groundviews is a Sri Lankan citizen journalism initiativeregister here.login.find out more
inicio mail me! sindicaci;ón

CIRCLES OF VIOLENCE – GOING ROUND AND ROUND

March 1, 2007 at 5:00 pm · Categories: Peace and Conflict | by Groundviews

I watched Sam De Silva’s film ‘Circles of Violence’ on Tuesday. I will be brutally blunt and say I didn’t like it at all. I am a skeptic when it comes to watching documentaries that essay the country’s conflict. Over the past couple of years I’ve talked to one too many budding film-makers armed with a camera and a financial grant looking to find that ‘elusive angle’ and to tell that ‘untold story’ about the Sri Lankan conflict. Eventually they all make one more cookie-cutter documentary, filling it up with footage from the ‘dangerous’ and ‘restive’ North and East, smattering it with interviews with victims and activists and tying it together with some heavy-handed hypothesizing and eulogizing about the tragedy of this beloved isle. Usually these documentaries do the preview rounds at the Barefoot-esque venues of Colombo and end up gathering dust on the shelves of an NGO or two. Or, they end up breaking into the international festival circuits of documentaries dealing with issues of war and peace. Or they enter the domain of American East Coast liberal arts colleges and become the defining work on far distant Sri Lanka for a generation of eager politics majors. Apart from that De Silva’s film was previewed at the Barefoot Gallery it is too early to judge the eventual fate of this particular work. However, my encounter with this film is tainted by my cynicism and skepticism and leads me to be – yes admittedly unfairly – even more damning in my assessment.

My main contention with the film is with its content. However, the film was also lacking in technical finesse. It seemed like its creator had bunched together a cornucopia of footage, interviews, narration and music and not paid attention to plying them each with subtlety in order to communicate the message. It doesn’t get more unrestrained than to match voice-overs with the blatantly obvious visuals, for example to talk about returning home with footage of a descending plane or about environmental pollution with footage of a garbage dump. It doesn’t get more unsophisticated than to match narratives on terrorism, child recruitment and Rajiv Ghandi with close-ups of internet searches on the same. Also disappointing was the choice of music (or lack thereof), a monotonous 2-note drone that did very little to heighten the message.

Onto content. To his credit, De Silva had done his homework and had gathered some very interesting footage and found some very interesting people to talk to. And yet, I am still trying to understand what exactly the filmmaker was trying to understand for himself and explain to his audience. What was the central thrust or core thrusts of the film? The film meanders through multiple themes – the tsunami, inscrutability of post-tsunami activities, the chronology of the conflict, the JVP insurrection, peace activism, environmental pollution – without any sense of convergence towards a central thesis. I am not for a moment demanding a one-dimensional take on what is an inherently complex country riddled in an inextricably complicated web of problems, foremost among them, the ethno-political conflict. However, it is possible to communicate the complex issues at hand and weave one’s audiences into their cyclicality and still not leave them feeling like they’ve just climbed off a run-away merry(sorry?)-go-round. Again, I felt that the filmmaker had allowed himself to be led by his raw materials – an interesting quote here, an impressive bit of footage there – and had not mastered these materials in order give form to the film. No where is this more evident – and more painful – than in his profile of Manik Sandrasagara. Undoubtedly, Mr. Sandrasagara is a colorful personality with an unusual take on the conflict. However, interviews with him seem to tower over the entire film and appear to dictate its tangential directions. After about the second or third time, Mr. Sandrasagara’s self-aggrandizing sound-bytes on enlightenment, the simple resolutions to the conflict and the environment begin to grate. Again, this is by no means a criticism of Mr. Sandrasagara’s ideas and opinions, but rather of the filmmaker’s inability or unwillingness to use them to tell the story he wants to tell. While De Silva frequently picked up on and digressed along the unimportant and the uninteresting, he was equally persistent in not picking up on and exploring what were potentially fascinating storylines. For example, it would have been interesting to hear a little more from Sunila Abeysekera and her disenchantment with the Marxist movement that once inspired her, or from Sanjana Hattotuwa about his peacebuilding innovations that didn’t live up to their full potential. Most unforgiving is when De Silva introduces a photojournalist who captured perhaps the most iconic photograph of the 83 ethnic riots (that of a young Tamil man, stripped naked, crouched, surrounded by laughing rioters, perhaps taken minutes before he was killed) but does not return to talk of him or to him again. What did he feel when he captured that scene? What happened right after? Did he witness the violence? Did he intervene? I would have far preferred to have heard more from these individuals and to have learnt more about these issues than to have listened to Mr. Sandrasagara one more time.

‘Circles of Violence’ is introduced as “a personal exploration by Sri Lankan / Australian documentary maker that exposes the island’s dark history and tries to make sense of the deeper processes beneath the violence.” In as much as the film is billed as a ‘personal exploration’, it is Mr. De Silva’s prerogative to do what he wants, talk to who he wants, and say what he wants. However, in as much as the film is for public consumption, Mr. De Silva invites others to take this journey with him. I am afraid this traveller was left extremely unconvinced and unsatisfied.

