Scriptwriter of Asia’s first war film

Sachitra Mahendra

The relationship between Yoga and Parvathi, lovers of same ethnic group, pervades the ‘Matha’ plot. They take a stroll down different routes of the same warpath amid disappointments as well as hopes. It opens the cinematic episode of history’s largest humanitarian rescue operation.

Professor Ariyaratne Athugala Picture by Lalith C Gamage

“Scripting such a film after extensive studies is a risk,” says our ‘Encounter of the Week’, “as we are not creatively rich enough to grasp some elements,” Professor Ariyaratne Athugala comments, as the scriptwriter of ‘Matha’, on local cinema, television and allied subjects.

Q: You identify ‘Matha’ as the first war film in Sri Lanka.

A: It is the first war film, not only in Sri Lanka, but also in the whole Asian region.

Even India has not produced a war film. Every film based on war cannot be called a war film.

Suppose the film is a story about a child who escaped the throes of war, still it cannot be called a war film. It’s rather based on war.

A war film has to be shot on original sites, at least to 75 percent extent. ‘Matha’ is shot entirely on original sites.

Q: So other films cannot be called war films. Will you confirm it for record’s sake?

A: No, other films are not war films.

Q: Simultaneously however, the Sri Lanka audience is exposed to an overdose of films based on war. Do you guarantee ‘Matha’ will be a novel experience?

A: I cannot answer straight to the question, as I’m the scriptwriter. And I don’t like to criticise other films based on war too. Many war-based films have an objective. ‘Matha’ doesn’t have a particular objective. It doesn’t have a direct plot outline.

We have experienced war over the decades. I wanted to lay down the spiritual episode of the war for the sake of historical record.

Q: You completed the script three months before the end of war. You were under much pressure during the time as the National Rupavahini Corporation Chairman. How did it assist the script?

A: What I have experienced throughout my life helped much more than the tenure at the Rupavahini Corporation. It helped a tad. I had been to the battlefield from time to time. The LTTE too admitted Rupavahini as the main television channel which stood against their movement. So my room was where the heat had been most intense. We had to go through the war scenes before telecasting them. We had to edit them a lot. My lifestyle also changed, with a lot of telephone calls and administrative pressure. All that took toll on my health too. Then again I started feeling something lacking. I was missing academic and creative work. I was too busy to think of any medium to explode my expression as a creative artiste. To be frank, I could write a major portion only when I went to Australia on a private tour. It would have never materialized in Sri Lanka.

Q: Matha contains a lot of war scenes conveying brutality and terror, besides humanity. Doesn’t that hinder the cinematic beauty in a way?

A: I cannot agree with it. Even with a lot of war scenes, it has cinematic beauty. The director has seen and shot differently what I have penned. Whether I like it or not, he reserves that right. A scriptwriter cannot influence a director.

Q: The Sri Lankan book industry doesn’t have a sufficient space for cinema scripts, hence no avenue for self-studying.

A: Yes. Only a few scriptwriters have a basic idea about their role. The rest just idle around. The issue has affected the teledrama scripts too. Scriptwriters write on their own without any proper guidelines. Those scripts finally become models. Now we lack scripts that can reach the international level.

But this doesn’t mean that we should go abroad and study it. We have a good film script literature. The likes of Tissa Abeysekara and Dharmasena Pathiraja strived in the 70s. In the 1970s the cinema was richer than any other time. The filmmakers were immensely encouraged by criticism.

Q: Do you mean to say we have no criticism today?

A: No. What we have now is some publicity or mostly propaganda. Someone writes a review that will fill about half a broadsheet and we call it criticism, which is actually much beyond that.

Today we need a scientific methodology of criticism. It has gone a longer path in the international scene. Our cinema has not got even closer to that.

Q: Do you see any specific reason for this bankruptcy?

A: I see many reasons. We had two youth insurrections. Universities had been closed for a long time. Schools had issues with qualified teachers. We are now seeing the end of such tragic circumstances, but it will take a long time to heal the wound.

At the moment there are no proper guidelines for cinema studies.

Q: But you have taught cinema at the university!

A: I have taught it as a subject. That is why I know it is more theory than practice. University is a result of colonial system.

It doesn’t tally with the modern educational needs. Cinema exists without, not within, university. This is important. Universities produce only a few cinema artistes. Sometimes it is almost nil.

There should be an alternative way to learn cinema rather than the systematic theoretical way it is taught at the university.

I studied cinema mainly by watching films, then reading the scripts. I have always been fascinated by ‘image’.

I’m fond of reading Kurasova and Hitchcock. Even the local scripts offer us some clues on scriptwriting. Dharmasena Pathiraja’s ‘Para Dige’ is an example.

Though not in the mainstream, the cinema has kept me occupied now and then. I have written scripts for short films and films of minor scale while at the university. As for having taught the subject at the university I would rather call it ‘studying’ more than ‘teaching’.

Q: You have been an academic, artiste and now the Government Information Director General who represents the state machinery. What is your capacity for any bailout?

