Thai Censors Drop Ban On Border Row Film

[webfact]

Thai censors drop ban on border row film

BANGKOK, April 25, 2013 (AFP) - Thai censors will allow a documentary about a border row with Cambodia to be screened, a culture ministry official said Thursday, in a U-turn after banning the film as a threat to national security.

Censors watched "Boundary", which explores the lives of people caught up in conflict in the area near the Preah Vihear temple, twice on Thursday and decided the initial call to ban it was "a mistake".

"There was a mistake by officials," an official at the country's Video and Film Office told AFP, requesting anonymity.

It can be screened with some changes "which the director is willing to make", the official said, adding the sub-committee was wrong to ban it from Thai screens in the first place.

Filmmaker Nontawat Numbenchapol welcomed the reversal and said his documentary -- which made its screen debut in Europe -- will now be shown with the sound cut from a brief section.

"I'm confident that audience will understand my film which aims to open more discussion," he said of the documentary, which touches on flashpoint political protests in Bangkok as well as the border spat -- currently being adjudicated by the UN's highest court.

Some of the film's most contentious scenes come from Thailand's febrile recent history including a bloody crackdown on "Red Shirt" protesters in the heart of Bangkok in 2010.

On Wednesday the official at the Film and Video Office, which falls under the culture ministry, said the documentary was banned because its content could cause "a rift in international relations".

The film could also "cause disunity among Thais and jeopardise national security", he added.

Thailand does not dispute Cambodia's ownership of the 900-year-old Preah Vihear temple, a UNESCO World Heritage site that has seen deadly clashes along their joint border.

But both sides claim an adjacent 4.6-square-kilometre (1.8-square-mile) patch of land.

The Hague-based International Court of Justice (ICJ) completed hearings last week after Cambodia asked for an interpretation of the 1962 ruling on the Preah Vihear temple area.

A verdict from the ICJ, which judges disputes between states, is not expected for several months.

-- (c) Copyright AFP 2013-04-25

RELATED:

Thailand Bans Film About Thai-Cambodian Border Row

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/634952-thailand-bans-film-about-thai-cambodian-border-row/

[Thai at Heart]

Oh yeaaaaaaay.

Is this a first for Thailand? The mind police admit they are wrong?

[khwaibah]

The Phnom Phenh Post is getting some millage from it..

NATIONAL

Thailand bans documentary

Last Updated on 25 April 2013 By Joe Freeman

Above, a still from the documentary Boundary, which has been banned in Thailand. Photo Supplied

A documentary examining the Thai-Cambodian border flare-ups has been deemed unfit for screening in Thailand by its Ministry of Culture.

The Film and Video sub-committee of the ministry called the content “a threat to national security and international relations”. In a statement released on Tuesday, they announced that the film “presents some information on incidents that are still being deliberated by the Thai court and that have not yet been officially concluded”.

Director Nontawat Numbenchapol, whose film Boundary was completed last year, vowed to appeal the decision.

“One of my intentions is to let the film be a space for the people in the troubled territories to voice their views, opinions and feelings that they haven’t had a chance to do so in the media report on the issue,” he wrote in a statement posted on Facebook.

Using recorded footage, interviews with soldiers and residents on both sides of the border, Boundary explores confrontations between political factions in Thailand and the long-running dispute over the Preah Vihear temple, which the International Court of Justice awarded to Cambodia in 1962, setting the stage for a conflict that continues today.

Fatal clashes erupted along the border from 2008 to 2011 after the temple was listed as a World Heritage site. The two countries found themselves back in court last week to argue over 4.6 square kilometres surrounding the 11th-century ruin.

Thailand’s censorship committee objected to several “groundless” points in the film, the Bangkok Post reported, including a caption that says there were “nearly 100 deaths” during a crackdown on Thailand’s red-shirt activists in May, 2010. The government maintains an official figure of 89.

In a country where insulting the royal family can result in prison time, censorship authorities have adopted a rigid stance when films wade into sensitive territory. Last year, they banned the Macbeth-inspired Thai film Shakespeare Must Die, arguing that its story of demonstrations and political power struggles might cause disunity.

Thailand’s ambassador to The Hague, Virachai Plasai, who argued the temple territory case before the international court last week, said yesterday that he was unaware of the Ministry of Culture’s decision. While declining to comment, he observed that since the Thai government streamed the hearings on the temple territory live to an audience of millions back home, the subject resonated with the population.

