Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
by elfismiles » Fri Jun 06, 2014 8:23 am
Story #1: 'Hunger Games' Salute Used as Protest in Thailand
http://ur1.ca/hgn3c
Thailand Junta: Elections Could Take More Than One Year
http://ur1.ca/hgn3q
The Nation reporter taken into custody
http://ur1.ca/hgn3y
Thai media censored under martial law
http://ur1.ca/hgn4j
Soldiers, Selfies and Martial Law: Thailand's Tourism Industry Suffers
http://ur1.ca/hgn4m
by cptmarginal » Sat Sep 06, 2014 1:08 am
That is why I believe we should be viewing the current coup in Thailand with far greater alarm, as it threatens to carry out the most radical changes in terms of rights, citizenship, and society in the country’s recent history, seeking to wind back the clock to the dark ages of feudalism where the majority not only losing their right to vote, but also losing their right to truth.
Robert Amsterdam is a founding partner of law firm Amsterdam & Partners LLP, and serves as counsel to Thaksin Shinawatra.
by cptmarginal » Sat Sep 06, 2014 1:12 am
Popular backlash against the West among the protesters who successfully ousted the regime of Thaksin Shinawatra was met by a more cautious and diplomatic approach by the military-led government. Led by Royal Thai Army General Prayuth Chan-ocha, the mood versus the West was one of re-balancing relations, not cutting ties altogether. World Socialist Web Site (WSWS) noted this in their article, “Thai junta seeks more open recognition from Washington,” claiming:
While Washington will undoubtedly closely monitor Bangkok’s talks with Beijing, the Thai junta has clearly indicated that it has no desire for a loosening of the alliance with the US. Rather, it appears to be using the prospect of closer ties with China as a bargaining chip to strengthen the alliance. At the same time, the military is proceeding cautiously, well aware that Washington could quickly turn the regime into a pariah if it too openly embraces Beijing.
Even with WSWS’ tendency to favor Shinawatra for his psuedo-populist policies while ignoring his numerous and deep ties to Wall Street, it appears that a visible break in what were previously much stronger ties with the West under Shinawatra have become obvious even to them.
As noted by WSWS, General Prayuth Chan-ocha has clearly sought to strengthen ties with Beijing in a more visible and meaningful way. China immediately recognized the authority and legitimacy of the new military-led government once it took power from the floundering Shinawatra regime in May. It also welcomed the new government’s decision to move forward with a Thai-Chinese rail link long in the making. With Thailand finally re-balancing itself between East and West, China offered Bangkok the opportunity of becoming a founding-member of its Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank – part of a BRICS strategy to undermine and replace the monopoly of the IMF and World Bank dominated and driven by Western interests.
Bangkok’s Nation newspaper in an article titled, “Thailand to help launch investment bank for Asia,” reported that:
Thailand has been invited by China to become one of the founding fathers of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), which is supported by this country’s central bank.
“There was no reason to refuse,” Bank of Thailand Governor Prasarn Trairatvorakul said yesterday.
Thailand was offered a primary signing agreement as a member from October to November, according to a report by the Fiscal Policy Office (FPO).
The recent moves by the new military-led government of Thailand in relation to China have certainly given it more leverage against the West who regularly seeks to turn uncooperative nations into geopolitical pariahs. The West so far has nothing to offer Thailand in terms of incentives beyond increasingly ineffective threats and coercion.
Chinese Opportunities, Western Threats
Indeed, while China offers Thailand opportunities to join alternative financial markets and strengthen regional ties, the West has resorted to a series of sociopolitical attacks aimed at undermining the credibility and stability of Thailand’s new government.
The latest attempt comes in the form of baseless allegations made by a notoriously dishonest, confrontational pro-Shinawatra propagandist Kritsuda Khunasen who claims she was “tortured” by the military while recently detained. Despite all other members of Shinawatra’s regime admitting their detention by the military was humane and dignified, Khunasen claims she was beaten. With no physical evidence of any kind, the West’s human rights advocates have demanded an immediate investigation. Ironically, for 6 months prior to the coup, Shinawatra’s supporters oversaw a systematic campaign of armed violence killing over 20 and maiming hundreds in grenade and automatic weapons fire that plagued rally sites almost nightly. The same Western rights advocates calling for an investigation regarding baseless allegations of “torture” today, were utterly silent for 6 months of documented, armed violence.
