Pondering the paradox of Wijasti

By Wawan S. Husin

BANDUNG (JP): From June 3 to June 6, Actors Unlimited of Bandung again came up with a new product after their Dario Fo's Anarki Itu Mati Secara Kebetulan last March.

Founded last year, Actors Unlimited performed their sixth production by staging Senja Dengan Dua Kematian (The Sunset with Two Deaths) composed by Yogyakarta-born script writer Kirdjomuljo (l930-2000).

The Sunset with Two Deaths tells a very simple story.

Kardiman, a dirty old man, married Wijasti's mother for prosperity instead of love. He married Wijasti's mother, who bore Wijasti from another man, because she was wealthy.

Kardiman actually wanted her to love him but he wanted in vain, since Wijasti's mother always loved her lover until she fell ill. His disappointment made him wild and he spent his time gambling, dealing with whores -- one of them the gold digger Surtini, and got drunk days and nights.

To the peak of this, Kardiman borrowed some money from another dirty young man, Karnowo, who was willing to lend his wealth to Kardiman in order to marry with Kardiman's daughter.

Wijasti revolted against the loathsome trap Kardiman had arranged. In her revolt, she wanted to flee from the house -- since her mother was already passing away -- but to her surprise, Kardiman was angry with her and said that Wijasti was not his real daughter and called her a bastard.

Wijasti was very, very sad. Kardiman left the house and suddenly Karnowo came to sexually harass her. Karnowo did it since Kardiman -- whom he thought as Wijasti's father -- had once victimized Karnowo's girlfriend.

At death's door, Kardiman returned home to beg for mercy, he went away hopeless and ruined. Suddenly, Karnowo arrived to ask her for mercy (too), when she refused he then told her that Kardiman "has been dead in the alley ..." The lighting was then darkened.

Exaggerated

The story is not complicated -- and it can be exaggerated -- how can Kardiman and Karnowo beg for Wijasti's mercy. There is no indication that the two pondered their sins and asked forgiveness for the bad conduct they had committed on Wijasti. What can be learned from Kirdjo is how the lady is viewed as inferior from the male perspective and becomes a victim of Kardiman (fake father, trouble maker, wealth gatherer) and Karnowo (man's sexual hegemony on woman's, selfish).

Sumadijo -- a weak and doubtful man -- who falls in love with Wijasti resembles a passive receiver. Sumadijo loves Wijasti very much but without any inclination to free her, to fight against Kardiman.

Sumadijo is not a hope and Wijasti must find her own way to freedom. And this freedom never comes for her. So the structure of the script was very "traditional" in a way that women (Rustini also belongs to this loser group) were then victims of the environment and they cannot make their own enlightenment.

This kind of plot can be contradictory to the present situation in which women can be more articulate with their own thoughts and inspiration. But this can be understood when we can realize that the script was written in the l950s.

The revolt of Wijasti was very limited, what she could do was escaping "...OK, I would leave this damned house... I will no longer stay here..." she stated.

Regardless the "not-so-structurally strong" script, the strength of the play lies in how the simple story was produced on the stage.

Fathul A. Hoesin (young powerful director) has done two important -- if not revolutionary -- treatments on stage. First, he deconstructed the proscenium stage into theater arena of U- shape, and not only this, he put the U-shape into diagonal u- shape.

This arrangement has given the audience a new comprehension of shape perception, and he was successful in deconstructing the pure U-shape, into diagonal U-shape. This shape has deconstructed the audience's point of view and made them more involved in the play.

The appearance of the characters from the audience (three directions) also put stronger articulation of the audience involvement. Together with Otong Durachim (artistic manager), Fathul created minimal expression of "room impression" by putting a wooden square in left front stage and right far-off stage.

The wooden squares were then exposing themselves as signifiers that "...there exist the room and space..."

Following this minimalism orientation, then the bench on the left far-off stage and the iron bed on the right far-off stage in the supposed-to-be-house on the U-shape seemed to have been redundant.

The second thing is Fathul's courageous scene where Karnowo removes his shirt, and tries to sexually harass Wijasti. It was so realistic and outrageous; so victimizing, so powerful that it was loathsome.

Karnowo then attacked Wijasti who could do nothing but experience a hopeless situation. Karnowo was an eagle and Wijasti was a small chicken. The eagle was very menacing, clawing the chicken and at the peak of this view... the lighting went off.

Fathul brought such a brilliant scene to the audience and the peak of the banal image was then (shockingly) absorbed. It was high-caliber treatment for a director and the audience could sigh since the horrible image was not real, but a successful dramatization. The effort was perfect.

All the players have done their best, especially Wijasti (Agustina K. Dewi), who performed her maxim for the entire 70 minutes play. Kardiman (Yoyon Sonjaya) also expressed himself as a real actor, and his 66 years of age has given him nothing but maturity in acting . His fifteen minutes to the end of play was his peak time of how an actor should be playing with body, gestures, and mimicry. His acting was fantastic.

The audience were so empathetic that tears were not rare among them. The falling from the step, tremor of body, stuttering voice, and empty eyes of the dead people were superb.

Stepping out of the auditorium, I asked myself "... Is Wijasti's already a history in this country, or is she still existing... I feel hesitant to say that there is no longer other Wijastis' (or such) in the country..." What do you think?