Perhaps one of the busiest actors, hopping sinuously from one project to another, Jim Sarbh has been an intrepid dabbler, spread-eagled across the limited genres thrown up by the city's theatre. While DEATH OF A SALESMAN and GATES TO INDIA SONG were widely regarded as enterprises he is lucky to have escaped from unscarred, NOISES OFF allowed him to demonstrate some comic flair, standing out in a noisy ensemble. But it was THE GLASS MENAGERIE from Rage that allowed his otherwise distinctive personality to dissolve in the babbling brook of his character's truth. Jim has also recently devised the children's play EAT! in collaboration with Suhaas Ahuja, Ratanabali Bhattacharjee and Kalliroi Tziafeta. Now he turns director with a relentlessly brutal (and equally hilarious) new play BULL by playwright Mike Bartlett that won the Best New Play at the UK National Theatre Awards (2013) , and which premieres in Mumbai on June 6.
By Vikram Phukan
Vikram Phukan (VP): Two new productions from two new brand-new theatre outfits in the space of a month. Do you think it's a great time for theatre in Mumbai at the moment?
Jim Sarbh (JS): Man, it's always a great time for theatre and always a lousy time. That said: there's pleasure in creating your own work that I have not been allowed to feel as keenly as I have with EAT! and now BULL. It is really a privilege.
VP: When you came into the theatre world here, you were typecast as the white guy. Was that something you were bothered by?
JS: I wasn't really bothered by it. I didn't think much about it. I was hungry, and I was being fed. So I ate. At this point there are enough English plays in Bombay, plays that are exciting to be a part of - for one reason or the other.
VP: Theatre culture in the city may be considered a little laidback. What are your professional expectations from a setup? Apart from the usual - good parts, good collaborators.
JS (laughs): My slow descent from International Standard Time to being 15 minutes late guaranteed for any rehearsal has happened in Bombay. I guess it depends who you work with, but it's hard to be too stringent about timing and deadlines when everyone is working for free. At least, that is a problem I am facing as a director. Imposing particular timings and breaks always gets out of hand, because at the end of the day, everyone is there for their own personal development. My professional expectations from a setup is a tricky question: in what capacity do you mean?
VP: As an actor, first.
JS: So as an actor, I'll tell you what I love, not what I expect. As an actor I love walking into a room where everyone is there to sweat, and sometimes, I mean that literally. I love when people are charging things up, shuffling patterns, trying to push through the mundane to something raw and alive. I love directors who create a space where you feel free to fail, and fail again.
VP: Any examples?
JS: Rajit Kapur and Atul Kumar definitely give me that freedom. However, this is a tricky situation - by fail I do not mean making crazy choices for the sake of them or to not make a choice out of indecision, or a lack of understanding of the character. I mean, that when you have your character in your hand, when you have done all the work required to feel like you can at least attempt to inhabit a character - then, the director becomes crucial in creating a safe space for experimentation.
VP: Working in GATES TO INDIA SONG you seemed a little perturbed by the whole 'submitting to a process'. There is a school of thought in which actors are tools, or instruments of creativity. Is there a conflict that you experienced due to issues of ownership that seem to abound in theatre?
JS: I had no problem with submitting to the process. The problem I had was one of communication - where I took certain notes to heart, in ways that might not have applied to me, or my performance. That said, I have no problem with a director coming in and laying out very clearly the rules of the production. Then I can choose to accept or reject. It becomes tricky only when those messages are blurred.
VP: In your own production house, how do you want to change practices so that you can leverage more professionalism? Without compromising on the passion, of course.
JS: My actors laugh at me, because as an actor I'm a little fucking brat but as a director I want professionalism. I want people to be there on time, I want them to have learnt their lines well in advance and I want them to do their homework. I send them home if they haven't done it. I want them to be in shape, with open vocal chords, so that they can dive if they need to, so they can bellow, and moan, and stage whisper all in a line.
VP: I mean, how you want to do things differently from the status quo, in terms of revenue distribution for instance, or is it too much trouble...
JS: Oh man! I absolutely want to pay everyone! I need to meet a producer. Someone who usually works with start-ups in Bombay and I want to sit them down and say, let's figure it out. There has to be a way. With the monopoly on certain spaces, what we need more than anything else is at least 3 more Prithvis floating around this city.
VP: Can smaller experimental plays really have good revenue models? So you break even and make a little money and it doesn't seem too much like charity.
JS: I guess I will see about that. EAT! and BULL are the prototypes. The same friends, who will complain bitterly about a 500 rupee ticket, will blow the same amount of money on beer that evening. I don't know what that means about the quality of theatre in Bombay, but that is the truth.
VP: What are the technical difficulties you face in putting up plays in experimental venues? For example, BULL is opening in Tarq, an art gallery? Or do venues like these give you wings?
JS: There are pros and cons. Of course, you want a real black-out when it's time for one, and you want an immersive sound set up, and you want a structure in place for booking tickets and all of those other things.
But there are ways - especially if you can get the proprietors of the experimental venue on your side - to create something really site specific that you will not be able to achieve in a conventional theatre. For example, BULL starts before you even get in to the venue.
VP: Have to get there early then...
JS (laughs): The play starts at 7 really. We've said 6:30 intentionally.
VP: Then on to the classics that you have also been involved with of late. DEATH OF A SALESMAN and THE GLASS MENAGERIE seem marked by a generational shift in terms of how their directors approach the material.