“It’s like everybody is in court; it’s a case that belongs to everybody. I think this sense of ownership suddenly came with the live coverage and the simultaneous interpretation. It becomes real and so people get

involved,” he said.

As always, the temple case generated far less interest in Cambodia; residents consider the case closed after winning the temple in 1962. The less sensitive climate was in evidence last night at a Phnom Penh arts venue, where a screening of a movie about Preah Vihear was scheduled to be followed by an informal talk with a government spokesman.

Edited April 25, 2013 by khwaibah

[falang07]

They must have realized that banning it would make it even more popular, and people would find it on internet anyway.

[Thai at Heart]

They must have realized that banning it would make it even more popular, and people would find it on internet anyway.

Well that's a first. I read somewhere that the title stating "sky" could in some way be construed as lese majeste. I am so glad that the blue rinse, rose tinted spectacled mind controllers have obviously had a shot across the bow.

I can't help thinking that reaction in social media had something to do with this also.

[Songhua]

Oops. Almost seen to be hiding something with an ICJ decision pending.

[Thai at Heart]

I am so happy to read this story, I almost shed a tear.

Small steps, but important one's.

[SteeleJoe]

Well that's a first. I read somewhere that the title stating "sky" could in some way be construed as lese majeste.

Well, yes but it has to do more with the whole title. I think I will leave it at that.

Edited April 25, 2013 by SteeleJoe

[Thai at Heart]

Well that's a first. I read somewhere that the title stating "sky" could in some way be construed as lese majeste.

Well, yes but it has to do more with the whole title. I think I will leave it at that.

Well I read the translation, and it's meaning in English is pretty unambiguous, but of course, if anyone desperately tries to read something into something, of course, lese majeste accusation tends to bring the absolutely most paranoid reaction out of anyone in a position of power.

[SteeleJoe]

Well that's a first. I read somewhere that the title stating "sky" could in some way be construed as lese majeste.

Well, yes but it has to do more with the whole title. I think I will leave it at that.

Well I read the translation, and it's meaning in English is pretty unambiguous, but of course, if anyone desperately tries to read something into something, of course, lese majeste accusation tends to bring the absolutely most paranoid reaction out of anyone in a position of power.

I'm sure you know that some (many) things can't be directly translated ( hence the difference between a translator and an interpreter): it's idiomatic and cultural.

[DocN]

signs and wonders

[EyesWideOpen]

When the original comes out as a torrent file, it will be interesting to see what parts were cut from the version that will now be shown in Thailand.

"It can be screened with some changes "which the director is willing to make""

Edited April 25, 2013 by EyesWideOpen

[Locationthailand]

It is a welcome backflip from the flippant censors.

[surangw]

this is just in case the ban did not give the film enough free promotion.

[Newguy70]

Taking a step sideways isn't taking a step forward.

Why do some changes need to be made to the film prior to screening?

Is that not censorship...

[culicine]

Banning a film because in might create disunity? That's right, everyone must have the same opinion and think the same way. So much for open discussion. For this country to move forward, discussion and open debate are critical...something that is still sadly lacking here.

[hellodolly]

Oh yeaaaaaaay.

Is this a first for Thailand? The mind police admit they are wrong?

No they did not really admit they were wrong. They made him edit it before he could let it be seen in Thailand.

[rubberduck]

Thailand does not dispute Cambodia's ownership of the 900-year-old Preah Vihear temple

What ?

[Thai at Heart]

Oh yeaaaaaaay.

Is this a first for Thailand? The mind police admit they are wrong?

No they did not really admit they were wrong. They made him edit it before he could let it be seen in Thailand.

The edit is according to the other paper, tiny.

[webfact]

FILM CENSORSHIP
Ban on border film overturned
The Nation



BANGKOK: -- Documentary filmmaker Nontawat Nambenjapol told The Nation late yesterday afternoon that his film "Boundary", which was earlier banned by censors, had been cleared for release with an 18+ rating after he agreed to make some changes.

The director said he had agreed to mute the sound during the opening scene, which depicts a New Year's celebration at Ratchaprasong Intersection in which cries of "Let's count down to celebrate HM the King's 84th anniversary" could be heard.The Film and Video Board, attached to the Office of Cultural Promotion, contacted the filmmaker yesterday to apologise for the "technical mistake".

