Am I Racist for Liking "The King and I?"- Page 2

[bear88]

Posted: 6/17/20 at 3:50am

Joey Ledonio said: "All the white people on this thread granting OP permission to love a racist piece of theatre is a puzzlement.

 

Is King and I Racist?

Yes.

People are entitled to their opinions of whether The King and I is racist. But Joey, since you believe it is, why did you choose a song from the musical, "I Have Dreamed," as part of a medley in your senior showcase last year?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jQE3fWIqqU

You could have picked a song from any musical in the world, but you chose one from a show you say is racist - and then come to this board a year later and attack people who disagree.

It is, indeed, a puzzlement.

 

[dmwnc1959]

Posted: 6/17/20 at 6:22am

Sutton Ross said: "23 paragraphs of rambling? What an accomplishment. Jesus Christ."

 

Yup. Passed right over it. I’m sure there was something important in there. 

 

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 6/17/20 at 9:38pm

Joey Ledonio said: "All the white people on this thread granting OP permission to love a racist piece of theatre is a puzzlement.

 

Is The King and I Racist?

Yes.

"

Sorry, Joey, but I don't buy this recent argument that only marginalized minorities get to dictate what reality is to everyone else. (And I include my own LGBT+ minority in that opinion.)

OF COURSE, only YOU get to tell us what TK&I means to you as an Asian-American actor, and you may well change how most of us see the show. If so, so be it.

But as for "yellow face", of course I am against it in large cities with large pools of acting talent. But when my local semi-pro theater did the show with mostly Latinos and Native Americans as Thais last year, I understood they didn't have a large pool (or any pool) of genetic Asians from which to draw.

ETA Thank you for the kind private message, Joey. I can't PM you back, but I want to be clear that I am not dismissing your view in any way.

Updated On: 6/17/20 at 09:38 PM

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 6/17/20 at 9:41pm

WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THE DELETION OF POSTS THESE DAYS!!!!!!

I had written a short but thoughtful explanation to the OP about "white savior" literature and why so many people (including myself in many cases) take umbrage to it. For the life of me, I can't recall why that would have offended anybody; I can't even think of anyone I might have "accidentally" attacked on that subject.

I am a moderator on another (non-theater) board that is much larger than BWW. If we delete posts of any length, the convention is to copy that post into a PM to the author and explain why it was deleted. The same could be done here with a minimum of time and effort.

ETA I spoke too soon; the mod here did exactly what I suggested above. My post in this thread and another were deleted because posts to which I was responding were deleted. Seems like a heavy-handed solution for what was a thoughtful, but not even controversial, piece of writing, but I should decline to second-guess moderators.

Updated On: 6/17/20 at 09:41 PM

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 6/17/20 at 10:07pm

Joey Ledonio said: "
The CAUCASITY of this post
we get ittt you love TKAI"

Joey, in another post you wrote:

"Are u white cuz as a genetic Asian I feel attacked

 ur white aren’t u it’s ok if you are but like whaaatttt"

I am a white, gay man from a working class background. So privileged in some ways, in others not so much.

I am greatly confused by the gracious tone of your PM to me as opposed to your much-less-gracious public posts. But no matter, I'm not wounded and I'm not accusing you of doing anything wrong.

I don't know why YOU felt attacked. That was certainly never my intention and I am sorry that was the result.

And THAT is my most important point: nobody can dictate the subjective intentions (or reactions) of everyone else. The post of mine that was deleted pointed out a number of representational problems with TK&I, so your assumption that I, as a white male, LOVE the show blindly lacks foundation.

Yes, I loved TK&I! When I was 12 in 1966. I've had a lot of education and exposure to other views since then. Nowadays, I would say I find it historically interesting more than love it.

 

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 6/17/20 at 10:26pm

Joey Ledonio said: "I am offended as an Asian man working in the theatre today. How dare you uphold such a dangerous white savior narrative?

The tunes are catchy and “classic”but I hoped the blatant orientalism was enough to markthis piece largely outdated in more ways than one."

I think it's time we disengage, because you seem upset far beyond what any disagreement between us requires.

