• The Study of Representations of Lanna kings in the play titled “Chiang Mai city 700th Anniversary Grand Celebrations,”and their relation with the Siamese kings.
  
  
• The Representation of North Korea Women as a Liberator in Revolutionary Opera “The Flower Girls”
  
  
• Portrait

Light and sound show has become quite a popular medium for various city festivals recently. It helps to glorify the history and the bravery of the city ancestors. These kings liberated their people from the oppression of Burma and re-establish their great kingdom under the umbrella of Central Siam monarchy. These performances strengthen the pride of being Thai among the audience. A question was sometimes raised as to how one defines being Thai. And who wrote this history anyway? To answer these questions, Nithi Eiewsriwonse, a well-respected historian, asserted that only the absolute monarchy state and nation state created history and then tried to convince everyone in the state to accept it as their collective past (Eiewsriwonse, 2547: 87). Somdej Krompraya Damrong Rajanupap, another eminent historical scholar, suggested that “The government have the power to shape the citizens’ characters through authoring books to teach students … the cost of such book writing is thus not high at all” (cited in Warunee, 2524: 108) He also uses the word “plot of the past” to refer to history. There are political, power relation and nationalism ideologies inscribed in each version of those history books. Light and sound performance is a simplified version of invented history with perfect plot. These representations are full of excitement and fantasy that are easy to understand. Through visual and verbal language, this form of entertainment makes believe for the average viewers to accept these ideologies without questioning the credibility of their sources.

The study

This paper focuses on the analysis the common features of the kings represented in the light and sound play and ideologies from these representations in subordinate relation to the kings of Siam. The approach used is to analyze both verbal and visual languages represented in the play “Chiang Mai City 700^th Anniversary Grand Celebrations”

Background

At the time Chiang Mai City reached its 700th year, the Ministry of Interior and the local government organized grandiose events for the anniversary celebrations. JSL Company won the bid to produce the show titled “Chiang Mai city 700^th Anniversary Grand Celebrations,” at Wat Suan Dok. Yuthana Mukdasanit, the play writer selected only three from 42 kings of Chiang Mai to represent Chiang Mai history only because these kings seemed to have possessed some common characteristics of the ‘great kings’ befitting light and sound type of performance. They were King Mungrai, King Tilokaraj, and King Kawila. This play was also created as a part of the golden jubilee of the King Bhumibol’s succession to the throne. Such inclusion seemed to reflect a thinly-veiled attempt to suggest the inferior level of the great Lanna Kingdom in its relationship with Siam.

Characteristic of the great kings represented in Light and Sound play:

The common features and the construction of discourse of the “great king” are presented in literacy elements in relation to language uses as well as the visual techniques (theatre convention) utilized in the play. The description of the required components, as follows, seems stereotypical of kings.

1.      The genesis of the king’s family can be traced back to its origin in the form of a deity.

1.1     The collection of the kinships of King Mungrai in the prologue (p.4) was traced back to the god Lawajungaraj who came down to earth. (เจ้าสิงหนวัติกุมาร ละวะจังกะราชเจ้าเทวบุตร พญาเจือง ลาวเมงพ่อพญา กษัตริย์ บุรพกษัตริย์ เตพาอาฮัก เจื้อพระองค์ เสด็จจุติ) Therefore, King Mungrai is considered to have been a deity king (Dhevaraja). The Devaraja ideologies were used in many kingdoms in the past to justify the rights of the king over the throne.

2.1     The play used the law of proximity to assume that Lanna people are one group consisting of Lawa, Tai, Lue, Yon, Yong tribes and justified these Lanna kings’ legitimacy over these people. (บ่าว่า ลั้วะ ไต ขืน ลื้อ ก่ ขอท่านมาฮักษา, แม่ญิงป้อจายปากั๋นมาทั่วหน้า ลั้วะ ไต ขืน ลื้อ โยน ยอง เจ้าข้า ปากั๋นมาร่วมทำบุญ) (p.1)

2.      Occurrences of miraculous and supernatural events to signify the king’s legitimate power.

2.1 Starting from the prologue, there was a spirit possession ceremony (ผีมด ผีเม็ง - writer), for the spirit medium (ม้าขี่) to be possessed by ancestor spirits (เจ้าหลวงคำแดง ผีเสื้อเมือง ปู่แสะย่าแสะ เทพทุกเขตโขง). Then the spirits told stories through the medium. With this seemingly supernatural display of power the audience would be more likely to believe that the stories must be reliable. During the show actors playing the character of the medium also acted as chorus to emphasize the feeling of the main characters in the play.

