Maker of banned film determined to fight censorship, 'autocratic culture'
Although it has been banned since April, the co-producer of the film "Shakespeare Must Die", Manit Sriwanithpoom, continues his campaign to overturn the Film Board's decision, which was based on fears that the satirical work would be interpreted as a criticism of Thaksin Shinwatra, inflaming social divisions. Manit talked to The Nation on Sunday's Pravit Rojanaphruk about the road ahead. Excerpts follow.
What do you think is the real reason behind the banning of the film?
I think the [Film Board] members fear that it will affect the image of Thaksin and mock him, but they won't say it. It's like when we're in a state of fear, we tend not to mention the name of the person we are afraid of.
Should a film that risks causing social division be censored? Why or why not?
We must look at the context. Thai society is beyond what any film can or cannot do. The society is already divided. I don't think the film is capable of making it more divided. Mostly, the rift that is happening today stems from politicians.
In the case of the National Reconciliation Bill, it turned the Parliament into a forum for division and this had nothing to do with the movie.
If they think the movie defames Thaksin, then lets prove it in court by filing a libel charge against me. I am ready and willing to fight it in court.
What does the banning of your film tell us about Thai society?
It reflects the fact that Thai society is still fragile on virtually every issue. So when something similar to the real situation is told it causes uneasiness and overreaction.
It could be a journalist who constructively criticises the monarchy institution, who has fallen into a [legal] net.
Overreaction comes from all sides, be it Pheu Thai or the Democrat Party. This reflects the insecurity of power.
What is your next move?
The National Human Rights Commission will release a statement no later than [mid-July]. We consider the use of power without proper reason to constitute a [rights] violation. It took no less than two to three years to produce the film, and one meeting and a piece of paper to ban it. We shall use the statement by the NHRC to petition the Administrative Court [to revoke the ban].
We must be open-minded but we aren't, because we don't have a democratic culture. Today, we only have an autocratic culture. We must open up space for differing opinions, be patient and tolerant. Censorship is a product of the lack of a democratic culture.
[The film] may seem amoral, but only [to those with] a set morality. We must be open to different views and try to understand the reasons why people think differently.
Print version
Send by email
Comments
Show the film for goodness
Show the film for goodness sake ... just make sure it opens with
"Produced through a 'gift' of ฿_______ of your taxes made by the Democrat Party of Thailand"
Fill in the amount. (How come you forgot to ask that, Pravit?) How much did she get? 30 million? 60 million? 90 million? more? The Democrats pissed away 200 million on the film portion of "buy the election", didn't they?
They always claim the elections are bought, but when they outspend everyone in Thai political history ... they fail as miserably as ever. Maybe Thais don't vote for the fools who spread the cash around, eh? Oh course the Democrats used state funds, kept their own hard-stolen funds in their wallets.
The Thai people ought to see what they got for their money ... they're not going to have to pay admission, too, are they?
At two and a half hours I'd be surprised if they even sit through opening night.
Due to limited space as The
Due to limited space as The Nation's celebrated its anniversary on the particular Sunday issue, Manit's stressing that the film was partly funded by the Culture Ministry when Abhisit was in power was omitted. The issue of the government's partial funding is not something Manit is hiding. In fact, he has been making it clear in many other previous interviews with the local media. Manit thinks it's ludicrous that a film which is partly funded by the previous government is now being banned by the government's Film Board.
Yeah, we're well aware that
Yeah, we're well aware that space is frequently limited at The Nation, Prawit.
How many of the peoples' baht did the Democrat Party dump into the film?
That's not too difficult a question for a crack reporter, is it?
Surprised to have to ask it once. Rather remarkable, really, to have to ask it twice.
The film's budget, according
The film's budget, according to Manit, is Bt6 millions and half of the budget (Bt3 millions) was funded by the Ministry of Culture.
Pravit You don't get it - you
Pravit
You don't get it - you let these guys off the hook.
Why have these film-makers never uttered one word in support of lese majest prisoners who have been thrown into prison?
Why did these film-makers, now claiming a space at the centre of an "anti-censorship" campaign, never speak or say a word when Red Shirt media was being shut-down and lese majeste cases were massively ramped up?
