The Ramayana
Now Playing At Source! Purchase tickets at www.constellationtheatre.org
-
Recent Comments
Jeff on Let Us Hear Your Thoughts on T… Rick Dodd on Let Us Hear Your Thoughts on T… Bob Schwartz on Let Us Hear Your Thoughts on T… Suchinta on The Ramayana BlueHenna on The Ramayana Anthony Garrett on The Ramayana Virginia on The Ramayana Biju on The Ramayana Barun on The Ramayana Nimai on The Ramayana Matt Eden on Let Us Hear Your Thoughts on T… Lynette Yorgey Winsl… on The Ramayana Kavi on The Ramayana Barry B. on The Ramayana kathleen on The Ramayana
I was looking forward to the Ramayana and it met my expectations. I see it as an attempt by a young theater group to connect to the Hindu culture. It was a bold, innovative and worthwhile experiment and merits the support of everyone who values good community theater and the richness it brings to the community. It should be judged entirely on its own merits, since one will be hardpressed to find a comparison.
As an Indian American, it saddens me to see that many of my fellow country men seem not to appreciate the effort.
I suppose deep in their hearts, Hindus view the epics, Ramayana and Mahabharata, as the essence of Hindu virtues and the Hindu view of life and don’t appreciate the genuine efforts of a group of young artists to understand and connect with a culture alien to them through theater.
As an Indian – American, it was a little jarring at first to not see any Indians in the cast. I realize you have a theatre company but it’s hard to see a sacred Hindu epic with no Indians. The strangest part was seeing Sita played by a blonde actress. With all of the nuances of skin color and racism, it really stood out to me that the most non-Indian looking person was playing the goddess Sita.
That said, I really enjoyed the play. I really appreciated your interest in my culture and in bringing it to life in my town. I loved Lakshman. I really really loved Tom Teasely and was very impressed and taken by his scores. As the play progressed, I was able to get more into it and let go of my initial reactions. I enjoyed the interpretation and am very appreciative of the very large feat to capture the Ramayana, a long long story.
I found myself aware of the mispronunciations of critical words like Sita which would be pronounced “Seetha”. A suggestion is to consult more with Indians to truly understand the nuances. Saying a name correctly makes all the difference. I understand some sounds are too difficult to get but Sita is not one of them – we have the “th” in the English language.
All in all, great show. I actually am drawn to the post-show discussion and will try to make it again.
Thank you for caring about this wonderful story that so many don’t know about!
While I respect all reactions, both positive and negative, I found the play quite offensive. I can understand artists trying to connect with a foreign culture and story can be a challenge, but I think when choosing something as well known and revered as the Ramayana, there comes a responsibility which at the least, entails, respecting the integrity of the tale and the sanctity of its message.
Below are more of my thoughts
in article form)
Think of the Virgin Mary: an iconic symbol of purity and piety. Think of her sweating and rolling in bed with a demon, purportedly enjoying it. What if the demon had a perverted son inclined to fantasize about such things? Think of him violently thrusting his pelvis and groping himself as he describes his demonic father’s encounter with the holy Mary. Now stop thinking about it; for, it is so utterly offensive. Yet, the image I described isn’t some base example I conjured up to make a point. It’s a very real scene straight from Peter Oswald’s Ramayana, except the fantasy isn’t about Mary, it’s about Sita – a Hindu goddess, revered for her virtue and worshipped by million of Hindus.
The Ramayana is a sacred religious text recounting the life of Lord Rama. Rama, a prince by birth, is exiled to the forest for 14 years by his jealous stepmother, Kaikeyi, so that her own son may ascend to the throne. Rama bravely and graciously accepts his stepmother’s wishes. Joined by his brother Lakshman and wife Sita, the trio face tremendous hardship in the forest, but Rama remains unaffected by all obstacles. One day while Rama is out hunting, Sita is kidnapped by the demon-king Ravana. Thus begins Rama’s quest to recapture his wife, and Sita’s unwavering resolve to protect herself from her demonic captors.
The Ramayana is studied by millions for its profound spiritual message, rich symbolism, and Lord Rama’s exemplar behavior in His human form. Somewhere between Rama referring to Kaikeyi as a “whore” and Sita gyrating in her glittery halter top, the profundity of this tale is lost on Oswald. In short, Oswald and the Constellation Source Theater Company have crossed the line— Or should I more aptly say, they have stepped my “lakshman-rekha” and it’s time to feel the fire.