For the visual part in this scene, hundreds of hot-air paper balloon were set afloat from the ground into the sky. They were launched from the area within the temple where shrines containing ashes of the ancestors of the Chiang Mai royal families situated. The laws of proximity associated the light of the balloons with the spirits of the royal family members. Similarly, the laws of similarity imply that the lanterns would finally assimilate with the stars as if their spirits go to heaven and become stars. This made the show became even more spectacular.

2.2 In Act One / Scene one, the narration of the sparkling star (รัตนามณี รัศมีพราว) sounded miraculous when it came down to Thepkamkai (นางเทพคำข่าย) who was King Mungrai’s mother, signifying the conception of the King. According to Thai belief, an auspicious sign must appear before a great person is born. This scene suggested the deity nature of King Mungrai or Dhevaraja.

2.3 The word “thunderbolts” (สายฟ้า อัสนี) was repeated several times through the second and third scenes. Thunderbolt became a sign of supernatural power to guide King Mungrai where to build his new city and foreshadowed the end of his life. The scriptwriter tried to connect the striking of the lightening over King Mungrai’s death with the building of the city. The ideologies of the great king in this scene are to emphasize that the birth and death of the king must be determined by heaven. Therefore, these kings are greater than humans and it is only natural that the lay people must obey them.

A term used in this Act “His Highness” (14) refers to the thunderbolt which was an attempt to personify a natural occurrence.

2.4 In Scene Two, there was an astonishing event in the grass field (ลอมคา) when a deer was able to overpower a pack of wild dogs. This event served as an auspicious sign suggesting that the area would be a suitable site to build the city. This also implied that Chiang Mai was a special city based on such mystical occurrence. As such, the capacity of the people who live there must have been enhanced by it as well. 

3.      Great determination

King Mungrai had a strong will to build a new city. A number of words with the same meaning suggesting the act of establishing the city were repeated throughout the scene (ยึดแคว้น ตั้งค่าย สร้างเวียง ขึ้นนั่งเมือง รวมอาณาเผ่าพงศ์ ปั้นเวียง ได้เวียงดี). Similarly, King Tilokaraj who was subsequently enthroned (แต่งต้อง เป็นใหญ่) tried to expand his kingdom even more (หลวงใหญ่ ผายโขงเขต) by whichever means (ผายโขงเขต กุดหัว ปาดท้องลากไส้ ฆ่า บั่น จอง กุมตัว), while King Kawila ‘s major focus was to liberate Chiang Mai from Burma. (ฟื้นม่าน ก่อกบฏ กู้บ้านเมือง ก่อการ)

In the play, King Tilokaraj had a penchant for violence to get his way (กุดหัว ปาดท้องลากไส้ ฆ่า บั่น จอง กุมตัว) while King Mungrai built up his city under peaceful condition. In fact, the Chiang Mai folklore (Arunrat, K.Wyatt, 2543: 17) stated that King Mungrai coveted Haripunchai city so much that he had resorted to fraud to get it[1].

Selecting part of the truth is the way of justification for the King Mungrai to be portrayed as the king of creation while King Tilokaraj was the king of destruction, and King Kawila was the king of restoration. Compare with ideologies of Hinduism, these selected three kings represented the Hindu Trinity (Brahma – the creator, Shiva – the destroyer, and Vishnu – the preserver). These gods keep the world in harmony.

4.      Powerful and majestical personality

The play described the three kings (พญามังราย พญาร่วง และพญางำเมือง) on the procession as grandiose as Indra, one of the major Hindu gods (สง่า.. ดั่งหนึ่งวงค์อินทรเทวัญ) with their power comparable to that of the sun. (.. ทรงพระบารมีดั่งสุรียเฉิดฉัน)

The use of costume is a visual language to describe the image of the king.

-         Headdress was used as a symbol of the king. For King Mungrai, the headdress made him look as noble, graceful, and elegant as a god, (his costume is the same costume as those worn by certain gods.), while king Kawila wore a wide-brim hat without feathers. He held an image of the warrior king.

-         Costumes with gold color represented the king (both in Thai, Lanna, and Burmese convention. While the soldiers do not have gold, if they do, they have fake gold paper as part of their costumes.

-         Spectacle was created by the use of fireworks. In the scene of King Mungrai praising the new city, fireworks in the background enhanced the three kings on the foreground.

-         The Emerald Buddha was used as a symbol of Lanna Kingdom’s great power. In the past, the most powerful kingdom seized the Emerald Buddha for their kingdom.

