One must never believe everything they see, or read for that matter. That would be very dangerous indeed. Theresa, usa hollywood portrays all countries and all people in the fashion it wants. Even its "own people and country" aren't immune to its misrepresentation for the cause of a movie. Censorship should be allowed to take place at a personal level, not by decree. Allison, usa anyone who knows Thailand and the deep awe and respect the Thai people have for their monarch will not be at all surprised the film was banned there. Jonathan Berger, usa/uk intelligent people will work out fact from fiction themselves. Banning by governments is very dangerous and at times shows the traditional character of oppression.
Anna and the, king / 2000 toyota 4runner rear Lift Gate diagram
S movies are based on lies. It 's no wonder that people say americans don't know history or geography. A perfect example would be the movie anastasia that came out recently. In the movie the romanavs are killed when the red army storms the palace and Anastaisa escaped through a secret hiding place. Now all you have to do is look in any history book and you will see that it says the romanavs were all taken to a room and shot. Alison, usa i wasn't going to comment since i haven't seen the movie but, after reading what others have said, i just would like to say, for the record, we have movies here in America for entertainment. I never expect to learn history from a movie (just as you can't use reader's Digest to write a report!). A very good essay example is Braveheart - i enjoyed the film but I never thought for a moment that it was historically accurate. If after seeing a film we find we are interested in the topic then we can research that topic for the facts. I don't think anyone ever intended the movie industry to be used as an educational tool - unless his or her intent was to deceive - which sadly enough has happened.
Get over with your pride western world, the eastern civilisation is much deeper rooted and ancient, all you have to do is to concentrate in your junior school history books. As a gesture of respect for Thailand, the other members of asean should ban the film as well. Since hollywood only understands profits, ten countries banning the film might get them to sit up and then in the future you might get greater sensitivity being shown for the culture of others. Phil Sim, uk, romanticism and fiction with a dash of truth has sold better than truth itself no matter which shredder version people may defend. But if you choose to represent the film as an accurate reflection of the truth then you should at least get it right. Freedom to information without this responsibility is meaningless. Joe puthucheary, malaysia most fact-based.
All of us give the highest respect to the royal Family. The kind of respect and loyalty the Americans do not understand and never will. Matilda vichianpujpol, Thailand, as a thai citizen, one of 60 million people who can die for essay their King, i think this is a right decision. We know banning this film will neither prevent this film from being shown in other countries, nor from being believed what is on the scene (which I think not many people do). This action is, however, a kind of a formal protest from Thai government as well as Thai people. Ruangvith Tantibhaedhyangkul, Thailand, to all people who are saying "this is just an entertainment, it is just a movie i have only one thing to say, it is not a mistake that shows the king wears green shoe, instead of blue. But it says the king and the country was in the darkness, and one wondrous western woman took them out of that darkness. If it is historically untrue, even though i am not a thai, it hurts.
They should have more trust it them. Please don't tell me everyone in Thailand believed everything they saw in Titanic was true and correct. Anil, hong Kong, hollywood commercialism and Thailand's respect for its royal family cannot be reconciled. Meanwhile, the whole debate is just free publicity for the film, good or bad. David Mandel, Thailand, i lived in Thailand for 8 years and know how respected this king. The story is inaccurate makes the king look a bit foolish. Also, they used a chinese actor to play the king. Anyone who lived in Thailand for any length of time knows that the Thais would take exception to a chinese actor playing the king. It is right to send a message of what is appropriate and not.
Anna and the, king
Daren, uk, that this movie is out in 1999 is a nhd disgrace to the world as a whole. It's portrayal of a culture as "exotic it's custom barbaric, thus in desperate need to be "civilised is reminiscent of the backwards ideas of Colonialism. Wouldn't we like to think that we are so far beyond such rudimentary stupidity? That said, i do not believe that it is right for the Thai government to ban the movie. Letting any government get away with determining what its people may or may not see will lead to a dangerous slippery slope. No government should be allowed such an undeserved privilege.
