Is "The King and I" Problematic?- Page 2
Is "The King and I" Problematic?
#25Is
Posted: 7/20/18 at 8:06am
OlBlueEyes wrote: "Autocratic king who forces his subjects to kowtow to him, complete subjugation of women, slavery..."
And, of course, that's mostly fiction. Mongkut was an educated, peaceful man, who lived as a Buddhist monk until ascending the throne at 47. He abolished forced marriages and the practice of selling wives. He allowed many of his concubines to marry men of their choice. There was slavery in Siam (as there was in much of the world at that time), but it was not based on race, and slaves had the right to purchase their freedom, more akin to the American practice of indentured servitude (which wasn't abolished in the U.S. until after the Civil War). The British didn't abolish slavery in their colonies until 1833, not very much earlier than Mongkut's reign. These facts matter, if we're going to morally judge the people of other eras. Mongkut was no "barbarian," nor were his people. To paint them as such (or to go to the opposite extreme and portray others as "noble savages," as many do) does them no favor.
Like many musicals (I risk repetition here, as I've written this many times), the problem with The King & I is that many audience members, lacking skepticism or the desire to explore a story in depth, often believe that they've received an accurate history lesson after viewing a reductive, sentimental, and inaccurate piece of fiction.
#26Is
Posted: 7/20/18 at 9:50am
OlBlueEyes wrote: "Autocratic king who forces his subjects to kowtow to him, complete subjugation of women, slavery..."
And, of course, that's mostly fiction.
I don't believe that I would be insulting Broadway audiences if I were to say that only you and a few score more when they see the king for the first time do not know or care that he is supposed to be a representation of Mongkut. The audience thinks of Yul Brynner. This is light entertainment, at least until the suddenly harsh ending. This king does comedy. This king galumphs around the palace in his bare feet doing the polka with an attractive English woman in a great hoop skirt.
[M]any audience members, lacking skepticism or the desire to explore a story in depth, often believe that they've received an accurate history lesson after viewing a reductive, sentimental, and inaccurate piece of fiction.
Here I think that the elapsed time of over 150 years comes into play. The audience, no matter what they take from an inaccurate historical portrait of Mongkut and his people, are simply not going to have any occasion to think about the culture of Siam at that time in history. At least, not until the next revival of The King and I.
To be fair to your sincere concerns, though, perhaps we should ask ourselves how Americans would feel if Russia or China or even Thailand produced a popular play that portrayed Abraham Lincoln as a country dolt who secretly owned slaves. (He was portrayed as a country dolt a lot in his own time and in his own country.) I don't think that I would be upset. I already see Lincoln as the beneficiary of a few myths that distort our opinion of him. But I suppose there are many who would be unhappy about it
Is it enough to declare on page 1 of the program and by announcement from the stage that this is a work of fiction and is not a true representation of Mongkut?
#27Is
Posted: 7/20/18 at 9:55am
"To be fair to your sincere concerns, though, perhaps we should ask ourselves how Americans would feel if Russia or China or even Thailand produced a popular play that portrayed Abraham Lincoln as a country dolt who secretly owned slaves."
Honestly, most Americans don't care at all about anything that happens outside their field of vision, and know even less about that terra incognita.
#28Is
Posted: 7/21/18 at 2:50am
newintown said: "OlBlueEyes wrote: "Autocratic king who forces his subjects to kowtow to him, complete subjugation of women, slavery..."
And, of course, that's mostly fiction. Mongkut was an educated, peaceful man, who lived as a Buddhist monk until ascending the throne at 47. He abolished forced marriagesand the practice of selling wives. He allowed many of his concubines to marry menof their choice.There was slavery in Siam (as there was in much of the world at that time), but it was not based on race, and slaves had the right to purchase their freedom, more akin to the American practice of indentured servitude (which wasn't abolished in the U.S. until after theCivil War). The British didn't abolish slavery in their colonies until 1833, not very much earlier than Mongkut's reign. These facts matter, if we're going to morally judge the people of other eras. Mongkut was no "barbarian," nor were his people. To paint them as such (or to go to the opposite extreme and portray others as "noble savages," as many do) does them no favor.
Like many musicals (I risk repetition here, as I've written this many times), the problem withThe King & Iis that many audience members, lacking skepticism or the desire to explore a story in depth, often believe that they've received an accurate history lesson after viewing a reductive, sentimental, and inaccurate piece of fiction."
