Am I Racist for Liking "The King and I?" — Page 3

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).

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. 

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.

John Adams said: "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."

I'm not confusing anything (you think Shakespeare wasn't dramatizing but fictionalizing when he wrote Macbeth?). 

I,  too, can see why the show was (and to my knowledge, still is) offensive in Thailand,  and I can respect that. But guess what?  This ain't Thailand. And the realities of 19th century Siam aren't germane to The King and I, a show never intended as a history lesson and designed specifically for 20th century western audiences. 

I'm pretty sure there are plenty of--to us--offensive depictions of white leaders in Asian countries from the mid-20th century. I'm not bothered by that, though I have no wish to see such a depiction myself. I can deal with something not created for me not having to please me.

Speaking of your game of telephone, John, I don't have a link any more but I have it on good authority that although R&H had no rights to adapt the Rex Harrison film version and were careful not to duplicate actual lines of dialogue, their approach to the story very much kept the hit film in mind.

Also, we should note that Oscar Hammerstein was very active in an organization devoted to turning the UN into a "World Federation", based on the U.S. system, under which the entire planet would be governed by some similar form of representational democracy.

We would certainly call that "naive" nowadays--and if we don't, we have the example of U.S. interventions and nation-building attempts to educate us--but it was hardly a "racist" or even "colonialist" notion. In fact, such a system would have put Caucasians in the minority of a globe dominated by POC voters. Hammerstein may have found Southeast Asians less civilized than the English at a specific moment in the 19th century (though there are plenty of hints to the contrary in TK&I), but he certainly didn't believe the white race was inherently superior to any other.

ETA to fix major typo.

Updated On: 6/22/20 at 12:50 AM

OlBlueEyes said: "I think that Joevitus has pretty much nailed it. R&H gave Thailand little, if any thought."

It occurred to me at one point, that in the early 50s, R&H could rely on the fact that beyond the Encyclopedia Britannica, the option to fact check anything they wrote about the King, or Siam would be too cumbersome to do. 

   
"They could have eased relations over this if R&H had recorded a little ten minute film praising Thailand and its King and urging them not to take the story and the depiction of the king literally."

It would be respectful if future productions of The King and I included something like the above in the form of Program Notes in their playbills. 

"I had no trouble understanding Ken, but there is no doubt that many did. I saw all three kings and the film twice and Ken had the most "gravitus." But as those comments reminded me, there were a lot of complaints and possiblythat was an important factor in the under-600 performances."

I'm reminded of Bette Midler's character Vicki Eydie: "Now, many Caucasians have a lot of trouble wrapping their mouths around these Polynesian words. These words are very hard. These words are very difficult for the Caucasian mouth, but we are going to give you every chance in the world."

"I did not know that the real King Mongkut was such a charismatic king.. Well, maybe I knew and forgot. That happens a lot."

I found a lot of interesting things about the King and his harem, some of which I've already mentioned, but also:

     * Lady Thiang was not Prince Chulalongkorn's mother. His actual mother was Princess Ramphoei
     * Prince Chulalongkorn was not the only child of his mother’s union with the King, as depicted in The King and I. He had a brother (Prince Chaturonrasmi ) and a sister (Princess Chandrmondol)
     * The asteroid 151834 Mongkut is named in honour of the King and his contributions to astronomy and the modernization of Siam
     * Mongkut spent 27 years (from the time he turned 20 years old until he was crowned King) celibate, as a Buddhist monk. During his 17 years on the throne, Mongkut made up for lost time by siring 82 children from 39 different wives

Updated On: 6/20/20 at 02:21 AM

Joe and others are certainly right that TK&I is not a documentary. But I don't believe any of us knows just how much research Hammerstein may have done on 19th century Thailand. Doing research doesn't mean you have tied your hands once you begin to write. (And let's remember that Hammerstein lived through WWII, when SE Asia was very much a theater of war between the Japanese and the English. Thai sovereignty was violated by the former to the extent they needed to cross Thailand to get to Burma and India.)

