18

CHAPTER 1

A Brief History of Thai Cinema

It was Thailand‘s royalty that first took an interest in cinema. The Thai royalty

has been closely and crucially associated with the Thai nation for a long time and this

link has not been broken even after the emergence of the modern Thai state with post-II

World- War de-colonization. In many independent colonies, the position of monarch

was brought to naught as absolutist monarchy was superseded by a modern mode of

political system, say either democracy or socialism. However in Thailand, although the

1932 revolution3 by a group of Western educated elites has led to the introduction of

democratic process, the monarch has been retained as the sovereign ruler, albeit subject

to the will of the national constitution. Such position of the king is not legitimized

simply by the law but by high reverence the Thai people or the subjects have had for

their kings. This is to say the advent and development of cinema as such has been

closely related to and can be contested within the ideas of sovereignty which include the

king, the state and dominant classes of a particular epoch in a unique manner. The early

period of Thai cinema spanning the absolutist reigns of three kings, King

Chulalongkorn (Rama V, 1868-1910), King Vajiravudh (Rama VI, 1910-1925) and

King Prajadhipok (Rama VII, 1925-1935), is of historical significance because it

3
The 1932 revolution on 24th June, 1932 has transformed Thailand‘s political system from
absolutist monarchy to constitutional democracy. It was led by a group of liberal Western
educated elite, notable ones were Phibun Songkhram, Pridi Banomyong and Prayoon
Pamonmontri, and also some military personnel under the name the ―Pe ople‘s Party‖. The term
―revolution‖ is used only euphemistically as what indeed happened was a coup d‘ état in which
militaristic power was mobilized to topple the monarchy. The revolution is believed by some to
be an advent of democratic ―m ain root‖ in Thailand. Nevertheless, it was criticized as
becoming a ―r otten root‖ as it failed to represent political will of the people, hence eventuated
in a backward kind of democracy rooted in feudalism. In any case, this particular issue remains
interestingly controversial and debatable. See Jermsittiprasert, ―Si amese Revolution: Main
Root/ Rotten Root of Thai Democracy‖, 1 October 2007,
In Romphruk. Date Accessed: 2 November 2013
<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1803359>.
 19

reflects not only national discourses influenced by the idea of traditional royal elitism

but also the unofficially popular discourses espoused by the emerging middle-class as a

result of political change and modernity. As far as the early Thai cinema is concerned,

what should be taken into consideration of a more than century long history of Thai

cinema (117 years in October 2014) is the fact that the industry is shaped and its

direction determined by a combination of sociocultural dynamism and economic and

political forces. Here, Scot Barmé (2002) asks us to observe cinema industry in

conjunction with the growth of newspapers and novels in addition to the change of

political system and the challenges posed to the dominant class of that time. He notes

―
[t]his was not a case of one elite displacing another, however, but a rather more

complex process marked not only by competition, but also a significant degree of

ambiguity, accommodation, and competition‖ (2002: 43).

The brief history of Thai cinema given below, hence, while telling a simple

story in a sort of linear fashion, attempts to capture the interplay of the aforementioned

factors. However, as most scholars doing research in Thai cinema are well-aware, the

paucity of materials is a key limitation for serious study. The most often referenced film

archivist, Dome Sukwong, who is the current director of Thailand‘s National Film

Archive and also a film historian himself casually said in a conference on Thai cinema

(held on 28 September, 2012) that people are often convinced by his writing and quote

him because there are no other sources for them to contest what he is saying. He then

called for more studies on the history of Thai cinema.

 20

Early period of Thai cinema (1897-1923)

It took only about 18 months for the Siamese public to experience

―
cinematography‖ after Europe had witnessed this invention of the Lumière brothers for

the first time on the 28 December, 1895 in Paris. On 10 June 1897, Mr. S.G.

Marchovsky, the Lumière brothers‘ representative presented to paying Siamese

audiences two films at the Prince Alangkarn theatre: one of the undersea and another of

a boxing match, together with a series of magic performances (Barmé 1999, Sukwong

2004). The program attracted approximately 600 patrons, Mr. Marchovsky was also

requested to put on a special screening of his films for a number of royal elites

including the King Chulalongkorn‘s (Rama V) brother, Prince Damrong who had

played an important role in constructing Siamese identity and is also officially known

as ―
the father of Thai history‖. This new form of entertainment was warmly welcomed

in the country and referred to as Nang Farang4 (Western shadow theatre) due to the

indigenous perception of its similarity to traditional puppet shows called Nang Yai and

Nang Talung which also work on the projection of an image on the white screen.

Another significant event happened in the same year was the first film about Siam being

made, it was a shot capturing the procession of King Chulalongkorn‘s arrival in Berne,

Switzerland on 24 May, 1897 as part of his foreign relation policies, implemented under

the threat of the spreading imperial power. These two important events thus mark the

year 1897 as the beginning of the era of cinema in Thailand.

The King‘s younger brother, Prince Sanphasat Suphakit who accompanied him

to Europe was keen on acquiring technological gadgets. He brought with him from

4
The term ―nang‖ is commonly used by Thais to mean film or cinema. During the reign of
King Vajiravudh (Rama VI) the new word, its official counterpart, ―p
apphayon‖, was coined;
however, the word, nang, has remained popular while papphayon is more often used in official
and academic contexts.
 21

Europe cinematographic equipment and later began pioneering film making by making

short-documentary-style films, mainly about public activities of the King and royal

ceremonies. These films were released to public with admission charges. Besides the

opportunity to view courtly indigenous films, Siamese public were also exposed to

foreign films brought to the capital by foreign promoters such as the Japanese, Chinese,

French and American. It was the Japanese enterpreneur, Mr. Watanabe Tomoyori, who

saw the viability of film business and decided to establish the first cinema theatre in

Siam in 1905. Watanabe succeeded in drawing large audiences to his theatre on a

regular basis, making the business prosper as well as encouraging other foreign

promoters to follow suit. Besides film exhibition, Tomoyori and his team also produced

some short documentary-style films such as King Chulalongkorn‘s funeral procession

in 1910, King Vajiravudh‘s coronation ceremony and a boxing match using equipment

brought with him (Barmé 2002: 51). Following the success of the Japanese company,

Bangkok saw the rise of a number of cinema houses established by indigenous

entrepreneurs. However, the operations were done in a smaller scale with film

screenings being arranged in general merchandise stores 5, warehouses, and tents sat up

on open space. In later years, a small number of cinema houses made from wood and

corrugated iron were built. Notwithstanding an increasing competition from both

foreign and local entrepreneurs, the Japanese film house remained a leading force in the

capital until 1910 (Barmé 1999). Its connection to the palace was established once it

was endowed by the King with the name ―

Royal Japanese Cinematograph‖. This helped

secure its dominant position since the term ―

royal‖ connotes high standard operation

and connection with the monarchy. Although it implies the film company‘s subjection

to the King‘s business influence on a reverse side (Sungsri 2004: 106), the official link

5
According to Barmé, this is a similar phenomenon to the nickelodeon in the United States. See
Barmé, ―
Woman, Man, Bangkok: Love, Sex, and Popular Culture in Thailand‖ (2002: 45).
 22

to the palace meant that the cinema earned itself a tag of social value, making it more

preferable to the palace elite than the popular commercial entertainment already

popular in Siam such as likay (Thai folk theatre) and ngiw (Chinese folk theatre). The

appreciation for this new form of entertainment unfortunately engendered a new

perception that the existing cultural forms were ―

too immediate, too recognizable and

most importantly, too identifiable with the lower orders‖ (Barmé 1999: 312). By

contrast, the cinema was perceived as a signifier of the civilized world, the allure of

modernity.

As Siamese people were adopting cinema going as a new lifestyle, cinemas

themselves were also evolving technologically. The French-made films, in particular

were the champion of technological advance as they replaced the simple-unedited short-

reel films lasting about a minute with longer, edited films lasting up to ten minutes per

reel. Instead of showing every activities or social events like short films, these films

included news, exotic travelling destinations, and also scenes from theatrical

performances. Later on longer films consisting of several reels were shown. Each night

at the cinema, films were shown one reel at a time. When it was finished, the light

would be switched on for the projectionist to change the reel. The intermission like this

allowed audiences to buy drinks, snacks and other items such as cigarettes, betel, and

ready- to- chew sugarcane. When the next film was ready, the projectionist would ring

the bell to signal lights off and proceed with the next reel. The process would be

repeated until the end of the program (Sukwong 2001: 7). Other ways of enhancing the

aesthetic experience of viewing silent films were also established including the

provision of music band by each cinema to offer musical background to the film and

also the distribution of leaflets (inserted in newspaper or handing out in public places)

about film details printed in English, Thai and Chinese as an aid to understanding a
 23

film. Later in 1918 the leaflets were extended to be the film booklet providing details of

a film plot‘s and dialogue in Thai. According to Barmé (2002), these booklets were

translated from Western language materials, hence paving the way to a creation of

translation taken up as a career by middle-class educated men and women.6

By the year 1918-1919 under the reign of King Vajiravudh7 (Rama VI) there

arose a fierce competition among cinema houses in Bangkok as the first one belonging

to the Japanese entrepreneur went into decline. The two new companies set up by Sino-

Thai entrepreneurs began to grow in stature: the Krungthep Rupphayon Company and

the Phayon Phattanakorn Company. Both had numerous cinema houses throughout

Bangkok and provincial capitals. However, later in 1919 the two companies merged to

become a single company under the name ―

the Siam Film Company‖, led by a well-

educated, middle-class businessman, Siaw Songuan Sibunruang who later became the

most important figure in the early history of Thai cinema and was also instrumental in

producing the very first Thai film titled ―

Chok Sorng Chan‖ (Double Luck) which was

6
As a result of modern secular education, translations of Western language materials which
had long been largely confined to royal elite and aristocratic class began to open up to educated
ordinary citizens. The emergence of new translators, however, did not take place without
criticism by the members of the Siamese elite who felt that those booklets were poorly written
while the translation was not done properly. It was even disparaged to be ―a n eighth grade art
form‖. See Barmé, ―W oman, Man, Bangkok: Love, Sex, and Popular Culture in Thailand‖
(2002: 49).
7
King Vajiravudh was a monarch who officially propagated Thai nationalism. Drawing on
concepts founded in the ancient religious text, Trai Bhumi, he translated the British Trinity of
Empire: God, King and Country to be a Siamese version of Chat, Sasana, Phra Maha Kasat or
nation, religion (Buddhism) and monarchy, which are the three pillars regarded highly by
nationalists. See Sivaraksa, ―The Crisis of Siamese Identity‖ (1991: 44) in National Identity and
Its Defenders (1991). With regard to cinema business in Siam, the King perceived a surge of
Chinese nationalist sentiment among Chinese businessmen living in Siam who had lost their
legal protection rights previously given to them by the French and British Government. Fear of
loss of property and privilege had caused a surge of nationalism, which was heightened after a
visit of Sun Yat Sen, the Kuomintang party leader who asked the Chinese in Siam to reflect on
the exploitative nature of the Siamese government. As such, the King was advised to
consolidate the Thai middle- class so as to mitigate the threat of the Chinese economic power. It
is a commonly known fact that the King himself regarded the Chinese as ― Jews of the East‖.
 24

released on 30 July, 1927 (Sukwong 2001). Due to his extensive network of business

contacts, Siaw Songuan managed to secure agency rights from a number of Western

film companies in both Europe and the United States. He was also able to woo Srikrung

publishing company, the publisher of Srikrung newspaper to provide public relations

services for his cinema business. By 1923, the Siam Film Company was operating ten

theatres in Bangkok, reportedly drawing approximately 30,000 audiences a week

(Barmé 1999: 313). It has to be noted here that King Vajiravudh, who was a great

enthusiast of art and literature especially theatre plays was a key supporter in

establishing a film company, Siam Niramai, in 1922. This monarch backed company

was to compete with the flourishing Chinese- run film companies, which included in

particular the formidable business of Siaw Songuan Sibunruang. At the first stage,

Siam Niramai collaborated with the Wasuwat brothers; however, it commercially failed

and brought the business to an end within two years (Sukwong 2004), leaving Siam

Film Company free of competitors. Nevertheless, the sudden death of Siaw Songuan in

early 1928 led the company to gradually fade away from business due to the lack of

leadership, capital, and clear future plan (Barmé 2002: 58). Despite the rise and fall of

film companies and their competitions, the film business gradually became entrenched

and popular. This phenomenon instigated changes in social custom, as city dwellers

acquired the cinema going habit, following the modern global trend at that time.

