Date: 9th November 1998
Publication: Bangkok post (Thailand)
Section: OutlookFILM: Will a Hollywood film crew be allowed into Thailand to film a remake of The King and I - banned here since 1956? The National Film Board meets again today to ponder the question. Outlook asked a few people what they thought about it.
For the past few weeks, Twentieth Century Fox's planned film, Anna and the King - a remake of the classic movie, The King and I - has stirred a debate on the role of the Thai monarchy in the illusory world of celluloid. The studio's first application to shoot a film in this country recently got the thumbs down from the National Film Board. In its report, the NFB said the film portrays the institution of the monarchy in an unfavourable light. The story was written purely for entertainment and makes a mockery of the monarch, Rama IV, as the main protagonist, the board said.
If allowed to go ahead, the production would seriously distort Thailand's history. The NFB further reasoned that even if the on-site production could be regulated, the film editing will be done in the United States, where Fox's headquarters is, and will be beyond the Thai officials' control, with potentially damaging consequences.
The film has Hong Kong actor Chow Yun Fat slated to play King Rama IV, and Jodie Foster as Anna Leonowens, the English widow who came to Thailand to teach members of the Thai royal family in the 19th century. The film is based on American Margaret Landon's book, which in turn relied on material from the English governess' memoirs.
The story was earlier made into two highly-acclaimed Hollywood movies and several hit Broadway musicals. Anna and the King of Siam was released in 1946 and starred Rex Harrison and Irene Dunne. This version was shown in Thailand.
The King and I (see picture) starring Yul Brynner and Deborah Kerr was, and continues to be, banned in this country since its first release in 1956. The new production will not be musical and will portray the talent and vision of King Rama IV. The cost and other details of the production are not yet available. Thais have long been accustomed to standing up in cinemas as soon as they hear the King's anthem being played, and seeing portraits of His Majesty on the screen, working on royal projects and greeting his subjects. But whether they want to see their King portrayed in a Hollywood film remains to be seen.
The NFB is due to meet today to decide whether or not the film will be allowed to be shot in this country. Outlook asked a few people to shared their opinions on how the King should be depicted in film, and if he should be depicted at all.
ANAN PANYARACHUN former Prime Minister
The trouble I have with Margaret Landon's book or with movies or musical plays that were adapted from th
e book, is there are many historical inaccuracies. Starting with the fact that Anna was not even a governess. She was merely employed as a teacher to teach English to the children of King Mongkut (Rama IV). She had no role whatsoever in the making of the history of the Kingdom of Siam, particularly during that period. In the book, however, Anna was portrayed as very, very important to the history of Thailand. She even influenced King Rama V, who came to the throne later, to end slavery. That is not a historical fact. She also compiled bits and pieces of gossip from the palace and wrote up a story about a young woman in the palace who committed wrong and was sentenced to death by burning at stake.
It is true that in our history there have been some brutalities or misdeeds. But burning at the stake was never part of our history. It was actually a Western practice during the Crusades. I saw the original movie with Rex Harrison and Irene Dunne. I saw the musical production by Yul Brynner and Deborah Kerr, too. In fact, about a year or two ago, when I went to New York to attend a meeting, I also saw the latest production. I enjoyed both the movie and the musical plays. But you have to understand that I spent some time abroad. I was used to the idea of musical plays which are mostly fictitious. So my mind was prepared for that kind of adventure. I viewed The King and I as a musical parody. The theme was interesting. The music was first class and the acting was superb.
But most Thais could not separate the musical parody from the history of their own country, particularly that part of history relating to one of the most important kings in the Chakri Dynasty. We know how much we love and revere our monarchy. King Mongkut spent time in the monkhood. He was a learned man, a fatherly figure. He was somebody that we could look up to for having opened up Thailand to the modern world. Most Thais view him as a historical figure who played a very significant role in introducing new things to Thai society and in modernising the country. It will be extremely difficult for them to understand that the production (about the king) is merely a musical parody.
The question that arose in my mind is could this story be adapted to pacify the feelings or concerns of the Thai people? I have my own doubts because it is not just the script that bothers me but the whole theme. The plot glorifies Anna and her perceived role by the author, her influence over the court, especially the young crown prince who later became King Rama V.
