Sinhabahu - Dilemma of a sensitive woman

Author: Indeewara Thilakarathne

Source: Sunday Observer

Date: 18/09/2005

"Sinhabahu" and "Maname" are the best-known theatrical magnum opus' of the late Professor Ediriweera Sarachchandra who dominated the cultural scene for decades as a playwright, academic and novelist. He was the chief priest and proponent of what we know as the "Peradeniya School".

"Sinhabahu" is now being staged islandwide.

The play is based on a legend associated with the origin of the Sinhala race. According to the legend, the race Sinhalese was born from a lion. Suppadevi, the main female character in the play is the eldest daughter of the king of Vanga Desa (modern Bengal). On her birth, soothsayers predict that she will cohabit with a king of beasts, the Lion. The father, the king, takes precautions to protect her.

She is kept in the palace under heavy guard. However she is adventurous and dupes her guards and escape from their protection. Her adventurous nature lured her to wander from village to village and finally she reaches the boundaries of a forest.

There she encounters a caravan of merchants and the riders offer to take her back to the palace. In the forest the Lion attacks the caravan and abducts her to his den where they live as husband and wife.

She bears him a son, named Sinhabahu (denotes prowess and attracts respect) who has a strength of a lion and a daughter, Sinhasivali.

In his youth, Sinhabahu recognises the physical difference between his mother and father and questions his mother. When he learns the story he tries to leave the den. The mother tells him that the cave is covered by a huge rock and their escape was impossible. One day, Sinhabahu breaks open the door and flees leaving the lion.

They reach the kingdom of Vanga. In the main historical chronicle the Mahawamsa "when the lion returns and learns of the departure of the three (persons), the grief-stricken lion roams the villages and townships in search of them.

Every village he went was deserted by dwellers "Though the king offered a reward of thousand then two and three thousand gold pieces, no one came to face the lion. The chronicle says that twice the mother restrained Sinhabahu. However on the third occasion, Sinhabahu took the three thousand gold pieces for the slaying of his own father.

The encounter between the father and son is described thus: "And he went forth to the opening of the cave, and as soon as he saw, from afar the lion, who came forward feeling love towards his son, he shot an arrow to slay him. The arrow struck the lion's head but because of his tenderness (towards his son) it rebounded and fell on the earth at the youth's feet. So it fell out three times. Then did the king of beast grow wrathful, and the arrow sent at him struck him and pierced his body. Sinhabahu gains victory and established a city named Sinhapura and crowns himself as ruler.

In the myth, Sinhabahu marries his sister and produces a rebellious son, Prince Vijaya. He is banished with a boatload of seven hundred followers. They are caught in a storm and washed ashore on the land of Lanka and Prince Vijaya marries its ruling queen, Kuveni. Since he is a grand son of a lion his decedents totemise a lion race known as Sinhala.

It is arguable that the reference to a lion with whom the main female character of the play Suppadevi cohabits was idiomatic and it probably was a king, brave and strong and wears a lion's headdress and skin as insignia to identify his tribe or clan. It is therefore possible that the convoy of caravans that accompanied Princes Suppadevi would have mistaken the king as literary lion.

Princes Suppadevi who was endowed with "womanly qualities" would have fallen in love and eloped with him.

However, based on the story of the chronicle, many versions of narratives have evolved over the years, regarding Suppadevi and her cohabitation with the lion. This can be traced back to the Siyabas Maldama (Garland of Flowers of Cernacular Languages), a long narrative poem composed around 1920 by Ven. Kiraba Dhammananda.

Later, the story of the poem was adopted for a play called Sinhavalli Nadagama by Philippu Singho, a reputed playwright of the time. Nadagama is the Sinhala derivative of the Tamil word Natakam, a concept and a word based on a Sanskrit dramatic tradition.

"It is a kind of theatre comprising music, gesture embellishment or alamkaram rhythm and the nine relishes or nava rasa". Towards the end of the last century another playwright C. Don Bastian Jayaweera Bandara adopted the play and used the nurthi style influenced by the North Indian dramatic tradition.

The main feature of the nurthi is that it is divided into scenes and acts like in European drama. And in nurthi the Pote Guru, the narrator or the presenter of the old Nadagama vanishes from the stage.

Jayaweera Bandara's play was also Sinhabahu and in the 1940s another playwright Ampe. Charles Gunasinghe adopted the same story but with the name Sinhavalli. A novel titled "The Fountains of Sinhala" by Collin de Silva also bears the same theme. Almost all the authors have treated the story as a historical legend except Collin de Silva who projects the story in a different perspective and dimensions.

In the previous productions the character of Princess Suppadevi was portrayed as a sex symbols, passionate, weak and lustful but in Professor Sarachchandra's work, he looks" womanly as an individual with human tenderness and love.

In Maname she is indecisive, judicious helpless and foolish and in Rattaran (Gold) she is crafty and clever, in Kadawalalu (Glass Bangles) she is kind loving and innocent, in Prematho Jayathi Soko (Love Begets Sorrow) she is innocent, loving and romantic, in Loma Hansa (Golden feathers) she is anxious and craving, in Mahasara she is illogical, hasty, arrogant and vain, In Sinhabahu she is helpless and indecisive yet determined and brave.

Sinhabahu is a tragedy based on a legend. It has the rudiments of a tragedy "unshackled destroying force" in Sinhabahu, the son, "the one who is destroyed" in Lion and the will or desire of the victim to fight against forces and not be destroyed." Sinhabahu is a tragedy like Oedipus Rex or Hamlet and is based on primordial human situations and certain universal characteristics and feelings.

It is essentially a dilemma of a passionate woman who is caught between the loyalty to her husband and love towards her only begotten son, Sinhabahu.

It is not only the loyalty to her husband, the lion but the old life she has shared and the new life she has brought forth, that is amply demonstrated in her quest for her husband.

About the Playwright

Ediriweera Sarachchandra, who died in 1996 at the age of 83, is considered a great playwright. He was an equally eminent novelist, critic, philosopher musicologist and educationist.

In 1983 he was awarded the Kumaran Asan World Prize by the Kerala State of South India, and won the Ramon Magsaysay Award for Literature in 1988.

In 1994 Kochin State of India honoured him with the Surabi award for Arts and Literature, and in 1995 Japan awarded him with the Silver and Gold Star Treasure Award for Literature. Until his death he was the Chancellor of the University of Peradeniya.

Roars of Sinhabahu reach English theatre

Author: Susitha R. Fernando

Source: Sunday Times

Date: 09/03/2008

Celebrating the golden jubilee of production, the groundbreaking Sinhala stage play, Professor Ediriweera Sarachchandra's 'Sinhabahu' will go international with its English version on March 15 and 16 at 7 pm at Lionel Wendt theatre, Colombo. Mayashakthi Theatre Foundation with the aim of taking the message of Prof. Sarachchandra to the international audience has taken up this painstaking challenge of presenting the renowned stylized play to the English theatre.

Anoma Jinadari as Suppadevi

"Prof. Sarachchandra invented stylized theatre for the modern stage by using as its roots the fundamentals of bygone theatre forms such as Sokari, Kolam Nadagam and Kuththu," says experienced dramatist Dharmajith Punarjeeva, the director of Sinhabahu poetic opera.

Explaining other reason to do the English version, he said, "Sinhabahu is the mythical story of how the Sinhalese came into being. But this mythical story is distorted and given a negative interpretation in order to demean the country and its people by groups with vested interests internationally. It was in this backdrop we want to take this great play to the international audience,".

When we explained this to Mrs. Lalith Sarachchandra who has the rights over Prof. Sarachchandra's works, she gave her approval and even took us to Dr. Lakshmi de Silva, a colleague and great fan of Prof. Sarachchandra's drama and had translated both' Sinhabahu' and 'Maname' as far back as 1970s.

The task of creating melodies of this highly acclaimed drama was undertaken by veterans in the Western music circle including Mary Ann David. Others who joined her are Jerom de Silva, Noeline Honter and Nawaratna Gamage."While celebrating 50 years, the other main reason for the English version was to educate the international audience on the Sri Lankan theatre and also the mythical tale of how the Sinhala race began," says dramatist Punarjeewa.

"In making the English version the challenges we had to face was to preserve the poetic and music style of the original and also to preserve the 'Asianness' as we were going to campaign internationally," explained Mr. Punarjeewa. "With regard to the music and poetic styles of the English play, the ultimate we could think was 'opera' and the experienced musician Mary Ann David did an excellent piece of work with her creative melodies and also Noeline Honter who showed exceptional talent by going beyond her usual singing style of pop music," he added.

Dharmajith Punarjeeva

"They knew about 'Sinhabahu' and they had great respect for the original" the director said. In order to bring the qualities of the lion through choreography, the Mayashakthi theatre group got the support of Kanchana Wijesuriya of Bandu Wijesooriya Dance Academy.

