It’s about Time:Performing between the Past and Tomorrow in Chulayarnnon Siriphol’s I a Pixel, We the People

Chulayarnnon Siriphol’s exhibition I a Pixel, We the People (ข้าพเจ้าคือพิกเซล, พวกเราคือประชาชน) will close later this month, and the artist took part in a Q&A session with Sam I-shan at BangkokCityCity Gallery yesterday. The event was titled It’s about Time: Performing between the Past and Tomorrow in Chulayarnnon Siriphol’s I a Pixel, We the People, named after an essay on Chulayarnnon’s work published by the gallery.

Chulayarnnon spoke about the two phases of his artistic career. His early short films were more personal, whereas his work became more overtly political following the Ratchaprasong crackdown in 2010: “it quite changed my life when the Thailand political crisis came, about 2010”. This aligns him with the “Post-Ratchaprasong art” movement identified by the journal Read (อ่าน; vol. 3, no. 2), and he made a similar comment in an interview for Thai Cinema Uncensored, explaining when he “turned to be interested in the political situation.”

In the Q&A, Chulayarnnon also discussed the consequences of the political climate for artists: “self-censorship is still existing: for me, sometimes I did that.” He contrasted the student protests of 2020 and 2021 — when Thai artists were more blunt in their political satire — with the current atmosphere: “for now, we need thought-provoking [art], but no need to be hardcore”. He also highlighted the threats that “hardcore” artists face: “I don’t want to be in jail, but I respect them.”

Sam I-shan’s essay booklet is twenty-four pages long, and has been published in a limited edition of twenty-four copies (each with a unique cover photos), reflecting the twenty-four-hour duration of Chulayarnnon’s video installation. The author identifies subtle political metaphors in the exhibition: she notes that the day-long running time “might parallel the cyclical nature of Thai politics,” and she argues that the piles of clothes in the gallery space “stand for all people disenfranchised by... Thailand’s political system, with some of these bodies literally absent, having been imprisoned, exiled, disappeared or killed.”

Paris Match

French magazine Paris Match has agreed to pay Gisèle Pelicot €40,000 in damages for invasion of privacy. Pelicot sued the magazine after it published paparazzi photographs of her in its 17th April issue (no. 3963). The settlement was confirmed on the eve of the court case, which was due to begin yesterday, and Pelicot will donate the money to charity.

Pelicot’s former husband was convicted on multiple charges last year, after systematically drugging her and allowing other men to rape her, in a case that shocked the country. Considering the trauma she went through, splashing her photo on Paris Match’s front page was clearly insensitive.

Famously, almost thirty years ago, Paris Match published an unauthorised photograph of former French president François Mitterrand on his deathbed (in its 18th January 1996 issue, no. 2434). The magazine was also censured after it printed CCTV images of a 2016 Bastille Day attack in Nice.

Privacy is generally respected by the French media, with the exception of celebrity magazines such as Paris Match, Closer, and Voici. Prince William and Kate Middleton won damages from Closer after it printed topless photos of Middleton in 2012. George and Amal Clooney sued Voici in 2017. Valerie Trierweiler sued Closer in both 2012 and 2014. Also in 2014, Julie Gayer sued Closer, and Aurelie Filippetti won damages from the magazine.

Justin Baldoni v. The New York Times

As expected, actor and director Justin Baldoni’s defamation lawsuit against The New York Times has been dismissed, after judge Lewis Liman concluded that the NYT’s coverage of Blake Lively’s allegations of sexual harassment against him was not biased. The judge wrote: “the Times reviewed the available evidence and reported, perhaps in a dramatized manner, what it believed to have happened. The Times had no obvious motive to favor Lively’s version of events.”

Baldoni had been seeking $250 million in libel damages from the NYT, after it published details of Lively’s complaints against him. But it reported Lively’s claims accurately, based on court documents, so Baldoni’s lawsuit was bound to fail: whether her allegations were true or not, it’s not libellous to report them. (Baldoni filed his legal action sixty years after a 1964 Supreme Court decision required proof of ‘actual malice’ in libel lawsuits against public figures, in a case that also involved the NYT.)

“Salacious and defamatory accusations...”

Music producer Russell Simmons has filed a defamation lawsuit against HBO and the makers of the documentary On the Record, which features interviews with women who have accused him of sexual assault. He is seeking $20 million in damages.

