Benutzerrezensionen

A widowed teacher and son travel to Siam, where she takes a job as governess to The King's children, after a troubled start, the pair develop an unexpected friendship.

It's not for everyone, and it's a film that would probably never be made in this day an age, but it was a huge success when it launched, and it's still loved and well regarded today. It's a lavish musical, with a pretty terrific cast, it's both engaging and amusing.

Don't come here for a history lesson or an accurate portrayal of the culture, come here for two hours of escape. It's hard not to get lost in The King and I. The cultural clashes are something to behold, The King's brashness contrasted with the sheer English desire for properness, quite lovely.

The costumes and sets are divine, in terms of production values, this 1950's classic is off the scale, it truly does look sublime, it's a huge production, I'm not sure there's anything as attractive as Yul Brynner here though, his appearance is other worldly, his presence, his posture, harsh but incredible. Personally I think Brynner provides a masterclass here, he's phenomenal, when you watch this film, it's him you're watching.

Deborah Kerr, a fine actress, she fitted the bill perfectly, her character is so prim and proper, the definitively English Governess, but she has a twinkle in her eye, a strong reserve, but a sense of humour and confidence. She could have easily made off with a grand piano under that crinoline.

The music is wonderfully memorable, it's memorable, it's prominent throughout, you'll not be able to watch, and not sing a couple of phrases.

Favourite scene, Shall we dance, it's the highlight of the film for me, magical.

It's simply not Christmas without The King and I.

8/10.

"The King and I" was a personal triumph for Yul Brynner and Gertrude Lawrence when the musical made its debut on Broadway. The king of the story seemed to be tailor-made for Mr. Brynner, who made it his signature role and returned with it to the musical theater, again and again.

As captured in film, directed by Walter Lang, "The King and I" is quite a splendid showcase for Mr. Brynner. Since Ms. Lawrence was not chosen to repeat the role of Anna that she created on the stage, her substitute was Deborah Kerr, an immensely talented actress who was a delight in any of the films she graced with her talent and charm.

As a spectacle, this movie is full of exotic colors of what Hollywood thought Siam would look like in the years where the story takes place. The film works as well because of the charismatic performance of Yul Brynner and the terrific chemistry he and Ms. Kerr projected in the film.

All the elements of a Rodgers and Hammerstein's musical are in place. The music serves the story being told. "The King and I" will charm its viewers because of the amazing impact Yul Brynner made in it.

Getting to know The King and I is a wonderful experience. Yul Brynner is unforgettable as the king of Siam, and Deborah Kerr is able to stand toe-to-toe (or head-to-head) with his every move. With its lavish sets, elaborate costumes, and amusing songs, this musical has an undeniable charm, even if it may feel foreign or dated to some.

Having read most of the comments on this picture, I was astonished to see how little understood this classic musical is. Yes, it takes place in 19th century Siam, but it is a fairy tale Siam in the same sense as the fairy tale Paris in An American in Paris. It is not supposed to be a true representation of Asian life. Wake up, Folks! Its a Hollywood adaptation of a Broadway musical! Let's leave the realism to Phat and Foster.

This picture, with its infectious score and dynamic performances, is one of the best of its genre. Who can fail to see the sexual tension between the two leads? Who can not marvel at the entrance of the royal children (check out Brynner's different reaction to each child). How can one not applaud the fantastic House of Uncle Thomas performance at the diplomatic dinner. How can your heart not reel to Shall We Dance?

This is old-line Hollywood at its very best, and may be the last truly great musical. Check your historical, racial, and PC hats at the door and don't miss it!

This film is a classic and well acted tale of romance and cultural clash. The character dynamics were funny and compelling.

I originally saw THE KING AND I at the Roxy Theatre in New York when I was ten years old. My grandmother took me after a day trip to the Statue of Liberty, and I was expecting to see one of my favorites, Jan Clayton, the star of LASSIE, in the starring role.

When the movie unfolded I was enraptured by the beautiful redhead playing the lead and realized it wasn't Miss Clayton (whom I later learned had played in the road version of the show, and kids that age don't really know the difference). I went out into the theatre lobby and looked at the ornate program, which listed Mrs. Anna as Deborah Kerr.

