Music Albums I fancied in 2024

 

It is about time that I evaluate the new music I listened to in 2024. Like the previous years, I had at least tested about 60 new albums, broadly through the genres of rock (i.e. indie / alternative / psychedelic/ new wave / hard / heavy metal ), a little bit of electronica, pop, and even strands of Jazz (but less so than in previous years).

The Bests and The Favourites: I gave a thought on how the album ratings had turned out, and I felt there were the best albums of the year - which rate very highly in the chart - and then there are what might be considered my 'staple diet' or go to music on a given day. This too changes over time, but if I were to name some artistes I would go to often, I'd probably name David Bowie, Black Crowes, R.E.M.  as the main artistes, while Pearl Jam, Depeche Mode, and Genesis would form a second tier. Yet, I would not hesitate to rate Radiohead, Pink Floyd, Prince, George Michael, and Tool among my all time favouruties. All time favourites doesn't necessary mean that you listen to them everyday - you listen to them when you need to - and there are those special moments.

Best Music: It was on the same premise, that I got to interpreting my thoughts on my preference to music this year too, upon seeing how the albums are rated this ranked. I found the dark psychedelia and the haunting vocalist of Portishead, in Beth Gibbons, to have released the most accomplished and consistent album of 2024. At times it touches on a bit of trip-hop from her Portishead days, but mainly stays within the adult-alternative genre. The Smile is when Radiohead is stretched - and then some. Comprising of two members of  Radiohead alongside the drummer, Tom Skinner, The Smile brings on a smile to the listener, as interesting turns in their music keep the listener guessing with their experimental rock. Nick Cave, ranked at no. 4 too is not an everyday artiste too for me. His grand, dramatic delivery is much appreciated, but he certainly isn't everyday music too, for me.  These are some of the best albums of the year for me, but I return to them less frequently than those whom I term as my staple diet of music.

Staple Diets: Within top five the electronic music of Humanist comes closest to being 'my everyday music'. Featuring a host of guest vocalists including, Dave Gahan. The album carries a sound that brings fans of Depeche Mode, The Cure, The Cocteau twins, joy with its consistent sounds. But the most staple diet, a favourite 'rice and curry' from where I come from, or 'a favourite Burgher' in the western world would be the Phish album ranked no. 8, Evolve. I'll be the first to admit that they haven't evolved much since their album - in fact some of the songs are from Trey's last solo album, now performed with his band - but, boy do they work ? The album got me hooked so much, that I prefer it to other 'rice and curry' plates in this list - like 'Happiness Bastards' by Black Crowes (whose old albums like 'Amorica', 'Southern Harmony and the Musical Companion', and 'Before the Freeze' are some of my all time favourite albums'), and Pearl Jam's 'Dark Matter' - in which they sound more like the Pearl Jam of old than their more refined no. 1 album (for me) of 2020, Gigaton. The long awaited Cure album is in the same league, but this one sounds less than their at times cheery ( but lyrically, rarely so) music. Pet Shop boys, now elder statesmen of electronic dance/pop, somehow manages to bring in a sense of loneliness which is unmistakable, and musically charming, and they've been consistently hitting the top 20, if not the top 10 since 2013 at least. I love the loud chaos that Jack White brings with his bluesy rock, but at most times he's not really interested in the consistency of his albums - but as to how far he push his limits. As such he resurfaces after 12 years in the top 5, since Blunderbuss (no.5, 2012), with just a no.20 strike in 2014, and three misses from between then and now. In 1994, when Dookie was released, I was 19. I remember how I had Dookie taped on to one side of a Sony C90 ( I still remember the blue cassette cover - oh, the romanticism that a tape could have for a music lover, which a CD or streaming music would never come close to - can't speak for Vinyl records). Green Day has been releasing music since, but from the records I have since 2011, only 'Revolution Radio' managed to creep into the top 20, with 'Father of all... ' just missing out. Another act that has been consistently featuring among the albums I find as best is Elbow. They feature inside the top 20 this year, but here's their past record ( No. 13, 2013, 'The Take-off and Landing of everything' ; No. 2, 2019, 'Giants of all Sizes' ; no. 2, 'Flying Dream I' - they missed the top 20 in 2017 ), and not even rock enthusiasts really acknowledge them much.