Pim Unalome techamuanvivit, Thailand/usa, it is none of the American or British public's business as to whether the Thai government wishes to show a movie in its country. They have their reasons, respect them, as you would hope your reasons are respected. I do not agree with Thai authorities. A movie is just a movie. I hope that people realise that. It is sad that the Thai government has no faith in their own people.
It's not pornographic is it? Banning a film because it makes the royal family look silly is pure censorship. Royal families need to look silly from time to time, it's healthy! I saw the film. It was very entertaining and quite beautiful. I have lived in Thailand and like the kingdom and it's people very much.
The film is not a history or a biography it is a historically set romantic love story and very entertaining. The Thai government has made a point by banning it but the Thai people will see it possibly on bootlegged cd's. A nice country and a lovely movie. Jack dugan, usa, hollywood always distorts the facts. That is why you get "based on a true story" at the beginning of films. Hollywood is entertainment, history is history. Hollywood will only ever represent the audience it tries to feed.
Anna and the, king of siam: The book that Inspired the musical and
Matthew, usa, thailand should have donated/sponsored parts of the movie to project siam in a father's better light. Such movies are cultural ambassadors. The "Last Emperor" did not detract from present-day china's glory; neither would a better-made "Anna and the king" have detracted one whit from Thailand's present status among the countries of the world. Dennis dey, usa, true, it is not the place of the American or British cultural machine to dictate what movies are suitable for citizens of Thailand. Then again, shouldn't that be the right of the Thai citizens rather than Thai politicians? Don't like it, don't watch. Naveen Yalamanchi, usa, of course the film should not have been banned.
Derek tonkin, uk, the life movie is racist and colonialist. That so many westerners don't seem to know that or if they do, don't take offence, is the real worry. John Bisaha, usa, should the United States government ban Fox's x-files because it depicts rogue, possibly alien cloned, fbi agents from time to time? I find it very odd that people who obviously benefit from Hollywood and the western culture are so quick to reject. It is only a movie "based" on the journals, nowhere does this movie claim to be fact. See it for what. Personally i don't care, jodie foster is an incredible actress, and a great representative of the United States when she is abroad.
sighted than herself. The government's ban on both the production of the film and its subsequent showing in this country is a protest against the insensitivity of movie producers in their quest for the almighty dollar. Happily, it may have backfired on them this time. The monarchy in Thailand is the unifying force that binds the nation and has provided invaluable service in times of tension. The release of the film in Thailand would astonish the mass of the Thai people, since it would only serve to undermine the monarchy. Unfortunately, you cannot possibly expect this cultural and historical imperative to be understood internationally. Most Thais I have spoken to, while fully supporting the banning of the film in Thailand itself, are perfectly relaxed about it being shown everywhere else in the world. This is how it should.
What is wrong with this world? It's being so politically correct that people cannot see the difference between history and entertainment. Maybe a movie about Thailand's sex markets, or the task of handling it problems with sexually transmitted infections could and would be more factual but would it be entertaining? Howard, usa, i congratulate the Thai government on banning the film. I hope India and other south Asian countries join hands and ban this film in solidarity. Malaysia or any Asian country should not have given permission to essay shoot this film on their soil. The west is playing a racialised politics card, the Asians should be shrewd enough to fight.
The, king, of siam Pdf - the best free software for your
Thailand's censorship committee has banned Jodie foster's latest film Anna and the king on the grounds that it is an insult to the monarchy and a distortion of Thai history. The story, made popular by previous versions in 1946 (starring Rex Harrison) and 1956 (The king and i, with Yul Brynner is based on the journals of a 19th century English governess, Anna leonowens, in the court of King Rama. The film, released in the uk, the us and Asia in December, was filmed in Malaysia because the Thai authorities refused to allow it to be shot in Thailand. The director of the film, Andy tennant, says it was shown to the Thai royal family and changes were made after the Thai film board rejected the final cut. But critics say that leonowens' exaggerated her influence on the king, a moderniser of old siam, and Western accounts of their relationship portray the king as a fool. Is the film a victim of political correctness or should Western filmmakers strive harder to get their historical facts right? Should mini the film have been banned? Will Hollywood take any notice?