Anna and the King of Siam

Anyone who is thinking of watching Anna And The King Of Siam thinking he will just see The King And I without the Rodgers&Hammerstein music is in for quite a surprise. Quite a bit had to be toned down from this dramatic version in order to make it more lighthearted and good subject matter for a musical.

I can't believe the number of folks who miss the point of Anna And The King Of Siam in just dismissing it as typical western racism. Yes it's there, but the real story of Siam later Thailand is how it missed being colonized by the west. In that regard the story is like Japan.

King Mongkut who ruled from 1851 to 1868 and played by Rex Harrison in his first role in a Hollywood film, was a man who's sole ambition was to keep his country away from colonial hands. But he also knew that the west had far outstripped the east in material progress if not culturally. His challenge was to learn from the west without being taken over by them.

Toward that end he did import among other things Anna Leonowens, shortened to Owens in this film and played by Irene Dunne. Her job was to educate the royal children, most especially the Crown Prince Chulalongkorn who would rule Siam as Mongkut's successor. How much and what kind of personal relationship she developed with the King is part true and part from the fertile mind of Margaret Landon who wrote the book this and The King and I were based on.

Today when you visit Thailand they will tell you up front about how proud they are that they were never colonized by a western power, a singular achievement in the 19th century. They did give up chunks of territory, to the French in Indo-China, to the British in Burma and Malaya, but Siam was kept in being. Ironically enough when it was conquered it was by another Eastern power, Japan in World War II. Thailand most people forget because of that was an Axis power nation, quite unwillingly, but they had little choice in yielding to a nation that learned the lessons Mongkut and Chulalongkorn learned far better.

Giving good performances in the supporting cast are Linda Darnell, Lee J. Cobb, and Gale Sondergaard. Darnell's character as Tuptim, current favorite of the king has far more bite to it and she's not a nice girl who the western schoolteacher is trying to help on the path to true love. Cobb's role as the chief minister, the Kralahome is far more expanded in this than The King And I. And Gale Sondergaard as Lady Thiang, mother of the crown prince is touching as the mother who really does live for her son as she's got nothing else really in the world. She was nominated for Best Supporting Actress in 1946, but lost to Anne Baxter in The Razor's Edge.

It's also ironic that while any number of folks might decry the racism shown by whites in Anna And The King Of Siam, at the same time they're also revolted by the position of women in Siam, being not above household furniture. Irene Dunne's character is hardly a Victorian feminist, but just the contrast to the other females in the cast forces here to become one. But that was their culture and still is in many areas of modern Thailand.

The highly acclaimed remake of this story that starred Jodie Foster and Chow Yun Fat in 1999 tells far more of the real story. It's good to compare the two. The differences in both versions tell a lot more about us as a society than even about 19th century Siam.

I grew up with the story and the music of the musical, The King and I, in our household. It is a wonderful production. It would be a mistake to compare that musical to Anna and the King of Siam. They are of different genres. This story is taken from the writings of the real Anna and they provide a glimpse into nineteenth century times, when changes in world politics and communications produced stresses that would alter the map and the future of the world.

I found the acting in this movie wonderful. Rex Harrison, in his first American production, really brings the complexities of the Siamese king to life. He is a man torn between the traditions of the past and the necessities of change, which he embraces with open arms, even if his mind, from habit, is partially closed. Comparing his performance to that in My Fair Lady allows one to really see how he used his voice effectively in portraying the king.

One must give credit to those who took this narrative and later produced the musical, amending the story to create a vehicle more suitable to music and humor. But Anna and the King of Siam deserves kudos as a believable story that evokes real feelings for its characters. You may need a few hankies.

