Ajith's literary bombshell on cinema

Writer and film critic Ajith Galappathti's latest book ‘Ape Sinamawe Mithyacharaya’ or 'Falsely Acting in our cinema' is a bombshell on Sri Lankan cinema and cinema artistes. It analyses thirty eight filmmakers and their works and Ajith's conclusions on what their motives and what values and attitudes they promote among the audience. This 600 paged book with rare pictures that have been placed creatively brings an extra effect to Ajith's attempt.

Starting with country's pioneer filmmaker Lester James Peries, veteran directors like Wasantha Obeysekere, Dharmasena Pathiraja, the next generation of artistic filmmakers Prasanna Vithange and Ashoka Handagama and the so called commercial filmmakers Roy de Silva, Sunil Soma Peiris and even makers of those low grade adults only films all in one dish has been subjected to Ajith's criticism in ‘Ape Sinamawe Mithyacharaya’.

Having held a responsible post as one of the members of the Public Performance Board or 'Censor Board' util he resigned recently and served as a Jury member in OCIC and UNDA award ceremonies it would be interesting to look into this young writer's point of view on the industry that has a history over fifty years.

Here follows some of the ideas shared by Ajith with TV Times.

Ajith: I wanted to discuss the real intention of filmmakers our film industry with regard to their works of art. I feel that under the pretext of making films they have been trying to load us with false values, fabrications and misinformation. I feel that Sri Lankan cinema is a total fabrication where filmmakers try to forcibly impose false values on us. It amply proves my argument when we study the films that were made during the recent past.

Ajtih: I tried to question the filmmakers through their works. We cannot take filmmakers separate from their films. Both have to be taken as one. And at the same time a film cannot be criticised in isolation without the filmmaker. In cinema culture they both come under same parameters.

But unfortunately we find that sometimes the filmmakers are not rich enough in their critical faculty to reach the level of film critics but even the level of their audience. It is useless film critics being critical when the filmmakers themselves are not critical in their works of art.

TVT: But there are many film directors who argue that there are no real film critics or art of film criticism. Do you agree?

Ajith: Cinema and cinema criticism are not separate from each other. They go together. In the past there were very good films and in parallel there was a culture of rich film criticism with good film critics. But today the majority of the films that we see in the cinemas are not films of that calibre. They have gone down in their standards so how can you expect to have a rich culture of criticism when there are no films worthy to be criticised.

TVT: Is that your argument that there are no good films that are being produced now?

Ajith: Nine out of ten films that are being produced today are not up to standard. The majority of the films that I came across in the recent past were examples that cinema was used only to promote false ideas or fulfil individual agendas such as political and economical.

Ajith: Almost all the filmmakers who made films in the recent past. I did not want to make categories by putting them into separate compartments. On the whole all types of filmmakers were subjected to my criticism depending on what they have done. While I have criticised the filmmakers of low grade adults only films, I have also criticised veteran filmmakers who were great names in the past but have failed now with their directions which are repeated failures.

Having understood the fallacy spread in their films if we are keep quiet, it is the biggest insult that we are doing to them. I think that is not the responsibility of the film critic. But unfortunately sometimes filmmakers and artistes do not like this.

TVT: Do you mean that our film artistes are not mature enough to tolerate criticism?

Ajith: I am sad to say that the film critics in this country at times have been taken to the police station for expressing their point of view.

There is no culture that filmmakers counter attack when their works of art are criticised. The work of art itself is the point of view of artistes and others as individuals can hold different point of view and could read their creations differently. I think for this sad plight writers on cinema and the media on the whole have to be responsible.

TVT: We came across in your book that not only filmmakers but actors and actresses have beensubjected to heavy criticism?

Ajith: Actors and actresses are a vital part of the cinema industry. While I analyse their acting, I also wanted to analyse their social images. For example in Jayantha Chandrasiri's 'Guerrilla Marketing' we see Sangeetha Weeraratne portraying the role of a victim of the advertising and marketing industry. At the same time she used her image as an actress in election propaganda, collecting votes at the last Presidential election. Actor Ranjan Ramanayake did the same. Ravindra Randeniya in the film 'Poronduwa' (Promise) plays the role of a politician and in the real world too he is a politician. Sanath Gunatilake's role as a politician in Udayakantha Wanasuriya's 'Rajya Sevaya Pinisai' is different to his role as a politician in real life. All these characters unravel for the public and when we study these double roles we can get a clear picture of our film industry. Thus we cannot forget the fallacy of the actors and actresses when we analyse our film industry.

TVT: Finally do you have any personal animosity against any of these artistes whom you have criticised?

Ajith: I openly and honestly say I had no personal grudge against any of these artistes. And most of those whom I have blatantly attacked are my very good friends. My personal friendship is one but my criticising their works is another. Whenever I develop friendships with artistes in cinema I reserve my right to criticise them when it is necessary.

If I have any personal grudge or animosity against any of them I would have written this book differently for I know their personal lives in and out which I have not touched at all. It is not part of my job. As I said earlier only what I believe is that when we read and analyse a work of art it is necessary to look at it with the understanding of the personal images of those involved in them and the way they present themselves to the world.