Let’s start with the costume design. When Kaikeyi makes her request to banish Rama, she insists that Rama shed his royal garb and replace it with loincloths worn by ascetics. Rama happily renounces his finer garments and jewels to fulfill her wishes. Lakshman and Sita follow suit showing solidarity and loyalty to their Lord. In this watershed moment, Rama, Lakshman, and Sita’s abandonment of material luxuries marks their shift from royalty to asceticism. Now fast-forward Source Constellation’s rendition: Sita is prancing around wearing a backless halter bedazzling in diamonds from head to toe while she sits in her hut. Rama and Lakshman are fending off demons wearing gold arm bands and colorful silks. Normally, costumes lend themselves to some flexibility; however, in a tale about sacrifice, hardship, and controlling temptation, I think leaving the gold behind would’ve been a good idea. It also would have served to emphasize a key attribute of Rama’s greatness—his detachment from the material world. The failure to capture this, while in itself may not be considered wholly offensive, was misleading and entirely inappropriate as it foolishly overstepped an integral message of the story as well as contradicted Rama’s character.
Next, we turn to Oswald’s dialogue. In one scene the demon guards harass Sita by telling her she is hardly fit to “satisfy Rama’s needs.” Then they remind us that Rama is God, and therefore he needs “1000 women a day” and would enjoy watching them “dance naked before him.” Thank you Oswald for highlighting Rama’s virility, that’s certainly his most admirable divine attribute. In another scene alluded to at the opening of this piece, Inderjeet, Ravana’s son describes Sita and Ravana engaging in sexual acts and does not fail to emphasize how much Sita enjoys every minute while their “bed rocks.”
I can understand that as a playwright, Oswald is out to entertain and perhaps inform. But by referring to and acknowledging Rama as God, he establishes the character’s divinity in his play. He then tears it down by humanizing Rama to the grossest extent such that the essence of his character is distorted. Although the aforementioned dialogue was delivered by the demons, did Oswald really have to resort to crassly sexualizing our Gods, simply to appeal to the West? If Oswald wanted to make a farce of the Ramayana so be it. However, the play is presented as a classic albeit with a Western spin, and yet the liberties Oswald takes wholly robs the tale of its sanctity and message. Oswald is free to tell any story he wishes, but if he is going to ride the glory of the Ramayana, then as a playwright, the least he could do was “play right.”
Aside from these indiscretions, overall Oswald simply fails to understand many of the characters or even develop them appropriately. For example, anyone with even a basic knowledge of the Ramayana would know that Mandodhari, Ravana’s wife, was considered extremely pious, and occasionally, even compared to Sita for her goodness. However, Oswald really did a number on Mandodhari. Aside from being fondled by other demons in the background when Ravana is not looking, she is portrayed as cunning, manipulative, and vulgar. While she was actually quite sympathetic to Sita’s plight, Oswald’s Mandodhari, is just a vindictive instigator.
Then there are the monkeys, and of course, most important of all, Hanuman. The army of monkeys is literally a band of monkeys that help Lord Rama and Lakshman recapture Sita. While this may sound loopy to the West, Rama’s dynamic with the monkeys carries much symbolism. Despite their imperfect habits and frivolity, Rama befriends them and helps them realize their potential. However, Oswald portrays the monkey army as unsophisticated drunkards swigging alcohol and running amuck. Additionally, Hanuman, Rama’s most ardent follower, is also mischaracterized by Oswald. Hanuman is shown as meek, naïve, and even cowardly at times. He is an outright laughing stock several points in the play. By no measure, does Oswald convey the depth of Hanuman –his valiance, his loyalty, and his unparallel strength. Moreover, though Hanuman’s sole mission is to serve Ram and Sita, he himself, is worshipped as a God by Hindus. Yet again, Oswald makes a mockery of him without reluctance.
After the play, I found out that the play originated in London and has been running for 10 years. Sadly, I did not come across a single review condeming the overt disrespect and tastelessness of this play. Undoubtedly, I am a practicing Hindu and was personally insulted by this unabashed mockery of our sacred text. However, if Rama headed to the forest for 14 years without resenting Kaikeyi, I can forgive Oswald. I don’t resent Oswald or the Constellation Source Theater, but I hold them responsible for presenting such a poorly crafted play and for perpetuating the ignorance. While I cannot undo what has been done, moving forward, here is my plea: spread the awareness. Honor your heritage and should you encounter acts of darkness toward any faith, light the path to truth.
