- Behind Keong Saik Road @ 10.15 PM, 6th March 2000, we began…

"What kinds of past training have you been through?"

I was never properly schooled. However, because of that, I paid a lot of attention whenever my directors devised works, especially when they put in training for us. This is inevitable. When you have actors like me, who was actually not experienced or trained, you would have to train to get them to some kind of aptitude before they can deliver.

Because I was not formally schooled, I am not biased, in the sense that I can switch from different styles and approaches. There is this thing that as long as I study something I'm able to adapt. That means, for example, like when I go do a piece of work that is based on text, I'm not so molded that I cannot adapt and do a text-driven performance. And if I do something that is more movement-based, I just go along with it. Of course, I'm molded by, in terms of, what my body allows me to do. And what my experiences, understanding … and intelligence allow me to explore.

"How long have you been in the scene?"

Since 1991. I do consider myself very new. Some people don't.

"Can you describe any difficulties that often re-surface in your work in the local theatre scene?"

Ignorance, arrogance and apathy in the audience. It is much worse when I see it in the practitioners.

I remember in 1995, when I did "A Midsummer Night's Dream" with Act 3 (incidentally helmed by Dr. Stephen Hazell) and after a particular show, two American backpacker-tourists singled out my performance for comment, saying I spoke too fast for them to hear what was being said. The context of the play was set in contemporary Singapore. I was Lysander and the character was to be portrayed as a loudmouth-ruffian type. I think their grouse lies in the fact that I was doing Shakespearean text with some nuances of the local English accent rather than anything else. They just weren't used to it. I had to do my lines relatively fast because during rehearsals Stephen and I decided it was the way the character would do them. Even if they did miss a couple of lines, they should still be able to follow the plot because they could infer from the rest of the acting going on. Personally, I see no problems for an actor to do Western classical texts in their native accents … the content and message conveyed is still the same, isn't it?

"What are the major differences or difficulties that you've faced switching between acting on TV, film and stage?"

I've never done film. The main difference, for me, between stage and TV, is the sense of control. In TV, unless you are the director, you have absolutely no control. On one hand, a good producer-director can make a mediocre actor look good, but he can destroy a good actor, make him look as though he is over-acting. A very good example is what has happened in local English Drama TV programmes. Not enough is being done to look into this area and it is not fair to just say that the television actors are over-acting.

The other thing about control is that you do not put in, contribute, as much as you can in the shaping of the characters, their images … eventually the final product, partly because there's a lot more censorship in TV. I'm not just talking about the censors themselves. First, the work has to be edited by the producer-director, go through the Head of Department, the CEO of the station and then the SBA. See the chain and the amount of red tape involved?

"In your opinion, is acting an inborn talent?"

I once told a friend a long time ago, when I was just starting out in theatre, something I first noticed in dance rather than acting. She was an American dancer and we were doing something together. I was telling her "there are people who dance and there are dancers". When we are talking about inborn talent, these are the 'actors'. They have it in them. When they come on stage, we have to watch them. We are naturally drawn to them.

Acting is a craft. It is something that there are techniques and methods, even with the talent, you still have to acquire. You will still need to train. It is not like having something you can read and then you become an actor.

"Or can it be taught and learnt?"

Obviously! It's a craft, like I said. Everyone can be taught to paint, but not everyone is a painter. You can learn the strokes Van Gogh used, but you cannot reproduce a Van Gogh.

"Do you think formal training is important?"

This is a very difficult question to answer because I've always believed that before the Westerners came, the East never had the concept of 'school'. We only had the concept of experience. Take a look at the local Asian cultures. They always had the guru approach. You don't learn and study from the master but you emulate, to a great degree, by living with him, living the life of an artist. Understanding not just only the craft but also the philosophy behind the art, everything which encompasses it. The student will probably wake up at the same time as the artist, go through training as well as daily chores. Experience the life of an actor, so to speak, to understand what makes him tick. Formal training is a good start, solid grounding, but must never be seen as a finality. Acting is a craft and therefore requires application and practice.

"Paul Newman, after a few years in Hollywood, said, "All they want is my blond hair and blue eyes." How important do you feel physical beauty is for young people in the acting career?"

