Brechtian techniques and Modern Ideologies in Mark Teh's "Baling".
Note: This essay is written for ROB7006: Studies on Modern Drama, part of Masters in Performing Arts, University of Malaya.
The Performance
“Baling’ is a documentary theatre performance directed by Mark Teh and presented by Five Arts Centre in 2016. The stage is graced by 4 performers – filmmaker Imri Nasution, politician Fahmi Fadzil, actor Faiq Syazwan Kushairi and actress Anne James. The performance is a reading of the actual text documenting the conversation between Malaysia’s first Prime Minister Tunku Abdul Rahman, The British General Sir David Marshall and the Malayan Communist leader, Chin Peng in what is known today as the Baling Talks. The negotiations took place in December 1955 in an attempt to get Chin Peng to surrender but resulted in futility.
Strengths of the play.
The strength of the play lies in its directing decisions that are fitting to serve the purpose its intended for the audience. This could be explained using the ideas of the German theatre practitioner Bertolt Brecht’s “Epic theatre”. Epic theatre centres on the “verfremdungseffekt”, literally translated to the “distancing effect” in which it seek to alienate audiences and preventing them from entering the dreamy state of escapism. Brecht believes that once an individual enters this state, they are incapable to perform a critical analysis. During its conception, Brecht intended it as a tool to bring into question and sift out propaganda of Nazi Germany so that audiences will not be swayed and stop the cycle of brutality.
To describe “Baling”, it is divided into 5 portions with each having its own visual style. It begins with a screening of footages from the actual Baling Talks. An actor would then appear and introduce their self. They will provide a background of the play’s scenes by explaining history, construction of Malaysia and the context behind the Baling Talks. The mentioning of the actor’s name is in line with Brechtian ideas as they were not playing characters but rather, should be seen by the audiences as their very selves. Approaching the acting choices, director Mark Teh likened it to a stand-up comedian in their stage persona – a second personality, an alter ego. The actors too directly talk to the audience and break the fourth wall which is another technique of Epic Theatre.
The second portion witnessed walls covered with papers containing transcripts from the “Baling Talks”. The actors are to tear out respective transcripts from the walls and deliver the lines by reading them aloud. Symbolically, the director brings into question the tangibility of documents and how it’s a tool to preserve history. The state of paper which is versatile enables it to be many things. The stripping of the documents from the well-arranged wall is an indication of how the nationally accepted narrative is being deconstructed piece by piece for the audience to form their own opinions. Here, the actors wearing modern formal attires merely represent the characters by simulating the following – a “Songkok” to represent Tunku Abdul Rahman, an English accent to represent Sir David Marshall and the remaining actor takes after Chin Peng.
The third portion is the continuation of the exchange which took place around an arrangement of history books shaped into the form of peninsular Malaysia. Interestingly, the actors would shift around their roles by different ones playing the three historical figures. The “Songkok” and the British accent will be taken on by another actor. This directorial choice once again is in line with Epic Theatre as an attempt for the audiences to distance themselves and untangle from any emotional attachments they had formed for the characters. It helps in creating an unbiased opinion.
In between their dialogues, the actors would abruptly stop and rearrange the books. This happens so swiftly that it breaks the rhythm of the play and startles the audience – another Brechtian technique to snap the audiences out of escapism.
Here, the idea of books being the keeper of official narratives is once again brought into question. The fact that it’s shaped into a part of our country and was gradually being deconstructed seeks to question formal narratives.
The fourth portion is a standard setting resembling a table debate in which characters playing Sir David Marshall and Tunku Abdul Rahman were placed on one table opposing to the lone Chin Peng on another table. Here the actors shift roles again to avoid the audiences’ emotional entanglements. At the background, pictures from the time documenting the incidences involving the Malaysian Communist Party were projected to provide context to the dialogue. Another key Epic Theatre technique applied throughout is the presence of the transcripts in the actors hands which creates the constant illusion that the play is a merely a reading and not a depiction of the actual events. This prevents the audiences from forming a fourth wall in which they can escape into. The transcript reading ends with Chin Peng refusing to surrender, rendering the Baling Talks as a futile attempt.
The final portion of “Baling” is a lecture-style testimony presented by the actors, sharing on how their personal stories had overlapped with incidences extending from the Baling Talks. For instance, Fahmi Fadzil shared on his experience escaping Malaysian customs when he illegally crossed borders to attend Chin Peng’s funeral in Thailand. Imri Nasution shared on his experience working on a documentary about Chin Peng which was halted because the main portion – the interview with Chin Peng himself resulted in futility. The man was old and losing his memory by the time he was approached. In line with Epic theatre, this portion was presented with the actor breaking the fourth wall and talking directly to the audience with the aid of a projector screen displaying photos.
In between these 5 portions are transitions in which the actors would take turns to introduce themselves. A crew member too would instruct the audience to constantly shift positions and face different directions in which the different 5 portions were staged. At times, the rearranging of props would happen casually in front of audiences. With every shift, the spectators were not allowed to be comfortable and settle into escapism – in line with Brechtian ideas. There too is a coffee jug and paper cups placed at the back in case audiences choose to wander. This set up is a gesture of the director to welcome the audience’s decision to not be immersed in the play.
