The Rosa Parks Story (2002)

The Rosa Parks Story is a Lifetime Movie, an 88-minute drama-documentary that was shown on television and released on DVD in 2002. Directed by Julie Dash, and based on a screenplay written by Paris Qualles, this film is a (partial) biography of a woman, who is by now a famous member of the civil rights movement in the United States.

Rosa Parks lived to be more than 90 years old. But this film covers only the first half of her life. For information about her life after the Montgomery Bus Boycott, you must turn to her autobiography or one of the numerous books written about her (for some suggestions, see the PS below).

The cast includes the following:

** Rosa Louise McCauley Parks (1913-2005) – played by Angela Bassett
** Rosa as a child in 1924 – played by Chardé Manzy
** Leona Edwards McCauley (1888-1979), her mother – played by Cicely Tyson
** Raymond Parks (1903-1977), her husband – played by Peter Francis James

** Johnnie Carr (1911-2008), her friend and a member of NAACP – played by Tonea Stewart
** E. D. Nixon (1899-1987), president of the Montgomery chapter of NAACP – played by Von Coulter
** Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968), civil rights leader – played by (King’s son) Dexter King
** Clifford Durr (1899-1975), civil rights attorney – played by Mike Pniewski

** James F. Blake (1912-2002), a bus driver – played by Sonny Shroyer
** A registrar – played by Patsy Benson
** A librarian – played by Stephanie Astalos-Jones

[There may be a few spoilers ahead. However, all facts mentioned in this review are part of the public record, so they cannot really be described as spoilers.]

The film begins with a prologue and ends with an epilogue. In between we have the main story which is divided into four chapters. Here is a summary:

PROLOGUE – December 1956
Rosa and a reporter get on a bus in order to mark and celebrate the end of the famous Montgomery Bus Boycott.

CHAPTER ONE – 1924
In 1924 Rosa is a student at Montgomery Industrial School for Girls.

CHAPTER TWO – 1931-1932
In 1931 Rosa meets Raymond, her future husband, who is a barber. Secretly, he is also involved in support work for the Scottsboro Boys, nine African-American teenagers who are accused of raping two young white women. In 1932 Rosa and Raymond are married.

CHAPTER THREE – 1942
Rosa has her first confrontation with the nasty white bus driver James F. Blake. She joins NAACP and starts to work as a secretary for E. D. Nixon, president of the Montgomery chapter of NAACP. When she wants to register for the vote, she is rejected twice, but she succeeds the third time.

CHAPTER FOUR – 1955
In March, Claudette Colvin refuses to give up her seat on a bus. She is arrested for violating the law of segregation. The leaders of NAACP discuss if they can use her case to spearhead a campaign against segregation, but they decide against it because she is merely 15 years old.

On 1 December Rosa Parks has her second confrontation with James F. Blake when she refuses to give up her seat on his bus. She is arrested and spends one night in jail. When she is bailed out, NAACP decides to use her case in a campaign against segregation.

On the day of her trial, 5 December, African-Americans of Montgomery stage a one-day boycott of the public buses to protest the laws of segregation. Since it is a success, it is decided to make it permanent. It runs for 381 days. On 20 December 1956, the city and the bus company give in and the boycott is called off.

EPILOGUE – January 2000
President Bill Clinton honours Rosa Parks in his State of the Union address saying: “She is sitting down with the First Lady tonight and she may get up or not as she chooses.”

HISTORICAL ACCURACY
This film is based on a true story, but this does not mean that everything in it is historically correct. The producers of the film have used the device known as artistic license several times. Here are some examples:

 
THE ACTORS CHOSEN FOR THIS FILM
In chapter 1 Rosa is 11. For this chapter the producers used a young girl. For the other chapters and the prologue, they used Ms Bassett who was born in 1958. When the film was shot in 2001, Ms Bassett was 43. This works well with chapter 4 and the prologue when Rosa is 42 and 43. But what about the rest of the film? In chapter 3, Rosa is 29. Can Ms Bassett pass for someone who is 29? Maybe. In chapter 2, Rosa is 18 and 19. Can Ms Bassett pass for someone who is 18 or 19? No. She cannot. If you ask me, the producers should have found another actress to play Rosa in chapter 2.

The role of Clifford Durr is played by Mike Pniewski, who does not look like Durr at all. They have only two things in common: they are both white and male.

PROBLEMS OF CHRONOLOGY
When we see the film, we get the impression that Rosa’s three attempts to register as a voter took place over a period of perhaps three weeks in 1942. In reality this took place over a period of three years, from 1943 to 1945.

According to the film, the first confrontation with the nasty bus driver James F. Blake took place in 1942. In fact it happened in 1943. According to the film, Rosa walks home after this confrontation. She walks five miles in the rain. But when she finally gets home, she is not wet at all.

In the film, Rosa is fired from her job at a department store in December 1955. The owner claims business is slow, even though it is December and Christmas means extra business. The real reason, of course, is Rosa’s role in the bus boycott. However, in the real world, Rosa was fired in January 1956. The producers have changed the chronology for no obvious reason.

