HISTERIA (2007, James Lee, A+)

–One thing I’m curious about CITIZEN JULING is if there is any interview of Sirinat Thawornsuk in the film or not. The film interviews many people but doesn’t show the names of the interviewees while they are being interviewed. I didn’t read the ending credit to see if the name of Sirinat Thawornsuk appears in it or not.

–One of the things I like very much in CITIZEN JULING is that it tells the story about the senator Fakhruddin Boto who was shot and seriously injured. I have to confess that I didn’t hear about this senator before. It’s great that the film gives us interesting information like this.

FILMS SEEN TODAY

1.HISTERIA (2007, James Lee, Malaysia, A+)
This film gives me the same pleasure that I have from watching 1970’s B-grade horror movies. I love this kind of horror films very much.

2.LITTLE MOTH (2008, Tao Peng, China, A+)
I like films which have many evil characters like this film.

3.24 CITY (2008, Jia Zhangke, China, A+)
I like the last part very much. The last part is about a woman whose gratitude towards her parents seems to be one of the reasons that can turn her into a greedy, materialistic, capitalistic person. Can “trying to be a good daughter” turn someone into an evil person? The film doesn’t ask this question, but something this woman said makes me ask myself this question.

FILMS SEEN IN BANGKOK INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL 2008

IN ROUGHLY PREFERENTIAL ORDER WHICH CHANGES EVERY MINUTE ACCORDING TO MY UNRELIABLE FEELINGS

1.MODERN LIFE (2008, Raymond Depardon, France, A+++++++++++++++)

2.NOW SHOWING (2008, Raya Martin, Philippines, 280 minutes, A+++++++++++++++)

3.YEARS WHEN I WAS A CHILD OUTSIDE (2007, John Torres, Philippines, A+++++++++++++++)

4.PAPER CANNOT WRAP UP EMBERS (2007, Rithy Panh, Cambodia, A+++++++++++++++)

5.BIRD SONG (2008, Albert Serra, Spain, A+++++++++++++++)

6.AUTUMN (2008, Ozcan Alper, Turkey, A+++++++++++++++)

7.IN THE CITY OF SYLVIA (2007, Jose Luis Guerin, Spain, A++++++++++)

8.LET THE RIGHT ONE IN (2008, Tomas Alfredson, Sweden, A+++++)

9.BE LIKE OTHERS (2008, Tanaz Eshaghian, Iran, documentary, A+)

10.FEAST OF VILLAINS (2008, Pan Jianlin, China, A+)

11.CITIZEN JULING (2008, Ing K, Manit Sriwanichpoom, Kraisak Choonhavan, Thailand, documentary, 222 min, A+)

12.JAY (2008, Francis Xavier Pasion, Philippines, A+)

13.MY WINNIPEG (2007, Guy Maddin, Canada, A+)

14.HISTERIA (2007, James Lee, Malaysia, A+)

15.LITTLE MOTH (2008, Tao Peng, China, A+)

16.A CHRISMAS TALE (2008, Arnaud Desplechin, France, A+)

17.LORNA’S SILENCE (2008, Jean-Pierre Dardenne + Luc Dardenne, Belgium, A+)

18.THE LAST MISTRESS (2007, Catherine Breillat, France, A+)

19.24 CITY (2008, Jia Zhangke, China, A+)

20.A LIFE WITH SLATE (2006, Dipesh Kharel, Nepal, documentary, A+)

21.DRUMBEAT (2007, Adolfo Alix Jr., Philippines, A+)

22.BREATHING IN MUD (2007, James Lee, Malaysia, A+)

23.LEMON TREE (2008, Eran Riklis, Israel, A+/A)

24.DAYS OF TURQUOISE SKY (2008, Woo Ming-jin, Malaysia, A+/A)

25.NERAKHOON (THE BETRAYAL) (2008, Ellen Kuras + Thavisouk Phrasavath, USA, documentary, A+/A)

26.SLINGSHOT (2007, Brillante Mendoza, Philippines, A+/A)

27.SOI COWBOY (2008, Thomas Clay, UK, A)

28.PARKING (2008, Chung Mong-Hong, Taiwan, A)

29.VICKY CRISTINA BARCELONA (2008, Woody Allen, A)

30.INVISIBLE CHILDREN (2008, Brian Gothong Tan, Singapore, A-)

31.KANTAKA TAKWA (2007, Eros Djarot + Gotot Prakosa + Slamet Rahardjo Djarot, Indonesia, A-)

FEAST OF VILLAINS (Pan Jianlin, A+)

This is my comment in Bioscope webboard:
http://www.bioscopemagazine.com/smf/index.php?topic=1462.60

FILMS SEEN ON 29 SEP 2008

1.FEAST OF VILLAINS (2008, Pan Jianlin, China, A+)

Guilty pleasure. I love the main actor very much. This film seems to tell its story very straightforwardly or in a very simple way, but somehow its story makes more impact on me than the stories of artier films such as SHANGHAI DREAMS (2005, Wang Xiaoshuai, A+/A).