March 1, 2007

Print this post
1,687 have read this this article so far. You may also find these articles interesting:
  • Circles of Violence: A Return to Sri Lanka CIRCLES OF VIOLENCE : A Return to Sri Lanka is film that about which Sam got in first got in touch with me around two years ago. He filmed 3 – 4 times in the intervening years and I got to see the final product last night at Barefoot, along with around 150 – 200 others... Sanjana Hattotuwa, February 28, 2007
  • How The East Was Won – Watch the Al-Jazeera documentary Groundviews was the first to review the new Al-Jazeera documentaries on Sri Lanka (Mistaking Night for Day in the New Dawn of the East: A Review Article of the al-Jazeera Documentaries, ‘How the East was Won’ and ‘Monks of War’). You can now watch this documentary online. See the Groundviews video channel for Al-Jazeera’s previous videos... Groundviews, August 29, 2007

| Share this article on Facebook

Ajay said,

March 1, 2007 @ 6:20 pm

Great review.

I feel the same regarding Sam’s film that I saw at Barefoot, though I don’t agree that showing it at the venue is itself necessarily negative. You could have shown the same film at the Galle Face promenade (following the flawed logic that many ascribe to that Barefoot is elitist and closed) and I would have thought the same. Manik Sandrasagara’s personal history, known to a few of us, diluted what he said in the film, and it is apparent that some romantic ideal of Manik’s voice as one that was “different” led the filmmaker to feature it so prominently.

Like David Blacker (http://www.groundviews.org/2007/02/28/circles-of-violence-a-return-to-sri-lanka/#comment-991) I feel that this film could have been hacked together by library footage and editing without ever setting foot in Sri Lanka. The camera angles, as was noted by at least one other prominent Sri Lankan documentary maker present at the screening, were horrendous, the lighting terrible and the narrative looser than your average spaghetti.

The reviewer doesn’t mention the discussions that took place – leading me to assume that he / she wasn’t present for it. For me, it was the best thing about the event, though one of the characters, Tim, came out with more on the inanity in real life that Sam – again for reasons that can only be put down to his naivety and inexperience in the selection of subjects – chose to begin his film with.

Circles of Violence is certainly not going to be any great contribution to the exploration of SL’s conflict through film – anyone who has seen The Art of Forgetting by Lisa Kois and Ifat Fatima, the more mainstream No More Tears Sister, or Pura Handa Kaluware in Sinhala would treat Circles of Violence at best an amateur hour production.

Chee Lanka said,

March 2, 2007 @ 8:59 am

I did not attend the screening, even though I knew about it and was in fact invited by a friend of the film-maker, mainly because it was held Barefoot — the very anti-thesis of liberal, open discussion and a citadel of capitalist exploitation of artesans and a fine embodiment of crass cultural opportunism.

Why is it that Barefoot mostly promoting the pretensions of arts and culture by foreigners living in Sri Lanka, or Sri Lankans living overseas, with only a few token opportunities allowed to the native artistes, film-makers and writers who have chosen to live and work in troubled but still interesting Sri Lanka? Of course, this is the prerogative of the private owners of this very private venue, but when they also try to pose as public-spirited, do-gooding culture wallahs and patrons of the art, then there is a huge gap between their rhetoric and reality which cannot be covered by even all of that wonderfully colourful fabric at Barefoot.

Not having seen the film, I can’t comment on the film yet. I can only hope that Sam de Silva will consider it fit to have his film screened at more accessible, less snooty and pretentious venues in Sri Lanka, so that we who are keen to see his work and discuss its merits will have a chance of doing so. In case he is unaware of alternative venues, there is ICES and SLFI, among others. Perhaps not as Bohemian as Barefoot, but at least more genuine and sincere.

I don’t expect this comment to get past the gate-keepers of Groundviews, who are buddies of Barefoot. So much for the much-touted citizen journalism of CPA!

David Blacker said,

March 2, 2007 @ 9:52 am

I’m also pretty sure that the pic taken of the naked Tamil guy wasn’t from the ‘83 riots. I’ve seen it before and I think it’s from the ’70s.

sam said,

March 2, 2007 @ 12:32 pm

Thanks so much for everyone’s comments. All very interesting and good to take away.

I really appreciate Tusli’s detailed review of the project.

There was a camera, but no financial grant. I wish there was a financial grant – a very very large financial grant – then I would not have to have spent most of the past 6 months in a non-air-conditioned room, editing the bloody thing on my little laptop ;-)

The film is not intended for a Sri Lankan audience. It is actually the end result of part of my attempt to understand this place. I made it, and edited it, with the aim of attempting to give an outsider who may have a very ‘brief’ connection with Sri Lanka, a bit more of a glimpse about what’s been happening here. The success of this attempt is not for me to judge.

Regarding David’s comment about the photograph of the ‘naked Tamil guy’. When I made inquiries about its source, I was given the name of the photographer. I have no reason to believe the photograph isn’t from the 1983 riots. I did conduct an interview with the photographer, Chandragupta, and he did explain how he took the photograph, how he felt about taking the photograph, and his views on those who were behind the violence. I left his comments out because I felt they did not add to the story I was trying to communicate.

I would have liked to have included other voices – like those of soldiers and the monks. I did have a meeting with an ex-soldier at Barefoot about his participation in the film – but for various reasons it never happened.

The film is what it is. And it may have been possible to make it without ever coming here (I doubt it thought). In the process of filming it I did travel quite widely, across the country.

