This is particularly interesting to me as someone who's seen The King and I as one of my first non-Disney musicals. I loved it then, and still enjoy it now, but can't help but notice it is dated....
This is particularly interesting to me as someone who's seen The King and I as one of my first non-Disney musicals. I loved it then, and still enjoy it now, but can't help but notice it is dated.
I love the classics, but is it time for an update? And can that even be done without changing it completely? Maybe it's just time for a new rewrite, but how will that look?
Of course it's dated. It's based on the governess's own memoirs of her time in Siam in the 1860s (which were then fictionalised as a novel in the 1940s, before becoming this musical in the 1950s)....
Of course it's dated. It's based on the governess's own memoirs of her time in Siam in the 1860s (which were then fictionalised as a novel in the 1940s, before becoming this musical in the 1950s).
We can't rewrite history (any more than it was already rewritten by the novelist and the musical writers). We can't suddenly turn Anna into an enlightened modern woman of the 21st century, nor retrospectively reinvent King Mongkut. She is, and should remain, a product of her times and culture, as is he.
It's a period piece, as much as 'Hello, Dolly' or 'My Fair Lady' or 'Oklahoma' or 'Porgy and Bess'. They're all attempts to depict characters and life as it was at the time (albeit dressed up as musical theatre).
I don't understand this whole "it's old so we have to change it" mentality. It is what it is. It doesn't have to be timely. It has to be entertaining, and a little bit informative. If we want to see a musical about modern racism and east-west cultural interaction, then someone should write one. Meanwhile, 'The King and I' isn't that musical.
Perhaps it is a little bit racist? I'd argue that if it is, then that is exactly what it has "to say to modern audiences" This guilty revisionism isn't going to correct the past as much as to hide it.
Perhaps it is a little bit racist? I'd argue that if it is, then that is exactly what it has "to say to modern audiences"
This guilty revisionism isn't going to correct the past as much as to hide it.
Of course it's racist. So are lots of period pieces: 'Gone With the Wind' and 'Huckleberry Finn' are just the two works that come most quickly to my mind. I'm sure there are hundreds of other...
Of course it's racist. So are lots of period pieces: 'Gone With the Wind' and 'Huckleberry Finn' are just the two works that come most quickly to my mind. I'm sure there are hundreds of other literary and theatrical works which depict historical racism.
And, as you say, we can't revise that history away. History is full of nasty bits. It's not all chivalrous knights and noble scientists. People were just as varied as they are now, with all that that entails. We shouldn't sweep our history under the carpet just because some people get a little bit squeamish.
I absolutely agree, if anything this type of work shows how much we have grown. If we continue to attempt to edit the past the things we have improved and made better in the present will be that...
I absolutely agree, if anything this type of work shows how much we have grown. If we continue to attempt to edit the past the things we have improved and made better in the present will be that much less obvious.
I don't disagree that the source material is of the period. However, if we want to stay relevant and reach a larger, more international audience, shouldn't we apply some criticism and possibly...
We can't rewrite history (any more than it was already rewritten by the novelist and the musical writers). We can't suddenly turn Anna into an enlightened modern woman of the 21st century, nor retrospectively reinvent King Mongkut. She is, and should remain, a product of her times and culture, as is he.
I don't disagree that the source material is of the period. However, if we want to stay relevant and reach a larger, more international audience, shouldn't we apply some criticism and possibly changes? (Though, I'm kinda a purist for the classics too...)
When I think of the more problematic parts of shows like The King and I, I'm not looking to update Anna's character, but the lens applied for the audience. Are there super insensitive things that can be updated - costumes come to mind. Are they still gross stereotypes, or can they be more historically accurate?
Personally though, I prefer a new show than rewriting an old one.
Who said that was the goal of this show? Not everyone has to watch every musical. If they're not interested, then they just don't have to watch it. Changing the costumes and sets is fine. Every...
However, if we want to stay relevant and reach a larger, more international audience, shouldn't we apply some criticism and possibly changes?
Who said that was the goal of this show? Not everyone has to watch every musical. If they're not interested, then they just don't have to watch it.
Are there super insensitive things that can be updated - costumes come to mind. Are they still gross stereotypes, or can they be more historically accurate?
Changing the costumes and sets is fine. Every production changes these. And having the Asian parts played by Asian performers (instead of a Russian!) is a necessary thing.
These changes don't affect the songs or the dialogue - and I don't think those should be touched.
Hmmm... I'm honestly not sure where I stand on the issue. I agree that we can't rewrite history and that Anna is a product of her time, but I don't think that means that the musical itself...
Hmmm... I'm honestly not sure where I stand on the issue. I agree that we can't rewrite history and that Anna is a product of her time, but I don't think that means that the musical itself shouldn't be changed to add a level of self awareness. Not sure how many of you have seen Mad Men, but it takes place in the 1960s where sexism was still rampant and overt. They did a wonderful job of portraying the marginalization of women but at the same time not condoning it and adding strength and dimension to the female characters. I could see The King and I doing something similar.