First Thai Feature Film, Studio System and Film Dubbing (1923- 1932)

It was not until 1923 when the first feature length Thai film, Nangsao Suwan

(Miss Suwanna of Siam) was made by Henry A. MacRae, a Hollywood film maker

under the permission of King Vajiravudh (Rama VI). The production was co-produced

by the State Railway Topical Film Service of the Royal Siamese Railway Department,
 25

an organization which later played a key role in the development of early Thai film

industry. This indicates that films produced in the early period were not only being

financed by the state but also reflected some of the state‘s interests. Nangsao Suwan

was advertised in English as A Siamese Elopement. It was a film with an ―

unmistakably

Thai theme‖ (Barmé 2002: 52) using all Thai cast and was aimed at showcasing

beautiful locations of Siam to the outside world. The film‘s plot was briefly narrated by

Bangkok Times as follows:

[it shows] the elopement of the loving couple in a gharry, the pursuit
of the infuriated father along local streets, and a final chase by water
which ends in the capsizing of the father, his rescue by the gallant
young man and the reconciliation (2002: 52).

Given its ―
unmistakably Thai theme‖ (52), the film, as Barmé has observed,

gave a cue to a new social landscape in which romantic love triumphs over familial

obligation. Despite the embrace of romance, however, the idea of independent love and

especially socially independent men and women was yet to emerge and would only

appear much later in the years after absolutism (1932 onwards). According to the story

in the film, Nangsao Suwan, the hero, Kla Han, meets and falls in love with the heroine,

Suwan, after he has rescued her from drowning in the river after a boat accident.

Enamored with the young beauty, Kla Han begins to be infatuated and gradually

develops a good rapport with Suwan. However, Suwan‘s father is against the

relationship of the couple due to Kla Han‘s lower-class origin. By the end of the story

when it is revealed that Kla Han is actually from a respected Northern lineage, he is

allowed to take up Suwan as his lover. Such method of resolving class differences

between the lovers found to be a common element prevalent in popular cultural works

at that time. Here, Barmé (2002: 198) points out that given certain notions of modernity
 26

being articulated, traditional norms and practices representing elitist‘s world view

remained hegemonic and unchallenged.

Two interesting bits of trivia about the film are that the leading actress, Sa-

ngiam Navisatien, a royal court dancer, who acted as Miss Suwanna did not allow the

actor to touch any parts of her body but only her hands. If the actor happened to

approach her too closely, she would use a stick ready at hand to direct him away from

her body. Another interesting detail was that there was a scene in which the hero is

about to get capital punishment but is in timely manner saved by the heroine. This scene

was later removed by a censor board exclusively set up by the King to screen the film.

The execution scene was cut out of a concern that it would depict Siam as an

uncivilized land and before the exhibition of the film in the United States; Siamese

government successfully lobbied the State Department to have the screening blocked

(57). This action was considered a primary step into official film censorship that began

in 1930 under the reign of King Prajadhipok (Rama VII). The 1930 Cinema Act8 was

operative until 2008 when it was replaced by a new Act, which was unfortunately

believed by many to contain problematic and undemocratic elements. At the same time,

in response to the new Film Act of 2008, the responsibility of rating and censoring films

has been transferred from the Department of Police to the Ministry of Culture. Two

movies9 have been scandalously banned since the Act was implemented.

8
The Cinema Act of 1930 was officially implemented in 1931 but is often referred to as The
Cinema Act of 1930 according to the year marking its promulgation. The Act constituted the
Siamese board of censors that mostly included people drawn from the aristocratic circle, the
civil service and the police. The Act had been active since 1931 until June, 2008 when it was
replaced by a new act referred to as the Film and Video Act 2008.
9
The 2 banned movies included Tanwarin Sukhapisit‘s Insects in the Backyard (2010) and
Samanrat Karnchanawanit‘s (or better known as Ing K) Shakespeare Must Die (2012). While
the first was criticized for containing excessive obscenity, the second was considered to be too
political and likely to lead to national disunity.
 27

The birth of Thai film making

In 1926, at the beginning of the reign of King Prajadhipok10 (Rama VII), Siam

was confronted with economic recession as repercussions of the global economic crisis

(Great Depression). When coupled with a high level of state spending and debt

inherited from the previous government, King Prajadhipok had to take up stringent

economic policies comprising the cancellation of some official units and departments

deemed minor and redundant. As a consequence, this had negatively affected the

positions of many existing officials. Thousands were laid off and forced to look for

other employment opportunities in the private sector. Luang11Saranupraphan (aka Khaw

Prachinpayak) and Luang Sunthorn Assawaraj (aka Jamras Sarawisutra) were among

those unfortunate officials affected by this retrenchment. Fortunately due to their

previous experience, they had found new occupations in the field relevant to their

former official positions. While Luang Saranupraphan landed in publishing business,

Luang Sunthorn Assawaraj tried his hand at the film business by starting a film

company called the Siamese Film Company. Only later they were to join together as

10
King Prajadhipok was the last monarch of Siam‘s absolutist era before the revolution by the
Western educated middle-class- led People’s Party on 24 June 1932. As far as early cinema is
concerned, his reign is particularly significant as it gave rise to the cinema industry which
brought about the emergence of the first locally produced motion picture, the formation of film
companies and the implementation of the 1930 Cinema Act. And as the King himself was a
great film fan and serious film making aspirant who made a number of documentaries and a few
narrative films, his policies were supportive to the industry as a whole and for one thing,
leading to the founding of ―A mateur Association of Siam‖ and construction of a modern cinema
theatre Sala Chalern Krung Cinema in 1932. He was also instrumental in setting up a film
company under the name ―SahaSinema‖(United Cinematograph) which eventually took over
Siaw Songuan‘s company and put an end to the enduring Chinese influence in the film business.
However, the operation of the company came under the government control after the end of
monarchy in 1932. See Sukwong, ―K ing Prajadhipok and Cinema‖ (1996) and Barmé,
―W oman, Man, Bangkok: Love, Sex, and Popular Culture in Thailand‖ (2002: 47).
11
Luang is the title conferred by the King. It reflects an official position of a male civil servant.
The name that comes after Luang is also given by the King to mark a royal prestige. The two
other royal titles mentioned in this paper include Phraya as in Phraya Manopakorn Nithithada
which is the highest position and Khun as in Khun Wichit Matra which is inferior to Luang.
 28

business partners to produce the first film in Siamese history. Luang Saranupraphan, as

a publisher and writer of a weekly magazine, Saranukul, mentioned that the soon-to- be

made film would be based on his two popular sci-fi novels published in the magazine.

Later in January 29, 1926, he posted up an advertisement calling for casting of the film

characters. It was written that the Siamese Film Company was seeking actors/ actresses

for the movie, and that interested applicants were encouraged to apply for casting in

person at the company.

However, it was revealed that the casting advertisement12 on Saranukul was

actually a marketing strategy to increase the sale of the magazine. Rumor had it that

actors and actresses were already selected and there were no outsiders but peers of

Luang Sunthorn Assawaraj and Luang Saranupraphan who just like themselves, were

laid off by the retrenchment policy (Sukwong 1996). About a year later (1927), an

official letter containing a name list of the actors, all of whom were ex-officials, was

proposed to the King for his approval.13 In his reply, the King cast doubt on the long-

term prospect of the company and requested that the actors avoid using their royal titles

and names by using original names or pseudonyms instead.

While the public were enthusiastically anticipating the first film of the history by

the Siamese Film Company, there emerged another film company by the name Bangkok

Film Company and advertising for film casting in The Moving Picture News on 23

May, 1927. The Bangkok Film Company was a collaboration between Siaw Songuan

12
According to Luang Sunthorn Assawaraj, the advertisement for casting had drawn over 800
applicants to the film audition. See Sukwong, ―T
he Birth of Thai Cinema‖ (1996: 21).
13
Asking for permission was done out of a concern that, as being former officials, taking up
acting may cause offence to the King. See Sukwong, ―TheBirth of Thai Cinema‖ (1996: 15)
and ―King Prajadhipok and Cinema‖ (1996: 138).
 29

Sibunruang, manager of the Siam Film Company and the Wasuwat brothers14, the

owners of Srikrung printing house which then published a monthly magazine Srikrung

and a popular daily newspaper Sayam Rath (Siamese People), later changed the name

to be Srikrung Daily. The Wasuwat brothers were as much significant as Siaw

Saunguan in the development of Thai film history. While the latter played a pivotal role

in its economic aspect, that is film exhibition, the former were an anchor in its aesthetic

aspect, that is film production. Luang Konkan Chenchit (aka Pao Wasuwat) was a

photographer of the State Railway Topical Film Service Unit at that time and was later

promoted to be a head. One of his brothers, Kasian Wasuwat, was a sound technician

who was to be employed in the same department. They were exposed to professional

film production through assisting Henry A. MacRae‘s filming of Nangsao Suwan in

1923 and gained further valuable experience when working with members of Fox

Movietone News who had come to Siam at the end of 1929 to make sound

documentaries (Barmé 2002: 54).

After the casting was done, within less than two months the Bangkok Film

Company announced that their film titled Chok Sorng Chan (Double Luck 1927, dir.

