The Pendulum of Intercultural Performance: "Kathakali King Lear" at Shakespeare's Globe Author(s): Diane Daugherty Source: Asian Theatre Journal, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Spring, 2005), pp. 52-72 Published by: University of Hawai'i Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4137075 . Accessed: 14/11/2013 15:01 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of Hawai'i Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Asian Theatre Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 192.80.65.116 on Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:02:00 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The Pendulum of Intercultural Performance:KathakaliKing Lear at Shakespeare's Globe Diane Daugherty

Kathakali King Lear, presentedat London's GlobeTheatrein 1999, is a case study in the possibilitiesand difficultiesof interculturaltheatrepractice. This article uses Bharucha'sand Pavis's theorieson interculturaltheatretoframe its analysis and shows how thisproduction,by a multinational troupecollaboratingoverten years, crafteda workthat crossesIndian and European cultural borders.Textadaptation, character typeassignment,casting,resistancebyIndian critics,and refinementof earlierversions are detailed. The ultimate successcame as this classical text of Westerntheatrefused with thephysicalizationof emotionby kathakali masters.Theproductionilluminated boththe Westerntextand kathakali techniquein waysthat allowedspectatorsand performersto experienceLear and kathakali anew, offeringa positive modelfor further interculturalwork. Diane Daughertyis an emeritafaculty memberof HerkimerCountyCommunityCollege currentlyliving in Kerala, India. She has writtenextensivelyon kathakali and kutiyattam in Asian Theatre Journal, for whichshe has servedas associateeditor. Her workon aspectsof Indian performancehas appearedin variousjournals.

The Indian-Australian-French Annette Leday/Keli Company performed KathakaliKing Lear at the reconstruction of Shakespeare's Globe Theatre on the Thames between 6 and 17 July 1999 as part of the annual Globe to Globe Festival, which features international productions of the bard's work. For the title of this essay, I have borrowed Rustom Bharucha's idea that interculturalism in theatre, ideally, "evokes a back-and-forth movement, suggesting the swing of a pendulum"-an image that Bharucha poses as an alternative to Patrice Pavis's hourglass model "by which the 'source culture' is emptied while the 'target culture' is filled" (Bharucha 1993: 241).1 For the viewers who Asian TheatreJournal, vol. 22, no. 1 (Spring 2005). ? 2005 by University of Hawai'i Press. All rights reserved.

This content downloaded from 192.80.65.116 on Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:02:00 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

KATHAKALI

KING LEAR AT SHAKESPEARE'S

GLOBE

53

were able to see the conventionalized registering of emotion on the performers' faces (bhavas) from the vantage point of the Shakespearean yard, this performance had enormous power. Shakespeare scholar Richard Hornby, for example, found the final scene as "poignant as I have ever seen it, although both actors were so covered in gilt, jewels, headdresses, robes and thick makeup as to resemble porcelain dolls" (Sorgenfrei and Hornby 1999). Viewers like myself who have spent many years researching kathakali were able to see anew the Indian genre we have studied in the choices of character type and story modification, refined through a series of seventy performances over the preceding decade.2 This was a production in which the possibilities of cross-cultural theatre had been maximized, and pitfalls of cultural clash- imperialism, assimilation-had been miniappropriation, mized. The result was a model of successful intercultural work, both in terms of theatrical impact and proper intercultural practice. Writing sensibly and clearly about interculturalism and performance, Bharucha comments, "It goes without saying that the real challenge in writing about interculturalism lies in figuring out the 'inter,' the space in between polarities, the dynamics between different points and locations" (Bharucha 1993: 241).

N::

..........

t:00,

... .... ........ .............. ..... ......

FIGURE1. Kalamandalam Gopi as the King of France and Sadanam Annette Leday as Cordelia in KathakaliKing Lear. (Photo: David McRuvie)

This content downloaded from 192.80.65.116 on Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:02:00 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

54

Daugherty

Much of this is an essay about the space between. The polarities are the play, King Lear by Shakespeare, and the performance form, kathakali, which evolved in Kerala, South India, shortly after Lear was first produced in England. My interest lies in the obstacles the theatre makers encountered as they traversed that "space between" and strategies they adopted to set Bharucha's metaphoric pendulum in motion.

Models of Intercultural Performance Before proceeding to the actual production, it is useful to contextualize it in the wider frame of intercultural performance theory and practice by examining the contributions of Pavis and Bharucha. Pavis articulated an hourglass theory of intercultural performance: In the upper bowl is foreign culture, the source culture, which is more or less codified and solidified in diverse anthropological, sociocultural or artistic modelizations. In order to reach us, this culture must pass through the narrow neck. If the grains of culture or their conglomerate are sufficiently fine, they will flow through without any trouble, however slowly, into the lower bowl, that of the target culture, from which point we observe this slow flow. The grains will rearrange themselves in a way that appears random, but which is partly regulated by their passage through some dozen filters put in place by the target culture and the observer. (Pavis 1992: 4) The central idea is clear: Pavis is thinking of the work of European theatre artists, such as Brook or Mnouchkine, who take their inspiration from Asian models, especially traditional theatre forms. The target audience that he is theorizing is a European audience, and the transit that he is talking about is a one-way street from East to West. Bharucha draws attention to the colonial and orientalist potential in the downward movement of the Pavis hourglass. Interculturalism that seeks "opening up new possibilities of relationships between cultures that seem to transcend specifities of history, race, language and time," he argues, is maya. All situations are specific interactions that are influenced by economic and social differentials, which themselves grow out of long-term histories of colonial relations and inequalities of power. Performers, Eastern and Western, must work with an understanding of this situation and make their choices collaboratively in that frame. His pendulum models interculturalism as a two-way street where the cultural sources are equally respected and theatre practitioners collaborate, moving back and forth with awareness of power differentials, to achieve consensus.3 Ultimately, I think that the production of Kathakali King Lear followed the pendulum model of Bharucha, understanding and

This content downloaded from 192.80.65.116 on Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:02:00 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