What of the new acts ? Well, I already mentioned the electronic music of Humanist. But Heavy Heavy has an excellent album at no.6. Grace Bowers (with her Hodge Podge) has an excellent album at no. 16 with tunes which remind you of Allman Brothers, to 'Southern Harmony...' era Black Crowes, to early Fleetwood Mac. One could say its nothing new - but the musicianship is amazing, and the young lass delivering with her guitar, while guest vocalists rotate the singing is something quite charming. The Yard Act is possibly the closest this old man will come to hip hop, as their witty Neo-minimalist post-punk / new wave fused hip-hop got me interested to have them in at no. 19

Breaking In: There are some acts who aren't quite new, but is not always interested in being accessible. St. Vincent is one such, who lands her big Grammy winner at no.11. I have listened to her music since her self titled album of 2014 ( actually from her David Byrne collaboration of 2012), but this is the first time she cuts into the top 20. Fontaines DC get a nod at no. 19, and am sure I listened to their album from 2022, although it had not managed to squeeze into the top 30.

On Grammys - I now only concentrate on the Rock related nominees, and one complain against this year was that many are old timers now in their 60s - Black Crowes, Pearl Jam - or Jack White in his 50s - but even the absurdity of Rolling Stones and The Beatles (which actually won !) was mentioned by such critics as Rick Beato. But wait - look at what happened last year ? Here's my comments on the Foo Fighters album placed at no. 14 in 2023, in which I have a criticism against the Grammys:

14- The Foo Fighters haven't had much appeal to me since sonic highways, but yet the quality of the music is such that they land a slot in the top 20 more often than not ( Concrete and gold, no.12, 2017; Medicine at midnight, no.19, 2019). I guess it cannot be helped when acts like boygenius, Lana Del Rey, and Greta Van Fleet manage to get the nod in the rock, metal, and alternative category in the Grammys for instance. Mind I tried out the albums of all three acts of 2023, before stating the above.
(https://me-and-err.blogspot.com/2024/02/albums-of-2023-my-favourites.html )

So I guess having the 60s something of Black Crowes, Pearl Jam is preferred to those mentioned above. Plus, it cannot be ignored that some indie rock albums were actually nominated  for the Grammies - Fontaines DC, IDLES, and of course St. Vincent, the big winner of the evening from the rock categories -I'll have them over the pretentious Greta Van Fleet, or the irritating Lana Del Rey.

On Indie Rock - Clearly more than half of the albums in the top 20 are what could be termed as Indie Rock bands, and that's what keeps music interesting, as far as I can see. More strength to them. Hopefully the industry too accepts their importance if the above mentioned Grammy nominations of IDLES, Fontaines DC are anything to go by ( BTW IDLES album of 2021 was that year's no. 1 for me - https://me-and-err.blogspot.com/2022/06/my-favourite-music-albums-from-2021.html ). Otherwise 'country music' from Beyonce and the rehashes of Taylor Swift will make us stop listening to new music for sure.

Good, but not great - To go back to the topic of staple diets in music, I guess some had managed to impress me less too, and hence missed the top 20 - Black Keys with their good, but largely similar sounding album to most of their other albums. Paul Weller, Liam Gallagher (with John Squire),  Mark Knopfler have other album, which are pleasant, but more of the same. Some albums which missed out the top 20 have their charm, and some excellent songs but hitting in the top 20 among other releases has been difficult. The last two Crowded House albums, both very decent has just missed the top 20 -  this years' one quite consistent (while 'Dreams are waiting' stopped at no. 25 in 2021), with some of the songs coming close to their 1980s' elegance. Other albums I had a soft spot for but had to leave lingering outside of the top 20 are Judas Priest and Moby. I don't mind admitting that along with Crowded House, these other two albums  were given extra listens to see if they are good enough to knock off Jerry Cantrell who just manages to hang on at no. 20, but whose signature sounds are still solid enough to keep away not only the above mentioned, but the melodious Decemberists, who too have a long past interesting my music taste.

