The year 2007 has seen the release of another Thai historical epic, this time focussing on the Siamese ruler, Somdet Phra Naresuan Maharaja (King Naresuan), acclaimed as the liberator of Siam from Burmese domination in the 16th century. While the life of this “warrior king” remains somewhat mysterious (see The Nation), the choice of subject matter is clearly another shot in the cinematic war that some Thais are waging against Burma. Other recent films glorifying Siam in the period of confrontation with Burma are:
- Bang Rajan (2000)
- Suriyothai (2001)
- Khun Suek (2003)
All such films raise questions about historical authenticity. It seems to me that the weaponry and armour do not reflect what was used at these times – but I might be wrong… I am happy for any sources and information on this topic.
The more interesting question is - why are films about battles between the Burmese and Thai so popular in Thailand?
During the periods described in these films, there was also much armed conflict among the different Siamese principalities and, on many occasions, Siam itself launched campaigns against Cambodia or Laos. Interestingly, a film on Thao Suranaree (or Khunying Mo), who defended the Siamese against Lao invaders, seems to be largely forgotten – I cannot find any traces of it anymore.
Today it seems that nothing stirs the national soul more than fighting against the perpetually evil Burmese. Interestingly, these films have all been made at a time when, on the political level, Thailand has come to terms with its western neighbour. Is it just on the popular level that enemy-bashing is still in full swing?
While it is understandable that martial monuments to Alaungphaya and Bayingnaung have been erected to stir patriotism among the Burmese and to distract from hardships under the regime, the motives of the Thai film producers, who are supposedly working in a pluralistic society, are far less clear to me.
In King Naresuan, Than Mui (Chatrichalerm Yukol) picks the only historical moment in which Thailand was victorious over the Burmese. This is quite bold considering that there are now more Burmese living in Thailand than ever before. Could their sentiments be turned sour by this movie?
There is much more to say - I would welcome a discussion among New Mandala readers on Thai-Burmese relations and these cinematic volleys.
Louis T. Wollweber graduated from the University of Hamburg in 2002 with an M.A. in Cultural Anthropology and Thai Studies. He currently works in London.
15 responses so far ↓
1 polo // May 22, 2007 at 11:14 am
Easy answer for why they are popular: grand war epics are always popular, nationalist ones even moreso, and Thailand had these big fights with Burma that make for good stories, true or not. I
Question is why aren’t they doing the same type of films on Thailand and Laos?
2 Amateur // May 22, 2007 at 6:25 pm
I suppose that the Lao, being the “smaller brother”, is not really worth the bashing. There is always a notion of related-ness within the Tai-family, which is obviously not the case with the Burmans. But then again: why not such kind of films with the Khmer?
3 Pig Latin // May 22, 2007 at 8:14 pm
I think that polarization in all media now is quite extreme. It’s as though various media are trying to create a self-fulfilling prophecy.
This is the football game of world politics. We watch it in the same way.
I haven’t seen 300, but supposedly this is a movie done in the same manner as you describe ‘King Naresuan’. I wasn’t aware that Siamese, Burmese conflicts were on the level of Siamese, Khmer conflicts? Are there similar Thai-Khmer movies?
Nationalism gives people safety from existentialism. Maybe we are at a point now of such disbelief where many people will fall back on national identity, or religion. All of this tragedy makes a better story, as it has always done. Actually, was money exchanged to see the story before the movies?
4 Bounmy KamBung // May 22, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Thai film makers have indeed made moves toward producing similar period dramas about relations with Laos. A film about Tao Suranaree (Ya Moh) as the heroine of the Thai nation was to be made in 2005 but was called off when the Lao ambassador to Thailand threatened to cut trade relations. There were also threats that electricity supplies would be halted if the film was produced. To the Lao, Suranaree is an insulting myth created to justify the Siamese sacking of Vientiane and defeat of the Lao king Anouvong. This is a much talked about piece of historiography, Charles Keyes has an essay on Suranaree and the alternative folk meanings she has in the local social memory of the people of Isaarn and Grant Evans has one on Anouvong and his problematic place in official Lao historiography, but neither have focused on the relationship between the two, which is what makes the movie such a volatile proposition. There is a long history of subtle and not-so-subtle antagonisms between Thailand and its neighbours inspired by its sometimes chauvinistic Bangkok-centred media culture. The sacking of the Thai embassy in Cambodia in 2004 (?) was attributed to the opinions of a Thai soap star (although more about local politics). Rumours have spread through Laos in recent years about Thai stars’ negative opinions of Lao women and even the odd Lao pop star’s negative opinions of her own country. Geopolitics is being played out on the big screen and has repercussions off-screen too.