The play ended with the actors posing some important questions to the audience - bringing into discussion Chin Peng’s long-sustaining image as the country’s bogeyman and its context to how the structures of power in Malaysia might have influenced this perspective.
Influence in Modern Society
The play has its influence on modern society by advocating ideas that are in line with modern thinking. Its modern ideological stances were vividly documented in the play’s booklet, detailing director Mark Teh and producer June Tan’s statements on the piece.
The first ideological stance negotiates between the traditional pro-feudalism versus the modern anti-feudalism, with the play advocating the latter. In the director’s statement, it is stated, “this particular version of Baling, is the question of citizenship – at the political, emotional and individual level, with all the complexities, contradictions, expectations and consequences that this responsibility brings. Malaysia seems stuck in a perpetual stasis of crises, existing in between a time and space of an unsustainable one Malaysia; of awkward, counter-‐alliances to selamatkan Malaysia; of faded wawasans”.
The director clearly questions the status quo and aspiration of the government, bringing upon civil disobedience and an anti-establishment sentiment which is reflected throughout the play. Prominent moments are the questioning and deconstructing of national narratives as symbolised by the rearranging of books and tearing of transcripts from the wall. Besides that, the very act of actor Fahmi fadzil defying government orders to attend Chin Peng’s funeral and hiding from the customs is an act against feudalism. Imri Nasution would follow the same path by committing the act of interviewing Chin Peng in his old age which is deemed illegal by the government.
The second ideological stance negotiates between the traditional moral absolutism versus the modern moral relativity, with the play advocating the latter. In the director’s statement, Mark stated, “In this latest version of Baling, using publically available documents, we investigate how public heroes and enemies are created, circulated and remembered in contemporary Malaysia –to try to understand and deal with this phenomenon in a more human way”.
In a similar vein, the play doesn’t seek to portray Chin Peng as a bogeyman he was painted to be in national narratives, and neither did it celebrates him has a hero. Baling took its stance by painting him as a mere human being with flaws and all. It didn’t make an excuse to defend his atrocities nor judged him for it. A prominent moment in the play that highlights this is when actor Imri Nasution plays a clip of Chin Peng in his older days and fading memories. The once feared communist leader came across nothing more than as human being struggling with dementia.
The third ideological stance negotiates between the traditional past versus the modern future, with the play advocating the latter. The director statement says, “There is no nostalgia to pine for in this performance. We invite you to time travel simultaneously through our history and our present, and to witness these unique debates between Tunku Abdul Rahman, David Marshall and Chin Peng against the backdrop of 2016 Malaysia– debates that consider seriously the compromises of nationhood, the impossibility of consensus and reconciliation, and the promise of the future and the alternative ways ahead– all before Malaya became independent, and Malaysia was invented.
Advocating for the future seeks to undo constructs which seeks to conserve the status quo and be open to the possibility of change. It’s against the tinge of nostalgia and avoids sentimentality. The play was presented in a similar vein with its setting being contemporary Malaysia and the actors playing their selves – stripping history of its glorified perspectives. The undoing of patriotic sentiments especially involving the narrative of Tunku Abdul Rahman saving Malaysia was integral for the audience to re-examine the Baling Talks and proceed to form their own synthesis. There are no protagonists in this play. This seeks to formulate new ways of looking at the past to be carried forward into the future.
The fourth ideological stance negotiates between the traditional monological voice versus the modern dialogical voice, with the play advocating the latter. In the producer’s statement, June Tan said, “This month, Five Arts Centre celebrates a newly refurbished space. A space for performance and showcase. A space to ask, to question, to consider and to examine ideas and alternatives. A space, during a time in Malaysia when the act of questioning is expanding. More than ever today, Malaysians are asking questions. Asking questions it appears, is easy. Getting answer is the tough bit. And what constitutes an answer… our opinions may differ on this”.
A strong proof of the play being dialogical is the director’s decision to stage the transcripts in the fashion of Epic theatre. The philosophy of Brechtian ideas is integral to invite analysis, critical thinking and sets discourses in motion. At the core of it the Baling Talks is exactly that – a discourse between 3 historical figures. Ultimately, the audiences too were never told what to believe. They’ll have to decide for themselves.
The fifth and final ideological stance negotiates between the traditional stance of being hierarchical versus the modern democratic stance, with the play advocating the latter. The practice of hierarchy believes in the inferiority and superiority of humans across demographics. This is an opposite of being democratic where everyone is seen as equal. In the play, despite how society had come to view these historical figures – either as dignified or demonized, no characters were given any leverage to stand out or outdo the other. The transcripts were performed neutrally as happened in history and the director’s directorial choice ensured this.
In conclusion, Mark Teh’s Baling is a documentary play which advocates modern ideas. This was cleverly put across with the directors’ choice to present it in the fashion of Bertolt Brecht’s Epic Theatre. The ideas of modernity which influences society is in its ideological stances of anti- feudalism, concerns for changes in the future by undoing the past, being dialogical on history and moral relativity when examining the historical figures involved.
