| Plus |
|
|||
|
Film, fiction,
friction By Tasmin
Khan By telling
the story of a single man, the film charts a bloody war that has
torn the heart out of the once beautiful country of Sri Lanka in
the past two decades. Where other
wars and conflicts have found their way into news headlines, films
and conversations, the terror that has swept through Sri Lanka has
been pushed aside. Spurred on by this, two British Asians decided
to go on a decade-long journey that has culminated in the hard-hitting
film. Apart from
going to the cinema K. Shanmughathas and Sai George had no experience
of making films. "Our friends
from Sri Lanka kept telling us about the harrowing experiences they
went through and as the number of these stories grew, our eyes were
opened to a great tragedy. We thought why not make it into a film,"
explains Sai. The year was
1993 and the two producers like most first time film-makers didn't
have the resources to realise their dreams. But perseverance became
the key to their success and although it took them over seven years,
they managed to raise the money they needed to make the film. The
next step was to find a director who could make them realise their
vision. They went to an arts festival and bumped into Rajesh Touchriver,
an experienced South Indian art director learning film-making in
London. With an extensive background in Tamil cinema, television
and especially the stage, Rajesh took creative control of the project.
After completing the screenplay, he used his experience as an art
director and found the suitable locations in South India, one that
could recreate the war ravaged land of Sri Lanka. Then he assembled
a crew of established stars and ordinary people that included 4,000
extras for one scene. He related
the conflict in Sri Lanka to what had happened with legendary leader
Asoka the Great thousands of years ago; of how he embraced Buddhism
after walking through a battlefield of corpses. What Rajesh wanted
to do was make a good story told on the canvas of horrific violence
and shock the audience into realising how wrong it was. In the Name
of Buddha tells the story of Siva, a native Tamil from Sri Lanka
who is forced to leave his motherland and take refuge in the UK.
Through flashback he tells a story of a harrowing experience that
touched the lives of thousands like him. Although artistically
not on par with many other movies, this film is honest and shreds
the top layer to reveal the flesh. It is one of the most memorable
debut features because it throws reality in the face of the viewer
and gives them a window into a forgotten world. Though we wanted
to make a film that promotes peace in Sri Lanka, the subject matter
is very universal; especially with so many wars flaring up the world.
The displaced people of Sri Lanka are like those in Afghanistan, Kashmir, Chechnya and the list goes on, explains Sai. "This is one of the windows of the world that we live in and the audiences should go away feeling that violence is wrong." Biased
and misleading Khan calls
it a fascinating new film, a hard-hitting film and crowns it by
saying that although artistically not on par with many other movies,
this film is honest and shreds the top layer to reveal the flesh. These are value
judgements. In fact, the last reminds me of T.S. Eliot's comment
on the plays of John Webster. It presumes the writer has seen the
film; otherwise the use of such adjectives as fascinating, hard-hitting
and honest would not only be misleading but also dishonest. It would
be as dishonest as passing off fiction as truth and winning a Pulitzer
prize for it. Having seen
this film at a media review of December 19, I am constrained to
ask whether Tasmin Khan and I have seen the same film. Khan's remarks
suggest he has either not seen the film that he gushingly calls
honest and has relied on the obviously partisan observations of
the producers and the director or he has failed to exercise a critical
judgement in evaluating the film and left the public with a totally
misleading, inaccurate and false impression of the true nature of
the Lankan conflict. Nowhere in
his article does he ask the producers nor does he offer an explanation
for the title of the film which refers to one of the greatest religious
leaders, the Buddha, whose fundamental teaching is that of non-violence,
forgiveness and compassion. Director Touchriver
referring to the Sri Lankan conflict says he is reminded of India's
Emperor Asoka, who after walking through a battlefield of corpses,
embraced Buddhism. Yet neither
the makers of the film nor writer Khan explains why then the subtle
message of the film is just the opposite. The film coveys the view
that Buddhism and Sri Lankan's Buddhists are the purveyors of violence
and the Tamils as the victims of this violence. This message
is pressed home in the scene where soldiers completing their training
are blessed by Buddhist monks and immediately pick up weapons. This
is a highly contrived and offensive scene which deliberately misinterprets
an important religious ceremony. In this ‘honest’
film the Tamil terrorists guilty of killing their own leaders, assassinating
a Sri Lankan President and a former Indian Prime Minister, murdering
more than 100 Buddhist monks, some of them at prayer and hundreds
of Muslims inside mosques, are called freedom fighters. These venerated freedom fighters are banned as a terrorist organisation in the UK, the USA, India, Australia and other countries and it is an offence to support or publicise them even through identifiable symbols. At a time when peace is a possibility in Sri Lanka, is it in the interest of peace to provide a one-sided portrayal of the conflict and falsely inject a religious element ? |
||||
Copyright © 2001 Wijeya Newspapers
Ltd. All rights reserved. |
