Luke1

MeganLuke Faculty:MarilynFreeman NonfictionMedia201213 08March2013

ApichatpongWeerasethakul:CinemaasaGhostMedium BornandraisedinKhonKaen,Thailand,independentdirectorandrenowninstallationartist ApichatpongWeerasethakulattendedtheSchooloftheArtInstituteofChicagoandreceivedanMFA infilmmakingin1997.ThishybrididentityThainativeandWesterntheoryinformeddirectoralone suggeststhetransnationalityofhiswork.HisartfocusesexclusivelyonthecountryofThailand,its people,theirmemoriesanddesires,andthelandallofwhichisbecomingincreasinglymediatedby modernity.GiventhisintimateinvolvementwithThaicultureandhisownexperienceofit,itwouldbea distortionandocclusiontonotanalyzeWeerasethakulsfilmsasiftheywerealsoworksofexperimental ethnography.ThispaperwillexploreelementswithinWeerasethakulsfilmsthatblurthedistinction betweenrealityandfiction,thatconfoundandconflaterealismandanthropologicalallegory,and ultimatelyexistasmediumsthroughwhichdeepyetephemeralrealitiescanbeexpressed. InherbookExperimentalEthnography:TheWorkofFilmintheAgeofVideo,film professorCatherineRusselltacklesthesubjectofthecrisisofrepresentationinherentinwhatweknow asethnographyandanthropology,bothofwhichwadeinthewakeofaconvolutedpostcolonial, postmodernreality.ItisinthiscontextindeedthatRussellsaysexperimentalfilmmakingisflourishing.In anexhaustivetomeofthreehundredpagessheproposestheuseofavantgardeandexperimental techniquesinordertochallengethecolonialanthropologicalparadigmthatperpetuate[s]aCartesian

Luke2

dualitybetweenmindandmatterinwhichtheOtherisobjectifiedandthefilmmakerandhisorher audiencearethesubjectsofperception(4).Russellchieflyarguesherpointthroughcriticalanalysisof aneclecticarrayofpastethnographicfilms,callingupontheworkofWalterBenjamin(fromwhomher bookssubtitleisderived)andotherpastcriticaltheorists. Russellstatessuccinctlyattheendofherintroductionthatthefailureofrealismtopresent evidenceoftherealistheradicalpossibilityofexperimentalethnography(25).Itisthisnewformof cinemathatmayhavethepotentialtobeanartthatupsetsconventionswhichstemfromandpreserve institutionsofcolonialcultureandlimittherelationshipbetweenfilmmaker,film,andviewer. Weerasethakulsmostclearlynonfictionalfilmishisfirstfeature,releasedin2000,andshot entirelyinblackandwhite16mm:MysteriousObjectatNoon,orinThailand,DogfahrintheDevils Hand.Ittookthreeyearstocompletetheproject,whichadoptedtheFrenchsurrealistAndrBretons exquisitecorpsetechniquetobuilditscollectivelyassembled,dreamlikenarrative.Filmmakerandfilm crewtraveledaroundThailand,findingnonactorsalongtheroadtobuildthescriptoneperson continuingfromanotherslastscene.Thecombinationofthenarrativewiththedocumentaryfootage capturedduringthemakingofMysteriousObjectiswhatallowsthisfilmtobebothamelodramatic fantasyspunoutofmultiplesubjectivitiesandasubtlepieceofethnography. ThephraseOnceuponatimeonablacktitlescreencuesthebeginningofthefilm.Thenwith averitflavor,theaudienceistreatedwithalongunediteddrivingshotdownahighwayjustintoan urbancentertothetuneofaThaipopsongandavoiceoverofunknownorigintellingastoryabouta manfranticallytryingtomarryawoman.Asthecameracombsthroughthecity,wehearinstead advertisementsforincenseannouncementsandmoresongsasradiostationsarechanged.Theradiois replacedbyannouncementsfromafishmongerdetailingthepricesofcertainfishes.Weeventually

