Q 1. Lakhon Phuut is the equivalent of the western theatre based on the Greek model and the dialogue is spoken rather than sung. It is the most modern of Thailand theatre traditions and it is the most popular in large cities. The history of Thailand has influences on the Lakhon Phuut in which the mainstream of Thai traditional music is a composite of several cultures. Thai music itself is blended with Chinese, Indian, and Khmer music. Thai music was learned and handed down from master to pupil by the oral or rote method. Recently, this has not been the case since Thai music today is influenced heavily by Western music and theatre.
The upper class and the common people of Thailand took an interest in the musical arts. However, once the monarchy was overthrown in 1932, the royalty and nobility were downgraded in power and ceased to exist as focal points of cultural activity. Thus, any young person who wanted to play an instrument had to attach themselves to the household of a well known and respected player. This greatly increased the value of playing an instrument. I believe that the social perspective of valuing the performing arts increased more after the monarchy was overthrown.
Lakhan Phuut is most like the li-khe art since the Lakhan Phutt is spoken and the li-khe art is spoken while performed. Li-khe uses colorful mixtures of folk and classical music. Thai politics, melodrama, and slapstick comedy are performed as well. This is more modern and is similar to the western theatre arts. The language is very culure-specific and it is the most popular type of live theatre. I believe that it is the most popular because it is so specific to the culture, and this creates a solidarity for the audience.
The language of the people is important to the history of Thai. The Lakhan Phuut is helpful in conveying the rhetoric to the people and connecting the audience with the spoken history. The musical plays, in contrast, do not emphasize the importance of the "langauge of the people."
Submitted by Jenna Quinn
Yes, this is a nice encapsulation of the facts. To extend this essay, I'd like to see you do more speculating on the implications of this move away from traditional source material to imported Western narratives and themes. Is this ultimately a good thing -- a way for the drama to stay fresh and in touch with the concerns of the populace? Or is it a bad thing -- a cheapening of a traditional art form rich in cultural resonance to pander to a new set of indifferent conquerors?
ReplyDelete