A critique on the State Sinhala Drama Festival of 1966
'An actor is one who is made and not born' should be the motto of
Sinhala theatre Subject matter of realistic conversational original
Plays in 1960's
Prof. Ariya Rajakaruna
Translated by Ranga Chandrarathne
(This is a translation of a critique by Prof. Ariya Rajakaruna. He
served as the Head of the Department of Sinhala of the University of
Peradeniya. He is currently a visiting lecturer attached to the
Department of Fine Arts and Sinhala. This is the only comprehensive
review written on any State Sinhala Drama Festival held during the past
five decades. This review was first published in 1967.This critique has
been translated for the first time)
Continued from last week
Prof. Ashley Halpe
Lasting contribution....
|
Kaushalya Fernando
Actress and dramatist of all times; listens amidst few genuine
artists.
|
Some others rejected the introduction of Sinhala dramas through
adaptations and translations of Western style drama to Sinhala theatre.
They appreciated the dramas with songs and instrumental music as
indigenous dramas.
Critic of drama should not be a person who has a grudge on some
traditions of drama. He should be able to understand the specific needs
of theatre in eastern nations. High quality dramas should not be
jettisoned merely because they came from America or Russia.
Some critics were ignorant of on what basis dramas should be
appreciated. There are many instances where success or failure of a
drama is judged unjustifiably.
Some who completely jettisoned "Hele Nagga Don Putha "and "
Ahasmaliga" as failures, considered "Vesmuna" as a successful
production. What is the reason for such a judgment? It seems that all
three dramas have been adapted to suit Sri Lankan life. On this count, "Vesmuna"
cannot be considered superior to the other two dramas.
Stage play Weeduru Diva |
Considering the needs of the Sinhala theatre, these dramas have
positive as well as negative characteristics. Therefore, it is not
fitting to describe these dramas as total failures or outstanding
successes. Critics' judgments reveal that they have very little
knowledge of the requirements of Sinhala theatre.
There are few critics who made their criticisms considering stage
decorations, costume, make-up, lighting, acting and the plot of the
drama in arriving at conclusions. Some do not consider, at all, of the
attempts made to attract audience by using techniques of theatre.
As those critics had little understanding on Sinhala language, they
often came to wrong conclusions with regard to the use of language on
the stage. Some, who have no understanding on the history of
contemporary Sinhala theatre, expressed ill-informed opinion on the
importance of certain productions.
Some appreciated only the dramas that arouse feelings. Most criticism
lost discipline. On most occasions, misleading and provocative headlines
have been used for drama criticisms. Some articles revealed the anger of
the critic after the performance.
There are some criticisms with the sole intention of attacking the
dramatists. Some spoke on things that they are ignorant of.
If a drama becomes successful it was over-acclaimed and denounced
when a drama became a failure. The objective of the critics should be to
highlight the shortcomings of productions in a spirit to enlighten the
readers and to encourage the dramatists to overcome them. Some critics
expressed pertinent and progressive views. They help to increase
audience's interest in theatre and be an aid to clearly understand the
production.
What are the criteria adapted in criticizing Sinhala drama? All the
productions presented for the festival can be jettisoned as they are not
high quality productions such as Maname and Sinha Bahu.
What is the benefit this will bring Sinhala theatre? Talents shown by
Sinhala dramatists on creative dramas are limited. However, their dramas
with a lot of weakness would make a certain contribution to the
development of future Sinhala theatre. What happened at their hand is
only paved the way for the emergence of talented dramatists. A developed
theatre can be built through the weaknesses of the present dramatists.
Eleven drama societies took part in the festival. The organizations
Group 63, Kalapela Sankruthika Sangamaya, Naatya Chakra, Navaranga
Samuluwa, Janaranga Shraniya, Sinhala Sangeeta Sangamaya, Tholosdena,
Ape Kattiya, Deshiya Sankrutika Mandalaya, Taruna Sankruthika
Sanvidanaya and Rangamandalaya have presented dramas for the festival.
In addition, Henry Jayasena, J.H Jayewardene, Sunanda Mahendra de
Mel, Ameradasa Jayatunga and Chandrasena Dassanayake, as individuals,
presented dramas. It seems though the associations differ, actors and
actresses as well as technical staff are often the same persons.
A person who portrays a character on behalf of one drama associated,
acted as a director for another. This would not augur well for the
development of drama.
The 'Programme' of the festival shows that still it has not been
decided on the proper usage for describing technical aspects of drama.
Usages such as " Stage plan' Stage decorations, theatre plan, stage
creation, theatre decoration, stage beautification' have been utilized
to describe same concept.
Some use "Make up and costume design" to bring in the same meaning.
Some use "Make up " for "costume design" and meant only for 'Dress
making'. Some dramas, use 'Music Composition' and some others "Music
Direction".
Even some are 'produced' while others were "formed". It is imperative
that consensus should be reached on the vocabulary use to describe
technical aspects of the drama. |