Discuss the Theatrical Device Essay

Aadhe Adhure or middle(prenominal) mob has often been depict as a cross between naturalist field of force and Theatre of the Absurd. Interestingly, both these elework forcets actu aloney deletion from each atomic number 53 other as theatrical perfor valet de chambrece driftwork forcets and are give tongue to to fork up polarized western field of study. Naturalism argues for heredity and a global perspective on hu gentle hu gaynesss gentleman behavior, which is said to develop out of the social environs in which a especial(a) private lives. On the contrary, Absurdism believes that there are no solutions to the mysteries of being because ultimately man is alone, forced to perform repetitive actions in a scene of action without meaning.This play has many elements of Naturalist theatre, including a linear movement, a limited time span, an in-depth psychological characterization and a defined beginning, nerve center and end. However, the opening line Once again, t he said(prenominal) thing exclusively over again firmly typecasts it as a part of Absurdist theatre, as from the start itself there is a hint at circularity of horizontalts and a hopelessness and banality defined by the repetition of the word again in the short sentence.Mohan Rakesh borrowed a common device from the theatre of the Absurd and in Aadhe Adhure, for the first time in Indian theatre the very(prenominal) actor was used to play five characters. agree to Rakesh, The woman is the central character and I want the 4 men to be played by the kindred actor. What I want to read by that is that its non the individual whos trustworthy for his situation, for he would have do the same choice no matter what, regardless of the situation. Any choice anyone makes has a authentic irony in it, for things turn out the same regardless of the choice. Though it was passed off by some critics as a gimmick employed by the playwright, its thematic relevance came to the fore when Rajin der Nath, contrary to his own views on the splendour of the technique, directed the play apply five different actors for the roles. The conclusion was felt to be severely deficient as the nonion of inherent similarity in all the men which underlines the climax of the play failed to have the same impact. Interestingly, though Savitri implies that it is beneath their appearance, that this same man exists, the implication is only forceful for the reference because of the cooccurring visual impact of one man playing different roles.According to Nath himself it was a powerful theatrical device to show how match to ones convenience the same man can cast off on different m have a bun in the ovens depending on the situation in which he is placed. That the authorial view corroborates with this report is exculpated from the prologue where the earthly concern in the black suit equates identity with fluidity and calls himself undefined. Each character, given a certain set of circumsta nces, can occupy the place of a nonher.This also follows the assumption that there is no really development or evolution of character the character at the beginning of the play leave not be shaped differently by the situation, enforcing the idea of a universality of experience, that things turning out the same regardless of choice. The prologue defines the play as amorphous. The audience is told that there is a bit of each character in all of them. Those watching the play and even those outside the theatre.The characters are said to be people you bump into by chance in the street stressing the alienation of urban crowd from one another as the source of difference as well as similarity, since they are all nameless, anonymous people who can easily get lost in a crowd comprising of the same. Therefore, one man can play five characters because they are, in essence, the same man. This likeness is reiterated by the naming of the characters in their dialogues, not individually, only wh en rather as root Man, Second Man, etc.According to the Hindi version of the play, the Man in the dense Suit has a look of civility with a touch of cynicism the mettle of the First man expresses the helpless anguish of having lost the battle of feel the Second Man is self-satisfied and still a little insecure the Third Man projects an air of someone who is committed to a smell of convenience and the Fourth Man looks older, quite mature and shrewd.They have different characteristics, lifestyles and manners of speech, save according to critics Nita Kumar and N. S. Dharan, this device makes use ofthe inherent notion of playacting which includes the concept of independence to pretend and be whatever one likes. Every man remains an actor and therefore, it is easy for him to put up a facade and to hide his interiority according to the demands of the situation.This concept is emphasized not by the localisation that the same man plays all the characters, but rather by the concomi tant that it is possible for the same man to play all the characters. Simply by changing his costume and facial expression, he manages to change into a different soulfulness entirely.Therefore, the assertion of the prologue of the interchangeability of these characters is understandable. The problematic element in the play arises out of the contention of the Man in the Black Suit that interchange of roles can take place not only between the men in the play but also between the man and the woman. This strikes a discordant note as, according to critic Arti Mathur, it negates Savitris gender-specific struggle against social constraints. unmatched of the biggest contributions to the sameness of the multiple characters is that they are all men.And men, by the patriarchal definition especially prevalent in urban middle-class India, have a certain societal role which leads to their convergence into one man. Irrespective of circumstances their position in society is defined while that of the woman is defined in relation to the man. However, the command is not entirely wrong every as Savitri, as the breadwinner of the household is