The
hour after
By Marisa de Silva
“What is terrifying is not war, but the hour that dawns when
it ends” is the main theme behind ‘Sudu Kalu Saha Alu’
(Shades of Ash), directed by Sudath Mahaadivulwewa, which had its
international premiere at the Goteborg Film Festival 2004 in Sweden.
Sudath’s first feature film - ‘Shades of Ash’,
will have its local premiere on July 8 at 3.30 p.m. at the BMICH.
The
world is stripped of colour when people are killed in the war. Those
who survive war are neither alive nor dead. They are the “Shades
of Ash”.
The film revolves around a community of survivors who return to
their border village, which they abandoned following a bloody massacre
of their kith and kin by a ruthless terrorist attack. The film narrates
how they adapt to rebuilding their lives and homes amidst the newly
emerging socio-economic culture that had been nurtured within the
‘business’ of war and peace.
The
storyline was developed after extensive research in the border areas
by the scriptwriters, director and producer, who were assisted by
university academics. One of the largest sets ever constructed in
Sri Lankan film history - a whole village - was built on the site
of an actual border village in the war zone of the North Central
Province of Sri Lanka. This is also the first Sri Lankan Dolby Digital
film.
The
cast includes renowned names such as Irangani Serasinghe, Sriyantha
Mendis, Mahendra Perera, Dilhani Ekanayake, Sanath Gunathilaka,
Jayalath Manorathna, Wasantha Kotuwella, Madusanka Mendis, Koshila
Jayawardena, Tyron Michel, Gunadasa Madurasinghe, Kumudu Nishantha,
Nilupuli Jayawardene, David Gunawardene and Dimuthu Chinthaka.
Elizabeth:
So out of place at the Lionel Wendt
Elizabeth: Almost by chance –
A review
Ah, it felt so good to be back at the Wendt with a theatre ticket
in my hand. And it seemed that the first credible offering of English
Theatre after the tsunami slump had given starved Colombo theatre
audiences a reason to dress up. Is it just my imagination or do
theatre audiences become younger and more beautiful every time I
see them? But this time the age of the audience was even more surprising
as the posters and the ticket clearly stated that a parent or guardian
should accompany those under 18. Considering the number of people
there who were obviously under 18, one wonders if the warning was
designed to keep the young and impressionables out, or to make parents
and guardians buy tickets.
The
play everyone was there to see was Stage Light and Magic’s
presentation of “Elizabeth: Almost by chance a woman”
by the Italian playwright Dario Fo. This is Feroze Kamardeen’s
second foray into directing this Pulitzer Prize winning political
satirist.
The
play opened with a little scripted improvisation by Ifaz Bin Jameel
who, besides being co-director, plays the role of Edgerton, the
queen’s chief of Intelligence. Ifaz is a gifted comic actor
with a superb sense of timing. Although this section was long enough
to get the audience wondering if they were ever going to see other
actors on stage, I thought he did a particularly good job of preparing
the audience for a biting political satire on Sri Lankan and American
politics.
But
that was the problem. The play never lived up to this promise. So
much so that by the end of it, I failed to see what relevance the
first section had to the rest of the play. A few random and vague
references do not a political satire make. An overbearing and foul-mouthed
queen, a few references to stupid politicians and one line on P-TOMS
does not make this a political satire of any credibility. Maybe
it could have been made relevant, but then the script had to be
re-written.
The
cast had a tough job from the start. They had to take a script that
by rights meant nothing to the audience they were going to perform
it to, and make it relevant and funny. To complicate matters further,
half the men in the play were playing female roles. Anuruddha Fernando,
playing the role of Elizabeth had the toughest job of all –
on stage from the beginning in a skin-cap, wig, clogs and a very
heavy-looking dress, he had to speak in a high pitched voice, swear
profusely and still be understood by the audience. And that last
detail is where he failed – quite a few times I found myself
having difficulty understanding what he was saying at all.
This
was also the main problem I had with Michael Holsinger’s portrayal
of the gypsy-witch Madam Za-Za. The accent seemed scripted into
the lines, but the lines were played with no real accent. This was
very confusing as the accent seemed to come and go based upon whether
it was in the script or not. But it was obvious that Michael for
one was having a ball on stage. And I must say that he makes a stunning
woman.
Marsh
Dodanwala’s brief but action-packed stint on stage as a French
(?) would-be-assassin priest was quite enjoyable but looked terribly
painful on the actor. But here again, the lines were lost to the
accent.
Actually,
the lines sometimes became so unintelligible from where I was sitting,
that I was left wondering if the cast was shuttling back and forth
between this and the original Italian script.
What
kept the audience alive through this very long play was quite a
lot of slapstick and a profusion of foul language. Towards the end,
the foul language seemed the only thing that could still get a laugh
out of the tired audience. But I for one do not go to the theatre
merely to hear people swear. If that’s how you get your kicks,
you need not spend your money on a theatre ticket – you could
stay home and throw stones at neighbours’ windows.
I feel
the major shortcoming of this play was that the script was completely
irrelevant to the audience in the theatre. If more attention was
paid to the choice of play, this talented cast may have been able
to give the audience something quite memorable to take back home.
But as it stood, the production bit off more than it could chew.
Dario
Fo is a Pulitzer prize-winning playwright. But even good playwrights
can write bad plays. I am sure that the original play in Italian
had very clever lines and was a biting satire on Italian politics,
but this particular translation had little of that.
There
is no real progression in the play. Events happen randomly, it seems
just to break the monotony. And the last long section with Elizabeth
seems so out of place after the preceding absurdity that the play
could well have done without it. But above all this, Elizabeth is
a play about a 16th century English queen, designed to satirize
Italian politics originally written in Italian. Is it surprising
that this was a difficult one to make interesting to a Colombo audience?
-Delon Weerasinghe |