My contention is that Anna never had such a role. The historical fact is that she had a very minute role. She was just an English teacher. I doubt if she ever had an audience with the King. It is, therefore, the plot that must be changed. But if you kill the plot, then it is no longer Anna and the King of Siam as it was meant to be. If there is some way that you have a bold announcement or subtitle at the start of the film saying that this story is not based on the history of Thailand, that it was fiction perhaps based on bits and pieces of history, then you would know from the beginning and would prepare yourself to read it as fiction. That might go a long way to pacifying the Thais.
Although I think most foreigners who see the film or play would not be swayed by the historical inaccuracies, there are two things that you have to bear in mind. Those who see it may say that this is not modern-day Thailand. But there may be lingering doubts in their mind that this is what happened in Thailand over 100 years ago. Here is the difficulty. The truth is, it never happened in Thailand.
SULAK SIVARAKSA social critic, twice charged and acquitted of lese majeste
The King
and I is just a historical romance, so why the fuss? I don't think the story is disrespectful toward the monarchy. It simply shows that a sense of humour is a natural trait of every human being. The present king himself is quite liberal about it: he made a joke to the producer in Hollywood during his visit to the States in the sixties.
The main problem has to do with the way history is taught: it has consistently been geared toward building nationalism and giving high, often blind, praise to the establishment. I understand the effect well, having myself been raised in a conservative environment. The first time I saw the show, I was pretty upset myself.
By the way, most of our history textbooks are not factual. For example, the part on the development of the constitution and the parliament do not mention how Pridi Banomyong helped protect the institution of the monarchy. That, I will say, is horrid. But fussing about a romance? I don't see the logic.
There is a certain element in the society - the arch-dictator type - who want to claim legitimacy by presenting themselves as very loyal to the King. But by being over-protective, saying that the institution is untouchable, they have accordingly shut out the King from the majority of the people. They should let people speak openly. Their reactionary approach may only encourage underground communications - faxes and emails - which are even more disrespectful.
The present law on lese majeste poses a heavy threat. The terms of punishment were increased to three to fifteen years' imprisonment (before it was 0 to 3 years' imprisonment) following the students' massacre in 1976. That means if you were found guilty, you'd be jailed no matter what. Compared to the other case I am going through - that I obstructed the state's Yadana gas pipeline project - the maximum punishment is six months' imprisonment with the possibility of a reprimand.
WILLIAM WARREN long-time American expatriate writer on Thailand
I don
't think people in America think the story is true; more like a fairytale story. But I feel it's very misleading about Thai history. I wrote an article a long time ago on who Anna Leonowens really was (an excerpt will appear in Outlook on Wednesday).
In all, I think it would be wrong for the Thai government to officially offer help with the making of the movie. At the same time, it would also be wrong if they tried to stop it from being made here. There should be freedom of expression. People have enough intelligence to judge. They are aware that historical movies are mostly not true anyhow. But the producers should make it clear, from the beginning of the film, that this is a romance and not based on a true story."
PATRAVADI MECHUDHON actress
Twentieth Century Fox has already contacted me to appear in its Anna and the King project, but they haven't specifie
d what my role would be. Over the past few years I've been turning down film-makers' proposals a lot beause I've been too busy with my theatre projects. But if the Thai government approves the new film, I might accept their proposal.
I haven't seen the script yet, so I can't comment on whether or not the Thai government should approve it or not. However, in the movie business what you finally see on the screen does not only come from the script. It is all to do with the way the material is presented. The film's director plays a very important role.
One of my students saw the latest Broadway production, with Lou Diamond Phillips starring in it. He told me this version was pretty insulting to Thai institutions. One new scene made fun of monks, even though the production used the same script as the old Yul Brynner version. This is a good example of how a director's choice of presentation and interpretation can make all the difference.
In my opinion, it's a good idea to allow 20th Century Fox to shoot a new version here in Thailand. In this way the Thai government can exert some control over the details. I actually appeared in The King and I in 1980, but it was an off-Broadway production. I played a dancer in a short scene, but it was not an all-star production. From my experience of this small role, I think the old script portrayed the Thai monarchy as a very significant and influential institution in Thailand. However, I can't say how accurate the script was from a historical point of view as I do not know much about the period.
