Marathi theatre criticism: age 150 years

16 Pages·1995·4.5 MB·English

by  Nadkarni, Kamlakar

Marathi Theatre Criticism : Age 150 Years
KAMLAKARNADKAR."I
T oday the 150-year-old Marathi theatre is the oldest theatre io India. There are
disputesregardingitsbirth-dale:if!heTanjavurtraditionistakenintoaccountone
bas to goback to 1710.But usually 5November 1943, the day when Vishnudas
AnantBhavefirstgaveapublicperformanceofSeetaSwayamvar;issupposed tobethe
day when Marathi theatre was born. Bhave not only executed the roles and duties of
producer,playwrightanddirectorbutalsopopularizedtheuseofthewordnatak(play).
Early Criticism:BhaveEra
Bhave first toured Bombay in 1853. Reports of his plays, some comments and
advertisements,isallthedatathat isavailable today.On 16February 1853The Bombay
Times carried areviewofBhave's playsand it tells us thatthey had great experimental
value andthatalot"oftrick-scenes were shown on stage. The review also tells us that
several European journalists liked the performance. While writing about the first
performanceinBombaythecriticsays:
Tillaquartertotentheactorswhowereveryskillfulplayed... Almostalltheactorsandparticularlyboys.
playedbeautifully,andabigmanwhocalledhimself'Mahadev'didnotloseamomentwithoutexcitingahearty
laugh.
Thepaperalsorecommendedtheplaybysaying:
lbe success of aplay depends to a greatextenton boys-actors,clowns/jesters and other actors. . . This
mythologicalplayresemblestheold/ancientCbristian tradition and Europeans shouldcertainly watchthese
performances. (8March 18S3J
Several issues carrieddetailed information aboutthe plays so as to arouse curiosity
amongstthespectators.TheduelinwhichIndrajit'shandsarecutoffbyLaxman'sarrow
and 'fly' towards Sulochana and the severed smiling head of Iodrajil are specially
mentioned (Bombay Times, Editorial. II March 1853)! One can conclude that trick-
sceneswereaspecialfeatureofBhave'splays. .
The editorialsays:
In otherrespectstheperformance wasreallyadmirableandgaveusamuchhigherideathanwepreviously
possessedofthecapabilitiesofHinduactors.
AppajiVishnuKulkarnihasgivenconsiderableinformationaboutBhave'splayswhile
writingthehistoryofMarathitheatreinhisbookMarathiRangbhoomi(1903).
SDl1gutNaJdNos.115- 116January- June1995
MARATIllTHEATRECRIlJOSM Z7
TheearlycriticstodiscussBhave'splays areAppajiVishnu Kulkarni, KrishnajiAbaji
Guruji and Raosaheb Vasudev Ganesh Bhave. All of them tend to give derailed
information.Sincethescripts ofBhave'splayswere notavailable, thesecriticismswere
performance-oriented.
From 1851 started theera oftranslations ofSanskrit plays. Prabodhchandroday (1851)
isthefirsttranslationfromSanskritintoMarathi.In 1859ShriramshastriPalandetranslated
Prasannaraghava: Parshuramtatya Godbole's Yenisamhar(1857),Uttarramcharit(1859),
Shakuntal (1861), Mricchakatikam (1862), Parvatiparinay (1872), Krishnashastri
Rajwade's Malatimadhav (1861), Mudrarakhshas (1867), Shakunral (1869),
Vikramorvashiya (1874),Ganeshshastri Lele'sJanakiparinay (1805),Malovikagnimilram
(1867), Vidvashalabhanjika (1869)--a11 these translationswere basicallyconsidered to be
'literature'. The translators do not even talk about performances in their prefaces, The
magazine Dnyanaprasarak too while discussing Vikramorvashiya only talks about the
'translation'.Translationsfrom Englishweremuchslowerand Jesserinnumber,
Vinayak Janardan Kritane's Jaypalwas the first Marathi play written with a foreign
background,From 1865 to 1880,24 translationsfrom English andSanskrit and 38 other
plays were published.Till 1879onlysevenplayswere translatedfromEnglish, andallof
them were translationsofShakespeare.