Why didn't you question these film-makers about their previous strong sympathy for the PAD, an organisation described as "ne-fascist" by the Asian Human Rights Commission and whose own leadership have openly called for the destruction of democracy and for Thailand's to be closed and the country "cleansed"?
Why didn't you mention any of this in your intro? Why didn't you even question them properly as all the above is in the public domain already? Once again you forego the context and attempt to de-historicise stuff. It's insidious and deceitful.
One thing's for certain - if these film-makers had taken money from Thaksin and been Red Shirt supporters I get the funny feeling that would've been the very first thing you mentioned.
Yet, when they took money from a regime shooting Thai citizens and support the PAD you say nothing.
Thanks, Pravit. It's pretty
Thanks, Pravit. It's pretty clear this 'masterpiece' would never have seen the light of day without the Democrat Party. It still might not without the Thaksin Party.
I think those other folks probably approve of lese majeste persecutions, Andrew, and that's why they didn't speak out against them. I don't imagine you have actually to sign a statement saying as much to be chosen to head a Democrat Party Production, but I'm sure it's understood by all involved that that is the case.
They can always speak up and correct me if I'm wrong.
JFL Precisely. The question
JFL
Precisely.
The question now is why didn't Pravit - who is considered to be an "esteemed" journalist and defender of freedom of expression - ask the film-makers any question about their politics and lack of support for those incarcerated under lese majeste?
As I said you can be certain if these film-makers had been Red Shirt supporters funded by Thaksin Pravit would have been in the lead attacking them.
Andrew you seem to enjoy
Andrew you seem to enjoy setting up Pravit as your personal punching bag. I think he's just another bozo on the bus, just like me or yourself. Your relentless attacks are steadily making me more sympathetic to him and less sympathetic to yourself. Sorry, I just can't help it. I always root for the underdog. Once you put everything on a personal level emotions come into play. That's quite a trick, actually. Making the guy born with the silver spoon in his mouth the underdog. But you've accomplished it according to my applause meter. Measuring the volume of just one hand clapping, of course.
I don't know, but I don't think that's the reaction you're seeking. Of course I am just one bozo on the bus. Perhaps you've gained a lot of sympathy elsewhere. Yet I don't think you are consciously trying to reduce your argument to a purely emotional one, are you? But perhaps others aren't affected by your approach in the same way as I am.
JFL Please stick to the
JFL
Please stick to the arguments and not any "emotional" or "personal" impact you imagine I am making.
My point is that Pravit's work needs to be critiqued if some more genuine democratic voices are to emerge and that the likes of him holding centre-stage is damaging to the wider discourse on what shape the discussion on Thai democracy takes.
And i've been making these criticisms since Aug 2011, long before Pravit championed someone who'd made death threats against my family as a response to that criticism.
His position as a voice of democracy is fraudulent. That's my view and I've backed it up by making a number or arguments based on responses to his work. I don't really care about the "emotion" or the fact that Pravit engaged in some pretty vile personal attacks on me.
He is employed by an extreme rightwing newspaper. He backs the rights of powerful extreme rightwing media to stalk and intimidate young women and calls that "freedom of expression". He falsely claims that a single Red Shirt handing his colleague a single paper note is equal to the brutality of the lese majeste law. He refuses to ask any proper questions of extreme rightwing film-makers.
If my questioning of him is difficult for you, what can I say? I mean do people really invest their principles in someone who, based on his own work, is so insidiously dishonest?
So, it's not about "sympathy" or me "personally" or him being the "underdog" (really? he's as privileged as they come, works for a national paper, is feted by the "liberal" Bangkok set - I'm just some blogger who has a tendency to piss people off) but the arguments. Pravit, in my opinion, is an insidious fraud. Others may disagree.
But it is only by engaging in the same process Pravit insists he can apply to others - his attacks on the Red Shirts' responses to criticism as being equal to lese majeste and his defence of ASTV's right to stalk women are both pretty disgusting - that he can rightly be judged and his work (which I consider to be intellectually weak, with a rightwing libertarian streak and an evident bias towards his own social class) be placed in the right context.
Or should the likes of the very privileged Pravit be allowed to spout their views without any criticism or debate at all?