2.CITIZEN JULING (2008, Ing K, Manit Sriwanichpoom, Kraisak Choonhavan, Thailand, documentary, 222 min, A+)

Though I don’t like a few things in the film, I still give it A+, because there are still many things I like in the film. I find that one of the things I enjoy in the film is a little bit like what I enjoy in a murder mystery film—watching and listening to many people’s testimonies and trying to figure out if they are telling the truth, telling lies, or half truth and half lies. However, there is a big difference, because I may never find out if each of the villagers told the truth or lied, while a murder mystery film always tells us the truth in the end.

3.NERAKHOON (THE BETRAYAL) (2008, Ellen Kuras + Thavisouk Phrasavath, USA, documentary, A+/A)

I like the content of this film very much, though I think some parts of the film are too stylish.

Reply to Merveillesxx

SPOILERS ALERT

–I’m very glad that you like LET THE RIGHT ONE IN. One of the things I like very much in the film is that the film makes the hero and the heroine “morally gray” than “innocent”. The heroine seems to have killed many innocent victims in the past, and the hero also helps her kill an innocent victim. The heroine argues that she kills people because she has to do it, but the film doesn’t fully support her claim, because the film shows us that a vampire can always commit suicide, instead of keeping on killing innocent people. I like it very much that the film presents a vampire character (the middle-age woman) who prefers to commit suicide than to kill innocent people. By presenting a suicidal vampire in the film, the film reminds us that we always have a choice to commit suicide. Some people always hurt other people and claim that they have to hurt other people in order to survive, but I think they should just commit sucide. In conclusion, one of the things I like in LET THE RIGHT ONE IN is its moral ambiguity.

MODERN LIFE (Raymond Depardon, A++++++++++)

FILMS SEEN ON 27-28 SEP 2008

1.MODERN LIFE (2008, Raymond Depardon, A+++++++++++++++)

This film makes me cry a lot. One of my most favorite films of 2008. The film is as deceptively simple as CAUGHT IN THE ACTS and THE TENTH DISTRICT COURT, but MODERN LIFE affects my feelings more than these two films.

2.BIRD SONG (2008, Albert Serra, Spain, A+++++++++++++++)
Is this film a spiritual comedy?

3.IN THE CITY OF SYLVIA (2007, Jose Luis Guerin, A++++++++++)
The film makes me want to write a hundred short stories inspired by seeing the faces of the women in the film.

4.LET THE RIGHT ONE IN (2008, Tomas Alfredson, Sweden, A+++++)
I like the atmosphere in this film very much.

5.JAY (2008, Francis Xavier Pasion, Philippines, A+)
It makes me laugh a lot.

6.LORNA’S SILENCE (2008, Jean-Pierre Dardenne + Luc Dardenne, Belgium, A+)
I like the topic of guilt in this film.

7.BE LIKE OTHERS (2008, Tanaz Eshaghian, Iran, documentary, A+)
I like the content in this film very much. I particularly like the interviewee who said he/she had killed the love inside herself.

8.DRUMBEAT (2007, Adolfo Alix Jr., Philippines, A+)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1092036/
I’m crazy for Sid Lucero and Coco Martin.

9.BREATHING IN MUD (2007, James Lee, Malaysia, A+)
SPOILERS ALERT:
At first I thought the film is a little bit boring. Later, I found myself very fond of the decisions made by two characters in the film. They decide to stay away from their own families. I have to admit that I feel very bored with characters in other films who try to be loved or accepted by their own families. That’s why I like the decisions made by characters in this film very much.

10.DAYS OF TURQUOISE SKY (2008, Woo Ming-jin, Malaysia, A+/A)
I like the modest ambition of this film.

