Miss Saigon Previews Thread — Page 12

theatregoer3 said: "

I think there's a significant lack of understanding as to what it means to be a minority. Culturally, racially, sexually, and in terms of gender."

That last part was a joke of course. To show that there is more to people than that description.

I understand very well what it means to be a minority, as I'm gay myself. But I would hate it if, for example, when there's a gay character in a movie, that everyone treats that person only as a gay and nothing more. That is what is happening in this Miss Saigon case. I think it is disrespectful. I see Kim as a full person. Not as a stereotype in any way.

I swear he was the Engineer in the Non Equity tour many many years ago. Is this true?

He was. A friend of mine was his understudy in that tour and went on to play the Engineer in Macau.

I'll admit that Miss Saigon isn't exactly the subtlest of musicals, but I guess I don't see the musical glorifying the objectification/fetishizing of Asian women. In fact, it seems the opposite to me.

I feel the same.

...but all this is instantly undercut with The Movie In My Mind, which lets us know that this is all an act and they are doing this out of necessity to stay alive and possible find a way out of the dire situation they have found themselves in. The women are being pimped out, but they do not enjoy the work- anything but. It seems an accurate picture of another horror of wartime to me...

And that's the context to which I was referring. I feel like there is a lot of selective avoidance when criticizing the show of its depiction of Asian women. In that Davd Mura tome, he says that because the love story is central to the plot, he claims the musical "romanticizes human trafficking". That's his take-away. He then later states, "The musical offers no other substantial image of Asian women. In Miss Saigon, the essence of the Asian woman is the prostitute." So, he ignores everything else about Kim in the rest of the musical. And he's pretty selective when discussing the male characters as well. In fact, he pretty blatantly suggests that the story was structured to be intentionally racist. But here is where he really goes off the rails, loading his theory with blanket generalizations and assumptions:

"Secondly, Kim’s suicide assumes that of course life will be better for Tam in America with his white G.I. father and his white wife than in Vietnam with his Vietnamese mother. In this reasoning, it goes without saying that life in America is superior not just economically to that in Vietnam, but in all the ways that really matter, whatever they may be. As evidenced by Thuy, the Vietnamese will be prejudiced against Tam’s bi-racial heritage while as a bi-racial Asian American, Tam will find himself accepted and cherished by all he comes into contact with in America; there Tam will never ever experience any racism like the kind he is already subject to in Vietnam (after all, Thuy, the symbol of the typical Vietnamese male, wants to kill him). Many white Americans actually believe this assumption. Of course, Asian Americans who have experienced the racism of white America have a very different take on the matter. Similarly, many Korean, Chinese and Vietnamese transracial adoptees would also question the scales which see life as an adoptee in America as far superior to what life might have been like if they had grown up in Korea, China or Vietnam."

When he chastises the Cloud Atlas film as an example of the practice of using "yellow-face", I get the feeling he either hears criticism without viewing the offending material himself or he simply chooses to ignore what doesn't benefit his theory as if it simply doesn't exist.

Dave 28282 is Dave19. Keep that in mind and recall his long posting history.

This is a story about a recent production of Madama Butterfly in Arizona. It is not the final word on the opera.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/entertainment/arts/2017/01/31/madama-butterfly-arizona-opera-yellowface-whitewashing/97076610/

Lizzie, if you don't agree with me, please read WhizzerMarvin and Mister Matt's posts. They hit the nail right on it's head.

They completely refute your theory.

Some general thoughts not directed at anyone specific:

I have often struggled to understand how Miss Saigon is anything but good storytelling (with particularly good music). Listening to the OLC recording, I became a Lea Salonga fan forever - initially based solely on her singing voice. I recall seeing Miss Saigon for the first time in NYC around 1993 or so, and I also don't recall having any theoretical problem with what was being portrayed on stage. However, to now look back and argue a very negative Asian female stereotype 1) did not and does not still exist and/or 2) is not reasonably perceived to be perpetuated by what plays out on stage in Miss Saigon is, I think, shortsighted and lacks much needed empathy.

