Akasa Kusum remains in the sky
Prasanna Vithanage's Akasa Kusum cannot be called as an artistic
version of film. It is closer to a cut and dry documentary yet it cannot
be called a documentary as well. I was pondering on the thought that why
it couldn't touch the heart. Sure it touches the brain and also the
mind, which to me, lies somewhere between the heart and the brain.
Yet the film lacks that very quality of embracing the heart in one
moment and then giving a little bit of pain by pricking it; then
soothing it a little with a balmy breeze; it lacks the call for a
balanced stance between the brain's identification of a problem and the
heart's recognition of sympathy.
|
A scene from Akasa Kusum |
It does not take the audience along with it as it moves. In short,
the film does not request the emotional involvement of the audience to
be part of it.
Body and soul
One can ask a very simple question as to why an emotional involvement
from the audience is required. Art is more of a blend of body-soul
involvement than a mere representation of the brain's exquisite power.
It needs to have an inherent feature of lingering in the hearts of
people even after the experience. It is a form of education which can
change people. Arts, by all means a form of knowledge yet without its
artistic quality of touching the deep emotions of human beings, Art is
not Art.
I remember the Hindi movie, "Black" in which Amitab Bhachchan and
Rani Mukherji starred. Therein, the spectator's emotions were exploited
from the very beginning to the very end to such an extent that by the
end of the first half of the movie, viewer is tired of his/her emotional
exploitation. Therein, one cannot find any room for the brain or the
mind to make any intervention as emotions take over the entire domain.
Prasanna's film is the other extreme.
Detached characters
I was trying to gauge as to how it managed to remain detached from
the audience through out. How? What has Prasanna done? Or, what has he
not done? Maybe he has detached the characters from themselves so much
so that even a relationship is not a relationship. There is no room for
a slow development of emotions; no room for a gradual growth of
relationships. Even hatred is fragmented. Hatred, grown and nurtured
properly, creates one of the strongest of human relationships.
Yet, the hatred of the daughter towards her mother who neglected her
has not found justification via any cinematic expression. What can mere
words do in a film? Words cannot take an audience in a film hall to the
heights of human emotions nor can they show the darkest corners of the
soul. Film, just like a song needs its inherent feature expressed
through means where words are incapable of taking human beings. What
Prasanna has not done was not forgetting words but remembering to use
them at will. As a result, images and the slow growth of links between
and among them have failed to find any meaning in themselves as mere
words have surpassed all and gained supremacy.
The need for a warm relationship on the part of Sandhya Rani (Malani
Fonseka) is made to feel by some of her lonely moments with a bottle of
whisky and the cat. Yet, with the arrival of the young actress, Shalika
(Dilhani Ashokamala), Sandhya Rani’s emotional need for warmth of a
daughter is not adequately manifested, especially with emotions reserved
for a lost daughter. True, she, Sandhya Rani does not regret that she
lost her daughter.
Cultivated infancy
Neither has it been cultivated that an infant could develop such an
intense hatred towards a mother from whom she was almost snatched away
even before weaning. It could very well be imagined that a daughter
developing a desire to be with a mother who is both beautiful and
popular. Yet, that craving has not been gradually developed, manifested
and justified.
If I justify Prasanna’s action of making the movie this way, I may
say that it symbolizes and represents the fragmented society we live in
today. The absence of a slow growth of emotional attachments, the
desire-based nature of man-woman relationships, lack of sincerity in
relationships, the ever-increasing dissatisfaction, all are available in
the movie. Nevertheless the cravings for warmth, sincerity which are
inherent to human nature are depicted in the film.
Social dominance
The film challenges the male dominance in the society. The last scene
where the three women sit together with the baby girl symbolizes female
autonomy in the contemporary society. Also the words uttered by the
famous actress, Shalika (Dilhani) are a clear manifestation of female
independence (I kicked the man on the ass and came here). Herein, what
is noteworthy is the lack of regret on the part of females for having to
live life without males. This is a striking similarity between the two
actresses; the young one (Dilhani) and the old one (Malani).
Female liberty can be considered as a recurring theme in the move as
it has been indicated prior to the last scene by making the
hatred-driven daughter (Nimmi Harasgama) and her friend Bunty (Samanalee
Fonseka) leave the club life and start their lives together. At the same
time, the last scene has another symbolic value: The three women sitting
together represent some of the female statuses in the society. One,
married with children and under male sovereignty (Kaushalya Fernando);
Malani, married yet ambitious enough about the career to forget the love
for a family life; Dilhani, with a successful career, yet craving for a
different experience in relationships.
Reflections of actions
All in all, Prasanna’s film, Akasa Kusum can be called as a cry for a
reflection of actions of the inhabitants of this society. Yet, it lacks
the very quality of touching the heart of the people to make them cry.
It lacks the artistic and poetic flow of sequences. Fragmented it is,
the society is with full of chasms, ever-widening, between and among
relationship in the pursuit of both material and non material gains.
Prasanna has tried his level best to tell this to us, the masses.
- Asantha U. Attanayake |