What an impression this woman has had on my life over the years from the retelling of the classic tale of the British woman who comes to Siam to teach the king's children. It is superb, not only musically, but from a story standpoint holds up as the best of the Rodgers & Hammerstein musicals. It is essentially a women's lib story, which makes it as relevant today as it was fifty years ago when it premiered on Broadway.

The fiery, but compassionate Mrs. Anna who is at first turned off by the king and then charmed by him, and who little by little changes him from a near-despot to a man who can grow.

The subplots are fanciful, but lovely and, in the ballet of Uncle Tom, as performed by Tuptim draw a direct analogy to the unpleasant lives endured by Siamese slaves, in particular women. It does so with majesty and intelligence, no less so than Arthur Miller did in "The Crucible," contrasting the Salem Witch Trials with the awful McCarthy political witchhunts on Capitol Hill.

It is an extraordinary achievement, and it is shocking that it did not even make the top 100 AFI films a year ago. It is continually fresh and alive, and every time there is a festival or re-release it does well. Indeed, a few years ago it was shown on a huge screen at The Hollywood Bowl, with orchestral accompaniment, and it was a smash again.

My only regret is that Deborah Kerr (six times nominated for an Oscar) was not gifted with an Academy Award along with her co-star Yul Brynner.

It is a film that should be seen for generations to come.

Director Walter Lang does his best to ruin what may be Rodgers & Hammerstein's strongest stage musical, but he's no match for the stellar material.

He directs with a stodgy, anonymous style -- why actually move your camera around a set when you can root it to the floor as if it's a potted plant? With the exception of Yul Bryner and Deborah Kerr, he elicits performances from his cast that would be at home in a cheesy sword-and-sandal Biblical epic. And the film has that overblown, garish visual design too common to big films from this time period, that manages to look both cheap and expensive at the same time, as if all the sets are made out of brightly colored plexiglass.

But, and this is a big "but," this musical tells a beautiful story about cultural tolerance that remains intact in the film, and the movie offers the strong performances of Bryner and Kerr, both perfectly cast in their roles. "Carousel" may have given audiences the most sophisticated R&H score, but for me, the music in "The King and I" remains the most glorious. Too bad the adapted film score severely truncates its stage counterpart: many songs are missing entirely, and almost all of those left are shortened versions.

Happily, the "Small House of Uncle Thomas" ballet sequence remains in the film and retains the original Jerome Robbins choreography as it appeared on stage. It may just be the most memorable musical number ever conceived for stage or screen.

This film isn't the best possible screen adaptation of a nearly perfect stage show, but thanks to Bryner and Kerr, and of course R&H, it'll do.

Grade: B+

The King and I has been my favorite Rodgers&Hammerstein show for many years. I love the score and the only real criticism I have of this film version is that it did not contain the entire score from the Broadway show. It also did not contain the magical performance of Gertrude Lawrence in her final role. But that was beyond the scope of 20th Century Fox and Darryl Zanuck.

The versions of The King and I that we usually see performed give emphasis to the role of the King. As Gertrude Lawrence was dying in 1952 she made a deathbed request that the billing on the show be changed and that Yul Brynner be given top billing instead of whatever female would be replacing Lawrence as Anna Leonowens. That was done and it has remained so ever since.

The role of King Mongkut of Siam became like Dracula was for Bela Lugosi, a part that no matter what else he did, Yul Brynner couldn't escape from. The air of authority he establishes as the King holds you and binds you to every move he makes in the part. I'm told that as good as this screen version is, to see him on stage was the real deal. The critical acclaim he got from the Broadway run no doubt led to him winning an Oscar as Best Actor for 1956.

Standing in for Gertrude Lawrence quite ably is Deborah Kerr who got one of her several nominations for Best Actress for this film. Unfortunately her voice is dubbed by that well known vocal stand-in Marni Nixon as is Rita Moreno as Tuptim and Carlos Rivas as Lun Tha the second romantic leads. The part does call more for an actress than a singer. Gertrude Lawrence was the very best of both.

So many popular standards come from this score, more than any other score Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein, II wrote. From philosophical tunes like Getting to Know You and I Whistle a Happy Tune and such romantic ballads as Hello Young Lovers, We Kiss in a Shadow, Something Wonderful and Shall We Dance will be done forever. Somewhere now on planet earth there is some theatrical company doing the King and I and performing these great songs. You can't also forget those that didn't make the cut here like I Have Dreamed and My Lord and Master.

