Theatre can be
defined only in its social context
The Times of India, New Delhi, Wednesday, February 14, 1990
An
authority on Brecht, Fritz Bennewitz has chosen to stage a dramatist who is at
the forefront of the current upsurge in East Germany. This, he explains to Shamsul Islam, is because “theatre is
closely connected with social reality”
Sixty four on January 20, 1990, Fritz
Bennewitz has almost four decades of involvement in theatre behind him. Theatre
in East Germany,
Italy,
England,
USA,
Philippines,
Sri Lanka,
India…….
The involvement with Indian
theatre was accidental. In 1968, during the international seminar on ‘Politics
in Theatre’ in East Berlin, the Indian
participants including Ebrahim Alkazi suggested an assimilation of the Indian
traditional/folk theatre with Brechtian method. Bennewitz found the experiment
worth trying. It took concrete shape in 1970 with Alkazi’s production of Three
Penny Opera in Hindustani and starring Uttara Baokar, Nadira Zahir Babbar,
Manohar Singh and M.K. Raina.
Twenty years later, Bennewitz is
directing another play in India,
for the NSD Repertory Company. Through Mahashanti he is introducing Volker
Braun, a renowned poet and dramatist of present day GDR, to the Indian stage.
In an interview on the eve of the play’s premiere the authority on Brechtian
theatre spoke about Indian theatre, Brecht and GDR. Excerpts:
In Asia your involvement with theatre
has been restricted to Philippines,
Sri Lanka
and India.
What has prompted this choice?
There have been no special
consideration except the urge to be part of the theatre movement in the Third
World which represents the process of de-colonisation through countries
searching for national and cultural identities.
With India the tie has been more
enduring. My lasting attraction for the country is because of her rich living
heritage–both folk and living. I admire India’s vivid theatre scene which
includes both proscenium as well as street theatre in the IPTA tradition.
Let me also tell you that it has
not been a one-way process. My admiration, love and respect for India’s theatre
and culture led to the invitation for a team of Indian artistes. Headed by
Vijaya Mehta and Bhaskar Chandavarkar they produced, with German actors, two
plays: Shakuntala in the tradition of Bharat Muni’s Natya Shastra, and Girish
Karnad’s Hayavadan.
In the light of your long association with Indian theatre, how do you
evaluate its future prospects?
My interaction with Indian
theatre has been very successful. It has been my attempt to pass on my
experience as teacher to help actors to realize their artistic capacities as
distinct Indian identities. But the future prospects of Indian theatre, that,
only Indian theatre workers themselves can answer.
On my part, I would only be happy
to participate, if my cooperation is sought in evolving a social-oriented
theatre movement.
You are said to have worked with Brecht. What is your evaluation of the
genius as a man, playwright, director and a communist?
It is a long living rumour which
does not die even after so many denials. I never worked with Brecht as such. I
was one of his students like lakhs of others in the sense that his concept and
method of theatre has influenced my theatre activities the most.
Brecht was unique in his work. It
is difficult to draw parallels. As a communist Brecht had his share of problems
with Stalinism.
On your earlier visits you chose mainly the works of Brecht and
Shakespeare. This time you have chosen a new playwright. What could be the
possible reasons for the shift?
It is neither a shift nor a
break. Our preference for Brecht was due to his very obvious social definitions
of national and cultural identities which made his concept of theatre most
applicable to countries which were developing under similar or comparable
historical conditions. Insofar as Shakespeare is concerned, I neither
introduced nor chose him for the Indian theatre. I only helped to integrate
Shakespeare into Indian identity.
Mahashanti (Great peace)
introduces one of the most renowned poets and dramatists of present day GDR,
Volker Braun, to the Indian stage. He is in the forefront of the anti-Stalinism
movement in GDR. Thus, both politically and aesthetically it is a discontinued
continuation of Brecht in the international context.
The proscenium theatre in India has been facing a grave
crisis of original scripts, acting talents, and audiences. What to your mind
are the possible reasons?
I firmly believe that the
structure of theatre in any given society is closely connected with the social
structure and reality. Theatre can be understood only in its social context.
The causes for crisis are manifold. It may be the crisis of the medium itself:
perhaps theatre has not yet accepted the challenge of the new media, film and
television. Then, the alienation of theatre artistes and playwrights, from the
audiences (masses) and vice versa is inevitable when a medium stagnates. It
happens when it fails to represent or promote historical task of being socially
relevant.
In India
only a cultural elite comes to witness the proscenium theatre. Is the situation
in countries like GDR, Sri
Lanka, Philippines any different?
It is very difficult to
generalize. In Philippines
there is the English theatre for those who think they are elite. But there is a
people oriented theatre too, which is far greater in magnitude. In India, too,
theatre exists at both the levels. No doubt there is elitist theatre but
pro-people theatre too has strong roots here.
My Sri Lankan experience is
limited due to the worsening situation there since 1983. Still one remembers
the annual theatre festival at the campus of Peradeniya University.
Troupes from all over the island performed there. They attracted more than 6000
people every night–majority of them coming from nearby villages.
While describing the situation in
GDR one must realize that the historical conditions are too different to be
good for comparison or experience sharing. It is not simply a matter of being
better or worse but a matter of difference.
Due to my foreign commitments I
returned to GDR only for four weeks at the end of 1989. Theatres which are
usually crowded or well attended were half empty as the events on the streets,
with people themselves as real performers, were fare more exciting than any
theatre could have been.
Brecht is known as a Marxist playwright. Now with the drastic changes
in GDR and with Marxism repudiated, will the standing of Brecht be affected in
the country?
I will not say that Marxism has
been repudiated in GDR. In fact, Marxism in its dogmatic Stalinist perversion
has been repudiated. Without going into a scholastic debate I would like to
stress that recent developments in GDR are part of an important revolution in
progress with all the unforeseeable twists and turns of history.
As for the relevance of Brecht, I
would say that Shakespeare apart, no playwright seems to be a man for all
seasons, and on stage in permanence. Brecht’s lasting impact emerges from his
method and concept of applied dialectics in theatre and his search for alternatives
to the de-humanising effects of capitalism.
I must also say that Brecht’s
relevance can be sustained only through carrying his legacy in the changed
situation through re-interpretation.
[Fritz Bennewitz interviewed by
Shamsul Islam in New Delhi. It appeared in The
Times of India, New Delhi dated February 14, 1990. This interview carried a
photograph of Fritz Bennewitz which is not reproduced here.]
