Noti Binodini

The subject resonated with a Kolkata audience because it relates directly to their own cultural inheritance and its integral relationship to theatre. Calcutta and Bombay were the two urban centres in which theatre became an urban idiom in the 19^th century through the rich colonial interface.

The historical context was very well researched except that the early Sri Ramakrishna and Girish Ghosh interface had to be collapsed into one scene, where Girish’s transformation from sceptic to believer, takes place a little too rapidly. The scene where Girish sees Sri Ramakrishna’s reflection in his wine glass doesn’t take place quite that early in the actual chronology of events. 

The play was remarkable for the many debates related to theatre that it introduced. A strong feminist context also intersects with the passion for theatre that marks this period of Bengal’s urban history, particularly embodied in the figures of Girish Ghosh and Amrita Lal Basu or Rasaraj. The appellation of ‘Rasaraj’ earned by Amrita Lal Basu, centralizes the importance of rasa or passion/appreciation of beauty that is integral to both the practice and performance of art within Indian traditions.

Several statements made in this context are important. Girish Ghosh highlights how he gave up his well-paying job at a British firm to devote himself wholly to theatre. When Binodini importunes him to understand how she cannot hoodwink Rajababu in order to further the material benefit of theatre ( theatre production, building of theatre houses), Girish Ghosh tells her that nothing can be greater than the cause of theatre and that she should abjure all concerns that did not relate directly to her vocation as a theatre artist. Another outstanding comment regarding the supreme value of the performer in society, is when in response to  Dasu Niyogi’s condemnation that Binodini is after all only a prostitute/actress, Girish Ghosh replies that she is an artist, a theatre artist, and she needs no other social credentials.

I thought the feminist focus was excellent. Noti Binodini needs to repeatedly validated as a woman actress par excellence who not only excelled in the acting of challenging roles, many of which were those of male historical characters, but also someone who obtained for Bengali theatre a ‘room of one’s own’, in helping to build Star Theatre. She deserves a pride of place, equal to that of Girish Ghosh in helping to locate Bengali theatre within traditions of land acquisition, registration and building of Star Theatre.

Binodini is also iconic in terms of actively exploring the limits of theatre for the portrayal of characters in a play, but in bringing a strong intellectual element in the understanding of wherein the spirit of theatre lay. She speaks of how she had heard that actors on the Western stage listened to the cry of the nightingale and tried to emulate it if their art called for it. It is her active search for excellence in her craft and art that places her in the company of all artists who seek to reach the ‘soul’ of their medium/craft.

Her immersion in theatre was also absolute. She accepted her life as a prostitute with resignation. However her area of incandescence was theatre. She speaks for all passionate actors and actresses when she says, ‘ami jokhon Manche, tokhon ami Binodini Dasi theke Noti Binodini hoye jai’. This statement rings with her pride in her professional and artistic status. It also marks her as progressive given her historical context, where women were slowly emerging from the zenana to take an active role in the world outside the house. Kadambini Ganguly and Krishnabhabini Das are some names in context. Such women empowered by their middle class contexts, were perhaps in a more confident position to claim their individual and discrete professional identities outside their homes. What is striking is that Binodini too, displays a commensurate confidence and self assurance regarding her own professional value. Binodini’s life has utmost importance as feminist historiography.

As much as Binodini stands for a certain unusual  validation of  self in a woman who was technically from the margins of Kolkata society in the late 19^th century,  she also participates in the same continuum where women’s bodies are used not only to gratify male desire, but also to  bear the power of male dominance as well as their social and cultural hegemony. The same Girish Ghosh who could argue for sacrificing one’s all for theatre, colluded with Amritlal Basu and Dasu Niyogi, to make Binodini give up her share of Star Theatre. It was after all for her that Gurmukh Rai paid 50000 rupees to build Star Theatre.  Girish Ghosh and Amiritlal Basu and Dasu Niyogi had  promised her that the new theatre for which she arranged a sum of Rs 50000.00, would be named after her. Eventually, considerations of her fallen status in Bengali society as a prostitute and actress, become weightier for them and the theatre house is named Star Theatre. Binodini leaves theatre, never to go back again. Memories of the past, and her exploitation by the men around her, including Girish Ghosh,  whom she had worshipped almost as a God, haunt her.

Sri Ramakrishna’s intersection with this world comes through his defence of Girish Ghosh when his devotees Ram Chandra Dutta and Hridayram Mukhopadhyay excoriate Girish as a drunkard and a libertine. In the Kathamrita  there is reference to how Sri Ramakrishna tells Ramchandra, ‘tora Girish er moto ekta natok likhte parbi?’ Sri Ramakrishna constantly emphasizes the power of theatre to educate large masses of people. Even on stage he says, ‘natok lok shiksha dei’.

What is also communicated in the play and which is true of  Sri Ramakrishna’s relationship with all his devotees, is his unconditional love for them. His courting of Girish to earn the intellectual’s attention is one of the most endearing aspects of a relationship which begins with disdain and indifference on Girish’s part to become one of utmost dependence and desperate importuning to be relieved of the sinfulness of his life.  The childlike nature,  the oceanic capacity to love, the profound humility and the gigantic spiritual strength that made Sri Ramakrishna irresistible, are effectively brought out through Dipankar Banerjee’s acting.  

Overall, a powerful play. In my opinion, the role of Girish Ghosh was most powerfully and memorably played. Sri Ramakrishna was also well played. Binodini showed great competence through her memorizing of long and intricate dialogues. One could see her passion for acting and commitment to theatre.  However, she tended to be somewhat declamatory, i.e., she spoke in a more or less loud voice throughout, without engaging in much voice modulation. That made her performance somewhat less interesting than it could have otherwise been. The Kathak dancing was superb. The idea of introducing the names of the plays through the masked dancer was brilliant. The wonderful teental truly brought the note of celebration that theatre is supposed to be. In Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night, the Fool (Feste),  speaking in his own voice as the actor who plays the role of Feste, says that it is theatre’s business to give the audience what it wants.

However, there was one significant lack. The singing was not up to the mark. Dipankar Banerjee’s ‘judate chai’ was flat and off tune most of the time. Binodini was better but even her ‘mon cholo nijo niketane’ while beginning in tune, faltered significantly in the higher notes. The director may consider play back singing. The effort at realism is good. However, if the singing is tuneless, then in my humble opinion, the aesthetic effect is impaired.

Overall, wonderful.

Sreemati Mukherjee

Professor, Performing Arts

Presidency University