Grabbing the opportunity, P. Ramlee left for Singapore on 8 August 1948 with stars in his eyes. He was not to be disappointed. History was about to be written and even Rajhans could never have imagined the tremendous impact that Ramlee was going to have on the industry and how he would go on to become a living legend. In just 25 years, Ramlee acted in more than 60 films, directed 34, composed 401 songs and won seven international awards including appropriately, The Most Versatile Talent at the 1963 Asian Film Festival in Tokyo. Ramlees songs have also reached out internationally. In the United States, Lobo re-recorded his Getaran Jiwa in English into Whispers in the Wind. Koko Shimada of Japan re-recorded his Jeritan Batinku in English entitled Indian Summer. The Bolshoi Ballet Theatre Symphony Orchestra of Tashkent has rerecorded a number of his songs.
Ramlee has been likened to Noel Coward and Charlie Chaplin and to Indias versatile Raj Kapoor. Unlettered in any art, he has left a legacy of film and music that has yet to be equaled. On the surface it appears then that Ramlee had achieved the fame and honour that every artist dreams about. For Ramlee in 1948, it seemed that he had been offered the opportunity of a lifetime. However it actually set into motion events that would ultimately result in him dying at a young age and in abject poverty and despondence, rejected and forgotten by all. For P. Ramlee, the film world was truly tinsel.
When Ramlee arrived in Singapore, his singing was recorded to be played back in films. His eagerness to participate in film production led him first to be a clapper boy and camera assistant. He rose up to become assistant director and assisted in the writing of dialogue and also gurindam. With his first role as an actor in Chinta directed by Rajhans, Ramlee was set on the road to greater things. He subsequently acted under other directors such as (Tan Sri) L. Krishnan, Phani Majumdar, K.M. Basker, B.N. Rao, S. Ramanathan and acted in Nilam, Rachun Dunia (Deadly Poison), Bakti (Dedication), Takdir Ilahi (The Will of God), Sejoli (Lovebirds), Juwita (Sweetheart), Antara Senyum dan Tangis
(Between Smiles and Tears), Anjoran Nasib (Decree of Fate), Patah Hati (Broken Hearted), Miskin (Poverty), Putus Harapan (Without Hope), Hujan Panas (Rain on a Sunny Day), Siapa Salah (Who is to Blame), Panggilan Pulau (Call of the Islands), Perjodohan (Fated to be Together) and Merana (Despair).
The year 1955 became a momentous year for Ramlee as well as for the industry. He appeared in the lead role in Abu Hassan Penchuri (Abu Hassan the Thief) directed by B.N. Rao. After being an actor in 17 films and working under many different directors, P. Ramlee was on the threshold of greater things. Obviously helming a production would be the next step. But would he a Malay be given the chance to direct Only two Malay directors had been given the opportunity to helm productions (in 1952). The first one was A.R. Tompel with the Nusantara Film Company followed by one of MFPs actors, Haji Mohamad Mahadi Haji Mohamad Saad. Obviously Haji Mahadi (as he was more popularly known) was the choice for MFP (and the Malay film personnel) as he was an elder man who was highly respected and was a religious one to boot having studied the Islamic religion in Mecca. Mahadis film Permata Di-Perlimbahan (Jewels in the Valley, 1952) failed at the box-office and subsequently no other Malay director was given an opportunity to direct for MFP.
There are three versions that I personally have heard of how P. Ramlee was given the directors mantle. One version was told to me by Elias Mydin, a veteran film editor who had known Jaafar Abdullah, the public relations officer at MFP. Jaafar told him that he had approached MFP to propose P. Ramlee to be a director and Jaafar was willing to stake his six months salary if P. Ramlees first film did not make it at the box-office.
Another version is from Wan Khazim Wan Din who had been a camera crew member and had also acted with P. Ramlee in a few films. Wan Khazim told me that P. Ramlee was the President of PERSAMA, the workers union at MFP that had been set up in 1954. One of the reasons for choosing P. Ramlee to be the President was because he was the golden boy of MFP then. The films he had acted in had all made money. The film workers were lowly paid, and so they hoped that when P. Ramlee became a director, he would be in a better position to fight for their rights. The workers approached MFP to petition P. Ramlee to be a director. The third version was from Jins Shamsuddin who had been an actor with MFP. He told me that Norizan, P. Ramlees second wife, had informed him (Jins) that she had approached MFP to persuade the studio to give P. Ramlee a chance to direct.