KATHAKALI KING LEAR AT SHAKESPEARE'S GLOBE

55

accommodating Indian performance conventions, then adapting them to the needs of the Western story and viewer, but in a complex way. The main artists, working collaboratively, devised solutions that were not just aimed at a target culture, nor fully constrained by the "rules" of a source culture. By finding answers that were "in between" they created a true hybrid and a powerful piece of performance. Theories about intercultural work, of course, derive from actual practice, and kathakali has attracted more than its share of Western practitioners' attention. Kathakali King Lear was conceived at the end of an era during which a number of foreigners had found theatrical inspiration in the form. Eugenio Barba observed kathakalitraining in Kerala and brought aspects of the art into the plastics ofJerzy Grotowski's theatre laboratory in the 1960s. Peter Brook, from his 1971 production of Orghastat Persepolis, began an exploration of non-Western theatre techniques and epic stories, which culminated in his 1985 production of The Mahabharata. Ariane Mnouchkine's 1990-1993 Les Atridesborrowed aspects of kathakalimakeup and movement. Richard Schechner has visited Kerala, and ideas in his essays come in part from considering South Indian models (particularly Schechner 1985, 1990, 2003). The results of such expeditions by major Western artists have been widely discussed, dissected, disputed, and defended (Bharucha 1984, 1993; Pavis 1996; Shevtsova 1997; and Zarrilli 1977, 1986 are some references on a lengthy list). But most of these artists and theorists have spent only limited time in Kerala and have not practiced kathakali.The same could be said of the Australian playwright David McRuvie, who adapted Lear to conform to the structure of a kathakaliplay, participated in production meetings, and contributed a Western-trained eye during polishing rehearsals. Annette Leday is different. She is, to use a term coined by Eugenio Barba, a "subterranean" theatre persona-one who has immersed herself in an Asian culture and its performance forms.4 Along with a small group of like-minded Western artists, including Canadian Richard Tremblay, Leday has studied the form extensively. In consultation with her teachers, Keezhpadam Kumaran Nair and Kalamandalam Padmanabhan Nair, she and the Keli Company have been refining this kathakali adaptation for over a decade. Issues of story, character type, and casting have been settled in creative and insightful ways that were debated and agreed upon by all parties.5 FINDING

A STORY

The first thing the intercultural artists sought was a story of the weight and magnitude of the Indian myths from which kathakali plays Arundhati Roy calls the "Great Stories": draw their plots-what

This content downloaded from 192.80.65.116 on Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:02:00 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

56

Daugherty

Kathakali discovered long ago that the secret of the Great Stories is that they have no secrets. The Great Stories are the ones you have heard and want to hear again. ... They don't deceive you with thrills and trick endings. They don't surprise you with the unforeseen. They are as familiar as the house you live in. Or the smell of your lover's skin. You know how they end, yet you listen as though you don't.... In the Great Stories you know who lives, who dies, who finds love, who doesn't. And yet you want to know again. (Roy 1997: 218-219)6 In his search for narrative material as big as the Indian epics, Richard Tremblay produced an Iliad kathakali in 1988 with the text sung in English. That same year Leday toured a kathakali troupe through her native France featuring a play from the classic kathakali repertoire and the "storm scene" from Kathakali King Lear as a work in progress. The Iliad misfired: spectators, both Indian and Western, lacked sufficient familiarity with the epic and tended to confuse Trojans and Greeks. Even worse, the Malayali (Malayalam is Kerala's regional language) performers could not understand the text because Tremblay adopted the language of the "target" culture, English. A kathakali performer enacts the dialogue, word for word as it is sung, using codified gesture languages for the body, hands, face, and eyes. Before electronic amplification, the singers followed the actors around the stage, singing the dialogue into the actor's ear. Modern kathakali singers stand upstage behind microphones that project their voices to the actors who enact the sung text.7 The Iliad's English text, which the singers had learned phonetically and performed with little understanding, could not be grasped by either the Malayalam-speaking actors or the Englishspeaking audience members. In a 1991 revival Tremblay switched to Malayalam for his text. Kathakali King Lear proved more successful. Lear, while not as expansive as an Indian epic, still struck a chord of recognition in audience members. The story of the foolish father and his three daughters was familiar to audiences Eastern and Western who routinely study Shakespeare in their school curricula. Even more important, the text was sung in Malayalam, allowing actors to appropriately link text and mudra (hand gesture). Throughout its preparation, respect for kathakali's several languages (oral, rhythmic, physical, emotional, and symbolic) had top priority. As Phillip Zarrilli observed, "Leday and McRuvie chose to challenge their European audience by maintaining as much of kathakali's structure and technique as possible" (Zarrilli 1992: 26; 2000: 187). Annette Leday, looking back on the work in an interview on 1

This content downloaded from 192.80.65.116 on Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:02:00 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

KATHAKALI KING LEAR AT SHAKESPEARE'S GLOBE

57

December 1998, felt the choice of story and adherence to the constraints of kathakali worked to the production's advantage: I think that one of the good things about choosing King Lear is that for once the Western audience was able to relate to a very alien form through a story that was not too difficult to understand. The Mahabharata is very complicated for a Western audience. They get confused as to who is who. But, in this case, the characters are very clear. Most people knew the story or they could follow the little synopsis. I felt that they were able to appreciate the form much better than with a traditional [kathakali] play. That is really exotic. Her aim, she continued, was cross-cultural communication: "We wanted to produce something that would be appreciated by a Western audience as well as an Indian audience-to bring Shakespeare into an Indian environment and kathakali to a Western audience through a theme that they would be familiar with." Leday brought a deep understanding of the art to the venture. She studied kathakali in Paris and Chennai (Madras) before coming to Kerala, where she spent four years at Sadanam Academy as the disciple of Kumaran Nair and a shorter time at the Kerala Kalamandalam, Kerala State Academy of the Arts, where she learned from Padmanabhan Nair. Kathakali King Lear was "realized under the guidance" of these two teachers who initially "performed the role of Lear in turn" (Leday 1998a: 49). They are cocredited for the choreography in the Globe program. But though Leday's preparation to undertake the work was strong, the project was not without impediments. ADAPTING