Pleng Sukhaviriya) was ready for public première. Finally and surprisingly, Chok Sorng

Chan, a six reel-film, made history as the first silent Thai film to be made and released

to public on 30 July, 1927 at Pattanakorn cinema. It was well-received by both the

public and the media, drawing as many as 12,130 viewers during its four nights and a

day screening at Pattanakorn cinema alone. The Moving Picture News advertised that

the casting was outstanding, especially the role of the hero, the heroine and the villain

14
Wasuwat brothers are the important pioneering film makers in the cinema history of
Thailand. They were running a printing house, Sri Krung, before trying a hand in cinema
business and establishing the first sound studio in the country, Srikrung Sound Films, to
produce sound films and remained a leading force in cinema business until the onset of world
war II. There are four brothers including: Pao Wasuwat, Krasien Wasuwat, Krasae Wasuwat
and Manit Wasuwat.
 30

whose performances were very brilliant as if they had performed in films before. It was

also noted that the audiences would be excited to see ‗Thai-style kissing‘ in the film. In

addition, the Bangkok Times heightened the film‘s publicity by stating that after the

film was screened to the King (a special screening before its public release), he had

expressed his satisfaction. Later, this kind of royal screening of every locally produced

film before general exhibition had become a tradition. This implies that it was the King

who was initially, before the censorship law was officially implemented in 1931,

entitled to censor any film shown in the country (Sukwong 2001: 34). Here, as Barmé

(2002: 59) has observed, royal interest and involvement in the cinema and film making

business had shaped a particular landscape of modern Thai cinema. The initiation of

censorship law is one thing and another thing is the foregrounding of the monarch at the

centre of public imagination through newsreel-style pieces about his activities for

public release.15

While the buzz about the first motion picture in the Siamese history was

ongoing, only silence was heard from the Siamese Film Company. It was not until 17

September of the same year that the Siamese Film Company was able to release the

second film in Thai history, Mai Kid Loei (Unexpected 1927, dir. Khun Patipak

Pimlikhit). Luang Sunthorn Assawaraj, the project initiator, had implicitly accepted his

defeat. Nevertheless, both Chok Sorng Chan and Mai Kid Loei had opened the new

horizon for Thai film industry and also enticed great public interest in the film. After

15
This was later, however, superseded by newsreels about activities of post-absolutism leaders.
See some examples of these newsreels on Manas Kingchan‘s account on facebook.
―Chumthang nang Thai nai adit by Manas Kingchan‖, in Avenue of Thai Films in the Past by
Manas Kingchan. Date Accessed: 15 January 2013
<http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=277563205612717>. Three pieces of newsreels
(1952) as shown on this link included first, news about prime minister Phibun Songkram‘s wife
donating a Buddha statue to a labor union on her birthday, second, Phibun Songkram
inaugurating Phra Prathom Chedi (the largest pagoda in the country)‘s fair and last, a football
match between Thailand and India.
 31

its two day release in cinema, a column, written by Sor Senee, dedicated to cinema in

Siam appeared in Lak Thai newspaper which expressed the columnist‘s excitement and

concerns about the film. One concern was that whether the subject matter the film

presented would be appropriate and would it affect the country‘s image. Here, the

writer mentioned his Chinese friend who told him that Chinese films had to be screened

by the government before public exhibition. A lighthearted question ―

Will we Thais

have to kiss like Westerners at the ending of the film?‖ (Sukwong 1996: 40) was also

mentioned. The columnist, Sor Senee, did not make any noticeably negative comment

on the film; however, his concerns reflected a sense of anxiety about the country‘s

image and how Siamese would be viewed through the eyes of the others. This kind of

anxiety was shared by many educated middle- class Siamese at that time. This perhaps

was a consequence of imperial threat on the one hand and the exposure to occidental

culture on the other.16 After the success of the first two films, there were a number of

films to follow. Getting involved in cinema seemed to be a new aspiration of many

young Siamese leading another journalist to write ―

at the present time most people are

talking about the cinema. In fact, it seems as though every young man and woman is

living and breathing the idea of being in the movie‖ (Barmé 2002: 56). According to

Sukwong (1996), a total number of 17 silent films have been recorded.17

16
One journalist, Mae Sam-ang, interviewed Laung Sunthorn Assawaraj about his first
produced film Mai Kid Loei and commented that he was worried about the sent in photos of
applicants for the film casting because most of them were striking a pose just like cowboys
stepping out of Western movies. ― They were emulating a cowboy from different movies, one
carrying a gun and pretending to shoot, one leaning against a horse sculpture and another
pretending to throw a lasso. He seriously asked Laung Sunthorn Assawaraj not to let those
photos slip out and be seen by Westerner in any case otherwise Siam would be regarded as a
barbaric country. See Sukwong, ―T he Birth of Thai Cinema‖ (1996: 22).
17
17 silent films have been recorded to be produced in Siam between 1927 to 1932. See
Sukwong, ―K ing Prajadhipok and Cinema‖ (1996: 149, 152, 155, 157).

1. Chok Sorng Chan (Double Luck 1927) produced by Bangkok Film Company
 32

Given a promising start of the local film industry, the early film production was

confined to only a few film companies run by the elite who were well-connected with

both the royal circle and the government. These elite- run companies were also to

become a dominant force in the sound film era. The Wasuwat brothers in particular set

up the first sound film studio, under the name Srikrung Sound Film, in which the first

Long Thang‖ (Going Astray, dir. Khun Wichit Matra18), was

talkie, musical titled ―

made. The film had 12 reels telling about a young, married, college-educated farmer

who is lured by the city glamour, leaving his wife and young child hopelessly waiting

for his return. He is finally disillusioned and returns to his village and his family. What

is interesting about the film is, in addition to its being a musical with six songs

composed by the film director, Khun Wichit Matra, the film story exposed what would

become the nation‘s enduring social problem, prostitution. It also highlighted the

dichotomy of country and city, in which the former was depicted as innocent and

2. Mai Kid Loei (Unexpected 1927) produced by Siamese Film Company

3. Khrai Dee Khrai Dai (None but the Brave 1927) produced by Bangkok Film Company
4. Chuea Mai Thing Thaew (The Linkage 1927) produced by Sri Siam Film Company
5. Khrai Pen Ba? (Who‘s Crazy? 1928) produced by Bangkok Film Company
6. Loed Khaen (Blood of Revenge 1928) produced by Two Comrades Film Company
7. Chana Phan (Defeat of the Hooligans 1928) produced by Siamese Film Company
8. Gularb Khao (White Rose 1928) produced by Siam Film Company
9. Saneha Ta Mued (Fatal Attraction 1928) produced by Pathiphak Film Company
10. Kram Sanong Kram (Karma Breeds Karma 1928) produced by Asia Tick Production
11. Saeng Maha Phinat (Super-destructive Light 1929) produced by Hassadin Film
Company
12. Noom Hua Nork (A Westernized Chap 1929) produced by Nad Yuangpanij
13. Man Sorn (Double Engagements 1930) produced by Sri Supan Film Company
14. Rob Rawang Rak (In Love and War 1931) produced by Hassadin Film Company
15. Mud Phorkha (Punch of a Salesman 1931) produced by Karnchana Narumit Company
16. Thao Kokkhak (Prince Kokkhak 1932) produced by Srisuphan Film Company
17. Bo Ploy Maruetayu (The Mortal Mine 1932) produced by Thai Western Film Company
18
Khun Wichit Matra (aka Sa-nga Karnchanapan) is the most important film director and
lyricist of the pioneering era. He directed 11 sound films and composed a large number of songs
for those films. See Karnchanapan, ― Lak Nang Thai‖ (Principles of Thai Cinema 2012). More
significantly, he was the person who set the Thai sakhon features for both music and film, trend
in movie making which has become the basis for quality judgment of Thai feature films. See
Ingawanij, ―Hy perbolic Heritage: Bourgeois Spectatorship in Contemporary Thai Cinema‖
(2006).
 33

wholesome while the latter as ―

a den of inequity, a sensuous realm of decadence and

immorality‖ (Barmé 2002: 213). There was a scene showing a couple kissing in the

bar— the first kiss on screen in Thai cinema history19 (213). It was premiered to the

public on the 1st April, 1932 as a part of organized festivities to celebrate the 150th

anniversary of Phra Nakorn.20 In the same year the Chakri Dynasty which had ruled

Siam for more than 200 years was brought to an end by the revolution of the People‘s

Party. Siam since then had adopted democracy in the form of constitutional monarchy.

In addition to being a popular form of entertainment, during the political turn in

1932 and thereafter we see cinema being used for political ends. On the day of the coup

on 24th June, Srikrung Sound Film was asked to film the footage of the event using 35

mm. The 3,000 feet film, which was referred to as the film of Wan Plik Fa Kwam

Phandin (The Day When the Earth and Sky was Turned Upside Down) was supposed

to be screened for the public after editing and subtitles being inserted, however, the

screening plan was aborted by the first appointed prime minister, Phraya Manopakorn

Nithithada, of the new government in order to appease a sense of royal defeat and for

the reason that it may be seen as a blatantly derisive act toward the king and royal

family (Sukwong 1999: 184). However, according to another account (Chatkul Na

Ayuttaya, 2012), the film was shown widely to general public before it was banned by

the conservative prime minister who was distancing his position from the People‘s

Party. Khun Wichit Matra, a much sought after film director who was then working

with Srikrung Sound Film, revealed that two American film companies had sent

19
The film Going Astray was also notorious for the controversy it generated over the film‘s
sexually suggestive scenes. It was legally charged, leading to a court case which finally decided
in Srikrung‘s favor. See Barmé, ―W oman, Man, Bangkok: Love, Sex, and Popular Culture in
Thailand‖ (2002: 58).
20
Phra Nakhorn is a previous name of central Bangkok before its expansion and modern
urbanization.
 34

telegraphs asking them to film the Siamese coup, quoting special rate would be paid.

Three months later after the coup film had been delivered to both companies; another

telegraph was received and stated that they wished to return the film as it contained no

scenes of violence, firing and bloodshed. Another political film to mention is the one

showing king Prajadhipok granting a constitution to his populace which took place on

10th December, 1932. The event was again filmed by Srikrung Sound Film and it was

reported that ―
the king appeared to be in a lively mood and showed his interest in the

ceremonial proceeding. He was enquiring about each and every detail…‖ (Khun Wichit

Matra 2012: 109). This led Khun Wichit Matra to speculate that ―
this reflected his

willingness to confer the constitution so that the nation will be ruled according to

democratic system‖ (109).

Propaganda and nationalism (1935-1943)

What is significant about the emergence of sound films in Thailand is that it

elevated the overall film production to another level, paving way to technological

developments while opening itself up for a new class of spectators who preferred to

view silent films dubbed in Thai. Despite the popularity of the talkie, particularly at the

first phase of its introduction, the use of foreign dialogues in the talkie was its major

drawback for monolingual audiences who knew only Thai. For this reason, silent films,

with a large number in stock, managed to hold on to a small section of their fans, which

started to increase when a live dubbing technique was introduced.21 Worth mentioning

is that the dubbing technique allowed the dubber, invariably a man, to improvise the

dialogues as well as to insert any relevant social or political details to the audience

21
This was simply performed by a person referred to as ―NakPhak‖ who spoke the film
dialogues simultaneously in Thai through a microphone while the film was showing.
 35

groups. This act was nothing new but the invocation of the already popular traditional

theatre known as likay, which made it possible for the performer and the audience to

interact immediately. The most prominent dubber at that time was Tit Khiaw,

pseudonym of Sin Sibunruang. His amazing ability was to dub not only male and

female voices but also young and old voices including singing and making other sound

effects (Sukwong 2001, Aree 2004). The revival of silent films as a result of dubbing as

such had paved way to dubbing occupation and also enticed many petty entrepreneurs

into film business. As the dubbed silent film saved cost and neither required

sophisticated equipment nor film plot but simple one based on folklores, popular

literature or novels, they were easily well-liked by country audiences. Noteworthy was

that this phenomenon expanded the Siamese cinema world which used to belong to a

narrow circle of a few elites, not only in terms of film production but film audience as

well. In short, the development of Thai film from 1932 until the onset of World War II

in 1940 was along two trajectories: dubbed films and talkies. While the former

gradually gained popularity especially among plebian viewers in provincial areas, the

talkies continued to attract urban educated middle- class audiences and in the process

gradually developed their film aesthetics.

