Anna et le roi de Siam

"Anna And The King Of Siam" is the original, non-musical, version of what was later re-made with Deborah Kerr and Yul Brenner as "The King And I". This is one of the few Irene Dunne originals that is not better than the remake. Irene Dunne was a highly original and intelligent woman and had few equals either before the camera or in her private life.

In fact, if you consider all of Irene Dunne's original movies that have been remade into newer versions with the same name: such as "Back Street" 1932 or "Magnificent Obsession" 1935 or "Showboat" 1936 or "Age of Innocence" 1934 - or under a different title: such as "An Affair To Remember" which was a remake of "Love Affair" 1939 or "Something's Got To Give" which was essentially the same plot as "My Favorite Wife" 1940 - it amazes me that she was nominated six times for best actress and NEVER WON!

Usually, her original versions are much better than the remakes. Anna and the King of Siam would have been had the remake not included such a lovely musical score and been so beautifully filmed in color.

I watched this film because I'm such a fan of Irene Dunne, particularly in her light-hearted romantic and screwball comedies. There are some amusing situations, but this is ultimately a drama and certainly not a lavish musical. It still, to me, is the best version of them all.

This film hits hard right out of the gate with Anna and her son caught in a situation that neither quite expect. Rex Harrison plays the King surprisingly well despite not looking as exotic as Yul Brenner or as truly authentic as Yun-Fat Chow. Dunne's determination and caring for her son spur her on and make her brave and strong in an understated fashion as the film progresses. The main characters repartee is a delight to witness. Their chemistry is just right, and they do not have the luxury of lavish musical numbers to draw them together. One just knows they have a great respect for each other from very fine acting.

I will say that I found this version the most emotionally charged of the three motion pictures, yet it is not a Peyton Place melodrama. Maybe that's why I love it so. It's so well-made in every aspect that it really packs that emotional punch for me. I didn't even recognize the usually very recognizable Lee J. Cobb and somehow missed his name in the credits the first time.

I think this is about as fine an epic drama about forbidden romance and opposing cultures as I've seen. I give most of that credit to the wonderful performances of the leads and the incredibly adept script. It entertains, tugs at your heartstrings, and doesn't disappoint. I highly recommend it as the best version of them all:)

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.

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.