A: Information Director General is merely a position, assigned with a specific work role according to some structure. So my capacity is limited. We must start it from the grass root levels, which is school education. We have to enrich it.

The modern generation is familiar with ‘searching’ more than ‘reading’. They are familiar with what they see on screen. We must understand this situation first. Secondly there should be state recognition. For making films we receive loans, but not proper education. Any cinematically rich country has a separate school for cinema education. They have allocated space to study cinema as a subject.

Q: What will be Matha’s fate in this environment?

A: We have run a risk. People have already started comparing ‘Matha’ with other war-based films. Where does that comparison go? That means they have a problem in grasping the film. All this happens because we have not got sufficient space to maintain a dialogue. We have no proper place to have a long discussion with the director. There is no proper critic to dissect and analyze this.

Q: A novel, poem or any other individual creative work is recognized for their author. On the contrary, the director gets a lion’s share of the acclaim for a film.

A: A screenplay is not a literary work. It is writing for a director: some guidelines. It is a blend of literary as well as technical mechanisms. Even when you make a film out of a literary work, you have to write a screen play again. So there is a difference. There are sensitive things that cannot be imported to cinema. Even though the image is powerful, it cannot be compared with the richness of language and literature. Emotions could be expressed more in words, but it is difficult in image.

Q: You penned the script and directed ‘Sittara Gurunnanse’ 20 years ago. Do you think it fits the modern teledrama industry?

A: I would have directed it in a different manner today. At the same time I think it is much better than most so called mega soaps we are forced to watch on television now. We used to have a time when the capable people roamed in the teledrama industry. Those works had a depth, searching for some living philosophy.

On the contrary what we get to watch today is mere romance cuddled up with solitary lives.

Q: Teledrama evolves catering to the viewers’ demands. How far would you agree with this overused statement?

A: I don’t quite agree. Today’s teledrama is what the businessman wants. That’s how soap was born. But art is different. It is nourished by the traditions and customs of a country.

Q: What if such artworks do not draw a good crowd?

A: That’s today’s situation. It was not so earlier. Like I said there was a time when capable artistes made teledramas. Dharmasena Pathiraja’s ‘Kadulla’, for instance, is decisive. We cannot simply ignore teledramas of such calibre. That’s how our local teledrama industry progressed. But it changed because of foreign forces, especially the soap in the west. Today there is a huge attraction to the soap.

Practically speaking, capable artistes stay off the teledrama. They don’t make teledrama anymore.

Q: Doesn’t the cinema suffer from the same ailment?

A: In a way, yes. But it is not affected that much. A cinema production needs a bigger financial assistance. So there is only a little chance to promote it as a saleable commodity. Most youths have developed an interest in this visual medium. That’s the main difference. Advanced audiences are no longer keen on teledrama.

Q: You moved into cinema from teledrama. Any other move in the store?

A: I’m now working on a stage play script. We are rich with traditional arts. No one has tried to bring the essence of traditional arts to the stage in massive scale. I’m trying to experiment on this.

Q: But it is primitive, compared with other visual media.

A: Now, this happens because the sensible creative artiste cannot bear the creative bankruptcy. The purity and honesty of the stage is not present in any of the modern visual medium.

For instance our song is dumb just like its screen version. If you take an average western song, even the screen essay is quite rich. They have a specific literature and appreciative methods of criticism. The cinema also has quite a lot of challenges. We have no good cinema halls. It is difficult to find good cinema halls with proper seating facilities. We have to recover the cost usually by running 50 shows.

In such a background, an independent artiste can do a lot on stage. Structures have changed, though. Old customs are vanishing. The stage is convenient because you don’t have to go massive. You can get it done by a limited cast. Yet we can deal with deep subjects. Many people have now chosen stage.

Q: Many stage artistes claim they draw a large crowd. The stage seems to have come to the fore despite its ultra-modern rivals.

A: Main reason is discontent. People are not content with what they get to see. Even cinema the scope is somewhat limited. They have started seeing the stage, blooming with human life. That is where the attraction lies.

The other reason is that we have terror-free nights now.

Q: How would you recall your stage experience?

A: As a youth I took part in many stage plays. I had the company of stage directors. I have seen how the rehearsals are done. I think that’s the most practical way to learn the art, more than theory. Some direct stage plays without a single experience.

Q: Stage dramatists complain that Nelum Pokuna is beyond their reach.

That is true in the context of Sri Lanka, a developing nation. Our stage drama culture is still poor. But we cannot reject the Nelum Pokuna opportunity, just because of that. The both sides may not meet with each other.

However we have seen events held with much handsomer funds. Sometimes they spend a colossal amount of money on something trivial. NGOs have provided much bigger funds to conduct some functions. I’m not saying that’s bad.

So there should be a methodology.Well, some argue we need small scale theatres.

Don’t we have small-scale theatres already? Have made the maximum use of them? So what I think the best thing is to think of this positively and come up with positive suggestions.

..................................

<< Artscope Main Page