Ban on ‘divisive’ Shakespeare film upheld

The Administrative Court yesterday rejected a petition by the producer and director of a controversial feature film against a ban imposed by the Film and Video Censorship Committee five years ago.

“Shakespeare Must Die” has been banned from being screened in Thailand on the grounds that the movie's political content might cause divisiveness among people in the country. 

The film, directed by Smanrat “Ing K” Kanjanavanich and produced by Manit Sriwanichpoom, is an adaptation of “Macbeth”, a tragedy by English writer William Shakespeare.  

It is set in parallel stories, depicting both an ambitious general who becomes king through murder, and another world in which the country’s leader believes in superstitious, megalomaniac and murderous dictatorship. He is known only as ‘Dear Leader’ and has a scary, high-society wife.

The Administrative Court ruled that even though the story is fictional, the movie’s content might cause disunity among people. It contains scenes based on a photograph from Bangkok’s 1976 student uprising and violent scenes from red-shirt demonstrations.

Manit said the plaintiffs would appeal the court’s verdict. “I feel like we didn’t get justice,” he said. 

The film was made with the help of the Thai Kem Kaeng (Strong Thailand) fund under the Cultural Ministry's Office of Contemporary Art and Culture during the Abhisit Vejjajiva administration. The ban was imposed during the Yingluck Shinawatra government’s tenure. 

Manit then made a follow-up documentary “Censor Must Die”, in which he and Ing K chronicled their struggle to appeal the ban on “Shakespeare Must Die”. 

Ing K previously co-directed the critically acclaimed documentary “Citizen Juling”, based on the true story of a teacher being beaten to death in southern Thailand. Her earlier controversial film, “My Teacher Eats Biscuits”, was not publicly released in Thailand. 

“Shakespeare Must Die” is the second Thai movie to be banned from commercial release under the Film Act of 2008.  

The first, “Insects in the Backyard” by director Tanwarin Sukkhapisit, was banned in 2010 on the grounds that it infringed good public morals through its many scenes of sexual intercourse and prostitution.  

Tanwarin then sought an Administrative Court order to revoke the ban.  

In 2015, the court ruled that the film’s content did not contradict good morals but that a three-second scene containing “pornographic content” should be banned.  

If the scene in question was cut, the film could be screened with a 20+ audience rating, the court ruled.


From   http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/national/30323561

Freedom on the big screen

Thai filmmakers seek changes in the law that keeps censors in control of what can be shown in theatres

 

 

Censorship has been intertwined with the Thai film industry since moving pictures were invented. The first film bill, introduced in 1930, remained in place until well into this century and was replaced by the Film and Video Act in 2008. While the new law introduced the long-awaited ratings system, it also retained Article 29, which empowers censors to ban films.

In the five years since its enactment, two Thai films - Tanwarin Sukkhapisit's "Insects in the Backyard" and "Shakespeare Must Die" by Manit Sriwanichpoom and Ing Kanjanavanit - have been banned outright. Earlier this year, the censors blocked "Fah Tam Phaendin Soong" ("Boundary") though they did end up passing it with an 18+ rating after its director, Nontawat Numbenchapol, agreed to make small changes.

Filmmakers have, of course, protested the bans and the reasoning behind them. "Insects" was blocked because of explicit sexual scenes and ideas that censors feared might trigger bad behaviour in youths. "Shakespeare", an adaptation of "Macbeth", was blocked on the grounds that it would harm national security by causing division in Thai society. "Boundary", on the other hand, follows a young soldier as he visits his home in the disputed area on the border between Thailand and Cambodia.

Those same filmmakers, led by award-winning director Apichatpong Weerasethakul, got together again last Saturday to discuss the ongoing censorship problems and brainstorm on ways to fix the deadlock in the Film and Video Act.

The discussion started with the screening of the documentary "Censor Must Die" by Manit and Ing K. It relates their struggle with the censorship bureaucracy from the moment their film "Shakespeare Must Die" was submitted for a rating, through its ban and their fight in appealing the decision and suing both the censors and the National Film Board.

Tanwarin is also suing the film board through the Administrative Court.

"I'm waiting for the court verdict. No matter what the verdict will be, I believe it will set a new standard for the people who enforce the law," says Weerasak Kowsurat, the secretary of the Federation of National Film Associations of Thailand, adding that the results are expected next year.

Apichatpong says the problems with "Boundary" reminded him of his experiences with "Sang Sattawat" ("Syndromes and a Century"). Under the regulations of the 1930 Film Act, the censors demanded that six scenes from the 2006 film be cut before it could be shown commercially. The director refused to cut the film and withdrew it from domestic release. He later agreed to a limited showing in Bangkok where the cut scenes were replaced with a black screen to protest and inform the public about the issues of censorship.

Apichatpong's disgust led him to form the Free Thai Cinema movement, though this has not been active in recent years.

"I believe many filmmakers think it's better not to get involved with the members of the censorship board. But this 'it's not our business' attitude simply reflects a lack of interest for the society we are living in," says Apichatpong, who is determined to revive his movement. He is preparing a letter to the Culture Ministry detailing the problems and also intends working towards adjusting or abrogating the Film and Video Act.

However, amending an article that authorises both the censorship and the film boards to cut or ban any film that might go against public order and morality involves a complicated legislation process and none of the filmmakers are experts in this field. Weerasak says that the movement needs to learn more about the process so that they will know how to pitch their demand to the right person at the right time.