It depends on what you want to do. In my case, I have always envied performances that acquire people with looks. It is an irony because in theatre, you can't see the actual features of the actors. Maybe if you talk about film, what Paul Newman does, it is more intimate because the camera goes to the actor as opposed to the stage actor having to consciously project his presence. Being built the way I am has allowed me to do a variety of roles, which I enjoy. On one hand, I don't usually play the typical protagonist because I don't look it, sound it, walk it. On the other hand, because I'm not 'built' for this type of role, I'm able to do everything else. If you think along those lines, I'm better off the way I am.

"As an actor, do you have any fears? What are they?"

I believe, as an actor, I have a huge ego and a scarred psyche. In God I trust; all others, pay cash. In every production I have done, I would go through these sessions of convincing myself that the others would deliver. I am fiercely independent and believe that "If you want something done, do it yourself." Being able to direct was a major step for me.

"There's lots more sex and nudity in films, even theatre now. How do you feel when you read a script and find your role includes one or both of these?"

See, for me, it comes down to, first of all, whether I'm ready for it. In a sense, on a personal level, I have to be ready for it. I would say for a long time, I have been ready for it. Maybe this is so because I'm more liberal than the next actor that comes along. (laughs) Someone who has similar background as me. That's the personal level. As far as the work is concerned, there's this thing called necessity. It isn't a fine line between necessity and gratuitousness. The actor can go overboard when projecting these themes. The whole idea of having creativity is to push oneself as far as one can without ever committing oneself.

For me, there are only certain types of plays that would require these … if I feel it is justified or even necessary to have it. For instance, the case for swearing or cursing. I had to take two words out of the first play I ever wrote because the Drama Review Committee deemed them offensive. "Anita and Generation-X" by Teater Kami. Then again, I thought about it and agree that one of them was gratuitous because the character was written as a person who goes out of hand. That one can be done without. The other one showed a side of the character, relevant to the state of the relationship he had with another character, that I felt it was crucial. So, I had to find ways to work around it.

"Is it liberating to do these scenes?"

Personally, I feel it is a domino-type of a situation in a society like ours. One might say, "Oh my God, they have shown us his butt." On the other hand, there is only so much one can do. When you've gone to an extreme, how many extremes do you need to go to?

If you look at the world in a larger context, there are parts where people walk around naked. They think nothing of it. Being in the nude is taken to be natural, not the least liberating. What's so liberating about taking off your clothes?

When I did "Macbeth" with Act 3, the actors were devising it with the director, John Wright. It was meant for kids. There was one scene when everyone in Macbeth's castle was dead drunk. John asked us to devise some games drunks would play naturally. I suggested some of the guys chase me, with the intention of stripping me. With that impetus, I pulled my pants down to my ankles and ran across the stage during rehearsal. The guys couldn't chase me because they were too busy laughing their heads off. It evoked a similar kind of reaction from the audience during the performance. I was adequately covered - only my thighs, calves and knees could be seen. It was not vulgar. At the end of the scene, John came up to me asking, "Would you actually do that?" And I said, "Do you think it works? If you think it works, I'll do it."

When I did "Happy Valentine's Day" with Ekamatra, I posed in the nude for the photos. It came from this idea in which I wanted to talk about the body. I wanted the photo session for the play to be about the body. The play was devised. The first time we shot it, I had briefs on and the pictures felt so wrong. I had this feeling that something was not too right about this, something should be there. It seemed to me the most natural thing to do. I wanted to get directly to the point, as plainly as I could. People have asked me, "Isn't there another way?" It might have been a shortcoming on my part, but at that point in time, I felt it was really the right thing to do. It felt right. I'm not saying I had a right to do it.

I like what James Dean said. "An actor should experience everything there is to experience. Or come as close to it as possible." For example, you are playing someone from the eighteenth-century. You can't go back. But you can read about how people lived their lives in those days. Try to get as close to the true experience as possible.

"A lot of people are involved in productions, obviously. As an actor, what do you think is your role and responsibility?"

My role is to act! I don't know how other actors feel but when I perform, I will try to work closely with everyone. People who are directly or likely to be involved in what I do. Meaning, for instance, when I did "Oliver!" with STARS, I made it a point to get very close to the kids. To play games with them. In the play, I'm supposed to be their Indian Chief. So, I needed that level of comfort, that level of trust on the stage. You can't fool kids, you know. STARS was what SRT is now. It was directed by Sandy Philips in 1992.

On top of a working relationship, I try to establish a personal one as well with the crew, especially those who work on or in the scenes I'm in … as far as possible, the creators of the play. There's this thing, though. If I can be your friend, it's a big plus but it is not an issue of top priority.