NOW SHOWING (Raya Martin, A+++++++++++++++)

FILMS SEEN ON 25-26 SEP 2008

1.NOW SHOWING (2008, Raya Martin, Philippines, 280 minutes, A+++++++++++++++)

2.PAPER CANNOT WRAP UP EMBERS (2007, Rithy Panh, Cambodia, A+++++++++++++++)

3.A CHRISMAS TALE (2008, Arnaud Desplechin, France, A+)

4.A LIFE WITH SLATE (2006, Dipesh Kharel, Nepal, documentary, A+)

5.LEMON TREE (2008, Eran Riklis, Israel, A+/A)

6.SLINGSHOT (2007, Brillante Mendoza, Philippines, A+/A)
Guilty pleasure

7.SOI COWBOY (2008, Thomas Clay, UK, A)

YEARS WHEN I WAS A CHILD OUTSIDE (A++++++++++)

FILMS SEEN TODAY

1.YEARS WHEN I WAS A CHILD OUTSIDE (2007, John Torres, Philippines, A+++++++++++++++)

Strongly recommended for those who love Paisit Panpruegsachat, Chulyanon Siriphol, or Tulapop Saenjaroen—those filmmakers who erase distinction between documentary, fiction, and experimental films. Uncategorizable. Unpredictable. Untamable.

2.AUTUMN (2008, Ozcan Alper, Turkey, A+++++++++++++++)

Strongly recommended for those who love lonely, passive male character such as the one in EGG (2007, Semih Kaplanoglu, A++++++++++), though I think AUTUMN is bleaker than EGG. The main characters of AUTUMN may be the sea and the mountains, not human beings.

Though the hero of this film seems to release his pent-up emotions only one short time, I think this film has done a great job in making me totally sympathize with the hero. I really love this kind of character—person who has already lost the will to live, don’t know what to live for, or has empty soul.

3.INVISIBLE CHILDREN (2008, Brian Gothong Tan, Singapore, A-)

I like the soldier story in this film very much. It is a kind of guilty pleasure.

4.KANTAKA TAKWA (2007, Eros Djarot + Gotot Prakosa + Slamet Rahardjo Djarot, Indonesia, A-)

I like the music in this film.

MY WINNIPEG (2007, Guy Maddin, A+)

The BIFF2008 has started, and I enjoyed it a lot. What I like the most in the first day is the Thai subtitles for VICKY CRISTINA BARCELONA and MY WINNIPEG. Since my English listening comprehension is very bad, I appreciate it very much that any English-speaking films come with subtitles.

FILMS I SAW TODAY

1.MY WINNIPEG (2007, Guy Maddin, A+)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1093842/

2.THE LAST MISTRESS (2007, Catherine Breillat, A+)

3.PARKING (2008, Chung Mong-Hong, Taiwan, A)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1232827/

4.VICKY CRISTINA BARCELONA (2008, Woody Allen, A)

FAVORITE ENDING
VICKI CRISTINA BARCELONA

Though the film is not very powerful, I still like the ending of this film, because it doesn’t make me feel cheated by giving me false promise or false hope by saying that everything will be alright or “you will find the right person someday.” This kind of unresolved ending may be more common in European films, but I didn’t expect it in this film, because at first glance this film seems to be just a lightweight romantic comedy.

Something in the plot of VICKI CRISTINA BARCELONA reminds me of Eric Rohmer’s films. I think VICKI CRISTINA BARCELONA and many films by Eric Rohmer have interesting female characters, and I wonder if there is any female director who make films which can be compared to Eric Rohmer’s.

There is one scene I like very much in VICKI CRISTINA BARCELONA—it’s the scene in which Vicky, Doug and his two friends talk about some materialistic things which bore Vicky very much. I think I understand the feelings of Vicky in that scene.

I like the character of Cristina (Scarlett Johansson). She is searching for happiness, while she still does not know what can really make her feel truly happy. I like this kind of characters—the ones who question about “true happiness”. It also reminds me of another interesting character—the heroine of ONE SEPTEMBER STORY (2008, Teekhadet Vucharadhanin, Thailand, A+). Cristina and the heroine of ONE SEPTEMBER STORY seems to lack nothing materially, but they are still not truly happy.

ONE SEPTEMBER STORY is about a woman who splits into two personalities—one is governed by the head, the other is governed by the heart. I guess this kind of contrast may also be found in VICKI CRISTINA BARCELONA and SENSE AND SENSIBILITY.

–Though my most favorite film for today is MY WINNIPEG, I think I can’t write anything about it now, because of the same reasons I always find in my most favorite films—they are indescribable. So today I find myself writing many things about my least favorite film for today, and can express nothing in words about my most favorite film.

POLL 33: GRASSROOTS

This is about a poll in my bilingual blog at http://celinejulie.blogspot.com

 

 

My poll 33 is inspired by the word “grassroots”, which is a new word for me because I started to see or hear these words only a few years ago, maybe not more than 10 years ago. I’m not sure if I understand this word or not, but some dictionaries say that it means local common people or something like that. Lately I have heard this word much more frequently because of the political situations in Thailand and some countries in South America.