I also don't see musicals as being written in stone. They are constantly changing in subtle and not so subtle ways. I've seen Phantom of the Opera probably half a dozen times and they do make changes every time. The last time they came around, they made the phantom more of a sympathetic/romantic character and Raoul kind of a jerk. This was most likely because they wanted to have some kind of continuity between Phantom of the Opera and its sequel Love Never Dies. If musicals can be altered to fit a sequel, why can it not be altered to be a bit more timely?
How do you make a musical based in the 1860s more timely? Especially when it's based on a true story: Anna Leonowen and King Mongkut actually existed, and certain parts of their situation can't be...
If musicals can be altered to fit a sequel, why can it not be altered to be a bit more timely?
How do you make a musical based in the 1860s more timely? Especially when it's based on a true story: Anna Leonowen and King Mongkut actually existed, and certain parts of their situation can't be changed.
I'm not saying that Anna or her own perceptions should be changed since she is a product of her time. I'm saying that it is possible to show a character being ethnocentric/racist without agreeing...
I'm not saying that Anna or her own perceptions should be changed since she is a product of her time. I'm saying that it is possible to show a character being ethnocentric/racist without agreeing with it. King Mongkut existed but the barbaric way he was portrayed is through the lens of not only Anna but the time the musical was made as well (and the latter can be updated in ways that do not affect plot).
Why does the musical have to make a judgement about its characters? Why not just present them and let the audience members decide for themselves whether to accept this as entertainment or judge...
Why does the musical have to make a judgement about its characters? Why not just present them and let the audience members decide for themselves whether to accept this as entertainment or judge the characters for the racism of their time?
For me there's a difference between the characters being racist and the show itself being racist. The show can be self aware while having racist characters.
For me there's a difference between the characters being racist and the show itself being racist. The show can be self aware while having racist characters.
Because that's what tv shows, movies, musicals, books, etc. do? The original musical passed judgements on the king and his people in very unflattering ways. Again, I am not saying they should...
Because that's what tv shows, movies, musicals, books, etc. do? The original musical passed judgements on the king and his people in very unflattering ways.
Again, I am not saying they should change Anna's character. I'm saying they could change the way the other characters are portrayed so that it's less racist.
That's probably because it's Anna's story, told by Anna. It's her racist views we're seeing. So you're proposing a more neutral version, which isn't told from Anna's point of view. That could work.
The original musical passed judgements on the king and his people in very unflattering ways.
That's probably because it's Anna's story, told by Anna. It's her racist views we're seeing.
So you're proposing a more neutral version, which isn't told from Anna's point of view. That could work.
Mad men is a really good example of being truthful to the times and respectful to the subjects. Accurately representing would be to make these shows less racist. And part of the charm of live...
Mad men is a really good example of being truthful to the times and respectful to the subjects. Accurately representing would be to make these shows less racist. And part of the charm of live performances are to be different every time.
Could I suggest that you tag this as "theatre" and "west end", rather than "broadway"? It's about a theatrical production at the West End, not about Broadway.
Could I suggest that you tag this as "theatre" and "west end", rather than "broadway"? It's about a theatrical production at the West End, not about Broadway.
I don't know enough about theatre—does calling something "broadway" refer only to the location, or can it also be a style? I've definitely heard things referred to as "broadway musicals" and...
I don't know enough about theatre—does calling something "broadway" refer only to the location, or can it also be a style? I've definitely heard things referred to as "broadway musicals" and similar, but I don't know if that's really correct or not.
Broadway is, first and foremost, a place, even if there is a Broadway style of musical theatre named after that place. For tag purposes, we'll need to be able to differentiate between theatre on...
Broadway is, first and foremost, a place, even if there is a Broadway style of musical theatre named after that place. For tag purposes, we'll need to be able to differentiate between theatre on New York's Broadway and at London's West End - even though Broadway-style musicals are performed at both locations.
"Musicals" and "theatre/theater" are suitable generic terms. If someone's searching for posts about 'The King and I', they're much more likely to filter by "musical/s" than by "broadway" (they'd probably use "broadway" only if they wanted to read about productions of 'The King and I' at Broadway). Then there's 'Cats' - which is a Broadway-style musical but which started at the West End. :)
This is particularly interesting to me as someone who's seen The King and I as one of my first non-Disney musicals. I loved it then, and still enjoy it now, but can't help but notice it is dated.
I love the classics, but is it time for an update? And can that even be done without changing it completely? Maybe it's just time for a new rewrite, but how will that look?
Of course it's dated. It's based on the governess's own memoirs of her time in Siam in the 1860s (which were then fictionalised as a novel in the 1940s, before becoming this musical in the 1950s).
We can't rewrite history (any more than it was already rewritten by the novelist and the musical writers). We can't suddenly turn Anna into an enlightened modern woman of the 21st century, nor retrospectively reinvent King Mongkut. She is, and should remain, a product of her times and culture, as is he.
It's a period piece, as much as 'Hello, Dolly' or 'My Fair Lady' or 'Oklahoma' or 'Porgy and Bess'. They're all attempts to depict characters and life as it was at the time (albeit dressed up as musical theatre).
I don't understand this whole "it's old so we have to change it" mentality. It is what it is. It doesn't have to be timely. It has to be entertaining, and a little bit informative. If we want to see a musical about modern racism and east-west cultural interaction, then someone should write one. Meanwhile, 'The King and I' isn't that musical.