Let’s say an Indian or Asian theater group in the U.S. committed to multiculturalism (does such exist?) were to conceive, script and stage a show with a Biblical theme – say the fable about Saint John’s spiritual journey to India (St. Thomas Mount in Madras) – I have no doubt that an American or European audience would applaud the effort and it would be graciously received – why are we Indians so goddamn closed minded about how Rama and Sita should be portaryed?
I love intimate community theater and realize the effort that went into producing Ramayana – Constellation Theater should be applauded, recognized and supported by the Indian community, and not criticized for not finding an Indian to cast, and not being authentic in its interpretation – Pleeeeeease, Desis – GROW UP!
Many thanks to Anjali and everyone who is posting their responses to The Ramayana.
I have a textual clarity note I feel I must post as the Director.
The word “whore” is not in Oswald’s script, nor in our production. Bharatha calls his mother “cunning” yet Rama never refers to Kaikeyi at all.
It is not unusual for individual words to be misunderstood, but I felt I needed to correct that idea as I can imagine how offensive it would be if Rama were to use that language about his stepmother.
Thank you again for being part of the discussion.
Allison, Thank you for your clarification- and I apologize for mishearing- but I was almost certain I distinctly heard Rama use that word at one point. Nonetheless, of course you have the script and know the play. There is a point when he is speaking to Lakshman when it seems in a fit of anger that he says that, but clearly a misunderstanding on my part. I want to further commend you for providing this forum and allowing for all viewpoints to be expressed– I appreciate it.
I realized last night what line caused the confusion, and just wanted to clarify – Rama says “Where is my mother? Weeping in Ayodhya over the horror that destroyed our father.” It’s unfortunate that that particular mishearing is possible on that line! I thought you (and anyone else reading) might like to know where the misunderstanding occurred.
I am so pleased that this production has sparked such fantastic and engaging conversation.
As the actor portraying Hanuman and as a born and raised American, I must say this production has been one of the most terrifying, challenging, and rewarding shows I’ve ever had the honor of working on.
The “West” especially America was founded on being a melding pot for all societies. I am sure that ideal has been lost in the eyes and minds of most of the rest of this modern world. However, for those of us American artists, who hear these sacred texts and read these long beloved tales from foreign lands for the first time, we are moved and motivated. And, moved and motivated in the only way we know how, from our souls.
Our translations and pronunciations may differ, what one sees as cowardly another portrays as defensive. We live and have been raised in different times and cultures. And yet, we are all moved by these ancient texts. Why?
Because, we are all human beings. Black, white, brown, red, and blue. We are here to experience and share, and hopefully grow.
When I accepted the role of Hanuman I was honored and terrified to take on a true God that is revered by a massive part of the world, of which I’ve never visited or had any experience with. I did all the research that was reasonably accessible to me. I read and discussed and believed in creating a true depiction of something none of us, American, Indian, Monkey has ever really come in contact with; a God on Earth.
Interpretations may differ. Results and satiation are very different things.
I know at the heart of this production there is just that, a Heart. A genuine need to respect the history of The Ramayana and it’s central messages of over-coming great obstacles no matter the cost, love of all beings, and a true devotion to that what you hold most dear.
I love this production, for better or worse and I thank you all for your desire to express what’s in your heart.
Namaste.
I can appreciate all the viewpoints on this forum; however, i must say, that i completely agree that the play was a desecration of a classic epic. At many points in the play, I felt that the characters were mocked and the deeper message was lost in some of the crass dialogue. Several other audience members were left confused and disappointed at this poorly construed, unentertaining and misleading drama. Ironically, a non-Hindu American girl sitting in the audience, turned around during the intermission and exclaimed – “This is disgusting. Why is it that whenever Americans hear a story that has somewhat of a romantic plot, they have to sexualize it?!” So many facets of this play reflect a strong tendency to inject American “pop-culture-esq” strains into virtually any kind of entertainment. In other words, the play is a stark example of a frequently committed Western offense– exoticized portrayals of Hinduism further fueling the ignorant “caste, cows and curry” characterizations. While someone may want to defend this play as “just an interpretation” or a “honest attempt by the ignorant westerner,” I hold artists in a higher regard, and do not think it appropriate for them to take refuge under such veils. I cannot applaud a performance that fails to recognize that injecting the Ramayana with inappropriate language, graphic sexuality, and insulting innuendos, is nothing short of disrespecting an ancient story with a timeless and sacred message.
