BELOW IS AN ARTICLE WRITTEN BY BOONRAK BOONYAKETMALA IN THE NEWSPAPER "BANGKOK POST" on Tuesday, May 1, 2007.
http://www.bangkokpost.com/010507_News/01May2007_news23.php
Transcending Big Brother syndrome
The existing authoritarian film censorship code should be replaced by a mission-driven rating system
By BOONRAK BOONYAKETMALA
Though not well known among mainstream film consumers in Thailand, who are unconditionally in love with Hollywood with little attachment to their own breed of cinema, Apichatpong Weerasethakul is a unique contemporary Thai film director whose name is big internationally, with his own fan club and financier, and what not. Auteur of Blissfully Yours and Tropical Malady, which won awards at the Cannes Film Festival in 2002 and 2004 with prix de certain regard and grand prix, respectively, Mr Apichatpong has been recognised in many film capitals around the world as a key figure of Thailand's increasingly more powerful avant-garde cinema, freshly arisen in the late 1990s in the face of financial meltdown.
Ironically, while his earlier films have attracted definite international attention to the little world of Thai cinema, Mr Apichatpong has remained on the periphery of the local industry. Invariably gracing the local theatres only briefly or not at all, most of his films have never been on the best-selling list of VCDs and DVDs in the Thai market. A great number of Thai film fans who have seen his films have often complained that they are difficult to follow, but those few in the know have hailed them as milestones of innovation.
For example, in a single stroke, Blissfully Yours has completely uprooted the conventional Thai-Burmese historiography, which typically focused on old-time conflict, warfare, and royal bravery, by inventing a sort of unprecedented friendly people-to-people relations on the celluloid frames by romantically linking up an ordinary Thai working woman with an illegal Burmese immigrant, arguably a taboo in many ways. Needless to say, such an achievement is a landmark for any art form, albeit with subversive implications.
But Mr Apichatpong's track record is apparently only the beginning of his likely long journey of wave-making. Now, his latest 2007 film, Syndromes and a Century, reportedly a rather comic memoir of his parents who are practitioners of the medical profession at a hospital in rural Thailand, has stimulated a major controversy in the normally low-keyed and eventless Thai film industry as the Film Censorship Board decided to clip four seemingly innocent scenes from this film as a pre-condition of releasing this already world-acclaimed film in the domestic market. Moreover, in response to Mr Apichatpong's refusal to accept the verdict, the board has confiscated the submitted footage by claiming that the director might use it for an illegal exhibition.
Rather than tamely accepting the cuts so as to get permission to release his film locally, which would earn him some bonus cash and profile, Mr Apichatpong has deemed it imperative to retain the artistic integrity of his film by bypassing the Thai market. The director's decision has stirred up a movement to struggle against the Film Act of 1930, a censorship blueprint which has been responsible for the non-stop reproduction of much of the conservative and stale cinema since its inception.
While signatures are being gathered from around the world to support his cause, a royal film personality such as MC Chatrichalerm Yukol, director of such epic films as The Legend of King Naresuan and Suriyothai, whose earlier stock of films earned him the "auteur" status of the first seeds of Thailand's new cinema, launched a fight against the film censorship establishment, whose ultimate objective is to lobby the constitution drafters to endorse film as a form of mass communication deserving an enlarged freedom of expression.
While protesting the censorship code is nothing new in Thailand, the outcome of this little incident has the potential to make or break a film industry increasingly global in its orientation. Under such circumstances, it is crucial that the nature and impact of film censorship are not taken for granted, but more fully understood.
Originally, when a score of adventurous foreign merchants first exhibited their film wares from Europe to the curious populace in Siam in the 1890s, they probably did not fully realise that such products would one day serve as a major mechanism to reorient their customers to a new culture, through which the forces of Western culture would gradually disintegrate a traditional culture rooted in a feudal social structure.
For decades, the Thai elite passionately imported films for commercial release with a sense of unreserved admiration, a stark contrast to the attitudes prevalent in the directly colonised societies in Southeast Asia. By the 1920s, as some local noblemen initiated some modest film-making enterprises, mainly for pleasure, King Prachadhipok, the first major importer and distributor of foreign cinema in Thailand, saw the need to launch the Film Censorship Act of 1930.
Primarily designed to control the contents of local cinema in service of the status quo, the key component of this code asserts the catch-all philosophy to prohibit the production, exhibition, and distribution of any film deemed to violate or disturb the public peace and morality, both internally and externally. In effect, this legal provision has systematically discouraged any Thai film-making efforts thought to be subversive by the powers-that-be.
Amazingly, despite all the social and cultural changes within and without the film industry during some eight decades of its enforcement, the spirit of this censorship law has been kept intact. If anything, its operations have worsened over time because more and more representatives of the major bureaucratic functions in the government have been included to its board membership. As such, this body has a built-in bias to stunt the proper development of Thai cinema.
Not surprisingly, much of Thai cinema that has been produced since the 1920s has been in a way an extension of the state ideology, whose definitions have been defined by the whims of the film censors through the ages, from the years of absolute monarchy to military dictatorship, and through democracy of sorts. Worse still, at some points in history, such as when Field Marshal Pibulsongkram acted as prime minister during the pre-World War II period, the state took the lead to produce and distribute a set of propaganda films a la Nazi, a rather comical episode in Thai cultural history which remains inadequately studied.
There are a number of possible explanations for the stubborn persistence of such an obviously obsolete legal code. First and foremost, an open secret is to employ a double standard, for instance, making exceptions whenever necessary, a pragmatic approach that has delayed the struggle for change. On the other hand, the dinosaur film censorship law seems to have survived many political changes through the decades because Thai film producers are either too fragmented or have become too complacent in living with the status quo to rock the boat.
Under such circumstances, any form of noteworthy achievement throughout the entire history of Thai cinema has been the product of the ingenuity of individual creators.
Often, some landmark films which managed to be passed by the censors achieved this feat because of the special stature of its director, notably MC Chatrichalerm Yukol, who made knock-out films of the 1970s and 1980s such as His Name Is Karn, Thongpoon Kokpo, Teacher Somsri, and The Elephant Keeper. Each in its own way spoke the truth about something that was wrong with the Thai state.
Another case in point is of course Mr Apichatpong himself, whose common technique is to primarily gather worldwide recognition by first releasing his films in foreign festivals and markets, and then in VCD and DVD forms, with the theatrical market at home only on the fringe. But the state censors are now alerted to this kind of strategy, to the point that some figures have actually expressed a personalised wrath at being bypassed.
The irony is that much of this 'new cinema', a phenomenon ushered in by a new generation of filmmakers in the 1990s, is funded by foreign capital and not even intended to be seen by mainstream audiences in Thailand, but yet are subjected to the horrors of the film censorship board which owes its existence to a clearly obsolete ordinance introduced by an absolute regime.