Criticisma/Translations/Adaptations
Withinafew days ofthepublicationofthefirstMarathi adaptationJaypal,in 1865,its
criticism appeared in Dnyanprakash, written by the scholar Vishnushastri Chiplunkar.
Onecanhave an idea ofthecriteriaused bycriticism inthosedaysthrough thispiece.In
the beginning a detailed description ofthe plot has been given and criticism has been
madebecauseitisbased onanepisode from theBible.Thecriticagreesthatthespectator
shouldreceiveboth knowledgeand entertainment, butadds that"ourpeople immediately
identify andhave anempathy for depiction ofourancients, but this isnotpossible ifthe
characters are alien", The critic apartfrom thinkingas an 'Indian' also analyzes the play
as a 'play',Delightful language and craftsrnanly characterization are the features which
the critic highlights as reasons for the play's success.The objection to the 'alien' plot
reflectsa peculiar nationalism. Detailed discussions on the nature of translations and
adaptationswhichweremadeinthefuturehaveitsroots inthispieceofcriticism.
Kritane's Thorle Madhavrao Peshwe started thediscussion of the nature of tragedy.
Thisplay has a fusion ofIndian and Western theatre traditions.In the beginning we see
the Sutradhar and Vidushak whereas the end is tragic. Krishnashastri Chiplunkar has
commentedonthisplayintheMay 1865issueofShalapatrak.HehaspraisedKirtanefor
writing tragedy which is absent in the Indian tradition, While discussing the playas a
tragedyhe talks aboutthe "overalltragiceffect" and not only the"sorrowful end". "One
findsbothhappinessandsorrowinhumanlifeandmanysaintlypeopledieapainful death
and hence it is apt thatthe playwright tries to reflectthis in his plays. A play is a book
whicb by creating dialogues imitates the flow of nature and sbows it naturally"-this is
hisdefinition ofaplay(or drama).
28 KAMLAKARNADKARNI
On the criteriaofthe plot,dialoguesand language,Chiplunkardecides thai thisisan
"independent' play.Kru.Aa.GurujitooinhisNatkachiSthityantare(ChangingTrendsin
Drama)hasofferedaninterestingcomment Hesays:
SinceMadhavraoIwasaloweringfigureofswarajyaandsincethestructureofthisplaywasdifferentfromthe
typicalmythologicalplaysandsincethiswastheftrStexperimentofilskind,audiencesusedtorushtowatch
theperformance.Morever.duringthosedaysthelevelofliteracywasnotveryhighandignor~cewasrampant
Manythingsintheplaywere'suitable' to thisignorance:the sentimentaldepictionof medying speechof
Madh.:nT3'o.Ramabai'sdecision 10entertheSari·pyre.theobjectionsof thecounsellors, Narayanrao's very
youngage,andthesati-ceremony.
Laxmanshastri Lele too has noted several characteristics of this play and has
highlighted independent structure, choice of subject-matter. design of selected scenes,
characterization:delightfulnessoflanguage and noveltyofthe tragic note as the salient
features. Onthe whole the criticism of those times carries reactions to new things that
came into Marathi theatre via translations: carefulanalysis of plot, subject, situations,
characterization,language and theend,etc.occupyan importantplace.
Ravbhahadur Kashinath Balkrishna Marathe's Essay on the Novel and Drama
published in 1872, is the first attempt in Marathi dramatic criticism to discuss several
aspects of drama in detail. Marathe had popular plays like Manorama and Swairkesha
before rum. Now 'social atmosphere' is added to the list ofcharacteristics previously
mentioned. When Marathe says that "whatever the subject, it should be communicated
through the actions of the characters", it seems that he is trying to probe into the very
nature of drama as'distinct fromother narrative forms. The essential qualitiesfor a
playwright that he enlists are: poetic genius,historical insightofthe historian, artofthe
'foreign' painter,attention-grabbingskilloftheorator, clevernessofthenovelist, andthe
sharp senseofthephilosopher!