There's nothing unusual about authors, Anna Leonowens included, writing stories based on their own points of view. So it's no surprise that most film and theatre productions of The King and I are from a Westerners' viewpoint. After all, the producers are usually Westerners. If we Thais want to see an historically correct version of The King and I, whatever that may be, then Thailand should produce its own version.
THONG-THONG CHANDRARANGSU historian and expert on royal ceremonies
Foreigners will never understand the Thai people's reverance towards their king. If you notice, in the TV soap
operas, monarchs (Editor's note: from the present dynasty) have never been portrayed. Thais have difficulty seeing their beloved king as a fictitious character.
I saw the Yul Brynner version in London. I enjoyed it as a musical comedy because I realised it was a form of entertainment, nothing to be taken seriously. Even His Majesty the King said he saw it in the United States. But some very sensitive locals may get upset. Just imagine this scenario: the production crew is busy shooting the film upcountry and some provincial folk see Chow Yun Fat acting as their king, how do you think they would feel?
There are quite a few historical inaccuracies in the story. I doubt if Mom Tab-tim was a real person. (Editor's note: In the story, Mom Tab-tim was Rama IV's favourite concubine who was burnt at the stake for her infidelity.) As a matter of fact, King Rama IV issued laws that allowed his concubines, except those who bore his children, to leave the royal court and remarry. He was very humane and far-sighted. He even invited Christian missionaries to carry out their teachings at Wat Bovornives.
KITTISAK SUWANPOKIN film critic
I haven't seen the film Anna and the King of Siam starring Rex Harrison. It was shown here decades ago. So I think th
e content of the non-musical [version of the book] must be alright. I watched the musical version with Yul Brynner on video. There is little doubt the movie admires the King of Siam, his foresight and modernisation policy. But some of the manners portrayed and other details in the film would offend some Thai people, particularly those sensitive about the way our monarchs are depicted.
The actor tried to make the king look great. But that was not the way Thai people saw it. They thought it improper. The greatness of the king in Thai people's minds is different from Hollywood's interpretation. When I watched The King and I, I saw their king not ours. I don't think it's crucial for Hollywood to shoot a remake of Anna and the King of Siam in Thailand. The crew would not be allowed to shoot in the royal palace anyway. The sets would have to be built, and it will be cheaper to build them in Hollywood.
DR CHARVIT KASETSIRI historian
What the book and other adaptations have right about the history of Siam is the fact that King Rama IV wanted to westernise his own court. He, therefore, hired Anna to educate his children about the ways of the Western world, whi
ch was powerful and more advanced in terms of science and technology. However, the book is not only factual, but also laden with attitude. It represents the views of certain Westerners who believed they were more superior and civilised, a view further enhanced by playwrights, movie producers, directors, actors and actresses involved in later adaptations and productions.
In the story, Anna is portrayed as a heroine who came to the East to educate supposedly babarian people - a white woman's burden sort of thing. How did we, on the receiving end, feel [when the film was first released]? I believe we had mixed feelings. On the one hand, we felt inferior and wanted to embrace everything Western. On the other hand, we believed we were on a higher ground in certain areas, such as Buddhist philosophy and culture. I think this mixture of feelings led to the original film being banned.
The irony is that most elite Thais, I believe, have seen it. We don't like the West looking upon us as barbarians, or the way King Mongkut was portrayed, but we like the music and songs. Thai contestants at Miss Universe pageants have been known to sing songs from The King and I, including former Miss Universe Apasara [Hongsakul]. What's even more ironic is while those wanting to remake The King and I have been denied permission to film in Thailand, another Hollywood movie, The Beach, has been approved. In an attempt to attract foreign money, and perhaps publicity from the lead actor Leonardo DiCaprio, we will allow Phi Phi island to be destroyed. I think both cases are stupid. If anything, they reflect the superficiality of the Thai elite.
[ Archives | Anna and the King | Homepage ]
