THE EDITOR, Sir:IN HER review of the University Players' production of Maharani's Misery (Entertainment, Thursday May 25, 2006), Tanya Batson-Savage quite rightly points to the success of the production in its exploration of the history and politics of the topic under scrutiny.
However, in making a distinction between history and drama, she skirts around the question which remains central to the staging of most historical dramas, namely: At what point and to what extent is history turned into fiction?
Dame Helen Mirren may have acted her socks off in HBO's recent film of Elizabeth 1, and will probably, and quite deservedly, be nominated for a number of Emmy Awards, but I would imagine that the extent to which historical accuracy was sacrificed to fiction for the sake of dramatic effect in the series remains problematic for historians.
In a recent review of Professor Verene Shepherd's book Maharani's Misery, writer Mary Hanna repeatedly alluded to the notion that Shepherd's historical account would make a wonderful novel. But that shift to the novelised version of the story would require the kind of creative input which would transform the original story to an extent that would bear little resemblance to its historical source. In order to avoid this kind of tension between history and the fictional circumstances of drama, the University Players' tried to remain as faithful to Professor Shepherd's scholarship as possible, adding symbolic sequences such as the veneration of Shiva and the symbolic tearing of the sari, rather than attempting to inappropriately pursue the literal staging of a rape scene.
The result may best be described as documentary-drama and not as historical drama in the style of the C.L.R. James' The Black Jacobins. Such distinction remains critical in any future assessment of Caribbean theatrical output and endeavour.
I am, etc.,
BRIAN HEAP
Staff tutor in Drama, UWI
stafftutordrama@yahoo.co.uk
Philip Sherlock Centre for the Creative Arts
UWI, Mona,
Kingston 7,
