Comments on: A heap of broken images

By: rk

rk — Sun, 21 Aug 2005 05:30:38 +0000

Shivani,

Am happy to know you would like to read my other reviews! There is a link for Play reviews, if you have not checked here it is.

If you did, thats all I have - 4 reviews and a post about Rangashankara itself, where I watched all this.

Thanks and keep dropping in.

By: shivani

shivani — Thu, 11 Aug 2005 08:56:26 +0000

Hi,
Do you have any more play reviews I could read?

By: shivani

shivani — Tue, 02 Aug 2005 05:12:12 +0000

rk,
What you say is right. I guess it’s state of mind that determines what you enjoy or look for.

By: rk

rk — Sat, 30 Jul 2005 07:44:48 +0000

Shivani,
I agree that most of us watch art (movies,plays) for entertainment. But given that it is a very effective medium, there is only gain and no harm if it can drive home a strong message. But on the other hand, just entertainment is better than if they try to mix entertainment and message-driving and fail badly at the latter.
Ram,
Appreciate your observation !

By: Ram K

Ram K — Thu, 28 Jul 2005 08:30:43 +0000

It would have been interesting to know what Karnad might have had to say about the Kannada-English debate. He’s one of those equally at ease in two languages. Yet he chooses to write primarily in Kannada, presumably because he finds its creative milieu more enriching and inspiring than the English…

By: Ram K

Ram K — Wed, 27 Jul 2005 13:19:09 +0000

i saw the kannada version. liked it because karnad has moved away from his mythological preoccupations, and is drawing inspiration from contemporary life. (one earlier play he set in our times is anju mallige). overall, odakalu bimba (called a heap of broken images in english) is a slick production, putting to impressive use computer and media-age gadgetry: the main character talks to her own image on a tv screen). those interested in split personality conflicts might also want to watch the recent tamil film anniyan starring vikram and directed by shankar; be warned that it promotes a very scary vigilantism though. karnad’s ouvre is of course more middle class, more concerned with the world of letters. the life of the intellect and the life of worldly ambition vie in his protagonist manjula nayak, and ultimately the play ends somewhat like a tame whodunit. the much written about kannada-english intellectual conflict is just a red herring: the play is not concerned with it at all.

By: shivani

shivani — Tue, 26 Jul 2005 06:43:14 +0000

You know, the first 15-20 minutes will have you believe this play is about a Kannada writer writing in English, and how she deals with it publically and personally. It has you believing that Karnad is probably expressing what he went through.

It’s only later that you realize, pleasantly, that this is actually theatre for threatre’s sake. It’s a well crafted plot with a surprise ending. Pretty much what you’d expect when you go for any play.

I think it’s boring to do plays to drive home a great big social message. It’s fine only sometimes. But not when the art loses out.. When I walk out of a play, I want to remember the plot, the surprise, the acting, the sets, the lighting, the costume. I don’t want to be thinking of some big social issues.

By: Rk

Rk — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 06:53:12 +0000

Shivani,
Thats nice. Let me know about your views on the play.

By: shivani

shivani — Fri, 15 Jul 2005 06:21:02 +0000

I’ve seen Karnad’s plays but this will be special with him directing. I’m going to see the play today, and I’m excited.