"We had to use Low Country dancing styles in Sri Lanka to show the enormous power and valour of Sinhabahu, the Lion king. The other most important area of the drama costumes was created by Vajira Piries from University of Moratuwa and props were created by Lional Bentarage from University of fine arts.

Review of Sinhabahu by Ediriweera Sarachchandra - Lalitha's Sinhabahu

Author:H.L.Seneviratne Source:Island Date:29/10/2003 Produced by Lalitha Sarachchandra

Lalitha Sarachchandra's production of Sinhabahu was staged at the St Anthony's College Hall, Katugastota on October 18, 2003. The production is worthy of detailed critical analysis. This is not such an analysis, but merely some random thoughts, on the myth, the play and on this production.

Sinhabahu is about love — between male and female, parent and child, and brother and sister. In the myth on which the play is based the male is not human but a lion. His habitat, the forest, signifies the opposite of orderly society and civilised life. The princess represents uncontrolled sexuality, and defiance of parental authority and social norms. The relation between the lion and the princess can also be seen as a variation of the cross-culturally familiar theme of a high born female`EDs desire for a non-conformist male of charisma and physical prowess, such as a bandit or a thief. Besides, we have in the myth a subterranean oedipal relation between mother and son, and father and daughter, replete with the son ultimately killing the father. Further, in the myth the love between siblings develops into an incestuous union. Thus, the myth is brimming with secret desires —bestiality, incest and parricide, major themes of our founding myth rarely remembered by nationalists. While the play explicitly deals only with the last, the subliminal presence of the other two cannot be denied, which is arguably the foundation of the subconscious appeal of the play.

Sarachchandra's play is a Buddhicisation of the myth. The sentiment of love, raw and wild in the myth, is romanticised and sanitised in the play. It is defined in renunciatory terms: its lure leads those smitten by it to abandon that which ordinarily they would cling to, such as wealth and power, palaces, finery, and bejewelled footwear.

This blissful state however 'begets sorrow', an idea that runs through all of Sarachchandra's major work and developed explicitly in Pemato Jayati Soko, and that ironically relates to the more conventional meaning of renunciation. Thus the overarching strategy of the play is first to build and then dismantle the edifice of love by bringing out dramatically its inevitable fragility and evanescence. This produces the pathos and what might be called the Buddhist catharsis of the play.

Three paths are used for achieving this artistic purpose. The first is the text with its unrivalled poetry and lyricism. The language of Sinhabahu is the finest since the days of the Guttila, the Kavyasekhara and the Sandesa poems, and while these classical works are solely poetic, Sinhabahu is dramatic as well. The second consists of the melodies, borrowed from what is left of the Nadagam repertoire after most of it was used up in Maname, with the rest composed with superb dramatic and musical imagination by H.H.Bandara. The third consists of (a) dance movements and mime and (b) choreography.

The text of the play is its soul and, as to be expected, remains unchanged in Lalitha Sarachchandra's production. So are the melodies, although some changes occur in music, for example at the Lion's entry, as noted below. It is in the realm of dance and choreography that this production most clearly exhibits its creativity and autonomy. Some of this is related to the greater professionalism and versatility of the actors available to Lalitha Sarachchandra as opposed to undergraduates who were the actors of Sarachchandra's original production. Costumes and make up, by the producer herself, are also two further areas of innovation.

Sarachchandra's production of Sinhabahu, like his Maname, did not remain static although much of what was changed would have been imperceptible to the ordinary theatre goer. Nor is it necessary for the theatre goer to know or notice any changes for purposes of his or her enjoyment of the play as a work of art. Sarachchandra's was a dynamic mind, and those who are familiar with how he worked would recall how eager he was to revise and renew, and seek new ways of making his work more effective theatrically and dramatically.

It is indeed this innovative gift and bent of mind that enabled him to come up with the first masterpiece Maname, and for all intents and purposes invent what is now considered a unique indigenous theatre which is also national in that it is accepted as the common heritage of the two major Sri Lankan ethnic groups Sinhala and Tamil.

Many imitations followed Maname, like the Kalagola Nadagama produced by some employees of Radio Ceylon as it was then known. These were at best monstrocities. The last thing Sarachchandra wanted to do was to repeat or imitate himself. As an artist, and a fervent anti-imperialist and critic of superficial westernisation, Sarachchandra sought to revive indigenous tradition, but he was never a purist or proponent of chauvinistic isolationism. Audiences would remember how in Kadavalalu, a short play that followed Maname, he introduced the hanamichi or the 'flower path' borrowed from the Japanese Kabuki theatre.

He was open to influences from anywhere, east or west, that would enrich his work. It would then not surprise us to find that he was interested in elements of Greek drama, which he used for the first time in his revisions to his original production of Sinhabahu. For example, he made the chorus and the actors enter from different positions on the stage. Further, in his original production, Sarachchandra had the chorus seated on a side on the stage, in Nadagam style, familiar to audiences of Maname. Not satisfied with this, he later placed the chorus in the back, facing the audience directly rather than at an angle. Besides, instead of male and female chorus members making an ungendered entry, he made the males enter from one side and the females from the other.

And instead of the chorus singing everything in unison all the time, he considered it was more effective at times to single out one voice. For example, during the father son battle, he made a single female voice sing the commentorial song 'vatuni sara bima met balen anga masa nosinda', deviating from both his first production and stage directions of his own text which specify that the song be sung by the chorus ('gayaka pirisa').

Lalitha Sarachchandra's innovation and achievement is her critical evaluation of these changes, and making a creative determination of her own as to which of the innovations added to the play's effect and which did not. For example, the arrival of the chorus from two directions and standing in front of the audience obstructed the arrival of the actors and interfered with the play's tempo. Besides, the simultaneous and prominent presence of a standing chorus and actors cluttered the stage with a cacophony of discordant costumes when viewed from the audience below. These technical and artistic considerations led Lalitha Sarachchandra to abandon those innovations that she thought were obstructive rather than conducive to greater effect. It is obvious that, since these were changes that Sarachchandra made to his original production, the abandonment of some of them constitutes a partial return to his original.

Instead of leaving the chorus passive and detached as in the original production, Lalitha Sarachchandra's seeks to enhance its visual presence at times, an innovation that reveals a subtle and creative understanding of the text`EDs complex meanings and dramatic potential. Thus when an actor left the stage at a mini climactic situation, she darkens the stage for a moment, focussing on the chorus, which continues the singing of the actor who just made his or her exit.

For example, when the princess makes the difficult decision to leave her lion husband and 'take the path that brings good to the two children' (daruvan dedena hata seta sadana), the producer first darkens the stage and then focuses lights on the chorus as it repeats the last lines of the princess' song. Thus, a particular dramatic moment in the development of the plot is underlined visually by the use of lighting, and aurally by using eight voices singing in unison replacing the single voice of the narrator.

Other innovations in this production are quite fascinating, giving the experienced theatre goer a feeling of a generally enhanced play. For example, the Lion is made to enter, not from the side of the stage as in the original production, but straight in front of the audience, through the back curtain, tearing it asunder, suggesting the dominance of the character in the play and foreboding the agonised lion`EDs later action of tearing to pieces those who dare to fight him. The Lion's movements, as well as those of other major male actors, especially Sinhabahu, are recreated in this production to bring out vigorous, assertive and potentially violent male power. The male dances are made more masculine (tandava), and the female movements more feminine (lasya). The Lion's entry is further enhanced and his brute power effectively evoked by the use of three drums, the Maha Davula, Podi Davula and the Maddalaya as well as cymbals.

This contrasts with the use of a single Maddalaya, as is usual in the Nadagam tradition, to indicate the appearance of all other actors. The Lion thereby comes through in a manner more credible and more worthy of his powerful textual visage. In another deviation from the original production, the love for each other shared by all four main characters is expressed in enhanced form by the use of more elaborate movements and gesticulation derived from classical Indian dance, composed imginatively by Miranda Hemalatha to suggest affectionate body contact. Taken as a whole it is clear that Lalitha Sarachchandra's production interprets, elucidates and expresses admirably the meaning and emotion of the text.

This is a healthy development that should be welcomed rather than condemned as a departure from orthodoxy. Indeed, it is the obligation of sophisticated audiences to expect and encourage talented future dramatic artists to come up with productions that would reveal their own creative interpretations which, one hopes, would depart from both the original of Ediriweera Sarachchandra and this production by Lalitha Sarachchandra.

No play can blossom without good actors. If the St Anthony's College Hall performance is an indication, the present production of Sinhabahu is fortunate to have an excellent cast all round. Jayanath Bandara as the Lion and Sunil Tilakaratne as Sinhabahu, both professionally trained dancers, gave exceptional performances. Witnessing the apparent ease with these actors sing and dance, it is easy to forget how exacting even merely physically their task is. But they did much more than physical exercise.