BUT TO BE CLEAR: the post of mine that was deleted DID NOT DEFEND "white savior narratives", it did the exact opposite. I wrote that another problem with TK&I--and a far greater problem, IMHO, than whether theaters in areas without a significant Asian-American population use other ethnicities to play some of the roles--is that it appeared in the context of a history of "white savior" narratives.

I was explaining to a teenager why such narratives are a BAD THING. I further pointed out the problem with the use of "pigeon English" for the Thai characters, which tends to make them seem less intelligent than the European characters, even though I doubt that was the intent of the authors. (It also calls into question whether "Missus Anna" is such a good teacher, but that's another matter.)

I can think off-hand of at least 10 classic works more "Orientalist" (yes, I have read Edward Said's essential book on the subject) than TK&I, but that doesn't mean you or anyone has to like the show.

[StephieElise]

Posted: 6/18/20 at 12:13am

Sutton Ross said: "It's Australia's racist version of The King And I. Soon, they'll be Aussies in this thread justifying this decision..... "

Nope! We all thought it was horrendous too! They did it for the publicity that came from Lisa McCune and Teddy Tahu Rhodes becoming a real-life couple while in South Pacific (while everyone believed she was still married) - a terrible reason for casting in any event, but in this case also a terribly racist one. He was then replaced by Jason Scott Lee for the Melbourne run who was then replaced by Lou Diamond Phillips after Jason was injured early on (they did not even have a suitable understudy - he was about 20 years younger than Lisa). 

[Wilmingtom]

Posted: 6/18/20 at 12:51am

K&I is not a story about race.  It's a story of two strong-willed people squaring off with each other, the woman a progressive and the man threatened by change. I'd hate to think that schools and community theaters can't do this wonderful, uplifting musical if they don't have an Asian community. Just cast the show with who you have and the audience will go with you, no yellowface needed.

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 6/18/20 at 1:16am

^Nope

[John Adams]

Posted: 6/18/20 at 12:04pm

Wilmingtom said: "[...] It's a story of two strong-willed people squaring off with each other, the woman a progressive and the man threatened by change. [...]"
    

King Mongkut was not threatened by change. It was he saw value in "a European-style education" (especially in regards to geography and science). It was he who urged his relatives to become educated in both the English language and Western sciences. He wanted change for Siam (Thailand), and initiated many examples of social change and education reform. He found that the education supplied by Western missionaries was insufficient, which eventually led to the appointment of Anna Leonowens.

     In the fictionalized musical version, it seems that the king is more of a misogynist (not threatened by change). I think that was done for plot purposes, as it creates conflict (which may not have been historically accurate). The King's forward thinking however, and his desire for change are present in the musical's plot.


Joey Ledonio said: "King and I is the story of the people of Siam being saved by a white English woman. It’s absolutely about race. A colonized nation is racial. Remember that."

     Well... no. The people of Siam were saved by the progressive thinking of their King, and he actually prevented his people from being colonized by Westerners. (This is also included in the musical's plot.)

It has been argued that the assimilation of Western geography and astronomy into 19th-century Siam "proved that Siam equalled the West in terms of knowledge, and therefore the imperialists' claim that Siam was uncivilized and had to be colonized was unreasonable." This suggests that the Western form of these sciences may have saved Siam from actually being colonized by Western powers. (Yes, that's a quote from a Wikipedia article, but the article references its outside source material.)

[OlBlueEyes]

Posted: 6/18/20 at 12:05pm

I have questions about this word that has blossomed in fairly recent times.

Can one be a racist through thought alone, or does it have to be accompanied by action? If I owned a hotel in New York City in the 40's, and I thought that the white race was superior to the black, am I a racist? Or do I have to discriminate against the blacks by assigning them the worst room locations?

If I am a Chinese graduate student doing doctoral work at MIT, and I believe that Asians as a class produce more top nuclear physicists than Whites, am I racist? Or must I believe in the superiority of my race in more than nuclear physics? Or does it depend on whether I show racial bias in interviewing potential candidates for the grad program?

"Western People Funny" is an anti-white savior song that some might not think strong enough. Do these women think that the White race is superior? No. They believe that the English are too ignorant to know how to dress in environments of extreme heat.

