- Cases, Other cases
Shakespeare Must Die
Latest Update: 04/09/2017
Defendant
Shakespeare Must Die
Case Status
Other
Case Started
2012
Complainant / Plaintiff
Thai Film Censorship Board of the Ministry of Culture.
Table of Content
Shakespeare Must Die, the film based on William Shakespears' piece "The Tragedy of Macbeth" got banned by the Ministry of Culture because it contains contents destroying harmony of the people in the country. The film producer filed a case before Administrative Court demanding to repeal the ban order.
Defendant Background
Shakespeare Must Die is a feature-length film whose story line is an adaptation of William Shakespeare’s work, The Tragedy of Macbeth.
This film is a historical story of politics and black magic. It was translated faithfully into Thai from the original “The Tragedy of Macbeth” with some modifications into cinematic language to suit the Thai cultural context. This Shakespearian ghost film deals with two worlds: one is the world of the theatre – the world of a bloodthirsty overambitious warlord with a blind belief in black magic who makes himself as a king through murder. The other world is the ‘outside world’ in the contemporary world of a ruthless dictator of an imaginary country with a blind belief in black magic and drunk with power. He is referred to only as ‘The Leader’ and he has a dreadful high society wife. Events in these twin worlds reflect each other more and more. The two world start to overlap and finally they reach a violent and brutal conjunction in which members of the cast have to pay the penalty with their lives, for daring to perform such a play in a society run by a person like The Leader. How did they think they could fight fear with art?
This film received supplementary support from the Strong Thailand Fund through the Office of Contemporary Art and Culture of the Ministry of Culture. It was the last film to receive this funding because some members of the funding committee were concerned about the scene where ‘Mekded’ (Macbeth: the protagonist/criminal) secretly assassinates King Duncan. The production team had to shoot this scene for the committee to make sure that there is no risky content or images or lèse majesté according to Article 112 of the Criminal Code.
After watching all takes of this scene from raw footage submitted for detailed consideration without any editing (with soundtrack), from action to cut, the committee agreed that this film has good intentions to humanity because it concerns ‘sin, merit and punishment’ and does not have any characteristics to defame the supreme institution. The board therefore approved funding support for ‘Shakespeare Must Die’ of 3 million baht.
Manit Sriwanichpoom, the film director who requested a rating, is an independent artist. One of his well-known pieces is the Pink Man photo album, which has pictures of a chubby man in a pink suit with a shopping cart.
Samanrat Kanjanavit or Ing K is a writer, screen writer, film director, documentary film maker, and environmental critic.
Offense
Article 26 Film and Video Act
Allegation
Shakespeare Must Die is a feature-length film whose story line is an adaptation of William Shakespeare’s work, The Tragedy of Macbeth. It was banned by the Ministry of Culture, because of content that might create disunity among people in the nation.
Circumstance of Arrest
No information
Trial Observation
No information
Black Case
1321/2555
Court
No information
Additional Info
No information
Reference
· อิ๋ง กาญจนะวณิชย์ (Wikipedia entry for Ing Samanrat Kanjanawit), accessed 19 April 2012
· มานิต ศรีวานิชภูมิ (Wikipedia entry for Manit Sriwanishpoom), accessed 19 April 2012
· เชคสเปียร์ต้องไม่ตาย! เดินหน้ายื่นหนังสือนายกฯ-ยื่นอุทธรณ์คำสั่ง (Shakespeare Must Not Die! March to submit letter to the Prime Minister and appeal the case), ilaw, 17 April 2555 (accessed on 23 April 2555)
3 April 2012. The Thai Film Censorship Board 3, with Pol Maj Gen Anek Samplang as chair and 6 other board members, voted to refuse permission to show Shakespeare Must Die, a film directed by Ms. Samanrat Kanjanawit and produced by Manit Sriwanichpoom. The reason given was that the film has content which may create disunity among people in the country, according to section 7(3) of the 2009 Ministerial Regulation on Film Classification, and the Film and Video Act 2008.
In the vote, four board members; Pol Maj Gen Anek Samplang, Mr. Khemchat Thepchai, Mr. Wirachai Sapayawanit and Mr.Manit Chaimongkhon, voted again distribution, while other three board members; Mrs. Suwanna Suwanjutha. Mr. Anucha Thirakanont and Mr. Samart Jansorn, did not vote.
17 April 2012: The producer appealed to the National Film and Video Board, which has Deputy Prime Minister Gen Yuthasak Sasiprapa as chair under section 66 of the Film and Video Act which requires appeals within 15 days after the resolution banning distribution. The film production team also collected 514 signatures to submit to Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra appealing for a review of the ban on the film and calling for an end to the banning of Thai films. The team also performed one scene from the film at the entrance to Government House on Ratchadamnoen Nok Road
National Film and Video Board set a meeting for 25 April 2012 in order to consider the appeal and voted on whether to revoke the order of the Thai Film Censorship Board and allow the film to be shown in Thailand. In order for board member to reconsider the context and the details of the film. It was expected that the film would be shown for the Board to see it in detail before voting.
