How times have changed

In the 1950s, the film version of the hit Broadway musical “The King and I” did very well on its US and international runs – except in Thailand, where it was met with widespread disapproval, and in fact ended up being banned from general release.

What was the problem? The film was about the platonic relationship between the King of Siam (Yul Brynner) and the English teacher (Deborah Kerr) hired to teach the kingdom’s crown prince about the ways of the west.

That doesn’t sound all that controversial, but what the Thais objected to was the movie’s alleged caricature of their monarch, among other perhaps unintended infractions. It was felt that it wasn’t seemly or respectful, so public screening of the film was disallowed.

Flash-forward to 2011, and the recent showing of the “gross comedy” caper, “The Hangover 2,” which is also set in Thailand. The movie has a number of ridiculous and even shocking elements (a monkey nibbling on a chopped-off human finger, a zonked-out American having “penetration” sex with a transvestite chorus “girl,” etc.) and yet there was no public outcry.

How times have changed, indeed. In a less liberated or permissive time (as the case may be), the “Hangover” sequel’s many depictions of scruffy and scurrilous characters and activities in the streets and alleys of Bangkok would have been construed as reprehensible representations of life in Thailand, and thus open to censure.

New permissiveness

Today, however, those potentially disturbing scenes appear to have been taken in the comedic spirit they were intended.

On the other hand, the new permissiveness on the big and small screens has been ticking off some viewers, who feel that things have gotten out of hand, especially on the GP (general patronage) medium of TV, where viewing is unrestricted as far as vulnerable minors are concerned.

On a recent TV interview, for instance, a victim of assault and battery was asked if, before the crime was committed, he had had a sexual relationship with his attacker.

The question may have been asked to ascertain the “financial” context of the crime, but some viewers felt it shouldn’t have been asked at all during the daytime show, because it was too intrusive, and brought up sexual and gender issues that juvenile viewers would need a lot of assistance to comprehend or responsibly handle.

Another interview that raised some viewers’ eyebrows involved an older celebrity known for his multiple liaisons and close shaves with the law. He was asked to detail one of his more reprehensible encounters with someone he had victimized and he proceeded to oblige – turning off some viewers, who felt they were given “too much [unwanted] information.”

Yes, the revelation hit high marks on the “gossip meter,” but not everything should be discussed on the “GP” medium of TV.

Conclusion: It’s OK that the TV-film times have changed – and caught up with the real world – but let’s make sure that the change is for the better, especially where our children’s welfare is concerned.