NAME CHANGE
In the film, we hear about a young black man – Elijah Banks - who is accused of raping a white woman. When I searched the internet for information about him, I did not find anything. However, I found out that a young man named Jeremiah Reeves was accused of raping a white woman at that time.

I think the producers decided to change the real name and use a fictional name instead, although I do not know why. All other characters in the film are portrayed with a real name. Why did the producers feel they had to change this name?

PRECEDENTS
Claudette Colvin (born 1939) was arrested in March 1955, nine months before Rosa was arrested. Claudette is mentioned in the film, as you can see from my summary above, but she is not seen. No actress plays this character. In fact, neither Claudette nor Rosa was the first African-American who refused to accept the law of segregation on public transport. Here are a few examples:

** Ida B. Wells (1862-1931) refused to give up her seat on a train in 1884
** Bayard Rustin (1912-1987) refused to give up his seat on a bus in 1942
** Irene Morgan (1917-2007) refused to give up her seat in 1944
** Jo Ann Robinson (1912-1992) refused to give up her seat on a bus in 1949
** Sarah Louise Keys (born 1929) refused to give up her seat on a bus in 1952

None of these earlier examples is mentioned in the film.

A FORGOTTEN LAW SUIT
According to the film, the bus boycott forced the city and the bus company to give in. But is this really true? It is certainly not the whole story. There is more to it. Claudette joined four other African-American women who had suffered the same fate as her in a suit that is known as Browder v. Gayle.

The four women are: Aurelia Browder, Susie McDonald, Mary Louise Smith, and Jeanette Reese (the latter left the case before it reached the court because of intimidation from the white community). The case was tried in a federal district court which found in favour of the plaintiffs (2–1). The city appealed to the US Supreme Court which upheld the ruling of the lower court.

On 13 November 1956 the ruling was announced, but Mayor Gayle refused to obey it until someone from the US Supreme Court showed up in Montgomery and told him to do so. On 17 December 1956 a motion for clarification and a new hearing was denied. And three days later, on 20 December 1956, Mayor Gayle was handed official written notice by federal marshals.

The city and the bus company gave in on 20 December 1956 because of the court ruling, not because of the long-running boycott. The city and the bus company knew they had lost. The suit Browder v. Gayle, which played an important (in fact a decisive) role in this conflict, is not even mentioned in the film.

A LIMITED VICTORY
When we see the film, we get the impression that the Montgomery Bus Boycott was a breakthrough in the struggle for civil rights in the US. By her refusal to give up her seat on the bus, Rosa Parks delivered the spark that ignited this momentous campaign.

When we look at the case from one angle, this impression is true. When we look at the case from another angle, it is not true at all. The victory of the campaign was limited and short-lived. There was a strong backlash from the white community. There were violent attacks on blacks and property connected with blacks in the following months and the city of Montgomery strengthened the laws of segregation in other areas.

The white community was not going to give up its power and privileges without a fight, even though the US Supreme Court had ruled against it. This backlash that followed the victory of December 1956 is not mentioned in the film.

CONCLUSION
Rosa Parks played an important role in the civil rights movement and her story deserves to be told. Unfortunately, this film provides a simplified version of the real story. Key elements are left out, because they might disturb the simplified version of events.

The story of Rosa Parks comes alive in The Rosa Parks Story. It is an interesting film, but as you can see from the above, it has some flaws, and some of them cannot be described as minor. Some of them are quite serious. For this reason I think it deserves a rating of three stars.

PS # 1. Regarding Rosa Parks, see for instance Rosa Parks by Douglas Brinkley (2000) (2005) and The Rebellious Life of Mrs. Rosa Parks by Jeanne Theoharis (2013) (2014).

PS # 2. Regarding Claudette Colvin and her case, see Claudette Colvin: Twice towards Justice by Phillip Hoose (2009) (2011).

PS # 3. Regarding Irene Morgan and her case which went all the way to the US Supreme Court, see Justice Older than the Law: The Life of Dovey Johnson Roundtree by Katie McCabe (2009) (2011).

PS # 4. Regarding Sarah Louise Keys and her case, see Take a Seat – Make a Stand by Amy Nathan (2006).

PS # 5. Regarding Jo Ann Robinson, see The Montgomery Bus Boycott and the Women who started it edited by David Garrow (1987).

PS # 6. Regarding Clifford Durr, see The Conscience of a Lawyer: Clifford J. Durr and American Civil Liberties, 1899-1975 by John A. Salmond (1990).

PS # 7. The following item is available online: 

“10 Women who refused to give up their seats before Rosa Parks” 

by Susan Ozmore, 6 June 2015.

PS # 8. Angela Bassett plays Coretta Scott King in the drama-documentary Betty & Coretta from 2013 about Betty Shabazz and Coretta Scott King, the widows of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

PS # 9. The Rebellious Life of Mrs. Rosa Parks is a documentary film which premiered in 2022. This film is based on the book written by Jeanne Theoharis (2013) (2014).

 

* * *

 

The Rosa Parks Story,

A Lifetime Movie,

88 minutes, 2002

 

* * *

 

Versailles by Valérie Bajou (2012)

This beautiful picture book about Versailles was published by the American publisher Abrams in 2012. It is an English version of the French original that was published by Editions de la Martinière in 2011.