The co-occurrence of silent and sound films was maintained until the pre-war

period (roughly falling in 1941) when the government got involved in sound film

production in an attempt to propagate their official ideology. Worth noting is that the

Wasuwat brothers and their Srikrung Sound Film company still remained the champion

on the sound film front. They had good relations with the People‘s Party which

entrusted them to film the events involved in the coup as earlier mentioned. Later on,

they were to work for the Advertising Department where the government related films

were produced; meanwhile the State Railway Topical Film Service of the Royal
 36

Siamese Railway Department operating under the previous kings of the absolute

monarchy era was finally abolished. After the success of the first talkie, Long Thang,

Srikrung Sound Film continued to make many other successful talkies. The most

outstanding one was co-produced with the government, Leuad Thaharn Thai (The

Blood of Thai Military 1935), directed by Khun Wichit Matra, the same director of

Long Thang. The making of this film was under the initiative of Field Marshal P.

Phibun Songkhram22, a former active member of the People‘s Party, who was then the

defense minister. Even though the film was based on a love-triangle plot involving a

navy‘s man, an army‘s man and a soldier‘s daughter, it consciously presented to the

world ―
the modern might of the nation‘s military‖ (Ingawanij 2006: 64) by staging

scenes of spectacular action to showcase different kinds of weapons and army

apparatuses of the Thai military. As the war atmosphere loomed, a number of films with

patriotic themes supportive of the statist policies began to appear ―Leuad Thaharn

Thai (The Blood of Thai Military 1935), Khai Bang Rajan (Barrack of Bang Rajan

1939) and Ban Rai Na Rao (Our Farmland 1942), for instance. These films sought to

represent native Thai people as modern yet heroic and patriotic.23 According to Adadol

Ingawanij (2006: 65), Phibun Songkhram‘s propaganda films portrayed the nation as a

troupe of war-like people who relentlessly, yet vulnerably defied fate in a land devoid

of moral-patriotic leader figure. This is to suggest that unlike films of the previous

22
Field Marshal P. Phibun Songkhram was an influential figure in the People’s Party which
successfully staged the Siamese revolution in June 1932 and brought the absolutist monarchy to
an end. He later became the 3rd Prime Minister of Thailand, ruling the country between 1938
and 1944. He was notorious for his hyper -nationalistic approach to the implementation of
nation- building policies and the alliance with Japan during WWII. He changed the name of the
country from Siam to Thailand in 1939 as a part of the Cultural Mandate aimed at uniting and
naturalizing people of Thai nationalities, the same way Hitler was doing to homogenize German
nationalities.
23
It was said that this is to emulate the French proletariats who had won the war over their
feudal landlords.
 37

period, in which visual and narrative enchantment of the royal aura was dominantly

displayed, fiercely nationalistic subjects in the land devoid of moral-patriotic leader

figure was depicted in Phibun Songkhram‘s propaganda films. The short newsreels

about the monarch‘s activities that used to be shown before the screening of each film

were replaced by films of post-absolutist leaders.24

Phibun Songkhram‘s overt political orientation found its ideological opposition

in the man whose concern for the nation was reflected by the first and only film he

made. Phra Chao Chang Pheuak (King of the White Elephant 1941) is an English

language film produced by Pridi Banomyong. The film was based on a short historical

novel of the same name he wrote when serving as a finance minister whose political

stances were in opposition to Phibun Songkhram. It was a counterpropaganda film

attempting to present to the world not only another reflection of Thailand as a land of

peace and non-violence but also the portrayal of the enlightened monarch who is

committed to upholding those universal values. Quite interesting politically is also the

fact that while being caught on a political impasse regarding Phibun Songkhram‘s

irredentist ambition which led the nation to war against France in 1940-1941 in hope to

regain the lost territories in Laos and Cambodia, and alliance with Japan in World War

II as a consequence, Pridi deliberately rallied against the premier by making the film

conveying a different political message. Surprisingly, Barmé (2009: 245) commented

that Pridi was aiming to win the Nobel Peace Prize. As the war in Europe was sending a

current of shock wave to Asia, Pridi may have envisioned that ―

his filmic contribution

could secure him the prestigious award and thereby enhance his political standing‖

(245). Given the theme of peace the film suggests, the significance of another issue

24
For example, see Manas Kingchan‘s account on facebook, ― Chumthang nang Thai nai adit by
Manas Kingchan‖, in Avenue of Thai Films in the Past by Manas Kingchan. Date Accessed: 18
November 2012 <http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=277563205612717>.
 38

worth mentioning is its concern in polygamy. The peace- loving king, according the

movie, not only decided to go for a ―

just war‖ but also for one wife of his own choice.

With the English- speaking audience in mind, Pridi was seen as advocating to influence

Western perceptions about the type of sexual morality practiced in contemporary

Thailand (245). It can be said that instead of going for Thai uniqueness, Pridi opted for

universal values. ―
Pridi sought to project an image of Siam to the wider world as a

progressive, high-minded, peace –loving nation‖25 (246), writes Barmé.

The Srikrung Sound Film Company was by no means void of competitor when

there appeared another film company comprising mostly foreign educated elites under

the name Thai Film Company, founded in 1937. This company followed Srikrung‘s

example by building talkie studio for making talkies. However, they barely managed to

produce three films including Than Fi Kao (Old Flame 1938), Mae Sue Sao (Fatale

Matchmaker 1938) and Wan Pen (Full Moon 1939). Thereafter a revenue loss condition

had forced the company to its closure and the studio was sold to the government. Soon

after, such an ill fate was destined to happen to the influential Sri Krung Sound Film

Company. On 8 December, 1941, Japanese landed on Thai territory as a result of a

treaty signed up with Japan, declaring war on the Allies. Trade with the Allies came to a

halt leading to shortage of both film equipment and foreign films of which Hollywood

was the major film supplier. Cinemas had to recycle the films they had possessed to

keep them in business. With the help of the government, live music and dancing were

included into the cinema to alternate with film screening. Stage drama which was

popular during the silent film era was revived. Despite any possible effort attempted to

make cinema survive, it was in vain as by 1943-1944 Bangkok had become the target of

25
Such ideological notion is very interesting, as far as I am concerned, because it has not only
made Pridi a political icon to many academicians of liberal leftist camp but it has also conflicted
the middle-class national sensitivities in that rather than universality, cultural uniqueness must
be upheld and be seen as national pride.
 39

increasing allied air raids causing a huge damage to cinema halls and electricity

supplies. Just during the war in 1942, the major flood occurred in Bangkok seriously

damaging Srikrung sound film studio causing them to leave the business until the end of

the war (Sukwong and Suwannapak 2001: 11).

16 mm Feature era (1945-1972)

The Second World War brought about the shortage of 35 mm. film stock. Film

making was abruptly halted and this situation continued until the war was over

(Chaiworaporn 2006: 11). Between 1947 and 1972, 16 mm. films became a standard

format used by both existing filmmakers and new ones. In response to an increasing

number of cinema halls around the country, more and more 16 mm. films were being

made and brought to screen throughout the country by the method referred to as Nang-

Rae or itinerant cinema. The improved infrastructure and transportation as a result of

the first National Economic and Social Development Plan, financially aided by the

U.S., allowed films to reach more audiences, especially those in remote areas. Worth

noting here is the fact that the supportive socio-economic setting of the post- war period

allowed for the expansion of film viewership as well as in the number of film makers.

Among the latter, many were first- timers to film making, who just wanted to try their

fortune in a new, seemingly viable business. This resulted in a great quantity of films,

mostly melodramas based on already popular novels or radio soaps, with a polarized

kind of black and white characters.

The emergence of Mitr Chaibancha as a hero of the film Chart Suea (Tiger

Blood) in 1958 had added to the already bustling and booming trend of the film

industry. His being paired up with Petchara Chowarat in the film Banthuk Rak
 40

Pimchawee (Pimchawee‘s Love Diary 1962, dir. Siri Sirichinda) led to the invention of

the star pair system. Meanwhile, as a solo actor, he became the most sought- after and

the most anticipated hero for the film viewers. Indeed, he is considered a legendary

figure in the history of Thai cinema. After Chart Suea, Mitr went on to appear in more

than 265 roles in less than 15 years (Meiresonne 2006: 30). His premature death while

performing a stunt in 1970 triggered the decline in popularity of 16 mm. films. Another

factor contributing to the weakening trend of the 16 mm. was that it lacked government

support. This had led a group of film producers to propagate for official recognition of

film business as an industry by the state. However, the government of Field Marshal

Thanom Kittikachorn, who saw film productions as of low quality and of poor standard,

did not consent to the proposal (Arunrojsuriya 1997: 124 cited in Sungsri 2004: 135).

However, due to the relentless campaigning by a lobbying group called the Thai Motion

Picture Producers Association in 1967, led by Ratana Pestonji26, eventually Field

Marshal Thanom‘s government agreed to officially endorse the film industry. This,

however, meant they would provide funding for production of films under state-

imposed conditions that decreed that films must be made in the 35 mm. format and that

they must have at least a budget of five million baht (Sukwong 1990: 45 cited in

Sungsri 2004: 136). Such conditions, though accommodative of that specific brand of

filmmaking geared towards the international market, were too restricting for many local

filmmakers who could afford neither the required technology nor the budget.

26
Rattana Pestonji (May 22, 1908 – August 17, 1970) was a Thai national— of Indian
Zoroastrian origin. He worked as a film director, producer, screenwriter and cinematographer.
He is regarded as the father of contemporary Thai cinema. During his career, Pestonji produced
several award-winning films for International Film Festivals. The best known one was a color
and sound film titled ― Santi-Weena‖ (1954) which got an entry into the first Far East Film
Festival in Tokyo and won several prizes including photography, cinematography, and artistic
direction and also received a special prize from the American Association of Film Directors.
He was a pivotal figure in lobbying the government to support film industry in a systematic and
official fashion. See ―Rattana Pestonji, Rattana of Thai Cinema‖, 2008, Thai Film Foundation.
Date Accessed: 12 November 2012
<http://www.thaifilm.com/articleDetail.asp?id=107>.
 41

Nevertheless, the 16 mm. films managed to survive until early 1980s, thanks to the

format being economically efficient; also, the increase in the tax levied on imported

films from USD 0.11 per metre to USD 1.50 per metre (Boonyaketmala 1992: 84 cited

in Sungsri 2004: 148) helped. This increased rate of tax prompted Hollywood film

distributors to boycott film export to Thailand, giving a competitive edge to local film

makers. Prior to 1978, there were approximately between 100 to 120 films being

produced a year in Thailand. However, after the implementation of the increasing film

tax in 1977, the number of films made on a yearly basis between 1978- 1981 went up to

between 130 to 160 films. Nevertheless, this situation did not benefit small independent

film makers as much as before since the newly emerging film production companies

began to vertically integrate all aspects of the film business including production,

distribution and exhibition at this period (Sukwong 2004).

