Jean Anouilh’s classic Becket is based on history – although it is famously known to contain historical inaccuracies as admitted by the playwright himself. Hence, while it does not claim to give a history lesson, its production by the Bangalore Theatre Company has effectively problematised the idea of ‘history’ in a way that forces one to think beyond the performance as an isolated artistic event. In other words, one cannot stop at simply analysing the performance for technical and creative merit, but must deconstruct the context of its staging and reception.
Becket is a story that explores themes of friendship, loyalty, religion and piety, greed and arrogance of royalty over a backdrop of political conquest and hegemony. The malleable ethics of the characters set in very narrow historical and cultural atmosphere make for intricately complex characters. It demands extreme delicacy to portray these layers – and equal delicacy and knowledge on the part of the audience to understand it! This loop of communication may not have been perfect owing to inadequacies on both the sides.
The play, based on Prasanna’s Kannada translation and directed by Prakash Belawadi, in itself does not lack commitment from its crew. Nor does it lose the audience’s attention anywhere. Its highlights include: convincing acting by Venkatesh Prasad who plays the boorish, hedonistic Henry II (a tad too convincing, as Becket comes across as insipid in contrast); costumes that are fashionably period; Gwendoline’s falsetto singing; general rigor by the cast; the work that has gone in the set design – life-sized stained glass windows made of flexi drop-downs, split level stage and light effects for temporal difference in scenes, a ‘box’ that creates everything from a tomb to a bed by simple manoeuvrings akin to lego blocks. On the flipside was the superfluous projection of architectural interiors, onto the screen. But let’s come back to the question of the play being a touchstone to society’s psychological health.
History is not the favourite subject of the Indian educational system. When our most ‘successful’ writers of fiction think of history as “this happened, then this happened…,” who can blame the audience for not knowing the first thing about the Norman conquest of England! The subaltern status of the Saxons, the cruelty in the Norman mentality, the relationship between the Monarchy and the church etc. are not likely to be topics of drawing room discussions for most. So, the background to the play is lost. With that lack, one would settle down cluelessly to watch the wanton acts of violence and misogyny. The humour in the play is meant to be ironic, sardonic and cynical. But it did not seem as if the laughter in the hall was cynical when the peasant girl eagerly wants to go away with her captors, or when she willingly offers to shed her clothes for Becket! The idea that rape and abuse in the palace is more desirable to her than hunger and poverty in her hovel – a piteous state indeed – doesn’t come through. The audience laughs at her ‘loose morals’ instead.
Royal marriages do not have the luxury of sentiments and more often than not, are political alliances; the domestic squabbles of the king and his wife ought to be read in this light to understand its true implications. Without it, it’s just a man putting his wife down – which disturbingly is a gleeful thing for many. The somewhat flat acting by the female characters obscured the intended layers, unfortunately.
While it is important for theatre to instruct/disturb and not always appeal to the existing systems of knowledge, instruction happens if it intrigues. Perhaps Becket can intrigue its audience better, if it unlocks the irony in it that seems, for now, to be cast in stone.
