Gamini Hattotuwegama; The Sri Lankan Dramatist Who Overcame The Constrains Of Colonialism/ Postcolonialism 

Dr. Gamini Haththotuwegama

By Michael Fernando –OCTOBER 2, 2021

Dr. Michael Fernando

The contribution of Gamini Hattotuwegama (1938-2009) to the postcolonial Sri Lankan  theatre, especially, to the Sinhala language theatre that is the main component of the trilingual (Sinhala, Tamil and English) Sri Lankan theatre is unique. Current Sinhala theatre landscape is marked with a) a still functioning folk tradition, b) the mainstream semi-or non professional theatre and c) a multi faceted alternative theatre consisting of several traditions and trends. Further more there  prevails  a set of live performances practiced mainly as religious or therapeutic rituals but also possesses  elements of entertainment.

Hattotuwegama was born in 1938 and was ten years old when the British colonial rulers left the country in 1948. His active participation in the Sri Lankan theatre runs through a period of about 55 years since his admission to the then University of Ceylon in Peradeniya. As an undergraduate following a special degree course in English he became a student very close to Professor E. F.C Ludowyk, one of the two pioneers of the modern Sinhala theatre. Ludowyk was also the person  who laid foundation to a serious English language theatre in Sri Lanka and  was   the mentor  of the dramatist Ediriweera Sarachchandra who is considered as the doyen of modern Sinhala Theatre (Sarachchandra, Ediriweera 1985  p 139).

Hattotutwegama experienced the process of the birth of a new Sinhala theatre  based on the traditional folk drama and its culmination with the production of Maname in 1956.

(A similar achievement to Sarachchandra’s invention  of a dramaturgy based on the folk  tradition which is also within the oriental theory of drama in general in 1956 seemed to have occurred in India only in 1972  with B.V Karanth’s direction of Girish Karnard’s Hayawadana even though there was a strong movement in India to develop a ‘theatre of roots’ since 1930s. As Suresh Avasti says “With this event [Karnath’s direction], we might say, contemporary theatre began its encounter with tradition” (Suresh Awasthi  1989 p. 49)

Ediriweera Sarachchandrea who invented a  new dramaturgy was  a Professor of the University of Pereadeniya where Hattotuwegama studied English at the time.

The emergence of a new dramaturgy by 1956 was an event that made a   deep impact on Hattotuwegama.

On one hand it helped him to be free from a complex of which the earlier generation of dramatists  suffered.

As Sarachchandra himself elucidated his experience under colonial conditions, in a lecture delivered  in Japan in 1957 “…the very presence of a ruling class with an entirely different culture naturally gives the indigenous culture an inferior place,. and creates a kind of unhealthy psychology which is detrimental to the native traditions, preventing their complete disappearance.” . (Ediriweera Sarachchandra.1995 p.17)

There were several socio-political and philosophical factors which made Hattotuwegama an open minded and independent dramatist free of all kinds of chauvinisms based on gender, race or religion.

As a child and a adolescent he grew up in a time when there was a strong left movement in Sri Lanka From his school days  he has had  the opportunity to  read and learn about great dramatists of the world. In the University he   studied world theatre deeply. His friendship  with a scholar of the caliber of E F.C. Ludowyk  who was politically a “leftist”  and an academic who studied Shakespeare in Cambridge  and directed a play by the “Communist” Brecht in Sri Lanka so early as 1949  (this direction of  Brecht’s   Der gute Mencsh von Sechuan  was most probably  the first  production of as Brecht play in an Asian country) was a decisive factor in making a dramatist of Hattotuegama’s qualities.

Hattotuwegama was a student leader whose allegiances were always with the  left when he was in the university. He was anti-colonial and anti imperialist but never anti-West like many of the intellectuals of the postcolonial Sri Lanka. 

His philosophy of life was, to a certain extent, a reflection  of his socio-political stance. He was a university teacher until his death, but never interested in obtaining a post-graduate degree and did not want to add titles such as Dr. or Professor to his name. However he never seized learning, teaching and writing and directing plays. He loved actor training and most of the famous personalities  active in Sri Lankan theatre are his students. He lectured  university students on the theories of world theatre and directed plays by world famous  dramatists or written by himself with the students of Universities in Kelaniya and Perdeniya in Sinhala, English and also using all these three languages including Tamil. He called such experiments as trilingual productions.

