KONG RITHDEE: TIME TO MOVE FORWARD

BELOW IS AN ARTICLE WRITTEN BY KONG RITHDEE FROM THE NEWSPAPER "BANGKOK POST" on Friday 4 May 2007

http://www.bangkokpost.com/040507_Realtime/04May2007_real21.php


Time to move forward

Observers are hoping the new film laws will usher in a new age in Thai cinema
Our major test in democratic maturity will come when the new constitution is put forward for national referendum in August. As civic groups, scholars and politicians heatedly debate the contents of the new charter and even urge people to consider rejecting it, an unprecedented show of force from the typically to-each-his-own film community has taken place over the last month to ensure that their voices are heard by the lawmakers.

Among various issues discussed, the chief demand from the Thai Film Directors Association is for the new charter to categorise cinema as a form of mass media. The implication of this is that, once baptised by the constitution, Thai films as well as foreign movies shown in Thailand will be set free from any government interference and enjoy the same freedom as other media, namely newspapers, television and radio.

"In the 1996 Charter, the drafters told us that they forgot to include films in the articles that guaranteed the freedom of other media," says Prachya Pinkaew, president of the Thai Film Directors Association. "We've been left out, and I think the time is right for us to make the demand that they won't forget us again."

On the broader front, a loose network of independent filmmakers, artists and NGOs led by the Thai Film Foundation have launched the Free Thai Cinema Movement calling for the abolition of the censorship law, which dates back to 1930, and for the implementation of a film rating system. With a war cry of "No cut, no ban, start film rating", their demand is also directed at lawmakers and the National Legislative Assembly.

"This is our exercise in democratic expression," says Chalida Uabumrungjit of the Thai Film Foundation. "Film rating is a better way for the government to recognise the freedom of artists to express themselves and the freedom of the audience to receive information."

Attempts to update the law that governs film screenings have been made in the past, but the fresh spark that put everyone on the march was the notorious verdict of the Censorship Board against the film Saeng Satawat (or Syndromes and a Century) and the subsequent refusal of the police, who chair the board, to return the print of the film despite written confirmation from the filmmaker, Apichatpong Weerasethakul, that he would cancel its release. Despite being an independent movie funded by a foreign art centre to commemorate the 250th anniversary of Mozart, Saeng Satawat received firm support from virtually all Thai filmmakers who've long been frustrated by the arbitrary rules and what they perceive as the narrow-mindedness of the current censorship system.

In the draft of the new charter submitted to the NLA last week, neither the words "films" nor "cinema" have been written in Article 45, which promulgates the freedom of expression of all people. There's a clause that prohibits the state from "shutting down newspapers and other media"; filmmakers are pressing the drafters to clarify this vague generalisation and urging them to expressly write that "the shutting down of newspapers, television and radio stations, as well as electronic media and the censorship of movies" are forbidden by the constitution.

Everyone involved seems to be aware that this is an uphill struggle, given the state's deep-seated paranoia about the entertainment industry.

"There's a feeling of mistrust, that we're campaigning for the end of censorship because we want to make really violent or pornographic movies," says Prachya of the Thai Film Directors Association. "But we have our sense of responsibility as professionals, and we're ready to impose a self-governing system, like TV stations do, to ensure that filmmakers respect the rules of society. We're not doing all this to give ourselves leeway to put bad things on the screen. But everybody can see that Thailand is operating under a law that's out of touch with reality when it comes to censorship."

Suparp Rimpromathip, editor of the popular Bioscope magazine, concurs: "The current system is obviously not working," he said at the "From YouTube to Saeng Satawat - Censorship in Post-Coup Thailand" seminar at Chulalongkorn University. "To give you an example, the recent Mexican film Pan's Labyrinth has certain violent scenes that may not be suitable for young children, though the film's poster gives the impression that this is a fairy tale for youngsters.

"The censors had no objections to those scenes and passed the film. But at the same time, movie reviewers and Internet chat sites spread warnings to potential viewers that this film is not suitable for young children. It's a good film for adults, but hey, it's not a good idea to take your kids along. So what happened is that there's a system at work by members of society to watch out for and protect themselves, while the censors, upon passing the film without any warning or age-restriction, are basically allowing everybody to see the film. It means that they're doing much less than other members of society in their claim to 'protect' the viewers."

