Statement to the Administrative Court on 5 July 2017
by plaintiff # 2, director of the banned film ‘Shakespeare
Must Die’
[Administrative Court Case
# 1321/2555: ‘Shakespeare Must Die’ producer plaintiff #1 & director
plaintiff #2 against the Film Censorship Board defendant #1; the National Film
Board defendant #2 & the Ministry of Culture defendant #3. The statement
below, read aloud to 5 judges in court, is translated from Thai.]
Your Honour,
I believe the law exists to
preserve dharma [harmony in tune with natural
balance] in society. This is why I’m forced to fight for what is
right, despite knowing full well that to struggle against those with the power
to rule over the destiny of Thai cinema is not something any filmmaker would
willingly do, in an industry ruled by the very few with boundless power while
all the rest are entirely without negotiating power.
When a film is banned, it’s a
life sentence. Far more severe a punishment than meted out to drunk drivers or
even vote-buying politicians, who are only temporarily banned, even though they
cause enormous national harm.
Worse, the use of a banning law
that wields power according to the personal deliberation of 7 board members
entails the risk of power abuse against the intent of the law, and unethical
injustice through discriminatory use of the law at the whim of those who wield
it.
As may be seen in the later case
of the film ‘Fah Tum Pandin Soong’ [‘The
Sky is Low, the Land is High’; official
English title ‘Boundary’] which clearly proves that I was intentionally
unjustly discriminated against, when there was a reversal of the ban against
the documentary, the film board demanding only the minor removal of some sound
to overturn the ban without the film’s makers having to file an appeal in any
way whatsoever.
The case of ‘Fah Tum Pandin
Soong’ clearly demonstrates to me and the public that the process of
deliberation by the National Film Board lacks neutrality & equality in
practice, and can be shortcut at personal whim.
The bypassing of the appeal process,
which producers of ‘Fah Tum Pandin Soong’ did not personally file and
proceed themselves but carried out by
the board itself, meant that after the banning order was issued on 24 April
2013 it was overturned on 26 April 2013, or merely 2 days later. This is
unprecendented in the history of film censorship. The board members told the
media that it was all a misunderstanding by the sub-committee, and further
claimed that the said film had applied as a DVD (for distribution and rental),
not as a theatrical release. This is entirely false, as after receiving a
rating of 18+ (not even 20+), this film was immediately released in a cinema in
the normal way.
The ‘Fah Tum Pandin Soong’
case clearly shows that the film censorship process is subject to political
interference. The announcement to ban the film was made at a press conference
on 24 April 2013 by Mrs Prisana Pongtadsirikul herself, then permanent secretary
[highest bureaucrat] of the Ministry of
Culture. It’s impossible that a civil servant of such seniority would’ve been
ignorant of the correct procedure of film censorship. Without a doubt the
reversal of such an order could not have been made except by those with power
above the Culture Ministry’s Permanent Secretary.
Examination of the content of the
documentary ‘Fah Tum Pandin Soong’ would reveal that the film creates a
negative image of the Abhisit Vejjajiva government in the violent political events
of 2010; this being the political opposition party to the Yingluck Shinawatra
administration which was in charge of the country at the time, the permission
to show the film therefore directly benefits the government.
The reverse is true of the
content of ‘Shakespeare Must Die’, a direct translation of an ancient 400 year
old play ‘The Tragedy of Macbeth’ by William Shakespeare, which might have
upset the feelings of some politicians at that time, since the film reflects
upon the fate of a megalomaniacal ruler of a country.
Apart from direct legal evidence
proving that the banning order against ‘Shakespeare Must Die’ is an illegal
abuse of power, lacking in standard and neutrality, the issue concerned is
cinema, a branch of art and media. The implications and ramifications are
therefore complex and subtle with a wide-ranging impact on society. Please kindly
allow me the time to explain the consequences, both to myself and to society at
large, arising from the misuse of this law with no sense of social and moral
responsibility.
