HUA
HIN, Thailand - Every nation needs heroes. Italy
has Giuseppe Garibaldi, the United States has
George Washington - and Thailand has King
Naresuan. The story of King Naresuan, who defended
Siam against Burma in the early 17th century, has
been told many times, in books, oral histories,
poems, murals and statuary, and now on film.
Since the beginning of the year, Thais has
been immersed in their country's history through
the three-part epic The Legend of King
Naresuan. The first installment opened in
mid-January; the third
and
last is timed to open on His Majesty King Bhumibol
Adulyadej's birthday in December.
The
enormous popularity of this film has sparked a
huge amount of interest in history among Thais.
One reason, of course, is the sheer scale of the
film epic.
The Legend of King Naresuan
is the biggest movie with a Hollywood level of
production values in Thailand's history.
"If it had been an ordinary TV drama
series, it would not have attracted so much
attention," Sunait Chutinatharanod, professor of
history at Chulalongkorn University, told Asia
Times Online. "Thais suffer somewhat from an
identity problem because of globalization and some
other factors. They are looking for something that
emphasizes Thainess."
But the historical
accuracy of the film has become a subject of
debate. The director, M C Chatrichalerm Yukol,
himself says it is a "blend of history,
plausibility and imagination".
How could
it be otherwise, since Thai history is
fundamentally a blend of verifiable facts,
plausibility and imagination?
The real
King Naresuan ruled Siam from 1590 to 1605, which
makes him a contemporary of England's Queen
Elizabeth I. King Naresuan died two years after
Elizabeth, though he was much younger than the
queen.
The Elizabethan age, however, is
copiously documented in histories, diaries,
official documents and letters. Although it was
400 years ago, the era seems so vivid as to be
almost yesterday. By contrast, King Naresuan comes
across as a semi-legendary figure, more like King
Arthur.
The problem with all of Thai
history before the 19th century is that so little
reliable source material survives. History was
written on palm leaves, then recopied as the
leaves degraded. Each time the chronicles were
copied, the history was "improved" to make certain
kings appear more heroic, but in doing so the
writers introduced inaccuracies.
Much Thai
history was lost in wars with neighbors. In the
1767 sacking of the Siamese capital Ayutthaya, the
conquering Burmese used the royal library as fuel
to melt gold off the images of Buddha. Siamese
history is, in parts, better recorded in the
annals of Burmese kings and Chinese and Vietnamese
emperors, who generally paint an unflattering
picture of the villainous Thais.
Some of
the best sources are Franciscan, Dominican and
Jesuit reports to their superiors in Rome. A few
Dutch and French adventurers also wrote accounts,
but these are often inaccurate too, though often
more reliable than Thai sources. But they were all
written after King Naresuan died, sometimes as
much as a half-century later.
Of course,
Thailand isn't the only country where history is
sometimes "improved". The first biography of
George Washington introduced the wholly fictional
account of him as a youngster chopping down a
cherry tree and confessing: "I cannot tell a lie."
Yet the general facts about George
Washington are well known - the date of his birth,
the battles he fought in the American Revolution,
his two terms as president. Few Thais can provide
similar factual details about King Naresuan. It is
as if all of his biography were on the "cherry
tree" level.
The "cherry tree" story for
King Naresuan is his celebrated cockfight with the
crown prince of Burma, which is one of the set
pieces of the first segment of Legend. The
story is almost certainly a myth, yet were you to
visit any of the numerous monuments to King
Naresuan, you would see carcasses of roosters as
offerings.
"The way that Thais view their
king is different from the West," said Suniat. "We
put in myth and legend. We do not think of [the
monarch] as an ordinary man. [The people] believe
in the myth. People go to his monument and ask
things of him, as if he were a Hindu god or Lord
Buddha."
Chang Noi had an interesting
column in The Nation newspaper detailing how the
reputation of King Naresuan has waxed and waned
depending on the state that Thailand has been in.
Typically, he has gained in stature when Thailand
has felt it was under siege.
The last big
revival, Chang Noi writes, was in the 1960s when
Thailand felt threatened by communist insurgencies
in neighboring countries and at home. "The palace
and the army looked to King Naresuan as a great
historical symbol of Thailand's ability to defy
its enemies. Statues of the monarch were erected
all over Thailand in places historically
associated with his name."
So what does
The Legend of King Naresuan's release at
this point in Thailand's history say about the
state of the nation? One might say that the
generals who run the country probably are not
unhappy with the strong nationalist message that
the films convey.
It would be a
considerable stretch, however, to suggest that the
films were in any way designed to support the
makers of last year's military coup. This is,
after all, the most expensive Thai movie ever
made. It has the proverbial cast of thousands,
expensive costumes and props, even 10 trained
elephants. Clearly it wasn't something cobbled
together in the four months between the September
19 coup and the January 11 opening.
But
The Legend of King Naresuan is not just
another period movie, either. It is no coincidence
that the first installment opened on Army Day and
that the last one will screen on the King
Bhumibol's birthday on December 5.
The
director even chose a rank amateur, a handsome
serving cavalry officer named Wanchana Sawatdee,
to play the lead role (he makes his appearance in
the second installment that opened in February -
in the first episode, Naresuan is a youth) because
he was something of a blank slate. The reputation
of the Star of Siam's history is not to be sullied
by the usual theater-crowd tittle-tattle that
might surround a more famous and experienced
actor.
Todd Crowell is an Asia
Times Online correspondent based in Thailand.
(Copyright 2007 Asia Times Online Ltd. All
rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
