Halfway House Essay

Aadhe Adhure or Half demeanor House has ofttimes been described as a cross amid Naturalist Theatre and Theatre of the Absurd. Interestingly, both these elements truly undercut each other as theatrical movements and are tell to flummox polarized western theatre. realness argues for heredity and a global perspective on hu universe behavior, which is verbalize to develop emerge of the loving environment in which a particular individual lives. On the contrary, Absurdism believes that on that point are no solutions to the mysteries of universe of discourse because ultimately cosmos is alvirtuoso, lodged to perform repetitive actions in a world without meaning.This knead has umpteen elements of Naturalist theatre, including a linear movement, a trammel time span, an in-depth psychological eccentricization and a be beginning, middle and end. However, the opening line Once a gather, the akin thing al ace over again firm typecasts it as a part of Absurdist theatre, as from the start itself there is a hint at disk shape of events and a hopelessness and banality defined by the repetition of the word again in the get around sentence.Mohan Rakesh borrowed a common twist from the theatre of the Absurd and in Aadhe Adhure, for the first time in Indian theatre the same actor was used to pose five characters. According to Rakesh, The woman is the central character and I lack the four men to be hited by the same actor. What I want to indicate by that is that its non the individual whos responsible for his situation, for he would have baffle the same survival of the fittest no matter what, regardless of the situation. Any prime(a) anyone makes has a certain ridicule in it, for things turn out the same regardless of the choice.Though it was passed off by some critics as a gimmick employed by the playw advanced, its thematic relevance came to the fore when Rajinder Nath, contrary to his own realizes on the importance of the technique, directed the play using five varied actors for the roles. The conclusion was felt to be in earnest lacking as the notion of inherent similarity in all the men which underlines the climax of the play failed to have the same impact. Interestingly, though Savitri implies that it is beneath their appearance, that this same man exists, the implication is only forceful for the consultation because of the simultaneous visual impact of one man playing divergent roles.According to Nath himself it was a decent theatrical device to show how accord to ones convenience the same man stinkpot put on different masks depending on the situation in which he is placed.That the authorial view corroborates with this statement is clear from the prologue where the homophile in the black suit equates identity with fluidity and calls himself undefined. Each character, give a certain set of circumstances, can occupy the place of another. This also follows the assumption that there is no real development or evolu tion of character the character at the beginning of the play volition not be shaped differently by the situation, enforcing the idea of a universality of experience, that things turning out the same regardless of choice.The prologue defines the play as amorphous. The auditory modality is told that there is a piece of each character in all of them. Those watching the play and even those outside the theatre. The characters are said to be people you bump into by chance in the street stressing the alienation of urban assembly from one another as the source of difference as well as similarity, since they are all nameless, flavorless people who can easily get lost in a crowd comprising of the same. Therefore, one man can play five characters because they are, in essence, the same man. This likeness is reiterated by the naming of the characters in their dialogues, not individually, precisely rather as First Man, Second Man, etc. According to the Hindi displacement of the play, the M an in the Black Suit has a look of civility with a touch of cynicism the face of the First man expresses the helpless anguish of having lost the battle of life the Second Man is self-satisfied and yet a little insecure the Third Man projects an air of someone who is committed to a life of convenience and the Fourth Man looks older, quite mature and shrewd.They have different characteristics, lifestyles and politeness of language, yet according to critics Nita Kumar and N. S. Dharan, this device makes use of the inherent notion of playacting which includes the concept of freedom to regard and be whatever one likes. Every man remains an actor and therefore, it is easy for him to put up a faade and to hide his interiority according to the demands of the situation. This concept is emphasized not by the circumstance that the same man plays all the characters, provided rather by the fact that it is possible for the same man to play all the characters. Simply by changing his costume a nd facial expression, he manages to change over into a different person entirely. Therefore, the assertion of the prologue of the interchangeability of these characters is understandable.The problematic element in the play arises out of the contention of the Man in the Black Suit that interchange of roles can take place not only between the men in the play but also between the man and the woman. This strikes a discordant circular as, according to critic Arti Mathur, it negates Savitris gender-specific struggle against social constraints. One of the biggest contributions to the sameness of the multiple characters is that they are all men. And men, by the patriarchal definition especially prevalent in urban conservative India, have a certain societal role which leads to their convergence