"I presume you have done a fair bit of acting and will continue to do so…"

It's hard to say because at the moment, that's what pays the rent. The teaching as well. People ask me why. I tell them this is because the kind of stuff that I direct are, like, a bit provocative. People leave or even run out of the theatre after my shows. It's not a matter of good or bad. It is just that it's that provocative. When I did my first play with Ekamatra, people came out laughing, singing one of the songs as they were leaving the theatre. I don't know what it was, but obviously it was the result of something we did. "Causeway" with Alfian Sa'at. When Azmy Hassan and I did "Happy Valentine's Day", people sat there blown away. Either because they cannot make head or tail of what they saw and heard, or they were drawn to it completely.

There is a different reaction when they watch the stuff I do in the schools, where I earn my bread and butter. To me, that is street theatre, entertainment. If the kids learn something from what I've presented, that's a great plus. The main thing is that we are bringing theatre to them, performing on their turf. So for me, I know I'm not getting my perfect audience, perfect stage.

"For the audience, it might just be only about entertainment…"

If you recognize the differences, you will give out what it deserves. I'm not saying you should give out more or less. Different things require different levels of commitment.

"I don't quite get it. So, do you perform full-time as an actor? Is it possible to do so here?"

Acting is what I do full-time, for a living. The other things that I do are really what I want and like to do, on the side. So long as I can survive … I'll work for anyone who would hire me. TNS, Act 3, DramaPlus Arts, Theatreworks, D'rama Productions, etc.

"So, what made you decide to become an actor? Of course, you are more than an actor these days. In your opinion, what sort of contributions are you making, as an actor, to the art scene in Singapore? Or even to the entire society?"

Theatre is a very powerful tool, a powerful medium of communication in the sense that it is organic. You get a response from the audience there and then, regardless directly or indirectly. It is immediate. You are right there with the audience. When I say directly, I mean when you are addressing them and they are responding to what you are saying. In both cases, the live experience allows a kind of exchange that makes it a very potent medium. It does, of course, depend on the types of play, role you do. At the same time, it gives you a kind of excitement not felt in other kinds of acting. Especially when you know you are involved in something you believe in. Look at the bigger picture. You could be playing a villain in a moralistic kind of a play because you believed in the bad things it is pointing out or the good things it is trying to withhold and you went with it.

"Where does this desire to perform come from?"

When we talk about stuff that pays the rent, it is a basic question of survival. You take on whatever kind of job you can. For me, if the acting wasn't there, I'd probably do something else to pay the rent. But then it is a great plus to do something I enjoy, make a living, pay the rent and still allow me to do other things.

"So, do you think it is possible for actors to work the way you do in Singapore?"

It depends on what your needs are. If you want to make money, go into film. Singapore lost its film industry. It had it in the 50s to 70s when people around Southeast Asia would come here to work in movies. It was considered a regional hub. Many actors came as well. It died out, probably because of the advent of TV. That I'm not too sure. There's more money in popular entertainment. Some performers can get S$10K one night!

"Isn't theatre a form of entertainment? At least to the general public…"

At the risk of being vicious, if the audience walks away thinking it is entertainment, the production has failed. But if they feel it's more than that, they should be affected. If they leave the theatre being or feeling vague, lost and would never ever talk about the production, then what's the point?

"Would you describe the entire process of preparation before the entire performance is ready to be staged? Obviously, there's a lot of work…"

All this is covered in Stanislavski, you see.

"But what is something very important that you would do?"

I will look out for little, little traits and habits that make my character human. I also try to look out for the things I can add. But this only comes about only after you have built the character. I find a lot of actors, experienced or not, look at the script and immediately try to shape it, to their liking. I prefer to keep it intact until I know the character inside out.

The playwright writes the script, so the characterisation starts from him. Then, the director comes in and he adds extra things, tells the actor to explore certain areas. And of course, you have the other actors and their characters to work off from. When you start doing that, you will begin getting into the character. Then, you will find that there are some lines you would not even need to speak, not even in a specific way. A certain look does it. You'll get a response from the audience.

For example, when you are angry, depending on the kind of character you play, you might smash something. Or you might take your pen and start scratching your book until every page is torn. That is even more violent and vicious. It's just a different way of expressing an emotion or intention. It is all about effective and appropriate communication.

