Textual creations towards ‘dramatisations’

An investigative discourse with three playwrights on their craft of playwriting

By Dilshan BOANGE

What plays in the mind of the writer when writing a play to become (a) ‘playwright’? The initial point of a drama’s birth is on paper as a ‘script’. Yet that script does not constitute a ‘work’ as such in the world of drama and theatre. The words penned on paper describing settings and situations, narrating actions and dialogues do not truly find their moment of publication until the ‘drama’ comes to life on the boards of a stage for an audience, thus creating ‘theatre’.

Theatre is very much a ‘live’ medium of art where the artists must deal with their audience and their possible instantly sensible responses as the performance unfolds. A work of theatre’s ‘parentage’ develops in phases, with many elements as lighting, music and props coming to life based on the vision of the dramatist.

Is everything a viewer sees unfolding on the stage at the drama the result of what was written on paper by the playwright? Is all of it the manifestation of what was originally conceived as the ‘written’ word? This article explores the craft of the playwright based on discussions with three practitioners of contemporary Sinhala theatre in Sri Lanka to gauge their approach to playwriting seeing as how the words on paper don’t constitute ‘theatre’, yet becomes the inception of a play.

The chosen three

The three selected dramatists in this discussion are Indika Ferdinando who wrote and directed Colombo, Colombo, Rajitha Dissanayake whose latest work is Bakamoona veedi basee (The owl on the street) and Udayasiri Wickremaratne who created Suddek oba amathai. All three interviewees are dramatists who wrote and directed their plays and can speak of their experience comprehensively touching on the dual roles of writer and director in bringing their concept and vision of theatre to life on the boards giving their written words the form of ‘theatre’.

Indika Ferdinando

The beginning of the conversation with Indika was on the proposed hypothesis that a playwright does not have the limitlessness of a fiction writer when creating the story. Although the fiction writer and the playwright physically perform the same action of writing words, the former’s craft allows ‘space’ to create narratives that aren’t restricted with concerns of practicality of how this could be ‘actually shown’ in real actions which are of course pivotal to the craft of the latter.

The argument of course was not rebuffed but acceded to by Indika who spoke of how a focal point of the writer as playwright is to ensure ‘practicality’ is at the base of the story being scripted to be transformed to material form on the stage. He also pointed out that the writer by definition still would not be bound to bear the sole responsibility of how pragmatism works in the course of making the written story become a physical performance.

It is the directorial burden of ensuring that a suitable means to make the script is made practically achievable within ‘the realities of the stage’ where physical limitations are many.

“The writer does not suggest ‘the technology’ that must be used to make the play come real.” Indika noted “And it is the role of the director to ‘practicalise’ the script. How he does it is his prerogative in one way and also his challenge.” He cited an example of how Russian playwright Evgeny Shvarts has written in the script of his play ‘The Dragon’ that a face of the dragon vanishes and another appears. How this image narrated in writing is achieved on the stage is where the director’s creativity and methods of theatre go to work.

Q:What was the approach to ‘Colombo, Colombo’?

A:Writers may have different approaches to how their work is done. Indika stated very clearly that in his experience as a playwright he would first think of the ‘form’ beforehand and then begin the scripting. “The content isn’t always what I conceive firstly. With me it’s the ‘form’ of the play.” One may, therefore, suggest that this practitioner of theatre has a very marked academic foundation to his approach.

“‘Colombo, Colombo’ was the result of a research that was done by myself and Saumya Liyanage. In 2008 we presented a paper at the Annual Research Symposium of the Kelaniya University. Our argument was that throughout the history of theatre from the time of the Greeks to the present day, theatre has been structured to be a linear narrative with a single climax.”Central in this research was a theorem going into gender politics and sexuality. “We theorised that it was a reflection of the male single orgasm which was in turn symbolic of male dominated power. And thereby arguing on the basis of what is expounded in Aristotle’s ‘Poetics’ we suggested the Aristotelian theory of theatre served the goals of ‘power’. Which interprets that man’s destiny or fate as preordained by the power holder cannot be changed.

The counter thesis to the argument

“The answer to the Aristotelian theory is to create a drama model with multiple climaxes, symbolising the female multiple orgasms. Brecht was critical of the idea of Aristotelian linear development of emotions. So this was the basis that got me thinking to do a drama to bring theory to practice. The result was ‘Colombo, Colombo’.”