CriticismonMarathiFarce
After the mythological playsof Bhavecamethefarce.These farceswereshort pieces
and were played along with full-length plays.They can even be called humorous one
acters. The first Marathi faree was presented by the Amarchand Wadikar Mandali in
1856. Reviewsappeared innewspapersand magazines, and the playwright also wrotea
preface forthepublishedversion.Manycritics havecalledthefarcegramya(uncivilized)
and halkat (ribald)! Bhaskar Jayrarn Ajgaonkar in his preface to Lafangi Sardar or
Govekamicha Farce (1887) says: "Due to such simple books even vagabonds and
illiterates take toreading.Once theydevelop thereadinghabit they will be benefitedby
other better books". In the prefaces of Yaranbhatache Prahasan (1910) by Dattatray
Vasudev Joglekar and Samajrahasya Prahasan (1908) by Ganpat Krishnaji Gogte,the
writershave defendedfarces.
Inawaythereis anote ofself-criticism withashadeofrationalization inmanyofthe
prefaces to plays during this period, and one may say that here playwrights have
themselves turned intocritics.At least todaywhenone looks back one tends totake into
accountthese prefaces while commentingontheentire corpusof criticism.Some farce-
MARA1HImEA1RECRITICISM 29
writershave tried todefine 'farce', AccordingtoShankarGanpatChinchankarfarceisan
"especially humorous scene in which cheating, tom-fooling and ditching are used"
(Preface, DravyaprasadPrahasan, 1892).
Howevernobodyseemstohavediscussed thefarce asaspecial literary ordramatic
genre in detail. The term farce is applied to one-acts as well as full-length plays, Titles
likeJhanstchi Rani, Narayan Peshve Hyancha VadhorVishnushastri Chiplunkaranche
Natyavtaran show thattherewere seriousfarces as well. Tarunshikshan Natika by
Narayan BapujiKanitkar(1906), asocial play, wasalso called afarce. VidyaPrakashan,
apublishinghouse offarces, had to face acourt-trialfor obscenity!
Itwastenyears after theMarathitheatrewas bornthatMarathi drama criticism began.
Onecansaythatl8S3 isitsbirthdate, CriticismofMarathi playsfirstappearedinEnglish
newspapers. The review of the mythological play presented in Pune by the "Hindu
playwrightfrom Sangli"appearedjustafter five days in Dnyanprakash:
Initially the focus of criticism was inevitably on the performance. It changed when
plays began to be 'written'. Criticism has taken into account theproblems posed by the
process of translation and adaptation. immediately after suchtranslations/adaptations
appeared. Similarly, when independent plays statted being written,.criticism has taken
noteof itsnature andcharacteristics. Thisagealsosawthebeginning ofthediscussion
regarding thetragicplay. ApersonlikeKashinathBalkrishnaMarathe triedinhiswritings
topresentafusionofSanskritandWesterntheories.Whenfarcescarneonstage,criticism
appearstohavetakennoteofthisnewformaswell.ThoughMarathicriticismwasinits
childhoodin this period, itcertainlywas aware of what was happeningin theatre, which
toowasinitschildhood.
Kirloskarian Era
BalwantPandurangaliasAnnasaheb Kirloskarisregardedtobe thefather ofmodem
Marathidrama. Thisreputationwasfounded withthepremiereofhisMarathi versionof
Shakuntal presentedon 31 October 1880atPune.
Logical, economical, dramatic and well-made playwriting began with Kirloskar.
Commenting on his playwriting the historian of the Marathi theatre, Prof. Shri Na.
