The Dramatic Arts : Uravodu Vilayadu

Something that is pretty common when it comes to entertainment of any form is that a concept ends up being more interesting than the actual final product. This is very much common in a lot of movies, novels and, focusing on the topic at hand, stage plays. It always breaks my heart when I see it happen, and I have seen it happen a lot, because most of the time the concept is so original and so beautifully intricate that you are left wondering what it could have been.

Uravodu Vilayadu is not a badly executed play but the concept itself outshines the execution so much that the end product feels incomplete. Before I dive headfirst into this analysis I want to admit that I have been working on this analysis for the past week because I really want to do this play justice. I also want to say this, GirishAyapathy and Gowthami gave their all on stage and they were by far, along with the music by Guhaprasath and lights by “Cheta” Ravi, the most captivating aspects of the play.

The concept of the play is largely simple; what happens when you play with relationships, and hence the title Uravodu Vilayadu. The play has a clear protagonist and antagonist and it is between them the whole plot revolves around. You may have noticed that I didn’t use the words Hero and Villain. This is because this play presents the most interesting and vile of protagonists and the most stubborn and righteous of antagonists. This results in an amazing paradox, where as a member of the audience you are left wondering whom to root for.

That, in essence, is its greatest achievement. You are shown outright that the protagonist is a womanizer and not a man of many morals, but a combination of incredible acting from Girish and punchy dialogues, makes sure that the audience is on his side. You cheer for him, you goad him on and you feel for him. When the antagonist does appear in the form of Gowthami, you understand where she is coming from and the righteousness behind her actions, but you question her methods, and you wonder if she is right because she is trying to punish a man who is doing everything he can to change, and more importantly a man you have come to root for.

It is almost as if Girish is the string in the guitar and Gowthami is the tuning key, and with each and every scene the tension is wound tighter and tighter putting the audience on the edge of their seats waiting to see when the string finally snaps. It almost turns into a waiting game to see how many turns, how many twists and how many blows it will take to destroy the protagonist. The chemistry between the two artists is almost volatile and it was definitely a treat to see them interact on stage.

Unfortunately, the string never snaps. It is almost as if, once the peak of tension is reached, someone just chose to quickly unwind the string and release the tension in a very unceremonious manner leaving me unfulfilled because I was really expecting the snap and also the repercussions. The play also ends up becoming this moral dilemma, when the tension peaks in the form of a question put before the protagonist and also the audience the writer Poovai Mani, despite his incredible tenacity seemed to have written the play into a corner. The peak was so high that we as the audience are left with no option but to jump down a potentially un-survivable pit.

I know that I am using a lot of metaphors here, but there seems to be no other way to describe how I felt without revealing the whole plot, that is not something that I intend to do because it really is something that I liked a lot. But let’s take a moment and start picking into the writing and the directing. I am all for thrillers almost to the point of it being a bias. While making people laugh is in no way an easy task, I find that the caliber of writing and direction that a thriller must possess to hold the audience on the edge is much more difficult to achieve. This also means that I am much more critical towards thrillers, and the way they are executed.

In essence I believe this play could have been an amazing three actor show with just one other supporting character. Despite all the actors giving really good performances I would have preferred not to have the two father figures on stage and have them speak what eventually amounts to exposition. Dialogue exchanges that happen just to provide audience information is something that I am not a huge fan of and something that was apparent in the first few scenes of the play. No one in the audience needs a complete rundown of the family history just to know that one person is an orphan and the mother of another character died.

What makes it all worse is that the play does use this tactic of not showing the father during the second half by making the character mention him in passing and letting the daughter know that he was worried about her absence. Why introduce characters who bear no real weight to the play only to have them appear for a few scenes which basically explains things which the audience can pick up on very easily.

The independent daughter can be the CEO of her father’s company and talk to him on the phone thus establishing that she is very intelligent, capable, and independent and also let the audience know that the father is the greater presence on the daughter’s life. Have another conversation where the daughter sympathizes with the protagonist as she mentions that despite growing up without a mother she had a very supportive father but he didn’t have any such parental figure in his life to lean on for support.

The reason why I believe this works is because it gets the audience engaged. They have to piece together the characters thus making them even more invested. When two close friends meet and narrate their life incidences to each other like they didn’t know each other until five minutes back it takes the audience out of the flow and makes them feel out of character. I also felt that the backstage work, at least on the show that I saw was very much unrehearsed, and it is something I hope gets fixed with later shows.

There were also other minor problems, like actors forgetting lines and freezing on stage and one very obvious moment of an actor forgetting to perform a specific action. What made it that much more impactful was the fact that the specific action is one that comes back later as an ironic representation of a certain event; and while this may seem harsh I expected the inauguration to go on far more smoothly both on and off stage. Fortunately these were all mistakes that can be easily rectified with a few rehearsals so I do hope future shows don’t have these problems.

Despite any and all critical analysis that I may provide pointing out minute errors that can be rectified, and despite the play being executed rather well, I stick with my statement that the conceptually that play was far better than the version that was on stage. This, in my opinion, is because of the scripting and the direction not having a way out of the climax that the concept built up to. The concept essentially provides a starting point for the conflict and the central theme. It doesn’t always provide the perfect conclusion leaving it to the writer and director.

That is why this play had this weird effect on me where I was surprised and pleased with the staging of the concept and themes, but unsatisfied because of the direction that it headed in. Maybe it is because opinions differ, and so do ideologies and I didn’t agree with the way the writer took the play but most of the audience did agree with it. I really don’t know how the ending affected the other members of the audience but I didn’t like how clear cut it was. I felt that it was too neatly wrapped and, in a way, too “perfect”. The characters were all intricate, complicated and grey that the ending was too black and white.

Everybody knows about poetic justice and everybody wants poetic justice but it never really is that simple when it comes to things as complicated as the themes explored in this play. Every choice, every action, every reaction and very single word has repercussions and not all of them are good, even if the intentions are pure. The play, in its moments of clarity, makes us question our own morals and asks us what we would do in a situation like this. But the final scene, despite it being the one that showcases an amazing performance, gives us an ultimatum and conclusion that pales in comparison to the dilemmas posed to the audience.

This play was extremely divisive as I was stuck between extremes. I really wanted to like it because of the concept and sometimes even the execution. I definitely liked it for the acting and the music and lights. I was disappointed with the easily avoidable faults it had and how the ending was so disappointing after the amazing rise of tension. I do not know on how many points other people will agree on with me. The topic and themes are a bit controversial, thus ensuring a wide variety of opinions.

A lot of people ask me what I would have done different in the plays or movies that I critique. The honest answer that I give is that I don’t really know. It is something that I will have to ponder over a long time. This reply is something that gets a lot of people buzzing. I believe that is because, technically speaking, if I find something wrong I must have some idea on how to fix it.

I really want to stress that there are only so many things that I can give opinions on how to fix and most of them are just simple fixes. I don’t consider myself more talented than the creators, writers and directors that make these experiences, but rather I look at them as inspiration and sources of learning that I can use to improve both my creative skills and critiquing skills.

UravoduVilayadu really made me think and for that I am infinitely grateful. I had an amazing time thinking up various scenarios and conclusions that I would have been happy with, and also thinking of the moral and emotional repercussions of the ending. It is an interesting play to say the last and I am waiting to see what comes next from the team behind Uravodu Vilayadu.