Religion is one of the tools that the elite have used to soliify their position, and encourage acquiesence, for centuries. The theory being that a peasant is a peasant because of something he did wrong in a past life; that those in positions of greater wealth and power are there because they are more enlightened; there is no use trying to upset this situation, in aspiring to social mobility, because to do so would be to fight against the will of the Buddha himself - better to lead a 'good' (ie. obedient) life and wait for your next reincarnation.Peacock wrote:Perhaps it's his interest in Buddhism which makes him want to distance himself from the political conflicts.
In siding with this argument, Weerasethakul takes the side of the elite whether he realises it or not. Or, to put it another way, it's very easy to be peaceful and calm when you've been dealt a winning hand - harder to show genuine empathy for people who don't belong to your own social and ethnic group, especially if your peers, colleagues and relations look down upon those people, and even form political groups to lobby against their right to vote (the Lao-speaking majority are too ignorant, you see, they can't be trusted to make a choice that is in the interests of the 'Nation').
Would the international film community be so quick to get behind a white South African filmmaker who supported Apartheid, even tacitly? The only substantial difference here is international ignorance of the situation - an ignorance that becomes increasingly inexcusable with every story, every foreign office warning, that hits the headlines.