As an Asian, why would I be offended by the inference that my culture is inferior to that of the Europeans, knowing the "white saviors" a generation later would be involved in the bloodiest and most barbaric war in history, for a reason that is still hard to determine. (See The Guns of August, Barbara Tuchman, Pulitzer Prize.winner).

 

[joevitus]

Posted: 6/18/20 at 12:29pm

Don't totally agree, John Adams. The King in terms of the musical wants to change, but really can't. He is the past, and the past must give way. That's why he dies, essentially. Anna represents the present and the future, which insist on things being done a new (implicitly better) way. 

I don't think the goal was to present a white savior story, I think the goal was to present a story about liberal values winning out over conservative ones. No way, right after writing South Pacific and "You've Got to Be Carefully Taught" was Hammerstein going to write about white superiority. I don't believe it ever entered his mind.

But the the facts being that Anna is white and the King Siamese, it de facto becomes to some extent a white savior story. I suspect Hammerstein was thinking more of a clever woman overcoming a dictatorial man than a white person being superior to an Asian, especially as that confrontation is repeated among all three of the major women--Anna, Lady Thiang, Tuptim--regardless of race. And Hammerstein, of course, had little knowledge of Siam, no knowledge of Siamese culture or polticis, and so his depictions (taken from the Talbot Jennings/Sally Benson screenplay's adaptation of Margaret Landon's re-telling of Anna Leonowens' self-deceptive and half-invented "non-fiction" accounts) don't mesh with our current sensibilities, or even 19th century realities for the country. 

I predicted a few months ago that The King and I would face trouble with 21st century audiences because of its weaknesses regarding race, and I remember a lot of dismissive comments in reply. I think what we see in this thread shows how serious those weaknesses are for some people. But at the same time, I wish the discussion could be less heated/extreme. The show is flawed, not hateful, not even really condescending. No one who knows anything about Hammerstein could call him a racist. 

[JBroadway]

Posted: 6/18/20 at 1:24pm

OlBlueEyes said: "I have questions about this word that has blossomed in fairly recent times.

I'm not an authority on these issues, but here are my thoughts, based on everything I've read and heard about racism, how it operates, and how it exists in our society: 



Can one be a racist through thought alone, or does it have to be accompanied by action? If I owned a hotel in New York City in the 40's, and I thought that the white race was superior to the black, am I a racist?Or do I have to discriminate against the blacks by assigning them the worstroom locations?

 

The question of mental vs. behavioral racism isn't a question of "am I racist or not?" It's a question of "Am I perpetuating racism or not?" 

Any white person can have racist beliefs, or subconscious racism. And in fact, most white people experience internal racial prejudice in some form, because we have been socialized in a racist society, and been given racist depictions in the media. One of the most common example of this is the imagine of the "scary Black man" - many white people may find that we are more scared of Black men on the street than White men. If you find yourself clutching your bag as you pass by a Black man, it probably means you have subconscious racism. But that doesn't mean you're a bad person, because you've grown up in a society that is constantly depicting Black men as dangerous criminals. What's important is how you respond, and how you analyze yourself. If you clutch your bag when passing a Black person on the street, the most important thing is that you take personal responsibility for your biases, and try to challenge them internally. And then, you fight for racial justice in your behavior. A quote I heard recently was "You aren't responsible for your first thought, but you are responsible for your second thought, and your first action." I also read a quote from Ijeoma Oluo that said "The beauty of anti-racism is that you don't have to pretend to be free of racism to be anti-racist. Anti-racism is the commitment to fight racism wherever you find it, including in yourself." 


"If I am a Chinese graduate student doing doctoral work at MIT, and I believe that Asians as a class produce more top nuclear physicists than Whites, am I racist? Or must I believe in the superiority of my race in more than nuclear physics? Or does it depend on whether Ishow racial bias in interviewing potential candidates for the grad program?"

 

What you're describing here is more along the lines of "bias" or "prejudice." It's a common misconception and oversimplification to define "racism" as simply "prejudice based on race." It's actually more complicated than that. For it to count as "racism," it has to come from a place of power. White people, in our society, have more power than Asian people. So while an Asian person might be prejudiced against White people, they cannot technically be "racist." This is why "reverse-racism" is actually a myth perpetuated by insecure White people. 



