Posted: 10/16/18 at 6:35pm
Posted: 10/17/18 at 2:26am
What's really problematic is when people demand that certain characters can not be played by certain races, but only noble, strong characters that are always on a pedestal. Equality starts where this ends.
Also, indeed, Kim's death has nothing to do with mixed race copulation, so it is extremely troubling that the reviewer makes this remark: "it’s the only possible ending for the crime of mixed-race copulation". Nobody has ever said that they have problems with mixed race copulation in this show and Kims death is completely separated from that, so why assume this is seen in any way as a crime?
It says more about that person than about the show, because it is simply untrue.
I see Kim as human.
Updated On: 10/17/18 at 02:26 AM
Posted: 10/17/18 at 3:20am
Posted: 10/17/18 at 9:03am
Dave28282 said: "Nobody has ever said that they have problems with mixed race copulation in this show"
What? There's an entire song in the show– in fact it opens Act II– about how the children of American soldiers and Vietnamese women are gathered into camps because they are looked at as less than human (sound familiar?), specifically because they are mixed race!
That is literally why Kim kills herself; so that Chris would have to take Tam to America where he would have a chance at a better life. He was looked at as garbage where they were. I don't have the script in front of my, or know the dialogue/lyrics well enough to quote it, but I believe that Tam is referred to multiple times by derogatory terms because of his lineage. Let's not forget too that The Engineer is also of mixed-race, and that has certainly impacted his arc in the story as well.
Did the review go a bit to far? Maybe, but to say that the fact that Chris and Kim's relationship was interracial is not a major factor in this story is yet another example of your long history of whitewashing (term totally intended) very basic facts in order to contort every situation to fit your increasingly bizarre worldview.
Posted: 10/17/18 at 10:06am
You're allowed to like MISS SAIGON. Lots of people do.
But it's hilarious watching people pretend to be surprised to learn it is a controversial show, especially within some Asian American communities. And to use Madama Butterfly as an excuse, when that has also been criticized for decades (have you ever seen M BUTTERFLY?), is well, telling.
Again, like it all you want, but it's very problematic and has been for years. One critic making a point by essentially refusing to review the production to make the claim it shouldn't be done may be a bold move, and one you disagree with, but she isn't the first to say it by a longshot.
Posted: 10/17/18 at 1:38pm
FactsAreFacts said: "Dave28282 said: "Nobody has ever said that they have problems with mixed race copulation in this show"
What? There's an entire song in the show– in fact it opens Act II– about how the children of American soldiers and Vietnamese women are gathered into camps because they are looked at as less than human (sound familiar?), specifically because they are mixed race!
I think the poster means that no one criticizing the show's alleged racism had a problem with that aspect of the plot.
Posted: 10/17/18 at 6:45pm
People are confusing the show's plot/story with opinions of audiences that have race-focused views and preferences.
Of course a character like Thuy disapproves of Kim and Chris' mixed race copulation. But to say the show is wrong because of this, or because Kim is not a feminist, or to say in a review that Kim's death "is the only possible ending for the crime of mixed-race copulation" is utterly ridiculous.
People have the right to prefer what kind of roles they love to see for their race of choice, but don't demand that certain races can only play noble, strong, wholesome, non-discriminated in the story characters that are always on a pedestal.
You can't blame the show in this unreasonable ways. Especially not because the events and people similar to the characters in this show, including all its ugliness and tragic situations have really existed.
Updated On: 10/17/18 at 06:45 PM
Posted: 10/17/18 at 8:17pm
Posted: 10/18/18 at 4:33am
Exactly. People like this reviewer are completely uninformed about this show. It's bad enough that she has the wrong assumption that Kim kills herself over Chris in the first place, but even worse that she uses it to slander the show, by literally saying "Kim's death is the only possible ending for the crime of mixed-race copulation", as if the writers think that mixed-race copulation is a crime in any way.
I think it is very important that people realize that this unfair fabrications are not based on truth. This is a reviewer who did not pay attention to the show, and who has the disillusion that a movie or show that treats difficult subjects which can be perceived as problematic, such as war, oppression, inequality, disrespectful situations, different ways of handling victimization, self-worth handled in various ways, surviving, is per definition problematic. This reviewer confuses the show's plot/story with opinions of audiences/reviewers that have race-focused views and preferences.
I think the most wonderful thing of the arts is telling these stories forever. Showing problems is not problematic. Especially because so many people have lived it, it is actually a duty to tell it. It would be very weird if situations in that time/war/story were handled the way we would do it today. I suspect the reviewer would have loved to see Kim giving a very strong, proud and feminist speech in a suit in act 2, for a big audience that applauds her, but that is not how it was in that situation. This does not make the show problematic in any way, shape or form.
In general, I think it is more disrespectful to deny and complain about history, than to tell these stories.
Updated On: 10/18/18 at 04:33 AM
Posted: 10/19/18 at 12:59am
Posted: 10/19/18 at 6:06am
antonijan said: "Would it work if Chris were a person of color?"
First time I saw the show back in 1993 Matthew Dickens played Chris. He was black as was his wife that was an Ellen understudy.
Posted: 10/19/18 at 7:53am
Works perfectly if you ask me. The show is above that.
The whole essence of the show is about the human instinct and survival and unconditional love for your dreams and for others. Of course some roles must be Asian as it takes place in Asia, but for roles like John, Chris or Ellen it really doesn't matter.
The beauty of this show that it rises above color and focuses on human.