While the word “grassroots” has been mentioned frequently in Thai political news, recently I also have seen many Thai short films about people from rural areas or made by people from rural areas themselves. It is just a coincidence that I heard the word “grassroots” and saw many Thai rural films during the same time. But this coincidence inspires me to make my list of favorite films about grassroots, laborers, and common people.

THESE FILMS CONCERN GRASSROOTS, LABOURERS OR COMMON PEOPLE. WHICH ONES DO YOU LIKE?

1.BING GAI (2007, Feng Yan, China)

2.COUP POUR COUP (1972, Marin Karmitz, France)

3.DO-DEAW (ดูเดี่ยว) (2008, Danai Yoktuptim, Thailand)
I like the first part of this documentary very much. The first part is an interview of some female fabric workers who created the colorful back curtain used in a famous standup comedy.

4.ERMO (1994, Zhou Xiaowen, China)

5.FARMER FIELD SCHOOL (2007, Supong Jitmuang, Thailand)

6.I FILM MY VILLAGE (2006, Shao Yuzhen, China)
http://celinejulie.blogspot.com/2008/08/i-film-my-village-2006-shao-yuzhen.html

7.THE LAST RICE FARMER (2005, Yen Lan-chuan + Juang Yi-tseng, Taiwan)

8.LING GAI KAB PAE BAE BAE (ลิง ไก่ ขาบ แพะ แบะ แบะ) (2008, Ekawit Tomratree or Perjer Group, Thailand)
If I remember it correctly, I saw that the opening or ending credit of the film lists Ekawit Tomratree as the director of the film. But the film can also be considered the work of a collaborative group. So the brochure of the Thai Short Film Festival lists Perjer Group as the director of the film. The title of the film is hard to translate, because I don’t know what “Bae Bae” means. But the first four words in the title means MONKEY CHICKEN GOAT CENTIPEDE.

9.MAGIC (ไม้วิเศษ) (2007, Worrawut Lakchai, Thailand)

10.MANORO (2006, Brillante Mendoza, Philippines)

11.MARCH OF TIME (กาล) (2000, Uruphong Raksasad, Thailand)

12.NATIONAL ANTHEM (2008, Chai Chaiyachit, Thailand)

13.ORCHESTRA (2008, Jakrawal Nilthamrong, Thailand)
You can see this film at Jim Thompson Museum.

This is a photo of Jakrawal from Third Class Citizen’s blog:
http://thirdclasscitizen.exteen.com/20080915/third-class-radio-006-online-now

14.THE PROFICIENT (เออ…เองเก่ง) (2008, Phumiphat Arayathanitkul, Thailand)

15.RICE PEOPLE (1994, Rithy Panh, Cambodia)

16.SILENCE OF THE OTHER END (2007, Arunkumar HG, India, video installation)

In this video installation, The video shows short clips of many things including symbols of consumerism and war. The installation includes the TV wrapped up in grass and two uniquely beautiful big model cows made up of hundreds of small model cows.

In the book HERE THERE NOW: CONTEMPORARY ART FROM INDIA, Arunkumar said, “By not creating a realistic image of the bullocks/oxen, that is, having them represented by many other farm animals, the sculpture becomes a metaphor for voiceless people or the masses in general. On another level the artwork refers to the large population of our agrarian-related sector which is in crises at the moment.”

17.TONGPAN (1977, Euthana Mukdasanit + Surachai Janthimathorn, Thailand)

18.WANG YUEN HAB (วังยื่นหาบ) (2008, Sompong Soda, Thailand)

19.WILL IT SNOW FOR CHRISTMAS? (1996, Sandrine Veysset, France)

20.WITTSTOCK WITTSTOCK (1997, Volker Koepp, Germany)

You can cast multiple votes.

————————-

Apart from the films above, there are also many interesting artworks about grassroots or common people, such as:

1.WHAT I SEE, THE FEELINGS THEY HAVE, THE THINGS THEY HAVE TO DO (2007, Pornpan Kiatparkpoom)
http://pinatho.multiply.com/photos/album/6/thesis_Open_mind_09-03-2007
http://celinejulie.blogspot.com/2007/06/what-i-see-feelings-they-have-things.html
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/180/429860486_56d58e6122_o.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/164/429859581_f9b314f0cb_o.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/157/429860484_c60ae852bf_o.jpg

2.BEING SOLDIER BETTER THAN YOU THOUGHT, RICE FIELD FROM RIPE PROJECT (2008, Sakarin Krue-on, A+)

I’m not sure if this live-broadcast video intends to say something about rice farmers or not, because it only shows rice plants in a field gradually growing in real time, but the video really reminds me of rice farmers.