Social problem films (1973-1985)

While the Thai film industry was like a toddler trying to walk on her own, came

strong political forces of the 70s driven by many internal conflicts, and fueled by the

global revolutions and American counterculture. The culmination of these

circumstances gave rise to students‘ movement taking place on 14th October, 1973,

after which the dictatorial regime was overthrown. On the film front appeared social-

problem films, advocating to lay bare issues never touched by films of the earlier period

such as corruption, prostitution, poverty, and etc. Prince Chatri Chalerm Yukol, among

other social filmmakers produced Khao Cheu Karn (His Name is Karn 1972) to reflect

on many existing social problems including poverty, nepotism and corruption. The

film‘s subsequent success opened up a new direction of filmmaking, and at the same

time unofficially commenced the new era of this new film genre.
 42

Other prominent directors of this genre apart from Chatri Chalerm Yukol

includes Euthana Mukdasanit, Vichit Kunavut, Surasee Patham, Manob Udomdej, and

Permphol Choei-arun (Chaiworaporn 2006: 11). After the regime was removed, for the

first time in its history the nation experienced parliamentary democracy. This, in turn,

provided more freedom for the film industry as the imposition of censorship law

became more relaxed. Jon Ungpakorn, a non-governmental activist and public health

advocate, produced a documentary film called Kamakorn Ying Hara (The Factory

Workers of Hara 1976), which was about the uprising of the female jeans factory

workers for fair wages. In a strategic manner, the film was showing step by step how to

stage a demonstration and mobilize workforces (Sungsri 2004: 254). Another group of

Isan Group‖ made Tongpan (Tongpan 1977)

filmmakers and activist under the name ―

to recount the ordeal of a poor villager, Tongpan, who is forced to abandon his field and

relocate so that a dam construction can happen. Tongpan exposed how a marginal

figure was victimized first, by the state and later by the supposedly modern rule of

‗experts‘ who claimed to ‗solve‘ the problems of expropriation and dislocation

‗scientifically‘.

What was also flourishing in effect of censorship leniency was an extensive

representation of sex and third gender in many films which had never happened before

in Thai cinema. It is in this charged atmosphere of change emerged a new and popular

figure: Dao Yua (literally, seductive star) or, the vamp. Likewise, the role of the

heroine which had long been flat and stereotypical (generally, a chaste and pure young

lady with a good heart) was transformed into a female figure more in control of her own

destiny. Thepthida Rongram (Hotel Angel 1974, dir. Chatri Chalerm Yukol) was one of

the most successful films of the period which allowed this new figuration of the woman

to emerge and establish itself. While the film world was celebrating its new genre and
 43

heady feeling of new-found freedom, only three years later on 6th October 1976, the

nation had to witness bloodshed when a group of students and supporters were

protesting against the return of the ousted ex-dictator, Field Marshal Thanom

Khittikhajorn. An unforeseen series of incidents that followed enabled the state to label

the agitation to be a case of royal decree violation which ignited the clash between two

groups of people: pro-communists and pro-royalists. This invoked a decisive and brutal

suppression of agitating students leading to a forced resignation of the Prime Minister,

Saenee Pramod. On the same day the military staged a coup which accordingly threw

the nation back into abysmal despair. As far as the film industry was concerned,

draconian censorship laws returned once again. Despite that, social films continued to

be produced until the early 1980s before it gave way to escapist films and ‗teen flicks‘.

Teen flicks (1985- present)

From the mid- 1980s until the 90s, Thailand saw not only the mushrooming of

mini-theatres around Bangkok and big provincial cities but also of videos, rental videos

stores and cable TV business. In 1992 the Thai government agreed to reduce the

imported film tax in exchange of GSP (Generalized System of Preference) for Thai

commodities with the Clinton government (Sungsri 2004: 179). This situation, coupled

with economic downturn by the late 1990s, has led to an influx of Hollywood while the

number of locally produced films was decreasing. Cinema halls became a popular teen

rendezvous while drawing other groups of the audience away from the scene. The

dominance of this new norm of cinema audience became obvious when in 1994

multiplex screens first appeared in the capital city. Along with their world-class quality

and luxury rhetoric, the multiplex has transformed film viewing to be something of the
 44

bourgeoisies‘ cultural activity (Ingawanij 2006: 103). The locally made films had to

give way to imported Hollywood films which increased from 150 films in a year prior

to 1994 to over 200 films thereafter. However, amidst the diminished trend of local

film production, two film poster painters turned filmmakers― Adirek Wattaleela and

Thanit Jitnukul― co-produced their debut together, Suem Noy Noi, Ka Lon Mark Noi

(Happy-Go-Lucky 1985). The film was a comedy about a group of young men sharing

a rented house together but it also contained some family melodrama elements which

were prevalent during the mid- 1980s. Its huge commercial success served as a model

for other filmmakers to follow suit. According to Ingawanij (2006: 136), the success of

the film could be attributed to its formal stylistics that specially appealed to the ‗teen‘

audience. Formally, the combination of ―

excess intervals of a jokingly pastiche sort,

with a plot that harks back to the rite of passage convention of the new wave films‖

(136) was used. Specifically, allusions to global filmic and pop culture references were

embedded within the narrative based on 1970s social realist trope of graduates setting

out for their life journey. In terms of cinematography, it adopted MTV music videos

styles. Such style and form was better reflected in another film by the same director,

Chalui (It‘s A Breeze 1988, dir. Adirek Wattaleela), one of the most commercially

successful teen comedies in the 80s. Chalui is about the two recent graduates who are

housemates, both losers dreaming of becoming famous rock stars. The dialogues of the

film make use of ―

nonsensical puns, visual allusions, music video moments of heartfelt

sentimentality, within a narrative that half-parodies, yet half endorses, the boom time

celebration of get rich quick schemes and pointless media stardom‖ (137).

Cinematically, it employs what is considered ―

a set of whole new standard of self-

conscious display of ‗cinematic-ness‘ for other ‗quality‘ Thai films to aspire to‖ (137).

In the opening scene, the pastiche of noir, rock and pop culture iconographies are used.
 45

Teen flicks of 1990s and 2000s also followed these formulae and interestingly began

to merge with the horror genre to produce a new generic practice.

Since 1990s comic figures, many of whom emerged out of popular TV comedy

game shows such as Go Tee and Tookey, have been introduced to teen comedy films

and have become an indicator of a film‘s salability. Another orientation found most

often in teen flicks of the 2000s, also shared with horror and action, is its representation

of queer characters and queer culture. The most prominent filmmaker whose success

can be attributed to the way he mixes different genres into teen comedy is Poj Anon

(Aka Anon Mingkhwanta). The style has become his signature and often brought his

films, many of which concern gay representations, a great deal of publicity. However,

according to Wiwat Lertwiwatwongsa (2012), a renowned film critic, more often than

not, Poj Anon depicts his gay characters as asexual, or comic, or sexually obsessed and

non-threatening, which can be glimpsed in his series of queer comedies including a

trilogy of the films Haw Taew Tak (Oh My Ghost! 2009, 2011, 2012) and two parts of

Plon Naya (Spicy Beauty Queen of Bangkok 2004, 2012). Lertwiwatwongsa comments

that rather than representing gay identity as he/she ontologically is or ought to be, Poj

merely and selectively touches on the gay‘s popularly perceived image. He also

observes that such representation can be read as a tribute to or a sharing of a legacy of

the 16 mm. escapist films in which anything beyond logic and verisimilitude was

possible and was allowed to happen.

Another style of teen flicks worth mentioning is that of ―

Korean Wave‖ or

Korean pop culture influence. Such trend began to emerge as a consequence of the

economic crisis in 1997 when both South Korea and Thailand, as affected nations, had

to accept the bailout package offered by the IMF. South Korea regained economic
 46

strength rapidly following the IMF restructuring program, meanwhile one of its key

strategies was to invest into and open a new consumer market including cultural

products to expand exports to China and Southeast Asia (Siriyuvasak and Hyunjoon

2007: 100). While for Thailand, it was advised to adopt economic nationalism and seek

solidarity among nations in the South, at the same time economic restructuring for the

majority of the people who are on the verge of the poverty line was deemed a necessary

measure. Within this context, collaborations in different areas; be it business, tourism,

culture and education exchanges between the two countries emerged. The spread of

Korean Wave coincided with the 2002 Football World Cup which Korea and Japan co-

hosted. The whole event was significant in that it projected Asian-global cultural image

founded on the political and economic power of the two host nations which strongly

appealed to Thai football fans (Siriyuvasak and Hyunjoon 2007: 101). The Korean

Wave increased its popularity when the two major Thai music companies, RS

Promotion and GMM Grammy introduced pop singers: Se7en and Rain to the country

in 2003 and 2004 respectively, after which a number of Korean TV series and films

followed. Examples of notable films with Korean flavor and shot in Korea include teen

romantic comedy, Sorry, Sarangheyo (2010, dir. Poj Anon), Kuan Muen Ho (Hello

Strangers 2010, dir. Banjong Pisanthanakul), both of which were well- received

commercially. Particularly Kuan Muen Ho which became the highest grossing film in

the local box office in 2010. Another is action comedy directed by one of the most

promising action genre directors of the country, Prachya Pinkaew, Won Don Tae (The

Kick 2011). Besides targeting teen audiences, the film also catered to general action

film‘s fans.

The development of teen flicks is a very interesting one; the genre appeared by

the mid-1980s and started to gain momentum in the early 1990s and then its saturation
 47

of the domestic film market became so all-encompassing that some film critics referred

to that period as the dead-end of Thai cinema. However, the surprising emergence of

New Thai Cinema of the post economic crisis, which will be discussed in the next

section, seems to have influenced teen flicks in a transformative way. The genre itself

has merged and blended with other genres―for example, horror and action comedy―

to create more interesting visual and narrative effects for a wider audience. More

importantly, it has opened up a space for gay and third gender representations, even

though the way forward to aesthetically and politically representing them is yet to be

found.

New Thai Cinema (1997- present)

The economic crisis that hit Asia hard in 1997 not only wrecked many

businesses in Thailand, it also had a direct impact on the film industry as a whole.

Apparently, the number of films produced each year after 1997 was in a constant

decline (see the table below). It touched the record low of only 9 films in 2000.