The most interesting song that Dick and Oscar wrote is the solo for the King, A Puzzlement. It's very similar to the Soliliquy in Carousel where the song explains all the character motivations of Billy Bigelow. King Mongkut, a very real historic figure who wanted very much to move his country into the modern era, but his entire upbringing fights against his desire. A Puzzlement is a wonderful number that goes into the problems of governing and not just for monarchies. Listen to Hammerstein's lyrics, they are very much relevant today.

I visited Thailand in 1999 and learned a great deal about the country in those two days. King Mongkut's descendants rule today as constitutional and beloved monarchs. In fact this film which probably did more to encourage tourism to Thailand than anything else is banned in that country. Because it shows the king in what the Thais feel as an irreverent light. It is indeed a puzzlement.

The film has preserved forever one of the great Broadway shows of all time forevermore. Reason enough to see it and whistle its happy tunes.

Deborah Kerr and Yul Brynner give spirited performances in 'The King and I', a musical adaptation of Margaret Landon's book. Brynner in particular brings an athleticism and intensity to his role which won him an academy award. The two share an unusual chemistry. The film is dated but remains entertaining and ranks among the best musicals of the fifties. The music is very enjoyable with several catchy tunes which are well choreographed. I specially liked "A Puzzlement" and "Shall We Dance". Some parts are a bit corny but the film is still well worth watching.

Overall 8/10

An American musical drama; A story about an arrogant absolute monarch brought down a peg or two by an English governess recruited to tutor his wives and many children. A Hollywood studio version of the story of the rule of King Mongkut over 19th century Siam. Art direction is lavish, it is staged colourfully (though lacking Technicolor) with stunning costume design. The scenes featuring the children are heartwarming, even if the narrative is overtheatrical and questionable for modern day audiences. As a musical it is sequence driven which works well and it is told in set pieces of meaningful to-the-point drama, but it's overlong and a tad overproduced. The musical score is uplifting. Yul Brynner is in majestic form having practised the role on stage for years and Deborah Kerr is perfectly cast to charmingly subvert him.

In the 1860's Mrs Anna Owens was appointed by the King of Siam as the teacher of his children. He wanted to give them (and himself) a "modern" education, to impress visiting dignitaries with how up-to-date he was, so that they would accept him as a world leader, like them. He thought it would be a simple communication of knowledge and understanding, like someone learning a new set of jargon.

This naive and misguided motive, seeking to impress without really wanting modernity, produced a clash of cultures. Fortunately for all of us (and especially for the film industry) Anna kept a scrupulous and detailed diary of the whole affair. It was made into a film starring Rex Harrison, which was rather more historically accurate than this musical version, and was a very appealing film in many ways.

This film, however, has become legendary. Although it is based on the principle "Never let historical facts get in the way of a great musical", that doesn't matter at all, because it is a truly great and deeply moving romantic musical film. For example, has there ever been a more loving love-song than "Something Wonderful", which the king's number one wife sings in explanation of her devotion to him? I seriously doubt it! It's one of the best-written songs of all time, and could only have been written by someone who truly understood love!

The simple charm and joyful exuberance of "Getting to Know You", the unforgettable "Hello Young Lovers" which is a message of hope and encouragement to all those who love under difficult circumstances, "Whistle a Happy Tune" which helps when we are frightened and alone, and all the other songs have become famous.

Yul Brynner, who had been a relatively unknown bit-part actor with hair, shaved his head and gave a towering performance for the part, then spent the rest of his life basking in the glory of that one role! Deborah Kerr, who had given so many exquisite performances in so many films, also rose to the occasion in this one. Rita Moreno, who was a pin-up girl as well as one of the world's greatest actresses, is beautiful as the runaway slave.

It's a film that everyone must see at least once, especially now that they've put out a restored version. I've given it 10 out of ten.

Lots of gorgeous scenery, beautiful Oriental women, great props and colorful clothes, sterling performances, and interesting dialogue and songs makes this one of the most lively musicals I've seen to date. Yul was perfect as the arrogant, deluded King; I loved his crisp gestures and butchery of the English language. He was most amusing. I bet this one would be great on stage.

Deborah Kerr and Yul Brynner lit up the screen with this 1956 great film as English teacher, Anna, who takes a position as tutor to the king of Siam's children and along the way finds adventure and love, be it ever so brief.