With the Court’s permission, I’d
like to bring forward certain conclusions gained from the experience of having
my work banned—a labour of love which so many of us strived and toiled with all
our strength, our money, our hearts and years of our lives to create to the
best of our ability.
I believe that the case of
‘Shakespeare Must Die’ does not merely concern “one horror movie” and our
personal pain and damages. It is a model case on the question of what it is to
be human, and is therefore in the public eye and concerns the public’s
interest, with the potential to ignite or douse the hopes of a large number of
people, both the filmmakers and the audience or the general public.
Professional Impact
The use
of Article 26(7) of the Royal Edict on Film & Video BE 2551 has an impact
on our profession, menacing, oppressing and destroying the life and morale of
not only the maker of the banned film but also demoralizing for every Thai
filmmaker, harming the potential of cinema as a “creative industry” which every
government claims to support and promote.
Aside
from the fundamental issue of human rights—the right to pursue a profession and
the right to freedom of expression, which all other media in Thailand enjoy
except cinema, robbing Thai filmmakers of their rights and freedom and dignity,
the negative impact on cinema as a creative industry must also be considered.
Clause 7 of Article 26 lends itself to wrongful exercise of power,
discrimination and the destruction of persons which the government at the time
deems a political enemy, further undermining Thai film producers’ sense of
security in their investment and profession.
So long as 7 faceless people in a
dark room continue to have the absolute right to rule on the destiny of films
that filmmakers have devoted time, money and morale to for many years, there
can be no free flow of ideas and investor confidence. With everything dependent
on the personal deliberation of these 7 people, filmmakers have no insurance
and legal rights and protection, which other professions enjoy as a matter of
course.
This being so, investors dare not
invest in screenplays that ‘differ’ from what they’ve seen, or that has any
original thought. For this reason filmmakers are afraid to think and to be
creative. This is a significant factor holding back Thai cinema in a state of
paralysis, so that “Thai cinema can’t seem to really get a move on”, as we like
to complain, as we are doomed to recycle nonsense, unable to explore any of
Thai society’s problems or its dark side, unable to touch relevant content or
even be inspired by our own history.
Meanwhile
most of the world has the right to take or be inspired by any point of view and
way of life, by the whole world and its history. You may observe that nations
with the highest degree of freedom of expression also have the strongest
cinematic culture and film industry, able to attract viewers all over the
world. Their products are able to transcend language and cultural barriers
because they’re based on screenplays conceived in freedom of the imagination.
It’s impossible for Thai cinema
to compete in the market place with these fortunate souls. Because the Thai
government and Thai law send Thai filmmakers into the boxing ring in ball and
chains.
The Government Should Befriend Artists
If
Thailand wishes to gain income from art, Thailand must trust artists, including
filmmakers, the same way we trust doctors in medicine and chefs in the kitchen;
trust teachers, police and soldiers to carry out their work professionally,
work that the average man doesn’t know how to do. You must trust the
specialists in their field.
Thailand must trust artists; stop
regarding artists as a toxic and dangerous enemy. This unfriendly attitude is
not conducive to a creative atmosphere.
Thailand must dare to allow Thai
art to evolve and flourish according to its natural flow. Art comes from
inspiration that artists receive from various things in the society around them
coupled with their own reactions and response, distilled and crystallised
through personal experience, depth of wisdom, understanding and feeling, which
is then expressed. Art that is born of such a true and natural process in this
way, that can flourish without pressure and set boundary, undisturbed and
interfered with by outside people who really don’t know their stuff, this is
art that is potent and alive.
Art, including cinema, that has as
its source a set agenda and limits pre-ordained by the government, meaning art
under state or other control, is lifeless art. Everyone can sense this
undeniable truth.
Lifeless art doesn’t sell,
because it is unable to touch the viewers’ hearts and minds, unable to inspire
and generate constructive discussion that leads to an enhanced ability to
ponder and analyse problems. Because art that is dead cannot inspire and
strengthen the audience. This is why Thai cinema is unable to reach its
potential, unable to earn as much for Thailand as it could do. True art cannot
exist and cannot be born without freedom. Controlled art is lifeless and
uncommercial.
