PERSONAL DEMONS (1986, Peter Medak, A+++++)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LICdGoLymiw

FAVORITE MUSIC VIDEOS 18: Jun Togawa

Thanks to Wiwat Lertwiwatwongsa for telling me about this artist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFqJftc6cxQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkXIOdOwGTE&feature=share

RUDE AWAKENING (1980, Peter Sasdy, A++++++++++)

You can watch this film here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DznqtpldVXA

THE GAY WEDDING CRASHER CLIP

You can watch this Chinese clip here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Km98UzdRIkY&feature=share

I really love this gay clip. It reminds me of the music video IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ME by Adeva, and a classic scene in the Hong Kong TV series NEW HEAVENLY SWORD AND DRAGON SABRE (1986, A+++++), in which the Princess Chiu Man tries to destroy the wedding ceremony between Cheung Mo-kei and Chow Chi-yeuk, the leader of Emei sect. The Princess and Chow Chi-yeuk fight with each other in the wedding hall, and Chow Chi-yeuk uses the "Nine Yin White Bone Claw" to hurt the Princess severely.

IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ME
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMb5wG-Sj0w

A GIFTSHOP ADVERTISEMENT BY TOSSAPOL BOONSINSUKH

You can watch this advertisement from the link below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVMajbVQrsA

FILMS PRODUCED BY A CINEPHILE

(Warning: this is a self-advertisement)

I was very impressed with many films directed by Wachara Kanha, which I saw in July 2010. FUENG, which is my most favorite film I saw in 2010, is also directed by Wachara, together with Teeranit Siangsanoh and Thani Thitiprawat.
http://celinejulie.blogspot.com/2010/12/wachara-kanhas-detailed-filmography.html

So I decided to contribute 30,000 baht (about 989 US dollars) to Wachara, hoping that it might help him make 2-3 short films at most. However, I was shocked and delighted when I found out a few days ago that he listed me as a producer in eleven of his new short films!!!!!! How could he use a very small sum of money to make eleven short films? I don't know, but I am very glad.

I feel very strange, though, to see my name listed as a producer, because apart from contributing a small fund, I have done nothing to help Wachara at all. I'm sure I'm one of the worst or laziest producers in the world. Hahaha.

Of all these eleven short films, I have seen only three: BLUE BLANK (2010), DELUSIONAL (เชลยแห่งความรัก) (2010), and TAKE GRANNY MORN TO THE GARDEN (พายายหมอนไปชมสวน) (2010). I like them a lot personally, especially TAKE GRANNY MORN TO THE GARDEN. I like the faces of the old woman in the garden and the old man who complained about Abhisit Vejjajiva in this film very much. There's "life" in these two faces.

I don't know if the other eight films I haven't seen will be good or not. I don't know if I will like them or not. But I'm glad to have participated unknowingly in the making of them.

The other eight films are:

1.ข่มขืนกรุงเทพ (RAPING BANGKOK)

2.ความฝันสีขาวกับเด็กสาวผมสีแดง (WHITE DREAM AND A GIRL WITH RED HAIR)

3.บ้านเมืองของเธอ (HER CITY)

4.ผีโป่ง (PEE PONG)

5.ผู้บุกรุก (INVADER)

6.สักวันเธอจะรักฉันอย่างที่ฉันรักเธอ (ONE DAY YOU WILL LOVE ME LIKE I LOVE YOU)

7.สูญ (LOSE)

8.ห้องเรียนฝรั่งเศสกับปริศนาฟรองซัว (A FRENCH CLASSROOM AND THE MYSTERY OF FRANÇOIS)


I ask myself why I have become a producer. It is mainly because I like Wachara's films very much. I also think it is partly because I am a cinephile or a film lover. I think a film lover should try to support the films and the filmmakers he/she likes. The support can be done in a number of ways: writing about them, studying them, distributing them, trying to show them, curating them, preserving them, contributing some funds to them, etc.

I used to write some blog posts about the films and the filmmakers I like. However, for the past several years, I have found that I have less and less time for writing. That makes me feel repressed as a film lover. I love many films I saw, but I don't have enough time to write about them. My love for these films is kept inside me. I cannot express them because of lack of time. So I think my contribution to Wachara's films is a way to lessen my feeling of repression. I may not have enough time to support all the filmmakers I like by writing about them, but I might be able to support them in some other ways.

Unfortunately, I have had some financial problems since November 2010, so I cannot do this kind of financial support again. I have become a repressed film lover again. I don't have enough money to support the filmmakers I like. I don't have enough time to write about the films and the filmmakers I like.

Though I am a repressed film lover, I am still a very happy film lover. I'm happy because great films are still being made. I'm happy because I have seen many films that I like very much recently, including CAN'T SAY NO (2008, Iliana Lolic), CHAEKI-CHAEUE (2011, Buncha Muhae), FAIS-MOI PLAISIR! (2009, Emmanuel Mouret), I COVERED MY EYES (2008, Paul Turano), MARION MAZZANO (2010, Marc Angelo, French TV series), MITTELWERK EXPRESS (Jean-Baptiste Alazard), MOTHER (UNFINISHED VERSION) (2011, Vorakorn Ruetaivanichkul), RESTLESS (2009, Laurent Perreau), WHY DO YOU JUMP? (2011, Korn Kanogkekarin), and ZOETROPE (2011, Rouzbeh Rashidi). These films make me feel very glad that I have lived long enough to be able to see them.

Thanks to the Thai Film Foundation for showing great, obscure films to us every year since 1998. Thanks to Wachara Kanha for making all these films.

THE HEART OF PAIN (2010, Saranij Meesorn, 15 min, A+)

From my conversation with a friend in Facebook:

ถ้าจำไม่ผิด หนังมีเนื้อหาเกี่ยวกับชายหนุ่มสองคนที่ดูเหมือนเป็นคู่เกย์กัน แต่ในที่สุดหนังก็เฉลยในตอนจบว่าทั้งสองคนนั้นไม่ได้เป็นคู่เกย์กันแต่อย่างใด ทุกคนเข้าใจผิดกันไปเอง

เราชอบหนังเรื่องนี้ในระดับ A+ นะ แต่ก็ขัดใจนิดหน่อยที่ตัวละครในเรื่องไม่ได้เป็นคู่เกย์กัน มันเป็นหนังตลกประเภทที่ตัวร้ายจะเล่นโอเวอร์สุดขีดเพื่อเรียกเสียงฮาจากความโอเวอร์แอคติ้ง มันเป็นหนังที่จงใจสร้างความบันเทิงอย่างเต็มที่ และก็สร้างความบันเทิงได้จริงๆ แต่ดูเหมือนมันยังขาดความกล้าหาญหรือความกล้าทำอะไรเสี่ยงๆน่ะ คือเรารู้สึกว่าทุกอย่างในหนังเรื่องนี้มันเป็นสิ่งที่เรารู้ว่า "คนดูต้องชอบแน่ๆ" หนังมันยังขาดองค์ประกอบประเภทที่ "คนดูจะชอบไม่ชอบ กูไม่รู้ แต่กูอยากใส่เข้าไปในหนัง" น่ะ เราก็เลยไม่ได้ชอบหนังเรื่องนี้ถึงขั้น A+++++