On the Record (directed by Kirby Dick and Amy Zieling) premiered at the Sundance Film Festival on 25th January 2020, and was released on the HBO Max streaming platform later that year (on 27th May). The lawsuit describes the documentary as “a film that tremendously disparaged and damaged Mr. Simmons with salacious and defamatory accusations”.

Simmons is one of three disgraced figures from the music industry currently suing filmmakers who have exposed accusations of sexual misconduct, and all three men stand very little chance of winning their libel cases. Chris Brown filed a libel lawsuit in January, as did Sean Combs. Combs, better known as Diddy and Puff Daddy, has since filed another libel lawsuit: he is seeking $100 million in damages over allegations of sexual assault in the documentary Diddy: The Making of a Bad Boy, which was released on NBC’s Peacock streaming service on 14th January.

Justin Baldoni v. The New York Times

A high-profile celebrity lawsuit was dismissed yesterday after Blake Lively withdrew her claims of emotional distress against Justin Baldoni, her co-star in the film It Ends with Us. Lively had filed a suit against Baldoni, who also directed the film, on 20th December last year, and the document was immediately leaked to the The New York Times, which published a lengthy article about the case on its website the following day.

The article, headlined “Alleged Effort To Strike Back At Star Actress”, appeared in the NYT’s print edition on 23rd December. It included extracts from text messages sent between publicists Jennifer Abel and Melissa Nathan, suggesting that they were attempting to smear Lively and protect Baldoni’s reputation. One message, sent by Nathan, said: “You know we can bury anyone”. (This was used as the article’s online headline.) The article included a disclaimer that “messages have been edited for length”, and Baldoni sued the newspaper on New Year’s Eve arguing that the messages had been “stripped of necessary context and deliberately spliced to mislead”.

Lively’s claims against Baldoni, which included extensive allegations of sexual harassment, were criticised on social media, in the same way that Amber Heard’s reputation was trashed online after her allegations against Johnny Depp. Baldoni’s defamation lawsuit against the NYT, seeking $250 million in damages, is unlikely to proceed to trial: on 4th March, judge Lewis Liman noted that the newspaper had demonstrated “substantial grounds for dismissal”, and that “its motion to dismiss is likely to succeed on the merits.”

SpotlightSpy in the IRA

A jury at the High Court in Dublin has awarded Gerry Adams €100,000 in damages after a month-long libel trial. Adams had sued the BBC over its documentary Spy in the IRA, in which an anonymous source — identified only by the first name Martin — accused Adams of authorising the IRA’s killing of Denis Donaldson in 2006.

In the programme, reporter Jennifer O’Leary said: “Martin believes that the shooting of Denis Donaldson was sanctioned by the man at the top of the republican movement, Gerry Adams.” When O’Leary asked Martin, “Who are you specifically referring to?”, he answered: “Gerry Adams. He gives the final say.” The programme followed this reply with a disclaimer stating that Adams insisted he “had no knowledge of, and no involvement whatsoever, in Denis Donaldson’s killing.”

Spy in the IRA, an episode in the investigative series Spotlight, was broadcast on 20th September 2016 on BBC1 in Northern Ireland, and repeated on BBC2 in Northern Ireland the following day. During the libel trial, O’Leary testified that she had corroborated Martin’s claim with five other sources — this suggests responsible, well-informed journalism, not bias. When he gave evidence at the trial, Adams denied under oath ever having been a member of the IRA, though his status as a former senior IRA leader is common knowledge among journalists and historians.

It’s conceivable that some members of the jury were from generations who came of age after the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, and have no personal recollection of the era known as ‘the Troubles’, during which Adams was certainly not regarded as a peacemaker. Also, it’s highly likely that Adams benefited from his decision to bring the case in the Republic of Ireland rather than Northern Ireland, to ensure a more sympathetic jury.

Another alleged former IRA member has also launched a libel suit in relation to a different unsolved murder. Marian Price is suing the makers of the TV series Say Nothing, a dramatisation of the IRA’s 1972 abduction and killing of Jean McConville. Although noone has been convicted of McConville’s murder, the drama shows her being shot by Price.

The shooting takes place in Say Nothing’s final episode, titled The People in the Dirt, directed by Michael Lennox. The episode ends with a written disclaimer stating that Price “denies any involvement in the murder of Jean McConville.” The series was released on the Hulu and Disney+ streaming services on 14th November last year.

