The memoir of Colonel Gaspard Drouville, who lived in Tehran between 1812 and 1813, provides us with a vivid description of open-space performances of the Taʹziyeh. He witnessed in an open space a Taʹziyeh performance that involved about four thousand participants. He writes:
During the month of Muharram, nothing could be heard in Iran but the cry of mourning and the name of Hussein. The mourning processions in groups of fifty passed from street to street, with torn shirts, beating their heads and chests and chanting ‘Oh Hussein’… These passionate scenes were performed in the streets, bazaars and big squares and in the houses of noblemen… The major part of these performances occurred on the tenth day of Muharram. Hussein, the son of Ali, came into the field. He was journeying to Kufa with a cavalry regiment escorting him. Suddenly, Obid ibn Zaid [a commander of the Yazid Army] arrived with thousand of soldiers. Imam refused to surrender and to swear allegiance [to Yazid]. He continued fighting with unequalled bravery even though he had only a few supporters. I was surprised at seeing how close this scene was to reality. I was even more surprised when I saw that, of those four thousand solders who had participated in the fight, none had been injured despite the apparent lack of order and restraint. The ritual of the Taʹziyeh is performed among different tribes with either few or many variations. However, the basic structure of these performances is the same.2
Another piece of evidence that illustrates the practice of Taʹziyeh performances being presented in open spaces is provided by E.Flaudin, who was in Iran in 1840. He writes:
One of the Shah’s brothers invited us to see one of these Taʹziyehs. A few days later we went to another Taʹziyeh. This second one was performed in open space where the spectators sat on the roofs and or watched from windows. What attracted me most was a battle scene between the follower of Hussein and the army of Yazid. This scene was so effective that one could believe it was real.*3
Both the Drouville and the Flaudin accounts emphasize that the Taʹziyeh performances took place in an open-air space and included the participation of thousands of people who, in accordance with the ritual aspect of the Taʹziyeh, acted not only as spectators but also as performers.
There are also paintings from the Qajar period that show a performance of the Taʹziyeh in an open space employing very simple and stylized mise en scène and scenery. The first painting (Figure 24) was created by Heinrich Brugsch,4 who was in Iran in 1860 and 1861. This painting shows a Taʹziyeh performance from the city of Rustam Abad, in northern Iran. A rug on the ground represents the stage area and a drummer and a trumpeter make up the orchestra. Apart from this, there is nothing but the actors themselves. The spectators are seated on the ground around the performers, and nothing intervenes between them and the actors. The simplicity and power of this form of performance is clearly evoked by the Brugsch painting.
The second painting (Figure 25) is by Vidanbach,5 who was also in Iran in 1860 and 1861. This painting portrays a Taʹziyeh performance in the yard of an inn or takiyeh. The spectators are seated on the ground as well as on the balconies. There is a simple cover over the stage area to protect the actors from sun or rain. The trees are used as tent poles. Even though the use of a horse and a chair makes this performance a little more elaborate than that depicted in the Brugsch painting, it still portrays a simple style of performance. The use of a platform as a stage in the Taʹziyeh became the practice when it moved indoors. This type of stage-platform was first used inside big tents, erected for the occasion, and later inside takiyehs, or playhouses, built mainly for performing the Taʹ ziyeh and other religious ceremonies. Flaudin writes: The Taʹziyehs are performed in the tents which are erected in public squares or yards of the mosques or big palaces. A platform is located in the middle of the tent.’*6
