Randeniya shone through his career with
some of the most villainous, antiheroic roles an actor here could ever get (more
on that later). Nonetheless there are other performances and portrayals, which
deserve more than a footnote. After all, it is diversity and not typecasting
which will vindicate an actor. This is certainly the case with Randeniya. He
has taken part in roles which have varied wildly. And remarkably.
He was born in 1945, in Dalugama,
Kelaniya. His father, a self-made businessman, had initially put him in St
Francis’ School, which was run by the Dalugama Church. Two years later, he was
admitted to St Benedict’s College, Kotahena, where he stayed right until his
A/Levels. “St Benedict’s was a so-called English-medium school, run in line
with other Catholic schools set up across Colombo. Nonetheless, until Eighth
Standard, all students were taught in the vernacular, for us in Sinhala.
“There was only one period for English. But
the English culture was there, through and through, so there was a sort of
Western backdrop. In any case, we were all a mixed lot. There were Tamil,
Sinhala, and English classes. There were Tamil and Burgher students. Regardless
of this however, we never knew or cared about what our backgrounds were, or
what our race or religion was. We were all just one group. Yes, I must admit
that the situation is quite different today. But that was a different time, you
must remember.”
It was at St Benedict’s where he developed
an interest in art, more specifically in literature. This was during the 1950s.
“Back then, the trend was to read ‘pulp fiction.’ For me however, the stories
of Martin Wickramasinghe, Gorki, and Chekhov were more appealing. I remember
being teased around for this.” Acting, by the way, did not figure in his scheme
of things: “I was not interested in it at all, except once when I had to take
part in a Fifth Standard production of Sigiri Kashyapa, in which I was
Kashyapa. That was it.”
Dhamma Jagoda |
Back then, he adds, there was a wider
readership for the sort of books he read: “This was true especially because
writers like Wickramasinghe touched the ‘common man’. He had his critics,
especially from Peradeniya University, but in the end even they were inspired
by him.” As for foreign novelists, Gorki and Chekhov, Randeniya remembers,
inculcated in him a brief sympathy for socialism. “Everyone’s a Red at 20!” he chuckles
by way of explaining this.
His first encounter with acting came
through the theatre. Dhamma Jagoda, the enfant-terrible of the Sinhala stage,
who together with Sugathapala de Silva was seeking a way out of the stylised
form to which acting had got accustomed here, had founded the Lionel Wendt
Theatre Workshop. The Workshop was being taught by several playwrights and
actors, among them Ernest Macintyre and Irangani Serasinghe.
“Jagoda had gone to America on a
scholarship the year before he founded the Workshop. There, he had learnt about
Lee Strasberg’s school of acting, which centred on the Actors Studio and
included people like Elia Kazan. They were absorbing the tenets of Stanislavsky’s
Method. Naturally, when he came back, Jagoda had nothing but praise for this
new style of acting.” Method Acting had not, as of then, been institutionalised
in either stage or film in Sri Lanka. It was Jagoda, therefore, who took it
upon himself to “spread the gospel” here.
Randeniya, however, was yet to learn this
gospel. “I did not enter the Workshop to learn about acting. We had to pay an admission
fee of 10 rupees. I chose screenwriting, directing, and stage decor as my
subjects. Not acting.” Fate, however, ordained otherwise. “Somehow or the
other, I found myself in an acting class. This wasn’t entirely surprising,
given that by this time I had become drawn to it, little by little. Besides,
that class was common to all: regardless of whatever subject you were
following, you had to be present for it every day, for at least one or two
hours. In the end, I found myself being selected frequently and dragged into
various performances.”
Gunasena Galappatty |
The course lasted two years. At the end of
it, a production was in the offing, which he got involved with. “This was our
first studio production: a new adaptation of Gunasena Galappatty’s Muhudu Puththu. The play was quite controversial for its time, considering its
theme of adultery. The whole production was a sort of culmination to all our
hard work and effort.”
In addition to all this, Randeniya says by
way of afterthought, the Workshop provided a rare opportunity to “rub
shoulders” with Sri Lanka’s cultural elite. After classes would be over at
eight in the night, the Workshop troupe would meet up with the likes of
Ediriweera Sarachchandra at the Arts Centre Club, to which the students had
access. These early encounters would have had a profound impact on Randeniya,
whose interest in not just acting but in the world of art in general would have
been sharpened.
After his first performance in Muhudu Puththu, Manik Sandrasagara had come
backstage to congratulate Randeniya. Sandrasagara’s first film, Kalu Diya
Dahara (1970), marked Randeniya’s foray into the cinema, in the role of a
plantation worker who rebels against his superiors. The role got him offers
from various other directors. “The fees I got from acting were never a concern
for me back then. I remember getting about 2,500 rupees for my performance in Kalu
Diya Dahara. That was trivial, however, compared with how I enjoyed the
experience.”