“This is a carnival of distraction...”

Mo Chara, a member of the Irish rap group Kneecap, has been charged with a terrorism offence, and will appear at Westminster Magistrates Court in London on 18th June. The charge relates to a concert in London on 21st November last year, at the O2 Forum Kentish Town during the band’s final show on their Fine Art Tour, when Chara appeared on stage draped in the Hezbollah flag. Hezbollah is classified as a terrorist group under UK law, and yesterday the Metropolitan Police charged Chara with displaying the flag “in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that he is a supporter of a proscribed organisation”.

Kneecap published a collective written statement via their Instagram account today, saying: “We deny this ‘offence’ and will vehemently defend ourselves.” The band also accused the Met of political bias: “This is political policing. This is a carnival of distraction.” Their new single The Recap begins with a clip of a newsreader announcing that “counter-terrorism police will investigate the rap trio Kneecap”.

El Dueño del Palenque (‘the owner of the arena’)

A Mexican band is under investigation for allegedly glamourising the leader of a drug cartel during a concert at the Telmex auditorium in Zapopan on 29th March. As an introduction to their song El Dueño del Palenque (‘the owner of the arena’), photographs of Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes, leader of the Cártel Jalisco Nueva Generación, were projected on a video screen behind the band.

The song is an example of the narcocorrido (‘drug ballad’) genre. Live performance of narcocorrido songs is prohibited in several Mexican states, though the government has not imposed a national ban. The band appeared at the Fiscalía General del Estado de Jalisco — the office of the Jalisco attorney general — on 17th April, and are being investigated for potential violation of article 142 of the state’s penal code.

“The most controversial band in the UK...”

London’s Metropolitan Police are investigating the Irish rap group Kneecap after the band appeared to incite violence and endorse terrorist groups at two of their London concerts. Yesterday, The Guardian described Kneecap as “the most controversial band in the UK”.

On 29th November 2023, during a gig at the Electric Ballroom, band member Mo Chara told the crowd: “The only good Tory is a dead Tory. Kill your local MP.” (Chara has not been identified by name in other reports about the controversy.) On 21st November 2024, at the O2 Forum Kentish Town during the band’s final show on their Fine Art Tour, Chara said: “Up Hamas! Up Hezbollah!” (Chara was draped in the Hezbollah flag at the time.)

The Met issued a statement on 1st May after videos of the two concerts were shared online: “Both videos were referred to the Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit for assessment by specialist officers, who have determined there are grounds for further investigation into potential offences linked to both videos. The investigation is now being carried out by officers from the Met’s Counter Terrorism Command and inquiries remain ongoing at this time.”

“Publishers are not liable for honest mistakes...”

A jury has found that The New York Times did not defame Sarah Palin when it published an editorial on 14th June 2017. Palin had sued the newspaper for libel over a sentence in the editorial falsely implying that her campaign had encouraged the 2011 shooting of fellow politician Gabby Giffords: “Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs.”

The newspaper had swiftly apologised for the editorial — “We got an important fact wrong, incorrectly linking political incitement and the 2011 shooting of Giffords” — and inserted a clarification into the online version of the article the day after its original publication: “no connection to the shooting was ever established.” The initial libel case ended on 15th February 2022, when a jury concluded that the editorial was not defamatory.

Palin appealed against that verdict, and she was granted a retrial on 28th August last year. Yesterday, the week-long retrial ended with a different jury reaching the same conclusion, that the newspaper did not intentionally defame Palin. After yesterday’s verdict, New York Times spokesperson Danielle Rhoades Ha said: “The decision reaffirms an important tenet of American law: publishers are not liable for honest mistakes.”

Naya Bharat (&lqsuo;new India’)

Indian comedian Kunal Kamra is the subject of a police investigation in the state of Maharashtra after he criticised a politician from the region in his stand-up show Naya Bharat (‘new India’). Kamra performed a few satirical songs during the set, and they appeared with karaoke-style subtitles when he uploaded a video of the show to his YouTube channel on 23rd March. He was charged with defamation on the following day.

