MB UNIUD

My personal considerations about the film

1) I agree on the idea that Tuptim's execution is the strongest sequence of the film: the English and the Siamese cultures make themselves clear and show their biggest conflicts.

Moreover it is the only time when Anna fails in her aim: she not only doesn't only convinced the king but she makes a mistake and provokes the two lovers' execution; she has believed that Occidental  culture is necessary to Siam progress and that it has to be imposed immediately substituting traditional values and law.

Images about the execution are accompanied by shots of Anna and the king both praying in order to recall the different ways in which the tragic event is considered and the distance between the two protagonists, carriers of two cultures.

Now Anna understands Siamese culture is able to provide positive events, though slavery and strictness in the law. The concept is conveyed by the image of the Bible abandoned ashore, defeated by the Siamese culture: this is the reason why Anna doesn't receive solace reading it, as if she gives Christianity the guilt of the tragedy or if she doesn't find a sense in her creed longer.

Actually Christianity isn't destructive in Siam because it may revoke slavery or death penalty but it can't enter a foreign nation, with a different religion, and demand inhabitants to forget tradition, otherwise there would be  contradictions and failures, such as Tuptim and Balat's destiny;

characters sometimes repeat that everything has got a time to be realized: it can be considered a perfect answer to the question.

As for Tuptim I don't think she accepts her culture totally: her disobedience of the law proves it; moreover in the court she seems to criticizes the judiciary system when she states there's no point in speaking since she wont' receive a just treatment.

The serenity her face communicates before being killed refers to her hope for a life after death in which their love will be continue.

2) I agree with the consideration.

The film doesn't present one culture as superior than another one.

Considering Anna and Mongkut (who carry their cultures), they are both intelligent, skillful in discussing shrewdly and they both mistake; moreover Anna stands in front of the king: the detail underlines the sense of equality.

Another element that puts the English and the Siamese on the same level is the way in which people sit down at the table during the anniversary: each one is between two people of not the same origin.

The main moment in which the concept is conveyed is Anna's speech in the evening of the anniversary: she states that nobody can say which culture is superior and she is sustained by Mongkut's agreement.

Also when she speaks to Louis she never offends Siam or teaches him that it is inferior, believing it is different from England but equally based on solid tradition and principles;

However she never leaves her ideas, even if in contrast with Siamese culture.

As for religion, when Mongkut prays Buddha at the presence of his family and Anna, her stare doesn't reveal suspicion for a kind of superstition, but respect for a creed like Christianity.

Questions

- Who is the speaking voice?

The speaking voice is the oldest Mongkut's son.

- Why did the director choose that narrative technique and that speaking voice?

I think he exploited it to emphasize the importance of Anna's behavior in Siam: the spectator understands it was so high that stuck into the mind of a person who lived that time.

Mongkut's son was chosen because he put teachings by Anna into practice during his reign: her presence's consequences were very influential after Mongkut's death, when they reform Siam.

- What is the tragedy the result of? Why does it happen?

The tragedy is the result of love between Tuptim and Balat, who can't live their relationship because she is offered to the king as a concubine; Tuptim is condemned because she has breached the law, while Balat is executed though he is innocent: the tragedy is emphasized by the injustice the man received and by his impossibility of reacting.

Condemnations became reality because of Anna's mistake, derived by her creed and culture; the love tragedy became a tragedy concerning meeting cultures, as if they are destined to struggle.

- Why does the king let  the two lovers die?

At first Mongkut doesn't want to execute them; when he knows that Anna has spoken in front of the court saying she would convince him not to practice the law, he decide not to be lenient: he would show himself weak, ready to obey to a foreign woman. As a consequence the nation may start not respecting or obeying him.

- Which are the three most important topics? Why?

The most important one is "conflict between cultures": the relationship between the two protagonists is mainly characterized by discussions in which their cultures are put in comparison; moreover principles events are presented as shown in different ways by Anna or the king.

The spectator is provided an idea of "Siamese tradition" in order to understand the conflict with the English one.

The third great topic is "love", that also characterizes Anna and Mongkut's relationship.

- What is the connection among all topics?

I think that all topics remind of a common ground: the meeting of two cultures that can be perceived in all situations appearing in the film; as a matter of fact they always transpire from the characters's acts and speeches (in particular Anna and Mongkut).

- What is the central message?

I think the central message concerns the meeting of cultures; it can create unpleasant situations, incomprehension, struggle between people... but it is essential for the growth of individuals and nations.

The central message can be considered also in love: two people's relationship works when each of them always says what he/she thinks and isn't afraid of showing his/her real personality; also in this case there may be struggles, but, if they love one another, a strong sentiment would grow up.

- Do you agree with the consideration of the paragraph "MESSAGES"?

I absolutely agree on the idea that a right ruler is someone authoritative, who can keep law and order in the country, but who can also be lenient, and can address each situation to positive ends; however he can't be permissive and he has to make assure to be always respected and obeyed, otherwise there would be the risk of a nation where all is relative and the law isn't valid for everyone.