365bet娱乐

81
ii)
iii)
The theatre of Bharata thus represents a subtle conjugation of the
realistic and the theatrical. Therefore it would be a mistake to think
that it was entirely symbolic or expressionistic, although
symbolism was an important component.
Finally, the distinction between Natyadharmi and L艒kadharmi has
nothing to do with any consideration of refinement or reconditeness
vs crudity. The Natyadharmi style is not all necessarily be refined,
eg. introduction of inanimate or unmanifested objects as human
characters; nor is the L艒kadharmi style all necessarily crude,
eg. the presentation of emotions through natural gestures. It is all
a matter of convenience and stage expediency. A king who quite
incidentally mounts a chariot merely indicates its existence by an
action. But where a good deal of the plot revolves round an
object, or the object assumes a central singnificance, as in The
Little Clay Cart (), the continued presence of that object
cannot be indicated by gesture - the object has to be really put on
the stage. Similarly, in Kathakali, where there is full-fledged drama
going on and there is complete impersonation, the actors have to
wear elaborate costumes and make-up, and also use a few stage
props whereas in Bharata atyam, where there is no attempt at
anything like a sustained drama, objects can be enacted through
gestures alone. The difference between the two is not one of laukiki
usage vs artistic refinement, but one that is due to what each style
is aiming at, what themes it chooses, and how it chooses to present
them. The ultimate criterion of success in any stage production is
dramatic propriety.