The lyrics to one song, a parody of the theme to the Bollywood film Dil To Pagal Hai (‘the heart is crazy’), include the word ‘gaddar’ (‘traitor’), in an oblique reference to politician Eknath Shinde. After footage of the performance circulated online, a mob of Shinde’s supporters ransacked The Habitat, the Mumbai studio where Kamra had recorded the live show. A spokesperson for Shinde’s political party Shiv Sena has called for Kamra’s arrest.

The Habitat was also the venue for another controversial comedy last month, when an episode of the podcast India’s Got Latent was recorded there. A guest on the show, Ranveer Allahbadia, asked a contestant: “Would you rather watch your parents have sex every day for the rest of your life, or would you join in once and stop it forever?” The episode was released on YouTube on 10th February, and multiple police complaints were filed against Allahbadia. India’s Supreme Court described Allahbadia’s question as obscene on 18th February, though it stopped short of filing criminal charges against him.

In a similar case in 2021, Ashutosh Dubey, an adviser to India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, filed a legal complaint against comedian Vir Das in relation to a live performance in Washington D.C. Das recited his poem Two Indias at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts on 12th November 2021, and uploaded it to YouTube four days later. As he predicted in the words of the poem itself, “I come from an India that will accuse me of airing our dirty laundry”.

The Critics

Yesterday, a female news anchor was questioned by police on charges of defamation and violation of the Computer Crime Act, following a legal complaint by a lawyer representing former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Her home was searched by more than a dozen police officers, though she has not yet been arrested.

The online news organisation The Critics published a video on 3rd January reporting on an opinion poll in which Thaksin had been voted the world’s worst leader. (The video is still online, on the Thai Move Institute’s YouTube channel.) The anchor told police that she was not the journalist who wrote the story, and had merely been reading from a script.

The news report (which is essentially clickbait) refers to a survey on the website The Top Tens. Thaksin is indeed currently listed there as the worst leader in the history of the world, with Adolf Hitler in second place, though the voting has been manipulated by Thai netizens. (Thaksin’s entry has more than 6,000 vitriolic comments, from people who apparently believe that he was worse than genocidal dictators such as Hitler.)

There are equally hyperbolic comparisons between Thaksin and Hitler in two documentaries by Ing K. In the fourth episode of her Bangkok Joyride (บางกอกจอยไรด์) series, a protester describes Thaksin as “worse than Hitler”. This echoes a quote from Ing’s Citizen Juling (พลเมืองจูหลิง): “We talk of Hitler... But villagers, all citizens nowadays fear PM Thaksin 10 times more.” (These examples are discussed in Thai Cinema Uncensored.)

During Thaksin’s premiership, he was notorious for his use of lawsuits to intimidate his critics. Pimpaka Towira’s documentary The Truth Be Told (ความจริงพูดได้), for example, examined the charges filed by Thaksin’s Shin Corp. against media campaigner Supinya Klangnarong after she was interviewed by the Thai Post (ไทยโพสต์) newspaper on 16th July 2003. (The Thai Post was also named in the writ. This case is also covered in Thai Cinema Uncensored.)

Supinya had alleged that Shin Corp. benefitted from the policies of Thaksin’s government, and therefore that his ownership of the company represented a conflict of interest. Her book about the lawsuit, พูดความจริง (‘speak the truth’), was published in 2007, after the case was dismissed.

ภาพสุดท้ายบนผืนผ้า สงครามเย็นไม่เคยจากไปไหน(‘the final images on cloth’)

Chulayarnnon Siriphol’s Birth of Golden Snail (กำเนิดหอยทากทอง) will be shown in Chiang Mai on 1st March as part of The Golden Snail Series (วัฒนธรรม​หอยทากทอง), a programme of five short films by the artist that feature his golden snail motif, followed by a Q&A with Chulayarnnon. (The five films were also shown last month, at A.E.Y. Space in Songkla and Lorem Ipsum in Hat Yai.)

The Golden Snail Series is the final event in the three-day ภาพสุดท้ายบนผืนผ้า สงครามเย็นไม่เคยจากไปไหน (‘the final images on cloth: the Cold War never goes away’) film festival, which begins on 27th February. The festival — organised by Dude, Movie — explores the continuing legacy of the Cold War, and will be held outdoors at Suan Anya. The films shown will be the last ones to be projected onto the venue’s cloth screen, which will soon be replaced with a more substantial screen.

