DISCLAIMER- While this review discusses the issue of racism towards Asian people, I (the author) am a white person, and I would like to make it clear that I in no way mean to speak for or over Asian people. This is an opinion piece.
Rodgers and Hammerstein’s “The King and I” is known as a seminal classic, a heartwarming story of a Welsh woman named Anna coming with her young son to the kingdom of Siam to teach the royal princes and princesses. However, today, with an increase in awareness over racism towards Asian communities, one can come to understand that the problematic undertones and implications of this text may be overwhelming enough for it to be left off the stage entirely. The production which I reviewed for this was a 2017 revival of the show directed by Bartlett Sher and Gary Halvorson.
Bartlett Sher and Gary Halvorson are a duo of white men, which already is a questionable choice for a show about representing Asian culture. This production seemed like a musical about Asian culture for white audiences. It did little to educate the audience about any actual Siamese traditions, and it seemed to only truly personify the white characters. As the show opens, the first impression of the Siamese people is of them loudly surrounding Anna, the main character, and begging for her riches, portraying them as poor and uncivilized. In terms of costuming, there were strange color choices of pale blue and white for the Englishwoman (a weighted choice for the only white woman in the play as it connotes purity and wealth), and fiery earth tones for the swarming natives. This gives the immediate impression of superiority in the European character, which is racist.
One could chalk up the reason for exaggerated and caricatured acting to the disconnect between theater acting being captured on a form as intimate as film. Obviously, in live theater, it is an actor’s responsibility to extend their performance to the back row of the theater, so to capture such a performance with a camera can be like a close up on a firework show: overwhelming. However, as the show progressed, the performances of certain characters such as the King of Siam and his general/advisor starkly contrasted that of the main white protagonist. The King’s accent was muddy, over exaggerated, and made his songs difficult to understand. Anna’s acting and singing, however, was allowed to be subtler and more nuanced, which leads one to believe that the director was playing up the caricature factor for laughs.
The way that the main white character with whom audiences are supposed to sympathize with scoffs at the mistakes the natives make in learning English traditions gives an immediate impression of imperialism. One can note that the subject she teaches is not specified, so it seems like the main purpose of her job is just indoctrination of western culture. There are few moments where she is seen learning from her students and their customs, though is supposed to have a very mutual, Mary Poppins-esque rapport with the children. Obviously within a teacher student dynamic, information is mostly going to be moving from the teacher to student, but in a play with such emphasis on the contrast of the cultures, she definitely could have learned more from her time in Siam.
The original production of this play starring Yul Brynner has a reputation for its racially insensitive content, for one because the main character was not played by an Asian person, and two because “Orientalism,” a focus on making Asian countries seem vastly foreign, was emphasized as the main political statement. In an interview with the director about the making of the play, he stated that “Only two people in the 1951 cast were Asian. We would never do that now. But the script itself was solid." While casting Asian people to play Asian roles is indubitably important, to call the script “solid” is a far oversight.
Throughout the play, Asian women are portrayed as naturally subservient, and the white protagonist is the only one brave enough to speak out against the king, which perpetuates a harmful stereotype that Asian women are submissive. This stereotype is still extremely prevalent today, with a recent shooting involving a white man committing racially motivated hate crimes within several massage parlours against Asian women. Centering the story around a white woman and her bravery robbed audiences of a strong Asian protagonist, something Broadway has far too few of. The princess character, Tuptim, has a side arc about wishing to run away from her oppressive family life and elope with her lover. This trope has been done many times, and each time reinforces the idea that Asian culture/background is a burden because of its heavy influence on patriarchal and traditional values.
There was little to no mention of colonization, which is a crucial oversight in a play about a European coming to Siam and teaching children how to be “civilized.” There is even a section of the play in which Queen Victoria gets word of the King of Siam being a “barbarian” and sends an Englishman to come review the palace to see if the rumor is true. The king's wives have to dress up in traditional english corsets and dresses, and serve English food to prove that they are civilized. In a modern presentation of this play, one would expect an element of irony, which was fatally lacking here. The aforementioned Englishman was portrayed as a polite, unbiased, kind man. If the character were portrayed as accurate to this time period’s Englishmen in terms of bias towards foreigners, this would have been made into a worthwhile statement on colonization.
The main grievances presented against the Siamese culture in this play are that it is patriarchal (the king has many wives) and that it is nationalistic (it is taught in school that Siam is the biggest, best country in the world). To contrast this to English culture from the 1860s and say that England is less nationalistic and patriarchal is simply false, as those are the two pillars that Eurocentric ideals revolve around.
Overall, this play not only gives poor impressions about Eurocentric ideals and stereotyping, but also it illustrates a larger point. When older plays written during times full of racist values get recycled instead of introducing new plays, it doesn’t just contribute to a continuation of said values, it also makes it clear that ideologies such as imperialism and patriarchy don’t need to be abolished, just modified for modern times.
Comments