"Western People Funny" is an anti-white savior song that some might not think strong enough. Do these women think that the White race is superior? No. They believe that the English are too ignorant to know how to dress in environments of extreme heat.

 

I think "Western People Funny" is a great example of Hammerstein attempting to subvert the white savior narrative, and give the Siamese community agency and complexity. But just because Hammerstein's TRIED not to be racist, doesn't mean he fully succeeded. The white savior narrative still dominates the plot, even if it's complicated and diluted by Hammerstein's comparatively liberal views. And similarly, the orientalism is baked into the concept of the show. 



As an Asian, why would I be offended by the inference that my culture is inferior to that of the Europeans, knowing the "white saviors" a generation later would be involved in the bloodiest and most barbaric war in history, for a reason that is still hard to determine. (See The Guns of August, Barbara Tuchman, Pulitzer Prize.winner)."

 

Because the show doesn't address those factors - so we have to look at how the piece paints the Europeans, not how the Europeans were in reality. 

 

[OlBlueEyes]

Posted: 6/18/20 at 2:09pm

Donna Murphy/Lou Diamond Phillips, which I saw, played 800 performances and LCT 550 performances. Don't recall much criticism, unless you look at LCT dropoff in attendance as evidence.

Maybe Ken was a mistake. No one seemed to get very excited over him, except for his diction.

Brantley really doesn't address the matter. In the remaining space he has after gushing over Kelli, he has this to say.      

The job of Ms. O’Hara — and that of Mr. Sher and Ken Watanabe, the commanding Japanese film star who portrays the King of Siam — is to educate 21st-century audiences in the enduring and affecting power of a colonialist-minded musical that, by rights, should probably embarrass us in the age of political correctness.

mining material that has fewer secrets to yield. Tamper too much with the basic appeal of this show — captured in a startlingly self-aware lyric (in the song “Western People Funny&rdquo 

In the 70 comments at least two mentioned how offensive the show was in Thailand and wondered why no commentary on that.

But the overwhelming amount of criticism in the comments were directed at Ken.

Bad diction, poor singing, no chemistry, bad diction.

 

[OlBlueEyes]

Posted: 6/18/20 at 2:33pm

Joey Ledonio said: "Wilmingtom said: "K&I is not a story about race. It's a story of two strong-willed people squaring off with each other, the woman a progressive and the man threatened by change.I'd hate to think that schools and community theaters can't do this wonderful, uplifting musical if they don't have an Asian community. Just cast the show with who you have and the audience will go with you, no yellowface needed."

King and I is the story of the people of Siam being saved by a white English woman. It’s absolutely about race. A colonized nation is racial. Remember that."

Except for British Colonies, Canada. Siam is not a colony, but it is in fear of becoming a colony.

Thanks, JBroadway. That's a good shot at it. But what if you have "scary Black syndrome" because when you were 24 years old and going to law school in Washington you walked down to the Mall area and were pushed to the ground, kicked, and had your wallet and your grandfather's 18k gold retirement watch stolen by four young black teens?

I was not at all happy with what was done to be, but because I was an educated person I did understand that the blacks hated the whites because they lived in slums, and had for years, only a few blocks from the majestic Capitol. And no matter what the rich liberals said when addressing the Senate, nothing ever changed.

New York has a low violent crime rate now. Great progress has been made even if no one wants to admit it. In the bad old days of the 80's and 90's New York parks were not safe after dark. Whites were the objects of "wilding" which meant blacks running through the parks and attacking eligible white. One strange summer five children were hit accidentally by bullets flying between black gangs.

The Washington Post has a database that they've been keeping since 2015 on every fatal shooting by every police department in the country. for the five year period. The numbers were remarkably consistent over the five years. One thousand were killed by the cops, 50% white, 26% black and 19% Hispanic. Thus twice as many whites are killed each year by the cops as blacks, although blacks are killed at a rate well in excess of their population percentage.

