User Reviews

out of 4 movies made by Asoka Handagama, this was the first one i had the opportunity to watch. The story,dialogs were typical of Asoka which are and full of life and reality. the storyline was flawless in my opinion and the courage to create such cinematic piece in a country like Celinka amazed me and my brother who watched this movie together.

first of all the the contents of the story , the controversial, taboos of conventional srilankan society is heavily exposed in this movie. this was a very refreshing experience for me in srilankan cinematic history. the characters were chosen to perfection and the only thing missing was the the technical support Handagama lacked being a srilankan movie maker. if he had the support of a professional technical support even as much as modern Korean , hong Kong movies have this film would have been lot better.

and after seeing Asoka's tele dramas, my expectations were high while anticipating his conversion to silver screen. And to my fortune, he didn't let me down.

This is a groundbreaking Asian film. First, it is truly "alternative". It rejects, to a significant extent, traditional Western styles of filmmaking and tries to create a distinct "Asian" or "Sri Lankan" style. There is no tracking or fading in or out of scenes, simply cuts. Apparently, the director tried to shoot this film in a style similar to the Buddhist murals that one sees in Sri Lanka and other countries in South and Southeast Asia. It works well, but is bound to alienate viewers - particularly Westerners but also Asians - who cannot appreciate a film outside the parameters of Western filmmaking techniques.

Second, the film has a strong Asian character. It is a highly effective exposition of the extent to which the war in Sri Lanka has degraded rural village life, to the point where every act and thought is circumscribed by the war. There is also an interesting examination of the relationship between gender and ethnicity and a devastating critique of corruption in organized Buddhism.

This is a brilliant film, and has won an award at least one film festival (not surprisingly, at an Asian festival-the Bangkok International Film Festival), but it may be ahead of its time. I suspect that its value may only be appreciated 10-20 years down the road, when a threshold of distinct Asian filmmaking has been reached.

I have not read Tolstoy " War and Peace" nor i knew its story line, But I can definitely say this movie can be named as " War and Culture". It juxtaposes the two different things and then tells you how they affect one another. The movie starts during a shoot out between the Srilankan Army and the Tamil Separatists. The protagonist an Sinhala soldier is sitting inside a Bunker and shoots. By accident a Tamil girl trespasses in to the Bunker, On realising that the soldier may shoot her, without wanting to see the gun, the girl out of fear hides her face with her clothes, At this moment she becomes half naked, which creates an aura of confusion in the mind of the soldier and he has a violent intercourse with her. The soldier is kind of shocked at himself, he feels a sense of guilt and confusion deserts the army and runs of from the place, The Tamil girl follows him and ends up as an resident of his village. From the eyes of the Soldier and the Girl the whole village life is revealed. The Village has only two kind of men ,the Young and strong one who wants to join the army and Old and weak one who feels worthless.The Women are of only one kind, they want to only marry strong soldiers. They get married and finally end up as young widows. The cruelty of youthfulness forces the widows to find solace in weak men.The Monk of the village, tries to provide a sense of hope in the name of god, but the monk himself is not convinced of the situation and he is also morally off tracked at the end and he quits his robes to become a commoner. The movie ends with the sinhala soldier and the Tamil women having a daughter.

Some of the best dialogues are.

1.A soldier kills some one , not because he hates and he lets some one live , not because he loves.He does any act because, it is because.

2.Either the Bookie must stop or the Booker must stop.( i,e the Leader must stop the war or the citizen should not participate in the war)

3.Monk says, A soldier and the Monk both are just common men under the uniform.

"I wonder if there is a special hell for directors of this kind, where they are forced to watch their movies, repeatedly, forever..." Was the thought running through my mind as I watched this crap! But I guess that God simply can not be that cruel.

This movie runs for way too long and nothing happens. People laugh, have sex (boringly), stand around looking photogenic etc etc. There are, for sure, people who will applaud this futile nonsense. I (though a Tarkovsky- and art-film fan) hated every minute of it! I think every film maker should remember the first rule of cinema, be it chinese art or Hollywood, which goes: "A scene that, if cut out, does not SIGNIFICANTLY change the story SHOULD be cut out!"

This is My Moon has a new air. It deals with complex and controversial subject matter and Handagama has created some potent visual imagery. Unfortunately the director seems preoccupied almost exclusively with these visual forms to the detriment of thoughtful character and plot development. Events depicted are not convincing and the characters make almost no emotional impact. Handagama has assembled a talented cast but their performances are limited by the narrow scope and static nature of the film itself.

Handagama is no doubt looking for new cinematic methods, but superficial impressions and rather self-conscious image making have disrupted the artistic balance between form and content. True, there is no idyllic village life as claimed by Sinhala-Buddhist moralists, but this has to be depicted accurately and in a way that allows real life to make itself felt.

The main male character, the soldier, is not credible. Despite his poor village origins, he is cold and indifferent to the problems confronting his family and friends. Nor is there any indication that he cares about the thousands who have lost their lives on the battlefield or are suffering from the war. At one point he directly addresses the camera: "What is this war for?" "For the sake of it," he says, and then asks, "Why do we kill?" Again he replies, "For the sake of it." These cynical answers do not ring true.

There are numerous sexual liaisons but none of these illuminate the inner lives of those involved. Countless issues are raised but not explored. Take, for example, the Tamil girl's behavior in front of her adversaries. Why does she raise her skirt? Does she want to show her naked figure and survive through the violation of her sexual feelings? Does she hide her face out of fear? No real answers are provided.

One of the secondary characters in the film, a young village woman whose husband has been killed on the front line, could have been an important component in the story. Still in her youth, she needs love and physical intimacy, but is dependent on an army pension to survive. If she remarries she will lose the allowance. Condemned to remain a widow under the law in order to maintain a steady income, her soul is empty. None of this is explored artistically. The terrible conflict in her life is consigned to one scene where she embraces and kisses the deserter in an uncontrollable sexual urge.

Despite these weaknesses, This is My Moon demonstrates that Handagama has positive qualities as an artist. Most contemporary filmmakers ignore critical social developments or show little concern with the human problems created by them. Handagama, by contrast, has a genuine interest in these issues and gives voice to his dissatisfaction with prevailing dramatic techniques by searching for new cinematic forms. One feels that Handagama, whether consciously or unconsciously, recognizes the need for more humane social relations.

Devaka S. Jayasuriya 90, Old Kesbawa Road Nugegoda Srilanka

A Sri Lankan film that begins like a war film and develops like a hinduistic saga, where men and women's vices are forever re-incarnated in a masochistic succession. Disruption is in the key of it, all the scenes are like independant images of a mosaic (like religious art). On the whole, it remains quite difficult to understand for an occidental audience (actually who knows about the long-lasting war between Hindus and Sikhs in Sri Lanka?). Moreover, the ideological message remains difficult to make out, although undoubtedly present.