The King and I: Differences Between the East and the West

Paper Topic: Orientalism

THE KING & I

What will happen if two different cultures clash? Alienation, curiosity, and adaptation shall arise. The King and I gives us the many differences between the East and the West. Anna comes to Siam to teach English and American culture and customs to the people of Siam.

             Siam represents the East while Anna’s beliefs, mannerism, etc. represent the West. The East is known for its many religions, one would be Buddhism. The Western, on the other hand has Christianity. There are certain differences in the belief system of the two. In the film, women are property in Siam. Tuptim is a beautiful woman and is also a present to the King of Siam from the Price of Burma. She becomes the property of the king of Siam and obliged to abide to the King’s law. She is forbidden to leave the palace. Polygamy is alright to the East. The King of Siam has many wives and children. “A woman is designed to please man. Man is designed to be pleased by many women,” that is what the King said. The King when asked how many children he has. He answers that he has a hundred and sixty seven and he’s expecting more (5 or so). Christians / West on the other hand believe that for a man to be happy, he has to fall in love and remain faithful to one woman. Anna says that “For a man to be happy, he must love one woman and one man only.” Monogamy is what the Westerns believe.

            The East is also represented as uncivilized while the West is represented as scientific. The East wants to become like the West, to have technological advancement. The East seems to be very adaptive of Western culture. It seems that Siam is willing to give up their culture and tradition in order to achieve what the West has. During a party, all the Siamese women dress English costumes. The dining and menu are all English. Anna suggests to the King that it will be better if the one they will show would be what Siam really is (its delicacies, costumes), but the King insists that he wants them to look and become English.  Western are more scientific.

            In the East, there is the concept of monarchy; the King has the right to do anything to his people. He is then described to be barbaric. He has slaves and silences people not to speak out their views. The West has their democracy, where everyone is equal and Anna best represents this. Anna is free. Anna is able to say what she wants to say not fearing what the King will do to her. The King is surprised of her and says that she is a very difficult woman. The West is more expressive and free to say that they love someone. Anna’s son is very open to question her about anything, while the children of the King have limited talking time because the children always bow to him and have a minimum time to get real close. Human rights are valued by the West while in the East, there is no freedom. The little prince asked Anna, “How slaves are set free if their masters wish to keep them?” She answers that it would be possible by passing and enforcing a law. One of the most memorable line in the film would be “The question is not of what we want but what is right.” Slavery is still enforced in Siam until in the end of the film when the new King proclaims that there will be no slaves and bowing.

            The concept of being independent in the West is very dominant. This is the reason why Anna insists on having a separate house included in the agreement. The East has the notion that why leave if you can all stay together. All the wives and children of the King live on the same roof. Thus, Anna is surprised in the beginning and said that she wants a little privacy when all the women come in to her room.

            This film is not a story about love, but I really hoped that Anna and the King had stayed together and the King didn’t die. What the film’s story all about is valuing and giving importance to each other’s belief and culture even if they are very different and contrasting each other.

Perfumed Nightmare, Mababangong Bangungot

                                                                                                                                                               Third cinema is the cinema that recognizes in that struggle the most gigantic cultural, scientific, and artistic manifestation of time, the great possibility of constructing a liberated personality with each people at its starting point – in  a word the decolonization of culture.

        - Fernando Solanas and Octavio Gettino

Third cinema would be those films that fight the System, those which turn their back on and oppose the System. One film that fits the characteristics of third cinema is the work of Kidlat Tahimik, entitled Mababangong Bangungot.

 Third cinema is deconstructive and constructive. Mababangong Bangungot is deconstructive in such a way that it does not belong to any genre. It also destroys the fantasy of imaginary bourgeois universe (Kidlat’s concept of a beautiful and progressive Paris and New York) and the concept of the masses as lazy, indolent and dangerous (the people of the barrio are simple individuals; they are peaceful and very hard-working). It constructs living reality which recaptures truth. At the end of the film, Kidlat realizes the consequences of the promise of pasture and progression of the Americans and he is exposed to the real outcome of progress.     

In the film we are shown that the place is a colonized territory. The film showed two sides of the world, the simple barrio where Kidlat came from and the progressive city of Paris. When Kidlat came to Paris, he couldn’t believe what kind of world lies out there. He even asked his mother in his letter why their country can’t have progress like that of Paris.

Documentary is perhaps the main basis of revolutionary film-making. Mababangong Bangungot does not belong to any genre. It is more of a documentary which uses the thoughts of Kidlat Tahimik as narration (voice of God). It is not particularly conscious of the mise-en-scene, the construction of its framing and composition. It is like different kinds of footages tied up together with narration.

Revolutionary cinema provides discovery through transformation. Kidlat transforms himself at the latter part of the film. At the beginning, he is an avid fan of the Americans especially Wermer von Braun. “In America, I could become an astronaut; here I am only a jeepney driver.” These were the lines of Kidlat when asked why he admired America that much. In order to impose itself, neo-colonialism needs to convince the people of a dependent country of their own inferiority. In the end, Kidlat breaks this by insisting that he does not want to go to America, and he’ll choose his own vehicle no matter what. Third cinema should not only interpret the world, it should change it. “If the small chimneys worked, why the super chimneys? If the small markets worked, why supermarkets? If small airplanes worked, why super flying machines?” In this part of the film, Kidlat starts to question the concept of progress. He even starts to question his liking for the Americans. In the end, he starts to resist progress and the promise of green pastures in America. He chose his vehicle and chose his bridge.

“I am Kidlat Tahimik, I choose my vehicle and I can cross all bridges.””When the typhoon blows off its cocoon, the butterfly embraces the sun. The sleeping typhoon must learn to blow again.” These are some of the recurring lines in the film. There are so many poetic lines but these are the most significant ones. At first Kidlat’s father blew the strong wind to fight the Americans, and in the end Kidlat also learn to fight and blow really hard to destroy such a big myth about progress and his admiration to the Americans.