Reasons of Good Governance
From past experience, it’s clear
that the banning of a film is dependent upon the prevailing political
atmosphere and corresponding ethical values, which tend to shift according to
the character of the people who come into governmental power. Worse, since the
Prime Minister is the chairperson of the National Film Board, the politically
all-powerful may order any film to be banned at any time, right over the heads
of the censor board members, by exploiting Article 26(7) as a political tool.
This is another factor that
erodes filmmakers’ security of life and property, and promotes opportunity for
bribery or power abuse above the law, through the power of a law that
contradicts present day reality.
Impact on the Audience
Apart from the people’s loss of opportunity to see a
Shakespearean film that received funding from them, the taxpayers, other deep
repercussions remain:
1. The Deep Impact on Democracy
Instead of banning films that the
censors deem as social toxin or divisive, Thailand should give every side the
opportunity to make films that reflect their individuality and point of view.
If Thailand had the courage to
have faith in its own citizens in this way, the Thai audience would be exposed
to every point of view and taste, which is naturally a positive thing for the
development of true democracy in Thailand. If we keep on banning each other’s
thoughts and feelings, we will never understand each other.
2. To Build Cultural Tolerance and Immunity
Lack of freedom of thought
weakens Thai cinema so that it can’t compete with or fight the influence of the
advertising and public relations industry, which by its nature only coarsens
the heart and mind with materialistic obsessions, leading to the myriad social
problems that we see around us today.
Thai films of quality and freedom
would help to build mental immunity, which would bring a balance between the
material and the spirit in Thai society.
As well, freedom of thought would
create a cultural diversity in Thai cinema, a good thing for both commerce and
the evolution of cultural forbearance, in the readiness to experience opinions
and tastes that differ from what each person is accustomed to; this is the
foundation of democracy.
3. Confront Reality
Present-day reality including
online means no one can block any communication, any longer, anywhere in the
world. In this light it is nonsensical to ban films. Not only is it ineffective
in blocking information, it further enfeebles the country and the culture. It
is a great loss for Thai society that the national intelligentsia [as in “the part of a nation that aspires to think
independently”- Oxford Dictionary] is barred from taking part in the national
conversation.
We’re
forever saying how worried we are that Thai people have grown more stupid every
year. Each time we check, Thai children’s average IQ falls ever lower, so that
it is now below the global mean.
I did not make a Shakespearean
film out of a desire to look cool or because I worship Western culture. It’s not something you’d lightly decide to do
on a lark, merely to shame a politician.
Shakespeare does not belong only
to England but to all the world. His
work is a priceless cultural heritage of man that teaches us how to analyse
others and ourselves. I would like to
know why, for what possible reason, Thai people must be denied this legacy of
mankind, which the rest of the world, people of all nations, have enjoyed for
centuries? How many more times will a
Thai film be made from a Shakespeare play?
This one is the first and could well be the last.
Thai people have always been
receptive to popular Western culture, especially the unbeneficial, the trite
and inane as well as the harmful; junk food and poison of all kinds. Why then
are we not permitted to enjoy the cream of it—that which is an antidote to
poison, cultural vitamins that would fortify the public’s immunity against
weakening influences—the part of their culture that made them a superpower
while we crawl around in the dust? Can you imagine an England where Shakespeare
had never been? Why do we welcome only
their junk culture and keep out their best?
Impact on Ethics and Spirituality
Please
allow me to quote part of a statement I made to the Foreign Correspondents Club
of Thailand on 5 July 2012—this very day, 5 years ago.*( FCCT file )
In modern times, the cinema of a
nation is the child of that culture’s imagination.
All other mass media are at least
legally protected. In theory, TV, radio, newspapers are free. But film is not.
Movies can be banned. The brainchildren of filmmakers can be prejudged as
social poison by seven faceless people in a dark room and summarily executed.