The New York City police, covering a population of over 8 million, over the five years killed only 32 souls, or about six per year. This is not the picture of a police force out of control. I believe that the lower crime rate and the low rate of police killings go together and New York should maybe even congratulate the police force.

But the actual problem of the Blacks is not police brutality. It is their continued residence on the first rung of the socioeconomic ladder. Here the opposite is true, that the state and city are to blame for a great deal of the problem. The UCLA Civil Rights Project, a watchdog for civil rights, last year on the 65th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, reiterated what they had written a scathing report on in 2014: that New York schools are the most racially segregated in the country. Blacks in New York face their greatest discrimination when they are assigned to public schools that are of much lower quality than those to which the children of the wealthy and the middle class are sent.

In conjunction with this, only a third of male black high school graduates around the country enroll in four year colleges, and of these 60% graduate. This is 10 to 12 percent lower than black women high school graduates. can't believe that no one is talking about this. But maybe they put a lower value on education than I do.l

The King and I was not written to make a statement about race and colonies. If you have no knowledge of your own, then do some research. The greatly popular British Music Hall star, Gertrude Lawrence, was aging and and lawyer, looking for a vehicle, came upon the 1944 novel Anna and the King of Siam and thought it would be perfect. So Rodgers and Hamilton agreed to write the musical. No one had any interest in writing a musical about race or colonies. 

I don't think I've written anything controversial here, but I'll keep my head down. 
 

Updated On: 6/18/20 at 02:33 PM

[hork]

Posted: 6/18/20 at 4:24pm

JBroadway said: 
What you're describing here is more along the lines of "bias" or "prejudice." It's a common misconception and oversimplification to define "racism" as simply "prejudice based on race."

It's not a misconception. That's literally what the word means, and, until 50 years ago, was ALL it meant. There's no reason to limit our definition of the word. Words can mean more than one thing, and "racism" is not excepted.

It's actually more complicated than that. For it to count as "racism," it has to come from a place of power. White people, in our society, have more power than Asian people. So while an Asian person might be prejudiced against White people, they cannot technically be "racist." This is why"reverse-racism" is actually a myth perpetuated by insecure White people.

By that argument, though, a white person can't be racist if they move to China.

[John Adams]

Posted: 6/18/20 at 5:23pm

joevitus said: "Don't totally agree, John Adams. The King in terms of the musical wants to change, but really can't. He is the past, and the past must give way. That's why he dies, essentially.Anna represents the present and the future, which insist on things being done a new (implicitly better) way. [...]"

I couldn't agree less (but I find that exciting in terms of a stimulating debate).

It is not the King who can't change. If you want to see a character who is resistant to change, look to Lady Thiang.

One of several examples where Lady Thiang demonstrates her clinging to the old ways of thinking is the map scene ("Getting To Know You". Lady Thiang presents her version of a geography lesson using the "current" map of Siam and Burma. Contrast that with Anna's lesson using the new map that's just arrived from England.

It's very important to note that this scene is not an example of Anna acting as "white savior". Why not? Anna did not arrive in Siam by her own decision, on a mission to educate the Siamese peoples. It was the King who sent for her. She does not even have a choice RE: who she teaches. Per the King: "You shall only teach children of mothers who are in favor of King". (more about that later..)

...and who provided that map? Did Anna bring it with her?
     Anna: "It was a gift to us from His Majesty, your king."
     Children: "The Lord of Light!"
     Anna: "Ah, yes... The Lord of Light"

On the other hand, the King is a much more complex character than a mere representation of the past. I believe the opposite is true. He is representative of the future. He's just so unsure of himself, and under WAY too much pressure from the expectation that as King, he must always be right. Recall Chulalongkorn's line when discussing the world as ball on a stick vs. rides on the back of a turtle: "but he MUST know because he is King!" This scene is followed  by the King's "A Puzzlement" soliloquy; also filled with examples of his unsurety and self-doubt, in spite of what he feels certain is true. His spoken lines before he sings are: "I'm not sure! I'm not sure of anything!"

We (in present times) know what the future will be, so it's easy for us to provide our 20/20 hindsight, and see, and know things the King cannot. That's the reason I find the King to be so complex. He's revolutionary, but he's unsure of himself, his and his country's futures, can't trust his political allies, and with the exception of Anna, is surrounded by wives, and subjects who don't think as "scientifically" as he does.