They sang with power, sonority and perfect control to fill a hall with less than perfect acoustics. And they danced with vigour and beauty in roles that left no respite. Nilakshi Rajivi Helapitiya as the princess gave a superb performance of the tragic heroine, combining outstanding expression and stage presence with elegance of voice. Pieris Samarawickrema as the Narrator, Sanath Vimalasiri as the Viceroy and Deepika Abeygunaratne as Sinhasivali gave skillful, memorable performances.

It was noted above that Sarachchandra borrowed freely from any source he thought was useful. But he was keen to indigenize the borrowed items or styles, and make sure that these served the artistic purpose of enhancing the play`EDs total effect. He was particularly touchy about what might be termed western popular culture in Sri Lanka, for example baila, and was only too aware that his early actors had a natural tendency to precipitate into what he called `ECbaila dance`EE.

He was always on the guard to exorcize any trace of that. The same applied to what he considered 'church singing', despite the fact that in his research on the folk drama he had identified this genre as one of the influences that went into the making of nadagam music. Perhaps it is precisely because he was aware of the contribution of choral church singing to nadagam music that he was keen to see that the connection remained historical. It is to the credit of Lalitha Sarachcandra's production that this precept is scrupulously observed: there is no church singing, and nobody does a baila dance.

(The writer is a professor of Anthropology at the University of Virginia, USA)

A dramatist like no other - Professor Ediriweera Sarachchandra

Author: Randima Attygalle Source: Nation Date: 30/08/2009

Premayen mana ranjithawe- nanditha we
Pushpayen wana sundara we- lankrutha we
Aalayen weli sedi me latha- alayen weli sedi me latha
Mandapayen chandapatha kanditha we hiru rajinduge….
(Maname)

Gale lena bindala, len dora erala
Sinhaba… sinhaba …
Gosin sema thena- gosin hema dena
Nethe kisiwek
Mama denagathimi, mama seka kalemi (Sinhabahu)

Professor Ediriweera Sarachchandra’s quest for an authentically ‘local idiom’ gave birth to theatrical marvels which have stood the test of time. A literary genius who revived Sinhala literature and whose footprints across the local stage have guided many along the paths of wisdom, Prof. Sarachchandra’s legacy is astounding. The Nation salutes this legendary sage whose 13th death anniversary fell on August 16

The sheer lyrical delight interwoven with the mastery of theatrical craft is the genre of late Prof. Ediriweera Sarachchandra. A legendary dramatist, poet, novelist, literary critic and an unrivalled genius of a scholar, Prof. Sarachchandra turned a distinct chapter in the annals of local Sinhala drama. The late sage conceived an unmistakable local idiom of Sinhala drama, nourished by naadagam (folk drama tradition), Jaathakas and Sanskrit tradition. Fruits of such theatrical labours were phenomenal; Maname, Sinhabahu, Pematho jayathi soko, Wessanthara, Mahasara, Loma Hansa being few holding testimony to it. Whilst invigorating the Sinhala drama culture with masterpieces which have stood the test of time, Prof. Sarachchandra had enthralled many a lover of Sinhala drama, inspiring generations of dramatists.

November 3, 1956 marked a decisive era in the history of modern Sinhala drama, when Maname went on the boards at the Lionel Wendt Theatre. Inspired by Chulla Dhanuddara Jathakaya and drawing the critic acclaim like no other theatre attempt, Maname laid the ‘dais’ for future Sinhala drama.

Sources of inspiration

Celebrated scholar and literary critic Prof. Sucharitha Gamlath, recalling ‘Peradeniya times’ with guru Sarachchandra said, “It was in the late ’50s I came to know Prof. Sarachchandra, in the aftermath of his celebrated Maname. This was the time Sinhabahu was being done, which I believe to be the most fruitful era of Prof. Sarachchandra’s theatrical career. It was the era during which he gained foreign exposure, carried out extensive research and returned to the country. This wealth of experience reaped from contemporary global trends, both eastern and western, reflected in his work.”

Prof. Sarachchandra’s exploitation of both naadagam and Sanskrit tradition of drama is viewed by Prof. Gamlath as a ‘supplementary’ tool of theatre, complementing each other and justifying the end product. “The sources he exploited to nourish Sinhala drama were extensive. From naadagam style, Indian classical style to Western trends, Prof. Sarachchandra derived immense inspiration, out of which was borne an authentic genre of local drama,” he elaborated further.

Prof. Sarachchandra’s contribution to Sinhala literature and kaviya was exceptional. Dr Gunadasa Amarasekera had once identified him as the ‘best Sri Lankan poet ever’, a stance held by numerous other artistes and critics. “The secret behind the success of Prof. Sarachchandra’s poetic faculty is his ability to draw a perfect classical Sinhala idiom. Juxtaposing deep human emotions with simplicity, Prof. Sarachchandra created very poignant, dramatic lyrics parallel to none,” explained Prof. Gamlath, adding that work such as Sahithya Vidyawa, Sinhala Nawakatha Ithihasaya saha Wicharaya, Sinhala Gemi Natakaya are acclaimed as some of the finest Sinhala literary work to date.

In search of a local idiom

‘Modern epoch of Sinhala drama’ is essentially the definition of Prof. Sarachchandra’s theatre craft, in the eyes of eminent artiste and dramatist Jayalath Manoratne. Prof. Sarachchandra is ‘an indispensable shadow’ in the lives of many celebrated artistes today; Manoratne being no exception. “The strides Prof. Sarachchandra took in the Sinhala theatre world, in search of an indigenous idiom, commencing with his landmark creation Maname, were nothing but footsteps for future generations to follow. Acclaimed dramatist late Dayananda Gunawardene is one such classic example of his influence, followed by many more,” explained Manoratne, who first came under the tutelage of Prof. Sarachchandra when he was Prof. of Sinhala at the University of Peradeniya. Having played in the third productions of Maname and Sinhabahu, Manoratne’s breakthrough came in Pematho jayathi soko, where he played the lead role. “This was a turning point in my acting career, followed by Prof. Sarachchandra’s later productions, including Wessanthara, Kada Walalalu, Elowa gihin melowa aawa and Mahasara, in which I was privileged to have portrayed the main role,” added Manoratne.

A mentor of inspiration

‘Wit, forthrightness and simplicity’ are the cornerstones which made the mettle of this legendary artiste, according to Buddhadasa Galappatty, whose acquaintance with Prof. Sarachchandra dates back to 1969, when he became the stage manager for the reproduction of Maname. “I was introduced to Prof. Sarachchandra by my guru Prof. Tissa Kariyawasam, when Maname was to be reproduced. I was privileged to have worked with most of the ‘maiden cast’ of Maname, including Trilicia Gunawardene, Ben Sirimanna, Edmund Wijesinghe, Shaman Wijesinghe and Lionel Fernando in 1969. Padmakumara Ediriweera and Wimaladharma Diyasena were the chief makeup artistes of Prof. Sarachchandra’s plays at the time, and I was fortunate to have come under the guidance of them, whose expertise inspired me,” recalled Galappatty, who bid adieu to his days as a stage manager and took up the creative and the demanding task of a makeup artiste. Since then, Galappatty has been adding his creative flavour to all productions of Prof. Sarachchandra. “The fact that I was going to be a huge part of legendary Prof. Sarachchandra’s labours, unnerved me at first,” recalled Galappatty with a smile.

Key to Prof. Sarachchandra’s theatrical success is also attributed to his discipline and sense of time, according to Galappatty. “He was a strong advocate of time and discipline, demanding absolute focus on the task ahead, that was unconsciously drilled into everybody closely associated with him,” he explained.

Stylized drama was the forte of Prof. Sarachchandra, which he exploited in depth, his lyrical faculties enriching it. “His gift for lyrics was simply exceptional that, if one says he’s the best Sinhala poet we ever had, I think it’s no exaggeration,” said Galappatty further.

Best theatre researcher ever
Revered traditions of drama, deeply rooted, were brought to the modern stage by Prof. Sarachchandra with a seemingly ease, blending east with the west and giving birth to what can be correctly patented as ‘authentically Sri Lankan’. “Prof. Sarachchandra is the best theatre researcher Sri Lanka ever had. Blending naadagam, sokari, Tamil dance and song tradition, Kabuki and the western modes, he developed a drama tradition which we can call uniquely Sri Lankan,” explained eminent dramatist Dharmasiri Bandaranayake. According to Bandaranayake, the in-depth and tireless research of Prof. Sarachchandra, undoubtedly strengthened and shaped the faculties of his ‘golayas’. “Dayananda Gunawardene, Sugathapala de Silva are best examples who took his legacy forward with their individual style,” said Bandaranayake, adding that, the time has dawned upon Sri Lankan theatre to look back, reminisce and may be even revert to that ‘rich research era’ of drama.

