#just like succession was a critique of the ultra wealthy and powerful

[queenvhagar]

HBO adapting Fire and Blood: "Well we had to choose one side to be the good guys, you can't have a good show where everyone is a terrible person, the audience will have no one to root for, it just won't work!"

Also HBO:

[unsafepin]

Succession And The Humanity Of The Rich

The metaphor we use for a sight we’re unable to look away from yet we feel we shouldn’t continue looking is a car crash. It is fitting - the sight is brutal, unfit for sensitive and unfamiliar eyes. But I feel like this comparison doesn’t really resonate with Succesion’s brand of borderline unwatchable, yet completely addictive appeal. No, the metaphor I’m going to use, in line with the show’s crude sense of humor, is your dog shitting on your carpet. This would, I suppose, be a scolding critique in anyone else’s book, but Succession is actually a solid five out of five for me, so you’ll just have to roll with my punches here. First, let’s jog our memory on the basic plot summary for those absent-minded and unfamiliar.

Succession’s core is Logan Roy, an ultra-wealthy media magnate/patriarch, whose poor health and age are clearly signaling the time to retire. As the title suggests, he has to pick a successor, the most likely choices being his three children - Kendall, Roman and Siobhan. There’s also Connor Roy, Logan’s firstborn, but for the non-initiated he’s just doing his own thing and isn’t interested in the empire, let’s call it that. Drama ensues. All of them, including various side characters (notable ones for this essay being cousin-turned-pawn Greg Hirsch, pawn-turned-husband Tom Wambsgans, and run-of-the-mill-but-actually-gets-really-weird general counsel Gerri Kellman) are fucking weird. Which is really the main drive of the show - positively Shakespearian power intrigue and the absolutely unhinged personalities of the characters. Got that? Great. Because actually this essay is about capitalism. Yay.

I really don’t watch anything even in the remote genre of Succession, I haven’t seen House of Cards, not Mad Men, I’ve barely watched a few out of context episodes of Breaking Bad. Power struggles and topics of business and politics are really not what I look for in TV. What drove me to watch it is seeing notably quotable scenes giffed on Tumblr (I know, shut up) and the utter disconnect between those off-beat dialogue lines and the seemingly cold-hearted business machination premise. So I watched it. In a few sittings, really, as most of us consume TV these days. And it was painful: watching the screen get filled up scene by scene by all the luxuries only the top 1% can afford makes me consider getting a copy of The Anarchist Cookbook each damn time, I mostly don’t understand what’s going on in the business-focused plots (you can clearly see I’m a humanities person), the comic relief goes from mildly off-beat to disgusting and/or so secondhand-cringe-inducing you can’t even look at the screen straight, and all of the characters are morally detestable people, making you unable to root for basically anyone. All of this to explain, I still haven’t reconciled the fact that all the singular aspects of this show must make me hate and disavow it, but the whole of it made me passionately recommend it to every person I speak to.

I hate looking at Succession. It’s like looking straight at the sun. Each new house, apartment, helicopter, car, yacht are simply set dressings to the arguments the painfully entitled characters have within them. The most gut-punch of a scene for me is when Greg, our supposed everyman character, who in the first few episodes lost his minimum-wage job and had twenty dollars on his name, reacts to a three-story yacht he’s invited to with a simple “Uh-huh” by the end of second season. This is, I believe, partially what lends itself to the Shakespearian atmosphere of the show - The Danish court is but a setting, the real attraction is Hamlet’s inner battle. The wealth is just the premise, an underlying, rarely addressed theme, the characters are the plot. Just say “Uh-huh” and move on. The concept of money seems to almost dissipate the longer you watch it, this comforting lull only being broken by these little (no doubt, intentional) scenes, and you almost feel like being shaken awake from a dream you didn’t know was a nightmare. Everytime a character discards a glass of 200$ champagne, waves a promise of provision under a poor child’s nose only to snatch it away, tosses a brand new phone overboard, you have to actively remind yourself: this is not normal. Succession seduces you into adopting the worldview of its characters, even if for a second, and it almost makes you feel violated. I’ve only felt an emotion parallel to this, akin to heat and cold reading as the same kind of perception to your neurons, by being exposed to extreme poverty in media. Because what it often boils down to is that both of these situations - ultra-wealth and poverty - are elaborate theater props in TV. Except these aren’t cardboard and fog machines, they exist, and all you’re left with is a feeling that you should be doing more.