 

 

ද්‍රෝහී - කැත්ලීන් ජයවර්ධන

කැත්ලීන් ජයවර්ධන ලේඛිකාවට දැන් දැන් තම නවකතාව, වර්තමාන සමාජයේ සියළු දුරාචාර, දූෂණ, ව්‍යාජයන් ට එරෙහි තමනට ඇති සියල්ල කීමට ඇති වේදිකාවකි. මීට පෙර කිය වූ ඉවුරු නවකතාවේ දුටු පරිදි ම, අප රට දූෂිත දේශපාලනයත්, සමාජ ක්‍රමයත් විවේචනය කෙරෙන මෙම ආඛ්‍යායන දැන් පිළුණු බවක් දනවන්නේ, එම සිද්ධීන් වල ඇති පිළුණු බවත්, කතුවරිය අප දන්නා තත්ත්වයක් වඩා තීව්‍ර කරමින් ලියන බවක් දැනෙන නිසාය. ඇරත් ලේඛිකාව ට කීමට අත්‍යවශ්‍ය ම දේ, සහ නොකියා නවකතාවේ රසය පවත්වාගෙන යාම පිළිබඳ සමතුලිතතාවය තව දුරටත් වැදගත් නැති සේය. ඉතින් අපේ පිළුණු දේශපාලනය තුල, පට්ට ගැසූ සිද්ධීන් (cliche ) ඔස්සේ පිටු 332 ක් ම, පොත කියවීම ගැන මං මට ම බැණ වැදුනෙමි. ( මට ඇත්තටම ආත්මීය තෘප්තිය වෙනුන්වෙන් පොත අවසන් කරලීමේ 'හරිය' දැමීම වෙනුවෙන්, මගේ ජීවිතයෙන් පැය ගානක් කැප කිරීම ගැන කම්පා වෙමි.) ඉවුරු නවකතාවේ සේ ම ද්‍රෝහි නවකතාවේ ද ක්‍රිෂ්ණා, ශිරෝමී, ඊශ්වරී යනු කැත්ලීන් ගේ ම අවතාර ය. ඔවුන් කැත්ලීන් කිය වූ පොත් වල කොටස් වමාරයි. පොත අවසන ඇත්තේ යුවාල් නොවා හරාරි ගේ කියමනකි. එහෙත් ඔහු දකිනා ශුභවාදී සිහින නම් කැත්ලීන් නොදකී. කැත්ලීන් දකිනුයේ, 2050 වසරේ දී ත්, දෙමළ මනුස්සයෙකුට 'දෙමළා' යැයි අමතන, විදෙස් රට වල සිටින දරුවන් ගේ මෙහෙ ඉඩ කඩම් ණය වෙනුවෙන් ලංකාවේ බැංකු සමඟ ඇණ බැන ගන්නා දෙමව්පියන් සිටිනා සමාජයකි. මේ අද වන විටත් මකෙමින් පවතින තත්වයන් ය. කැත්ලීන් ගේ අශුභවාදය එතරම් ය.

ද්‍රෝහී ලෙස මා නම් කියෙව්වේ  තමනට වඩාත් ම කීමට ඇති දේ කුමක් දැ යි තෝරාගත නොහැකි, බොහෝ දේ කීමට තැත් කරන, ඇයගේ සාමාන්‍ය දාර්ශනික ආනතියට පක්ෂ,
සුළු සුළු මාතෘකා, ස්වයං තර්ක කිරීම් වලට ඉඩ දීම සඳහා වේදිකාවක් කර ගත්, ඒ නිසා ඇය ගේ පෙර ලිවීම් ගැන විශ්වාසයෙන් පොත් මිල දී ගත් පාඨකයින් ගේ කාලය කා දමන පොතකි. මාංශ භක්ෂණය හේතුවෙන් ඇති වන සත්ව අවිහිංසාව, කැරපොත්තෙක් දුටුවොත් ඌට විඳවන්න නොදී අධිමාත්‍රා විෂ දී ඌට ක්ෂණික මරණය ගෙන ඒම,  ආදී එකි මෙකි හිසට නැගෙන හැම දේම මේ පොත ඇතුලට එබ්බවීමේ ඇගේ තනි අභිලාෂය වූයේ ද?

මේ පොත අන්තිම දුර්වල නවකතාවකි - කිසිදු පාලනයකින් තොරව, අවතාර චරිත කිහිපයක් මගින් ඇය කිය වූ පොත් කීපයක අදහස් වමාරන, ඒ කිසිදු අදහසක නව්‍යතාවක් නොමැති, පාඨකයා ට ඇත්තට ම පීඩාවක් ගෙනෙන නවකතාවකි.

ඔබ ඔබට උදවුවක් කරගන්න - මෙය නොකියවා ඉන්න!

ශ්‍රේණිය: *1/2

රානි පිළිබඳ

 

 අසෝක හඳගම ගේ රානි චිත්‍රපටිය, බිරිඳත් සමඟ, මාළාඹේ සිනමාහලේ පසුගිය ඉරු දින නැරඹුවෙමි.