Regarding Barefoot as a venue. Get over it! It was a screening for people who I had got to know during the past two years, and they all know where Barefoot is, and many of them hang out there. And I really like the venue….

I am not going to comment on style, camera angles, etc… That’s all very subjective. I don’t like to stage interviews too much and I prefer to shoot hand held. The lighting was real. But it’s good that people have opinions :-)

So, to wrap up, I didn’t set out to make the definitive documentary about Sri Lanka. It is simply my trip from my perspective, put on to video. I do agree with Tusli that there’s a responsibility that comes with it when I invite others to experience that trip with me. But in that invitation, I cannot guarantee satisfaction. However, I can and I will take away the feedback generated and keep it (the feedback) with me, as I work on other projects.

Thanks to all those that came to watch it and thanks for the feedback so far.

- Sam :-)

ps. It would be great to know the real names of people reviewing the film… Criticism, especially of creative works, should not need to be done anonymously.

Ajay said,

March 2, 2007 @ 1:00 pm

“Criticism, especially of creative works, should not need to be done anonymously.”

Really? And why not?

Thanks for the reply though – at least you’re honest about it all. Out of curiosity, how long did you take to make the film? Sanjana mentions that he spoke to you over 2 years ago – have you been making it for so long? I guess my next question would be why you stopped filming? I mean, two years is a long time – what made you say – this is it – I am going to release this now?

David, I thought the photo was from ‘83 as well.

Sanjana Hattotuwa said,

March 2, 2007 @ 1:09 pm

I liked Sunila’s voice in the film a lot – she brings in, almost wistfully, her years with the JVP that I thought were the best sound-bites in the entire production.

I think this is the kind of film that those who have worked and lived through the conflict in Sri Lanka will be frustrated with far more than those who are new to SL, who have not travelled to the N/E – a foreign audience, which as you admit, is for whom this is made for.

In this respect, I’m sorry to confess that I’ve forgotten what your response was to that person in the discussions who said there was always the danger of voyeurism in films of this nature, and that in portraying the conflict as you do in Circles of Violence, it glosses over the real lives and tragedies (or something to that effect).

As I’ve said earlier, I liked the discussions that I think Rama did a splendid job of handling and hope that some of those who were present, and who may read this blog, chip in with their thoughts on Sam’s work.

Sanjana

P.S. At least 5 persons who would have added a lot to the discussions told me that the interval between the end of the film and the start of the discussions was too long – with the result that they left. That’s a pity, and in retrospect, perhaps we should have made it a strictly 5 minute break.

David Blacker said,

March 2, 2007 @ 1:20 pm

““Criticism, especially of creative works, should not need to be done anonymously.”

Really? And why not?”

Because anonymous criticism holds no weight. Would you take a review by “Steve S” as seriously as you would on by Steven Spielberg? A reviewer’s experience of the subject matter and his/her standing counts. If you can’t be arsed to put your name behind your opinion, I doubt I’ll accept its integrity.

sam said,

March 2, 2007 @ 1:39 pm

Ajay,

I guess if someone is writing about what I did, I’d love to know their name. I put myself out there – and believe me – it wasn’t an easy thing to do. So, just feeling that it would be great to know who the real people are behind the feedback! That’s all.

I first returned properly in December 2003 for about one month, and took the opportunity to travel to Trinco and Jaffna, as well as the South coast. I decided then to come back the following year with the idea of doing some kind of video story. I had a flight booked for January 2005, and then the tsunami happened just before. So, that’s the start point. During 2005, I came and went three times, because I was still working back in Australia. And in 2006, I came back in March, with the intention of staying until I finsihed the film.

The end-point became obvious with the recommencement of hostilities and the open end to any ceasefire. I also simply needed to end the project – and move on. So, that’s how I decided to end it.

I will keep filming. Believe it or not, I shot about 60 hours of footage that was compressed down to 45 minutes. Some would call that inefficient. I call it an archive (even if others think my lighting and camera angles are dodgy). So, my hope is to perhaps produce another ‘personal exploration’ in another 12 to 18 months time. We’ll see.

naz said,

March 2, 2007 @ 1:39 pm

Chee Lanka: Crass capitalism? I seriously doubt it! antithesis of, more likely.
just get your history sorted and your facts straight, but then again when were you born? 1982 at the very latest?
of course your entitled to your superficial impressions, let’s just leave it at that.

Ravana said,

March 2, 2007 @ 1:45 pm

Oh, come on. The assessment of the film here by the critics is entirely one-sided and does not do justice to the film. The objective of the film has not been properly understood, and as a result the film is being judged by alien criteria.

My first reaction to the film immediately after I finished watching it was one of strong approval, and this is because I think the film succeeds in doing what it sets out to do: to present the complex situation in Sri Lanka to a person who knows nothing about it. It is a personal journey of discovery, and it is, therefore, told in a very personal way. The hand-held camera and the English-speaking Colombo-dwelling characters must be understood in this context. I don’t think Sam speaks Sinhala or Tamil. These are people who influenced him most on his two year journey of understanding the conflict. Yes, he spoke to the extremists, but it is with these characters that he, personally, found the understanding of the situation. It is these characters that he therefore justifiably chooses to explain the situation to an international audience.