Banahatti,writes:
Kirloskarpickedupvarioususefulaspectsfromtheprevalenttheatresandcreatedhismusicaldrama.Hethrew
awaytheunartistic, incredible, rasalesspartofthemythological and'bookish' playsandtooktherasafuJ,
artistic,unityfuIpartandwoveitintohisdramaticstructure. [MarathiNatyakala aniNatyawangmaya,p.91]
Kirloskar'sShakuntal, Saubhadra,etc. totally changedthe natureoftheMarathiplay.
The period from 1880 to 1900 witnessed great developments in Marathi theatre and
contemporarycriticismwas wellawareofthisfact.VishnushastriChiplunkarhasthanked
Kirloskarfor writing plays likeShakuntalandSaubhadra. While writing aboutShakuntal
inKesarihehasconsidereditasanopera, andhasexpressedsatisfactionaboutthisnew
'fad'.Heidentifies theircharacteristicsas:musicalmodes,choiceof singers, tunes,and
selectionofactors. Hesaysaboutacting: "Thethirdquality essentialisappropriateactiqg.
30 KAMLAKARNADKARNt
It isadifficultjob toenact allrolesably, but inthe present performancethereisnoactor
whocan beblamed and somecan even bepraised!"
Thenewspaperlnduprakashsaid:
WiththisplaytheartoftheatreisapproachingperfectionandduetoplaysofthissortpeoplewillfindtheplaY5
ofourtakpityaatalkars [i.e.,theperformersoftheoldmythological]uninterestingandtherearechancesthat
theywillrealizetherealworthoftheartoftheatre.
It seems thateverybodyhadliked Kirloskar'sexperimentsand criticshad praised him
withoutany holds barred.Dnyanprokash said:
InthesamewayKanwasustainedhischaracterverycreditablywhenShakuetalawastakingleaveofherfathet
[i.e.•Kanwal.Allthespectatorswereraptattentionitselfduringthetime that thetouchingscenewasbeing
enactedandtherewerenotafewwhowereactuallymovedtotears.Weconcludethisbriefnoticeoftht:two
performanceswiththeexpressionofourheartiestthankstoMeAnnaKlrloskarforhishavingentertainedthe
Poonapublicinthemannersetforthabove.Wehavenodoubtthatifthenativestagebeundertheableguidance
ofgentleman likeMr Kirloskar, itwillbeimproved intimeandthe tasteofthetheatre-frequentingpublic
reformed.
Mostofthe critics while discussing the Kirloskarianplay have emphasizedthe music
aspect.However,theanalysisofintrinsicdramaassuchdoesnotseemtohavebeendone.
Only Chiplunkarseems to have paidattentiontoanimportantaspectofthe performance,
namely, acting. When he says "aptacting" he seemsto have some gauge oryardstick,if
we
onlycomparedtothe loudactingof Bhavemythological.
Govind Ballal Devalcan be saidto beaplaywrightin the Kirloskartradition.He was
the acting-lUtorofactors from Kirloskar'stroupe.Hehadalsocomposedafew songsfor
Kirloskar'splays.His first play Durga is mentioned by him to be "basedon an English
play". His Sharada created the mould of the Macathi social play. But in the history of
criticism the importance of these two plays is that perhaps for the first time the terms
'developmentofplot'and 'character' wereusedincriticism.Durgawassubmittedfora
competitionheld by RajaramCollege,Kolhapur,and evengot acashprizeofRs75.One
ofthe judges.Judge Pathak, said:"The dramatic effect is well-sustained throughout the
play and the development of plot and characters is effected with considerable skill".
Whereas the critic of VividJu:nlyanvistar (March-April 1887) asked that since there is
discrepancy in the "development of characters" in Sharada, which is one of the most
importantaspectsofdrama, why shoulditbecalledaplayat all?
