The Sunday Times, New
Delhi, May 2, 1993
ANGST OF A RETIRING THESPIAN
Shamsul Islam talks to B.M. Shah, the
eminent actor–director, who retired from the faculty of the National School of
Dram yesterday
A fine
actor, a well-established director, a thinker, playwright, much sought after
designer and make-up expert: Brij Mohan Shah is one of those rare theatre
personalities in our midst who can be described as a total dramatist. On his 60th
birthday (May 1) the Nainital-born Shah completes 31 years of his obsessive
involvement with theatre. The same day, he also retires from the National
School of Drama Faculty where he was professor of acting and theatre
production. He could have continued for another two years on extension, but he
preferred to leave. His last directorial assignment for the National School of
Dram was Kanjoos (based on Molière’s
the Miser) for the second year students which drew full houses this week.
Shah
holds quite unconventional and controversial views on different aspects of
theatre and its management. He joined the faculty of the National School of
Dram in 1981 and served as its director from 1982 to ’84. Though very soft
spoken, he has strong likes and dislikes: this comes through as he speaks on
different aspects of theatre. Excerpts:
What do you feel on the eve of your
retirement from NSD?
Frankly
speaking, I feel relieved. Before joining National School of Dram, when I was a
freelancer I was far more creative and active. In National School of Dram I
constantly faced hurdles and limitations. After retirement I will be spared all
that. I will be able to do theatre of my liking and on my own conditions.
Moreover,
now I can openly talk of conditions at NSD. And when I do so, it should not be
taken in isolation. For, the tragedy of National School of Dram is the tragedy
of Hindi theatre as such. It is totally dependent on state patronage, it is
highly centralized, pampered and lacks courage to do experiments or take risks.
Would you please elaborate further?
Unfortunately
Hindi theatre in general is mediocre. It neither touches your heart nor excites
the brain. It is, for its better part, borrowed from here and there. Instead of
trying to innovate or evolve its own form, it depends heavily on folk theatre
which is presented as original contribution. In the last two decades not a
single new Hindi play has been written which is worth mentioning! It survives
on translations or adaptations. Apart from Mohan Rakesh and Surendra Verma who
else is there as a modern Hindi playwright? This has done maximum harm to Hindi
theatre.
In
such a scenario Hindi theatre has become a medium for the director. You have
extraordinarily well crafted productions with little substance or acting in
them. The other person who plays a significant role in Hindi theatre is the
drama critic and that too of English language. We just forget that theatre is
basically an actor’s medium as can be seen in the case of say, the Bengali or
the Marathi theatre. Wherever in the world theatre is popular and developed, it
is essentially identified with the actors.
How can this situation be altered?
Theatre
activity must be de-centralized. All theatre activity is centralized in a few
metropolitan cities. We should initiate theatre repertories in smaller towns.
We should abandon all plans to teach theatre at places like Delhi. In fact we should cast away the
illusion that theatre activity can flourish through teaching. It will spread
only when we go to those places where people have been doing theatre on their
own. This is what I intend to do now. Moreover, government and academics should
realize that only financial grants do not popularize theatre.
Lastly,
we should pay maximum attention to the development process of an actor. We
should not force Stanislavskian, Brechtian or the Natyashastra methods on them.
Let them learn from the living theatre around them. There have been great
actors the world over who did not derive from the above systems. My humble
request is that do not train actors in ivory towers where there is no dearth of
resources and no risks are involved. If we want them to face the realities let
them work with minimal resources. Let them create on their own.
How would you define good theatre?
It
should have social relevance, should reflect the sorrows and pleasures of the
people—and yet entertain. It should not preach, it should not take the
audiences for fools. Its characters should be strong on the acting front. The
play should not only entertain but also prod the audience to think, to
re-examine. It should appeal emotionally. Lastly theatre is a visual art too,
so it should have a strong visual appeal.
What are your ambitions now in the realm of
theatre?
It
is not the question of ambitions. Theatre is not a share market for me, nor a
career. I simply want to do theatre intensively, seriously and professionally.
One thing is sure, as long as I am around, I will always do theatre, nothing
else. I wish to go back to the hills where I was born to involve myself in
theatre. But there is no theatre there. So I have to roam around.
[B.
M. Shah interviewed by Shamsul Islam in New Delhi. It appeared in The Sunday
Times, New Delhi dated 02-05-1993. This interview carried a photograph of B. M.
Shah which is not reproduced here.]