5.      The king was the center of the universe

Lighting was designed with the kings always in the center of the spot light. The procession was used to further enhance their presence. The positioning of the group was meant to emphasize the gracefulness of the procession. For example, the line of the participants was designed so that it leads the eye of onlookers to the King Mungrai and his friends. They were also placed in the center of the procession and were raised on a cavalcade above the crowd while King Tilokaraj rode on the horseback leading his troupe (using the foreground technique). His great combat skill was shown through the performance of fire-sword dance. King Kawila was not carried by the cavalcade or rode on the horseback but was placed in the middle of the crowd. Only the kings were placed with standing position, which made him stand out from the crowd.

Difference features of the kings presented in this play:

For King Mungrai, the choice of words to describe his personality are บุญ (Boon – power as a result of accumulated merit) and บารมี (Baramee – Charisma). For example; เตชะปาระมีเหนือเกล้า ทรงพระบารมี สามองค์บุญญา. This shows that he is almost god-like (as apparent from his clothes).

Words such as Bun and Baramee were not used for King Tilokaraj in this play. Instead, other words were used to describe his character, such as fierce (เคียด ขึง),  ambicious (แต่งต้อง เป็นใหญ่ หลวงใหญ่ ผายโขงเขต), and violent words to describe his action (such as decapitate, cut open stomach and pull out intestines, kill, dismember - กุดหัว ปาดท้องลากไส้ ฆ่า บั่น). For him, Boon was something that he could create (สร้างบุญ), but, unlike King Mungrai, was not born with it (มีบุญ).

For King Kawila, the word choice was used to describe his melancholy feeling (หมอง ฮ้อนไหม้ อกหนักหน่อง สุดกลั้น), which portrayed his gratefulness for his father, his motherland (ฟื้นม่าน ก่อกบฏ กู้บ้านเมือง ก่อการ), and to the Thai kings (แต่นี้ตาบเสี้ยงสุด… อย่าได้มีใจคุด… อันตัวเรา…สั่งเป็นโอวาท ผู้ใด บ่ รับ จักวินาศ… ผู้ใดอยู่ในคำบอกคำสอน ก็หื้อ…(29). These were his most outstanding characteristics presented in this play.  His vigorous and valiant nature was shown through the fighting scene (ตี๋ สว่านสู้ สะบีงผาย ต่อตีจะจ้าน) enhanced by the visual language.

Use of pronoun, words choice for King Mungrai, the scriptwriter used words that are not use for lay people, but rather terms reserved to address the monachy, such as พระองค์ ข้า ท่าน. Especially, the royal court plays and Chinese movies depicting ancient era usually use these pronouns. This made the play seemed surreal. For King Tilokaraj, the pronoun used were those of common people (กู อีนี่ มัน มึง) similar to those used with King Kawila (กู ข้า ตัวเรา เขา มัน) which could be heard in daily life and sounded more natural.

For the props used, King Mungrai always appeared with his bow while King Tilokaraj and King Kawila held swords in their hands. This represented their kingly courage.

Lanna kings and relationship with Siam

The Lanna Kings represented in the play seemed to have had good relationship with the King of Siam in certain aspects. The play gradually constructed loyalty exposition from the Lanna Kingdom to Siam and inscribes ideologies to illustrate via the play that Lanna Kingdom adopted from Siam by exploring other discourses such as Thai national identity and the country’s archenemy (Thai VS Burma) shows through language uses to create binary opposition. For example;

King Mungrai and King Rama from Sukhothai

On the last scene of Act One, King Mungrai invited his friends (มิตรแก้วสหายคำ - พญาร่วงและพญางำเมือง) to witness of the construction of Chiang Mai city. They rode on the litter gracefully as if they floated on the cloud (ดั่งจะลอยจะเลื่อนเมฆา). In this play, the image of the three kings was overemphasized. King Mungrai was the one who build the city but King Rama (พญาร่วง) and King Ngam Munag (พญางำเมือง) appeared to be placed in the limelight as much as, if not more than, King Mungrai. Because of the laws of similarity, three kings on the same litter became one. This image could make the audience mistaken that three of them build Chiang Mai city together, not only King Mungrai. This was repeated again by the texts that were written for the character of King Munrai which said “through the merit of King Rama and King Ngam Meung’s charisma, the people are secure because of the three of us …” (“ได้บุญพญาร่วงเสริมสะหลี บารมีพญางำเมืองเปาะปัน ไพร่ฟ้าอุ่นงันด้วยเราสาม…”). This image was exactly the same image represented at the “Three Kings Monument” located in front of the old town hall. Thanet Chareonmuang (Thanet, 2538: 87) stated that this monument was built with the intention to make people misunderstand that Chiang Mai City was build by these three kings.