I still don't have any problem with Miss Saigon, as a singular production, today, but at the same time I completely understand why Asian communities, particularly women, cringe at the celebration of yet another production of Miss Saigon - or yet one more (re) telling of a story that does not stray from negative perceptions of submissiveness, sex, prostitution and all the crap that is falsely attributed to Asian woman - that has occurred in the past and still occurs today.

In the previous thread Lizzie refers to, I recall someone else making some of these same points. She (not Lizzie) went too far, I thought, and made a claim about white men and said they all have this negative perception. I objected to that claim and was summarily dismissed. I only point this out because it demonstrates what I call "black and white" or "this or that" arguments. The truth, or the important takeaways lie in between - almost always. Reasonableness goes out the window, and debates look far more like nasty arguments than productive debating. I recall that's what happened in that thread, so I make the warning in hope this thread doesn't do the same.

Pauly3 said: " Asian communities, particularly women, cringe at the celebration of yet another production of Miss Saigon "



There are countless of stories about events from history, times and people. From Nazi germany to discrimination to objectification. If you can't separate the story line from the production creatives you have a problem. And shouldn't watch theatre or film at all. Because more often than not, the story is about all of these things.

Wanting to hide facts from the past and refusing to look at the rest of the (well written, fully formed) character of the role is not the solution by any means. It's actually quite disrespectful. I celebrate the character of Kim. It's one of the most beautifully written, strong characters out there.

Updated On: 3/10/17 at 07:11 PM

Dave28282, I don't think anyone is trying to hide facts. My point is there is no "Right" or "Wrong" in how a the content in Miss Saigon makes people feel or what SOME of the reasonable takeaways are. That you don't share the same takeaway, reading the information at the first link Lizzie provided on the prior page might move you to more "in between" "black and white".

belrowley said: "I think the context is important. I don't believe that the original creative team (or that of Madame Butterfly) intentionally set out to depict a hurtful portrayal of Asians. Perhaps they really wanted to showcase the horrors of war, and how Asian women in particular suffered through these times. But you have to look at who is telling the story. Was an all-white creative/producing team the best choice to capture this complicated dynamic? Are the Asian characters being treated with empathy rather than pity?

I also think it's important to examine how few Asian female roles exist in theater - and how nearly all these portrayals include victimization. As an Asian woman, I'm tired of seeing these stories being told over and over again. The only time we see ourselves represented on the stage, it's to suffer abuse and be abandoned.

When you consistently depict a group of people as "tragic victims," you are making them an object of the story, rather than the subject. That's what objectification means.

I personally believe that Miss Saigon has one of the better/more nuanced iterations of this stereotype. But it still falls for the same narrative tropes. If there were more diverse Asian roles/works onstage, perhaps it wouldn't be subject to this level of scrutiny - but when we're being told this same story of Asian victimization ad nauseam, it behooves us to ask why (predominantly white) storytellers feel compelled to go back to this well over and over again.



"

I agree with you completely. I am flabbergasted at the (presumably white) people here who are trying to explain to Asian American posters why their perceptions of this play are wrong.

I've been mostly lurking in this thread waiting for someone to finally bring up the racism. Personally, I have affection for the show introducing audiences to Lea Salonga but lest someone blame it on the rise of PC culture or pop cultural/gender studies, it's always made me uncomfortable, even before I had the language to articulate why or contextualize it as part of larger problematic narratives.

It's not just that she's a prostitute and they made a love story out of their short affair. There's the submissiveness, the self-sacrifice, the lack of sophistication in the language, etc. and just the way Kim is portrayed in general. I'm not saying the show should be banned or that someone is terrible because they enjoy it. But I do think it's important to recognize where the show is flawed and acknowledge the ways in which Kim as written is not a very deep or complex portrayal of either a human being or a representative of a particular ethnicity/culture.

belrowley said: "When you consistently depict a group of people as "tragic victims," you are making them an object of the story, rather than the subject. That's what objectification means.

