Newton’s Third Law of Motion: When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.
Examining the controversial subject of ‘gender foeticide’ (sex-selective abortion), Silent on the Matter stages the collision of vying ideologies between a close group of friends. The tortured protagonist, Alisha, is married into a Hindu family whose values unshakably perpetuate ancient attitudes towards the roles of gender, status, and, pivotally, posterity. Immense pressure from her marital family to submit to convention and produce a son is countered by equal and opposing pressure from her best friend, Kate – a barrister specializing in women’s rights – to stand up for her independence as a woman and embrace modern western liberalism. With Newtonian balance of force, Alisha pushes back against the extremity of both positions, unravelling the ingrained prejudices substantiating both beliefs and breaking their wilful silences.
The cast and production crew deserve credit for their slick execution of David Trevaskis’ direction, which for a modest company looked highly professional in their use of the sparse staging, weaving contradictory scenes seamlessly together. Lauren Cameron’s ragged stage design and sombre lighting were particularly successful, and special praise must go to Sakuntala Ramanee’s turn as Indra Gupta: the absolute personification of matriarchal despotism. In terms of delivery, the overall performance much exceeded my expectations.
But the problem here is that this is a dramatic play with a seemingly deep-seated suspicion of drama. The moral conversation and broader cultural contexts take paramount at the heavy cost of an engaging dramatic narrative. As the tension escalates pleasingly to begin with, the play takes a turn for the absurd towards the end at which point characterisation gets horribly muddled and the plot feels forced to a wholly rushed and incongruent conclusion. Perhaps more alarming still is that the play, at all times, tip-toes along the ethical tightrope of its divisive subject matter, correcting a loss of balance by means of an undermining conflict of almost any partial direction in which the overall message of the play should happen to stray.
Nevertheless, this story is original, undoubtedly provoking, and an excellent conversation-starter that has profound relevance to our current political landscape. All I would ask for is stronger focus on narrative purpose and, perhaps, just a little less said on the matter.