At this juncture, it is imperative that the existing authoritarian film censorship code be got rid of altogether. In its place, a mission-driven rating system which allows for the co-existence of a variety of filmmaking breeds should be instituted, allowing for a multi-pronged membership on the board, i.e. a combination of enlightened representatives from the state, the industry, and the independent artistic and intellectual elite, who must bear in mind the centrality of artistic creativity and freedom of expression.
In this manner, the progressively internationalised Thai film industry might be able to pass the longstanding bureaucratised bottleneck towards the path of economic prosperity, political integrity, and cultural relevance, without prematurely alienating any promising talents from the system.
Boonrak Boonyaketmala is a former dean of the Faculty of Journalism and Mass Communications, Thammasat University.
Showing posts with label SYNDROMES. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SYNDROMES. Show all posts
Sunday, May 06, 2007
PLALAI FAIFA: ALLURE OF THE FORBIDDEN
BELOW IS AN ARTICLE WRITTEN BY PLALAI FAIFA FROM THE NEWSPAPER "BANGKOK POST" on Friday May 4, 2007
http://www.bangkokpost.com/040507_Realtime/04May2007_real24.php
Allure of the forbidden
Seeing my colleague Kong Rithdee address the subject of movie censorship in Thailand with such fervour inspires me to set aside the DVD of Alain Resnais's Muriel that I was going to discuss this week and share some memories of our censorship as it was in years gone by.
Some of the fondest of them date from the early 1970s at the time when Western directors, newly released from the censorship shackles that had impeded them in previous decades, where making films on mature themes. Many of them had the look of cherished projects that the filmmakers had been sitting on for years. A surprising number of them endure today as classics. In those days what are now called art house films, including work by great European directors like Bunuel and Fellini, were routinely imported into Thailand by distributors and shown to the censors.
I sometimes attended the censorship screenings held in the basement of the Southeast Insurance Building on Silom Road and as an experience, it was enlightening. Films like Mike Nichols's Carnal Knowledge and Pier Paolo Pasolini's lousy take on the Canterbury Tales were watched cheerfully and with great enjoyment and then promptly banned: mai mohsom!, "not suitable!".
I remember a scene in the Pasolini film where one of its characters withdraws his championship-size penis from another and a chorus of thrilled giggles went up from the delighted censors and their guests. Needless to say, the film was sent boomeranging back to wherever it came from.
And of course, at the time there was a justification for doing so. Implementing an enforceable rating system was clearly impossible. In those days children of the wealthy and influential were often raised in such a way that they didn't hesitate to bully anyone who asked them to respect the law with intimidating questions like, "Do you know who my father is?". A solemn prayer for anyone who seriously tried to stop them from entering a cinema where an adult movie was being shown, and even if the underage kids had had to forego the film they could have found plenty to do at Hotel 39, Hotel Pink Pussycat, or any of the hundreds of others where no questions would have been asked.
But there would have been more justification for this argument if the censors hadn't left the door open to virtually any degree of violence in films. At the same time that Carnal Knowledge was being banned for some non-explicit bedroom frolicking, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, with its notorious girl-on-a-meathook scene, got through unscathed.
I remember a few years later being taken to a showing of Luigi Fulci's Eurotrash classic Zombies, in which a scene of a woman's eyeball being slowly pierced in extreme close-up by a wooden splinter sent one little girl in the audience into such hysterics that her parents had to take her out of the theatre. They could have rested sure, however, that their child was in no danger of seeing the woman's breasts.
There were some occasions where the censors were momentarily foiled. Sam Peckinpah's landmark film Straw Dogs was banned outright, but somehow made its way into the country and onto the screen of the Siam theatre with a different title - The Bitch - and shown at its initial screening without a frame cut. Saturday matinee audiences got to see nudity and a brutal rape, recalled by the heroine in flashbacks. By evening of the same day the nudity had disappeared, and eventually the flashbacks were gone, too. William Friedkin's massively popular horror film, The Exorcist, was also subject to a gradual stripping down after its local premiere in almost intact form.
Here we are 30 years later, and from any realistic standpoint all of that should be history by now. After all, given the new, electronic channels of access, banning things is practically impossible. Shut the door on a movie or book or website and anyone who is interested will have it almost immediately, including many who would have ignored it if it hadn't acquired the allure of the forbidden.
The recent, absurd censorship of Apichatpong Weerasethakul's delicate and poetic film Syndromes and a Century seems to have registered on many people locally as the straw that broke the camel's back, judging by the uproar that it has caused. What were the censors thinking? A scene of a young monk who dreams of being a DJ borrowing a boy's guitar and strumming a few chords is given a thumbs-down by the censors: mai mohsom!. But in the newspapers we routinely read about monks using temple youngsters to provide services that have nothing to do with Buddhism, and anyone who has never seen a monk walking around listening to his iPod must venture out of doors very rarely.
Censoring such a scene keeps it out of view only for people who have been seeing the media reports of scandals involving monks, the iPods, and more regularly for years. Meanwhile, viewers in other countries can see and are seeing the film in its excellent entirety anytime they feel like making a trip to the cinema. The hypocrisy of the censors' decision - knowing as they do what is going on in the real world - approaches the surreal and makes us look ridiculous to outsiders. If there is an upside to this nonsense it is that more Thais will probably seek the film out because of the publicity.
Given the fit of official Puritanism that we are currently experiencing here in Thailand, we will probably have to resign ourselves for the time being to being treated like children by their prissy old aunties. But we can always hope that time, and a little serious thinking, will bring a change.
http://www.bangkokpost.com/040507_Realtime/04May2007_real24.php
Allure of the forbidden
Seeing my colleague Kong Rithdee address the subject of movie censorship in Thailand with such fervour inspires me to set aside the DVD of Alain Resnais's Muriel that I was going to discuss this week and share some memories of our censorship as it was in years gone by.
Some of the fondest of them date from the early 1970s at the time when Western directors, newly released from the censorship shackles that had impeded them in previous decades, where making films on mature themes. Many of them had the look of cherished projects that the filmmakers had been sitting on for years. A surprising number of them endure today as classics. In those days what are now called art house films, including work by great European directors like Bunuel and Fellini, were routinely imported into Thailand by distributors and shown to the censors.
I sometimes attended the censorship screenings held in the basement of the Southeast Insurance Building on Silom Road and as an experience, it was enlightening. Films like Mike Nichols's Carnal Knowledge and Pier Paolo Pasolini's lousy take on the Canterbury Tales were watched cheerfully and with great enjoyment and then promptly banned: mai mohsom!, "not suitable!".
I remember a scene in the Pasolini film where one of its characters withdraws his championship-size penis from another and a chorus of thrilled giggles went up from the delighted censors and their guests. Needless to say, the film was sent boomeranging back to wherever it came from.