Human life and its pathos were the ‘life’ of all Prof. Sarachchandra’s work, believes Bandaranayake. “Whether it was Maname, Sinhabahu, Wessanthara, Pematho jayathi soko or his celebrated literary work, Malawunge Avurudu da or Malagiya eththo, it is essentially human ethos, Prof. Sarachchandra brought to life,” final words of Bandaranayake seemed to transpire the wisdom embedded in complexity and intricacy of the late sage’s evergreen literary marvels…

(Photo credit: The Nation extends its sincere thanks to Buddhadasa Galappatty for providing access to photographs of D.B. Suranimala and late D. Galappatty)

SYMPOSIUM: SRI LANKA'S CULTURAL EXPERIENCE Between Home and the World

In the decades after Independence, Sinhala drama, which was once relegated to the periphery of cultural life, emerged into the spotlight as a vibrant mode of artistic expression.

Author:A.J. GUNAWARDENA
Source:Frontline Date: 13 - 26, 1999

SINHALA drama, in common with most other contemporary art forms of Sri Lanka, occupies a bipolar universe characterised by a complex set of tensions and associations occurring between the traditional and the modern, the indigenous and the foreign, or in a Tagorean phrase, between the home and the world. This situation is in large measure the product of certain features that are peculiar to the culture and to the historical circumstances surrounding them. Among these, the most important factor has been the relatively low social status accorded to mimetic and performative arts. Sinhala literature, which has a distinguished tradition going back to early medieval times, eschewed drama altogether. Until almost the beginning of this century, the theatrical arts were confined to the folk domain. And since folk theatre was tied to single texts or a cluster of specific texts concerning myth and legend, dramatic writing remained a virtually unknown craft in Sinhala society.

This situation changed marginally during the latter half of the 18th century with the emergence of a form of theatre known as nadagam. A folk theatre strongly influenced by the Catholic Church, and originally dedicated to the enactment of biblical tales, nadagam progressively turned into a vehicle of popular entertainment divorced from liturgical texts. It thus created a demand for new texts, and the habit of dramatic composition, albeit at a rather crude level, came into being. Writing for nadagam, however, never left the folk stratum.

The arrival of Parsi or 'company' theatre in the penultimate decade of the 19th century marked a major turning point in the history of Sinhala drama. Known in Sinhala as nurti, the Parsi theatre captured audiences in much the same way that another Mumbai product - the Hindi film - was to do several decades later. Nurti was a form of entertainment the likes of which had not been witnessed in the country before. It offered action, costume, song, dance, colour, magic, spectacle - a conflation that proved an immediate hit with the urban, educated Sinhala public as well as with the working classes.

Nurti, an ungainly hybrid with little to recommend it artistically, had a long-lasting impact on Sinhala culture. Its captivating melodies invigorated the process that led to the adoption of the North Indian ragadhari school as their classical music discipline by the Sinhala people. At the same time, nurti also initiated and promoted the activity of formal dramatic composition in the Sinhala language, for the commercial stage had to be fed with new plays.

The pieces written for the nurti stage by Sinhala writers reflected the ethos of the times. Although never openly anti-British, or contemporary in character and situation, these plays gave voice to the rising chorus of nationalist sentiment. The playwrights recalled a glorious past and rallied the people against alien habits and values. Despite its popularity - or rather because of it - nurti was unable to develop into a mature and sinewy dramatic form. An urban-based commercial enterprise, nurti could not survive the challenge of motion pictures, especially that of the products of Mumbai and Chennai. By the 1930s, the curtain had come down on nurti as a regular stage presence. However, the lacuna was filled before long by another species of 'company' theatre - one that followed the basic structure of nurti but dealt with contemporary characters and situations. These plays addressed such social issues as caste and the dowry system, in a manner resembling Hindi and Tamil films.

Once more, however, Sinhala drama was swallowed by film. This time, though, the post-nurti stage establishment volitionally embraced this fate. Beginning in 1947, theatrical professionals gave up the stage altogether and began converting their repertory for the silver screen. (This, incidentally, was how the Sinhala film came into being.) Plays became films, often preserving their inherent theatrical structures. The departure of theatrical personalities and their popular wares to South Indian studios (where the actual conversion was done) spelled the end of the professional Sinhala stage. What took its place, and has been evolving during the 50 years since Independence, is essentially a non-commercial theatre peopled by dedicated amateurs who do not expect to make a living from the stage. Since that time the money and rewards offered by theatre have not sufficed to provide an independent livelihood for its practitioners.

The roots of the Sinhala drama that succeeded the professional stage go back to exercises in translation and adaptation undertaken by the English-educated literati who were inspired by the example of modern Western drama. As in the case of most other Asian countries, there were in Sri Lanka groups of concerned individuals who wished to develop a drama that was both modern and yet accessible to an uninstructed audience. They hoped to achieve this end through the translation and adaptation of suitable Western plays. In Sri Lanka, the choice included Gogol, Chekhov and Moliere.

By the 1950s, this approach appeared to have reached something of a dead end. The modes of realism and naturalism had failed to produce works of substance, and indeed continued to look and sound rather alien to the Sinhala stage. Sinhala drama seemed to have lost all sense of direction and purpose. It was at this point that Ediriweera Sarachchandra, Sri Lanka's greatest playwright, came into the scene.

Sarachchandra, an academic by occupation, was a moderniser who was essentially Tagorean in spirit. Indeed, he had spent some of his formative years at Santiniketan and subscribed to the intercultural philosophy of Tagore. Sarachchandra, convinced that the direct emulation of Western forms was not the way forward for Sinhala drama, sought to attain a viable fusion of the Western and Asian modes. He further believed that drama was a poetic medium which, most properly, should concern itself with perennial themes, and not with quotidian issues. The use of poetry, music, song, dance and stylised gesture on the modern stage was entirely appropriate, he argued.

Sarachchandra's work for the stage followed these principles. Writing and directing the plays himself, he demonstrated outstanding poetic gifts and a sure grasp of modern stagecraft. Always working with 'found material' such as Buddhist Jataka stories and folk tales, he experimented with traditional theatrical forms. For his path-breaking "Maname" (1956), Sarachchandra employed the almost extinct nadagam form. This turned out to be an inspired choice, for the nadagam elegantly accommodated the theatrical vocabulary he favoured.

BY SPECIAL ARRANGEMENT
Playwright Ediriweera Sarachchandra. He believed drama was a poetic medium which should concern itself with perennial themes.

"Maname" accomplished several objectives. While offering an exceptionally satisfying theatrical experience, the play validated the path that Sarachchandra sought to follow. It demonstrated that a productive fusion of the traditional and the modern was not only feasible on stage but desirable. As a shining example of new possibilities in theatre, "Maname" brought self-esteem and a mood of self-confidence into the sphere of Sinhala theatrical activity.

Over time, however, "Maname" and Sarachchandra's subsequent dramatic output, along with his general philosophy of theatre, generated an adverse critique. It was argued that Sarachchandra's kind of drama and the theatrical conventions he followed could neither reflect the actualities of contemporary society nor articulate thematic concerns of a social and political nature. It was also pointed out that Sarachchandra's preoccupation with so-called 'eternal values' deflected attention from the real and pressing issues of the day. The view was also expressed that the use of song, music and stylised gesture could lead to unwholesome aesthetic indulgence on stage.

The controversy centring on Sarachchandra's dramaturgy split the Sinhala theatre world into two camps. Although it failed to maintain a high level of understanding or historical knowledge, the debate was a necessary exercise - an evolutionary need, as it were - in a medium that was trying to define itself. However acrimonious at times, the exchanges had a salutary effect in the long run. They led to the realisation that drama and theatre do not permit facile categorisations.

Notwithstanding the authoritative role played by Western models in Sinhala drama, the general movement or progression has been towards the consolidation of a presentation or performative mode of theatre as opposed to the representational. Examples of authentic realism are infrequent on the Sinhala stage, and naturalism is practically unknown.

The thematic scope and the performative range of Sinhala drama palpably broadened after the advent of "Maname". From the 1960s onwards, material of a social and political tendency captured much of the theatrical space. The stage spoke loudly and passionately about problems and conflicts thrown up in a society undergoing rapid change on all fronts. Playwrights rode full tilt against the iniquities and injustices of the social order, the hypocrisies and dissemblings of those who sat in places of power, and the general decline of moral and ethical values. The Sinhala stage functioned as a sprightly forum of debate and discussion, moving away from the contemplative and the lyrical and favouring the rhetorical and the dialectical.

BY SPECIAL ARRANGEMENT
Edmund Wijesinghe as Vedda King and Trilicia Gunawardena as Princess in the first production of Ediriweera Sarachchandra's "Maname" (1956).

