Film on Thai monarchy biased

I am writing this letter in appreciation of your article, A fiery Foster stars in new version of 'Anna and the King', appearing on Jan. 7, 2000, which presented relevant historical information as well as apt commentary.

I would also like take this opportunity to present to the readers of The Jakarta Post the following facts which are common knowledge in Thailand.

This film is not a historical piece with only minor narrative adaptations. Except for certain personages including King Mongkut, Prince Chulalongkorn, the Kalahome, Chao Chorm Manda Thieng, Anna Leonowens, Louis Leonowens and Captain Orton, the film's story is merely a fiction produced to suit commercial entertainment purposes.

The most offending aspects of the film for the Thai people are as follows:

- Portraying His Majesty King Mongkut as an immature, temperamental, despotic and irrational ruler whom Anna Leonowens could easily influence. King Mongkut was approaching age 60 when Anna Leonowens arrived. He had achieved wide respect as a scholar, scientist and monarch. Anna Leonowens was an English teacher to some 10 royal children (not the 58 that the movie portrays) and a few female courtiers. Her impact during her five years' service was so insignificant that her name was only once mentioned in Mongkut's correspondence -- he described her as "rather nosy."

- Portraying His Majesty King Chulalongkorn as a spoiled heir and a disobedient son whose later success was due to Anna Leonowens' teachings. In real life, His Majesty King Chulalongkorn was a responsible son and was, throughout his life, a universally respected member of his family.

He inherited his skills for public administration and vision from his father moreso than anyone else. The impact of Anna Leonowens on his education was apparently not profound -- he had to resume his English studies with Francis George Patterson during his first few years as king.

- Portraying the court of King Mongkut as barbaric, archaic and senseless. In real life, the court at that time was the administrative center for the kingdom and the training ground for the entire royal family.

- Distorting Thai culture, tradition and scenery. The attempt to reconstruct royal Thai ceremonies and practices simply failed, since the specialists for hire knew very little about the subject. Those with knowledge of Thai royal protocol were aware of their responsibility and refused to cooperate with the film producers.

- Suggesting that was Anna Leonowens enabled His Majesty King Chulalongkorn to preserve the independence of his country, abolish slavery, introduce religious freedom and reform the justice system. In real life, his Majesty King Chulalongkorn was well known for his honesty and integrity. Had Anna Leonowens contributed to his successful initiatives, he would certainly have given her credit in the same way that he honored Gustav Rolin Jagueman, the General Adviser who assisted him during the 1893 conflict with France. It is suspected that such suggestions reflect the jealousy of westerners who can not abide that an Asian nation has managed to preserve its independence and reform its own society from within.

This film can not simply be viewed as a fiction since it is based upon historical events and portrays historical figures. The film producer clearly has no sensitivity to Thai people or Thai history.

The Thai Film Board rejected the request by the film producer to film this story on Thai soil. The censorship board, comprising Thai officials and noted scholars, has recently rejected a request to show this film in Thai cinemas. Any government approval for this film to be shown would be tantamount to endorsing this Hollywood version of (departure from) a well- documented history of which the Thais are understandably and deeply proud.

CHEEVINDH NATHALANG

Information Officer

Embassy of Thailand

Jakarta