And of course, at the time there was a justification for doing so. Implementing an enforceable rating system was clearly impossible. In those days children of the wealthy and influential were often raised in such a way that they didn't hesitate to bully anyone who asked them to respect the law with intimidating questions like, "Do you know who my father is?". A solemn prayer for anyone who seriously tried to stop them from entering a cinema where an adult movie was being shown, and even if the underage kids had had to forego the film they could have found plenty to do at Hotel 39, Hotel Pink Pussycat, or any of the hundreds of others where no questions would have been asked.
But there would have been more justification for this argument if the censors hadn't left the door open to virtually any degree of violence in films. At the same time that Carnal Knowledge was being banned for some non-explicit bedroom frolicking, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, with its notorious girl-on-a-meathook scene, got through unscathed.
I remember a few years later being taken to a showing of Luigi Fulci's Eurotrash classic Zombies, in which a scene of a woman's eyeball being slowly pierced in extreme close-up by a wooden splinter sent one little girl in the audience into such hysterics that her parents had to take her out of the theatre. They could have rested sure, however, that their child was in no danger of seeing the woman's breasts.
There were some occasions where the censors were momentarily foiled. Sam Peckinpah's landmark film Straw Dogs was banned outright, but somehow made its way into the country and onto the screen of the Siam theatre with a different title - The Bitch - and shown at its initial screening without a frame cut. Saturday matinee audiences got to see nudity and a brutal rape, recalled by the heroine in flashbacks. By evening of the same day the nudity had disappeared, and eventually the flashbacks were gone, too. William Friedkin's massively popular horror film, The Exorcist, was also subject to a gradual stripping down after its local premiere in almost intact form.
Here we are 30 years later, and from any realistic standpoint all of that should be history by now. After all, given the new, electronic channels of access, banning things is practically impossible. Shut the door on a movie or book or website and anyone who is interested will have it almost immediately, including many who would have ignored it if it hadn't acquired the allure of the forbidden.
The recent, absurd censorship of Apichatpong Weerasethakul's delicate and poetic film Syndromes and a Century seems to have registered on many people locally as the straw that broke the camel's back, judging by the uproar that it has caused. What were the censors thinking? A scene of a young monk who dreams of being a DJ borrowing a boy's guitar and strumming a few chords is given a thumbs-down by the censors: mai mohsom!. But in the newspapers we routinely read about monks using temple youngsters to provide services that have nothing to do with Buddhism, and anyone who has never seen a monk walking around listening to his iPod must venture out of doors very rarely.
Censoring such a scene keeps it out of view only for people who have been seeing the media reports of scandals involving monks, the iPods, and more regularly for years. Meanwhile, viewers in other countries can see and are seeing the film in its excellent entirety anytime they feel like making a trip to the cinema. The hypocrisy of the censors' decision - knowing as they do what is going on in the real world - approaches the surreal and makes us look ridiculous to outsiders. If there is an upside to this nonsense it is that more Thais will probably seek the film out because of the publicity.
Given the fit of official Puritanism that we are currently experiencing here in Thailand, we will probably have to resign ourselves for the time being to being treated like children by their prissy old aunties. But we can always hope that time, and a little serious thinking, will bring a change.
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."
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."
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
KONG RITHDEE: FILM CENSORS BLIND OUR RIGHT TO SEE
THE ARTICLE BELOW IS WRITTEN BY “KONG RITHDEE” FROM THE NEWSPAPER “BANGKOK POST” ON SATURDAY 28 APRIL 2007
http://www.bangkokpost.com/280407_News/28Apr2007_news19.php
They believe Cho Seung-Hui was a big fan of violent movies. Quickly after the trails of blood were wiped off the walls of Virginia Tech, theorists performed snap analyses and scrambled to explain the horrible incident on the morning of April 16. When the disturbing photographs showing Cho wielding a hammer and handguns appeared in the press, comparison was immediately drawn to the Korean movie Old Boy, whose fascist hero hacks a score of enemies to pulp using only a hammer; and in a subsequent bid to locate a precise reference, Cho's double-pistol stunt was linked to the shooting style in John Woo movies. Thus we're hearing the same old questions: Does watching violent films make a healthy man a violent person? If your boy is hooked to the anti-establishment lyrics shouted by gold-chain-wearing rappers, would that de-sensitise him from all the vices and encourage him to go out and sell crack on the street? Is it okay for kids to play shoot-'em-up video games? Was Cho crazy before or after he watched those films? But hey, did he actually watch those films?
Debate will continue on how much contemporary pop culture exerts a corruptive force that hypnotises unsuspecting minds into embracing evil behaviour, and it's inevitable that the essence of this debate will continue to be politicised between the camp that backs state censorship and puritanical control, and the one on the left which believes that constructive mechanisms should be fostered to immunise citizens with good judgment against negative vibes.
The first camp, especially in Thailand, believes they are endowed with a semi-divine power to protect the conscience of the whole nation and that, by law, their judgment represents the moral exactitude unchallengeable by any god or man. Rest assured, they will decide what is ''proper'' for us (though on Tuesday the Culture Ministry said it would ''set up a sub-committee on improper media to lay down guidelines for deciding what improper media actually is''). Those who wish to oppose their decisions are often deemed irresponsible, unpatriotic, or accused that their real agenda is not to promote artistic freedom but simply to make porn. The deep-seated feudal mindset of the ruling class means the government will always prefer the easy task of banning and ''protecting'' us fools, to the more creative mission of building museums, galleries, or theatres to advocate young people's cultural appreciation and to make us all a wee bit smarter.
There's a deeper implication to all of this. The recent demand of the censorship board to cut four scenes from the film Saeng Satawat, for example, could be interpreted as a violation of our basic human rights. It is debatable whether the scenes objected to are ''improper'' _ scenes showing a monk playing a guitar, two monks playing with a radio-controlled toy, doctors drinking whisky, and a male doctor kissing his girlfriend _ but the more useful debate is whether we have the constitutional right to see something that may be improper, and whether the government is at fault for failing to acknowledge this right by blindly operating on the antediluvian censorship law instead of initiating a more democratic system, like film rating.
It is crucial that the state stop acting like a patient with a paranoia disorder. Contemporary pop culture surely has its dark side, but to blindfold the people is not a civilised way of dealing with it. Education, parental responsibility and progressive cultural policy are the intellectual serum that will strengthen the moral underpinning of young people. The government knows this, but it still lacks the courage to shake itself loose from its own straitjacket of traditionalism, and that's only multiplying the risk as time in the Internet age comes rushing past more swiftly than ever.
What if the movies really produce a killer mind like Cho Seung-Hui's? Poet Jeeranan Pitpreecha said in her speech campaigning for the end of movie censorship last week: ''The movies can be a bad influence, but Cho Seung-Hui is a one-in-a-dozen-million case. Are we ready to sacrifice our basic right to see in exchange for the illusory concept of absolute safety?'' That is a question worth pondering long and hard by all of us.