THE TEXT AND CASTING THE ROLES

The first task was transforming the abundant narrative of a Shakespearean tragedy to the focused intensity required of a kathakali plot. Cutting was crucial: In kathakalias in all classical Indian theatre, the emphasis is on the dramatic elaboration of relatively simple intrigues. Unlike any other Shakespearean tragedy, King Learis made up of two parallel intrigues, that of Lear and his three daughters and that of Gloucester and his two sons. By suppressing the Gloucester material, the Lear story stands out in its powerful simplicity. This plot corresponds precisely to the theatrical criteria of kathakali,both in its length and in the number of characters involved. (Leday and McRuvie 1989: 7) McRuvie cut the plot according to the requirements of kathakali, ending with nine scenes in Kathakali King Lear: (1) King Lear

This content downloaded from 192.80.65.116 on Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:02:00 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

58

Daugherty

Divides His Kingdom, (2) The Departure of Cordelia and the King of France, (3) At Goneril's Palace, (4) At Regan's Palace, (5) The Storm, (6) The Return of Cordelia and France, (7) The Reconciliation of Lear and Cordelia, (8) The Battle, and (9) The Death of Lear. The adaptor did not attempt to emulate Shakespeare's poetic language. When I asked McRuvie for examples of exact lines from Shakespeare's text that were included in his adaptation, he replied: There are no exact lines of Shakespeare in my adaptation. The idea was to write a clear prose text for translation into Malayalam poetry, translation from poetry to poetry being much harder, and much more prone to errors of sense. Fortunately the best poetry of King Lear has prose simplicity to it-and I think as such it probably survives this process better than might say the poetry of Hamlet or Othello.Here is an example-the Fool's single padam [dialogue sung by the vocalists and interpreted by the actor]: FOOL: Your daughters whip me for speaking the truth. You whip me for lying. Sometimes I am whipped for saying nothing. I had rather be anything than a Fool. But I would not be you. At least I am a Fool; you are nothing!8 So you can see how much "fooling" is left out. On the other hand, since a passage like this has to stand for everything else, it gains a stark emblematic significance. It has to sum up the whole discourse of the Fool. It's the sort of consideration that made the adaptation quite a fascinating process. It unearths quite uncannily I think the fundamental structure of the play. And while this is "simplifying" (obviously) from a textual point of view, it is also what lays the foundation for the enrichment that comes from the choreography. (McRuvie 1999a) Appropriate casting was another challenge to be negotiated. When I watched some of the shaping of the production in 1989, I remember puzzling over the cast. Kalamandalam Gopi, the most popular kathakali actor, was to play the King of France?! McRuvie's scenario expanded the role, making the King of France into the traditional kathakali hero. In London, where a less seasoned actor assumed the role, the King of France entered after Cordelia was disowned. A retainer held a red umbrella over the King of France's head as he walked majestically through the Globe's yard carrying a bouquet ready to select a bride. In Kathakali King Lear Goneril and Regan are unmarried and, typed as grotesque females (kari) with black visages and voluminous size, they preen and fondle exposed false breasts. The Indian dance scholar Reginald Massey notes Cordelia's response to their "bla-

This content downloaded from 192.80.65.116 on Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:02:00 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

L I ri

-`iQ

~

W*~E~

i f=f

i.

k

"I?~i

i I~S~B~~~

*.

:::

et

BI;i"*:~

i::s: -:a:?:; ~:?

B-_

C?

PLATE 1. Kalamandalam Padmanabhan Nair (Lear) and Sadanam Annette Leday (Cordelia) in Kathakali King Lear. A crown of flowers replaced the kathakali headdress. (Photo: Kunju Vasudevan Namboodiripad)

2. Kalamandalam Padmanabhan Nair (Lear) in Kathakali King Lear. (Photo: Kunju Vasudevan Namboodiripad) PLATE

PLATE 3. The long screen allowed for processions of animals and other characters in Sidia's WayangDasanama Kerta performed in the aftermath of the Bali Bomb. (Photo: Kathy

........

Foley)

This content downloaded from 192.80.65.116 on Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:02:00 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

:(" :I:::

~:

(Top) PLATE 4. Dalang I Made Sidia (sec-

ond from left) and other performers of Wayang Dasanama

?, ::,: :i:: i:::-:

biis~^ ~s C"llir ..d

1 ,: rB

Kerta sit on

skateboards as they manipulate the demons that have become terrorists destroying the world. (Photo: Kathy Foley) PLATE5. Demons have entered the world spreading terror and harm. Many references to the hardships that resulted from the Bali Bomb were part of Dalang Sidia's dialogue in WayangDasanama Kerta. (Photo: Kathy Foley)

p~"~:

This content downloaded from 192.80.65.116 on Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:02:00 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

(Left) PLATE 6. A Shigang Mama dreams of travel-

ing in Assignment Theatre's River in the Heart, which borrowed from Boal and magical realism. (Photo: Ron Smith) PLATE 7. Preparation for ancestor worship was one of the scenes in the Shigang Mama's River in the Heart. (Photo: Ron Smith)

.41,

(Below) PLATE 8. The

5

--

r

composer Supanggah (standing) and his musicians, with projected Sureq Galigo text in Robert Wilson's I La Galigo. (Photo: Ken Cheong)

i-:-i

This content downloaded from 192.80.65.116 on Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:02:00 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

.

-.

:

: :

;

. . . ..

:

:

.

...

. . SOr . .. . . . . . .~

. I.

..

.

-~

.. .

.

9. Batara Guru (I Ketut Rina) descends upside-down to the Middle World in a bamboo shaft as the Supreme Being Patotoqe (Abdul Murad) looks on from the sky in Wilson's ILa Galigo. (Photo: Ken Cheong.) PLATE

,A

..

-

............ ..... ....

