In 1987, director K. Madavane’s theatre group, Chingari, performed French playwright Molière’s play, Tartuffe . Almost three decades later, Madavane is back with the play that had added another name to his list of successful productions. Translated into Hindustani by Atul Kumar Mittal, the play is presented by the Repertory Company at the Shri Ram Centre for Performing Arts. In the run-up to the premiere on February 28, Madavane talks about directing the play, and the added nuances he had missed in 1987.
Edited excerpts from an interview:
Tell us about the play and what we can expect from this particular performance?
This is one of the very famous plays of Molière, a very great author of the 17th Century. It’s a comedy but at the same time there are a lot of tragic situations in it. I did this play in ’87 too and this is my own team. The peculiarity of this particular direction is based on speed and physical movement. All the set and props are on wheels for continuous movement on stage. This is not only because it’s a fancy idea but because the play’s structure is based on physical movement. When you read the play it’s the first thing that you notice. That is because the story of the play is a about a godman who is a cheat and enters a house where he gets the head of the family to believe him completely. He is fooling everybody and there is lots of tension in the house. So to show the tension in the house, I selected speed. The speed shows the bad energy and vibe in the house, through movement. In ’87, this is what made people consider the play one of the best.
What had made you, back then, select this particular play?
Chingari was a very famous theatre group at that time, and in 1987 we sat around the table and we discussed which play should be selected, and who would be directing. Once people decided that I was going to direct the play it was my job to propose the play. So the general idea was that I select a play that is comic. We had done more or less tragic plays before that. ‘Tartuffe’ was an obvious choice for me. For me, it is not just comic which is important, it is also the undercurrent and subtext of a play, which is tragic. So, in general nothing is pure comedy. Any serious comedy has an undercurrent of tragedy and any serious tragedy has an undercurrent of comedy. That is the reason why we selected ‘Tartuffe’. It has very strong tragic messages portrayed through very strong comedy.
From ’87 to 2015, while the script has remained static, you have grown as a director. How has approaching the same play after almost three decades been?
From ’87 to now of course you change, you gain more experience. Even though the setup on stage is the same, what’s different is how you are bringing out the nuances. It is much more interesting to work on it. When I did the play in ’87 the nuances weren’t there. I can judge myself and judge the play from a certain distance now. I had a very good experienced bunch of actors in ’87. Many of them are now in movies. Now what I found out with this experience is that there are many more nuances in the script. I am enjoying it to bring out those nuances.
Considering that godmen have been in the news for a while now, and the context is especially apt for present-day India, how do you see the play being received by the audience? What do you hope it will say to them?
I don’t believe in Indian-ising any international script. I never do that. I even keep the name of the characters intact. There is another thing I don’t do — I don’t underestimate the audience. Anywhere in the country or anywhere in the world, whether it is in Cannes or Melbourne or Delhi, I don’t underestimate the audience. If your play is good, the message will definitely cross over. So in ‘Tartuffe’, definitely the audience will connect. Truth is, whether it is this religion or that religion, there is always a cheat. And some people fall for that. Second thing is that in this particular interpretation I am not only criticising the godmen. I am also criticising the person who falls for it. Because you will always have cheats like that if you have stupid people who fall for it. Both are interconnected. Both are responsible for the situation. That is the particularity of this interpretation.