Kong Rithdee writes about movies and popular culture in the Bangkok Post's real.time section.
http://www.bangkokpost.com/280407_News/28Apr2007_news19.php
They believe Cho Seung-Hui was a big fan of violent movies. Quickly after the trails of blood were wiped off the walls of Virginia Tech, theorists performed snap analyses and scrambled to explain the horrible incident on the morning of April 16. When the disturbing photographs showing Cho wielding a hammer and handguns appeared in the press, comparison was immediately drawn to the Korean movie Old Boy, whose fascist hero hacks a score of enemies to pulp using only a hammer; and in a subsequent bid to locate a precise reference, Cho's double-pistol stunt was linked to the shooting style in John Woo movies. Thus we're hearing the same old questions: Does watching violent films make a healthy man a violent person? If your boy is hooked to the anti-establishment lyrics shouted by gold-chain-wearing rappers, would that de-sensitise him from all the vices and encourage him to go out and sell crack on the street? Is it okay for kids to play shoot-'em-up video games? Was Cho crazy before or after he watched those films? But hey, did he actually watch those films?
Debate will continue on how much contemporary pop culture exerts a corruptive force that hypnotises unsuspecting minds into embracing evil behaviour, and it's inevitable that the essence of this debate will continue to be politicised between the camp that backs state censorship and puritanical control, and the one on the left which believes that constructive mechanisms should be fostered to immunise citizens with good judgment against negative vibes.
The first camp, especially in Thailand, believes they are endowed with a semi-divine power to protect the conscience of the whole nation and that, by law, their judgment represents the moral exactitude unchallengeable by any god or man. Rest assured, they will decide what is ''proper'' for us (though on Tuesday the Culture Ministry said it would ''set up a sub-committee on improper media to lay down guidelines for deciding what improper media actually is''). Those who wish to oppose their decisions are often deemed irresponsible, unpatriotic, or accused that their real agenda is not to promote artistic freedom but simply to make porn. The deep-seated feudal mindset of the ruling class means the government will always prefer the easy task of banning and ''protecting'' us fools, to the more creative mission of building museums, galleries, or theatres to advocate young people's cultural appreciation and to make us all a wee bit smarter.
There's a deeper implication to all of this. The recent demand of the censorship board to cut four scenes from the film Saeng Satawat, for example, could be interpreted as a violation of our basic human rights. It is debatable whether the scenes objected to are ''improper'' _ scenes showing a monk playing a guitar, two monks playing with a radio-controlled toy, doctors drinking whisky, and a male doctor kissing his girlfriend _ but the more useful debate is whether we have the constitutional right to see something that may be improper, and whether the government is at fault for failing to acknowledge this right by blindly operating on the antediluvian censorship law instead of initiating a more democratic system, like film rating.
It is crucial that the state stop acting like a patient with a paranoia disorder. Contemporary pop culture surely has its dark side, but to blindfold the people is not a civilised way of dealing with it. Education, parental responsibility and progressive cultural policy are the intellectual serum that will strengthen the moral underpinning of young people. The government knows this, but it still lacks the courage to shake itself loose from its own straitjacket of traditionalism, and that's only multiplying the risk as time in the Internet age comes rushing past more swiftly than ever.
What if the movies really produce a killer mind like Cho Seung-Hui's? Poet Jeeranan Pitpreecha said in her speech campaigning for the end of movie censorship last week: ''The movies can be a bad influence, but Cho Seung-Hui is a one-in-a-dozen-million case. Are we ready to sacrifice our basic right to see in exchange for the illusory concept of absolute safety?'' That is a question worth pondering long and hard by all of us.
Kong Rithdee writes about movies and popular culture in the Bangkok Post's real.time section.
Friday, April 27, 2007
BANGKOK POST EDITORIAL: LAUGHABLE CENSORS FROM ANOTHER AGE
THE ARTICLE BELOW IS FROM THE NEWSPAPER "BANGKOK POST"
http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/27Apr2007_news19.php
EDITORIAL
Laughable censors from another age
Cutting, banning, blurring, putting vaseline on strategic body parts _ these practices by a few men with power to make judgments for the rest of the country and to promote empty morality and decency must end, especially in a time when the new constitution is being hyped as a newfound paragon of freedom and democratic advancement.
Film censorship is a primitive manifestation of authoritarian exercise which not only does a great disservice to the improvement of our cultural environment, but also makes Thailand a laughing stock in the eyes of foreign communities, which have long adopted the more rational, though still not perfect, system of film rating. The gist of the embarrassment lies in the fact that the Thai legislation used to govern film censorship in 2007 remains the one written in 1930, two years before this country underwent its historic shift to a constitutional monarchy and before the concept of democracy was formally inducted in this land. Article 4 of the Film Act 1930 stipulates that no screenings should be permitted for films that ''may be detrimental to the state of peace, order and moral decency''. Such open wording has left an enormous gap for negative interpretations for 77 years, and the successive government agencies in charge of supervising film screenings have always cited this article in deciding what the audience can or cannot see. But it is getting increasingly difficult for the Censorship Board _ chaired by the police and including rotating representatives of cultural and academic bodies _ to justify their seemingly arbitrary decisions. The recent uproar over the acclaimed arthouse film Saeng Satawat (or Syndromes and a Century) exposes the inefficiency, if not complete bankruptcy, of the existing censorship regime. The censors are not happy with four scenes in the film _ a monk strumming a guitar; two monks playing with a radio-controlled flying object; a group of doctors drinking whisky; and a doctor kissing his girlfriend and a subsequent shot of his trousers in the area of his crotch.
For those who have seen Saeng Satawat, these images carry no defamatory ill-will to doctors and monks and are much less detrimental to ''decency'' than the vulgar images and crude expletives dispensed gleefully in other Thai films that passed the censors, not to mention a shot of a woman dyeing her pubic hair in the Dutch movie Black Book, or the bloody decapitation in 300. By making this comparison, we are not saying that the dyeing of pubic hair or the gruesome beheading should have been scissored out. But it is imperative that the government open its eyes and get in touch with reality as reflected by an art form such as film, and to modernise the system that ensures both fairness and the right of artists to express their vision.
The censorship board has lost the moral authority from its many demonstrations of bias and mediocrity that it can no longer rely on the magic mantra that what it is doing is protecting the young from bad influences and safeguarding the glory of Thai culture. Such claims sound more and more ludicrous since what we see on television every day is much more shocking than any scene in Saeng Satawat, and since a number of Thai films thriving on rudeness can open without objection on 300 screens.
