The plays of Osofisan focus on the
political social and economic forces which determine the individuals life. Like
all class societies, the conflict as his plays depict is the conflict of human
dignity and power. Man in this view is a victim of history within the framework
of the social –political structure which oppresses him. His view of this system is that freedom is
possible but by collective strength and consciousness. It is the philosophy
that that men critics argue firms his modernist radical ideology. For example,
Olu Obfemi in his work posits that Osofisan “advocates
a socialist ethical
perspective for his society” (121). In his view Osofisan believes that by
creating political consciousness through mass mobilization revolution will
follow. Muhammad Bhadmus in his view argues that Osofisan employs the popular
theatre as a reaclion against the
traditional or liberal humanist drama in which the gods determine the fate of
the heroes as depicted in such characters as sophocles’ Oedipus and soyinka’s
Elesin Oba. He therefore categorized Osofisan as a modernist radical dramatist
who argue for an alternative drama. In his view, Osofisan theatre, in its use
of the human medium as characterization, “presupposes the individual as the
centerpiece of perception and world view” (62).
In response to the above critical
assertions, Osofisan in his works shows that the search for an alternative
revolutionary motif marks his departure from mimesis and the beginning of his
maturation as a modernist radical dramatist. However, his works that are
politically engaging and combative could teach resistance and compassion. These
ideas of course are features that characterize radical dramatists. Therefore,
his works involve the audience raising in their minds questions that their
answerer surely will result in positive change in the society. His viewpoint.
In the chattering and the song as well as Esu and the vagabond minslvels,
Osofisan successfully combines history and myth to achieve a revolutionary change.
He thereby illustrates Obafemi’s assertion,
“Osofisan appropriates the
historical past for his social vision” (1982”122) His use of history and myth
becomes more constructive, objective and believable as he carefully
demonstrates in the two plays under study.
The plays of Osofisan are devoted to
the development of a common theme. The recurrent theme expressed in Osofisan’s
theatre concerns itself with the restructuring of the socio-political society
to ensure equal opportunities for all. Hence, his theatre devotes its theme to
the problem of the masses and proffer solutions. In this regard, he examines
the causes of societal malaise, rouses his audience into critical awareness of
the prevailing social decadence and move them into taking appropriate action.
This concretization of Osofisan’s spectator according to Gbuleka (76) is done
at the expense of entertainment. Like Brecht, Osofisan’s theatre is eminently
practices. He can also be described as an efficient manipulator of his audience
towards a creation of a democratic social order. This is the highlight of the
chattering and they song. This ideology of Osofisan is the most distinguishing
characteristics of the modernist radical drama. Obafemi recognizing this view
noted:
… man’s problems originate from man and
not from
the metaphysical realm or from gods. Only
man, then can,
by himself find solutions to his problems…
(1988:57)
The
above assertion accounts for the instances in his plays which prompt the people
to take up arms to undertake a complete overhaul of the political and economic
structure that oppresses them. Thus, his plays are a careful re-awakening of
the ignorant masses to the socio-economic realities of their time. 3:1
The plot of the chattering and the
song according to Gbilekka is ‘elliptic’. However, the play-within- a play
brings out the central dramatic scene of the play. The images, song dance and
dialogue reveal the background of the play. It is a recreation of the history
of Oyo empire where-the rebellious Bastonen Gaha who overthrew their Alafin and
sets up a reign of terror, killing all the princes of Oyo except Abiodun who
grew up to challenge and overthrew this despot. The foreground action of the
play is the love-hate in angle between Soutri, Yajin and Mokan. Yajin was
mokan’s fiancée but she fell in love with Soutri whom she finds restless and
radical than Mokan. Mokan becomes jealous of this new relationship and decides
to join the secret service so as to avenge his course.
Meanwhile Sortri becomes observed
with the autocratic government and thinks of a possible solution to this
menace. He joins politics and is drafted into the ‘farmers’ movement’ and
becomes their song maker. On the other hand Mokan refuses to be part of the
movement but plans organist the movement, to achieve this, he pretends to be
friendly until the occasion of the eve of their matrimony provided itself. In
the play-within-a play, Mokan plays the palace guard so as to feather his goal
of distorting the activities of the ’Farmers’ movement’, heje, the leader of
the movement plays laloyei the sebel. However, Mokan who is unaware of the
activities of leje arrests Soutri and Yajin for subversive activities on the
eve of their wedding. The play ends on the optimistic note that the revolution
will surely be a success despite the arrest. Soutri tells.
Mokan: There’s
nothing you can do to stop the birds from singing. Mokan, the revolution is
already on wing, you cannot halt it! (47) .
In
this regard, the playwright believes that the play aloes not end because the
revolution is gust beginning. The play therefore is a rehearsal for the
revolution.
In the prologue, the need for change
is emphasized by the paratactic and cannibalistic images that expose how the
powerful oppress on the poor masses. The fish falls prey to the frog as the hen
falls to the hawks. Similarly too the stag devours the doe. These images are a
metaphor for the oppressors and further suggestion of an unjust society. Leje
the protagonist who further play as latoye in the play-within-the play
highlights the sufferings of the poor to the guards when he is arraigned before
Abiodun, the Alafin. He tells Abiodun thus :”When you put a man in chains,… you
free his tongue! (30) . in view of this proverb, Leje (Latoye) makes his speech
which proves to be the only thing the oppressed guards played the musicians who
represent the parasites needed to start off the revolution. When he is
threatened with death he reminds the Alafin thus:
Yes, you will kill me. But your hands cannot reach the
seeds
I have already sown, and they are on fertile soil. Soon, sooner
than you think, they will alone will burst into flower
and their
scent alone will choice you. (37)
Leje
goes further to create awareness by his speech for freedom.
… Sewers, listen to me! I am going to release you, but
only
after you release your minds. No one can do that for
you
but yourselves. Think! Think! With me! For it is that
alone that
will free you of your shades. Look around you. Look
into your
past, look into your future. What do you see?. Always
the same
unending tale of oppression of poverty, hungeri
squalor and
disease! Why? Ah, you and your people you are the soil
on
which the Alafin’s tree is nourished, tended until it
is overlade with
fruit! And yet, when you stretch out your hands, there
are no fruits
for you! Why? Only your limbs are gaunt with work and
want,
only your faces are wrinkled and hollow with sweating
and not
getting! Alatin and his men are fed and flourishing,
but they
continue to steal your kinds. They are rich, their
salaries swell
from the burden of your taxes! Their stores are
bursting, your
children beg on the streets. I am begging you, please
fly out
of your narrow nests. Come follow me, raise a song to
freedom! Now!
This
speech no doubt appealed to their senses and rush towards Alafin and his wife.
Their immediation response shows that political awareness is just what is
needed to bring out a democratic order in the society. Leje the leader of the
‘Farmers’ movement’ also makes them realize that collective action is what is
required to attain to a desired change. Leje in a discussion which is at once a courting exercise as well as the
political indoctrination of funlola, the artist of the irong tower, explains
the futility of the search by the police for revolutionary heroes- Leje,
s\Soutri and Yajin, whom they could silence:
Funlola: You are the one wanted by the police?
Leje: The
police are ignorant. What is a single man in a revolution, it will run its
course, with or without those who served to spark it off. History will remember
us.
Funlola: So
why do you want me?
Leje: The
movement needs all capable people. The whole world, you see, is a farm. And all
hand must toil born to cultivate it and to eat out of its fruit (53).
Leje
thus posits that revolution is according to Herber Marcuse a seminal,
biological necessity. Hence, once it is started must run its course.