The language in the show works in a similar way. It’s juggling quite specific business jargon and people unable to communicate by anything except awkwardly strung sentences, sarcasm and swearing. This and the purposefully unpolished way Succession is shot does a great job of making you feel like an outsider looking into a life that is absolutely not your own. You’re forced to learn the language of the characters and oftentimes you’re left on ice, unable to piece together what characters mean, not least because they often don’t understand themselves, at least emotionally. Everyone is always trying to be a step ahead, communicate less by talking more, like students chasing a good grade on a presentation they did no preparation on. This leaves the viewer, once again, an uncomfortable distance away from the world that fictional media usually strives to engage them as closely as it can with. You’re watching pieces move by themselves on an incredibly pricey chess board and each of them makes a pleading case for you to take them, only them, seriously and you’re always stuck halfway between entertaining the notion and scoffing at the request. Each of the characters is both unforgivably slimy and alluringly broken in their own unique way, exemplified by Kendall, who is both a literal criminal who only got away due to his status and the only person making meaningful attempts to upset a rotten system. It’s a show about a corporation and it’s a show about a family. And you cannot divorce the two. You feel kind of good watching the Roys get ahead, hoping it would bring them together as a unit, and you feel as delighted by the notion of seeing their empire burn and all of them in jail.

And the worst thing is, it’s not just this TV show raising these questions of universal dignity versus unjustifiable wealth, isn’t it? I felt good reading about Melinda Gates’ divorce, not even due to schadenfreude but simply because no one should stay in a relationship that’s bad for them. But even the thought that I’m awarding this multi-billionaire some kind of notion of past disenfranchisement makes me feel like the devil’s advocate. The rich today are so rich they by all accounts cannot be people, no one person should be able to yield this much power and wealth. It’s a Lovecraftian horror - staring into the abyss that’s staring back, trying to comprehend something you cannot apply any meaningful scale to. It feels ridiculous to even assume they have some kind of experiences we can share, even less accepting this idea.

That’s why I said Succession is like watching your dog shit on the carpet. It lacks the grandiosity, the terror, the way pain grounds us all on the same level that a car crash has. Your dog doing its’ business where it shouldn’t is mundane. It’s gross, but it happens like, what, every other week? That often you’re faced to look at a thing which ideally you wouldn’t like seeing in your home, which shouldn’t happen at all, maybe. Wow, I’m getting my metaphors mixed up. Your actual dog should actually have healthy bathroom breaks. Okay, I’m done talking about that now. What I’m saying is, it’s uncomfortable being faced with the reality you were never supposed to see. The rich are as wasteful, as weird, as dramatic and horrible as you imagine, but they’re also human in that gross kind of way. They’re even based on real people - the Murdoch clan, the lovely owners of Fox News and The Sun. You’re not supposed to look in the eyes of the people you’re going to guillotine. And Succession isn’t here to pose any kind of solution to this existential dread and I can’t solve the mess of Lovecraftian magnitude that is current economic distribution either. So maybe all we can do is look on in our gleefully morbid disbelief and try to affect economics and politics locally as much as we can, hoping the ripples will reach the Roys of our world.

So if you haven’t already, you should watch Succession. It’s good TV. It’s not escapism, by any means, if anything it’s both a magnifying glass and a distorted mirror of today’s issues. These essays are a bummer lately. So if Succession’s not for you, watch some local and independent news and Squid Game or whatever, I’m on the first episode. Surely there isn’t any social commentary there.

[rob-blog1234]

WEEKEND TV HOT FILM PICKS!

Check out my guide to the top films on TV this weekend, the best of the rest and what to avoid at all costs! Enjoy!

LATE FRIDAY 7th APRIL

HOT PICKS!

TCM @ 2350       The Exorcist (1973) *****

Although many have tried, no one can ever match this exorcism film. It is so well put together and will always withstand the test of time. It’s quite a simple premise with few parts but that doesn’t dilute the power and ferocity of its impact.  Some say it looks old hat with today’s standards of Horror, but I disagree - it still packs an excellent punch. The script is superb with performances to match.  The Exorcist has proven itself as a scary and impressive piece of cinema history that will always get my vote.

Horror @ 0240      Grabbers (2012) ****

I came into Grabbers ready for a mediocre throw away indie monster flick with little in the way of quality and fully expected another dud added to the long list of substandard horror comedies. B-Jesus! I was wrong. Grabbers layered up the appreciation and just kept on giving.