And so is your issue with the way it portrays this king or any king? Your post still suggests that you agree there were cultural issues that warrant criticism, but the issue is 1. Who did them 2. When did they do them, and 3. Who is criticising (given the hypocrisy of the West who had and in some ways can still have their own trunk of barbaric beliefs, practices and values - much of it rooted in the 'holy' bible, as mentioned earlier in this thread).
"You can't overrate Bernadette Peters. She is such a genius. There's a moment in "Too Many Mornings" and Bernadette doing 'I wore green the last time' - It's a voice that is just already given up - it is so sorrowful. Tragic. You can see from that moment the show is going to be headed into such dark territory and it hinges on this tiny throwaway moment of the voice." - Ben Brantley (2022)
"Bernadette's whole, stunning performance [as Rose in Gypsy] galvanized the actors capable of letting loose with her. Bernadette's Rose did take its rightful place, but too late, and unseen by too many who should have seen it" Arthur Laurents (2009)
"Sondheim's own favorite star performances? [Bernadette] Peters in ''Sunday in the Park,'' Lansbury in ''Sweeney Todd'' and ''obviously, Ethel was thrilling in 'Gypsy.'' Nytimes, 2000
Seperite
Understudy Joined: 12/22/14
#29Is
Posted: 7/21/18 at 5:37am
Is there a reason that people go apopleptic when white actors depict characters of color, but when a story about white men and their effort to forge a new nation is set to rap by a cast of almost no white people, it is celebrated?
The irony of progressive thinking is that while it gives lip-service to the notion of eliminating racism and prejudice, it is progressives who are constantly and breathlessly keeping count of how many people from what race are represented in this or that field, and insisting that decisions about schooling, housing, employment, etc. factor race in. Civil society has long since accepted and internalized the just notion that human beings are human beings, and should be judged by the "content of their character" rather than "the color of their skin". It is progressives and their obsession with seeing everything through the prism of race -- their misguided notion that by swinging the pendulum of racial preferences and biases to the opposite extreme, it will somehow atone for centuries of prejudice against nonwhite -- that keeps these divisive and wearying issues in the public sphere.
Has anyone caught a performance of Natasha, Pierre, and the Great Comet of 1812 lately?
JBC3
Broadway Star Joined: 4/9/17
#30Is
Posted: 7/21/18 at 6:18am
Progressives are not a Borg-like monolithic entity lacking diversity in what we believe or how we view the world any more then all conservatives possess the exact same set of beliefs.
That said, a belief system that wants to challenge systemic inequities and create greater opportunities for all (as progressives do) cannot ignore race, gender, or their intersectionality since they are at the roots of the inequality and injustice in our country.
Updated On: 7/21/18 at 06:18 AM
astromiami
Understudy Joined: 7/12/12
#31Is
Posted: 7/21/18 at 8:13am
Seperite said: "Is there a reason that people go apopleptic when white actors depict characters of color, but when a story about white men and their effort to forge a new nation is set to rap by a cast of almost no white people, it is celebrated?
The irony of progressive thinking is that while it gives lip-service to the notion of eliminating racism and prejudice, it is progressives who are constantly and breathlessly keeping count of how many people from what race are represented in this or that field, and insisting that decisions about schooling, housing, employment, etc. factor race in. Civil society has long since accepted and internalized the justnotion that human beings are human beings, and should be judged by the "content of their character" rather than"the color of their skin". It is progressives and their obsession with seeing everything through the prism of race -- their misguided notion that by swinging the pendulum of racial preferences and biases to the oppositeextreme, it will somehow atone for centuries of prejudice against nonwhite -- that keeps these divisive and wearying issues in the public sphere.
Has anyone caught a performance of Natasha, Pierre, and the Great Comet of 1812 lately?"
Yes, there is a reason. White people have steered the culture for so long and have gotten the lion's share of acting work. One of the few advantages minority actors have is that they can play authentically characters of their own ethnicity. White actors already have such an advantage in getting cast, that there is no reason to play characters out of their own ethnicity.
No one is "keeping count" about casting. It is just something you notice. When someone notices that there are hardly any taxis on a street, it does not mean they are counting the colors of cars. It is just something you notice.
I understand that this is all difficult for white people to think about. No one wants to acknowledge that where they are in life may in part be due to advantages that they have because of their skin color. It feels better to believe that everyone is treated equally.