I was pretty torn watching this play.
On the one hand, it is great that there is an opportunity for non-Hindus to get exposure to the Ramayana; most of my non-Indian friends have never heard of it and cannot grasp the significance of this work in our culture. I appreciate the effort of this theater troupe to bring it a new audience.
On the other hand, I don’t think seeing this would help a non-hindu appreciate the work. It neither reflected the storyline and characters , nor the spirit of the Ramayana as I was raised to understand it. I learned it as a complex story where the characters and plots reflect the challenges of our daily lives – what is duty, honor, virtue,– and I think it is one of those stories you hear many times before absorbing all of its messages.
The playwright did not tell the story in a time-linear fashion, so many of my companions were literally found the plot confusing. He jumps out of the action/plot to editorialize. I thought personally these were kind of strange — in fairness no one has a universal interpretation on the ramayana any more than there is one on the bible– but as someone new to this epic, you should be informed that there are many other interpretations beyond his.
Of course, A 3 hr play version of the new testament would be hard to do justice to its moral lessons and complexities as well. I think the playwright tried to do too much and his focus was on stuff that is pretty fringe from the persective of most hindus ( ie all the hypersexuality– the focus on the lakshman-sita innuendos threw me for a loop).
As for the production — seems an Indian/ hindu was not consulted, re the casting, pronunciation, costumes, etc. , but that’s OK; for me it was easier watching a blonde woman acting out sita in that strange way than to see an indian actress in that role.
I would not take someone to this and tell them it was a tellign of the ramayana; I would call it a british play based on the plot of the ramayana, which is interesting as an artistic endeavor but not a reflection of indian thought and culture.
A point of clarification to Sarita and anybody else wondering about this: We did, in fact, have an Indian dramaturg working on the play with us – Gaurav Gopalan, who is himself a practicing Hindu. He was at many of the rehearsals, and he gave extensive notes to Allison during the production process.
On the subject of pronunciation, my understanding, from him, is that there are many different ways some of the character names are pronounced in different areas of India (for instance, the pronunciation of Sita he taught us had a “t” sound that was, to my ears, halfway between a “t” and a “d” – nowhere close to a “th”). The actors all worked very hard to pronounce various character names in the ways Gaurav taught us – though I am sure that some of the mispronunciations were our errors!
yes that is true, India is diverse and in the south we always say ‘rama’ and in the north they say ‘ram’. I also wouldn’t expect the actors to accent everything right, i admit that is hard.
I guess the combined effect of western actors & western accents — sita supposedly in the forest in that sparkly ghaghra with her hair down is like seeing the virgin mary in a slinky evening gown in the manger with the baby jesus– it all adds up to make it seem less authentic.
again, its not a disrespect to the hard work of the cast; it just didn’t feel true to the original if that was your intent.
I knew next to nothing about the Ramayana prior to seeing Constellation’s production. I’d seen beautiful paintings in art museums and pieced a few story elements together from reading curatorial comments, but I had basically just a soup of images and incidents.
The production gave me a sense, however faint, of the sweep of the story. For me, Rama, Sita, Lakshman, and Hanuman remain characters in a story; but they did become characters who embodied particular virtues. Rama embodied divine perspective, self control, and tenacity of purpose. Sita embodied kindness and willingness to sacrifice oneself. Lakshman embodied devotion to a duty accepted. Hanuman embodied the desire to overcome one’s own animal nature and pursue higher things. Those must be only a few facets of the importance of these figures to someone who grew up with them; but going from knowing nothing to knowing that much feels valuable to me.
None of what I’m saying is intended to draw attention away from the perspective of those who came to this production from a place of knowledge and therefore were able to see what was wrong with it. Just wanted to add the perspective of someone who came to it from a place of ignorance.
to peter:
Interesting to get your perspective. My other friends could not follow the plot, so I am really impressed how you picked up those aspects of the characters based what you saw, if you really don’t have any background on hindu philosophy or previous knowledge of the story.