When I was watching this live-broadcast from a rice field, I felt it was a little bit boring, so I gave it only “A”. However, after a few months have passed, I realized that while I got bored after watching a rice field for only 5 minutes, the rice farmers have to watch and take care of their rice fields for many months. How can they do that? How tremendously patient they are! I don’t know the real intention or purpose of this video, but now I give it A+, because it makes me admire rice farmers much more than before.

3.COMMUNITY PHOTOGRAPHY PROJECT IN THE EXHIBITION “FROM (DIFFERENT) HORIZONS OF ROCKSHELTER”

This project gave cameras to rural people in a village near an important archaeological site in the north of Thailand and let the villagers use the cameras freely.
http://www.fdhr.co.nr/

4.NATION’S BACK BONE (2007, Wootti Ratanakaosul, drawing)

5.CELEBRATING WORKING LIVES: DECENT WORK, BETTER TOMORROW (2008, Thierry Falise, photos)

——————–

–FILM WISH LIST ABOUT COMMON PEOPLE

1.FARREBIQUE (1947, Georges Rouquier, France)

2.WOMEN WORKERS LEAVING THE FACTORY (2005, Jose Luis Torres Leiva, Chile)
This film is in Apichatpong Weerasethakul’s favorite film list. The list is in the Thai magazine FILMAX, Issue 14, Aug 2008.

“THE MIST” IS THE WINNER

My poll 32 ended with 7 votes. Thanks very much to everyone who participated in it. Here is the result:

THE ONGOING POLITICAL CRISIS IN THAILAND REMINDS ME OF THESE FILMS/THINGS. WHICH ONES DO YOU LIKE?

1.THE MIST (2007, Frank Darabont)
It got 5 votes, or 71 %.

2.I’M FINE SABUYDEE KA (2008, Tanwarin Sukkhapisit)
+LETTER FROM THE SILENCE (2006, Prap Boonpan)

Each of them got 3 votes, or 42 %.

4.DIED ON 6 OCTOBER 1976 (2008, Manit Sriwanichpoom, Thai photos)
+FINAL SOLUTION (2003, Rakesh Sharma, India)+THE WAR (1994, Jon Avnet)

Each of them got 2 votes, or 28 %.

7.DON’T EVEN THINK ABOUT IT (2006, Suchart Sawasdsri)
+HOTEL RWANDA (2004, Terry George)
+LABAN: THE MEANING OF THE EDSA REVOLUTION (2007, Sally Jo Bellosillo, Philippines)+LAND OF THE DEAD (2005, George A. Romero)
+REFERENDUM (2008, Chai Chaiyachit)
+RE-PRESENTATION (2007, Chai Chaiyachit, Chisanucha Kongwailap)
+17 MAY MY VALENTINE (2008, Sawanee Uthumma, Thai stage play)
+30:31:1-01 (2008, Piya Pornpattamapinyo)

Each of them got 1 vote, or 14 %

15.BALLOON (1997, Hamer Salwala)
+DEMOCKRAZY (2007, Duangporn Pakavirojkul)
+KHON-NAK-LOK (2008, Ponlapat Yannarat, Seri Lachonnabot)
+THE LOST CITY (2005, Andy Garcia)
+REPEATING DRAMATIC (2008, Arpapun Plungsirisoontorn)
+ROSEWOOD (1997, John Singleton)

Each of them got 0 vote.

–Filmsick just wrote about something political in Thai here:
http://filmsick.exteen.com/20080919/entry

–There will be a seminar in Thai about POLITICS IN CARTOON, FAIRY TALES, AND FILMS at Pridi Banomyong Institute, Sukhumvit 55, on Sep 27, 1400 hrs.

–Since I have no knowledge in politics and I am not really interested in politics (unless it threatens my life or lifestyle), when I accidentally hear some political news, it makes me feel as if I am listening to a dramatic fictional story. Sometimes I feel as if the political persons in the news are some interesting characters in a very dramatic film. (The word ‘political person’ here includes politicians, academicians, activists, political artists, or any people whose names are mentioned in political news.) I think many people who have been involved in Thai politics lately are very passionate people, and many of them went through very dramatic and exciting events; therefore, their lives should be adapted into films. I have to say that things happening in Thai politics recently may be much more exciting than what happens in many dramatic or mystery films. That doesn’t mean that I prefer these recent tumultuous events to calm situation. If I can choose, I will surely choose to live in a calm and liberal country. But I can’t choose, so I just try to find a way to psychologically deal with these political catastrophes by viewing them as situations in dramatic films. I think that may be 30 years from now, some filmmakers in the future may want to make a film about what has happened in Thailand since 2006. Sometimes I try to imagine what that film would be like. Will it be as exciting as DANTON (1983, Andrzej Wajda)?

