|
|
 |
 |
| |
|
It was a pleasure to talk to Pushan Kripalani, one of the founders of the �Industrial Theatre Company� over a relaxed cup of coffee. I found him to be articulate and direct if not exactly contemplative. Nevertheless his straightforward and assertive approach helped me immensely to get an immediate sense of the work he believes in and which his colleagues and he like to do. A young theatre person and a cinematographer with a Master of Arts in Cinematography from the University of Bristol, Pushan along with Rehaan Engineer, Nadir Khan and Karan Makhija found the �Industrial Theatre Company� in 2001. Ever since its inception the company has gained notoriety for its productions, which are sheer experiments with form and text. Its recent production based on Steven Berkoff�s THE SECRET LOVE LIFE OF OPHELIA took place in an art gallery called �Project 88� which is off Colaba Causeway. Needless to say the play provoked many varied reactions and it seemed therefore like the perfect opportunity to indulge Pushan in a conversation about it and about the philosophy of the group as a whole. Here Pushan talks about himself, about his experience as a director and a light designer and about the theatre people in Mumbai whose work he has found to be interesting. This detailed interview also reveals many facets about the company as Pushan mulls over some of its past productions.
|
Deepa Punjani
I am curious to find out why did you guys decide to name your theatre group, the �Industrial Theatre Company� when there are already other international theatre groups that carry the same name?
We tossed around some ideas and the �Industrial Theatre Company� came up. Rehaan thought it sounded �industrious� which meant we worked very hard. We laughed then but we do work very hard now. We didn�t know that there were other companies with the same name at that time. It didn�t seem important �and it dosen�t really matter now. This is who we are.
The term, �industrial� automatically carries with it the imagery of machines and technology. I have seen very few of your productions so I can�t say for sure if such associations figure in the way you largely work.
When we found the group, we just meant to explore alternative spaces. Also we worked in a few industrial spaces so it seemed like a happy marriage of ideas and names. But really we didn�t give the name too much thought; it was more of a quirky idea. The name of the group apart, I think it is actually about a collective of people trying to do a particular kind of job. We�ve done different kinds of plays. Each has a unique grounding. A play like HAYAVADANA for instance demanded a more traditional folk theatre approach.
 The earliest of your productions that I remember seeing was MANIFESTLY FALSE�
Now again that particular production which opened during a Prithvi Theatre festival was an exploration of text and form. There was nothing remotely �industrial� about it. I think we are largely dictated by two things- the director�s idea of the way in which he wants to tell the story or the way in which we collaborate with other people for a certain production. For the play THE TRESTLE ON POPE LICK CREEK, Rehaan had Pavi Deshpande (Nivedita Deshpande) who is an installation artist to help him with the production. He also used Zuli�s lighting I think so the end product turned out to be a particular kind of production. In our recent production of THE SECRET LOVE LIFE OF OPHELIA, we had Yamini Namjoshi design the look of the production, I lit it and teched it and Rehaan directed; so in essence, all productions are bound to reflect the ideas of its collaborators.
Do you always seek out for such collaborations in your productions? And when you do get other people like installation artistes involved, does the end-product at times turn out to be vastly different from the way the director actually conceived it?
No it is not that we always seek out such collaborations. And largely even with such collaborations it is finally about the conception of the director although it may seem to some that there is an over-emphasis on style in our productions. But that isn�t actually the case. It�s much more evolutionary. We get into the rehearsal room, start off with the text and we see how things work and even though we may fight over each other�s ideas, we are always happy to make changes as required. I think it is imperative at times to let the director in you take a backseat when a colleague of yours is directing the production. Are there comprises that team-members make? Of course. For instance you have to take into consideration the financial constraints of a project. We would have liked video images all around for THE SECRET� but it wasn�t possible, we just didn�t have the money. We went with the stills options. . . So we had to swallow a lot of cholrine while taking the underwater shots for THE SECRET LOVE LIFE OF OPHELIA. Basically we made do with the two disposable cameras that Jens had kindly bought down for us from an airport. You don�t get them here and under such circumstances we had only 54 shots to get right. So it is not the ideal way to work, but sometimes one can�t help it.