A widow, accompanied by her son, around the time of the American Civil War, Anna soon finds cultural differences exist to a great deal between the two societies.

Yul Brynner, as the king, does a magnificent job depicting those differences.

The music and dancing are enchanting though Marnie Nixon sings for Miss Kerr.

Look for brief appearances by Rita Moreno as a young lover caught among the kingdoms social mores.

" Getting to Know You," a lovely tuneful song sets the mood for this charming, romantic, endearing film. Great picture for children as well. Be brave young lovers, so eloquently done, in a masterful production producing yet another Oscar losing nomination for Deborah Kerr. 1956 was a big year for Brynner. Besides this great film, where he received the best actor Oscar, he also appeared in "The Ten Commandments," and "Anastasia."

Brynner is so strongly identified with this role that it is difficult to remember him in anything else. He gives his all in this performance, sometimes way over the top, but it fits with this movie which is in itself over the top, offering us the Hollywood version of Siam and introducing 1955 sensibilities to the era of 1862. No matter.

The musical numbers are great and hummable, most done by Marni Nixon, who dubbed for so many in that era of endless musicals and no-voice stars.

People who protest about the insensibility and racial aspect of these musicals (Showboat and South Pacific, etc. also comes to mind)don't get it - that this is a musical, composed about an unenlightened era and is not a documentary and cannot be taken seriously.

The play within the play is truly magical, I could watch it over and over again, it is a perfect little opera.

Deborah Kerr is terrific in this and should have received an Oscar. I felt sorry for the boy who played her son - I think they appeared again together in Tea and Sympathy, but I could be wrong - there was not much to his role, he had to stand around and just be pretty and nod at his mother a lot. Very difficult.

Rita Moreno excelled as usual.

8 out of 10. Not to be missed.

I had looked forward to seeing this film again after a couple of decades, but it has not aged well.

One theme it hammers into the ground in every scene is that the Siamese are /quaint/ - most especially so in the "Small House of Uncle Thomas" ballet. The King's mannerisms - "scientific" for "rational", and "etcetera, etcetera" - are especially irritating. How good did Anna become at speaking Thai, I wonder - or writing it?

Not for a moment are we invited to look at the West through Siamese eyes. On the contrary, history is falsified by making Anna a 1950s feminist. The impracticality of her hoop skirts is hinted at when the wives kowtow in them, but that is immediately undermined by her reaction to their lack of underwear. (/Would/ she have worn any?) Couldn't Hammerstein find ONE way Thai culture is preferable to ours?

It does still have great songs, and "Something Wonderful" is a vastly better "Stand by your man" song than the appalling "What's the Use of Wond'rin'" in Carousel.

Edit: I've just learnt that the part of Anna was written for Gertrude Lawrence, who "couldn't sing, but who cares?" (Agnes de Mille). That explains "Getting to Know You" "Hello Young Lovers" and "Whistle a Happy Tune."

This is just a beautiful film,much better than the animated version. It has the most gorgeous score by Rodgers and Hammerstein, although it is not as good as the Sound of Music. The film itself is beautiful, and I felt enchanted watching it. The main attraction is the scenery and cinematography, they were just amazing. Yul Brynner undoubtedly gives the performance of his career, he is magnificent here. Deborah Kerr, who sadly died recently, matches him beautifully in a touching performance of Anna Leonowens. The intermission was a delight to listen to, and for me the highlight of the movie is the scene, the play. Speaking of the ending, it is so sad, and I hated the fact that the animated version completely changed the story. Give this a try, you'll be enchanted. 9/10-it is a bit long. Bethany Cox

One of the most opulent musicals ever made, The King and I is a film that grabs you with the impressive art direction and lavish costumes and holds you until the exit music plays. The film gives us the ever hummable Rodgers & Hammerstein tunes with the powerful voice of Yul Brynner and Mari Nixon, who doubled on the singing for Deborah Kerr. Try to watch this film on DVD if at all possible. The main reason being the letterboxing recreates the original Cinemascope-55 and you get to see every inch of the amazing sets. The color is balanced so you see the red in Deborah Kerr's hair and the King's outfits. One of the other joys of watching this movie is the relationship between Anna and the King. He's a blowhard, and she's rather demure and steadfast. They're both equally stubborn, but at the same time, they respect each other. A charming film that will remain in the hearts of viewers for a long time.

