Article Tools

E-mail this article   Printer friendly version   Comments    [ - ] Text Size [ + ]

The photograph appearing in the Ceylon Daily News of 8 September 2003 where Dr. Lester James Peiris is seen shaking hands with Mani Ratnam, one of the leading directors in the world of the Tamil film, would seem historic to those who have been following the fortunes of the Sinhala cinema since the ‘50s of the last century.

We seem to have come a full circle. In the 1950s the Ceylon Daily News used to highlight the baneful influence of South Indian cinema as something that seriously impeded the growth of Sinhala cinema. And it was true. From the light boys to directors, from script assistants to cameramen, from playback singers to music directors, the field of Sinhala cinema was full of Tamil cine professionals from the then Madras.

The Daily News used to be very critical of this influence when ‘Rekawa’ was screened, which was rightly described as signifying the birth of original Sinhala cinema. And today, as Lester James Peiris is seen shaking hands with a leading director of the Tamil film industry who is honoured by his films being screened in a Colombo film festival, and all these taking place under the sponsorship of the Lake House Group, the circle seems to be complete.

The Chennai-based Tamil film industry caters to a population of almost six hundred million Tamils living in India and more than a 150 million living in countries like Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Singapore, South Africa, Mauritius, the Caribbean islands and now as part of the Sri Lankan Tamil Diaspora. Today Chennai has become a second axis to Bombay, which is called the Bollywood because that is the popular centre of international cinema next to Hollywood. From Mani Ratnam to Rahuman, from P.C. Sri Ram to Suntosh Sivam, Chennai has made substantive contribution to the richness of Bollywood.

Mani Ratnam with his productions like ‘Bombay’ which ran to packed houses all over India in its Tamil and Hindi versions, is a figure to be reckoned with. He combines within him the technological finesse with social acceptability. To the Tamil filmgoer, Mani Ratnam is an unforgettable figure. He is the director of many memorable films: ‘Nayagan,’ ‘Thalapathy,’ ‘Roja,’ ‘Bombay,’ ‘Iruvar’ and the one based on the war in Sri Lanka ‘Kannaththil muttamiddaal’ (When kissing your cheek).

Whatever might be the weaknesses of Tamil cinema, its great strength has been that from the time of Annadurai’s ‘Velaikkari’ (1947), it has remained the most decisive medium of political communication in Tamil Nadu. From the year 1967, the year DMK came to power, till today almost 35 years later, the chief ministers of Tamil Nadu have been from the Tamil cinema. C. N. Annadurai, M. Karunanithy, M. G. Ramachandran and now J. Jeyalalitha – the inheritor of the MGR legacy – who now goes beyond Dravidian parameters in gaining popularity, are all stalwarts of Tamil cinema.

Karunanithy and Ramachandran made effective use of Tamil cinema to become chief ministers. For Ramachandran every film he made after his legendary ‘Malai Kallan’ was almost a political manifesto endearing him to millions of film fans, especially women, and workers from the lower rungs of the society: the carter, the fisherman, the rickshaw puller, the hotel boy, etc.

What is significant in this medium of political communication is the manner by which the political message is got across. It is rather rough-hewn in that there is always a black and white depiction of characters. The hero is a virtuous fellow – selfless, handsome, always the conqueror, whereas the villain whether he is a god-man or a mudalali, is a crafty, antihuman individual. Perhaps that type of black vs. white depiction is done to get the message across to the millions of illiterate fans.

But things have changed both technologically and artistically. Today Chennai can boast of some of India’s best cameramen, set designers and music directors. The strength of Mani Ratnam, it will be interesting for non-Tamil Sri Lankan film fans to know, is not only his way of telling a story, but the stories he chooses to tell and the intelligent way he handles the political communication part. Running through a list of his films from ‘Pahal nilavu’ to ‘Kannaththil muttamiddaal,’ it can be said he has presented human situations in a gripping manner. For instance ‘Mowna ragankal’ (Silent tunes) is a wonderful human drama where a girl who initially wants to divorce from her recently wedded husband ultimately finds herself unable to live without him. ‘Bombay’ is another well-conceived human drama.

