A great day for Thai film

The Bangkok Post continued the onslaught of coverage of the Cannes festival triumph of Apichatwong Weerasethakul's Tropical Malady.

Leading the paper's Outlook section today, film critic Kong Rithdee said Tropical Malady "is one of the most powerful, most intellectually challenging films ever made in the history of Thai cinema. Its artistic confidence is so absolute that it's not surprising that the early audience response has been dramatically divided between those who champion it as a contemporary masterpiece, and those who were deeply frustrated by its enigmatic format, presentation and message."

The article delved into the pressure Apichatpong felt in having his film selected for competition in the "world's most important cinematic event ... the Ivy League for film-makers."

More stress stacked up after the press screening when a section of the media came out with sensational headlines that gave the false impression that the Thai film had been booed off the screen. This was an exaggeration. True, a few agitated viewers did boo, but what those newspapers failed to report was the news from the other camp, led by top French critics, which proclaimed over and over again that Tropical Malady was 'the best film in the festival'.

I was prepared to face the reaction. I'm not that worried. Actually I'm more curious to know how the people will respond to it," said 34-year-old Apichatpong. "But I think it was unfair to me [when some newspapers in Thailand] printed one-sided reports, saying that my movie had been booed. Booing is a common practice [at festival screenings] in Cannes, and there were also people who liked the film a lot.

When the film opens in Thailand, I guess the situation will be the same as it was here. It's going to be a love-it-or-hate-it scenario. That's all right with me. As a film-maker, my goal is to present my vision, and that's what I did in this film. I don't differentiate between Thai and international audiences. It's just that some viewers will like it, and some won't."

Kong then veered into a review of the film.

So what's in it to love -- or hate? Tropical Malady is steeped in the profound themes of folkloric mysticism and spiritual quest, plus an element of homosexuality as a force for liberation -- or obliteration.

Like Apichatpong's previous work, Blissfully Yours, this film exudes a sense of anthropological authenticity in its frankly realistic presentation of small-town life. For the first hour it follows two gay lovers, country boy Tong and Keng the soldier, as they initiate a playful romance amid the rough, unpolished setting of a nameless provincial town. They ride around on a motorcycle, visit a cave, have idle chats; Apichatpong's naturalistic style endowing this part of the film with an adorable quality. Then comes the killer mid-point, the point that defies the structural conventions of film-making: Tropical Malady seems to come to an abrupt end. Actually it looks as if the reel has slipped out of the projector. The screen goes blank for about 15 seconds, then, to gasps from perplexed viewers, we see the beginning of what is apparently another film.

This 'second film', totally devoid of dialogue throughout its 60 minutes, has Keng the soldier trekking through a dripping jungle in search of a tiger-ghost who feeds on the memory of its prey (thus the Thai title, Sud Pralad, which literally translates as 'monster'), and who may or may not be his lover, Tong. Keng's journey into the heart of darkness leads him to an encounter with a supernatural force that nurtures, guides and annihilates his physical self and suffering. "

This, the post-narrative, post-structuralist universe of Tropical Malady, is what so baffled Cannes viewers. Clearly, however, these are two halves of the same whole: the tangible and the abstract; the physical and the spiritual; the conscious and the subconscious. More and more the film becomes a state of mind, an intensely cerebral platform filled with the dark mystery of ancient folklore.

"It's free cinema, and it's open to interpretation," Apichatpong told the Post. "For me, the two halves of the film are like two magnetic poles that push against each other but have to co-exist. Both lovers are male, so it's natural that they push against each other, [but the fact that they're lovers] is the cause of the malady, the suffering that they try to overcome.

When the first half ends, it's like I, the film-maker, have erased the memory of the characters and put them into a different world, and in that world they need to search for their identities again. In the second part I wanted to present an in-between-worlds mood. I deliberately didn't present communication in a graphic way, because some communication has to be a discussion between minds. As the soldier makes his way deeper into the jungle, he must learn another language with which to speak to the spirits." Apitchatpong also was feeling pressure because his father had died recently. In accepting his jury prize at Cannes, he dedicated it to his father. "There's also an element of sadness permeating the story. When I was making the film, I was depressed at the loss of my father, and I guess I expressed that sentiment in the film," he told the Post.

He hopes to use his Cannes triumph to champion the cause of art cinema in Thailand. "Cinema is a visual art," he says. "Like the ancient craftsmen who painted murals, Thai films should be honoured and preserved as treasure, too."

Kong provided more commentary on the positive reception of Tropical Malady.

'You should be proud -- Thailand has given us the best film in the Cannes Festival!' I was walking out of a Tropical Malady screening when a critic from Cahier du Cinema, France's most respected cinema journal, rushed over to congratulate me. That was last Tuesday, four days before the announcement of the winners. He added that most in the French press had loved the film, a claim later testified to in countless interviews and reports on Apichatpong Weerasethakul's jungle-fever movie.

On the night of the award ceremony, when it was official that Tropical Malady won the Prix du Jury, Japanese reporters, New York critics and French acquaintances whom I knew kept saying congratulations to me. One of them beamed: "This is a great day for Thai cinema!"