The text is written by Valérie Bajou, a curator at Versailles, and translated into English by Antony Shugaar, an experienced translator.

The preface is written by Béatrix Saule, Director of the National Museum of the Palace of Versailles and the Trianon. The book is divided into four chapters:

* Chapter 1 – The History of Versailles

* Chapter 2 – The Château, i.e. the main building

* Chapter 3 – The Gardens and the Park

* Chapter 4 – The Château of Trianon

Chapter 1 is relatively short (merely 14 pages). Here we have mainly text and a few illustrations. The other chapters are much longer. Here we have mainly illustrations, but each chapter begins with a brief introduction. At the end of the book we have an index of artists and photo credits. There is no bibliography (for some suggestions, see the PS below).

FABULOUS PHOTOS

The photos in this book are taken by several professional photographers; all photos are supplied by an agency - RMN - which works with the administration of the Versailles Museum. In this way, all photos can be considered official.

In addition to the fabulous photos which show the outside and the inside of the buildings as well as the park, this book also contains numerous reproductions of the paintings which decorate the rooms and the halls of the museum. The number of illustrations is overwhelming. All illustrations are in colour, and the quality is extremely high.

Most outdoor pictures were taken on a nice summer day with a clear blue sky, because everything looks better when the sun is shining. But there are few exceptions to the rule. The Royal Alley and the Basin of Latona are seen in the winter season when the ground is covered with snow (pp. 342-343); and a black cloud is seen above the Orangerie (pp 366-367) and above the Basin of Saturn (pp. 418-419). These cases offer a good contrast to the many pictures with a clear blue sky.

As you turn the pages of this book, you will be transported to Versailles. You will feel you are visiting the palace, you are studying the furniture, the walls and the ceilings, as you move from room to room. After a while you will realise that you are all alone. There is nobody else around. The pictures in this book were taken on a day when the grand museum was closed to the public.

If you go to Versailles, you are allowed to use a camera, inside as well as outside, but this place is so popular. You cannot take pictures like the ones in this book. You will be surrounded by other visitors almost all the time, almost everywhere you go. You may take a picture of an important monument; but in most cases, other visitors will be visible as well.

A JOURNEY THROUGH THE PALACE AND THE PARK

The long chapters will take you on a journey through the palace and the park. Here is some information about what you can see:

Chapter 2 about the main building is divided into six sections:

** The King’s Grand Apartment

** The Hall of Mirrors

** The Queen’s Apartment

** The King’s Interior Apartment

** The Apartment of the Princes

** The Historical Galleries

Chapter 3 about the park is divided into ten sections:

** The Water Parterre

** The Terrace

** The Parterre of Latona

** The Tapis Vert, aka the Green Carpet

** The Basin of Apollo

** The Grand View

** The Orangerie

** The South Groves

** The North Groves

** The Basins of the Seasons

Chapter 4 about the Trianon is divided into seven sections:

** The Grand Trianon

** The Petit Trianon

** The Theatre of the Queen

** The French Pavilion

** The Belvedere

** The Temple of Love

** The Hamlet of the Queen

FAMOUS PAINTINGS

The last section of chapter 2 – the historical galleries – deserves to be singled out. This section covers more than one hundred pages (204-327). More than sixty famous paintings are reproduced here. In order to give you an idea of what the galleries have to offer, I will mention the following ten cases:

# 138, pp. 212-213, Emile Signal (1804-1892): The crossing of the Bosphorus by Godfrey of Bouillon in May 1097. Godfrey of Bouillon (1060-1100) was one of the leaders of the first crusade.

# 146, page 226, Carlo Maratta (1625-1713): A portrait of André Le Nôtre in 1679. Le Notre (1613-1700) was a French architect and the principal gardener of King Louis XIV.

# 165, page 257, Jacques-Louis David (1748-1825): Napoleon crossing the Alps. This is one of the most famous paintings of the French general. On the rocks below the man and his horse a few names are written: Bonaparte, the name of the man on the horse; Hannibal, the famous general from antiquity; and Karolus Magnus or Charlemagne, aka Charles the Great. Napoleon wanted to be identified with famous emperors and generals of the past.

# 167, page 260, Anne-Louis Girodet de Roussy Trioson (1767-1824): A portrait of Jean Baptiste Belley, deputy of Saint Domingue to the French Convention, 1797. Belley (1746-1805) was a native of Senegal and a former slave from Saint Domingue. During the French revolution he became the first black member of the French Convention.

# 179, page 289, Jacques-Louis David: A portrait of Pope Pius VII. Born in 1742, and pope from 1800 until his death in 1823, Pope Pius VII had a difficult relationship with Napoleon.

# 180, page 281, Robert Lefèvre (1755-1830): A portrait of Dominique Vivant Denon. Having accompanied Napoleon in Egypt, Denon (1747-1825) was appointed to be the first director of the new museum called the Louvre.

# 183, page 286-287, Etienne-Barthélémy Garnier (1759-1849): The entry of Napoleon and Marie-Louise into the Tuileries on the day of their wedding, 2 April 1810. Napoleon married Austrian Princess Marie-Louise in order to get an heir and in an attempt to forge an alliance with the Austrian monarchy.

