Does Isherwood secretly hate theatre...? Why else would he so blighthly give away major surprises, plot twists, punch lines, carelessly spoiling their effect? Why else would he make no mention whatsoever of these two richly detailed and passionately lived, altogether SPLENDID performances? Is he secretly contemptuous of all of the skill and effort and creative engagement and risk and vulnerability that theatre folk invest in their craft. Sometimes it seems like he secretly despises the whole enterprise. Perhaps not so secretly...
5
I agree! I saw the play last night and felt that the performances were deeply felt, yet Isherwood dos not address them aside from describing the language.
I think this play perpetuates a totally fabricated, unfair myth about Shah Jahan. It falsely taints the wonderful and fascinating history of the Taj, and it’s homage to romantic love. Shah Jahan was planning on building a negative replica of the white Taj in Black, so why would he do the unthinkably cruel act mentioned in this play? The playwright is capitalizing on the already prevalent Islamophobia in India, and the world at large. To the playwright I say: Give it a rest man!
The Mugals were a cultured and sophisticated people for their time, as evidenced by their architecture, art, and governance, but this play portrays them as ‘barbarians’. Many people are ‘jealous’ of the Taj Mahal, and it irks them to no end that India should be famous for a building made by ‘Muslim Invaders’. Mugals made India their home, and respected the plurality of Indian culture.
Art is art, but one needs to research history better when using it as a canvas to paint your art upon.
The Mugals were a cultured and sophisticated people for their time, as evidenced by their architecture, art, and governance, but this play portrays them as ‘barbarians’. Many people are ‘jealous’ of the Taj Mahal, and it irks them to no end that India should be famous for a building made by ‘Muslim Invaders’. Mugals made India their home, and respected the plurality of Indian culture.
Art is art, but one needs to research history better when using it as a canvas to paint your art upon.
2
This is a strange comment, which seems to be reacting quite personally to a review and not to having seen the play. It is widely chronicled (and Isherwood mentions this himself) that the alleged mutilations were a myth and that, in fact, it was logistically impossible for this to have happened if following the scenario literally. The story seems to be more of an allegory, and a provocative one at that. This is theater, not a documentary.
2
This "review" does not do justice to this play. Mr. Isherwood clearly missed the point. GO SEE THIS PLAY! Your soul will thank you. I am so grateful I don't read reviews until after I see the play.
8
Trump and Taj aside, I saw an existential allegory about the struggle of incompatible universal impulses within human nature.
2
Beyond Taj and Trump, and while the business about portable holes could have used some editing, I saw (and enjoyed) an existential allegory of contradictory, co-existing impulses within us.
1
Not really a review here, more of a plot synopsis, as is all too frequent with the Times these days. And Donald Trump? Um...
Ladies and gentlemen, go see this play. Rajiv Joseph has written a stunning work of art, anchored by two superb performances. Everyone in the audience around me was spellbound.
Ladies and gentlemen, go see this play. Rajiv Joseph has written a stunning work of art, anchored by two superb performances. Everyone in the audience around me was spellbound.
9
"..for reasons of logistics alone the brutal whim of the shah’s would surely be impossible to carry out..."
Really? The history of human cruelty is so unbelievable as to defy credulity? Even with swords, knives, blunt instruments, and bows and arrows, killing 20,000 would have been a days work for a powerful military force, even far back in antiquity.
Really? The history of human cruelty is so unbelievable as to defy credulity? Even with swords, knives, blunt instruments, and bows and arrows, killing 20,000 would have been a days work for a powerful military force, even far back in antiquity.
3
I know the basics about the Taj Mahal. Did not need to know any more than that to thoroughly enjoy the play. Didn't go for a history cleansing, went to be entertained. That's theatre!
3
"Guards at the Taj," by Rajiv Joseph, reviewed by Charles Isherwood,
June 11, 2015.
