The twisted versions of Sinhabahu
Sachitra Mahendra and Ruwini Jayawardana
When Professor Ediriweera Sarachchandra scripted the legend of
Sinhalese origin, Sinhabahu, into the local theatre, it made him a
theatre legend.
Everything about the play was original to the sense of the lyrics
being classical, costumes being traditional and, above all, the play
being a masterpiece.
It was a success story throughout the years and this exceptional
piece of theatrical production unlocked an easy track to an English
production that came on stage not so long ago.
Dharmajith Punarjeeva is an experienced stage drama producer and had
made an effort to bring the 1961 masterpiece to the present audience in
English.
Ironically, it was but one day that Sinhabahu was staged in English
and many critics have expressed their disappointment towards the
creation. They have begun rallying against Dharmjith making life a
razor’s edge for him.
At the forefront of the group is the wife of the master of the
original, Lalitha Sarachchandra. The Daily News met her to question why
she found Punarjeeva’s work an unsavoury experience.
“ Punarjeeva brought Dr. Lakshmi de Silva’s translation of Sinhabahu
to me and requested permission to do a production. We discussed and came
to an agreement to proceed with bringing the English version onto the
stage.
We signed an agreement that Dr. Sarachchandra’s Nadagam tradition
should not be distorted and that if the final production was not up to
my satisfaction, the play will not be allowed to be released to the
public,” she said.
According to Lalitha she had never possessed the wish to produce
Sinhabahu in English and show it abroad, rather she believes that it is
the Sinhala play itself that should be taken to the international
audience.
“It is very difficult to do Nadagam in English. This was tried out as
an experiment and since Punarjeeva is an upcoming young director and I
believed it was my duty to relay on his capabilities to bring the
English version into life,” she said adding that many had warned her
against the action.
“One cannot act based purely on suspicion. Nothing is concrete until
facts are proven. One of the reasons why I did not hesitate to give him
my consent is because I have been accused of grabbing all of Dr.
Sarachchandra’s work without giving it to youngsters. It would have been
wonderful if he had made a good job of it,” she explained.
According to Sarachchandra, Punarjeeva had not understood the
characters in the play. She says that Suppadevi had been transformed to
take the image of a bandit queen.
“She is the mother of our nation. She is the emblem of the Sinhala
woman and we have a great regard for her.
In Punarjeeva’s English version Anoma Jinadari, dressed in a short
costume, is scurrying about on stage, giving the impression that she is
more in a hurry to leave the cave than Sinhabahu. Her actions do not
indicate that she is a respectable women and the mother of two
children,” Lalitha said.
|
Lalitha Sarachchandra. Picture by
Saman Sri Wedage |
One of the significant differences between the original and the
English version is in the scene when Sinhabahu kills his father. In
Sarachchandra’s version the first two arrows that the son shoots do not
harm the father.
It is only after he feels anger towards the son that the third arrow
strikes him dead. In the English version this scene had been changed to
the son deceiving the father and stabbing him with a dagger.
“Sarachchandra’s Sinhabahu is based on the theme of compassion but
with this single scene the whole idea behind the play is destroyed,” She
pointed out adding that as soon as she had watched its premier, she had
gone up to him and expressed her displeasure.
“I asked him to meet me but he never turned up. We had to go to
courts to stop the next show that was scheduled to be shown in Kandy. He
had no choice but to show up then and now the play is under
arbitration.”
Another issue in concern is that all the music and songs have been
recorded and played backstage.
“Though Anoma acts on stage it is Noeline Honter’s voice we hear and
the dialogues are very unclear. You cannot make out what is going on
stage. There is so much background noise,” she said.
Queried on why she did not go to watch the rehearsals Lalitha said
that she did not place trust in such matters.
“Let’s say I did go to see the rehearsals. He would have shown me a
few scenes that I would have approved and he could have included all the
scenes he wanted after I had given my approval.
“Many people insert scenes to their creations after showing it to the
censor board. I had my suspicions and they were proven correct,” she
said adding that Punarjeeva had visited her home several times after
they had signed the agreement but had never discussed or asked for
advice on how to proceed with the play.
“I asked him how the work was progressing but he did not give any
details. He seemed to be avoiding the topic and I did not feel the urge
to dig into it as the agreement states that I will have the final say in
the matter,” she said.
Sinhabahu, the Sinhala version had been staged for around 47 years
and had mesmerised local and international audiences. Lalitha’s wish is
to script the plays in Tamil because she believes that the plays combine
well with the Tamil traditions of dancing and singing.
She had already given the script of Maname to Dr. Sivathambi and
hopes to engage University students representing the three nationalities
to take part in the rehearsals.
English translator Prof. Lakshmi de Silva shared the same viewpoint
regarding the background music of the play.
“The cast voices recorded sounds, and the recording was horrible.
“I had no way to measure whether justice is done to my script. There
was no performance at all; only some unprofessional movements on the
stage.”
Prof. de Silva is suspicious on any ulterior motives of the
production. “I think they are going to pack this abroad after videoing.
They have a good market with homesick emotional Sri Lankans staying
abroad.”
As Prof. de Silva mentions, you cannot expect the English production
to be in the same excellent rank as that of the original version, but
the play is not even up to standard.
Namel Weeramuni, the second translator of Sinhabahu, was not willing
to comment on principles.
“This is based on Prof. Lakshmi de Silva’s script, and since I have
translated this too, it will be unfair if I comment on the play,” he
said.
A Sinhala lecturer from Peradeniya University Dr. Liyanage
Amarakeerthi pens down a positive note on Sinhabahu English production
in a recent review.
“The English version was beautifully theatrical. It intermingles
traditional rhythms, body movements, gestures and the like with new
choreographic and musical elements. In some scenes, it creates a
ritual-like atmosphere that Sarachchandra would have liked.”
However he also agrees with the general opinion of background noise.
As Dr. Amarakeerthi mentions further, Prof. de Silva’s script lacks the
theatrical beauty, though it is a scholastically excellent work. As he
points, the audience would feel like listening to English being read on
stage, rather than listening to colloquial English.
Another Sarachchandra critic, who wishes to remain anonymous,
expressed his grave concern about the English production.
“The first point is music, which was electronic. I am not against
electronic music, but there is a manner the music can be used. This play
lacks it totally. I was willing to write a review on this, but at the
end, I came to know there is nothing good to mention on this play.”
He added that the whole glamour of Sinhabahu is completely lost in
the production.
Daily News’ attempt to contact Dharmajith Punarjeeva was futile. His
official website is also closed down. |
