Colombo Critic.com

Henrik Ibsen was a true great. No cast, no director should be allowed to desecrate that greatness by a mediocre performance of an Ibsen work. I am glad to say that the StageLight & Magic production team and cast are completely innocent of any such crime in their performance of An Enemy of the People.

Given the age and experience level of the cast and director, I arrived at the Punchi Theatre on the 29th with only modest expectations. For the first time in perhaps two years, I was pleasantly surprised by a local theatre performance. The first thing that struck me: Peter Stockman, the villain mayor. I was told the cast was young, but Rajiv Ponweera did a better job of being his character than many an experienced actor I have seen. Most local actors understandably find it difficult to be loud in English without yelling — perhaps it has something to do with the way we native Sinhalese/Tamil speakers are accustomed to breathing during speech. It is also understandably difficult to maintain proper accentuation and tone of voice while being loud. Mr. Ponweera managed both admirably. His ability to rattle off convoluted examples of formal English by memory must also be commended. He was quite simply a natural.

Second of course, was the ‘Richard Quest’ character, as I call him. Suren Gnanaraj as the comical Mr. Aslaksen kept reminding me of the energetic CNN anchor for some reason. Both he and the mayor were examples of actors who were ‘in’ their character. I would not be surprised if both actors exhibited in real life, some measure of the characteristics of their on-stage personae. Such a fit makes for a natural performance. It is these two who made me sit up and pay attention to the play.

The central character, Dr. Stockman, was well played, but in all honesty the aforementioned characters stole the show for me. There is nothing to complain of the rest of the cast — they did better than what one would expect from a cast of that age range and experience. A touch more realism from the actors playing Catherine (the mother), Petra (the daughter) and Hovstad (the newspaper editor) would have made things complete. After all, this is a play by the man considered by many to be the father of modern realism.

As for the directing, I must regrettably refrain from too many comments as I am biased — the director is an acquaintance whom I find to be an agreeable chap. Suffice to say I found his skills as a director equally agreeable.

The choice of Punchi Theatre as the venue was a good one in my opinion. Its small size does not require the actors to yell at the expense of a realistic performance — I was in the back row and at no time did I have to strain to hear dialogs.

There is a certain device that I have often found annoying. It is the practice of having little activities going on in the periphery of the main scene, often minor characters engaging in animated silent dialog or slapstick. The practice, ostensibly used to fill the stage, seem to have become somewhat of a fashion in the local theatre. Kudos to the director for not overdoing this — I for one had no trouble focusing on the main scene.

Any points of criticism I have are minor. The performance had a slightly slow and drawn out beginning — the first half should ideally have had the same pace as the second. Modern audiences are sadly not known for their patience. The use of boxes for all furniture props was simple, elegant and cost effective, but a few more embellishments by way of tablecloths, vases and the like would have made the set look less generic. The fruit bowl in the first scene was a good example. It demonstrates that one does not need a big budget to create a believable set.

In keeping with the spirit of the play, I shall now take a swipe at the People — even among the more refined denizens of Colombo who frequent the local English theatre, there were still those who lacked the class to switch off their phones during a live performance. Timely arrival seemed to be a problem for others. A few dissatisfied back seaters who obviously mistook the play for a movie, felt it appropriate to stand up and leave during an important scene. It is but a sample of our national character and Ibsen himself would have had much to say about it. But that is a different story.

I have always maintained that the local English theatre should concentrate on comedy — it is what they seem to do best. Tackling more serious themes requires more serious actors, but by definition, all local actors are amateurs — in that they have other jobs. Perhaps I was mistaken in this. Perhaps it is possible to do a serious play, provided it delivers a sufficiently passionate, relevant and hard hitting message.

In my opinion, a performance is deemed successful when it faithfully reproduces the message of the playwright. It was done. Ibsen’s message and Arthur Miller’s rendition of it was driven home with sufficient force: that the “solid majority” is not always right; that in the absence of principle, democracy becomes mob rule; that right does not become wrong, nor does wrong become right just because the majority believes so.

The relevance to our own political plight is unmistakable. Our “solid majority”, much like the one in the play, has become a frightful creature that few dare dissent. Our election process is not much more than a popularity contest intended for winning the favor of this creature, facts and figures be damned. There is a conspicuous absence of men like Dr. Stockman — men who are willing to suffer slings and arrows from the very same people they are trying to save; men who choose truth at the risk of personal peril. While I do not expect this performance to open anybody’s eyes, it is good to see it performed. In the least, it is a good precedent.

But Ibsen’s play is both an example and a warning: it appears to say that, when one bashes one’s head against the proverbial rock, only one of the two is liable to crack. It seems to portray a choice: between personal happiness and commitment to principle. Perhaps, in Mr. Aslaksen’s own words, “moderation” is best. Perhaps if Dr. Stockman had resorted to a more pragmatic and gradual approach, neither his family nor the town would have suffered. Perhaps, rather than bashing one’s head on the rock, it is better to work with a chisel.

The performance also captures another, more cynical theme: the idealistic newspaper editor buckles under influence and switches sides; it is the seemingly innocuous Mr. Aslaksen who ultimately moves to declare Dr. Stockman an enemy of the people; the otherwise “nice” landlord evicts the Stockmans, fearing the wrath of the “solid majority”. The only person in the play who has no agenda–the doctor himself–does not fair well. In other words, everybody has an agenda. It is indeed a warning to the idealist: if you choose this path, be forewarned of the troubles ahead. As the last line of the play goes, the strong must learn to be lonely.

Cast and crew, I give you seven out of ten on this one. And that’s a good score — I think I gave Blood Brothers a five minus.

 

(by Hasitha Liyanage)
30 March 2008