Disclaimer: This review is part of my personal takes on the works presented at Pesta ARTI 2.0. The thoughts and opinions expressed here are solely those of the writer (i.e. me, myself and I) and do not reflect the views of the organizers, jury, or any affiliated parties. The intention is to engage critically with the work while supporting the growth of indie theater.
Team 7:
Written by Nurin Amani
Directed by Irfan Iskandar
Tenggelamnya presents a well-structured story with a strong sense of pacing, anchored by the dynamic between its central characters, Mak/Opah and Budi. Mak/Opah is both Budi’s mother and Ahmad’s grandmother. Budi, still grieving the loss of his wife, struggles with unresolved sorrow: his wife was swept away by a flood, her body never recovered. Three years have passed, yet Budi remains in denial, clinging to hope that she might still be alive. He preserves her belongings, from stones and leaves to food wrappings they collected together as if holding onto fragments of their shared life.
The tragedy has left Budi with a deep aversion to bad weather. He forbids Ahmad from playing in the rain, terrified that history might repeat itself. His fears are so overwhelming that even Ahmad's innocent drawings of grey clouds unsettle him. Budi’s overprotectiveness grows into a form of suffocation. However, Mak/Opah disagrees with Budi’s way of coping. She believes Ahmad must be made aware of the realities of nature, not sheltered from it and must learn to prepare for the possibility of floods, not fear the skies.
The audience seemed to be positioned between two choices: to sympathize with Budi or to side with his mother. But there was actually a third option, one that I found myself taking. I sided with the flood. Viva la nature! I wanted to root for the flood, because without it, Ahmad would never have been swept away (or at least, we are led to assume that he is, but there’s always the possibility, just like Budi clings to with his wife, that Ahmad might have survived). And without the second loss, Budi wouldn’t have been forced to confront his grief all over again.
Personally, I prefer stories where there is death, or at least an indefinite separation. So I was perfectly fine with the ending. At some point, I was no longer rooting for the characters, I was rooting for the flood. Of course, this only works if you have an appetite for tragedy (which I definitely do). For those who aren't too into tragedy, the ending (Ahmad’s presumed death and Budi reliving the trauma of losing his wife) might not be very satisfying. But hey, in theater, you can’t please everyone.
In terms of story, this is actually a good drama. Considering it only uses three characters and leans heavily on conversation, it’s impressively packed with emotion. The revelations of each character’s motivations unfold in a way that feels very natural or at least, it did to me. However, there’s one aspect that didn’t feel quite as natural.
The laras (style or register) used by the characters sometimes felt a bit too literary. For example, there’s a moment where Mak Budi says to Budi, "Sedar sekali lagi nak, kadang kau meyakini bahawa isteri kau telah kembali kepada Tuhannya, tapi kadang kau masih lagi meletakkan harapan bahawa isteri kau masih lagi bernyawa." For me, this feels unusual for an everyday conversation between a mother and son, especially one set in a village context. In casual, real-life speech, people tend to use shorter sentences, simpler and more common words, and a less formal structure. I would have imagined something looser and more direct, like "Kau kena sedar, kau cakap kau dah redha, tapi kadang-kadang kau rasa isteri kau masih ada." A more natural flow like this would reflect how people usually speak - quick, emotional, and to the point, especially when dealing with heavy feelings.
But maybe it’s because the character Mak/Opah used to be a literature teacher. When I talk about laras (style or register), I mean the structure of the sentences and the choice of vocabulary and the one used by the Mak/Opah is not something I would normally imagine coming from a mother or grandmother in that village context. But clearly, I think, this was intentional, because even Budi’s register is quite literary, for example Budi uses metaphors quite frequently to express his frustration and grief, that is just too poetic. So maybe this is actually a form of defamiliarization in how the dialogue is constructed.
In formalism, defamiliarization (ostranenie) refers to the technique of presenting something familiar in a way that makes it feel strange or new, forcing the audience to see it with fresh eyes. It’s often most obvious in poetry, where everyday things are described using unusual images, metaphors, or phrasing, making us pause and experience them differently. In the context of theater, using a heightened, literary style of dialogue for what would otherwise be normal conversations can act as a form of defamiliarization making us listen more carefully, feel the weight of the words more sharply, and process the characters’ emotions with greater awareness. It turns watching into a more active, rather than passive, experience.
While watching the show last night, I thought it must have been difficult to carry these kinds of lines. Even though the conversations happen in everyday settings, the way they speak isn’t something you can just pull from your normal daily vocabulary or experiences. And this was confirmed by Kak Dila (the actress playing Mak/Opah) herself, after the show, when I asked if it was hard to deliver the lines, she said it definitely took some work. In fact, even just before the house opened, I could hear Sunio (who plays Budi) and Kak Dila practicing their lines on the stairs outside the venue. Both of them carried it off well frankly, of course there were small moments of stumbling, maybe because they had the instinct to revert back to their natural, everyday register. But even then, they snapped back into the script very quickly.
My concern with the story is that the theme of perubahan iklim (climate change), as the central concept for ARTI 2.0, feels somewhat forced. The narrative seems to rely more on the idea of weather-related disasters rather than addressing true climate change. While they are related, the connection between the flooding in the story and climate change doesn’t feel fully fleshed out. The flood, for example, is tied to human actions that make the flooding occur more quickly during rainfall, but the broader impact of climate change on weather patterns and floods isn’t explored in depth.
The mention of climate change feels more like a token reference in the script. When Budi asks Ahmad what he’s learning in school, Ahmad says it’s about climate change, but the explanation is more about environmental damage caused by humans rather than climate change itself. There’s also a moment where Opah and Ahmad discuss the frequent rainfall, and Opah says it’s due to the perubahan iklim (climate change). However, climate change happens over years, not in the way seasons shift annually.
The story is set in April, which is Ahmad's birthday month, so perhaps what is being referred to here is the transition between the monsoon seasons. This transitional period can bring heavy rains, but perubahan monsoon (monsoon change) is not the same as perubahan iklim (climate change). If the story was adjusted to fit the theme requirement, I wish it had been executed more effectively. That said, I’m still okay with the story overall.
All in all, Tenggelamnya is a heartfelt and compelling piece of theater, offering an emotional journey through grief, loss, and the complexities of family dynamics. The central conflict, driven by the contrasting perspectives of Budi and Mak/Opah, creates a tension that propels the story forward, with a strong emphasis on character-driven storytelling. While the literary style of dialogue and the forced inclusion of climate change as a theme may have disrupted the natural flow of the narrative, these aspects don’t overshadow the emotional impact of the story. I personally think that Tenggelamnya could be a thought-provoking drama that leaves a lasting impression, particularly for those who appreciate tragedy and the intricacies of human emotion. The performances and the narrative's exploration of loss and redemption make it a noteworthy production.