There are many ways to make a film about Sri Lanka and many ways do it, and this is Sam’s journey. It depicts the personal steps he has taken to come to understand the situation here in the way he does. Manik Sandrasagara, for him, has offered a way to understand the conflict probably more than any other individual, and the proportion of time allocated to Manik is probably indicative of that. Fair enough. (I loved Manik’s quote at the end, by the way, “Now Sri Lanka is a land for only for the wise. The faint-hearted? They can leave.” )

Maybe it is because of the lack of film documentation of the conflict in Sri Lanka, that we seem to insist that this film must be the definitive version: covering all points of view, interviewing all points of view, covering all characters’ personal histories etc.

On the point about including Sunila Abaysekara’s personal history – sure it is interesting, but is it relevant to understanding the country now? Manik Sandrasagara’s personal history is interesting as well. So is Timothy Seneviratne’s, but a delve into all that distracts from the purpose of the film. It would merely confuse someone who is not familiar with the situation in Sri Lanka. Think about it.

naz said,

March 2, 2007 @ 2:19 pm

well said Ravana.

indi said,

March 2, 2007 @ 4:43 pm

My first impression of the film was also very strong approval. It does have a limited scope. The interviews are with people Sam knows, people I know, who tend to be of a certain view-point. It doesn’t talk to the people directly involved (LTTE/Govt), but I don’t think that’s within its scope.

As a personal experience, it’s very well presented. It is a set of people, a set of places, but more travelled than most, and a good synthesis of what’s been going on for the last year. Yes it has an opinion and flaws, as does Sam, and everyone in the movie. It’s not a documentary as much as few years in someone’s life, and I think that’s an easier way to digest information. That’s what makes it personal, that’s what makes it human, and that’s what makes it good.

Justin said,

March 2, 2007 @ 5:20 pm

For me the film wasn’t a “personal journey” – where was the journey from? And where to? These weren’t evident – the filmmaker instead showed us characters (well one character mostly) who we didn’t know from before, didn’t know any better at the end of the film, and ended up feeling quite cheated for having being introduced to in such a haphazard manner. It was more like a meaningless mish-mash of footage taken at random from his 60+ hours of video. It’s a personal edit of a film that is still born.

And for god’s sake Manik Sandrasagara, for all his high-sounding shit in the film, drives up in an SUV to the film screening and is also seen driving an SUV in the film !!

Doh.

chamath said,

March 2, 2007 @ 5:32 pm

I thought it was a great personal expression of a view on the conflict. I was left feeling that I had heard very interesting perspectives, watched great visuals, and it all being woven around an exploration which reassured me that Sam wasn’t presenting some definitive documentary.

He saw the need to connect to the personal emotive nature of the conflict, and hats off for that. I’ll take that to some crappy analysis, which will always fall short, any day.

To nit pick I would have liked to see interviews with nationalist and extreme groups and an attempt to understand whats being said under the angst, and to try and help outsiders relate to their point of view, maybe by following the lives of people living in the south or north and east. But that would have required a bigger budget and a staff of more than 1.

So, well done Sam!!

Ravana said,

March 2, 2007 @ 6:55 pm

Justin,

The journey is from ignorance to understanding. From being alien to Sri Lanka, to being a part of it. The sub-title of the film is “A Return to Sri Lanka”. The film starts with his arrival in Sri Lanka with the plane landing scene where Sam is essentially clueless about the situation here, and at the end he describes how he has come to understand the duality of Sri Lanka – the extremes of good and bad. Right at the end, Manik’s quotes about how Sri Lanka is for the wise and not for the fainthearted also underscore the feeling that Sam himself has moved from ignorance to understanding.

As for the SUV comment Justin – this isn’t Europe or the US. There are practical reasons why people need to have SUVs in this country, and one of them is a great love of the environment. Quite apart from the fact that wildlife enthusiasts in this country, like myself, dream of being able to afford their own four-wheel drive vehicle, Sri Lanka’s roads are so bad that the choice is often justified. Try going to parts of Ampara(i) in a sedan. It ruined mine for ever.

Justin said,

March 2, 2007 @ 8:17 pm

Ravana,

Possibly pedantic here, but a Suzuki Grand Vitara is hardly a “environment lovers” choice of a 4WD. I think you meant wildlife, in which case my point still stands – unless you are to tell me that like Manik, all our MP’s and their goon brigade are also lovers of the environment.

Sorry about your sedan though mate.

Interesting take on Sam’s film though – to each his own, and we will have to agree to disagree on this one. I think many “wise” are considering leaving the country, realising that human rights for instance can be advocated, in far greater safety, from elsewhere in the globe than in Sri Lanka itself, what with white vans and all that jazz that Sunila herself spoke about in the film.

tulsi said,

March 2, 2007 @ 8:55 pm

Hey everyone

Its good to hear everyone’s take in response to mine.

Feel I need to clarify that I was in no way advocating for a definitive take on the conflict. To each their own truths.

I could very well say that my review is my personal response to Sam’s personal account. But for me that is the easy way out. Just because something is personal or subjective does not absolve it of its weaknesses. It is not a cloak against critical assessment. To than end both Sam (with his film) and myself (with this review) put ourselves on the line by entering the public domain with our personal views. Its not for us – or for anyone else – to fall back on subjectivity when held up for criticism.