ส่วนฉากแก้ผ้าเราจำไม่ได้เลยนะ แต่ถ้าจำไม่ผิด หนังมีฉากชายหนุ่มไม่ใส่เสื้ออยู่บ้างพอสมควร

VIDEO INSTALLATIONS SEEN IN THE EXHIBITION "LOAD: OVERLOAD"

VIDEO INSTALLATIONS SEEN IN THE EXHIBITION "LOAD: OVERLOAD" (2011, Department of Computer Graphics and Multimedia, Bangkok University International) on the second floor of BACC

1.NON-ZERO-SUM (Mattia Sedda, A++++++++++)

2.SOMEONE IS WATCHING YOU (Chalisa Charttrakulchai, A++++++++++)

3.INNER REALITIES (Alisa Yuldybaeva, A++++++++++)

4.MACHINE VS. MACHINE (David C, A+++++)

5.EMOTIONAL ENTRAPMENT (Violetta Egorova, A+++++)

6.TANGIBLE PIXELS (Oraphan Lohawatanakul, animation, A+)

7.PERSONALITY: SOCIAL PHENOMENON (Supatchanan Kijsamrej, A+)

8.DANGER OF MEDIA (Chonlathit Leesirigul, animation, A+)

9.CIRCLE OF LIFE (Thiti Emaruchi, A+)

10.MATERIALISTIC BUDDHA (Jiranan Thatsaphornthaweesap, animation, A+)

11.IS YOUR PRIVATE SPACE PRIVATE? (Kelun Kim Babauta, A+/A)

12.WAIT FOR ME (Pattareeya Ritprajak, A+/A)

13.LANGUAGE IS A VIRUS (Eva Boese, A+/A)

14.CONFORMED COPY (Ching Chien Chen, animation, A+/A)

15.TIME PERCEPTION (Napatthiya Hongchinnakorn, A+/A)

16.ALTERNATIVE (Thanadsri Archavanimitkul, A+/A)

17.THIS IS WHO YOU ARE (Navapat Changpung, A+/A)

18.REMINISCENCE (Harit Wanapoh, animation, A+/A)

19.BEAUTY FROM PAIN (Narumon Suttiprapa, A)

20.LITTLE CLOUD PUKPUI (Kwanchanok Techaplalert, animation, A)

21.ICONARY (Watson Ngamsantiwong, A)

22.VISUALIZE COLORATION (Pimnuda Pititeerasaje, A)

23.THE THIRD SEX (Chanista Trongtrairat, A)

24.AR(EN')T (Isada Kusakul, animation, A-)

25.SIN (Nat Pongteekayu, A-)

This is a photo of myself in the big box, which is a part of the installation INNER REALITIES. There is a projector on the ceiling of the box. It projects some colorful video graphics onto the floor of the box. The colorful light from the projection reflects on the audience and the four walls of the box creating a wonderful experience like in the house of mirrors in an amusement park.

Talking about my own reflections, I also like the installation WHERE AM I AM ? (2011, Suwasan Chenvitit, A+++++++++++++++), which is shown in the exhibition CMD DEGREE SHOW in March 2011. If I remember it correctly, this installation places some mirrors and lights in a dark corner. When I walked near it, my presence created multiple dark reflections in the mirrors. It looks really amazing. It's like I nearly stepped into the realm of the dark shadows of Philippe Grandrieux or David Lynch or something like that, though that's not the intention of the installation artist.

As for LOAD: OVERLOAD, apart from the video installations listed above, I also like the installation EM-PA-TEA (Thiencharas Wongpisetkul, A++++++++++).

DESIRABLE ACTOR 5: SURIYONT ARUNWATANAKUL from LOMA, GLAR TAR FUN (2011, TV series)

DESIRABLE ACTOR 4: GODFREY GAO from ALL ABOUT WOMEN (2008, Tsui Hark)

RATCHAPOOM BOONBUNCHACHOKE'S RETROSPECTIVE THIS SATURDAY

Ratchapoom Boonbunchachoke's retrospective will be held this Saturday, June 4, at 1500-1800 hrs, on the 9th floor of BACC. The event is held by Bodin Theparat. The poster is designed by Akira Kangwanpat.

The details are in the link below
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=194731583900668

How to financially support a new film by Ratchapoom
http://dominofilm.blogspot.com/2011/04/supporters.html

My comment on BODILY FLUID IS SO REVOLUTIONARY (2009, Ratchapoom Boonbunchachoke)
http://celinejulie.blogspot.com/2009/06/transcend-boundaries.html

This is what I wrote in Indian Auteur's website about Ratchapoom:
http://www.indianauteur.com/?p=976

"I have seen only three films by Ratchapoom, but I'm sure this director, who is also an avid cinephile, will go very far. His films include Unpronoucable in the Linguistic Imperialism of Yours (2008, 3 min), which is a mockumentary about a Thai female artist who opens her house to let people come in and watch her masturbating. This film makes the viewers realize that we rarely see a heroine expressing some sexual satisfaction in Thai films or Thai TV series. We more often see Thai villainesses expressing this kind of feelings. This film touches on some taboos in Thai media which we may not have noticed before. Ratchapoom tackles taboo subjects again in Mermaid Wearing Pants (2009, 7 min), which is composed of found footage from many banned films, including Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom (1975, Pier Paolo Pasolini). This film also reminds us of some political taboos in Thailand. Ratchapoom's masterpiece is Bodily Fluid Is So Revolutionary (2009, 41 min), which tells a story of a gay couple who encounter a serious relationship problem when one of them becomes allergic to any bodily fluid coming out of his lover. The allergic one seeks help from a female doctor, who eagerly volunteers to have sex with her own patient, while his lover resorts to masturbation. What makes this film special is its self-reflexiveness. The images in this film are strangely disrupted from time to time, as if the film is shown via a scratched or damaged DVD, but the characters also realize that they exist in a scratched DVD and try to escape from it. Wiwat Lertwiwatwongsa observes that this film does not only tackle some sexual taboos, but is also about the relationship between film viewers who become allergic to arthouse films, critics who provide the cure, and filmmakers who are accused of masturbating themselves by making incomprehensible films."