# 194, page 307, Franz-Xaver Winterhalter (1806-1873): A portrait of Queen Victoria in 1842. Born in 1819, Victoria was Queen of England from 1837 until her death in 1901.

# 197, page 311, Hippolyte Flandrin (1809-1864): A portrait of Emperor Napoleon III in 1862. When France was defeated by Prussia in the war of 1870, Napoleon III lost his empire. He and his wife Eugénie went into exile in England where he died in 1873. Eugénie outlived him by several decades: she died in Spain in 1920.

# 202, pp. 318-319, Jean Leon Gérôme (1824-1904): The reception of the Siamese ambassadors at Fontainebleau by Emperor Napoleon III and Empress Eugénie, 27 June 1861. This event marked the re-establishment of diplomatic relations between France and Siam (Thailand). It took the painter three years to complete this painting, which was an official commission by the French government.

THE TRANSLATION

As far as I can tell, the English translation is excellent. I noted only one case where something is wrong. Page 330 is the beginning of chapter 3. A sentence on this page says:

“The Grand Canal, which began excavation in 1668, was used during the reign of Louis XIV for naval demonstrations and battles.”

Obviously, the Grand Canal did not begin an excavation. This passage should have been broken up into two sentences, for instance:

“Excavation of the Grand Canal began in 1668. During the reign of Louis XIV it was used for naval demonstrations and battles.”

AN IMPRESSIVE PLACE

Louis XIV wanted the palace and the park to impress and overwhelm any visitor no matter where he or she came from. It worked then and it still does today. In chapter 1, Valérie Bajou explains how, why and when this plan was born:

“It was no accident that the work at Versailles began in 1661, immediately following a lavish party given by Nicolas Fouquet, Superintendent of Finance, in honour of the king on August 17 of that year in his château at Vaux-le-Vicomte. To show off such opulence turned out to be a faux pas of the worst sort and resulted in the minister’s fall from grace. Wary of Fouquet’s power and influence, Louis XIV had him thrown into prison, then commandeered the skills of the team that had designed Fouquet’s magnificent château – the architect Louis Le Vau, the landscape designer André Le Nôtre, and the painter Charles Le Brun – to carry out his plans for Versailles.”

CONCLUSION

If you have been to Versailles, this book will be a wonderful souvenir for you. If you have never been there, you may still enjoy this book, while you think about what it would be like to visit this place.

If you care about art, architecture and history, Versailles is a good place to visit. With lavish illustrations over more than four hundred pages, this book offers (as stated on the back cover) “a visually spectacular tour of this palace of palaces.”

PS # 1. If you want a book to guide you through Versailles, the palace and the park, I can recommend Visit Versailles by Béatrix Saule (2012), which has an equal amount of text and illustrations. If you want a general history of the place, I can suggest Versailles: A Biography of a Palace by Tony Spawforth (hardcover 2008, paperback 2010).

PS # 2. If you are going to visit Versailles for the first time, you will need some practical advice. Book your ticket online one or two months before your visit. Show up early. And be prepared to wait in line, even though you already have a ticket. Every visitor must pass a security check and the process can be slow and time-consuming.

Once you are inside, be prepared to share the popular rooms with many other visitors, in particular the Hall of Mirrors. If you ask me, the administration allows too many visitors to enter the main building at the same time.

The park is large enough to accommodate many visitors. It will not feel crowded, even though there are many visitors here as well. The further you move away from the main building, the better is your chance of having the place to yourself. Many visitors do not have the time or the stamina to walk all the way to the Queen’s Hamlet at the far end of the park.

***

Valérie Bajou,

Versailles,

Abrams, 2012, 480 pages

 

***

 

 

 

 

Jens Engberg and Thorvaldsen's Museum

Thorvaldsen's Museum in Copenhagen.

Jens Engberg (a Danish historian born 1936) was professor of history at Aarhus University for thirty years (1976-2006). His field of expertise is Danish history in the nineteenth century, in particular the labour and or the socialist movement.

A major study of Danish cultural policy from 1750 to 1900 was published in 2005. The title is: Power and Culture. It is in three volumes and it is in Danish. In volume 2 there is a chapter about Thorvaldsen’s Museum (pp. 112-128).

Engberg does not write about the numerous works of art that are on display in this museum. He has another angle. His chapter is divided into two sections.

In section one he explains how the museum was established during the nineteenth century. In section two he analyses the famous frieze that is painted on three of the four sides of the building.

The museum was designed by architect Michael G. Bindesbøll (1800-1856), while the frieze was created by painter Jørgen Sonne (1801-1890).

The ground plan of the building is a rectangle. On the short eastern wall we can see the frigate which transported Thorvaldsen and (some of) his works of art from Italy to Denmark in 1838. From this point we can go left or right. If we go right, we can see members of the elite (the ruling class) who are greeting Thorvaldsen in the harbour of Copenhagen. If we go left, we can see the workers who are carrying Thorvaldsen’s works of art into the new museum.