In an ideal world, nothing should be cut or banned and people should be encouraged to make their own judgment on the representations of virtue and vice as projected by any medium. In a less ideal world, a mode of semi-voluntary censorship like the film rating system should be applied. Film rating, which classifies audience access to screenings according to their age, allows a greater degree of artistic freedom and at the same time is a mechanism for preventing children from being exposed to sensitive material. True, we can imagine a long list of headaches that will arrive with the rating system _ the multiplex operators are likely to oppose it, for a start _ but it has proved workable in many countries; it is a system more in tune with the democratic spirit this country has long been paying lip service to. The current, unreasonable censorship practice must be abolished at once.
http://www.bangkokpost.com/News/27Apr2007_news19.php
EDITORIAL
Laughable censors from another age
Cutting, banning, blurring, putting vaseline on strategic body parts _ these practices by a few men with power to make judgments for the rest of the country and to promote empty morality and decency must end, especially in a time when the new constitution is being hyped as a newfound paragon of freedom and democratic advancement.
Film censorship is a primitive manifestation of authoritarian exercise which not only does a great disservice to the improvement of our cultural environment, but also makes Thailand a laughing stock in the eyes of foreign communities, which have long adopted the more rational, though still not perfect, system of film rating. The gist of the embarrassment lies in the fact that the Thai legislation used to govern film censorship in 2007 remains the one written in 1930, two years before this country underwent its historic shift to a constitutional monarchy and before the concept of democracy was formally inducted in this land. Article 4 of the Film Act 1930 stipulates that no screenings should be permitted for films that ''may be detrimental to the state of peace, order and moral decency''. Such open wording has left an enormous gap for negative interpretations for 77 years, and the successive government agencies in charge of supervising film screenings have always cited this article in deciding what the audience can or cannot see. But it is getting increasingly difficult for the Censorship Board _ chaired by the police and including rotating representatives of cultural and academic bodies _ to justify their seemingly arbitrary decisions. The recent uproar over the acclaimed arthouse film Saeng Satawat (or Syndromes and a Century) exposes the inefficiency, if not complete bankruptcy, of the existing censorship regime. The censors are not happy with four scenes in the film _ a monk strumming a guitar; two monks playing with a radio-controlled flying object; a group of doctors drinking whisky; and a doctor kissing his girlfriend and a subsequent shot of his trousers in the area of his crotch.
For those who have seen Saeng Satawat, these images carry no defamatory ill-will to doctors and monks and are much less detrimental to ''decency'' than the vulgar images and crude expletives dispensed gleefully in other Thai films that passed the censors, not to mention a shot of a woman dyeing her pubic hair in the Dutch movie Black Book, or the bloody decapitation in 300. By making this comparison, we are not saying that the dyeing of pubic hair or the gruesome beheading should have been scissored out. But it is imperative that the government open its eyes and get in touch with reality as reflected by an art form such as film, and to modernise the system that ensures both fairness and the right of artists to express their vision.
The censorship board has lost the moral authority from its many demonstrations of bias and mediocrity that it can no longer rely on the magic mantra that what it is doing is protecting the young from bad influences and safeguarding the glory of Thai culture. Such claims sound more and more ludicrous since what we see on television every day is much more shocking than any scene in Saeng Satawat, and since a number of Thai films thriving on rudeness can open without objection on 300 screens.
In an ideal world, nothing should be cut or banned and people should be encouraged to make their own judgment on the representations of virtue and vice as projected by any medium. In a less ideal world, a mode of semi-voluntary censorship like the film rating system should be applied. Film rating, which classifies audience access to screenings according to their age, allows a greater degree of artistic freedom and at the same time is a mechanism for preventing children from being exposed to sensitive material. True, we can imagine a long list of headaches that will arrive with the rating system _ the multiplex operators are likely to oppose it, for a start _ but it has proved workable in many countries; it is a system more in tune with the democratic spirit this country has long been paying lip service to. The current, unreasonable censorship practice must be abolished at once.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
FILMMAKERS RISE AGAINST CENSORSHIP
THE ARTICLE BELOW IS WRITTEN BY KONG RITHDEE FROM “BANGKOK POST”. THE PHOTO IS FROM http://thaiindie.com
http://www.bangkokpost.com/240407_News/24Apr2007_news07.php
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION / CALL FOR END TO OUTDATED LAWS
Filmmakers rise against censorship
KONG RITHDEE
A group of artists, filmmakers and NGOs yesterday launched a movement for the abolition of outdated censorship laws and the introduction of a rating system.
The Free Thai Cinema Movement was initiated by the Thai Film Foundation, Thai Film Directors Association, Bioscope magazine, Thaiindie and Thai Short Film groups. It follows the controversial demand by the Censorship Board that four scenes be cut from Apichatpong Weerasethakul's acclaimed movie Saeng Satawat (Syndromes and a Century).
"This is not just about my movie," said Mr Apichatpong, who withdrew his film from commercial release and refused to cut the four scenes. "This is about calling for a new system that will protect the rights of the filmmakers as well as of the audience."
"The law governing movie censorship is the Film Act of 1930, which was promulgated even before this country became a democracy," said Chalida Uabumrungjit of the Thai Film Foundation. "What we're trying to do is not only defend some movies, but to exercise our democratic rights, and it is good timing because a new constitution is being drafted now."
Prachya Pinkaew, president of the Thai Directors Association and director of Ong-bak and Tom-Yum-Goong, said the charter drafters should define films as a form of mass media, which in effect would prevent any form of government intervention.
"Newspapers, television and radio are already free, but the cinema is still left out," he said. "The drafters of the new charter must take this issue into account."
On April 10 the Censorship Board demanded that Mr Apichatpong make four cuts to Saeng Satawat _ scenes showing a monk playing a guitar, doctors drinking whisky, a doctor kissing his girlfriend, and two monks playing with a radio-controlled aeroplane.
When the director refused to cut the film and confirmed he would not release the movie in Thailand, the censors refused to return the print of the film and insisted that, by law, it would have to make the cuts to the film itself.
This has sparked a widespread reaction from movie-goers and organisations seeing this as a form of oppression of free speech.
No representatives of the censors appeared at yesterday's press conference to launch the Free Thai Cinema Movement.
"It's time for the state to recognise the right of artists to create their works," said Jiranan Pitpreecha, poet and Sea-Write winner. "A rating system for movies is the way to show that Thailand is ready to become a developed country."
http://www.bangkokpost.com/240407_News/24Apr2007_news07.php
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION / CALL FOR END TO OUTDATED LAWS
Filmmakers rise against censorship
KONG RITHDEE
A group of artists, filmmakers and NGOs yesterday launched a movement for the abolition of outdated censorship laws and the introduction of a rating system.
The Free Thai Cinema Movement was initiated by the Thai Film Foundation, Thai Film Directors Association, Bioscope magazine, Thaiindie and Thai Short Film groups. It follows the controversial demand by the Censorship Board that four scenes be cut from Apichatpong Weerasethakul's acclaimed movie Saeng Satawat (Syndromes and a Century).
"This is not just about my movie," said Mr Apichatpong, who withdrew his film from commercial release and refused to cut the four scenes. "This is about calling for a new system that will protect the rights of the filmmakers as well as of the audience."
