Author Saman Wickermarachchi (left) and Director Asoka Handagama
Addressing some Toronto film enthusiasts who organised a Skype discussion on the movie Asandimitta, director Asoka Handagama said making the movie version of Saman Wickremarachchi’s novel was ‘quite a challenge’.
“After seeing the manuscripts of the book I decided to make the film though accepting the challenge was not without its share of problems,” the director of such classics like Ege Esa Aga, Ini Avan and Me Mage Sandai said. “It is said that the author dies after a book is published while the reader becomes its author. Despite the usual problems associated with turning a work of fiction into a film I have tried my best to interpret it in the best way possible using the technics available to me as a film maker. I felt that the novel was tailor-made for a film.”
Responding, the author said a book is created out of words and language, but a film is made up of pictures. An author very rarely sees eye to eye with a film maker but ‘in this case Handagama has created something I agree with.’
A member of the audience said that he noticed many viewers in a state of confusion after seeing the film, unable to grasp what the film was trying to tell. “This is an unusual film beyond the framework of the traditional comedy/tragedy and I am happy that the film made the fans question, trying to interpret what they saw unfolding on the screen. Asandimitta puts the viewer on collision course with the society they live in, forcing them to focus on social problems and pitfalls that we normally tend to ignore.”
Without going home immediately after the movie, people gathered in the car park and discussed about the film, he further added, describing it as a rare occurrence. “I think it is a good thing and though the film seemed to confuse many fans, it was heartening to note their interest to unravel the mystery of Asandimitta’s character,” he added.
Another fan said that according to his idea that the film seems to have been inspired by Fyodor Dostoevsky novel Crime and Punishment. The Russian writer questioned the truth. Some believe in God and behave according to some set pattern of religious rules but some others go beyond that on a personal level trying to do some good to the society. I see that kind of perspective in Asandimitta. I see in the film the influence of philosopher Friedrich Nietsche’s theories too. The German intellectual said that our reality is what we perceive through our experiences. Everything depends on our perception, contributing to shape our perspective of life which becomes our ultimate reality. Handagama is trying to create Asandimitta’s perspective highlighting the social pitfalls bringing us face to face with today’s reality preying upon the vulnerable women.”
When Asandimtta (Nilmini Sigera) gets into the bus she is sexually abused but the director gives the audience a hint that she enjoys that harassment surreptitiously. “The two sisters who appear in the second part is from a different class than the heroine. We think they are spared of the kind of abuse that Asandimitta suffers, but they too face similar problems. The director is trying to show us the bitter reality of the modern society which we willingly ignore for our own survival.”
The film is a compendium of problems faced by the modern society, responded Handagama, adding that it portrays the problems of our time. “Jayantha Chandrasiri’s Maha Raja Dutu Gemunu is based on a historical period but the issues discussed in the movie are related to our modern society. My film follows the same path. The character of Asandimitta is not fiction. She represents the hidden truths in our society.”
Today the society is marketing thin women with their bones sticking out as the perfect concept of beauty, quite opposite to the eastern practices of judging female charm. The name Asandimitta comes from one of King Ashoka’s wives. She was of imposing physical proportions. The name means ‘too fat even making it difficult to see her joints’. “The heroine in the film is cornered by the society due to her unusual size of 300 pounds. But yet, men prefer to go to bed with fat women though the superficial demand is for thin and slim variety. Asandimitta has many sarongs at home which means she had many boy friends in the past who like to remain anonymous.”
“It is not sure whether Lucky (Dharmapriya Dias) follows her home,” says Handagama. “But she takes home the enjoyment she experienced in the bus. I wanted to prolong her fantasy as she is trying to settle her problems in her own mind. The film questions truth. What is truth? Did she really kill? Was the killing created by the director (Sham Fernando) who is trying to make a film about Asandimitta’s life?”
Raising a question about the famous coffin scene, a member of the audience wondered whether Handagama was confusing the audience. “Or was he making an avant-garde film to appeal to foreign festival audience. Couldn’t he tell that Lucky is married without confusing the viewers?”
Handagama responded saying that the coffin scene showed how Asandimitta’s mind worked, wondering whether Lucky had other women or whether he was married. “It is an important question of her ownership to the man. Lucky leaves the house after having a fight with her but we see him still in the house. She is trying to solve the problems of her life in her mind”.
Talking about the three murders, Handagama says that it could be something the director who was planning to make a film about Asandimitta created. “She only calls him once but when he goes to see her, he fails to meet her. So the murders are possibly the creation of that director, making us question what is the real truth.”
Focussing on the same issue, another fan said: “The artist who was to shed light on social injustices suffered by the heroine at the end recoils into the comfort zone of his middle-class family atmosphere celebrating a surprise birthday. This ironically, is the most unkindest cut of all.”.
Wikremarachchi said that Asandhimitta cannot succeed in life and many things have been denied to her because of her physical disadvantages. But she tries to achieve them in her own ways. However fat she is, she tells Lucky that she has lot of sarongs at home. That means she has lot of boyfriends to satisfy her needs. Two young boys are living at her home, but nobody knows whether they are her own children. What it implies is that she is trying hard to achieve what she has been denied by the society. These are the tragedies that women face in life”.
Responsing to a question why he has quit television, Handagama said when he was making Dunhinda Addara, TV industry was different. “We did not pay special attention to advertising, unwilling to distract the viewer. But today the situation is quite different. TV has become highly commercialised giving prominence to advertising during telecasting. Today some tele-dramas run into hundreds of episodes. I am against this. When the TV was introduced to Sri Lanka, film maker Dharamasiri Bandaranayake described the television as the chopping block of the artist. There is some truth in his comment, but I continued for some time producing television films ignoring his prophesy. I might do some work in television if the present trends change for the better.”
Answering a question whether he would make films reflecting the worsening political and economic climate of the nation he said that it is the film maker’s duty to discuss truth and how these factors are affecting the people. Thundenek (Three People) he made with Vimukthi Jayasundera and Prasanna Vithanage highlighted how the post-war Sri Lankan society is trying to lick the wounds after the tragic 30-year ethnic conflict.
The Skype chat was organised by the Toronto-based Kathika Kavaya (Discussion Forum). (www.newstrails.com)