A couple of recent productions that I have seen of your company like URSULA and THE SECRET LOVE LIFE OF OPHELIA seem to evoke adjectives such as surreal. And even the two earlier ones that I have seen- MANIFESTLY FALSE and THE TRESTLE ON POPE LICK CREEK have used lights, music and props in a manner that resorts to stylization. To carry this thought further, the other two theatre groups that I can think of in the city who are working on similar lines are Atul Kumar�s �The Company Theatre� and Neeraj Kabi�s �Pravah Theatre.�
It is interesting that you mention it. I�d like to explain what we do not as a defence but merely to provide an insight to the way we work. URSULA is a Howard Barker play. MANIFESTLY FALSE too used large chunks from Howard Barker�s texts. Now there is a certain way of playing around with these texts that Rehaan enjoys. Also there is something of a documented convention in which texts like URSULA can be played. Parts of MANIFESTLY FALSE weave in the real experiences of our actors. In that production we wanted to explore facets of inter-personal relationships and we chose to do it through a combination of the select texts, live music and the actors� experiences. Ultimately it is my contention that our conception of the production stems from our responses to the text. We don�t go out of our way to super-impose things. But at the same time our productions are but naturally influenced by who we are, what we have experienced and by what we have read. And yes we have liked quite a lot of what Atul Kumar has done. One of the better ways I think to define our work would be to say that they are like laboratory projects.
Yes, in fact that�s the word I am looking for. I have always found you guys to be experimenting with form. As a result there is a certain aestheticism that you bring to your productions and in my opinion it is found largely in the way the production is designed, be it the set, the lights, sound, choice of props and yes in costume too.
It is true that largely Rehaan and I tend to shy from conventional ways of dealing with a production. I for instance do not like the idea of a box set at all. We are also interested in seeing how the audience reacts to our productions. We however don�t do things for the sake of novelty. We do things that interest us and we�d like to see if those things interest others. If we use multi-media in our productions we do so because we feel it adds to our conception of the project and serves it better.
I am not against the use of multi-media per se. But is there not the danger of compromising the text and the actors� potential with accessories like the multi-media? And what do you have to say about beliefs like theatre is essentially the playwright�s or the actor�s medium?
Multi-media is merely a tool. It is like adding one more colour to your palate. Let�s say I need the colour black but I don�t have it. Then I can�t do certain things. But having said that multi-media is not the only tool we use. It is clearly the question of directorial choice. Besides the theatre is one of the most dynamic and evolutionary mediums that we have. It needs to keep re-inventing itself.
Many theatre people consider technology such as TV screens and projectors to be unnecessary in the theatre. Your group obviously does not think so. Do you think people tend to over-react when it comes to technology in the theatre?
Well I don�t know how to quite react to this question. In my opinion, most critics and most audience members too have always criticized a play on the basis of what they would have liked it to be. Now you may not agree with me on this but rarely I have found people to respond to the work as they see it. Anything, including the use of technology is valid if the director thinks so. People put half a car on to the stage or they may have something like 82 dancers in the background. Can you question if that is valid? Of course it is valid. Anything is valid insomuch as it makes an exciting theatre experience.
How do you manage to budget for the technology you use in your productions?
It all varies from production to production. For our play JUDGEMENT for instance there was only one guy on stage with no light change. The installation work that we do is again low budget because we pull favours. TRESTLE�was expensive; so is the latest one. It all depends on the resources that we have. For one of our productions our budget was only Rs. 600 per show. But we have never been in the red except when we did our very first production, AGAMMENON. We lost a lot of money then but we knew the production costs were heavy. We had decided to do it that way but for our second and third productions, it was not the case. I think the issue of budget begs a question, which is what you want to do and do you have the resources to do it or not at that point in time.
Your theatre company seems to attract a very niche audience. While I understand that every play has its audience, yours appears to be a close-knit circle of friends and well-wishers. A friend of mine noted at the recently staged THE SECRET LOVE LIFE OF OPHELIA that one more or less sees the same faces at your plays. Would you agree with that?
Yes our friends do come for our shows. And then we have their friends too. Sometimes the friends drop out and we have a new bunch of people with every new production that we do. People who come to our productions range from the curious to the converted. I think we at least have about 2,000 people who regularly come to our plays. We have mailing lists but largely our productions survive because of word of mouth.
The larger question actually in this regard is the issue related to creating new audiences. If on the one hand you wish to explore new performance spaces in the city then automatically one would think that this is a good idea because it would bring different kinds of people to the theatre. But one does not see that happening with your plays. Is my reading right or do you have your own reasons to explore new spaces, the audience not being the main consideration?