I also saw another two films by Ratchapoom in September 2010. They are CHUTIMA (2007, A+++) and MA VIE INCOMPLET ET INACHEVEEE' (2007, A+). I like CHUTIMA very much, though I can't remember the details of the film now. If I remember it correctly, what I like the most in this film is that it presents a sexually daring heroine via a non-judgmental light. MA VIE INCOMPLET ET INACHEVEEE' is about a family of incest. The story and the comedic/satirical tone of this film reminds me of ABNORMAL FAMILY (1984, Masayuki Suo) and SITCOM (1998, François Ozon), while the technique of this film, which tells its story by focusing the camera on different parts of a still drawing, reminds me of BAND OF NINJA (1967, Nagisa Ôshima).

Ratchapoom not only directs films but also writes some screenplays. If I remember it correctly, he co-wrote YURIEM EST TE MARI D'UN ÉTRANGÉRE (ยุเรียมเป็นผัวฝรั่ง) (2006, Nawapol Thamrongrattanarit, 30 min), LONGAN-EYED PRINCESS (เจ้าหญิงตาลำไย) (2009, Chanokporn Chutikamoltham, 6 min, animation, A+++++) and AWKWARD ANCIENT TALE (ปราปรัมปุเลี่ยนปุเลี่ยน) (2009, Pawara Chatchawanprecha, 16 min, A+++++++++).


If I have to screen Ratchapoom's films with other films, I may choose the films in the list below:

1.AT THE HEART OF A SPARROW (2006, Barry Doupé, animation)
This film is structurally interesting, like Ratchapoom's films, and presents some bizarre nuns, which reminds me of the nun in BODILY FLUID IS SO REVOLUTIONARY.

2.THE DEATH OF MARIA MALIBRAN (1972, Werner Schroeter)
Because Ratchapoom likes Schroeter, and uses a poster of MALINA (1991, Werner Schroeter) in BODILY FLUID IS SO REVOLUTIONARY.

3.DIVINE (1998, Arturo Ripstein, Mexico)
The heroine of this film is a young girl who is the leader of a cult. She orders the men in her cult to have sex with her. She seems like a distant cousin of the female characters in Ratchapoom's films.

4.I-BE AREA (2007, Ryan Trecartin, USA)
The bizarreness and queerness of this film reminds me of Ratchapoom's films.
You can watch this film at:
http://www.ubu.com/film/trecartin_area.html

5.KITTYPORN (1999, Angela Christlieb, Germany, 3 min)
If I remember it correctly, this film is about a woman who breastfeeds a cat. The heroine of this film seems like a distant cousin of the female characters in Ratchapoom's films.

6.LOOK OF LOVE (2006, Yoshiharu Ueoka, Japan)
The bizarreness of this film reminds me of Ratchapoom's films.

7.MITTELWERK EXPRESS (Jean-Baptiste Alazard, France)
This film plays with its narrative structure like Ratchapoom's films.

8.THE NINE-DAY PREGNANCY OF A SINGLE, MIDDLE-AGED ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR (2006, Araya Rasdjarmrearnsook, Thailand)
This film questions women's status in Thai society, which reminds me of CHUTIMA and UNPRONOUNCABLE IN THE LINGUISTIC IMPERIALISM OF YOURS.

9.OUR LADY OF THE TURKS (1968, Carmelo Bene, Italy)
Ratchapoom likes Carmelo Bene.

10.PRASART (ประสาท) (1975, Peak Poster)
Ratchapoom's films present interesting female characters, so they remind me of PRASART, which deal with three female characters who may have psychological problems.

11.PSYCHIC TEQUILA TAROT (1998, Isabell Spengler, Germany, 24 min)
This film is about a fictional daughter of John Waters and Annie Sprinkle. The sexually daring heroine of this film seems like a distant cousin of the female characters in Ratchapoom's films.

12.SITA? (2004, Santiphap Inkong-ngam, Thailand, 30 min)
This film questions women's status in society, which reminds me of CHUTIMA and UNPRONOUNCABLE IN THE LINGUISTIC IMPERIALISM OF YOURS.

13.THE SLEEP OF REASON (1984, Ula Stöckl, West Germany)
This film stuns me with its focus on the troubled mind of a female character.

This is the review of THE SLEEP OF REASON from Die Zeit:
http://www.ula-stoeckl.com/Film-Seiten/17_Der_Schlaf_E.html
"Is there not another beautiful murderess? She is called Dea, is Italian and lives like Medea in a foreign country, which we call our own. Her Jason leaves her for Johanna, who is related to him. She is also estranged from her daughters, who like Medea's, are her stepdaughters. This woman (Ida di Benedetto) kills them all: the daughters, the rival, her own mother, herself. And yet that is only a dream of a myth, which she must fulfill, because her break-up didn't succeed. Not even feminism helps, as that just defines the problem and makes it harder to bear. By dreaming of death, Dea is striving for a life, which can find its justification in peace rather than destruction."

14.TO HAVE AND TO HOLD (2003, Emily Mantell, UK, animation, 4 min)
This film presents women who keep penises as their pets. The sexually bizarre world in this film reminds me of the feelings I get from Ratchapoom's films.

You can watch this film here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1_xFtZhUh4

15.A WOMAN LIKE NO OTHER (2008, Abdoulaye Dao, Burkina Faso)
This film is about a woman who decides to have two husbands at the same time. The heroine of this film reminds me of some female characters in Ratchapoom's films.

A NOVEL BY APICHART PHOPAIROJ

I just found a novel called LAI KRARM (1977), written by Apichart Phopairoj (อภิชาต โพธิไพโรจน์).

If I understand it correctly, Apichart Phopairoj who wrote LAI KRARM is the same Apichart Phopairoj (อภิชาติ โพธิ์ไพโรจน์ หรือ อภิชาติ โพธิไพโรจน์), who directed SEARCHING FOR LOVE (ถามหาความรัก) (1984, A+) FRIENDS (เพื่อน) (1986, A-), LHORN (หลอน) (2003, B-), THE AGE OF LONELINESS (วัยแตกเปลี่ยว)(1979), THE VINYL RECORD IS BROKEN (แผ่นเสียงตกร่อง) (1979), THE SECONDHAND WOMAN (ผู้หญิงมือสอง) (possibly 1980), FROM THE HEARTS OF TEACHERS (จากครูด้วยดวงใจ) (1980), JUST TELL ME LOVE (เพียงบอกรักฉันสักนิด) (1985), and TWO DOZENS TWENTY FIVE (สองโหลยี่สิบห้า) (1986).

There are various Thai spellings for the name Apichart Phopairoj, so I'm not sure if there are 1, or 2, or 3 Apichart Phopairojs in the Thai entertainment business, but I guess there is only one.

http://www.thaifilmdb.com/th/pp00025
http://www.thaifilmdb.com/th/pp01189

I wanted to see THE SECONDHAND WOMAN very much. If I understand it correctly, this film won the best film award in the Tashkent Film Festival in USSR, which is in Uzbekistan now. I hope and pray that THE SECONDHAND WOMAN is not lost forever. There are many Thai old films which are lost forever due to the serious lack of film preservation in Thailand.