I personally believe that Miss Saigon has one of the better/more nuanced iterations of this stereotype. "



Miss Saigon is very nuanced about this. All the roles, including Chris and Ellen are "tragic victims" of this war and situation. They make choices that are far less "right" or "truthful" in character than Kim.

I think Miss Saigon should be applauded for this very balanced piece of art.

The fact that Kim is sort of a "victim of circumstance" at the beginning because of the fact she works in a bar, in the middle of the Vietnam war in Saigon, is very accurate for that time, place and situation. It happened. A lot. What is there to complain about? That's what this story is about. Her whole arc, character and the rest of the show goes way beyond this.

Kim is one of the most beautiful roles in all theatre. A role with nuance and grace. She is noble, she has humour, she's a fighter, she has an incredible character, she is well spoken, and she does not sacrifice herself for a white man (gosh, has that poster even seen the show?!), she does anything within her power to give her son a better life, that is her sacrifice.

For some posters: Kim is nothing more than a bar girl? Chris thinks god is a pimp? You think Kim and Chris got really married? Go watch the show and then we talk again.

Updated On: 3/11/17 at 05:21 AM

Chris learns he has a child and Kim is alive, his first response is "it's too late, I have a new life."



Ellen's response to Kim's proposition that they take Tam: "we want kids of our own."



what drew kim to Chris or vice versa other then a night of hot sex? Chris doesn't ask Kim about her life until after they he offers her money. What do we know about Kim in the second half of the show other then she is still pining for Chris and loves her son? I like this show, I enjoy the music, but these aren't nuanced or developed characters by any stretch.



One of the the lines that bothers me is the line where Chris says "you are the only thing that I care for here." Kim is an object, by his own choice of words. Also, my statements here are based on my viewing of the show years ago and the original London cast recording. If some of this dialogue has changed, I was not aware.

I think there's more to what initially brings them together than that. Look at it from Kim's perspective- Her family has been killed and she's somehow been sold into the care of this pimp who literally threatens death, or at the very least severe physical abuse if she doesn't do what he says. Before John buys her for Chris another soldier rather brutally tries to purchase her before Chris intervenes. Kim has three options: A) Receive a beating or worse from the engineer, B) Go with a solider who could possibly do her harm or C) Go with Chris, who appears to pose the least threat to her literal, physical survival. She's drawn to Chris because he's the least worst option on a list of terrible options. Which of those three options would any of us choose?

I think it's up for debate whether Kim and Chris actually really love each other, and just because they say they do doesn't mean it's true. People say "I love you" all the time when they're caught up in a moment. Once Chris abandons Kim she clinging to the idea of the life Chris promises than of an actual deep love for him. She kills herself, not for Chris, but for Tam. Kim is like a woman in an abusive relationship who gives up her child to the foster care system in a desperate attempt to give the child a better life. We all know the foster care system isn't a walk in the park and there's no guarantee his or her life will actually be any better, but it's the actions of a woman doing what she thinks is best in the direst of situations.

Kim is a fighter. She's a survivor. She thinks on her feet and will do anything for her child. I would never describe her as submissive. She does whatever she has to do to stay alive and later to keep her child alive. We know Kim makes her child priority number one at all costs.

I agree that Chris is a far less complex character than Kim and he does indeed view her as an object- she symbolizes something beautiful and peaceful in the midst of the hell that surrounds him. She is an escape and ultimately nothing more. He gets back to the States and attempts to move on with his life. We never hear a solo from him in act that expresses his current feelings about Kim or the fact that he's a father. His character is lacking, but I don't think Kim shares his same deficiencies.

I don't think Kim's complexities are on the level of Bobby or George and Dot, but for a mega-musical heroine she is far more complex and developed than Christine or Cosette.