THE KING AND I follows a dramaturgical strategy that Hammerstein uses from OKLAHOMA! on: two groups, each represented by one half of an "A couple" (Curley/Laurie) and one half of a "B couple" (Ado Annie/Will), resolve their conflict by each adopting some of the other's ways. Often there is a fifth character (Jud/Bloody Mary/Lady Chiang/Mother Abbess) who helps to provide conflict and/or inspiration to the mix. Further and generally, some character (Jud/Lt. Cable/The King of Siam) is jettisoned along the way because Hammerstein gave his plays gravity with the acknowledgement that change rarely occurs without some sort of sacrifice.

In TK&I, the two groups are Thais/English and personified by The King/Anna respectively. The novelty is that the "B couple" (Tuptim/Lun Tha) are both Burmese, but that is dictated by the story itself and their relationship to the King of Siam.

Now, in 2020, one may well argue that shoehorning an entire Asian ethnic group into this structure is, if not racist, then at least dismissive of Asians as agents of their own lives. It's one thing for Curly to give up his saddle for farmer Laurie; it's quite another to cram the modernization of Thai culture and society into 3 hours.

It's a fair argument that TK&I offers a simplistic portrait of Thai history; it's much less fair to insist that its creators intentionally set out to demean Asians somehow. Again, I don't blame anybody who finds TK&I "Orientalist" and unpleasant; on the other hand, it doesn't echo American history so closely that it needs to be banned, IMHO.

Updated On: 6/20/20 at 09:51 PM

OlBlueEyes said: "I once heard Yul Brynner tell an anecdote - I believe it was first person - from when the show was trying out in New Haven. They weren't getting the reaction they wanted from the audience. It was becoming a concern. So Yul and Gertie went across the street after a performance to have a cup of coffee and talk it out.

It turned out that both had the same thing in mind. The show needed a shot of sexual tension."

Yeah, but he obviously made that up because the idea that Anna and the King were attracted to each other is present in the Rex Harrison movie.

From all the productions I've seen of King and I (which is about four), the last time that I saw it, the film of the West End production, "Shall We Dance" when they went to closeup as the King took Anna around the waist was the only time I ever noticed anything overtly sexual. 

Joey Ledonio said: "I doubt they had any malintent. I'm not saying it need be banned, I just think it is inherently white-supremacist-y. While the overtones certainly avoid race, the piece is still riddled with broken English, sexualized women, a tokenized people, and a King that needs the political, legal, and governmental counsel of an English school teacher (who happens to be white) is quite colonialist. I'm not against the Thai people being given Uncle Tom's Cabin, but I do find the imperialist sentiments that go largely unaddressed are enough to raise flags. I call for a revisionist production of King and I that explores are the implicit racial biases built into the text."

Joey, I think your reaction to the piece is entirely fair. If my post hadn't been deleted, you would have found me arguing much the same, EXCEPT that I don't think it's worthwhile to "revise" TK&I. Leave it as an historical piece and do it or don't, let people attend or don't. I don't think it's worth burning copies of the libretto, but I don't know what you would revise that would significantly change its unintended "orientalism".

As I wrote above, it follows a common Hammerstein structure, with small changes to allow for the difference in the situation and characters. As I hear Hwang found with FLOWER DRUM SONG, it isn't so easy to re-invent the R&H format.

If somebody wants a better musical representation of Thailand or any other Asian country, I'm sure there's plenty of history to work with.

 

OlBlueEyes said: "From all the productions I've seen of King and I (which is about four), the last time that I saw it, the film of the West End production, "Shall We Dance" when they went to closeup as the King took Anna around the waist was the only time I ever noticed anything overtly sexual."

Blue, I think you need to take another look at Yul Brynner and Deborah Kerr in the film version. The sexuality of that scene is palpable, threatening to burst from subtext to actuality at any moment! (I didn't know that I needed to note this when I worked on the Brynner tour of 1977, but my memory is that he and Constance Towers played the scene in the same manner.)

And the tension is in the text: note that Anna keeps the King at arm's length until he points out that she danced much closer to their English guests. The moment when he puts his hand on her waist is as erotic as any moment I can recall from an R&H musical film--certainly much hotter than Maria and the Captain in the gazebo. LOL.

The fact you are asking the question and examining the issue establishes that you're not being racist in your liking the show.