JS: I think, as an actor, I am interested in an expanded realism. I'm interested in being (as opposed to showing), and magnifying that to whatever extent is necessary. Alyque (Padamsee) and I would spend as much time agreeing as disagreeing. He has a very successful theatrical style, and he knows how to inhabit that style with truth as an actor, in ways that are sometimes difficult for other actors in the production to keep up with. This style sometimes rubs against my sensibilities, but sometimes that's the job. To reach beyond your sensibilities and help someone else achieve what they are interested in.
Rajit and I would head butt as well - I was driving him crazy by being late, and shuffling my blocking and my delivery. Being an actor who directs, as I am discovering with this production, is very difficult because after a week or so in rehearsal, you can see it, you can see it so clearly, and you are itching to get up there and do it. Rajit, for all the differences we might have in acting style, never did that. And I am very grateful. He let me fuck up, he let me discover.
Now as a director, I have very different visions of those plays; which has been a very interesting exercise - to put those feelings aside, and do my job.
VP: How did you, Suhaas Ahuja and Ratnabali Bhattacharjee approach the devising in EAT!? Considering how 'devising' is such an easily flouted term in Mumbai theatre? Compare it with the work you've done in NOISES OFF. They are essentially your peers, so does the chemistry come from that?
JS: We would just meet - sometimes we would discuss where the play was supposed to go, sometimes we would improvise, sometimes we would try to write down all the good ideas we had. We sat one day, in a circle, with Kalliroi (Tziafeta), and started riffing on a story. We had everything except for the ending - and then just started improvising scenes.
I think our relationship as friends was the foundation that ensured we directed each other with love. Each of us trusted that we wanted the best, and we knew each other's tricks - so we could call each other out on them.
The work in NOISES OFF is not devised. It is based completely on stock characters as written by Michael Frayn. In EAT! we were improvising, and then taking the best of many improvisations and writing out a scene.
Sometimes a problem in the first few scenes, would be solved many scenes later, and then we would go back, and edit and shape the beginning again.
VP: In LIMBO, you had free rein to create your character of a Kashmiri boy. How do you relate to political undercurrents in a character... or essentially is it only about a role for itself and in itself? How to see yourself as an artist or a theatre-maker in the larger context of our society or do you find yourself insulated from what is happening in the country?
JS: I can pretend otherwise, but frankly I think I am insulated. I have never had much interest in countries or religions. I'm interested in interpersonal relationships, and the madness of trying to understand just one's self. Perhaps that is a product of privilege or selfishness, and I'm not saying it is right. I think every act is a personal and a political one, and I find myself at a loss when it comes to clearly defined right and wrong.
If I am to grapple with those issues, I need a break from everything and then perhaps I can come back with a clearer head, with things to say that I can stand by. Although I feel in both EAT! and in BULL there are plenty of political and social messages - but that isn't why I was drawn to them.
VP: COCK had a lot of reshuffling of actors. You stepped in as the father, then John (the lead), then co-director. What do you do to take care in order to not trample upon someone's turf but still push through with your notions, like getting the men to kiss (who had probably refused the first time round).
JS: (laughs) With me, there was no question. I just looked at Prabal (Panjabi) and said he had to and he didn't refuse. Maybe Prabal finds me sexier than the director Manish Gandhi. It's in the goddamn script. To shy away from it is ludicrous. Of course actors have their own boundaries, but forget it - why else are you doing theatre?
That question about taking over a production and reshuffling actors: It would have been trickier if Manish had been around, but since he was gone, and the actors trusted me, it was not an issue at all.
But maybe I'm wrong, Manish trusted me as well, so it was fun to come in and change things around. To bring things back to the text, to slow things down, and allow the text to speak more clearly through all of us. In ways, I am a purist. If I fall in love with a text I want to try my best to bring it to life as excitingly as possible.
Also, I had no control over the casting in COCK. I just went with what I had without thinking about it too much, which had its difficulties, but also its positives.
VP: English theatre is such a conundrum in this country. What do you think about the baggage that English theatre seems to still carry sometimes? If you have noticed such a thing.
JS: Stories are stories. If it speaks to me, it speaks to me. Just now I live in Bombay and want to tell the stories in English, but who knows where I will live next year and what language I'll be trying to learn? If an Indian writer throws an English script at me, and if their characters are as interesting as Mike Bartlett's for instance, I'll do the play. I'd love to do it.
VP: What intrigued you about Mike Bartlett's BULL?
JS: I like that it is wicked, and that it is not afraid to follow an idea to its end, without compromise or pity. I love the status and sexual politics woven through dialogue that is crackling with the energy and spontaneity of a boxing match. All of his characters are usually beautifully flawed, beautiful fools trying their best but essentially giving in to their selfish natures. I like my moral compass to be confused, to admire certain characteristics but to be simultaneously repulsed by how these characteristics can be used as manipulative tools. I also, mostly, just love his dialogue. It is wickedly funny and a challenge for any actor who wants to learn how to grapple with constantly shifting mental states, to try to express all the fragmented thoughts that are constantly shooting through your brain.
VP: So what has your first full-fledged production as director been like?
JS: Well I got to cast it, which was a great opportunity to work with actors I admire in Bombay. I don't quite know how it is different. I'll have to answer that later. All I know is that as a director, the play consumes me. It's hard to think of anything else. We had many readings. A lot in Bombay depends on schedules, so I decided to double cast the roles. I have a group of extremely talented actors, with very different actors cast in the same role. So definitely watch it twice.
*Vikram Phukan runs the theatre appreciation website, Stage Impressions- www.stageimpressions.com
VP: When you came into the theatre world here, you were typecast as the white guy. Was that something you were bothered by?
List Your Play