I spent ten years of my life learning a popular form of Indian classical dance called "Bharatanatyam." The word itself is made up of four Sanskrit words: Bhava (expression), Raaga (music), Taala (rhythm), and Natyam (dance). Dances in this form can be in praise of gods, and they mostly tell stories through expression, music, rhythm, and dance. There is one dance in particular that I learned with my sister that told a great story. The gist of it was this:
A poet named Kanakadasa was told by the Swami he followed to go to Udupi to see the famous "Udupi Krishna," but when he got there it turned out only Brahmins were allowed in and Kanakadasa was of a lower caste. He camped out in front of the temple for days composing songs and writing poems in reverence of Krishna. One day there was an earthquake, and a crack formed in the wall. The Krishna idol mysteriously turned around to face west instead of east, and Kanakadasa could see Krishna's face through the crack. Today, there is a window where the crack was as a tribute to Kanakadasa, and now people of any caste can see the Krishna idol which still faces west. (This story comes mostly from memory but also from here.)
I really connected with this dance because for one, I had been to this temple many times before because my whole family is from Udupi. Second, I had been taught that to nail the expression aspect of Bharatanatyam, I had to somehow empathize with the character. For me, this wasn't that difficult because in this duet, as the least experienced dancer, I was Krishna and all I had to do was stand to the side and turn around slowly when the music intensified. However, I was pretty moved when I saw my sister's expressions as Kanakadasa, and it was clear that she was empathizing with him.
In today's lecture, we learned that the audience should experience the emotions of the characters without really identifying with them, otherwise, like in the Romeo and Juliet example, the production would lose it's aesthetic aspect. I can't help but wonder what the performers themselves are supposed to do. I know that expression is an important part of Indian theater and dance because I've seen my share of it. In order to make the expression meaningful and the performance easy for the audience to engage with it, the performers themselves must "get into character." That leads me to my question (which I have a feeling is based on a misunderstanding of the concept): Does the same rule of not engaging fully with the characters apply for the performers as well? How should the performers convey the intensity of the emotions in a universalized way?
A poet named Kanakadasa was told by the Swami he followed to go to Udupi to see the famous "Udupi Krishna," but when he got there it turned out only Brahmins were allowed in and Kanakadasa was of a lower caste. He camped out in front of the temple for days composing songs and writing poems in reverence of Krishna. One day there was an earthquake, and a crack formed in the wall. The Krishna idol mysteriously turned around to face west instead of east, and Kanakadasa could see Krishna's face through the crack. Today, there is a window where the crack was as a tribute to Kanakadasa, and now people of any caste can see the Krishna idol which still faces west. (This story comes mostly from memory but also from here.)
I really connected with this dance because for one, I had been to this temple many times before because my whole family is from Udupi. Second, I had been taught that to nail the expression aspect of Bharatanatyam, I had to somehow empathize with the character. For me, this wasn't that difficult because in this duet, as the least experienced dancer, I was Krishna and all I had to do was stand to the side and turn around slowly when the music intensified. However, I was pretty moved when I saw my sister's expressions as Kanakadasa, and it was clear that she was empathizing with him.
In today's lecture, we learned that the audience should experience the emotions of the characters without really identifying with them, otherwise, like in the Romeo and Juliet example, the production would lose it's aesthetic aspect. I can't help but wonder what the performers themselves are supposed to do. I know that expression is an important part of Indian theater and dance because I've seen my share of it. In order to make the expression meaningful and the performance easy for the audience to engage with it, the performers themselves must "get into character." That leads me to my question (which I have a feeling is based on a misunderstanding of the concept): Does the same rule of not engaging fully with the characters apply for the performers as well? How should the performers convey the intensity of the emotions in a universalized way?
No comments:
Post a Comment