11 May 2012:
The National Film and Video Board with Gen Yuthasak Sasiprapa, Deputy Prime Minister for political affairs and former Defense Minister as chair in lieu of the Prime Minister and Ms. Sukumol Kunplome, Minister of Culture, as vice chair. By a vote of 18 to 4 with 1 abstention, the Shakespeare Must Die was prohibited and the order of the Thai Film Censorship Board 3 was upheld.
The order noted that the National Film and Video Board considered that even though the content of the film ‘Shakespeare Must Die’ was adapted to an imaginary country, there were features that convey the interpretation that it was Thai society, and some scenes had content which conflicted with the peace, order or morals of the people, or which could affect state security and honour of the country. Moreover, the Thai Film Censorship Board 3 told the appellant to amend some of the content which created disunity among people in the nation. However, the appellant explained that it was a presentation of the truth on 6 October 1976 and therefore insisted on no changes. The National Film and Video Board therefore resolved to overrule the appeal under section 29 of Film and Video Act 2008.
15 March 2013
Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights and Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the
right to freedom of opinion and expression of the HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS of the United Nations issued a letter to the Thai government to raised a concern that the banning of the film Shakespeare Must Die might constitute a violation of Mr. Manit Sriwanichpoom and Ms. Smanrat Kanjanavanit’s rights to freedom of expression, including in the form of art, as well as their rights to take part in cultural life and to enjoy the freedom indispensable for creative activity.
The letter also appealed to Thai Government to take all necessary steps to secure the right to freedom of expression in accordance with fundamental principles as set forth in article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and article 15 of International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
The letter also asked that how the banning order issued by the Third Committee of Film and Video Censorship Board and the Film and Video of 2008, in particular in its articles 23 and 29 comply with the international norms and standards on the right to freedom of opinion and expression. And asked about the decision of the Administrative Court of Thailand and the National Human Rights Committee on this case.
18 June 2013
Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Thailand issued a letter to the Special Rapporteurs of UN explains that The Film and Video Act of 2008 restricts the exercise of freedom of expression only where it threatens to national security and public order. It by no means undermines the right to freedom of expression of the general Thai public. Thai press enjoys a high degree of freedom.
The exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and resposibilities, and is therefore subject to certain restrictions. The protection of National Security or of public order constitues a valid ground for such restrictions. This provision forms the basis for Article 26(7) of the Film and Video Act of 2008. The banning order was necessary because the movie's content could potentially cause disunity in the society and therefore pose a threat to national security. The order was issued by the commitees who are experts from both public and private sectors. As such the banning order and the Film and Video Act fully comply with the international norms and standards.
5 July 2017
The plaintiff appeared before the Administrative Court for the first trial. The plaintiff delivered the closing statement verbally to the Court.
Published on Shakespeare Must Die website, the statement is summarized as, I had to unwillingly fight for what was right. Though I knew that fighting against the ones who had authority over Thai film industry was something that no film director would want to do. It’s a case of just a handful of big-shots with so much power against ordinary people with nothing to deal with.
In practice, the proceedings of the National Film and Video Board were not justified and fair. They could shorten and speed up the process as they wished. The process was interfered by political pressure. During the news briefing of Boundary film banning, the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Culture clearly declared by herself but later the ban order was overruled. I could not happened unless that person to do so was more powerful than the Permanent Secretary.
Allowing Shakespeare Must Die to be released may have had affected the politicians at the time. It was due to the fact that the story reflected the fate of the corrupt leader. It was the classic story written by an English poet over 400 years ago. This led me to conclude without a doubt that the proceedings were being interfered by the political figures of that time.
In Thailand other media professions have rights according to their practice of professions and freedom of expression. But this excludes the film industry. Thai film producers have no rights and honors. And this has a negative impact for supporting the film industry as a creative industry. It influences Thai film producers to be less confident in their profession and their investment. As long as the 7 anonymous people in a dark room have power to decide the faith of a film that a producer has invested time, money, and courage for years, there will be no creativity and investor confidence. Film producers have no confidence and protection according to legal rights like other professions.
As of now, investors are discouraged to invest in “different” films from what they have seen or films that represent new thoughts. It also discourages film producers to think and be creative. It is a major factor that makes Thai film industry be “going round in circles”, because they only have nonsense materials. They cannot investigate problems and dark side of Thailand. They cannot touch on their own history and bring out inspirations.
Arts, including films, which are born from restrictions and controlled by the authority, is dead arts. It is a truth and people can feel that dead arts cannot sell because it does not touch people’s feelings. It does not lead to creative discussions and critical thinking. Bad arts do not inspire their audience.
Without freedom, arts do not exist. A controlled artwork is a dead art that cannot sell.
