Miss Saigon Previews Thread- Page 12

[Dave28282]

Posted: 3/10/17 at 4:03pm

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. 

 

[Dave28282]

Posted: 3/10/17 at 4:09pm

WhizzerMarvin said: "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. 

The women are introduced by singing about how much they want to be Miss Saigon and how they can't wait to show the soldiers a good time, which can make you cringe, 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. I don't think the musical is trying to have us find the women sexy, but rather feel sympathy/empathy for their horrible predicament. 

I'm genuinely not trying to be insensitive; I guess I don't see the problem with the musical shining a light on how women are so often turned into objects to be sold/bartered with in wartime (I know it happens out of wartime too, but it seemed especially dire during the fall of Saigon) and the tragedies that can ensue when this happens. 

Lizzie, What are your thoughts about Madama Butterfly? 

 

"

I 100% agree. People who do see this as objectifying are wrong, because it is not what is happening. It's the opposite, like you say. 

Clearly there are people who don't understand this, but there is no discussion with people who have their perceptions cut off from reality.

The fact that unfortunate things from the past are told in a story does not have anything to do with the show or movie being objectifying. 

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/10/17 at 4:23pm

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.  

 

[LizzieCurry]

Posted: 3/10/17 at 4:31pm

WhizzerMarvin said: "Lizzie, What are your thoughts about Madama Butterfly? "

 

I don't have an educated enough opinion on Madama Butterfly to give you anything substantial. I will say I don't like how it ushered in/supports a Western stereotype of Asian women that refuses to die.

Dave, please do more listening and less posturing. Please especially listen to theatregoer3 here.

I'm done with this thread. But I said more about Miss Saigon months ago in another. If someone wants to try to find it (I just did to no avail), feel free to link. Bye!

[mar6411]

Posted: 3/10/17 at 5:18pm

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

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 3/10/17 at 5:20pm

Mister Matt said: 

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."

I have issues with this paragraph too, least of which is the alternative fact that Kim and Tam would be creating a life for themselves in Vietnam when, in fact, they have been living in Thailand for most of act two. 

The show itself is not declaring that life will be better for Tam in America with two white parents, but rather that Kim thinks it will be better. Nowhere does it say that Kim is correct. To the contrary, the engineer has just finished a song about how the American Dream is an empty promise, a fraud and a scam. It's all hollow and shallow. (That's why he knows he will excel there.) The show is telling us that Kim is putting her faith in a false ideal, not an ironclad, perfect one.

Immigrants have been told for years that America is the land of opportunity; here the streets are paved with gold. (As an aside, I know someone who grew up in poverty in Guatemala and had been told- through movies and the like- the streets in America were actually paved with gold. When he moved to the States later in his youth he told me he was genuinely disappointed to find out the streets were just regular pavement and felt like he had been betrayed by the movies that promised him an instant happy ending here.)

Why should Kim not believe the same thing? All she has known in Vietnam and Bangkok is war, pain, strife, forced prostitution, etc. Why wouldn't she believe that Tam could have a perfect life in America, or even just a better, easier one?  The show never leads us to believe that Tam's "better life" will be fulfilled, only that Kim truly believes she's doing the best thing for her son based on her previous life experience. 



 

 

"

 

[A Director]

Posted: 3/10/17 at 6:00pm

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/

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/10/17 at 6:14pm

Whizzer - That is EXACTLY how I see it as well.  Kim has spent years living in desperation, clinging to a dream as a beacon of hope to keep them going.  Once that dream is shattered with truth, she's run out of fuel and sees no other path to a better life for her child based on their own experiences since his birth.  And as you said, the musical makes no assumption that she's making the right choice (the other circumstance is the strain of Chris and Ellen's relationship in the scenes leading up to the finale and the potential conflict of facing Kim again).  The only assumption it makes (or rather asks us to make) is to understand her choice, which I personally do based on the events of the musical leading up to that final scene.  I understood the choice in the same way I understood Fantine's choice to give up Cosette and then beg Valjean to raise her.  I observed a mother sacrificing herself not for the guarantee, but for the opportunity for a greater chance at a better life for her child.  

[Dave28282]

Posted: 3/10/17 at 6:21pm

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.

[Dave28282]

Posted: 3/10/17 at 6:23pm

mar6411 said: "Dave 28282 is Dave19.  Keep that in mind and recall his long posting history.

 

"

A history against racism yes. What has that to do with me and others going against a false objectification claim here? Do you have anything on-topic to say?

Updated On: 3/10/17 at 06:23 PM

[Pauly3]

Posted: 3/10/17 at 6:45pm

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.

 

[mar6411]

Posted: 3/10/17 at 6:58pm

Thank you Dave19.  My PSA was completely on topic.

[Dave28282]

Posted: 3/10/17 at 7:11pm

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

[belrowley]

Posted: 3/10/17 at 7:27pm

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.

[Pauly3]

Posted: 3/10/17 at 7:33pm

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".

[theatregoer3]

Posted: 3/10/17 at 8:09pm

belrowley said: "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."

 

Well said!