Lester James Peries had also been in the
audience that night in the premiere of Muhudu Puththu, and this had
compelled him to select Randeniya for the role of the morally ambiguous hermit
for his next film, Desa Nisa
(1972). “My experiences with Dr Peries aboard that film were different
from those with Manik. Manik is almost always the commander in the set. That is
not to say he was a dictator, but he had his way of asserting himself. With Dr
Peries, you are never sure whether he’s there on the set, because when the
camera starts rolling, he retires to the background, giving you free rein.”
As Moggallana in The God King |
Vijaya Dharma Sri’s Duhulu Malak
(1976) was a career-definer on a different level. “The way I played the role
left no room for vulgarity. No one thought my character to have been immoral,
even though what he was doing was in effect ‘immoral’. The character in the
script came across as an irresponsible playboy, not a black-and-white libertine.”
To his role he imparted a sustained combination of goodness and irresponsibility,
because of which we never feel that he is “bad”. He has his “good” side, though
not to a point where we can justify his actions.
Admittedly, the film did indulge in
melodrama and histrionics in certain minor sequences, but with regard to
character portrayal, Randeniya (along with co-stars Nita Fernando and Tony
Ranasinghe) came across convincingly. This is true especially of the way he
grapples with the story’s moral dilemma: initially flippant about his tryst
with a married woman, little by little he forms a relationship with her, and
very adamantly begins asserting himself.
Nonetheless the plot never allows him to
become a complete villain: at the story’s end, we see him by the beach, looking
crestfallen at the horizon, and then throwing his shoe away by way of admitting
defeat. For Randeniya’s character, a sense of responsibility begins to dawn
only then.
Randeniya reached his landmark with
Amaranath Jayatilake’s Siripala saha Ranmenika (1977), and for a very
special reason. “The role of Siripala required a sort of bestiality hard to
find among Sinhala film characters at the time. I was compelled to take in what
I had learnt with a role I had acted out when I was at the Theatre Workshop.
Dhamma Jagoda had adapted Tennessee Williams’ A Streetcar Named Desire
with his Ves Muhunu. I was Samson, the Sinhalised version of Stanley
Kowalski, in it.
“Seeing it, you realize how much
bestiality and savagery you need to impart, if ever you get to play that role.
So I practised and researched for my performance, and the experience went with
me while I was acting in Siripala saha Ranmenika. That was a personal
landmark for me.”
Then came a whole spate of some of the
most villainous characters our cinema could conjure up. All of them required
enormous reserves of dedication, which were what Randeniya, from his days at
the Workshop, had taken in. “There is a way to put forward a character’s
attitude onscreen. You need to research well on the character, because
regardless of whether he is a hero or villain, he still has a way of looking at
things very unique to his character. In other words, no two villains or heroes
are the same.”
Looking at these performances of his, one does
indeed see subtle differences between them. There were roles in Maya
(1984), Janelaya (1987), and Siri
Medura (1989). All these were played out with due regard to their human
densities: in other words, there is no attempt made at sensationalising them.
It is to Randeniya’s credit that they shook us not for shock-value but for
their authenticity. This was especially true of Siri Medura, where for the entirety of the film he is a cripple who
not only can’t talk but has to move around with a structure attached to his
body. To watch how he conveys the subtlest nuances of emotion is to appreciate
the man’s astonishing capability, one must concede.
The exception to all this, if you could
call it that, can be seen in Janelaya, where he is a mute murderer
intent on silencing the only witness to his crime. Here, Randeniya tells me,
the script allowed very little in the way of “whitewashing” or “making up for”
his evil character: “it rightly presented me as a complete villain, with no
room for any complexity.”
In a way, I must admit that the story
necessitated this. Randeniya’s entire performance is spelt out through silence,
and since no interior monologues are available as would they be in a novel, we
never really get to know what his character is thinking. This was, in a way, a
bit of a weakness. Nonetheless, if one sees it in another angle, one can
validate the performance on the basis of how well Randeniya kept it from
teetering down to melodramatic histrionics.
Dadayama |
Actors have their career-defining roles
for which they’re best known. Randeniya is no exception to this. The defining
role in his case was, of course, that of Priyankara Jayanath in Vasantha
Obeyesekere’s Dadayama (1984), which in his own words came across as the
“most villainous and evil” in the history of our cinema.
I couldn’t have agreed more. In this
character, there is a striking economy of style, deftly balanced between
melodrama and impassivity, but never succumbing to either extreme. The role of
Jayanath required dedication of an entirely different order for Randeniya. This
was especially true given that the role had been based on a real-life person,
Jayalal Anandagoda, who was the accused in the infamous Adeline Vitharana
murder case. Randeniya explains further.
“Anandagoda was a very strange and
eccentric character, some say. He was a teacher, like I am in the film, and a
strict disciplinarian. At the same time, he had no misgivings about
impregnating one of his students, the girl on whose character Swarna
Mallawarachchi’s role is based in the film. Obeyesekere warned me about taking
this role: ‘People may spit on you,’ he said. I took it nevertheless. The
result was that audiences were riveted by it, and I won acclaim from almost
every quarter.”
