Orientalism In Hollywood Movies - Movie Review Example

 Orientalism In Hollywood Movies Introduction “The musical is- and always has been- America’s most political theatre” (Lahr, 68). The Hollywood musical “The King and I”, a movie starring Yule Brynner and Deborah Kerr, released in 1956, tries to unveil the concept of ‘Thai orientalism’ from the perspective of a westerner. A runaway success, and highly entertaining, the movie managed to create an impact that shaped a westerner’s views on Thailand, and its ruling house. Indeed a political theatre, this movie to some extent is imbibed with what Michael Latham refers to as the ‘post war ideology of modernization’. Here the lead actor, Yule Brynner’s role, portrays Thailand’s legendary monarch, King Mongkut, who had opened the doors of his country, to welcome the entry of western influences during his reign in the 1860s. However, the movie, which is an adaptation of the book ‘Anna and the King of Siam’ by Margaret Landon, shows a lack of in-depth research work and limited knowledge on Thai history and culture, has a tendency to highlight dramatic considerations, and being too Eurocentric, fails to depict the country’s history authentically. This article will do a film review on “The King and I” and examine how ‘orientalism’ is represented in this movie. It will explore the notions on ‘orientalism’ as given by Edward Said, and will study the movie in this respect. It will also examine the post war theory of modernization, which is very evidently represented in this movie. Body Post war theory of modernization in the movie: King Mongkut, a renowned monarch of Thailand, has always been ‘an usually attractive subject to study’, and is generally considered to be ‘a pivotal one in Thai history’ (Wilson, 164). The movie is based on a romantic relationship that develops between Anna Leonowens and King Mongkut, and it depicts the issue of modernization quite clearly. It shows certain nuances of reality, by depicting the pros and cons of trying to adapt to a new culture, as the king opens the door for the western world to enter. The movie shows Anna Leonowens, a highly specialized English-American school teacher, who is hired by the king to teach the royal children western thoughts and etiquette. As she initially crosses sword with the king, the movie shows how Anna saves the country from the tyranny of the non western ruler, by imbibing American modern values within him, thus ‘modernizing’ him in the process. The conflict between Anna, (who is influenced by the post civil war American thoughts) and the King, arises when there is a tussle of values and the latter cannot decide between the ‘modern’ and the ‘traditional’. Later the king puts his trust in Anna and makes her his political advisor, and after his death his son takes the country ahead in his father’s shown direction. Thus in the movie, “the ‘backward’ Siam is transformed through love and friendship, and the pre-modern is swept away in spectacular episode of song and dance” (Klein, 192). The movie in fact offers a novel idea, that of culture convergence, when instead of annihilating the opposite culture, both sides embrace to imbibe values from each other, and in the process Siam become ‘modern’ or ‘westernized’. Thus, we find that there is also a slight touch on the so called ‘nationalist’ feeling, in the movie, so as not to antagonize those who believe in nationalism, also to keep the Siamese people happy. As Gellner tells us, “if the rulers of the political unit belong to a nation other than that of the majority ruled, this for nationalists constitutes…breech of political propriety” (Gellner, 1). Here, Anne does not allow foreigners to take over, but manipulates the existing ruler (Mongkut) to become westernized. So nationalism is kept intact, yet the end is achieved. ‘Orientalism’ in the movie: As we had previously mentioned that the movie represented Thai ‘Orientalism’ from the perspective of an American/western viewer. Edward Said, in his papers ‘Orientalism’ (1978), opined that the way Europe represented the middle-east countries enabled it to exercise a stronghold over these very countries. According to Said ‘Orientalism’ as a concept that recognizes two different entities, the ‘east’ and the ‘west’, with a notion of ‘us’ and a ‘them’. The ‘Orientalism’ is used as an instrument by the west, as per Said, “for dominating, restructuring, and having authority over the Orient” (Said, 3). West is always shown as progressive, more mature and masculine, more prudent and enlightened. The east is typified as being unrealistic, primitive, immature and more feminine. So the entire idea justifies the act of western imperialism and western superiority over the ‘backward’ east. In the movie Anna (representing the glorious west) is the one with superior knowledge, while the king and his subjects, (the backward East) are inferior. King Mongkut is shown to be “a capricious, sometimes cruel and often foolish tyrant” (Jory, 203). In reality, King Mongkut, was just the opposite, a highly respectable, saintly and extremely intelligent person. In a true fashion of the ‘orientalism,’ the movie depicts Siamese culture in a derogatory manner, thus setting the base for that would ultimately show the convergence of both the cultures, with the west coming out as the superior one. When in the movie Anna gets rid of the old Siamese maps and replaces them with new English ones, it signifies the discarding of old Siamese inferior knowledge and bringing in a new, and a far superior knowledge from the west. When Anna in the movie claims that the Siamese are the “‘people who need me, people I can help’, she simply gives voice to the western pattern of thinking, which places them far above any ‘eastern culture’. Thus Orientalism in the movie very predictably shows that the ‘goals of the foreign community in Thailand were not the understanding of Thai culture … but the spread of Christianity, the introduction of Western customs and economic and political values’(Wilson, 181). At the end in the movie when Brynner (Mongkut) dies, and his son Chulalongkorn proclaims to move ahead into the western world, it signifies the dying of the old and unwanted eastern culture, and heralds the coming of a new kingdom that will function according to western terms and conditions. Thus, a complete misrepresentation of facts of what the real life King and son actually wanted to do for their country, in order to modernize it. Conclusion The movie ‘the King and I” is thus a weave in ‘Orientalism’, and the post war theory of modernization, with a slight hint of nationalism, albeit from the perspectives of a western, who had been taught to think that their culture is far superior than any eastern culture. Following blindly in the steps of ‘Orientalism’ the movie and the book wrongly depicts Thai culture and history, even distorting facts to make the west look superior. Blinded by their own sense of superiority the movie also mis-constructs what king Mongkut and his son actually meant by the term modernization. Thus, the movie may be highly entertaining to the western audiences, but its message stops there. It definitely cannot claim to showcase and represent true historical facts of the Siamese culture and tradition. Works Cited Gellner, E. Nations and Nationalism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1983. Print. Jory, P. “The King and US: Representations of monarchy in Thailand and the case of Anna and the King”. In International Journal of Cultural Studies Vol. 4(2), 2001. Print. Klein, C. Cold War Orientalism: Asia in the middlebrow imagination, 1945-1961. London: University of California Press, 2003. Print. Latham, M. Modernization as Ideology: American social science and “nation building” in the Kennedy era. Chapel Hill: university of North Carolina Press. 2000. Print. Lahr, J. “The Lemon Drop Kid”, New Yorker, 30th September, 1996. 68-74. Print. Said, E. Orientalism. New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul ltd. 1978. Print. Wilson, Constance M. “Towards a Bibliography of the Life and Times of Mongkut, King of Thailand, 1851-1868”. In Southeast Asian History and Historiography: Essays. Presented to D.G.E. Hall, pp. 164-189. Edited by C.D. Cowan & O.W. Wolters; with a foreword by John M. Echols. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press 1976. Print. Read More