Copy-paste theatre

I have been attending the Bareeri workshop (theatre criticism workshop) at Ranga Shankara for the past three days. The Company Theatre's Numbers in the dark was taken as the premise for 9 critics to critique and brainstorm. For the workshop, Keval Arora and Sadanand Menon asked us to write a review of Atul Kumar's latest production. The original review i wrote is as below:

"The Company Theatre's devised production for Ranga Shankara Theatre Festival 2006 "Numbers in the dark" literally held a mirror to the audience and raised a few critical questions. The brochure cites the writings of Italo Calvino, Harold Pinter, Complicite and Jeanette Winterson as inspiration, and materials for adaptation. What is the meaning and responsibility understood by a Company when they decide to employ the definition "inspired and adapted from"?

We were each given a leaf on entering the auditorium and after a successive mirror-reflection of the immobile mass of spectators as against a lone artiste born to struggle, an introductory piece followed. By the end of the 10-minute monologue, a realization struck that except for the bits irrelevant to an Indian audience, it has been a verbatim performance of the very engaging introduction of Complicite's 1999 original production 'Mnemonic'. Including the leaf. Is this how we should now start to define an ‘inspired and adapted’ theatrical piece: without the new perception a hopeful audience looks forward to; not unlike the copy-paste job that a processor allows us? Or did The Company Theatre presume that it would be playing to a gallery of immobile spectators and not much is necessary except for the spectacle? My only perception was the uncanny coincidence. Simon McBurney had staged Ionesco’s The Chairs before the production of ‘Mnemonic’ and it is mentioned in the original script. The Company Theatre has also staged The Chairs a few weeks ago in Mumbai and Bangalore. This is as surreal as the production was incongruous. Keeping aside the artistic ruminations, what comes next is the very technical question of copyright. Ideas have no copyright, so the idea of the leaf cannot be faulted. I am assuming that a responsible group like The Company Theatre has taken the right permission from the right people to perform the 10-minute monologue of ‘Mnemonic’ as well as the rest of ‘inspired and adapted’ pieces used to stitch the production together. Recently, Bangalore theatre has seen a spate of copyright issues regarding theatrical productions and another addition would not be a feather in the cap.

The production value of ‘Numbers in the dark’ is definitely higher than the usual fare. The precise, surprise element which has become the trademark of The Company Theatre’s visual production was evident in more than generous proportions. The fragmented shadows cast by the black strips hanging in the background; the double reflection of light from the mirror the actors constantly peer at; the bright yellow light of a singular bulb enveloping the melodramatic recital of possible murders and manipulation; the dull, icy white light flooding the interrogation scene; the rain of white mini-parachutes in the final crescendo arrested the audience and possibly became a clever substitute for the lack of integrity in content and intention. It is however laudable the way seven amateur actors managed to hold the performance together, unlike the uninterested performance given by professional actors the other evening."

I was told The Company Theatre had applied to the British Council, Italian Embassy etc etc for the rights to perform and that Atul Kumar had apprenticed with Complicite etc etc. Yes, thats good news and what we expect from a reputed company when they perform for a national festival. The copyright issue became a major point of discussion and I was informed about Laurence Liang's Copyleft project which denounces the idea of copyright. We all know the state of Indian Theatre when it comes to monetary advantages. We know how amateur theatre struggles to mount a production. But in the name of 'inspired and adapted from', is it justified to lift 10 pages of script without batting an eyelid and performing it verbatim? What is the basic meaning of 'inspiration' or 'adaptation'? I know for sure that it doesn't mean 'copy-paste'. I have seen Simon performing the piece on tape and as the actor in Numbers in the dark, he addresses the audience like a moderator. Not only the text but the performance itself has been transported in its original format. Except that Simon was wearing a shirt (and coat) and our Indian actor an overall. What complication or difference in perception has 'Numbers in the dark' introduced in its performance of Mnemonic? Nothing. This disturbs me as a playwright, as a critic and as an audience. Yes, we will leave the financial angle of royalty and copyright because we are all so poor. But where is the creative process, goddamnit? What do I look forward to here as a member of the audience?

We are all writers (and actors and directors) here. Each of us know about the endless hours we spend even to get a 2-minute scene on stage right. It would be wonderful if what we write inspire other artistes and lead them to create something more or different from our piece. Playwrights anyway are never paid anything here, so just the possibility of starting a creative conversation makes us happy and feed our hunger. But what do we do when a director takes all our lines and directions (basically our play) and plonk them on stage and call it an inspiration/adaptation? I think an old foggy from early 20th century (and earlier) would call it disrespect. At this age, respect is such a vile word.

PEOPLE, I AM TRAVELLING FOR THE NEXT TWO WEEKS. SO PLEASE CONTINUE THIS CONVERSATION. IF POSSIBLE I WILL ALSO JOIN IN ON AND OFF.