 A monument is made to remind the public of a person or a historical event. When people look at the monument, it reminds them of their collective past that they hold or should hold on as their mutual possession (Nithi, 2547: 86). Therefore, to make Chiang Mai people feel like part of Thai history by connecting the Thai state in the past (Sukhothai) with Lanna history is to mislead people that Chiang Mai has always been part of Siam. In fact, Chiang Mai during King Mungrai’s reign had been regarded as Free State since B.E. 1839. Its territory was expansive and was feared by their neighbors (Thanet, Duangjan,  2529) even by Sukhothai.

King Tilokaraj and Ayudhaya

During the reign of King Tilokaraj, the Lanna kingdom was expanded greatly and was regarded with fear by neighboring states including Ayudhaya. (นำพาล้านนา..หลวงใหญ่..ผายโขงเขต…เจ๊กจีนหินแฮ่..ม่าน..ลาว…อโยธยา…ขามบารมี)

At the end of Act Two, King Megu dynasty, Lanna was overpowered by Burma. The play used an umbrella as a symbol. The fall of the Lanna flag, which was replaced by Burmese umbrella, represented the demise of the kingdom. Another symbol was the mournful sound of the spirit medium (ม้าขี่) which was successfully used as visual language. They cried, screamed, and wriggled about as if they were tortured. Stereotype of the innocents were used as victims who are weak and defenseless. 

King Kawila and King Chakri

In Act Three, the texts described the status of Chiang Mai City during that period (เวียงรก, หอเฮือนฮ้าง, บ่ มีคน, บ่ เหลือเค้าเวียงวงศ์), the living condition of the people (เข่นชาย ขืนญิง กดขี่คานคัด อดหยากปากแห้ม), and their feelings (หม่นเศร้า หมอง ฮ้อนไหม้ อกหนักหน่อง สุดกลั้น ต่ำก๊อย แฮงน้อย ขืน..บ่ ไหว). This was why King Kawila and his sibling needed to restore the city (ฟื้นม่าน ก่อกบฏ กู้บ้านเมือง ก่อการ).

In this Act, the pronoun “it” (มัน) was used for Burma and “I, we” (กู ข้า ตัวเรา เรา) for the king himself and Chiang Mai. The characters in this play were divided into two groups by binary opposition. They were Chiang Mai people (ชาวเมือง โยน พี่น้อง ลูกเต้า เจ้าเจ็ดตน) and Thais (เผ่าไทย ทัพไทย) against the Burmese (ม่านอังวะ), the opposite side who was the villains.

This ideology was emphasized again when King Kawila defended his brother’s action that joining the Thai army to fight against Burma was not shifting from being a slave (ขี้ข้า) of Burma to being a slave of the Thai. Joining with the Thai tribe (เป็นเผ่าไทย) seemed to be more equal. The choice of word “Thai” was associated with the word “tribe” to create a feeling of togetherness “Thai tribe” while the word “slave (ขี้ข้า)” was associatee with “ม่านอังวะ”. Such association further emphasized negative meaning of the enemy image. King Kawila used his relationship with King Mungrai and King Rama (พญาร่วงร่วมน้ำมิตร พญามังรายราชา) as a reason to befriend the Thai. Once again, there was the use of the laws of similarity to group two things that are close to each other into one group.

Not only power relation between Thai State and Lanna, but even within the Thai army there was also a hierarchy of relationships among them. The information arrangement reflects this relationship in the sentence – “เมื่อนั้น เจ้าพระยาพี่น้อง จักรีก้อง แลสุรสีห์…”

The sentence started with names of Phraya Chakri and Phraya Surasee2 and described their troops gracefully while the royal troop commanded by King Taksin was put at the end of the sentence with only a short description. This play gave priority to Phraya Chakri above King Taksin.

King Kawila announced to his sibling in the last scene that Thai king had been kind to him (อันล่วงแล้วมาถึงเช่นเรา พระมหากษัตริย์เจ้าทรงชุบเลี้ยง.. - p.29). This sentence referred to King Chakri (Rama 1^st) as a sermon for Chaing Mai dynasty loyalty to Chakri dynasty. The sentences (p.29) are conditioning type.

แต่นี้ตาบเสี้ยงสุด… อย่าได้มีใจคุด…

อันตัวเรา…สั่งเป็นโอวาท

ผู้ใด บ่ รับ จักวินาศ… ผู้ใดอยู่ในคำบอกคำสอน ก็หื้อ…

Thai or Siam

It was notable that the word “Siam” was not used, only word “Thai” appeared throughout the play. In fact, the restoration of Chiang Mai by King Kawila was conducted in B.E. 2317. The word “Thai” was officially used 165 years later to replace “Siam” during the time of Field Marshal Plaek Phibun Songkhram.