Updated On: 10/19/18 at 07:53 AM
Posted: 10/19/18 at 8:34am
You're entitled to your opinion, but criticizing those people (again, like many Asian American actors I know) who have issues with this piece as "audiences/reviewers that have race-focused views and preferences" is undercutting your argument.
Like the piece, but denying it's problematic because you don't want it to be says more about you than the piece.
Posted: 10/19/18 at 4:50pm
The piece is not problematic.
Pieces are allowed to contain problematic subjects.
People demanding that certain roles or character traits are not allowed for certain races and people who want to deny history are problematic.
Posted: 10/20/18 at 3:37am
Posted: 10/21/18 at 12:15am
Posted: 10/27/18 at 3:05pm
Just saw the show last night, and holy hell was it good. Totally did not disappoint. If it passes through your city, be sure to check it out.
Posted: 10/27/18 at 3:57pm
Posted: 10/28/18 at 1:44pm
watched this last night from front center orch.
First time seeing miss saigon, i passed on seeing the revival in NYC because Ive always thought the score was unimpressive, and theyd announced the tour, so i saw dear evan hansen again. In retrospect, it probably would have been good to see the NYC cast. This musical was constantly reminding me it was the lesser successful sibling of Les Miserables, from hey lets make JVJ a vietnamese prostitute, to the engineer pimp who I thought would accidently break into master of the house any moment, to the holding kim scene near the end that felt just like eponines finish, etc etc etc
The Kim and the soldier could definitely both sing, and the engineer was fun and entertaining, and the dancers were great. I just thought there was way to much over-emoting in literally every scene both during the speaking parts and the songs (perhaps some here is the directors fault). The big song and dance scenes were fun and delivered the goods. the much hyped helicopter was a dude IMO. Most of the songs live were dramatic and emotional and I just didnt care about them except the opener, last night in the world and the second act song about the american dream(excellent number).
Im baffled how this show ran ten years on broadway and would love for some of my board brothers and sisters who were around in NYC during that period explain the longevity and staying power of the show....
If you can only see one show in sf this week, I would easily choose Waitress, which was superbly executed by a marvelous cast and was a lot more fun, even while tackling serious subjects.
Posted: 10/28/18 at 2:04pm
NYfanfromCA said: "I’m seeing this on Wednesday. How has the audience been and where did you sit? I’ll be in Loge row A."
I had rush tickets, Mezzanine Row K. Not bad. Definitely would have preferred to sit a bit closer.
The audience was great.
I enjoyed the show, and the cast. The show made me think it was the love child of Les Miserables and Cabaret.
Posted: 10/28/18 at 4:11pm
Loge row A is an excellent choice. My group was in loge A, B, C when we attended earlier this month.
Posted: 10/28/18 at 4:21pm
Sho-Tunes-R-Us said: "Loge row A is an excellent choice. My group was in loge A, B, C when we attended earlier this month."
Thanks, I hope I enjoy the view.
Looking back at my old ticket stubs, I first saw Miss Saigon in March 1993 at the Broadway Theatre, orchestra E 6, for $32.50. Those were the days! Fast forward to last year or the year before (more fuzzy memories, time flies), and I had no recollection of ever seeing it, so went to the 25th anniversary movie theater screening of the show that was filmed. I wasn't a fan of all the close-up shots, so seeing it from the mezzanine this week will be interesting.
Not a huge fan of the show and probably would rather see Waitress for the fun and songs, but I'm going with my uncle who has an extra ticket. Going more to see him than the show, ha ha.
Posted: 10/29/18 at 12:32am
Posted: 11/15/18 at 9:45am
The set and production design provide some gorgeous stage pictures which are the primary reason to see this tour.
I'd forgotten how compressed the timeline is. Poor Chris and Kim spend about a day and a half together. The balcony's not the best place to see this tour as the leads performances get overwhelmed by the crowds.
The production is aggressively violent with the men constantly slapping and shoving the women around the set. Got real tired of watching the Engineer strike and manhandle Kim. (Heck, even John throws her over a table and dry humps her). It may be true to life but the Engineer's refusal to play the role with an ounce of charm or comedy threw off the rhythm of the show making it relentlessly bleak.
Updated On: 11/15/18 at 09:45 AM
Posted: 11/16/18 at 2:36am
I agree with you, MrsSallyAdams. It is bleak, and the production was wonderful. I saw it in SF a couple weeks ago. It was never a favorite of mine because I feel like the love story is unbelievable and some of the lyrics are silly in their attempts to rhyme ("You whored to make this kid." "That isn't what I did!"
, but it had been 20 years since it was last in town and my mom and friend wanted to go. I was blown away, though, at how good the cast was. And despite the silly lyrics, some of the songs are so beautiful. I came away enjoying it much more than I expected or remembered.
But that thing that struck me about it after all the dialog in this thread wasn't that it portrays Asians negatively. Rather, I found it portrays Americans and our foreign policy in a very negative light. The GIs are abusive toward the women, disrespectful/disdainful of the Vietnamese and generally disillusioned. Heck, Chris even sings, "I'm an American, how can I fail to do good," which underscores our perceived arrogance to interacting with other countries. And that's the great thing about art. We can all see different things in it and react to it in different ways. So I would never tell someone who finds the portray of Asians offensive that he or she is wrong. But I see a story that is a rebuke of American meddling and a portrayal of the strength of a mother's love for child. Kim is willing to endure innumerable degradations to give her son a better life. So glad I went to see it again!