එදින උදයේ චන්ද්‍රි පෙරිස් (නම උච්ඡාරණය නිවැරදි යැයි සිතමි - වැරදි නම් කමන්න), මෙම චිත්‍රපටිය ගැන ලියූ දීර්ඝ විවේචනයක් දුටුව ද එය කියවීම කල් දැමුවේ, එදින හවස ම චිත්‍රපටිය නැරඹීමේ බලාපොරොත්තුවත්, කාලය මදි කමත් ය ( එම විචාරය මෙහි අග උපුටා ඇත්තේ, එහි ඇති සවිස්තරාත්මක විවේචනයේ සාධාරණ කාරණා තිබීමත්,  කියවිය යුත්තක් යැයි සිතන නිසාත්, සහ ඉඟි මාර්ගයෙන් හෙළි වන කරුණුත් නිසාය.)

සිනමා ශාලාවෙන් පිටත් වන විට සත්‍ය වශයෙන් ම මට චිත්‍රපටිය ගැන එතරම් විවේචනයක් තිබුනේ නැත. රඟපෑම් අතින්, රිචඩ් ට රඟපෑ නළුවාත්, ලලිත් සහ මංගල ට රඟ පෑ නළුවනුත් ඉතා දක්ෂ ලෙස එම රඟපෑම් ඉටුකල බව සිතුවෙමි. ස්වර්ණා ගැන විශේෂ තක්සේරුවක් කිරීම පසුවට තියන්න ට සිත කියන්න ට ඇත්තේ, ඇය ප්‍රධාන නිළිය නිසාත්, පෙර කී නළුවන් තිදෙන ගැන මෙන් සිතට දැනෙන රඟපෑමක් නොදැක්ක නිසාත් විය යුතුය. ප්‍රේමදාස ගේ චරිත නිරූපනයත් සිතට කම්පනයක් ගෙන ආවේය. චිත්‍රපටිය අවසන අඟවන, එක්තරා SSP කෙනෙකු ප්‍රමුඛ පොලිස් පිරිසක්, සමලිංගිකයෙකු දෙස බලා යම් පහත් සතුටක් ලැබීමේ උවමනාව, වෙනත් අවසානයක් ගෙන දුන්නේය යන ජවනිකා පෙළ තරමක් කුතුහලයක් ගෙන ආවේ, රිචඩ් මලේ කාගේ උවමනාව ට ද යන්න ගැන සැකයක් හැම දා අප තුල තිබූ නිසාය. ඒ ගැන ද චන්ද්‍රි පෙරිස් ඔහුගේ පැහැදිලි ආස්ථානය පවසයි.

නිවෙසට පැමිණි පසු, මා චන්ද්‍රි පෙරීස් මුහුණුපොතේ ලියූ සටහන කියවූවෙමි. ඔහුට අනුව හඳගම, රාණි චරිතය සත්‍ය චරිතයට සාධාරනයක් කරමින් රඟ දැක්වීම උදෙසා අත්‍යවශ්‍ය කාරණා කිහිපයක් ඉටු කොට නැත. ප්‍රධාන වශයෙන් ඔහු 'ගෙදර වැඩ' හෙවත්, ඇයව පෞද්ගලිකව දත් අය සමඟ කතා බස් කොට ඇය ව යම්තාක් දුරට 'හඳුනාගෙන නැති' බවත්, ඒ අනුව සැබෑ මනෝරාණී චරිතය විකෘතියක් බවටත්, එම චරිතය වැරදි ලෙස කියවා ඇති බවටත්, නොගැලපෙන නිළියක් හරහා රඟදක්වා ඇති බවත්, ඒ හේතුවෙන් විශාල දෝෂ සහිත නිර්මාණයක් බිහිව ඇති බවටත් චෝදනා කරයි.

මට මේ ඔස්සේ කීමට ඇති කාරණා කිහිපයක් කෙටියෙන් කියමි.