5 Jon Fernquest // May 22, 2007 at 10:10 pm
IMHO the only good war film is an anti-war film or a film that reflects on the intrinsic horribleness of war like War and Peace or Kurosawa’s Ran. See Marguerite Yourcenar for the sublime in historical fiction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marguerite_Yourcenar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublime_(philosophy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_von_Kleist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Kohlhaas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ran_%28film%29
Haven’t watched the Naresuan films yet, but being intimately familiar with that history, I doubt if they’ll bring out the intricacies of that era’s history since most people just repeat the same story line as Prince Damrong who was a wonderful historian but wrote this standard history 100 years ago. A fresh perspective would be nice, like looking at events from the perspective from people who are normally assumed to be minor participants, like Lao Lan Chang.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yam_Yasothon
and Ghost of Mae Nak are good historical pieces, my favorites.
Suriyothai seems to have a certain poetic beauty to it, but you supposedly have to watch the long Thai version, and that requires oodles of time and patience.
6 Diego // May 23, 2007 at 12:22 am
In Handley’s “The King never smiles”, he mentioned about the use of historical films such as Suriyothai to ingrain the importance of the monarchy (read: Chakri dynasty) in Thai consciousness. He also discussed the relationship between Than Mui and the monarchy. Perhaps King Naresuan is an expression of the same grand design: the manufacture of consensus for the monarchy.
7 Pig Latin // May 23, 2007 at 1:27 am
Diego, do you mean ‘grand design’ like Triumph of the Will? http://imdb.com/title/tt0025913/
8 A Tinya fan // May 23, 2007 at 2:36 am
Thailand’s very own Propaganda and Public Enlightenment (ring a bell?) through the Arts (or the lack thereof).
9 fall // May 23, 2007 at 12:36 pm
In my opinion, historic-base film depend on audience knowledge of history. Because war with Burmese is the only major battle victory that Thai mass audience can relate their historical knowledge to. That’s why “300″ have not been a hit in Thailand.
Make a film about war with Lao and they go “Huh?”. Try make one where Thai fight in WWII on the Axis side…
10 Jon Fernquest // May 23, 2007 at 10:04 pm
“In my opinion, historic-base film depend on audience knowledge of history”
If it is a mass market Hollywood movie, for sure. And also Naresuan has a religious status now in Thailand. There is a Naresuan shrine on Doi Wao in Maesai and I know people who worship him (or “pay respect” to him).
But if you want a really interesting new movie, that addressed a topic that hasn’t been addressed yet, really this is the best book that I can see:
Paths to Conflagration: Fifty Years of Diplomacy and Warfare in Laos, Thaland, and Vietnam Mayoury Ngaosyvathn & Pheuiphanh Ngaosyvathn [link]
Also a tragic story that pits the Chinese and the Burmese against Tais is the story of Si Lun-fa in Yunnan around 1400 in my paper [link].
Also the late 1980s Thai-Lao bloody border skirmishes might make for an interesting documentary. I’ve never seen any information on it.
11 Louis // May 24, 2007 at 1:41 am
Fall - this is possibly similar with “Apocalypto” which poses to the general western audience the great task of dealing with mesoamerican ancient culture of the Maya. But a quick look into the webboard of Pantip seems to show that there is an appreciation of that film (http://www.pantip.com/cafe/chalermthai/topic/A5423478/A5423478.html).
