The Legend of the Greatest Queen Jamadevi (จามเทวี) is the latest film starring Princess Ubolratana Rajakanya Sirivadhana Barnavadi, the eldest daughter of King Bhumibol Adulyadej. The film, due to be released sometime in 2012, must be perceived as another nationalist movie which reflects a desperate attempt to glorify the Thai royalty and to justify the making of enemies.
Here is its synopsis, as advertised by the film-maker:
One thousand years ago during the Dvaravati era, a baby girl was born with magical powers and grew up a fine lady of great wit and charm. Her profound beauty drew suitors from distant lands to Lavo, a kingdom most desired for the greatness and allure of its ruler’s daughter, Jamadevi herself. Brave at heart and firm in spirit, Jamadevi led vast armies into the battle. With intelligence and cunning, no man could ever rival, she triumphed over many invaders. Appointed to reign over Hariphunchai, she roamed far and wide across the kingdom, leading forces of warriors, monks, pundits and craftsmen in brave attempts to expand her territory. However, before Queen Jamadevi could achieve her greatest desire, the storm of a great war erupted. With her beloved land and freedom at stake, the revered Queen Jamadevi and her loyal warriors were about to encounter the most mighty and terrifying army ever, knowing that if they lost, all would be lost.
Unsurprisingly, the story is a full of fiction, the supernatural ability of the ruler, and an overbearing emphasis on love for the kingdom. The release will be timely and will possibly intensify the already heated debate on the reform of Article 112 (the lèse-majesté law). Thai hyper-royalists have lately tried to substantiate their claim that Thailand has remained an independent nation thanks to the sacrifice and bravery of past kings and queens. Therefore, those who strive to amend the law, designed to protect the dignity of the monarchy, must be regarded as “ungrateful” or even “threatening” to the royal institution and the Thai nationhood.
It doesn’t take a film expert to determine that the leading actress, Princess Ubolratana, is at best Madonna à la Thailand when it comes to acting. Wooden and emotionless, Ubolratana’s acting is excruciating. Yet, she has continued to appear in many films and enjoy her superstardom in Thailand, something that she had long yearned for.
Another fantastical exercise in happy happy make-believe fairyworld wish fulfilment. Cringeworthy and embarrassing stuff churned out by the increasingly shrill and desperate royalists.
Quality comment or not?
23 
2
”The film, due to be released sometime in 2012…”
I think I’m busy that night.
Quality comment or not?
21 
2
Clutching at straws here Pavin? This is the Thai version of the King Arthur legends as far as I can tell (escapades with javelins, the appropriating of an ethnic her0). She was Mon or she might even have had Indian blood and was doing her stuff 200 years before the first Thais crossed the Mekong, right? Most likely she bore no resemblance to Ubolratana (Chinese blood, remember) – but it’s just a film!
> “Thai hyper-royalists have lately tried to substantiate their claim that Thailand has remained an independent nation thanks to the sacrifice and bravery of past kings and queens.”
More like the pragmatism of two past kings who Thailand was fortunate to have right at the point where the music was switched off (by the British and French) and the chairs happened to be arranged nicely. They can try all they like …
Quality comment or not?
7 
7
Nonetheless I have a feeling that the locals (around me anyway) will lap it up. This sort of rubbish is all they have been used to, it makes me cringe when I watch my family watching the ‘soaps’ on TV. If you have been inundated with such stuff for decades, more with a little bit of ‘royalty’ thrown in will probably go down very well.
Quality comment or not?
17 
0
Wait… shall the audience remains standing throughout the screening?! And um… did the whole filming crew prostrate to her?!
Quality comment or not?
21 
1
Jon @ 4: Can you have another go at your comment. I’m not sure I can understand it. What straws are being clutched? I’d like to be able to catch your point.
Quality comment or not?
8 
3
Ralph @6: My point could possibly be summed up in the final bit of each paragraph – “but it’s just a film! – They [hyper-royalists] can try all they like” – let me know if it still doesn’t work for you.
Quality comment or not?
2 
6
No, sorry. Can you write it in long hand?
By the way, the earlier comment I made seems to have gone.
And to add a question for Pavin: Has the status of “princess” been returned to her?
Quality comment or not?
5 
3
I have stopped going to cinema in Thailand ages ago. I don’t want to be forced to stand before the movie starts. So I won’t be going.
Quality comment or not?
19 
3
@Ralph:
I think Jon’s remark can be read in two ways, and you’ve picked the wrong one. Perhaps if he’d written “yes, Pavin, the royalists are clutching at straws” the meaning would have been clearer?
Or am I misreading it too?
Quality comment or not?