Luke3

realizethecarcarryingthecameraisafishtruck.Thedrivergetsoutofthecarandpreparesfoodwhile wesitwithawomanwhoworksinthetruckwhobeginstotellthecrew,eventuallycryingasshedoes, thestoryofhowherfathersoldhertoheruncleinexchangeforbusfare,andhowsheranawayto Bangkok.Withoutcomment,thesolicitor,probablyWeerasethakul,asksherforanotherstory,realor fiction.Shehesitatesandthenthefilmcutstothenarrativesketchasshespringboardsthecadavre exquis,tellingataleofawheelchairboundboyandhisteacherDogfahr.Becausetheaudioisfromthe fishtruck,theviewerremainsmindfulofthestoryasitsbeingconjuredandiscaughtsuspended,trying toanticipatetheplotwhilealsotryingtounderstandtheproductionprocess. Dogfahrleavesforthedayandthenarrativebecomesalittledisjointed,followingadifferent socialactortothemarket,withherfathertoadoctor,withayetanothersocialactorinherbedroom andatasalon.Whenshecomesback,anintertitledisplays,Whatdidyoudointheoutsideworld today?Shetellstheboyaboutherdayandthensuddenlyfallsunconscious.Amysteriousroundobject rollsoutofherskirt. Thenextcowriterisfoundsomewhereelse,downadirtroadandthroughagrove.Itisa spunkyelderlywomanwhoalmostimmediatelyasksiftheroundobjectcanbeaboy.Theelderly womanexplainsthattheboyisanextraterrestrialthatfelltoearthafterhecouldnolongerlivewithhis parents.Thefilmcutsbacktothehome.Therestofthefilmcontinuesthisway:thecrewtravelstoone locationafteranother,returningtothenarrativeatunevenjunctures:aruralareawhereteenboyson elephantsarehangingout,anoutdoorstagewhereatheatertroupelistenstothetapeoftheprevious participantsandthenactsoutthenextpartofthestorythemselves.Later,thevieweristransportedtoa muaythaiboxingmatch,aresortwheretwoyoungmutewomenaddtheirpartsofthestorythrough signlanguage,andfinally,aschoolwherechildrenbickeroverwhogetstofinishthetale.Ultimatelya

Luke4

boydecidesthattheboyalienisevil,soagoodaliensendsdowntigerstodevourhim. Russellearlyonstates,Indigenousethnography,alongwitharecognitionofalternativefilm practicesproducedinnonWesternculturesandbyminorityfilmmakers,isclearlyonewayofinverting thesalvageparadigm,andyetfollowsthatupbysaying,Withinthearenaofethnographicfilm, handingthecameraovertoanativefilmmakeroftensimplyperpetuatestherealistaestheticsthat experimentalfilmformhasdislodged(11).MysteriousObjectsresemblesthisidealindigenous ethnographytoanextentduetoWeerasethakulsownThaiheritage,andyethisacademicbackground andhisclassprivilegeandtheuseoftheexquisitecorpsetechniquesituatesthefilminanoutsidertype offrameworkwhereonequestionswhetherornotWeerasethakulisjustanothersalvagerhandingover hiscamera.Theexperimentalmethod,however,whichbaresitsdevices,alsoworkstodislodgesthe realistaestheticsthroughsurrealisteffects. InathesiswrittenforanM.A.program,MatthewP.FerraridescribesWeerasethakuls functionasacoordinatorandfacilitatorofcollectivestorytelling...providingtheauthoringintent,butnot thecontent,orevent(21).Healsoqualifiesthefilmaslargelyoperatingintheevocativemodeof representationwhatBillNicholsdescribesasanalternativetofilmicrepresentation[which]maybe describedastheflyintheI[asopposedtoflyonthewallandflyinthesoup],inwhichthecamerais usedtocommentonanddeconstructwesternconventionsofrepresentingother cultures...[exaggerating]reflexivitytoanextentwhereboundariesbetweenfictionandnonfictionno longerexist(19).Ferrarimovesontofindwhatofthefilmavoidsrepresentingothersinorderto informanoutsideaudience.Butthereisnorealintentiontoinform.Theresalackofintentionto highlightanythinginparticularinitsobservationalmoments,Weerasethakulhimselfhavingstatedthat MysteriousObjectisaboutnothingatall.Butthisattitudearisesoutofhisrejectionofdocumentary