Set on a small Irish island Grabbers introduces us to some beautiful scenes of the luscious Irish coastal countryside with some rather stunning cinematography that oozed loveliness on Blu ray. Immediately it had my attention. We are introduced to the booze riddled local Garda Ciaran O'Shea who is meeting up with a very focused young Garda Lisa Nolan who is transferred to the village for a short while. She immediately realises there’s not much in the way of Police work to do in this remote Irish fishing village. The film succeeds wonderfully at building their relationship interweaving it into the story of an unknown multi-tentacled creature causing havoc to the sea life and local populous alike.

As we establish the alien creature is a lot bigger and more dangerous than was previously imagined, comes a splendid plot development that these blood sucking creatures can be killed by high blood alcohol levels! Here the film descends into a wonderful, farcical and very drunken stand-off in the local pub. The scenes of the lock-in are great and all the action within the pub is captured really well.

It’s worth mentioning that although its indie roots and meagre budget the CGI is great and directed well to give it real solid appearance. The main reason this film worked for me is the two leads, they are great together and particular praise goes to Ruth Bradley whose inebriated scenes are absolutely spot on.

There are a few lulls and it’s by no means perfect, it tends to lose pace a little too many times but overall this film pitches its comedy well removing itself from any confusion regarding the lack of Horror. Grabbers knows what it is and it is not ashamed to show it. A very competent comedy and addition to the genre. Funny, well presented with a great main relationship, for fans of the genre and for fans of films like Tremors - this is a must see.

Best of the rest:

ITV2 @ 2100      Knocked Up (2007) ***

TCM @ 2100     The Hunt for Red October (1990) ***

W @ 2240          Chocolat (2000) ****

Dave @ 2200    Blade (1998) ***

#### AVOID AT ALL COSTS! ####

Film4 @ 2325      Van Helsing (2004) * AVOID AT ALL COSTS!

It’s a mystery how Jackman and Beckinsale were duped into making a diabolically bad film that not even Bekinsale’s under bust corset could redeem. Terrible CGI, bad hats, bad hair, bad script, bad full stop. Criminally handled, ham-fistedly delivered to soil our screens with yet another simply shite monster movie. AVOID.

SATURDAY 8th APRIL

HOT PICKS!

5* @ 1220      Labyrinth (1986) ****

You remind me of the babe What babe? babe with the power What power? power of voodoo Who do? you do Do what? remind me of the babe…

Check out the Honest Trailer for Labyrinth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjobWguWIRk

C4 @ 2235      Dredd (2012) ****

In a dark and dysfunctional future crime is at an all-time high and policed by Judges - these are judge, jury and executioner - dealing out swift and brutal justice to those flouting the law. Karl Urban plays our downturned mouthed hero - Judge Dredd - a seemingly heartless, brutal and ruthless Judge but one of the very best in the business. This is a great adaption of the comic series and with a great sense of pace, amazing visuals - namely the slow motion ultra-violent sprays of blood - and booming soundtrack this is an action movie to remember. Need a dose of Action in your weekend? Make way for Judge Dredd.

Film4 @ 2315     An American Werewolf in London (1981) *****

It’s only in recent years that I saw this film for the first time and I was concerned that I had missed the boat and it would be horrendously outdated, but I was pleasantly surprised. It barely shows its age at all!

The story begins with two American back packers on the remote moors of England that lose their way as they turn to a local village for help they find a rather unaccommodating group of villagers and they soon realize they are well and truly on their own. As they cross the moors they are attacked by a huge wolf like creature! The villagers appear to be covering up the true horrors of their encounter.

It has a real interesting mix of horror and comedy that is really quite subtle. The lighter moments offset the horror in a real complimentary way and the 80’s “moon” related soundtrack seemed rather odd to start with but adds yet another layer to the overall experience. Unlike today’s heavy reliance on CGI, director John Landis had to rely on physical effects and make up when putting together the transformation scene. It is an absolutely amazing job - every elongation of limbs and warping of body parts is done with amazing skill that looks very realistic and quite horrifying even to today’s standards.

Overall, the film is based on a very simple idea but is executed in a very accomplished way. If you haven’t seen this film, push it to the top of your to do list.

Best of the rest:

ITV3 @ 0930 The Railway Children (1970) ****

Film4 @ 1300 Ferris Bueller's Day Off (1986) *****

ITV4 @ 1455 The Alamo (1960) ****

Syfy @ 2100 The Mist (2007) ****

TCM @ 2100 Fatal Attraction (1987) ****

Comedy @ 2300 Pineapple Express (2008) *****

#### AVOID AT ALL COSTS! ####

C4 @ 2000   Battleship (2012) * AVOID AT ALL COSTS!

