Fox Gives Up on Thailand for ‘King’ Remake

The citizens of this economically battered nation have given up their luxury automobiles, their stock holdings and even their overpriced real estate.

But don’t ask them to sacrifice the reputation of their beloved King Rama IV, the 19th century Thai monarch immortalized in the West in two Hollywood films and the popular Broadway musical “The King and I.”

The studio chiefs at 20th Century Fox, who want to remake the popular tale with Hong Kong actor Chow Yun-Fat and Jodie Foster, learned this lesson the hard way after the Thai Film Board this week turned down the fourth version of their script.

Fox, which has tried for five months to respond to charges that the story demeans one of Thailand’s most revered leaders and is historically inaccurate, said Tuesday that it has decided to take its business to Malaysia. That Southeast Asian neighbor--whose government is under attack for imprisoning its political opponents and silencing the media--had given this project a green light weeks ago.

Filming on the movie, tentatively titled “Anna and the King,” is set to begin early next year. A Fox spokeswoman said the failed attempts to film in Thailand did not delay the production. The spokeswoman declined to comment on the Film Board’s criticism of the project.

Just the casting of Chow--an actor best-known for his portrayals of gun-toting gangsters--as king showed a lack of sensitivity to the Thai royal family, according to Thipavadee Manyati, director of the Film Board.

Poking fun at the king, which carries a punishment of three to 15 years in prison, isn’t Fox’s only recent brush with cultural imperialism in Thailand.

Protesters called on the Thai government this week to reject the studio’s request to film “The Beach” on Phi Phi Island, a pristine tropical preserve off the southern coast of Thailand. Environmentalists opposed the company’s plans to plant 100 coconut trees on the island, a national park, and to remove vegetation to create a soccer field.

Battle Over ‘The Beach’

But the Thai Film Board approved that request, arguing that “The Beach,” a film starring Leonardo DiCaprio, would bring $14 million into the financially strapped country and attract badly needed tourist dollars. Fox also promised to invest $114,000 to restore the island to its natural state. The Fox spokeswoman said the restoration will include placing moved shrubbery in its original location after filming.

The “Beach” battle may not be over, though. According to a report in today’s Nation, the Bangkok newspaper, environmentalists are sending a petition to Thai Prime Minister Chuan Leekpai--who is chairman of the National Environment Committee--requesting an investigation into whether national park law was violated by granting the film permit for Phi Phi Island.

Andrew MacDonald, producer of “The Beach,” said the filmmakers were being extremely cautious. “We’ve gone through a great deal of effort and expense to protect the environment,” he said. At the same time, he acknowledged, “To some people, it’s wrong that you’re there at all. I suppose that’s understandable.”

Economic enticements were not enough to win approval for the controversial remake of “The King and I,” which would have brought in much more money and featured some of Thailand’s most attractive palace architecture.

The Thai government’s objections can be traced to the 1946 film “Anna and the King of Siam,” starring Rex Harrison and Irene Dunne, which was loosely based on the memoirs of Anna Leonowens. She was a widow hired by King Rama IV, also known as King Mongkut, to teach English to his children and other members of the royal family. The 1956 musical version of the story, starring Yul Brynner and Deborah Kerr, is still banned in Thailand.

The Thai government objected to Hollywood’s portrayal of Leonowens as a pivotal figure who introduced sophisticated Western ideas to an arrogant and ignorant king and his household, explained Prathoomporn Vajrasthira, a columnist and international relations specialist at Chulalongkom University in Bangkok.

Prathoomporn said King Rama IV, to the contrary, was a brilliant man who imported Western teachers because he believed that knowledge was his country’s best defense against the encroaching world. King Rama IV, who signed the nation’s first trade treaty with Britain, is credited with opening up the long-isolated nation.

“Hollywood was successful in ridiculing Asian kings by having [King Rama IV] portrayed as a self-centered tyrant, with a limited knowledge of the world, whose eyes were opened by this Western lady,” she said. “But Anna was nothing. She was poor and not even that well-educated.”

Prathoomporn conceded that a “historically accurate” portrayal of the relationship between King Rama IV and his children’s governess might be a hard sell in an entertainment world dominated by sex and violence. But she argued that filmmakers have a responsibility to strive for accuracy even if it diminishes the more sensational aspects of a story.

“I’m afraid Hollywood wouldn’t listen to us,” she said.

By modern standards, the film business has a long tradition of cultural insensitivity. The Fox library, for example, also includes the Charlie Chan movies. Starring non-Asian actors, the movies were enormously popular in the ‘30s and ‘40s, but would strike many as stereotypical and offensive today.

Over the last several years--driven in part by the increased sophistication of the U.S. audience, as well as the growing importance of foreign box-office revenue--Hollywood has made some attempts at being more sensitive.

Farangs Have a Lot to Learn

Still, controversies persist and studios can find far more at stake than shooting locations. Last year, China banned both Sony’s “Seven Years in Tibet” and Walt Disney Co.’s “Kundun” from being shown there, because of their portrayals of politically controversial topics.

Location rights can be an issue even in the U.S., where, for example, the military often demands changes or withholds location rights to a movie it deems unworthy.

With “Anna,” Malinee Chakrabandhu and her sister, Supimda--the managing director of Oscar Co., a Bangkok film production firm--tried to help Fox walk the fine line between entertainment and exploitation. It was a particularly dangerous high-wire act for these two sisters, since they are the great-granddaughters of King Rama IV.

Malinee acknowledges that the Hollywood farangs, as foreigners are called, had a lot to learn about Thai history and the moral leadership exerted by the royal family. Even today, the king, Bhumibol Adulyadej, the world’s longest- reigning monarch, is a scientist who has devoted much of his life to improving the lives of the poor. He is widely respected and his picture hangs in most Thai offices and homes.

The original Fox script portrayed King Rama IV as a playboy surrounded by beautiful women, a depiction that would have deeply offended the Thai people, according to Malinee. But in response to early criticism, Fox hired a Thai historian to advise producer Lawrence Bender, and even agreed to allow a Thai consultant into the editing room.

She said the script has been dramatically improved, though a few minor historical inaccuracies remain.

She described a scene in which King Rama IV dances with the governess, an event that would not have happened because the king was not allowed to touch anyone except his wives and royal concubines.

“I suggested they change that to the king watching Anna dance with someone else,” she said.

Malinee speculated that the Film Board didn’t nix the project sooner because it couldn’t figure out how to say “no” politely. She warned that Thailand will lose any influence over the final product if it is moved to Malaysia.

Times staff writer Iritani reported from Thailand while Matzer reported from Los Angeles.

* RECORD IPO: Fox Entertainment Group’s offering is the industry’s largest. C8