All work is personal and subjective. I have seen other documentaries and other films on Sri Lanka – highly personal explorations – and have not walked away with the same response. For this reason, my thoughts on both the technical quality of the film as well as its content still stand, even after I have been told that they were personal choices.

Sam, I entered groundviews as tulsi and need to remain so for the time being. I don’t agree that anonymity dilutes critical view points, there are often very good reasons why people can’t disclose their identities. Mine is in lieu of (potential) professional conflicts of interests. But since you asked, I will drop you an e-mail soon and introduce myself so you meet the real name behind the review. You can rest easy though, I aint Spielberg, Steve or otherwise! :)

groundviews said,

March 3, 2007 @ 9:04 am

“I don’t agree that anonymity dilutes critical view points, there are often very good reasons why people can’t disclose their identities.”

A good post by A Janusis ” Why I Blog Under an Alias” explores this issue further – http://janusis.wordpress.com/2007/03/02/why-i-blog-under-an-alias

sam said,

March 3, 2007 @ 9:13 am

tulsi,

you can be anonymous. it’s okay. but the problem for me is i still don’t really know what capacity you have to make the comments you made, other than another member of the audience – which is also totally fine. sure you’ve watched other docs – but what are they. do a proper comparison then…justify your opinions… i think david blacker described this above.

the problem with this kind of blog publishing is that we get to hear lots of opinions, and i’d like to be able to separate the opinions from people i respect (by getting to know their backgrounds) from those who are just in to seeing their words glow on a screen.

the critics i’ll be really listening to and accepting what they say – in terms of the technical and story construction of the film – are unfortunately back in australia. they are the experienced directors and scriptwriters who are familiar with these kinds of projects. i want to define ‘experienced’ as meaning having done more than two or three films that have been shown on screens outside of sri lanka (where the audience for my film exists).

unfortunately, i was not able to find such a community of experienced doco makers here – other than a couple of people connected with YATV. perhaps such a community does exist, and i did not notice them. might look harder next time i return. i have no doubt acknowledging that i have a lot to learn – but i am aware of not being (mis)guided by simply opinions.

indi, in terms of definitions – just want to say that there is NO absolute definition of what a documentary is. often the term ‘factual program’ is used to describe what i did. a documentary film does not have to convey both sides, or expose something profound.

but let’s forget about my film now, and move on to something more interesting!

in the discussion, the question WHAT IS A SRI LANKAN came up… perhaps that’s a more worthwhile topic to discuss :-)

- s.

David Blacker said,

March 3, 2007 @ 11:30 am

“To than end both Sam (with his film) and myself (with this review) put ourselves on the line by entering the public domain with our personal views”

Actually, Tulsi, it’s just Sam who’s put himself on the line. You haven’t, since no reaction to your review will affect your ‘real’ life. As you’ve said yourself, you go under an alias to avoid any such effect. So what exactly are you putting on the line here?

Sanjana Hattotuwa said,

March 3, 2007 @ 11:53 am

Dear Sam,

Going by your last comments, I’m curious to know why – given that your audience lies outside of Sri Lanka, and that the critique you respect also lies outside of Sri Lanka – you chose to show the film in Sri Lanka?

To reiterate my earlier comments, the more familiar an audience is with the terrains of hopelessness, confusion and violence that you frame in your film, the more frustrated they will be with it.

I have no problem with it being the case that Circles of Violence is, as with all art, a personal journey, made for yourself, and only then to a larger public. But it smacks to me to be slightly condescending, even patronising, to call those of us who are moved to respond, best we can, to your film here in Sri Lanka as those who lack experience with this kind of cultural production and to go on to say that the opinions you really hold to be of value to you lie outside of Sri Lanka.

Again, it’s your prerogative to choose how to scale / value each of our responses as best you see fit – but to say that the critics you will be really listening to are back in Australia smacks of an essential escapism of the criticism from Sri Lanka – which is, writ large, your primary subject and focus.

Unless you demonstrate a sensitivity to the reactions the film generates locally, and take them as seriously, if not more seriously than those given to you by your trusted coterie in Australia, you are a voyeur at best – choosing to channel your private confusion of a country raped by violence, through a public medium, with a primacy given for foreign bouquets and brickbats.

It is frankly a disingenuous assertion of a lesser filmmaker that I am surprised to find residing within a person I admire and respect a great deal.

Warm regards,

Sanjana

Ravana said,

March 3, 2007 @ 6:21 pm

Tulsi – Agree to some extent with your comments, but the main point I was making still stands. The merits of the film itself can only be judged by how close it comes to achieving the objective the director set for it. If you do not agree with the objective the director had for the film, then that is a distinctly different debate altogether. I feel that many of the comments, not all, have confused these two issues.

Justin – What you chattin’ about?

sam said,

March 4, 2007 @ 11:59 am

Sanjana,

My comment above should be read in the context of me responding to not know who Tusli is, and therefore it is difficult for me to value his/her comments.

I should acknowledge that I do appreciate feedback of the people who do use their real identity and also those who don’t. I don’t really need to know the background of people who are giving feedback. So, apologies for those who I may have upset by my earlier comments.