However, surprisingly enough, a contradictory financial output was found in box office

gross profits. For instance, in 1999 when there were only 10 films released, the total

box office gain was 257.5 million baht (about $5.72 million) indicating a 90.7 percent

increase from 1998. Likewise in 2000 with only 9 films released, the box office grossed

161.7 million baht (about $3.59 million). The record was broken in 2001 when just one

movie alone (Suriyothai 2001, dir. Chatri Chalerm Yukol) earned 700 million baht

($15.55) in the local box office (Uamjerm 2002). The conspicuous financial gain of

some popular films released between 1997 and early 2000s has shed light to newly

emerging filmmakers, often debutants, and the kind of films they make, which
 48

accordingly marked them as belonging to ―

New Thai Cinema‖ or ―
Thai New Wave

Cinema‖. Besides advocating quality film production for local audiences, films of New

Thai Cinema are an endeavor to project Thai films to the international audience, either

through international film festivals or the global film market. International co-

productions are also one of the main agendas.

Table 1: The number of films released between 1990-2000

Year 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Thai 69 52 37 44 46 43 30 29 14 10 9

Chinese 71 100 135 127 117 117 122 87 55 53 34

Hollywood 89 80 104 96 150 183 203 219 204 223 186

Japanese 2 - - - - - - - - - 1

Indian 1 - 3 2 1 - - - - - 1

Total 232 232 279 269 314 343 355 335 273 286 231

Source: Courtesy Federation of National Film Associations of Thailand

Nonzee Nimibutr, Pen-ek Ratanaaruang, Wisit Sasanatieng and Apichatpong

Weerasethakul are considered the leading directors of the New Wave. Nonzee

Nimibutr‘s sensational and explosive hit, 2499 Antapan Khrong Muang (Daeng Bailey

and the Young Gangsters 1997) has not only brought many Thai adults back to cinema

halls again but it has also inspired other filmmakers to achieve the same standard27. His

27
The number of local films produced in 2001 was 14 and increased to 47 films in 2003 before
it was evened out between 40 and 50 in the following years. See Thai Film Database. Date
Accessed: 2 January 2013 <http://www.thaifilmdb.com>.
 49

remake of the old ghost film Nang Nak (1999) attested to this assertion by grossing over

150 million baht in the domestic market. It was later bought by international film

agencies in Asia and Europe, and climbed to number one in Singapore‘s box office

(Aree 2001). Nonzee‘s movies are combinations of nostalgic elements, Thai

iconographies and a spectacular display of visual spectacle. Pen-ek Ratanaruang‘s and

Wisit Sasanatieng‘s films are of more ‗auteur‘ types than Nonzee‘s; thus they do not

usually fare commercially well in the domestic market but often gain international

attention in the circuit of film festivals. Pen-ek‘s debut, Fun Bar Karaoke (1997), that

premièred at the Berlin International Film Festival, has become a source of inspiration

for the industry. The film, with its Wong Kar Wai inspired style, explored the

contradictions between modernity and tradition and superstition in the capital city

through an estranged relationship between a playboy father and a daughter. Wisit‘s Fah

Ta Lai Jone (Tears of the Black Tiger 2001) was invited to Cannes‘ Un Certain Regard

section and impressed the critics for its ―

stylistic virtuosity‖ (Ingawanij 2006: 69). As

far as Apichatpong is concerned, his films are not only autuerist but also experimental

which, albeit internationally recognized, as attested by several of his films winning

various international film awards including the most acclaimed Loong Boonmee Raleuk

Chart (Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives 2010), winning the Palme d‘Or

at the Cannes Film Festival in 2010, are met with neither public interest nor commercial

success in the director‘s home country. Worse yet, they are often subjected to stringent

scrutiny by the film board of censorship.28

28
Four scenes of Apichatpong‘s controversial film, Syndrome and a Century (2006) was
demanded to be cut for domestic release by the Board of Censors but the artist refused and took
this incident as a rallying platform to overhaul the anachronistic law which has for the most part
remained unchanged since its implementation in 1930. See Ingawanij, ―Bey ond the Frame:
Disreputable Behaviour‖, 2007, Vertigo for Worldwide Independent Film, Date Accessed: 1
October 2012 <www.vertigomagazine.co.uk>.
 50

The trend of New Thai Cinema has not only positioned new directors at the

forefront of the wave but also provided a new territory for aspiring independent

filmmakers due to the possibility of exploring a variety of forms and styles. Equally

significant, the trend has encouraged accomplished veteran directors like Chatri

Chalerm Yukol, Tanit Jittnukul and Bhandit Ritthakol who had taken a long break from

the cinematic world during the era of dominance of teen flicks‘, to return to film

making once again. Chatri Chalerm reemerged in a grand style with his high production

values and high concept heritage film Suriyothai (2001). The film, a historical epic, is

said to be a phenomenon in the Thai cinema history for its high production cost of over

400 million baht (about $8.8 million) and some 50 million for promotion, royal and

official involvement in its production29, its unprecedented cast of around 50 most

popular actors and celebrities in the kingdom. Moreover, director of the famous film

The Godfather, Francis Ford Coppola, who is Chatri Chalerm‘s college friend, took part

in editing the film from its original length of 185 minutes to 150 minutes for its

American release. He also suggested that the film gave a deliberate emphasis on sex

and malicious ploys of war games.

Having mentioned the successful return of Chatri Chalerm in his making of a

grand historical epic, it was actually Thanit Jitnukul‘s Bangrajan: The Legend of the

Village Warriors (2000), the first successful nationalist historical epic released a year

prior to Suriyothai that gave an initial signal of the emerging viability of making films

29
Her Majesty Queen Sirikit of Thailand was reported to have been instrumental in having the
film made. Not only that she was seen on TV performing a religious ritual to pay homage to the
monument of Suriyothai in Ayutthaya province on 7th April, 1999 (2 years prior to the film
release), she also presided over the film premiere in Bangkok on 17th August, 2001 in the same
week as her birthday on 12th August. Moreover, the role of Suriyothai, a brave queen who
sacrificed her life in defending the country against the Burmese army, was played by Piyapas
Bhirombhakdi, best-known for being the Queen‘s wardrobe attendant. In terms of official
support, the state- run Siam Commercial Bank created a special Suriyothai bank account and
ATM card.
 51

of this kind. The film was based on a brave but failed battle the villagers of Bangrajan

fought against Burmese invaders in the 1767 war. Here Glen Lewis (2003) explains that

the repercussions of the economic crisis gave rise to a new mode of nationalism which,

more than being a state-imposed ideology, is a combination of individual awareness of

the foreign threat and the longing for self –sufficiency and communitarianism as

advised by the King (Lewis 2003: 69). According to Lewis (2003), this emerging

nationalism was a significant component that contributed to the revival of Thai cinema

in the contexts of 1997 economic crisis as well as political instabilities, the

controversial new Constitution and the anti- foreign campaign of one major political

party before the upcoming general election in a country that has always been proud of

its non-colonial past. Once being translated into films, the nationalist theme that

portrayed the past glory and peaceful Siamese community was positively responded to

by the audience as reflected in the financial success of the two historical films earlier

mentioned: Bangrajan (2000) and Suriyothai (2001). However, Lewis emphasizes that

while Bangrajan is a version of popular nationalism, Suriyothai is a re-instatement of

Thai elite nationalism; they represent opposite approaches to reading the nation‘s

history (2003: 74). Rachel Harrison (2005) and Leon Hunt (2005) seem to share Lewis‘

view on the emergence of new nationalism in New Thai Cinema but they also note that

there was an ambivalent sense of aspiration among cotemporary Thai filmmakers who

wanted to promote a cultural self- image of the nation that can be imagined and

invented to appeal to Western imagination on the one hand, and ―

to adopt a defined

cultural stance that eulogizes that untainted, traditions of an introverted, isolated

Thailand‖ (Harrison 2005: 325) on the other. Then there is Nonzee Nimibutr‘s

reworking of the most famous ghost tale of Thailand, Nang Nak. The film had nothing

new in its textual representation and yet, an ―

unprecedented degree of attentiveness to
 52

images of high production value‖ (Ingawanij 2007: 181) elevated the inauthenticity of

the story to the level of Thai sakon (international) agency. Hence it can be said that the

representation of ―
Thainess‖ in Thai cinema is now being crafted along with universal

filmic standard to achieve both domestic and global success.

Despite what has been mentioned above, and the seemingly shared features of

what is believed by some scholars and film critics to be a new movement, ‗New Thai

Cinema‘ (Lewis 2003, Uabumrungjit 2004, Chaiworaporn 2006, Hunt 2005) is for

Ingawanij, only a loose term that happened to come into circulation to ‗unite‘ successful

auteurs appearing after the economic crisis whose debut films were critically acclaimed

at the international level and thus have set a standard for other film makers. Ingawanij

believes New Thai Cinema is, rather than being a new and oppositional trend of film

making forged by a specific group of progressive filmmakers within a specific national

context like that of New Taiwanese Cinema or New Chinese Cinema, an international

curiosity, which demonstrates:

…the dissonant nature of the traffic between the global discovery of a

minority of Thai films within the discursive and intuitional rubric of
world cinema, whether these are of the art cinema or multiplex
oriented variety… (2006: 71).

When this frame of reading New Thai Cinema is followed, it appears that―

apart from reflecting on the new kind of nationalism and projecting to the world the

middle-class desire for world- class Thainess―, New Thai Cinema, particularly films

that are oriented towards multiplex screening, created a new territory in which a

portrayal of the ―
untainted traditions of an introverted, isolated Thailand‖ (Harrison

2005: 325) can be investigated and globally exported.

 53

How this new and uncharted territory of the Thai cinema of the post economic

crisis period has developed is quite interesting for a few reasons. Obviously, it has given

a new lease of life to action cinema. Ong Bak (Muay Thai Worrior 2003, dir. Prachya

Pinkaew) and Tom Yum Goong (The Protector 2005, dir. Prachya Pinkaew) did not only

enjoy financial success at home and aboard30, they were also able to establish a new

territory challenging the dominance of Hong Kong action cinema (Hunt 2005). The

astonishing stunt work, especially of the leading actor, Tony Jaa that defied CGI effects

and boasted with the promotion tagline ―

No stuntmen, No Wire Action, No Computer

Graphics‖ became the object of intrigue for martial arts spectacle. Tony Jaa himself was

also seen as comparable to Jackie Chan and Jet Li, the martial arts living legends. The

authenticity and intensity of physicality exhibited in Ong Bak and later all subsequent

feature movies of Tony Jaa, albeit theatrical spectacles it generated to satisfy the desire

of both action movie fans and Tony Jaa fans alike, what was prominently figured,

according to Hunt (2005), was the Orientalist notion of Thailand as the land of

exoticism and brutality. Being faithful to its promotional tagline, Ong Bak did exactly

what it promised, ―
the return to the real‖ (Hunt 2005: 77) echoing the three defying

features of traditional martial arts film: authenticity, technological disavowal and

physical impact. Thus, when intersected with other contextual elements of this

particular historical time, action cinema of post- economic crisis has given us a platform

for investigation into a possibility of the West‘s fetishising gaze on the Orient on the

one hand, and the operation of self-exoticization to please the Occidental desire on the

other. Moreover, the elements constitutive of New Thai Cinema which allows for more

cinematic expressions contribute to the development of the industry as a whole.