Though I don't remember the first time I saw the movie it was a movie I grew up on. I grew up on Rodgers and Hammerstein and have loved all (but State Fair) of their movies that I've seen. And I have to say that this movie is their very best and the very best musical ever made. Yul Brynner was great and was very deserving of the best actor Oscar. I love every thing about this movie and it tugs on my heartstrings every time I watch it. Even know I know how it will end a huge lump comes to my throat as my heart sings when he dances with her across the room just wishing that they can be together some how.If a movie can move you like that every time, than it's top notch and The King and I does it best.

Yul Brynner brings much life to this film in his Oscar winning role as the slightly eccentric King of Siam, and his acting, together with the film's grand music, are what primarily makes this quite watchable stuff. I would be cautious to call it any better than above average, as the storyline is very ordinary, at times dull and often predictable, plus it runs on for too long, with dry sections between the songs. There is one very well done sequence in it though: the play that is performed by the children of Siam. It has an interesting flavour to it, and it is very well choreographed. The attempts at humour in the film fail more often than they succeed, and the material can easily be seen as racist. Still, it is good enough viewing, with lavish sets and costumes to please the eye, some great tunes to please the ear, and Brynner to liven the characterisations.

Known best as a musical version of 1946 FOX film "Anna and the King of Siam" starring Irene Dunne and Rex Harrison, "The King and I" often takes a back seat to "The Sound of Music". Whilst the latter is both my favourite all time movie and musical, "The King and I" is only second to it. Most of this, is due in part to the wonderful performances of Deborah Kerr, Yul Brynner and a delightful supporting cast.

Musical characters have been immortalised by few in the time musicals were fashionable. A few would be Julie Andrews' Maria, Gene Kelly's character from "Singin' in the Rain", Judy Garland's Dorothy and James Cagney's George M. Cohan from the biopic "Yankee Doodle Dandy". Brynner, in his best and most defining role, has forever left his mark on the King, arrogantly fierce, so simple, so desperate, so true.

Although not a singer and well known to be dubbed by Marni Nixon, the 'ghost' favourite of Hollywood musicals, Deborah Kerr gives another beautiful and loved performance as the English governess, with son Louis, travels to 1860s Siam to be tutor to the Royal children. Her performance demanded character, command and charm, and Kerr managed to successfully combine all three in a memorable performance.

But it is the Rodgers and Hammerstein score that tops it all off. The element of the screenplay in the FOX movie adaptions was not always the strongest. Tentative and urging was "Something Wonderful". "I Whistle a Happy Tune", bright, calming and inspirational. "Getting to Know You" sets the mood of happiness, "Hello, Young Lovers" keeps a note of optimism, and the rich, lush score of the overture and throughout the film make it memorable. But it is "Shall We Dance?", a joyful song that I believe to be the best of the lot. Although it is melodiously challenged because of Gertrude Lawrence's low voice range, it is still one of the best of the duo's scores.

Cinemascope, used first in the first of the Rodgers and Hammerstein movies of the year "Carousel", provided opportunities to open up moments in the picture. On a widescreen print, only then can the real grandeur, splendour and colour of the enormous sets and opulence of the movie itself can be fully appreciated.

Despite my love for the musical, since viewing both "Anna and the King of Siam" and the new Jodie Foster, Chow Yun-Fat movie "Anna and the King", the flaws in what was previously believed to be an accurate and true account of Anna Leonowens story, have unfortunately ruined the musical, both in Anna's life and the depiction of the Siamese court. The non-musical versions have been obviously more historically accurate, and the comparison of the three different FOX versions have all been noticably scripted to the fit the time of release.

But I have not yet allowed that to get in the way of enjoying a great musical. With "Anna and the King" as my favourite movie of 1999 of the moment, I hope it won't spoil things further.