Whichever version is true is nevertheless irrelevant. P. Ramlee went on to direct Penarek Becha. This was a major turning point in his life (and for Malaysian cinema), one that was to lead to momentous changes in Malay film storytelling and music that was to make him an enduring legend in the entertainment industry.
A New Kind of Realism in Malay Cinema
The 1940s and 50s were difficult years for the population. Due to British colonial policy, the ethnic Malays were outside the economic sphere and were treated as outsiders in their own country. Many of them were illiterate. Young men who migrated to the city were lulled by cinema and its depictions of a world that was at odds with their traditional upbringing. The Malays who became film actors and film workers too were nave. They came from the ranks of the village poor or having worked in the city as car washers, sweepers or taxi drivers.
Singapore was not spared the socialist revolution that was sweeping the world in the 1950s. P. Ramlees colleagues were either leftists, nationalists or religious fundamentalists. Among the novelists and writers that he came into contact with were Hamzah Hussein, Usman Awang, Keris Mas,
Abdullah Hussein and A. Said. Their stories were mostly
about the disenfranchised Malays and the need for emancipation. These influences began to show in his very first film, Penarek Becha. Two later films, Antara Dua Darjat (Between Two Classes, 1960) and Ibu Mertuaku (My Mother-in-Law, 1962) were a damning criticism of the feudalist mentality that was still existent within some segments of the Malay community. Ramlee leaned towards the ordinary man and criticised the rich and powerful, leading to accusations of him being a socialist and having Marxist tendencies. But Ramlee was not interested in any ideology. He was simply saying that maintaining the faith of the individual in the face of temptation was the problem and not the capitalist system itself.
Guidance and help for the fledgling actor and director came from his many colleagues. They helped Ramlee to develop as did L. Krishnan, the first director to recognize his talents and who cast Ramlee in his first leading role in Bakti (Dedication, 1950). Musicians like Zubir Said, Ahmad Jaafar, Ahmad Osman and Yusof B. also influenced him as a musician. Ramlee was fond of saying that his art was for the masses and so he was not averse to mixing with the ordinary people. He went to the ground to find out what they liked. Ultimately, these were the people who became the inspiration for his stories, situations and characters. Yusof B. was more than a friend. He was a Sufi practitioner and Ramlee was drawn to such kind of teachings that placed more emphasis on spirituality rather than on rituals and dogma. Ramlee spent many hours with Yusof B. to understand the intrinsic aspects of Islam. Another Sufi master who used to visit the artistes at their quarters was Habib Ismail, an Indian Muslim from Penang who was from the Naqsyabandi Sufi school. He told me that Ramlee had frequently consulted him on religious matters.
A look at most of his films will show how Ramlee imparted advice and guidance in a very discreet and subtle manner. Not one of his films has a scene of the Muslim prayer being performed. Even the common Muslim greeting was absent. For Ramlee, the actual practice of the tenets of the religion should be seen in ones character and actions. This was more truthful and did not reek of hypocrisy.
For the production of Penarek Becha, P. Ramlee chose a story based on a Japanese film called Rickshaw-san by Hiroshi Inagaki that he had seen when studying Japanese during the War. He brought his personal experiences into the story and made a film that not only entertained but was also an indictment of Malays who had made it in Singapore but were not helping other Malays to also succeed. In the hands of P. Ramlee, it became a quintessentially Malay story of a trishaw peddler who is reviled by a rich man only because he was poor. The daughter of the rich man is however taken by his honesty. At the end the rich man sees the error of his ways when he is robbed by the very man who he had deemed to be worthy of his daughters hand.
Penarek Becha became a huge success at the box office. Though it somewhat reflected the Indian approaches to film storytelling in acting, setting and the use of song, Ramlee brought a distinctive acting style and directorial bravura that was different from the Indian directors. This style was to be further honed in the next fifteen films that he directed for MFP. The film also became a turning point for the industry. More Malays were given the opportunity to become directors and they too contributed to the change in the screen image of the Malay and his world.