Why are movies so
feared? Our film legislation is supposed
to protect the public from cultural poison, yet its effects have been exactly
the opposite. It harms not just filmmakers like us, but the public. We have an
enormous untapped wealth of stories to tell, but we’re forced by law and by
fear to limit ourselves to shallow themes and treatments. We are not permitted
to examine ourselves: our cultures, our wounds of history, our very soul.
The public is fed a diet of
superficial dramas, horror and action. Imagine not being allowed to use chilies
in Thai cooking because it is deemed too strong for our stomach, and being
force-fed the mental equivalent of kiddie meals all your life. This is the
state of Thai cinema, and therefore the state of the Thai public
imagination. Censorship keeps us bland
and weak, stupid, slow-witted and hypocritical—all the things that Thai people
are traditionally not supposed to be.
By trying to control our
imagination, the Thai state sees all the arts and media through the prism of
propaganda and social engineering. The state believes that you can socially
engineer The People to be Good by showing examples of Goodness and Decency and
suppressing all examples of Evil and Indecency.
This is why the censors think my
version of ‘Macbeth’ is a “disgrace to Thai public morality and the
Patriotic Dignity of the nation,” as well as being violent and divisive. They really
don’t understand that you can learn from a bad example: a man who could have
been great who loses it all through his insatiable greed and ambition. In ‘Macbeth’
and ‘Shakespeare Must Die’, we essentially watch a man examine himself
and then deciding to self-destruct. That’s exactly why I chose to do ‘Macbeth’.
Shakespeare does have the potential to be especially disturbing for Thai
people, precisely because he is the best antidote to propaganda, to the
bombastic mindset. Shakespeare is deeply spiritual, deeply moral, yet totally
non-judgemental, non-moralistic.
Countries that enjoy freedom of
expression in all the arts, including cinema, are able to counterbalance, and
build up social immunity against, the overwhelming onslaught of mindless
commercialism and political manipulation. There’s almost nothing in Thailand to
counterbalance the seductive power of advertising and the spin of corporate and
political PR machines. So most Thai people are not media literate. We’re fed a
constant diet of TV soaps, gameshows and advertising. We don’t stand a chance. To
me, this is the root cause of our current problems. How can we have a peaceful
society with real democracy without media literacy? This is why film is deadly
serious for me.
Cinema is seen as nonsensical,
yet toxic. What of megalomania,
injustice, legal discrimination, oppression and threats? Are these not far worse
social perils? Denial of the truth, denial of self-knowledge, is surely far
more dangerous than any movie, especially the first and only Thai Shakespearean
film that the Ministry of Culture itself funded so that Thai people would have
the chance to experience the work of “the world’s poet”.
That is what art is for: to know ourselves.
That is what true artists are supposed to do; to help us explore ourselves,
especially our darkest, darkest dreams, so we can be horrified by them and know
ourselves. Thailand is lost precisely because it keeps its imagination in
chains. Without a free national cinema,
a country cannot ever be free.
Final issue: Lifting the ban is beneficial for the
nation’s image
The
order to ban and then to uphold the ban on a Thai film made from an immortal
play regularly taught in middle schools all over the world for generations,
made international news causing derisive amazement all over the world. The lifting of this banning order would therefore
have a positive effect on the Thai government’s democratic credibility.
In the
long term, any government with the courage to make history by ending the
banning of film in Thailand would receive warm admiration from all corners of
the world and Thai society. Thailand would have a democratic and friendly image
for investors and tourists. For the government that ends film-banning, the gain
in terms of image and good will is immense, with no loss to the state
whatsoever since the rating system would still be in place.
If any film transgressed any law,
such as Article 112 (Lese Majeste) or slandered anyone, specific criminal and
libel laws exist to deal with any such transgression.
In
three years I’ll be sixty, well aware that any struggle for freedom and dignity
for Thai cinema is unlikely to bear fruit for me personally given the limited
time and strength left to me. But I cherish the hope that our children’s
children, film lovers and filmmakers alike, will have the chance to enjoy a
brighter future, life and career.
Respectfully and Truthfully,
Miss Smanrat Kanjanavanit [Ing K]
Director, Editor and Play Translator
SHAKESPEARE MUST DIE