Anna and the King – Review
Culture may be described as “the way of life of a people, the sum of their learned behavior patterns, attitudes and material things” as Hall points out. In the certain circumstances the most clear-up vision of culture can be seen in a process of elucidating a question about the differences between societies. This issue leads us to the Cultural clash situation, where a conflict arises from the interaction of people with different cultural values.
In the movie “Anna and the King” one may see many aspects of cultural clash as it shows the differences between two individual personality as well as different cultures. The main picture lies to the young king Mongkut who tends to reestablish his country into the western system of values. For this purpose he invites Anna Leonowens, a widowed British schoolteacher to give education to his eldest son. It can be seen that even in the first moment when Anna came to Siam with her son Louis to teach the children of the King, as she later finds out. The picture in Siam was very diverse there but as a person from monochromic culture Anna seemed to be ready for the first impression. Nevertheless her disappointment was inevitable after she demanded to see the King himself.
Firstly she is presented to the Prime Minister who asks her personal questions in spite of Anna’s concerns with the fullness of her contract. As Anna starts to talk out loud about feeling offended but those personal questions Prime Minister answers in English and begins to introduce her about Siamese customs which is new for Anna. This episode highlights the difference between direct and indirect cultures. While Anna insists on immediately moving into the house outside the palace walls that was promised her, the Prime Minister tells her that in Siam all things have their own time. Anna is forced to get along with indirect language and implicit meanings. Another unusual thing for her is that in spite of being a woman, she is addressed as “Sir” because of the tradition in Siam that women who are lower, do not stand up in the attendance of the men. This is very contradiction for Anna as she is from individualist culture.
Second important episode is the first meeting with the King which clearly shows culture clashed between monochromic and polychromic cultures as well as those of linear and non-linear ones. Anna is direct person she says what she thinks, she has a strong character. She is ready to do what she believes so when the King decides to end the audience before listening to Anna's request, she ignores the Siamese protocol and addresses the King directly. When Anna introduces herself as the requested schoolteacher, the King treats her with restraint because in Siamese culture wisdom is connected with old age and male gender as it is typical for collectivist cultures. Because of that the king is skeptical. Anna challenges this assumption, as in her culture status is achieved rather than qualified.
The importance of the interpretation of status is continued in the episode of the royal school when Prince Chulalongkorn was made fun by Louis, Anna’s son, what lead to the fight. From the Siamese point of view the Prince, although still a child, is graded higher in the social pyramid than Louis. For Louis, on the other hand, Prince Chulalongkorn is just another boy, equal to him.
The movie rises another important question about slavery which is expressed in the contradiction between individualist and collectivist cultures. Anna discovers a chained slave in the backyard of a noblewoman's house. She complains to the Prime Minister about this issue and then buys the slave's freedom with her wedding ring. At an audience with the King the noblewoman accuses Anna of tricking her. The King's sarcastic reaction to the noblewoman shows that he is slowly adjusting to some of Anna's Western values. The law in Siam is not something universally binding - it all depends on who you are and who you know. As the King says, in the Siamese judicial system noblemen have more rights than the lower classes. Slaves seem to have almost no rights at all. This refers to the power distance - the extent to which the lower ranking individuals of a society accept and expect that power is distributed unequally.