| |
THE ARTS: THEATRE
A Change Of Scene
Anupam Kher is appointed chief of the National School
of Drama's governing body as the new director unveils radical plans
By Anna M.M. Vetticad
|
|
| BUSINESS AS USUAL: NSD students on campus
rehearsing for a new play |
Back from a three-week
shoot for his directorial debut Om Jai Jagdish in the blessed anonymity
that New Zealand affords Bollywood stars, Anupam Kher is counting his
blessings. Today he is a luminary among character actors in Mumbai. A
highlight of his CV are his years as a student of acting at the National
School of Drama (NSD), Delhi, in the 1970s. But if the newly appointed
NSD director, Devendra Raj Ankur, had been in charge then, Kher might
not have had this advantage. As Ankur settles into his chair, his mind
is whirring with ideas. Among them is the plan to scrap the acting specialisation
from the NSD curriculum. "There are no openings for professional
theatre actors except in film and TV so they end up teaching, directing
and working back-stage," he explains. "Why bother with a specialisation
they can't fully use?"
One person he must convince on this issue is
old boy Kher. The Centre has just announced his name as chairperson of
NSD's governing body (it's called the NSD Society). "I don't know
what Mr Ankur's logic is," says Kher. "Maybe he has not specialised
in acting. But I'm sure if I have been given this post then my views also
count." It's the society that vets all policy changes.
|
REWRITING THE SCRIPT
|
|
"Acting
can't be taught. No system in the world can teach acting fundamentals."
Devendra Raj Ankur, NSD Director
|
Some
of the changes being considered by Ankur:
»
Scrapping
the two-year acting specialisation
»
Lowering the age limit for admission from 30 to 25
»
Conversion to a five-year undergraduate course
»
Introduction of evening courses for amateurs |
|
|
|
"What is Mr Ankur's
logic? Maybe he has not specialised in acting."
Anupam Kher, NSD Chairperson
|
Ankur-director, writer, actor, administrator
and teacher-might have scripted an easier start for himself. Unlike his
predecessor Ram Gopal Bajaj who had to contend with directorship in instalments-an
initial one-year tenure followed by a one-and-a-half year extension, then
another year-Ankur has been fortunate to get a complete five-year stretch
from the outset. His misfortune could be his tendency to tie himself up
in verbal knots. Take the issue of the two-year acting specialisation.
Ankur is pushing for a switch to an integrated course without specialisations,
where everyone must study acting and direction among other things. Alternatively,
he is considering removing acting altogether and adding other specialisations
such as scriptwriting.
The integrated course is a failed experiment
from the past. B.V. Karanth tried it as NSD director in 1977-81, but was
compelled by demand to revert to the old format two years later. Proof
of the perennial popularity of acting studies lies in current classroom
strengths. Of the 40 second- and third-year students, 32 are in the acting
stream, eight in design and direction. Karanth still believes an integrated
course will produce "a complete theatre person".
But Ankur doesn't help his cause with the remark:
"Acting can be learnt, it can't be taught. No system in the world
can teach acting fundamentals." "Really?" responds Thiruvananthapuram-based
director K.N. Panikkar sarcastically, "But I teach acting here."
The Natyashastra, he points out, divides acting into four categories:
angika or acting with the body, vachika or vocalisation, satvika or mental
acting, aharya or acting with costumes and makeup. Adds Kher: "If
acting can't be taught, then Marlon Brando, Ebrahim Alkazi and Barry John
should be out of jobs. What's method acting then? What are Laurence Olivier,
Lee Strasberg and New York's Actors Studio all about?"
Ankur's contention comes at a time when the
Film and Television Institute of India (FTII), Pune, is considering relaunching
the acting course it scrapped in the 1970s. Says FTII Director Mohan Agashe:
"If a person has basic talent, you can train them in the craft. Otherwise
Konstantin Stanislavsky and Strasberg's methods and theories are useless."
Coincidentally, NSD has just published the first of a three-part series
of Hindi translations of Stanislavsky, the late-19th-century Russian pioneer
of the school of "method acting". Forget specialisation, if
Ankur holds that "acting can't be taught" then it logically
has no place in an integrated course either.
Panikkar, Imphal-based director Ratan Thiyam
and K.D. Tripathi of Varanasi, by the way, comprised the panel that suggested
Ankur's name for directorship. According to sources, the other nominees
were Bansi Kaul, Bhanu Bharti and M.K. Raina. Ankur's selection happened
with uncharacteristic and minimal fuss. The choice of chairperson, however,
had its share of backstage drama. The post has been vacant for a year
now after Chandrasekhar Kambar's exit. A primary reason, say sources,
is that the President of India rejected the Government's initial list:
Kambar, Chandraprakash Dwivedi who is best known as the maker of the teleserial
Chanakya, and Bimal Kumar Lath of Kolkata's Anamika theatre group. The
President reportedly asked for a second list that would retain Kambar's
name. So he was recently offered the choice of Kher, Kambar and Bajaj.
As Kher busies himself constituting a new society,
Ankur is weighing other possible changes: lowering the age limit for admission
from 30 to 25 and shifting from the present postgraduate course to an
undergraduate structure. He also hopes to introduce evening courses for
amateurs, add a section on Asian plays to the annual National Theatre
Festival, and launch a Youth Theatre Festival.
While he's at it, perhaps he should also reconsider
his penchant for unsolicited controversial comments. His refrain, "A
national theatre institution has to work in Hindi," infuriates Karnataka
theatre veteran Prasanna who responds with: "Perhaps Ankur has not
read our Constitution, that's why he doesn't know how many national languages
we have." While discussing the lack of opportunities for theatre
actors, Ankur blames states that have "failed to create professional
repertory companies". Thiyam reacts sharply: "Many states are
too poor for that. The Union Ministry of Culture should set up these repertories."
But Ankur, by all accounts, is well-intentioned. Prasanna calls him a
"good friend". Agashe describes him as "focused" and
"completely a theatre man". Maybe if he holds his peace often
enough, these five years will not be so rocky after all.
|
|
METRO TODAY
Web
Exclusives
