2006-10-22 04:31:25 · 7 answers · asked by math 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Royalty
It is banned in Thailand (Siam). The King here is thought of as near godlike, in this Buddhist society.
Anna and the King was the original book, then a movie in the 30s or 40s by the same name; The early 1950s "The King and I" with Yul Brenner, and in 2000 Another Anna and the King.
The story is sort of based on fact, but Anna taught royal children, but NOT the children of the King, and had no personal relationship with the King, according to the Thai.
To the Thai it is insulting to imply the King had a close personal/sexual relationship with the English school teacher.
The current King has been The King for 60 years. He is loved by nearly all in the country; a concept westerners find impossible to grasp.
2006-10-23 00:13:23 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because the Thai government (erstwhile Siamese government) believe that Yul Brynner's portrayal of the King of Siam was a mockery and held the royal house, and the people of Siam, up to ridicule. Which is a pretty good reason not to want to reward the people who made the movie.
2006-10-23 00:25:13 · answer #2 · answered by old lady 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Thailand used to be called Siam. The original title of the movie is Anna and the King of Siam. Perhaps this has something to do with it.
2006-10-22 11:34:02 · answer #3 · answered by Hamish 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It was determined by the government of Thailand to be such a gross distortion of culture and facts that it has been banned. Most of the story has been found out to be fabricated, anyways.
2006-10-23 00:32:57 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I never saw the movie, but I was in the play. It doesn't paint the Thai in the best light ever. Plus, their government is really strict about what it lets in. Maybe it's an effort to prevent culture saturation.
2006-10-22 11:34:08 · answer #5 · answered by Rat 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Probably because the film is a story not based on fact. It makes the King of Siam look pretty stupid and seemingly inferior to a woman, not something looked upon very favourably there. The story as far as the film is concerened is as follows:-
Mrs. Anna Leonowens, a widow from Wales, arrives in Bangkok with her young son to teach English to the children of the royal household. She threatens to leave when the house she was promised in the contract is not available, but is dissuaded from doing so when the King presents to her his children. The King eventually honors his promise of a suitable house. He also very much wishes to absorb western knowledge, but is sometimes conflicted over how to reconcile western ways with his own.
Meanwhile, a new (literate) slave for the king named Tuptim -- a gift from the king of Burma -- befriends "Mrs. Anna" and borrows her copy of Uncle Tom's Cabin. She transforms it into the Siamese ballet Small House of Uncle Thomas, which is presented amidst the welcoming of emissaries from Great Britain, making it clear she is unhappy being a slave to the King. After the performance, when she tries to escape with her lover Lun Tha, she is apprehended. Anna prevents the King from beating her, causing him to run away in shame and hide away for weeks. In the play, it is strongly implied that both Tuptim and Lun Tha are put to death, but in the 1956 film version of The King and I, it is suggested that only Lun Tha is killed.
Anna, thinking that she can no longer be of any use, is just about to leave Siam when she is told that the King is dying. She decides to stay in order to help his young son, Crown Prince Chulalongkorn -- her favorite pupil -- to rule his people.
Much of this story is fictional invented by Anna who lied about her birth and social position to get the appointment. There is no evidence that the king asked her to stay although after leaving for the first time she was in the process of trying to negotiate another teaching contract. Some of the characters in her original account of events in Siam were kiled although in the film they were not and as Hollywood tends to ignore facts in favouir of their version this is not surprising.
In later life Anna went to Canada and became involved in the suffragette movement. Her life was researched in 1976 when many of the inconsistencies in her memoirs came to light but this did not receive much public acclaim as the image of Deborah Kerr and Yul Brynner in the film had engraved a very strong image of Anna in the public imagination.
2006-10-22 14:08:14 · answer #6 · answered by quatt47 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They have an emperor
2006-10-22 11:32:38 · answer #7 · answered by smitty 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