............. ~

PLATE

10. The falling of the sacred Welenrengge

tree in I La Galigo. (Photo: Ken Cheong)

This content downloaded from 192.80.65.116 on Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:02:00 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

KATHAKALI

KING LEAR AT SHAKESPEARE'S

GLOBE

59

tant"seduction: "Cordelia moved backstage drawing her veil across her face in horror at the shameless behavior of her two sisters. For that one scene alone Leday deserved a standing ovation" (Massey 1999: 1109). In Scene 2, when the handheld curtain that marks scene changes was removed, Cordelia and the King of France were revealed in the standard kathakali pose for a loving couple. As she leaned toward him, he with a protective arm around her, they inched forward. After Cordelia's exit, the King of France danced alone in a sequence called an attam. In Scene 6, the King of France performed a patappurapatu, an elaborate danced preparation for battle, and in Scene 9 he killed Goneril and Regan. So developed is the role that in presentations where Gobi played the King of France, audience members were not certain whether Lear or the King of France had the lead. At the Globe, this potential problem was eliminated by a change in casting. Sadanam Manikandan's King of France got an ovation for his athletic execution of the "preparation for war," but there was no confusion that Lear had the starring role. Casting Sadanam Annette Leday as Cordelia was a daring move in terms of kathakali, traditionally an all-male genre. In this instance the role was given to a woman-and a European woman at that. Was Leday as anxious to use her kathakali training as were the women who, in 1975, formed the Tripunithura Kathakali Kendram Ladies Troupe? Having become skilled in kathakali,a Kerala girl has very few opportunities to perform. She might occasionally perform with her teacher, a male relative, or a famous actor her family has hired, so that she can share the stage with a star. But, performing with men on a regular basis would expose her to lewd gossip or the improper advances of drunken actors, as endured by Chavara Parukutty, the only woman to attempt to earn her living as a kathakaliperformer in Kerala. (Daugherty and Pitkow 1991: 140) Was playing Cordelia, like founding the women's troupe, a pragmatic decision growing out of a commitment to the art? Leday corrected me, explaining that she had many opportunities to perform with men in Kerala on a "regular basis" and despite some "lewd gossip" and, on rare occasions, "improper advances," she "survived that all that very well." "Actually, early in the project I did not want to take the part of Cordelia, as I felt the whole production process would be quite enough on my shoulders. There were discussions with my asans [teachers] who insisted the part was definitely for me" (Leday 2001). Leday's strong presentation of the part in the Globe production rewarded her teachers' trust.

This content downloaded from 192.80.65.116 on Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:02:00 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

60

Daugherty

MAKEUP

AND COSTUMES

Decisions the creative team made about costumes and makeup contributed to the success of the Globe production. Kathakali groups characters according to personality types, who take their names from the style of the face paintings. The eight characters in Kathakali King Lear have been largely matched to the kathakali character typology. The eight characters and their types are the King of France (paccha; green), Cordelia (minukku;shining), Goneril and Regan (kari; black), Tom (teppu; painted), Fool (outside kathakali typology), Lear (katti; knife) and a soldier (male minukku). Some selections were straightforward. The King of France is paccha, a green-faced role appropriate to gods and royal heroes. Cordelia is minukku,the refined female role, called "shining" with reference to the honey-colored base dusted with mica flakes that glitter. Selecting the vesham (makeup and costumes) for the Elizabethan characters who did not neatly fit the Indian performance form's types was challenging and allowed for creative conception of the roles. The designation of type would not only send an encoded message about the character to a spectator initiated into kathakali,but also dictate the character's appearance before an uninitiated spectator. For a performer the selection would affect the range of motion available for the face, the quality of the body's movements, and the possibility of uttering inarticulate sounds, such as Lear's whimpers during the final scene. Goneril and Regan were typed as kari, the dark demoness of kathakali. Goneril's face was the standard black-indeed, kari means "black." To differentiate Regan from Goneril, Regan used dark blue paint. A kari cuts a formidable figure. Her facial decoration creates an ominous visage and she wears an immense headdress topped by peacock feathers-which one unperceptive London newspaper scribbler described as "big toilet brushes" (Gardner 1999: 18). In her authoritative analysis of the representation of the feminine in kathakali, Marlene Pitkow posits the kari as "the very antithesis of the self-respecting, self-controlled, restrained heroine," a delineation that fits Goneril and Regan in their struggle against Cordelia. "In the presence of the hero, the minukku hides her face in her veil; by contrast the kari bares her breasts and beats her chest in public" (Pitkow 1998: 233). Goneril and Regan's lascivious overtures to France and their kari behaviors predictably drew guffaws from the Globe audience, for the kari is a farcical character whose "outrageous clowning and mock ferocity undermine any sinister impact she might otherwise have" (Pitkow 1998: 224). The actors viewed Goneril and Regan as selfish human beings

This content downloaded from 192.80.65.116 on Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:02:00 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

KATHAKALI

KING LEAR AT SHAKESPEARE'S

61

GLOBE

capable of monstrous behavior, not as true demonesses. They worked to show differences between these two sisters. They withheld the squeaky sounds that can be uttered by kari until their death scenes (Namboodiri 1999). But the two comic kari who flirted and cavorted of Goneril's cunning or menacingly negated any communication viciousness. Regan's The choice of the katti or knife role for Lear was more controversial, and discussions as to whether this mixed character or the heroic type is appropriate have persisted. "Imagine," exclaimed K. Ayyappa Paniker, chief editor of the Malayalam translation of Shakespeare, "bringing Lear to the stage as a katti [knife]!" (Paniker 2001). P. Rama Iyer, program director of Margi, an important arts institution for the preservation of traditional culture in Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, concurred: "Lear is the most innocent of beings. He should surely be played as paccha [a noble, virtuous character] " (Iyer 2001). The Globe program included this description of katti: "A royal character defined by pride and anger. The basic colors of his make-up are green, to symbolize royalty, and red, to symbolize violence. A mustache is drawn across his face and emphasized by a round white nose.

: -i~i-

iiii:i:

-B :::-:~

:::?i: ::.

