|
|
 |
 |
 |
| Wednesday, 29 September 2004 |
 |
|
 |
Artscope | |
| News Business Features Editorial Security Politics World Letters Sports Obituaries
|
Cinema is a director's art by E. M. G. Edirisinghe The younger generation, has access to world cinema today. Since there is no formal cinema institute in the country, they have to sharpen their sensibilities by seeing more and more films. They must be committed to do something, they believe in. For the serious cinema maker, cinema is not a commodity to be marketed, said Sumithra Peries who bagged the prestigious Sarasaviya Award for the Best Film recently. In an interview with the Artscope the veteran film-maker dealt with problems faced by a director and the challenges lying ahead. Excerpts: Question: Award for the best film in any film festival is the crown of all awards. How do you feel about directing Sakman Maluwa, the best film?
Answer: I regard all festivals with a certain amount of humility. A few people sit on judgement. Among them, there is sympathy and empathy for a film. In this case, I feel my film is the best. My contribution to it is much more than to my earlier films. The script was a kind of pre-interpretation with scope to reinterpret it. The two of us, Lester and myself, grew with the script and the characters were living with us. While shooting, I was very firm on where the snake, the birds or the dog should be. Q: You won the award for the best director as well as the award for the best film for Maya and Ganga Addara. This year your film won the award for the best film, but missed the award for the best director. How do you reconcile yourself with this new experience? A: My simple answer to that is I would have won both awards. The two earlier films which won both awards were more structured; much less directorial skill was needed to create them. But, I had to use greater skill and innovation in this film, a perspective which any jury could have seen that, and I would have won both. Q: At the Oscars, Chicago won the best film award; The Pianist won the award for the best director. In the local scene we witnessed a similar situation in 1969 when Dahasak Sithuwili won the best film award while Golu Hadawatha won the best director award. So this year it was only a repetition. What is your opinion about it? A: In the late sixties Dahasak Sithuwili was fairly an innovative film for that period. It had a broken time structure between dream and reality. Thematically it was a significant breakthrough. Although Golu Hadawatha was brilliantly directed, the jury honoured the innovative content of Dahasak Sithuwili. In the Oscars the reverse had happened. The jury at the Oscars is mostly technical people who go for technical marvels but not really for the content. I think The Pianist should have won the best film award, too. It is difficult to say how Sakman Maluwa lost the best director award. It was my best film with unusual thematic depth, running into several layers. The judgements are subjective and often there can be a division in the jury. Q: What made you to do a film based on a short story, which reminds me of Nidhanaya? Core issue A: When I read this short story long ago, its core issue, what the people expect from marriage and its aspirations did strike deep in me. Lester took over the writing of the script after several people refused to write it. Certain things which people normally do cannot be expected in marriage. This came to our mind when we were writing the script. We shot the film in a single location which was much more fulfilling than we had expected. Every shot had been filled with background and foreground designing. An unseen hand was interfering with the nature as portrayed through the snake and the dog. Q: Unlike some directors you always make a film on a script written by another. Have you got any reasons for it? A: My first film Gehenu Lamai was based on my own script which in turn was based on a novel. Therefore it was easier to film it. The script by another, is only a blue-print for me to work on. Characters may be in the script. But they have to be placed in between the camera and the viewer. The script is only a guideline, and I am free to use it the way I want. I may change a lot in the script to accommodate a little bit which gives a little more to the film. Q: Have you had any formal training in directing a film? A: My formal training is in the actual practice of it. However, in London, I followed a general course in cinema during 1956-1959. I was the only girl in a group of 20 students. Ironically I unlearned what I learned there when I stated making films. I underwent training in all aspects in film making. However, I started my profession as an editor. It made breaking up of a screen easy for me as a director because I was tutored in the art of editing, the practical training of which had been very useful for me. Q: We have only two women directors making films today. One is you and the other is Inoka Sathyangani. Incidentally the two of you split the two main awards between the two of you. How do you explain that unique experience? A: Inoka belongs to the present generation of film-makers. And, that is significant. It is significant that the males are willing to recognize talent of women. Q: There is a maxim that the great and the little need one another. How do you see it in the light of your experience as a director? Talents A: Cinema more than any other art depends on a whole host of minor and major talents. Make-up artist is minor talent, but without him cinema is not complete. Without the contribution of such small talent the best is not possible. They are collectively committed to one thing - the creation. Therefore, an award is a reward for all those who contributed towards the creation though their subscription is not acknowledged. Interdependence is the soul of celluloid success. Q: Cinema is a director's art. What do you think of that? A: Most certainly. Visual imagery in a film is decided by none other than the director. Script-writer cannot decide or visualise the ultimate creation. Director takes the decision, and what form it takes is in the hands of the director. Conception of the director is interpreted through the others whose roles are rather ancillary. Q: How do you react to critic and audience response? A: Critical reaction in a way is how a trained eye looks at a film. But, the audience simply come without any preceptions to enjoy a film. The critic gives an insight into which the director himself may be consciously not aware of. The average person enjoys a film without any interpretation. The critic is an intermediary between the viewer and the film. He enriches and enhances the experience of the viewer. Q: As one of the few women who is on par with the best of men in the country, do you think our women should be influenced by such concepts of the West as feminism? A: Traditionally we women have our place in society. In an agrarian society we shared the life at home, field and family with men. Western kind of feminism destroys humanism in us. Mutual respect is more important than the rest. There is no need for agitation. I broke tradition but within the confines of our culture. Traditionally the mother is more respected at home. However, man takes the lead in providing physical labour. Mental development is more important than physical development where woman is equal to man in every detail and in all aspects. World cinema Q: What is your opinion about the world cinema and the Sinhala cinema? A: World cinema is moving in the direction of Moore's 9/11, documentary structure of feature length. There is more of technology and physiology but it is emotionally barren. Sri Lanka is moving towards international cinema. There are young people with a lot of talent and rightly, they work with some kind of view on international market. It helps the local industry, too. The new crop of present-day film makers have more exposure to talent, learning and international films. It augurs well for our future. Q: Do you see a progress or decline in Sinhala cinema when compared to the early sixties the time you entered the local film scene? A: Easily the 60s and the 70s were very creative periods. It was the golden era of Sinhala cinema. Comparatively, the 80s and the 90s showed a decline. I think television is the reason for it. In this century there is a flicker of hope for our cinema and I hope it will improve. Q: How far had your husband been an inspiration and a guide to you in your film career? A: My husband had been the primary source of inspiration and guidance for me. He was changing me without influencing me. He gave me the freedom, support and led my own talent to find an expression without imposing his will on me. He helped me to be an individual on my own. We lived and thrived in mutual respect. Q: What are your plans for the future? A: I want to make more films if the resources and physical energy permit. It would be a mix of magical realism, a very documentary-like feature. I am true to myself and art. I am open to a lot of influence without being influenced. Q: As a veteran in cinema art, what is your advice to the younger generation taking to cinema? They are more blessed than we were. We had to live in the run-up to the films. The young today have access to world cinema. Since there is no formal cinema institute in the country they have to sharpen their sensibilities by seeing more and more films. They must be committed to do something they believe in. For the serious cinema-maker, cinema is not a commodity to be marketed. **** Back **** |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
Produced by Lake House |