Luke5

filmingeneral: Idontbelieveindocumentaryasitisviewedformally.Idontbelieveinrealityinfilm. Formetheresnoreality,becausefilmmakingisaveryaffectedmedium.Soevenwhat youcalldocumentaryisnotrepresentingthetruth,becauseitstoosubjectiveandyou cantcreateafilmtojustlookatcertainthings.SoIthinkthefilmsarejustmy expressionofmylife,butitdoesntnecessarilymeanthetruth,orakindofassimilation ofappreciationofbeingalive.ButIwouldntcallitdocumentary(Quandt3536). FerrariconcludesthatwhileonegatherssomeobliqueknowledgeofThailand,somesenseofruralThai idiomofstoriesandnarrative...fromaveritbutincidentalmiseenscne,thatwhatthefilmultimately revealstoaforeignaudienceisthemannerinwhichwevebecomeaccustomedtoreceivingconclusive informationaboutanotherculturefromdocumentaries,usuallyforourownreferenceforourcultural pointofview(22).Inaway,DogfahrintheDevilsHandevadesadirectaccordancetothesalvage paradigmbycreatingitsownconvolution,itsresistancetosalvaging.Itismoreofanevocationofthe memoriesanddesiresofthecollaboratorsturnedsubjectsofthefilmthatissharedwithitsviewers, ratherthanafilmmakersallegoricalconstructiondesignedtoconferspecificanthropological information.Inturn,theviewersownmemoriesanddesirescommunewiththoseofthefilmssubjects throughcinemaintheageofvideo,reinventedasasiteofdisappearance,loss,andmemory(Russell 7). InaninterviewthattookplaceatCannesin2012,Weerasethakuldescribedcinemaasbeing likeghosts.Hesaidthatitdoesnotexistinthepresent.That: Itdoesntexistbutisalsoquitesolidbecauseitcaptureswhatisdeadthere,onthespot.For meghostsarereallysolid,isreallyreal,becausewhenIgrewup,ormanyyoungkidsevennow

Luke6

inThailandormanypartsoftheworld,aregrowingupwiththesemonstersorghoststhatare reallytrue.Butovertheyearswhenyougetolder,itbecomesafiction.SoIamreallyinterested inthisideaofchangetransformationofsomethingthatissolidandrealbecomingunrealasyou getnewinformationinlife.So,moviesarethesame.Allaboutillusion,kindofareverseprocess oftryingtocreaterealityoutoffiction...Ithinkthatrealitydoesntexistinthismomentand cinemaisaveryobvioustooltoshowthis.Becausethroughtheprocessofediting,acting,and panning,creatingthisillusion,itisveryobviousthatrealitydoesntexist.Itsjustaboutpointof view...Buttomeitsveryimportanttoworkonthisveryunimportanttooltoreflecton somethingthatisreallysimplebutreallydeepatthesametime:thatlifeissolittle. Inthissense,heusescinemaasamediumthroughwhichhesalvagesthepastand,todifferent degrees,reanimatesit. Anaddeddimension,then,towhatWeerasethakultriestoconveyinhisfilmsisThailands existenceasasiteofdisappearance,loss,andmemoryasitgoesthroughandresistsglobalization.Thus thereisalwaysatensioninhisworkbetweenmultiplelayersofThailandsculturalmemoryand currency,expressedthroughfolkloricstories,Buddhism,memoriesofhissocialactors,hisown memories,andthecountrysfutureasalandandpeoplethatareprocessingglobalinfluence.After analyzinghisfollowingfilm,BlissfullyYours,asenactingareligiousaestheticbyconnotingaBuddhist worldview,FerrariagainbringsupthereadershipofWeerasethakulsfilms,whichislargelyacinephile foreignaudience.Hesays,Ifthecentralorganizingbasisofethnographyistocommunicateoneculture foranother,outsideofThailand,thentheculturalmysterieswhicharearguablythesourceofitscritical successabroadcanbeunderstoodasdependentonafundamentallyethnographicstylerepresentingan otherforforeignconsumption(46).