Perhaps it is a little bit racist? I'd argue that if it is, then that is exactly what it has "to say to modern audiences"
This guilty revisionism isn't going to correct the past as much as to hide it.
Of course it's racist. So are lots of period pieces: 'Gone With the Wind' and 'Huckleberry Finn' are just the two works that come most quickly to my mind. I'm sure there are hundreds of other literary and theatrical works which depict historical racism.
And, as you say, we can't revise that history away. History is full of nasty bits. It's not all chivalrous knights and noble scientists. People were just as varied as they are now, with all that that entails. We shouldn't sweep our history under the carpet just because some people get a little bit squeamish.
I absolutely agree, if anything this type of work shows how much we have grown. If we continue to attempt to edit the past the things we have improved and made better in the present will be that much less obvious.
I don't disagree that the source material is of the period. However, if we want to stay relevant and reach a larger, more international audience, shouldn't we apply some criticism and possibly changes? (Though, I'm kinda a purist for the classics too...)
When I think of the more problematic parts of shows like The King and I, I'm not looking to update Anna's character, but the lens applied for the audience. Are there super insensitive things that can be updated - costumes come to mind. Are they still gross stereotypes, or can they be more historically accurate?
Personally though, I prefer a new show than rewriting an old one.
Who said that was the goal of this show? Not everyone has to watch every musical. If they're not interested, then they just don't have to watch it.
Changing the costumes and sets is fine. Every production changes these. And having the Asian parts played by Asian performers (instead of a Russian!) is a necessary thing.
These changes don't affect the songs or the dialogue - and I don't think those should be touched.
I think the goal of most shows is to be viewed.
Hmmm... I'm honestly not sure where I stand on the issue. I agree that we can't rewrite history and that Anna is a product of her time, but I don't think that means that the musical itself shouldn't be changed to add a level of self awareness. Not sure how many of you have seen Mad Men, but it takes place in the 1960s where sexism was still rampant and overt. They did a wonderful job of portraying the marginalization of women but at the same time not condoning it and adding strength and dimension to the female characters. I could see The King and I doing something similar.
I also don't see musicals as being written in stone. They are constantly changing in subtle and not so subtle ways. I've seen Phantom of the Opera probably half a dozen times and they do make changes every time. The last time they came around, they made the phantom more of a sympathetic/romantic character and Raoul kind of a jerk. This was most likely because they wanted to have some kind of continuity between Phantom of the Opera and its sequel Love Never Dies. If musicals can be altered to fit a sequel, why can it not be altered to be a bit more timely?
How do you make a musical based in the 1860s more timely? Especially when it's based on a true story: Anna Leonowen and King Mongkut actually existed, and certain parts of their situation can't be changed.
Certain parts can't be changed, but I'm sure there's room for improvement. Isn't the musical a dramatisation of life anyways?
I'm not saying that Anna or her own perceptions should be changed since she is a product of her time. I'm saying that it is possible to show a character being ethnocentric/racist without agreeing with it. King Mongkut existed but the barbaric way he was portrayed is through the lens of not only Anna but the time the musical was made as well (and the latter can be updated in ways that do not affect plot).
Why does the musical have to make a judgement about its characters? Why not just present them and let the audience members decide for themselves whether to accept this as entertainment or judge the characters for the racism of their time?
For me there's a difference between the characters being racist and the show itself being racist. The show can be self aware while having racist characters.
Because that's what tv shows, movies, musicals, books, etc. do? The original musical passed judgements on the king and his people in very unflattering ways.
Again, I am not saying they should change Anna's character. I'm saying they could change the way the other characters are portrayed so that it's less racist.
That's probably because it's Anna's story, told by Anna. It's her racist views we're seeing.
So you're proposing a more neutral version, which isn't told from Anna's point of view. That could work.
Mad men is a really good example of being truthful to the times and respectful to the subjects. Accurately representing would be to make these shows less racist. And part of the charm of live performances are to be different every time.
Could I suggest that you tag this as "theatre" and "west end", rather than "broadway"? It's about a theatrical production at the West End, not about Broadway.
I don't know enough about theatre—does calling something "broadway" refer only to the location, or can it also be a style? I've definitely heard things referred to as "broadway musicals" and similar, but I don't know if that's really correct or not.
Broadway is, first and foremost, a place, even if there is a Broadway style of musical theatre named after that place. For tag purposes, we'll need to be able to differentiate between theatre on New York's Broadway and at London's West End - even though Broadway-style musicals are performed at both locations.
"Musicals" and "theatre/theater" are suitable generic terms. If someone's searching for posts about 'The King and I', they're much more likely to filter by "musical/s" than by "broadway" (they'd probably use "broadway" only if they wanted to read about productions of 'The King and I' at Broadway). Then there's 'Cats' - which is a Broadway-style musical but which started at the West End. :)
I just use broadway and musical interchangeably when I speak. Changing.
Edit: Guess it's already changed. Thanks @Deimos.
It fails to appease people who judge art as propaganda?
That's usually a good sign.