Q: What were the ingredients?

A: As a writer Indika said he reaches to his ‘storehouse’ of intangible resources carried within that is made up of three bases. “There are firstly my experiences, secondly my imagination and thirdly my creativity. Emotions are in all three of these. And it is organic in all three.” And on the matter of what went into the base of the technique and form, Indika responded firstly by saying “I don’t want to tell a linear story.

Because life is not linear. The most ‘crucial idea’ was the sadness in the indifference in society in the face of the socio–political situation that causes a declining nature in human relations among people in Sri Lanka.” This had been the ‘thought base’ serving the drama’s theorisation. Together with the inner storehouse of experience, imaginations and creativity the script began to take form.

Indika said it was a ‘blend’ and not a ‘hierarchy’ of what would go into the script when he devised his method of playwriting. “The reader was always in my mind when I wrote. I was conscious of sharing it with an audience.” Believing that entertainment cannot be divorced from emotions he said he would always be aware that he was in the process of dealing with emotions. “First I wrote fourteen episodes or scenes, based on Colombo.”

Composite scene

“The settings included Viharamaha Devi Park, the checkpoint near the Peliyagoda bridge, the Borella subway, Majestic City, a TV studio, the last bus to leave from a bus terminal, were some of them.” The length of all fourteen had proven to be an impractical four hours of performance as it so turned out. And thus the script had to be made ‘practical’ to today’s theatre and was shortened to six episodes, which in the process of the script readings was finalised down to four. These four scenes then made up the script of the play.

Q: What guided the scene selection?

A: There had been common elements that created the connectivity and relevance for the scenes to build cohesion for a play according to the playwright who said there were certain characters or roles common to all four. It had been in the playwright’s perception been a cross-section of what was crucial as explained before. Indika said it had to bring out the required philosophical outlook, be theatrical and entertaining.

Q:Bringing the script to performance

A:There are advantages and disadvantages when the playwright also takes the director’s seat, explained Indika. For example when the roles are done by two separate persons the director can be objective in his vision for the play. He can be independent of the emotional bond the playwright would have with the script. But of course that is not the case with ‘Colombo, Colombo’.

“The whole ‘creative design’ of a play is in what’s called the ‘production script’. That is what the director develops and goes on. There is a difference between that and the ‘literary script’, where the complete description of the production is not presented. What suits a writer cum director situation is a combination of these two. As was the case with ‘Colombo, Colombo’.”

Rajitha Dissanayke

The same hypothesis put to Indika was posed to Rajitha who agreed without contest that the writer of a play deals with several constrictions compared to a fiction writer. The playwright in Rajitha found his point of departure from his own experience in playwriting. Every one of his plays had been based on a different experience bound to his perceptions of life and the contemporary social milieu. Thus to Rajitha scripting each play has so far been a different experience of writing.

“‘Hansaintath mang asai’ explores experiences, perceptions, attitudes and criticisms about love in the 80s. ‘Mata wedi thiyanne nadda?’ was about love and relationships. ‘Veeraya merila’ was based on the sad state of society that started developing towards the 21st century as the year 2000 began. Similarly the others also have at the root a certain way of interpreting my experiences and the way I have grasped and perceived issues.”

Compared to what was revealed by Indika, Rajitha develops his base more on the lines of his own experiences being made socially relatable through stories for the stage. It appears a theoretical component unlike what goes to work with Indika is not central in charting this playwright’s pathway. A notable dissimilarity one could say, comparing the two dramatists in their role as writers.

Q: Is the playwright’s script a ‘work’ as such?

A: “The primary base of every drama is the script.” Rajitha was notably emphatic about this statement. “It is an enormous factor for the play’s success.” And the other side of the argument could be that failure too is rooted in the script. But Rajitha’s focus was mainly in expounding how the drama becomes a creation ‘born out of the script’, which again one must keep in mind is a creative piece laboured for by the writer.

“Without a good script, purpose and meaning cannot be ‘infused’ to the drama.” Stating that he scripts ‘for performance’ Rajitha made his focus as a playwright very clear saying that the directorial instincts within take a gentle hand in the scripting yet does not overpower the writer.

Q:Where does the script go from there?

