The director made an effort in the program to assure us all that this story was fictionalized, and that she took the opportunity to teach the children of the beauties of the culture they were about to ridicule and marginalize. Ok, that shows my bias, but I don't know how else to respond when watching a stageful of impressionable minds supplicating to a statue of Buddha to help Anna stay awake for the scientific sewing of dresses even though she be only a woman and therefore unworthy of his interest. I get it. It's humor. I suppose the play attempts to reveal prejudice on both sides of the cultural divide, but it comes across as highly lopsided, and without supplemental information, these kids might walk away from this experience believing that all Buddhists pray to the eastern doppelganger to their western big guy in the sky. They might also believe that Anna was bringing progress, not imperialism in those bags that the young Siamese sailors unloaded from the dock. But, as Kayla reminded me, it would have made boring entertainment to have the audience watch the royal family meditate for 15 minutes onstage. Yeah, OK, I'll relent.
However, to provide some counterbalance, I streamed the more human Anna and the King through Netflix on my classroom Smartboard yesterday as I worked for free filing and organizing my classroom for the weeks to come. Here Buddhism and Christianity are portrayed in a more objective light. Neither East nor West is idealized, neither is villainized. This retelling is a more objective look at history. There are Buddhists who ask for favors as readily as their Christian counterparts. The civilized use barbarians to attain their imperialist ends and the barbarians are forced to make humane decisions. It's complicated. Jodi Foster and Chow Yun Fat suit me better than Kerr and Brynner, but even I recognize that this, too, is fiction. Both versions are stories, but we humans live by our stories. Does it matter to which ones we subscribe? I think so.
Interesting review. A couple of things gave me pause. First the literalness and the implication of wrong I sensed in your analysis of what is otherwise meaningless to most. I think there will always be those who do not give adequate weight to the things others hold sacred...and offense is often taken when none is intended. There are various levels of thot and understanding in every philosophy, religion, or expression of culture. The GREAT ones work on so many levels, not just the one I am concerned with. That you have taken the time to express your sense that the play/movie trivializes much more profound truths has merit. I think, however, that it doesn't have to...but can be a reason for more profound discussion about yet other levels of understanding whether it be about feminism, Buddhism, or Western Existentialist behaviors...even quaint localized religions. Second was your assessment of your WORK as...for free. I guess that meant you didn't receive any additional monetary compensation. I believe tho, that Monetary compensation, is one of the least important measures of our payment in our professions or our chosen endeavors. Even those who feel adequately compensated for their time currently may in a few years realize that their nest egg accumulated from that compensation has diminished due to inflation to the point that what was thot to be a more than fair amount has turned out to be in effect...all for FREE... I believe the real payment was the outlook you took away from the day you spent "organizing" your world. Comparing two interpretations of a story which everyone who sees them will eventually have to integrate, no, Synthesize into their own philosophy of life. Thanks Jen for evoking such synthesis in my mind.
ReplyDeleteHey Thotman--I appreciate your 'thot'ful response and willingness to dialogue here. I'm of two (or more) minds when it comes to giving weight to what others hold sacred. For one thing, if someone holds sacred a practice that is blatantly irrational to the point of causing harm I don't see the point of biting my tongue out of politeness. So I think what bothered me about the play was not the trivializing of something others hold sacred, but a general kind of misrepresentation of what actually is. I think The King and I is rather skewed in its perspective. It is partly this because of its genre--musicals are not weighty carriers of truth. And you are right, even with its light touch, it can be a launch for more thoughtful conversations on feminism, Buddhism, and even provide an opportunity for us to look at ourselves and our culture in an appropriately critical way.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I live (as I suspect do you) in a local culture that is quite religious and often shortsighted in its view of outsiders. These young kids don't have the perspective an adult might in interpreting the ironies and humor of the play. I've even had adult relatives argue for allowing prayer in school saying all people pray whether it's to Buddha or Jehova so why not? It illustrates a lack of awareness of what Buddhism actually is. (I do realize that there are Buddhists out there who probably do supplicate Buddha for favors). So I hope, at least, that some attention can be given to the way we present the world to these young'ns.
So the real question is whether or not I believe a play like The King and I should be performed. I'd have to think I'd be over-reacting to say NO! But I say yes with the hope that it would open up space for more authentic conversation. The theme of this musical is about looking past our presuppositions. I would hope this would come through. As for the comparison between two tellings of the story, I still believe the drama to be a superior place from which to launch these conversations.
Ahh, and you got me on my little whine about my employment. Truth be told I love my job as a teacher (something I reckon I have in common with either of the fictional Annas). I left my classroom with the peace in knowing the next week would function much more smoothly with my focus being on the kids rather than the swirl and stacks of papers and books.
I hope you'll keep reading and responding. Have you a blog of your own? Thanks again for the comments.