"The law governing movie censorship is the Film Act of 1930, which was promulgated even before this country became a democracy," said Chalida Uabumrungjit of the Thai Film Foundation. "What we're trying to do is not only defend some movies, but to exercise our democratic rights, and it is good timing because a new constitution is being drafted now."
Prachya Pinkaew, president of the Thai Directors Association and director of Ong-bak and Tom-Yum-Goong, said the charter drafters should define films as a form of mass media, which in effect would prevent any form of government intervention.
"Newspapers, television and radio are already free, but the cinema is still left out," he said. "The drafters of the new charter must take this issue into account."
On April 10 the Censorship Board demanded that Mr Apichatpong make four cuts to Saeng Satawat _ scenes showing a monk playing a guitar, doctors drinking whisky, a doctor kissing his girlfriend, and two monks playing with a radio-controlled aeroplane.
When the director refused to cut the film and confirmed he would not release the movie in Thailand, the censors refused to return the print of the film and insisted that, by law, it would have to make the cuts to the film itself.
This has sparked a widespread reaction from movie-goers and organisations seeing this as a form of oppression of free speech.
No representatives of the censors appeared at yesterday's press conference to launch the Free Thai Cinema Movement.
"It's time for the state to recognise the right of artists to create their works," said Jiranan Pitpreecha, poet and Sea-Write winner. "A rating system for movies is the way to show that Thailand is ready to become a developed country."
Monday, April 23, 2007
TWO ARTICLES FROM "THE NATION" NEWSPAPER
“THE NATION” NEWSPAPER PRINTED TWO ARTICLES ABOUT THE CENSORSHIP AND “SYNDROMES AND A CENTURY”. YOU CAN READ THE TWO ARTICLES IN THESE LINKS.
1.Film censorship firmly under the spotlight
http://nationmultimedia.com/2007/04/22/headlines/headlines_30032392.php
2.First movie law in decades going to NLA
Critics welcome rating system but fear continued censorship
http://nationmultimedia.com/2007/04/22/headlines/headlines_30032394.php
1.Film censorship firmly under the spotlight
http://nationmultimedia.com/2007/04/22/headlines/headlines_30032392.php
2.First movie law in decades going to NLA
Critics welcome rating system but fear continued censorship
http://nationmultimedia.com/2007/04/22/headlines/headlines_30032394.php
Saturday, April 21, 2007
"THAILAND/CENSORSHIP" BY PLALAI FAIFA
THE ARTICLE BELOW IS FROM BANGKOK POST NEWSPAPER
http://www.bangkokpost.com/Realtime/20Apr2007_real24.php
THAILAND / CENSORSHIP
Cut to the quick
PLALAI FAIFA
Now that online DVD vendors and the ubiquitous film festivals make it possible to see movies from just about everywhere, committed cinema addicts may feel that they are getting to the point where they have seen it all. Yes, this new director may be from Paraguay or Uzbekistan or some other country whose movies have previously been largely out of sight, but 15 minutes into his latest it's easy to see that he's been watching Tarkovsky or Bunuel or Kiarostami or Miike very closely and is wearing the borrowed technique like a badge.
So despite the huge variety of movies that are now within reach to anyone interested, film makers who are true originals are turning out to be rare. How fortunate for Thailand, then, that we have one of them right here in the person of Apichatpong Weerasethakul.
As critics worldwide have noted in fascinated reviews, his movies resemble no others. Instead of playing the critic's game of silly comparisons - "like WG Sebald filmed by Aleksandr Sakurov" - they have been content to admit that they were simultaneously baffled and moved. Apichatpong's Tropical Malady appeared on a number of Year's Best lists, and his new film, Syndromes and a Century, judging from what has been written about it so far in the international press, will follow suit.
In my own case, after watching each of Apichatpong's main films, beginning with Mysterious Object at Noon, I have had the urge to immediately watch it again. The most recent two, Tropical Malady and Syndromes and a Century, feel to me like personal meditations whose full meaning will always be known only to the director himself, the same sense I get when watching Tarkovsky's Mirror. But as with that elusive masterpiece they cast an emotional spell that has nothing to do with what this or that detail or gesture "means".
The four movies by Apichatpong that I have seen so far are works of art that will do far more to enhance foreign perception of Thailand's culture than any overstuffed, over-ornamented, elephant-infested spectacle of imagined Thai history. But what is the official reaction to this achievement that so greatly enhances Thailand's fetishised "image"? Cut! Expurgate! Mutilate!
When are we finally going to get past this anachronistic and counterproductive reaction of banning or censoring or otherwise trying to put things out of reach? The sex scene excised from the locally-made DVD of Blissfully Yours might have offended prissier sensibilities - who of course had the option of not watching the film - but in the case of Syndromes and a Century the demanded cuts are harmless by any reasonable standard. It isn't surprising that foreign commentators are already scratching their heads about official attempts to injure the film. "Its coherence is evident; it is too lovely and lucid to be frustrating or dull," wrote AO Scott in Wednesday's New York Times. "But it takes place just on the other side of conscious apprehension. (This makes the recent demand for cuts by Thai censors seem especially odd, since, at least to an outsider, there seems to be nothing politically or sexually provocative in the film.)."
The contested scenes, all playful and humorous, are surpassed in offensiveness by stories that appear in our newspapers practically every day. But when it comes to movies, our distributors and censors have always been handy with the scissors, although there have been exceptions when there is money to be made. When Schindler's List was released 14 years ago the censors were ready with their scissors to remove scenes of Embeth Davidtz's bare breasts until director Steven Spielberg intervened: "Show all of the film or show none of it." The movie was making massive amounts of money wherever it was shown, so somehow it was decided that it could be shown in its entirety without placing the public morality in any undue peril.
Apichatpong took the same stance as Spielberg, all or nothing, but his subtle movies are not big moneymakers here. It is unlikely that the censors' decision will be reversed unless its inappropriateness becomes evident to them, and that is a longshot, indeed. In the meantime, as locally-made features of the greatest stupidity and vulgarity open regularly in our cinemas without interference from the censors, Thai moviegoers will have to wait for a foreign-made DVD to see this lovely work by their country's best-ever filmmaker.
KONG RITHDEE ALSO WROTE ABOUT “SYNDROMES AND A CENTURY” IN THIS LINK:
http://www.bangkokpost.com/Realtime/20Apr2007_real23.php
http://www.bangkokpost.com/Realtime/20Apr2007_real24.php
THAILAND / CENSORSHIP
Cut to the quick
PLALAI FAIFA
Now that online DVD vendors and the ubiquitous film festivals make it possible to see movies from just about everywhere, committed cinema addicts may feel that they are getting to the point where they have seen it all. Yes, this new director may be from Paraguay or Uzbekistan or some other country whose movies have previously been largely out of sight, but 15 minutes into his latest it's easy to see that he's been watching Tarkovsky or Bunuel or Kiarostami or Miike very closely and is wearing the borrowed technique like a badge.
