There are those who have written on the man and his films,
who have gone great lengths in convincing the world to turn its critical eye on
him. There are others who, while not exactly as well versed in his craft as he is, love and continue to venerate him, because he remains lovable for
reasons obvious to all. Like all great artists, as Regi Siriwardena once wrote,
Lester James Peries created the standard by which he was and continues to be
judged. And adored. He remains an "icon", truly and honestly.
He was (at one point) regarded as a lonely artist, who tried to break
into his country’s cultural firmament, and that by capturing the subtlest
nuances of feeling and emotion, registered in our people but rarely, if at all,
caught by others. True, he wasn’t really an “other”. But owing to the
circumstances he was born to, and the childhood he went through, he was almost
an “outsider”. Because of this, he tried (as no other artist in this country did)
to endear himself to his people. In the end, he succeeded. In the end, we loved
him back. And in the end, he was lonely no more.
Lester will turn 97 this year. There are others younger than
him, who’ve made more films over a fraction of the time it took for him to make
his. That’s a tragedy at one level, but a blessing at another. For the films he
made, though intermittent and long in coming, were awaited and watched eagerly.
Yes, he directed only 20 films. But Robert Bresson made 13, and he remains
loved in France even today.
Rekava was a leap of faith. But like all leaps of faiths, it
wasn’t vindicated at once. Sandeshaya was a hit, but that wasn’t really
Lester. Gamperaliya, Delovak Athara, and Ran Salu weren’t hits, but they
recouped at the box-office. And then he made Golu Hadawatha, and won an
entire nation to his side.
Yes, it took time. But that’s how icons operate. They are
patient. They are never in a hurry.
Some called him apolitical. Some went further and called him
anti-political. The inevitable extrapolation was made, and during the 1970s,
people began accusing him of being an elitist. They pointed at the stories he
went for, the fact that he selected the family as his base, and argued that at
a time when the family unit was shattered and broken apart, he remained obstinate
and “bourgeois”.
To an extent, I agree with them. There was a lull after Nidhanaya,
which he couldn’t avert. When he returned to his favourite
storyline (the Koggala trilogy) and made Kaliyugaya, we were hence eager. For
he selected a story where, more than in his other work, the family as a unit
was being assailed. “A new leaf and chapter,” we thought of it.
What came up was different, of course. Kaliyugaya the film
was about a family that gets diluted, true. But Lester seemed adamant that even
in this process of getting diluted, those age-old bonds remained. Even in Yuganthaya and Awaragira, where, more than even Kaliyugaya, he played around with the
broken family trope, he was cautious. Just as well, I suppose.
For even in the most strained of circumstances, we as a
nation and community endear ourselves to one another. I talked about a lull
after Nidhanaya, and I still stand by this. But not for the reasons those who
accused him of being “elitist” would want you to believe. No, not because
Lester stayed with the family, and the family remained essentially unruffled.
Like the best artists, he didn’t manipulate reality and portray an alienated community.
He went for a community that survived, even in the unkindest circumstances.
But after Nidhanaya, with Desa Nisa, Baddegama, Awaragira,
and Wekanda Walauwwa, something kept him back, something which
was missing. With Desa Nisa it was an ending that was too quick to arouse our
sympathy. With Baddegama it was a script that (no matter what its defenders
said) took the meaning of “adaptation” a little too literally. With Awaragira it was a producer who cut and jumbled up Lester’s usual, smooth narrative-flow.
And with Wekanda Walauwwa, a film which won him praise in
France and vitriol in New York, it was a story-line that had believable
characters, good actors, and a moving resolution, but also a set of unconvincing
plotlines that went somewhere and proved to be irrelevant. I still can’t
imagine why Senaka Wijesinghe’s character had to spout so much political
rhetoric, not because he was unconvincing, but because his place in the story proved
so minimal, that it became out of place with the larger canvas of the script.
I know many will disagree with me and consider it to have
been one of Lester’s greatest. I’m not so sure, but I won’t argue. To me, the
biggest tribute we can make to him isn’t unconditional praise or criticism, but
an honest account of the man’s work. That account remains a far-off reality
though, not because people aren’t willing to come forward, but because they really
don’t have the time.
I think we should find that time, at least now. Lester is
still with us, and he has a phenomenal memory. He is also a living monument,
for a good reason. After all, he is the last from those who lived through and added
to “1956”, the last of those who, in the pursuit of an identity that could
demarcate us well, brought about a synthesis of tradition and modernity.
And as the only living artist from “1956”, whose works
bridged the gap between an anglicised past and a country in search of roots, he
is alive. He always will be, I suspect. So much so that every time we watch a
film of his, live through the experience stamped on it, and realise that
notwithstanding his self-imposed ideological parameters he has gone beyond
anyone else in filming our sorrows and joys, we will remember that. And be
emboldened.
Written for: The Island LIFESTYLE, January 31 2016
No comments:
Post a Comment