Rhianna is on a ship. Acting badly, Aliens are coming - Fight. The end. Battleship is a shoddy CGI laden mess. Awful characters, badly acted, with dreary and mostly boring action sequences. What annoys me the most is it’s not even tongue in cheek - it’s all played out rather seriously. This film deserves nothing. Such a big budget wasted on something quite unwatchable. I hope all involved wept as they called "that's a wrap". Battleshit.

SUNDAY 9th APRIL

HOT PICKS!

ITV4 @ 2100     The Deer Hunter (1978) *****

Good grief. It’s an experience watching The Deer Hunter. It’s so real, heart wrenching stuff. Beautifully handled and presented. It is well deserving of its critique as one of the greatest films ever made.

C4 @ 0005     The Guard (2011) ****

Don Cheadle and Brendan Gleeson play the most unlikely of Buddy Cops in this great black comedy, full of laughs with a lot of heart this film is a must see. Gleeson and Cheadle are a great pairing - when on screen together the comedy script and expert timing from Gleeson combine for a laugh a minute ride.

Gleeson is an Irish Garda from a small town who does things his way and is not afraid to speak his mind. In fact he enjoys it. Cheadle is a straight laced FBI agent who is in for a bit of a shock at how differently things work in this small town. They join forces to investigate an International drug smuggling ring and as the case progresses our two leads relationship grows.

Directed by John Michael McDonagh - it is very evident they are a very skilled family in the field of film. His brother, Martin, we have to thank for the excellent In Bruges, and with this film also being a Black Comedy, also starring Brendan Gleeson, it was always bound to be compared. One thing is for certain, they are both very funny, re-watchable and thoroughly interesting comedies with a fresh feel that I for one have really welcomed.

So, if you like your comedy on the dark side of life this will be right up your street. It’s not just all comedy, it’s a great crime drama and technically impressive, it looks fabulous with some great cinematography. Gleeson is the star but kudos to a great supporting cast. The Guard rockets along keeping you interested every step of the way. John Michael McDonagh has proven himself as one to watch!

If you like his style then look out for his newest 2014 film Calvary. It’s a much darker ride and quite a sombre affair - but very impressive indeed - proving McDonagh’s credentials.

Syfy @ 0100      The Omen (1976) *****

The original Omen film is by far the best of the Omen films and quite underrated. Regardless of its age it still fills me with dread with its combination of iconic creepy music and the mysterious dead eyes of Damien. Its success lies in the unseen and the implied, a trait that horror movies of today seem to have forgotten with all the unnecessary gratuitous violence and gore that fill the majority of recent horror offerings.

The story follows a wealthy couple that have struggled for many years to have a child and after a successful pregnancy term they are faced with the stillbirth of their son. Robert Thorn fears for his wife’s sanity and he agrees, unbeknownst to his wife, to take a new-born child whose mother died in childbirth and pretend it is their own. As time goes by a host of mysterious accidents plague the family.

Gregory Peck, who has a lot to thank for the success of this film, plays Robert Thorn. He brought the film into mainstream audiences on its release due to his success and fame. That’s not to say his performance here is anything but great either. He drives the film forward and is a great choice for the main character. We follow Thorn as he begins to realise the terrifying truth about his “acquired” son.

The Omen is a fantastic supernatural thriller with some great scenes that horror movies of today can only hope of achieving.

Best of the rest:

ITV3 @ 0625     The Railway Children (1970) ****

ITV1 @ 1345     Goldfinger (1964) ****

E4 @ 1430        Evolution (2001) ***

ITV4 @ 1440     The Alamo (1960) ****

ITV2 @ 1550     Liar Liar (1997) ***

ITV2 @ 1550     The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) *****

C4 @ 1645        Boxtrolls (2014) ****

ITV3 @ 2305     Elizabeth: The Golden Age (2007) ****

Film4 @ 2310    Extract (2009) ***

[southeastasianists]

Thailand’s police and military have been leading operations against the controversial Dhammakaya Buddhist temple complex in the search for a wanted monk. But the raids are a mere dash for cash by the country’s ruling junta, writes James L Taylor.

This may not be my kind of Buddhism, but what is going on against the Wat Thammakai/ Dhammakaya movement is puzzling and intensely concerning.