During the years after "Maname", Sinhala drama enlisted the energies of succeeding generations and established itself as the most exciting and provocative medium of experiment and socio-political utterance in the country. But its artistic growth has hardly kept up the promise of the 1950s. The Sinhala theatre has shown an abundance of individual talent, but weak organisational structures together with the lack of professional commitment have stymied progress. Pre-censorship of texts has also been a discouraging factor for playwrights and producers. Nor has there been a substantial augmentation of the repertoire of plays available for production.

The profile of Sinhala drama changed radically within a decade of Independence. Over the decades, a medium once relegated to the periphery of cultural life emerged into the spotlight as a sinewy and vibrant mode of artistic expression. Two factors lay behind this metamorphosis. One was the confidently affirmative attitude towards traditional arts, which developed in the aftermath of Independence. The other was individual talent. The dissonances between tradition and modernity continue to persist on the Sinhala stage despite its eclectic and liberal approach to the craft. Perhaps these can never be fully resolved, given that drama cannot fail to mirror social and cultural conflict.

A.J. Gunawardena, who died in October 1998, was the Head of the Department of English at Sri Jayawardenapura University and also of the Institute of Aesthetic Studies. He was one of Sri Lanka's leading critics of theatre and film.

Maname sets the wheel of drama in motion

Author: Rupa BANDUWARDENA

Source: Sunday Observer

Date: 30/11/2008

A scene from Maname

Prof. Ediriweera Sarachchandra

It was refreshing to take a quite walk climbing up the hillock to Sanghamitta, then taking the curve round, just behind, adjoining the University Medical Centre was his abode-his bungalow - the centre of drama activity with the rays of the morning sun, holding the hand of his daughter Sunethra he would take a walk slowly going down the hillock to the area amazingly serene breathtakingly nice, with well laid out gardens, the exotic park with Tudor style halls of residence.

A few yards ahead you would find the one and only university of world standing, the magnificent seat of learning where nature itself had created an ideal and a favourable site to achieve all round academic excellence. It was against this backdrop that the greatest drama Maname the brainchild of the great master emerged in mid 1956. He was none other than late Prof. Ediriweera Sarachchandra. With this masterpiece, he set in motion, the wheel of drama.

My memories flash back to the time, that my friends to this day, Rupa, Shiva, Winnie, Chandra and Beatrice would be watching him from the balcony each one making their comments on the days, he was on his walking spree. At other times he would go in his green Volkswagen - EL 497, where he pleased, mostly to the lecture halls, to deliver his lectures. After returning from his research work in Japan he would talk of Kabuki" . Within him Maname was coming to light. His interests were centred round drama, being the first to introduce a new type to the Lankan Society.

Looking back after 50 odd years, this authority on drama was an amazing character. Maname was a remarkable achievement and a historic victory for him. It had become so much a part of his life. Still later if became his sole life. Very soon fame and fortune came upon him.

All drama loving people seemed to be in love with him. Subsequently the whole university and the entire island. It came to be ranked as the first ever best drama written and produced at the time. It was a superb drama - par excellence. Due to his gifted interest and determination, young talent was explored to its fullest. Edmond Wijesinghe, Shyamon, Pastor Lionel, Trilicia, Hemamali, Indrani, Trixie and Swarna were the lucky ones to be his choice.

They were indeed privileged to participate and enjoy. He produced them to be the most talented actors Sri Lanka had ever produced at the time. Apart from being famous for creating a revolutionary change in drama he was hailed as the greatest contributor to the drama world.

A long felt need in drama to be fulfilled, since early Nadagam style, was his prime aim and concern. With his Buddhist outlook, one of the most interesting and best known Jataka stories formed the theme of his drama. This particular Jataka Story of his choice reflects a very moving human account. Very entertaining, yet full of advice. All human emotions - love, sorrow and joy are all well depicted. In his quest for a right person, to give life to nadagam songs, stylised and rhythmic walk he came across Charles Silva Gunasingha Gurunnanse, well versed, efficient and experienced in the task. He was entrusted with that part of the drama, with his son Norman who was involved with rhythmic beating of drums. The dedicated duo was carrying out their duties to the very letter which kept the great master satisfied and happy. It was purely based on Sri Lankan traditional music creating a distinct Sri Lankan identity.

Drama practices were held in his residence where the foundation was laid for the pageant of great aesthetic, social and cultural value in Sri Lanka's past and present. The most exciting event of the drama commences with Pothe Guru, Shyaman who with his fitting stature opened the show with an impressive performance. Handsome guy Sirimanne played the role of Maname prince with feelings. Trilicia as the Maname Queen, and Hemamali too-were beautiful charming poised young girls who made it a unique one.

Trilicia and Edmond made history as the first duo to add majesty to their scenes so much so that the heroic courage and the commitment of the veddah king was well proved, by the circle of sweat seen on the stage after his performance. A close friend and a colleague of the Master, Prof. Siri Gunasinha who was responsible for fascinating array of colourful costumes adding colour to the show was not without gain and that was the time that Hemamali was blessed with a ray of hope regarding her future which later compelled her to bid good bye to her role with her marriage. It was heartwarming to listen to the splendidly dressed chorus with their captivating voices.

The entire cast did pretty well making the creater happiest ever. The song "Premayen Manaranjithawe......" had become the hot favourite of Lankans. Later Maname had been introduced as a lesson in the prescribed text for higher grades which the students enjoyed with thrill and joy in the classroom with a rhythmic clapping of their hands. It is so sad that some members of the original cast are not among the living. They have been taken from our midst far too early. But they are very much alive in our hearts.The much talked about, Maname the greatest show was launched in late 1956.

It is still being talked about by many - the few who are among the living. It was first staged in the open air stadium, also the brainchild of Prof. Sarachchandra, even today arousing golden memories of an exciting event. It was a wonderful opportunity for the starving drama lovers.

The Maname he cheated kept moving, with rising demand from all quarters. It had its days of glory when it first started going round the island.

With the Dram Soc playing a leading role, trips were arranged to have shows during weekends in many cities of the island. Everybody was clamouring to see and enjoy.

The places were fully packed and they were continually applauding. I have a pleasant recollection of the day Maname was staged at Rahula College auditorium in Matara. It was yet another lovely day for me and my friend Shiva.

While at Matara we hardly missed any show of this calibre. Maname at Matara still holds fond memories of the illustrious Master, the gifted genius, and his galaxy of dedicated actors.

When looking back Maname was a true wonder and a marvellous gift to the drama world. It had a profound influence in the evolution of drama as he was really, the key to the outstanding success of the later dramas.

The impact of Maname was so deep that it paved the way for subsequent dramas to be produced by his pupils and close associates. His pupils and his own family are keeping him alive by following his footsteps, carrying on his values and principles. Prof. Sarachchandra, the Drama Patriot marked a significant milestone in aesthetic history. The service thus rendered to his Motherland and Sinhala culture will linger on.

යහපත් සමාජ ප්‍රගමනය මගේ දේශපාලනයයි ප්‍රවීණ නාට්‍යකරු ධර්මසිරි බණ්ඩාරනායක යළිත් වේදිකාවට

Author: Ravi Rathnawell
Source: Sarasaviya
Date: 01/10/2009

ශ්‍රී ලාංකේය වේදිකාවට ‘ඒකා අධිපති’, ‘මකරාක්ෂයා’, ‘ධවල භීෂණ’, ‘යක්ෂාගමනය’, ‘ට්‍රෝජන් කාන්තාවෝ’ යන අති දැවැන්ත වූත් අතිශය සාර්ථක වූත් නාට්‍යයන් එක් කළ, ප්‍රවීණ සිනමාවේදියකු හා නාට්‍යවේදියකු වන ධර්මසිරි බණ්ඩාරනායකයන් යළිත් එකී නාට්‍යයන් හි නව නිෂ්පාදනයන් සමඟ ඔහුගේ නවතම වේදිකා නාට්‍ය වන ‘මායා’ වේදිකාවට ගෙන ඒමට සූදානම් වෙයි. මෙවර වේදිකාවේ කතිකාව ඒ නිමිත්තෙනි.

* කලකට පසු නැවතත් ඔබ වේදිකාව දෙසට හැරෙනවා?

ඔව්. වේදිකා නාට්‍ය හැමදාමත් මට අලුත් ජීවිතයක් හිමි කර දෙනවා. නිර්මාණකරුවෙක් හැටියට මම වඩාත්ම සතුටට පත් වෙන්නෙත් වේදිකා නාට්‍ය කිරීමෙනුයි. මගේ නාට්‍යයට සම්බන්ධ ශිල්පීන්ගේ දක්ෂතා දැකීම, නාට්‍යාගාරයට ඇදී එන ප්‍රේක්ෂකයන්ගේ ඇසුර හා ප්‍රතිචාර මගේ ජීවිතය තුළ මට සතුට ගෙන දෙන දේවල්.

