1876 Review

The rain was relentless on the evening that I set out to watch a performance of 1876. Half-expecting to be one among only a handful of audience members inside the 224-seater Veda Kunba Theatre in Andheri, I was surprised and encouraged to see the space slowly swell to almost-full capacity.

From the thunderous applause that followed the opening announcement to the cheers and laughter that peppered the duration of the over-two-hour performance, it was clear we knew who we were rooting for: ourselves. After all, the text explores the impact of British colonialism in India, the failures of the judicial system, art mirroring society, and the censorship of ideas — the latter being especially relevant today.

Written by Karan Bhanushali and Amatya, 1876 revisits the time when members of the National Theatre Company were put on trial for staging the Bengali-language play, Nil Darpan (The Indigo Planting Mirror), written by Dinabandhu Mitra in 1858-1859. At the time, any speech or text deemed “seditious” or inciting people to rebel against an established authority — colonial rule in this case — could be suppressed by law. The original play highlighted how the Indigo Revolt in Bengal was a response to the ways in which Indian farmers were being exploited on multiple fronts and forced into debt by European planters who insisted on indigo — a commercially profitable but low-yielding crop — being grown for them.

The title1876 is a direct reference to the year in which The Dramatic Performances Act was implemented by the British Government in India. The courtroom drama is mostly in English and Hindi with a little Bengali thrown in, and is also a play within a play or metatheatre. So, we’re made aware we’re watching actors play actors, as opposed to them playing their characters. Another metatheatrical device employed by the writers is the use of frequent jumps in space and time: the “past” in which Nil Darpan was staged and the “present” in which the trial is unfolding. For a play dealing with serious questions around fundamental issues, including the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the writing offers several moments of levity.

The actors bring a vulnerability and openness to their performances that deserves special mention. Dharmaj Joshi, who plays the prosecutor George Harrison, brought conviction and balance to a role that he could have easily hammed his way through. The sincerity of his portrayal of the character is what allowed for us to laugh out loud during the performance.

The set is minimal, allowing for the creative use of the space. While the play is thoughtfully lit, including the use of backlighting to create striking silhouettes, there were points I felt pulled out of the moment as the images struck a discordant note. The sound design lacked a sure-handedness, relying, at times, on the literal translation of cues from the script. Take, for instance, when an actor references fire breaking out and his words are accompanied by the sound of the crackling of fire. While one might argue this is an attempt to create an immersive experience, the touch came off as silly, even tacky. The choice to have a disembodied voice (voiced by Satchit Puranik) that booms from “above” to represent the omnipotence of the court, instead of an actor play the actual role, while an interesting idea, has the opposite effect — making the character of the judge appear hollow and, thereby, powerless. The live singing, though, especially in the beginning, helps set the tone for the performance.

Ultimately, 1876 is strongest in its gentlest moments — when its young and able cast has little other than their own skills to draw on. I left feeling hopeful that we can dream of better futures — not merely for ourselves, but for the theatre itself.

New shows expected in November and December.

About the reviewer: Aviva Dharmaraj is a writer who grew up in the theatre.