Jen, I just happened to pass back by, and seeing your response (which is just as delightful as your initial blog) I wanted to just reply to a couple of your well made points. Then I realized that you don't need my views on YOUR well made points, so I decided to instead just comment on the "prayer in schools" argument.
ReplyDeleteI suppose that many feel that since prayer was taken from the schools our society has gone to hell in a hand basket, and would like to make the false connection between those two occurrences. I like to say it's when they stopped using STEAM ENGINES on the railroads that caused the decline and fostered those negative changes. I have never been one to want prayer in schools, tho I do believe it wouldn't hurt our kids to be exposed to DIFFERENT types of worship, than those which predominate in any one community whether Jewish, Catholic or in the Bible belt. Funny thing about those discussions, tho, is when I ask if the Muslim kids should be allowed to lead when its their turn, I get a very hesitant reply. When you spoke of "lack of awareness" about Buddhism, I think you point out a common trend in all cultures. How aware are we of other faiths on a substantial basis?...I must admit other than having read the Koran once and knowing the five pillars of Islam, I am pretty ignorant of that belief system. Other than a college course on Comparative religions I know too little about Shinto, Hinduism, Buddhism, The Judaic Liturgy, or even the Catholic Catechism. Some of my views about The Society of Friends(Quakers)or Orthodox Jews ...come from the movies Friendly Persuasion and The Chosen. I believe they DO as you suggest create open space for "substantial" conversation, in which orthodoxy or comfort is not the standard by which ideas are judged. Surely you are correct in suggesting the Dramatic version is more substantial than the Musical, tho probably not as entertaining for those wanting (needing?) lighter fare.
Since you appear open to being of "a few minds" where sacred things are concerned. I would like to suggest that it is IN THE JUDGMENT about buying into what may be seen by others as " blatantly irrational"...that we are all culprits.
I think politeness should never be the reason for biting ones tongue, rather a careful determination of harmful, and offense and WHICH party should be offended... Which is so very subjective. In choosing WHICH agenda is worth offending another over, we ultimately must justify our stance with "logic". I have discovered in discussions about religion, politics, and social norms, neither side admits to their irrationality, nor do they (we) recognize their(our)own biases or emotional motivators. I often find dogmatism in nearly every such discussion, but do find an occasional individual who can hold strong beliefs without becoming intolerant or being totally without compassion for an alternative viewpoint. I believe the more secure we are within ourselves about OUR view the more willing we are to allow and discuss conflicting views, even if they MAY be hurtful to some other parties. Our willingness to consider ALL sides without prejudice is truly a rare gift. And even more rare are those who will adopt those "other views" or even the parts in them that are truly good.
Mmm. Yeah, we do not see our own biases or emotional motivators--our blind spots to be sure. This is where I see the value in meditation--breathing and beginning to look at these elements of our conditioning that bubble up. I really don't know if it's possible to change this about ourselves. However, I reckon I'll try. According to Joseph Campbell there really is just ONE mythos after all with about a thousand different faces. Maybe a recognition of this will help. (Wait a minute--am I agreeing with my brother-in-law who insists everyone prays in his or her own way so why not do it in school? No, I think not. So many paradoxes and contradictions. What's a girl to do?) The big distinction as far as I can see is a divide between literalists and those who recognize metaphor. I happen to belong to the metaphor camp. I cannot claim to know what is literally true--mystery.
ReplyDeleteI have never been very good at introspection, or for that matter meditation--finding too little there in the mental data bank to withdraw much. Instead My needs are found in reading, dialogue, and substantial discussion of vast amounts of conflicting information and experiences of the soul. Emotional events, whether tragic or immersed in beauty, that evoke joy, or the pain of self awareness.
ReplyDeleteI want to embrace my conditioning and sculpt it into what I perceive as the equivalent of the works of the masters. Campbell's scholastic view of Mythos collides with my need, my concept, of the pre-eminence of the INDIVIDUAL and my ultimate endurance thru time. I loved watching his interviews with Moyers years ago. I am force to ask if there are not many different Mythoi for every one of those faces as we morph throughout our lives. What, after all is all this philosophizing about if not to just find intense and lasting satisfaction, joy really, in our everyday encounters and expressions.
Victor Frankel said in his classic study of the Holocaust victims and survivors,(he was captive there for five years) (His book is In Search of Meaning), that Unlike the subconscious dependency in the psychotherapy of Froid, A more conscious motivator...The need to find purpose is the strongest drive in human beings. His analysis of those who survived, and those who didn't lead him to his "logo-therapy" which deals with the existential vacuum of the real and often brutal world. His analysis of our need to KNOW OUR END amidst suffering, and the many approaches to discovering that MEANING or purpose, has been a very worthwhile addition to those discussions.
