National artistes cannot afford new MR Theatre

By Gamini Akmeemana Initially called the National theatre, the name of this complex was then ‘privatised’ and called The Mahinda Rajapaksa Threatre, and is maintained under the Presidential Secretariat. This is ample proof that the government has neither the aim nor the vision to develop the performing arts. Also, as there are no value-based expectations, no clear goals or aims, what services this structure is going to render to the arts remains obscure. The fact that the armed forces which have no experience in developing the performing arts have been put in charge of while we have a ministry of culture with a relevant minister too, is proof of that.”

-PARAKRAMA NIRIELLA

Many people, if not most, have been writing hosannas about the new Chinesebuilt national theatre, i.e. The Mahinda Rajapaksa Theatre. It has awed them the way the Hambantota harbour and the new expressway have – as tangible symbols of Sri Lanka’s new potency as a nation.

As such, an article about it by veteran dramatist and film maker Parakrama Nirella in a recent Ravaya newspaper caught my eye. The points he raises in it are very similar to what I said about this cultural behemoth in this column before it was opened to the public (Buddhadasa Galappaththi, too, agreed with Niriella on essential points in a subsequent article in the Sunday Lankadeepa newspaper). Niriella, with his vast practical experience in Lankan theatre and the teledrama sphere, has a lot to say, and it’s fully worth quoting some of those passages (translations mine):

“A country has a need for a national theatre when a binding together of its material and spiritual development (I’m not talking here about religious faith) occurs along with a maturing of its performing arts. In such a society, education and art as well as the art market will develop, and this will lead to the production of a large and mature audience hungry for quality entertainment. When that happens, audiences will demand large scale theatres and national cultural centres in place of the existing smaller structures. If such large structures are created in a place which has no mature art market, ways and means of cre- ating such markets and audiences should be introduced at the national level. But this government has neither the vision nor the goal of creating a mature, high quality art market which will fit in with the new national theatre that was opened on December 15th.”

These are salient facts which totally escaped the misty-eyed hosanna writers. Niriella questions too, why a performing arts centre should be administered by the military (I asked that question, too). As he writes: “Initially called the National theatre, the name of this complex was then ‘privatised’ and called The Mahinda Rajapakse Threatre, and is maintained under the Presidential Secretariat. When Chandrika Bandarnaike was in power, a theatre complex called the ‘Western province Institute of Aesthetics” was built in front of the Bloomfields cricket ground, ostensibly to promote drama. It is now leased out to Swarnawahini. This is ample proof that the government has neither the aim nor the vision to develop the performing arts. Also, as there are no value-based expectations, no clear goals or aims, what services this structure is going to render to the arts remains obscure. The fact that the armed forces which have no experience in developing the performing arts have been put in charge of while we have a ministry of culture with a relevant minister too, is proof of that.”

He correctly points out that no Sri Lankan dramatist will be able to afford these facilities at the proposed rates. Our plays are traditionally low-budget affairs, with tickets starting at Rs.100 or 200 to suit the pockets of the average theatre-goer. As Niriella estimates, a play will have to earn at least Rs.2.5 million

from two daily shows to cover costs if the new theatre is hired for the purpose, an impossible task.

As such, this structure will be destined to host state extravaganzas (at the taxpayer’s expense) and mega musical and cultural shows for the elite and the new rich who could afford tickets priced at Rs.2000 and higher. Niriella is right in saying that the ideas of experienced theatre and performing arts personalities had not been solicited when designing the structure. Such complexes existing in developed countries usually have three separate theatres – the first a large auditorium with seating capacity ranging from 1000 to 3500 (for opera, ballet, symphony orchestras, mega musical shows and popular entertainment), a second auditorium which seats 750 to 1000 (the playhouse theatre, principal venue for plays), and a third, much smaller auditorium which seats from 100 to 350 (usually called the black box theatre, mainly for experimental works). But our national theatre has only one main auditorium (with over 1200 seats). Niriella says that the much-hyped rooftop theatre (an open space usable only at night) is better suited to enjoy a snack than serious theatre, and even that will cost Rs.200,000 for four hours. The open air stage with main car park is better suited for pop music shows and political meetings, and that too, will cost Rs.350,000 for four hours. Niriella further says: “This theatre will effectively shut out our dramatists for the above reasons. From the 1950s, every government has fooled them. The only theatres which are up to standard are the Elphinstone and the Lionel Wendt. Apart from that, plays are staged in Colombo and other cities in improvised halls lacking any standard. As Nalan Mendis has shown in his book “History of Drama Festivals,” the drama festivals held by every government since 1959 have only served to foster jealousy, hatred and greed for awards amongst our dramatists. The latter, while fighting each other every year for festival awards, never paid any attention to the serious problems afflicting their sphere. In the meantime, the project to create through the media a generation of audiences lacking in good taste continues to flourish. These are the people who resort to purchase the low-quality, popular taste product even at a high price while not hesitating to earn back that money by any means possible, including graft, theft or murder. The elite which thrives by maintaining this order is in place. This misshapen elite breed is the direct result of our wayward politics, and it consists of corrupt politicians, their offspring as well as their cronies and mafia underlings. It is this generation which will provide a market for the new national theatre, along with a group of artists who readily become sycophants in order to obtain their privileges. Such groups have absolutely no need to see any growth in our performing arts. They are satisfied with short term, large scale material gains.”

Niriella is quite right about the loss of good taste in the performing arts. This is evident if we compare what was created two or three decades ago with what has been done since then, whether we take music, drama, or film as examples. There’s no point in building ultra-modern structures to host mediocre, halfbaked and sensational efforts. Art is a language and, like any language, needs to be taught to an individual over many long and hard years. In Sri Lanka, we have neglected and degraded the arts steadily during an entire generation, with predictable results. In Sinhala drama, there is no dramatist working today who can do, for example, the Caucasian Chalk Circle with the finesse and authority of Henry Jayasena. In the English theatre, it’s hard to think of anyone who can competently stage a play by Shakespeare, Moliere or Chekhov. In music, we don’t have any composer who can even come close to Premasiri Khemadasa. We don’t even have a pop musician and composer in the class of Clarence Wijewardene. Immature audiences who are clueless about these problems will naturally find the new national theatre with its glittering lights another superhighway for facile, meaningless ego trips and glitzy showbiz extravaganzas.