Rating: 10/10

Like the stage musicals on which they are often based, many of the great Hollywood musicals provide superb viewing for those who enjoy this type of presentation. But their appeal is chiefly through the lyrics which often comprise a major part of the actual story; and in most cases the latter is no more than a very bland fictional romantic drama. Just a few major musicals are based on historic stories and perhaps a different standard needs to be applied in judging these. In a musical, whether originally written for the stage or the screen, the music has to come first and foremost, and it has to be recognised that no attempt will be made to provide historical accuracy - the most that can be expected is that the basic storyline is recognisable, and that as far as possible downright distortion of actual facts is avoided. "Miss Saigon" and "The Sound of Music" probably provide good examples of how far most creators of a stage or screen musical will go in this regard. But "The King and I" is probably unique, even among historical musicals, because it is based on an earlier 1946 film "Anna and the King of Siam" featuring Rex Harrison and Irene Dunn, which in turn was based on a novel of the same name by Margaret Langdon prepared from the actual diaries of Anna Leonowens, a feisty English widow who went out to Siam as governess for the children of King Mongkut during the 1860's. These diaries are themselves of questionable value as historical records when not backed up by other data. Anna herself appears to have had strong views about the importance of Victorian England in providing a role model for the development of backward civilizations, and to have had little recognition of the depth and longevity of the indigenous culture of the country where she was working. Siamese culture can be traced back for almost 2,500 years and it would be distasteful for anyone from western Europe to claim that it is less rich than that of Europe. Anna's diaries were almost certainly slanted to imply this, as well as to exaggerate her influence over the king, and her role in the "modernisation" of the country which ensured that it never fell under the control of any of the three colonial powers (British, Dutch and French) that were eying it enviously at the time. They would be of much more value as historical documents if they could be compared on a point for point basis with contemporary records compiled by a responsible indigenous Siamese court official, but so far I do not believe this has proved possible. The story that reached the screen in this film is the fourth generation dramatic reconstruction of these already questionable diaries, so it is imperative for viewers to recognise that its link to history is very tenuous. King Mongkut was a well educated and intelligent ruler who recognised the pressure which would be placed on his country by the vigorous colonisation of most of the countries around him and wisely decided to take steps to strengthen his position. It is interesting to think that when Queen Victoria sent him her greetings she probably knew nothing of his country, but had been advised that it was wealthy and provided a very valuable trading partner for Britain. If he could be persuaded to offer her his allegiance, so that his country could be incorporated into the Empire on which "the sun never sets", all this trade could be reserved for the benefit of Britain alone. Now, with hindsight, we see that almost all the classic European monarchies with which the nineteenth century British Royal Family might have considered union in marriage have disappeared. Those of Britain and Thailand are among the very few which have proved sufficiently adaptable to survive until today. In the latter case Anna certainly made a significant contribution, and her story is therefore of great historic interest. A later film, Anna and the King (1999), makes a real attempt to tell this story more accurately and is the one which should be watched by anyone interested in history. The earlier films have been banned in Thailand for their inaccuracies, reputedly at the 'request' of the king who was the grandson of King Mongkut.

This background is essential for understanding "The King and I", but for those who appreciates Hollywood musicals the inaccuracies in the film do not necessarily spoil the enjoyment of viewing it. It should be regarded as another fictional work and enjoyed simply for its music and lyrics which many viewers regard as among the best in any musical currently available today. The hint of the exotic east in the music has little to do with Thai musical culture but makes for very interesting listening. The list of the much loved songs from great musicals which originated in this Rogers and Hammerstein offering (or its stage equivalent) includes "I Whistle a Happy Tune"; "March of the Siamese Children"; "Getting to Know You";; Something Wonderful"; Hello Young Lovers"; "Is a Puzzlement"; "Shall we Dance?"; and several more. If you want to enjoy hearing these, delivered against a colourful and well choreographed Eastern (but often not Siamese) background you cannot go wrong watching this film. But if these are of no interest to you, there is nothing left - and in any case you must remember not to delay watching it until your forthcoming holiday in Bangkok!

Me looking at The Sound of Music immediately after watching The King and I: "Perhaps I judged you too harshly..."

I guess you can cut this film a little slack for coming up on being 70(!) years old, but I don't want to cut it too much slack, because plenty of musicals from the 1950s and 1960s still hold up better than this one. It's a musical that feels like it's sort of about serious things, and includes them in the story... albeit without commenting on them too much. But it's not to the point where it's necessarily a comedy or a breezy/light-hearted musical, either. Tonally, it's weird.

Beyond that, the story/characters aren't hugely interesting, but I think the lead actors here all do a good job, considering they didn't have the greatest material to work with. Some of the songs are pretty good (most of them in the first half, as is often the case with musicals, it seems), and the production design/costumes/dances are all solid, too. Yet it is boring at times, and it feels more than a little messy, so when it comes to The King and I, at best, I feel conflicted.