A:Rajitha, through his experience explained how his script underwent a process of rewriting at the rehearsal stages with ‘directorially shaped’ changes being made. “Dialogues reach their finality at the rehearsals.” The playwright spoke in the outlook of a practitioner of direction. Dialogues, he said, on paper may not sound to be exactly ‘what works at rehearsals’; which reveals inadequacies in the written script when ‘dramatised’.

While all these changes become inevitable Rajitha does not believe that the script loses its mould in the course of the ‘directorial rewriting’. By this one may deduce that Rajitha too believes the script does not constitute a final work and is a work on which the performance is built.

Q: What about elements such as music? How is that scripted?

A: Apart from the settings descriptions, stage directions and dialogues, plays which have song and dance in them pose another query. How does music work with the writer at the point of scripting a play which is not yet brought to life even at the stage of rehearsals?

“As a writer I think about how to get these elements of rhythms, beats that are part of contemporary society. I think there should be musical elements that viewers can feel close to. After all we present this drama to an audience living in a world with so many TV and Radio channels. We must be sensitive to it.” An interesting perception of Rajtiha’s is that he believes songs and music must be conceptualised and created as part of the original scripting where the writer is supreme. A lack of cohesion and disjointedness between the story’s action narrative and musical elements could occur, he opines, when songs and dances are inserted or ‘dropped in’ latterly.

Director dynamics

“It is extremely rare for a playwright to find complete satisfaction in the production of his script. Usually the writer doesn’t get to see on the stage what was envisioned in his head. No matter how much ‘treatment’ is given by the actors.”

The ‘text of the drama’ does not develop as Rajitha believes when the theatricalising process isn’t allowed to expand and explore expressions for the stage based on the script, if the writer’s vision is to be championed. Thus one may see Rajitha as one who sees more of a systematised and linear process to the development of the drama from ‘script’ to ‘performance’.

The play that comes closest to perfection

“I actually feel ‘Sihina horu arang’ is still my best drama so far.” A very well thought statement which was explained with reference to much detail. “Each role brought out the character’s uniqueness and integrity, becoming fully developed. And all the actors I feel, bring out their best in the roles in that play. That script to me is the best so far from among my works. Technique wise I feel it was very satisfactory. The plot and the scenes all flowed well.”

About the characters, he said, “Every character had an integral purpose in the play and brought out their ‘inner beings’ and bonded with one another. The characters all ‘revealed themselves’. The play gave them the space to reveal their unique character.” Emphasising that it is a very rare occurrence when all elements from the written script to the directorial work to the actors and their performance, come together optimally, and fulfil the playwright’s vision. Rajitha pointed out that in ‘Sihina horu arang’ that dream was realised by him as a dramatist.

Udayasiri Wickremaratne

Accepting the hypothesis that a playwright is restricted in what he can write compared to a fiction writer Udayasiri began his discourse. A potent drive towards making an ideological communication has been at the centre of Udayasiri’s vision as a dramatist. His plays written as part coursework in the drama course drama followed at the National Youth Centre during ’89 -90 had been satires critiquing the exploitation of countries such as ours by western powers. A testimony to this claim is that his drama ‘Thunweni lokaya’ (The Third world) was influenced by the advocacies of Prof. Nalin de Silva.

However, Udayasiri’s visions as a dramatist became somewhat stifled after joining the private sector. “After joining Phoenix Ogilvy as a senior copywriter, I realised it was going to be difficult for me to pursue ambitions as a dramatist with the workloads I deal with.” The ambition to return to theatre with a new work had yet not been killed off. “I thought I will do even a solo actor play.” This playwright had been convinced the only way for him to make a comeback would be through a form that would be conducive to his prevalent situation, where both time and money were issues.

“There are practical limitations, concerns affecting us when conceiving a work of theatre.” This is one of the first points Udayasiri brought out “Balancing a fulltime job and bringing creating a work of theatre is not easy, to say the least. Getting actors together for rehearsals isn’t as easy as people would think. I wanted to use as few actors as possible. And ‘capital’ is also a problem that affects us always when it comes to art.” Pragmatism has certainly been a watchword.

Q: What was the theoretical basis and approach to the script?

A:“When I began writing ‘Suddek oba amathai’ I chose three topics I believed people in Sri Lanka feel very sensitively about.” The play delivers three solo performances dealing with the postcolonial dilemma, the subject of history and its implications to present day Sri Lanka, and then of course the subject of ‘the woman’.