Emperor Shah Jahan wanted to publicize his love for his favorite wife, Mumtaz Mahal in the most beautiful language of a monument in marble. Obviously, that's not what Rajiv Joseph's play, "Guards at the Taj," is about. His theme is what lies hidden behind that token of love: Political and economic power that exploits and abuses those that build emblems advertising imperial love. Notice how playwright Joseph keeps
the image of the Taj offstage and exposes the audience to a starkly blood-stained set in the last scene. The blood-letting is the result of not even a full-blown rebellion against authority; it results from a minor infraction of imperial protocol: the chief architect of the Taj asking that those who built it sacrificing a major portion of their lives--twenty years-be allowed to look at the entire and no doubt magnificent edifice. Guard Babar's breach of of
code of conduct--reporting late to work, gossiping, and fantasizing--is rebellion in in its incipience, and master architect Ustad Isa's request that he take a tour of the building along with his workers is just a louder signal of that spirit of self assertion. We will probably never know what was done to the artisans who built the Taj, but we do know, like those who slaved for years to build the Pyramids, the Taj artists have remained invisible.
Minions killing fellow-minions runs through history; Joseph hints at that, too.
June 11, 2015.
Emperor Shah Jahan wanted to publicize his love for his favorite wife, Mumtaz Mahal in the most beautiful language of a monument in marble. Obviously, that's not what Rajiv Joseph's play, "Guards at the Taj," is about. His theme is what lies hidden behind that token of love: Political and economic power that exploits and abuses those that build emblems advertising imperial love. Notice how playwright Joseph keeps
the image of the Taj offstage and exposes the audience to a starkly blood-stained set in the last scene. The blood-letting is the result of not even a full-blown rebellion against authority; it results from a minor infraction of imperial protocol: the chief architect of the Taj asking that those who built it sacrificing a major portion of their lives--twenty years-be allowed to look at the entire and no doubt magnificent edifice. Guard Babar's breach of of
code of conduct--reporting late to work, gossiping, and fantasizing--is rebellion in in its incipience, and master architect Ustad Isa's request that he take a tour of the building along with his workers is just a louder signal of that spirit of self assertion. We will probably never know what was done to the artisans who built the Taj, but we do know, like those who slaved for years to build the Pyramids, the Taj artists have remained invisible.
Minions killing fellow-minions runs through history; Joseph hints at that, too.
5
DEAR CHARLES ISHERWOOD-
I am appalled by your review of this epic, classic, brilliant, insightful, relentless and politically charged work of art.
I saw the premiere of Guards at the Taj last night at the Atlantic Theatre company. I cannot remember being so moved and inspired by a work of theater premiering in New York. The piece is gripping, haunting, moving, and deeply sincere, especially for such a politically and philosophically charged work. Both actors exhibit miraculous emotional range, profound intensity and superb timing. I felt as if I was attending the premiere of "Waiting for Godot" or some major theatrical work- something that should be treasured for decades. I cannot understand how you so flippantly miss the weigh this play carries as a metaphor for our time, and of all wars, and all genocides.
Sadly, your tone-deaf review is typical of the kind of"art as commerce" ethos adopted by many critics which is both pervasive and corrosive to our community of theater. While NYC theatre is battling for its very survival, you are knocking down pieces that have the greatest possible chance to create a meaningful political and spiritual dialogue..
You should be holding this exemplary work up as an all-too-rare example of NYC theater at its most intense, physical, meaningful and insightful, but instead you entirely miss the point of its deep existential catharsis.
Pearls before swine.
Sincerely,
Josh Fox
I am appalled by your review of this epic, classic, brilliant, insightful, relentless and politically charged work of art.
I saw the premiere of Guards at the Taj last night at the Atlantic Theatre company. I cannot remember being so moved and inspired by a work of theater premiering in New York. The piece is gripping, haunting, moving, and deeply sincere, especially for such a politically and philosophically charged work. Both actors exhibit miraculous emotional range, profound intensity and superb timing. I felt as if I was attending the premiere of "Waiting for Godot" or some major theatrical work- something that should be treasured for decades. I cannot understand how you so flippantly miss the weigh this play carries as a metaphor for our time, and of all wars, and all genocides.