Thanks to Wiwat Lertwiwatwongsa for leading me to the novel LAI KRARM, and for Tone Tipayanon for telling Wiwat about the old bookshop which has this novel.

NUALJAREE JUMNONGTHAI

The model in this photo is Nualjaree Jumnongthai, whom I like very much in the 1980's. The image is from the cover of Preaw Magazine in 1984. Nualjaree passed away because of cancer in January 2011.

How I argue with myself over CLOSURE OF CATHARSIS (2011, Rouzbeh Rashidi, 100 min, A+++++)

"I believe in invisible pictures. If you have two pictures cut correctly, that makes a third picture sometimes." –Alexander Kluge

What I'm going to write may not be exactly about the film CLOSURE OF CATHARSIS, but about my random thoughts concerning many other things after I watched this film. I'm sorry if my writing tells more about myself than this indefinable film.


Among the six feature films of Rouzbeh Rashidi that I have seen, CLOSURE OF CATHARSIS is the most challenging for me, partly because the film is so unique or so different from other films I have seen that I don't know how to deal with it, how to approach it, or how to think about it. It is also partly because I didn't know about how the film was made before I watched it.

CLOSURE OF CATHARIS consists of a man (James Devereaux) sitting on a park bench talking to the camera, while some mysterious scenes intervene from time to time.

On the surface, the film should be easier to understand than REMINISCENCES OF YEARNING (2011, Rouzbeh Rashidi) and ZOETROPE (2011, Rouzbeh Rashidi), both of which seem to tell no obvious stories. However, because I have seen a few surreal films and a few atmospheric films, it is easier for me to attune to the wavelengths of REMINISCENCES OF YEARNING, which is super-surreal, and ZOETROPE, which is extremely atmospheric, than to the wavelengths of CLOSURE OF CATHARSIS, which is unlike anything I have seen before.

After my first viewing of CLOSURE OF CATHARSIS, there are many questions left on my mind, including:

--How much of the film is planned beforehand?
--Is the monologue improvised, or scripted, or half-improvised, half-scripted? If it is scripted, who wrote it? Rashidi or Devereaux?
--Are the passers-by fictional characters or real people or both?
--How much of what is said is true or fiction? For example, did Devereaux really have a black-and-white TV?
--How many takes did Rashidi shoot for this film?
--Is all the monologue kept in the film? Did Rashidi cut some "meaningful talk" from the film to make the talk seem more meaningless? Or did Rashidi cut some "meaningless talk" from the film to make the talk seem more meaningful?
--What is the purpose of this film?
--If the film is scripted, are there any hidden meanings in the film, the mise-en-scene, the monologue, or the enigmatic inserted scenes? Are there any symbols or metaphors I need to decode? Do the dog, the squirrel, the public library, the black-and-white TV, or other things mentioned in the monologue carry special meanings?
--Is the film in black-and-white partly because a topic in the monologue concerns a black-and-white TV?

I watched CLOSURE OF CATHARSIS the first time on May 16, but I dared not write about it for fear that I might not understand some deep layers in this film. The film does not give us a conclusion, does not give us any obvious lessons, does not give me a climax or a catharsis. It is just a man talking about some events in his past, which seem to be unimportant compared to the events happening or talked about in most films. I felt that I didn't really understand the true value of this film. I thought that the film might be scripted and had some hidden meanings or some deep layers in it that I couldn't decode or fathom. I felt a little troubled by this film.

Fortunately, I just had a chance to read James Devereaux's blog on May 26. His blog post is about the making of this film:
http://thegreatactingblog.posterous.com/the-great-acting-blog-a-very-real-mystery

After reading Devereaux's blog post, many questions I had about this film are answered. I now know how I should approach this film, think about it, or attune my wavelengths to it. I can watch the film for the second or third time with a liberated mind.

I use the word "liberated mind", because I feel very "free" when I watch this film for the second time. After I know that the acting and the monologue in this film are mostly improvised, I can really "enjoy" watching it. I can really enjoy watching the tiny movements on Devereaux's face, and not burdening myself with such questions as, "What does the director want to convey to the audience when James raises his eyebrows?" or "What is the director's MESSAGE when James moves a muscle in his face?"

Now I can enjoy the film and many things in the film without having to find "meanings" in them, without having to ask, "Is this thing significant or not?" I can sit back, relax, watch, listen to, and observe many things in the film with a free mind. Now I think of many things in the film as natural, real, life-like, or documentary-like things. If they are real, I don't have to find reasons to justify their existence in the film. If they are fictional, I feel the urge to understand why they are presented in the film.

Talking about this topic, please let me digress from CLOSURE OF CATHARSIS for a while:

If I hadn't read Devereaux' blog, I might not have been sure how I should approach this film. I would have asked myself, "Should I deal with the monologue in this film as a story of real life like the stories presented in Raymond Depardon's documentaries?" "Or should I deal with the monologue in this film as a fictional tale like in TEN TINY LOVE STORIES (2002, Rodrigo García)?

Why did I assume wrongly that CLOSURE OF CATHARSIS might be scripted or fictional? It is mainly because I had misunderstood many fictional films that they were documentaries, including TEN TINY LOVE STORIES, which deal with ten monologues, some of which concern sad experiences like in CLOSURE OF CATHARSIS. When I first watched TEN TINY LOVE STORIES, I thought it was a documentary. I learned from a friend later that the film is fictional.

Many mockumentaries are also successful in making me believe for a while that they were documentaries. These mockumentaries include THE LOVE MACHINE (2000, Gordon Eriksen), WANTANEE RETROSPECTIVE ENCORE (2008, Wantanee Siripattananuntakul), PARANORMAL ACTIVITY (2007, Oren Peli), and THE FOURTH KIND (2009, Olatunde Osunsanmi). Moreover, TV news in Thailand, which should present us something real, is not actually trustworthy. All of these things make me unable to trust anything easily. So when I encounter some real things in CLOSURE OF CATHARSIS, I did have a great doubt whether they are real or not.

It is funny for me to think that when I saw some mockumentaries, I thought that they were documentaries, but when I saw CLOSURE OF CATHARSIS, I thought that many things in it might be fictional. Is it only me who can't separate reality from fiction, or documentaries from fictions anymore? Is there anyone else who suffers from the same problems as me? Hahaha.

Talking about this problem, I would like to add that I don't know if one of my most favorite films I saw last year is a documentary or a fiction. GOD IS AMERICAN (2007, Richard Martin-Jordan, A+++++) claims to be a documentary, but the story in this film is so weird that I can hardly believe that the film is a documentary.