Maybe because I had an idea of what should be there, what was striking to me was the specifics that did not belong.
hopefully more of the non-hindu audience saw what you saw.
I believe many of the changes Oswald made were to try to make the story understandable to the Western audience. In attempting to translate across such a cultural gulf, I suppose he faced hard decisions: if he is too faithful to the original, differing cultural values may make it too alien for the Western audience (we have all but lost the concept of “duty” as a moral value, for instance); but if he alters too much, then the whole thing is lost.
I think the sexual language and suggestiveness, mainly from the demons, was to give the Western audience reason to dislike the demons, and to recognize them as the badguys, it being very traditional, I think, in Western stories for demons to be sexualized, and for the good guys to be chaste, demure and faithful. I am not certain how the demons behave in the original, of course, but that is what I got: that these demons would go to any lengths to humiliate the pure and honorable Sita, and so we should be glad when they are at last defeated.
I suppose, in the end, the question might be whether the experience of the story in the mind of a Western viewer, seeing Constellation’s version, is the equivalent of that of a Hindu viewer seeing/reading the original – if the Westerner attributes the same traits to the same characters and sees the same kind of values as being taught, despite – or because of – the alterations. If so, Oswald and Constellation have done their job as interpreters.
I of course can’t judge whether it comes close, not knowing the original; I can say what I experienced and ask whether it matches up with the original intent. On that note, I definitely agree with Peter on his interpretations of the characters; I saw Rama, Lakshman, Sita and Hanuman as embodying those same virtues, and found them likable. In particular, Hanuman was my favorite character; I greatly enjoyed his character arc, in which he progressed from being a decent individual who is simply unsure of himself and his monkey nature to a confident leader and hero.
I would, out of curiosity, ask of those familiar with it – do the good characters such as Lakshman have flaws (which they overcome) in the original? In many Western classic epics, the good and the bad are drawn in stark contrast; the good are good and the bad are bad. The sensibility of the contemporary, Western, theatregoing audience, I think, prefers more flawed characters in conflict with themselves as much as each other; I’ve definitely seen modern adaptations of Western classics like Beowulf or the Iliad that turn characters who originally were pure, unconflicted and good into more flawed human beings. I suspect, assuming the Ramayana possessed the same clarity of morality in its original form, that Oswald had the same impulse, for better or worse, and that this impulse is to blame for the criticism that Hanuman was able to draw laughter, etc.
To conclude this little dissertation, I think the fairest criticism (from where I sit) to lob at the play and the adaptation is in its concessions to the Western audience’s desire for spectacle and exotic foreign costumes. From what some have said above, it does sound like interpolations like drunken monkeys and sexual innuendoes are Oswald’s inventions, and that the manner of dress in this production, etc., are not traditional; and I would guess that these choices were made for the mere sake of entertainment. Which is definitely questionable, albeit perhaps understandable.
To conclude the conclusion, I just want to say that I’m not trying to apologize here for the production or adaptation; merely to ascertain what the underlying reasons Oswald and Constellation had for the changes which have drawn criticism. If the play was an offense and/or a misaimed cultural apporpriation, at the very least we should try to understand why it became so.
To turn up Ramayan in 2.5 hours is a monumental task. While in India, I have seen Ram Leela (story of Ramayan) played over 9 nights (4 hours of play each night), this play was super impressive. I have done a lot of research on Indian mythology (for lack of a better term), I was impressed by the details that were captured by the team.
North Indians use ‘Ram’, ‘Sita’ etc and South Indians use ‘Rama’, ‘Sitha’ etc. With my limited knowledge, I think this stems from the varied interpretation of these words in Sanskit.
I am a traditionalist and was skeptical to attend this play, and I was ready to walk out if the play was insulting to my culture. However, I did NOT, I attended the entire play even after the fire-alarm went off at one point of time.
There were so many events mentioned in the play that are not usually captured, so a lot of research was done to produce this play. The scene where Sita gives her radiance to Agni is less known, most of the Indians also are not aware of this. So I was glad that this was potrayed. To show that Hanuman was a special monkey (the discussion before he flies to Sri Lanka) was quite impressive as well.