During 1880 to 1900 Macathi drama criticism entered its second phase. In We
beginningofthisphasetranslations fromEnglishandSanskrithad begun.AfterKirloskar
the nature of the Macathi play changed. Criticism has taken note ofall these changing
trends. The criticism of this period appeared in various newspapers and magazines like
Kesari, Dnyanprakash; Sudharak. vividhdnyanvistar, Nibandhachandrika; Keral Koki/,
etc.KeralKokilwaspublished outsideMaharashrra, but hastaken keennoticeofMacathi
plays.Though this criticism was somewhat topical ithas added to the theoretical growth
ofMarathi drama criticism. Fixed, established criteria are absent, criticism appears to
MARATHITHEATRECRITICISM 31
focus only on one ofthe aspects ofdrama, yet the reactionshave been well documented.
The sheer introductory nature of criticism began to change and critics started to
carefullyanalyzeaspectslikeplot,characterization,useofmusic,etc.andevaluatethem.
First the art and then its grammar. This rule is embodiedeven in the growth ofMarathi
drama criticism.Firstwehad translationsandthen wehad criticismaskingquestionslike
why and how. The Kirloskarian play gave rise to the discussion about the musical.
Marathidramacriticismhasimmediatelyreactedtothe changingtheatricalstimuli during
thisperiod.
1900to1920
During this period Shripad Krishna Kolhatkar was considered a big name both as a
playwrightand acritic. His first criticalwritingis on Vikram-Shashikala (1893). His last.
is perhaps the one on Sangeet Premabhas (1917). His style ofcriticismwas imitatedby
many. Kolhatkar has written Kalechya Drushtine (According to the Viewpoint ofArt),
which is a lengrhy criticism of about 600 pages on Narsintha Chintamani Kelkar's
Totayache Banda (1914). This writing was serialized in Masik Manoranjan (Year
19,1914).
Detaileddescriptionand thoroughanalysisofthe plot, minutediscussionofliterature,
societyandsocialreformsrelatingtothesubject,continuousreferencetoboththeliterary
and social background and logical approach are the characteristics of Kolhatkar's
criticism.
Kolhatkar says: "Any craftsman deliberately or unconsciously follows certain rules
whilecreatinghiswork".It·isobviousthathebelievesincertainobjectiveu~versal rules
thatexistevenbeforetheworkof art.Itisinteresting to notethat Kolhatkarhasinmost
places used the word 'craftsman' instead of 'artist'. "The science ofart can only be
perfectedby experience",says Kolhatkar. This criticalpiececonsistsoftwo parts. Inthe
firstpart he discusses the elementaryprinciples ofart and in the secondpart he analyzes
Totayache Banda according to them. These principles were accepted and followed by
many.
Kolhatkarenteredthe art sphereasacritic,Patankar,theauthorofVikram-Shashikala,
wasangeredonreadingitscriticismbyKolhatkarandchallengedhimtowriteaplay. This
habit of playwrights continues till date. The notion that one who cannot write a play
becomesacriticisatleastthisold!
Kolhatkaras aplaywrightoperatedfrom 1895 to 1905. Critics have literallyslashed
his plays and have created a small corpus of criticism of the Kolhatkarian play. In
Veertanayachi Dhaal Kolhatkarhas tried to answer the objections raised by his critics,
andhas said that contemporarycriticismisunjustandcheap,andhas also allegedthatthe
peoplewhomhe criticizedinitiallyarethemselvesretortingbycriticizinghisplays, trying
tohide behindvarious editors.
The period ofShripad Krishna Kolhatkar, Krishnaji Prabhakar Khadilkar and Ram
Ganesh Gadkari is supposed to be the golden period ofMarathi theatre. (This period is
EXCERPTS:
Achyutrao Kolhatkar'sCriticismof
RakshasiMahatvakanksha (1914)
•..TheplaySangeelRakshasiMahatvakanksha is likean actor. When there
noactorwhocanperformsinging-female rolesin adramacompany,somehoarse-'
voicedmaleforcefullydrapesashah,aridagainandagainrepeatswordslike,':'::
the scoundrelis pulling mypallu 'Similarly, Rakshasi Mahatvakanksha hils"
forcefullyputonthesindoorofpoetryonitsforeheadandhilstaken amusicalform,"
. .. ",~.