            Nithi Eiewsriwonse (Nithi, 2547: 158-162) stated that since the army took over the government in B.E. 2490, they promoted the ideologies of nationalism, religion, and the monarchy to have influence over politics.  Therefore, Thailand as a ‘country’ can be substantially presented as Royal Institution.  To unite the nation, they need to create “the enemy” to fight against. Then the mainstream nationalism created “national enemy”. The Burmese was chosen as “the enemy”. For this reason the ruling class justifies their existence through their efforts in protecting ‘the nation’ from the enemy, and Thai patriotism is based on their hatred for the Burmese who are our eternal enemy (Chlartchai, 2545: 201)

            In this play, Chiang Mai adopted the Thai’s enemy as their very own.  For example, King Kawila dressed himself up like Phraya Chakri. Lanna soldiers wore the same costumes as Thai soldiers. The laws of similarity made Thai and Lanna become one – distinct from the Burmese through their costumes. The only difference left was the music of Lanna which could not blend in with that of the Thai.

Behind the scene

There were comments made by critics regarding the appropriateness of the content of this play. The local committee planned events of “Chiang Mai city 700^th Anniversary Grand Celebrations” three years in advance. It seemed apparent that this play was not part of the original plans. Through support mainly from the Ministry of Interior this event was organized to add to this celebration. All of the committee members were from the miliatry. The JSL team and scriptwriter, Yuthana Mukdasanit, came from Bangkok. The performance was held at Wat Suan Dok in front of the shrines of the royal family of Chiang Mai. Chao Dara Rasmi, the great inter-cultural marriage between Thai and Lanna, was the one who transferred these kings’ relics from the old place to Wat Suan Dok in the year 2452.

Before the play started, the MC announced a welcome dance by “the Northern Royal Members.” He did not call them by name but instead called them as a group of royal elites. In this way he managed to reduce the Chiang Mai royal family to only a group of people. However, the Chiang Mai royal family members lined up and performed a finger nail dance (Fon Leb) for King Bhumibol and Queen Sirikit in the same fashion they did for King Prapokklao around 70 years ago. This act alone was a clear illustration of the submissive attitude of the Lanna Kingdom towards Siam. This play demonstrated clearly the praise the Lanna Kingdom have for the Chakri dynasty.

In the last scene of the play, King Kawila stated that “in this world you gain something and lose something …” (“โลกนี้ ได้ดีอย่าง ต้องเสียอย่าง..”) as if he was telling himself that the Chiang Mai royalty needed to forego their privilege in order to gain the status of ‘nation.’ This sentence was both repetition and parallelism. King Mungrai was saying the same thing but in a different manner. King Munrai abandoned part of his tradition to follow Lawa people in order to put up the city pillar and gain a status of being a ‘city.’

At the time that Chiang Mai arrived at her 700 anniversary, Chiang Mai people need to abandon both their prestige and their culture to follow Bangkok’s direction. The local sense of pride and empowerment by the Lanna natives themselves were shattered once again by interference from the higher power to assert their authority over the Lanna Kingdom - this time not by force but by cultural distortion and political maneuverings. 

Craig J.Reynolds (editor), National Identity and Its Defenders; Thailand Today, Silkworm

Books, Chiang Mai, 2002

Maurizio Peleggi, Lords of Things; The Fashioning of the Siamese Monarchy’s Modern

Image, University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, 2002

In North Korea, literature and music are used as venue for politics. Series of historical novels depict the heroism and tragedy and old fairy tales have been transformed to include revolutionary themes[1]. Since 1970s, five "great revolutionary plays[2]" have been used to promote as prototypes of juche literature. A theatrical rendition of “The Flower Girl[3]” was one of them. This story recounts the suffering of a servant girl who is mistreated by a cruel landlord. The girl eventually joins the resistance forces. In the end, the evil landlord is punished and the revolutionary triumphs over the feudal-capitalist evil. This paper will look at the Ggot Bun, the leading character in this revolutionary opera as the representation of North Korea women as liberators in relationship with North Korea nationalism.

“The Flower Girl,” was written by Kim Il Sung, himself described as a writer[4] of "classical masterpieces" during the anti-Japanese struggle which are considered "prototypes and models of Juche[5] literature and art." Since1950’s, Kim tried to replace Marxism-Lenism with Juche idea, the belief that human endeavour can triumph over all material difficulties. This ideology was showed in most of his plays written as his memoirs--"a heroic epic dedicated to the freedom and happiness of the people."