Grapevine gossips had been whispering since the afternoon of Saturday, May 22, that the Thai film, which struck the placid festival like a hammer and divided the audience into two opposing camps, might 'win something'. My guess was that it couldn't possibly win the top award, the Palme d'Or, because of its low-profile presence. So I thought it might be either the Prix du Jury or Best Director (which are both like second runners-up). Quentin Tarantino, chairman of this year's jury, declared that evening that the movie had won the former. I was in the press room at the moment, was virtually the only one who clapped like a demented monkey.

Last week in Bangkok, a few Thai newspapers played up second-hand reports, almost with a malicious intent, that Tropical Malady had been a disgrace, a flop that had been severely booed by critics. They wrote the headlines as if they had witnessed it all for themselves.

I was there, and yes, there were people booing. But there were also people shouting 'Bravo!' I talked to people, and yes, many disliked the movie for numerous reasons (unintelligible, incoherent, weird, crazy). But there were also supporters who enthusiastically sang praises to the film's uncompromising artistic ambition.

Pulp Fiction was also booed (I wasn't there) before the film went on to win the coveted Palme d'Or. Booing is not an indicator that a movie is a disgrace; it just proves that the film has power, either positive or negative, and has provoked a strong reaction.

Even though Tropical Malady won a prize, it doesn't mean that everybody has to like it, or that the film is indisputably 'good'. The ability to stimulate constructive discussion, to arouse diverse subjective opinions, is the magic of cinema -- of any great art. What's more worrying is not whether Apichatpong's movie is brilliant or not, but the widespread narrow-mindedness that could hamper the atmosphere of artistic appreciation in this country.

I've heard more than a few Thai people say, upon learning that the film won an award at Cannes, that they might have to 'climb a ladder to watch it' - a jest to suggest that the film is intellectual 'high art' and unreachable by the majority.

That's a disgraceful thing to say.

It's fair to like or dislike the film -- it's perfectly okay to boo if one hates it. But to erect a barrier, to dismiss a piece of work simply because it's unfamiliar, to dismiss it even before seeing it _ that's not fair, not constructive in the least.

Of course, Tropical Malady is a difficult movie. But appreciating a square metre of mural paintings at the Temple of Emerald Buddha is also difficult, and to genuinely comprehend the complex artistry of traditional dance is also difficult. Should we mock those respected performance arts as incomprehensible 'high art' too?

A great day of Thai cinema? I'd like to correct my foreign friend, who congratulated me. A great day for Thai cinema will come, not because a Thai film won an award at Cannes, but when the audience in Thailand is ready to open itself up to various forms of cultural expression -- and cure the prejudice that is our real tropical malady."

In an editorial, The Nation called the Cannes win "A blessing for Thai cinema."

"Tropical Malady’s strong showing should serve as a beacon for young filmmakers.

The fact that Apichatpong’s movie was selected for Cannes’ main competition, and ultimately won a prize, is a momentous event in Thai cinematic history ...

For directors the world over, taking part in such an international event is already regarded as an honour. That’s why Apichatpong’s triumph means so much to Thailand’s film industry. Even though Tropical Malady did not measure up to other contenders in terms of the standing ovations for 2046 by Chinese director Wong Kar-wai and Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 911, the Thai film won rave reviews from the French and British press. "Tropical Malady," as the [London] Daily Telegraph [sorry, no links] put it, 'will make you rub your eyes in disbelief and scream with confused delight'. Apichatpong’s Jury Award should inspire young Thai filmmakers to produce quality films.

One of the contributing factors to the emergence of Thai film-making talent on the international film circuit is the various film festivals that the Kingdom has hosted. New generations of Thai filmmakers have been exposed to the latest developments and ideas in the world of cinema. Indeed there are many well-educated, talented young filmmakers who have won awards at film festivals from Berlin to Pusan. More Thai students are taking up filmmaking courses at home and abroad. If given proper support, they will one day be able to break into the mainstream international film markets.

Still the authorities do not regard film as an art that needs to be supported. Rather, they see it as entertainment and not part of the country’s cultural heritage. Consequently the authorities do not provide financial backing to cultivate the home-grown film industry, unlike other art-conscious nations in the region, like Japan and Korea. With or without government support, the Thai movie-going public should support directors who share Apichatpong’s ambitions. Commercial success may continue to be the top priority for most filmmakers, who need to make a living. But Thai cinema has for too long been mired in the same old, hackneyed formulas.

The rise of the new home-grown filmmakers should positively influence the mainstream Thai film industry, which panders to the public’s lower appetites by dwelling on cliched themes, plots and dialogue that hardly venture beyond the confines of fads, plagiarism and banality. Even though films made by Apichatpong and other avant-garde filmmakers are still beyond the reach of many regular moviegoers, the gap between art-house and mainstream movies may be narrowing. The box office successes of such well-made mainstream films as Nang Nak, Hom Roang [The Overture] and Ong Bak are a new phenomenon that keeps the hope alive that Thailand’s aspirations of becoming a cultural hot spot in Asia may not be out of reach after all.