Thorvaldsen is greeted my the Copenhagen elite as he steps ashore.

On page 127 Engberg offers the following conclusion:

“On the sunny side of the building and of life the frieze shows the prominent members of the Copenhagen upper class who are greeting Thorvaldsen, while they are enjoying his art. On the northern or the shadow side we can see the workers who - at the risk of life and limbs - are carrying the elite’s works of art from the frigate to the museum.”

There is a problem with this conclusion. The Copenhagen elite is seen on the long wall facing the canal. But this wall is facing north, not south, so Engberg is wrong when he claims that the elite has a prominent position on “the sunny side” of the building.

The workers who are carrying the works of art into the museum are seen on the long wall facing Parliament (Christiansborg). But this wall is facing south, not north, so Engberg is wrong when he claims that the workers have been relegated to “the shadow side” of the building.

The workers are carrying the works of art into the new museum.

Engberg has lost his compass. He has confused north and south. How could this happen? He must have visited Copenhagen many times, and he must have passed the museum many times. He could have looked at the sun to determine the orientation of the building. He did not even have to go to Copenhagen. He could just look at a map.

If you look at a map, you will see that the rectangular building is located along an east-west line, not quite, but almost. The short end with the frigate is facing east, the long wall with the boats in the harbour is facing north, and the long wall with the workers is facing south.

Where did Engberg get this mistaken idea about the sunny and the shadow side of the building? When I contacted Torben Melander - a former inspector at the museum with special responsibility for the ancient collection – he had a suggestion. He said Engberg probably read it in a book about the old Copenhagen written by Broby-Johansen.

Rudolf Broby-Johansen (1900-1987) was a member of the Communist Party of Denmark, who was interested in art and architecture. The first edition of his book about the old Copenhagen was published in 1948. Several editions followed. The sixth edition was published in 1986. On pp. 53-54 of this edition, there is a short section about Thorvaldsen’s Museum. Towards the end there are some paragraphs about the frieze. Broby-Johansen notes that we have the elite with Thorvaldsen on one side and the workers carrying the monuments on the other side. Then he says:

“No Marxist can say more wittily that the ruling class belongs in the sun and the working class in the shadow; on one side we have a celebration, on the other side hard work.”

This is the origin of the mistake. Broby-Johansen lost his compass. He was confused about north and south. He thought the long wall facing the canal was facing south, which is wrong, and he thought the long wall facing Parliament was facing north, which is also wrong.

Engberg read this political interpretation and used it in his book without ever checking if it was true. It was an unfortunate oversight, because it is not true.

Klaus Rothstein reviewed Engberg’s book in Weekendavisen of 30 December 2005. His review, which is available online, includes a passage about Thorvaldsen’s Museum where he says:

“The pictures of the ruling class are placed on the sunny side of the building, while the workers are toiling in the shadow.”

As you can see, this is an almost direct quotation from Engberg’s book.

When I contacted Klaus Rothstein and told him that the statement is based on a misunderstanding of the compass, he tried to defend himself saying he was merely a reviewer; he had merely passed on some information from the book, so he did not think that he deserved to be blamed for this.

Rothstein fails to remember that the task of a reviewer is not only to tell us what is in a book but also to evaluate the truth of every important statement. And this statement is very important, because it is the conclusion of Engberg’s analysis of the frieze.

PS # 1. I wish to thank my friend and former colleague Johan Bender, who kindly supplied me with copies of Engberg's and Broby-Johansen's books.

PS # 2. As far as I know, Jens Engberg is still alive. I wanted to contact him and ask him about the case. Unfortunately, I was unable to track him down. He retired in 2006 and nobody at his old institute seems to have an email-address for him.

* * * 

For more information about the famous frieze, see my blog:

Thorvaldsen’s Museum

 

* * *

 

 

 

The Oriental Bangkok (2013)

The Oriental Bangkok is written by Andreas Augustin and Andrew Williamson. It is a volume in the series about the most famous hotels in the world.

The team behind the book consists of four persons:

** Andreas Augustin is an Austrian writer, who was born in 1956. He is the author of several books about famous hotels around the world, including Sofitel Hanoi Metropole (2001), The Savoy London (2002), The Caledonian Edinburgh (2003), and The Imperial New Delhi (2007).

** Andrew Williamson is a British writer, who studied history at St Anne’s College in Oxford. He is the author of The Golden Age of Travel (1998).

** Chancham Bunnag helped compile an early biography of the Oriental, An Oriental Album. She was of great help in researching this book.

** Michelle Chaplow is a British freelance photographer. She contributed some of her portraits and still shots for this book.

The first edition of The Oriental Bangkok was published in 1996. Since then it has been revised several times. The latest edition (which has 160 pages) was published in 2013. This edition is under review here.