The filmmaker was told that the ban order issued on Tuesday was the decision of a sub-committee that in fact had no authority to issue such a verdict. Only the main committee has the jurisdiction to do so. When members of the main committee saw the film yesterday, they decided to let it pass. Also, before banning any movie, the committee is required to allow its director to defend himself, but that did not happen on Tuesday.

However, the censors asked the director to remove two seconds of ambient sound. The filmmaker said he realised that the sound had no significance to the film and agreed to mute it.

The sub-committee that banned the film cited several inappropriate issues, but the main committee did not object to any of them, Nontawat said. Other than those two seconds of sound, the entire film remains intact.The director said he plans to have his film screened at a Bangkok cinema soon.

"I'm so surprised, but very happy," the director said.

Earlier yesterday before the ban was lifted, Nontawat reiterated that the film, "Fah Tam Phaendin Soong" (Low Sky, High Land), was about the disputed border area between Thailand and Cambodia and had nothing to do with the issue of the monarchy as interpreted by the sub-committee.

He said the film was aimed at fostering peace between the two countries.

Nontawat told Nation TV that the use of the word fah, or sky, in the title was in no way a reference to the monarchy, as the panel believed and cited as one of its reasons for banning the film.

As for the inclusion of interviews with local people on both sides of the border, Nontawat said it was done to convey a message of peaceful co-existence between along the disputed boundary.

The director said the scenes of military clashes were simply downloaded from YouTube. If presenting such scenes cannot be permitted, then why did the Thai authorities not try to block the YouTube videos, he asked.

Earlier, Nontawat appealed the decision to the committee and said he was looking into the possibility of petitioning the Administrative Court.


-- The Nation 2013-04-26

[noitom]

"Sound will be cut from a brief section." Boy oh boy these Thais. They are something else. They admit they are wrong to ban it in the first place, but they "cut a small section." Unbelievable! Who do these Thais think they are kidding? Their own people or pandering to the foreign press as if they were open and encourage objectivity? Everyone knows what the Thais are all about.

[kimamey]

Oh yeaaaaaaay.

Is this a first for Thailand? The mind police admit they are wrong?

No they did not really admit they were wrong. They made him edit it before he could let it be seen in Thailand.

That may have just been part of the compromise of negotiation so neither side lose face.

It's a common part of a negotiation worldwide despite the fact that some people seem to think that losing face is a unique part of oriental culture that the rest of us have no hope of understanding.

Edited April 26, 2013 by kimamey

[Thai at Heart]

Oh yeaaaaaaay.

Is this a first for Thailand? The mind police admit they are wrong?

No they did not really admit they were wrong. They made him edit it before he could let it be seen in Thailand.

That may have just been part of the compromise of negotiation so neither side lose face.

It's a common part of a negotiation worldwide despite the fact that some people seem to think that losing face is a unique part of oriental culture that the rest of us have no hope of understanding.

Anywhere in the world, I don't think I have ever heard " sorry, I was wrong" from a position of authority.

I keep hoping Gordon Brown will say it one day.....

Edited April 26, 2013 by Thai at Heart

[oldsailor35]

Oh yeaaaaaaay.

Is this a first for Thailand? The mind police admit they are wrong?

No they did not really admit they were wrong. They made him edit it before he could let it be seen in Thailand.

That may have just been part of the compromise of negotiation so neither side lose face.

It's a common part of a negotiation worldwide despite the fact that some people seem to think that losing face is a unique part of oriental culture that the rest of us have no hope of understanding.

Anywhere in the world, I don't think I have ever heard " sorry, I was wrong" from a position of authority.

I keep hoping Gordon Brown will say it one day.....

Who is Gordon Brown ?

[Thai at Heart]

Oh yeaaaaaaay.

Is this a first for Thailand? The mind police admit they are wrong?

No they did not really admit they were wrong. They made him edit it before he could let it be seen in Thailand.

That may have just been part of the compromise of negotiation so neither side lose face.

It's a common part of a negotiation worldwide despite the fact that some people seem to think that losing face is a unique part of oriental culture that the rest of us have no hope of understanding.

Anywhere in the world, I don't think I have ever heard " sorry, I was wrong" from a position of authority.

I keep hoping Gordon Brown will say it one day.....

Who is Gordon Brown ?

Apparently just a blip in British economic history, who oversaw the bankruptcy of a G5 nation.

Economic genius apparently.