3 
1
Ralph
She was stripped of royal title (HRH) the day she married her American husband. When she returned, there were “talks” about returning the title to her, but this never happened. Currently, she is enjoying a rather odd, invented title of ทูลกระหม่อม — I have no idea how this should be translated into English.
Pavin
Quality comment or not?
14 
1
Richard: I am not reading it any way. It is too cryptic for this old codger.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
Ralph:
“Can you write it in long hand?”
No
Richard:
I meant that this is just a film, the subject matter mainly legend, just about any time is going to be the right time to coincide with a LM debate, why not thank a (past) king if your country still exists … but trying to extrapolate to say that feelings toward the present king are going to be manipulated well … they can try all they like …they might succeed among their own constituency but I think this speculation is just petty. Yes I know the fascists/royalists/yellows are easily inflamed but I think it’s clutching at straws to suggest they’ll get over-excited about/because of this film.
I also think the comments about her acting ability, coming after all that over-blown speculation … are just petty. How many films has she done anyway?
Quality comment or not?
4 
6
Re the title, it’s “Tunkramom” which is “Daughter to the Queen Regent”. She was stripped of the “Somdet Phra … Chao Fa” (HRH) because she married a commoner. (Her sister married a commoner too but she retained her title.)
When writing in English it’s just “Princess”.
Quality comment or not?
3 
3
Pavin: Is “Tunkramom” also the archaic form of “Chao Fa”?
Quality comment or not?
1 
1
>“Thai hyper-royalists have lately tried to substantiate their claim that Thailand has remained an independent nation thanks to the sacrifice and bravery of past kings and queens.”
And what do the successes of those past kings and queens have anything to do with the present king? Queen Jamadevi, Queen Suriyothai, and King Naresuan….none of them are members of the Chakri Dynasty. Thus, their sacrifice and bravery have nothing to do with the Chakri Dynasty. Their sacrifice and bravery should remain the honours and achievements of their dynasties. The Chakri Dynasty has no right to take such achievements to claim as if those honours belong to the Chakri Dynasty.
Or the Chakri Dynasty has no honours and achievements of its own that they are so desperate they must steal such achievements and claim that having a King is good for the country?
Quality comment or not?
10 
5
Ah, got you Jon, despite your non-refusal to explain. You mean that you think Pavin is making a mountain out of a molehill.
The new big book says (p. 13): “Thunkramom is an informal way of referring to prince or princess.”
I note that Wikipedia has her as “Princess” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubolratana_Rajakanya). It says:
Princess Ubol Ratana was born with the titles of Her Royal Highness and Princess Chao Fa, but gave these up on her marriage to an American citizen, Peter Ladd Jensen. Her title, Chao Fa was lost because she married a commoner. She had previously held the royal title Chao Fa Ubolratana Rajakunya. She still retains the style of Tunkramom Ying, which means that “Daughter to the Queen Regent”. Since her return to Thailand, she has increasingly taken part in royal ceremonies, though not to the extent of her royal siblings.
Her Royal Highness Princess Ubolratana Rajakanya (1951 – 1972)
Mrs. Ubolratana Rajakanya Jensen / Mrs. Julie Jensen[1][2] (1972 – 1998)
Princess Ubolratana Rajakanya (1998 – Present)
The between the lines stuff in all of this is fascinating. As I understand it, she was stripped of her title. The prince married a commoner twice and didn’t lose his title and wasn’t stripped of it. I guess male blood trumps female blood and royal blood trumps anything else.
For those interested in the before 1998 period, see http://articles.latimes.com/2004/dec/29/world/fg-jensen29
As to her acting ability, despite the fractured English, this is pretty clear:
We can all agree that the royal princess is no A-lister in the acting realm but kudos for her to step into an action genre to show her action chopping skills. There is always room for improvement but for now, word of advice, don’t deliver your lines like an announcement to the people. It may seem like a total disillusion of a self vanity project to fulfil ones inspiration, for which is very commendable in deed, one should look up to in this film as an inspiration, not for the value of the production but how no matter what the odds are, there’s always a way to reach for it and succeed. Also helps of you’re a royalty and has access to anything at snap of the finger.
For another take, try this: http://notthenation.com/2010/12/prachatai-film-reviewer-arrested-for-giving-my-best-bodyguard-2-stars/
Quality comment or not?
6 
0
I suspect it’s not so much that she married a commoner, but more about her marrying a…gasp….farang that stripped her of her title. After all, the king’s dad married a commoner and it didn’t do the resulting sons’ title aspirations any harm.
Quality comment or not?
