Turning pop culture into propaganda

Turning pop culture into propaganda

So the prime minister has watched Game of Thrones. The PM, speaking about the series in his interview with Al Jazeera, didn’t actually adopt Tyrion Lannister’s eloquence, though his enthusiasm for the kind of primeval justice practised in Westeros is clear. Also, he recently said that he liked Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln, a respectable film about a respectable politician who moved his nation forward through strategy, wit and poise. He also knew that his weekly address on TV upset the masses who were addicted to the spectacle of foul-mouthed E-Yam in the soap Sud Kaen San Rak. I’m very happy to know that we have a leader who’s well-versed in the language of popular culture, apart from his initiative of "12 Values" short films (that no one saw).

Every time the country gets stuck — and we keep getting stuck all the time — the policy on culture is stalled and stuffed in the darkest corner of the attic. Under civilian governments, culture is often viewed as commerce, and thus the panic rush of some ministers in the mid-2000s to copy South Korea’s success in exporting pop music and movies. In the spreadsheet of GDP-oriented states, culture needs to be justified by numbers; in fact, Korea’s breathtaking rise as a powerhouse cultural exporter is partly a result of the country’s elected governments after lengthy military rule. In Thailand, after the many meetings and seminars of the past 10 years, we still can’t even catch Korea’s coat tails as its phenomenal ascent continues.

But under authoritarian rule, what is the job of culture? Propaganda, mostly. Sometimes that’s not always a bad thing, because when artists can work without market pressure, art can exist for art’s sake. It can also push dissenters to find a way to turn art into artillery; Iran’s filmmakers are known for their sharp critiques of their government through film, as well as Chinese artists and their run-ins with officials. And yet, the problem with cultural policy under any iron-fisted government is its reactionary outlook, and low tolerance of anything deemed contrary to official ideology. 

For our military government, their ideas about culture is naturally narrow, or simply non-existent. It hasn’t banned any movies (the previous government did), but it has threatened some playwrights whose shows touched their nerves. It didn’t ban The Hunger Games, but it arrested those who flashed the three-fingered salute copied from the film (the last movie of the franchise is aggressively promoting the three-fingered gesture around the world, except here).

It enlisted top songsters to sing the 12 Values theme song, which was a complete flop, deservedly because the concept was oh-so-yesterday from the start. It is painfully ironic, too, that the Bangkok Art and Culture Centre — supposedly a symbol of our modern outlook towards culture and society — has become the scene of several tussles where policemen and soldiers broke up peaceful protesters. The clash of cultures — the militaristic against the liberal, the nationalistic against the progressive, the old against the new — is one of the fronts that will send unceasing ripples for years to come.    

Yesterday, a glittering troupe of khon mask dancers performed at the Royal Albert Hall in London. Next week, a set of seven movies will be shown in London as part of the “Totally Thai” festival (that tricky word, “Thainess”!).

All is good. Last week, Culture Minister Vira Rojpojchanarat proposed a plan to set up a new agency to “drive the strategy of Thai cinema”. That sounds good, too, only that it is also something that has been discussed for years without any clear directive, and when it is brought up in a time when we’re officially told to adopt a mono-cultural mentality — to think the same, to feel the same, to speak the same, to repeat what is told to us and avoid any conflict in order to heal the invisible wounds and let the leader take us to the future, which in fact looks like the past — it sounds like the propaganda machine revving up once again.

Culture is politics. Culture is also deeply tied to the idea of evolution. If you’re lucky, you take it up to revolution; if you’re not so lucky, you’re set back and get devolution. Game of Thrones and Lincoln, the PM’s favourites, are effective pop-cultural symbols because, though set in the past, they’re driven by the modern concept of dissonance, friction, confrontation, and a defiant willingness to question what’s accepted as the norm.

They’re also designed to bring in as much money as they can as well. All of these are not what our “official” culture under any government wants to hear. When that’s the case, the clock is rewound. Evolution? Not so lucky, it’s devolution we have to brace ourselves for.


Kong Rithdee is deputy Life editor, Bangkok Post.

Kong Rithdee

Bangkok Post columnist

Kong Rithdee is a Bangkok Post columnist. He has written about films for 18 years with the Bangkok Post and other publications, and is one of the most prominent writers on cinema in the region.

Do you like the content of this article?
COMMENT (6)