After 1965 when the department of English was moved to Kelaniya he became a regular theatre critic of the Ceylon Daily News which was then the main English language news paper of the country. As Hattotuwegama himself told the present writer he considered this journalistic engagement as a waste of time. However it is a fact that  his articles on world  theater and also reviews on plays produced in Sri Lanka were of great importance not only the audience but also to the artists as well.

It is necessary to understand the strengths   and  the challenges faced by the contemporary Sri Lankan Sinhala theatre  for a rational evaluation of Hattotuwegama’s  contribution to its development.

Firstly, when compared with any modern theatre  Sinhala theatre has reached professional standards qualitatively.  That does not mean that all plays written, produced and staged in this country are of high standards. The crux of the situation is that there are artists in this country who have the ability to write and  direct “good drama” and there are actors and other artists who can perform their activities successfully.

Secondly, Sri Lankan theatre is essentially a non-or semi-professional theatre. There are hardly any artist, other than a few who perform  technical functions whose sole source of income is theatre work. Most of the artists earn their “living”  by engaging in some sort of an occupation in public or private sector enterprises or finding a way of self employment..

Thirdly, the politicized theatre or the plays which handle direct political themes are also a part of the mainstream of Sinhala theatre.

Fourthly, the absence of investors whose main purpose is profit making and the non-existence of direct state sector sponsorship have avoided a commercialization and an interference of politicians. However killings of dramatists by government forces or censorships based on political or moral reasons are not completely absent. What is most important is  the prevalent  of an independence for artists which they can and have been practicing. There have been moments  when the  Sinhala dramatists have used this independence meaningfully.

Fifthly, the current  non-or-semi-professional travel theatre framework is becoming a  big and sometimes unbearable burden to the artists due to increasing expenses at all moments of the process of producing a play and staging it. The resulting high costs of theatre tickets has already affected the theatre goers and might even pose a death blow to the national theatre of the country.

This is not a problem specific to Sri Lanka. Artists  in most developed countries have been trying to find solutions to this problem.

Under these circumstances the movement of “Street Theatre” (Veedi Natya) introduced to Sri Lanka in 1974 by Gamini Hattotuwegama has added a very positive perspective widening the vistas of  the semi- or non-professional  mainstream Sinhala theatre. It is well known that the idea of an unconventional form of drama has been experimented in many parts of the world. The non-profit community theatre, Off Broad Way and Off- Off Broad Way  Theatres in the  USA and the Street Theatre groups in India Are a few examples. Currently in countries like Germany attempts are being made  to establish small theaters such as so called “Black Box Theatres”  that have only the very basic facilities. This concept has already been introduced to Sri Lanka by M Safeer following the example of “Black Box Theatre” that he has seen in Germany.  Recently a “Theatre Festival” was held in his “Inter Act Art Theatre House” situated by the side of Diyawanna Oya in Rajagiriya. Among the participants was a play produced by the Department of Fine Arts Unversity oif Peradeniya. Safeer’s experiment seemed to be encouraged by Hattotuwegama,s work.

“The Street Theatre”  introduced by Hattotuwegama has already become a very active grass root level theatre spread in many parts of Sri Lanka  (Please see: Ajith Krishanta Saram 2000)  and   seems to be satisfying the interests of dramatists and spectators of rural and suburban areas in the country. Gamini Hattotuwegama’s committed leadership is the main reason for the success of this form of performance. He himself has written more than 50 short plays (Athula Samarakoon and Sudesh Manthilaka pp. 174-75) on  social and political themes including the ethnic disharmony and the civil war in Sri Lanka. Gamini has developed a dramaturgy based on Sinhala folk plays including the puppet play of southern Sri Lanka. Stage props were minimal and the actors sometimes played the roles of stage propos as well.

The organizers who arranged performances of his productions were not supposed to charge any fee from the spectators. The group also did not charge any specific payment for the performance but only the transport costs (usually bus or train fare) was to reimburse and meals for the troupe  were to be provided as experienced by the present author when he brought down Hattotuwegama plays to the University of Peradeniya 

Read More