The junta is taking assets from the temple under the pretence of “reform” without having enacted any proper legal precedence or law. The junta’s action, ideology aside, is connected with the capturing of temple finances across many wealthy (Mahanikai) temples as the regime desperately tries to capture power and bolster its dwindling and misspent state coffers. Other temples which may later be targeted include Wat Saket, Wat Sothonwararam  (Chachoengsao), Wat Wat Phra Si Rattana Mahathat (Phitsanalok), Wat Phra Pathom Chedi  (Nakhon Pathom), Wat Yai Chai Mongkhon (Ayutthaya) and Wat Rai Khing (Nakhon Pathom).

In the process, there is an attempt to dissolve the Buddhist Association of Thailand (Samnak Phut) and amalgamate under the Religious Affairs Department in the Ministry of Culture to take responsibility for controlling all national temple finances and assets.  The regime also intends to cancel the 1962 Sangha Act, amended in 1992, dispose of the Council of Monk Elders (Mahathera Samakon), and bring back the 1941 Sangha Act. It also intends to regulate the personal financial practices of monks and monasteries, restrict monks from disrobing following South Asian precedence, and reform monastic education.

The authoritarian and forceful manner in which the junta is carrying out its purge does not hearten for popular support. In raiding Dhammakaya, the motivation is clearly about money, claimed as illicit to justify its actions.

The Dhammakaya movement may well be a mass spectacle, some people regarding it as specious in its mass production of a neoliberal, commodified (global) religiosity, though in the last decade or more it has been largely discreet and remained outside of any political alliance. However, attacks against the movement’s elderly (and seriously diabetic) spiritual leader Phra Dhammachayo (born 1944), begs for an unbiased and reasoned critique. The Dhammakaya Foundation became a United Nations-accredited non–governmental organization in 1986 and this incident will gain some international attention.

The movement has been under the public spotlight since I first wrote about it in the late 1980s, but is now relentlessly pursued by DSI, the “independent” Department of Special Investigation of the Ministry of Justice, in a case that in fact goes back to 2006 and is likely to become explosive. The events of the past few weeks have even drawn in the outspoken neighbouring ultra-nationalist Burmese monk Ashin Wirathu and monks across Asia in support of the besieged expansive temple complex at Pathum Thani, to the north of Bangkok.

The boss of DSI, appointed to pursue the case in 2016 against Dhammakaya, is Police General Paisit Wongmuang, who is acting on a letter of complaint signed by Paiboon Nititawan, ex-Chairperson of the Reform Committee on the Protection of Buddhism; Dr Mano Laohavanich (formerly Dhammakaya scholar monk, Mettanando Bhikkhu); a network of people affected by the credit union debacle (discussed later), and the conservative Women’s Network for the Protection of Buddhism.

The problem started with the ultra-nationalist junta-favourite monk Buddha-Issara, in a complex plot to destroy Dhammachayo (linking him fictitiously to Thaksin) and to fail the then Mahanikai Acting Supreme Patriarch Somdet Chuang of Wat Pak Nam, the original spiritual source of Dhammakaya. Somdet Chuang criticised Buddha Issara and PDRC (the reactionary “People’s Democratic Reform Committee”) when they illegally occupied government offices prior to the last coup.

The regime sees the annihilation of the Dhammakaya movement as a step towards dissolving the sangha’s supreme power and authority, and emplace instead a compliant civilian administration following Phutta-Issara’s suggestions. The junta in essence wants to completely eliminate any future power and opposition to its absolute totalitarianism.

The Dhammakaya temple is not without influential supporters, though mostly associated with wealthy urban middle class, and the nouveau riche. At times in the past it has been visited by members of various political parties and elites, including the current king (then Crown Prince), and Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn, the latter laying the foundation stone for the Ubosot (Pali: uposathagara) in December 1977.

The military, following the successful 2010 strategy of attrition and encirclement of protestors are only letting people out and not in, and now have mobile medical facilities ready for the final incursion. There are about 10,000 lay persons and monastic sangha at the Pathom Thani temple with raw food not allowed inside, only cooked food sent in which is inadequate and in any case mostly rotten by the time it gets inside.  The military (using their compliant police department), under Article 44, are of course outstanding practitioners at “cracking down” on their own protesting civilians. The whole area around the monastery is suffering socially and economically because thousands of people rely on the temple for their livelihoods, and those who work outside the area have to find alternative longer routes. It should also be remembered that there are usually more lay people residing in the temple than monks and novices. A local resident Anawat Thanacharoennat (64) recently suicided in protest of the use of Article 44 against the temple (for more see here).