Other reasons why I think these recent political events should be adapted into films:

1.It’s very unpredictable for me. For example, I had never thought there would be a military coup in Thailand again after 1992.

2.It’s full of unpredictable characters. I used to view some Thai politicians as heroes, but after 2006, I view them as villains. I also used to view other Thai politicians as evil, but after 2006, I view them as lesser evil. I seem to have to change my mind every month about some politicians. The politicians I love in a month can easily turn into the politicians I hate in the next month after some events.

3.It’s full of grey characters and round characters. There have been many political persons whom I can’t say they are totally evil or totally good. These political persons sometimes say something I totally agree with, other times they say things I totally disagree with. I can’t choose which group I should side with by deciding which group is “morally better”. All groups are morally gray in my point of view. I think if I have to choose which group I should side with, I may have to choose it by deciding which group can tolerate “different thinking”, because that group is less likely to destroy me.

4.It’s full of dilemma.

 

5.It’s full of many claims which may or may not be true.

 

 
–Talking about the relationship between political events and films reminds me of some Thai films which deal with political persons. They include:

1.THE MOONHUNTER (2001, Bhandit Rittakol, A)

2.THE ARTIST PARTY (2005, Bhanuwat Jittivuthikarn, 26 min, A-)
This documentary is about Vasan Sitthiket, an artist who often deals with political topics.

3.TOSSALIAM (2006, Ittiwat Suriyamat, A+, 3 min)
This animation is anti-Thaksin.

4.THE END OF THAKSIN ERA (2006, Natthapong Okapanom + Ittipol Ayup, documentary, 71 min, A-)

5.THE TRUTH BE TOLD (2007, Pimpaka Towira, documentary, A+)

–I wish some filmmakers make films about these Thai political persons, because I think some of them are very interesting, colorful, or scandalous. Their lives or opinions should be captured in documentary films or should inspire some filmmakers to create fictional films. Some of them are not good politicians, but I’m interested in their personal lives.

1.Teeranai Jaruwat

He is a 21-year-old student activist who studies history. I’m not sure if I agree with all of his viewpoints or not, but I think he is against some seniority system in universities. It reminds me that I also hate this seniority system in university very much.

His old interview in Thai can be read here:
http://www.bloggang.com/mainblog.php?id=drunkcat&month=10-07-2007&group=3&gblog=8

His group’s political statement in Thai:
http://www.prachatai.com/05web/th/home/13385

2.Giles Ji Ungpakorn
http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=781

3.Jitra Kotchadej

Her interview in Thai:
http://www.pcpthai.org/autopagev3/show_page.php?group_id=1&auto_id=1&topic_id=200&topic_no=158&page=1&gaction=on

4.Jakrapob Penkair

5.Mingkwan Sangsuwan

6.Jaruvan Maintaka

7.Sodsri Satayatham

8.Chaba Singhaklangpol

9.Rosana Tositrakul

10.Tuangporn Asawawilai

JUN ICHIKAWA IS DEAD

I just knew from GreenCine Daily that Jun Ichikawa is dead. He was 59 and died last Friday.
http://daily.greencine.com/archives/006707.html

Jun Ichikawa is one of my most favorite directors. I feel very sad.
http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/top_tens/archive00.html#phokaew

I love his films very much, especially the loneliness portrayed in his film. The loneliness in his film is totally in tune with my wavelengths. I prefer Jun Ichikawa’s loneliness to Wong Kar Wai’s loneliness and to Tsai Ming Liang’s loneliness.

It’s great that Japan Foundation in Bangkok showed many films by Jun Ichikawa during the past 10 years. These are his films in my preferential order:

1.DYING AT A HOSPITAL (1993, A+++++++++++++++)

2.TOKYO LULLABY (1997, A+++++++++++++++)
This film is also in Miguel Marias’ list:
http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/08/46/2007-world-poll-2.html#Marias

3.BU SU (1987, A+++++++++++++++)

4.TOKYO KYODAI (1995, A++++++++++)

5.OSAKA STORY (1999, A)

6.TSUGUMI (1990, A-)
Peter Nellhaus wrote about this film here:
http://www.coffeecoffeeandmorecoffee.com/archives/2008/07/tsugumi.html