Despite this, the military-led government in Bangkok seeks to maintain what it can in regards to Western relations. The idea is to maintain a balance between competing regional superpowers Thailand has no hope of ever directly confronting itself. This strategy has served it well over the centuries, making it the only Southeast Asian nation to avoid European colonization. By pitting competing British, French, and Asian interests against one another while making small and reversible concessions, Thailand avoided direct confrontations with imperial powers that destroyed and subjugated its neighbors.
by cptmarginal » Wed Mar 18, 2015 7:43 pm
Paranoia, politics mute Thai cinema
When there is not a ghost film making headlines by raking in a whopping billion baht at the box-office, movie news in this country is often about censorship, which stalks certain filmmakers like a serial killer. This week we have two such news items, both under-reported, and both concerning the larger issue of media freedom. Let's take a look.
Published: 06/07/2013 at 12:00 AM
Writer: Kong Rithdee
The first sounds like good news, at least on paper. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), with the assistance of its Citizens' and Political Rights sub-committee, has released its findings on the ban of Shakespeare Tong Tai (Shakespeare Must Die), a Thai film that came under the murderous axe of the National Film and Video Board last year. In short, the NHRC found the ban "is an infringement on the freedom of opinion and expression by the filmmakers". To recount the particulars of the case, the censors banned the film on the grounds that it could disrupt national security (strange how some people think movies, and not state-sponsored ignorance, are a time-bomb) and could cause disunity among the people, especially through the film's reference to the events of Oct 6, 1976 - the "killer-chair" episode to be exact.
On this, the NHRC's opinion is precise: "The order to ban the whole film, that the important rationale [for the censors to ban it being the scene reminiscent] of the events of Oct 6, a historical event well-known to the general public; that to judge a film on a single scene, is an unjust act." The committee also goes further by suggesting that the Film Act of 2008 - which was passed at Shinkansen-like speed by the coup-appointed national assembly with a mind-boggling 40 votes - has serious problems, since it has the potential to "restrict the freedom of expression as enshrined by the constitution".
The NHRC's opinion is not legally binding, though I believe the filmmakers can use it to back up their court case, since they have filed a lawsuit against the censorship committee. But through its official findings, the human rights agency has confirmed what a lot of media scholars have already emphasised: at present, the "pre-crime" paranoia rooted in the Cold War years (or sci-fi delusion) that authorises the censoring of media prior to its broadcast or publication is only applied to film. Newspapers, radio stations, TV channels and even websites do not have to submit their content to state inspection before going to print or on air, but movies have to. That's unjust at best and primordial at worst, given the democratisation of media on the airwaves, cable TV and the internet. The view that movies are the most dangerous media is baffling. Isn't what's being said every day on colour-coded TV, for instance, far more inflammatory?
This brings us to the second case of the week, a puzzling incident that shows the official censorship board isn't the only one wielding the scissors, and that censorship isn't just a law but a state of mind. This concerns Prachathipathai (Paradoxocracy), a documentary that presents a critical history of Thai democracy from the 1932 Revolution to the present. After a bout of jitters, the movie passed the censors with some cuts (the filmmakers muted the sound of "sensitive" parts) and Major Cineplex screened it at Paragon and The Esplanade from June 24-July 3.
All seemed fine, the cinemas were surprisingly packed, and "political movies" no longer looked like an endangered species in Thai cinema. But something bizarre happened last weekend when the cinema chain, according to many eyewitnesses, seemed to be trying to discourage people from seeing the film. At Paragon, they took the movie off the LCD showtime board, and if you called, the staff would give you confusing answers, such as the film wasn't showing, or may be showing, or, as happened on Sunday, "someone" had booked the entire cinema. All of this even though the film was showing as originally announced. This must be one of the few times in history that a cinema committed "demarketing", flirted with censorship, and offered a case of head-scratching paradox - a movie house persuading people not to see a movie.
Conspiracy theories were rampant. Without being too wildly speculative, let's just say the devil is the same old paranoia: anything to do with politics these days gets businessmen cringing, and the inner battle between greed (the cinema wants to sell tickets) and fear (they're reluctant to show a film with the People's Party, Pridi Banomyong and Thaksin Shinawatra in it) proves to be a confounding one.
At least Paradoxocracy was screened and the public have watched and debated it, while Shakespeare Must Die, like the ghost in Hamlet, remains stuck in limbo. The NHRC's findings aren't actually good news - the good news is only when political filmmaking is not marginalised, discouraged, gagged and consigned to oblivion.
Thailand's Pen-ek Ratanaruang on Risking It All to Film the Paradoxes of Thai Democracy (Q&A)
by Patrick Brzeski
7/8/2013
The celebrated director and his producer discuss their daring new doc "Paradoxocracy," being sabotaged by their own cinema and turning censorship into an artistic opportunity.
Pen-ek Ratanaruang, one of Thailand’s most celebrated working directors, has often represented his country abroad at international festivals -- including Cannes, Berlin and Venice – and through films sent to Hollywood as Thailand’s official entry to the Oscars (6ixtynin9, 1999; Transistor Love Story, 2001; Headshot, 2011).
But with his latest project, the 51-year-old director has trained his attention inward, exploring the fraught and complicated modern political history of his homeland in a documentary he says was made with only the Thai audience -- and his own curiosity -- in mind.
Paradoxocracy, co-directed with Pen-ek’s longtime friend and producer, Pasakorn Pramoolwong, begins with the 1932 Siamese Revolution -- which transformed Thailand from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional one -- and works its way to the present day, chronicling the country’s major political revolutions, movements and countless coups along the way. Using a combination of archival footage, voice-overs and interviews with 15 unnamed academics, activists and political leaders, the film presents the directors’ personal journey to come to an understanding of how their country arrived at its current state of near-constant political division and dysfunction.
Given Thailand’s strict lese majeste laws, which outlaw any perceived disparagement of the royal family, the directors say they had to heavily self-censor their account of recent Thai politics. The film also suffered several significant requests for “adjustments” from the Thai censorship board before it could be publicly screened. And once approved for public exhibition, the directors’ challenges continued, when during a two-week screening run in Bangkok they discovered that Major Cineplex Group, the leading local cinema chain that was screening the film, was intentionally trying to dissuade people from buying tickets, for fear that too much exposure for Paradoxocracy might result in political reprisal.
Now recuperating from the grueling process of getting the film to cinemas and struggling to prevent it from being sabotaged, the directors plan to next mount a limited release in the northern Thai city of Chiang Mai, with a nationwide university tour to follow.
While on break, Pen-ek and Passakorn spoke with The Hollywood Reporter [9]about facing their own political ignorance, turning censorship challenges into artistic opportunities and the ongoing struggle for true democracy in Thailand.
The Hollywood Reporter: What made you want to make this film?
Pen-ek Ratanaruang: This division that has existed in our country the past five years. You can’t talk about politics with your family and your friends. People choose their colors – red or yellow (Thailand’s two major political activist groups are identified by the red or yellow colors they wear at protests and actions). But I couldn’t choose. I didn’t know what color to ally myself with. And I became kind of frustrated. You have to choose, otherwise you’re called an insulting name – "salim," which is a Thai jelly dessert, with lots of mixed up colors in it. It’s quite derogatory. I didn’t care about that really, but it’s just frustrating. You can’t even discuss.
Pasakorn Pramoolwong: It was also just curiosity. It was a two-year process. My life and the political life of this country had previously run on parallel lines – you know, never intersecting. But one day I woke up with some curiosity about myself. I wondered, “What’s wrong with me?’ Why don’t I know anything about the political history of my country?" I didn’t have any baseline knowledge of the story of democracy in Thailand. I didn’t even know what "democracy" really means.
Pen-ek: We always went to vote, but like a lot of people, we didn’t really know anything. While researching, we went back to look at standard Thai textbooks, and we found that very little is written about this in the education system -- just two lines in official school books about the birth of democracy in Thailand. Not only that, but the textbooks suggest that King Rama 7 is actually the father of democracy -- that he gave us democracy. But, in reality, that’s not the case. There was a huge revolution and fights and a struggle to win power for the people – but we were never told that in school. We were all told that this king was so generous that he gave us democracy.
THR: What was your research process like?
Pen-ek: Pasakorn did most of it [Laughs]. He compiled everything into a thick book of articles and excerpts arranged chronologically for me to read. We even read several texts in English that are forbidden in this country. We spent about a year and a half reading and researching and talking with lots of people -- before filming anything.
Pasakorn: We had to do it this way, because there is no text in Thailand that tells the complete story of Thai democracy. The history is hidden in many books -- there’s a piece of the story here, a piece there. You have to compile it.
THR: Given the sensitivity surrounding the monarchy and the political situation in Thailand, were you concerned, as you set out, about whether you’d be able to get away with making the film you wanted to make?
Pen-ek: We weren’t concerned at all; we were too naive. And we made this film for ourselves. The fact that people were able to see it in the cinema was like a byproduct. We just wanted to do it for ourselves. There’s a huge amount of stuff that we had to self-censor, before they officially censored us, because we knew there was no way we could get away with it. But all of that is in our minds and memories – and that’s what everyone involved in the project wanted most, to understand these questions for themselves. But yes, there’s a huge amount we couldn’t use. I have other things I want to do -- I don’t want to go to jail right now.
THR: So the film displays the ways the government required you to censor it quite boldly. The Thai dialog goes silent in several segments -- for as long as 30 seconds -- and the English subtitles are blacked out in an intentionally garish way. Why did you decide to do it this way?
Pen-ek: Well, the film itself then became a work of art. It’s no longer simply a documentary, because it has all these scars. At this late year in our modern history, we still can’t talk about these things openly -- the film itself became an artifact of that. It became a victim. But we came to this technique kind of by accident, after we were told we had to censor some parts and thought about how to deal with that. I think it works. From an artistic point of view, I think it made the film even stronger. They didn’t realize it, but they kind of did us a favor.
THR: What was your experience like with the censorship board?
Pasakorn: Not bad, actually. They were trying to help us get the film into theaters, so the public could see it. They picked out five segments in the film that were “problematic” for them. So we tried to work out what to do.
Pen-ek: So we went back to them with this idea – that we were going to black out the English subtitles and make the Thai dialog silent in these parts. I said I would cooperate, as long as the audience knows that the film has been censored. I was sure they would say no. But they said OK. It was strange, because they’ve taken a lot of shit for that in the press. Everyone now knows what they forced us to do. But they said they already have enough lese majeste cases – over 10,000 in the courts now. But the cases that actually matter are just like 100. One of the guys on the censorship board is an attorney, and he said, we already have enough cases. We’ll just do what we have to do to help you stay out of trouble.
THR: What were your expectations going in?
Pen-ek: We thought it would pass without any cuts. We made a few versions of the film. And finally, the last version, we thought – it’s really just educational. The censors will have no problem at all. We didn’t go down the route of the cliche, angry artist who fights with the system. I didn’t want the film to be provocative for no reason. But it was scary when it came time to actually release the film. A political group might object for some reason and interfere with it. I didn't doubt the film, but I did doubt society. It's very hard to predict how people will interpret or respond to a film. It's like that with any film you make. But in this case, you could say the stakes were higher.
THR: How did the audience react to the blacked-out sections in the screenings you attended?
Pen-ek: They were all a little different. Thai people laughed quite a lot – maybe a nervous laugh. For foreigners, most people didn’t laugh – most were just like, "What the hell?" It was very mixed and interesting to see.
THR: So what would you say is the film’s political point of view?
Pen-ek: The film very explicitly tries to say you have embrace conflict, but you don’t have to hit each other in the face. You have to keep on debating and keep struggling – that’s democracy.
One critic wrote this huge thesis that went on and on about how in the middle the film is and how it will benefit no one, because it doesn’t take a stand and doesn’t go deep enough. What I wanted to tell him is that, you know what, it took us so much time and effort to make the film this simple. Our earlier versions were the more provocative versions he wanted to see. It took a lot of effort to become this simple.
THR: You don’t introduce or identify any of the interviewees with subtitles, which is quite uncommon for a documentary. The audience is given no indication of who these people are and what their background is. They just appear on the screen and start talking.
Pen-ek: We didn’t want the audience to know who they are. It wasn’t about protecting them or anything like that – they could easily be identified, if someone really wanted to find out. I just wanted people to listen to what they say. Knowing who they are might tell people what to think about them before they even start speaking. If you have no idea who they are, you have to actually listen to them to form an opinion. It’s an automatic thing to expect in a documentary to the see the name and title, which sort of tells you automatically what to think or expect. But it never comes.
THR: The monarchy plays a major part in the earlier sections of the film, which covers early 20th century history in Thailand. But as we approach the present day, all discussion of the monarchy abruptly drops out. Did you feel you were able to tell the full story?
Pen-ek: No. We were very frustrated. What can you do, you know? We have to wait until the country changes. We didn’t have any agenda to attack the monarchy at all. But not being able just to refer to them – or even compliment the monarchy? You can’t even risk that: a compliment. It’s frustrating.
THR: Is it possible that you’ll attempt to release a different version of the film outside of Thailand, or would even that jeopardize your livelihood here?
Pen-ek: Well, the film ends with, “To be continued … ” So it’s not finished. We plan to do a second and maybe even a third part. But for the next one, we can’t use the blacked-out subtitles and silent dialog effect again. That’s a one-off. It’s like The Beatles with the White Album. You can’t do the While Album twice. So, I think we’re like 80 percent sure that the second part will not see the light of day in this country. No fucking way. We’re currently researching it. I don’t know what we’ll do with it. Probably just make it for ourselves.
THR: Do you plan to show these films at festivals?
Pen-ek: Lots of festival programmers have asked for it, but I’ve said no to everybody. I won’t show this film in any festivals abroad.
THR: Why?
Pen-ek: Number one: Like I said, it’s not completed. Number two: I want to assure Thai people that I'm not doing this for any external motive – not for glory, definitely not for money. If it wins any prizes, we won’t accept them. I’m well known here, but people associate me with the world’s film festivals. I don’t want anybody to talk about this film in that way – that, oh, Pen-ek makes films for foreigners at festivals. This film is for us and for Thai people. I’m not sure how much it would resonate with foreign audiences anyways – I think you might need some personal understanding and connection to Thailand to get it.
THR: There have been reports that Major Cineplex, where it was shown, intentionally made it hard for people to buy tickets for the film. What was going on there?
Pen-ek: It was the first time in the history of the world, where a cinema put a film in their theaters but tried to not sell any tickets. They lied to us and lied to people trying to attend the film. But they couldn’t stop showing it, because all the media had their eyes on them. They didn’t list the film on their website, they took it down from the signs. When people called to ask when it was playing, they would say it wasn’t showing there. Then people would call us and we’d say, "No, they’re lying, just go and buy a ticket at the booth." Thankfully, they would still sell you a ticket if you showed up and directly asked to buy one. They were just paranoid and afraid of political repercussions. This is the climate we live in. They panic. But it’s very baseless. There were also two other cinema chains that were early allies with us, but they pulled out once they saw the rough cut.
THR: How did you cope with that?
Pen-ek: A few days ago, I was so frustrated with the cinema, I cried. I lost it. I never cry – at least not because of anything to do with filmmaking. Maybe I make other people around me on set cry – I’m a director, after all [Laughs]. I never cry. But I did. I just felt so frustrated and terrible. They treated us so dishonorably. In front of us, they were kissing our asses. In a meeting they told us, “Pen-ek, you’re one of our country’s greatest directors, we’re here to serve you. We’ll do anything we can to help you.” But then once we were gone, they were doing everything they could to prevent people from seeing the film. They made sure it was listed nowhere – not on their website, not on the board.
THR: Well, despite all that, there have been reports that nearly every screening was sold out.
Pen-ek: The reaction of the people in the cinema was really a gift. And from what I’ve heard, people in the cinema have felt that the film was a gift to them. People applauded in every screening. It meant something to them.
by Twyla LaSarc » Wed Mar 18, 2015 8:15 pm
by Luther Blissett » Tue Apr 26, 2022 10:15 am
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 152 guests
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Site design by Likely Arts based on "Deluxe" by Artodia.
