You cannot begin to imagine the perils of teaching in a theatre institute. Since it is one-of-a-kind in the country, one cannot help but feel important to be associated with it.
 
But there are the inevitable questions at parties, during train or air journeys, or at weddings: "Are you a housewife?" I usually retort sharply: "No, I am working."
 
Where? When I say teach at a theatre institute, it's usually followed by a kind of commiserating smile: "Oh, how nice!"
 
Is that a patronising or a confused reaction? Actually, it depends on who has asked the question.
 
If it is the corporate sort, the response clearly indicates pity at being part of a meaningless, non-productive and non-profit activity "" and not even glamorous! If it is someone harbouring aspirations of acting, it is confusion "" Training? what training?
 
This time it happened at a dinner. After the usual preliminaries, the questions came thick and fast: "So what do you teach?" (by way of starting a conversation); "How do you teach acting?" (sarcastically); "You mean acting can be taught?" (indignantly).
 
The aggression forced me on the defensive "Of course," I retorted, "it is a total art form, it demands intensive training. In fact, our students go through rigorous three-year training with an 8 am-11pm schedule. And even that does not seem enough." "Three years?" (you-must-be-joking tone) "What on earth for?"
 
I spoke with a false politeness: "You may not know that actors have to learn more than 20 subjects starting from theatre history to voice training, speech modulation, movement, music, improvisation, lighting and..."
 
Clearly my interrogator did not like what he was hearing so he cut me short: "And where do these intensively trained actors go? How come we have not seen them?"
 
I faltered. I faltered because these actors do theatre which my interlocutor probably never sees. Several have also gone into films and TV and made a name but have not become stars.
 
So how was I to make my point? Mistaking my faltering as an admission of defeat, the acquaintance toned down his tirade: "Oh, come on, how can theatre be taught? I acted in two plays when I was in class five. Everybody loved my acting and nobody taught me, I just had it in me. If I hadn't landed this corporate job with an MNC, I would probably be a filmstar. Look at Amitabh Bachchan or even Shah Rukh Khan "" you mean somebody has taught them acting? They are just natural actors! And how good they are!"
 
Suddenly, I was exhausted. I had been confronted with this or similar responses earlier, and didn't feel like reiterating my position. Instead, I sulked and kept silent.
 
If I hadn't been so exasperated, I would have said: Yes, natural talent exists, but it needs direction, it needs polish, it requires several skills to become a really good actor.
 
Why do people think of going to music school or dance school? How come no one thinks that it is possible to become a dancer or a painter without learning the form?
 
And theatre is a much more complex art form. It needs training of the body, the voice, and so much else. So why this question for theatre?
 
My dinner ruined, I decided the next time someone asks me what I do, I will say I teach Sanskrit at a degree college. That way, at least no one will be interested in carrying on the conversation.

 

More From This Section

First Published: Nov 12 2005 | 12:00 AM IST

Next Story