7.TOKIWA: THE MANGA APARTMENT (1996, A-)

NO PROSECUTION FOR NAWAMIN WITTAYAKUL

The information below is copied from Prachatai’s English website:
http://www.prachatai.com/english/news.php?id=805

Prachatai
21 September 2008
News

A case was filed by Mr. Chotisak On-soong and Ms. Chutima Penpak against Mr. Nawamin Wittayakul on charges concerning an act of violence not amounting to bodily or mental harm to the other person; insulting a person in his presence; mischief; an offence committed with the participation of five or more persons to compel another person to do or not to do any act; and quarrelling noisily in a public way or place. The case stems from the fact that Mr. Nawamin threw popcorn and paper at the two plaintiffs for their failure to stand up while the royal anthem was played in a theatre on 20 September 2007. Later Mr. Nawamin sued Mr. Chotisak On-soong and Ms. Chutima Penpak for lèse majesté under Section 112 of the Penal Code (“whoever defames, insults or threatens the King, the Queen, the Heir Apparent or the Regent, shall be punished with imprisonment of three to fifteen years”).

Revently (19 September 2008), the public prosecutor decided to drop all the above charges against Mr. Nawamin.

A statement issued by the public prosecutor mentions that the alleged offender had simply thrown a box of popcorn and a roll of paper at the plantiffs and a medical doctor found no injuries from this action. Thus, it is construed that the two plaintiffs suffered no mental or bodily harm. In addition, the alleged offender committed the act out of anger and excessive temperament and did not intend to harm the two plaintiffs. It is thus believed that he had no intent to commit the offence.

As for the offence of mischief, the property damaged held such little value since the two plaintiffs had bought it just for 119 baht, and the property’s value was depreciated as a result of their consumption. During the incident, the alleged offender simply asked the two plaintiffs to pay due respect to His Majesty the King and the Queen and the Monarchy, an act which is a respectful tradition in Thai society; therefore, it was construed that the alleged offender had no intention to cause mischief.

As to the fact that the alleged offender threw paper toward the plaintiffs and shouted “get out” at them, and that other moviegoers jeered and shouted to demand the plaintiffs leave the theatre, this cannot be construed as any verbal or physical gesture or expression which showed that the alleged offender was making a threat to the plaintiffs to the point where they could reasonably fear injury to life, body and liberty. Likewise, it cannot be construed as an intention to use force while the two plaintiffs were told to leave the theatre. Thus, the offence of an act committed by five or more persons to compel another person to do or not to do any act cannot be established from the facts.

That the alleged offender said that “whatever nation, religion, monarchy (you belong to), why don’t you show love toward His Majesty? Are you Thai? See, even Westerners learn to stand up” is simply a word of warning and a reminder to the plaintiffs of the consequences of their action. It cannot be construed as libel or defamation, does not impair the reputation of another person or expose another person to hatred or contempt. And that the first plaintiff held up a mobile phone for communication and stood to obstruct the view of other moviegoers, and thus that the alleged offender said that “You have no manners. Such crazy shirts you wear. Get out of here” was simply a consequence since the act of the first plaintiff was viewed as contradicting good manners in viewing a film where the use of mobile phones or distracting other viewers’ attention is prohibited. Thus, the words uttered to the first plaintiff were made with the intention to bring such a violation of social etiquette to a halt. It cannot be construed as scolding, defaming or impairing the reputation of another, and as a result, the verbal action of the alleged offender cannot be used as a ground to establish defamation or insulting a person in the present case.

The exchange of words between the alleged offender and the plaintiffs stemmed from the intention of the former to demand that the latter stand up to show due respect to the royal anthem and cannot be construed as a quarrel. It happened that the alleged offender made most of the verbal expressions to demand action from the plaintiffs. Thus, the ground for the offence of quarrelling noisily in a public way or place cannot be established.

000000

Order to drop charges by public prosecutor

Case Mr. Nawamin Wittayakul, et al

Charge With the participation of five or more persons compelling another person to do or not to do any act

The fact has been established that the incident took place at the SFX Theater in Central World Department Store, Pathumwan Ward, Pathumwan District, Bangkok, on 20 September 2007, at around 19.45, while Mr. Chotisak On-soong, the first plaintiff, and Ms. Chutima Penpak, the second plaintiff, were viewing a film. The royal anthem was then played whilst the remaining audience stood up to show respect, except for the two plaintiffs. Mr. Nawamin Wittayakul, the alleged offender, approached them and in vain told them to stand up. Then, the alleged offender said “Damn it! whatever nation, religion, monarchy (you belong to), why don’t you show love toward His Majesty? Are you Thai? See, even Westerners learn to stand up.” And the alleged offender pointed a roll of paper toward the two plaintiffs and told them to get out. Then he threw the paper at the chest of the two plaintiffs. Then, he grabbed a popcorn box held by the second plaintiff and poured it on the two plaintiffs. His hand swept across and caused a soft drink cup to fall to the ground. The first plaintiff stood up and obstructed the view of other members of the audience. The alleged offender said “You have no manners. Such crazy shirts you wear. Get out of here”. Meanwhile, the other moviegoers jeered and demanded that the plaintiffs leave the theatre, and then the plaintiffs left the theatre.