රාජ්‍ය නාට්‍ය උළෙල හෝ නාට්‍ය තරග ඉලක්ක කරගෙන නාට්‍යය කරන පුරුද්දක් මට නෑ. ඒත් මම අවසන් වරට කරපු ට්‍රෝජන් කාන්තාවෝ දක්වාම මගේ නාට්‍ය, විනිශ්චය මණ්ඩලයේ ඇගැයීමට ලක් වෙලා තියෙනවා.

මම එක්තරා කාලෙක වේදිකාවෙන් චිත්‍රපටියට ගිය නිසා වේදිකාව මඟ ඇරුණා. ඒ තත්ත්වය දිගටම තිබුණොත් මම නාට්‍යයත් එක්ක හිටියේ නෑ වගේ වෙනවා.

ඒ වගේම නිතර විදේශ සංචාරයන්ට එකතු වෙන්න ලැබීමත්, එතෙන්දි ජර්මනිය, එංගලන්තය, ස්විට්සර්ලන්තය, ප්‍රංශය වගේ රටවල ඒ රටේ වෘත්තීමය නාට්‍යකරුවන්, නාට්‍ය කලාවේ ඉහළ තාක්ෂණය වගේ දේවල් ඇතුව කළ නිර්මාණ සමඟ අඩු පහසුකම්, අඩු තාක්ෂණය යටතේ නොයකුත් දුෂ්කරතා මධ්‍යයේ කළ අපේ නිර්මාණ සසඳා බලද්දී මට තේරුණා අපේ නාට්‍යයේ අර කියපු නාට්‍යවලට වඩා ප්‍රගතියක් තියෙන වග. ඒ සියල්ලත් එක්ක අපේ අත්දැකීම් නැවත බෙදා හදා ගන්න ඕනෑය කියලා කල්පනා කළා.

* ඔබේ පෙරගමන්කරුවන් ගැන මොන වගේ අදහසක්ද තියෙන්නේ?

හැත්තෑව දශකයේ අපි වේදිකාවට ආවේ අපට පෙර පරම්පරාව ප්‍රභාමත්ව මේ ක්ෂේත්‍රයේ වැජඹෙන කාලෙක. ඒ වගේම අපි ඒ ප්‍රවීණයන්ව වගේම ඔවුන්ගේ නිර්මාණත් ඉතාමත් කිට්ටුවෙන් ඇසුරු කළා.

හෙන්රි ජයසේන, සුගතපාල ද සිල්වා, ධම්ම ජාගොඩ වගේ ප්‍රවීණයන් අපව හැසිරෙව්වේ විශාල කැපවීමකින්. විශාල දැනුම් සම්භාරයක් ඇතුව, අපිව ඔවුන් මෙහෙයෙව්වේ හුදු නළුවෙක් නිළියක් හැටියට නෙවෙයි. මේ නිසාම මොවුන්ගේ ඇසුර ඇත්තෙන්ම අපට භාග්‍යයක් වුණා.

අපි වේදිකාවට නළුවන් හැටියට ගොඩ වුණාට ඒ වේදිකාවේදී අපි සම්බන්ධ වුණු නිර්මාණ අපේ ජීවිත වලට යම් සාරයක්, ආලෝකයක් එකතු කළා. නිර්මාණකරුවෙක් හැටියට වංචනිකයන් නොවෙන්නත්, පෙරහැරවලට එක් වී වන්දි බට්ටකම් නොකර ඉන්නත් අවශ්‍ය ශක්තිය, ආත්ම විශ්වාසය, දැක්ම අපට ලබා දුන්නේ අර ප්‍රවීණයන්ගේ මඟ පෙන්වීමෙන්, මෙහෙයවීමෙන් අපි සම්බන්ධ වුණු නිර්මාණයි.

* ඔබේ මුල්ම වේදිකා නාට්‍ය නිර්මාණ අත්දැකීම ගැන මතක් කළොත්?

මම ඒකා අධිපති රචනා කළේ 1975 දී. නිෂ්පාදනය කළේ 76 දී. උපාලි අත්තනායක, යූ. ආරිය විමල් වගේ ප්‍රවීණයන් එක්ක එකතු වෙලා මුහුරත් උළෙල කරපු ඒ නාට්‍ය වේදිකාගත කරන කොට හිටියේ සුනේත්‍රා සරච්චන්ද්‍ර ඇතුළු අලුත්ම ඒ වගේම තරුණ පිරිසක්. එතකොට මගේ වයස අවුරුදු 26 යි. ඒත් අපි ඒ නාට්‍ය සාර්ථකව කළා.

71 කැරැල්ලෙන් පස්සේ එදා රටේ තිබුණු තත්ත්වය ගැන අපේ කල්පනාලෝකය මෙහෙය වුණු තත්ත්වයන් ගැන ප්‍රකාශනයක් හැටියටයි එය එළියට එන්නේ.

එදා ඒ වයසෙදීත් අපි මේ මහ පොළොවේ දේවල් සිද්ධ වෙන හැටි ඝාතනය, දූෂණය, නාස්තිය වගේ දේවල් හසු කර ගන්න සමත් වෙලා තිබුණා. ඒ අවුරුද්දේ රාජ්‍ය නාට්‍ය උළෙලේ හොඳම නළුවා, හොඳම සංගීතය (කේමදාසයන්) ඇතුළු වැදගත් සම්මාන කිහිපයක්ම ලැබුණා.

නමුත් මේ නාට්‍යයට ලැබුණු ප්‍රේක්ෂක ප්‍රතිචාරය අපි හීනෙන්වත් අපේක්ෂා නොකළ එකක්. අපි බොහෝම සීරියස් දේශපාලන නාට්‍යයක් හැටියට කළ ඒ නාට්‍ය ප්‍රේක්ෂකයන් භාර ගත්තේ හොඳ ප්‍රහසනයක් හැටියටයි. ඒ ප්‍රතිචාරයෙන් ඇත්තෙන්ම අපි තිගැස්සුණා. අවසානයේ දර්ශනවාර 1400 කට වඩා රට වටා ගෙන යන්න අපට පුළුවන්කම ලැබුණා.

* මෙවරත් ඔබ ‘ඒකා අධිපති’ ගෙන් පටන් ගන්න හිතුවේ ඇයි?

එදා ඒ නාට්‍ය වටා රසිකයන් හැටියට එකතු වුණු බොහෝ දෙනා අද මගේ වයසේ ඉන්නේ. ඒකා අධිපති නාට්‍යයට දැන් අවුරුදු 33 ක් වෙනවා. නැවත එය වේදිකාවට ගේන්නේ තවත් දර්ශන වාර දාහක් හමාරක් පෙන්න ගැනීමේ අරමුණින් නෙවෙයි.

එකක් තමයි ඒ නාට්‍යයට ලැබුණු පේ‍්‍රක්ෂක විචාරක ප්‍රතිචාරය. සමහරු එය වාමාංශික දේශපාලන නැඹුරුවක් සහිත සුගතපාලගේ දුන්න දුණුගමුවේ නාට්‍ය ධාරාව තවදුරටත් ඉදිරියට ගෙන යාමක්, මානවවාදී එහෙමත් නැත්නම් ජනතාවාදී නාට්‍ය කලාවක් හැටියට හැඳින්නුවා.

ගුණදාස අමරස්කර වගේ කෙනෙක් ඒ නාට්‍ය හැඳීන්නුවේ පපඩම් නාට්‍යයක් කියලයි මහාචාර්ය සරච්චන්ද්‍රයන් කිව්වේ මෙය සැබැවින්ම ස්වතන්ත්‍ර නිර්මාණයක් නම් එය විශිෂ්ට නාට්‍යයක්ය කියලයි. ආචාර්ය සරත් අමුණුගමටත් තිබුණේ මෙය සාර්ථක සාධනීය නාට්‍යයක්ය කියන අදහසයි.

මෙන්න මේ වගේ ප්‍රතිචාර වලට ලක් වුණු නාට්‍යයක් එදා මම නිර්මාණය කළේ ඇයිද කියන එක ගැන අද ඉන්න පරම්පරාවට හිතන්න අවස්ථාවක් ලැබෙනවා නැවත ඒ නාට්‍ය වේදිකාවට ගෙන ඒමෙන්.

එදා ඒකාධිපති වේදිකාවට ආවේ මැතිනිය ගේ පාලනය එළියට විසි වෙමින් තිබුණු පසුබිමකයි. ජනතා විමුක්ති පෙරමුණේ නායක විජේවීර වගේම එදා ශ්‍රීලනිපයේ ප්‍රමුඛයොත් මේ නාට්‍ය බලන්න ආවා. ඒ නාට්‍යයේ එක වචනයක්වත් වෙනස් නොකරයි මෙවර මා නැවතත් එය වේදිකාවට ගෙන එන්නේ.