My wrong assumption that CLOSURE OF CATHARSIS was fictional made me believe that the film might have some deep layers in it that I couldn't fathom. This problem of mine results partly from my recent experience with CERTIFIED COPY (2010, Abbas Kiarostami, A+). I like CERTIFIED COPY very much when I first saw it. After I saw it, I think the film has "something" in it that makes it stand above other films dealing with "problematic couples", but I couldn't pinpoint exactly what that thing is. However, after I had talked with Ratchapoom Boonbunchachoke, a cinephile friend, for an hour, I began to understand another layer in CERTIFIED COPY, which makes me admire the film much more. This experience also emphasizes to me that there are many films I can't understand without the help from others. Thus, I was afraid to "interpret" CLOSURE OF CATHARSIS for a while, believing that the film might have some deeper layers in it.

I also asked myself why I felt the urge to interpret or decode CLOSURE OF CATHARSIS, but not other films which are obviously more difficult. I think it is because I felt that the hidden meanings in CLOSURE OF CHATHARIS might not be beyond my ability to understand. That's why I reacted to this film in a different way from such films as TAKE THE 5:10 TO DREAMLAND (1976, Bruce Conner), RUHR (2009, James Benning), and THE COLOUR OF POMEGRANATES (1969, Sergei Paradjanov). I love these three films very much, but I don't understand them at all, and I don't feel the urge to "understand" them. I think that TAKE THE 5:10 TO DREAMLAND and RUHR may have nothing "to be understood", so it would be a waste of time for me to try to assign meanings to things in them. I think that THE COLOUR OF POMEGRANATES has many things to be understood, but it is obviously beyond my ability to grasp their meanings, so it would also be a waste of time for me to interpret this film by myself. On the contrary, I assumed that CLOSURE OF CATHARSIS had something to be understood, and it might be within my ability to comprehend it, so I felt an urge to decode the film, if the film was fictional. I also felt something like this for UNCLE BOONMEE WHO CAN RECALL HIS PAST LIVES (2010, Apichatpong Weeresethakul, A+). I wanted to decode the film after I had seen it, but after a while I gave up that thought.

Another reason for my wrong assumptions on CLOSURE OF CATHARSIS is the play A ZOO STORY, written by Edward Albee. Something in CLOSURE OF CATHARSIS unintentionally reminds me of A ZOO STORY, which is about two guys talking to each other on a park bench, and their talk also concerns a dog like CLOSURE OF CATHARSIS. In A ZOO STORY, the talk is "meaningful" or has something "to be interpreted". The dog in A ZOO STORY is not merely a dog. It can be interpreted as a symbol or metaphor for something else. That's why I suspected for a while that the talk and the dog in CLOSURE OF CATHARSIS might carry special meanings, too.

Apart from what I have written above, other things I like in CLOSURE OF CATHARSIS include:

1. It gives me such a unique experience. It unintentionally makes me learn a new way to approach a film.

CLOSURE OF CATHARSIS doesn't give me "enjoyment" in the same way as most films. Like what I have written above, the film does not give us a conclusion, does not give us any obvious lessons, does not give me a climax or a catharsis. What do we "learn" from Devereaux's experiences? Maybe nothing. What do we learn from watching this man and the park? Maybe nothing. What is the climax of this film? I'm not sure.

I'm not even sure what "closure", "catharsis", or "closure of catharsis" mean, so I have to look them up in Wikipedia. I think that the film may offer "closure" or "catharsis" to Devereaux, because the film lets him speak about a traumatic event in his life, so that he can bring it to a closure. Wikipedia says that catharsis can also mean "experiencing the deep emotions often associated with events in the individual's past which had originally been repressed or ignored, and had never been adequately addressed or experienced.", which I think is what Devereaux might have experienced while talking in this film.

However, I think the film is unique because it doesn't offer me the usual "emotional conclusion" or the usual "catharsis" (an extreme change in emotion, occurring as the result of experiencing strong feelings ) found in most films. It presents Devereaux's talk as it is. The film doesn't try to give a nice conclusion to it. The film doesn't try to make us draw some profound lessons from it. The film doesn't try to make us cry for his dog, and doesn't try to give us some big truths. No matter what Rashidi's intentions actually are, the film presents us something in our real life, something which can be either meaningful or meaningless, but this kind of thing is always underrepresented in most films.

In a way, I like CLOSURE OF CATHARSIS for the same reason as RUHR and ZOETROPE, because these three films present us something which is not always presented in most films. RUHR and ZOETROPE present us long, static, landscape shots. CLOSURE OF CATHARSIS tells us some events in a man's life, and these events may seem unimportant to some viewers. CLOSURE OF CATHARSIS also lets us observe a man while he is thinking. This is in contrast to most films which let us watch a person only when he is talking or doing some meaningful things, not when he is sitting in silence. Thus the first seven minutes of CLOSURE OF CATHARSIS is simply wonderful, when we see nothing except Devereaux sitting in a park in silence.

CLOSURE OF CATHARSIS unintentionally makes me realize how I may be too attracted to "emotional conclusion", "climax", or "catharsis" in most films. CLOSURE OF CATHARSIS helps make me realize that in reality, or in our real lives, we can't draw conclusions on everything, everyone, or every event. Life goes on. Some events occur in your life. It may make you feel a little bit sad, but you can do nothing about it. The event may not drastically change you, but it is a part of your life. One day you might recall it when the wind blows through your hair on an ordinary day. You think of it for a while, then life goes on just the same.

CLOSURE OF CATHARSIS may remind me a little bit of such talky films as
MY DINNER WITH ANDRÉ (1981, Louis Malle) and LUDWIG'S COOK (1973, Hand Jürgen Syberberg), though CLOSURE OF CATHARSIS is still unique in my eyes, because the monologue in CLOSURE OF CATHARSIS seems to be less concerned with important things and less coherent than in the other two films.

I think my earlier problem with how to approach this film reflects my "need for closure" or my "need for definite understanding of a film". I thought that if I found the hidden meanings or the deeper layers of the film, they would lead me to a real understanding of the film, or a catharsis, or a kind of conclusion. Now I understand that I should get rid of my "need for closure", and embrace the film as what it is: a film about an ordinary man talking about some arguably unimportant events in his life on an ordinary day. The absence of conclusion and catharsis for the viewers of this film makes ithe film more unique and more lifelike.


2.THE BEAUTY OF INCOHERENCE, OR THE PLEASANT INTERRUPTIONS

While most films present us coherent stories and coherent talking, CLOSURE OF CATHARSIS denies us these things, but the film is still enjoyable. I like three kinds of interruptions in this film very much. They are:

2.1 Topic interruptions. Devereaux talks about many things which seem to be incoherent, or things which are not obviously connected to each other, such as Vodafone, his fear of boring old life, black-and-white TV, a public library, and his dead dog.

2.2 Monologue interruptions. Devereaux's monologue is interrupted from time to time when he turns to focus on the passers-by.

2.3 Scene interruptions. Devereaux's scenes are interrupted from time to time by strange scenes, which may or may not be logically connected to the monologue scenes. These inserted scenes help making this film less stagey.


