Pondering the paradox of Wijasti
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?