The themes in films from the late 1940s to the 60s were usually of royal transgressions, unrequited love, forced marriages or of ill-treated stepchildren and evil stepmothers. P. Ramlees entry signaled a change in the treatment of subjects and issues pertaining to the Malays. He refuted the backwardness of the Malays, feeling that all they needed was to be given a chance. He extolled traditional Malay culture and values, believing that they were not at odds with living in the city with all its modernity.
P. Ramlee was an avid filmgoer. Untrained in film, Ramlee became a copyist and an extraordinary one at that. He eagerly reached out for anything that fancied him be they from real life or from the many foreign films that he saw. L. Krishnan remarked that Ramlee was a great copyist but what he copied became something original and you could never spot its origin. I was told by Aziz Jaafar, one of the leading actors then who remembered Ramlee dragging him to the cinemas everytime a new film was showing. Whenever a scene inspired Ramlee, he would utter an expletive and note the scene down in writing. Among the many foreign directors that inspired Ramlee were Akira Kurosawa, Satyajit Ray, Raj Kapoor, Orson Welles and Elia Kazan. A study of his films would show narrative and directorial influences from their films. If these masters of cinema were his teachers, how could he go wrong
Ramlees subsequent movies also became box-office hits. Perhaps the Malay audience became aware that they were seeing Malay stories done in a new and striking way. It cannot be discounted that this could be due to Ramlee being inspired by scenes in the foreign films he had seen and then adapting them. Sumpah Orang Minyak (The Curse of the Oily Man, 1958) was about a man who resorts to black magic so as to take revenge against those who reviled him. The climactic fight scene is reminiscent of the final duel between the protagonist and antagonist in Kurosawas Sanshiro Sugata (1943). Antara Dua Darjat (Between Two Classes, 1960) was about the evils of class distinction (a subject close to the heart of Ramlee). The final scene of the protagonist confronting and standing up to the antagonist is reminiscent of the climactic scene in Elia Kazans On the Waterfront (1954) where the protagonist withstands a beating from the antagonist. Ibu Mertua-ku (My Mother-in-Law, 1962) was about how a mother-in-law brings about the destruction of the protagonists family. In this film and Antara Dua Darjat, both the acting and elements of the gothic in the setting reflect many similar scenes from Orson Welles Citizen Kane (1941).
The cinematographic styles of Satyajit Ray and Kurosawa can be seen in Penarek Becha, Semerah Padi (Village of Semerah Padi, 1956), and Sumpah Orang Minyak. Influences from Kurosawas Rashomon can also be seen in the cinematography of Semerah Padi. The films story background was in Acheh, Sumatra and it was his only movie that had strong, Islamic overtones. This film was strangely didactic about religion unlike his other films where he was very subtle and promoted values that were more universal. According to Aimi Jarr who had been Ramlees film magazine editor, the film came about because Ramlee had observed that many Malays in Singapore had become lax about their religion.
Scenes of Charlie Chaplin in the boxing ring in the 1933 silent film City Lights can be seen in the dream sequence in the parody, Labu dan Labi (1962). Kanchan Tirana (1969) made at Merdeka Studios in Kuala Lumpur was an adaptation of Sanshiro Sugata and was of the relationship between a silat master (Tirana, played by Ramlee) and his student, Kanchan (played by Jins Shamsuddin). One of the stories in Ragam P. Ramlee (The Foibles of P. Ramlee, 1965) was Damaq. It was an adaptation of the 1956 Hollywood film Me Tender. A brother entrusts the care of his fianc to his younger brother and leaves. After many years he is presumed dead. But he suddenly returns home to find that the fianc has married his brother.
Though he presented many of his stories in a lighthearted manner, Ramlee sometimes injects both comedy and seriousness into his films as in Bujang Lapok (Three Raggedy Bachelors, 1957). It depicted three good friends who share quarters in a big house with other migrants. The story explored traditional Malay values in the big city and how some of them were fading away fast. The films success enabled him to make a series using the same three characters but in different situations. The characters were modeled after the Three Stooges but became quintessentially Malay. (Later in Ramlees tenure at Merdeka Studios in Kuala Lumpur in the late 1960s and 1970s, they would reappear again as three friends in search of fame and fortune in the series, Do Re Mi.)