Every time someone touches a religious text and creates a piece of art, there are people who criticize, and certainly there were minor points in the play where I was not quite sure as to what the message was. And thats ok, even in India (having born and grown up in India), we have seen some discrepancies each time when the play is performed.
I am very happy that I got a chance to see this, this was one of the best plays that I have attended in the past 10 years of my life in USA and congratulations to the team!
Rupen
All these comments and critiques have me really excited to see this show! I’m not religious and see the job of the theatre to tell stories, not enforce dogma, but there’s no denying that the story is one that is close to the heart of a whole people and their religion. I’m glad I can go into this story with open eyes and mind, something that would be very difficult for me to do if the story was about Jesus or Mary, etc. I look forward to being entertained, but hopefully educated as well.
I know very little about ancient Indian culture, but what struck me from the very first moments of this production was the universality of this play. The need to fight and overcome an evil that destroys a society, even when it seems impossible. And the music was simply divine – I was entranced as much by it as the performance. I also was surprised that Sita was played by a blonde actress, but as the play progressed I realized how vulnerable her light skin and long golden hair made her appear. And didn’t Rama ultimately reject her? Sending her into the wilderness pregnant with twins? Perhaps the two were mismatched from the very beginning.
As someone with a very limited understanding of Indian culture and/or the Ramayana, I feel the characters, as portrayed, convey a great deal about humanity. I saw the demons as the dark side of being human while Rama, Sita, and Lakshman represent the good and/or holy. The sexuality, I felt, was simply an aspect of the primitive lust in humanity while the tension between Lakshman and Sita showed how its impact strikes even the “good.” Each of the characters in his/her own way, struggles with what life presents to them — from Sita and Rama having to give up what/who they are (their royalty and/or their divinity, as portrayed in the performance) to Mandodari being torn by the destruction of her way of life through Ravana’s actions while she simultaneously tries to transcend the baser parts of her own nature to embrace what Rama and Sita symbolize. Hanuman, in some ways – to me at least, represents the struggle we mere mortals have embracing change and growth to become more than we believe we can be. I cannot speak to the success or failure of the script in adhering to the original source material, but I believe the play as a whole was visually impressive, professionally performed, entertaining, and thought-provoking. There isn’t much more I could have expected from an evening at the theatre.
I guess I just want to urge those who comment on this interpretation of The Ramayana to consider the intent of those who produced, directed, and acted in the play. I don’t believe they were out to distort or wildly misconstrue a sacred Hindu text. I am grateful they chose to learn about the Ramayana and I credit them for their best efforts. I have never (and this is sad but true) seen an Indian play being shown at a theatre in my neighborhood. While I agree with those who took issue with some of the portrayals and interpretations of our gods and goddesses, I do commend this talented group of actor and directors for trying. Honestly, I don’t think they had any idea that it could be so offensive to some. I am happy that they consulted with one Indian. I believe they should’ve consulted with many. I don’t know that condemning them for trying helps to perpetuate anything useful. We are all ignorant in our own ways. An open dialogue is very useful but some of the tone of these responses is hostile. This group opened this forum and that is quite courageous. We want our messages to be heard not to put the cast and producers on the defensive. They’ll never want to do an Indian play again!!
And if you’ve seen any Hindu movies or even the soap operas that are out there today, there are many similar problems. Our own arts and media perpetuate mysogyny and internalized racism. Women are degraded. The lower class is degraded. And those with darker skin are degraded. Quite consistently. Perhaps that’s why we feels so enraged. It’s always easier to lash out at the “other”. What about looking at the injustices rooted within our own culture?
To Joe, the actor who played Hanuman, thank you for your thoughtful comments. It would be terrifying to play a god on earth! I’d like to hear from more of you. And I invite you, too, to speak candidly. I will soon start rehearsal for a play in which I, an Indian-American, will play an English woman. I know already how much effort I am putting into getting familiar with it and I am quite mesmerized by the play. I don’t think I’ll do so well in portraying Mary Chalmers but I know I’ll do my best and I would really hope that the underlying universal human themes that connect us all would not be lost in the conversation.
