Anna and the King of Siam (1946)

Fresh and Exciting

Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

I lived in Thailand for a couple of years and had visited many long summers before that, so this movie was of interest to me. I had read quite a bit about Anna Leonowens and her stint as teacher of King Mongkut's children, including Prince Chulalongkorn, who eventually became Thailand's greatest king. It is true that Anna was a teacher of the royal children, but the idea that she had any influence over the king is preposterous, and that is the conclusion of British historians. I should also point out that while the history of Anna is highly fictionalized, some of the history of Siam as represented here is somewhat accurate. Although many of the events pictured here are totally fictitious, at least this version of the story (as compared to the musical) seems somewhat more believable. There are some things I found a bit difficult to swallow -- like that the King would not know how to eat soup. The Thais have several wonderful soups, but perhaps they came to be after this period; I don't know. And, although I don't know what the habits were back then, Thais don't usually use chopsticks. The real problem here, from the point of view of the Thais, is that (particularly during the first half of the film), Anna is so condescending to the King. Think about it -- commoner versus King in any country.Knowing that in advance, I was interested in seeing how realistic the film was in other matters, and to my surprise, I have to give it fairly high marks. While I am not fluent in Thai, I speak a little, and I easily recognized many phrases that were spoken relatively accurately. The representations of exterior and interior architecture are reasonably realistic, with an occasional exception. The representation of the exteriors of the Grand Palace and Wat Phra Keow (the royal temple) are quite good. Art work is rather authentic...for example as related to the Thai Ramakien.Of course, King Mongkut would never have acted the way Rex Harrison acts here, although Mongkut was a rather unattractive man and something about Harrison's face does remind me of Mongkut. Early on there is a mention of "sin", a concept that is not really recognized in Thailand. It's too bad more of the Siamese in the film were not at least Asian.I was particularly interested in Anna's reaction to the first house she was offered. Even today if she saw how many poor Thais live, she would be appalled at the conditions. Clearly, considering the era, she was expecting far too much.In terms of acting, this film is extremely well done. Irene Dunne as Anna is superb. Yes, we know many of these things didn't happen, but Dunne makes them seem reasonable. Rex Harrison is excellent as the King. Again, we know the King wouldn't have behaved in those ways, but nevertheless, it's a very good performance, and I believe it was Harrison's first in an American film.Two actors that usually don't impress me were quite good here. Lee J. Cobb seems an odd choice to play the King's closest adviser, but he does it very well (and his spoken Thai was well-coached). And, Gale Sondergaard, who all too often played villainous women, is quite good here as one of King Mongkut's wives (and the mother of Prince Chulalongkorn).The latter portions of the film are interesting. One tragedy -- Anna's son dies. Which he did not in real life, and the company he founded can still be seen in Bangkok. And one last inaccuracy: King Mongkut died from malaria contracted when he went upcountry to view a total eclipse (astronomy was a passion); Prince Chulalongkorn also contracted malaria on the trip and nearly died himself...which is not at all depicted in the film. On the other hand, long after Anna left Siam, the real King Chulalongkorn traveled to Europe and really did visit Anna. So obviously there was a real teacher/student relationship of respect between the two.The film is so well done that I'd be tempted to give it a rare 8 rating, but due to the historical inadequacies, I'll give it a 7.I should mention the documentary about the real Anna Leonowens on the 20th Century Fox DVD of the film. It's too "pro" the story of Anna. A number of British historians have debunked much of Anna's story, but this documentary interviews her relatives...hardly unbiased. Other parts of it are realistic, particularly her fabrication of her early life. Take it with a grain of salt, but it's an interesting documentary.

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.

"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.

Too many people who have seen "the King and I" before viewing this film have unjustly compared it unfavorably to the musical. You can't compare Sir Rex and Mr. Brynner as the King. the performances are so different. Harrison gives a wonderfully cruel yet compassionate performance. he is a slyer, more intellectual Monkut than Brynner was. His scenes with Irene Dunne bubble with chemistry. Dunne is every inch the Anna that Deborah Kerr was and gets a scene that was removed from the remake. The performance she gives after the death of her son was stunning!I recommend this film over the musical for sheer consistency of style. Sir Rex and Ms. Dunne are wonderful together and the entire film its a gem fro start to finish.