Le roi et moi

It was undoubtedly an historic team-up. James G. Robinson's Morgan Creek Productions joining forces with classic TV's immortal holiday icons, Rankin/Bass Productions, to fulfill a lifelong dream of R/B's co-founder, Arthur Rankin, Jr.:

that of bringing one of Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein II's most legendary Broadway hits to the screen --- as an animated motion picture. Alas! The result turned out to be "The King and I"; and in its 1999 version, produced at Richard Rich's Rich Animation Studios in partnership with Nest Entertainment --- the creative team behind "The Swan Princess" --- there were quite serious flaws, the most important of which was unquestionably the simple truth that "The King and I" has, almost from the moment 20th Century-Fox's movie version of the Rodgers & Hammerstein legend was first released, pretty much been doomed to remain anathema among the people of Thailand, for whom the King of Siam is an historic figure worthy of being held sacrosanct. What, then, went wrong? Well, first things first, I believe that moviegoers went into this animated "King and I" expecting the awesome, unique, one-of-a-kind animation which for nearly forty years was at the heart of every Rankin/Bass Production. What the audience got instead, sadly, was a farmed-out, overly stereotypical, 90-minute exercise in badly done children's animation. Moreover, R/B's other co-founder had no involvement in this production. A Rankin/Bass Production without Jules Bass? Unthinkable! Even worse, Morgan Creek's recent filmography since "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves," its biggest blockbuster ever (and, one would surmise, its ONLY such blockbuster), has spawned a series of less than incredible titles --- making one question why Warner Bros. continues to distribute Morgan Creek's films at all. But I have had access to the real story behind this failed 'toon; and, truth be told, it is at best a cautionary tale, and at worst a lesson in how not to bring a Broadway soundtrack to life on the screen. It seems to me that The Rodgers & Hammerstein Organization, by arrangement with whom this film had been prepared, had wanted to support Mr. Rankin's dream; once the animated "King and I" flopped, unfortunately, it was clear that they could not support such a concept for any reason. Subsequent plans to animate other R & H stage legends --- "Oklahoma!" and "The Sound of Music" among them --- were ultimately scrapped, leaving Arthur Rankin, Jr.'s dream in tatters. To me, that's a shame --- because here was a unique opportunity to introduce younger audiences to the epic power and beauty that only a live stage show can provide.... an opportunity squandered through the addition of overly-cliched, racially stereotypical characters and Saturday morning-esque dialogue. I would guess, in the end, that the moral of this story is: If you can dream it, don't always necessarily do it.... because you never know what kind of film-related traps you may stumble into in the end.

Poor Yul must be spinning in his grave; this movie is terrible. The only two things that kept me watching was the panther, and curiousity on how they would handle the ending (I must admit the I do prefer this happier ending, though). Other than that it was shameful. When "Whistle a Happy Tune" came on during the sea serpent attack I could not believe the stupidity I was witnessing. Some scenes were word-for-word from the original, and you can tell that the guy who's the voice of the king was desperately trying to sound like Yul Brynner (and failed big time). Now I can understand that some little items needed to be changed for kids to be able to follow (there is hardly any mention of there being more than one royal wife, Tuptim is presented as a slave flower arranger rather than an unwilling wife-to-be). The animation was fair, but not top quality. I'm glad I made my mother rent this instead of buying it, she saved her money that way. My simplest advice for those who want their kids to see a version of "The King and I": show them Yul, they'll thank you when they're older.

Having two younger children, I try to take them to movies like this, sight or review unseen, when I can. They, like most kids, have seen the violence, heard the profanity, and fell into the lowest common denominator of most movies being made today. That's what makes this such a disappointment. I like to observe their reactions and their responses and not rain on their parades. But all they talked about when the thing was over was the guy who kept losing his teeth (remember that from the original Broadway musical?), and the mango throwing monkey. This is their memory of "The King and I." Both my kids have visited Thailand and I thought perhaps this would bring up some of the spirit of that world. Instead, we have this exploitative mess that throws out most of the cultural issues and the dramatic impact for a supernatural villain (where did he get these powers? The King didn't have any, other than incredible athleticism). And, of course, is there a movie around that doesn't have a Martial Arts component? I know that kickboxing is big in Thailand but.... I am generally very accepting of the things that are put out there for the kids, but this was terrible. A message to the producers: "Please, please, please, leave Rodgers and Hammerstein alone. I don't want to watch an interplanetary war version of "Oklahoma"!

Warner Brothers has seen fit to butcher this masterpiece with a new animated version that is thoroughly awful. The producers have attempted to bring the story down to a kid's level by eliminating key elements from the original and introducing new characters that would make Richard Rogers and Oscar Hammerstein both turn over in their graves. The King no longer has a harem here, and his 106 children have been reduced to a mere 8. The Prime Minister has been transformed into an evil wizard who uses a magic gong in an attempt to overthrow the King, and he is aided by a bumbling fat midget who keeps having his teeth knocked out. Then there is the onslaught of cute animals including a monkey, an elephant and a panther that constantly save the King by hurling mangoes at the villains. Many of these new characters are directly stolen from Disney films, especially from `Aladdin.' If all this was not enough, we even get a scene where the King rides in a hot air balloon that is powered by a panther riding a bicycle mounted to a propeller. And just to make sure that we have a happy ending, absolutely NOBODY dies in this version. Admittedly, seeing this was an animated feature I was fully expecting some liberties to be taken, but I was not expecting a rewriting of the entire story.

The film's worst moments come during the musical scenes. Some of Rogers and Hammerstein's music manages to make it onto the screen but it is handled in such a way that it makes your stomach turn. For example, the movie begins with Anna singing `I Whistle a Happy Tune' while a sea monster attacks her. The King sings `A Puzzlement' while being attacked by giant statues that have suddenly come to life. Then there are the kids that sing `Getting to Know You' while being stalked by the fat midget. At the screening of this film I kept sinking deeper into my seat and saying, `Tell me this isn't happening!'

I have both versions on video, and I'll admit the 1956 version is much better. I had mixed feelings on this version, but I hated most of the plot changes. Many important bits that worked so well in the 1956 version were changed and replaced with hackneyed plot-holes. The saving grace is the songs, and the singing is passable. The best is Christianne Noll, and Barbara Streisand singing in the end credits was a treat. Back to the bad. The voice talents were OK, but there were a lot of dodgy accents. Miranda Richardson does well, and her character animation is good too. Martin Vidnovic was trying to replicate Yul Brynner, and in no way did he succeed. Adam Wylie has a false English accent, that was shown when he was singing, because his American accent was heard. Ian Richardson is a really good actor, but I was expecting more from him. He had lots of really good lines, but his delivery just felt a bit OTT. The worst character was Master Little, who was funny for only ten minutes, and then the occurring joke about teeth wore thin far too early. Don't get me started on the animals. they were cute at first, but they served no purpose at all to the plot, especially Moonshee. As for the animation, most of it was good, but why on earth did they animate a sea dragon and moving statues that were only there for a couple of seconds, I didn't get it! As for the romance between Tuptim and the Prince it was so unnecessary, and the romance between Anna and the king was painfully underdeveloped. And why did they change the ending? The ending in the 1956 version was so poignant, and this one was pointless. In conclusion, only watch it if you haven't seen the fantastic Yul Brynner version, otherwise you'll be disappointed. 5/10 Bethany Cox