THEATRE
AT AN ALL-TIME LOW IN DELHI: BARRY JOHN
By Steven Baker, Indo-Asian News Service (9 April 2007)
Veteran
theatre personality Barry John has uprooted himself and his school
from Delhi and moved to Mumbai, the heart of the Hindi film industry,
because the capital doesn't offer enough opportunities to do well.
"Theatre activity has sunk to an all-time low; television
offers few and uninspiring opportunities; and film is virtually
non-existent. So, just as my students have little option but to
migrate to Mumbai to improve their prospects, the same now applies
to me," John told IANS in an interview.
Since
his arrival from Britain in the late sixties, John has thrived
on challenges, on pioneering into new territory and encouraging
others to join him on the journey. Superstar Shah Rukh Khan is
also a product of his training school but John refuses to take
the credit for the actor's delivering skills."The credit
for the phenomenally successful development and management of
Shah Rukh's career goes to the superstar himself."
"On
the basis of my own education and experience, I do not believe
that anyone - teacher or mentor - can be credited with delivering
every skill or quality that an actor possesses. Acting is a complex
alchemy of inner and outer experiences, awareness and skills that
are drawn from many sources, and then filtered through the unique
persona of the actor. And the learning never stops.
Q: After 36 years in Delhi you are relocating to Mumbai. What
prompted you to move?
A:
Delhi has become a haven for corrupt politicians, bureaucrats
and property speculators. Culturally, it is a virtual desert.
Theatre activity has sunk to an all-time low; television offers
few and uninspiring opportunities; and film is virtually non-existent.
So, just as my students have little option but to migrate to Mumbai
to improve their prospects, the same now applies to me.
Q:
Shah Rukh has credited you with teaching him all he knows about
acting. Do you agree?
A:
On the basis of my own education and experience, I do not believe
that any one - teacher or mentor - can be credited with delivering
every skill or quality that an actor possesses. Acting is a complex
alchemy of inner and outer experiences, awareness and skills that
are drawn from many sources, and then filtered through the unique
persona of the actor. And the learning never stops.
I
imagine that I had a profound impact on SRK's formative years
as an actor, which are vital in laying positive foundations, fostering
aptitude and self-confidence. His training was more of a traditional
apprenticeship than a formal schooling, and he brought to it his
trademark energy, hard work, intelligence and humour. The credit
for the phenomenally successful development and management of
his career goes to the superstar himself.
Q:
More recently, Kunal Kapoor, Shiney Ahuja, amongst others, passed
through your doors. Did they have star potential from the beginning?
A:
In the light of Shiney Ahuja's and Kunal Kapoor's more recent
achievements, I might be tempted to say, in retrospect, that they
had star potential that was evident during their training. But
the fact is I was not aware of it. Both were good students to
work with: committed, involved, questioning and responsive.
Q:
Private acting schools are not cheap. Is economic status a factor
in the success of an actor in India?
A:
Considering my own career options when I was leaving school in
the early 1960s, teachers told me I didn't have a hope in hell
of being accepted into an acting school in London (viz, my working
class roots, my 'Midlands' dialect, my ignorance of dramatic literature
and the ways of the West End). So I decided to be a teacher of
drama instead.
Traditionally,
as in the West, acting is a low-status profession for all manner
of vagabonds and layabouts with lose morals.
The
typical Indian actor, rural or urban, is poor; a bohemian who
sacrifices material prosperity for the freedom, passion and transcendence
gained through his art. If he attracts 'royal', private or state
sponsorship, he is further blessed. As with most things in India,
film is a family business. Economic status is definitely a factor
in the success of an actor, but the door is always open for exceptional
talent too, and rags-to-riches stories are still a possibility.
Q:
What are your thoughts on the portrayal of 'goras' in Hindi films?
A:
The portrayal of westerners in Indian cinema varies between the
authentic and sublimely ridiculous. Traditionally, the 'goras'
are the villains and they have been licensed to play fiendish,
arrogant and dehumanised characters, as any in a Victorian melodrama.
I
have played colonial Brits, who are typically stiff upper lips,
callous and calculating. In "Massey Sahib" my character
was warm and friendly, torn between the ways of the natives and
the British rulers. The more recent films "Kisna" and
"Rang De Basanti" have a reasonably fair and truthful
portrayal of westerners.
Q:
Will your new courses in Mumbai have a greater focus on film rather
than stage?
A:
Yes, the courses have been redesigned for Mumbai, and now accommodate
modules on acting for the camera and the experience of shooting
a short film. Beyond the technical and aesthetic aspects, there
are further modules on the launching and building of careers for
actors.
Q:
Are you nervous about your move to Mumbai?
A:
It's a move to 'The Big Apple', with a lot at risk financially.
There's lots of competition, and I am the new boy on the block.
Of course I'm nervous!
|