‘The Flower Girl’ was adapted into opera under the direction of great leader. There are four main characters. Ggot Bun, Sun Hui-younger sister, the mother, and Chol Yong-elder brother.  From beginning to end, the brother acted as active agent. He fought against the landlord, escaped from the prison, and joined the underground movement, and finally led the villagers to the liberation army. Compared to women, their roles were portrayed as passive and submissive. The mother became a servant in order to pay off her debt to the landlord. She fell ill and died. Ggot Bun, who stayed home, was forced to replace her ill mother. She had to endure all sorts of mistreatment, but never fought back even when she was sold to a middleman. Sun Hui, the youngest sister was even more submissive. She was blinded and thrown into a deep mountain. She could not fight for herself at all. The only thing she could do was waiting for protection from adults in her family.

Ggot Bun as a heroine, according to Juche idea, must triumph over all material difficulties. Her character has developed, when she decided to sell flowers in the market place. Her space shifted from home or kitchen to public sphere. It was too much of a struggle for her to remain “inside.” Without choice, she was forced to cross the border to “outside” and placed herself in a vulnerable situation. She expanded her space further when she left home to look for her brother. At the end, she stepped outside of traditional role of women by adopting men’s behavior. She took her revenge by throwing rock at the landlord.  She finally joined the ‘path of liberation’ as if to show clearly her entrance into men’s space. The flower in the golden garden in the last scene represents the liberated woman who fought along side with men.  

However, Ggot Bun alone could not complete the task of “overthrowing the reactionary social system and establishing new social system” but with the help of villagers who rise up like ‘angry wave’ and came to the landlord’s house right at the same time. Chol Yong, the brother, after disappearing for a long time then showed up and “calls upon the villagers to rise in struggle for the restoration of the motherland.” Surprisingly the brother provided the ultimate solution for the oppression and the two sisters followed. This demonstrates that nationalism is predominantly male dominated as postcolonial feminists suggested. Geoff Eley and Ronald Grigor Suny state in their book, Becoming National: A Reader that nationalism excluded women and "indigenous” people who have contributed to shaping nationalism and refused to acknowledge them[6].

Not all women became a follower in nationalism. There was one woman leader who received an honor in the form of a statue of herself as an outstanding leader of the anti-Japanese national liberation movement and as chairwoman of the Anti-Japanese Women's Association. She was Kang Pan Sok, wife of Kim Hyong Jik, and mother of Kim Il Sung. Her statue still stands in front of her old home[7]. It was no coincident that she became a symbol for revolutionary women that the elites used to inspire lay women to get involved in Nationalist struggles. At the same time, the nationalist leaders tried their best to keep the mass at a distance from their possession of power. This became apparent when the presidential position was passed down from generation to generation in the Kim family.

At the end of the opera, the two sisters and her brother walked to the road of revolution “looking up to the sun [p.].” The sun is a symbol for comrade Kim Il Sung. Korean citizens revere him as the Sun because he led the struggle to end the power of Japanese imperialism and brought out the light of independence to Korea, the beautiful embroiled silk land of the 3,000 ri. He created a unique socialist system centered upon the popular masses that the Korean people regard him as the very source of life and enduring legacy of the great leader President Kim Il Sung.

Kim Il Sung first became ‘the sun’ in 1935 after the Anti-Japanese war, not by the love and loyalty of his people but through propaganda. Soviet propagandist, Grigory Mekler, claimed to have prepared Kim to lead North Korea after his father, the former commander had died. He said that Kim assumed this name while in the Soviet Union in the early 1940s. That explained why a young person at the age of 23 such Kim has something to do with the legend.

This performance was staged during the 1970s after the freedom from Japanese imperialism in 1945 for more than two decades but one might wonder why the North Korea troupe still produced this play. After the Korean War (1950-1953), Korea was divided into north and south, each possessed opposite ideologies - communism and democracy. In order to promote the Juche ideal, Kim Il Sung need to use culture as a driving force. Popular, vernacular styles and themes in literature, art, music, and dance to express the ‘truly unique spirit of the Korean nation’ that encouraged the development of a collective consciousness.

