Lorenzo J.

Ricci 5/2/18

Theatre is one of the oldest art forms in the world. It is said to date back all the way to ancient

Greece, where it was performed in the amphitheaters. Even in the days of Greece, theatre was a

form of expression of culture, tradition, and history. Theatre can be seen in many cultures, and

theatrics can be seen in even more. One culture that is known to have a particularly old theatre

tradition is India. One of India’s greatest dramatist was Kalidasa in around 1st century A.D. Now,

India still has a thriving theatre culture, but it does face some issues like many theaters. For

centuries, in the western world and sometimes in the east, it was never allowed to have a women

portray any characters on stage. Now there are some ideas that ancient Indian theatre never had

this problem, but that still does not mean that women are not treated differently in modern

theatre. In Indian theatre, there is a particularly different attitude toward actresses and the west

has in fact influenced the way Indian theatre is performed.

India is a country that is very much always talked about when large empires are discussed.

The British empire was one of the largest in the world, and India was often considered the Crown

Jewel of the empire. Even in Indian theatre, there are aspects of the colonialism that once

permeated India. Theatre is actually separated into two “classes” of theatre. Amanda Weidman

stated in her article analyzing Seizer’s piece in the Anthropological Quarterly, “The history of

how certain performing arts came to be defined as ‘highbrow’ and while others were relegated to

‘lowbrow’ status in South India is intimately intertwined with emerging definitions of Indianness

under the conditions of colonial modernity” (Weidman, 3). This is only one way of how global

powers shaped art, which is supposed to be a way to have self-expression that is unhindered.

The main type of theatre that Seizer focused on was special theatre. According to Weidman,

special drama is “referring to a kind of theatre where actors and actresses are individually
booked for each performance, distinguishes it from other theatrical genres in Tamil Nadu: the

more highbrow “social dramas” performed primarily for middle-class audiences in Madras, and

folk theater genres such as Tamil street theatre” (Weidman, 3). Weidman continued analyzing

Seizer’s work saying that as Seizer shows “special drama is a hybrid from in many respects. It is

a combination of Tamil, British, and Parsi theatrical traditions, with origins in the 1890s”

(Weidman, 3). The theatre itself is interesting in the sense that “although performed in Tamil

Villages and rural settings, Special Drama uses a proscenium stage, a feature reminiscent of its

urban origins, and of traveling Parsi drama troupes that became popular in Tamil Nadu around

the turn of the twentieth century” (Weidman, 3). According to David Mason, some groups in

India classify “westernized conventions of representation in urban theatre (especially the

proscenium stage) as damaging colonialist legacies that must be countered through a return to

precolonial, indigenous traditions of performance” (Mason, 243). Clearly, imperialism can

deeply affect a society, even in their arts.

In order to truly understand the power of the Special Drama, a deeper understanding of it

must be achieved. According to Susan seizer, a special drama “requires a minimum of ten

performers: six actors and four musicians. For the majority of plays, the cast in female actresses-

one in the highly stigmatizing dancer role, the other in the relatively more prestigious heroine

role-and four male actors” (Seizer, 218). Seizer did an extensive study with the Tami theatre

form of special theatre and in fact also states the very name “’Special Drama’ (in Tamil, Special

Natakam) refers to a unique organizational feature of this genre of popular theater: each artist is

hired “specially” for every performance. There are no troupes in Special Drama: instead each

artist is an independent professional” (Seizer, 218).

 There seems to be a sense that all are equal upon the stage in India, however, the process by

which these actors and actresses are found is inherently tied to gender roles. According to Susan

Seizer, the process of booking males and females is very different. Seizer states that for females,

“Instead of taking bookings directly, an actress hangs her calendar in a booking shop. All were

very male public spaces; several were printing shops in which booking artists' calendars was a

side business, while for others such calendars were the main business” Seizer, 221). This goes to

show that these calendar shops are seemingly more just about the women and less about the men.

This is evident when Seizer explains that, “while the calendars of both male and female artists

hang in these shops, only men are present physically, in the flesh that is, sitting around talking,

checking on the dates of their next performances, or drumming up business for new bookings”

(Seizer 221). Thus, while yes, the Special Drama is inclusive of both men and women, there is

definitely more obstacles and gender blocks for the women.

These calendars are a very large part of the process for women, not so much for men

throughout the process, women are involved as little as possible, and it then is mostly just a

business venture for men. As Seizer states, men “interested in hiring an actress do not approach

her directly but, rather, approach her calendar. An actress's calendar is in this way a material

stand-in for her. It provides sponsors with a way to contract an actress without direct interaction

and simultaneously allows the actress to absent herself from the negotiations” (Seizer,226). This

seems very unusual, especially given the sort of supposed freer form of the theatre, however, it is

not a totally unexpected thing. In fact, Seizer compares it to another traditional Indian practice of

marriage where she writes that as “in the process by which good Indian girls become brides, here

men engage in negotiations in which a woman's person is implicated but not dialogically

involved. While a man books an actress, she stays at home; an effigy of her (her personalized
calendar) circulates in her stead” (Seizer, 226). Thus we see that an actual woman is unnecessary

for their own interviews and that by using this calendar system, men who are producing acquire

all the info they need.

