A while ago, I’d written a post on Folk theater in India; a few weeks after I found myself in class discussing folk performances; you’ll be glad to know that folk performance and folk theater are pretty much the same, so before you read this post it might be good to brush up on what Folk theater is.
Anyway, getting back; folk performance is really the ‘act’ of carrying out folk theater, and what I’d particularly like to touch upon here are primarily in a sense, the ‘drawbacks’ of folk performances. What this does is that it exposes another side to folk performance that I’ve never explored, nor written about. For a quick read, I’ll put everything in points…not sure how quick of a read it’ll end up being, but I tried 😛
-can get repetitive (characters tend to be similar)
-no nuances seen–> characters seem stereotypical and stereotypes are as a result, often connected to folk performances
-there is melodrama seen and characters created are likely to be clearly “good” or “bad”
These tend to be applicable to most folk performances, however, what are the problems with a certain folk performance? In this case, let us take ‘Tamasha’.
-metaphysical, philosophical, connected to god and spirituality–> these are the central themes of Tamasha, and the “essence” of this folk performance
-In contemporary times, Tamasha has just become ‘entertainment’;people want women dancing, vulgar language and movement and seem more interested in the woman than anything else
-this supports and continues the objectification of women in India, as well as provokes and supports the creation of a social heirarchy where women rank low
-people performing lack training–> training centers for Tamasha actors are being set up but to reinforce the “rusticness” people want to avoid training which isn’t good–> due to this they don’t undergo memory and performance training which leaves them unprepared when it comes to actually performing on stage
Many times the question is asked, how are folk performances and traditions understood in an urban context?
-folk performance and traditions tend to be understood in a very “elitist” fashion and isolated from the urban context itself; often people who talk of folk performance, or watch them, do so not with the intention of appreciating the form for what it is, but rather to “uphold tradition”.
Where has the “Indianness” associated with folk performance gone?-this “Indianness” is not seen in reading English, but actually appreciating folk theater and performances and reading regional languages, which were lost during colonial times
-the idea of ‘nation’ has always been vague for us, because we’re unsure of our traditions…but who is “our”? who is “we”?
The plight of the lower castes:
-Folk performances are usually done by the lower castes, however do we really support the lower castes? If we don’t then why/ how do we support folk performance?
Under the name of folk performance traditions, are we really supporting them? is there gender/women exploitation seen? What are the roles of women in folk performance troupes apart from cooking and dancing? who are the real leaders?…these are all questions we don’t have answers to, and they question how we view folk performances in a very different light; yes, folk performances are rich in culture and heritage, but deep down do folk performances also harbor issues that need to be addressed?
One of the important questions that needs to be looked at is also:
HOW DO WE UNDERSTAND THE NATURE OF PERFORMANCE TRADITIONS IN POST INDEPENDENCE INDIA? In other words, how are we appropriating folk traditions for ourselves and what is the role of the state here?
The state, without addressing any of the above issues dealing with folk performance, thinks of folk theater and performance as something that represents the nation, but is this correct?
No one seems conscious about what we’re inheriting, are we inheriting form, content, or the entire history that is associated with folk performance?
Now, we see folk performance traditions looked at as part of ‘developmental discourse’, and social developmental discourse, as well as heritage discourse in order to empower people in rural communities.
-In post 1960’s there was a prominent movement to return back to original folk theater with original roots rather than continue with folk performance influenced by Western theater–> those who propagated this movement wanted to claim linguistic traditions through artistic practice and this movement flourished
Badal Sircar was an influential Indian dramatist and he is especially well known for his “third theater” in revival of folk performances. The different kinds of theater were:
1st theater: folk traditions (characterized by their liveliness and immediate connect with people)
2nd theater: urban theater (western theater, lacked what folk traditions had, but were more refined, polished and performed)
3rd theater: combination of both
Badal Sircar spread this “third theater” all over India; he traveled with his mobile theater group and didn’t charge for his performances-he wanted to move away from the ‘transaction’ aspect that money brought to theater. However, his theater was also economic—> there would be collection of money after performances and he accepted whatever amount the audience deemed fit for the performance.
Badal Sircar created lots of political discourse through his plays-wanted them to change society and address societal issues. => he proposed theater as aesthetic but also manageable. His performances also forge a connection with Brechtian theater as he performed some of Brecht’s plays which easily connected with folk traditions and performance.