If sex is a metaphor for the interaction between author and audience, the abridging of literature means ending the sex too early for the writer’s taste, leaving him frustrated as the pleasured audience rolls over and goes to sleep. Thus, it’s easy to imagine Khaled Hosseini’s acute disappointment with the adapted dramatic interpretation of his novel, The Kite Runner, due to the lost themes of the book. Still, the audience should be quite content with the 45-minute show.
The Kite Runner, adapted and directed by Wynn Handman of American Place Theatre and performed by Aasif Mandvi, is a reflection on the childhood of Amir, the narrator and protagonist of Hosseini’s novel. Amir was born and raised in Afghanistan, but he now recounts his story from California. Born to a wealthy family of Pashtuns, the ethnicity to which the Taliban belonged, the narrator describes himself as a meek child forced to rely on the aid of his servant’s son, Hassan, who was of the persecuted Hazari minority. While their relationship partly consists of the standard institutions of servitude, they develop a tight, fraternal friendship that becomes the crux of Amir’s story.
All of the characters in this play were performed by Mandvi, an Iranian-American actor who is frequently featured in plays with Middle Eastern themes. During his one-man show, he smoothly transitioned from one character to the next, never confusing the audience with actor changes.
While his characters had their distinct gestures, postures and intonations, they each carried the voice of Amir. In fact, this quality may be the greatest testament to Mandvi’s talent. While Hosseini’s world was comprised of a multitude of individuals, The Kite Runner is Amir’s story. Mandvi resisted the temptation of schizophrenic dramatics and enforced the protagonist’s foundation.
Even though Mandvi’s skills and flair were very exceptional, his greatest limitation was the short page count of his script. In order to minimize run-time and hold the audience’s attention, Handman neglects large, thematically important sections of the novel, including Amir’s return to the Middle East, the Soviet invasion of his homeland, and the rise of the Taliban.
Although the character relationships were the heart of the story, the development of their intricacies would have been improved by a greater inclusion of Afghanistan as a character. Handman may have believed that the juvenile bully Osef was a sufficient symbol of future oppressive forces, but this sole nemesis could not encapsulate the years of repression and hardship that would torment the nation. Without the sufficient backdrop of turmoil, the story is unable to achieve potential depth.
While the audience may have been entertained, they were only receiving a two dimensional snapshot of Hosseini’s rich creation. Mandvi was certainly capable of an extended interpretation with greater character exploration and progression.
Despite the disappointment of the short script, Handman’s selections were wonderfully gripping and the passages possessed intense urgency. Still, those who read Hosseini’s work were left wondering what could have been.
