At 13, Akram Khan started his artistic career on stage with the Mahabharata, Peter Brook’s opus on one of antiquity’s greatest epics. The nine-hour-long play would go on to become lauded as one of the most memorable productions of the 20st century.Thirty years later, Brook is revisiting one of the climactic scenes from the epic with his new play Battlefield, which opens in Singapore on November 17 (click on the slideshow to see scenes from the new play), while Kahn, now a celebrated dancer and choreographer is working on a new dance production, Until the Lions, which will premiere in January at London’s Roundhouse.While in Singapore for a performance of Torobaka, a collaboration with Israel Galvan, the contemporary flamenco maestro, Khan sat down with Blouin Artinfo to discuss the influence Brook has had on his careerHow did you first get involved in the Mahabharata?A friend suggested I go to the audition in London, and Marie-Helene, Peter’s assistant was there, and selected me. I don’t think I was chosen because of my talent, but probably because I was raw and very physical, and Peter wanted someone he could mold, where the other actors were all trained.What was your role?I don’t really know (laughs). I was this kind of character that was made up to whom the story was being told. So the whole epic unfolds to me. I was on stage for around seven hours and I did go on the tour for two years.How was it working with him?To be honest, as a 13 year old — not the best age to ask what you think about Peter — he was an enormous pain. He’s a genius, but I wished I’d been older, because I really couldn’t appreciate (him then), I was really only interested in enjoying myself, going out. He had this timelessness about him, which annoyed the hell out of me, because for me time was the essence. I just wanted to get up and have fun. It was the wrong time for me. But subconsciously I think a lot rubbed off on me.Like what?The way I create my work is hugely influenced by him. I think he tries to bring two times together: There’s horizontal time, which is the man-made time, which is linear, clock-time, but at a certain point the vertical time clashes, that’s the circular time, the spiral time, nature time, life and death, it’s ritualistic and symbolic time. The tension between these two times, I think is what is present in his works, always. There is a sense of man-made time and nature-time constantly battling, it’s very subtle, but always present. That’s something that has rubbed off on my thinking. The other thing I remember well is Peter coming at the end of every show to tell us a story, and he really is a storyteller. These used to affect us on a spiritual level. When he was telling his stories, it wasn’t stories told to him, but stories he’d experienced, so there is a first hand recounting that is important.What else did you learn from him?There is something about his work that is not about words, but in between the words, there is something about the way he see things. It’s not about two movements, but in between movements, and that kind of thinking is very rare. The only other person I can think of like him is Ariane Mnouchkine (French writer and stage director who founded the Parisian avant-garde Théâtre du Soleil)Have you ever work with him again?I did his film, The Tragedy of Hamlet in 2002, but it was a very small role.And did he ever give you any career advice?When I finished the tour, we did the film a few months later and I thought I was going to play the same role. But I was older and it wasn’t possible anymore. I was very unhappy. He took me to his office and told me it’s not the quantity of time on film exposure you get, but it’s the depth that you have to focus on.You’ve done several pieces around the Mahabharata: Ronin (2003), Third Catalogue (2005), Gnosis (2010), and now Under the Lion. What is it about this story that has this constant attraction?It’s not just a Hindu epic. It’s about relationship, about life, about family. It’s there as an example for us to learn from, it’s not there to tell us a story just about a Hindu culture, and that’s why I think we constantly revisit it, it’s cyclical and it has timelessness. It has everything that we experience in life. Jealousy, love, betrayal, revenge, happiness, envy, all the emotions. But I’ve always focused on female characters, because in Peter Brook’s version I always saw the male character as being the heroes — and it’s written a lot like that — but my mother has probably been the most powerful force in my life, so female roles is something that I’m fascinating by. Also growing up on that production, far away from my mother, I clung a lot to the female actresses, and that has also left an influence on my vision.
↧