Birth of Golden Snail was banned from the Thailand Biennale in 2018, and had its first public screening at the following year’s 30th Singapore International Film Festival. Its Thai premiere was at the 23rd Thai Short Film and Video Festival (เทศกาลภาพยนตร์สั้น ครั้งที่ 23), and it was shown last year at Infringes. Chulayarnnon discussed the film in an interview for Thai Cinema Uncensored.

The other short films in The Golden Snail Series programme are Golden Spiral (โกลเด้น สไปรัล), The Internationale (แองเตอร์นาซิอองนาล), ANG48 (เอเอ็นจี48), and How to Explain “Monument to the Fourth International” to the Dead Golden Snail (เรารักภูมิพลังวัฒนธรรมละมุนละม่อมนุ่มนิ่ม). Golden Spiral was first shown at Ghost:2561. ANG48 was first shown at Shadow Dancing, and later at Wildtype 2023, ใช้แล้ว ใช้อยู่ ใช้ต่อ (‘I’ve used it, I’m using it, I’ll keep using it’), The 27th Thai Short Film and Video Festival (เทศกาลภาพยนตร์สั้น ครั้งที่ 27), and the Short Film Marathon 27 (หนังสั้นมาราธอน 27).

The Day the Sky Trembled

Nutchanon Pairoj, a founder member of the United Front of Thammasat and Demonstration protest group, has been found guilty of lèse-majesté and sentenced to two years in prison. He was originally found not guilty by the Thanyaburi Provincial Court on 8th November 2023, though that verdict was overturned today by the Court of Appeal.

Nutchanon was one of several people in a truck that was stopped by police in Pathum Thani on 19th September 2020. They were en route to Thammasat University, intending to distribute copies of the booklet The Day the Sky Trembled (ปรากฏการณ์สะท้านฟ้า 10 สิงหา) to protesters gathered at the university. Police confiscated 45,080 copies of the booklet, and detained the occupants of the truck, though ultimately only Nutchanon was charged.

The Day the Sky Trembled — so notorious that it has become known simply as ‘the red booklet’ — contains transcripts of speeches given by UFTD protest leaders at Thammasat on 10th August 2020. Nutchanon is not quoted in the booklet, though today’s judgement convicted him of knowingly attempting to distribute material that contravened the lèse-majesté law.

“Books containing inciteful material...”

Israeli police raided two branches of the Educational Bookstore in Jerusalem today, seizing books and placing the chain’s two owners under arrest. According to a police statement, “detectives encountered numerous books containing inciteful material with nationalist Palestinian themes”, and the shop was accused of “selling books containing incitement and support for terrorism.”

Specifically, the police cited the children’s book From the River to the Sea: A Colouring Book by Nathi Ngubane, whose title is an antisemitic slogan calling for the removal of the State of Israel, located between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. The book is a work of propaganda that entirely excludes Jewish history from the story of Palestine.

“The biggest scandal in broadcasting history...”

Donald Trump filed a lawsuit against CBS on 31st October last year, accusing the TV network of misleading voters in the runup to the US presidential election. The lawsuit highlighted a discrepancy between two versions of an interview with former vice president Kamala Harris, and it sought an extraordinary $10 billion in damages.

Harris was interviewed by CBS News correspondent Bill Whitaker, and clips from the interview were aired on Face the Nation on 5th October 2024. A longer version of the interview was broadcast on 60 Minutes on the following day. Harris was asked about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and the lawsuit notes that “Kamala replies to Whitaker with her typical word salad” in the Face the Nation clip, while she “appears to reply to Whitaker with a completely different, more succinct answer” on 60 Minutes.

The Face the Nation clip shows Harris answering the question by saying: “Well, Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by or a result of many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region.” In the 60 Minutes segment, her answer is: “We are not going to stop pursuing what is necessary for the United States to be clear about where we stand on the need for this war to end.”

The lawsuit argued that the 60 Minutes interview was edited to make Harris appear more coherent. With his characteristic hyperbole, at a rally on 23rd October 2024 Trump said: “I think it’s the biggest scandal in broadcasting history.” Today, CBS released a full transcript of the interview — something that Trump’s lawsuit had called for — which reveals that the Face the Nation clip was the first half of her answer to the question, and the 60 Minutes version was the second half of her answer to the same question.