...Poetically,allscenesofMrinaliniarepraiseworthy,butwhyshouldtheKokil ,
startitssonginthemidstofthePanipat-war?
Another troublesome part in this play is the 'borrowing' of names
characters.Now,thiswordisnotasdemonliketrakshasi)as required,
theliterarysphere'theft' issupposedto beanon-respectable word, one
thewordborrowing', '
· .. Another,funny part of RakshasiBdahatvakanksha is the uncountable,
unnecessary number ofcharacters. There is no check on this number at all
characterskeeponenteririgasandwhenscenestakeplace.
• . . Shabby juxtaposing, extreme nonpatience, depiction of
submissivenessandtoostrongvalour.an~ inappropriatemusic-s-these
adetaileddescriptionofthefaultsofRakshasiMahatvakanksha.
UshaMa,flK,:L~
","'"
FAbouttbe .
•
~."AcbyutBalwantKolthatkar(1879~1931),nottobeconfusedwitbS~adKrishnam:',,~:n;;:':l
: (1871-1934), was howeveracriticandaplaywrigbtlike him. He isknownas 'S
Sandheshbeingthenewspaperpublishedbyhimsince1915.Itwasforthispaperthat
mostofhisdramareviews.Aninterestingthingtonoteisthatthiscriticlateralsotried
atplaywrighting,producingplaysandevenacting! ~.
AboutthePlay
RakshasiMahatvakanksha(1914)bythegreatfreedom-fighterWarnaJiMalharJoshiwas
fullofpraiseof heroicvaluesandhad theintention toencourage thelovefor
amongtheIndianpeople.However,fallingapreytothe traditionofthose
writtenas
MARATHITHEATRECRmClSM Jj
from 1880toabout 1918.)Khadi1kar's firstplay SawaiMadhavrao YanchaMrutyu was
publishedin vividhdnyanvistarinabout1895-96.Khadilkarcontinuouslywroteforabout
fortyyears,i.e.till 1936.He wrote 15plays.Considerablecriticism isavailableonSawai
Madahvrao Yancha Mrutyu, Vidyaharan, Sarwapariksha, Swayamvar, Draupadi and
Mmaka.KanchangadchiMohna has been ignored thoughithadadifferentstructureand
atragic note.Manapman and Bhaubandki were hits on stage, but availahle criticismon
themisscarce. i
Due to his use of mythological tales and historical facts, questions regarding the
relationshipofmythology, history and dramaarose incriticism. Khadilkar madea lotof
changes inthe original Stories and said that hedid thisfor theatrical purposes. But there
wasgreatresentmentagainstthesechanges.
Khadilkar's Sawai Madhavarao had two characters based on Hamlet and lago,
whereas Keechakvadh was a political allegory. Future critics have specially discussed
these plays. In those days Sawai Madhavarao was discussed 'as a play' by Govind
RamchandraOak and he said that itis"successful asanentenaiment"!
From thecriticism of Khadilkar'splayscertain features ofthecriticismof thosedays
become clear.The plotshouldbe credible, characterizationshould be subtle, the subject
should be communicatedin a simple way, the structureshould be like 'sculpture', unity
ofplace, time and action shouldbe maintainedor else empathywill not bearoused, and
the theatrical experience should be ultimately 'joy-giving'- these are cenain ideas that
critics ofthis perindhave expressed.
Khadilkar'splayscreated certain questionsforcriticismtoconsiderandduetothese
discussions the horizonsofcriticismwidened.For example that tragedy does notdepend
Onthe 'sorrowfulend' onlybutontheoverall dominantrasawasanewidea.Someofthe
criticism ofKhadi1kar'splays ispurelyliterarycriticismwhile some ofitisperformance
reviews.However,eveninthelatter. morethantheatricalelementsoracting,thingslike
.plot, language, problems regarding prose and verse, characterization and such others
literarypointsarecovered.
