Tum and Teav:Romeo and Juliet
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article or section has multiple issues. Please help improve the article or discuss these issues on the talk page.
|
| Tum and Teav | |
|---|---|
| Directed by | Fan Sam Ang |
| Produced by | Ly Bovy |
| Written by | PaTum Sam |
| Starring | Dan Monika Son Sophea Chan DaraThy |
| Distributed by | SSB Production |
| Release date(s) | July 12, 2003 (Cambodia |
| Running time | 120 mins. |
| Language | Khmer |
'Tum and Teav' is a classic Khmer romantic film that portrays the tragedy of the star-crossed lovers Tum and Teav. The story has been told throughout Cambodia since the 19th century. A Khmer proverb states that The Cake is never bigger than the Busket. Literally, daughters (cake) were thought not to be able to find a good family without the help of their mothers (busket).
Contents |
[edit] Tagline
True love never ends; nothing can separate them.
[edit] Plot
The film starts with Tum,a talented novice monk,with his friends,Pich,are going to a village to sing a classic song. Meanwhile Teav, the daughter of rich woman in a village, hears some news about a handsome monk with the beautiful voice from her waitress. So she offers her mother,Pai,to invite him to sing for her. As Tum sings along in Teav's house, they, immediately, fall in love from the first sight. It is reciprocated and Teav offered Tum some betel nut and a blanket as evidence of the feelings she had for Tum and prays to Buddha that the young monk will be with her for eternity.[1].Tum is very please to accept the offers, to see she feels the same way he does.After That Tum can't control himself to stop thinking about Teav.The feeling grow stronger and eventually he persuade Pich to quit the monkhood. Both of them then go to the chief monk and tell their intention.It is fine for Pich to leave but The chief of monks cam foresee that Tum would have the bad luck if he quit being a monk .To his love for Teav, he listens nothing to The chief of monks's advice so he decide to quit the monkhood by himself in the forest . As himself is now not the monk, he initially spends some time in Teav’s home despite her being ‘in the shade’ (a period of a few weeks when the daughter is supposedly secluded from males and taught how to behave virtuously), and wastes no time in abusing the mother’s hospitality by sleeping with her daughter.Then Tum's good reputation of his voice,was heard by the King, he invite to the royal palace to sing for the King.For the price, The King gives Tum as a specialist Singer in the palace. there and then,Teav's mother knew everything of Tum and Tum, she is unaware of this event and has alternative plans, intending to marry her daughter off to the governor’s son,then she dropped the idea when her daughter was chosen to be with the king, but resurrected it as soon as she learned that her employment at the court wasn’t leading anywhere, when Tum and Teav are married with the support of the king because of their true love.So Pai feigns illness as a ruse to lure Teav to her village whereupon she tries to coerce her into taking part in the wedding ceremony.When Tum receives a news from his Friend, Pich about Teav's wedding.He tell it to the King and turns up with an edict from the king to stop the ceremony, but on arrival instead of presenting the order, he gets drunk, announces he is Teav’s husband and kisses her in public; his behaviour make everyone Especially The governor's son who going to become Teav's husband get angry,then they take Tum to kill under the banyan tree. Once Teav hears that Tum has died, she runs out from the wedding and finds Tum's body beneath a banyan tree. Teav prays that she will meet Tum in every life she lives and commits suicide. Only after that does the governor discover the king’s letter. This film finishes with the king exacting rather extreme punishment – slaughtering every family member (including infants) remotely connected to the deception and the murder of Tum, making hereditary slaves of the entire village and exacting crippling extra taxes from a wider area in perpetuity.
[edit] Origins
Tum and Teav's story is originally based on the poem written by the Venerable Botumthera Som, but it was popularized by writer Geobge Chigas and has been a compulsory part of the Cambodian secondary national curriculum since the 1950s. As with any oral tradition, pinning down the origins of the story is an elusive task. The story is believed to have originated in the 17th or 18th century and is set in Kampong Cham around a century earlier. However in some versions the king in question is purported to be the Rea-mea who reigned in the mid-1600s, coming to the throne through an act of regicide and subsequently converting to Islam.
[edit] The mistakes in The film of Khmer Traditional
- In the film, when Tum was singing in Teav's house, Teav gets out from her room to see his face, but in Cambodia in those days, girls were never allowed to get out of their bedrooms when there was a man or guest in their house.
- In the film, Tum used a chicken's wind to write a poem for the king, but, in truth, Tum used some kind of pen made from wood to write.
- Tum went to meet Teav in her bridal dress at her and the governor's son's wedding by the front door in the film, but it is recorded that Tum actually went to meet Teav by the back door.
[edit] Release
This film is the first Khmer film ever to be released in more than 4 theatres in Cambodia including the biggest theatre in Cambodia. It opened with full audiences per theatre. The film has subtitles for foreign audience members. This film dropped after its release in more than four months (the longest release time film in Cambodia's history but now it is The Crocodile); then it was released again in December of the same year. This film is a successful film in Cambodia because of its grossing positive in Khmer's box office.
[edit] Book release
A 2005 book of Tum Teav was released as a monograph containing the author’s translation of the Venerable Botumthera Som’s version. It also examines the controversy over the poem’s authorship and its interpretation by literary scholars and performers in terms of Buddhism and traditional codes of conduct, abuse of power, and notions of justice.