I have a pretty straightforward answer to that. One of the more practical reasons for scouting new spaces is because we don�t get dates at Prithvi. The NCPA Experiental theatre is prohibitively expensive. You need to have a starting capital of Rs. 20,000 to work there. Since we feel the need to work with intimate audiences, we need to look for spaces like that. Atul Kumar for example has carried his plays to people�s drawing rooms. I think it�s amazing, but we don�t want to do that. We feel the need to work in larger spaces that would atleast be able to seat three or four hundred people.
Does working in smaller spaces help your company cover the costs of your productions?
Not all the time. Besides there are a lot of hidden costs when you work in non-traditional performance spaces.
How do you scout for alternative spaces in the city?
It�s a matter of accident. Theatre in India is a philanthropic enterprise; at least alternative theatre is. But there are people who are interested in new work and they help us to put our stuff up, like Sree Goswami at Project 88 supports our efforts. However we have been trying to get a space of our own for years but it hasn�t happened as yet. We really need new black box performance spaces in our city.
I have rarely seen your plays advertised. I am inclined to believe that there is another reason for this other than the cost factor. It is almost as if you don�t want to get the press involved unless members of the press themselves take the initiative. Any reasons for this?
Because we don�t have money. There is no other reason besides the cost factor. Publicity or the lack of it could at times have another reason though. For a play like THE SECRET�we didn�t want more that sixty people at a point in time. But that was for this play. It is not generally true that we don�t get the press involved. Sure we don�t make any special concessions for the press by giving them complimentary tickets or by allowing them to enter late. Rehaan does not do interviews and there is a good reason for that. We have had some pretty bad experiences of being misquoted and misinterpreted. For instance I recall a woman reporter in Calcutta who just came up to me with pencil and paper and said: �So tell.� She had not done any kind of research and I just had to decline the interview because I had no intention of giving her some convenient sound bytes that she could use to make herself look smart. And then there was this critic who claimed to be a new theatre critic. She came for one of our shows of SEXUAL PERVERSITY IN CHICAGO. Now for that production, a promenade show at MIKANOS, kind of like in OPHELIA, but the space was bigger. The audience could move around and select their angle of vision. This critic then told me something like �I didn�t come to the theatre to spend an hour and a half walking around.� Now that�s just absurd and limited. People are quite happy the world over going to promenade shows. But at the end of the day, it is pretty simple. If a theatre critic is really interested in our work and in theirs, s/he will take the initative.
The unnamed critic�s remark leads me to a question concerning the kind of work you do. The audience is also central to the manner in which THE SECRET LOVE LIFE OF OPHELIA has been staged. Audience members become a part of the play and it would be fascinating to study the dialectic created between the performer and the viewer in such instances. However what I noticed is that even your select audience was not quite sure of what it was expected to do and thereby react. Have you ever felt the need to have let�s say a discussion with the audience regarding such productions?
See it is like taking time to walk in a new pair of shoes. Or what do you do when you find yourself in a new car that has controls you are unfamiliar with? You will take a few minutes to figure them out. So that�s the thing. You can�t start off by having an aversion to things that are not conventional. Just come, watch, walk the path that we have charted for you and you are free to make observations and discuss it. The new play, OPHELIA, has been staged in a particular way because we have responded to the space whose original function is of an art gallery�s. Now people move around in spaces like that. We gave the audience different things to watch because that is what they do in an art gallery. Come see us after the show, but there�s no formal discussion; that�s just tiring after a long day�s work. The audience however is integral to any theatrical piece. Like Peter Brook says- �a man walks across an empty space, another man watches and an act of theatre is performed.� You can�t have one without the other.
I quite liked your direction of FIREFACE. Your production was able to bring out the drama of a dysfunctional family. More importantly one was able to relate to the play despite its foreign context, a feat that is not always possible owing to a variety of cultural reasons. Did you ever feel you were taking a risk with the subject at hand?
I never feel I am taking a risk with anything. The people who come and watch our company�s productions have pretty much had the same wealth of experiences that you and I have had. So can we relate to arson or incest? Of course. Everyone can relate to incest surely. Is pyromania all over the public conciousness? Maybe not. But atleast we�re aware of it. Also I think it is dangerous to treat our audiences as unintelligent, or as idiots. Audiences are however bound to differ and I haven�t yet met anyone who says that they are part of the masses.