3.Though some topics and some scenes are not logically connected, I think they are "imaginatively" connected. I mean they are connected if the viewers use their own imaginations to connect them together. For example, I imagine that the topics of the dead dog and the television sets are connected by the comparison between the sister's possession and the man's own possession when he was a little child. The reason why the topic of the dead dog and the TV sets unexplainably came up successively in his mind might be because he thinks about his sister's owning of a better TV set and a strong dog, while he had an inferior TV set and a weak dog at that time. This is just my own funny imagination towards a character in this film, anyway. I don't presume that the actor actually thinks like this in his real life. Though the film portrays some real things, I think the viewers also have the rights to imagine some fictional things by using the film as a springboard for their own imagination, as long as the viewers don't confuse between their imagination and reality.

Another imaginative connection of mine is the one between the scene in which Devereaux nearly finishes talking about his dead dog and the scene in which a young man puts up a suitcase over a bridge railing or something like that. I imagine that the connection between these two scenes is the feeling of throwing away the burden. By talking about his dead dog, Devereaux is cleansing some burdens out of his mind. By throwing the suitcase into a river, the young man get rids of some burdens in his life.


4. ALEXANDER KLUGE'S THE THIRD PICTURE

I quote Alexander Kluge in the opening of this post, because CLOSURE OF CATHARSIS and BIPEDALITY (2010, Rouzbeh Rashidi) unintentionally remind me of something in Alexander Kluge's films. In many of Kluge's films, scenes which are not logically connected are juxtaposed together, resulting in "the third picture", "the invisible picture", or "the picture in the viewers' head". In BIPEDALITY and CLOSURE OF CATHARSIS, we also see the juxtaposition of scenes which are not logically connected to each other, resulting in "puzzlement", "thought provocation", "unexplainable feelings" or "invisible pictures" from time to time.

For example, after we see a scene in which Devereaux talks about his dog getting sick, we see a scene in which a middle-aged couple with arguably unhappy faces sitting in a train, holding a newspaper with the word NURSES printed on it. The juxtaposition of these two scenes results in "a third picture" in my head. It's the imaginative picture of that couple visiting their small son suffering from a disease in a hospital. This "third picture" is inspired by the sadness Devereaux had because of his sick dog and the image of that couple.

If I have to vote for "a climax" in this film, I might vote for this scene of the middle-aged couple, because the sadness for the dog which has been built before that scene seems to arguably reach its climax in this scene with the help of my imagination.

However, after we see that couple, we see an old man eating a donut in the train or something like that. How is this image connected to the whole story? I don't know. But I like this unexplainable quality very much.


5.THE OFFSCREEN SPACE AND THE IMAGINATIVE SPACE

Apart from "the third picture", I also like the use of offscreen space and imaginative space in this film very much. I mean:

5.1 The offscreen space: The passers-by, the big dogs, and the squirrel are offscreen in this film, but their presences are very important to the story. The viewers must use their own imagination to visualize these figures, based on the reactions Devereaux has towards them.

5.2 The things which Devereaux talks about, such as his sister and their dogs. The viewers also have to use their own imagination to visualize these figures, based on Devereaux's memory.

5.3 Most importantly, the things Devereaux does not talk about, but think about in silence. There are a few minutes in the film in which Devereaux is thinking about something. I love these moments, because they are not presented in most films. The viewers must use their own imagination to guess, or maybe freely imagine, what Devereaux has on his mind in those moments, based on tiny movements in Devereaux's face.


6.THE INVISIBLE GANGSTERS' SCENE

The use of offscreen space is most effectively used in the invisible gangsters' scene. I mean the scene in the minute 50 or so, in which Devereaux seems to fear some people who pass nearby, and we hear some footsteps, but we never see the owners of the footsteps or the clear faces of the gangsters (if I hear what Devereaux said correctly).

The presence of invisible danger in a real situation like this is very thrilling. It reminds me of a scene in the documentary DEVIL'S PLAYGROUND (2002, Lucy Walker), in which the filmmaker and her crew suspect some killers or bad men might be outside the house of an interviewee, and a scene in the documentary HUNTING THE LION WITH BOW AND ARROW (1967, Jean Rouch), in which the filmmaker and his crew ran for their lives to escape from a lion.

Another thing I like very much in the invisible gangsters' scene is the fact that in most fictional films, a man like Devereaux, who looks very strong, doesn't always have a chance to show his fear for big dogs or gangsters strolling in a park, but this film shows it, and it unintentionally points to how dangerous our real world is.

Another scene I like very much in CLOSURE OF THE CATHARSIS is the scene of the schoolgirls. I think it is the most cheerful scene in this film.


7. The excellent performance of James Devereaux

The film hugely depends on the performance of Devereaux. If he had done the job badly, the film would have been utterly boring. However, his presence in the film is never boring. I like observing the movements in his face very much.



8. The similarities and the differences compared to other films by Rashidi

I think it is interesting to compare and contrast CLOSURE OF CATHARSIS with other films by Rashidi. Structurally, the film reminds me a little bit of BIPEDALITY, in which the main talking scenes are also interrupted from time to time by some enigmatic shots.

Another thing which reminds me of BIPEDALITY is the repeated talk of Devereaux. He talks about Vodafone twice, and seems to repeat some sentences about his TV and his dog. It reminds me of the third act of BIPEDALITY, in which some sentences seem to be spoken twice.

However, what makes CLOSURE OF CATHARSIS different from other feature films of Rashidi is that the film doesn't give me "visual pleasure" as much as ONLY HUMAN (2009), BIPEDALITY, REMINISCENCES OF YEARNING, and ZOETROPE. I think the visual beauty in CLOSURE OF CATHARSIS is as much as the one in LIGHT & QUIET (2008). Both of them are cinematographically satisfying, but the cinematography in ONLY HUMAN, BIPEDALITY, REMINISCENCES OF YEARNING, and ZOETROPE is in the level of "extremely stunning".

Though CLOSURE OF CATHARSIS is very different from other films of Rashidi I have seen, there are some small similarities among them, such as the use of static shots, the sound of birds, and the playing with sound: we see someone blow a musical instrument in CLOSURE OF CATHARSIS, but we hear no music. This reminds me of LIGHT & QUIET and REMINISCENCES OF YEARNING, in which we see some characters speaking, but we don't hear their voices. There are also some strange electronic noises near the end of CLOSURE OF CATHARSIS.


9.The visual effect used in the inserted scenes to make the characters move jerkily. This visual effect is very haunting.

10. The stunning opening shot. The first shot of this film lasts 30 minutes before the first cut appears in the film. This is as stunning as the opening shot of AUTOHYSTORIA (2007, Raya Martin).