This entire process is a very impersonal one and seems to in essence objectify women to a

mere commodity. Seizer says it best when she writes:

Any man approaching an actress's calendar to book a drama may pick her

effigy off the wall, handle it, peruse it, flip through its skirt, and read therein the

unfolding story of the actress's public life: where she will be in the coming days,

where she has been in the recent past, how busy this season looks, how in demand (or not) she

is this

season. Penned onto the back side of her calendar is the

actress's performance fee, which is a private note from her, hidden from public

view. If he selects her, he pens his name and his place-name directly onto the

front of her calendar. Without her ever having to meet with him, he has arranged

for her to come to his place, when he chooses, for a fee (226).

This is the final part of the process and concludes the completely impersonal business

negotiation that occurs between male producers and the actresses.

The idea of special theatre is not solely intertwined with just the talent and those that find

them. The shop keepers also involved in this process. According to the article, that in fact “the

shop owner, who functions as a booking agent, has a certain financial stake in these negotiations,
for he earns a small fee…. every time an artist whose calendar he posts is booked for a drama”

(Seizer, 223). There is an air of good old western capitalism when it comes to this. The shop

owners ae running a business, but do not shy away from the opportunity to make more money.

Because of this western capitalist idea, the shop owners know that “for the sake of business . . .

wants the calendars of popular artists in his shop. He needs to know whether or not a particular

artist will actually attract sponsors' bookings; he needs to know each artist's value and

reputation” (Seizer, 223).

Special dramas are very intricate to assemble and but on, but they are also heavily connected

to the communities they are performed in. as mentioned, the shop owners are looking to make

some extra cash when he can. A large part of this would come from the sponsors for the Special

Drama shows. As Seizer points out, the sponsors of “any given Special Drama event are the

villagers and townsfolk who hire the performers, which makes each event uniquely attuned to the

desires of the local audience and the requirements of the particular locations” (Seizer, 219). That

being said, the community involvement does not end with just the local sponsors. It extends to

the viewers of these special dramas as well. As Seizer notices in her study:

Audiences travel to see dramas from a wide range of distances. In villages, not only do the

majority of residents in the sponsoring village itself at- tend the drama but, in addition,

villagers often invite their relatives, such that the drama, and the larger festival in which it

partakes, generally becomes the occasion for an extended family visit. Besides villagers and

their relatives, the general public-in practice, the residents of neighboring villages-is also

welcome to attend, often swelling the ranks of any given village audience for Special Drama
 to roughly 3,000 people. These audience members sit, stand, or lie on the grounds of the

village commons, on blankets and mats they bring with them from home (219).

These Special drama shows are more than a mere play or art piece, they are full on community

gatherings, ones that have the potential to gather thousands of Indians together to view a uniting

performance that is a celebration of a long and rich theatrical history.

Unfortunately, as uniting as these special dramas can be, there is still the shadow of gender

roles and restrictions that affect this. While they are able to act, there is a stigma that comes with

female attendance. As Seizer explains, that “attending such an outdoor, night-time public event is

more socially fraught for Tamil women than men . . . The public sphere in Tamilnadu is largely a

male domain, as I discuss further below; local women tend to guard against compromising their

own reputations by declining to attend the event” (220). This further shows that any involvement

in the Special drama is just that, special. What is able to happen on the stage would normally be

nonexistent in the everyday lives of the Tamil and other Indians. As Seizer does explain, it is not

that women cannot attend, it is that should they choose to “they will do so under the protective

cover of a large familial group. Moreover, women and men watch the dramas from sex-

segregated sides of the audience. The gendered propriety of such audience relations exists in

marked contrast to the heightened intimacies of the mixed-gender scenes enacted onstage”

(Seizer220).
 Work Cited

Daugherty, D. (1998). Women theatre activists of india: Interview, 1997. Asian Theatre Journal :

ATJ, 15(2), 311-313. Retrieved from http://bryant.idm.oclc.org/login?

url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/214411438?accountid=36823

Seizer, Susan “Roadwork: Offstage with special drama actresses in Tamilnadu, South India” Publication

info: Cultural Anthropology; Washington Vol. 15, Iss. 2 (May 2000) Proquest

SENGUPTA, ASHIS. “Staging Diaspora: South Asian American Theater Today.” Journal of American

Studies, vol. 46, no. 4, 2012, pp. 831–854., www.jstor.org/stable/23352467.

Weidman, Amanda “The Tragedy of Comedy: Staging Gender in South India Susan Seizer, Stigmas of the

Tamil Stage: An Ethnography of Special Drama Artists in South India.” Anthropological Quarterly;

Washington Vol. 78, Iss. 3, (Summer 2005) JSTOR

“India by David Mason .” Routledge Handbook of Asian Theatre, by Siyuan Liu, Routledge, 2017.

Stephens, Judith L. “Gender Ideology and Dramatic Convention in Progressive Era Plays, 1890-1920.”

Theatre Journal, vol. 41, no. 1, 1989, pp. 45–55. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3207923.
Gillespie, Marie, et al. Drama for Development: Cultural Translation and Social Change. SAGE,

2011.

Flynn, Alex, and Jonas Tinius. Anthropology, Theatre and Development: the Transformative Potential of

Performance. Palgrave Macmillan, 2015.