September 19,1997
Mr. Christopher Cox
The Boston Herald
FAX NO: 617-695-9949
Dear Mr. Cox,
In answer to your letter, the
movie of "The King and I" is not allowed to be shown in Thailand, although
as far as I know the books on which it is based are available in the country.
The play has never been produced in the country. However, the
important fact here is that the Thai people find "The King and I" in its
movie and Broadway play forms offensive because it caricatures His Majesty
King Mongkut in such a denigrating and condescending manner.
King Mongkut was the fourth
King of the Chakri Dynasty of Siam, as Thailand was then known.
The country had existed as a consolidated Kingdom since 1238, over six
hundred years before he ascended the throne.
King Mongkut was a scholarly
man, having mastered Pali, Sanskrit and Latin, as well as astronomy and
geography. He had served as a Buddhist monk for twenty seven
years before becoming King at the age of forty seven, and due to his training
in the priesthood had a dignified and gentle manner. He learned
English in his forties, and many examples exist of his mastery of the written
form.
King Mongkut began his
reign at a time when the European powers were arrogantly carving up Asia
piece by piece. It is no accident that Thailand alone of all
the Southeast Asian nations (and most of Asia) escaped this scourge.
Serious historians describe the King as a rational and scientific man who
skilfully guided his country through perilous times, and instituted reforms
in social, religious and governmental areas throughout his reign.
In this age of "political
correctness" it is stunning to sit through a performance of "The King and
I" and to see not only the King, but all the Thai people portrayed via
an extreme example of ethno-centricity as childlike, simple, and hopelessly
unable to cope with the arrival of westerners. The British,
however, are portrayed as superior beings, gently trying to uplift their
naive hosts. The wonderful music and the visual treats of the
production camouflage the real insult that lies at the core of the play.
Imagine if there were
a similar caricature of Benjamin Franklin or Abraham Lincoln.
Would you find it amusing to laugh at them, particularly if it requires
a foreigner to teach them the necessary veneer of civilized behaviour?
I doubt Americans would find it funny.
Anna Leonowens was the
fourth in a series of English teachers at the court. She entered
the court when the King was fifty eight years old. It is unlikely
that she had much access to him as she would have been confined to the
women’s quarters where the women and the children lived.
However, after her four years as a governess she apparently decided to
write and lecture on her experiences in the exotic court of Siam.
A great deal of what she wrote in her two books (and probably what she
spoke of in her lectures) is false, particularly the idea that she had
been a close advisor of the King.
The falsehoods of Mrs.
Leonowens’ work were exaggerated by the publication in 1944 of Margaret
Landon’s version of the original book, which she called Anna and the King
of Siam. Here, romance enters the picture, and forms
the basis of the story we know today.
It is unfortunate that
the exquisite music and the beautiful production of this play do not have
a less dated and offensive script. I can imagine a more sophisticated
one in which the meeting of two cultures is explored with wit and humor----
but of course that would be another play entirely.
Yours sincerely,
(Nitya Pibulsonggram)
Nitya Pibulsonggram
Ambassador
|