The book begins with a preface, signed by Andreas Augustin. The main text is divided into eleven chapters, which follow a chronological line from the foundation around 1876 until the beginning of the 21st century. Here is the table of contents:

Chapter 1 – ARRIVAL OF THE ENGLISH GOVERNESS

Chapter 2 – THE LAND OF THE WHITE ELEPHANT

Chapter 3 – GRAND HOTELS OF THE 19TH CENTURY

Chapter 4 – THE RIDDLE OF THE ORIENTAL’S OPENING

Chapter 5 – JOSEPH CONRAD

Chapter 6 – THE CONCEPT OF TRAVEL

Chapter 7 – WHEN NIJINSKY DANCED

Chapter 8 – MODERN TIMES

Chapter 9 – IN ARTISTIC HANDS

Chapter 10 - ITALTHAI

Chapter 11 – NUMBER ONE IN THE WORLD

At the end of the book we find a section called “Who’s Who at the Oriental” and an epilogue. There is no bibliography, no index.

Each chapter is illustrated with numerous pictures, drawings and maps. For obvious reasons old photos are in black-and-white, while all new photos are in colour. The illustrations are excellent. Text and illustrations complement each other very well.

The authors did a lot of work while preparing this book. They looked through memoirs written by people who lived and worked or travelled in Asia during the 19th and the 20th centuries. Some of them are quoted in the book. They also searched for articles about the hotel and ads by the hotel published in newspapers and magazines. Some of them are quoted in the book.

The History of the Oriental
The English governess mentioned in chapter 1 is Anna Leonowens (1831-1915). King Mongkut, also known as Rama IV, hired her to teach his children English. She worked as a teacher in Bangkok for five years (1862-1867).

Her name is controversial in Thailand because of the memoirs that she published a few years later. As the authors explain, “her memories proved to be rather a mix of fantasy and reality.” Several films based on her memoirs have been made in the west. They were all banned in Thailand “due to their real historical inaccuracies and the perceived disrespect to the monarchy” (pp. 18-19).

Anna and her son Louis Thomas Leonowens (1856-1919) never stayed at the Oriental, but they saw it as they arrived on a boat from Singapore in 1862. When Louis returned to Bangkok in 1881, he would often visit the bar of the Oriental (pp. 54-55).

“The Land of the White Elephant” – chapter 2 – is a brief history of Thailand. In this way the history of the hotel is placed in a social, economic and political context.

How old is the hotel? This question is discussed in chapter 4, “The Riddle of the Oriental’s Opening.” The answer is: nobody knows for sure.

A newspaper article from 1863 mentions “a boarding house for sea farers at the river,” but the name of this boarding house is not mentioned. It could be the Oriental. There was no other boarding house at the river at that time.

In 1865 a fire destroyed several buildings along the river, including the Oriental. This time the name of the hotel is mentioned in a contemporary source. So it must have been founded at least five or ten years before that date. But when?

The authors explain:

“During the 1970s the board of the hotel decided to end the uncertainty. They agreed that it would be questionable, not to say inauspicious, to use the burning of The Oriental in 1865 as it’s [sic] founding date. 1976 heralded the opening of the new River Wing and so, putting history to work, the hotel was declared a hundred years old.”

This is the official answer: the hotel was founded in 1876, and this is no exaggeration, because it is older than that. The 125th anniversary of the hotel was celebrated in 2001, and next year, in 2016, it can celebrate its 140th anniversary.

The Oriental is sometimes called the Mandarin Oriental. Why? The answer can be found on page 111. In 1972 the Oriental entered into a partnership with Mandarin International Hotels. Since that year the Oriental has been a part of the Mandarin chain, which operates five star-hotels all over the world.

Many famous people have stayed here: actors, authors, businessmen, politicians as well as royalty: kings and queens, princes and princesses. A list of famous visitors is available in the section called Who’s Who at the Oriental, pp. 138-149.

The list is long and varied. From Graham Greene to Michael Jackson to Queen Elizabeth II of England. One frequent visitor was the English playwright Noël Coward (1899-1973), whose impression of the hotel is quoted on page 35:

“There is a terrace overlooking the swift river where we have drinks every evening watching the liver-coloured water swirling by and tiny steam tugs hauling rows of barges up river against the tide. It is a lovely place and I am fonder of it than ever.”

You can still sit on this terrace and have a drink while you watch the river and the traffic on it. It is still a lovely place. If you have been there, just once, you will understand why Noël Coward was so fond of it.

Flaws
I like this book, but not everything is as it should be. There are flaws here and there. I am a bit surprised about it, because this is not the first or the second edition of the book. The flaws do not concern the history of the hotel. They concern the background information which is offered to give the account a broader perspective. Here are some examples:

(1) A footnote on page 36 mentions Anna Leonowens:

“In 1867, Anne went to live in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, where she became involved in women’s education, and was a suffragette and one of the founders of the Nova Scotia College of Art and Design… After 19 years she moved to Montreal.”

This passage is not quite accurate. Anna left Thailand in 1867, but she did not go straight to Canada. For a while she lived in the US. In addition, she travelled a lot. In 1881, she visited Russia. Only then did she move to Halifax where she was one of the founders of the local college (which was founded in 1887). According to the book, she moved to Montreal 19 years after 1867, i.e. in 1886. But this is not true. She moved to Montreal 19 years after 1881, i.e. in 1900.