PS:

I also wanted to respond to: "He is the past, and the past must give way. That's why he dies, essentially."

The King dies because that's what happened historically. Both he and Chulalongkorn were on an expedition together and contracted malaria. (The purpose of that expedition is an interesting testament to King Monkut's scientific prowess. It's worth googling.)

Chulalongkorn survived, but the King did not. Although there's no mention of Chulalongkorn also being ill, the King was succeeded by his son as depicted in the show.

Updated On: 6/18/20 at 05:23 PM

[toottoot]

Posted: 6/19/20 at 4:17am

OlBlueEyes said: "Joey Ledonio said: "Wilmingtom said: "K&I is not a story about race. It's a story of two strong-willed people squaring off with each other, the woman a progressive and the man threatened by change.I'd hate to think that schools and community theaters can't do this wonderful, uplifting musical if they don't have an Asian community. Just cast the show with who you have and the audience will go with you, no yellowface needed."

King and I is the story of the people of Siam being saved by a white English woman. It’s absolutely about race. A colonized nation is racial. Remember that."

Except for British Colonies, Canada. Siam is not a colony, but it is in fear of becoming a colony.

Thanks, JBroadway. That's a good shot at it. But what if you have "scary Black syndrome" because when you were 24 years old and going to law school in Washington you walked down to the Mall area and were pushed to the ground, kicked, and had your wallet and your grandfather's 18k gold retirement watch stolen by four young black teens?

I was not at all happy with what was done to be, but because I was an educated person I did understand that the blacks hated the whites because they lived in slums, and had for years, only a few blocks from the majestic Capitol. And no matter what the rich liberals said when addressing the Senate, nothing ever changed.

New York has a low violent crime rate now. Great progress has been made even if no one wants to admit it. In the bad old days of the 80's and 90's New York parks were not safe after dark. Whites were the objects of "wilding" which meant blacks running through the parks and attacking eligible white. One strange summer five children were hit accidentally by bullets flying between black gangs.

The Washington Post has a database that they've been keeping since 2015 on every fatal shooting by every police department in the country. for the five year period. The numbers were remarkably consistent over the five years. One thousand were killed by the cops, 50% white, 26% black and 19% Hispanic. Thus twice as many whites are killed each year by the cops as blacks, although blacks are killed at a rate well in excess of their population percentage.

The New York City police, coveringa population of over 8 million, over the five years killed only 32souls, or about six per year. This is not the picture of a police force out of control. I believe that the lower crime rate and the low rate of police killings go together and New York should maybe even congratulate the police force.

But the actual problem of the Blacks is not police brutality. It is their continued residence on the first rung of the socioeconomic ladder. Here the opposite is true, that the state and city are to blame for a great deal of the problem. The UCLA Civil Rights Project, a watchdog for civil rights, last year on the 65th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, reiterated what they had written a scathing report on in 2014: that New York schools are the most racially segregated in the country. Blacks in New York face their greatest discrimination when they are assigned to public schools that are of much lower quality than those to which the children of the wealthy and the middle class are sent.

In conjunction with this, only a third of male black high school graduates around the countryenroll in four year colleges, and of these 60% graduate. This is 10 to 12 percent lower than black women high school graduates. can't believe that no one is talking about this. But maybe they put a lower value on education than I do.l

The King and I was not written to make a statement about race and colonies. If you have no knowledge of your own, then do some research. The greatly popular British Music Hall star, Gertrude Lawrence, was aging and and lawyer, looking for a vehicle, came upon the 1944 novel Anna and the King of Siam and thought it would be perfect. So Rodgers and Hamilton agreed to write the musical. No one had any interest in writing a musical about race or colonies.

I don't think I've written anything controversial here, but I'll keep my head down.
"

snort... after you wrote a novella... 

 

[OlBlueEyes]

Posted: 6/19/20 at 9:34am

snort... after you wrote a novella... 

toottoot - You registered for this chat board just to add such keen insight to this thread?

joey - Actually I did add some white guilt to my reaction to the crime. Guess you missed it. I thought that I was being pretty generous.

