A story can be told in many ways. Many story telling devices come in handy when the attempt is to discuss multi-layered narratives. The material for the story may be sometimes as pregnant as the myth of Yavakri. The myths are reworked in a telling manner by the playwright to come up with a challenging play to stage. Apart from the retelling of the myths (myth of Yavakri, the myth of Indra slaying Vritra), the play with in the play technique open up further vistas for enquiry enabling deeper understanding of the making of the play.
The play gives way to the play with in the play. The drama performed can bring rain, only a yajna wont do. Rain is an objective reality, but raining is not really objective. The Yajna is a performance but it is an orchestrated performance while drama is orchestrated and more. As Paravasu maintains “fire sacrifice is a formal rite. Structured. It involves no emotional acrobatics from the participants”. But there is an element of tentativeness when it comes to the fifth Veda, a performative undercurrent which may redefine the expectations and go beyond the realm of reason: An outcome that might upset the linear, systematic and plausible expectations. Against the warning given by the stage manager not to get lost in the character, Aravasu goes wild in a moment of rage when Vishwarupa falls into the trap of Indra. Fury loosened upon the sacrificial altar but does not stop Aravasu from completing the sacrifice. This performative episode finally enables the performer to break the possibilities opened up by the technique and come back to the actual play.
It so happens that when there is a play within the play, the seemingly fictional artifact of the original play sheds its fictitious air to a considerable extent and become more immediate to the viewer. A sense of immediacy and liveness is achieved. The viewer is now more interested in the proceedings of the play within the play. Here the dramatist has a better chance of winning over the trust of the audience. Now that there is a second-degree remediation, the larger play becomes more legitimate. What happens with the play within the play is that the wall separating the audience and performance disappears and the audiences are paved the way to enter the visual artifact that Karnad has created which is the large play. There are ways to remain removed from the workings of the art form even then, but then the distance is much less: one still remains within the play even though a distance can be maintained from the play with in the play. There is willing suspension of disbelief here. Therefore the experience become more immediate, more live. One feels the heat and the moisture.
Clever thinking here, Satchin.
ReplyDeleteAnd, just as I demonstrated in WFL, you're working hard on your writing to connect each sentence through coherence and cohesion. Might look up those terms to reinforce your writing style decisions.
Sandeep always writes about the play within the play being a form of hypermediation. Characters represent characters, of course, and just as a play lets the audience try on ideas for size in a safe way, the play within a play lets the players try on ideas (which in turn gives the audience members more insight). One of my favorite playwrites, Tom Stoppard, does this a lot in his work.
Good connections here between characters. And you're right: there are a sense of immediacy / liveness, almost like a double negative. Play within a play is like two negatives (approximations of liveness) coming together to form a positive (liveness). It's a way of TRULY getting into the heads of the players in FIRE AND RAIN--having them relate to another play. Perhaps liveness or immediacy is, as you say, a sort of Keatsian "willingness to suspend disbelief," and the hypermediating effect of the convention of play within a play helps achieve that. As you say, through the first person eyes of the players in FIRE as they look at the play within a play, the audience of FIRE feels the heat and moisture rather than just reads or even sees it. Nice.
Satchin:
ReplyDeleteGood post, and I like your attempt to use concepts we have learnt from the theory we have read. Here are a few points where I would like some more detail:
1. When you say "drama is orchestrated and more," I think you mean that drama can be rehearsed but very often during performance, it can go beyond the rehearsed script into the realm of the spontaneous. It is this element of spontaneity that the gods like and this is what brings the rain.
2. I'm not very clear about what you mean when you say "play on the outside," I think you mean the larger play which Karnad has scripted (as opposed to the play within the play). If this is so, it would be better to say the original play or the larger play. Also when you say "audiences are paved the way to enter the visual artifact" you can make this more clear by saying that the play within the play paves the way for the audience to enter the visual artifact that Karnad has created which is the larger play.
Hope these stylistic suggestions help.