30
Tom Yum Goong has become the first Thai film to reach the 4th place at the U.S. box office
grossing over 1,300 million baht worldwide, while Ong Bak has, since its release in 2003,
enjoyed its international circulation particularly on cable TV channels.
 54

Textually, it enables generic transformation of film, while intertexually, it gives both

film production and circulation transnational exposure and cooperation.

Another interesting aspect is that the film of this new period has worked within a

political context that allowed them to represent the cultural identity of the grassroot

Thais, the subalterns of the nation, and such filmic representation is well accepted by

the audience. This happened as a result of the 19th September 2006 military coup in the

country in which the Thaksin Shinnawatra- led government was overthrown. The

situation has led to political turmoil, conflicts and social divide. Two oppositional

camps have emerged since the coup including those who welcomed the coup as they

saw it as a national exigency, the only escape from violent confrontations between the

pro-government and anti-government groups. This group, better known as the ‗yellow

shirts‘, is basically pro-royalty, traditionally-oriented and highly critical of politicians

and popular democracy as exercised in the country. The other group is loosely

composed of people who opposed the coup as they considered it not only destroying

democratic processes but also taking away the legitimate government which was

selected by the majority. The subaltern voters, mainly composed of people from the

Northeast region, felt betrayed and turned against the coup‘s subsequently appointed

government. In the post-coup period until recently, at the behest of a powerful political

party which belongs to the former ousted prime minister, many rallies and

demonstrations have been staged to protest against both the coup and the later

government believed to be the result of the coup. These political circumstances have

tuned public attention, specifically of the middle-class, towards the people of the

Northeast, who are the main supporters of the former prime minister, and are better

known as the ‗red shirts‘. This group is now politically instrumental and a key support

to the current government (2012) led by the ousted prime minister‘s sister, Yingluck
 55

Shinnawatra. Whether there is a direct linkage between the filmic representation and

the changed political scenario is not taken up here for further investigation. Rather what

is of interest to me here is that on the cinematic front it is the portrayal of the Isan31or

the Northeast people and their cultural identity that is found to be conspicuously

established in several films released after the coup of 19 September, 2006. Such

representation of the Northeast culture and its people are found to exist across film

genres such as in action comedy, Khon Fai Bin (Dynamite Warriors 2006, dir. Chalerm

Wongpim), teen flick, Hug Na, Sarakham (I love you, Sarakham 2011, dir. Tanwarin

Sukhapisit), and romantic comedy, E-Nang Aey, Khey Farang (White Buffalo 2011, dir.

Chinoret Kumwandee) all of which depict people of the Northeast (Isan) as good-

hearted, superstitious, community-oriented people, who are devoid of worldly vices.

Such representations have painted a contradictory picture of the many Isan red shirts,

who are seen as relentlessly loyal to the former ousted prime minister and overtly

aggressive in their political expressions.

31
Northeastern Thailand has been officially known as Isan, a term adopted from Sanskrit
Ishanya, meaning the ―no rth east direction.‖ The term "Isan" was derived from Isanapura, the
capital of the Chenla kingdom. The Lao-speaking population of the region, who comprise the
majority, distinguish themselves not only from the Lao or Laos but also from the central Thai
by calling themselves Khon Isan or Thai Isan. The Khmer-speaking minority and Kuy (Suai),
who live in the south of Isan, speak dialects and follow customs more similar to those of
Cambodia than either the Thai people or the Lao people. Isan is the poorest region of Thailand:
in 2002 average wages were the lowest in the country at 3,928 ($126.7 as of now) baht per
month (the national average was 6,445).
 56

Short and experimental films (1997- present)32

The year of economic crisis in 1997 has not only produced interesting auteurist

films being referred to as ―

New Thai Cinema‖ as discussed above, it has also given rise

to an alternative film culture which has been well- received by local cinephiles and is

currently making a popular trend especially among students. This new film movement

involves short, independent films of various genres (narrative, documentary, animation,

experimental), which literally work outside mainstream production system and are

funded by sources outside major production companies (Chaiworaporn 2004).

According to Adadol Ingawanij, a film scholar and key organizer of Bangkok

Experimental Film Festival (BEFF), a great effort has been made to define this

movement ―
as alternative to industrial-commercial forms of filmmaking, both at the

level of film financing and production, and the narrative as well as film consumption

practices the major studios foster‖ (2010: 132). The movement was materialized and

made official when the Thai Film Foundation inaugurated the first short film

competition under the festival titled ―

Thai Short Film and Video Festival‖ in 1997. The

competition started off humbly, drawing around 30 entries; however, it continued to

gain popularity as the number of entries by both local and international experimental

filmmakers keep increasing every year. This has positively affected the festival‘s

32
According to Panu Aree, a writer on film history and also a documentary film maker, the
history of experimental film has been interwoven with the history of Thai cinema since its
beginning in 1897. It has endured a long period of trials and tribulations extending to 4 periods,
which can be classified as 1. The age of obscurity (1897-1927), 2.The age of official beginning
(1970-1974), 3.The age of standstill (1974- 1986) and 4.The age of revival (1986- present).
However, its little recognition in the history has led to a misconceived notion that the trend in
experimental film is a recent phenomenon. See Aree, ―K warn pen ma khong papphayon totlong
nai prathet thai‖ (The History of Experimental Film in Thailand), in Thai Film Foundation.
Date Accessed: 15 May 2011
<http://www.thaifilm.com/articleDetail.asp?id=15>. In this section, due to certain constraints,
however, I have chosen to discuss only the latest trend of experimental film that has officially
established in 1997.
 57

publicity and funding. Last year (2012) when the festival organizer called for

submission of films for its 16th edition, approximately, 400 entries were submitted for

the first round of screening before about 75 films were selected to be shown on the days

of the festival when some awards were given to the best films of different categories.

Given that the festival‘s highlight is film competition in which prestigious awards are

given to the best film of each different category, such as the Rattana Pestonji Award for

the work of non-student filmmakers and the White Elephant Award for the student‘s

short film category, the festival strength lies on student‘s engagement at all levels, be it

film production, reception or pedagogy.

Becoming a creative space for cinephiles and emerging filmmakers alike, Thai

Short Film and Video Festival not only exhibits aesthetic performances and talents of

film artists. The whole process of the project itself has some political significance.

Initially, at the level of film production in which freedom to choose filmic themes and

techniques for their presentations entitles filmmakers a sense of self-expression which

leads to a discovery of possibilities and innovations in filmmaking, extending to an

array of ―
new visuals and sound, new stories, new ways of telling stories, unexplainable

things, the crudeness of film production, the audacity, and even the naiveté in the

representation of serious topics‖ (Lertwiwatwongsa et al. 2012 on website Experimental

Conversations)33. Particularly, a sense of sincerity, currency and inclusivity reflected in

films‘ visuals and sound make them unique and different from commercial films. In

addition to their depiction of subcultures and marginal groups of people often

underrepresented in mainstream films, Lertwiwatwongsa and his team who screened the

entries were also appreciative of the strong sense of immediacy which brought to the

33
See Lertwiwatwongsa et al.,―M ysterious Objects from Thailand‖, 2013, Experimental
Conversations. Date Accessed: 27 July 2013
<http://www.experimentalconversations.com/articles/1039/mysterious-objects-from-thailand/>.
 58

fore in a vivid manner what is going on right now in contemporary Thai society. It may

be said, correspondingly, that those elements and energies invested in those filmic

representations suggest how the same world can be differently reflected.

In a similar fashion, two other short film festivals emerged as franchise-like in

response to a popular surge of short film making. These are the Bangkok Experimental

Film Festival (BEFF) and International Buddhist Film Festival (IBFF). The BEFF was

established in 1996, but it initially emerged under the name ―

Bangkok International

Film Festival‖, which started off with aims similar to those of the Short Film and Video

Festival, that is, to provide an alternative cinematic space for cinephiles and film artists

by showcasing film and video footages made by local and international experimental

filmmakers and video makers. According to available sources about these festivals,

BEFF is more thematically focused, more internationally oriented and more

pedagogically concerned than the Bangkok Short Film and Video Festival. The latest

edition (6th) of the festival, bearng the theme ―

Raiding the Archives‖, for example,

proceeds from a consideration of Walter Benjamin‘s assertion that ―

articulating the

past historically does not mean recognizing it ‗the way it really was‘. It means

appropriating a memory as it flashes up at a moment of danger‖ (cited in Clark 2012 on

the website Lux: Artists’ Moving Image). This edition featured the works by

international filmmakers like a historical film, Two Coronations (2011), by a British

filmmaker, Steven Connolly, and an essay film, An Escalator in World Order (2011),

by a South Korean filmmaker, Kim Kyung-man. Both films depict historical events, of

Britain and South Korea, in which political consciousness of the Thai audiences,

supposedly, is invoked along with those of the two countries. The roundtable

conversation in one session led by a prominent scholar on Southeast Asia, Prof.

Benedict Anderson, suggested an attempt of the festival to create critical discourses on

 59

film. Also, political agenda expressed within artistic context is what BEFF obviously

intends to project. When we look at the profiles of team members working for the

festival34 which comprises film curators, critics and academicians such as May Adadol

Ingawanij, David Teh and George Clark, the pedagogical and political approaches the

festival and its related activities seek to focus come as no surprise.

International Buddhist Film Festival (IBFF), on the other hand, is premised on

the latent pedagogical competence of film, or simply put, the ability of film to give

lessons to the audience. While the festival aims at presenting films of Buddhist wisdom

from around the world, it also projects Thailand as a ‗world stage‘ for exhibiting the

kind of cinema believed to have a capacity to enlighten. Even though international and

local film screening is the program‘s highlight, short film competition is also included,

in which a number of films, made by young filmmakers, of less than 20 min. long are

shown.

A must-mention filmmaker as far as short and experimental films are concerned

is Apichatpong Weerasethakul, whose works have inspired a new generation of

filmmakers as much as in so far have shaped the Thai independent film movement. This

name emerged to the Thai public‘s recognition for his winning of the prestigious Palme

d'Or prize, at the Cannes Film Festival in 2010, for his film Uncle Boonmee Who Can

Recall His Past Lives (2010). It is a post- narrative film about the last phase of an old

man‘s life called Boonmee who is stricken with a kidney disease and starts to recall his

past lives, from each of which emerges a political motif that is also relevant to

contemporary Thai society. However, Apichatpong as an experimental filmmaker

began much earlier in the early 1990s when he was an art student in the U.S. Many of

34
For the names of other team members of BEFF and details of the 6th Bangkok Experimental
Film Festival, see ―Ba
ngkok Experimental Film Festival: BEFF6th Raiding the Archives‖. Date
Accessed: 12 October 2012 <http://beffbeff.com/>.
 60

his short films are part of his installation art projects which work on different kinds of

media. His connection with art stays intact even when he turned to make feature films,

several of which have been shown at film festival circuit such as Tropical Malady

(2004) and Syndromes and a Century (2006). The former film won the Jury Prize at the

Cannes Film Festival while the latter was premiered at the 63rd Venice Film Festivals

and screened at others. It is no surprise, however, that the aesthetic quality found in

Apichatpong‘s films, which is described by Kong Rithdee (2006: 201), a well-known

film critic, to be the alchemy of ―

his heady concoction of nostalgia, old-fashioned

melodrama, sci-fi impulses, private dreams and public memories‖ may not be popularly

received. However, this is not the case for his influential role of inspiring filmmakers of

the new generation. The global recognition for his feature films, in addition to his

unique style experimental shorts have become such a force for the indie film movement

and initiatives including short and experimental film festivals and related activities that

are still much alive and active.