The federation's president Visute Poolvoralaks points out that the movement will find it hard to succeed, as they are a small group with no real powers. Resolving the problem, he adds, needs a powerful incident that will serve to rally the public into protesting.

"The government doesn't care what a small group of filmmakers is saying but once it affects the public and people start yelling, they will pay attention," says Visute.

"Personally, I disagree with banning films because we have an adequate rating system. It's not the Film and Video Act itself that causes the problems but the people who enforce the law," he adds.

"Our demands that they revoke the ban doesn't mean that we want complete freedom in making any type of movie. I'm not against banning films that show, for example, child molestation or sex with animals, which is the norm in most countries. But there shouldn't be bans based on political issues like we have here," says Apichatpong.

Another bone of contention is the lack of consistency on the part of the censors and their failure to give clear reasons for their judgements. The board's apparent determination to act as society's guardian enrages filmmakers, who spend time and money to complete their films only to have them banned based on the judgement of seven people.

The board is made up of four representatives from different government sectors, depending on a film's content, and three from the film industry. But how the board is chosen seems to have no basis in qualifications for the job, with members preferring to rely on the same old faces from the 1930 Film Act. Filmmakers Prachya Pinkaew and Nonzee Nimibutr would be ideal candidates, and they sat on the National Film Board in the past.

"They have the law to tell them what we can do legally," Apichatpong notes. "Their duty should thus be limited to recommending the appropriate rating for a particular movie.

"Thailand is still a underdeveloped country and our government is determined to control the nation's idealistic image, which includes political reconciliation. When a filmmaker disagrees with the procedures and tries to echo the real situation through his work, the censor doesn't hesitate to ban it," he says.

"Personally I disagree that we should even be in reconciliation mode. It would be naive to say that we or our movies don't take sides. What's wrong with making anti- or pro-Thaksin movies? Surely we have the right to make films that express our ideas and our opinions."

The Free Thai Cinema movement's letter to the Ministry of Culture will request that the government body evaluates and adjusts the Film Act. It will also ask that Article 29 be revoked and question the Film and Video Censorship standards as well as the transparency in how the censorship jury is chosen.



http://www.nationmultimedia.com/life/Freedom-on-the-big-screen-30207685.html

Maker of banned film determined to fight censorship, 'autocratic culture'

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/

Although it has been banned since April, the co-producer of the film "Shakespeare Must Die", Manit Sriwanithpoom, continues his campaign to overturn the Film Board's decision, which was based on fears that the satirical work would be interpreted as a criticism of Thaksin Shinwatra, inflaming social divisions. Manit talked to The Nation on Sunday's Pravit Rojanaphruk about the road ahead. Excerpts follow.

What do you think is the real reason behind the banning of the film?

I think the [Film Board] members fear that it will affect the image of Thaksin and mock him, but they won't say it. It's like when we're in a state of fear, we tend not to mention the name of the person we are afraid of.

Should a film that risks causing social division be censored? Why or why not?

We must look at the context. Thai society is beyond what any film can or cannot do. The society is already divided. I don't think the film is capable of making it more divided. Mostly, the rift that is happening today stems from politicians.

In the case of the National Reconciliation Bill, it turned the Parliament into a forum for division and this had nothing to do with the movie.

If they think the movie defames Thaksin, then lets prove it in court by filing a libel charge against me. I am ready and willing to fight it in court.

What does the banning of your film tell us about Thai society?

It reflects the fact that Thai society is still fragile on virtually every issue. So when something similar to the real situation is told it causes uneasiness and overreaction.

It could be a journalist who constructively criticises the monarchy institution, who has fallen into a [legal] net.

Overreaction comes from all sides, be it Pheu Thai or the Democrat Party. This reflects the insecurity of power.

What is your next move?

The National Human Rights Commission will release a statement no later than [mid-July]. We consider the use of power without proper reason to constitute a [rights] violation. It took no less than two to three years to produce the film, and one meeting and a piece of paper to ban it. We shall use the statement by the NHRC to petition the Administrative Court [to revoke the ban].

We must be open-minded but we aren't, because we don't have a democratic culture. Today, we only have an autocratic culture. We must open up space for differing opinions, be patient and tolerant. Censorship is a product of the lack of a democratic culture.

[The film] may seem amoral, but only [to those with] a set morality. We must be open to different views and try to understand the reasons why people think differently.

แบนเชคเปียร์ต้องตาย

The Nation






ประเด็นร้อนจากห้องข่าว The Nation - โดนสั่งห้ามฉายไปเมื่อวันที่ 3 เมษายน สำหรับเรื่องเชคเปียร์ต้องตาย ของผู้กำกับ อิ๋ง เค และมานิต เนื่องจากมีเนื้อหาที่ คณะกรรมการพิจารณาภาพยนต์ อาจทำให้เกิดความแตกแยกในประเทศ ซึ่งก่อนหน้านี้ก็มีหนังไทยหลายเรื่องที่โดนสั่งห้ามฉายอาทิเช่นเรื่อง คนกราบหมา และ Insects in the Backyard ซึ่งการแบนภาพยนต์เป็นการปิดกั้นเสรีภาพทางความคิด

ดำเนินรายการโดย วีณา ธูปกระแจะ
วิเคราะห์โดย เกรียงศักดิ์ ศิลากอง