- අපේ බොහෝ කලාකරුවනට 'උසස් සමාජය'  කියවීමේ දී එය වරද්දා ගන්නා බව පැහැදිලිය. එය චිත්‍රපටි අධ්‍යක්ෂවරුත්, සමහර ලේඛක-ලේඛිකාවනුත් ඔස්සේ ප්‍රත්‍යක්ෂ වී ඇත. අනෙක් අතට අප මිතුරෙක් අපට මතක් කරදුන්නේ, ලෙස්ටර් ජේම්ස් සහ සුමිත්‍රා පීරිස් ට ගම කියවා ගැනීමේ දී ද මෙවන් ප්‍රශ්ණ වලට මුහුණ දුන් බවයි. හඳගම ට ද මේ දෙය මෙහි සිදු වී ඇති බව පෙනී යන්නේ, චන්ද්‍රිගේ ලිපිය කියවීමෙනි.

- මෙම නොකියවීම, නැතිනම් චන්ද්‍රි කියනා පරිදි විකෘතිය , වෙසෙසින් මනෝරාණී සරවණමුත්තු ගේ නාමයට, චරිතයට, මතකයට සිදු වූ අසාධාරණයක් ලෙස දකිය හැකිය. අයෙකුට, හඳගම විසින්, එක්තරා පැලැන්තියක්  නිවැරදි ලෙස නිරූපනය නොකිරීම හේතුවෙන්, ඒ චරිත වලට සිදු වූ අසාධාරණයක් ලෙස ද අර්ථ දැක්විය හැක. එය මුළු "උසස් සමාජයට" සිදු වූ නිග්‍රහයක් ලෙස ද අයෙකු ට දැකිය හැක. මෙවන් ඉඟිති සමාජයේ සැරිසරයි.  හඳගම ම ඔහු (හෙවත් 'මාඝාත අධ්‍යක්ෂක')  'ගල්' බොන පැලැන්තියේ කියා තම චිත්‍රපටිය තුලදී ම 'රිචඩ්' ගේ මුවින් කියවා ගනී. ගැඹුරට චන්ද්‍රිගේ ලිපිය කියවුවහොත්, ඔහු කියා ඇත්තේ "උඹට අපෙන් අහන්න තිබ්බා... නොදන්න හු... ල් ගැන චිත්‍රපටි කරන්න ඉස්සෙල්ලා" කියා ය කියා  අයෙකුට සිතුනොත් ඊට දොසක් කීමට නොහැක.

- අප රටේ "සංස්කෘතිය ආරක්ෂා කිරීම" වෙනුවෙන් පෙනී සිටින අය, චන්ද්‍රි පෙරිස් ගේ ලියමන එළිදැක්වෙන්න කලින් සිට හඳගම, සිගරැට් සහ මත්පැන් භාවිතය අනවශ්‍ය ලෙස උලුප්පන බවට චෝදනා කරයි.  චන්ද්‍රි ගේ ලිපිය ඔවුන ට බොහෝ වටින්නේ ය.ඔවුන්  එය කිහිප පොළක පළ කර තිබෙනු දුටුවෙමි. හඳගම අරක්කු සිගරැට් වැඩියෙන් පෙන්වන්නේ 'උසස් සමාජය' නිරූපනයේ දී ද යන්න බැලිය යුතුය - එසේ නම් එය ඔහු ගේ පෙර කී "උසස් සමාජය" කියවීමේ ම දෝෂයක් විය හැක.

මේ නිරීක්ෂණ පමණක් සිදුකොට දැනට නවතින්නේ, යමක් ගැන සුදුසු තරම් දන්නේ නැති නම්, ඒ ගැන මතයක් පළ කිරීම නුසුදුසු අතර, එනමුදු අර තුන් වෙනි පිරිස ට 'ෆුල් ටොස්' පන්දුවක් ලැබීම ගැන අප්‍රසාදයක් ඇති බවත් කියමිනි.

චන්ද්‍රිගේ ලිපිය පහත අමුණා ඇත.

 

Misconceived, Misinterpreted, Miscast and a big Mistake
- Chandri Peris

A clear example of character assassination via the deliberate misuse of artistic license!

After seeing a screening of the film RANI, I walked out of the Majestic cinema devoid of any feelings. It was a terrible film. Badly acted, badly directed and badly researched. It was only after I started hearing the many plaudits being voiced by the crass, vulgar, brainless, money oriented, self-satisfied hoi polloi of Colombo that I decided that I want to state my opinion about two people that many of us loved, respected and knew intimately.

This film was rife with inaccuracies which were not only insulting and upsetting but it reaffirmed that fact that ‘history is always written by the victors’! Even though most of us are aware of the truth and will do our very best to redress the blatant errors in the characterisation and the narrative presented in this film, it remains a sad reality that many Sri Lankans (especially the younger generation) will accept this as factually correct.

