What may be called Indian theatre in Guyana has had recent periods of ascendancy with more activity and more positive signals than in previous years. Following a long uneven history, what is taking place now shows some advancement upon times and actions of the past when this brand of drama was at best sporadic. There is at this moment commendable effort and achievement accompanied by a rise in interest which includes very significant audience response. These activities involve the very strong dance theatre, but the focus here will be on dramatic plays.
There are many factors that one may attempt to assess, including the production of Guyanese plays that reflect or direct specific attention to the East Indian presence in Guyanese society; drama which makes notable use of Indian theatre; the reproduction of Indian plays in Guyana; the number and stature of Guyanese Indian actors who have always acted in the run of plays generally produced, but who are said to be vary scarce today; and the genuineness of creative efforts to be innovative. What promises to be most enduring is that which evolves out of natural activity including that which survives out of traditional performance. The last named, however, is the most neglected and is being allowed to fade away without trace in various villages.
Taking all the above into consideration, it is useful to refer to five significant factors or developments in relation to history. These include the very vibrant folk theatre contained in such traditions as the tadja and the Ram-Leela performances which have both disappeared; totally opposite to that, the exclusive Indian cultural clubs which imported literature and drama from India, but were responsible for the eventual rise of Rajkumarie Singh; the later emergence of what is definitely among the most valuable factors – the work and preoccupations of Sheik Sadeek; the efforts of Neaz Subhan who tried the adaptation of Neil Simon and other American plays into something Indian; and the Richmond Hill chapter – a New York group led by the very productive Mahadeo Shivraj that produced the work of new dramatist Sharda Shakti Singh, without any doubt, among the very best.
Neaz Subhan is also involved in the most recent movement and interest in what we may call Indian drama. There have been productions of plays such as Tulsidas, and most recently, the Indian Arrival Committee produced Dosti, “in its quest to foster Indian culture in Guyana.” It was a stage adaptation of the film, scripted and directed by Subhan in an attempt which somewhat resembles his earlier efforts, confirming his undying zeal to make something of this kind of theatre. The Programme Notes tell us that “the movie which was released in 1964 continues to impact the lives of those who view it 43 years after. Its undercurrent theme of basic human unity, classic songs and outstanding acting with basically unknown actors saw the movie winning the award for Best Hindi film and six Filmfare Awards including Best Film. It was screened at the Moscow and other international film festivals during that time.”
We may forgive the liberties he seems to have taken with copyright and say that Subhan undertook an extremely difficult and most likely tedious task of transcription in carving out a play from what appears on screen in the film. Without the introduction of very radical changes, it is a task with a limited guarantee of success, and the performance confirmed some of the obvious challenges, just as it did the commendable achievements.
The scripting was simple and very linear with insufficient editing and an unfinished process of fundamental adaptation from one form to another. These resulted in a lengthy play of several sometimes short scenes, which did not always advance the plot or move it forward at a reasonable pace; there was repetition and attention to negligible detail. The set was quite appropriately simple, yet uninspiring and fairly awkward. Subhan was obviously interested in retaining some cinematic elements including the form of the musical, one of the famous attractions of the Bombay film tradition. This element that has produced so many popular musical scores, ‘play-back’ singers and dance sequences did not work well in this play. The actors lip-synched to songs without effectively choreographed movement, and were clearly unsure and uncomfortable about what to do. The director also superimposed clips from the film onto his set and into parts of the dramatic sequence, but his purpose was unclear, his merits and achievements dubious.
All of that, however, may be taken as challenges that will inevitably accompany work of this nature with a very large cast including several newcomers and rank beginners. It would be churlish not to commend and positively note the brave effort of the production. While there were very few experienced actors, there were some remarkable performances, and while the director was not able to maintain total performance discipline, he competently managed the cast for the good of the production.
Very high praise is in order for Rajan Tiwari in the lead. He put in a very honest effort, took command of the role and was convincing as the blind Mohan. It was a heavy, daunting task which he took to without flagging, sustaining interest throughout. Tiwari’s focused performance was one of the positive things about this presentation of Dosti. Another major achievement was Dimple Mendonca’s playing of the estranged sister, the nurse Meena. She has reasonable stage presence and portrayed this role with confidence and comfort. Quite outstanding was her success at handling the performance of the songs that was such a deflation for others, sensitively playing her relation and interaction with Manju and managing meaningful movement to accompany the lip-synch, seemingly without effort. The emotional moments were also convincing.
Manju, too, was intelligently played by Shanya Singh, who was very impressive for her age and showed a good understanding of the stage for a girl so inexperienced. She was able to convince, as was Aditya Persaud as Ashok in a part that seemed to demand little effort, perhaps because of the calm control of the actor. The role of Ramu, Mohan’s friend, also called for control and demanded consistency, which Michael Ignatius was able to give it. Ignatius had previously become so steeped in comic portrayals that he had difficulty pulling himself out of comic mode in serious parts. He achieved it this time and well complemented Tiwari. Shameeza Hussein was another of the positive features in the production with the promise she exhibited as an actress with her effective playing of ‘Aunty.’
The play was not without its humourous episodes, a few of them unintentional comic relief, like the grandiose, overbearing over-playing of Roshan Khan who was clearly a misfit on stage.
However, while that was taken light-heartedly, the overall impact of the play was not. It moved the audience, many of whom got emotionally involved in it the way they would in a Bombay movie drama.
‘Dosti’ means friendship, and the play was well accepted as a serious statement of the failings of humanity balanced off and made bearable by the heroic quality of which humanity is nevertheless capable. The dramatisation of the acts of these friends in Dosti made the desired impact, much as the production itself did upon the audience. To go further, the staging of the drama is another gain for positive Indian theatre as it is for alternative theatre on the Guyanese stage at this time.
It is also another landmark activity for Subhan in his perseverance in the cause of Indian culture and in the process the greater constituency of theatre in Guyana is additionally served.