Since I agree with you about the Prayer in School issue i think it should be safe to ask you...why is it important to you? what does it do in your life quest to feel one way or the other on that issue? Is it an important issue and if so WHY? If you agree or not with someone who holds another view, does that somehow contribute to your own position on it?
I recall once a Christian woman Walking out of a history class when we discussed Mesolithic and Neolithic culture and Neanderthals and Cro Magnons because as she stated so forcefully, the professor was destroying the faith of his class by contradicting the Bible's 6000 year time table. She forgave him for his heresy but not before he had asked her ONE very good question. After she had told him it was all a work of Evil, he said, WHERE did learn THAT? Her reply was unimportant (I think she said TV) but his response was priceless... after she left, he said, Well, then it MUST be TRUE.
He then leaned back against the black board and began a two hour lecture about the PARADOXES in life (your word above triggered this whole story) and our need to synthesize the conflicting input into a MEANINGFUL personal belief system. Your "what's a girl to do?" made me laugh. A very important question.
ReplyDeleteI think there are two types of people in this world. Those who divide things into two groups and those who don't. I believe Your use of the word BETWEEN and my preference of the word AMONG illustrate that. Most of us are raised in an either/or world. Black or white, all or nothing, love it or leave it. TRUE or FALSE paradigms that leave us constantly searching for meaning among Mythoi which require that same all or nothing judgment. Either the Bible is TRUE or it isn't. you are either pregent or you aren't.(what about if you were, you will be or you want to be? how does that affect TRUTH if time is not static or actually doesn't exist?) The pope is either of God or he's of the devil. So it leaves many girls(and guys) asking your profound question.
I am a spectral thinker. I'm afraid my moniker "Thotman" is more wishful thinking than reality. Remember the colorblind tests in drivers ed? (How) some students saw a 5 in the dots and others saw the word ONION. Some saw a 7 and others saw a 3 and still others didn't see anything but Dots? Well for those who see clear lines between ideas like School Prayer my way of SEEING is ridiculous, we see the dots differently, but no less real to each of us. I see in gray scales with broad swaths of GRAY which goes from darker to lighter in shade. Ideally I see Colors of the rainbow but I MAY be colorblind when compared to the NORM. And I am one of the few who recognize that double rainbows are mirror images and not in the same order.
So how much metaphor can be mixed with a literal view? Can we see God as only one or the other? Can I be in the dark gray area of the gray scale when it comes to prayer in school without being wishy washy or must I be dogmatic to be seen as true to myself? Can I find the trinity or an anthropomorphic god acceptable or must I see it as personal vanity? What will determine what I accept or reject unless I am constantly ATTEMPTING to make SENSE out of the many paradoxes I confront each and every day?
Is there just ONE truth? Is the Catholic idea of Mystery not an attempt to deal with the unknown...or our inability to PROVE truth? Ahhh too many questions for this one knight...Thanks for the exchange. There is a lot of time to finish these many thots. TM
Yow! Yes, a lot of questions. Good ones, to be sure. I don't have much time to respond right now, but I'll just do a quick reply and say that it occurs to me that all this writing I do is little more than an exercise in expression. You know there are moments when the words hit the tone you're looking for, whatever the emotional or human motivations are. I have some theories on those motivations that will need to be explored some other day. I believe I've just peeked under my original illusion that I've been looking for truth. I'm genuinely laughing at myself here. There are plenty of things I value and imagine give me a FEELING of purpose but the greatest pleasure comes from, dare I use the overworked metaphor, the dance. It's the dance of language and shifting perspective when writing, emotions and physicality in yoga, interrelationship and communication when teaching. SUBJECTIVE? Of course. Thanks again for all the provoking and engaging anecdotes and counter-perspectives.
ReplyDeleteI agree, it matters. But we must also realize that even our preferred subscription is wrapped up with lot of perversions! :-)
ReplyDeleteGood post!
Yup--no escaping the fact that all we can ever have is a view of things colored by conditioning and culture and a host of influences over which we ultimately have very little control. Anyhow, at its basest, my motive for writing the above post may have been merely that I was bored by a performance that seemed to delight so many others and I sought to sooth my sense of alienation by attributing some moral superiority where none was due ; ) Plus, I just like to hear myself think via a keyboard. Narcissism? Now you've caught me doing just that during my working hours. Let's not let that happen again!
ReplyDeleteNarcissism?...after reading so many other blogs, all I can say is...Probably not.
ReplyDelete@ Jen,
ReplyDelete! LOL !
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThanks for illuminating me regarding the play's prejudices. I love R & H music and I know all the songs by heart. Most of them show gender biases and polarization. Some are so insanely 1940s with their messages. However, the melodies carry them into the 21st century despite so many inappropriate and outdated ways of looking at the world. I appreciate your perspective.
ReplyDelete