Movie-makers missed the point completely

A short film commissioned by the government to reiterate the so-called 12 moral values of Prime Minister Prayut Chan-ocha ended up creating a stir.

It wasn’t because of the story line or the theme, which touched on friendship and acceptance between two school boys who realise that the best way to measure the significance of their lives is not by how many school medals they can obtain but that small moment of compassion and integrity.

The problem with this short film, “30”, was one scene in which one of the boys was shown applauding Adolf Hitler.

After a public uproar criticising the scene that appeared to be praising Hitler – the man responsible for the death of some 6 million Jews – authorities decided to pull the film off the screen. 

Director Kulp Kaljaruek said he had no hidden agenda and he was not trying to make any political statement with regard to the scene showing reverence to Hitler. 

Israel’s Ambassador to Thailand, Simon Roded issued a statement, saying he was “deeply saddened” to see the “trivialisation and misuse” of Nazi symbols in an official Thai government film.

“Hitler and the Nazi regime were responsible for a systemic, horrific and racist murder of 11 million people during the Holocaust.”

“I was surprised that throughout the screening process this movie must have gone through to be approved for public broadcast, none of the smart, well-educated people checking it had identified it as being problematic and offensive,” he said.

“Smart” and “well educated” they may be. But given the fact that they were indifferent to the trivialisation of Hitler and the Nazi symbol, one has to wonder if the education that these people received was worth the time and money spent on it. 

Director Kulp can’t really plead innocence either. After all, how can a man responsible for the death of so many innocent lives be shown in a film that was supposed to enhance moral values?

Perhaps the director, by using the image of Hitler in the film, was trying to make a point about the extreme opposite of what constitute morals and morality. If that was the case, there were other ways of doing it because the image that he used became the dominant point in the public discourse, not the message about integrity and compassion of the two school boys.

Kulp could claim the privilege of artistic integrity – who cares if the public don’t get it, right? But let’s not forget that this was a film commissioned by, of all people, a military-installed government that came to power through a coup and through this film was trying to promote “love for democracy”.

Colonel Sansern Kaewkumnerd, spokesman for the Prime Minister’s Office, could save himself ridicule for trying to read too much into this. It’s like a comedian trying to explain his own joke. 

Insensitive use of Nazi symbols is common in Thailand. We have seen it in on T-shirts in Bangkok clothing stores and other public places, such as a Catholic school in Chiang Mai and the Chulalongkorn University where last year, a banner featured Hitler giving a Nazi salute alongside superheroes Batman and The Incredible Hulk. 

The university apologised and blamed “ignorant students.” Perhaps the students were to blame. But weren’t they also just outright indifferent?