by Rohana R. Wasala

I was saddened by the unexpectedly rude sarcasm of the apparently perfunctory memorial feature The Jackson of all trades: A tribute to Jackson Anthony” (The Island/October 20, 2023) penned by Uditha Devapriya about the recently deceased celebrity. In my opinion, the article is hardly worthy of the dead icon, or of the tribute payer, for that matter. The ill chosen satirical tone rings discordant with the reasonably authentic contents of what fair minded readers would have expected to be an engaging eulogy of a generous human being with his trademark eternal smile on his face who died before his time in tragic circumstances. How can a seemingly backhanded compliment like that be called a tribute to one who is no more who had done nothing in his life to deserve even a faint suggestion of disrespect, disregard or ingratitude?

The first part of the title (‘The Jackson of all trades’) is an improper parody of the figurative expression ‘jack of all trades, master of none’, usually applied to someone who can do many different things, but none of them so well. It strikes me as having insulting implications. Strangely, I myself used this familiar idiomatic phrase (‘jack of all trades, master of none’) to invoke adulation for Jackson Anthony in the concluding paragraph of an informal appreciatory review of his first mega movie Aba” (2008), which was published as a SATmag feature under the title Aba – the mega Sinhala movie” in The Island newspaper of September 6, 2008. I had it posted again under the title ‘In memory of Jackson Anthony’ on Lankaweb on October 17, 2023. Following is the final paragraph of that newspaper review first  written and published fifteen years ago:

I wish to reserve special praise for Jackson Anthony for his rare creativity and unmatched versatility.  The common English idiom ‘Jack of all trades (master of none)’ usually applied to a person who can do many different jobs, but none of them so well, could be given an absolutely positive twist in the case of our Jackson Anthony thus: ‘A Jack of all trades, and master of many’.  He is an actor, a director, a singer, a scholar, a scriptwriter, a novelist, a lyricist, an explorer, a traveller, and a communicator par excellence.”

 My (perhaps, apology for a) review was based on some limited familiarity with Jackson Anthony’s work and was written, as can be seen, before he lost favour with a section of the public for his apparent sympathy for the popular nationalist trend in the Sri Lankan political landscape that had emerged, devoid of communal divisions, with the long awaited end of the civil war that had brought death and destruction to every community in sight. It’s not that my critical judgement would have been affected even if his perceived political sympathies or affiliations had been the reverse of what they were. I remember that his appropriation of Christian mythological imagery in the film Aba was subjected to critical disapproval, which I found absurd. I totally approve of Jackson Anthony’s practical eclecticism in his cinematic and literary creations. His interest in the country’s history was genuine, and was not driven by mere love of storytelling, in which he excelled. But I believe that his storytelling was more a means than an end. His end was communicating ideas. He was a great communicator of great ideas.   

Something that I cannot understand is why only Jackson Anthony was censured for his devoted allegiance towards the iconic leader (whose clay feet were yet to be exposed) who was universally adored for ridding the country of the scourge of mindless violence associated with the civil strife, when almost all his fellow professionals including the senior most in his field had shared the same nationalist fervour, political preferences and loyalties.Those who actually registered an inexplicable aversion towards Jackson Anthony were far less generous than Devapriya, of course. Antipathy towards Jackson Anthony could have been due to personal as well as professional jealousy. 

People engaged in the entertainment and creative art industries also must enjoy the freedom of holding political views and acting on them. Of course, Devapriya does not condemn Jackson Anthony on this account. He only writes:  As for his politics, which we did encounter, what can we say, other than the fact that actors can never free themselves of such affiliations?” Yes, that is my own experience, too. But am I wrong to read some functional ambiguity into his words? The ability to dissemble is an essential skill for a professional actor (nothing wrong with that), but a necessary evil for a pragmatic politician (something open to question). But I cannot bring myself to even imagine that highly cultured Jackson Anthony’s alleged political affiliations were motivated by any personal cupidity or desire for self-aggrandisement.  

Rohana R. Wasala