“There were two things that worked in my mind as the theoretical basis when conceptualising this play. How could I bring this out without the conventional interplay of actors among themselves? Prof. Nalin de Silva once said according to western psychology, the attention span of a listener is ten minutes. But then he said Sri Lankans listen to bana sermons for an hour without getting up.”

The perceptions of one of Sri Lanka’s most revered theatre practitioners had also been of great influence. “The late Dayananda Gunewardena said the ‘voice’ is the most important tool for an actor to make his performance come alive. He believed the auditory element is more powerful than the visual aspect.” Udayasiri capitalised on this theory that we in the east have an art medium of performance that centres on the ear over the eye. The actions are meant to complement and enhance what the ‘sound’ conveys to the mind.

“Some plays take a lot of time to deliver a simple message. All the song and dance strung together really seem needless at times, and don’t necessarily help deliver the message. I thought what if the actor delivered his words like a speech? This was my thinking when I started scripting the play.”

Q: But is a ‘speech’ a drama?

A:‘Suddek oba amathai’ has been critically accused as three monologues lined up to purport a drama. While a monologue is an element in a play the question arises whether a set of separate monologues constitutes a ‘drama’? Compared to the plays of Rajitha and Indika, Udayasiri’s play becomes a radical digression in its very constitution.

“I remember once at Nugegoda, Wimal Weerawansa held an audience for nearly two and a half hours attacking the CFA. It had people listening attentively. If a performance is powerful enough it can keep an audience without the comforts of a drama hall.” Once again the conceptual framework had been ideology driven and thereby becoming a base for the work’s form.

Q: How was the script made into a performance?

A: “A drama is never the script itself.” Udayasiri said it pronouncedly with conviction. This playwright said as the director he believes the script he had written should be one that he could ‘share’ with the actors. He admits that the script had much input and affectations made to it from the actors, and omissions were done at their suggestion. It may appear a rather ‘actor friendly’ script one may say.

“The ‘actor’s performance’ itself is what constitutes the drama. And their lines are bring out current affairs and issues that make the news from time to time. Those things also make it in to the script when the play is staged. It makes this play one that evolves with the context of the time period when it is performed.” Thereby wordings in the script of ‘Suddek oba amathai’ are not meant be rigid in its finality one may surmise.

Q:Did you know your script would work at the very incept?

A: “I showed the part of the script Nalin Udawela performs to Prasanna Vithanage and he said it can keep an audience. But the monologues played by Jayalath Manoratne and Madanee Malwattage underwent changes.” The testing out of this innovative concept at script level with opinions and suggestions may have been necessary to mould the final outcome into a ‘performable’ one.

Compared to the approaches of Indika and Rajitha, Udayasiri seems to have built a concept for a theatrical work which required by its very nature to create a ‘participatory’ process between the playwright and the actors to make the script work on stage. It is now a work which he feels has gone beyond its script and the ownership of the dramatist alone, and he appears all the happier because of it; admitting he shares it with the players now as ‘our drama’.

Concluding observations

The dramatists dialogued within this article on the craft of the playwright, from a point of ‘practical experience’ revealed different approaches. While Indika spoke of a structurally theorised approach to developing the form and material, Rajitha takes a much personalised base of experiences to develop his story concept. Udayasiri obviously had concerns of time and money affecting his conceptualisation while a potent dose of theorems had also been at work when conceiving the work.

Unlike playwrights of the prosperous west who have at their disposal facilities allowing stretching the boundaries of what is classifiable as ‘achievable on the stage’, a Sri Lankan playwright’s space to imaginatively write may become constricted when ‘scripting for performance’. As all three interviewed playwrights double as directors perhaps there is a ‘dual impact’ shaping the writing process which both Indika and Rajitha have indicated in their discourses.

Clearly, an insulated case of ‘the writer as playwright’ is not found in the interviewees. Is this the case with all playwrights in Sri Lanka? If so one may ask, if a writer doesn’t take on the director’s role, and writes a play would that playwright write much differently? Perhaps the spheres of Sinhala drama and theatre may see the emergences of playwrights and drama directors driven solely by their artistries, untrammelled by a duality in roles, to better answer the question.