Leading critics of south Indian cinema feel that Mani Ratnam is perhaps the most intelligent political communicator Tamil cinema has ever had. He does not do it the MGR way or the Neelakandan way. He does not allow the actor to go beyond the dictates of the storyline and endear himself to the masses. In the film ‘Thalapathy’ Rajani Kanth is not the superstar who shines beyond the film. Usually Rajani Kanth uses directors to outshine them. But in ‘Thalapathy,’ Mani Ratnam uses Rajani Kanth and not vice versa. Mani Ratnam is known for the persuasive manner in which he portrays characters in his films. In ‘Roja’ for instance, where he deals with the Kashmir militants, is almost able to present them as fighters fighting wantonly and without any reference to the reason they are fighting for. That type of presentation makes the audience feel that the fighters really have no need or purpose to fight.

Though financially a flop, Mani Ratnam’s most interesting production was ‘Iruvar’ (The two). The Two referred to are MGR and Karunanithy. It deals with the relationship between MGR and Karunanithy and their confrontations within the organisation (DMK) for power. The way Karunanithy had been presented, he cuts a sorry figure at the end. The casting was very intelligent. Mohan Lal, a handsome hero from the Malayalam film industry was given the role of MGR (MGR himself was a Malayali) and Prakash Rao who usually plays the part of the villain was given to play Karunanithy.

The film as a satire was very well done. There is nothing in the story or in the dialogue to openly identify the characters as MGR and Karunanithy. But the Tamil Nadu filmgoer could not make a mistake. It was undoubtedly about MGR and Karunanithy. I understand that even in a press interview in Colombo, Mani Ratnam had avoided answering the question on the identity of the characters. It was a pity that the film had to be released at a time when Karunanithy had assumed office as chief minister. But the crucial fact is that Mani Ratnam satirised the very heroes of the Dravidian movement who satirised every known social group in Tamil Nadu.

This brings us to ‘Kannaththil Muttamiddaal.’ It is based on Sri Lanka’s ethnic war and received wide publicity. The story is told through the eyes of a child and her adopted father. Its mother has gone to India as a refugee leaving it behind. She returns to Sri Lanka to join the fighters. It was a very intelligent film. There is a character, a Sinhalese, to take the adopted father and the child to Mankulam to meet the mother. They reach Mankulam as though they have travelled through an area without any security checks. What is disappointing is the Mankulam he depicts, is far away from any Sri Lankan reality. And there is no reference at all to the why and how of the fighting. It is as though fighting is taking place for its own sake. Also the mother forsaking her child to avenge the killing of her husband comes out as a denial of maternity. But the story has been movingly told; only Mani Ratnam can do it.

In Sinhala cinema however, Vithanage’s treats the same theme in a more tragic and appealing way.

To me the invitation extended to Mani Ratnam raises a matter of grave concern for the popular Sinhala cinema industry, which Tissa Abeysekera, the great film artiste who had scripted many of the films done by Lester James Peiris says, is no more. Sri Lankan TV and highbrow criticism have virtually killed popular Sinhala cinema. Further, after Vijaya Kumaratunga there is not even a single Sinhala film idol we can speak of.

Sinhala cinema is artistically sound but as Tissa Abeysekera points out, is not popular. The Sinhala film industry after the withdrawal of the Nayagams and Gunaratnams could not strike balance between technical finesse, artistic presentation and popular appeal, which the Tamil cinema enjoys.

It is true Tamil cinema does not have a person of Lester’s standing or Satyagit Ray’s vision. Nor do we have an Adoor Kopalakrishnan or Grish Karnad. But Tamil cinema is a popular industry with national and international markets. Mani Ratnam symbolises this growth in Tamil cinema.