How did your audience react to THE SECRET LOVE LIFE OF OPHELIA?
Many of them found it alienating. This according to me is a good response to begin with. It means that the audience members were able to step back and look at the work objectively. Some were provoked to think about it. The play does not fall into the category of yet another evevning followed by dinner. You can say that about most of our shows. They provoke some sort of response, visceral or intellectual. Then there were people who said it was fantastically formalistic and beautiful. So we responded to that. Some said it was very interesting to walk through actors as if they were works of art. An IIT professor who saw the show came back the second night with a group of his students who are studying design. These are always heartmoving responses. People did tend to respond to things in particular rather than to the product as a whole but that too works well with us.
I am curious about an aspect concerning this recent play. The two actors are dressed in what appears to be a kimono. There is a certain reserve and an obvious distance that they maintain during the performance. Is the choice of dress and the performative technique borrowed from Japanese culture? Or is it merely an exercise in imagination?
Rehaan was interested in Noh theatre. Berkoff also writes that he was interested in kabuki. But having said that we don�t quite use the performative techniques of the two forms. Ours is largely as you have mentioned, an exercise in imagination. We are merely using the obvious symbols such as costume and the chanting as formal and stylistic devices. Traditional Noh theatre does not use video screens. We use those.
But then don�t you face the danger of being regarded as a dilletante or of having a product that is wishy-washy or half-hearted?
The form in my opinion is just a conduit. The form is not the reason why you do something. The form is a way to communicate one or several ideas�
I don�t think you can underestimate the importance of a form that you have chosen because its choice and the way in which it is used is bound to affect the production. Depending on how it is used, it can either elevate the production or it can simply end up as being uninspiring.
But look at this way. Just because you don�t know everything about something, does it mean that you cannot borrow from it or use it to your advantage? And this begs me to resort to a simple soundbyte. You don�t have to be Piccasso to appreciate him. You just have to know that Piccasso exists and have seen some of his stuff. You don�t have to be a painter to be moved by the Guernica. You must just feel like wanting to be there in the same space to share the experience. And as viewers we all bring in our baggage of past experiences. If you look carefully, you will realize that the dress that the actors donned was not really a kimono or the actors are not sitting exactly on their knees; they are sitting with cushions under them. So you see. You have read the performance in a certain way. It was not necessarily our intention to have provoked such responses. To me the actors look more out of Star Trek.
Any theatre groups in the city whose work you have found to be challenging and provocative?
I don�t think that there are a lot of theatre people in the city whose work I have found to be challenging. I have liked some of Sunil Shanbag�s work. It is driven by forces apart from the obvious. He has had trouble with COTTON 56, POLYESTER 84 with issues such as censorship. He has got that past and I have really liked the play. I was to do the lighting for one of the shows but with the Shiv Sainiks reacting a while back we could not do the show. Other plays that I have liked of his are CYCLEWALLAH, MAT YAAD DILA�BANSURI had a very interesting text. AVINASH was again a very beautiful production and it was very provocative too. I have also admired Satyadev Dubey�s work. Atul Kumar�s stuff has always been interesting�who else? The Industrial Theatre Company!
You have trained in film and are also a cinematographer. Does this knowledge help you in the theatre?
Sure, as does my interst in music and driving long distances. Everything you do and read helps everything else you do.
You have designed lights for a number of your productions, including the recent one-THE SECRET LOVE LIFE OF OPHELIA. What according to you are the qualities a light designer must possess?
I guess you should respond to the text and and listen closely to a director�s brief and then express yourself. It helps to be part of the rehearsal process, time permitting, the design then evolves with the show, like BLACKBIRD 13; that�s always a great way to work. Having a superb collaborator and operator in Arghya Lahiri helps me a lot; the process is very personal, there are ups and downs and much agonizing that we go through which is fun and really rewarding for me.
What would be your take on cinema v/s theatre?
Are they in competition? No one told me!
Any more plays on the cards?
Sure, can�t talk about it yet, too early in the process. They�re in pre-production, if there�s such a thing.
*The above interview has been conducted by Deepa Punjani, Editor of this site, a theatre critic and an academic interested in Theatre and Performance Studies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
