| Singapore |
 |
 |
 |
| Written by Administrator | |
| Friday, 25 April 2008 15:16 | |
|
Last week we went to Singapore for 5 days on a visa-trip (to collect a new visa for Thailand). It was our first trip to the city and we liked it quite a lot. Yes, it is true that, compared to most other Asian cities, Singapore feels a little septic. I can't say we mind the cleanliness as some people do, but a little more Asian style street life would be nice to see. But in Singapore hawkers have been relagated to designated covered markets. The result is a very American look to the city: clean, the center dominated by wide avenues full of wooshing car traffic, and gigantic department stores lined up like beads on a string. But there are very likeable things about Singapore: it is well organized, it has a good, cheap, reliable mass transit system, it has plenty of trees and greenery, good air, and it has a great variety of local color. We especially liked the (Singaporeans say) slightly seedy Little India. Junko was thrilled to have a gourmet experience -- all Chinese provincial cooking traditions are well represented, there is also a great variety of other stuff: Malay food, Peranakan ("Straits Chinese"), Indian, Thai, Korean, Japanese, European, all of it very well cooked and served and quite (by first world standards) cheap. And it is presented in a variety of formats: buffets, hawker halls, food centers in every department store, classic Asian whole-in-the-wall and four tables joints, as well as very nice and very affordable high class restaurants. Singapore also has some high brow culture. We saw for relatively little money, Murray Perriah, and the Stuttgart Chamber Orchestra, both perfomances very good. We were especially impressed by how knowledgeable the audience seemed, quite different from some experiences at the NY Met. Could we afford it, we would have stayed longer, I think. It was quite a change to be back in BKK, our first extended visit (4 days). The city is chaotic, smelly, and expensive. And while it has some nice things to offer (the asian disordely charm, great food, shopping, and, some say, night life, especially of the horizontal variety, I am told), getting from one place to another is hell. (Roads make up 4% of BKK's surface area, as opposed to 23% average for major Western Cities). The monuments of BKK are of the Dinseyland variety, the Grand Palace reminded us of nothing quite so much as the Mysore Palace... except it had more glittering glass in the rooftops. Still, a trip on the Chao Phraya express -- a boat bus that runs the length of the city, is quite a lovely and pleasant diversion. The reason to hang about BKK was to see Khon, the traditional classical ballet theater of the Thai Royal Court. It is quite hard to see: one option is to see the 30 minute tourist digests offered by some expensive restaurants, which whets your appetite and leaves you wanting more. The Oriental has a show which is absolutely mesmerizing, even if is diluted with folk dances and a choreographed stick fight. Ever since I saw it, I have been wanting more. Another chance to see Khon is to see the National Theater productions, not really full length (3 hour excerpts as opposed to the traditional full 4 days programs which tell the whole Ramayana), but at least long enough to satisfy a deep-seated hunger. Alas, these 6-times a year productions are quite a disappointment. The dancing was actually quite poor: ensemble dancing was all out of synch, leading figues (Hanuman) failed in their attempts at the most basic acrobatic stunts, and the dance of Prince Rama, which is supposed to be slow and smooth and decorous, was jerky and undignified. But even worse, in my opinion, were the attempts to "relevantize" the art. Perhaps feeling that Khon must compete with popular cutlure (rather than offer an alternative to it), the directors decided to popularize it, introducing joker characters who emerged on stage playing soccer (and we thought we were safe from World Cup!), spoken dialogue, etc. Such misguided efforts dilute and adulterate the art form without really attracting new audiences. The hard core fan walks away disgruntled and the bused-in high school kids still prefer MTV anyway. Another disturbing aspect of the NT production was its attempt to infuse the play with some heavy-handed moral messages for the young. This is probably direct consequence of state sponsorship: state sponsored art must have utility, and the utility is to teach morals which the state wishes to promote, and the state wishes to promote, it turns out, what the committee can agree on, mostly vapid exhortations to avoid premarital sex and to do good for the community. Perhaps state sponsored art has to have an educational value, but this form of execution is a blind alley: the high school children find these attempts at exhortation even less attractive. I doubt any one of the high school kids there (they were half the audience) will want to come back. The whole art is at risk of becoming an exercise in futility. Now we are back in CM, in temporary digs at a hotel, next week we will probably move to the hot spring again, like last year this time of year. All the best to you all from Junko and Tom from North Thailand. |