 |
|
Posted by Dancer (128.125.53.209) on October 13, 2006 at 20:03:59:
A very confusing critique! Is the critic unhappy about the content of Padams and Javalis? No, not really, because she “adore[s] them”. Is she unhappy about the portrayal of women in Padams and Javalis? No, not really, because she understands that “these amorous themes were metaphorical references to the soul longing for God” (note that this interpretation is not really all that apolitical). Is she, then perhaps, unhappy about the performances. No, not really, because the only people who she seems to have commented upon are Bragha Bessel and Lakshmi Iyengar. Of course, it is no secret that Bragha Bessel is one of the most talented exponents of her style, and of Abhinaya, in general. A no-brainer. Lakshmi Iyengar is the critic’s competitor’s daughter. How magnanimous of her to praise Iyengar! As a result, the readers have no clue as to the quality of the performance. One can’t help wonder what the real agenda of the critic is!
Is she unhappy that this is not family entertainment with popcorn? Yes. Well, that is just plain naiveté. In a world where Harry Potters with all their elaborate and violent plots are considered to be family entertainment, one fails to understand how Padams and Javalis end up being so criminally inappropriate.
We, as children, were mature enough to learn Padams and Javalis, and watch it being performed in India all the time. But coming to the US has suddenly made the consumption of these narratives equivalent to that of pornography. Agreed, the content of Padam and Javalis is not easy for a child to understand. That is why parental guidance is requisite. Agreed, there was no letter certification clarifying the nature of the content. For a simple practical reason. One does not expect a 13-years old child to drive herself to a theater to watch a Bharatanatyam performance all by herself! If the adult accompanying the child is unable to communicate freely with her, that cannot be the artists’ responsibility. Dancers should not be expected to dumb down their work only so that Indian expat families in the US can find suitable family entertainment.
It boils down to this: No easier way to get published that to keep harping on the obvious. Yes, some padams and javalis portray women in unfavorable light. Nothing new there. Yes, some padams and javalis also talk about women taking charge, women confronting their men, women being equals, women no longer being victims. Nothing new there either. We may like or dislike the heroines of particular Padams and Javalis. That is our prerogative. But if all artists stopped portraying rapists and murderers in arts, then I guess that would be one of the greatest escapes to utopia!
Dancing about non-existent mythological figures is totally acceptable because in an unfortunate manner, these topics can be clubbed as ‘spiritual’. For a 13-year-old, understanding spirituality is as difficult as understanding infidelity. One is making a problematic quality judgment when one claims that a child needs to know about spirituality but not about infidelity. This is an offshoot of the sanctimonious culture that deems any sexually mature artistic expression unfit, yet at the same time, deems spiritually mature content absolutely fit for family consumption. Taking a child to the temple and making her follow rituals because “that is our culture” or because “the priest says so” is absolutely acceptable. No need for parental guidance there. One wonders if one would read a similar review if the evening was filled with Thyagaraja kritis.
So, Ramaa, could you please clear out your thoughts before posting it on the web and subjecting your readers to such utter confusion?
Archived message. You cannot post a reply.
All rights reserved.