Movie "Anjalika" IMO!! ;o)

This post will be about the Sri Lankan film 'Anjalika' - so those not interested, you can bugger off now.

It was screened here down under last weekend & not being too big a fan of very commercial movies, I was in a dilemma - to go or not to go. Those who'd already watched it fell into two broad groups: "Ooohhh!! It's goooorrrrrgggeeeeoooouuusssss!" or "the story/plot isn't much but the photography, etc is beautiful." Hence what could I do but resort to (v.v.v.bad!) reviews of the film! One review in the Observer narrated the entire story for 2/3rds of the article before gushing on about that fantastic performances of not only ALL actors/ actresses concerned, but even of the editor, music director, make-up artist, art director AND production manager who "have done justice to their assigned jobs." A Daily News review carried much of the same gushing praise. Righto.

BUT another review in The Observer left me in shock. The writer had clearly not understood that his job was to review the bloody film - and not make personal attacks on the actors. This review included asking Channa Perera to get beauty advice from his "beautician wife" and advice to Anarkali that acting "means a lot more than just showing off skin" and "cleavage." To think there are editors out there who feel justified publishing such utter rubbish.

Anyway, so off I went to watch the masterpiece. This is my take:

I quite liked the screenplay (by Channa Perera and Mahesh Sathsara Maddumaarachchi) cos it was quite well-written and the humour was actually funny without resorting to the under the belt type. The plot/ storyline I guess was keeping with this genre of film - complete with a twist at the end that was so twisted it was quite unreal (and did kinda come apart). However, the nature of the story required such a dramatic twist to keep with the 'happily ever after' end and I guess if one looks for a realistic end, then one cannot always expect the 'happily ever after' and so I will keep an open mind and accept the ending in the context of the genre!

The actors. Firstly, the main lead, Pooja, was simply brilliant. That's all there is to say about her. But the other female lead, Anarkali, quite tragic cos she just cannot seem to express any emotion. While her character in this movie actually gave her some room to bring out any talents she may possess - she unfortunately failed utterly - even her crying struck a false note. At the opposite end of the line is Sanath Gunatilleke - grossly over-acting as usual. One would have thought he was playing Macbeth on a stage! I don't understand how this man still gets employed. In contrast is the performances of the smaller roles - those of Anjalika's parents and NARADA (!!) himself! Very, very commendable. ;o)

I left Channa Perera's performance for last cos I found it the most diasppointing - not cos he wasn't good - he was - but cos he fell far short of his potential I thought he had (has?). The love scenes were fine, but the emotional scenes after Anjalika's death that were so disappointing!! His grief was just not heart-breaking. TPerhaps this was due to some rude interruptions to these potentially 'emotion-stirring scenes.' At the peak moment of grief after Anjalika's dead, the camera zooms in on the bloated, eyes-popping-out, flesh-melted-off face of the corpse. Any emotion one might have felt is very quickly turned in to a silent scream of horror. Then later there is a beautiful song (set in Malaysia), with a very "grief-stricken" Channa and while he's battling this grief (and you're kinda starting to feel sorry for him) he sees the Anjalika-look-alike in a temple and subsequently breaks into a very jarring rap/ Iraj-Ranindu song in some sort of club - coloured lights in the background, misty smoke, leather-clad. WTF?? I just did not get that. I haven't seen Channa in anything else (except for a occassional glimpse on a tv drama my mom was watching when I walked past), but I do remember him from a TV drama (maybe 10 years or so ago?) where he played a character called something like "podi aiya" - the brother of some sort of disabled boy. His character was stubborn, at times cruel, in it and he pulled it off well enough to have run the risk of getting shot on the street. So he has (at least had) potential. Unfortunately none of that passion or depth of feeling came thru in this movie. A good place to have brought it in was perhaps some silent crying when his love interest died - but this moment was passed up instead for a scream of "Annnjjjaaalllliiiiikkkaaaa!" resonating over the misty hilltops. ;o(

All in all, while my above comments may sound quite harsh, the film wasn't too bad and very far and above the crap the SL commercial film industry has churned out in the past. The photography was beautiful though I found some of it a bit contrived (but then again, perhaps this is in keeping with the genre).

If I ever meet this Channa Perera dude (who was also the director), and I could make one recommendation to him (cos of course the world always listens to moi!), it is this: he'd do well to stay away from these "popular" actor-types like Sanath and Anarkali whose only talent seems to be to magnify the talents of their colleagues in contrast to their own!