The next film in the series, Pendekar Bujang Lapok (The Raggedy Bachelor Warriors, 1959) was about the importance of education and its positive and negative outcomes. As in Penarek Becha, he again depicted successful Malays who looked down upon those who were struggling. In the film, Ramlee also spoke about finding comradeship, independence, love and family as well as about holding on to traditional Malay roots. Ramlee would also insert burlesque and farce with elements of selfreferentiality as in Ali Baba Bujang Lapok (Ali Baba and the Raggedy Bachelors, 1961) a parody of the well-known Arabian tale of Ali Baba and the 40 thieves. In Seniman Bujang Lapok (1961), the three friends become unlikely actors in a film studio. Again, Ramlee depicted successful Malays who were not helping others to succeed. He showed the arrogant attitude of three characters: the studio manager, the film director and a doctor and contrasts it with the nave and simple character of the youths. The studio manager does give them jobs as actors but this segment was more to complement a scene where a non-Malay studio guard tells off a Malay who derides the three youths. The guard says that if one was destined to achieve something, it was bound to happen no matter what.
Madu Tiga (Three Wives, 1964) was a story of a successful Malay (played by Ramlee himself) who marries three wives one after another. The fact is unknown to all three of the wives. He subsequently gets deeper and deeper into a mess when they finally find out the truth. The story was an adaptation of a Chinese film. Ramlee reworked it to speak of the actual situation in Singapore at the time when many migrants took on a second and third wife.
In Semerah Padi, a period film about warriors with a call to uphold religion, he showed respect for the old and love for the young, politeness in speech and action and atonement for transgression. Tiga Abdul (The Three Abduls, 1964) showed that the road to ruin and disruption lay in conflict over power, property and women. Musang Berjanggut (Bearding the Fox, 1959) and Nujum Pa Blalang (Pa Blalang, the Royal Diviner, 1959), spoke about maintaining ones integrity in the face of temptation. Sesudah Subuh (After the Break of Dawn, 1967) and Gerimis (Drizzle, 1965) were about issues of multiculturalism that raised questions about the Malay race and their powerlessness and frustration and their being full of doubt about the future.
P. Ramlee: Observer and Critic
P. Ramlee was very observant what with his comradeship with writers and journalists who were exposed to the outside world and its happenings. He was influenced by his times and affected by the sad lot of his race who appeared to be losing out to modernity. He saw that they had brought the benign and genial character of the village with them to the city but that it was detrimental to their progress. A change was needed but not at the expense of other traditional principles and values. While his novelist friends took to writing about the lot of their people, Ramlee was set to visually represent their lives and show how they could change them if only they put their minds to it.
A close study of many of Ramlees films reveals one facet of his Malayness, i.e., of not making direct criticism. He portrayed these simple people on the screen in a similarly simple and nave manner through the development of their screen character. By using humour and parody, he was able to gently point to the need for the Malays to cast off certain characteristics that were hindering their progress and to learn new ways to negotiate modernity. This can be seen in the Bujang Lapok and Labu dan Labi series of films.
He has severe criticism for the behviour and mentality of the rich and well-to-do (which included the Sayyids, Hajjis and Tengkus). Sometimes this was put across through comedy and parody as in the Bujang Lapok and Labu dan Labi series and in Musang Berjanggut. At other times, due to the drama genre, he was more direct as in Sumpah Orang Minyak, Antara Dua Darjat, Ibu Mertua-ku, and Tiga Abdul.
Ramlees films can stand repeated viewings because the issues and subjects that he depicted are still relevant till today. In relation to this, an interesting question arises about P. Ramlee and his methods. Aside from his being inspired and copying scenes from foreign films, how was he able without any formal training to put forward his ideas and stories through film by expertly using the Subtle criticism of the Malays in the city conventions of film grammar and film language that can withstand critical analysis today To answer this, we need to look at one of P. Ramlees films that stands out as an example of how he used narrative and visual conventions for effective storytelling. The film is Pendekar Bujang Lapok.
Pendekar Bujang Lapok: A Film Story Well-told
P. Ramlee once remarked to a friend that his art was not for profit but was for the people. He did not relish the approaches where one had to think and decipher symbols to iunderstand what was happening on the screen. He consciously created stories and characters that were iconic and that were familiar to the Malays both in the village and the city. His use of language was never high-brow. But neither was it at the working-class level. Ramlee had the knack of developing words that sounded simple but had subtler meanings. In this he was like the penglipur lara of old who did not want to annoy his audience with his own opinions but just told a story.