:--::

:::

::

::::

FIGURE2. Kalamandalam Manoj Kumar plays Goneril and Kalamandalam Vijjayan portrays Regan. Both are kari (demoness) types. (Photo: David McRuvie)

This content downloaded from 192.80.65.116 on Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:02:00 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

62

Daugherty

The lines continue on the forehead above the eyebrows in the form of a knife (katti)"(International Shakespeare Globe Center 1999b). M. P. S. Namboodiri, who was new to the production and played Lear for the matinee performances at the Globe, admits initially questioning the katti type given the range of the role. The "scope" of emotion Lear must show seems more suited to the less decorated paccha face than to katti, whose design imposes an "external limitation on expressiveness" (Namboodiri 1999). When K. K. Gopalakrishnan of Thrissur interviewed Kumaran Nair and Padmanabhan Nair during June 1999 and when I again asked Padmanabhan Asan on 13 July 1999 in London which kathakali characters reach levels of emotion similar to Lear's in the final scene, the actors who have portrayed Lear cited paccha roles-Rugmamgada, who prepares to sacrifice his son, and Bahuka, who learns his beloved wife intends to remarry. Still, the kattirole was embraced by the Indians who performed it. After discussions with David McRuvie and Padmanabhan Nair (who has played Lear since the production's inception), M. P.S. Namboodiri recognized the appropriateness of katti for a feudal king who has failed his subjects and betrayed his blood relations. By choosing the katti this production depicted a Lear capable of "immense and tyrannical pride" most evident in the interpretation of the padam (sung dialogue) cursing Goneril in Scene 3 (Asimov 1978: 20). Indeed, Lear became so angry in this scene that he required fanning by the Fool, as does the goddess Kali, who must be cooled after she has killed the demon in a Kerala ritual performance (mutiyettu). For audience members like myself the choice of this character type helped define the character of Lear in a way that the choice of a paccha could not. Though expression was less subtle than with a paccha, the scenes where Lear makes his precipitous choices were clarified. Even more controversial than the choice of the katti type was Lear's appearance onstage without a crown. "It would be virtually impossible to play King Lear as kathakaliforbids a king to appear without his headgear, and how else could one show a disordered Lear?" says actor-director Sadanam Balakrishnan of the International Centre for Kathakali in New Delhi, who has made a kathakaliversion of Othello (Loomba 1998: 160). A decade of deliberations among the collaborators combined with trial and error to solve the problem of how the kathakali crown could come off, yet remain symbolically present. At the final dress rehearsal in 1989, Lear-stripped of his royal paraphernalia-wore a mundu lower (traditional only garment), folded so that it fell from his waist to his calves, and some makeup around his eyes: typical dress for a Kerala man at home. Those attending the rehearsal, however,

This content downloaded from 192.80.65.116 on Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:02:00 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

KATHAKALI KING LEAR AT SHAKESPEARE'S GLOBE

63

perceived acceptable daily behavior as aberrant on a stage. Kathakali aharya(costumes and makeup) transforms every part of the body: even the eyeball is altered by inserting a harmless seed that reddens the whites of the eyes. A king with no clothes was outside the kathakali code. Several weeks later in Thiruvananthapuram the costume had been revised. "Mad Lear" wore more makeup, parts of the costume, and a cap. By 1999 in London, having stripped himself of some bangles onstage, Lear removed the crown offstage during the interval. As he entered when the second part began, he held the crown over his head, his body and face masked by a curtain held by two stagehands. Then, wearing the black turban that a kathakaliactor wraps to cover his head and to provide a base for the crown, but otherwise fully costumed, Lear took shelter in Tom's hut in Scene 5. When Lear entered in Scene 7, wandering aimlessly, flowers were stuck in various parts of the costume. More flowers were added each performance that I saw until he was wearing what amounted to a "crown"of flowers (see Color Plate 1). Lear reclaimed the kathakali crown at the end of the scene. This well-chosen solution allowed for both the needs of the form and the specifics of the Shakespearean text. The collaborators found makeup and costumes for Tom and the Fool as well, even though these characters do not fit clear kathakali types. In the case of the Fool, the group understood that their solution would cause the production to be rejected by important Indian critics. Mad Tom's paint-smeared face and ragged costume were assigned to a catchall category (teppu),a group of special face paintings for individual characters. But because the Fool fell outside kathakaliconventions, the makeup and costume (vesham)of the jester (vidushaka)in kutiyattam were borrowed. Kutiyattamis a "parent" genre from which kathakali, centuries ago, drew character types, facial decorations, and gesture languages. This importation unsettled some because it predicated rejection of the production by certain connoisseurs. In Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala's capital city, the jester (vidushaka)costume was not shown, and the Fool was bundled "with all sorts of horrible things," fearing the reaction of one especially influential spectator, the late Appukuttan Nair (Leday 1998b). But what couldn't be shown to his critical eyes was part of the London performance. Leday sticks by the decision to adopt the kutiyattamvidushaka for the Fool and never considered any other options. Over the years the outward appearance of the Fool has moved from replicating many elements of the makeup and costume for the kuttiyattam vidushaka to duplicating it precisely. The Globe performances also incorporated some of the vidushaka's characteristic gestures such as the Fool patting Lear's arm as a sign of friendship and wringing out his upper garment.

This content downloaded from 192.80.65.116 on Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:02:00 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

64

Daugherty

Though the purist might complain, this was a judicious and appropriate resolution.

The Privileged Critic I privilege the reaction of the late Appukuttan Nair, one of the founders of Margi, an institution with permanent kathakali and kutiyattam wings dedicated to "restor[ing] the arts to their former glory by enabling revivals [and] creative elaboration through poetic treatment" (Damodaran 2001: 1). Nair dismissed Kathakali King Lear-"I couldn't stand it" (Zarrilli 1992: 30). The scruples Nair voiced did not focus on a female Cordelia, the heroic King of France, missing headgear, or blips in character type choice, but on the non-epic nature of the characters. According to Nair, only "non-worldly" characters drawn from the [Indian] epics offer a kathakali actor the chance to elaborate his performance and a spectator the chance to freely imagine the character: "Only epic, non-human beings are chosen for the re-creation of a story for presentation on the stage. And that presentation, whether in form, colour, behaviour, or sound, is deliberately made contra-human, to exist in another world: that of the imagination of the connoisseur" (D. A. Nair and Paniker 1993: x).

~_:: :::: i:ii '?9: :,: :::i: :

:::: :::.:..