As someone who took to the sands of Bombay’s Chowpatty beach every Dassera, from the age of 4 to 15, to witness the local Ramleela spectacle, awed by every scene that unfolded on that expansive stage, from Hanuman’s flight over the beach with his tale on fire to the final igniting of the 40 plus foot Ravana effigy set off by Rama’s arrow, your play is the closest I’ve come to re-living the excitement of those childhood nights spent in the company of Ram, Lakshman, Sita and Hanuman. I was fully absorbed in your rendition of Ram’s story — from the one-man orchestra to the antics of the monkey’s and the demons. The sexuality, even vulgarity in the play washed over me — nothing mattered as I anticipated the various moments that shine through the story. Ram’s godly humanness, his compassion, stoic outlook and then inconsolable grief over the loss of Sita, Lakshman’s fierce loyalty, the tragedy with Bali, and Hanuman’s self-realization and bravery, and Garuda’s ultimate sacrifice. I’m sure there are various ways to improve on Oswald’s rendition. Whatever form, and however imperfect, flawed and incomplete — Ram’s story was bought back to me that evening at the Source theatre.
I am an Indian who learnt his Ramayana from my granmother four decades ago. As some one who is quite far away from the world of theatre, I am glad that my friend invited me to this play, although I was on a very brief visit to the US. I enjoyed the effort, and found the one man orchestra very effective. And I had my doubts as to how some Indians may see the play, and this has been borne out by some of the comments by Indian in this blog, as well.
My only criticism would be that perhaps in an effort not to offend some Hindu sensibilities, you highlighted the divinity in Ram, and caricatured Ravana in contrast.
According to Hindu mythology, gods invariably suffer from human follies. And Ram, as an avataar who had to come to earth to remove an evil power, had quite a few of the human traits. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why Ram is not worshiped, even in privacy of one’s homes, by many Indians. The public Ram Leela events apart, there are not many major temples associated with Ram, and many of the sites associated with Ramayana have not become major places of pilgrimage in India. Although there is a 1300 year old Kodandarama temple near Chennai, in south India, which is dedicated to Rama. Perhaps the most famous one is the Bhadrachallam temple in Andhra Pradesh. Incidentally, there are a couple of temples dedicated to Ravana as well, mostly in north India.
Likewise, Ravana was not all evil, either. Ravana’s devotion had pleased the gods so that he was given such a powerful boon, and though he had kidnapped Sita, he did not force himself on her.
Indian mythologies typically, do not chart a clear line between good and bad. Indeed, the purpose of these stories seem to be to challenge the readers to rise and take the responsibility of drawing their own lines, and bearing the responsibility for it.
I wish the Constellation Theatre all the best, and I hope this play will trigger new interest and honest inquiry in to the meanings underlying the oldest epic in the world.
The Ramayana is an epic that is interpreted differently in different parts of India (north, south and east each have their own versions), and in different parts of the world (the Indonesian Ramayana features different storylines and characters). But they all inspire the same – very human – feelings of recognition, awe, respect, reverence, humo(u)r, anxiety, anger, fear, and sadness that it is the function of epics to evoke. This production does the same thing – it is like none of the Ramayanas I have ever seen and yet inspires the same mix of feelings. The production itself is superb – passionate, heartfelt, and honest in a way that all good theatre aspires to be. In many ways it is a genuinely American Ramayana – different from the various Indian versions, or the Indonesian. The story is familiar but the ethos and style are very American – layered on a text by a fine British playwright. One of the best evenings at the theatre I have had in a long time – and yes I would even compare it to the landmark Peter Brook production of the Mahabharata (the other great Indian epic) which I saw at the BAMA in the late 80s. Congratulations – from a practicing Hindu was not only not offended, but moved and enlightened.
I went to see this play because it was the first opportunity I had to begin to get acquainted with one of the great classic pieces of literature or poetry or theater of Hindu India. I did not expect that a 2 or 3 hour production could tell the whole story adequately, but I wanted a start. I got a good one.
Despite the actress’s excellent performance, it did bother me that the person with the lightest skin and hair of anyone in the cast had the role of a pure, perfect Hindu goddess. Racism (or whatever you call prejudices based on skin color) is still so pervasive, I would have preferred to see an Indian actress in that role. (In case you care, I have very light skin and light red hair.)
The story – just the plot line and characters – was a very engaging story, great to watch, except that too much time was wasted on low comedy monkey business that did not advance the story or help convey the spiritual or moral messages one might find in it. The production left me wanting to read a good translation of the Ramayana to gain a somewhat better understanding of this important spiritual tradition, with its messages about divinity, loyalty, self discipline, compassion, deep longing to pursue spiritual growth, and profound forgiveness.