That “300″ is not a big hit in Thailand must not necessarily mean that it is due to a missing historical knowledge. As far as I know “Gladiator” or “Braveheart” have been quite popular in Thailand. But having spoken to some Thais in my environment I have heard that they do not like the comic style of the film, being mostly dark. They would like to have the film photographed in a natural way.
I reckon that “The Curse of the Golden Flower” is going to be popular in Thailand as well - if they are not tired with the stunts that does not seem to evolve over the years…
****
Another thing: Why is Burma referred to as “Hongsawadee” in the Movie “Naresuan”? As far as I know Hongsawadee was the Mon kingdom in South Burma which itself was hostile to the Burman who ruled from Taungoo. And it was in fact the Taungoo rulers who attacked Ayutthaya.
Can any historian of you provide with an answer?
As I haven’t seen the film yet I might miss some other important parts of it that might clarify my answer. But on the Thai section of the Naresuan website there was no mentioning of Taungoo.
12 fall // May 24, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Are we talking about film critic or box office success?
True, “300″ flop or “Gladiator” flare might or might not related to lack of historical knowledge, or just because it come out the same time as “Naresuan”. But I doubt if “Gladiator” is not dark, it’s certainly gloomy enough.
Or the reason of Burma’s bashing spree might related to underlying social superiority feeling that modern Thai had culturally conquered Burma. Same reason Hollywood WW2 films like bashing German and Japan.
13 New Mandala » “In Thailand we respect the king. Nobody dares to make a copy.” // May 25, 2007 at 8:44 pm
[...] the lively discussion generated by the recent New Mandala post on “Thai cinematic war with Burma”, many [...]
14 Aung Kyaw // May 26, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Louis - Hongsawadee (in Burmese, it’s Hanthawadi/Hanthawaddy) was the capital of the Mon kingdom and is now in present-day Pegu (Bago). The Burmans conquered the Hanthawadi Kingdom in the 1500s and ruled it until being defeated by the British. I believe Burma’s referred to as Hongsawadee in the same way that the Burmese call Thailand “Yodaya”, which comes from the city name of Ayutthaya.
15 Jon Fernquest // May 28, 2007 at 2:41 am
“Why is Burma referred to as “Hongsawadee” in the Movie “Naresuan”? As far as I know Hongsawadee was the Mon kingdom in South Burma which itself was hostile to the Burman who ruled from Taungoo. And it was in fact the Taungoo rulers who attacked Ayutthaya.”
Hongsawaddy = Hanthawaddy = Pegu
The Burmese were displaced from Ava near Mandalay to Toungoo after a Tai invasion in 1524-27. Burmese Toungoo began a series of attacks against Pegu starting in the early 1530s after the Tais took Prome which is roughly parallel with and close to Toungoo, posing a threat to Toungoo. The section “Toungoo’s Southward Expansion Against Pegu (1535-1539)” (pages 105-115) in my paper:
Fernquest, Jon (2005). “Min-gyi-nyo, the Shan Invasions of Ava (1524-27), and the Beginnings of Expansionary Warfare in Toungoo Burma: 1486-1539,” SOAS Bulletin of Burma Research, Vol. 3, No. 2, Autumn 2005 (available here).
BTW Naresuan’s ideological employment dates way back to the nineteenth century before Prince Damrong according to the book: Nidhi Eoseewong (2006) Pen and Sail: Literature and History in Early Bangkok, Silkworm Press For contention
between Burma, Lao, Lanna, and Ayutthaya over control of Northern Thailand during Naresuan’s regime, see my paper:
Fernquest, Jon (2005). “The Flight of Lao War Captives From Burma Back to Laos in 1596: A Comparison of Historical Sources”, SOAS Bulletin of Burma Research, Vol. 3, No. 1, Spring 2005, pp. 1-26 (available here).
For a bizarre analogue of Naresuan (Thai-Burma) in Thai-Lao relations see the paper on so-called Nakhon Ratchasima “resistance hero” Grandma Mo in this book:
2002, Cultural Crisis and Social Memory: Modernity and Identity in Thailand and Laos (ed. with Shigeharu Tanabe) Richmond, Surrey, UK: Routledge Curzon.
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.