Luke7

Dependentonthepatronageoftheinternationalartandfilmworld,Weerasethakulisunableto fullytranscendtheethnographicparadigmasweknowit.However,itseemsasthoughsuchinstitutional supportiswhatenableshimto,asmoreofaspiritualmediumratherthanasauteur,continuetoevolve anexperimentalaestheticbywhichheallowsforareincarnationofauraticauthenticitytoliveinthe21st Century. TropicalMalady,afeaturefilmhecompletedin2004,deeplyconcernsitselfwith,broadly,the society/naturedialectic.Thefilmbeginswithanintertitledisplayingaquote:Allofusarebynaturewild beasts.Ourdutyashumansistobecomeliketrainerstokeeptheiranimalsincheck,andeventeach themtoperformtasksalientotheirbestiality.Thefilmisdividedintotwothematicallyrelatedbutvery distinctparts:thefirstbeingacasual,observationalindiedramedyoftheburgeoningbutneverwholly consummatedrelationshipbetweenahipThaisoldiernamedKeng(BanlopLomnoi)andayoung peasantnamedTong(SakdaKaewbuadee).Theotherisasparseandfocusedforayintothejungle, whereasoldieragainplayedbyLomnoihuntsdownatigershamanghostplayedbytheKaewbuadee. Asthecamerainanobservationalmodecasuallyfollowsthemastheyfolloweachotherthrough differentquotidianscenes:citystreets,ruralroads,abrightlycoloredJazzercisesession,acavetemple whereaBuddhaiscoveredinChristmaslightsthatplayChristmascarols,andinteractionswithTongs aunt,whoshowstheboysherceremonialgoodluckphallus.ThelasttimeKeng,thesoldier,andTong seeeachother,theydismountfromlong,blissfulmotorcycleride,Tongpees,andtheysensuouslymake outwitheachothershandsbeforeTongdisappearsdownadarkforestroad.Thetwopartsareunited bythetellingofafolktaleofashapeshiftingshamanthat,havingbeenshotasatiger,continuestohaunt thejungleandfeedofflivestock.ThelastsceneinthefirsthalfisKengonTongsbedalonelookingat picturesofTongasheoverhearsTongsmothercomplainofanothercowmissing.Adislocatedvoice

Luke8

thatisprobablyTongsremarksthatafootprintonthegroundishis.Thefilmgoesblackforawhileas wearethrownintothenextpartofTropicalMalady,theenactmentofafolkstyletalethatexploresthe society/naturedialecticallegoricallythroughthesubtleeroticdanceoftheSoldier(Lomnoi)andthe TigerShaman(Kaewbuadeeformostofthetimeuntilhesanactualtigerattheend).Bothhunteach otherthroughtheforestuntilfinallytheSoldieristoldbyatalkingmonkeythathemusteitherkillthe shamaninordertofreehimfromthespiritworldorlethimdevourhimandbecomepartofhis.Thefilm concludeswiththeSoldierstrippedofhissoldierliness,kneelinginajungleclearingandsubmittinghis body,soul,andmemories,tothetigerthelastframescrossfadeintoatraditionalillustrationofatiger ghostshamanabsorbingthespiritofamankneeling. Culturalparticulars(originatingfromdifferenttimes)likeshamanism,phallusidols,andBuddhist templesareonlyreferredtointhefilmandneverexplained.Theysimplycoexistwiththerestofthe contextandconsumeeachother.Althoughthestoryofthefilmisnominallyfiction,accordingto Weerasethakulsownstatementsofhisfilmmakingitisalsoadreamexpressionofrealisticimagesfrom Thailandspresentday.RosalindC.Morris,anthropologyprofessoratColumbiaUniversity,wrotea bookafterstudyingspiritmediumshipinNorthlandThailandcalledModernityanditsMediumswhere shedescribesthetraditionalpracticeasitchangesinthefaceoftheglobalmodern: Mediumshipdiscovereditsdoubleinphotographyandfounditsvalueinculture.Whatismeant bysuchaformulaisnotsimplythatanewmetaphoricscameintothehandsofcultural bricoleurs.Rather,northernThaisubjects,includingmediums,becamesubjectto,become subjectsof,modernity.Inahistorythatseemsinretrospecttobebothwildlyimprobableand eminentlypredictable,northernersweretransformedfromtheobjectsofascopicdesirein whichtheywerelookedonandphotographedbyrelativelymobilecosmopolitansubjects,then