It is ironic that while the government attempts to use popular culture to present the spirit of Korea, the conception of nationalism in fact emerged as a result of the influence from Western capitalism and industrialization. This was even reflected in the style of the opera which imitated American Broadway musical where song and dance was combined with dialogue. The formula of melodrama was also used: a villain poses a threat, the hero escapes the threat and there is a happy ending. The stock characters were divided into binary oppositions, the good and the evil such as the wicked landlord and his wife opposed to the poor Ggot Bun family. The landlord was put in the same category with the Japanese who were depicted as heartless monsters (referred to as "imperialists"), even though there was no Japanese character in this play. However, this tactic was used to draw the People’s Liberation from class oppression close to the Anti-Japanese movement. At the opposite end, the revolutionary heroes and heroines are seen as saintly figures who act from the purest motives. The stories of the revolutionary operas are very simple, highly sentimental and have a clear-cut political message.

However, the attempt of the government to build the nation by using Juche ideology would not be enough to feed its people. North Korean women nowadays are objectified because of extreme poverty under the Kim’s family dictatorship. Recently, many Chinese men, even a poor farmer could buy North Korean wives. Lao Zhou, a laid-off Chinese factory worker said "It doesn't cost much to buy a North Korean girl for a wife and just a few thousand kwai (hundreds of dollars) to get them a residency permit[8].”

For decades, North Korea's political leaders have been preoccupied with creating national identity through all media for almost every sector of society. Women were pulled out of the kitchen into the public sphere, and were drawn to masculine, military life styles that seem to embody revolutionary spirit. They were objectified as a symbol of revolution but at the same time have to endure a self-contradictory role of traditional femininity under male domination.

How long will the golden land of 3000 ri last with as beautiful mountains and clear streams[9] as it used to be? In the age of globalization with a flux of pop culture of neo-imperialism, poverty plays a large role in unstabilizing the nationalism. North Korea women and their representation may soon be forced to change again with a new yoke that they have to carry.

Reference:

Wikipedia, History of North Korea, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_North_Korea

Rofel, Lisa, Other Modernities, Gendered Yearnings in China After Socialism, University of California Press,

Berkley 1999

Contemporary culture of North Korea, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_North_Korea

กาญจนา แก้้วเทพ, ความเรียงว่าด้วยสตรีกับสื่อมวลชน, ผู้หญิง(ใน)สาธารณะกับภารกิจของสื่อมวลชน, สำนักพิมพ์มหาวิทยาลัยธรรมศาสตร์ 2543

In the past few weeks, there are many invitation emails inviting me to view the photo albums in their webblog.  I went through them one by one, photo by photo. It surprised me that how people eager to show their life to friends or sometimes to strangers. Some of the photos albums seem very personal. It is such a fine line between private life and the public. I’m not sure if I am entering into their private zone. 

Most of the chosen portraits of these bloggers are very cute. I wonder if they represent who they really are or if they are just what the bloggers want to be seen. I assumed they must have taken tons of photos before choosing only a few to show in the web.

It’s like what Susan Sontag said 'To photograph is to appropriate the thing photographed'. May be the unselected portraits were not appropriate. Then their ‘only’ appropriated identities are constructed for the webblog.

Portrait is considered one of the art forms that could be viewed in the art museum. However, portrait became controversial in 1997 when there was an exhibition of series of photographs that were produced by Khmer Rouge perpetrators during the genocide, which took place between 1975 and 1979. They were displayed at the Museum of Modern Art in New York and many locations around the world. There were arguments that whether or not to present prisoner portrait photographs as a piece of art and in doing so glorifying the Khmer Rouge as great artists instead of publicizing the past violence of the Khmer Rouge where approximately 2 million people were killed. .

Those photographs were taken in Toul Sleng, a school turned into a secret prison, codenamed "S-21." From approximately 17,000 prisoners who passed through the prison only seven survived. I have seen those photographs at Tuol Sleng museum in Phnom Penh many times. I remember walking around with tears while taking pictures of those portraits.

These portraits were believed to be taken by the Khmer Rouge before transporting their victims to the Killing Field for execution. They were blindfolded. When the blindfolds were removed, they then immediately became subject to the gaze of the camera. Their facial expressions were mix of shocked and terrified feelings.

In the article Devastated Vision(s): The Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia, Ly, Boreth wrote about the opaque vision of the prisoners. It suggests that their vision had already been traumatized or destroyed by the camera's gaze. He explained this trauma would eventually lead to both literal and metaphorical blindness. In the painting of Vann Nath, the Toul Sleng survivor, one shows a group of blindfolded men being led to Choeung Ek, the Killing Fields. The other shows a blindfolded prisoner at the moment of his execution. The blindfolds ensure that the prisoners are literally kept in the dark about their surroundings and their eventual fate. Many of the skulls discovered at Choeung Ek were found blindfolded. Boreth emphasized that the victims had already been robbed of their ability to see during imprisonment at Tuol Sleng, during the act of interrogation recorded by the blinding flash of the camera.