11 
0
As for being forced to stand before a film starts, I saw something a couple weeks ago that I’ve never noticed before during 11 years of living here…the Thai fellow sitting two seats away from me stood up at the appointed time, took his mobile out of his trousers pocket, and began checking his text messages and apparently sending a few. As soon as we were ‘allowed’ to sit down again, the man put his mobile back in his pocket an continued watching trailers.
It seemed an oblique way to thrust two fingers up at something he considered distasteful, no? What a brave chap.
Quality comment or not?
12 
0
Princesses aside, the Jamadevi legend has all kinds of really interesting parts in it. For instance, she defeats the chieftan of the Lwa by tricking him into wearing a turban made from her undergarments worn while she’s menstruating. He then throws a spear towards Lamphun from the slopes of Doi Kham, a spear that, because of Jama’s trick, turns around and skewers him.
I wonder how this is going to make it into the movie…
Quality comment or not?
3 
0
The stripping of Princess Uboratana’s royal title for marrying out of the family power system raises an interesting subject with a history going back thousands of years. When power trumps all, important family members are expected to sacrifice their sexual taste to the family’s interests, and submit to marriage as a power alliance. When Vajiralongkorn opted out of his marriage alliance with a member of his mother’s family (which seemed to be doing so well), it caused a hell of a stink.
Given the army’s ambivalent attitude to the Chakris in 1945, the Swiss girl that King Ananda loved would have been regarded as a poor choice compared with a nice Thai girl from a powerful army family.
Quality comment or not?
6 
0
@RN England said:
“Given the army’s ambivalent attitude to the Chakris in 1945, the Swiss girl that King Ananda loved would have been regarded as a poor choice compared with a nice Thai girl from a powerful army family.”
Such as Apasra Hongsakula, Miss Universe 1965?
Quality comment or not?
3 
1
Talk about her previous film, “the bodyguard” has anyone got any idea how much did the film make?
Quality comment or not?
2 
0
actress or not, Ubolrat is still a babe.
Quality comment or not?
0 
16
@Khun Tarrin asks: “Talk about her previous film, “the bodyguard” has anyone got any idea how much did the film make?”
I am not sure as well but many Reds said the money was a financial failure, as Ubolrat is not ‘young’ as people are not really interested in seeing the movie which the leading actress almost 60. However until I really know how much they made from the movie I cannot really confirm whether this is true or not.
As for Khun Pavin’s opinion that Ubolrat’s acting is ‘wooden’, I beg to differ. I think her acting is generally quite good for Thai entertainment industry standard. My biggest problem about her is that I don’t like to see her speaks. It looks very unnatural, as if she cannot open her mouth comfortably. Seems like there are a lot of restrictions that she can only open her mouth to a certain degree of wideness. Is this the result of excessive facelifts she had?
Quality comment or not?
8 
0
CT (22). I wasn’t thinking so much about movies or beauty queens, as the Thai royal family’s punitive reaction to Ubolratana’s marriage for love, and the conflict between romantic and dynastic marriage that has repeatedly afflicted that family over more than half a century. Romantic love has its own political ramifications. Its dual rôle of selling movies and undermining dynasties makes it highly suited to the commercial and republican ethos of the United States.
Quality comment or not?
0 
0
“Glorify past kings and queens”
“They don’t belong to Chakri Dynaty” – Does anyone here relate to James Cook and why are you celebrating Australia (invasion) day ? What do Australian people have to celebrate or glorify the “founder of this country”, when they don’t have anything to do with him !
By the way this movie was made in 2008 (production began long before), but in post production due to heavy CGI. The movie is “300″ style and meant to glorify strong women in the history of Thailand.
Quality comment or not?
0 
7
So …I’ll reiterate that this was a very poor show from Pavin Chachavalpongpun. Ordinarily you’d expect to see this kind of material on a third-rate blog but here we are five days later, only one article published on New Mandala since. Was it just intended to be a filler? Or is it actually some kind of test? Perhaps the commenter with the most red thumbs will be declared the winner? Is the real Pavin Chachavalpongpun going to jump out, Baron Munchausen style, and declare that he’s not interested in princesses, that he just wanted to rouse the oppressed anti-royalists?
In addition to sounding generally spiteful, it seems this former diplomat (according to New Mandala) doesn’t know what “ทูลกระหม่อม” means, or is very very reluctant to explain the meaning to New Mandala’s readers. In addition I expect he’s not much of a film-goer. A Thai actress would surely feel elated to be ranked alongside Madonna … but this anti-rolaist seems to want to rank the royals so much higher. In addition it seems like with his “she has continued to appear in many films”, that Pavin is being slipshod with the truth, almost certainly with his own research.
Quality comment or not?
2 
2