A look at some scenes and elements in PBL will suffice to show how P. Ramlee used film design and filmic elements albeit unconsciously, to subtly criticise Malay society. In fact, he was drawing upon what was already latent in his own culture that of the technique of firasat which is known only to a few. Firasat is the art of the reading of signs and signifiers that indicate, foretell or predict something or is able to communicate meaning. This could be certain indictions as present in a person or situation or even in nature at a particular time or place.
Film Design in Pendekar Bujang Lapok (PBL)
The story of PBL begins at a jetty where three friends, Ramli, Ajis and Sudin arrive to travel to the other side of the river in search of a silat master. The ferry workers are seen as a rowdy and arrogant lot who have no regard for their customers. Their boss is no better and this concludes in a confrontation between him and Mustar, a silat master. This causes a fight resulting in the defeat of the boss and his workers. The three youths have now found their master. But the boss and the ferry workers are not through with Mustar yet. Mustars daughter is kidnapped by them. The three youths save the day by using their wits and fighting prowess to save the masters daughter.
The protagonists and antagonists in PBL are visually contrasted through their costumes and mannerisms. Mustar and the three youths are in Malay costume, a pointer to the traditional values and culture that they uphold. The boss is in an English type of attire, replete with a colonial-style hat and holding a walking stick signifying
a modern and Western life style. The ferry workers wear loose black garments over their T-shirts with horizontal stripes, attire that does not signify their Malayness.
In the language of film, the left side of the screen is dominant (meaning positive) while the right side is weak (negative). The jetty is on the right side of the screen and looks menacing and ugly indicating Singapore where modernity was robbing the Malays of their tradition and values. On the right side is Malaya with all its greenery where the Malay culture, tradition and values are still thriving as seen in the character and life of Mustar and his family. When the three youths cross the river, they are symbolically making a hijrah, heading for a better future by leaving behind a milieu where Malays have become arrogant and uncultured.
Some Filmic Elements in PBL
Ramlees mastery of firasat can be seen in his use of signs and symbols in two disparate scenes in PBL that are however, linked to each other in meaning. While the ruckus at the jetty is in progress, Ajis squats on a table to steal the days takings from the drawer. It was earlier
established that two of the ferry workers were also pocketing the money. So just like them, Ajis appears to be taking money that is haram. Ramlee then shifts the camera. The sky now becomes a conspicuous background behind Ajis squatting on the table. There appears to be no special reason for this. It is only later when Ajis has crossed the river and looks for the money that the meaning becomes clear. He has somehow developed a hole in his pocket and the money had fallen out. This was Ramlees way of subtly saying that the money was indeed haram. And if they were on a quest to discover true values and morals as espoused by their religion, they must be free of sin. In the language of film, the use of sky signifies God or spirituality. In the context of the film, Ajis has been given spiritual guidance.
In another scene, Mustars daughter, Rose who works as a teacher, scolds the ferry boss. Mustar stands next to her looking on silently. In Malay culture, it was not seemly for a young person, what more a girl, to berate an older person. Mustars proximity to her and it being a close shot, is a visual signifier of his agreement with her actions. The first time that Mustars wife is established, we see her sewing. This is an important signifier as Rose later sews Ramlis torn trousers. Ramli sits next to her, serenading her with a love song as she sews. P. Ramlees point is that even though a woman may have attained status in life as a teacher, she would one day be a wife and mother and therefore, needed to know her place in Malay society and family. The establishing shot of her mother sewing signified that her mother had taught her well and that she too, like her husband and daughter was as much a teacher.
A narrative device that appeared in every one of his comedies was dramatic irony. This was a way to keep the audience one step ahead of the characters. What is not known to the characters on screen is instead shown to the audience. It makes them hoot with laughter in such scenes as for example, when one character pulls a fast one on another but he is not aware of it. A good example is in Labu dan Labi where the two servants are always one up on their employer. Ramlee was adept at this method as well as structuring nifty dialogue that today has gone into popular use.