Before I proceed to point out the faults in this ghastly film I’d like to admit that there were a few moments that had some redeeming qualities. Firstly, it addressed the very dark time that our country went through. It was a time when ‘disappearances’ were a daily occurrence. Armed thugs often arrived unannounced and kidnapped people who merely voiced their opinions about a regime that held its people to ransom by spreading fear. It also addressed that fact that even serving ministers were not safe from those who held the reigns.

This was the same period during which Richard de Zoysa and I used to run Drama and Movement workshops at the Lionel Wendt Theatre. These workshops were attended by many Colombo based English speaking youngsters who loved the theatre and several Sinhala speaking university students too. Seven of these students disappeared without a trace never to be heard of again in the months before Richard was brutally murdered. The line that Manorani utters over and over again in the film saying ‘I am one of the more fortunate mothers - I got my son’s body back’ is factually true. She used this line even when she addressed the United Nations where she was invited to receive the IPS International Achievement Award for independent journalism posthumously awarded to her son in 1990. That particular statement was the premise on which she built her work with and for The Mother’s Front. The use of the biblical quotation ‘Oh Absalom, my son, my son’ was also published by her in the Daily News on the day of her sons funeral and on this occasion ‘artistic license’ had been used appropriately. The fear and suspense felt by many people who were threatened and killed at night by organised gangs of government backed thugs during those dark days were very clearly conveyed too.

I feel that it is a complete insult that the director of this film Asoka Handagama has taken it upon himself to boldly brandish a series of misconceptions and untruths about the people it is based on. Even if he has a disclaimer stating that his version of events is ‘A fiction based on true events’ it simply cannot be forgiven! It is brazen of him to insult them for his own gain! It is all the more insulting because they are misinterpreted and wrongly depicted. There are many unanswered questions about this film. Would it have been so wrong to stick to the truth and tell the story of this heinous crime as it really was? Was he in fear of revealing the truth and facing the consequences? Were any relatives of Manorani and Richard even consulted? Would someone have influenced the director to change the ending so as to exculpate the person who ordered the murder and shift the blame on to the thugs who decided to carry out the killing themselves? Never in the history of cinema has an artistic license been used to build a blatant lie. Shame on you Asoka Handagama!

Dr Manorani Saravanamuttu was NOT an alcoholic. On the odd social occasion she may have had one drink. This may be after an opening night of a play, at a party or at a gathering of friends and family. Even then it was just a sip or two at the most. There was never any alcohol in her house at any time. She never got disgracefully drunk as depicted in the film!

She never chain smoked. Once again, she may have had the odd cigarette (also socially) after working a ten hour day seeing to her many patients (most of whom she treated free of charge in the most downtrodden areas of Colombo). She would NEVER have got out of her car to purchase a packet of cigarettes from a mudukku either! 

She NEVER used the words ‘Fuck’ and ‘Fucking’ ever!

She always wore brightly coloured Nylex sari’s and never wore Indian cotton sari’s. I can vouch for this because if she ever wanted to purchase a sari, she would always ask me to do so for her.

She NEVER called her son ‘putha’! She called him ‘Zoysa’. Richard in turn NEVER called her ‘amma’! He called her ‘Zoysa’. It was an endearment enmeshed in a joke about her absent husband and his absent father – Lucian de Zoysa.

Richard was one of my closest friends. He was one class senior to me in school. Our passion for the theatre drew us together. We acted in many plays together and spent a lot of time with our mutual friends who were also from the theatre fraternity. He was the type of person who had an odd trait in his personality that he always did the unpredictable. In fact, he did the opposite of what you expected him to do just as an ‘up yours’ to anyone who was a friend or associate of his. He would convince people he could sing when he couldn’t. He would pretend he could dance when he was awful at it. Even though his inclinations were clearly homosexual, he often convinced many a girl that he was straight. He could not drive a car. He rode a motorcycle from which he fell off very often. And he never played the guitar nor did he ever attempt to do so.

As we all know Richard’s claim to fame was as an actor. What this film omits to state is that Manorani was an actress too. Her former husband Lucian de Zoysa (who wrote some of the most celebrated English plays based to the history of Sri Lanka – The Brazen Palace, The Fortress in the Sky etc) wrote many parts for her. She acted opposite him in many a Shakesperean role including Ophelia, Lady Macbeth and Desdemona. An year before Richard was murdered he acted opposite his mother in ‘The Libation Bearers’ which was produced by the British Council. With all this information being public knowledge, why does the character of Manorani in the film dismiss all knowledge of theatre and the relevance of drama to politics?