24. A carpet on the ground forms the stage in a Taʹziyeh performance in 1860.
25. A Taʹziyeh performance in the yard of a takiyeh in 1860.
26. A Taʹziyeh performance in a takiyeh in Tehran. The pond is covered to be used as the stage.
27. A takiyeh in Tehran in 1896. The stage is a rectangular brick platform in the middle of the yard.
The open space, or what Peter Brook has identified it as ‘empty space’,7 is not just an architectural issue in theatre. The use of an open space not only determines the style of performance but also, as a central element within a particular aesthetic of the theatre, has an effect on every element of a production. In open-space theatre, the relationship between the auditorium and the stage is so close and so alive that everything else in the production becomes a sub-element serving this relationship. Because of this, acting in an open-space theatre is completely different from acting in a theatre of closed spaces. In open-space theatre, the players distance themselves from a detailed psychological approach to the characters and create a stylized method by which they can communicate the essential elements of their characters to a huge number of spectators in an immediately recognizable fashion. This type of theatre asks actors to create the essence of their characters quickly, to demonstrate their essential characters quickly, and to distance themselves from their roles in a manner that allows them to participate in the performances not only as players but also as spectators. This makes it possible for the actor playing Shimr, the killer of Imam Hussein, to cry for his victim, since he is, at one and the same time, an actor and a spectator. The audience is able to distinguish between these two elements of the stage performance.
When compared to performances in closed theatre spaces, the value of ‘word’ diminishes in open-space theatre, while ‘movement’ and ‘gesture’ become more important. Conventional elements play an especially significant role in open-space theatre, since the spectator has to catch everything as quickly as possible. Consequently, in the Taʹziyeh, every movement, gesture and object becomes a symbol that is easily understandable to the spectators. In such a symbolic form of theatre there is no need for realistic scenery and props. The empty space of the Taʹziyeh, which reminds one of the holy space within an Islamic mosque, is filled with the spectators’ and performers’ faith and passion. These are the two elements that are absolutely necessary in order to create the state of ecstasy that is a central part of this kind of theatre experience. Both the spectators and the performers join together in this communal religious performance.
We need to examine what changes occurred when the Taʹziyeh moved indoors. We know that one of the major reasons why the theatre in the Western world moved indoors was in order to be able to create an ‘illusion of reality’, which was not possible in an open space venue. Putting a roof over the stage area, and then over the whole playhouse, and building a proscenium arch between the auditorium and the stage, were two of the most important achievements of this ‘illusionism’ in theatre. The result of this separation of the players from the spectators was to keep the spectators in darkness while only the players were lit. This meant the elimination of the spectators from the performance. Hiding both the scenery and the sources of special effects and lights behind the proscenium arch created a ‘magic box of tricks’, which, with advances in modern technology, was constantly updated.
Moving the Taʹziyeh inside a takiyeh was not done for the purpose of creating an illusion of reality, but was essentially motivated by a desire to avoid the problems caused by the weather. These problems were made worse by the fact that the Iranian and Islamic calendars differ, with the result that the Arabic month of Muharram appears in the Iranian calendar at different times in different years.8 Sometimes this difference places Muharram right in the middle of winter, when there is lots of rain and snow. In other years Muharram occurs in the middle of summer, when the heat becomes a real problem for performers and spectators. Consequently, the need for a cover or shelter was the primary reason for moving the Taʹziyeh indoors.
At the same time we should not forget that the interest shown by the aristocrats and the royal court of Qajars in the Taʹziyeh was another factor that encouraged this move indoors. These royal person
ages wanted to enjoy watching the performances in a comfortable place, away from the cold of winter and the heat of summer. They also wanted to demonstrate their religious devotion by allowing the performers to use their precious wardrobes and furniture. This was not possible when the Taʹziyeh was being performed outside.
The design of the takiyeh allowed the performers to keep the same open style of performance they had used when performing in the open air. However, it was inevitable that some changes would happen. The increased use of props and scenery was the most important among these changes since this ran counter to the idea of ‘poor theatre’,9 which was a central part of the original nature of the Taʹziyeh. We read, for example, in the memoirs of Moir-el-Mamalek, a member of the Royal Court, how one Taʹziyeh, Joseph (Yosof), was performed in the Takiyeh Dowlat with such extraordinary scenery and props that its production rivalled even the most opulent production seen in the West. He writes:
The scene of the Egyptian merchant arriving at the well and the selling of Joseph by his brothers to him was spectacular. There were bales of cotton and boxes of goods loaded on the camels, and sitting on each camel was a black boy dressed in Arabian costume and red hat. Perhaps two hundred of these camels came and passed.*10
These luxurious props and scenery had been brought from the Royal Court. Certainly this influx of opulence had an effect on the aesthetic of the Taʹziyeh performance, forcing it to abandon its simple yet creative style. Fortunately, this development occurred only in Tehran and in the royal playhouse. The performance of the Taʹziyeh in small cities and especially in the villages was not affected. When the Qajar dynasty was overthrown the Taʹziyeh returned to its simple style of performance, even in Tehran. This simplicity continues to be used. Inevitably there have been some changes due to advances in technology—many Taʹziyeh actors today, for instance, use a microphone. Apart from such minor changes, the Taʹziyeh has been able to survive and be performed in Iran today in its original form of ‘theatre-in-the round’ and it continues to exhibit the same ritualistic qualities that have been of central importance since its inception.
