TV
Times
|
||||||
| Filmmaking
on war:Traitors and patriots The criticism of the filmmakers, who have made films based on war is not something new to the Sri Lankan film arena. It started with Prasanna Vithanage's film ‘Purahanda Kaluware’ (Death on the Full moon) for which the then Minister of Cultural Affairs tried to impose regulation despite the international recognition that the film had won. Later other films subjected to criticism were Ashoka Handagama's ‘Me Maga Sandai’ (This is my moon), and Sudath Mahadivulwewa's ‘Sudu Kalu Saha Alu’ (Shades of Grey) and presently it is Vimukthi Jayasundara's Cannes' award film ‘Sulanga Enu Pinisa’ ‘The Forsaken Land’. The latest objections against the films were expressed by two senior military officers, Rear Admiral Sarath Weerasekara and the Army Spokesman Brigadier Daya Ratnayake. According to Rear Admiral Weerasekara that, ‘one could observe a deliberate attempt by these filmmakers to tarnish the image of the soldier, his wife and Sinhala culture.’ He was also of the view that these films had deviated from reality. And such films demoralize the soldier and directly or indirectly contribute towards fulfilling the terrorist objectives. Thus this amounts to treason and should be dealt with severely. Writing to the media Rear Admiral Sarath Weerasekara stated that there is a moral obligation on the part of the artistes to their motherland and as a military officer he was responsible to express his objection at any attempt to demoralise the soldier. ‘This is a war against a group of terrorists and it cannot be compared with any other war in any other part of the world.’ ‘However this does not mean that we should condone violence against such filmmakers. Just as I have the right to express what I feel others too have the same,’ Admiral Weerasekara explained. However objecting to the stand taken by military men, Sunanda Deshapriya of the Free Media Movement issued a statement. Deshapriya stated that the statements by the military officials were against the freedom of expression of artistes. In his view the military spokesman has no right to criticize a work of art and the FMM expressed its concern that the attempts by the military is to impose a social censorship on the artistes at a time there is emergency law in operation. ‘In a country where there is a high cinema culture the Supreme Court also had accepted the right of the filmmakers who had tried to do an investigative analysis into the ethnic conflict. Making a forum to express the views of different cultures is supporting to spread democracy and freedom of expression’ the FMM stated. The most experienced and accepted authority in filmmaking, veteran filmmaker Dr. Lester James Peries expressing his views about the issue said that the filmmaker just as much as a politician or journalist has the right to criticize the ill-effects of the military as well as other social institutions. There are politicians both government and opposition who had criticized the army. This was not the first time that the military was criticized in a film. There were so many films made criticizing the Second World War, Vietnam War etc. George Bush was severely criticized by George Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. ‘With regard to the films that were subjected to criticism, people get psychologically affected due to the war. This includes the soldier as well. And a young filmmaker would not see the way I looked at the village. I always tried to celebrate the piety and the culture of the village where as a young filmmaker would mock at it and view it as hypocrisy,’ Dr. Peries said. On the other hand if anybody wants to make propaganda films about the army there is a government film body which is responsible. However these types of criticism are symptoms of a country that was going towards a very Sinhala Buddhist chauvinistic society, the pioneer of Sri Lankan filmmaking said. The Chairman of the National Film Corporation (NFC) Sunil S. Sirisena (who is also a secretary to the Defence Ministry) speaking on the controversies that have sprung up against some of the filmmakers said a film is a cinematic creation of a filmmaker and one has to look at it as a work of art. Different artistes look at war differently. There are people to criticize these types of films while there are others who praise them. ‘How can we tell a filmmaker to do this or not to do this? I it is unethical to place demands on filmmakers. As the Chairman of the Film Corporation I believe that artistes should have the right to make films according to what they believe,’ he said. ‘We cannot place barriers on the artistic thinking of the filmmakers,’ he insisted. Sudath Mahadivulvewa expressing his views on the allegation made against the filmmakers said "this issue became the theme of my first film because the war is something that we have been suffering for the last twenty years. And this could be the first time that a film which was made against the war has subjected to attack the very people involved in the war and labelled as the terrorist." This is not an opinion by any ordinary person or representatives from civil society, they are armed men with military power. This is a film that was passed by the film corporation. The danger of this type of criticism is that this is a barrier imposed not on the present filmmakers but so many others who are waiting to take up cinema tomorrow. ‘And it is not only the military men who are involved in this attack on the filmmakers but there are many others like politicians who are waiting to gain benefits and others who are with ulterior motives,’. Prasanna Vithanage was the first filmmaker to be charged with an allegation of demoralizing the army through the medium of his film, ‘Pura Handa Kaluwara’. When the director went to the Supreme Court against the Cultural Minister's decision to stop the film from being screened the court held that filmmaker's fundamental rights were violated by such a decision. Asked about the present crisis Mr. Vithanage said "The paramount task of the filmmaker is to adhere to his subject and understanding the characters in his creation. He should be in their shoes shunning his political viewpoints and ideologies. The image he is portraying might earn the ire of political institutions. ‘I personally feel today in Sri Lanka the objectivity of artistes has been attacked by chauvinistic elements. Objective artwork has irritated different institutions of the society. This is a very sad situation because it undermines the artiste's ability to project on screen society and life’. Whatever circumstances I think a true artiste should not surrender to the whims of the power structures. Whatever the consequences is when we look back at the history of art memories of people like Hitler and Stalin have been erased from society but the influences of artistes who were undermined by them still live. Ashoka Handagama was also another filmmaker accused of producing a film that demoralised the army and of demeaning Sinhala culture. Speaking about the present allegations on the filmmakers, he said there are two parties in this society; one who support war and those who condemn it. ‘I am against war. As an artiste I try to heal the injury that had been caused by the twenty year old war and in my attempt to do this there could be parties who would get hurt. The war is a political issue and there should be a political solution. I unconditionally support for peace. There is clear evident that the war is backed by a power hungry section among the Sinhala’. The young filmmaker Vimukthi Jayasundara the latest victim of the attack and who decided to withdraw his film Sulanga Enu Pinisa from the theatres a few weeks after the release said, This attack was not from the Army. It was by certain political elements which use the army to gain political advantage. The film was not a problem for most of the senior officers in the forces. And the majority of the lower ranks in the army in my generation and they are not opposing my film. ‘We
are against war and we all have a responsibility towards society’.
|
||||||
Copyright © 2001 Wijeya Newspapers
Ltd. All rights reserved. |