Regi Siriwardena, in his review of the
film, called Randeniya’s performance a “solid, if less complex, character
portrayal.” It is true that, with regard to screen time, Swarna Mallawarachchi
dominates the film, but where Randeniya comes in, there is an aura of impending
evil and disaster which even Mallawarachchi’s character cannot predict or
understand. I am thinking here of the sequence of his first tryst with her: the
scenes which precede it are played out with a carefree, romantic spirit, with a
score by Premasiri Khemadasa that nearly attributes to them a (false) sense of
melodrama.
Seilama |
But no: the scenes shift to a hotel room,
the music stops, and the melodrama is ended. “Come in,” says Randeniya to a
nervous Mallawarachchi as he holds the door open: her troubles are about to
begin. To his role, he brought about an enviable blend of cunning, wickedness,
and acquisitiveness (symbolised by his red car). I am yet to see a more
profound portrayal of a villain in our cinema. It may have been less complex
owing to the character’s limited involvement in the story as per screen time,
but this does not make it less convincing.
On the contrary, in how he manages to keep
us wondering as to his true motives that, from the first time we see him
(symbolically wearing sunglasses, eyes veiled), our interest and horror (not to
mention disgust) are evoked and kept alive.
What I want to point out at this juncture
is that these performances, however remarkable they were, did not compromise on
Randeniya’s diversity. His other credits include Vijaya Dharma Sri’s Aradhana
(1981), where he played the part of a lover. Then there were credits in Wasanthaye
Davasak (1977), Sita Devi (1978), Veera Puran Appu (1979, as the titular hero), Chuda Manikyaya
(1979), Sagara Jalaya (1988), and his later performances in Anantha
Rathriya (1996) and Wekanda Walauwwa (2005). All these caught
Randeniya in a more open-textured canvas. Granted, he continued playing
villainous parts, such as in Bennet Ratnayake’s Aswesuma (2001). But
these were (for the most) exceptions.
Wekanda Walawwa |
For he wasn’t just “the villain”. He could
and continued to play other characters. He played the lover in Aradhana opposite Malini Fonseka and in Adara Hasuna (1986) opposite Vasanthi
Chathurani. The latter film, short and spare as it was, showed Randeniya as a
versatilist, someone who was able to veil his character’s true intentions until
the story neared its end. What was even more intriguing was that not only was
he able to keep his intentions from us, he kept them back so tentatively that we began
to doubt him, until, as with that climatic moment in the film where Nawananda
Wijesinghe reveals to Vasanthi Chathurani the true identity of Randeniya’s
character, we were only mildly surprised, if at all because Randeniya depicted
his character so obliquely.
And then there were those sympathetic
performances, where his characters seem to have committed some wrong which they
want to atone for. I think he captured this best in Prasanna Vithanage’s Anantha Rathriya, which paired him again
with Swarna Mallawarachchi (he had acted with her before in Sagara Jalaya, as a brother-in-law whose
offers of help for her protagonist, we are made to feel, aren’t exactly
altruistic).
As gripping as Mallawarachchi’s
performance was, though, I suspect that Anantha
Rathriya was really Randeniya’s show: from the opening sequence, where his
character (Suvisal) narrates that he is about to enter a (spiritual) journey,
which we think will end in catharsis, to the final sequence, where he stares
hopefully at a reconciliation with the woman he wronged years ago, he achieves
a balance with his characterisation almost flawlessly, so as to make him the
subject of both condemnation and empathy.
This came up in even as simple a story as
Vasantha Obeyesekere’s Sewwandi
(2006), where his performance as a police officer turned amateur detective,
though as solid and “static” as that in Dadayama,
retains conviction despite its inflexible, two-dimensional conformity to the
script. I shouldn’t be forgiven for not mentioning his miniseries credits, of
course, and to my mind none comes close to defining the kind of character he
epitomised in them as that in Dharmasena Pathiraja’s Ella Laga Walawwa, where again he’s a “detective” who uncovers the
final, hidden secret to the mystery in the plot. There are other credits I can
mention here, but owing to spatial constraints that remains an impossible task.
I will conclude here, then.
For Randeniya, the truest justification
for an actor comes in how well and ably he manages to immerse himself in the
character portrayed. This does not mean, he adds, that actors should completely
immerse themselves in their roles. This, in a way, explains his fascination
with Marlon Brando.
Comparing the one with the other would be quite remiss of me at this point, but let me say here that Brando had, once upon a time, played the role of Stanley Kowalski in Elia Kazan’s film adaptation of A Streetcar Named Desire. That was the character Randeniya had played in Ves Muhunu, and, arguably, what kept propping up in all his gritty performances, Siripala saha Ranmenika onwards. It was this that propelled him to reach his goal: to absorb himself in his characters so well that the effort which he took in doing so wouldn’t show in the final cut. That he achieved this, every film lover in the country knows.
Written for: The Island LIFESTYLE, May 15 2016
Written for: The Island LIFESTYLE, May 15 2016
No comments:
Post a Comment