So we get complaints about Hamilton not casting white people in roles written for black and Hispanic actors. And a slighting reference to Natasha and Pierre for casting the best available actor for the role rather than the best available white actor for the role. Who is keeping count?
#32Is
Posted: 7/21/18 at 9:43am
Seperite said: "Is there a reason that people go apopleptic when white actors depict characters of color, but when a story about white men and their effort to forge a new nation is set to rap by a cast of almost no white people, it is celebrated?"
Because there's a massive and bloody history of white people depicting people of color as a tool to dominate, crush, and otherize? When white schoolkids run around saying "ching chong ling long ah so", they learned that from other white people who view Asian people as funny and stupid, and it informs their actual worldview of Asian people as being funny and stupid. False representation legitimizes real outlook.
#33Is
Posted: 7/21/18 at 10:58amDo people in the USA actually think Asian people are stupid? Statistically they could be among the most intelligent in the world and are often very successful.
"You can't overrate Bernadette Peters. She is such a genius. There's a moment in "Too Many Mornings" and Bernadette doing 'I wore green the last time' - It's a voice that is just already given up - it is so sorrowful. Tragic. You can see from that moment the show is going to be headed into such dark territory and it hinges on this tiny throwaway moment of the voice." - Ben Brantley (2022)
"Bernadette's whole, stunning performance [as Rose in Gypsy] galvanized the actors capable of letting loose with her. Bernadette's Rose did take its rightful place, but too late, and unseen by too many who should have seen it" Arthur Laurents (2009)
"Sondheim's own favorite star performances? [Bernadette] Peters in ''Sunday in the Park,'' Lansbury in ''Sweeney Todd'' and ''obviously, Ethel was thrilling in 'Gypsy.'' Nytimes, 2000
mikey2573
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/28/10
#36Is
Posted: 7/21/18 at 10:51pm
Imagine, for reference's sake, if Jesus Christ Superstar had portrayed Jesus explicitly as a grotesque caricature: a mincing, flamboyant and catty drama queen who sneers at the poor and disdains the masses, putting on a good face until his disgust at the people around him creeps through. A Jesus who leers lecherously at his male followers, openly mocks Mary Magdalene when she tries to comfort him, and finally kicks a poor person on "Heal yourselves!" A Jesus sneering down from the cross, grinning ghoulishly with a perverse quasi-sexual pleasure in his own martyrdom.
You'd see protests among the more conservative, and certainly questions of good taste among the more liberal. The essential argument would be "Not only is it an inaccurate portrayal, it completely misses the point of the historical story in order for the writer, and the viewer, to feel a certain moral or cultural superiority over the protagonist." Which is essentially the argument the Thai people have with R&H's treatment of King Mong Kut.
Auggie27
Broadway Legend Joined: 10/13/03
#37Is
Posted: 7/21/18 at 11:33pm
Whoever above said it's orientalism but well-meaning orientalism is spot on. So many facts are altered, wildly romanticized. Never with racsst intenion, but it;s still a western lens in service a western point of view, actual history seriously rewritten. That doesn't make the show "bad," but it does require thoughtful annotation with every presentation. And the history of staging it in iterations that baldly circumvent authenticity (the film, and countless stagings which substitute white actors in make-up) requires calling out.
"I'm a comedian, but in my spare time, things bother me." Garry Shandling
#38Is
Posted: 7/22/18 at 7:47pm
Comparing King Monghut to Jesus is just a bit off, I think. Monghut was not regarded as a god to the Thai. A comparison to a popular political figure of that era, like Lincoln, would be more apt.
To be "Asian" covers a lot of races and nationalities, but I don't see a lot of criticism of Asians in our media. Asians are a valuable presence in the science and engineering schools of many of out best universities. Asians are also increasingly found employed by top tech companies large and small in high executive positions of operations, finance and technology. They are adding to the wealth of the country, Their own countries of origin want them to come home.
Trump may yet send many of them running back home, but he doesn't seem anxious to meddle with tech so far. With the possible exception of semiconductors.
Because there's a massive and bloody history of white people depicting people of color as a tool to dominate, crush, and otherize? When white schoolkids run around saying "ching chong ling long ah so", they learned that from other white people who view Asian people as funny and stupid, and it informs their actual worldview of Asian people as being funny and stupid. False representation legitimizes real outlook.
