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!

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

The opinions expressed were also different from often repeated mantras.

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

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

Justin – What you chattin’ about?

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

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?

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.

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

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!

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.