Monday, March 29, 2010

The Demise of Bangsawan

However, not all was well with bangsawan in the world of film. Indian directors, such as B. S. Rajhan were brought in to offer their technical expertise in film productions. However the film contents had to suffer tremendous changes due to harsh translation and heavy Indian influences, which resulted in less than ideal Malay scripts that often did not resonate with the Malay audiences. The Malay community began to express their disdain for poor, foreign sounding Malay as well as unrealistic plots that did not reflect the way of life in Singapore. Bangsawan-based movies such as Mutiara, with plot mechanics such as familial deceit and domestic violence, faced harsh criticism from Malay journalists which claimed that it ‘was not suitable for customary approaches to Malay life[1]. As a result, bangsawan in films began to decline and was phased out due to their inability to mirror the changing lives of the Malays in Singapore. Therefore, newer released films became devoid of traditional elements and instead focused on the juxtaposition of urban mobility and capitalism, reflecting the more relevant and realistic situations of the Malays in Singapore. The plots elements eventually moved away from bangsawan altogether and by 1952, almost none of the films produced by Cathay Keris or Shaw Brothers had bangsawan in them[2].

The changing attitude of the local population was also reflected in the downward spiral of bangsawan. As the Western influence began erode the local values, bangsawan was deemed to be unfashionable as compared to the thespian stage productions of Western descent. The fading prominence of the entertainment parks also created a negative subsidiary effect on bangsawan. As the population moved away from public spheres of amusement and “entertainment for all”, bangsawan lost a platform that previously propelled her to her height of popularity. Consequently, this resulted in the general demise of bangsawan theatres in Singapore.

Facing the severe lack of funding and a waning response from the audience, bangsawan saw the change in interests of the general public. Singapore, being at the centre of trade and a meeting place of ideas, had seen the influx of overwhelming external influences[3]. This globalization of ideas and ideals thus began a slow but undeniable erosion of traditional values of the Malay world. These compounded effects had manifested in the attrition and final elimination of bangsawan as a popular culture in Singapore.

With the advent of Malay nationalism in Singapore and Malaya in the 1950s, ASOS 50 (Angkatan Sasterawan 50), a group of concerned Malay writers and artists was formed. In view of the continued erosion of the Malay culture in films and other popular mediums, this organization of Malay intelligentsia began to stand up to the film industry, calling for Malays to take control of content in films so that customary Malay culture could be better represented. While traditional bangsawan could not find their way back to films, their elements were invoked as being part of the authentic Malay culture and were incorporated back into films in order to re-establish Malay films as a vehicle of Malay nationalism and identity. By inserting bangsawan-inspired Malay songs and dance routines into films, the ASOS 50 attempted to impede the rot caused by the social juggernaut of invading cultures[4].

The use of bangsawan as an avenue for Malay consciousness and nationalism had reflected the ideals of the Malay elites of that generation. The increasing multicultural bangsawan and its eventually fall from grace was seen as a symbol that rendered Malay culture as an anachronism. In order to recapture this traditionally Malay domain, the intelligentsia attempted to remove the multicultural elements that had made bangsawan popular since the days of the amusement parks.



[1] “Ruangan Alam Cinema”, Warta Jenaka (Aug 1940), p. 11-12.

[2] Ahmad H., Traditional Theatre in Southeast Asia: Bangsawan in Singapore, A Historical Perspective (Singapore: UniPress for SPAFA, 1995), p. 88.

[3] Page M. E., Colonialism: An International, Social, Cultural, and Political Encyclopedia (Vol. 1) (ABC-CLIO, 1995), p. 118.

[4] Karim N. S. et.al., Memoranda Angkatan Sastrawan '50 (2nd ed) (Petaling Jaya: Fajar Bakt), p. 156 – 164.

No comments:

Post a Comment