On films, malice and the poverty of criticism

Two news stories caught my eye a short while ago, both related to the arts and more specifically to films and the film industry. The first was about the ‘family film’ Bindu smashing all-time records. I’ve already written about Bindu (Daily News, October 6, 2009: ‘Children’s films disturb me’). So I shall just say well done, congratulations, keep it up and all that kind of thing to the producer, director and others associated with the film.

The other and more interesting story was about Prasanna Vithanage’s film ‘Akasa Kusum’. Actually it was two stories, side by side. First, the film has been chosen as the official Sri Lankan representation at the 2010 Oscar Film Festival. It was also pointed out that the film had completed 50 days in the CEL circuit.

The ‘news’ was that it was removed from about 10 cinema halls on the 49th day in what seems like a deliberate and ill-willed exercise to deny the film the 50th day milestone. I don’t know how important these things are to Prasanna Vithanage and the producers but ‘49’ remains an odd number.

This is not a film-reviewing column but I’d like to say something about ‘Akasa Kusum’, which I saw a few weeks ago. Prasanna has given us a lot of great films and the common thread, to my mind, is that he tells a good story tastefully.

His films are political of course in that they speak to important social issues that sometimes reference specific and troubling political realities.

What separates him as a superior exponent of his craft compared to others who play with political themes is that Prasanna doesn’t try to tutor the viewer on the political content that is salient to the story.

He seems to prefer concentrating on the story. The politics comes out naturally, without being flagged, without footnotes and without insulting the viewer’s intelligence. One of the most appealing things about ‘Akasa Kusum’ to me was this signature trait in Prasanna’s films (quite apart from the cinematography and some great performances by Malini Fonseka and Nimmi Harasgama).

I am aware that the film industry in this country is a cut-throat, dog-eat-dog kind of affair and therefore I would not be surprised if there was some of that behind stopping ‘Akasa Kusum’ at ‘49’. A few years ago, Inoka Sathyangani, in a media conference held prior to the release of her film ‘Sulang Kirilli’, appealed to journalists to protect her from the envy, mud-slinging and what not of the film industry and the lackeys of what she believed was her competition. While being aware of such happenings, I found it disturbing that a film-maker wanted insurance of that kind.

This was, as I said, prior to the release and it seemed to me an attempt to mitigate any possible criticism of the film. I made the point that malice is not a phenomenon that is found only in the film industry. If the artist worries about the machinations of the malicious his/her art would necessarily suffer.

Prasanna doesn’t seem to lose any sleep over such things. Neither does Ashoka Handagama, a good film-maker whose politics and politicking I don’t necessarily admire. They belong to a small set of film-makers who are confident and are not small-minded about criticism.

This is rare for artistes in other fields as well, let me add. Too often, in Sri Lanka, if someone takes issue with you, it is immediately concluded that the person must be envious and that critique is but an expression of jealousy. From here to conspiracy-theory is a very short distance and few can resist the temptation to walk that meaningless and self-defeating road.

What this means is that we lack a decent review-culture in Sri Lanka. Part of the problem is that there is a dearth of people competent enough to offer serious critique, be in of literature, art, film, theatre or anything else. The most qualified to comment often happen to be exponents of the art form in their own right, a situation that lends criticism to the jealousy-driven charge.

Critics should perhaps take a cue from people like Prasanna Vithanage, Ashoka Handagama and that other and exciting new presence in the film-scene, Prasanna Jayakody. They carry on regardless. One may not agree with their politics, but one learns that they are deserving of respect at some level for the work they do, their commitment, their art and their unflinching resolve to do what they find meaningful to do.

The malicious comment and commentator is easily identified and sooner or later such people trip over their own words.

Those who dare walk the path lined with detractors armed with vilifying-stones may come out bloody, but will nevertheless be unbowed. We can always count on people to come out with the most outrageous forms of criticism. I remember an email doing the rounds just before ‘Akasa Kusum’ was released. It showed Nimmi Harasgama with some person associated with the LTTE.

The message was, ‘If you watch this film, you are supporting the LTTE, Eelam, terrorism etc etc’. That’s a load of nonsense, but that’s the kind of thing that film-makers have had to contend with. It is silly to argue that one must watch only those films where everyone associated with its production (producer, director, editor, cameraman, actors, actresses etc) agrees with one’s political position for fear of compromising one’s political project. One would end up staying at home and doing a lot of navel-gazing.

It is a bit dampening, true, but then again good art finds a way to pierce through that kind of plasticity. Prasanna will shrug and move on, I am sure. On the other hand, if ‘49’ is rooted in malice as it probably is, it indicates a disturbing state of affairs which in the end will only impoverish the film-going public.

The only way out is for decent, balanced, educated and perceptive review. I believe all films, whether they are excellent or putrid or in between, need to be reviewed because criticism is a good thing. It challenges the artiste. I just think we are a lazy people and perhaps a tad too good-hearted. When we are not malicious, that is.

[email protected]