The following description and analysis of a contemporary performance of a Taʹziyeh is intended to assist in understanding the nature of Taʹziyeh performance. It will also help us see the nature and extent of the development that have taken place in the Taʹziyeh’s history.
I witnessed a performance of The Martyrdom of Ali Akbar (Shuhadat-e Ali Akbar) by a Taʹziyeh group from the village of Salah-Abad in the north-east of Iran. It was Wednesday afternoon of the seventh day of Muharram 1418 in the Islamic calendar, 24 Ordibehast 1376 in the Persian calendar, and 14 May 1997 in the Gregorian calendar. That year the month of Muharram, fortunately, was in the middle of spring in Iran and the good weather allowed the Taʹziyeh to be performed outside in the yard of the village Takiyeh.
The Taʹziyeh of Ali Akbar tells of the eldest son of Imam Hussein, who went to the battlefield on the plain of Karbala. The play depicted two main episodes: the first one concerned the sad farewell of Ali Akbar when leaving his father, mother and aunt, and the second was about Ali Akbar’s fight with the army of Yazid and his subsequent martyrdom.
The takiyeh, like most other takiyehs, was a large rectangular yard surrounded by rooms (Figures 28 and 29). About one thousand people were seated, mostly on the ground in the yard, leaving in the middle a circular space for the performers. Women sat on one side and men on the other (men and women are always seated separately in a takiyeh, as they are in a mosque). Children were free of this restriction and sat wherever they wanted. A big wooden chair and small rug were placed on one side of the circular performance space. On the opposite side were placed two chairs and a big pot of water standing on a stool. These were the only visible elements of scenery on the stage. These two simple scenic locations depicted the rival camps of Imam Hussein and Yazid. The big wooden chair was for Imam Hussein, while the rug was for the members of his family to sit on. On the opposite side, the two chairs were for Ibn-e Saad and Shimr, two commanders of Yazid’s army. The pot of water represented the river that Yazid’s army was refusing to allow Imam Hussein and his followers to drink from.
28. An empty space in the middle. The Taʹziyeh of Ali Akbar, 1997.
29. Shimr and Ibn-e Saad in full combat dress.
Since this Taʹziyeh was performed in the month of Muharram, which is the month of mourning for every Shiʹa Muslim, everyone—women, men and children—was dressed in mourning black. Black banners decorated with Qurʹanic verses covered most of the walls. Before the Taʹziyeh started, an eulogist stood in the middle and sang religious songs of praise relating to Imam Hussein. This made the audience both emotionally and religiously prepared for the main event, which was the performance of Ali Akbar. While the performance was in progress, two men carried around a huge teapot with cups, and served the audience hot tea. This is usually donated by someone as a part of the fulfilment of his/her devotional obligations. Many people believe that drinking such tea can be spiritually beneficial. A group of musicians, consisting of a drummer, a trumpeter and a flautist, sat among the male members of the audience. They had no particular fixed place in the audience. After almost half an hour of sung eulogies, the musicians began to play, and this announced the start of the Taʹziyeh.
A group of the performers entered the yard. The first group was the camp of Imam Hussein and his followers, who were dressed in green, white and black. They circled the stage three times, then went and settled on the right-hand side. Imam Hussein sat on the big wooden chair and his followers, including the women and children, sat on the rug. While this was happening, the musicians continued playing and filled the space with sound. After a few minutes, the actor playing Imam Hussein came to the middle of the stage and began singing religious songs about Imam Hussein and the tragedy of the Karbala. The actor was dressed mostly in green, which is the colour of the house of the Prophet, and is a symbol of holiness. The two male players who performed the roles of the wife and the sister of Imam Hussein were dressed in long black robes and also had their faces covered by black veils (Figure 30). The children, Ali Akbar and Ali Asghar, like Imam Hussein, were dressed in green. When Imam Hussein stopped singing he returned to his chair. The musicians continued playing.