Finally, if anyone were to ask me if they should go watch the movie Anjalika/Anjelika, what would I say? Definitely go see it cos it made me realize that, whatever its shortcomings may be, there is hope for the Sri Lankan film industry!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a post script to the above post. From some of the comments this post got I might have been misunderstood. I AM IN NO WAY SAYING DON'T WATCH THIS MOVIE. The above is merely some of the things I liked and things that could be built upon. I don't see the point of praising a movie (or anything else for that matter) just in the name of "encouraging" cos that's being blind to the things that could be improved.

Like I said in my last comment, PEOPLE SHOULD GO OUT AND WATCH THIS MOVIE cos at the end of the day, this movie is very far ahead of a lot of SL movies at the moment. Therefore, other directors would need to meet this sort of standard to stay in the industry with some credibility. Channa Perera has lots of potential and I don't need to say that cos it's pretty obvious. Even more talent would be to learn from this movie's weaknesses and give us another movie of even higher standard. At the risk of sounding corny, I have faith he'll get get there at some point! ;o)

One thing I forgot to say though, when the movie finished ppl I was with walked out saying "oh, what a beautiful country we've left behind, nae?" and I thought "you, you, you!! cos I'm going BACK in 2 months! YIPPIE - DO -DAY!!" ;o) he he he

Lessons to Learn, Questions to Ponder

The two films I watched over the weekend were both documentaries and screened here as part of the Melbourne Int'l Film Festival this year.

Iraq in Fragments was a movie in three parts - Mohammed of Baghdad, Sadr and the Kurds of the South. Mohammed of Baghdad is an 11 year old boy who works for a Sunni man as an apprentice. He has failed grade 1 three times and is repeating it again now. He knows only how to write his own name. He keeps dropping out of school so he can work. The segment ends showing him working at a new place - having given up school completely apparently - where he is very happy. In between running around working and getting into mischief, this boy listens to the passionate conversations of the adults around him - most of which claim that while Saddam Hussain gave them no freedom, Iraq was in a much better state then; now Baghdad is not a city with rivers and green trees - it's all red, red, red and bland and people are suffering much more because there are no jobs.

What stuck with me about this part of the film - Mohammed is asked by his school teacher what he wants to be when he grows up - a doctor, an engineer, a pilot? He says he wants to be a pilot cos then he can fly up, up where he can see birds flying and from where he can look at all the beautiful countries that exist; he says he will leave all the ugliness in Iraq behind and fly down into the most beautiful country he sees.

The second segment covers the story of a Shiite youth who is taking on a leadership position in his area. The third segment is about an elderly father and his very young teenage son who are kurdish. The boy talks of going to school and the plans he and his bestfriend has - of becoming a doctor. Later he has quit school and is working in the fields cos his father is too old to manage by himself and there are other siblings in the family to be supported.

What stuck with me about this part of the movie is the father says there has been too much blood spilt between the Kurds, the Sunni and the Shiite people in Iraq. The only way to have peace is to cut the country into three pieces.

Off camera, a little child questions his statement - "Iraq is a country. How can you cut it into pieces? With a saw?"

The second movie I watched was A Hero's Journey - a documentary narrated by Xanana Gusmao - the man behind the birth of the nation state of Timor Leste (translated as "East - where the sun rises"). This is by far the most beautiful movie I have ever watched - in terms of photography and content. It's extremely moving and I cried through many parts of the movie and after it, stood in line to talk to the producer (who was there) about getting the DVD cos it's a movie to be watched everytime one feels the weight of the world on one's shoulders.

In the movie, we are taken, by Gusmao, to the mountains in Timor Leste, covered in misty clouds, where he hid during his guerilla days, and he talks of trying to sleep there, his feet numb in the freezing conditions; he introduces us to an elderly lady who looked after him for almost a year when he had Malaria and wanted to die. He introduces and hugs the man who betrayed him to the Indonesian forces which led to Gusmao's arrest, charged with subversion, deprived of his defense & sentenced to life imprisonment. We're taken to the prison where he served 7 years before his release after the referendum. He talks to the villagers of a village where five men were taken to an open field by Indonesian forces and the villagers were forced at gun point to gather around - then relatives of the chosen five men, mostly fathers and brothers, were asked to shoot them. Afterwards, female relatives of the chosen five men were asked to stab the men just in case the shots hadn't killed them. The village name starts with "M" - I can't remember it now as I cried right thru this bit. There were many such inhuman massacres in East Timor leading upto the referendum and right after it. For more info on the 24-year conflict go to Gendercide Watch.