(2) For 12 years (1881-1893) the Oriental was owned by three businessmen from Denmark: Hans Niels Andersen, Peter Andersen, and Frederik Kinch. The names appear on pp. 35, 44-45, and 54-55. The first of them is the most famous of them. However, in Denmark his first and middle names are never used. He is known by his initials: H. N. Andersen.

On page 55 we are told that Andersen was ready to sell the hotel, if he could get a good price, because he wanted to return to Denmark. The text continues:

“Andersen was happy to sell. He returned to Denmark in 1897 to found the East Asiatic Company along with I Glückstadt, the founder of Landmans-banken [sic]. Today it is the largest company in Denmark with branches all over the world.”

This passage is most unfortunate. H. N. Andersen and Isak Glückstadt founded the East Asiatic Company (EAC) in 1897, but Glückstadt was not the founder of Landmands-banken. It had been founded in 1871 by G. H. A. Gedalia (1816-1892) and Glückstadt (1839-1910) was the first director of the bank. He served from 1872 until his death in 1910. In 1976, Landmands-banken changed its name to the Danish Bank. In 1990, it swallowed two other banks, after which it became the largest bank, and the second-largest company, in Denmark. It still is.

Under the leadership of H. N. Andersen, the EAC became a large company, but things began to go downhill after World War Two. In 1993 all shipping activities of the EAC were bought by Maersk Shipping, the largest company in Denmark, which has branches all over the world. The EAC is still in business, but these days it is merely a shadow of its former self.

(3) H. N. Andersen appears again on page 87: “… on New Year’s Eve 1937, H N Andersen died in his native Copenhagen at the age of 85.” New Year’s Eve is 31 December. But H. N. Andersen died on 30 December.

(4) On the next page we are told the name of the country was changed in 1939, from Siam to Thailand, “meaning free country.” The name Thailand does not mean Free Country, it means the land of the Thais.

(5) On pp. 89-90 we hear what happened in early 1942 when the Thai government under Phibul Songkhram decided to side with Japan in the Second World War. Seni Pramoj, Thailand’s ambassador in Washington, DC, met with US Secretary of State Cordell Hull and told him that he had an unpleasant duty. He had to give him Thailand’s declaration of war against the US, but he did not want to do it. Cordell responded: “Forget it, Seni, I will not accept them.”

The story about Seni and the Thai declaration of war on the US is famous. It is found in several accounts. But a closer inspection reveals it is a myth. For details, see Thailand’s Secret War by E. Bruce Reynolds (2005, 2010), pp. 19-20.

(6) On page 100 there is a picture of Kukrit Pramoj, who is a brother of Seni Pramoj. According to the caption Kukrit Pramoj was Prime Minister of Thailand “for 13 months.”

This is not true. Kukrit Pramoj was Prime Minister of Thailand from 14 March 1975 to 12 January 1976, i.e. a period of ten months, not 13 months. In the age of the internet, it is quick and easy to check this fact. I wonder why the authors did not do this.

(7) On page 111 there is a cross-reference to pp. 118-120. The cross-reference is wrong. The correct reference is pp. 116-118.

Conclusion
As stated above, I like this book and I want to recommend it, but I am disappointed to see the flaws I have mentioned here. I cannot understand why they were not discovered and corrected after the first or the second edition of the book. Because of these flaws I cannot give it five stars, but since I like it, I will give it four stars.

PS. Full disclosure: I have never stayed at the Oriental, because I live in Bangkok. But I have visited the place several times. I enjoy the terrace by the river as much as Noël Coward did when he was there.

If you have stayed at the Oriental, this book will be a wonderful souvenir. If you have never stayed there, you can still enjoy this book while you think about what it would be like to be a guest at this establishment. I know I do.

***

Andreas Augustin and Andrew Williamson,

The Oriental Bangkok,

The Most Famous Hotels in the World, 2013, 160 pages

***

Sofitel Metropole Hanoi (2001)

 

Sofitel Metropole Hanoi by Andreas Augustin was published in 2001, when the hotel could celebrate its one hundred year anniversary. It is a five-star hotel; the most famous hotel in Hanoi and all of Vietnam. It is one of the most famous hotels in Asia, and in the whole world, similar to the Oriental in Bangkok and the Raffles in Singapore.

Andreas Augustin - a travel writer born in Vienna, Austria, in 1956 - is the author of several books about famous hotels around the world including The Raffles (1988) and The Oriental Bangkok (2013).

His book about the Metropole is divided into seven chapters which follow a chronological line from the foundation in 1901 until the beginning of the 21st century. Here is the table of contents (slightly modified):

Chapter 1 - A PHOENIX FROM THE SWAMPS
Gustave-Émile Dumontier & André Ducamp: Two Men, One vision

Chapter 2 - THE TURN OF THE CENTURY
The first Years - Colonial Life - A footnote on unrests

Chapter 3 - LA BELLE ÉPOQUE
La Belle Époque postponed - Sober Years 1910-1920

Chapter 4 - LIMELIGHT
White Gold - Somerset Maugham - Noël Coward - Charlie Chaplin

Chapter 5 - The Struggle for Independence

Chapter 6 - 1955-1986 The Long March to Doi Moi

Chapter 7 - ANGELS RUSH IN A New Morning - Après-1987

At the end of the book we have the following items:

** A chronological table: A DIGEST OF TIME

** A list of Who's Who at the Metropole

** A select bibliography divided into four sections:

# 1. Guide Books and Novels
# 2. Encyclopedias
# 3. Periodicals
# 4. Photography, Research Libraries and Archives

Andreas Augustin began his work on the book back in 1997. At the time nobody knew when the hotel was founded, not even the people who worked there. After a while he discovered evidence which showed that the hotel had been founded in 1901. It was fortunate that the book was ready for publication in 2001, exactly one hundred years after the foundation of the hotel.