into one man. Irrespective of circumstances their position in lodge is defined while that of the woman is defined in relation to the man.However, the statement is not entirely defame either as Sa vitri, as the breadwinner of the household is actually the man of the house. Every society has an economic base and a cultural superstructure, which is derived from the base. In Halfway House, the base has shifted and it is the wife who is economically independent, however, the tragedy of the ironically named Savitri lies in the fact that the superstructure has not shifted in accordance with the base. Mahendranath has not become the domestic centre on the nose because of his confinement to the house Savitri is still required to fulfill her womanly domestic duties. She is defined by the scope of what it means to be a woman and has internalized the patriarchal system. This is also made clear by Savitris contempt of what she believes is Mahendranaths lack of manliness. She despises his dependency on herself as well as Juneja and constantly searches for light routes through other, more suitable men.An element of abstractionism is brought in, in which even the characters seem to be awake of an underlying similarity between the men, a device not available to them as characters. Askoks adumbrate of Singhania leads Savitri to ask Binni if the portrait reminds her of someone, and on being asked, Whom, she replies Your father. This intermingling of the play and the outside elements draws attention to this device.There is irony in the fact that one of the ways in which these men are actually the same is in their growth of Savitri. According to critic Veena Das, these characters are seldom all of a piece, they are the broken images of a decomposing society.Mahendranath is a self-described parasite and is later shockingly revealed to be a former wife-beater. His inability to hold the position of the intellect of the family has made him bitter and suspicious suspecting his wife of illicit liaisons, which, although hinted at are never confirmed by the text. His unmanliness makes Savitri lose all respect for him, till their marriage is reduced to a sham of prevalent expectations.Singhania treats Savitri with condescension and his favors are granted with an obvious air of patronization. His pompous manner and speech is calculated to make the listener feel inferior, a fact that is explicitly stated by Ashok. However, in Savitris look his position as her boss and his salary makes him superior and she remains silent in face of his thinly-veiled innuendos and his necrosis positioning of her as one of his childs aunties. His crude behavior is a caricature of the versed exploitation that women have to deal with in work places.Jagmohan is introduced just about an antithesis of Mahendra. He is suave, successful, with a man-of-the-world air and is presented as the eleventh hour rescuer. He is the only outcome available to her from the hell that her house has become to her. However, this probable proactive position loses much of its worth as it is weakened by the fact that she waits for Jagmohan to fetch her. She overlooks his barbs at her expense an d goes with him willingly, an act in defiance of society which is only rewarded by rejection. Again, this seemingly entire man is unable to provide her with emotional support or security. Her disillusioned return drives home the point that there is no escape route left available for her.The point of concern becomes the fact that though Savitri is an economically independent woman, her means of escape from the house is linked to a man. Savitri, in her search for the complete man speaks in the run-in of patriarchy, as the concept of masculinity is a derivative of society. Even though she is a modern, independent woman, she is unable to cut off the suffocating patriarchal bonds of the environment in which she lives.The Fourth Man, Juneja is introduced onto the coif around this point. He gains the sympathy of the audience by showing kindness towards Kinni, a character who is most absolutely neglected in the play. He comes as a voice of rationality as an almost omniscient character. He seems to have intimate knowledge of both Savitri and Mahendranath, as well as their circumstances. His seems to be the projected authorial voice in the play. His looks and manner of speech is structured so as to make the audience favor his point-of-view and assessment of character.Juneja espouses the whimsy that to Savitri the meaning of life is how many different things you can have and enjoy at the same time. He lays the blame for the current situation of hopelessness squarely on her shoulder and her quest for the complete man. According to him the problem is not a social reality, but instead lies in the psychological realm. All of the men she encounters are incomplete and therefore her solution is multiplicity. Her way of filling her void is excess. And she is only attracted to men because, they are not Mahendra. According to Juneja, if she had married one of the men whom she is attracted to she would have still felt she had married the wrong man.Juneja brings in another elem ent of unrealism by accurately recounting the encounter between Jagmohan and Savitri because in his place I would have said the same. Once again this brings forth the sameness of these characters, as Junejas claim is validated by Savitris shattering realization- All of youevery one of youall alike Exactly the same. Different masks, but the face? The same wretched faceevery single one of youThe tragedy of the realization is heightened by Junejas ruthless perusal- And yet you felt you had a choice? Was there really any choice? Tell me, was there?In the above dialogues lies the