Thinking about Orientalism through musicals - from Joseph to Miss Saigon

With my last exam tomorrow (whoo!) about literary theory, I'm continuing with my mission of making everything somehow related to musicals (it makes revision that little bit more fun). It all started when I saw Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat at the New Theatre in October. I had been studying Orientalism and thought that Joseph is an incredible recent example of Orientalism in action.

What is Orientalism? A good introduction is Edward Said's 1978 Orientalism which sparked the academic debate on what was once considered an unproblematic discipline of knowledge about anything that can be considered 'East' - from China to India to Egypt. Said's core argument is that what was presented as knowledge - whether in an academic texts, travelogues or just the background of works of fiction - presents a certain image of the East to justify colonial expansion and the suppression of the colonised, as well as a way of making Westerners feel superior. Many theorists have criticised Said for his essentialist, binary dialect between East and West, his completely ignoring women and his focus on high culture (among other things) but the general idea of Orientalism has become widely accepted and expanded on by many theorists.

So what has this got to do with Joseph? Well I was struck by the way a very stereotypical version of Arabs was played for laughs (I know it's a silly show for kids but still). There's a part of Orientalism where Said talks about American student putting teatowels on their heads and comedy moustaches and saying they were Arabs. I know it's common and not necessarily meant to cause offence, but Said would argue that this just perpetuates negative conceptions of Arab people, particularly as the characters also fit the stereotypes of violent, slovenly, greedy (although redeemed at the end by a very 'Western' Joseph). The women don't fare much better, either veiled or bellydancing, recreating the dual stereotype of Eastern women as either slaves to their men or exotic sexual objects happy to fulfil any man's desire. In short, I don't think Said would much approve.

 

However, this got me thinking - particularly when reading Rana Kabbani's Imperial Fictions which focuses more on the dual subjugation of Eastern women as both Orientals and as women - about other musicals that maybe counteract this Orientalist attitude, until it hit me: Miss Saigon.

So the poster may look like just another exotification of the Orient and its women, but on closer analysis, it seems to me that Miss Saigon counteracts much of what Kabbani criticises. Firstly, one of the biggest complaints about Orientalist work in relation to women is that it reduces them to nothing more than sexual objects, a homogenised blob of boobs with no identity. Just think of Ingres' Le Bain Turc:

Through the American soldiers in Miss Saigon this view of Eastern women is again apparent - they are objects that the men can buy and use. However, the musical itself opposes the views of its G.I.s. Through the show we get to know not just the protagonist Kim but, Mimi and the other girls, they have names, personalities, backstories. More importantly,  as Kabbani maintains, in Orientalist works, no-one ever questioned the availability of these women - it was a well-known 'fact' that they were incredibly sexual and lived only for pleasure. Miss Saigon paints a very different picture. Kim is a shy virgin with no interest in eroticism, who is forced into lap-dancing and prostitution because all her family are dead and she has no other way to provide for herself. The Orientalist view of Eastern women as sexually available has created a market for her to work in, whereas as 'just an intellectually inferior Eastern woman' she would have trouble finding work elsewhere. Even Mimi, who seems more overtly sexual, does not enjoy her sexual encounters with the soldiers but must do it for a better life. 

Moreover, the typical Orientalist view of Eastern women (and the patriarchal view of women in general), is of passive, even lazy, characters. That's why Kim is such an amazing character. She shows remarkable strength - both emotional and physical - to survive despite all obstacles and provide the best possible life for her child. 

It would seem however, that my view is not a particularly popular one. Read this for example from David Schlossman's Actors and activists: politics, performance, and exchange among social worlds. Miss Saigon is criticised - among many other things - for Westerners talking for Orientals who can't talk for themselves - another of Said's key tenants of Orientalism. I, however, believe there is a difference between wanting to tell a story because you believe it to be interesting and emotionally powerful, and telling a story to keep people subjugated, and for me at least, Miss Saigon is in the first category. Following that logic, you would never be able to tell a story that wasn't about your direct experience. In addition, the story is criticised for Kim needing to be rescued by her white man. Again, I believe Kim proves herself in the period when she must live without Chris, and that there is a difference between being needed to be saved and wanting to be with the person you love (whatever their ethnicity).

Maybe I'm just a hopeless romantic, maybe I'm seduced by the beauty of the music and the heartbreaking love story at its centre... I'm not saying it's perfect, but at least it's trying.