Summary: BETTER than the King and I This has always been my favorite version of this story. Why? Not just because it was done first (1946); that is, before the King and I (Play-1951; Film-1956), does it make it better. Not because the original story was a drama rather a lively Broadway musical. Not even because the story was written by a woman about a woman and not about a man as was shifted later by Brynner. The performances by Irene Dunne, Rex Harrison, the production values, the direction are all done at such a fine intimate level. The true nuance of the hardship that Anna went through in her dealings with this imperial king is felt throughout. The musical never depicts this which such finely-wrought detail and care. With our 21st century sensibilities we might think that there is something goofy about Rex's performance. Does anyone really know what life was in 19th Century Siam? I believe this even after reading about the difficulty Harrison had with the depiction of this role. There is nothing Charlie Chan-ish about this performance. The strictness and order of the Asian mindset does create a cultural chasm at times for us in the West. The Asian languages are structured differently than our Western languages. The use of articles is almost non-existent, therefore the sometimes stilted manner of vocal delivery may sound staccato. The Asian vocal chords are sometimes different from Western vocal chords. There exists a predominance of higher pitched voices. And so what of it? Was the King and I more real than this movie? The only thing that can be said about Brynner is that he is physically more imposing than Harrison and Brynner has a rather slight Mongolian aspect to him which brings more authenticity to his appearance. Finally and besides my objections above, ANNA AND THE KING OF SIAM is movie full of heart and compassion. Each turn of events is handled with care and not given a Hollywood finish and sheen. ANNA is recommended hands down. The finale, though some jaded observers would dismiss as formulaic, is indeed a grand and quiet moment not to be missed.

In reading the comments about "Anna and the King of Siam,"I was especially drawn to the harsh political commentaries by your reviewers.When I was saw the film in the summer of 1946,the war was over only eleven months,and I was feeling generally upbeat.Consequently,watching this film,I felt upbeat about it,too.I thought then,and I still do(seeing it on tv),that it was a beautifully produced picture.One thing I noted at the time of its release,was that movie reviewers universally criticized Twentieth Century-Fox for not filming it in Technicolor.(Fox didn't repeat their mistake in their musical production with Yul Brynner and Deborah Kerr.)Their 1946 film garnered the Oscars for black and white cinematography, and black and white art direction, and interior decoration.(Costume design nominations didn't arrive until 1948--"Hamlet,"b&w,and "Joan of Arc,"color,won).If costume design had been a factor in 1946, I'm dead sure "Anna and the King of Siam" would have been a shoo-in.The musical version in 1956 did get the prize.Irene Dunne had a spate of fine film from 1936 to 1948,and this was leader among them.I can't imagine another actor living in 1946 playing the king.(Mr.Brynner appeared on the scene in the stage production around 1950.After that,he went to Hollywood).Gale Sondergaard received an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actress.John Cromwell's direction was as artful as his work with "Since You Went Away."in 1944.For this film:A rating of A.

Very enjoyable tale of Governess teaching Siam Ruler's children, then butting heads with the deified king over issues of culture and custom.

Irene Dunne and Rex Harrison star, and they work well together, from the frosty start, to the begrudging respect into the romantic overtones that develop. Their chemistry is the key to holding the film together - and it works. The sets are marvelous, and the supporting cast (Gale Sondergaard, Lee J. Cobb [yes-I said Lee J. Cobb!] et al) are quite good.

There's been much ado about comparing this movie with THE KING AND I. Margaret Langdon did not write a musical about her experiences there, she wrote a book. Rodgers and Hammerstein wrote the musical, based on the book. The two are certainly two different entities, and should be based on their singular merits and faults. It's about as silly as trying to link REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE and GREASE!

Yes, Anna's character is a tad dowdy, if not prudish; yet these are values from the 1860's, not Woodstock in the 1960's. It's really not fair to judge the characters motivations by our present standards or perceptions of morality. True, it would have been better to cast an Asian actor as Mongkut, yet these were not the realities of 1940's Hollywood; and we well know this.

Overall, we watch cinema to be entertained and escape, and ANNA AND THE KING OF SIAM provide more than ample reward for the viewer, in that regard.