P. Ramlee, the Penglipur Lara
One of the outstanding features of PBL that has gone unnoticed was its tone. In this film, Ramlee was never didactic to the slightest extent. Like the penglipur lara, he just imparted a story. Though Ramlee himself had experienced much of the misfortunes that the migrant Malays in the 1950s faced, he never showed any bitterness. He detached himself from the story and his characters. He did not play with our sentiments but just told a story and did so by using devices that were already in his culture. Like a true artist, Ramlee structured his stories and visuals so as to be clearly understood but at the same time he inserted deep subtexts in the manner of the storytellers of old to be read by those who were discerning. The German poet and writer, Goethe once noted about Shakespeare that his plays did not express his own subjectivity but expressed the whole worlds. PBLs characters, subject and milieu are universal and are as relevant today as they were in the 1950s.
Ramlee once remarked that if one wanted to deliver a message, it was best not to show it, i.e., not to be blatant. An in-depth look at PBL will reveal how he used literary devices such as dramatic irony and the elements of indexes and symbols to deliver subtle messages. These devices were not derived from Western knowhow but were from traditional Malay literature as well as from Malay and Muslim cosmology. The beauty of the Malay language can also be seen through the dialogue and song lyrics which are full of insinuations and allusions. And just as traditional Malay literature was intended to be heard rather than read, Ramlees films were consciously structured to be seen and heard. Dialogue was inserted only when the visuals were not able to communicate something.
Another common element in many of P Ramlees films is that of confident unawareness, i.e., the contrast of an appearance and a reality. This is particularly true of his comedies. He presents an appearance on the screen (of a negative character with a nasty attitude), while pretending to be unaware of the reality (that such a character actually exists in real life). Ramlee did this with the utmost humour and therefore, the audience was deceived by that appearance (by having a good laugh). And so they became unaware of that reality (the meaning of the scene). Because the humour was so overwhelming, audiences did not really go beyond what Ramlee was showing to discover what he was actually saying. It is here that the genius of P. Ramlee lies which is in film hermeneutics. His craft can only be realised if one looks at the parts - the structuring - to understand the whole (what he wanted to impart) and vice versa.
Muhammad Haji Salleh in his book, The Poetics of Malay Literature (2008) notes that narration becomes more sophisticated when the melody of the language is added to the basic language. And it being a story that is told orally, it becomes itself a literary language moulded from daily expressions and quite direct, i.e., without metaphors and linguistic embellishments. Muhammad Haji Salleh also observes that the target of the writers of old with their texts was keindahan (beauty). This concept of cerita yang indah-indah (beautiful stories) is found in the prologues of every hikayat (traditional Malay literature). A study of the use of language in PBL will show Ramlees predilection for invoking the style of the penglipur lara and that of the beauty of words found in traditional Malay literature. Three scenes from PBL will suffice to show this application, one that is cleverly connected with the subject and theme of the film, i.e., the importance of education and of not forgetting ones roots:
Scene A: Learning the inner knowledge from the master.
The three bachelors sit on the floor in front of the master. Upon his asking, each one of them gives a hilarious, tall tale of their previous occupations - and which the master whole-heartedly believes in! This is dramatic irony at its best. After he has taught them a mantra, he then asks them to read it out loud. Though illiterate, the bachelors pretend to be able to read. Each one of them gives another hilarious rendition of what had supposedly been heard from the master!
Scene B: Reading the letter sent secretly by Mustars Daughter.
None of the three bachelors know how to read but each one tries to show off by giving his own rendition including one by Sudin that sounds like Arabic but is actually a clever slanging of the Malay language to make it sound Arabic! At the end, the situation becomes a recognition of their inability to read and, without embarrassment, they turn to the maid for help.
Scene C: The song duet between Ramli and Mustars Daughter.
Ramli devises a way so that he can be alone with Rose, Mustars daughter. He manages it by supposedly having a tear in his trousers. She readily agrees to sew it for him. In this scene, she shows her leaning towards him by saying that she liked his voice when he was singing the night before. Ramli is humble and says that it wasnt that good. She replies by saying that someone (meaning her) likes it but Ramli is playing too hard to get. She then asks him to sing and only then he agrees to do so. In this scene, Ramli is shirtless and it becomes a signifier of his sincere intentions towards Rose. Rose herself is a little forward in expressing her intentions towards Ramli but it is done within the norms of Malay society using the beauty of the Malay language.