There's a worldwide view that the Chinese and the Japanese and the Indians are funny and stupid? Really?
This is a little hard to buy. What kind of portrait of Americans do you think the state-controlled Chinese media put out of Americans? Hint. At the end of 2016, 38 Chinese journalists were in prison after having been convicted by the government of printing storie of which they did not approve.
Chinese immigrants to the West Coast in the 19th century were treated very badly, but ultimately got their roots down. The Italians and the Irish who emigrated to the East Coast were not treated much better. And no one was treated worse than the Irish by their British masters. When the potato famine came, they just let thousands starve to death on the streets.
The mistake here is in not realizing that the Asian cultures have been just as racist as ours. In the years prior to Pearl Harbor, the American press portrayed the Japanese as small, yellow squint-eyed men at about the level of the baboon on the evolutionary scale. To the Japanese the Americans were soft, spineless men who would turn and flee when confronted by the Japanese warrior. They were of course both wrong. The U.S. Navy soon found that the Japanese Zero fighter could fly rings around any airplane it had and the Japanese were surprised to find at Midway that the crews of the Hornet's ten antiquated and cumbersome Navy torpedo bombers kept pressing their hopeless attacks home as the Zero's eliminated them one by one, until they were all destroyed with one survivor.
Some compared it to "The Charge of the Light Brigade."
ScottyDoesn'tKnow2
Broadway Legend Joined: 1/22/14
#41Is
Posted: 7/23/18 at 12:10am
I do know that when I first started going to theater I got quite a few "I didn't think Chinese people went to arts stuff" from the most well-meaning audience members.
I also keep a performing arts blog and a couple of my students found it and said to me "Why are you going to plays. You should be making pork fried rice."
There is a prejudice that Asians are only good at math and can't appreciate anything artistic.
bk
Broadway Legend Joined: 7/20/03
#42Is
Posted: 7/23/18 at 1:53am
There is not a thing that is problematic about The King and I, which, in case you haven't heard, doesn't take place in 2018. There is, however, plenty problematic about this endless BS about period pieces being problematic for 2018 people who can't see beyond their noses. It's a bore.
#43Is
Posted: 7/23/18 at 9:00am
Charley Kringas Inc said: "OlBlueEyes said: "There's a worldwide view that the Chinese and the Japanese and the Indians are funny and stupid? Really?"
In American and overall Western culture. Also, holy ****, I'm not touching the rest of your post. Didn't you used to be somebody?"
I don't think that you should have touched the one part of my post that you did. In American and Western culture Chinese and Indians are thought of as funny and stupid? I really think that you should have done a little research. Facts according to a Pew report issued last September:
The U.S. Asian population grew 72% between 2000 and 2015 (from 11.9 million to 20.4 million), the fastest growth rate of any major racial or ethnic group.
The modern immigration wave from Asia has accounted for one-quarter of all immigrants who have arrived in the U.S. since 1965.
The median annual household income of households headed by Asian Americans is $73,060, compared with $53,600 among all U.S. households.
About half of Asians ages 25 and older (51%) have a bachelor’s degree or more, compared with 30% of all Americans this age.
The most recent Census Bureau Survey of Business Owners found that Asian immigrants owned 1.5 million businesses, which had total sales and receipts of $506 billion and employed 208 million people in 2007. The number of Asian immigrant-owned businesses increased 40 percent from 2002 to 2007, compared to the average increase of 18 percent for all U.S. businesses.
This statement is from a 2013 lengthy Pew report
Asian Americans are the highest-income, best-educated and fastest-growing racial group in the United States. They are more satisfied than the general public with their lives, finances and the direction of the country, and they place more value than other Americans do on marriage, parenthood, hard work and career success, according to a comprehensive new nationwide survey by the Pew Research Center.
And you think that Americans believe Asians to be "funny and stupid." Maybe you confused Asians with Mexicans.
#44Is
Posted: 7/23/18 at 9:06am
bk said: "There is not a thing that is problematic about The King and I, which, in case you haven't heard, doesn't take place in 2018. There is, however, plenty problematic about this endless BS about period pieces being problematic for 2018 people who can't see beyond their noses. It's a bore."
You are right. The King and I doesn't need to be defended. It just had a very successful run in New York, winning great reviews and many Tonys. It's now playing in London where they had to extend as far as possible and add matinees to try to keep up with demand.