"Yes, I see. The action can be subtle but it sends out a strong message…"

That is just based on text. Another thing worth looking into is, when you get a sense of what kind of character the role is, it's good to go out to watch people and experience their lives. You hear of people like de Niro going out to drive a taxi for a month to prepare for "Taxi Driver". However, it is the work of the actor to convey that, once you have formed and understood every inch of the character, in the actual production. All these sound like a lot of work but they are important to me so that the eventual performance has the intended impact.

"In your view, is there a lack of employment opportunities for actors?"

Of course not! As small as Singapore is, I think there is enough work for the actors. What I mean is when I mentioned about need: as long as they work, they won't starve. If you're going to be choosy, you would have to build your career up to the point where you can be choosy. You can do a few projects that pay a lot or a lot of little ones that pay decent money.

"Do you think that Singaporean actors are fairly paid?"

That's hard to say. If we have the same pens and paper, and we spend a certain number of hours writing, what I write would be different from yours. In the same manner, when it comes down to the payment, you can talk about your technical knowledge & qualifications, the man-hours spent. In reality, if you talk about Art as a form of expression, then everything you have and come into contact with have some bearing on your performance. You can't put a price tag on all of them. You cannot.

"It is that true, is it?"

I believe that is true. Very true for people who are committed in their work in the arts.

"Are some actors disillusioned?"

Disillusioned … It's a very big word. I'm not so sure about this being the right word to use. I can say this: Yes, some do get carried away with the ideal of the theatre, of being an actor. They think: I have to do this because I am this type of actor and I have to do this because I have to prepare this way for this role. My question to them is this: Is that the only way to prepare for the role? If so, you'll need more acting classes! (laughs) There must be other ways and means.

"Do you feel that there is a need for Singaporean actors to diversify - to meet the needs of various acting markets? Or acquire skills and knowledge to suit different stylistic approaches to theatre? Why?"

It comes down to the needs. If you want to specialise, you should not bitch about not getting work. To me, it is that basic. I don't specialise. I started the new year not doing very much, what I thought was not a lot. ETC (Elias, Thomas and Chan) Associates had approached me to do their AEP school tours. So I called people up and D'rama Productions asked me to work as an instructor in DIE classes at Fajar Secondary School. Things do come along, sometimes in mysterious ways, you see.

I write, act and direct … it's about necessity, you see. If I can only act, I can only act. If another company needed somebody to write, I can't do so. Diversifying certainly opens up more opportunities of employment. And at the same time, you do pick things up that will help you in other aspects of theatre. A director who has had experience in acting will have the actor's perspective along with the director's perspective.

I had to understand the concept of 'devising' when rehearsing for Leow Puay Tin's "The Way of Violence", learn to do headstands for Chris Harris' "Blue Remembered Hills", learn acrobatics for Freda O'Byrne's "Chope!", learn to stilt-walk for John Wright's "Macbeth". I had to eat loads of tomatoes for R. Chandran's "Robinson Crusoe". Again, it all comes down to the needs.

"So you have said you got the D'rama job by coincidence. For you, does theatrical employment greatly depend on accidents of place, time and contacts?"

You have to constantly look out for work. You don't know when these things are going to come about. So you have to be constantly calling people and telling them you are available to take on new projects. Sometimes, advertising your experiences and ability. Usually before you become free. If not, by the time you are done, it will be too late - a few days out of work. I suppose it is a requirement of every freelancer to plan ahead and keep a continual lookout for jobs.

"Do you party and socialise? Do you have to?"

I do party, but with a select group of close friends.

"The glamour, showbiz side of partying?"

I know what you mean. By nature, I don't pay lip service and sometimes because of that, I lose out on a lot of jobs.

"Could you comment on the level of professionalism of actors in Singapore?"

F***ED UP! It comes down again to having the illusion of being an actor. Gary Oldman put it very succinctly when he said "We are in the business where we are all saying 'Look at me. I'm interesting.' Obviously, you need a bigger than normal ego to be able to do that on stage." You need some balls to do that. But then, it can get out of hand.

In all kinds of artistic disciplines, inclusive of theatre, there are people like that. They are usually the small people. The ones who are inconsequential are the ones with the biggest egos. The ones who have the least to offer. Gurmit Singh had absolutely no airs when I worked with him. None at all.

I haven't been involved in many productions in the last 4, 5 years as a result of more work with the schools. My last was probably "Macbeth" with TNS. So, I can't really make a fair commentary on the case of professionalism now.

