Opinion How Peter Brook’s ‘Mahabharata’ helped us to shake off colonial ways of looking at epics

Brook did not remain within any particular school of drama. His focus was the renovation of theatre, space and time, and the modalities of appropriation. He meticulously appropriated Jean Cocteau and Antonin Artaud on stage. Artaud’s Theatre of Cruelty found new meaning with Brook. By critiquing the old practices of costume designing and the role of the body, Brook’s actors created a visible ” difference”. This difference was seen in different productions in various countries. Like Beckett, he believed in the flexibility of the stage; but differed from him on the static presence and movements of actors.

The Mahabharata was first staged in 1985. This was a time of doubts and confusion in various productions. In Mumbai, its reception was phenomenal. India was slowly moving toward reconstructing the epics and legends at that time as television became the popular medium. Brook never adhered to any formalistic pattern of drama in his adaptation of The Mahabharata. The scenic and theatrical differences in the play were carved out from the multiple lands and visions with which the dramatist was well acquainted. Gender, above all, became a key factor in Brook’s adaptation.

Delving deep into Brook’s dramaturgy, one can find three important aspects that distinguish him: Vision, style and decolonising themes. The idea of decolonisation is not well-applied to plays, unlike in other genres, such as novels. Ngugi wa Thiong’o’s plays are an exception. Brook systematically stepped out of his national identity to step into different lands and unravel the structures of drama. For him, the colonial surge lying deep in the unconscious of several dramatists made them parochial. His obvious references here are to Harold Pinter and Tom Stoppard. He spoke for a global drama. Theatre, he believed, needs to resonate with, appropriate and subvert the standards set before it by authoritarian structures.

India is deeply indebted to Brook not just for his adaptation of The Mahabharata. In his theatre, he opened up space for reflecting on gender and ecological issues. The transformation of the body and its language is dependent on ecological and topographical issues. Brook never wanted the same adaptation of The Mahabharata in Bengal, Assam and in Mumbai. The subtle nuances of language and the quasi-realist methods of dialogue construction were intended to shake off the colonial ways of looking at the epics. Every adaptation for him was a new text. It is from Brook we learned how to overcome the paradoxes of internal colonialism.

One can never forget Brook’s movie The Lord of the Flies, an adaptation of the famous novel by William Golding. In this movie, Brook experimented with questions of cruelty, savagery and animosity, which he had done previously in Marat/ Sade. In the film, he revisited sadism as an intrinsic human condition. Brook was very vocal about the new emergence of sadism. For him, the racial and religious divisions in the contemporary world have their roots in sadism, which are exploited by certain nations to fulfil their agendas.

In the future, the name Peter Brook will always be uttered at the entrance of theatres. When the curtain rustles and when we hear the footsteps on the stage, we will recollect Brook and his many transgressions.

The writer is professor of English at Deshbandhu College, Delhi University