--i,

i?i i?ii ii?i _..

i

FIGURE 3. Kalamandalam Unnikrishnan Nair presents Tom and Kalaman-

dalam Balasubramanian plays the Fool. (Photo: David McRuvie)

This content downloaded from 192.80.65.116 on Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:02:00 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

KATHAKALI KING LEAR AT SHAKESPEARE'S GLOBE

65

In the "Talking Theatre" session held at the Globe Education Centre 10July 1999, David McRuvie made a related point: "The actors find the characters shallow. It is quite humbling. They want more information about the characters. Indian characters appear in many plays [and in the mythology]. They can draw on these in developing the character." Appukuttan Nair also objected to the brevity of the piece (two and one-half hours) because it denied an actor the time necessary to elaborate and stimulate the spectator's imagination. I think that Appukuttan Nair's objections were disproved by the performance, particularly the depth of character developed by Padmanabhan Nair, who has been refining his Lear for over a decade. I agree with Phillip Zarrilli, who stated: McRuvie'ssparsetext allowsthe kathakaliperformerthe performative time necessary to embody through internal acting the appropriate bhava-in scene 7 [The Reconciliation of Lear and Cordelia] cinta bhava, "reflection" or "remembrance." [. .. In the final scene] with

only one line "spoken"during the entire scene, PadmanabhanNayar wasfree to elaboratethrough interior acting sokabhava,the pathos of loss. (Zarrilli1992:34-35) Zarrilli and I are not alone in believing that the actors found in the characters. At each of the four performances I attended depth at the Globe, just before Scene 9 (The Death of Lear), some spectators would leave the galleries and, along with members of the Globe Company, slip into the yard to experience seventy-three-year-old Padmanabhan Nair's performance at close range. What we witnessed negates a claim by made by another Indian critic, the late Suresh Awasthi: "Using an altogether unfamiliar text like that of King Lear, kathakaliperformers cannot make use of the performance material they have acquired, build montages, and improvise during the course of performance" (Awasthi 1993: 176).9 Discussing the challenges posed by the role, Padmanabhan Nair explained that after years of training and performing, the kathakali physical gesture languages are part of his "body consciousness" and he is able to "work with his mind." The results of his "constant experiment" to "portray Lear's internal conflicts in a convincing manner" did allow spectators to reach the full potential of the kathakali form (P. Nair 1999). At many points in the production, and certainly during the final scene, the work of the two vocalists/musicians and two percussionists set the "pendulum" between the Shakespeare-inspired text and embodied kathakali performance in motion. One woman told me

This content downloaded from 192.80.65.116 on Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:02:00 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

66

Daugherty

that throughout the percussion-dominated musical storm she could hear the words, 'Blow winds, and crack your cheeks; rage, blow' (King Lear, Act III, Scene 2). Viewers such as critic/scholars Carol Sorgenfrei and Richard Hornby, who are well-acquainted with the Shakespearean text, felt they could fill in Lear's dying words as they were sung in Malayalam.1oEven those unfamiliar with the text also "heard"through the singing that exquisitely invoked karuna rasa (the audience's aesthetic experience of sadness, grief, pathos). If the music carrying the "dialogue" was an entry point to Lear's inner experience as he grieved over his daughter's body, so was Nair's face. Sitting anywhere in the Globe one could read the code for pathos (soka bhava) on Lear's face. But you needed to be standing near the stage to catch tiny movements of the mouth, cheeks, eyes, eyelids, eyebrows, and forehead that, as Padmanabhan Nair concentrated on Lear's loss, subtly altered the dominant bhava. The actor told me, "Lear's death is very different from death scenes in kathakali.If you die in kathakaliit is because you have been killed. There is pain, but it is physical pain. It is nothing compared to the pain Lear feels when he thinks about the loss of Cordelia. She will no longer be able to talk with him. That thought is much more painful" (P. Nair 1999). Some wept openly during the scene; others relished Padmanabhan Nair's artistry, but retained an aesthetic distance-the sort of response Appukuttan Nair would expect from a connoisseur of kathakali. Although I have focused on the final scene, there were other points at which I sensed Bharucha's "reciprocity" between the traditions of the two cultures (Bharucha 1993: 241). These include Lear's two post-storm moments of realization in Scene 5: "I have not taken enough care of you" and "poor, bare, forked animal." Padmanabhan Nair cited these same moments as important for him in describing Lear's "gradual process" of recognition and repentance: "He realizes he has neglected the relationship between king and subjects. He did not do what was supposed to be done [dharmaor duty] as a king as well as a father. He has made terrible mistakes. This sorrow begins to bite him [adi or mental anguish] " (P. Nair 1999). I suggest that Padmanabhan Nair created the role as if Lear were an Indian epic character. He has, for more than a decade, imagined and (re)imagined Lear so that his performance in Kathakali King Lear at the Globe invited a "non-worldly" experience to those who appreciate kathakali or Shakespeare or, like Reginald Massey, both: "Padmanabhan Nair danced the title role with all the dignity and arrogant innocence of old age and stubborn pride of the original conception. Lear's drift into disillusionment, madness and ultimate death was

This content downloaded from 192.80.65.116 on Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:02:00 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

KATHAKALI KING LEAR AT SHAKESPEARE'S GLOBE

67

portrayed with a sense of grandeur that lifted the production to the realms of the sublime" (Massey 1999: 1109; see Color Plate 2). Appukuttan Nair was wrong when he predicted in the early 1990s that nobody would remember KathakaliKing Lear after five years and that it would "die a natural death" (Zarrilli 1992: 30). There were more than seventy performances during the decade between its Indian premiere inJuly 1989 and opening at Shakespeare's Globe inJuly 1999. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, it should be noted that other groups have mounted Kathakali Othello(Loomba 1998); Kathakali Julius Ceasar,which played at the Shakespeare in India national festival held in Kerala in March 2001; and Kathakali Macbeth,which toured the United States in December 2001.11 In London the artists felt honored that theirs was the first King Lear to play at the restored Globe during the season celebrating the four-hundredth anniversary of the original Globe. "Emotions that speak across the gulfs of cultures" welled with the music. Both the tourist who, after seeing the changing of the guard at Buckingham Palace, purchased a Globe ticket and the newspaper writer who admitted "little prior knowledge" of kathakali were "engrossed" by the production (Kingston 1999: 41). For them, the pendulum swung between the unfamiliar performance techniques and the familiar plot, or as Patrice Pavis would phrase it, the "alterity" of "unknown/familiar; strange/familiar" (Pavis 1992: 205). Creative thinking and (re) thinking about the space between the Indian form and the English play engaged in by Leday, McRuvie, Padmanabhan Nair, Kumaran Nair, Vasudevan Namboodiripad, and the Keli Company set the intercultural pendulum in motion. The pendulum gained momentum from Padmanabhan Nair's epic performance-the nuances of which were best observed from the yard at Shakespeare's Globe. Intercultural work is fraught with dangers. Colonial legacies frame it, economic imbalances complicate it, and orientalist accusations are barbs that Western artists who go this route will encounter. But this was a group where guru-shishya (teacher-student) relations molded the initial work, where the artists respected both Shakespeare and kathakali, and where creativity was allowed to grow and deepen over time. As a result, Shakespeare's work could be reimagined through kathakali's virtuosity, and kathakali's power to portray emotion could be communicated to the Globe audience. The process of making Katakali King Lear was not the sand of an hourglass flowing from source to target culture. It was the widening swing of a pendulum. Both India and Europe were the intended target cultures. Both India and England were the source cultures. The artists via their collaborative

