on money making and has as a result created a trend of theatre for ‘cheap laughs’. He named a play or two which have reaped overwhelming success as crowd pleasers, and spoke of how many of those plays capitalise on creating comedy crassly flirting with vulgarity and having no real effect of being satire. His point was that in contrast English theatre has not shown trends of that nature.

Another point Weeramuni brought out was how English theatre is making a conscious effort to discuss pressing socio-political issues that relate to our present day with special relation to matters in the post war context, whereas as per Weeramuni’s observations the Sinhala theatre offers hardly anything in that respect.

One of my own observations when it comes to Sinhala theatre is that there are an astounding number of translations or adaptations of foreign plays and in comparison fewer original scripts gaining life on the boards. Similarly, practitioners in English theatre have not shown a considerably large volume of original plays produced as English medium Sri Lankan plays compared to the number of works of foreign playwrights that get staged as Sri Lankan productions.

The bravery for producing original scripts as theatre productions always involves a risk. Whereas with a time-tested script, be it local or foreign, by an accomplished playwright, gives greater assurance to the producers that the efforts will not result in a financial debacle.

Direction

De Silva in the article brings out a very pivotal matter that affects any sphere of art that determines the direction of the future of that sphere of art and its mettle of creativity, which is of course whether or not the persons engaged as practitioners in that field are in it purely for the bucks?

There is to the best of my knowledge hardly any big money to gain from English theatre in Sri Lanka, yet. However, this cannot be said to be the very same state of affairs when it comes to ‘popular’ Sinhala theatre.

If you can keep your audience in stitches then there is a good chance your ‘business is made.’ But that fact may not apply in equal measure to an English play staged in Colombo.

One of the plays that I can recall which made me laugh my sides off the most was Jith Peiris’s production of British playwright Philip King’s comedy “See how they run”. But then how many continuous runs can such a play hope to have in venues outside Colombo or even within Colombo for that matter and generate highly appealing profits for the producers? The answer need not be spelt out I believe.

Therefore, the dynamics that affect the prospects for steady remuneration to players and profits for producers through drama are remarkably different when the two spheres of Sinhala and English are compared.

One is ‘ahead’ of the other says practitioners from both spheres. It depends much on what the reasons and criteria would be to assert the viewpoint. And what the direction of theatre in Sri Lanka will be depends much on what the objectives set forth may be by the theatre practitioners themselves and what they desire to make central to their goals in relation to their audiences.