Prominent film and theatre personality Ratna Pathak Shah is joined by actor Heeba Shah, in a candid conversation about performing arts in the country and more
Reema Gowalla (BOMBAY TIMES; May 16, 2019)

Naseeruddin Shah’s play, The Father had an exhaustive twoweek run outside the city recently. Centred around the subject of dementia, this production also features actors Ratna Pathak Shah and Heeba Shah, who essay the same roles in the play, but in different shows. We caught up with the two a little before their last performance. Excerpts:

Most interactions nowadays are limited to taking a selfie ...
Ratna: We don’t always get to interact a great deal with the audience, partly because of the length of the piece. And at the end of two hours, it’s difficult, especially for Naseer, to find more energy to interact with people. But what’s more unfortunate is that all are interactions have become limited to taking a selfie. We often say that no to photographs. But almost 50% of people, largely consisting of the middle-aged crowd, turn back and walk away. It’s the younger one who usually behind to talk to us; ask questions.

Do you think theatre, in a way, can be considered a source of living in India?
Heeba: Maybe in a way, you could. But it’ll require you to go out and ensure that you have a lot of grants coming in for your play. Right now, the kind of sponsorship that is available for films, is not there for theatre, unless the play is a replica of the film that one is doing. Having said that, I think it is good in a way. Because, the advantage of theatre as an art form is that it is not done entirely for money. It’ll be ideal, if you could survive on theatre and make a lot of money out of it, as in, we put in as much hard work on stage as our counterparts do in films. But again, there are certain aspects that are exclusive to theatre alone. There is always the factor of excitement on stage; you get the energy to live and be happy with it. On stage, you get to rekindle your flame that is about to go off. The creative freedom is always more in theatre.
Ratna: However small your production is, it costs money to bring about a play. And it’s not easy to raise that kind of money. India nurtures various kinds of theatre. There is commercial theatre in different languages, in which actors do manage to survive with the money they earn. I think film versus theatre is a bad comparison to make. Both are two completely different mediums that are made with different intentions and likewise incur different costs. The lack of money is a big issue in theatre. So, if you ask whether or not an actor or a playwright can survive by doing theatre alone? The simple answer is no! Partly because, we don’t believe in giving royalties. There are a number of people in this country who do theatre without giving any royalty to the writer. It also goes under the heading of ‘poor theatre’. This problem needs to be addressed too. Again, there is the lack of quality theatre also. One needs to constantly push boundaries to bring in good plays. The issues in theatre are complicated, and there are no easy answers to them. Nonetheless, despite having so little money in it, there are so many people who still want to do theatre. This art form gives you something that no other work can give.

How can the government help?
Ratna: We need more theatre hubs all over the country. And that is where I feel real government intervention can help — give us a place for rehearsals and spaces where we can perform. The government has completely abdicated its responsibility, and so have the corporates. They would rather organise an awards night, as part of their CSR activities, which would actually be of no benefit for the theatre community. Instead, that money should be directed towards building new spaces and make them available for theatre practitioners at a cheaper rate.

What’s your take on the lack of criticism towards theatre?
Ratna: We are past our prime. But for the younger lot in this country, this atmosphere is no good for creativity. Having said that, there is also a serious lack of constructive criticism towards theatre in India. But when I say criticism, I mean it in its technical sense — critical analysis. It does not necessarily mean finding negative things in somebody else’s work. This kind of an approach cannot lead to good work. There should be feedback — some mechanism, by which I am judged for what I am doing. There is a tremendous lack of criticism within the theatre community itself. Again, there is no professional criticism. Nobody is being made to stand up for their opinions. If you didn’t like my play, tell me why you didn’t like it. Don’t give me a half-baked patronising statement. I feel, this is very dangerous.

Yours is a family of theatre people. What happens when there is a disagreement among each at home regarding a play?
Ratna: When we have disagreements, we sulk for some time, and then we make up. Of course, discussions are often centred around theatre. But I don’t think we have identical opinions. There are things that I like, but the others don’t. And sometimes, it’s the other way round. We enjoy talking about theatre and performances a lot. In The Father, for instance, Heeba and I play same role. Of course, the age difference is obvious. But initially, there was a major problem in thinking of Naseer as my father. I thought I was doing it well until somebody pointed out saying, “Hey, he is your father in the play, not your husband. So, stop treating him so seriously.” That’s when I realised that she was right. We don’t take our parents half as seriously as we do our partners. You tend to speak with your parents with a familiarity that you don’t often manage with your partner. That incident changed my entire perspective of the play.