What is the fascination or desperation in capturing Abbot Dhammachayo? Self-styled PM Prayuth Chan-ocha says it does not matter how long it will take the more than 3,000 police and army personnel (each paid Baht 400 per day) recently boosted again in numbers, but they will stay on until he is found. In fact, monks and laity have not seen him for some time in any case. Prayuth has also now placed a DSI official Pol Lt Col Pongporn Pramsaneh in charge of the National Office of Buddhism in his frustration in not arresting Dhammachayo.

Although long known for astute marketing, Dhammachayo is charged with “money laundering” and racketeering in a case which has many sticky fingers, and as many holes as a leaky bucket. The monastery received a large donation from the Klong Chan Credit Union Cooperative (comprising 52,000 members).  The ex-head of the credit union Supachai Srisupa-aksorn is now serving 16 years’ jail time for embezzlement after dishing out a massive 11.3 billion Baht (878 cheques issued through 10 Thai banks) of members’ money to six main organisations and numerous linked groups and individuals (see here and here).

The groups who received money (many of them obtaining sums far exceeding Dhammakaya) have not been charged; it is only Abbot Dhammachayo who is hunted. The religious movement has claimed that it has repaid the money donated from the union, after realising the problematic source of the payment. The credit union said that henceforth they have no issues with the temple. However, DSI (whose boss was not long ago replaced for not bringing the temple down) have not stopped and continue to pursue the hapless religious leader.

DSI and the Office of the Attorney General apparently recouped Baht 3.8 billion, and no one, seemingly, knows where the money is. The credit union’s new chairperson (Mr Prakit Pilangasa in interview on Satellite Channel 29, and Digital TV Channel 19, interviews 23 and 24 February 2017) plans to take legal action against DSI and the Attorney General to recover this money.

There are a number of rumours circulating in the alternative media as to why DSI and the military needs to destroy not just Dhammachayo, but likely uncomfortable incriminating evidence, which they assume may be held at the temple. It must also be remembered that Dhammakaya holds massive wealth, which the military junta, spending money copiously on itself and its schemes, would appreciate to bolster the dwindling national reserves.

There are some other factors in this complex mix: Thailand’s reactionary (pro-amaat) mainstream media were and remain quick to make a connection to Thaksin, groundlessly and mischievously alluding to Dhammakaya as a bastion of the former pro-Thaksin politicians — mainly through a couple of people who were known to have frequented the temple on more than one occasion, such as the former Minister of Public Health, Sudarat Keyuraphan (also see here).

After all these years, the amaat regime are still taking every opportunity to discredit and completely eradicate Thaksin and his former popular political interests. Neither, it should be noted, is the temple “red” — in a general sense it is far from it, if anyone knows followers of the temple. Although there may well be some “red” devotees, like all sectors of societies, it is not clear cut. The media cunningly note the “alleged links” to Thaksin – enough to further discredit the temple, but they never provide any evidence. An allusion, for a particular purpose, is taken as a statement of truth.

A number of points following the above discussion also need to be mentioned with a bearing on the establishment’s desire to get rid of the movement.

First, Dhammakaya is Mahanikai/Mahanikaya. This Thai Buddhist fraternity is not favoured by royalists consolidating attention, symbolic capital and resources through a number of Dhammayut royal temples. As noted above, we saw recently the implications of the amaat decision to dump the Mahanikaya Acting Supreme Patriarch (Somdet Chuang) in favour of a royal Dhammayut monk from the favoured Bangkok Wat Ratchabophit. The Thammakai are targeted for new purges to capture assets.

Second, the idiosyncratic temple has not been known to overtly support the palace with necessary liberal merit donations. This is not a good move, and unlike establishment temples and many famous elite patronised forest monks.

Third, as noted earlier, Dhammakaya is immensely rich. Many devotees for instance initially donated massive amounts of gold in the building of the expansive Cetiya and its Buddha images at the Pathum Thani temple.

Fourth, the movement is global in reach (with 200 branches worldwide), appealing to conservative rationalists; it is stoically politically neutral, aloof, and does not necessarily show favour to those above who it should favour for regal benefice and protection.

Fifth and finally, the movement’s commanding religious and monetary autonomy is worrying for the military royalist establishment who need to control the significant wealth of its national institutions, religious and secular, for its network personal benefits. This is part of a broader agenda of capturing monastic wealth for the benefit of the military regime and its programs.

Dr James L Taylor is Adjunct Associate Professor, Anthropology & Development Studies, University of Adelaide. He has written extensively on Thammakai since the late 1980s and 1990s including in his book Buddhism and Postmodern Imaginings in Thailand.