So despite the huge variety of movies that are now within reach to anyone interested, film makers who are true originals are turning out to be rare. How fortunate for Thailand, then, that we have one of them right here in the person of Apichatpong Weerasethakul.
As critics worldwide have noted in fascinated reviews, his movies resemble no others. Instead of playing the critic's game of silly comparisons - "like WG Sebald filmed by Aleksandr Sakurov" - they have been content to admit that they were simultaneously baffled and moved. Apichatpong's Tropical Malady appeared on a number of Year's Best lists, and his new film, Syndromes and a Century, judging from what has been written about it so far in the international press, will follow suit.
In my own case, after watching each of Apichatpong's main films, beginning with Mysterious Object at Noon, I have had the urge to immediately watch it again. The most recent two, Tropical Malady and Syndromes and a Century, feel to me like personal meditations whose full meaning will always be known only to the director himself, the same sense I get when watching Tarkovsky's Mirror. But as with that elusive masterpiece they cast an emotional spell that has nothing to do with what this or that detail or gesture "means".
The four movies by Apichatpong that I have seen so far are works of art that will do far more to enhance foreign perception of Thailand's culture than any overstuffed, over-ornamented, elephant-infested spectacle of imagined Thai history. But what is the official reaction to this achievement that so greatly enhances Thailand's fetishised "image"? Cut! Expurgate! Mutilate!
When are we finally going to get past this anachronistic and counterproductive reaction of banning or censoring or otherwise trying to put things out of reach? The sex scene excised from the locally-made DVD of Blissfully Yours might have offended prissier sensibilities - who of course had the option of not watching the film - but in the case of Syndromes and a Century the demanded cuts are harmless by any reasonable standard. It isn't surprising that foreign commentators are already scratching their heads about official attempts to injure the film. "Its coherence is evident; it is too lovely and lucid to be frustrating or dull," wrote AO Scott in Wednesday's New York Times. "But it takes place just on the other side of conscious apprehension. (This makes the recent demand for cuts by Thai censors seem especially odd, since, at least to an outsider, there seems to be nothing politically or sexually provocative in the film.)."
The contested scenes, all playful and humorous, are surpassed in offensiveness by stories that appear in our newspapers practically every day. But when it comes to movies, our distributors and censors have always been handy with the scissors, although there have been exceptions when there is money to be made. When Schindler's List was released 14 years ago the censors were ready with their scissors to remove scenes of Embeth Davidtz's bare breasts until director Steven Spielberg intervened: "Show all of the film or show none of it." The movie was making massive amounts of money wherever it was shown, so somehow it was decided that it could be shown in its entirety without placing the public morality in any undue peril.
Apichatpong took the same stance as Spielberg, all or nothing, but his subtle movies are not big moneymakers here. It is unlikely that the censors' decision will be reversed unless its inappropriateness becomes evident to them, and that is a longshot, indeed. In the meantime, as locally-made features of the greatest stupidity and vulgarity open regularly in our cinemas without interference from the censors, Thai moviegoers will have to wait for a foreign-made DVD to see this lovely work by their country's best-ever filmmaker.
KONG RITHDEE ALSO WROTE ABOUT “SYNDROMES AND A CENTURY” IN THIS LINK:
http://www.bangkokpost.com/Realtime/20Apr2007_real23.php
Friday, April 20, 2007
INJUSTICE
--Brian Darr left a comment in my blog in this link:
http://celinejulie.blogspot.com/2007/04/syndromes-and-century-fear-of-reality.html
This is celinejulie’s answer to him:
Thank you very much for your comment, Brian.
I don’t have much to say about the censorship and SYNDROMES AND A CENTURY now. I have to admit that I feel exhausted in this fight. It kind of drains my soul. The more I think about what happens in Thailand right now, the more I feel bad. Now I really understand what INJUSTICE feels like. But seeing the names in the petition grow longer and longer encourages me to think that there’s still hope in this world.
--Thank you very much Mubarak Ali and Brian Darr for helping promoting our petition to free Thai cinema.
http://supposedaura.blogspot.com/2007/04/free-thai-cinema.html
http://www.cinemarati.org/index.php/archives/syndromes-and-a-censor/
--MATTHEW HUNT also talked about Syndromes and the petition in his blog:
http://www.matthewhunt.com/blog/2007/04/syndromes-century-petition.html
--A.O. SCOTT in the New York Times also mentioned about SYNDROMES and the censorship:
http://movies2.nytimes.com/2007/04/18/movies/18cent.html?ref=movies
(This makes the recent demand for cuts by Thai censors seem especially odd, since, at least to an outsider, there seems to be nothing politically or sexually provocative in the film. In any case, Mr. Weerasethakul has refused to make the changes and has issued a statement condemning the censorship.)
I learned about the New York Times article from http://thaiindie.com
--SOME GOOD ARTICLES ABOUT SYNDROMES AND THE CENTURY
1.from EVERYTHING ELSE IS RIM LIGHT’S BLOG
http://everythingelseisrimlight.blogspot.com/2007/04/syndromes-and-century-by-apichatpong.html
2.from J. Hoberman in the Village Voice
http://www.villagevoice.com/film/0716,hoberman,76373,20.html
--The article below is a piece of old news from THE NATION newspaper:
Plea for an end to state censorship of cinema
Monday, April 16, 2007
Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com
The censorship of controversial scenes in Apichatpong Weerasethakul's award-winning film "Sang Sattawat" (Syndromes and a Century) has led to a call to liberate Thai films from state intervention.
The Thai Film Foundation and Thai Film Directors' Association yesterday launched an online petition demanding that the National Legislative Assembly state in the new constitution that movies are a form of mass media.
"We are petitioning not only for a just decision for 'Sang Sattawat' but also for a long-needed modernisation of legislation concerning movie censorship," the petition read.
"We demand that the authority revise legislation to stop the practice of cutting and banning films, and instead implement a rating system of the kind used in free countries. This is the only way that Thai cinema and all cinema shown in Thailand can be freed from the shackles of outdated legal vandalism."
The move came after the Censorship Board had informed Apichatpong that it would permit the release of his film on condition that four cuts were made.
The scenes involve the portrayal of monks and doctors in inappropriate ways, according to censors. Two feature a monk playing a guitar and a monk playing a game. The Culture Ministry objected to the scenes.
"We didn't ban the film, but if they want to release it, they have to cut these scenes," said Asst Professor Chawana Phawakanan, who represents the Federation of National Film Association of Thailand on the board.
But Apichatpong decided to cancel commercial release of the film in Thailand and insisted the cuts would not be made.
The director, who is now in the United States, said in a statement circulating via e-mail: "I, a filmmaker, treat my works as my own sons or my daughters. When I conceived them, they have their own lives to live.