 

Updated On: 3/11/17 at 08:09 PM

[Babe_Williams]

Posted: 3/10/17 at 11:16pm

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. 

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 3/10/17 at 11:36pm

Babe, I can't speak for others, but I certainly never meant to tell Asian Americans, or anyone else for that matter, that their perceptions were "wrong." All I was doing was trying to better explain what my perception of the story is. It's supposed to be a discussion, which has remained pretty civil and informative IMO. 

I read one of the links that Lizzie posted about the two stereotypes that Asian women often fall into: the dragon lady and the lotus blossom. I totally see these two types pop up even today in film and TV. It's shocking how much Asian female characters are still trying to break out of these two molds. That said, I don't see Kim as either a dragon lady or a lotus blossom. In my eyes she is a very strong and complex woman. Maybe I'm completely off base and someone can explain how Kim is just another stereotype and not as complex as I imagine her to be, but after years of familiarity with the show I don't see it.

I suppose this might all be similar to complaints I hear about how gay men can only be characters if they're A) the sassy best friend sidekick who has no personal life of his own and is completely neutered sexually or B) a tragic figure dying of AIDS. For a long time you rarely saw anything different in mainstream film, TV or theater. People at large are comfortable with the other when it is packaged in a stereotype that is easy to digest. As for Miss Saigon, I think part of the power of the show comes from Kim breaking the mold; it first appears that she is being set up to follow in the lotus blossom track, but she is revealed to be so much more. 

But just as when gay men dealing with AIDS is handled with nuance and grace, as in The Normal Heart, as belrowley points out, there are just so many times we can hear these stories without craving to see minority characters be presented in fresh, original ways.  

[VintageSnarker]

Posted: 3/10/17 at 11:46pm

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. 

[A Director]

Posted: 3/11/17 at 1:37am

For me, the first problem with Miss Saigon is it brings back a worn-out trope which didn't need to be brought back.  I don't understand why the authors thought the world needed an update of Madama Butterfly.

Another problem is the Vietnamese women are treat as commodities. The first thing we learn about Kim, she's a young virgin girl from the country for sale.  John buys Kim as a present for Chris. In turn, Chris wants to give Kim money after a night of sex.  The Engineer sells Kim in the hope Chris will help him get out of the country.  

Another problem is Chris. In "Why God Why?," he sees Kim as a way to make him feel better.  He doesn't see her as a person; he sees her as an object. The lyrics, which aren't bad, make me cringe. In Chris's view, God is a pimp.

This isn't a love at first sight story; it's a love at first lay story.  Gee, after one night of sex, Kim and Chris pledge their love and the next thing we know, they get married.

To me, Kim is not a complex character. She does not break the mold.  At the end, she is another in the long line of Asian women who sacrifice themselves for a white man.

Did anyone see VIETGONE last fall?  The Vietnamese characters are complex characters who don't fit any mold.  Tong and Huong  are bad ass women!  The Vietnamese characters make personal sacrifices!  To me, VIETGONE is funny, moving and fresh.  It makes Miss Saigon look stale.  VIETGONE should have moved to Broadway.

 

[Dave28282]

Posted: 3/11/17 at 5:21am

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

[Broadwaydah]

Posted: 3/11/17 at 9:08am

I have always really enjoyed the orchestrations in Miss Saigon especially the brass and percussion.  Have heard some comments about the smaller orchestra and poor sound.  Have they worked bugs out? How does the orchestra sound? Vibrant and full or tinny?

[Babe_Williams]

Posted: 3/11/17 at 9:10am

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. 

[theatregoer3]

Posted: 3/11/17 at 9:51am

I'm surprised no one has mentioned that the original inspiration for the show came from a photograph of a Vietnamese woman giving up her Vietnamese-American daughter in the hope that she would have a better life with his biological father - a former soldier - in America. I don't think this ties up any loose ends in this discussion, but could perhaps provoke further discussion.

Image:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/charsuede/59908052

From Schönburg & Boublil:

"The silence of this woman stunned by her grief was a shout of pain louder than any of the earth's laments. The child's tears were the final condemnation of all wars which shatter people who love each other.

The little Vietnamese girl was about to board a plane from Ho Chi Minh Airport for the United States of America where her father, and ex-GI she had never seen, was waiting for her. Her mother was leaving her there and would never see her again.

Behind this particular picture lay a background of years of enquiries and bureaucratic formalities, in order to find the ex-solider from the other side of the world, with whom the woman had shared a brief moment of her life.

She knew, as only a mother could that beyond this departure gate there was both a new life for her daughter and no life at all for her, and that she had willed it.

I was so appalled by the image of this deliberate ripping apart that I had to sit down and catch my breath. I suffered for the mother as though I might see my own little boy leaving me forever and I suffered for the child as though in my early youth I had been forcibly removed from my parents. Was that not the most moving, the most staggering example of 'The Ultimate Sacrifice', as undergone by Cio-Cio San in Madame Butterfly, giving her life for her child?

This photograph was for Alain and I, was the start of everything..."

[WhizzerMarvin]

Posted: 3/11/17 at 10:06am

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.