* ඔබේ පැරණි නාට්‍ය නැවත වේදිකා ගත වෙන්නේ මොන විදිහටද?

මම කල්පනා කළා මා අතින් නිර්මාණය වුණු සියලුම නාට්‍ය ඉදිරි කාලයේදී එකින් එක නැවත නිෂ්පාදනය කරන්න. ඒකට එකතු වෙන මගේ අලුත්ම නාට්‍ය ‘මායා’ එක්ක ඔක්කොම නාට්‍ය හයක්.

ඒ වගේම විභාගවලට නියමිත නාට්‍ය වලට පිටින් තියෙන ප්‍රෙක්ෂකාගාරය කිරා මැන බැලීමේ ඕනෑකමකුත් මට තියෙනවා. ඒ වගේම වේදිකා නාට්‍ය පිළිබඳ විවිධ අදහස් මති මතාන්තර දරන අය හැටියට අපේ ඒ මතවාද සනාථ කරන්න නම් ඒවා නිර්මාණ හැටියට වේදිකාවට ගෙන ආ යුතුයි කියලයි මම විශ්වාස කරන්නේ.

* එදා සහ අද වේදිකාව ගැන සැසඳීමක් කළොත්?

එදා මම මරසාද් නාට්‍ය බලලා එළියට එන්නේ මගේ ධවල භීෂණ නාට්‍යයට දායක කර ගන්න පුළුවන් නළු නිළියන් ගැනත් අදහසක් ඇතුව. ජැක්සන් ඇන්තනි, ඩබ්ලිව්. ජයසිරි, ධම්ම ජාගොඩ, කෞෂල්‍යා වගේ අය මගේ නිර්මාණවල හවුල්කරුවන් වෙන්නේ ඒ විදිහට.

ඒත් අද ඉන්න තරුණ පිරිස ඉතාමත් දුෂ්කර තත්ත්වයන් යටතේ නාට්‍ය කරනවා. නමුත් ඒ අලුත් නාට්‍ය බලලා එළියට එද්දී එදා අපට අර නාට්‍යවලින් ලැබුණු උද්දීපනය අද ලැබෙන්නේ නෑ.

ඒ නිසාත් අපේ මතු පුරපුරට අර්ථවත් නිර්මාණ කිහිපයක් හෝ නැවත දැක බලා ගන්න, රස විඳින්න අවස්ථාවක් ලබා දිය යුතුය කියලයි මට හිතෙන්නේ.

* අද නාට්‍ය ශාලා රසවතුන්ගෙන් හිස් වෙලාය කියනවා. මේකට ඔබ දකින හේතු?

ඒකා අධිපති, මකරාක්ෂයා ඉඳලා ට්‍රෝජන් කාන්තාවෝ දක්වාම විවිධ තලවල ප්‍රේක්ෂකයන්ට මගේ නිර්මාණවලින් මම අමතලා තියෙනවා. ඒ ප්‍රේක්ෂකාගාරය එදා තරම්ම නැතත් එදා තිබුණු විශිෂ්ට නාට්‍ය බලන ප්‍රෙක්ෂකාගාරයක් අදත් තියෙන වග මට දැනෙනවා.

ප්‍රේක්ෂකයන් නාට්‍යාගාරය හැර ගියා නම් ඒක එහෙම වුණේ ඔවුන්ට නාට්‍ය එපා වෙලා නෙවෙයි. එදා මගේ නිර්මාණවලට ගුවන් හමුදාවේ, යුද හමුදාවේ සේවය කළ අය වගේම රජයේ ලිපිකරුවෙකු වුණු මම ඇතුළු මා වගේ අයත් සම්බන්ධ වුණා.

රැකියාවේ හෙම්බත් බවෙන් මිදෙන්න තමයි මම සාහිත්‍ය කලා රස වින්දනයටත්, එතනින් නිර්මාණකරණයටත් යොමු වෙන්නේ. එදා නාට්‍යාගාරයේ වැඩියෙන්ම හිටියේ රජයේ සේවකයෝ. ඒ අය විවිධ තරාතිරම්වල රසිකයන්.

ඒ රසික පිරිස අඩු වෙන්න එහෙමත් නැත්නම් ප්‍රේක්ෂකාගාරය හිස් වෙන්න හේතු වුණේ අපේ ජන ජීවිතවලට සමාජයට සිද්ධ වුණු විපත්. විපත් කිව්වේ සුනාමිය, ගංවතුර වගේ ස්වභාවික විපත් නෙවෙයි. සමාජයට සිද්ධ වුණු දේශපාලන විපත්.

අසූවේ වැඩ වර්ජනයෙන් රජයේ සේවකයන් විශාල පිරිසක් මහ පාරට වැටුණා. ඒක මේ සමාජ හිස මතට වැදුණු දැවැන්ත මිටි පහරක්. ඊළඟට ඇති වුණු කරුළි කෝලාහල නිසා පවුල් පිටින් අනාථ වුණා.

ඒ වගේම අසූ තුනේ දෙමළ ජනයාට විරුද්ධව කළ විපතෙන් සිනමා කර්මාන්තය ඇතුළු ක්ෂේත්‍ර ගණනාවක්ම කඩා වැටුණා. අවසානයේ මේ යුද ජයග්‍රහණය දක්වාම අපේ මිනිස් සමාජය අති විශාල විපත් ගණනාවකටම මුහුණ පෑවා. මෙන්න මේ සමාජ විපත අපේ ප්‍රේක්ෂකාගාරය හිස් වෙන්න සෘජුවම බලපෑවාය කියන එකයි මගේ විශ්වාසය.

* ඔබ වැඩ කරන්නේ තෝරා ගත් ශිල්පීන් පිිරිසක් එක්ක විතරයි, මෙහෙම වෙන්න විශේෂ හේතුවක් තියෙනවාද?

මෙතෙක් මාත් එක්ක, මගේ නිර්මාණවලට දායක වුණු ශිල්පීන් හා ශිල්පිනියන්ට මගේ විශේෂ කැමැත්තක්, ඇල්මක් තියෙනවා. ඒකට හේතුව ඒ අය මාවත්, මම වැඩ කරන විදිහත් තේරුම් ගත්තු පිරිසක්. ඒ අයගේ තියෙන කැපවීම, උනන්දුව මට ඉතා වැදගත්.

ඒ අය හුදු නළුවෙක්, නිළියක් කියන තැනින් එහාට ගිය මගේ හොඳ මිත්‍රයො පිරිසක්. ඒ වගේම නිර්මාණකරුවෙක් හැටියට ඒ අය තුළ මා කෙරෙහි, මගේ නිර්මාණ කෙරෙහි තියෙන විශ්වාසයත් මට වැදගත්.

එහෙම තෝර ගත් අය අතරත් මතභේද නැතුව නෙවෙයි. නමුත් අපට පුළුවන්කම තියෙනවා නාට්‍ය ගැන වගේම සෙසු කාරණා ගැනත් විවෘතව කතා කරන්න, වාද විවාද කරන්න. මගේ නිර්මාණවලට යළි යළිත් එම පිරිසම දායක වෙන්න මේවා තමයි හේතු.

ට්‍රෝජන් කාන්තාවෝ කරද්දී මම අලුත් පිරිසක් එකතු කර ගන්න උත්සාහ ගත්තා. නමුත් එතෙන්දි මම අත්දැක්කා අලුත් පරම්පරාවේ අයට වඩා අනෝජා, මීනා, යශෝධා වගේ අය තමන්ට කොතෙකුත් වැඩ රාජකාරී තිබියදීත් මගේ නාට්‍යයට දෙවෙනි තැන නොදී ඒ වෙනුවෙන් කැප වෙලා ඉන්න විදිහත්, අලුත් අයට ඒ කැපවීම හා වගකීම නොතිබුණ බවත්.

නමුත් මගේ මුල්කාලීන නිර්මාණවලට මම දායක කර ගත්තු ඩබ්ලිව්. ජයසිරි, ජැක්සන්, දයා අල්විස්, ජනක කුඹුකගේ මේ හැමෝම ඒ නාට්‍ය තමන්ගේ නාට්‍යයක් හැටියට සලකමිනුයි වැඩ කළේ.

මොකද ඔවුන් අත්දැකීමෙන් දන්නවා හොඳ නිර්මාණයක් වෙනුවෙන් කරන කැපවීමෙන් ඒ නිර්මාණයට වගේම පෙරලා තමන්ගේ ජීවිතයටත් එයින් විශාල ආලෝකයක් ලැබෙන බව.

* රංගන ශිල්පියෙක් යම් නිර්මාණයකට දායක වීම කියන කාරණය ඔබ දකින්නේ මොන විදිහටද?