These scenes are but some of the numerous instances of the use of alliterative and rhymic dialogue in P. Ramlees comedy films that hark back to the traditional way of communicating in Malay society. Even when one doesnt know something, one creates a situation that does not cause embarrassment
to anyone. And Ramlee did it through an innate understanding of the language and then putting it across through meaningful visuals. Almost every one of the films Ramlee made in Singapore had elements of visual storytelling that correctly used cinematic conventions that bordered on the poetic. Sadly, this ability was sorely lacking when he made films later at Merdeka Studios in Kuala Lumpur.
The Fall from Grace
By the early 1960s, the Shaw Brothers were facing declining revenues due to the arrival of television and also studio strikes. Their attempt at continuing the exploits of the three Raggedy Bachelors in a film tentatively
called Bujang Lapok di Hong
Kong (The Raggedy Bachelors in Hong Kong) did not materialise
due to the President of the workers union then, Jins Shamsuddin who demanded that the actors be given higher remuneration than what had been decided upon. Being astute businessmen, the Shaws saw that they had to make a business decision and so they decided to cancel the production as well as close down the studios. Ramlee was their golden boy but they knew that the glory was beginning to fade. Ramlee was asked to move to Merdeka Studios that had been set up in 1960 by H.M. Shah and Ho Ah Loke in Hulu Kelang outside Kuala Lumpur.
Ramlee was not to know that his move to Kuala Lumpur in 1964 was to signal his fall from grace - and his early death. At Merdeka Film Studios (now called Merdeka Film Productions), budgets were miserly and the studio personnel did not have the teamwork and skills that he was used to. Neither were there actors of the kind in Singapore who had had acting experience in bangsawan and were full of ideas that they readily shared with the director. This lack ultimately began to show on the screen. Quality took a dive and coupled with competition from the novelty of television that had arrived a year before in 1963 plus the flood of wellmade Hindi and Indonesian movies in colour on the market, Malay films (still in black and white), were no longer profitable.
Ramlee made a number of low-budget films like Si-Tora Harimau Jadian (Tora, the Were-Tiger, 1964, his first film in Kuala Lumpur); Ragam P. Ramlee (The Style of P. Ramlee, 1965); Masam-masam Manis (A Sweet & Sour Life, 1965) and Sabaruddin Tukang Kasut (Sabaruddin the Cobbler, 1966). With the lack of facilities, low budgets and untrained and inexperienced actors and writers, he could not apply his innate skills and so the films became lacklustre. Audiences stayed away and he was in disgrace. His last film, Laksamana Do Re Mi (The Warriors, Do Re Mi, 1972) was a disaster and reflected his utter despondence and frustration. But what saddened him most of all was when he was booed by a young audience at a concert held at the Chin Woo Stadium in Kuala Lumpur. He had been invited as a guest singer and he rendered one of his classic songs. But the audience, made up of young people, was in no mood for it. This was the Pop Yeh Yeh era brought about by the world-wide phenomenon of The Beatles in the early 1960s.
The irony was, Ramlee had supported this era as can be seen in the song and dance sequence in his film Tiga Abdul (1964) where he had young people dancing the Twist to an upbeat song that was sung by Ramlee himself. In hindsight, we can assume that the early 1960s had not been a good time for Ramlee to move to Kuala Lumpur. The economic situation, mood and milieu were now different. The young people were more assertive and were not afraid to express themselves.
Shaw Brothers finally closed down Merdeka Studios in the late 1970s. Ramlee went on to appear in entertainment programmes as well as act in two television dramas for which he also composed and sang some songs. I remember seeing him in one of the dramas titled Intan (1971) that was based on a novel. As an actor, he was now only a shadow of his former self. The other drama was Rantau Selamat (1972) which reputedly, was never screened as P. Ramlee refused to reshoot some scenes as requested by the television station. He then started his own company Rumpun Melayu. Ramlee struggled to make films under his company but never received any support either from the private or government sector. It was ironic that Ramlee had packed his bags to come to Kuala Lumpur and had high expectations to make it big there. His son, Nasir remembers a letterhead that was among his fathers things that were packed by Nasirs tuition teacher. It read Perusahaan Filem P. Ramlee, a venture in his name that he felt had the power to succeed. It was also ironic that the Shaw Brothers had once offered him to set up his own film company while he was still working under them. Obviously this was a business decision for the Shaws to offset any losses that might result due to failures at the box office. The Shaws however, would still benefit as Ramlee would still be dependent on them for exhibition and distribution. Ramlee turned down the offer as at the time he was more enamoured with writing, directing, composing songs and enjoying his celebrity status. The nitty gritty world of business and management was not one for him to be involved with.