Gadkariandthepost-GadkariEra
Kolhatkar and Khadilkar were both highly educated-they were graduates! Ram
Ganesh Gadkari was not But he almost created a Gadkari era. From 1912 to 1919 he
wrotefourandahalfplays:Premsanyas,Punyaprabhav,EkacbPya/a, Bhavbandhanand
theincomplete Rajsanyas.The very first play Yedyancha Bazar waseven less thanhalf
complete. There is a vast amount of criticism.available on all these plays and fresh
criticismisevennowbeingmade.
Boundless imagination,great commandover language, larger-than-lifecharacters and
virtuosityinboth comedyand tragedyareGadkari'ssalientcharacteristics.Evennow we
haveimitationsofthe Gadkaristyle.
The discussion ofthe tragic bero and villain began with Gadkari's plays. Should a
playwright write roles for a particular actor? This controversy (which is present even
today) too began with Gadkari. (Ganpatrao Rodas has claimed that Gadkari wrote
Vrindawan-Punyaprabha\~specially for him.) Due to Premsanyas and Ekach Pya/.
discussions about tragedy continued on a more minute level. Criticism now started
consideringAristotelianpoetics.thecharacteristicsoftragedy,thereasonsfortheabsence
oftragedyintheIndiantradition,etc.Specialbookshavealsobeenwrittenonhumourin
Gadkari,
ThereisalegionofGadkariancritics,butVi.Sa. Khandekar, Na,Si. Phadke,Pra,Ke,
Atre,Ra.Sham.WalirnbeandTryan.Vi.Sardeshmukhare importantamong them.
Now, aftertheGadkari birth centenary. critics from various modem disciplines are
lookingbackandaredoingreappraisalsaswellasreassessments.
Sardesbmukh hasomitted Rajsanyas and has considered Gadkari's 'domestic plays'
(i.e.,samsaar-natke as Gadkari himself called them). His main point is that even inhis I
plays it is Gadkari's poetic faculty which is at work (Gadkari wrote poetry under the
pseudonym of 'Govindagraj'). He says that Gadkari did not borrow anything fromhis
guru Kolhatkar nor from Kirloskar, Deval or Khadilar."To the extent Gadkari reliedon
his own, independent poetic nature, without being disloyal to it, his plays became
unique."
Bhargawram Vitthal alias Mama Warerkar can be said to be a contemporary of
Kolhatkar and Khadilkar, In 1908 Warerkar's Kunjvihari was staged. He has 37 full·
length, 13one-act and six short plays to his credit apart from novels, mystery stories,
translationsofBengali novels and anautobiography- Maza Nataki Sansar.
Heexperimentedthroughouthislife.Hismainconcern was bringing socialproblems
intofocusandusingtheatre as amediumof socialchange. Onecannotmention another
Marathi dramatist whohas taken such a clearsocialstand in thepresence of adverse
situations and meagre following. (One could perbaps show certain similarities between
WarerkarandTendulkar.)Healsobadtoface venomousandample criticism.
Thosewriting'for' Warerkar'splaysfrom 1908to 1943are mostlyhisfriends!Till about
1934 hewas noteven thought to bea major playwright. In 1934Wa.La.Kulkarni wrote
inParijatakMasik:"NobodybutWarerkarhastriedtoadoptfamous novelsforthestage:
suchan attemptisneeded indeed".
Warerkarthroughout tried to bring modernity incontent, form and theatre technique.
He presentedsocial problems in dramatic form and brought in a kind of simplicityand
straightforwardness in theatre. He used unadorned language, dismissed soliloquies.
slashedthemusic,triedtomakesetsandcostumesauthentic,lessenedthedurationofthe
playand broughtitdownto threeacts.Hewasalsothefirst 'feminist' playwright!Critics
havecertainlypraisedhimforallthis,theinitiallukewarm responsehasfaded,butyetIb<
desired analysis ofhisplays has not been done,and excepting Prof. Pangoo and Vi.Sa.
Khandekar criticsofthefirst order havenot toucbed them.