If I understood it correctly, the ending of the play carried a message sadly foreign to many individuals in Western audiences. Ram’s purpose and action were not based on a desire for revenge. Ram freed Ravana from his deliberately pursued dedication to and acquisition of evil power and made it possible for Ravana to redeem himself and return to God. So many Western stories (movies, plays, books, etc.) are based on the myth of redemptive violence – the erroneous idea that beating up or killing a bad guy is righteous and makes everything OK again – it was great to see a story in which the very powerful ultra-bad guy was pure enough to resist forcing himself on Sita if she did not want him, and the hero who could have indulged in the pursuit of vengeance instead helped his enemy return to good. If Christians pay attention to what Jesus taught, they will find the same message, but many American movies and other artistic efforts glorify violent vengeance, not virtue.
I am grateful to Constellation Theatre for introducing this sacred Hindu epic to an American audience.
My wife and I had seen The Ramayana performed outside in Jogjakarta and Bali, so we had low expectations for the DC performance at Constellation Theater.
However, we were thrilled and delighted with Constellation’s gripping approach to this classic inspirational story. I am not at all an expert in theater but I found the music, costumes, acting, use of set design, to be uplifting and left me with a sense of wonderment. It also made me want to think more about the issues The Ramayana raised.
I will not soon forget the performances of the actors playing Rama, Sita, Hanuman, the demons large and small, and the hilarious monkeys. I thought the performance of the magical deer was precious.
My only request is that you hold over the production and don’t end it so soon! My friends are coming to town and I want to share it with them.
With much Gratitude/Namaste
Anthony
In the last week of May 2010 I attended/suffered/was entertained/horrified by Constellation Theatre’s production of Ramayana.
My husband’s reaction to the play epitomizes my queasiness about its production — “I don’t see what the big deal is; it’s not like the play is religious or anything.” I sucked in my breath, counted to three and then in detail explained why Ramayana is, in fact, the quintessential religious play.
The play represented so much of what is wrong and what is right about the portrayal of Indian culture in America. First of all, there were no Indians at all in the huge cast. Not one. Not one. Having several Indian-Americans actor friends and knowing how difficult it is to be cast in any roles, to not even have one Indian in a play about Hinduism is beyond reproach. Really, not one Indian-American actor was good enough to be cast? Or, help out with the stiff and awkward pronunciation of names and places? (at least the dramaturg was Indian)
Hinduism unlike the evangelical religions of Christianity and Islam is firmly rooted in a place, in a people, in a culture. A nativity play cast solely with African-American actors is certainly fine. A Japanese Noh play cast with only Brazilian actors is incongruous.
Beyond the casting, which still infuriates me a week later, was the licentious approach to the sacred text. Yes, there was mention of the incarnation of Ram as a god in mortal form and of other central Hindu teachings. What seared in my mind, though, was the utter vampish behavior of the actors playing Hindu gods. I winced and looked away when the actors rolled around on the ground and graphically described sexual acts.
When it comes to theater, I’m no prude. I’ve seen far more profane works with almost total nudity. But, I also believe in respect and acknowledging sacred as sacred.
That was the bad. The good was at least some people outside of the Indian-American community, their American spouses, and religion/philosophy majors were exposed to Ramayana. Granted an adulterated Ramayama, but Ramayama nonetheless.
Constellation Theatre did create an excellent production, with all the caveats listed above. The costumes, while sometimes inaccurate, were well done. The live music was charming and engaging. The actors made a sincere effort; the audience rooted for Ram and reviled Ravana. They took an imaginative approach and it was successful as a play, but not perhaps as a depiction.
For those of us who are exposed to Indian culture at an early age but grew up in the States, it was lovely to see Ramayana in live form. For Americans, I hope many of them said “huh?” “really?” and went to learn more about the spiritual teachings of Ramayana.
I am originally from Sri lanka, and loved seeing this ancient story being told outside the cultural context, so that the archetypal rather than cultural aspects of the story are presented to broader audiences. Bravo!!! .Beautifully done!!!! I wanted the Director, cast and crew to know that we all thoroughly emjpyed hte production. I look forward to future productions.
All the best!
Suchinta