Thailand’s film ratings system serves no one-Bangkok Post
23-02-10
Learning and adapting
- Bangkok Post: February 19, 2010
- http://www.bangkokpost.com/entertainment/movie/33160/learning-and-adapting
Consumer groups remain sceptical about the Film Act’s rating system.
Six months after the Film Act introduced a film rating system for Thai viewers, the verdict is still mixed. Does Avatar deserve a “G” - suitable for all audiences - when in most countries it has a 13-plus classification? And the psycho-horror The Fourth Kind, which got a G here whereas in other places it got a 15-plus? Is the rating committee still covertly practicing axing orders, or even a ban, on Thai films? Have parents been educated enough about the system, which serves more as a guideline than as prohibition?
“It has been going well,” says Somchai Siang-lai, secretary general of the Office of National Culture Commission, the body under the Ministry of Culture that oversees the rating committee. “There are questions raised by consumer groups and parents, but it’s only been six months. We’re learning and adapting too. I believe we’re on the right track.”
Somchai adds that his office is now focusing on educating parents and school teachers about the benefit of the ratings. “The ratings serve only as a guideline, except the 20-plus category, which requires an ID check,” he says. “Some parents are still not aware of this; what we want to promote especially is for parents to go see movies with their children.
“So far the good thing is that we have received cooperation from theatre owners and schools in spreading the word about the guidelines. I believe that filmmakers and film producers are adjusting well to the new system too.”
Mostly, but probably not all of them. Under the new law, there are five ratings – G, 13-plus, 15-plus, 18-plus and P for promotion – plus the same old scourge of a ban. In the past six months, one film failed to obtain a screening permit; it’s the case of an indirect ban on This Area Is Under Quarantine, an independent Thai film about gay issues and southern unrest that was supposed to screen at the World Film Festival of Bangkok.
Reports also surfaced about Mahalai Sayongkwan and how the rating committee told the filmmaker to cut a brief shot showing a soldier shooting at university students, in a reference to the Oct 14, 1973 incident. Likewise, the film Suay Samurai was told to cut a shot showing Muslim terrorists.
Recently, the rating committee gave Nak Prok (see main story) an 18-plus rating – but on the condition that the filmmaker puts warning messages in problematic scenes involving monks.
“I think the rating committee have been more open-minded on certain issues, but they still have the old mindset regarding other issues, like nudity and politics,” says Prachya Pimakaew, producer and director of many hit Thai films.
“Before the ratings were applied, the authorities had practiced censorship for such a long time that they just can’t forget about it completely. But with the committee giving a rating to Nak Prok, a film that would never have passed the censors three years ago, I have high hopes that filmmakers will feel more confident to produce movies that they wouldn’t dare to produce years ago.”
Yet scepticism still runs high, and for good reason, among audiences who dare to speak out. The Network of Thai Movie Audience is a loose group of people who keep track of the performance of the rating committee; they’re a consumer watchdog, so to speak, that airs concerns and comments over a number of the decisions made by the rating body, especially when it involves censorship. Their strongholds are the Internet and movie magazines, though recently they’ve begun working with other NGOs and consumer groups.
“There are many G-rated films that raise doubts over the standard of the rating decisions,” says Tuchchai Wongkitrungruang, a founding member of the group. “Like Avatar – not the smoking scene, but the suggestion of violence – or the Thai film Bangkok Traffic Love Story, which has double-meaning jokes. But what we’re concerned with the most is the practice of censorship and banning, like what happened to the film This Area Is Under Quarantine.
“At the end of this month we will issue our analysis and compilation of data gathered during the past six months regarding the ratings. We’re also working with a group called Ilaw, which campaigns for amendments of several bills that contain aspects about curbing the rights of people. We’re looking into the possibility of asking that the ban order be removed from the Film Act,” he says.