Ac!,aryaaliasPea.Ke.Atreisanotherepoch-makingplaywright.He"Totebothtragedies
andcomedies,butexcelledinthelatter.Hebroughttheformsof.satire(Sashtang Namaskar)
andburlesque(Bhramacha Bhopla)ontheMarathistage. Caricaturishcharacterizationwas
hisspeciality.Healsohandled seriousissuesinalighter vein,e.g.wgnachiBedi. 1933to
1939 was Atre's peak period, but his plays are popular even today. The magazineS
MARAnlITHEATRECRITICISM 35
DnyanpraknshandNirbhidcontinuouslycreatedan atmospherearoundAtre'splays.These
playsstarteddiscussionsabouttheatretechniquesaswell.
Mo.Ga.RangnekaristhenextimportantplaywrightafterAtre,Hisforte wasthewell
made play whichportrayed problems ofthe middle class. His plays should begiventhe
creditoftrying-toarrestthe attractionof cinema.Hediscontinuedthepracticeofhaving
raagdari-basedsongsandintroducedshortsongswithsimpletunes.lieprovedthataplay
isnotto beread,butseen.Howevercriticismhasnottakennoticeofhisplaysandeven
today heremains an ignoredplaywright.
In thisperioditselfweseethatcriticismhasslowlydecreasedtobepromptingiving
detailedreactionstonewtrends.PlaywrightsofthestatureofDevalandWarerkardidnot
receive thekindofattentiontheydeserved.The criticismwhichdiscussedtheintricacies
oftheplotand the subtletiesoflanguagedidnot thoroughly approachtheproblemsofthe
socialdimensionoftheatre.
ThisWastheperiod whenthe box-setwas introducedonthe Marathi stageinSatteche
Gulam. Though this moderndevice was welcomed, nobody has mentionedorforeseen
thatwith thisfinally the naturalisticplay has arrived- neverto depart-andthatfor years
tocome,atleast in themainstream,thiswouldbe theonlygenreacceptable.Nobodyhas
"discussedthisasan'alienconcept', nobodyhassearchedforthe'Indiannessoftheatre',
Infact, inthe years to come the mythological tried to be moreandmore'naturalistic'
ratherthanbeingmoreandmore 'mythical'!
Ofcourse.theatreisameltingpot,andnationalistic,nativisticfervourdoesnotdefine
orcreatetheatre. Thereishardlyanypointindiscardingthenaturalisticplaytotallytoday.
Jristhere,andisnowalsoapart ofourtradition.(Orelsethearchandtheautomobiletoo
can neverbecalled ours.) Thepointhowever isthatwhenthistransition wastakingplace
criticismdidnotnotice itsimplications!
Acharacteristicofcriticism duringthisperiod isits length andeye fordetailwhich at
tim:es isexcessive. Theperformance aspectisnotstressedatallandaspectslikestage
decorandlighting get scarcemention. Basically this was literary criticisrn-e-even the
propertyof thespokenwordindramaisnotemphasized,Sincecriticismdependsonthe
actualkindoftheatrepractised,genrediscussiondoesnothaveaplace.Credibilityofplot,
~pressiveness (not naturalness) of language. development of characterization arethe
maincriteriaalongwith(attimes)thesocialormoralvalueandrasanukulta (i.e.•having
rasa-the criterion of theNatyashastra which even today is an essentially contested
concept). The distinction between textual criticism andperformance criticism wasnot
veryclear;infact,mostofthetimesitwasnotmadeatall.Therefore.thereinsofcriticism
went into the hands ofliterature students and not theatre people. This kind of literary
criticismofplayscontinues tilldateandleavingasideexceptionseventodaymostofthe
newspaperreviews onlydescribe theplot!(And unfortunately thedetailed analysisofthe
plotmadeduringtheseoldentimesisabsent.)
ContemporaryDramaCriticism
Up till now we tried to trace the history ofMarathi drama criticism by looking atits