11. As for the monologue, the topic I like the most is the boredom of life. Devereaux says that he doesn't want to live until 95, going through the routine every day until that time. This part of the monologue unintentionally reminds me of one of my most favorite scenes of all time from THE DEVIL, PROBABLY (1977, Robert Bresson)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A80p5W6Mxv8


--There's one thing I'm not sure I like in this film or not: it is the use of the extreme close-up near the end of this film. I like it a little bit because it is very strange. I rarely see an extreme close-up like that. But I'm not sure if I really like it or not, because it makes me feel "uncomfortable". I'm not sure if this uncomfortableness is what Rashidi intends or not. I'm not sure if this uncomfortable effect will still be felt by the audience or not when the film is shown on a big screen. I'm not sure what the intention for the use of extreme close-up in this film is. Does the move from close-up to extreme close-up in this film correspond to the move into the deeper part of Devereaux's mind?

--If I have to screen CLOSURE OF CATHARSIS with other films, I will choose to screen it with WHEN THE MOVIE LISTENS (2007, Tulapop Saenjaroen, Thailand, 11 min), which shows a man listening to something.The showing of these two films together might cause a funny effect, especially if it is done like a video installation in a gallery. One film speaks, the other film listens.

--The trailer of CLOSURE OF CATHARSIS
http://vimeo.com/19055833

MELVIL POUPAUD-RAOUL RUIZ, CHAI CHAIYACHIT-PRAP BOONPAN

This is my comment in a friend's Facebook:

Melvil Poupaud is very handsome and he has played in at least 10 films by Raoul Ruiz, though I have seen only one film of their collaborations (TIME REGAINED). I wonder if the Poupaud-Ruiz collaboration is very interesting or not. Their collaboration is not as well known as the female star-male director collaborations of Liv Ullmann-Ingmar Bergman, Carmen Maura-Pedro Almodovar, Margit Carstensen-Rainer Werner Fassbinder, Kati Outinen-Aki Kaurismäki, Magdalena Montezuma-Werner Schroeter, etc.

The Melvil Poupaud-Raoul Ruiz collaboration reminds me of the male star-male director collaborations of Jean-Pierre Léaud--François Truffaut, Lee Kangsheng—Tsai Mingliang, Randolph Scott—Budd Boetticher, and Chai Chaiyachit—Prap Boonpan.

The Melvil Poupaud-Raoul Ruiz collaboration includes CITY OF PIRATES (1983), TREASURE ISLAND (1985), THE INSOMNIAC ON THE BRIDGE (1985), DANS UN MIROIR (1986), FADO MAJOR AND MINOR (1994), THREE LIVES AND ONLY ONE DEATH (1996), GENEALOGIES OF A CRIME (1997), TIME REGAINED (1999), LOVE TORN IN DREAM (2000), and MYSTERIES OF LISBON (2010).

"DEATH IS BLISS" film program at Thammasat University Library

Favorite quote from Laurie Anderson:
http://bombsite.com/issues/69/articles/2271

"When your alarm clock rings, you don’t get up and say, Why am I in the world? You get up because you have to be at your job on time. It’s simpler to think of small things."


Favorite quote from Alexander Kluge in 1989:
http://bombsite.com/issues/27/articles/1192

"The new world of the next century will be very indirect; it will totally occupy the mind. No one will have time to reflect, to have experiences."


I think it would be very interesting if a person wakes up each morning and wonders, "Why am I in this world?" However, I hope that person would not end up like the protagonist of THE DEVIL, PROBABLY (1977, Robert Bresson, A++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++), which will be shown at Thammasat University Library on June 5, 1230hrs.

One of my most favorite scenes of all time from THE DEVIL, PROBABLY:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A80p5W6Mxv8


DEATH IS BLISS film program at Thammasat University Library
http://twilightvirus.blogspot.com/2011/05/filmvirus-death-is-bliss.html

"5/6/11
12.30 THE DEVIL , PROBABLY (ROBERT BRESSON/1977/FR)
14.30 DIARY OF A SUICIDE( STANISLAV STANOJEVIC/1972/FR)

12/6/11
12.30 SHE SPENT SO MANY HOURS UNDER THE SUN LAMP (PHILIPPE GARREL/1985/FR)
14.30 THE LAST TIME I COMMITTED A SUICIDE(STEPHEN KAY/1997/US)

19/6/11
12.30 IN THE YEARS WITH 13 MOONS (R W. FASSBINDER/1978/GERMANY)
14.30 BLACK GIRL (OUSMANE SAMBENE/1966/SENEGAL)

26/6/11
12.30 LAST DAYS (GUS VAN SANT/2005/US)
14.30 THE REBIRTH (MASAHIRO KOBAYASHI/2007/JP)"

FILMS SEEN IN THE BANGKOK INTERNATIONAL STUDENT FILM FESTIVAL 2011

1.MITTELWERK EXPRESS (Jean-Baptiste Alazard, France, A+++++++++++++++)
This film shocks me as much as EDEN AND AFTER (1970, Alain Robbe-Grillet) and SOMBRE (1998, Philippe Grandrieux).

2.WHY DO YOU JUMP? (โดด) (Korn Kanogkekarin, A+++++++++++++++)

3.WHERE WE DISAPPEAR (Akihiro Hata, France, A+++++)

4.EWA AND MARCIN (Matej Bobrik, Poland, A++++++++++)

5.DREAM BABY DREAM (Christophe Nanga-Oly, France, A+++++)

6.CHARCOAL BURNERS (Piotr Zlotorowicz, Poland, documentary, A+++++)

7.SOMETHING RED HAIRY UNFOCUSED (2010, Laura Victoria Delgado, Czech, animation, A+++++)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuGx4yKi73g

8.MODERATELY TREMENDOUSLY (อย่างกลาง อย่างมาก) (2011, Tritos Termarbsri, A+++++)

9.LAUGH & CRY FOR VIVA (หัวเราะร่า น้ำตาร่วง) (Sirapachr Niamfong, A+++++)

10.CYBER CHIMPLEE (ไซเบอร์ฉิมพลี) (Pakawat Phanmanee, A+++++)

11.SUGAR BASIN TALE (Květa Přibylová, Czech, A+++++)

12.MOON (Eunsue Kim, Czech, animation, A+++++)

13.TOMÁŠ (Viktória Dzurenková, Czech, documentary, A+++++)

14.MUSHROOM 17'22" (Charlotte Butrak, France, A+++++)

15.DAZZLING FAKE (เปลือกสุข) (Patti Buntuwanich, A+++++)

16.GRAFFITIGER (Libor Pixa, Czech, animation, A+++++)

17.WILD DOGS (Daniel Najenson, Israel, A+)

18.MC. MAN OF VINYL (2010, Bartosz Warwas, Poland, A+)

19.ALL SOUL'S DAY (Jan Bohuslav, Czech, animation, A+)

20.ESSENCE DE FEMME (Chama Lekpla, A+)

21.GIRL 180 (Tomasz Mielnik, Czech, A+)

22.LIFE IS A BITCH (Michaela Hoffova, Czech, animation, A+)

