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

[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.

 

 

 

 

[joevitus]

Posted: 6/19/20 at 10:47pm

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.

[John Adams]

Posted: 6/20/20 at 12:31am

joevitus said: "I, too,can see why the show was (and to my knowledge, still is) offensive in Thailand, and I can respect that."

I'm happy we can agree on that!

joevitus said: "[...] 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."

Yeah... I'll eat a big crow pie on that. The deeper I go into the google rabbit hole on this, the more I see how correct you are (still... I'll probably never be able to watch the show again without also being mindful of why the people of Thailand may take offense).

The inclusion of inaccuracies and fictionalized elements in this tale go all the way back to Anna Leonowens' original publication of "The English Governess at the Siamese Court". I found an interesting and humorous anecdote (here) tonight:

     "When Leonowens published her first book, the King of Siam responded, through his secretary, with the statement that she 'has supplied by her invention that which is deficient in her memory.' "

I was also wrong to write that R&H "took too much liberty" in creating their characterization of the King. By the time R&H created their version, Leonowens had already spun her tale (with its alleged inaccuracies). In turn, Margaret Landon took Leonowens' tale and further fictionalized it in her novel. Then R&H took the fictionalized version of the original "invention" (per the King of Siam) and crafted yet another story, with a plot tailored to favor its leading actress.

So, it was kind of like a game of telephone. By the time the King and I opened in 1951, I think the one thing that could be counted on as actually being historically factual was the name "Anna Leonowens" (we never learn the King's name in the musical).

I have to add that it's been really interesting and enjoyable to find out the facts vs the fictions, which characters actually existed, and how they differ from their musical counterparts, etc., etc., etc.... (see what I did there?)

PS:

OP, have you made a decision RE: whether/not you're racist for liking King and I?

Updated On: 6/20/20 at 12:31 AM

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 6/20/20 at 12:50am

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]

Posted: 6/20/20 at 1:07am

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 think that Joevitus has pretty much nailed it. R&H gave Thailand little, if any thought. They had to write this show for Gertrude Lawrence, which the hadn't wanted to do, and they had to adapt the novel they were given, and all according to a strict schedule.

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.

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 possibly that was an important factor in the under-600 performances.

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

 You look back and there are sooo many musicals with things offensive to POC, woman, gays,ethnic stereotyping,  etc, etc. I'm sure that you're not suggesting that all plays and musicals be written so as not to offend anyone.

I was told that I might suffer from "angry black man" syndrome because our racist society taught whites to behave in that way. I couldn't hold back from saying I learned the syndrome by myself when I had been assaulted and robbed. Here's a news recap of Human Kindness Day, which was held for four consecutive years on the Mall from '72 to '75. and featured a major entertainment act.

My robbery and assault had occurred during the third year, 1974. (Pointer Sisters). The next day I walked to Park Police HQ to report it and they told me that it had been "open day on whitey." All the attacks were blacks against whites. The police urged that another should not be held, but the media and the usual gang accused the media of blowing up a few incidents into a major event. You can see in the article that the attacks were all racially biased.

So they held it for the fourth and last time in 1975, and there were over twice as many attacks on whites, and someone lost an eye, and I missed a great performance by Stevie Wonder.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/1975-human-kindness-days-cruel-violence/2011/08/21/gIQAzl7M2J_story.html

The good of this is that there is a lot less of these incidents, for now, in the current Northeast. Attacks against both are much less.

[John Adams]

Posted: 6/20/20 at 2:21am

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

[joevitus]

Posted: 6/20/20 at 7:57pm

There is zero need to do anything of the kind. It isn't a history lesson. It's a musical about liberalism vs. conservatism in a "faraway land." No one had the intention of presenting either Anna Leonowens or King Mongkut accurately.

I suspect she'd be as offended by the insinuation that she might have had erotic feelings for him as the Thai people are over the dipiction of a beloved ruler. AND NONE  OF THAT MATTERS.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 6/20/20 at 9:51pm

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]

Posted: 6/20/20 at 11:16pm

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.

[joevitus]

Posted: 6/21/20 at 12:47am

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.

[joevitus]

Posted: 6/21/20 at 12:49am

You're quite right, Gaveston, there's no way to know how much research Hammerstein did. I assume he didn't bother, as he was adapting from an intermediate source, but that's just an assumption on my part.

[OlBlueEyes]

Posted: 6/21/20 at 11:23am

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. 

[joevitus]

Posted: 6/21/20 at 4:48pm

Yep, the only time there is anything overtly sexual.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 6/22/20 at 12:36am

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.

 

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 6/22/20 at 12:43am

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."

I can tell you from personal experience that Yul Brynner was quite famously NOT a reliable narrator.

But there's no question that the show is fueled by the strong "forbidden love" theme, subtextual and interracial between the King and Anna, textual and in the "shadows" between Lun Tha and Tuptim. I highly doubt Brynner and Lawrence discovered anything new at the coffee shop.

That the "forbidden (interracial) love" threatens to burst into view in the "Shall We Dance" scene is the reason that scene is one of the most electric in all of the R&H canon. (I used that scene from the film when I lectured on the history of musical theater: it is the perfect example of characters speaking to singing to dancing as the dramatic tension grows.)

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 6/22/20 at 12:54am

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.

[OlBlueEyes]

Posted: 6/22/20 at 7:23am

I may be 30 years or more since I last saw the film. 

Deborah describes the scene.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-09-18-ca-2392-story.html

Here are 12 different takes on different "Shall We Dance" numbers.

https://www.broadwaybox.com/daily-scoop/12-versions-of-shall-we-dancefor-internationaldanceday/

The sharpest moment in the film appears to me to be after the dance when Yul levels a steamy gaze at Deborah and she looks back at him, panting. He approaches, hand extended.

In great contrast Kelli and Ken in London after the polka separate and they throw their heads back and laugh.

Lou Diamond Phillips looks absolutely goofy. Who did his choreography?

You're not predicting that there will never be another major Broadway revival of Show Boat and/or The King and I?

 

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 6/22/20 at 9:18am

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

[darquegk]

Posted: 6/22/20 at 10:11am

Just don’t cosplay the characters.