This content downloaded from 192.80.65.116 on Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:02:00 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

68

Daugherty

decisions and long-term dedication to the project filled the space in between. The result was intercultural theatre at its best.12 NOTES 1. Bharucha recognizes that in the hourglass model he has found Pavis's Achilles' heel. He acknowledges that in other ways Theatreat the Crossroads of Cultureis "one of the most authoritative and sophisticated analyses of the relationship between theatre and 'other cultures"' (Bharucha 1993: 241). 2. The production was performed in 1989 at the Festival of Roveto in followed Italy by a ten-week tour to the Netherlands, France, and Spain. In 1990 it played at the Independence Day celebrations in Singapore and the Edinburgh Festival. In 1993-1994 it was performed in Portugal, and in 1994 and 1996 in Germany (Leday 1998b). 3. Like Bharucha, Jacqueline Lo and Helen Gilbert find Pavis's hourglass problematic because it assumes a "one-waycultural flow based on a hierarchy of privilege" (Lo and Gilbert 2002: 42). They propose a model that, like Bharucha's pendulum, represents intercultural exchange as a two-way flow. The cultural sources are partners who must collaborate and negotiate the interstice between them. The Lo/Gilbert model is based on a childhood toy they played with in Malaysia and Australia-a disc suspended between two pieces of elastic. The disc represents intercultural exchange "positioned at the tension between the source cultures" and "characterized by both gain and loss, attraction and disavowal" (Lo and Gilbert 2002: 45). I have never seen this toy or a similar one and cannot visualize how the players work in partnership and collaborate with each other. I can envision a pendulum and, therefore, selected Bharucha's model although I endorse the theory Lo and Gilbert articulate. 4. Barba used the term during Odin Teatret's thirty-fifth anniversary celebration in Holstebro, Denmark, 22-27 September 1999. He was referring specifically to Cristina Wistari, an Italian who has lived for sixteen years in Bali, where she leads a gambuh troupe. He included the Americans James Brandon, Leonard Pronko, and Jonah Salz, scholars of Japanese theatre, as other examples. 5. Kumaran Nair and Padmanabhan Nair, Leday's teachers; the late chendamaster K. P.KrishnakuttyPoduval; and Vasudevan Namboodiripad, who was superintendent of the Kerala Kalamandalam for many years, collaborated with Leday and McRuvie in decision making prior to the original production. Artists present at the Globe who were members of the original cast include Leday and Padmanabhan Nair, Kalamandalam Unnikrishnan Nair (actor), Kalamandalam Manoj Kumar (actor), and Kalamandalam Unnikrishnan (drummer). These men, along with the majority of the actors and musicians in the Globe cast, have worked with Leday on other projects since Lear and form her "company."Those not in the first cast began to take roles in Lear as early as 1990. Vasudevan Namboodiripad joined Padmanabhan Nair, Leday,

This content downloaded from 192.80.65.116 on Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:02:00 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

KATHAKALI KING LEAR AT SHAKESPEARE'S GLOBE

69

and McRuvie in London to oversee this reconfiguration of the cast and the initiation of the latest actor, Kalamandalam M. P. S. Namboodiri. 6. Arundhati Roy includes this passage in her Booker Prize-winning novel, The God of Small Things. It was quoted in the Summer 1999 issue of Around the Globe:TheMagazine of Shakespeare'sGlobe(p. 7). The Globe issued a three-paragraph press release, "Indian Summer at the Globe." In orientalist language it heralded the "sensuous" production as a "criticallyacclaimed ... simplified version of the famous tragedy . . narrated in an exotic language of gesture

. . . through

the spectacular

classical

dance-drama

form of

Kathakali ... using traditional costumes and elaborate make-up which can take up to five hours to apply." These were the only background materials that the Globe offered its subscription audience or included in its press kits. A program/brochure that could be purchased as you entered the theatre did provide helpful information on kathakaliconventions. 7. Annette Leday/Keli Company's insistence on microphones for the singers and an onstage playback system for the actors caused a flap. Shakespeare's Globe is committed to authenticity from building techniques to costuming, and needless to say, does not have a sound system. 8. The Fool's similar lines in Act I, Scene 4 of Shakespeare's text are: I marvel what kin thou and thy daughters are: they'll have me whipp'd for speaking true, thou'lt have me whipp'd for lying; and sometimes I am whipp'd for holding my peace. I had rather be any kind o'thing than a fool; and yet I would not be thee, nuncle; thou hast pared thy wit o'both sides, and left nothing i'th'middle: here comes one o'the pairings. 9. Awasthi may have seen an entirely different production than the one presented at Shakespeare's Globe. Leday explains that, "It [KathakaliKing Lear] was unfortunately presented in Mumbai and Delhi in a totally garbled manner by artists who had never worked with us" (Leday 1998a: 49). 10. In McRuvie's adaptation the Lear text is, "Why should a horse, a a rat have life; and you not have life. You will not speak again. Never, dog, never, never, never, never" (McRuvie 1999b). 11. Christopher Rawson, drama critic for the PittsburghPost-Gazette, described A KathakaliMacbethas "an hourlong precis" in which Etumanoor P. Kannan "dances/acts/mimes the name role. ... Combining kathakali with western elements is an experiment he could not attempt back home because it would compromise him with the kathakali establishment" (Rawson 2001). Annette Leday and company presented "Stuff of Dreams," a fusion of kathahali and Western dance loosely based on Shakespeare's Tempestin Canada in 2004. In addition to TheIliad, Richard Tremblay staged The Odysseyin 1994. Other Western plays that have been staged using classical kathakalitechniques include Goethe's Faust in 1977 by the cultural organization Kaliyarang, based in Kottayam, Kerala, and El Cidby P.V.Balakrishnan of the International Cen-