23.MILAN KUNDERA STORY (Jan Rendl, Czech, A+)

24.A COR ET A CRI (Brice Pancot, France, A+)

25.SUSPENDED ERROR DREAM (directed by Jazme Jehtae, edited by Chaloemkiat Saeyong, A+)

26.LIKE LOVE (Sarah Cunningham, France/UK, A+)

27.MASCARA AND THE SAD GIRL (สาวช่างเศร้า) (Dollada Chunjuen, A+)

28.DIGITAL INTERMEDIATED SWIMMING (Lee Hyung-suk, A+)

29.IN A NOSTALGIC MOOD (2011, Arnun Rodprasert, A+)

30.NOWHERE BLUES (2009, Bartosz Warwas, Poland, A+)

31.HAND MAID (Mo Hyung-shin, South Korea, A+)

32.YAYAYA (Pakawat Phanmanee, A+)

33.MY SISTER (Lukáš Hrdý, Czech, A+/A)

34.HOUSE OF DEATH (Matej Bobrik, Poland, A+/A)

35.084-06615... (Korn Kanogkekarin, A+/A)

36.ME.YOU.US (Tomáš Hájek, Czech, animation, A+/A)

37.FIRST AID (Yarden Karmin, Israel, A)

38.BATTLEFIELD LOURDES (Jan Rendl, Czech, documentary, A)

39.SAYING (Sangeun Won, Czech, animation, A-)

40.TRIATHLON (2007, Bartosz Warwas, Poland, A-)

41.ENCOUNTER (Sangeun Won, Czech, animation, A-)

42.CLOSE TO ME (รักแช่แข็ง) (2011, Kochakorn Juantongrak, A-)


This is a portrait of Krzysztof Zanussi, who appears in the film MC. MAN OF VINYL.

HOLD ON ME (2011, Ninart Boonpothong, A+/A)

For those who want to see this stage play, the details are in the link below:
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=119835178096957

There is a scene in this stage play that I like very much. It is a scene in which the characters try to make a porn film. In this porn film, a soldier is dancing, keeping humming "KILLING COMMUNISTS IS NOT A SIN. KILLING COMMUNISTS IS NOT A SIN," and then the soldiers try to rape a female university student, saying that raping her will turn her from a revolutionary student into a good wife and mother.

This scene is very funny, and extremely scary, especially in a time of intolerance like this.

I give this scene A++++++++++.

THE DAY COMRADE STORM COMES HOME (2011, Rattapong Pinyosophon, A++++++++++)

For those who want to see this play, the details are in the link below:
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=176550569061535

I would like to compare this stage play with other Thai political stage plays I saw:

1.In a way, I think this play is the opposite of IMPROPER FRACTION: A STUDY ON FRAGMENTATION (2011, Thanapol Virulhakul + Vidura Amrananad, A+) and CHUI CHAI (2011, Pichet Klunchun, A+/A), because IMPROPER FRACTION and CHUI CHAI are very oblique for their political messages, while THE DAY COMRADE STORM COMES HOME is straightforward.

2.I'm not sure if I agree with the political message of THE DAY COMRADE STORM COMES HOME or not, but at least I think its message is much more agreeable to me than LITTLE BASTARDS (ลูกคุณหลวง) (2007, Pa-un Jantarasiri, A) and ONE-LEGGED RABBIT (2007, Pichet Klunchun).

3.THE DAY COMRADE STORM COMES HOME is much "smaller" than LIGHT OF FAITH OVER CHAO PHRAYA RIVER (2010, Jirayuth Sinthupunt, A+), KUE POO APIWAT (2010, Sineenadh Keitprapai, A+), and THE OTHER LAND (แผ่นดินอื่น) (2008, Teerawat Mulvilai, A+), though I think THE DAY COMRADE STORM COMES HOME is as "effective" as these three bigger stage plays.

4.THE DAY COMRADE STORM COMES HOME, which uses three actors, is a bit bigger than HIS GARDEN (2010, Rattapong Pinyosophon, A+), which uses only one actor. However, I prefer THE DAY COMRADE STORM COMES HOME to HIS GARDEN, partly because I think the actor (Wasu Wallayangkoon) in COMRADE STORM is a little bit more convincing than the actor (Rattapong Pinyosophon) in HIS GARDEN. I think Rattapong's acting in HIS GARDEN is fine, but he has a kind and young face and a calm voice, so his face may not fit very well with the role of a political science professor.

5. THE DAY COMRADE STORM COMES HOME is less daring, complicated, ambitious, or thought-provoking than LADY MINA: VAMPIRE HUNTER (2011, Ninart Boonpothong, A). However, I prefer THE DAY COMRADE STORM COMES HOME to LADY MINA: VAMPIRE HUNTER, partly because I think LADY MINA is too complicated and too ambitious, though I like the daring quality of LADY MINA very much.

6.I'm not sure if I like THE DAY COMRADE STORM COMES HOME as much as WHEN I SLEPT OVER THE NIGHT OF THE REVOLUTION (2007, Ninart Boonpothong, A+++++++++++++++) or not. COMRADE STORM is much more heartfelt and straightforward than WHEN I SLEPT OVER, but I like the narrative structure of WHEN I SLEPT OVER very much. I think there is a "cerebral" quality in many plays of Ninart. Sometimes the cerebral aspect of Ninart results in such a wonderful play as WHEN I SLEPT OVER, sometimes it results in some plays which are too difficult for me.

7.I'm not sure if the ending of THE DAY COMRADE STORM COMES HOME is "too optimistic" or not. Is it too optimistic compared to the current Thai political situation? Maybe it is just too optimistic for my own taste. I think its semi-peaceful ending is as optimistic as CHEER'S (2009, Gawintorn Sangsakorn, A+).

Judging from the ending alone, I may prefer the massacre ending of PICNIC ON A BATTLEFIELD (2010, Thianchai Isaradej, A) to the ending of COMRADE STORM.

The optimistic, peaceful tone of COMRADE STORM is the main reason why I may not like this stage play as much as THE CRUCIBLE (2010, Malinda Pamornsuwan, A+++++++++++++++), which I think is my most favorite stage play (unintentionally) concerning current Thai political situation.

8.The reason why I give A++++++++++ to THE DAY COMRADE STOME COMES HOME is because of its "heartfelt" quality. This stage play really touches my heart, though it is partly because of a very personal reason. The story in this play reminds me of something in my own family.

I think COMRADE STORM is as heartfelt as THE BROKEN-HEARTED PAPAYA POKPOK VENDOR (2007, Sawanee Utoomma, A++++++++++) and 17 MAY MY VALENTINE (2008, Sawanee Utoomma, A++++++++++).

CHAEKI-CHAEUE (2011, Buncha Muhae, 56 min, Thailand, A++++++++++)

You can watch this film on the 9th floor of BACC.

This is the trailer of the film:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIH20SJ24bM