But, in terms of more ‘technical’ critique/feedback from those with documentary-making experience, I do stand by my comments that I have not been able to find such a community here in Sri Lanka and therefore, I will be listening more carefully to the feedback from those I know back in Australia. I know there are individuals here who are documentary makers, and some have given me feedback already, and others may in the future. But still, I feel there is no community as such.

In terms of critique/feedback from audience, of course I am listening, but I take that critique as opinions or views by the audience. Now, if 10 or 20 people from the audience tell me the same thing, then I’ll take serious notice, but not one or two.

I am very sensitive to the feedback from a local audience. Of course it’s important. And on the night, most people I spoke with claimed they enjoyed it, which was rewarding.

“you are a voyeur at best – choosing to channel your private confusion of a country raped by violence, through a public medium, with a primacy given for foreign bouquets and brickbats.”

Sanjana, that’s a wonderful combination of words :-) I am not after foreign bouquets and brickbats – only critical feedback from those whose I respect. As you know, without this, it is hard to advance to the next steps.

- sam.

Che said,

March 5, 2007 @ 7:58 am

Let me just say that the civility of disagreement and the values that that represents makes this exchange a remarkable and poignant conversation in Sri Lanka today.

Terrible tragedy then that they sound like the plaintive bleats of the proverbial lamb ante-slaughter. And possible double indignity of a marshy grave in Muthurajawela.

Oh well, might as well enjoy it while it lasts, and hopefully, Barefoot will remain the haven of liberty, the beacon of freedom, the island of sanity, the bastion of humane capitalism and the redoubt of environmentalism through it all.

Che said,

March 5, 2007 @ 8:02 am

Cavafy’s sanguinity may be misplaced in the Sri Lankan case…

Waiting for the Barbarians

By Constantine Cavafy (1864-1933), translated by Edmund Keeley

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum?

The barbarians are due here today.
Why isn’t anything happening in the senate?
Why do the senators sit there without legislating?

Because the barbarians are coming today.
What laws can the senators make now?
Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating.
Why did our emperor get up so early,
and why is he sitting at the city’s main gate
on his throne, in state, wearing the crown?

Because the barbarians are coming today
and the emperor is waiting to receive their leader.
He has even prepared a scroll to give him,
replete with titles, with imposing names.

Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today
wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas?
Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts,
and rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds?
Why are they carrying elegant canes
beautifully worked in silver and gold?

Because the barbarians are coming today
and things like that dazzle the barbarians.

Why don’t our distinguished orators come forward as usual
to make their speeches, say what they have to say?

Because the barbarians are coming today
and they’re bored by rhetoric and public speaking.
Why this sudden restlessness, this confusion?
(How serious people’s faces have become.)
Why are the streets and squares emptying so rapidly,
everyone going home so lost in thought?

Because night has fallen and the barbarians have not come.
And some who have just returned from the border say
there are no barbarians any longer.
And now, what’s going to happen to us without barbarians?
They were, those people, a kind of solution.

Gaya said,

March 5, 2007 @ 9:42 am

Don’t know if Sam’s still interested in comments, but here we go anyway. Well, as a whole I didn’t think the documentary was too bad. It was watchable and put together in a fairly logical, fluid and tight manner. In terms of overall composition I think there was good a balance of interviews, archive footage and current footage – linked together by a thin thread of personal story. It was actually a very formulaic documentary style, not many surprises in terms of structure and artistic devices. Very much in the tradition of contemporary mainstream documentary making, but there’s nothing wrong with that. It may have not left me artistically excited but it worked. The music was a bit god damned awful sometimes and reminiscent of the lead up to a Psycho shower scene at some points (again, this is just me being picky), but innocuous and again a sort of standard documentary soundtrack, so again I suppose it worked. I haven’t got any nit-picking comments on lighting and the like, being a layperson. The quality of the picture (photographically speaking) wasn’t brilliant, but I am sympathetic to the fact that he was working from a non-existent budget by himself with limited equipment, so all fine from my perspective.

In terms of content and the rest of it, I was talking to a couple of people about it afterwards, and one of the key complaints was that though it was billed as more of a “personal journey”, this aspect of the documentary was a bit thin. Perhaps it could have been a bit more personal (if that’s what it was supposed to do), with some more information on the film maker and how who he is, in relation to Sri Lanka (e.g. his family roots, linguistic and western background etc) sets the context to the various emphases of the film. An exploration on how the diaspora views from Australia that may have shaped his thoughts, understanding and curiosity, and may have acted as an impetus for him to rediscover these issues for himself, for example, would have been interesting. That might have given it more of an original spin that set it apart from the usual “O.K., so the Sinhala Only Act happened, people got progressively more pissed off, in between this that and the other there was the JVP, lots of armed Tamil groups popped up, 83 happened – blood guts and misery, fill in the blanks and gosh here we are and it’s all ‘effing terrible, why God why?” kind of storyline that is usually presented.

I agree with many of the comments on the choice of interviewees being a little disorienting. Again, I guess this is a reflection of Sam’s experiences and exposure to various people and social scenes during his time in the country. However, to someone who is unfamiliar with Sri Lanka, this may not be immediately obvious, so perhaps presenting a clearer argument within the documentary for why certain people were chosen/dominated would be useful. Again, this would lend greater weight to the “personal journey” spin of the documentary.