This content downloaded from 192.80.65.116 on Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:02:00 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

70

Daugherty

tre for Kathakali, New Delhi, also the producer of Othello.When El Cid was shown in Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, on 21 May 2001 it was preceded by a very inventive telling of the story using kathakali puppets, built by Brigette Revelli, that were strapped to the manipulator's bodies. M. P. S. Namboodiri and company staged Oedipusat Kilimangalam, Kerala, on 1 September 2001. Margi is preparing a kathakaliDon Quixoteto be shown in Spain in 2004. 12. An earlier version of this essay was delivered to the annual conference of the International Federation for Theatre Research held in Sydney, Australia, 9-14 July 2001. I am grateful for the helpful comments made by those who heard and/or read the paper: Roy Beat, Rustom Bharucha, Valerie Lucas, Cynthia Marsh, and Bozena Sliwczynska. REFERENCES Asimov, Issac. 1978. Asimov'sGuideto Shakespeare.New York:Avenel. Awasthi, Suresh. 1993. "The Intercultural Experience and the Kathakali King Lear."New Theatre Quarterly9 (34): 72-78. Bharucha, Rustom. 1984. "AReply to Richard Schechner." Asian TheatreJournal 1 (2): 254-260. 1993. . Theatreand the World.London: Routledge. Damodaran, A. D. 2001. Margi Annual Report2000-2001. Margi: Thiruvananthapuram. Daugherty, Diane, and Marlene Pitkow. 1991. "Who Wears the Skirts in Kathakali?" TDR, TheDrama Review 35 (2): 138-156. Gardner, Lyn. 1999. "Courting Monotony." The Guardian, 8July, p. 18. International Shakespeare Globe Centre. 1999a. Around the Globe10 (Summer). . 1999b.

Globeto Globe1999 Kathakali King Lear (program). Iyer, P. Rama. 2001. Interview, 21 June. Kingston, Jeremy. 1999. "India's Lear Is Green and Dotty." The Times,13 July, p. 41. Leday, Annette. 1998a. "Dancing with India." In Attendance: The Dance Annual of India, ed. Ashish Khokar. Chennai: Mohan Khokar Dance Foundation. 1998b. Interview, 1 December. .. 2001. Personal communication, 1 October.

This content downloaded from 192.80.65.116 on Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:02:00 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

KATHAKALI KING LEAR AT SHAKESPEARE'S GLOBE

71

Leday, Annette and David McRuvie. 1989. Kathakali King Lear (Program). Paris: Keli. Lo, Jacqueline and Helen Gilbert. 2002. "Toward a Topography of Cross-Cultural Theatre Praxis." TDR, The Drama Review 46 (3): 31-52.

Loomba, Ania. 1998. "'Local-Manufacture Made-in-India Othello Fellows': Issues of Race, Hybridity and Location in Post-colonial Shakespeares." In Post Colonial Shakespeares. Edited by Ania Loomba and Martin Orkin. London: Routledge. Massey, Reginald. 1999. "Indian Dances." TheDancing Times (September): 1109. McRuvie, David. 1999a. Personal communication, 11 August. McRuvie, David. 1999b. Personal communication, 13 August. Nair, D. Appukuttan, and Ayyappa K. Paniker. 1993. Kathakali: TheArt of theNon-Worldly.Bombay: Marg. Nair, Padmanabhan. 1999. Interview, 13 July. Trans. Kunju Vasudevan. Namboodiri, M. P. S. 1999. Interview, 13 July. Paniker, K. Ayyappa. 2001. Interview, 15 June. Pavis, Patrice. 1992. Theatreat the Crossroadsof Culture.Trans. Loren Kruger. London: Routledge. ed. 1996. ,, TheInterculturalPerformanceReader.London: Routledge. Pitkow, Marlene B. 1998. Representations of the Feminine in Kathakali: Dance-Drama of Kerala State,

South India. Ph.D. diss., New York University, Department of Performance Studies. Rawson, Christopher. 2001. "'Kathakali Macbeth' Delivers an Unusual Event." PittsburghPostGazette,8 December, p. B8. Roy, Arundhati. 1997. The God of Small Things. New York: Random House. Schechner, Richard. 1985. BetweenTheaterand Anthropology.Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 1990. . "Magnitudes of Performance." In By Means ofPerformance.Ed. Richard Schechner and Willa Appel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. . 2003. PerformanceTheory.London and New York: Routledge.

This content downloaded from 192.80.65.116 on Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:02:00 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

72

Daugherty

Shevtsova, Maria. 1997. "Interculturalism, Aestheticism, Orientalism: Starting from Peter Brook's Mahabharata." TheatreResearchInternational 22 (2): 98-104. Sorgenfrei, Carol Fisher, and Richard Hornby. 1999. "Kathakali King Lear."Associationfor Asian PerformanceNewsletter(Fall): 14-15. Zarrilli, Phillip B. 1977. "Demystifying Kathakali," SangeetNatak 43: 48-59. . 1986 "The Aftermath: When Peter Brook Came to India," TDR, TheDrama Review 30 (1): 92-100. -. 1992. "For Whom Is the King a King? Issues of Intercultural Production, Perception and Reception in a Kathakali King Lear." In CriticalTheory and Performance.Edited by Janelle G. Reinelt and Joseph R. Roach. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. . 2000. KathakaliDance-Drama:WhereGodsand Demons Cometo Play. London: Routledge.

This content downloaded from 192.80.65.116 on Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:02:00 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions