CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS
in the ‘Shakespeare Must Die’
case
[Last updated 5
August 2017]
End of
July 2008: ‘Shakespeare Must
Die’ screenplay is finished. (Red
Shirt Movement did not yet exist, as far as the writer-director Ing K is aware).
23 August
2010: ‘Shakespeare Must Die’
is the last project to receive financial support (3 million baht) from the Creative
Thailand Film Fund, dispensed by the Office of Contemporary Art, a
department of the Ministry of Culture. The funding decision has been
delayed by concerns that the regicide scene in this Thai version of ‘Macbeth’
may offend the monarchy. The filmmakers had to shoot the scene and show all
footage of it to the Ministry’s film funding committee, which concluded after
viewing that far from being offensive to the monarchy, the film should be
supported for its indepth exploration of true morality.
** **
** **
20 March
2012: Film Censors Office
In normal practice, the censors issue a rating
decision immediately after viewing a film, but in the case of ‘Shakespeare Must
Die’, the decision is delayed for one week, after a second screening for the
whole committee.
26 March
2012: Film Censors Office
After the censors watch the film for the second time,
producer Manit Sriwanichpoom is summoned to answer their questions and
concerns, especially over the prominent use of red, the colour worn by
government supporters, which “could cast the red shirts in a negative light”.
Manit is told to return on 2 April, when the decision will be made after a
third viewing.
2 April
2012: Film Censors Office
Producer Manit and director Ing K arrive for their
appointment with the censors at 10 AM, but they are told to wait. At
noon, they are told to come back in the afternoon. By late afternoon, there is
no decision and they are told to return the next day.
3 April
2012: Film Censors Office
Producer and director arrive back at the film censorship
office at 10 AM as appointed and are told to wait. The deadline for the
verdict is 4 PM today. If they cannot reach a decision, the film can
automatically be distributed normally. Finally at 2 PM officials tell them that
a decision has been reached. They are not told what it is, but are summoned for
one last discussion with the censors. The discussion covers the same ground,
but with more emphasis on the lynching scene, which is inspired by an incident
during the October 6 massacre of democracy protesters in 1976, a deep national
scar. After nearly an hour, they are told to wait outside for the decision.
Less than an hour before the 4 PM deadline, they are finally informed by an
official that the film has been banned from distribution in Thailand for
reasons of national security, as it “causes disunity among the people of the
nation.”
** **
** **
17 April
2012: Government House
In the morning the cast and crew of ‘Shakespeare Must
Die’, led by the producer and the director stage a costumed execution of
Shakespeare by Macbeth in front of Government House and hand in their
appeal against the ban to a representative of Prime Minister Yingluck
Shinawatra, in her capacity of chairman of the National Board of Film and
Video.
In the afternoon the producer and
the director file their appeal with the National Board of Film and
Video office at the Ministry of Culture, 666 Baromrajachonnee road.
The minister of culture
tells journalists that the decision on the appeal will be announced on 25
April.
24 April
2012: Ministry of Culture
The producer is summoned to testify before the
cultural ministry’s legal affairs subcommittee. At the end of a
2-hour session, committee members appeared optimistic that the ban will be
lifted. Producer Manit is asked whether he would accept the high 20 rating (no
one under 20 may see the film); he says yes.
25 April 2012: Ministry of Culture
The appeal verdict, which the cultural minister had
told the press would be issued today, is postponed to 11 May.
3 May
2012: The National Board
of Film and Video watches the film at a specially booked screening room at
Kantana Lab. At 2 PM, producer Manit receives a telephone call from the
office of deputy Prime Minister General Yuthasak Sasiprapa,
summoning him and the director to a meeting at his office at Government House
tomorrow.
4 May
2012: Government House
The filmmakers arrive at Government House at 9 AM as
summoned, and were shown into a formal meeting room along with two officials
from the Office of Contemporary Art (Ministry of Culture), which funded the
film. At 10 AM, they are told that General Yuthasak has not arrived; his aide,
General Jongsakdi Panichkul will conduct the meeting on his behalf, a
“friendly, casual chat” in his personal office down the corridor. Also present
are two army officers, his aides, a general and a colonel, who have all seen
the film and say they like it. General Jongsakdi
did all the questioning. He says that General Yuthasak, who has been appointed
by PM Yingluck to preside over the Film Board in this case on her behalf,
doesn’t understand why the censors banned the film and allowed the matter to
escalate all the way to Government House. He (Yuthasak) has seen ‘Macbeth’ in a
theatre in London as well as ‘Shakespeare Must Die’, and believes that “if you
watch it with a heart unbiased with injustice, there is nothing to worry about.
If you’re looking for trouble, then every scene in it is a problem.” In
conclusion, General Jongsakdi tells the filmmakers to relax, as “this will end
well, with a compromise. To save the censors’ face, you’ll probably get the 20
rating. Can you accept that?” The filmmakers say yes.
11 May
2012: Ministry of Culture
2 PM, the National Film Board’s final meeting on
‘Shakespeare Must Die’ (deputy PM General Yuthasak presiding for PM Yingluck)
at the ministry of culture. Other issues were first discussed, but when
they get to the appeal decision on the banned film, all cultural ministry
officials including the head of the censorship office (civil servant, not censorship
committee member) are told to leave the conference room. They wait outside
along with the filmmakers and journalists.
General
Yuthasak leaves early and tries to avoid the army of journalists which trap him
by the lift. He appears visibly shaken and uncomfortable and refuses to speak
other than to say “They will tell you what you want to know,” before rushing
away. After another long wait, officials
who had been sent out of the conference room are told to go back in. When the
door finally opens, everyone including the minister of culture Sukumal
Khunpleum and permanent secretary Somchai Sianglai rush out without a word, despite
being hounded by the press, leaving behind only the deputy permanent secretary
Apinan Poshyanand. He is visibly upset. He tells both the journalists and the
filmmakers at the same time that he believes that “the film has great artistic
merit… I am very uncomfortable with this decision, namely to let the censors’
banning decision stand….I believe there are real problems with the film law,
which should be amended.” The appeal is denied.
The ban on distribution is
reinforced by additional slanderous charges: “Although the content of the
film ‘Shakespeare Must Die’ has been adapted to take place in a fictitious
country, it has elements that communicate the understanding that it is
referring to Thai society; furthermore, some scenes have contents that are in
conflict with peaceful social order or good public morality, or may adversely
impact the security of the state and the patriotic dignity of the nation.
Furthermore, the Film Censorship Committee (Third Committee) had informed the
complainants to correct certain parts of the content which cause disunity among
the people of the nation, but the complainants declared that they represent the
truth of the events of October 6, 1976 and insisted that they would not make
such corrections. The National Board of Film and Video therefore issue the
verdict to reject the appeal…”
** **
** **
28 May
2012: President of the Film
Directors’ Association of Thailand, Tanyawarin Sukhapisit, calls a meeting
to discuss a campaign to eliminate the banning clause from film legislation.
(Her own film, ‘Insects in the Backyard’ was also banned, for obscenity; she
has filed cases against the censors and the Film Board at both the
Administrative and Constitution Courts.) A prominent director bemoans the
indignity and powerlessness of Thai film directors because of the banning
clause and the close relationship between the Federation of Thai Film Producers
and the censors.
30 May
2012: National Human
Rights Commission
Producer Manit and director Ing K file a petition with the Citizens’
Rights, Political Rights and Media Rights section of the National Human
Rights Commission. The petition is received by NHRC general secretary
Weerawit Weeraworawit and Dr Niran Pitakvajara, chairman of the section.
31 May
2012: Senate
Producer Manit and director Ing K file a petition with the Senate
House Committee on Human Rights and Freedom and Consumer Protection.
Despite the high drama and heightened security as parliament is surrounded by
thousands of anti-Thaksin protesters (protesting the Reconciliation Bill being
discussed in parliament), committee chairman senator Somchai Sawaengkarn finds
time to accept the petition.
11 June
2012: National Human
Rights Commission
First hearing at the National Human Rights Commission.
The ministry of culture side is represented by deputy permanent secretary
Apinan Poshyanond.
25 June
2012: National Human
Rights Commission
Second hearing at the NHRC. The cultural ministry
side is represented by permanent secretary Somchai Sianglai and the ministry’s
legal team.
28 June
2012: The Film Directors’
Association of Thailand and Kasem Bundit University Film
School hold a private screening of ‘Shakespeare Must Die’, followed by a
seminar to discuss film law amendment. Prominent director Banjong Kosalawat
(‘Nual Chawee’) says that he has been trying to change the law for 30 years
without success. Other panelists include association president Tanyawarin
Sukhapisit, ‘Ong Baak’ director Prachya Pinkaew, ‘Laddaland’ director, Kong
Rithdee and Panu Aree (‘The Convert’), Chalida Uabamrungkit of the National
Film Archive, NHRC commissioner and former senator Jon Ungpakorn, a team of i-law
human rights lawyer, Manit Sriwanichpoom and Ing K. The ‘other side’ is
represented only by one member of the Film Board, who leaves early before the Q
& A from the audience.
5 July
2012: Filmmaker and critic
Kong Rithdee of the Bangkok Post, Thai Directors Association president
Tanyawarin Sukhapisit and ‘Shakespeare Must Die’ director Ing K speak on a
panel on film censorship at the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand.
[*Ing K at FCCT]
End of
July: National Human
Rights Commission
Dr Niran Pitakvajara, chairman of NHRC subcommittee on
Citizens’ Rights, Political Rights and Media Rights, informs
producer Manit by telephone that the NHRC has found clear evidence of power
abuse as well as infringement of constitutional rights in the banning of
‘Shakespeare Must Die’. The paper findings will released within two months.
7 August
2012: Senate
Inquiry session by
the Senate House Committee on Human Rights and Freedom and Consumer
Protection. The ministry of culture side is represented by Samart Chansoon
of the Film Censorship Board, one of the censors who refused to sign the
banning order. The session is recorded. The picture that appears to emerge is
that the banning of ‘Shakespeare Must Die’ was motivated by the political
climate, and the film law itself is open to abuse and needs to be amended.
9 August
2012: Administrative
Court
Producer Manit (First Claimant) and director Ing K (Second
Claimant) file a legal complaint with the Administrative Court (tries
state power abuse cases) against the Film Censorship Board, the National Board
of Film and Video and the Ministry of Culture. The legal team from the Lawyers’
Council, which has taken on the case pro bono, is led by former NHRC
commissioner Vasan Panich, who has worked on cases of extra-judicial killings
in the War on Drugs, the Southern violence and the October 6 massacre.
30 August
2012: Senate
Senate House Committee on Human Rights and Freedom and
Consumer Protection concludes that the
banning order on ‘Shakespeare Must Die’ is an infringement of the right to
freedom of thought and expression as enshrined in Article 29 of the 2007
Constitution and that current film legislation should be amended:
“Summary of Meeting 27/2555, Senate House Committee on
Human Rights, Rights and Freedom and Consumer Protection, Thursday 30 August
2012
4.2) Deliberation and summation
on the complaint regarding the National Board of Film and Video’s order to ban
the Thai film ‘Shakespeare Must Die’ from distribution in the kingdom, filed by
Mr Manit Sriwanichpoom and Ms Smanrat Kanjanavanit, petitioners. The
Subcommittee for the Study and Inspection of the Processes of Rights and
Freedom has concluded its findings on the complaint as follows:
1. The 2008
Royal Edict on Film and Video has provisions that may contradict or be in
conflict with Article 29 of the 2007 Constitution of the Thai kingdom, which
distinctly states that “The restriction of constitutionally-guaranteed rights
and freedom of individuals cannot be done, except when empowered by
legislation.” Articles 26(1)-(6) and Article 29 of the Royal Edict on Film and
Video empowers the Film Board to issue orders based on personal discretion. The
Subcommittee has recommended that the Royal Edict on Film and Video should be
amended so that it is in line with the intent of the Constitution.
2. The
administration and management by the state, on the part of the bureaucracy in
charge of the Ministry of Culture, lacks synergy, unity and co-operation.
Namely, the Office of Contemporary Art, the agency that scrutinised and
provided funding for film production, and the Department of Cultural Promotion,
the agency that deliberated and issued the banning order on the film, both
function under the umbrella of the Cultural Ministry, yet their operations are
in contradiction to each other. This creates operational problems that cause
damage to both the film producer and the interest of the state. Therefore the
Cultural Ministry should reexamine its bureaucratic process or amend
[ministerial] regulations and by-laws to create clarity in concrete and substantial
ways.”
[Ms Arisa Tongtubtim, Legal Aide on Duty, Senate House
Committee on Human Rights, Rights and Freedom and Consumer Protection. House Committee Office 3, Summariser of Meeting Results, 31 August, 2012”]
23
November 2012: The Administrative Court accepts the Shakespeare
Must Die vs the Censors case, Black Numbered Case # 1321/2555, for
consideration.
15 March 2013: United Nations Human
Rights Council
Farida Shaheed, UNHRC Special Rapporteur in the field of
cultural rights and Frank La Rue,
Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the
right to freedom of opinion and expression in
document Ref : AL Cultural Rights (2009) G/SO 214(67-17) THA 2/2013 to
the Thai government expresses concern
that the banning order on ‘Shakespeare Must Die’ may constitute an infringement
of the rights and freedom of artistic expression, the right for the producer
and the director to participate in cultural life and the freedom indispensable
to creative endeavour. Pursuant
to Human Rights Council resolution 19/6 and 16/4:
“Concern is expressed that the banning
of the film Shakespeare Must Die might constitute a violation of Mr.
Manit Sriwanichpoom and Ms. Smanrat Kanjanavanit’s rights to freedom of expression,
including in the form of art, as well as their rights to take part in cultural
life and to enjoy the freedom indispensable for creative activity. Without
expressing at this stage an opinion on the facts of the case, we would like to
appeal to your Excellency’s Government to take all necessary steps to secure
the right to freedom of expression in accordance with fundamental principles as
set forth in article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, which your Excellency’s
Government has ratified on 29 October 1996. It states:
“everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall
include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds,
regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of
art, or through any other media of his choice.
“Furthermore, we would like to refer
your Excellency’s Government to article 15 of International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which has been ratified by your Excellency’s
Government on 5 September 1999, and which “recognize the right of everyone to
take part in cultural life”. As stressed by the Committee on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights, the right to take part in cultural life entails rights of
participation in, access to, and contribution to cultural life, and encompasses
the right of everyone “to seek and develop cultural knowledge and expressions
and to share them with others, as well as to act creatively and take part in
creative activity” (E/C.12/GC/21, paragraph 15-a). Under article 15, States
Parties have also undertaken “to respect the freedom indispensable for
scientific research and creative activity”.
April
2013: US State Department
United States Department of State’s Annual Human RightsCountry Report on Thailand (Page 25) cites the banning of ‘Shakepeare Must
Die’ as an example of the government’s restrictions on Academic Freedom and Cultural Events.
25 April
2013 : Administrative Court
Mr Sa-ard Boonyayothin, Office of Administrative Cases,
Office of the Attorney General, empowered to act on behalf of all 3 defendents,
submit the rebuttal to the Administrative Court including the repetition of the
‘October 6 facts’ slander:
“But
both plaintiffs told defendant # 2 that this film is presenting the truth of
the events of October 6, 1976 in Thailand, therefore they insisted on making no
corrections whatsoever.” (Page 6)
“But
both plaintiffs declared that this film is presenting the truth in the events
of October 6, 1976 in Thailand, thereby refusing to make any corrections
whatsoever.” (Page 6)
“But both plaintiffs told
defendant #2 that this film is presenting the truth of the events of October 6,
1976 in Thailand so they insisted on not correcting their film in any way…
Further, it is defendant #2’s opinion that the intent of the Royal Edict on
Film and Video of 2008 is to control the substance and content of films and
videos so that they do not contain unsuitable content. Since both plaintiffs
did not wish to make corrections or cuts, accordingly permission was denied…” (Page
12)
“Film
commercials are made from sampling certain interesting scenes in the film…
& do not reflect the substance of the film; they are made only to make the
film look appealing to audiences. Defendant #2 together inspected the trailer
for this film and agreed to permit its release… Defendant # 2 begs to object
that after seeing the content and substance of the film’s trailer, the content
differs from the film itself, entirely. Even though the film’s trailer is composed
of certain scenes from the film, but the story that it conveys does not
accurately reflect the film itself which causes disunity among the people of
the nation.” (Page 9)
“On the
issue claimed by the two plaintiffs that similar events to those in
‘Shakespeare Must Die’ have already featured in films such as ‘Horror
University’… All 3 defendants beg to disagree… that they have used due
consideration in the deliberation over this film according to the limits of the
law, according to the facts… [which show that] after inspecting the film
‘Shakespeare Must Die’ finding content that shows the audience of a play
attacking the actors and hanging the play director, hitting him with objects, for instance, which
is an incident that occurred around October 6, 1976, a time of polarisation and
divisiveness of thought and ideals among the people of the nation which took
place not long ago, which results in arousing copy-cat behaviour leading to
violence and unrest in Thailand over and over again. Furthermore the content of
this film after watching causes disunity among the people of the nation, which
is different from ‘Horror University’…” (Page 11)
“Although
the screenplay of the film Shakespeare Must Die is adapted from the play The
Tragedy of Macbeth, and both plaintiffs are constitutionally entitled to
exercise freedom of expression through the medium of film, that self-expression
must not be contrary to the law not exceed the legal limits nor be contrary to
peace and order or the good morality of the people, including by not causing
disunity among the people of the nation…” (Page 11)
“All 3
defendants do not accept as true that the plaintiffs are noted persons or have
received awards or have produced work as they claim…” (Page 13)
Although
the film Shakespeare Must Die was made with the support of the Office for
Contemporary Art and Culture, [the OCAC] is a separate legal entity unconnected
to defendant # 2 and #3 in the film censorship process. The Office of
Contemporary Art and Culture has no power to inspect films.” (Page 13)
“The
damages as cited in expenses in the complaint are claims that exceed the truth
or are even against the truth. They are merely baseless claims without
documented evidence to show the Court, for instance: 1) Actors Payment of
455,000 baht [USD 12,638.88] which is unrealistically high…” (Page 14)
“Camera
and Equipment, amount 868,643.95 baht [USD 24,129]… the amount for Camera
Rental is unrealistically high, a baseless claim with no bearing to reality.” (Page
16)
30 May 2013 : Administrative Court
‘Shakespeare
Must Die’ filmmakers submit their response to the film censors’ testimony.
Plaintiff #2 (the director):
“1/ Most significantly, we were
subjected to discrimination. The Board of Censors claims that we are “too
violent, must be cut”, but in reality, films far more violent than ours pass
breezily through and shown everywhere. This is one circumstantial evidence that
clearly indicates that “The October 6 Scene” is not the real issue but merely a
convenient go-to objection.
2/ Other observations regarding
the workings of the Censorship Board in the ‘Shakespeare Must Die’ case that
reveal irregularities when compared to normal practice that other films
receive:
-
Normally the Board rules immediately after one screening. But in
the case of ‘Shakespeare Must Die’ the Board insisted on watching it 3 times.
Board members displayed symptoms of fear (not of us but of “politics”). At
first their objections sounded so nonsensical, it was as if they were out for
trouble, eg. the use of the Thai alphabet in the film, even though it is a Thai
film made for a Thai audience; the lead actress’ necklace (which they claimed
was alluding to “the Saudi Diamond”, even though the gem in question is a
blue-green semi-precious stone. They
especially stressed the use of the colour red, exactly the same time as [big
movie studio] Sahamongkol Film’s movie ‘Anthaparn’[ ‘Gangster’] received
permission to hang big red banners printed with “Red is Returning—to Bully”
everywhere, and even though in Thai folk
opera Likay tradition, the executioner always wears a red headscarf. We are
inspired by Likay tradition.
-
The censors’ questions, and the tortured twists and turns of the
process, which no other film had ever had to endure, prompted producer Manit to
suspect that something was amiss. The citing of “The October 6 Scene” as the
final condition is likely to have been merely an excuse, since many other films
inspired directly or indirectly by October 14 and October 6 have passed the
censors before (e.g. ‘Horror University’, ‘Fah Sai Jai Chuen Barn’ [‘Clear Sky
and Glad Heart’] and ‘October Sonata’).
Producer Manit
asked: if I cut this, do you guarantee to pass the film? The censors replied
that there are no guarantees; they have not asked for a cut but for a “suitable
correction”, which they said was “less severe than a cut”, which is vague and
tortuous, further convincing us that this is not a true and sincere condition,
and whatever we did they would not pass the film. It was only that the censors
could not find a more plausible-sounding reason (and which would not affect the
government’s democratic credentials).
3/ The censors’ testimony is not creditable,
because in the Film Board’s appeal verdict to let the ban stand as ordered by
the Board of Censors, it was claimed that the board members testified to the
Film Board that “the producer insisted that it was a true presentation of the
events of October 6, 1976.”
This testimony by the censors to the Film
Board is a slanderous distortion of the truth, since we have never insisted
thus (a recording exists to prove it).
We said we were inspired by a news photograph
of October 6.
Please observe how the camera’s main focus is on the expressions and responses
of the crowd cheering on the violence rather than on the perpetrator of the
violence and the corpse. It’s clear from this that our aim is to arouse
awareness in the audience, so that they wouldn’t rise up and kill each other or
cheer on or threaten violence as has happened in the past (and the present), a
time when the people are being exhorted and incited to hate and kill each
other.
4/ The trailer with the aforementioned scene
in it received a pass from the censors. This is another evidence that clearly
indicates that the censors’ reservations were not over this scene. They are
merely using this scene as a reason to ban the film, by exploiting the
controversial aura of the words ‘October 6’.
On August 7, 2012, during the inquiry by the
Senate House Committee on Human Rights, which accepted the complaint of the
makers of ‘Shakespeare Must Die’ for consideration whether any rights
infringement has occurred, Senator Boonlert Kachayuthadej said: “But the
manifested facts that have been linked to the movie and become the reason [for
the banning] are: This country happens to have a King. This country has
Thaksin. Thaksin is known as ‘Dear Leader’ and is accused of nursing ambitions
to become the President. Did these things prey on the hearts and minds of the
censors who banned the film?”
Mr Samart Jansoon (the only Censorship Board
member who accepted the summons to appear at the inquiry, even though he is one
of the 3 censors who did not sign the banning order) replied: “You ask me if we
censors considered those events you mentioned, er, the Excellency in exile and
such. We didn’t consider them. May be people—may be other people said it. I
also heard other people speak of it. This film makes people think a great deal.
What you think [of it] is according to your beliefs.”
5/ The undeniable proof that the film
censors’ deliberation process is dictated by political pressure or “the Order
Chit” from above is the case of the documentary film ‘Fah Tum Pandin Soong
[‘The Sky is Low, the Land is High’; official English title ‘Boundary’]. This
film was recently banned but within 24 hours apologies were offered directly to
the director that “it was all a misunderstanding”. The film was passed (after
muting 2 seconds of sound about the King) and received a rating of 18, not even
20+. This overturning of the banning order did not have to pass through the
appeals process, even though the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Culture
was one of the censors who had ordered it banned.
And in the banning order for ‘Fah Tum Pandin
Soong’, the board members listed their reasons in detail, unlike in the case of
‘Shakespeare Must Die’, which says only that the content causes disunity among
the people of the nation.
Notably, ‘Fah Tum Pandin Soong’ has content
that harmonizes and supports the views of the Yingluck Shinawatra government
(regarding the ‘Burn Down Bangkok’ events [by the red shirts] in 2010) and the
Khao Phra Viharn border dispute with Cambodia) which is the same administration
that banned ‘Shakespeare Must Die’. The film censors’ respective treatment of
‘Fah Tum Pandin Soong’ and ‘Shakespeare Must Die’ are as different as the earth
and sky.”
Objections
by Plaintiff # 1 (the producer) to the defendants’ testimony dated 25 April
2013:
“1/
The discriminatory use of the law and the ministerial regulations (if I
understand it correctly).
Their claims on page 6:
“As during that time of
deliberation, ministerial regulations in line with the Royal Edict on Film and
Video 2008 had not yet been issued. They were not enacted until October 2012,
so ministerial regulations in line with the Royal Edict on Film of 1930 were
used in the deliberation, according to Article 91 of the Royal Edict on Film
and Video 2008.”
This contradicts the facts,
because since the enactment of the Royal Edict on Film and Video 2008 in
October 2009, the National Culture Commission of the Ministry of Culture
published the ‘Guidebook to Film Censorship’, which establishes the ministerial
regulations defining the rating system, which was distributed to filmmakers and
other stake-holders and interested parties including parents, young people and
the general public to explain the rules of the new rating system.
But the defendant did not use
the enacted ministerial regulations in their deliberation. Meanwhile the
defendants had already applied these regulations with all other previous films,
by bestowing ratings on many films such as ‘The Legend of Naresuan’ and many
more.
It can be said that the
defendants unfairly discriminated against the plaintiffs.
2/ Allegations
regarding the presentation of the truth of October 6, 1976 and on causing
disunity among the people of the nation:
“In a meeting to deliberate over
the film on 3 April 2012, defendant #2 comprising 5 persons out of 7
subcommittee members, invited Mr Manit Sriwanichpoom, plaintiff #1 and Miss
Smanrat Kanjanavanit [Ing K], plaintiff #2, to answer questions. The 2
plaintiffs were notified to consider correcting the aforementioned film, since
parts of the content cause disunity among the people of the nation. But the 2
plaintiffs declared to defendant #2 that this film is a presentation of the
truth of the events of October 6, 1976 in Thailand and insisted on not
correcting their film in any way whatsoever.”
Both plaintiffs wish to confirm
that they never said that the film ‘Shakespeare Must Die’ is “presenting the
truth of the events of October 6, 1976”. The true substance of the film is as
follows:
“This “Shakespearean horror movie”, a classic a tale of politics and black
magic, translated into Thai directly and exactly from ‘The Tragedy of Macbeth’ by the world’s great poet from England, William Shakespeare (B.E.
2107- B.E. 2159), with some cinematic and Thai cultural adaptations , takes place in two
parallel worlds: inside the theatre, the world of the play about the ambitious
and bloody general who becomes king through murder, and the ‘outside world’ in
the contemporary lives of a non-specific country’s superstitious,
megalomaniacal and murderous dictator, known only as ‘Dear Leader’, and his
scary high society wife. Events in the twin worlds mirror and soon bleed into
each other until they catastrophically collide, when the players must pay dearly for staging such a play in a society ruled by such a man. How could they ever think of
defying fear with art?”
Accordingly this film is about
karmic retribution, the thirst for power by a ruler without ethics. It has
nothing whatsoever to do with the events of October 6, 1976. It is only that
the makers of the film, in the filming of the scene of Dear Leader’s followers
attacking the play’s director, were inspired by the tragic news photograph of
October 6, 1976 by Mr Neal Ulevich, Associated Press photographer, in the way
in which violence is conveyed.
In the scheme of things, as
regards to the level of violence, this scene is barely violent when compared to
action and horror movies that are all permitted to be widely shown, or even the
film ‘The Legend of King Naresuan’ which was rated under ‘Films that inspire
learning and should be promoted to be widely seen’. In ‘Shakespeare Must Die’
it can be seen that neither the director, the camera nor the editing is
focusing on the perpetrator of violence and the hanging corpse. The focus is on
the faces and reactions, on expressions of satisfaction and blood-thirst among
the mob cheering and laughing over the violence before their eyes (identical to
the attitudes of the mob in the AP news photo). It’s clear from this that the
film intends to arouse the viewer’s conscience and bring awareness and wisdom,
to remind us that this terrible thing once happened when the people allowed
themselves to become intoxicated by malignant propaganda designed to incite
people to kill each other. It is the hope of both plaintiffs that viewers of
this film would feel nauseated by what
happened then and agree with us that there is no reason for us to kill each
other.
It may be observed that
defendant #2’s orders were unclear from the beginning, since the meeting
between defendant #2 and both plaintiffs on 3 April 2012, during which
defendant #2 never announced any clear administrative conditions that is
plaintiff #1 did not cut the attack on the play director scene that mimicked
the events of October 6, 1976, the film would not be permitted to be shown.
Defendant #2 merely asked that the film be withdrawn for “improvements”, which
is too wide for interpretation and action. The lack of clarity of the said
ruling is apparent in the banning order by the Film Censors Subcommittee #3 (defendant
#2) which was issued to the plaintiffs on the same day, namely 3 April 2012,
which says:
“The Board’s deliberation deems
that the film ‘Shakespeare Tong Tai’ (Shakepeare Must Die) has content that
causes the fracturing of unity among the people of the nation, according to
Ministerial Regulation describing types of motion picture, B.E. 2552, item
7(3).
The verdict is therefore
permission denied, as the film has been classified among types of films that
are forbidden from distribution in the kingdom, according to Article 26(7) of
the Royal Edict on Film and Video, B.E. 2551.”
Then when the 2 plaintiffs
submitted an appeal to the National Board of Film and Video (defendant #1), the
Board set up a Lagal Subcommitee to Consider the Appeal to probe the facts.
Plaintiff #1 had the opportunity to explain the facts to this Subcommitee in
person. The Subcomittee had no reservations over “The October 6 Scene”. They
further said: “We should be able to find good solution.” One woman Board member
asked Plaintiff #1: “If you don’t get the rating of Recommended that you asked
for, but receive a higher rating, would you find that acceptable?” Plaintiff #1
said “Anything would be fine that the committee sees fit to pass, even if it’s
20+”.
But the result of the appeal to
the National Board of Film and Video (defendant #1) was a confirmation of
defendant #2’s banning order; accordingly plaintiffs #1 and #2 were greatly
disappointed and surprised, especially by the wording of defendant #1’s
verdict, which distorted the explanation by the 2 plaintiffs, stating that:
“But the appellant declared that it was a presentation of the truth of the
events of October 6, 1976, therefore insisted on making no corrections.”
Both plaintiffs wish to confirm
that they never told defendant #2 that this film is presenting the truth of
October 6, 1976 events (see page 12 of the transcript of the audio recording of
the Q & A session between defendant #2 and the 2 plaintiffs).
Additionally, on 4 May 2012,
General Jongsak Panichkul, aide to [Deputy Prime Minister] General Yuthasak
Sasiprapha who was chairing the Film Board [on behalf of PM Yingluck
Shinawatra] at that time, summoned the 2 plaintiffs to a meeting to discuss the
issues surrounding the appeal against the ban on ‘Shakespeare Must Die’. The
conversation ended on a positive note for the film. A brief account of the
conversation is as follows:
General Jongsak: “The
Deputy PM has seen it. He’d like to ask the director: what is your reason for
making this film?”
[Ing K] plaintiff # 2: “I
want to give Thai people an experience of Shakespeare. ‘Macbeth’ is my
favourite play; it’s most people’s favourite, because it’s like an entertaining
horror movie and it resonates with every culture and society. That’s why
filmmakers everywhere in the world have adapted it; there are Japanese, Indian,
Taiwanese, Hollywood and countless other versions. 15 year old schoolchildren
have been made to study this play for hundreds of years.”
Gen. Jongsak: “I never
realised that it’s been made into films all over the world. In that case there
shouldn’t be a problem. In all sincerity the Deputy PM doesn’t understand why
this issue had to come all the way up to him. The people downstairs threw this
hot potato up here to us. It’s just film censorship, why do they have to drag
in the Deputy PM? It’s too much. He is so busy right now with the Buakhao
[champion boxer] issue. Let’s find a win-win solution for all sides today. I
can’t dictate to people but I’ll find a way to satisfy everyone.”
Gen. Jongsak continued, “ This
film has dicey elements that lend themselves to gossip and rumour. The general
audience’s level of understanding is not like ours. There are uneducated
people. “
Manit
(plaintiff #1) talked of the problematic film law which has a rating system yet
retains the right to ban, and the exploitation of this measure as a tool of
oppression against independent filmmakers with no studio protection. He told of
the insincere-sounding questions and objections, such as about the leading
actress’ necklace and their accusation that we are attempting to overthrow the
monarchy. Gen. Jongsak laughed and said, “Our government is also being accused
of that.”
Gen. Jongsak: “Just one
small problem. We don’t want to shame the Board below. The Deputy PM himself
understands because he’s seen a performance of ‘Macbeth’ in London. All he said
was: “If you’re looking for trouble, there is trouble in every scene. But if
you watch with a fair, unbiased heart, there’s nothing to worry about.”
Gen. Jongsak
continued, “In conclusion, this whole thing should end with a compromise, while
saving the censors’ face by giving you a rating of 20 +. Can you accept that?”
Manit
and [Ing K]: “Yes.”
Gen,
Jongsak: “Relax. Wait for the appeal verdict on 11 May, which should be a
gentle compromise.”
3/ October 6, 1976 is not listed in Ministerial Regulations
2009 as a topic forbidden to filmmakers.
Furthermore,
the said events appear in high school and university history textbooks. If
mentioning October 6, 1976 would lead to disunity among the people of the
nation, it would not have been included in the school syllabus. The general public may read what these history textbooks
say on October 6, 1976 at :
Thai history textbook for high school history syllabus
(since 2008) on October 6, 1976
Mac Publishing
Also on Wikipedia:
News footage of October 6, 1976 events on YouTube:
News photos of October 6, 1976 from Google Search: http://www.google.co.th/search?q=6+%E0%B8%95%E0%B8%B8%E0%B8%A5%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%84%E0%B8%A1+2519&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=ktumUZqAFMzHrQe0kYGgCw&ved=0CDUQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=593
If
mention of the events of October 6, 1976 causes disunity among the people of
the nation, it wouldn’t have been permitted in school textbooks and all these
websites.
It
should be noted that this is not the first time that plaintiff # 1 and #2 have
used images of October 6, 1976 in their art work to reflect Thai
socio-political problems.
In the
photographic series ‘Horror in Pink’, plaintiff #1 Manit Sriwanichpoom used
news photos from the events of October 14, 1973; October 6, 1976 and May 1992
as part of the creation of his art work, by inserting a man in a pink suit pushing
a matching pink supermarket cart into news photographs from the 3 events, to
remind Thai society of our heroes who sacrificed their lives for the freedom
that those alive today enjoy. This work was exhibited in ‘History and Memory’
[1] at the Chulalongkorn University Art Centre, August 15 – September 1, 2001;
Chiangmai University Art Centre in 2002, and as part of the exhibition ‘October
14 through Artists’ Eyes’ at Chulalongkorn University’s Jamjuri Gallery,
organized by the Office of Contemporary Art and Culture of the Ministry of
Culture, October 9 – 18, 2003.
Photographs
of work:
Description:
‘Horror in Pink #1’ (produced 2001), conceptualized by Manit Sriwanichpoom.
Original photograph from the events of October 6, 1976 by Neal Ulevich,
Associated Press.
In the series of work entitled ‘Where
Are They Now?’ (2008), plaintiff # 2 Miss Smanrat Kanjanavanit [Ing K] created
watercolour paintings to raise a question over past violence as seen in Neal
Ulevich’s news photograph of October 6, 1976: Why did all these spectators
cheer on the savage brutality of the man who was using a folding chair to bash
the corpse of a student protester for democracy which was hanging from a
tamarind tree?
The series ‘Where Are They Now?’ was
part of a group exhibition ‘Flashback’76: History and Memory of the October 6
Massacre’ at the Pridi Institute, August 2 – 23, 2008.
Photographs
of work:
Description:
‘October 6 Study for ‘Where Are They Now?’, watercolour painting by Ing K
(produced in 2008)
These
art works with content directly related to October 6, 1976 were publically
exhibited and widely distributed in the form of booklet catalogue and in the
media to the general public and never met with any protest or any other
obstacle whatsoever.
Therefor,
defendant# 1 and #2’s claims have no
weight; they are merely groundless implausible speculation without any
comparable precedence or criteria on which to base their deliberation.
4/ On the issue of violence, the ministerial regulations
have clearly laid out guidelines on the rating system, which defendant
# 1 and #2 could have followed but did not follow.
5/ On the issue of lack of clarity in an administrative
order
Defendant
#2 never declared to the 2 plaintiffs that the film would be denied permission
it was not amended, nor did they explicitly state in word written or spoken
which scene, which dialogue at which point of the film that may be deemed to
“cause disunity among the people of the nation”. They merely asked that the
film be withdrawn from the censorship process and “corrected”. Even the scene
that defendant #2 alleges that the 2 plaintiffs claimed is “presenting the true
events of October 6, 1976,” defendant #2 did not give the plaintiffs the
ultimatum that unless this scene was cut, they would not pass the film.
Defendant
#2nwas also unable to explain why the scene inspired by October 6, 1976 could
not be allowed to be made into film; there is no such stipulation in the
ministerial regulations. Such lack of clarity in instruction made it impossible
for the 2 plaintiffs to obey. Now that we have the Royal Edict on Film and
Video 2008 whose raison d’etre is to promote the Thai film industry by
instituting a rating system as universally applied throughout the world, both
plaintiffs sincerely believed that their film would receive permission, even if
the worst-case scenario rating for violence of ‘Not for Under 20 Years of Age’.
This is why the plaintiffs insist on making no corrections. The 2 plaintiffs
had in fact upon submission of their film asked for the rating of ‘Films that
Inspire Learning and Should Be Recommended’, since ‘Shakespeare Must Die’ is
concerned with the moral concept of sin and conscience, which furthermore had
received funding from the Make Thailand Strong [Creative Thailand] Fund under
the Office of Contemporary Art and Culture of the Ministry of Culture.
Even
during the appeal process, the Sub-committee for Legal Opinion and
Consideration of the Appeal which was set up by defendant #1 did not advise the
plaintiffs to cut the scene that defendant #2 calls “the October 6, 1976 scene”
in any way. Their conclusion at the end of the inquiry session was that there
would be a good solution.
As
those under the jurisdiction of the Royal Edict on Film and Video 2008, when
officials lack clarity, it is difficult for those under their rule to follow.
It
should be noted that it is a sensitive matter to make changes in a film, as all
such change affects the content of the film and its artistic value; it also
entails a large expenditure that should not be made without a sound and clear
reason.
6/ The defendants’ testimony shows confusion and lack of
understanding of the story-telling of ‘Shakespeare Must Die’
In the
defendants’ testimony, Item 7, Page 10, Lines 19 – 21 : “Inspection of the film
‘Shakespeare Must Die’ reveals content showing the audience of a play attacking
the cast and hanging the play director, hitting him with objects, for
instance.”
Item 8,
Page 11, Line 13: “This film has content showing the audience of a play
attacking the cast and hanging the play director, hitting him with objects, for
instance.”
Item 9,
Page 12, Line 9: “For example, content showing the audience of a play attacking
the cast and hanging the play director, hitting with objects, for instance.”
The 2
plaintiffs see that both defendant #1 and #2 are confused about the above
scene. In reality, a group of thugs with red headscarves led by an aide of a
dictatorial president known as ‘Dear Leader’ breaks into a theatre performing a
play that satirises Dear Leader; they then proceed to beat up the audience and
drag out the play director to be hanged by the neck and hit with a folding
chair.
The
events of this scene is showing that the fictitious country in ‘Shakespeare
Must Die’ is ruled by a cruel-hearted president with followers who are thugs
who go around beating up critics of Dear Leader. This has nothing to do with
differences in political opinion.
7/ The severity of the order
The
ruling that the film ‘Shakespeare Must Die’ has content that causes disunity
among the people of the nation is unreasonably severe, the personal opinion of
both defendant #1 and #2 which cannot be proven. By nature, cinema is a medium
of limited access, unlike other more accessible media like television,
newspaper, radio and the internet. The audience is also relatively small and
cannot conceivably become the cause of chaos or divisiveness.
It
should be noted that no film has ever sparked or been the cause of past events
of divisiveness; not the events of October 14, 1973; October 6, 1976; Black May
1992, and the more recent April 2010 and May 2010.
8/ Discriminatory treatment in the case of ‘Shakespeare
Must Die’ and the case of ‘Fah Tum Pandin Soong’
The
producer of a film that has been banned by the Board of Film Censors may submit
an appeal to overturn the ban to the National Board of Film and Video within 15
days. The appeal deliberation must result in a ruling within 30 days. In the
case of ‘Shakespeare Must Die’, all due process was followed and observed.
But
then on 23 April 2013, the documentary film ‘Fah Tum Pandin Soong’ [‘The Sky is
Low; the Land is High’, official English title ‘Boundary’] also received a ban
on distribution, with Mrs Prisana Pongtadsirikul, Permanent Secretary [top
bureaucrat] of the Ministry of Culture as chairman of the Board of Film and
Video Censors giving an interview to the National News Bureau of the Public
Relations Department, that the Board unanimously agreed to rule that it was “in
contradiction to Ministerial Regulations specifying types of film 2009, Article
7, as ‘the content is in conflict with national security and good international
relations. In addition, the film presents information regarding events that are
still under judicial consideration without any documented conclusions regarding
the events. The producer may submit an appeal on the order to the Board.”
The
substance of the banning order has detailed the following:
“1. The
narration involving the Royal Institution is inaccurate, as in [Time Code]
minute 0.29 : “Celebrations for the King’s 84th Birthday.” The
linking of events in question to the Institution which is then entitled ‘The
Sky is Low; the Land is High’ may cause the audience to misinterpret the
meaning, because the specifics of the film do not reflect the title, so what is
the filmmaker thinking and wishing to convey? The events presented are claimed
to be by documentary [evidence], nut it is the [unsupported] conclusion of the
filmmakers’ opinion, even though some of the events remain under judicial
review and official investigation. Apart from this, there are no other documentary
findings to clearly support such claims or whether any such event actually
occurred. For instance [Time Code] minute 1.48 : In this area “red shirt
protesters who mostly came from upcountry were closed off and massacred.” [Time
Code] minute 1.58 : “Almost 100 people died.” [Time Code] minute 2.04 : “The
people of Bangkok and other dissenters gleefully supported this dissolution of
this protest.” [TC] minute 2.09 : “The Thai government at that time claimed it
was the work of a Third Hand working to create circumstances to frame and blame
the government.” [TC] minute 2.17 : “Red shirt protesters and supporters
believe the government and the military are responsible.” [TC] minute 2.29 :
“The people of Bangkok and many non-supporters praised the government and the
military.” [TC] minute 2.44 : “People from the provinces are openly despised as
stupid and money-grubbing.” [TC] minute 45.00 : “The Thai and the Cambodian
governments jointly registered Khao Phra Viharn as a World Heritage Site.” Etc.
The narration done by superimposed titles in the film sometimes makes
observations in conflict with the image of rural landscapes.
2. The
content’s meaning has the tendency to cause divisiveness among the people of
the nation, causing disunity, which is forbidden by Ministerial Regulation
Article 7(3).
3. The
content affects national security and international relations, in presenting
images of soldiers on the border in a firefight with their opposite number;
images that reveal the positioning of foxholes; the mention of Cambodian
soldiers moving the border marker is not backed up by any evidence that it
actually occurred. These all fit the criteria as forbidden by Ministerial
Regulation Article 7(4).
After
deliberation, the Board of Censors deems that the substance and images of the
aforementioned film is in conflict with peace and order as it may persuade the
audience to be deceived, so should not be permitted to be distributed in the
Kingdom according to Ministerial Regulations specifying types of film 2009, Article
7(3) and 7(4).”
Despite
the banning order’s explicitly detailed reasons, minute by minute, contrary to
the ‘Shakespeare Must Die’ case, in which no detail is given whatsoever; it is
merely said to “cause disunity among the people of the nation.”
Merely
2 days later, on 25 April 2013, the Office of the Board of Film and Video
Censors of the Ministry of Culture’s Department of Cultural Promotion contacted
the producers of the film ‘Fah Tum Pandin Soong’ to apologise for the error in
their deliberation process; the ban on distribution in the Kingdom is only the
ruling of the Sub-Committee; it is not the ruling by the Large Committee. In
the case of films that are banned from distribution, normally the filmmakers
must first be summoned to explain and the Large Board’s verdict must be
obtained. And the Large Board has just had the opportunity to view the film,
and ruled that it may be distributed to those of 18 years or older, with the
request that 2 seconds of sound at the beginning should be muted, during New
Year celebrations at Rajprasong Intersection [sequence] when the MC on stage
says, “We’re here together for the Countdown and to celebrate the King’s 84th
Birthday”. The producers of the film saw that the sound in question is merely
atmospheric sound, not the main substance of the film’s content, so were
willing to mute the sound. As for the other parts that the Sub-Committee had
objected to as inappropriate, the Large Committee had no objections and allowed
the entire content to stand.
It can
be seen that in the case of ‘Fah Tum Pandin Soong’, the producers did not have
to proceed in any way. They did not need to explain their reasons; they did not
have to file an appeal even though the banning order’s conditions are clear and
easy to follow. This incident has widely caused doubt and suspicions among
other filmmakers. Can it be possible that the Permanent Secretary of the
Ministry of Culture who signed the banning order by her own hand would be
ignorant of the rules of procedure? Would not the Secretariat of the
Sub-Committee which the Permanent Secretary chaired give warning of procedural
irregularity? How can the verdict be overturned in less than 2 days?
This is
a clear example of the discriminatory practice of the National Board of Film
and Video.
9/ We assure that the expenses are real, not imagined. An
expert in film production would be able to appraise whether these expenses are
realistic. In cases of the title on the receipt not matching the title of the
film, the process of film production is a business secret that must be guarded
to prevent obstacles being thrown on the production process, such as a
telephone call to force a film laboratory not to accept work on a rival’s film.
In this matter, confirming evidence can be found from those who issued the
receipts that the work done was really on the film ‘Shakespeare Must Die’.”
1 July
2013: National Human Rights Commission
NHRC concludes that the Film Censorship Board and the
National Film Board violated the Constitutional right to freedom of thought and
expression. The NHRC recommends that the
ban should be revoked and the film allowed to be released with the rating of
18+. NHRC further recommends that the 2008 Royal Edict on Film and Video be
amended.
5 July
2017: Administrative Court
The director of ‘Shakespeare Must Die’ makes a statement at
the first and only in-person hearing at the Administrative Court. [5 July 2017 Statement to Adminstrative Court]
11 August
2017: Administrative
Court
The
Administrative Court is to due to read the verdict at 10 AM, Court Room 10,
Administrative Court (3rd floor), Chaengwattana road.
[Last updated 5
August 2017]
……………………………………………………………