Instead of banning films that the Board sees as being harmful and create disunity, they should give a chance to films that reflect their own genres. If the authority believes in people and have the courage, then Thai audience can experience different views. It is a development for democracy in Thailand. If thought can be banned, we will never understand one another.
I did not create a Shakespearian film because it was elegant or I was mad about western cultures. The interpretation of Shakespearian stories is full of challenge. It is not something that anyone can just do it because they want to insult politicians. Shakespeare was a world famous poet. His work was a cultural heritage. I question why Thai people cannot embrace this heritage. It is a heritage that people around the world cherish for many centuries. How many times Thai film producers can create Shakespearian film? This could be the first and the last.
Thai authority perceives media and artwork as propaganda and as a tool to control society. The authority believes that people can be good by imposing social control. It is a reason why the Board decided that my adaptation of Macbeth “having content which undermines or is contrary to public order or good morals, or may affect the security and dignity of Thailand”, and “committing any act which may cause disunity in society”. They do not understand that we can learn from bad examples – a man, who is supposed to be good, loses everything due to his excess greed and ambition.
Thailand loses its touch because we have chained and imprisoned our imagination. A nation that has no freedom of expression for their national films, a nation will never be free.
11 August 2017
The Administrative Court scheduled to read the verdict. The Court dismissed the case and affirmed the order to ban 'Shakespear Must Die'.
Verdict
Summary of the verdict of the Administrative Court
Facts to be considered includes; the defendant though that the content of the film, Shakespeare Must Die, was a cause for disunity among Thai people. For example there is a scene when theatergoers attack actors. Then they hang the play director and beat the hanged body. This deemed as a film which is prohibited to be disseminated in the Kingdom according to Section 16 (7) of the Film and Video Act B.E. 2551 (2008). The film producer was invited to a meeting. The producer said that they would not edit the film because it represents the actual events of 6 October 1976.
According to the Royal Institute Dictionary, “Samakkee” (unity) means being to unity, harmony, and getting together and working together. “Tak” (Split/Separate) means being out of the majority, being forced to divide, and cannot be controlled. “Chat” (Nation) means a country and its people are the citizens. It can be concluded that “Disunity among people in the country” means to make the country and its citizens to be disunited and separated.
After consideration the screenplay synopsis and after watching the film, the historical story is about politics and black magic. It is inspired and almost totally written by William Shakespeare’s the Tragedy of Macbeth. But it is adapted into cinematic language to suit the Thai cultural context. It tells events that happen at the same time between in a theater and in a country.
The film ends with violence. In the theater the actors die. While in a country, there is social unrest. Hyper-supporters of “the leader” are mad at the play satarizing of their leader. They run up to the stage and attack actors and those who are watching the play. They hurt, hang the director and use an iron folding chair to beat the hanged body, while a crowd cheers.
Although the film is set in a fictional country, but it contains many scenes that leads to believe that it is Thailand and there are actual events. For example theatergoers are dressed up as Thais, the protesters hold up signs written in Thai, and other props and materials. The National Film and Video Board agreed that there is a scene that is very similar to the 6th October event in Thailand.
Despite many Thai films tells historical stories that contain conflict, but they are stories happened hundreds years ago. Thai people in the present time cannot find out whether the historical figures are related to them. This will not cause hatred among people. But this film features the 6th October event, which is a recent history and the scene is over 2 minutes long. This can upset the relatives of the deceased or of those who participated in the event. Then it will lead to hatred and disunity among people in Thailand.
The plaintiff has suggested editing some scenes. But the defendant insisted not to edit, where it could be done without affect the main storyline.
The Committee’s decision, the film was to be prohibited to be disseminated in the Kingdom, was legitimate. Then the defendant appealed and the National Board ruled the same, the order was lawful too.
The plaintiff claimed that the defendant did not inform on which scenes to be edited. The plaintiff did not know how much to edit. The court sees that both parties attended the meeting on 3 April 2012. They insisted that the fact of the 6th October event had to be featured. The appeal letter stated the issue of the 6th October event and scenes which red was used was extensively argued. It was clear that the plaintiff understood that which scenes the defendant see as creating disharmony among people, and wanted the scenes to be removed. It could be concluded that they were informed to delete the scenes prior to the order being announced.
The plaintiff claimed that the ban order violated the freedom of expression. The Administrative Court ruled that the 2007 Constitution, which was enforced at the time, stated that rights and freedom were restricted by the legal provisions. Some scenes contained what was against good moral and may affect the security and dignity of the nation. Therefore the plaintiff’s claim was not admissible.
The plaintiff claimed some films that featured similar issues were allowed to be released. This included Boundary and Haunted Universities. Therefore it was an unjust discrimination. The judge decided that although some scenes of each film were very similar, but different films contained different facts. It depended on how the Board may consider and differentiate them. The films mentioned had no evidence of causing disunity in the society, which could be considered as discrimination.