තෝර ගන්න ශිල්පීන්ව මගේ නිර්මාණයට අවශ්‍ය විදිහට සකස් කර ගැනීම සඳහා දැවැන්ත මානසික හා මානුෂීය මෙහෙයුමක් කරනවා. තමන්ට ලැබුණු චරිතයට නිසි දැනුමක් තමන් සතුව තියෙනවද කියන එක එතෙන්ට ගොඩ වුණාමයි තමන්ට තේ්රෙන්නේ. පෞද්ගලිකව මම වේදිකාවේ රඟපාන නළුවෙක් වුණාට මම චිත්‍රපටිවලට සුදුසු නළුවෙක් නෙවෙයි.

නමුත් මා තුළ තියෙන රංගන හැකියාව දැනුම උකහා ගත හැකි දක්ෂ අධ්‍යක්ෂවරයෙක් මට අඬ ගැහුවොත් මම ඒ ඉල්ලීමට එකඟ වෙන්න ඉඩ තියෙනවා. ඒත් පළඟැටියෝ වගේ නිර්මාණවලට දායක වෙලා ප්‍රේක්ෂක මතකයේ රැඳිලා ඉඳීම වැදගත්, තමන්ට නොගැළපෙන දේට ආර්ථික වාසි තකා පමණක් දායක වෙලා අර මතකය විනාශ කරනවට වඩා.

* ඔබේ නිර්මාණ සඳහා කෙනෙක් දායක කර ගැනීමේදී ඔබ සලකා බලන්නේ?

අසූව දශකයේ ඩබ්ලිව්. ජයසිරි, ජැක්සන් ඇන්තනි වගේ අය මගේ නිර්මාණවලට දායක කර ගන්න වෙලාවේ ඒ අය මේ ක්ෂේත්‍රයේ මහා නාම වාසගම් තිබුණු අය නෙවෙයි. ගම් දනව්වල ප්‍රේක්ෂකාගාර තමයි ඔවුන් අද ඉන්න තැනට ඔවුන්ව ඔසවා තැබුවේ.

මම ගරු කරන්නේ පුද්ගල ප්‍රතිරූපයට නෙවෙයි. ඒ පුද්ගලයා තුළ තියෙන හැකියාවටයි. නමුත් අපේ නිර්මාණ සමාජය දිහා හැරිලා බැලුවොත් පේනවා අතීතය දිග නෑ වගේම අනාගත නාම ලේඛනයෙත් නාම වාසගම් ඒ තරම් දිග නැහැයි කියන එක.

නළුවා හෝ නිළිය ඔබ දකින්නේ මොන විදිහටද?

නළුවා හෝ නිළියක් කියන්නේ හරිම සංවේදී කෙනෙක්. එකේ තේරුම ඒ අය ළාමකයි කියන එක නෙවෙයි. සුළු දේකට වුණත් ඔවුන්ගේ හිත රිදෙන බව අපි තේරුම් ගන්න ඕනෑ. නිර්මාණකරුවා නළුවකු හෝ නිළියකගේ මනසට බොහෝ දේ දානවා.

ඒ දාන දේවල් ඒ ශිල්පියා තමන්ගේ මනස තුළට දා ගන්නේ බොහෝම සංවේදී හා සියුම් විදිහටය කියන එක අපි තේරුම් ගන්න ඕනෑ. මනසින් ගොරහැඩි කෙනෙකුට නළුවෙකු හෝ නිළියක වෙන්න බෑ. අනිත් අතට නිර්මාණකරුවෙක් , රංගන ශිල්පියෙක් හෝ ශිල්පිනියක් උගතෙක් වෙන්න ඕනෑ.

ඒ විභාග පාස් කිරීමෙන්ම නෙවෙයි. හොඳ සමාජ සමීක්ෂණයක්, නිරීක්ෂණයක් මගින් එක් රැස් කර ගත්තු විශාල දැනුම් සම්භාරයක් ඔහු හෝ ඇය සතු විය යුතුමයි.

නිර්මාණකරුවා කරන්නේ අර විදිහට ශිල්පියා රැස් කරගෙන තියෙන දැනුම නිර්මාණයට අවශ්‍ය පරිදි ඔප මට්ටම් කරලා මතු කරලා ගන්න එකයි. එහෙම නැති ශිල්පියෙක් හෝ ශිල්පිනියක් මේ ක්ෂේත්‍රයේ ඉතා පහත්ම තැනට වැටෙනවා.

* චරිත නිරූපණය කියන දේ ඔබ තේරුම් කරන්නේ කොහොමද?

කලා කෘතියක ඔබ රඟපාන චරිතය ඔබට උගන්වනවා ඔබට ආගන්තුක මිනිස් චරිතයක් තුළ ඔබ රිංගන්න ඕන විදිහ. නළුවා උත්සාහ කරන්නේ තමන් සතු ශිල්පීය දැනුම යොදා ගෙන ඒ ආගන්තුක චරිතය තුළට රිංගා ගන්නයි.

එය සාර්ථක වුණොත් ඔහු තුළ නැති චරිතයේ ගතිකයන් ඔහු එක් කර ගන්නවා. එයින් නොදැනුවත්වම අර චරිතයේ සාධනීය ලක්ෂණත් නළුවා තමන් තුළට උකහා ගැනීමකුත් සිද්ධ වෙනවා.

ඒ අර්ථයෙන්ම කලාව ඇතුළේ අපි කරන හැම දේකින්ම අපේ ජීවිතවලට යමක් අලුතින් එකතු වෙනවා. තමන් වරක් හරියට කරපු චරිතයක් කිසි දවසක තමන්ගෙන් ඈත් වෙන්නේ නෑ. නළු නිළියන් පිළිබඳ විනිශ්චයකට එන්න ඕනෑ ඔන්න ඔය කියන කාරණා එක්කයි.

* මෙවරත් ඔබේ රංගන දායකත්වය තියෙනවාද?

ඔව් Memory Power එක, මතක ශක්තිය නැති වුණු තැන නළුවා ඉවරයි. මම එදා අවුරුදු 60 ක චරිතයක් රඟපෑවේ මගේ වයස අවුරුදු 26 දී. අද මම ඒ වයසට කිට්ටුයි. මට හැබෑවටම දැන් ඒ චරිතය කරන්න පුළුවන්. * ඔබේ කලා භාවිතාව දේශපාලනිකයි?

ඔව්. ඒත් කලාව ආණ්ඩු පෙරළීමේ පහත් කලාව සඳහා මම කිසි දවසක යොදා ගන්නෙත් නෑ. එහෙම යොදා ගන්නත් බෑ. කලාකාරයෝ හැටියට අප කල්පනා කරන්න ඕනත් එහෙමයි. කලාව දායක වෙන්නේ සමාජය ව්‍යසනයෙන් මුදා ගන්නයි.

හැම මනුෂ්‍යයෙක් තුළම දේශපාලනයක් තියෙනවා වගේ මටත් දේශපාලනයක් තියෙනවා. යහපත් සමාජ ප්‍රගමනය තමයි මගේ් දේශපාලනය. මගේ කලා භාවිතාවෙන් ප්‍රකාශ වෙන්නේ මගේ ඒ දේශපාලනයයි.

ඒක හරි ද වැරදි ද කියන එක ඊයේ හෝ අද නෙවෙයි තීරණය වෙන්නේ. අනාගතය විසින් තමයි ඒක තීරණය කරන්නේ. අනික ආර්ථික හා සමාජ අපහසුතා මඟ හරවා ගන්න කලාව හෝ ඉන් ලබා ගත් බලය යොදා ගන්න පුරුද්දක් මට නෑ.

* රාජ්‍ය නාට්‍ය උළෙල ගැන?

නාට්‍ය උළෙල හා සම්බන්ධ රාත්‍රීන් බොහෝම ප්‍රියජනක රාත්‍රීන් හැටියටයි අතීතයේ තිබුණේ. නමුත් අද ඒක ඛේදවාචකයක් වෙලා. අපිත් යම් යම් අවස්ථාවලදී ඒ ඛේදවාචකයේ කොටස්කරුවෝ වුණා.

හැබැයි මගේ මකරාක්ෂයා නාට්‍ය ඇතුළත් රාජ්‍ය නාට්‍ය උළෙලට නල්ලතම්බි ඇතුළත් කරන්න හැදුවාම ඒකට ඉඩ නොදෙන්න තරම් හයියක් එදා නාට්‍ය අනු මණ්ඩලයට තිබුණා.

ඒ වගේම සුගතපාලගේ මරාසාද් නාට්‍යයේ එක වචනයක් අයිං කරන්න ඕනෑය කියන යෝජනාවක් ආවම ඒ වචනෙ අයිං කරනවා නම් තමන් නාට්‍ය අයිං කර ගන්නවාය කියන ස්ථාවරය ගන්න තරම් නාට්‍යකරුවාටත් හයියක් තිබුණා. ඒත් අද ඒක නෑ.

හමුව රවී රත්නවේල්