One of the few people that he poured out his troubles to was L. Krishnan. H.M. Shah would sometimes help him out financially. Ramlee finally died of a heart attack on 29th May, 1973, alienated and distanced from the world of film that he loved. In a documentary that was screened on the History Channel in 2012 about Ramlee and his final days, television audiences were horrified to learn how certain people had ignored him or obstructed his plans to make his first colour film based on a novel, Salina. And on the day before he died, there was not even food in the house!
However, Ramlees death resulted in a resurrection of his works both of film and song and he was given numerous posthumous awards for his achievements such as Tan Sri and an Honorary Doctorate. But it was too little and obviously too late for P. Ramlee to savour the fruits of his success. ASTRO, the satellite television station bought his films from the Shaw Organisation, did some digital restoration work and now screens them on television daily. ASTRO also commissioned local filmmakers like Adlin Aman Ramli, Adman Salleh, Afdlin Shauki, Dain Said and U-Wei Hajisaari to make feature-length TV movies as a homage to Ramlee. The National Arts and Heritage Academy (ASWARA) has initiated a P. Ramlee Chair to allow research and writings on him and his works.
Discussions about the state of the industry today invariably refer to his achievements. All this continues to contribute to his growing popularity with new audiences who continue to discover, enjoy and appreciate the films of a true genius of Malaysian cinema.
Besmirching the Legend
Though P. Ramlee and his achievements have been elevated to the level of myth and he has always been reverently talked about, there was a negative side to him that has not yet been revealed. One of the members of the union at MFP said that when Ramlee was chosen to be the President, he did not really look into elevating the lot of the lower-ranking staff as they had hoped. The Shaw Brothers consulted him on salary raises and other matters but it was if he had turned a blind eye to their sufferings. And it was due to this that the lower-ranking staff banded together to have him replaced as President in the following union elections.
In a conversation, Jaafar Abdullah the public relations manager at MFU, told Elias Mydin, a veteran editor at Filem Negara that in the early 1960s Ramlee became more demanding for the films that he was making and did not compromise whenever he wanted something. Obviously the filmmaker in him had come to the fore but this became disconcerting for the Shaw Brothers as they also had to contend with falling revenues, the union strikes and other staff problems. A.V. Bapat, MFPs art director told me in an angry tone that Ramlee was the reason that the Shaws decided to close down MFP. He did not elaborate but perhaps this bears out Jaafar Abdullahs comments.
Two well known actors, S. Kadarisman and (Dato) Ahmad Mahmud were also very critical of Ramlee. Other than acting in some of P. Ramlee films, Kadarisman had also written screenplays for him. A film student of Dr. Anuar Nor Arai from University Malaya went to Singapore to interview Kadarisman in 1989. A day after the return of the student, Kadarisman died. The student took the decision to burn all the tapes as to him (a Chinese), it was a bad omen and he should not keep the tapes. But he did tell Dr. Anuar that Kadarisman did not have any kind words for Ramlee. In his biography, Ahmad Mahmud too spoke out vocally against Ramlee.
I have personally met Ramlee a number of times. I believe that he was essentially a good man. His beliefs are reflected in his deeds and actions as can be seen in the many instances of his generosity and willingness to help others. Perhaps he was not aware of the instances when he overlooked certain things. And perhaps nobody had the courage to comment about his failings to him as they were all in awe of him. Wan Khazim Wan Din who had acted with Ramlee in his early films, affirmed that Ramlee was indeed a great artiste but it also needed to be accepted that Ramlee was also human and therefore had failings.
Ramlee once remarked that seni itu kerja Tuhan (art is Gods handiwork), signifying that he was not the artist who created something but that it was in reality, God himself who created it. He appears to have forgotten his own words when he became dejected and despondent and became forgotten by everyone towards the end of his life. The low levels that he had sunk to were reflected in his last film Laksamana Do Re Mi. This was not the Ramlee who was once adept at using the beauty of the Malay language. His words and manner were coarse. And to top it all off, Ramlee who had always held women in high regard in his films, did something he had never ever done. He had his hand on the leading actressess exposed thigh.