I'm ashamed to admit that I contributed even a little to the Kiss Me Kate. It hit me that this was only the first of an additional nine other threads that would argue the same thing.
ScottyDoesn'tKnow2
Broadway Legend Joined: 1/22/14
#45Is
Posted: 7/23/18 at 10:05am
IMO, the song "Western People Funny" actually somewhat saves the show because it's almost every non-Thai specific criticism you can direct at this piece already expressed by the characters of that show. I'm surprised some productions cut it because to me the song contains a very important message.
#46Is
Posted: 7/23/18 at 10:10am
No one here is arguing that The King and I should be removed from the canon or that its creators are racist or that anyone who enjoys the show is racist.
And everyone here understands it's a period piece. But one from a different time, with the problems that come with that time. I'm sure in 50 years, works from today will be looked on with such a critical eye, too.
All that people are saying is that its troublesome elements- which undeniably exist- need to be addressed when it is produced. Just as the troublesome elements in many works from previous generations need to be addressed- whether it's the anti-Semitism in Merchant of Venice or the gee-whiz orientalism in King and I.
The conservative backlash that always emerges from the fingertips of theatre queens on this board whenever someone has the gall to imply that maybe a musical from 70 years ago might have some cultural dissonance today is really, really striking.
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
Updated On: 7/23/18 at 10:10 AM
ScottyDoesn'tKnow2
Broadway Legend Joined: 1/22/14
#47Is
Posted: 7/23/18 at 10:14am
Kad said: "The conservative backlash that always emerges from the fingertips of theatre queens on this board whenever someone has the gall to imply that maybe a musical from 70 years ago might have some cultural dissonance today is really, really striking."
Especially since we're enjoying a medium that is known for hosting works that is all about challenging mores, norms, and attitudes and causing a raucous to people's existing sensibilities. I guess when they say Broadway musical theatre really is a middle class institution appealing to middle class sensibilities, they weren't kidding.
#48Is
Posted: 7/23/18 at 1:41pm
The fascinating thing about the conversation is that "challenging an audience's racist assumptions" is EXACTLY what Oscar Hammerstein was doing in King and I, South Pacific, and even Flower Drum Song. Oscar was more progressive and further to the left of center than his audiences, and he challenged them to open their minds by looking at the humanity of the Thai, Pacific Islander, and Chinese-American characters. Then he made them question their assumptions with songs like "You've Got to Be Carefully Taught."
It's only in the light of today that we see the "orientalism" that Kad refers to, much of which comes from Oscar's sense of humor, which was to render all comic characters as "cute." When he makes white characters like Ado Annie and Will Parker cute, there is no inadvertent racism, but when he makes Asian characters similarly cute, it seems--in 2018--as if he is buying into cultural stereotypes and saying that ALL Asians are like those characters. To counteract this, always put in material ennobling the King or Bloody Mary or the parents in Flower Drum Song. But unfortunately, even that ennobling material can seem condescending in 2018.
Bartlett Sher has had a smart touch when it comes to engaging the Asian actors in the casts of his revivals. Together they come up with a dignity that is not condescending. It's complicated, but it can be done.
Ravenclaw
Leading Actor Joined: 9/16/17
#49Is
Posted: 7/23/18 at 3:04pm
Well said, PalJoey.
I think something that should be noted as well is that the project of those shows you list, to encourage audiences to see the humanity in Asian peoples, seems to be aimed specifically at white audiences. What is an Asian-American theatregoer to take away from seeing The King and I? If careful thought doesn't go into understanding how all perspectives might perceive the story, then the many Asian characters in The King and I can become mere tools for advancing the arc of the "white savior" protagonist.
You say it's "only in the light of today" that these so-called problematic aspects appear, but I wonder how Asian audiences perceived these pieces in the original day. Were they happy to see their humanity advocated for or were they frustrated by the same things brought up today, only their voices were excluded from mainstream conversations about the works back then? I'm sure opinions varied on the matter, but I'd be surprised if the issues brought up today were never noticed by anyone before.
Also, to reiterate what others have said, criticism is not censorship! Nobody here is calling on productions of The King & I to be cancelled. We are merely discussing the merits and faults of the piece, just as we do on these boards with any other show. Whenever the issue of race comes up, some people seem to willfully misunderstand the purpose of the conversation.
Videos