The verdict

It was ascertained that the alleged offender simply threw the popcorn box and the paper roll toward the two plaintiffs. As for the first plaintiff, the medical doctor found no injuries, but verified that he suffered some pain in his wrist. As for the second plaintiff, the medical doctor found no injuries and recommended no treatment. Based on the evidence, it can be ascertained that the two plaintiffs suffered no bodily or mental harm. In addition, the alleged offender committed the action while being overwhelmed by excessive temperament and anger as a result of arguing with the two plaintiffs regarding the paying of due respect to the King and Queen. His action was confined just there and he showed no intention to use force to further harm the plaintiffs. It is believed that he had no intention to commit the offence and thus no ground can be established to bring the charge against him.

As for offence of mischief, the damaged property cost so little since the two plaintiffs bought it for merely 119 baht, and it was the remains after consumption by the two plaintiffs. Also, the incident happened in relation to the accusation of inflicting bodily and mental harm on the two plaintiffs which stemmed from the fact that the alleged offender pleaded with the two plaintiffs to pay respect to the King and Queen and the monarchy which is a noble tradition long observed in Thai society. Thus, it is believed that the alleged offender had no intention to cause mischief.

That the alleged offender threw paper at the plaintiffs and shouted “Get Out!” and that other viewers jeered and demanded the plaintiffs to leave the theatre stems from the discontent because the plaintiffs failed to stand up to pay respect to the royal anthem. The action cannot be construed as the exercise of verbal, physical or any other expressions to threaten the plaintiffs to the point where they would have fear of injury to life, body and liberty. And the actual use of force to harm did not take place while the two plaintiffs were told to leave the theatre. Therefore, the ground for the charge of acting with the participation of five or more persons to compel another person to do or not to do any act out of fear of injury to life, body and liberty cannot be established.

That the alleged offender said “whatever nation, religion, monarchy (you belong to), why don’t you show love toward His Majesty? Are you Thai? See, even Westerners learn to stand up” also stems from the discontent of the alleged offender to see that the two plaintiffs failed to stand up to pay respect to the royal anthem. It is natural for any Thai person when seeing such an incident, to say such a thing to warn and remind the plaintiffs of the impropriety of their action. The word cannot be construed as insulting or defaming or impairing the reputation of the plaintiffs or as exposing them to hatred or contempt. And in that the first plaintiff held up a mobile phone to speak and stood to obstruct the view of other moviegoers, and the fact that the alleged offender said “You have no manners. Such crazy shirts you wear. Get out of here” was simply a consequence since the act of the first plaintiff was viewed as contradicting good manners in viewing a film whereby the use of mobile phones or distracting other viewers’ attention is prohibited. Thus, the word uttered to the first plaintiff was made so with the intention of bringing such violation of social etiquette to a halt. It cannot be construed as scolding, defaming or impairing the reputation of another, and as a result, the verbal action of the alleged offender cannot be used as a ground to establish defamation or insulting a person in the present case.

The exchange of words between the alleged offender and the plaintiffs stemmed from the intention of the former to demand that the latter stand up to show due respect to the royal anthem and cannot be construed as a quarrel. It happened that the alleged offender was responsible for most of the verbal expression to demand action from the plaintiffs. Thus, the ground for the offence of quarrelling noisily in a public way or place cannot be established.

It was decided to dismiss charges against Mr. Nawamin Wittayakul Alleged Offender

Charges: Whoever commits an act of violence not amounting to bodily or mental harm to another person; whoever insults a person in his presence; mischief; an offence committed with the participation of five or more persons to compel another person to do or not to do any act; quarrelling noisily in a public way or place

As per Section 391 accompanied by Sections 80, 391, 326, 393, 358, 309 (2) and 372 and Section 83 of the Penal Code

Signed
(Banyong Pittayaphan)
Special Public Prosecutor, Criminal Division, Southern Bangkok Criminal Court 4

Translated by Pipob Udomittipong