Victims of poor judgement

Is the crux of the problem the system or the people who control the system? Fierce reactions against the decisions of the censors to cut or ban films often centre on the poor judgement of the censorship board, chaired by the police and including rotating representatives of cultural and academic bodies. The decision of Apichatpong Weerasethakul to cancel the release of Saeng Satawat is intended as a statement to announce that he refused to comply with the judgement of this group of people.

"But in truth I understand them," says the director. "They're living in fear of the system. They're afraid that if they let something pass, they'll be blamed for not doing their jobs. It's the system that we need to fix."

But fixing something that's broken could make it even more damaging, worry observers in film circles. Since last year the lawmakers at the Council of State, under the advice of the Culture Ministry, have been drafting a separate Film Act to replace the laughable one that has governed film censorship in this country for 77 years. In the early rounds of meetings between the Culture Ministry and the filmmakers, there was such a level of disagreement that the filmmakers walked out, citing that the state had no desire to listen to them and simply invitied them for the sake of formality.

According to a senior officer at the Culture Ministry who took part in drafting the new film law, "there will definitely be a film rating system," she told the Bangkok Post on condition of anonymity. "We will ensure that the new law isn't concerned with policing, but to encourage participation of the public in the matter of cultural policy."

But perplexingly, the officer said that despite the introduction of the film rating system in the new law, the state will retain the right to censor and to demand filmmakers cut certain scenes. "For example, if there's a scene of a Buddha statue placed at someone's feet, which is an inappropriate act, we will have to ask the director to cut the scene," she said. "If he refuses, we can ban the film."

She explained further: "We're still a Buddhist country, and we still eat rice. I understand that we're under pressure to modernise the country, but we cannot blindly accept everything practised by Western countries. We still have to protect society. Some Thai films, like Saeng Satawat, are very good I'm sure, but Thai people may not yet be ready for it."

The scenes that the censors wanted to cut from the film include those showing a monk playing a guitar, two monks playing with a radio-controlled toy, a group of doctors drinking liquor, and a doctor kissing his girlfriend.

Observers believe that the combination of rating and censorship, if actually enforced by the new law, will become the worst cocktail imaginable. "The idea of film rating is to open up artistic freedom," says the Thai Film Foundation's Chalida Uabumrungjit. "Filmmakers can do what they want, but they have to accept the limited space in which their works can be shown. It's an agreement that accommodates both sides. Of course, we're not talking about people who make underground porn, because they wouldn't submit their movies to be rated anyway."

Chalida reinforces Prachya's point that it boils down to the attitude of the lawmakers towards the movies. "If they regard movies as poison, they will do anything to restrict them. But I think restriction is OK as long as there's also a guarantee that our freedom to receive information is respected. Film rating may be the most sound answer, as proved by many countries, but banning is not a democratic way to do it. Say, some people may not agree with the monk scenes in Saeng Satawat, they have the right to protest, or to express their resentment, or to sue. The film can say what it wants, and the party who disagrees can complain and say what they want, too. If you don't agree with something, you don't have to block other people's access to it."

At the moment, the draft of the new film act is almost ready to be passed on to the National Legislative Assembly. According to the senior officer we spoke to, "there's no need to wait for the new constitution. There are some technical problems right now, but once we've fixed them we can submit the law to parliament for consideration."

She adds that the new film law "has no intention of harassing the filmmakers". But again, she reiterated the necessity of the state to "protect the culture" and "save society from going down further".

As the implications of this statement are open to interpretation, the film community insists that if the film rating system is initiated, the practice of censorship must end.

What they can do now is to keep watch for the new law and hope to attract support, probably from the audience, and to convince the public that movies are indeed not poison that must be vigilantly controlled.

"It's time to move forward," says Prachya. "Other countries have used movies as a tool to develop their economies and societies, but we cannot do that unless we get past the first hurdle."