Each chapter is illustrated with numerous pictures, drawings and maps. For obvious reasons old photos are in black-and-white, while all new photos are in colour. The text and the illustrations complement each other very well.

Andreas Augustin did a lot of work while preparing this book. He looked through memoirs written by people who lived and worked or travelled in Asia after 1901. Some of these memoirs are quoted in the book. He also searched for articles about the hotel and ads by the hotel published in newspapers and magazines since 1901. Some of these articles and ads are reproduced in the book. Even some of the menus are reproduced here.

The history of the hotel is told in these pages. The history of the hotel is placed in a social, economic and political context; and (since this is Vietnam) also in a military context.

The Vietnam War was (and still is) a controversial event. The first war against the French lasted 1946-1954, while the second war against the Americans lasted 1954-1975. The Vietnam War is like a minefield, but I think Andreas Augustin manages to navigate through it without offending anyone. He sticks to the facts. He does not take sides. If his sympathy lies anywhere, it is with the Metropole, and no one can blame him for that.

Many famous people stayed here: the actor Charlie Chaplin and his wife Paulette Goddard. The author Somerset Maugham and the author Graham Greene. To mention just a few names.

During the American phase of the Vietnam War (around 1965) the hotel built a small underground bunker for the foreign guests. It was used by folk singer Joan Baez and actress Jane Fonda. To mention just two names. As it turned out, the hotel was never hit by an American bomb, but other districts of Hanoi were seriously damaged.

When the war ended in 1975, it was time for reconstruction. After 1986 the hotel was renovated. In 1996 a new wing (known as the Opera Wing) was inaugurated. Between the old wing and the new wing we have the beautiful garden with the swimming pool and the famous Bamboo Bar.

The book is well-written. As far as I can see, the information offered by Andreas Augustin is accurate. I noticed only two cases where something went wrong:

CASE # 1 On page 44 we have the following passage:

“‘After a visit to Hanoi one is curious to learn what the French would have done to Singapore or Hong Kong if they had possessed them?’ asked Alfred Cunningham.”

There is no question here, merely a statement, so the question mark should be deleted and the word “asked” should be replaced with “wrote.”

CASE # 2 On page 81 a sidebar ends with the following paragraph:

“Today we owe it solely to the Lumière brothers that this invention [moving pictures] has developed so rapidly. Immediately after their first performance they started to capture scenes all over the world, though creating a priceless movie archive of that time.”

The word “though” is puzzling. It does not make any sense. I think it should be replaced with the word “thus.”

The story of this hotel is in many ways the story of Hanoi and the story of Vietnam. During some periods it is even more than that: it is the story of Asia, and the story of the whole world.

The Metropole is famous not only because of what it was and because of the people who stayed there in the past, it is also famous because of what it is today in the twenty-first century.

If you have stayed there, I think this book will be a wonderful souvenir from your visit. If you have never stayed there, you can still enjoy this book while you think about what it would be like to be a guest at this place. I have stayed there and I can tell you it was an amazing experience. This book tells you how it all began, how it was, and how it is today. It is highly recommended.

PS # 1. As mentioned earlier, the book was published in 2001. But the last chapter was not yet written. Ten years later something happened, and it was time to add a new chapter. When the war ended in 1975 the entrance to the underground bunker was sealed and its existence was soon forgotten. In 2011 it was discovered by chance and because of its historical value it was restored in the following year. Since 2012 the Metropole offers a daily tour about the history of the hotel which includes a visit to the bunker. The tour is free, but you can only sign up for it if you are a guest at the hotel. The tour is very interesting. It is one of many benefits you can enjoy if you decide to stay at this place for a few days.

PS # 2. In 2013 Joan Baez returned to Vietnam, to Hanoi, and to the Metropole, for the first time since 1972. During her stay she revisited the underground bunker that she had used during the Christmas bombings in 1972. While in Hanoi, she painted a painting of a young boy, which she donated to the hotel. It now hangs in the lobby of the old wing, not far from the exhibition called “Path of History.”

PS # 3. The following articles are available online:

** “The Hotel, the Bunker and Me,” by Andreas Augustin, The Most Famous Hotels in the World, 11 November 2011

** “Vietnam War bunker discovered, reopened under luxury hotel” by Gemma Price, CNN Travel, 7 June 2012

** “Joan Baez Circles Back to Hanoi,” by Chris Parnell, Let's Travel Magazine, 9 May 2013

***
 

Andreas Augustin,

Sofitel Metropole Hanoi,

The Most Famous Hotels in the World, 2001, 160 pages
 

***