It is about power structure when it comes to the mutuality of the gaze. It tells us who has the right to look at whom. The camera can represent a 'controlling gaze.' In controlling the image, the photographer has power over the subject in front of the lens. The Khmer Rouge used photography as a form of exercising their power toward the victims. They were behind the camera. They had the absolute right to look at the prisoners. Their controlling power by staring through the camera captured the souls of the prisoners even before their physical death. They felt superior as Jonathan Schroeder said, "it signifies a psychological relationship of power, in which the gazer is superior to the object of the gaze."

Like a camera, the viewers have also a ‘controlling gaze.’ For these prisoners, they became objects of gaze in all areas without any choice. However, I don’t feel I have power over them. The way I viewed their portraits was different from the way the Khmer Rough soldiers viewed them. The power relation between the prisoners and me could be just equal. When I looked at those portraits, they looked back to me. Their sad eyes drew me in. I could feel their fear as if I were sitting there, with them.

After the genocide, in 1982, physician reported "hysterical blindness" that occurred to a group of female Cambodian survivors living in Long Beach, California. They had lost their sight after witnessing the brutality of the Khmer Rouge. They had witnessed violent acts, such as their daughters being beaten to death or their husbands and sons being executed in front of them. They gazed, but they are powerless.

I look straight, keep my head up,

So I wouldn’t fall as sleep,

The night is long and dark.

I look forward, hardly see anything,

Awake and aware of my own feeling

fear yet to come

I look further, into the future,

Only deep dark dusk, I could dream of

Hope may come at sunrise

 
I look back, many years pass

try to recollect my memories,

I couldn’t see myself.

For the bloggers, I feel differently when I view those cute portraits. I feel like they are staring at me instead of I am looking at them. Usually the spectator offer indirect gaze by initiating the gaze, and the subject is not aware of this. I am supposed to be a spectator who is viewing the text but I’m not sure who is doing the viewing. It became opposite when the person depicted in the text looks at the spectator. In this case, it is direct gaze because the subject demands to look at me. They demand my gaze.

It was not the bloggers’ intention to stare at the viewers. Without the photographer, many portraits were taken by the bloggers themselves. It was like they hold a digital camera in one hand and point it to their faces. There are also several photo-shooting programs that they can see the outcome before they press the shutter. If they take a picture of their own, then they are in controlled of themselves. Therefore, they are not the objects of the gaze.

Whether or not the bloggers were aware of self-exposition, they construct their own identities, which do not have to be true to themselves. Their portraits show what they want the viewers to see and think about who they are. There is no privacy because they did not exist in the first place. Power relation between the spectator and the text has no meaning for the bloggers.

Text References:

Chandler, Daniel, Notes on 'The Gaze', Date: 4/10/2000,

Source: http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/gaze/gaze06.html

Ly, Boreth, Devastated vision(s): The Khmer Rouge scopic regime in Cambodia, Art

Journal, Date: 3/22/2003

source: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-99377978.html

Toul Sleng Genocide Center, The Polynational War Memorial, Date: 22/09/05

Source: http://www.war-memorial.net/mem_det.asp?ID=81

Photos References:

Cambodians Search for Justice after Pol Pot's Brutal Regime, The Online News  

Hour, Originally Aired: 12/18/2006                                                                              

Source: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/july-dec06/cambodia_12-18.html  

DBWHITCON's Public Gallery,                                                                         

source: http://picasaweb.google.com/dbwhitcon/KHMERROUGE

Hi5 Networks,

Buhm, http://www.hi5.com/friend/profile/displayProfile.do?userid=32875791

Cherry, http://www.hi5.com/friend/22296226--Cherry--Profile-html

Joy, http://www.hi5.com/friend/109850970--Joyz--Profile-html

Kop, http://www.hi5.com/friend/profile/displaySameProfile.do?userid= 174278183

May, http://www.hi5.com/friend/161633174--May--Profile-html

Nanny, http://www.hi5.com/friend/169561256--Nanny--Profile-html

Noi, http://www.hi5.com/friend/178054884--Noi--Profile-html

Pik, http://www.hi5.com/friend/112294390--Frappucino--Profile-html

Pond, http://www.hi5.com/friend/45937668--Pond--Profile-html

Potgarn, http://www.hi5.com/friend/107441986--potgarn--Profile-html

Thanyalak, http://www.hi5.com/friend/125870534--Thanyalak--Profile-html

The Tuol Sleng Museum of Genocide

Source: http://www.tuolsleng.com/photographs.php

Toul Sleng Genocide Center, The Polynational War Memorial, Date: 22/09/05