actually the man of the house. Every society has an economic lay down and a cultural super construction, which is derived from the base.In Halfway House, the base has shifted and it is the wife who is economically nonsymbiotic, however, the calamity of the ironically named Savitri lies in the fact that the superstructure has not shifted in accordance with the base. Mahendranath has not become the domestic centre just because of his lying-in to the house Savitri is still required to fulfill her womanly domestic duties. She is defined by the context of what it promoter to be a woman and has internalized the patriarchal system. This is also made clear by Savitris disrespect of what she believes is Mahendranaths lack of manliness.She despises his dependency on herself as well as Juneja and constantly searches for escape routes by other, more suitable men. An element of unrealism is brought in, in which even the characters seem to be aware of an be similarity between the men, a device not forthcoming to them as characters. Askoks sketch of Singhania leads Savitri to ask Binni if the portrait reminds her of someone, and on being asked, Whom, she replies Your father. This intermingling of the play and the outside elements draws attention to this device.There is irony in the fact that one of the ways in which these men are actually the same is in their victimization of Savitri. According to critic Veena Das, these characters are seldom all of a piece, they are the broken images of a decomposing society. Mahendranath is a self-described sponge and is later shockingly revealed to be a former wife-beater. His inability to hold the position of the head of the family has made him bitter and suspicious suspecting his wife of illicit liaisons, which, although hinted at are never confirmed by the text.His fuzziness make s Savitri lose all respect for him, till their marriage is reduced to a sham of public expectations. Singhania treats Savitri with contempt and his favors are granted with an obvious air of patronization. His pompous manner and speech is calculated to make the attendee feel inferior, a fact that is explicitly stated by Ashok. However, in Savitris eyes his position as her boss and his salary makes him superior and she remains silent in face of his thinly-veiled innuendos and his humiliation situation of her as one of his childs aunties.His crude behavior is a caricature of the sexual exploitation that women have to deal with in work places. Jagmohan is introduced almost an antithesis of Mahendra. He is suave, successful, with a man-of-the- human race air and is presented as the ordinal hour rescuer. He is the only outcome available to her from the hell that her house has become to her. However, this apparent proactive position loses much of its worth as it is weakened by the fact that she waits for Jagmohan to fetch her.She overlooks his barbs at her depreciate and goes with him willingly, an act in defiance of society which is only rewarded byrejection. Again, this seemingly perfect man is unable(p) to provide her with emotional support or security. Her disillusioned return drives home the point that there is no escape route left available for her.The point of concern becomes the fact that though Savitri is an economically nonsymbiotic woman, her means of escape from the house is linked to a man. Savitri, in her search for the complete man speaks in the language of patriarchy, as the concept of masculinity is a derivative of society.Even though she is a modern, independent woman, she is unable to cut off the suffocating patriarchal bonds of the environment in which she lives. The Fourth Man, Juneja is introduced onto the stage round this point. He gains the sympathy of the audience by showing kindness towards Kinni, a character who is almost suddenly neglected in the play. He comes as a voice of rationality as an almost all-knowing character. He seems to have intimate knowledge of both Savitri and Mahendranath, as well as their circumstances. His seems to be the communicate authorial voice in the play.His looks and manner of speech is structured so as to make the audience favor his point-of-view and assessment of character. Juneja espouses the belief that to Savitri the meaning of life is how many different things you can have and whoop it up at the same time. He lays the blame for the current situation of hopelessness squarely on her shoulder and her quest for the complete man. According to him the problem is not a social reality, but sort of lies in the psychological realm. All of the men she encounters are incomplete and therefore her solution is multiplicity.Her way of make full her void is excess. And she is only attracted to men because, they are not Mahendra. According to Juneja, if she had married one of the men whom she is attracted to she would have still felt she had married the wrong man. Juneja brings in another element of unrealism by accurately recounting the encounter between Jagmohan and Savitri because in his place I would have said the same. Once again this brings forth the sameness of these characters, as Junejas claim is validated by Savitris shatteringrealization- All of youevery one of youall alike Exactly the same.Different masks, but the face? The same wretched faceevery single one of you The tragedy of the realization is heightened by Junejas ruthless perusal- And yet you felt you had a choice? Was there really any choice? grade me, was there? In the above dialogues lies the greatest significance of that particular theatrical device. It brings out a clear dichotomy between the ideal and the real. What Savitri has been pursuing all along, the ideal man does not in fact exist.The notion of her having had a choice has been illusory all along she is trapped in a world with no exit. The play shifts focus to lack of freedom for a female in urban, middle-class India. The tragedy is that Junejas speech provides a dual closure for Savitri both in her search for the perfect man who can fill her void, as well as an acknowledgment that she shall never gain satisfaction, and related