All said and done, it was a brave attempt of putting his thoughts on celluloid (figuratively speaking – I s’pose it’s all digital) – especially given the fact that this blog grilling was inevitable, but some of the criticisms made in the comments on this post are fair, so it is good for the film maker to consider them. I think in terms of serving as an overview of the current situation in Sri Lanka to a foreign audience, it will do a decent enough job (though earlier comments in this post on presenting a broader spectrum of views may have some truth to them). Anyway, as a friend said to me over dinner the other night, the erudite Colombo middle classes do like to bitch and whinge and tear holes in things, but when do they ever get up off their arses and actually do something they believe is important – put themselves in the line of fire? Well, that was just his point of view, but there is something to be said about the effort and conviction (whether you think it is slightly misplaced or not) of putting this film together, and that in itself is impressive. I don’t know if Sam’s made any other documentaries, but this was an admirable first/early shot for a one man team and I hope he continues to develop his skills further.

g

ps- I get what sam is saying about being more interested in technical criticism from Aus, as the film making scene is far more advanced there. That’s just a fact. I don’t think he’s being a sahib bootlicker for saying it!

portus said,

March 5, 2007 @ 5:06 pm

They are all blogging anonymously.

The debate of residual savings between the SUV and the computer. The insignificance of the difference.

It’s an event.

The culturally alienated microchip generation, out of place everywhere, at home no where. Tomorrow’s pseudo environmental stewards.

groundviews » “We need a revolution in Sri Lanka!” - A brief chat with Sam de Silva said,

March 5, 2007 @ 6:42 pm

[...] I caught up with Sam de Silva of Circles of Violence fame, before he headed back to Australia tonight. Sam’s film, shown to a few of us in Colombo last week, has already generated some interesting responses and is the most recent attempt to explore through film Sri Lanka’s tryst with peace in the midst of rising violence. [...]

cerno said,

March 6, 2007 @ 11:34 pm

Its telling that Sam was not able to finding a community with documentary-making experience here.

Sri Lanka had a vibrant documentary film scene with origins prior to the television age. Some film makers bagged a few international awards. A few managed to transition successfully to television/video in the 80s. A lot of them are/were part of the local (ie Sinhala language) film industry (assuming that there is one now). They produced work with a fairly high degree of technical and artistic standard despite the third world conditions. Perhaps that generation is harder to locate these days.

Like a lot of positive things in Sri Lanka, their achievements are not very well documented. A starting point might be this
book (link to a Sunday times article) which at least might list some names. Interestingly, the author got his international break with a documentary in 1965.

Humpty Dumpty said,

March 9, 2007 @ 2:08 pm

Hoorah for Gentle Sam. He suceeded with his maiden offering in excorcising the third culture kids who have gathered together to ease their boredom as ‘Bloggers Anonymous.’

These urban brats have demonstrated their ignorance of all matters Sri Lankan while also displaying their hatred of a traditional Buddhist perspective that was articulated in the documentary by Manik Sandrasagara.

These vociferous brats talk to each other using computers hoping that somebody will listen to their unsolicited drivel. Out of place everywhere and at home nowhere these kids must be the bane of their parents lives who have to support their uselessness.

Don’t these kids know that anyone who takes themselves too seriously are laughed at gently till they wake up? Have they not been taught that all concievable information on the planet is opinion of varying degrees of reliability? Have they never heard of Kalki?

As for Sam his only fault was his invitation list. An educated and adult opinion is what he needed and instead of that he has obtained the comments of young bloggers who have all the time in the world to talk to each other on the net. Greed, Hatred and Envy – it is all there in many of the responses. Only a few folk have risen above the drivel

Samanthi said,

March 9, 2007 @ 4:28 pm

The best thing about Sam’s documentary is that it had new faces. For once we did not see the professional NGO moghuls who earn a very good living discussing and analysing the north-eastern crisis.

The opinions expressed were also different from often repeated mantras.

Portrait :: what we think :: March :: 2007 said,

March 12, 2007 @ 1:20 pm

[...] i’ve been following the debate on groundviews about sam de silva’s film, circles of violence. tulsi’s post about it has generated interesting discussions and comments. [...]

Bishan said,

March 13, 2007 @ 2:42 am

Sorry that I’m leaving my first comment so long after seeing the film at barefoot almost 2 weeks ago (unfortunately my work schedule has not allowed time to write anything until now – I hope the discussion continues, as will be explained below).

I’m no film critic, but I am someone that is deeply interested in Sri Lanka and it’s future, and deeply interested in Peace as i’m sure many of the people who have posted their comments here. I found Sam’s documentary “Circles of Violence” a very nice piece of work. It tackled a very difficult topic, the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. I thought it gave a reasonably accurate overview of the historical events in the conflict, with some interesting footage that I personally hadn’t seen before.

The biggest success for me, in the film was that it created another platform for discussion about a problem that really isn’t discussed much amongst people, particularly amongst people who could have potentially differing views. Unfortunately it is this discussion between divergent minds, rather than convergent minds, which is really what is need in promoting the harmony that dissolves conflict. One can be skeptical of the value of the discussion that has been generated, who was the audience at barefoot etc – but the bottom line is that discussion resulted from the documentary, and is continuing to occur.

