Watched a play after a year. Twelve Angry Jurors doesn't roll as easily off the tongue as Twelve Angry Men, the original play, but it can accommodate women. Watching it as an adult, I absorbed it more than the last time round, as a child. I think I watched the Hindi film Ek Ruka Hua Faisla.
It reminded me of corporates today. How few times we have the courage to say no. But when we do and others come around to our point of view, how satisfying it is to know we've stuck to our guns and were right.
A play is like watching a match live. You can watch it on TV, just like you can watch a movie based on a play, but it's not the same. Knowing that you can reach out and touch the actors, that's it's unfolding in front of you makes you feel part of the action more than if you were chomping on popcorn in the hall.
The production quality was good. There was a screen in the backdrop, where the visuals changed according to the story. Initially I revolted against it- am not a fan of mixing media. They used it to show a scene where a few characters were talking in the loo.
Perhaps showing it live would have taken too much time- changing the set. We are called upon to exercise our imagination less these days. Still, the set looked sophisticated. I was beginning to get reconciled to the astronomical sum we had paid for tickets.
The acting was by and large good. Rajit Kapur was powerful, as was his stocky opponent. A couple of characters had small roles, so couldn't judge their acting. It was interesting to see the shift in power- after the interval the majority became the minority.
The play was also adapted to India, with some Hinglish and Indian references to cricket matches and so on. That too helped make the play feel more real and contemporary.
It was presented by Adyam of Aditya Birla- great initiative. Here's to Rage and Nadir Khan coming out with more such polished productions- look forward to lesser known scripts being staged next time.
It reminded me of corporates today. How few times we have the courage to say no. But when we do and others come around to our point of view, how satisfying it is to know we've stuck to our guns and were right.
A play is like watching a match live. You can watch it on TV, just like you can watch a movie based on a play, but it's not the same. Knowing that you can reach out and touch the actors, that's it's unfolding in front of you makes you feel part of the action more than if you were chomping on popcorn in the hall.
The production quality was good. There was a screen in the backdrop, where the visuals changed according to the story. Initially I revolted against it- am not a fan of mixing media. They used it to show a scene where a few characters were talking in the loo.
Perhaps showing it live would have taken too much time- changing the set. We are called upon to exercise our imagination less these days. Still, the set looked sophisticated. I was beginning to get reconciled to the astronomical sum we had paid for tickets.
The acting was by and large good. Rajit Kapur was powerful, as was his stocky opponent. A couple of characters had small roles, so couldn't judge their acting. It was interesting to see the shift in power- after the interval the majority became the minority.
The play was also adapted to India, with some Hinglish and Indian references to cricket matches and so on. That too helped make the play feel more real and contemporary.
It was presented by Adyam of Aditya Birla- great initiative. Here's to Rage and Nadir Khan coming out with more such polished productions- look forward to lesser known scripts being staged next time.
