The Mathew phenomenon gathers momentum

By Dilshan Boange

[Part 2]

Making a film that captures a character as controversial and formidable as that of the late Fr. Mathew Peiris cannot be an easy task to say the least. This week I continue the discussion on the upcoming movie by veteran Sri Lankan film-maker Chandran Rutnam (CR), According to Mathew. One of the questions I asked CR who is now in the process of making the film about the ‘vicarage double murder’ or the Mathew Peiris case, was, how could Fr. Mathew Peiris be described, taking to account all that he was known for, both the good and bad?

Chandran Rutnam

“He was a commander,” said Rutnam explaining that Fr. Mathew enjoyed immense commanding power over people in civilian life, as well as an inmate at the Welikada Prison who was held in the highest regard amongst his fellow prisoners. On the matter of how he remorselessly pulled off the murder with an unconscionable coldness Rutnam said he felt Fr. Mathew was in control and confident that he could get away with it.

“He didn’t care. He was arrogant, as if, ‘catch me if you can!’ You see it’s very hard to get this character even into a motion picture. A very unusual character. One of a kind. And you will see when the police come after him he will stand there defiantly, saying ok, you got me.

This defiance I will portray in the movie. To the very last he was defiant. He never caved in. It’s very difficult to put him into a mould. So, there is no mould for him.”

Dwelling on the psychology of Mathew Peiris as he understood him, Rutnam said, “Why did he kill? It is not only sex. It can’t be. Because, if he killed for the sexual attraction for the girl, he needn’t bring his wife down from England.” It was as Rutnam saw, the arrogance in the man who wanted to show that he could do with people as he pleased.

Church

On the matter of how this project may not be in the best interest of the church CR had this to share. “I’m not making a film against the church. I’d never do that. It’s got nothing to do with the church. It’s about a human being who happened to be a servant of the church.

It could have been any other occupation.” The radical angle of it so to say, would be the fact that due to the occupation of the protagonist he would be a person who is expected to be good man who turns out to be evil.

“He had very high credentials in the politics of the day. He hobnobbed with the most influential people in the country. And when I say most I mean ‘the most’ all the way to the top!” said Rutnam giving insight on how the character could be positioned socially. A very complex person who had a lot of audacity to abuse the power of the cassock he wore was another way Rutnam gave perspective on Fr. Mathew. “It was the audacity of access. He could go anywhere, anytime. He’s got that cassock. Uses it like a weapon.” Was it, I propositioned, like a shield and a sword at the same time? “Yes, exactly” conceded my interviewee. “The complexity of the man intrigued me. I didn’t do it to hate him.” Is there any intention then, one may query to ‘glorify’ Fr. Mathew? A very firm ‘no’ was the answer.

Pensive look

“We are trying to do this film within the boundaries of good taste.” Smuttiness that creates sensations isn’t on the strategy plan of this film-maker as he clearly pointed out to me. “It can be subjective. I’m trying to stay as much to the facts as possible.” On cinematically constructing what would have transpired between Fr. Mathew and his mistress CR will be treading a fine line that will not as he hopes, cross boundaries of propriety. “We have to come up with what we think may have happened,” he said “It won’t be an x-rated picture.” Then with a pensive look on his face my interviewee said, “Let me tell you something since this article is about the Mathew phenomenon. The family called me. The Ingram family called me. And they tried to dissuade me. I told them I’m making a movie of something that happened. Then, they were not very happy with me. But I was very cordial to them.

A scene from the film

Then we had other members of the family calling and giving me information. And one person told me, Russell, from his grave will be happy that you’re speaking out on his behalf. And then one week later that same person sends me a legal notice saying that I cannot use any of his emails. Therefore I have changed the names. But I’m staying with Mathew because he’s the main person. But all the other names have been changed.”

Making decisions that must work to bring to life the film director’s vision within the framework of pragmatism is possibly one of the toughest decisions a film-maker has to do in the process of making his script on paper come to life as moving images. Due to the institutional impasses he has faced, Rutnam will not be allowed to do any filming in the church and therefore said he had to construct the façade of a church for a scene.

It had been a tough decision in so far as it was a costly one he admitted. CR is therefore one who believes that his vision must be reached to the best possible extent despite whatever barriers manifest along his path. And when it comes to this latest project, Rutnam certainly is handling the interests of many parties while also having to be true to his own spirit as a film-maker. The task ahead of him and his team to bring to life on cinema a phenomenal character such as that of the late Fr. Mathew Peiris is without doubt of colossal scale in terms of artistic commitment.

Enigma

After listening to CR’s discourse to me about the character he is going to bring to life for the silver screen I asked him whether he would agree if I said the most definitive word that best captures the late Fr. Mathew Peiris is ‘engima’. “Absolutely.” responded Rutnam “Good word. Enigma. He was an enigma. He was an amazing character. Then the power of oratory. He was dynamic, mesmerising. There is no doubt about it.” I then asked a question that had built up in me over the course of listening to the attributes of this enigmatic personality. I asked him, Would you call him something like a Sri Lankan Rasputin? I got my answer instantly –“People have called him that.” A man, who according to the film-maker Rutnam, was an extraordinary character who didn’t know fear. A man who blatantly prided in being steadfastly defiant to the face of authority. A man who is best defined as an enigma is to be resurrected to the world of films. How will the tale be told? One can only wait to find out.