After the film screening there were some interesting points raised. It was sad that the 5 people (as was mentioned here in this blog by somebody else) couldn’t stick around for the post doco discussion, because it was a well run session, and everyone’s contribution was important. Some of the more mature members of the audience commented on the issue of the screening occurring in barefoot, to a crowd that wasn’t representative of the Sri Lankan population at large. This comment was nicely met with further information about how some people who actually came to barefoot (although probably not the majority) actually did work with rural communities and there is more than meets the eye. There is often more than meets the eye. Other people commented that there could have been more personal stories of suffering represented in the film, some shared their experiences of not belonging in Sri Lankan society, or despair at the misinformation of their children. But most importantly, despite the personal views on the film or what the film represented to individuals, there seemed to be a common theme of volition for the countries problems to be solved. There was a postive feeling of hope for this country, and concern for the people of the country, all its people.

Now this could just be my delusional interpretation of the events that occurred at the post film discussion, but if there was more to it than that – then this film had already been able to achieve something in 2007 that is greatly needed. It is by no means the only form of “stimulation of thought” that it is out there – but it is thought stimulation all the same, and it reached everyone of you who either posted your comments here or are even reading this now.

I believe that it would be a shame to stop here and I believe a translation into Sinhala and Tamil would be a next step to show it to a wider audience, again to promote further discussion. One comment I must make about this “ground views” discussion blog is i’m glad to see that talk is not the kind of extreme views that one see’s depicted on many major news website discussion pages where people are just shouting abuse blame and unleashing anger on each other. The criticism here seems constructive and there appears to be a two way dialog with both or multiple parties expanding their views.

So Well done Sam, thanks for taking the plunge, and putting yourself and your work out there – in my opinion, at least, you’ve produced a vehicle (no matter how imperfect it may be) that has great “potential”.

Bishan

PS – My suggestion for the ground view critics – keep the ideas flowing – it doesn’t matter even if they are coming from poorly informed, so called “brats” as one commentator suggested – for then it is then the responsibility of the better informed to inform the less informed of their impression of the truth! And i thank that particular person for that particular viewpoint which i enjoyed reading :)

groundviews » Diaspora dilemmas: Australia and the Sri Lanka conflict said,

May 26, 2007 @ 8:29 am

[...] Read the article in full here. Sam’s contributions to Groundviews can be found here and a review of his film on Sri Lanka, Circles of Violence, here. [...]

Koshi said,

July 11, 2008 @ 8:34 am

Very, very belated entry!

To a few commentators, do please pay us the courtesy of spelling our last name right – it’s Sandrasagra, no extra “a”. Small detail, I know.

I don’t usually read/comment on web forums, so excuse the possible inarticulacy, and my very late foray into this long-extinct discussion. I do feel I need to comment, having seen the documentary in its various stages pre- and post- production and as a fair amount of comment seems to have been generated by Manik.

I want to belatedly congratulate Sam. Well done, my friend.

In response to Justin – when you decide to walk from Jaffna to Kataragama on pilgrimage, sleep on the same mats as beggars and pilgrims, or get an entire area of degraded forest protected, re-forested and declared a sanctuary at your own personal expense – then knock yourself out commenting on the Grand Vitara precluding environmental activism, my friend! It’s not everyone that can afford a Prius or similar, and it’s fairly unlikely that if they could, they would take it off-road in the wilds of the Sinharajah, Okanda or Ampara!

My belief is that there is no place for vilification in film critique – avoid personal invective in the interests of verisimilitude. I’d think personal response, artistic evaluation and technical commentary would be more valuable to the film-maker, and the public. But that’s just my opinion! Apart from the random rants in question, however, there is so much valuable and interesting critique and opinion here. Wish I’d had a look at this sooner.

I admit I’m opening myself to accusations of bias, as I am not going to comment on the documentary, but so many have articulated their ideas so eloquently already, I feel my opinion would be redundant. My opinion on the comments made on my father, however, is not.

Manik was a man who lived his philosophy – as contradictory as that might appear to the uninitiated – if you didn’t know him well, try and suspend your judgement, as you really didn’t know the story.

“Towering” over the documentary – well, he was a man who refused to censor himself. He was articulate and passionate, so he did tend to tower. I think if Sam edited him out further; the comments would have been the same. Such was the man.

“Self-aggrandizing sound bytes” aside (ooh he clearly offended some sensibilities) – his propensity to say exactly what he thought, truly terrified us at various points in his life. He powered on, however, and held forth with a wealth of personal experience to add authority to his observations. Unlike many of his detractors.

Sri Lanka is truly a land of the brave, as well as a land of the wise.
“The faint-hearted? They can leave.” I like that line too, and it’s true.

It takes immense courage to live in Sri Lanka and be a truly free spirit. Thank heavens our country still has an intelligentsia, a talented community of artists, social commentators and people with spark, passion and joie de vivre – who in the face of the odds and the detractors – continue keep our flag blowing in the wind. Best of luck to all of you survivors, you know who you are. Haro Hara!

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI

Leave a Comment

This is a moderated forum. Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. Please do not post comments that are off topic, defamatory, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Comments are automatically scanned for spam and obscenity.

Comments are only approved if they are in line with the site guidelines. Those that do not will be edited or deleted without prior intimation. Comment approval may take up to 24 hours.

Thanks in advance for your civil and constructive engagement.

Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free