I was not at all happy with what was done to be, but because I was an educated person I did understand that the blacks hated the whites because they lived in slums, and had for years, only a few blocks from the majestic Capitol. And no matter what the rich liberals said when addressing the Senate, nothing ever changed.

Ol’ Blue Eyes, that group of teenagers that mugged you probably did so because of socioeconomic conditions brought on/exacerbated by—you guessed it—race. Your white worldview will never be wide enough to carry the entirety of their experience. I live in DC and this is no excuse for having “scary Black man syndrome” as you dub it. Please don’t profile black teenagers. Your racism is showing, further proving the fact that anti-black bias hides even in the most progressive of liberals.

I certainly don't claim to be the most progressive of liberals. I don't claim to be a liberal.

So I shouldn't profile black teenagers. Does that include the three black teens who caught Barnard College freshman Tessa Majors outside last December, robbed her, and then stuck a knife into her heart?

I don't want to pick on you since you are probably just some kid who doesn't know any better. When I was a college freshman I went around quoting Eldridge Cleaver. But people like you who defend violent crime against whites are going to make it very hard to excise racism from the country. They appear to justify it.

Just as there are some things that whites can't say publicly even if they believe them or even if they are true, there are some things that blacks or their supporters can't say publicly.

[John Adams]

Posted: 6/19/20 at 11:17am

OlBlueEyes said: "In the 70 comments at least two mentioned how offensive the show was in Thailand and wondered why no commentary on that."

I can definitely see why the show is considered offensive in Thailand. I don't know if it's still the case in 2020, but I have read that it was banned from being performed in Thailand.

There was far too much liberty taken in the remolding of the factual King Mongkut into the R&H King needed for the plot purposes of, and R&H's social messages for The King and I.

The real King was an extraordinary man of vision, whose intellect saved his country from being colonized by Europeans (Westerners). A man who was known as "The father of Science and Technology" in Siam. A man who initiated social reforms that improved the rights of women. A man who, under his reign, brought commercial and industrial success to Siam for the first time, ever.

Although the R&H King looks similar to the actual King in Act I of The King and I, by Act II he is a distorted caricature of the real man, who lacks the knowledge, leadership, and wisdom seen in Act I. Although she doesn't actually call him a child, late in Act II, Anna implies that he is child-like (perhaps childish?) in her dialog with Louie when she tells him, "...in some ways he was just as young as you."

The biggest blow to the persona of the real King Mongkut comes a few lines later when Louie asks, "Was he as good a King as he could have been?" Anna replies, "I don't think any man has ever been as good a King as he could have been, but this one tried... He tried very hard." Those lines imply a noble and valiant effort, but... failure.

I don't think R&H foresaw that decades after they wrote their version of the King, it would be so easy to research historical accounts of the real King Mongkut.     

But the overwhelming amount of criticism in the comments were directed at Ken.
Bad diction, poor singing, no chemistry, bad diction."

I thought he was marvelous (at least in the PBS broadcast... I didn't get to see the show in person).

[JBroadway]

Posted: 6/19/20 at 11:22am

It's not about defending individual crimes committed by Black people against White people (or any crimes by anyone against anyone) - it's about the fact that you chose to use specific examples of Black people committing crimes to validate the fear of Black people. Yes, it's true that there is often a higher crime rate in Black communities, and as Joey pointed out, that's because the communities have been put at a socioeconomic disadvantage through centuries of systemic racism. It's not that the economic disadvantage makes it ok for them to commit crimes, it's that demonizing these entire communities because of a higher crime rate isn't going to solve the underlying issues. And in fact, putting the emphasis on the individual people who commit crimes, rather than the systems that forced their communities into poverty, only serves to make white people more afraid of Black people in general, forcing millions of innocent Black people across the country to walk around the world being seen as a threat. And this only serves to continue the cycle, because if society doesn't value Black people and Black communities because they're seen as "dangerous," this will only perpetuate their economic disadvantages, and cops will continue murdering them at a much higher rate than they murder people of other races.