It’s common practice for TV networks to edit extended interviews for reasons of timing, using different clips and soundbites for various platforms or shows. Nevertheless, The New York Times reported on 30th January that Paramount, CBS’s parent company, was negotiating an out-of-court settlement with Trump. Similarly, ABC News settled a Trump defamation lawsuit in December last year, despite having a strong legal case.

Trump was successfully sued for libel by E. Jean Carroll. However, Trump’s own libel suits — filed previously against Bill Maher, Timothy L. O’Brien, Michael Wolff, Bob Woodward, The New York Times, and CNN — have all been unsuccessful.

Flowers in the Rain:The Untold Story of The Move

Jim McCarthy covers the history of the 1960s psychedelic rock band The Move in his new book Flowers in the Rain: The Untold Story of The Move, including the libel case brought against the band by former UK prime minister Harold Wilson in 1967. To promote their single Flowers in the Rain, the band’s manager Tony Secunda commissioned Neil Smith to draw a caricature of Wilson in bed with his secretary, Marcia Williams, implying that they were having an affair. Secunda sent copies of the drawing on 500 postcards to newspapers, magazines, and radio stations, though the stunt quickly backfired when Wilson sued for defamation. Wilson won the case on 11th October 1967, and was awarded all royalties from the single in perpetuity (which he donated to charity).

Significantly, McCarthy’s book — an exhaustive history of the band — includes an illustration of the postcard, which is perhaps the first time it has appeared in print in more than fifty years. (It was previously reproduced on p. 22 of the very first issue of Rolling Stone, on 9th November 1967.) McCarthy’s book was published in November 2024, and less than two months later, the postcard was also reproduced in The Oldie magazine’s January issue (no. 447, p. 62). Being a US magazine, Rolling Stone wasn’t affected by UK libel law, and as Wilson and Williams are both now deceased, there is no longer a restriction on publication of the postcard in the UK.

Collapsing Clouds Form Stars

Som Supaparinya’s exhibition Collapsing Clouds Form Stars (ฝุ่นถล่มเป็นดาว) opened on 30th January at Gallery VER in Bangkok. It was originally scheduled to close on 22nd March, though it has now been extended until 26th April. (A catalogue will be published soon, featuring essays by Philippa Lovatt.) The centrepiece, after which the exhibition is named, is an installation of 279 ribbons, each of which contains a quotation from Thai political history.

These quotes include the notorious monk Kittivuddho Bhikku’s justification for the killing of Communists, a comment that set the stage for the 6th October 1976 massacre. Other ribbons feature lyrics by Rap Against Dictatorship, among many other examples. The quotes have also been translated into Morse code, which is played over a PA system for the duration of the exhibition.

The use of Morse code, which renders the quotations unintelligible, echoes an earlier piece of sound art by the same artist, Speeches of the Unheard. For this project, an episode of the podcast series Die Erde Spricht (‘the earth is speaking’), Som used computer software to turn extracts from political speeches into birdsong. The speeches included one given by red-shirt leader Nattawut Saikua on 30th December 2007, and one by Arnon Nampa on 16th September 2020.

The exhibition also includes Banned Books, an installation consisting of five books, banned by previous Thai governments, tightly wrapped in more ribbons. The books are: แลไปข้างหน้า (‘looking into the future’), ด้วยเลือดและชีวิต (‘the one-eyed elephant and the elephant genie’), The Real Face of Thai Feudalism Today (โฉมหน้าศักดินาไทย), นิราศหนองคาย (‘poem of Nong Khai’), and ทรัพย์ศาสตร์ (‘economics’, Thailand’s first textbook on that subject).

The book Dissident Citizen (ราษฎรกำแหง) also used Morse code to conceal a political message. Several previous exhibitions — including The Grandmaster (สนทนากับปรมาจารย์), Derivatives and Integrals (อนุพันธ์ และปริพันธ์), The L/Royal Monument (นิ/ราษฎร์), and Unforgetting History — have also featured banned books. Sarakadee (สำรคดี) magazine (vol. 22, no. 260) published an extensive article on the history of book censorship, and the journal Underground Buleteen (no. 8) printed a list of books banned between 1932 and 1985.

The Bibi Files

Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, is on trial for corruption, and videos of his police interviews were leaked to filmmaker Alex Gibney. This footage, filmed in Netanyahu’s office while he was being questioned under caution, is included in Alexis Bloom’s documentary The Bibi Files, which was released last year.