greatest significance of that particular theatrical device. It brings out a clear dichotomy between the ideal and the real. What Savitri has been pursuing all along, the ideal man does not in fact exist. The notion of her having had a choice has been illusory all along she is trapped in a world with no exit. The play shifts focus to lack of freedom for a female in urban, middle-class India. The tragedy is that J unejas speech provides a dual closure for Savitri both in her search for the perfect man who can fill her void, as well as an acknowledgment that she shall never gain satisfaction, and related to that, happiness.In naturalism, free will is not denied but is contained and confined within the environment in which the individual lives. Savitris free will is her ability to choose but the fulfillment of that choice depends on the context. Her freedom is linked to a man. She is free to choose which man, but it has to be a man. The illusion of choice arises from the four men and her independence is related to shifting from one man to the other.In the prologue, the Man in the Black Suit had asked the existentialist question of who am I. This is now problematized, as the dramatic aim of using the same man for multiple characters casts doubt on whether there is an I at all. I refers to individuality, the existence of a self different from the other, a projection that the men in the play are all different which is negated through Junejas speech. Savitri uses the language of social realism to justify her belief that she moves on to other men because Mahendra is not the right man. Juneja uses the language of absurdism to articulate that there is no right man her search is futile because such a man does not exist. All the men in her life are essentially the same man and can only satisfy her for a limited period of time.Surprisingly, the text does not lead up to its realist conclusion that she is trapped because of the prohibitions of the society in which she lives, a world in which a woman has no choice in her own destiny. It, in fact, veers from its patent initial realist stance of all men are the same in a patriarchy and seems to indicate that all men are the same only to Savitri. Halfway House has often been described as a woman-centric misogynistic play. Even as the play builds up a dark vision of trapped humanity, it weakens the force of its statement by simultaneou sly cutting Savitris credentials. (Nita Kumar). The play does not imply that if the only conditions were different or could be changed then Savitri would be able to escape from the trap, instead her sexuality is chastely condemned, she ought not be able to escape.Juneja contends that all the men who had come into her life were different. They were individuals with their own diverse characteristics and, according to critic Veena Das, what made Savitri see them as parts of the same fractioned entities was her own diseased imagination. Juneja, in saying that all men are the same, is trying to define the essential nature of bank. Desire is forever and a day in excess of the individual and can never be completely satiated. The frightening aspect of desire lies in its limitlessness. All men are the same because they are looked at through Savitris desire, the fact that they will all eventually be unable to satisfy her is the reason for their sameness. Their amorphousness derives from th e fact that they change in accordance with Savitris assessment of them. The transcendental nature of desire will always make her move on to other men and search for completeness. It seems to counsel that every being is half-incomplete, it is not a tragedy, but rather a fact of existence, and Savitri, in her search for masculine perfection and inability to get this fact, is herself responsible for her ruination.Unexpectedly again, the play doesnt build up even to the absurdist conclusion it does not suggest that everybody in essentiality is like Savitri, because desire is universal, exceeding every individual. Instead, the elements of Naturalism as well as Absurdism are developed only to lay the blame on Savitris inherent nature, which is considered responsible for the remainder of this particular family. She stands the last criminate and the play ends before there can be any surmise of defense on her behalf.Interestingly, though certain relationships in life are deterministic, including that of a mother-daughter, sister-brother, etc, the same cannot be said about spouses however, in this very context the language used by Juneja is the final language of containment, of absolute, rigid determinism. As earlier mentioned, the device of one man playing multiple roles is that of the actor and is not available to the character, and therefore it is significant that the visual of the play itself shows that nothing can be changed. Junejas speech corresponds to the structure of the play, which has to come from without and therefore indicates a concurrence with the playwrights view.According to critic Kirti Jain, this device loses a little of its relevance in the actual stage performance as the focus of the audience is drawn primarily towards the clothes, mannerisms and voice of that one actor rather than the thematic import. However, there is no equivocalness on the fact that the nature of the play cannot be understood without a reference to this particular device. through with(predicate) this, the area of thrust changes entirely from the universality of human experience, and the ultimate censure is not of society, or even the circumstances, but rather of Savitris desiring nature. Her lack of constraint and implicit sexuality stand accused as the essential reasons for what makes her home an incomplete, halfway house.