FOUR SHIRES v THEATRE Bruce Cox goes to the theatre
THE KING AND I NEW THEATRE, OXFORD
Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein, as composer and lyricist respectively, were two of the founding fathers of contemporary musical theatre and their collaboration, which began in the late 1940s, went on to come up with a number of unforgettable productions that still delight audiences as much today as they did in their 50s and 60s heydays.
Each had written with other famous names in the history of the ‘musical’. From the ‘twenties into the ‘forties, for example, Rodgers collaborated with Lorenz Hart, while Hammerstein’s most- remembered earlier partnership was with Jerome Kern.
But in those days it was always a case of ‘music first, words next’
with the lyricist fitting words to previously written music. What made the Rodgers and Hammerstein pairing different was the fact that they each firmly believed (even the composer Rodgers) that the lyrics should really come first. This, they felt, would result in a show that would not just be a collection of songs. Instead there would be a proper storyline with the mood and the characters developing more fully as it progressed.
The veracity of this logic was unquestionable and success was the proof of that.
or over twenty years the pair produced hit after hit after hit - beginning with Oklahoma and followed by a string of other successes including Carousel, The Sound of Music, South Pacific and The King and I. These last two shows are currently on tour around the UK, with The King and I at both Royal & Derngate in Northampton and Oxford’s New Theatre. In the weeks to come South Pacific will be at the Waterside Theatre, Aylesbury from May 15th to 26th, while the final dates for The King and I are from May 1st to 5th at Birmingham’s Hippodrome.
As I mentioned in the recent review of South Pacific, Rodgers and
66 FOUR SHIRES v MARCH 2012
Hammerstein had the magical ability to write songs that transcended their musical theatre context to become ‘standards’ in the wider world of music per se. From The King and I came ‘I Whistle a Happy Tune’, Getting to Know You and, of course, Shall We Dance? Many of the duo’s stage musicals also converted perfectly into major films. The King and I was one of these and it is almost universally remembered for the shaven-headed Yul Brynner, a fashion statement of about forty years ahead of his time.
The Russian actor only made one minor film with his full head of hair before shaving his head to take the role of King Mongkut of Siam in The King and I on screen in 1956. From that point on ‘bald was best’ for the cinematic icon. Whenever he was seen with hair in later movies, then that hair was a wig!
As well as winning the Oscar for Best Actor in the role of the King, Brynner also starred in the original Broadway stage version in 1951 and went on to make more than four and a half thousand more appearances on stage as the Siamese ruler and also won a Tony Award for his performance on Broadway and a Tony and an Oscar for the same role.
King Mongkut ruled Siam from 1851 until his death in 1868 and is revered as the most influential ruler in that country’s
history. In particular he was a clever diplomat who managed to keep his kingdom (now known as Thailand, of course) independent of Western colonial rule despite the presence of the British in the neighbouring countries of Burma and Malaya as well as the French in Vietnam.
International diplomacy, however, must have been easy compared to dealing with his 39 wives and 82 children as well as with the English teacher of those wives and children, the apparently formidable Anna Leonowens! It is Mongkut’s relationship with Anna that is the well-known subject of the storyline for The King and I.
Anna was an early feminist with a missionary zeal who later claimed, probably with some sizeable degree of truth, that her teachings led to Mongkut’s son abolishing slavery in Siam when he succeeded his father to the throne.
Whether there was ever a romantic relationship between Anna and King Mongkut has always been left open to conjecture but it was hinted at strongly enough in the musical for the Thai government to ban the film from that country for many years. Whatever the truth of the relationship, it is a story that has enchanted cinema and theatregoers ever since its first stage performance on Broadway in 1951. And it is no less
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84