The aunty Manorani I knew was an astoundingly beautiful woman whose face was full of grace and her wonderful smile radiated kindness. The only clear example of her beauty and the extraordinary bone structure of her face, would be to compare it to the mask of Nefertiti which can be seen at the Berlin Neues Museum. On the other hand, Swarna Mallawarachi has a hard/sharp bone structure that some may find attractive. Kindness is not a quality that she exudes. A great actress she maybe but on this occasion she disgraces the character she portrays. On the rare occasion when Manorani smoked it was an act of sheer elegance and class (rather like Lauren Bacall in the movie ‘Casabalanca’). To watch Swarna sucking on a cigarette was like watching an amateur smoker trying to reignite a wet suruttu!

To what extent did Swarna research the character she longed to portray? Shouldn’t any actor or actress worth their salt, research the character that they are responsible from brining to life on the screen? Could she not have taken some guidance about Manorani’s demeanour from the clear and precise documentary film made by Nimal Mendis? If she so desperately wanted to portray a drunken, chain-smoking, foul-mouthed harridan, could she not have got Edward Albee’s ‘Whose Afraid of Virginia Woolf’ translated and brought to the screen? Who decided to portray this great woman as a drunken, chain-smoking, whore? Handagama or Swarna? Whomever the blame lies with, the film remains a travesty.

One of the most pathetic and disgusting scenes is the one in which Manorani gets drunk and dances with her son and his friend whilst swigging whisky. Is assassinating a character so disgracefully the proper use of artistic license?

The fact that this film has managed to get itself released at a time when the country is being led by a JVP government may be coincidental. Or is it? Are they trying to say that Richard was a JVP supporter to gather further support for their agenda. I can very definitely say that he didn’t know whom or what he supported at any time. He had a tendency to frequently jump ship in a way that he is seen to be a supporter of the underdog whoever that may be at any particular time. He was an enigma who did not know himself.

To suggest that Richard was killed because of his homosexuality is also distracting from the fact that it was a politically ordered murder.

On the characterisation of Manorani in this film - Does getting drunk on whisky, chain smoking and sleeping around represent the privileged in the eyes of the common JVP supporter? Is the director trying to say that people of the calibre and class of Dr Manorani Saravanamuttu only realised the trials and tribulations of the common man after she was confronted with the murder of her own son? If so, it is pandering to the lumpenproletariat at the highest level.

Even though Mangala Samaraweera and Mahinda Rajapakse latched on to Manorani’s personal tragedy and encouraged her to start The Mother’s Front movement, they only used it as a political tool for their own personal advancement. Manorani’s pioneering work for The Mother’s Front led her to visit various remote villages in Sri Lanka offering to be the voice for the voiceless women, many of whom had lost their husbands and sons.

Mangala and I were good friends, so I can say very confidently that he would not have had the audacity to refer to Manorani as ‘darling’! Once again that remark alone seems to be the director’s tasteless way of inferring to the fact that Mangala was ‘gay’. How tactless can one get?

There were also other minor details about the film that were factually incorrect. Manorani and Richard lived in a very small flat in Welikadawatte during the time of his kidnapping and murder. They did not live in a grand house as depicted in the film.

When Ranasinghe Premadasa visited Manorani to offer his sympathies, she did not face him with aggression. She met him with the customary grace and dignity she was always known for. During this fraught encounter she spoke frankly to him about the trauma of having a son murdered by the authorities. Witnesses say that he could not look her directly in the eye.

In conclusion, I would like to say that this film is a desecration of the memory of a beautiful, graceful, highly educated and dignified woman who was loved and respected by many.

Why is it that many of us standby and let victors rewrite history to suit their own purpose? In this instance, I am not only referring to the many politicians portrayed in the film who seem to be getting away with murder but also to the director of a film that depicts a true heroine in an unfavourable light. Artistic license becomes a huge responsibility in the hands of a director who has the power to influence popular opinion about our country’s history and the characters who played a vital part in it. It is a tragedy indeed that this film distorts the truth and paints a misleading picture of a great woman and deliberately backs down from pointing the finger at the true villains.

- Chandri Peris