"How should a Singaporean actor conduct himself professionally?"

This is a basic answer in any field or profession. The key word is "delivery" - when required, one delivers.

"Could you comment on self-censorship and state-censorship?"

Self-censorship is the worst kind if you do it consciously. State-censorship, hmm … The thing about censorship is that it is an act of violence. It is. You have a tree and you prune the tree. That's an act of violence. Censorship works in the same way, the same principles. You have a tree, you prune it and leave what you agree with. That's censorship. What else can I say? If you agree with violence, you agree with censorship.

"Do you see any good in them?"

See, when you know whom your play is targeted at, that is an indirect form of censorship already. On the other hand, before you begin to censor, there is already so much you can explore. If you are a person, like me, who is fiercely protective of your work, you should think about putting your work on the world stage, free of prejudice. It is only when you do so, your work is meant for everyone. Certain groups of people would need help to understand a play. They might watch it now and see the message and its significance ten years later. In censorship, it is easy to say that the work is meant for a certain group of people and so it is necessary for us to make changes. That is hypocrisy. If you think your work is meant for everyone, then you would not want it to be censored. If you do take something out, it would become something else. Not the same thing anymore.

"Other than what we have talked about, can you describe other difficulties which often re-surface in your work in the local theatre scene?"

Working with people who are not open. People who get personal. Constructive criticism towards their work is taken personally. Usually these are the people who are the ones who will brag. Sometimes, the so-called experienced actors can be rigid, inflexible and not open-minded. It is difficult to get new ideas through to a person if he doesn't have a liberated mentality.

"As an actor, the quality and success of your work depends on the interactions of your personal creativity and physical means that translate it into reality. How well has the educational system, local culture and society helped to nurture this?"

For the arts to prosper, there must first be economic prosperity. The irony of Singapore is that we talk about every home having a TV, every third home having a PC, when people have to work their butts off trying to attain a higher standard of living. In another country, or for some of our people, this standard might be generally perceived as upper middle class. For most of us, necessity and luxury might have become confused. We have the mindset that in principle, we still haven't got economic prosperity. We just don't feel 'rich enough'. Without this psychology of economic independence, there can be no appreciation of the arts. A lot of the politics here works and thrives on irony and contradiction.

"What does Art mean to you as an actor? What are its functions in our society?"

To me, a piece of art is one that you can look at it ten times and walk away with ten different things. Why is there Art in the first place? You have the things you need and use to sustain life: food, shelter … and then you have what's beyond that. If you can't, or barely, survive, then of course you would need to focus on the necessities of life. It's already hard to get a job, food and a roof over yourself and all that, it is ridiculous to talk about Art. Art is about the reflection of the quality of life.

"Is there any change or decision you would like to see made for the good of actors in Singapore?"

The better local audiences understand the craft of acting, the better they will be able to appreciate it and consequently recognise the better actors.

"Now, I'd like you to think about this for a minute first. When you're ready, in a few words, tell us what's one piece of advice you'd give actors, either just starting out or working their way up the ladder in either film or theatre."

Experience life. You need to experience life before you can do anything else.

"Tell me about the work of Teater Ekamatra. What does "Ekamatra" mean?"

"Ekamatra" is a Sanskrit word for one vision. It was founded in 1989. For many years, it was always the vision of the artistic director - Lut Ali, or Nur Effendy Ibrahim. Lately, when I came onboard as a performer, I was invited to become an associate director of the "artistic committee", meaning the appointment of artistic director was done away with. Now, the direction is such that at Teater Ekamatra, we want to create a platform for new people to present their works or old people to present new ideas.

"Your productions are watched by audiences who understand Malay. What are some of the difficulties in promoting your art in Singapore?"

Publicity. Sometimes people don't come to our shows because they don't know. The other thing is that there is no theatre-going culture in Singapore, in general. We have more spaces and theatre groups compared to the past but people are not finding out what's going on in the scene.

"Is Teater Ekamatra doing okay?"

Our members are our life-blood. We survive mainly on funds from the NAC, Arts Fund and Lee Foundation. Sometimes, private companies volunteer to sponsor the set or some props. Overall, although money is tight, we're not in the red. That's for sure.

"Wow, that's all I have for today. It was a good session. Thank you very much."

It was all right.

- The interview ended at 11.30 PM.

hide-outs      the safe      on record      first degree      of a feather

word on the street      rap sheet      the next hit      writing on the wall