The King and I

I saw this musical last night at the opera house, hoping it would be good to see a mostly Asian cast perform without any of the whitewashing of old. I've heard of this show before, but have never seen the movies, read the novel, or looked up the biography of the actual historical people.

I found the story slow and somewhat stilted, I guess because the musical was written in the 1950s. I had thought it would be more fun and engaging, like The Sound of Music. I mean, there were parts that were funny, and all the singers were greatly talented, but the songs themselves were merely pleasant; I felt indifferent to them, not touched or thrilled like with other classic show tunes. I only really liked the songs related to the tragic young lovers, Tuptim and Lun Tha: "We Kiss in a Shadow" and "I Have Dreamed." Also I was fascinated by Tuptim's version of Uncle Tom's Cabin. She read the book and rewrote it as a Siamese ballet with dancers acting out the story of Eliza's escape from slavery. It also incorporated a miracle from Lord Buddha: ice and snow that helped Eliza escape, but which melted to drown her abusive master. Somewhat reminiscent of the Biblical story of the parting of the Red Sea, and the pharoah's army getting drowned after the sea flowed back. Tuptim's play was like an interesting fanfiction of the novel, though she let her emotions overcome her, revealing too much before her own attempt to run away from the King.


King Mongkut was shown to be smart and reform-minded, trying to modernize Siam and incorporate Western-style education in his court. However he was often concerned about threats to his power from colonial Europeans, and he wanted to hold onto some Siamese traditions like having multiple royal wives, and having servants prostrate themselves on the floor. He argues often with Anna and loses his temper, though they do become friendly and he finally agrees to give her the house she requested. Their one big dispute is over the punishment of Tuptim for running away, and he asserts that he wants to rule his way, not a European way.

After reading the real life biographies, I can see why people in Thailand still object to this portrayal of their historical king, since some parts of Anna Leonowen's story are disputed; possibly she was overstating how much influence she had at court and exaggerating bad stereotypes, due to her prejudices against Asian, non-Christian cultures. I'd expect that kind of Eurocentric viewpoint from a Victorian woman like her. Perhaps she was even sensationalizing the story she used for Tuptim in her memoirs, to sell more books. Apparently the granddaughter of Tuptim said that stuff was just palace gossip, not truth.

Of course it's nice that Anna is a feminist for her time, but to lecture the King about tyrannical ruling, while the British Raj is subjugating India, is blind and hypocritical. As for multiple royal wives, she only has to look to the example of Henry VIII, disposing of wife after wife and upending the church, to see that British kings could be selfish and unfaithful to their queens. Other kings had officially recognized mistresses, who might as well be concubines or extra wives. Anna smugly thinking her culture was better and more enlightened than the King's is faulty. There's a strange condescension in the show, in how Anna talks about how the King "tried hard" to be a good king, but didn't live up to his potential.

A shame that Hollywood preferred the inaccurate version to the attempts by Thai writers to correct the record.