I suppose my general point is that is Pravit is seen as some voice of liberal resistance to the powerful no wonder things are so messed up. Is that really the best there is?
I think you accord too much
I think you accord too much importance to what one columnist for a hard-core, reactionary 'newspaper' puts forth and that your susequently own attitude is too personalized, Andrew. It's not about Pravit, or Prem, or Thaksin ... or john francis lee or Andrew Spooner ... although we all insist on playing our parts. 'Good luck' with your pogrom. Perhaps you can replace Pravit 'at center stage', at least in your own mind.
JFL A columnist presents his
JFL
A columnist presents his viewpoint and gets criticised for it. Where I'm from that's not a pogrom and it's not personalised and it goes on every single day. You put your views in the public domain you should expect and accept criticism and not rely on threats and abuse to answer those criticisms. For example, personalised would be "Pravit sucks cocks for the Democrat Party" or encouraging my readership to join in with that or to promote someone who had made death threats towards Pravit, things I would never consider doing yet which Pravit instantly found acceptable to answer my critiques. I criticised his arguments and consider him a fake liberal. That's my viewpoint. Am I entitled to that view without suffering abuse/threats?
Also, a "pogrom" would be the kind of thing ASTV and Manager engage in when they attack young women like Kantoop and Oom not a few comments on a website forum.
Strangely Pravit promoted someone who made death-threats to my family and who continually makes weird sexual comments about me. Pravit took this highly personalised approach rather than answering my criticisms.
Strangely Pravit views the pogroms of ASTV and Manager as "freedom of expression" and continues to support their right to engage in these pogroms.
Even more strangely I am then accused of being "personal" and engaging in a "pogrom" while Pravit, who adopted some very serious personalised abuse to answer me and who, actually, supports the rights of people engaging in real pogroms and not just a couple of comments on an obscure website, promotes himself, without any real questioning, as a beacon of liberal, progressive, democratic values and discussion. In my view he's a fake and a fraud and I'm entitled to that view and, given that I laid out clearly why I think that is the case, it's a view that has, I believe, some foundation.
Some of my defense for the
Some of my defense for the right of red-shirt media to exist free from censorship which have been written over the years are now at my new blog at pravitr.blogspot.com
The public can now judge by themselves where I stand on the issue of press freedom and freedom of expression. Also, even in English, one can google my name and words like red-shirt community radio or red media for additional articles.
pravit
Pravit Where you stand is
Pravit
Where you stand is that you support ASTV's right to stalk. intimidate and threaten young women. You consider that "freedom of expression". You also answered my criticism of you by promoting a twitter account that had made death threats against my family.
Once again Pravit absolves
Once again Pravit absolves his criticism of any notion of context or power relations. But, of course, if you come from an elite family yourself and are paid by an extreme rightwing propaganda rag like the Nation you'd want to avoid context as much as possible.
Should this film be banned? Not at all.
Should anyone interested in "free speech" be suspicious of the persons who made this film? Absolutely.
Remember the makers of this film have no commitment to anyone else's free speech except their own and have never shown any solidarity with anyone ever arrested, sanctioned or even threatened due to their exercising their freedom of expression.
The film-makers said nothing when the Democrat Party govt shut down the Red Shirt TV & radio. They remained silent when the Democrat Party ramped up the biggest use of lese majeste in Thailand's history. The predicament of Ah Kong, Somyot, Joe Gordon and other lese majeste prisoners didn't even warrant a mention by them.
As JFL points out, the filmmakers were happy to take money from the Abhisit/Democrat regime while that same regime were using snipers on Thai citizens.
Weird how Pravit fails to even address that question to these film-makers.
But given that these film-makers are drawn from the same strata of Thai society as Pravit we shouldn't be surprised by more cynical reporting by the Nation's reporter.
The main thing about Pravit's reporting is that it reveals how weak the position of Thailand's liberals actually is. Here is Pravit, someone who is paid by an extreme rightwing newspaper, who wants to protect the rights of extreme rightwing media companies to launch hate campaigns against young women, who uses persons who make death threats to answer his critics and who fails to answer any meaningful questions of rightwing anti-democratic film-makers who'd previously openly aligned themselves with a neo-fascist political movement. Is Pravit really the best the English-language Thai media has? Esteemed? What for exactly?