"I don't mind if people are fond of them or despise them, as long as I created them with my best intentions and efforts. If these offspring of mine cannot live in their own country for whatever reasons, let them be free.
"Since there are other places that warmly welcome them as who they are, there is no reason to mutilate them from the fear of the system, or from greed. Otherwise there is no reason for one to continue making art."
Apichatpong's style has a loose plot and portrays people in everyday life. The award-winning director wanted to devote the film to his parents, who are both doctors.
The film featured at the prestigious Venice International Film Festival last year. Recently it won the Best Asian Film award at France's Deauville Asian Film Festival.
"The board members judge the film with their priority to protect themselves - what happens after that, they are not interested in," said film producer Pantham Thongsung.
Meanwhile, a lawyer representative of the Medical Council of Thailand wants to ban two other scenes in the film. One features a doctor kissing his girlfriend in a hospital with a close-up scene that suggests sexual feeling. The other shows glasses filled with whisky on a table in a doctors' common room.
"The best solution is to put a notice at the beginning of the film to warn that the film has improper scenes that do not exist in real life. Then the problematic scenes would not be cut at all," said Chawana.
However, Chawana said the director dismissed that idea following the censorship of the monk scenes last week.
The censors are under the supervision of the Royal Thai Police. The board comprises representatives from different government sectors, depending on a film's content. Each related office sends staff to consider a film under the Film Act, which has been used since 1930.
The rotation of board members has been criticised for preventing a uniform standard for censorship.
A new Film Act that would update the rating system has been stuck in the system for decades because of political changes.
Among people signing the online petition are Julie Pearce of the British Film Institute, Thomas Bertacche Udine of the Far East Film Festival in Italy and Chinese film-maker Zhang Xian Min.
Parinyaporn Pajee
The Nation
http://celinejulie.blogspot.com/2007/04/syndromes-and-century-fear-of-reality.html
This is celinejulie’s answer to him:
Thank you very much for your comment, Brian.
I don’t have much to say about the censorship and SYNDROMES AND A CENTURY now. I have to admit that I feel exhausted in this fight. It kind of drains my soul. The more I think about what happens in Thailand right now, the more I feel bad. Now I really understand what INJUSTICE feels like. But seeing the names in the petition grow longer and longer encourages me to think that there’s still hope in this world.
--Thank you very much Mubarak Ali and Brian Darr for helping promoting our petition to free Thai cinema.
http://supposedaura.blogspot.com/2007/04/free-thai-cinema.html
http://www.cinemarati.org/index.php/archives/syndromes-and-a-censor/
--MATTHEW HUNT also talked about Syndromes and the petition in his blog:
http://www.matthewhunt.com/blog/2007/04/syndromes-century-petition.html
--A.O. SCOTT in the New York Times also mentioned about SYNDROMES and the censorship:
http://movies2.nytimes.com/2007/04/18/movies/18cent.html?ref=movies
(This makes the recent demand for cuts by Thai censors seem especially odd, since, at least to an outsider, there seems to be nothing politically or sexually provocative in the film. In any case, Mr. Weerasethakul has refused to make the changes and has issued a statement condemning the censorship.)
I learned about the New York Times article from http://thaiindie.com
--SOME GOOD ARTICLES ABOUT SYNDROMES AND THE CENTURY
1.from EVERYTHING ELSE IS RIM LIGHT’S BLOG
http://everythingelseisrimlight.blogspot.com/2007/04/syndromes-and-century-by-apichatpong.html
2.from J. Hoberman in the Village Voice
http://www.villagevoice.com/film/0716,hoberman,76373,20.html
--The article below is a piece of old news from THE NATION newspaper:
Plea for an end to state censorship of cinema
Monday, April 16, 2007
Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com
The censorship of controversial scenes in Apichatpong Weerasethakul's award-winning film "Sang Sattawat" (Syndromes and a Century) has led to a call to liberate Thai films from state intervention.
The Thai Film Foundation and Thai Film Directors' Association yesterday launched an online petition demanding that the National Legislative Assembly state in the new constitution that movies are a form of mass media.
"We are petitioning not only for a just decision for 'Sang Sattawat' but also for a long-needed modernisation of legislation concerning movie censorship," the petition read.
"We demand that the authority revise legislation to stop the practice of cutting and banning films, and instead implement a rating system of the kind used in free countries. This is the only way that Thai cinema and all cinema shown in Thailand can be freed from the shackles of outdated legal vandalism."
The move came after the Censorship Board had informed Apichatpong that it would permit the release of his film on condition that four cuts were made.
The scenes involve the portrayal of monks and doctors in inappropriate ways, according to censors. Two feature a monk playing a guitar and a monk playing a game. The Culture Ministry objected to the scenes.
"We didn't ban the film, but if they want to release it, they have to cut these scenes," said Asst Professor Chawana Phawakanan, who represents the Federation of National Film Association of Thailand on the board.
But Apichatpong decided to cancel commercial release of the film in Thailand and insisted the cuts would not be made.
The director, who is now in the United States, said in a statement circulating via e-mail: "I, a filmmaker, treat my works as my own sons or my daughters. When I conceived them, they have their own lives to live.
"I don't mind if people are fond of them or despise them, as long as I created them with my best intentions and efforts. If these offspring of mine cannot live in their own country for whatever reasons, let them be free.
"Since there are other places that warmly welcome them as who they are, there is no reason to mutilate them from the fear of the system, or from greed. Otherwise there is no reason for one to continue making art."
Apichatpong's style has a loose plot and portrays people in everyday life. The award-winning director wanted to devote the film to his parents, who are both doctors.
The film featured at the prestigious Venice International Film Festival last year. Recently it won the Best Asian Film award at France's Deauville Asian Film Festival.
"The board members judge the film with their priority to protect themselves - what happens after that, they are not interested in," said film producer Pantham Thongsung.
Meanwhile, a lawyer representative of the Medical Council of Thailand wants to ban two other scenes in the film. One features a doctor kissing his girlfriend in a hospital with a close-up scene that suggests sexual feeling. The other shows glasses filled with whisky on a table in a doctors' common room.
"The best solution is to put a notice at the beginning of the film to warn that the film has improper scenes that do not exist in real life. Then the problematic scenes would not be cut at all," said Chawana.
However, Chawana said the director dismissed that idea following the censorship of the monk scenes last week.
The censors are under the supervision of the Royal Thai Police. The board comprises representatives from different government sectors, depending on a film's content. Each related office sends staff to consider a film under the Film Act, which has been used since 1930.
The rotation of board members has been criticised for preventing a uniform standard for censorship.
A new Film Act that would update the rating system has been stuck in the system for decades because of political changes.
Among people signing the online petition are Julie Pearce of the British Film Institute, Thomas Bertacche Udine of the Far East Film Festival in Italy and Chinese film-maker Zhang Xian Min.
Parinyaporn Pajee
The Nation
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)