30. The farewell scene of Ali Akbar with his mother. The mother is played by a male actor.
Now it was time for the Yazid army to enter. They also circled three times around the takiyeh and then went and settled down on their side. Ibn-e-Saad and Shimr sat in the chairs and their soldiers sat on the ground. The dominant red colour worn by the Yazid camp symbolized blood and bloodthirstiness. First Shimr, dressed in red and carrying a sword and a shield, came into the middle and introduced himself to the audience. He took every opportunity to pay his respects to Imam Hussein, and to condemn what Yazid and Shimr had done to Imam Hussein and his family. At the end of his speech he said:
Shimr: You people who have gathered here!
Be aware that none of these people are Imam Hussein
Or the martyrs of the Karbala,
Nor am I the Shimr.
And this place is not the Karbala!
The only purpose of this gathering is
To mourn and to honour the martyrs of the Karbala.*11
31. The pot of water symbolizes the river whose water is denied to Imam Hussein and his followers.
This illustrates clearly how the player distances himself from the role he is playing. He does this for two main reasons. First, he, the actor, is a follower of Imam Hussein and loves him deeply. Second, he is trying to protect himself from the audience who, thinking of him as the real Shimr, might lose control and act violently against him, and the other players who impersonate the killers of Imam Hussein. This distancing of the actor from his role is the same ‘alienation’ device that Bertolt Brecht employed in his Epic Theatre.12 In the Taʹziyeh, however, the device serves a different purpose from that advocated by Brecht.
Brecht’s intention is to teach u
s and make us think about what we see, not to involve ourselves with the characters and the events emotionally. That is why he asks the actors to ‘demonstrate’ the characters rather than to become the characters. He uses techniques that help the actors remind the audience that what they see is only a theatrical presentation of what is supposed to be real. The whole purpose behind performing a Taʹ ziyeh, however, is to make the audience emotionally involved so that they empathize totally with the martyrs. The purpose of creating such an experience is essentially religious: the aim is to purify the spectators of their sins and give them a sense of holiness. The alienation device used in the Taʹziyeh is intended to help protect the performers from possible attacks made on them by an emotionally charged audience.
In this production of Ali Akbar, how this device works was evident from the very beginning of the performance. Prior to the moment when Ibn-e Saad, another commander of the Yazid army, approached Imam Hussein and challenged him to fight, he kissed Hussein’s hands and shoulder, thereby showing the actor’s respect for Hussein. Ibn-e-Saad returned to his seat and, while he was doing so, the musicians played again. This time the music created a sad mood.
After this introductory scene, the first episode of the play began. This depicted the farewell episode in which Imam Hussein’s sister, Ziynab, brings him a kafan and a sword. The kafan is a piece of white fabric in which a Muslim, when he dies, is wrapped and buried. It is a symbol of shuhadat or martyrdom, and whoever wears it shows a readiness to face death (Figure 32). The actors playing Imam Hussein and Ziynab both had texts in their hands. Even though they took a look at them once in a while, it was obvious that they knew their lines very well: holding the play text was yet another way of distancing the player from the role. At one point during the performance Imam Hussein went inside a tent in which Ali Akbar was sleeping. There was no actual tent on the stage, but the actors pretended that there was one. At the moment when Imam was saying goodbye to his son, Ali Akbar stopped him and volunteered to go himself to the battlefield. Ali Akbar was played by a boy aged 14 who had a good voice and spoke with an accent from the north-east of Iran. At this same moment, the stage manager entered carrying a tray on which were some burning coals. He added some seeds to the coals and a sweet fragrance filled the takiyeh. This seed is called espand, and is considered to be a sacred substance in Iran, as it is believed to have the power to protect people from the evil eye. The stage manager carried the tray among the players and then took it through the audience. I watched the people holding the smoke in their cupped hands, then placing their hands over their faces to gain the full benefits of the fragrance.
The Islamic Drama Page 11