There is so much to this film that I can go on for days and days. Int'l release of the movie is being sought at the moment and I hope and pray all of you out there will get a chance to watch it too.

This is what is called inspiration. What stuck with me most about this movie - Gusmao takes us to his Presidential Palace - a bullet-pock-marked building that's falling apart - perhaps under all that it has witnessed.

Gusmao is very aware of the responsibility that weighs on his shoulders - but he is optimistic. He says cheerfully, "when you dream, dream big."

As a Sri Lankan, and with all the baggage that comes with it, these two movies made me realize just how young I am and yet how very very old.

Lessons to learn...and ...Questions to ponder...

The 'Da Vinci Code' Movie Ban in Sri Lanka

All righty, I'm utterly, completely sick and tired of being asked this question which a lot of people seem to find some thrill in asking me. Therefore I will say what I think on the issue with a warning: do not bloody ask me what I think about this EVER again.

The Question: Was it right to ban the Da Vinci Code movie in SL?

First let me put this into context. The Catholics Bishop Conference, in its letter to the President said

"The movie attacks the very roots of Christian faith and hurts the sentiments of all Christians," and that “it matters greatly to us as it adversely affects the most sacred beliefs of our people when it levels the charge that the Catholic Church is essentially a vast network founded on maintaining the lie of Jesus' Divinity…"

They also said the film must be banned urgently because “the book version has caused confusion between fact and fiction. It is manipulative and is an odious, false, unjust and irreverent portrayal of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church. It attacks the very roots of our Christian faith and hurts the religious sensibilities of all Christians."

So what the Catholics Birshops Conference is saying is basically that Christians would take the film to be fact instead of the fictional garbage that is so often released by Hollywood and they would assume that Dan Brown’s novel, on which the film is based, is actually a book of fact – akin to a gospel. This is a fictional book, AKIN to Roald Dahl’s “The Witches” and Rowling’s “Harry Potter” series.

Do the religious leaders of SL really believe that the SL Christian community is made up of complete duds who cannot tell the difference between gospel and fiction? I have many, many Christian friends who would not give up or change their faith because they read something otherwise in a book or saw it in a film. What it comes down to is, can you not trust your followers to keep their faith?

In fact, the Auxiliary Bishop Marius Peiris of Colombo, the secretary general of the Bishops' conference, told Union of Catholic Asian News (UCA News) the film "depicts sheer blasphemy and outrageous interpretations of the Catholic faith…. [and said it was]an attempt by Hollywood to achieve ratings by using the Catholic Church."

The keyword here is “Hollywood.” Not BBC, not CNN, not even the Daily News (though the facts in that paper tends to relate more closely to what is a now a genre of writing known as “faction” – fiction based on a few facts..but that’s a different story altogether). There are very people who would take what Hollywood churns out to be the word of God - and those people who do, are not worth addressing in this time and space.

The most interesting statement on this issue, however, came from none other than the director of communications for the Colombo archdiocese, Father Sriyananda Fernando,when he told UCA News that "whenever the church is attacked by such sacrilegious books and films, it is up to the hierarchy to take the best possible action to protect their people {and on the issue of the film being allowed to be screened in Sri Lanka} it would have made the church an easy target of lies and deceit." All right that’s his opinion and I guess we must respect that.

The contention that banning the film in SL would stop the church from being made an easy target and the arguments of the Bishops Conference that the film would confuse the audience between fact and fiction not only underestimates the public’s level of intelligence, but more importantly their faith. But why I found the above statement by Father Fernando interesting (what I mean when I say interesting is that it made me laugh hard enough to fall off my chair) is this further statement from him. In regard to causing the curious to buy the book or watch the film on video, he said “we cannot stop people from reading the book or watching it on video disc. They must be mature enough to differentiate between fact and fiction," he said.

So only those buying the book or watching the film outside of the local cinema would need to use their maturity (not to mention intelligence and faith) to differentiate between fact and fiction?

The question often put to me at this stage of the argument is but what else could they do (other than banning the film) to make sure that those who MIGHT believe the film does not? It's a simple little concept called educating the public. They've made use of the media to express their reasons for banning to film - why not use the media (and more importantly churches) to emphasize the FICTIONAL quality and content of both the book and the film?

My final answer on this issue is merely this: if I were a Christian I would find it extremely insulting to think that the leaders of my religious faith think that my faith is so feeble and insubstantial that they feel they need to ban a fictional film to make sure I keep my faith.

Now, please don't ask me what I think on this matter again! Understand??

(Sorry this is so long!)