Film censorship

The history of censorship in Thailand can be traced back to the very first film

produced in Siam by American producer Henry A. MacRae, Nangsao Suwan or in

English as A Siamese Elopement in 1923, the film was subjected to the scrutiny of a

censor board especially set up by the King Vajiravudh35 (Rama VI) before its public

35
During his reign, it was the awareness of the monarch government that censoring measures
were already practiced in Siam‘s neighboring colonies such as Singapore, Burma and the
Philippines that was decisive. The government had accordingly taken censorship scheme into
consideration once films were introduced into the country; however, such direction toward
censorship was not taken without criticism from general public as reflected in a letter printed in
Siam Rath newspaper issued on 18 July, 1919 (Sukwong 1996: 163). Here, the writer‘s point of
concern was that film did not make criminals better capable of crime committing as it was then
feared of. The text of the letter (approximate translation):
 61

screening. During the reign of the next king, King Prajadhipok (Rama VII), it was

compulsory that every film had to be approved before its public release. A similar story

to that of the scene being removed from Nangsao Suwan was repeated in 1927 when

Luang Sunthorn Assawaraj‘s second film, Umnaj Mued (Dark Forces 1927), was seen

as offensive by King Prajadhipok for its depiction of brothels, opium smoking and

mafia dens and hence some cuts were necessary. The King also decided that the film

may be screened but its negative copies must be destroyed once the capital cost of the

film had been covered (Sukwong 1996:71). Luang Sunthorn Assawaraj was prompt to

follow the monarch‘s instruction including adding more scenes necessary for the

completion of the same film which he renamed Chana Phan (Defeats of the Hooligans).

However, the major cinema houses in Bangkok, stirred by such official controversy,

refused to screen the film for fear of causing offence to the monarch.The film producer

had to arrange screening by himself through small theatres around Bangkok and in

different regional centres. The returns were meagre and the company was eventually

forced out of the business.

In 1930, the Siamese government under the King Prajadhipok required that all

films produced be subjected to official scrutiny prior to their public release. The Cinema

Act of 1930 was officially implemented a year later when the Siam‘s board of censors

―Asof common awareness, films imported to be screened in the country have

been censored. Yet, if the Siamese government is convinced that censoring
imported films would be the way forward to preventing the country from
falling victim to the hand of a crime perpetrator, the act of censorship may be
deemed sensible. However, what is often the case is that criminals are always
defeated by police, therefore if films are supposed to teach criminals the art of
crimes, they also teach police the art of catching criminals and policing as
well….‖ (163).

Later on, the public opinions on film censorship diverged into two directions including
supporters and opponents, the trend that gives resonance to a contemporary debate on the issue.
Censorship had not been legitimized until the following reign of King Prajadhipok (Rama VII).
See Sukwong, ―K ing Prajadhipok and Cinema‖ (1996) and Barmé, ―W oman, Man, Bangkok:
Love, Sex, and Popular Culture in Thailand‖ (2002: 47).
 62

was officially established. The board included men and woman drawn from the

aristocratic circle, the civil service and the police. They would stamp each film that

passed the censorship including all items associated to the film (Sukwong 2001: 35).

After the change of political system from absolute monarchy to parliamentary

democracy in 1932, Thailand has never experienced a state of political stability. The

censorship law was particularly severe under the rule of dictatorial military government

during the seventies; only one fleeting moment of relaxed censorship was felt between

October 1973- October 1976 when the military regime was overthrown by the students‘

uprising. Then saw the rise of sex, nudity and sexually provocative dialogues in most

films.36 Strangely enough, in the context of global media and under the new constitution

(enacted in 2008) that guarantees liberty of expression, the new censorship law, referred

to as the Film and Video Act 2008, has not loosened the iron grip of the first 1930 Act.

The Ministry of Culture which has now taken responsibility of film censorship and

classification seems to resort to the archaic discourse of Thai audiences as ―

not being

ready citizens‖ (Ingawanjij 2008: 3). The Film Act was approved by the military junta

who had just completed their latest coup mission in September 2006 in a dubious

manner. It was passed within two days before the general election on 23 December

2006. The Act is seen to be one of several arbitrary laws swiftly passed to secure the

military power and legitimize bureaucratic legal intervention in what is deemed a threat

to national security (Ingawanij: 2008). The principle of banning as phrased by the Act

allowed a scope for interpretation, yet in a way that serves the authority to strengthen its

― films whose content undermines or disrupts social order or moral

regime of truth‖ — ―

decency, and films that might provide a threat to state security or bring Thailand into

disrepute‖ (cited in Ingawanij 2008: 2). Apart from the sex and pornography which are

36
According to Manas Kingchan, a film archivist, kissing in films of this period was real
(Interviewed on 1st October, 2012).
 63

susceptible to be cut off, amoral objects like cigarette, knife, gun are blurred through the

practice of pixelization while actions considered against the Buddhist precepts such as

gambling, alcohol drinking, etc. are accompanied by warning message displayed on

screen. This enforcement is also applied to all DVD and VCD released from 2005

onwards (Boutigny 2006). The new government after the coup has drafted a new film

act in 2008 which is referred to as the Film and Video Act 2008. Under this Act, film

censorship and rating has been transferred to be the responsibility of Thai Film

Censorship Board, under the Department of Cultural Promotion, Ministry of Culture.

Still, it contains certain contentious elements and thus, remains problematic.

Recently, two films have been banned, one is a scandalous film, Insects in the

Backyard (2010), directed by a Rattana Pestonji Award winner, Tanwarin Sukhapisit. It

was banned on the grounds that it contains scenes that undermine or disrupt social order

and moral decency. According to Mr. Somchai Saenglai, the Ministry of Culture deputy

(as in 2010), the film has a shot showing penis, contains scenes depicting students in

uniform having sexual intercourse and a child dreaming of patricide. A similar reason

was given by a film lecturer at Chulalongkorn University, who is a rating board

member. ―
A shot of a penis is ok in itself, but not in the way the film shows it. This is

obscenity‖ (Bangkok Post 2010).37 However, Tanwarin, the film director, believes that

her movie is only a representation of social realities in which there are various kinds of

(gendered) individuals living together and interacting with each other. To quote

Tanwarin, ―
What I present in the film is what I believe to be the problems that exist in

society‖ (Bangkok Post 2010). It was ironical that when the film was screened for the

8th Bangkok International Film Festival 2010 it received positive responses and was

37
See Kong Rithdee, ―Insects in the Backyard‖, 26 November 2010, in Bangkok Post. Date
Accessed: 4 January 2011 <http://www.bangkokpost.com/arts-and-culture/film/208221/insect-
in-the-backyard>.
 64

seen by some film lecturers as a thought-provoking queer film which lucidly presents

teen‘s issues and also having a capacity of lending itself to other relevant contemporary

issues concerning rights and liberty.38 Tragically, as satirised by the media, the

Backyard has been deliberately sprayed with pesticide.

Another banned film is Shakespeare Must Die (2012, dir. Ing K or Samanrat

Karnchanawanit). The film was considered to promote divisiveness among the people

of the nation which is in the process of ―

reconciliation‖. The film maker, Ing K, said in

its defence that the film was faithful to the original plot of Macbeth even though the

film is set in Thailand and features Thai characters as it was her own interpretation.

―
Everyone looks at our film through the prism of Thai politics‖, said Ing K during her

interview for the BK Knows Bangkok website. In any case, the contentious point lies

on the truth that it has bothered the political class. As the film trailer suggests, its

portrayal of angry protesters staging street protests, effigy burning39was seen as

offending the Red Shirts by the censor committee. And as the film had been funded by

the Ministry of Culture‘s Strong Thailand Project (Thai Khem Khaeng) under the

previous government, which is seen as a political enemy to the current government, a

speculation of the hidden agenda surrounding the banning of the film is inevitably

political. In her interview, when asked if her film could be described as belonging to the

genre of political horror, Ing K responded that it was a Shakespearian horror movie

38
See ―Insects in the Backyard: When the State was Killing Insects in the Backyard‖, 31
January 2011, in Sarakadee Magazine Online. Date Accessed: 10 March 2011
<www2.sarakadee.com/tag/insects-in-the-backyard>.
39
Protesters in the film‘s trailer are shown to be carrying printed pictures, with a cross on the
face, of the man whose look is similar to that of the ex-ousted Prime Minister, Thaksin
Shinnawatra who is a brother of the present Prime Minister Yingluk Shinnawatra. The angry
shouting ―GetOut‖ is done repeatedly, thus linking the scene to the protests that were
significantly instrumental to the coup of September 2009 in which Thaksin Shinnawatra was
eventually ousted.
 65

living in a country ruled by fear‖ (BK the Insider Guide to Bangkok).40 Her co-
about ―

producer, Manit Sriwanichporn, revealed that some members of the committee couldn‘t

sleep after watching the film as they were terrified. ―

We go really deep into the human

psyche. That is why the committee is so uncomfortable‖, said Manit.

What has happened to Insects in the Backyard and Shakespeare Must Die seem

to suggest two things, first, it reflects the ubiquity of soft subject matters popularly

presented in comedy, teen flicks and horror genres. As such, serious themes seen as

critical or challenging to the state sovereignty are not likely to be found. Second, it

suggests the dictatorial nature of the state in which wielding power against cinema,

among many others, is a guilt- free, legitimized practice. In addition, the ban of both

films has highlighted the problematic issue of rights to freedom of expression and

information as indicated in the national constitution41on the one hand; on the other

hand, it affirms that the moment ―

when art defies dictatorship‖, as the trailer of

Shakespeare Must Die puts it, remains utopian. In short, such peculiarity of the

censorship law and its terror has cast cinema industry in Thailand into another phase of

unrelenting struggle.

40
See Gregoire Glachant, ―I ng K's Shakespeare Must Die Banned by Government‖, 5 April
2012, in BK the Insider Guide to Bangkok. Date Accessed: 10 February 2013 <http://bk.asia-
city.com/events/article/interview-shakespeare-must-die>.
41
The article 45 of the Thai constitution protects citizen‘s rights to freedom of expression and
information. However, the article legitimation of ‗rights to freedom of expression and
information‘ must be considered under four conditions: 1. It must not provide a threat to state
security 2. It must not violate another person‘s rights, reputation and honor 3. It must not
undermine or disrupt social order or moral decency 4. It must not generate social transgression.
According to Sawitree Suksri, a law professor, the banning of the whole film instead of rating it
conflicts ‗the essence‘ of article 45. See Seminar on ―Fi lm and Video Act and Thai
Constitution‖, in Thai Film Journal (2011), Vol. 15, pp. 98-127.