My response to the Review of my play ‘ID’ in The Hindu by Suganthy Krishnamachari
The review of my play, “ID” published in The Hindu dated 8th May 2015 is far distanced from reality and is negatively biased. This review has been a trigger for my detailed response and rebuttal of the points raised. Please note that I respect reviews and have never done a reply for any of the 21 plays scripted by me. I do understand censure and appreciation are part of any review intended to promote a good product.
TAMIL THEATER in its entirety needs constructive feedback and criticism and not flippant reviews slamming the creator and the artistes without any logic. Such reviews do not augur well for the future of TAMIL THEATER which I represent with undying passion and commitment.
Given the limitation of a theatre play, my efforts to bring a complex technical subject in a simple manner was well received by the audience but surprisingly to the reviewer, everything seems to be “riddled with holes”. The reviewer has raised points that were answered emphatically in the play and many others from her figment of imagination, raw understanding and inattentiveness.
Though I have the necessary points to answer every statement in her review, I am picking out few to highlight the IQ level of the reviewer.
“When you are talking about hawala and terrorism, wouldn’t the engagement be at the highest level, with Ministers and perhaps even the Prime Minister being kept informed?”
My police officer Parameswara Iyer, a true representation of plainclothes men, is from the CYBER CELL and his duty is to inform relevant departments of any such plans to prevent them from happening. Why would he go to ministers and PM every time he gets an input? It is made clear in the play that he speaks to the concerned departments to thwart the attacks.
“How can a lone hacker, operating from his house deal will all this? “ – This statement shows that the reviewer has absolutely no knowledge about what a hacker is. I want to reiterate here that even this technical subject was explained in simple terms by the hacker Divakar and understood by many including senior citizens witnessing the play.
Also, from the points raised and from the above question, it is evident that the reviewer was not paying attention to the dialogues nor the story.
Further, the reviewer seems to have caught up some words and dialogues now and then to raise it up as issues to cover HER inability to understand the subject, thereby bringing the whole concept of creative freedom, characterization, and my efforts in the play to question.
Theatre substitutes situations and time lapse through dialogues many times and it is for the viewers to keep attention to the dialogues and every theatre lover does it and that is why I am still in theatre.
And the audacity of the reviewer to comment on the Humane Police officer depicted as Cool headed, Intelligent and Tech Savvy as “a concern about the future of our country” is immature and her statements are hampered by her affinity to Masala movies far cut from reality. It also highlights her incapability to review drama that draws on realistic characters and situations.
“Hampered by a bad script and half-hearted performances, ‘ID’ was a complete let down.”
From the explanations above, one can understand the purpose behind this review and as such no answer for this statement is necessary. I am still surprised that she could not find one positive thing to write about the whole play, which also throws light on her mental frame and psychological status.
I am open to stage my play for people who are interested in seeing the validity of my response to the insensitive review of Suganthy Krishnamachari.