Sadly, your tone-deaf review is typical of the kind of"art as commerce" ethos adopted by many critics which is both pervasive and corrosive to our community of theater. While NYC theatre is battling for its very survival, you are knocking down pieces that have the greatest possible chance to create a meaningful political and spiritual dialogue..
You should be holding this exemplary work up as an all-too-rare example of NYC theater at its most intense, physical, meaningful and insightful, but instead you entirely miss the point of its deep existential catharsis.
Pearls before swine.
Sincerely,
Josh Fox
15
Not sure what the connection is between a mausoleum in Agra and skyscraper sprawl in Manhattan, other than a gratuitous swipe at Donald Trump. The Taj Mahal in 2015 dollars would have cost $800Million plus, and involved 20,000 laborers, all for burying two people in. Is that what is happening in Manhattan?
Sounds like the point of the play is to shatter a lot of romantic nonsense we attribute to historical times and to see more clearly how awful they were, and how lucky we are to live in more progressive times and how much we need to enhance and reinforce that progress for generations to come. Something much bigger than expensive apartments in NYC or Trump's architectural excesses or the trope about income inequality.
The characters being called Babur and Humayun is relevant - Babur was the founder of the Mughal Empire and Dynasty. Humayun was his cautious son. Humayun's son, Akbar, was one of the greatest emperors of India, who created an atmosphere of religious tolerance and encouraged the pursuit of knowledge in the sciences, arts and humanities. His grandson was Shah Jahan, the romanticized emperor who built the Taj. Shah Jahan was deposed by his son Aurangazeb, a religious fanatic who expanded the empire to breaking point while imploding the ability to govern and innovate. His death led to the inevitable collapse of the Mughal empire.
So in some way Shah Jahan's impracticality could have led to the fanatical son and the eventual destruction of the dynasty.
Sounds like the point of the play is to shatter a lot of romantic nonsense we attribute to historical times and to see more clearly how awful they were, and how lucky we are to live in more progressive times and how much we need to enhance and reinforce that progress for generations to come. Something much bigger than expensive apartments in NYC or Trump's architectural excesses or the trope about income inequality.
The characters being called Babur and Humayun is relevant - Babur was the founder of the Mughal Empire and Dynasty. Humayun was his cautious son. Humayun's son, Akbar, was one of the greatest emperors of India, who created an atmosphere of religious tolerance and encouraged the pursuit of knowledge in the sciences, arts and humanities. His grandson was Shah Jahan, the romanticized emperor who built the Taj. Shah Jahan was deposed by his son Aurangazeb, a religious fanatic who expanded the empire to breaking point while imploding the ability to govern and innovate. His death led to the inevitable collapse of the Mughal empire.
So in some way Shah Jahan's impracticality could have led to the fanatical son and the eventual destruction of the dynasty.
22
Thanks for your informative addition to the article.
5
Wow! It's called art; you know, metaphor and all that. Please stop commenting about "_the_ point of [a] play" that you obviously haven't seen. The play is certainly about the role of patronage in the arts, especially in a world soon to be owned (at least in name, like the New York State Theatre) by the likes of David Koch. If anything, Isherwood has not yet begun to analyze the thematic richness of this wonderful play.
1
Babur was the name of the first Moghul emperor that established the dynasty, and Humayun his son. Both, Shahjehan's ancestors. Wonder if Rajiv Joseph was being ironical in using these names for the guards.
6
He is; it's commented on in the play a couple of times.
2
Does this play really qualify as a fable? A social animal is granted a position of privilege, and he thinks the way to hang on to it is to crush those who lack the privilege? Everybody knows that that will provoke powerful reactions and will undermine the value of the privilege itself. This isn’t food for thought; it’s the ABCs.
H’m, then what about the personal dynamics? If a sensitive man is raised by brutal parents, he might need a friend to help him value the gold inside. If his only friend is, alas, a weak blabbermouth with the mind of a 12-year-old, things might not go so well. I can’t see much material for literature here.
I suppose this play has some legitimacy as a horror show. It ought to be labeled as such. One doesn’t attend theater for shock and gore.