[joevitus]

Posted: 6/19/20 at 1:28pm

John Adams said: "OlBlueEyes said: "In the 70 comments at least two mentioned how offensive the show was in Thailand and wondered why no commentary on that."

I can definitely see why the show is considered offensive in Thailand. I don't know if it's still the case in 2020, but I have read that it was banned from being performed in Thailand.

There was far too much liberty taken in the remolding of the factual King Mongkut into the R&H King needed for the plot purposes of, and R&H's social messages for The King and I.

The real King was an extraordinary man of vision, whose intellect saved his country from being colonized by Europeans (Westerners). A man who was known as "The father of Science and Technology" in Siam. A man who initiated social reforms that improved the rights of women. A man who, under his reign, brought commercial and industrial success to Siam for the first time, ever.

Although the R&H King looks similar to the actual King in Act I of The King and I, by Act II he is a distorted caricature of the real man, who lacks the knowledge, leadership, and wisdom seen in Act I. Although she doesn't actually call him a child, late in Act II, Anna implies that he is child-like (perhaps childish?) in her dialog with Louie when she tells him, "...in some ways he was just as young as you."

The biggest blow to the persona of the real King Mongkut comes a few lines later when Louie asks, "Was he as good a King as he could have been?" Anna replies, "I don't think any man has ever been as good a King as he could have been, but this one tried... He tried very hard." Those lines imply a noble and valiant effort, but... failure.

I don't think R&H foresaw that decades after they wrote their version of the King, it would be so easy to research historical accounts of the real King Mongkut.

But the overwhelming amount of criticism in the comments were directed at Ken.
Bad diction, poor singing, no chemistry, bad diction."

I thought he was marvelous (at least in the PBS broadcast... I didn't get to see the show in person)."

The reality of King Mongkut's rein is as irrelevant to The King and I as the historical facts of Macbeth are irrelevant to Shakespeare's tragedy, or the facts of Henry the II are to The Lion in Winter or, maybe more to the point, as irrelevant as the actual Maria von Trapp and her family's real story is irrelevant to The Sound of Music.

As for the quote from Anna, that is strictly accurate in terms of the play's dramatization. 

[toottoot]

Posted: 6/19/20 at 2:51pm

OlBlueEyes said: "snort... after you wrote a novella...

toottoot - You registered for this chat board just to add such keen insight to this thread?

 

longtime (several years, in fact) lurker. decided to jump in the fray. 
 

[John Adams]

Posted: 6/19/20 at 3:54pm

joevitus said: "The reality of King Mongkut's rein is as irrelevant to The King and I as the historical facts of Macbeth are irrelevant to Shakespeare's tragedy, or the facts of Henry the II are to The Lion in Winteror, maybe more to the point, as irrelevant as the actual Maria von Trapp and her family's real story is irrelevant to The Sound of Music."

Except for the fact that none of your examples have been considered offensive enough to cause an entire country to ban production of those shows.


joevitus said: As for the quote from Anna, that is strictly accurate in terms of the play's dramatization."

You're confusing dramatization with fictionalization.

I can still see why the show is (or was... I don't know if sentiments have changed) considered offensive in Thailand.

[skies]

Posted: 6/19/20 at 7:07pm

Who gets to decide?

Even today, I will find myself singing along to "Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah", does that mean I don't find the actual film it came from Disney's  "Song of the South" offensive or at the least problematic?   Some can't detach it from the movie it came from, so yes I can understand their visceral negative  reaction.

"The King and I " has one  of, if not the best score/numbers of any of the R & H body of work so there's that.  Of course it's  not historically accurate, and it's depictions of the Thailand and the King is problematic.   Yet  You look back and there are sooo many musicals with things offensive to POC, woman, gays,ethnic stereotyping,  etc, etc.

Hell, I find Dear Evan Hansen extremely offensive per how it deals with teen suicide.

As a student for a film class I watched the 1915 "The Birth of a Nation" and even knowing it's historical importance, I  still had  a "What the F**"!   reaction to it.   I can't see that film again, it is  incredibly offensive to me.  OTOH, Leni Reifenstahl's 30's films I have compartmentalized  the technical brilliance of her work from the offensive content.