I thought we could let it rest, but apparently the post-rescue drama of the 13 cave survivors is here to stay. On Wednesday, the 13 Wild Boars members were put on stage in a live broadcast, a 6pm state-run slot usually reserved for military propaganda.
On Thursday, it was revealed that at least five foreign film producers have contacted the authorities about a possible film project based on the Tham Luang cave saga.
To ensure order, a national committee will be set up to review any film projects involving the Wild Boars. The government is reportedly considering making its own film, too.
Several issues are at hand, some political, others metaphysical: Who owns the cave story? Which version of it? Who has the right to the images, the reproduction, the simulacrum, of the reality that has gripped the world?
If the government wants to control the narrative -- out of the need to protect the boys, granted -- does that amount to censorship, or an appropriation of popular history? What about the boys' rights? Then, if a Thai studio wishes to make a movie about the cave ordeal, will they be subjected to the same rigour of scrutiny?
First of all, this is a world where no government can control the trafficking of moving images. Anything can be a story and everyone can find themselves a character. A couple of documentary segments on the cave rescue have already been aired -- on ABC and the Discovery Channel, and more will follow -- not to mention countless three-minute clips and Facebook videos made by everyone from the BBC to local news sites. No control could be applied over them; no one can own a narrative that has spread beyond borders. Images are information and information is free -- or it struggles to be free.
From what I've seen, some of these productions are informative, comprehensive, and you could even say inspiring (we need inspiration every day, like sleeping pills or transfat-free phad thai). At the same time, the mentality of the 21st-century media professionals to milk every possible angle, to squeeze an event bone-dry for the sake of clicks, likes, ads, organic reaches, etc, is at once thrilling, exhausting and trivialising.
A day after the boys appeared on TV, ABC aired an "exclusive report" from the house of the smallest boy in the group -- even though the tacit understanding among the media was to respect the privacy of these youngsters (at least for a while).
Of course, we need stories -- a daily fix of stories is what keeps the human race going forward -- but we also need a variety of stories. With the images from the cave flooding our newsfeeds and airwaves for nearly a month, with the faces of boys (and their parents and grandparents) everywhere in print and in pixels, I watch them, like we all do, and then seek comfort in my own motto: One of the problems in the world is the overabundance of moving images and firearms.
Now let's look at this "national committee" to be set up. In fact, a committee has already existed, for years, to perform this job, which can be somewhat delicate: to balance the economic benefit of foreign productions being shot in Thailand against the proper image of the country (thus some films are denied permission). You can check out the details at the Thailand Film Office website, which outlines the process required for shooting documentaries or feature films here. For instance, the producer of a feature film or docudrama needs to submit a synopsis, a treatment (a term for a long summary) and a full script. A bullet point also states clearly that, "In cases where the script is not approved, the Film Board may ask the filmmakers to revise it". Meaning: If the need arises, we can control the narrative of the story set in Thailand.
For documentaries, you need to submit only a treatment. For news reports, permission to shoot is not required. But it's apparent that in the age of visual storytelling -- in this cave incident as well as others -- the line is blurred and the rules can become fuzzy. Short clips are also short documentaries, and a large number of video works posted on Facebook can be everything from news reports to docudramas or pure fiction. In short, this is something too big, too hydra-headed, too postmodern for the bureaucratic regulators to control.
In the end, we're all accomplices, because our desire to consume the cave story -- or any story that excites armchair sensationalism -- is part of the cycle that has spawned the scoops, the storming of houses to score interviews, the film scripts, and the official alarm. At the centre of it all are the boys, led out of the cave into the chaos. They've been rescued, and perhaps they'll need another one soon.
Kong Rithdee is Life Editor, Bangkok Post.