Netanyahu applied for an injunction at the Jerusalem District Court on 9th September 2024, hours before the film was due to be screened at the Toronto International Film Festival in Canada. The injunction was denied, and the screening went ahead, though the film cannot legally be shown in Israel, as Israeli law prohibits the publication of police interview recordings.

The Bibi Files reveals Netanyahu and his wife Sara’s extraordinary sense of entitlement, as they at first deny receiving bribes and later attempt to justify the luxury gifts they were given. The PM is seen performatively banging his fist on his desk, calling prosecution witnesses liars — “What a liar!”, he says at one point, in English — and even quoting The Godfather: “Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer.”

Dog God

Ing K.’s film Dog God (คนกราบหมา) will be shown at Chiang Mai University’s Faculty of Social Sciences on 29th January, as part of their ดูหนังกับสังวิท (‘watch movies with Social Sciences’) programme. Her film Shakespeare Must Die (เชคสเปียร์ต้องตาย) was screened there on 22nd January, and both films were previously banned in Thailand for many years.

Dog God was banned in 1998 under its original English title, My Teacher Eats Biscuits. Ing re-edited the film in 2020, and this director’s cut — ten minutes shorter than the original version, and retitled Dog God — was approved by the film censorship board in October 2023. It was finally released in Thai cinemas last year.

My Teacher Eats Biscuits was banned on the day before its premiere at the inaugural Bangkok Film Festival, on the grounds that it satirised religion. As Ing explained in an interview for Thai Cinema Uncensored: “This is like banning John Waters’ Pink Flamingos for bad taste!” In other words, the religious satire was the whole point of the film. (Also in that interview, Ing referred to the censors as “a bunch of trembling morons”. Another reason for the ban was that the censors misinterpreted a character, Princess Serena, as an impersonation of Princess Galyani.)

Like Pink Flamingos, Ing’s film is a low-budget, independent movie shot on 16mm. (Coincidentally, Pink Flamingos was also passed by the Thai censors in 2023.) A plot synopsis — a monk catches another monk in the act of necrophilia, and a woman establishes a cult of dog worshippers — gives the false impression that the film is offensive or blasphemous. In fact, the film has a camp sensibility (which it shares with Pink Flamingos), and its tone is clearly parodic.

The film begins with a voice-over by Ing, describing her character’s previous incarnation as a devout monk. He reports the necrophile monk to his abbot, who seems completely unconcerned. Disillusioned by Buddhism, he burns his saffron robe, and is reincarnated as a woman, Satri, played by the director. At the end of the film, Satri explains her rejection of organised religion in an extended monologue: “I had to free myself from the pollution of the yellow robe, which, in my eyes, became a symbol of corruption.”

Satri’s cult is exposed as a fraud by two undercover investigators, though the film presents Buddhism as equally hypocritical. When an investigator tells a senior monk (who drinks whiskey) about the cult, his response is: “A dog in a monk’s robe is not so bad.” Reflecting on this, the investigator concludes: “With monks like him, no wonder the image of Buddhism gets worse and worse.” We are later informed that he has left to investigate “a drunken orgy with seven senior monks.”

Due to the ban, My Teacher Eats Biscuits was rarely seen, either in Thailand or elsewhere. As critic Graiwoot Chulpongsathorn wrote in 2009, it is “a film so controversial that it has been ‘disappeared’ from history.” It was shown at the Goethe-Institut in Bangkok in 1998, and at Chulalongkorn University’s Faculty of Political Science on 17th December 2009. At the Chulalongkorn screening, Ing explained that the necrophile monk character was based on a news story about a real monk, and that when she told this to the censors, their candid answer was: “ข่าวสารเรา control ไม่ได้ แต่หนังเรา control ได้” (‘we can’t control news, but we can control movies’).

The film had three European screenings in 2017. It was shown at the Close-Up Film Centre in London; at the Deutsches Filminstitut in Frankfurt, Germany; and at the Cinéma du réel (‘cinema of the real’) festival in Paris. To celebrate its return to Thai cinemas, Ing designed t-shirts with the slogan “กราบหมาเถิดลูก” (‘bow down to the dog’). After the ban was lifted, the film was shown at the Bangsaen Film Festival.