WeMove’s latest production Confessions of an Assassin was conceived as a part-fiction, part-fact exploration of a famous assassination, through the eyes of the perpetrator. An original piece devised by the group and performed without a script, the play probes the layers of motivation, the reasoned choices, the compunctions and larger moral landscape that impels the assassin towards his defining moment. Bharath Kashyap, who conceptualised the piece and directed the production, tells Bryan Richard why he felt compelled to play confessor to the assassin.
How did the idea first take shape? Which actual assassination forms the factual inspiration for this larger exploration of the theme?
The play is based on a very famous assassination, but the identities of the assassin and the victim are not revealed till the very end. Even the characterisation of both these personalities is very different in the play to ensure that it isn’t an easy guess for the audience. The reason for this suspense is to make sure the audience doesn’t carry biases from the history books. I’d like them to come with an open mind and not hold the assassin guilty. Of course, the more perceptive audience members will guess who it concerns somewhere along the way.
The idea of the play largely stemmed from the fact that there are hardly any films or plays made about this assassin, and the ones that were made were either banned or ignored. It is almost taboo to talk about this person. Yet, not a lot of people have asked the question: “why did he do it?” That set me out on a fact-finding mission, which resulted in the urge to put my findings on stage.
Why was the performance not scripted?
At some level, this was an experiment with the cast. I wanted to explore their opinions, perceptions, ideologies, and even their biases. I didn’t really hold auditions for any of the roles. It was more like an activity session where I put people in certain situations and asked them to react to them and we created a piece that showed their thoughts. I asked questions and had debates with them. That’s how I chose the cast.
How did your own fascination with the mind of an assassin evolve, as the piece developed?
My fascination initially began with the victim, who is obviously the reason behind us even knowing the assassin. But killing someone is an extreme step. I wanted to understand what would motivate somebody to take that recourse. As I started reading and looking at things from his perspective, I could see the reasoning behind his action. I still don’t condone the killing, I don’t agree with what he stood for and I’m still inspired by the victim, not the assassin. But there are a few simple, mundane things that make his actions seem right.
At the heart of matters, there is the somewhat slippery question of whether some motivations for taking another life can be more justifiable than others. Is there a moral hierarchy even among assassins? How does the play negotiate it?
What the law calls murder, people might call something else. The British sentenced Bhagat Singh to the gallows for murder, but Indians still celebrate him as a hero and call it an act of patriotism. Political assassins have almost always claimed the moral high ground, often expressing no regret. The play explores the ways in which an assassination may seem justifiable, but killing another person is ultimately not the solution. To quote a line from the play, ‘you can kill the person, but not the ideology.’ The play tries to ask these questions without really taking sides or judging things as ‘right’ or ‘wrong. We want to ask people what they think.
Source : Time Out Bengaluru ISSUE 1 Friday, July 23, 2010
Register
