By Vipula Wanigasekera –

Dr. Vipula Wanigasekera

The movie – Rāni had the potential to be a powerful cinematic experience, given its compelling storyline set in the 1980s and 1990s. The film is presented as fiction but revolves around the tragic fate of Richard de Zoysa, a well-known Sri Lankan journalist, author, human rights activist, and actor. Despite having such a strong foundation, the movie falls short of delivering a truly impactful narrative.

One of the key issues is the lack of thematic direction. While Rani touches on many elements of Richard’s world, it fails to establish a clear, driving force behind the story. The environment surrounding the story often unfolds like a documentary, lacking the cinematic depth needed to immerse the audience.

A movie of this nature should have deeply explored the dangers investigative journalists face—showing how they uncover the truth while risking their lives. Unfortunately, Rani could not meet this challenge.

The cast does justice to their roles, which is one of the film’s few strengths, with actors convincingly portraying politicians of the time. Their performances help maintain audience engagement, even when the screenplay lacks momentum.

Swarna Mallawarachchi, in particular, delivers a strong performance, trying her best to carry the weight of the film. However, her efforts are not adequately supported by the overall narrative structure, making it difficult for the audience to fully connect with the story’s emotions.

Recreating the setting of the 1980s required immense effort, but the execution feels weak and uninspired, likely due to budgetary constraints. Strong, subtle, yet impactful dialogues could have heightened the drama, adding tension and depth to the narrative.

One of the most significant drawbacks is the absence of a truly unforgettable moment—a scene that lingers in the audience’s mind long after the credits roll. In Pather Panchali, for instance, Karuna Banerjee’s heart-wrenching revelation of her daughter’s death to her husband is an unforgettable cinematic moment.

The film struggles to visually capture the essence of the late 1980s, a crucial element for an immersive historical narrative. While independent films often work within financial constraints, they usually compensate with strong storytelling, powerful performances, and an innovative narrative structure.

Rani does not leverage these elements to its advantage. Critics have already commented on Manorani’s unusual mannerisms—her way of smoking, placing a cigarette on the ashtray, offering a drink to the domestic, and reacting excessively to seeing her son hugging a friend before accidentally witnessing him being assaulted.

The story is well known among baby boomers and the previous generation in Sri Lanka. Simply retelling it without adding a fresh perspective or gripping execution diminishes the film’s impact. A more effective ending could have emphasized how investigative journalists remain at risk worldwide, linking the writer’s tragic fate to similar events in later years. Instead, the film presents his death as an incidental decision made by a death squad after a few drinks, thus diminishing the overall purpose of the movie.

My comments are purely personal reflections, with no intent to undermine the hard work of the production team. Yet, for a film tackling such an important subject, one cannot help but feel that it could have been much more.

*Writer is former Diplomat, Head of Tourism Authority and Convention Bureau, Currently a Senior Lecturer for ECU, Meditation Coach and Reiki Healer