to that, happiness. In naturalism, free will is not denied but is contained and confined within the environment in which the individual lives.Savitris free will is her ability to choose but the fulfillment of that choice depends on the context. Her freedom is linked to a man. She is free to choose which man, but it has to be a man. The illusion of choice arises from the four men and her independence is related to shifting from one man to the other. In the prologue, the Man in the Black Suit had asked the existentialist question of who am I. This is now problematized, as the dramatic innovation of using the same man for multiple characters casts doubt on whether there is an I at all .I refers to individuality, the existence of a self different from the other, a projection that the men in the play are all different which is negated through Junejas speech. Savitri uses the language of social realism to justify her belief that she moves on to other men because Mahendra is not the right man. Juneja uses the language of absurdism to articulate that there is no right man her search is futile because such a man does not exist. All the men in her life are essentially the same man and can only satisfy her for a limited gunpoint of time.Surprisingly, the text does not lead up to its realist conclusion that she is trapped because of the prohibitions of the society in which she lives, a world in which a woman has no choice in her own destiny. It, in fact, veers from its apparent initial realist stance of all men are the same in a patriarchy and seems to suggest that all men are the same only to Savitri. Halfway House has often been described as a woman-centric misogynisti c play. Even as the play builds up a dark vision of trapped humanity, it weakens the force of its statement by simultaneously cutting Savitris credentials. (Nita Kumar). The play does not imply that if the only conditions were different or could be changed then Savitri would be able to escape from the trap, instead her sexuality is morally condemned, she ought not be able to escape. Juneja contends that all the men who had come into her life were different. They were individuals with their own diverse characteristics and, according to critic Veena Das, what made Savitri see them as parts of the same fractioned entities was her own diseased imagination.Juneja, in apothegm that all men are the same, is trying to define the essential nature of desire. Desire is always in excess of the individual and can never be completely satiated. The frightening aspect of desire lies in its limitlessness. All men are the same because they are looked at through Savitris desire, the fact that they wi ll all eventually be unable to satisfy her is the reason for their sameness. Their amorphousness derives from the fact that they change in accordance with Savitris assessment of them.The transcendental nature of desire will always make her move on to other men and search for completeness. It seems to suggest that every being is half-incomplete, it is not a tragedy, but rather a fact of existence, and Savitri, in her search for masculine perfection and inability to accept this fact, is herself responsible for her ruination. Unexpectedly again, the play doesnt build up even to the absurdist conclusion it does not suggest that everybody in essentiality is like Savitri, because desire is universal, exceeding every individual.Instead,the elements of Naturalism as well as Absurdism are developed only to lay the blame on Savitris inherent nature, which is considered responsible for the destruction of this particular family. She stands the last accused and the play ends before there can be any possibility of defensive structure on her behalf. Interestingly, though certain relationships in life are deterministic, including that of a mother-daughter, sister-brother, etc, the same cannot be said about spouses however, in this very context the language used by Juneja is the final language of containment, of absolute, pie-eyed determinism.As earlier mentioned, the device of one man playing multiple roles is that of the actor and is not available to the character, and therefore it is significant that the visual of the play itself shows that nothing can be changed. Junejas speech corresponds to the structure of the play, which has to come from without and therefore indicates a concurrence with the playwrights view. According to critic Kirti Jain, this device loses a little of its relevance in the actual stage performance as the focus of the audience is displace primarily towards the clothes, mannerisms and voice of that one actor rather than the thematic import.However, t here is no ambiguity on the fact that the nature of the play cannot be understood without a reference to this particular device. Through this, the area of thrust changes entirely from the universality of human experience, and the ultimate censure is not of society, or even the circumstances, but rather of Savitris desiring nature. Her lack of constraint and implicit sexuality stand accused as the essential reasons for what makes her home an incomplete, halfway house.Bibliography i. All textual quotes are from Worldview Critical Edition of Halfway House- Mohan Rakesh ii. Halfway House A House Divided by Nita N. Kumar iii. A Note on Indian Theatre by Kirti Jain iv. The Directors Viewpoint by Om Shivpuri v. A Thematic Interpretation of One Actor and Five Roles in Halfway House by Arti Mathur vi. Lust For Life A arena of Savitri in Halfway House by Naresh K. Jain vii. Halfway House Absurdism of the Indian Middle syllabus by Bharat Gupt viii.Uncertain Circumstance, Undefined Individual s A Study of Halfway House by S. G. Bhanegaonkar ix. Sexism and Power Games by Manchi Sarat Babu x. Halfway House Some Stray Comments Only by Dilip Kumar Basu xi. There is Something in this House by N. S. Dharan xii. Halfway House A Play of Incomplete Utterances by Veena Nobel Das xiii. Realism and the American Dramatic Tradition by William Demastes xiv. Mohan Rakesh, Modernism, and the Postcolonial Present by Aparna Dharwadker.