Luke9

askedtosignifybothlocalityandtraditioninastandardizedcode,untiltheyfinallyassumedthe positionofcitizensubjects.Inevitably,thismeantenactingthesameeconomiesofdesireand visualconsumptioninrelationtoyetother,ethnicizedperipheries[.]Butitalsomeantthat northernerswouldcometoinhabitthedeliriumofthenationandtotakeonthefunctionof signifyingpastness(237). Thisconnectionisntbeingdrawnonlyformetaphoricalvalue,foritseemstohaveresonatedinmore literalwayswithWeerasethakulswork.AlbeitsubversiveandnonconformistwithinpopularThai culture,whatitseemsheistryingtoshowandexploreiswhatMorrisstatesinthelastchapterofher book:Themessageofmediumshipbecomesmediumshipitself.Shereflectsontheperformanceof Chuchad,aspiritmedium:inbeingstretchedtautbetweenthesetwounderstandingsofmediumships representationalfunction:thatinwhichareferentialtruthcouldbetransmitted,andthatinwhichthemere techniqueofitstransmissioncouldberegisteredagainandagain,torestoretheformer,hehadtomake thelattervisible(341342).Yetagainthissuggeststhesameispossiblethroughfilmthatventuresinto itsownreflexivityandsubjectivity,evenasitsundoubtedlymediatedthroughproductionand reproduction. Theworkofcinemaintheageofmassmediaisperhapstochannelratherthanrecord throughevocativemodesandexperimentationsinsubjectivityculturalauthenticitiesintheirvarious reincarnations,thewaythespiritmediumconnectsthesubjectsofcurrencytosubjectsofvariouspasts.

WorksCited Ferrari,MatthewP.MysteriousObjectsofKnowledge:AnInterpretationofThreeFeatureFilms byApichatpongWeerasethakulinTermsoftheEthnographicParadigm.Ohio:Ohio

Luke10

University,2006.Internetresource. MekongHotelAnInterviewwithApichatpongWeerasethakul.Interviewerunknown.Sentieri Selvaggi,viaYoutube,27May2012.Internetresource. Morris,RosalindC.InthePlaceofOrigins:ModernityandItsMediumsinNorthernThailand. Durham,NC:DukeUniversityPress,2000.Print. Quandt,James.ApichatpongWeerasethakul.Vienna:FilmmuseumSynemaPublications,2009.Print. Russell,Catherine.ExperimentalEthnography.Durham,NC:DukeUniversityPress,1999.Print. Weerasethakul,Apichatpong,dir.MysteriousObjectatNoon.NewYork:Plexifilm,2003.DVD. Weerasethakul,Apichatpong,dir.TropicalMalady.NewYork:StrandReleasing,2005.DVD. Weerasethakul,Apichatpong,dir.SyndromesandaCentury.NewYork:StrandReleasing,2007. DVD.