User reviews

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.

Personally am of the opinion that the 1956 musical 'The King and I' is the better film. That has always been a favourite of mine, and not just one of the best film versions of a Rodgers and Hammerstein musical but also one of the best film musicals. The production values, music and Yul Brynner are especially good.

'Anna and the King of Siam', a somewhat truer and more realistic account of the story, is still a very good film though, if just lacking 'The King and I's energy' and occasionally taking itself too seriously. Richard Lyon is a bit bland as Anna's son. Criticisms of 'Anna and the King of Siam' actually for me are few, and are not that major, only being occasional problems.

It is especially good for the acting. Irene Dunne was born for Anna, portraying the role with touching sincerity and dignity. Her chemistry with Rex Harrison has a believable amount of tension and grows convincingly. Harrison on paper seemed a major miscast, and occasionally he overdoes it in some of his mannerisms which are reminiscent of something like Charlie Chan, but actually on the whole it is performance of great authority and complexity.

They are supported by a supporting cast that are more than up to their level. Gale Sondergaard gives a very moving performance, and Lee J. Cobb is commanding in the more expanded role of the Kralahome. Linda Darnell gives Tuptin spunk and emotion, never falling into passiveness.

Visually, 'Anna and the King of Siam' is pretty exquisite, with Arthur Miller's marvellous cinematography and the lavish and evocative sets deservedly winning Oscars. Bernard Hermann's music score is a good fit and a strong score in its own right, if not iconic status like 'Psycho' or 'Vertigo'.

Scripting is literate and provokes thought, while the story is sensitively and movingly told with the conflict very convincing. John Cronwell's direction, apart from the odd lack of liveliness, is solid.

Overall, a very good film especially for the acting. 8/10 Bethany Cox

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.

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.

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.

While "Anna and the King of Siam" is largely similar to the later musical version "The King and I", I did enjoy this older film more thoroughly. "Anna and the King of Siam" has a more serious tone and takes the time to form a more coherent story of some depth. The acting, sets, cinematography, and costumes are all great. Worth watching. My rating 7/10.

I had to watch this movie for a film class, I suffered the whole time through. I am not Asian but was still greatly offended by this film. The film's basis is racialism, overall minorities (Rex Harrison isn't even Asian!) are depicted in narrow-minded manner. The banning of the film in Thailand illustrates the degree inaccuracy and subjective portrayal of Asians. In addition, there has been critical attention given to Biography of Anna. Many critics argue that Anna added many fictitious events to her story to project herself in a good manner. Some critics of the film and biography have even stated that Anna made up the whole story. An awful film but good for discussion of BioPics as form of meta-narrative fiction rather than a work of non-fiction.

I have seen the King and I so I was anxious to see this movie: Anna and the King of Siam. I am also a huge Irene Dune fan. However, I am not sure if this movie was made for her sake, the USA sake or just plain the studios! The out right Caucasian supremacy and arrogance of Anna's character is ridiculous! So, a Caucasian woman just walked into another country and just told a king what to do and sashay out of the castle?! I mean really even in the USA at that time period she would NOT have acted that way to the President of the United States! Such disrespect would have never happened. I like her other movies much better or should I say I like the writing better in her other movies.

It's easy to decry this original non-musical version of the story of Anna and the King as one which glorifies the civilising influence of the west over the uneducated, unsophisticated and unenlightened people of the east. Putting to one side the practice of the time of having white actors being made-up and adopting awkward accents to play the roles of foreigners, we're led to believe that the common-sense and piety dispensed by Irene Dunne's tutor to the Royal Household can reach out and change the despotic conduct of the King, played by Rex Harrison.

So it is difficult to unpick the overweening patronising attitudes displayed in the writing, acting and direction but somewhere beneath all the flummery, helped by the sympathetic acting of Dunne and Harrison, as well as by Leo J Cobb as the King's Prime Minister, Gale Sondergaard as Lady Thiang and Linda Darnell as his rebellious current favourite, Lady Tuptim, it's just about possible to see it as "only a movie" and appreciate besides, at least to some extent, the story-telling, crowd-scenes and studio-sets of Golden Age Hollywood. It can however be difficult to watch at times, besides all that unedifying servility, there's the ruthless punishment meted out to Tuptim and her lover when they're barbarically burned at the stake by the vengeful king (at least the later musical had the sense to tone down her punishment to mere exile).

It sure is strange to watch a film painting such an idealised picture of Western, or more specifically American democracy at a time when Hollywood itself was coming under attack from the House Unamerican Activities Committee which would lead to the Blacklist and in the process ruin the careers of left-leaning movie-makers and workers of whom Sondergaard herself (who was actually nominated for an Oscar for her role) was a prominent casualty.

The revisionist in me then should abhor and detest this film but I'm going to apply the old "of its time" defence and say that for all its faults, it still managed to entertain me with its old-style razzle-dazzle.

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:)

Since the making of Rogers & Hammerstien's The King and I ten years after this production, it has been difficult not to compare the two, especially as the later glossy cinema-scope musical version is virtually identical in all but the songs. The performance of Rex Harrison is actually rather good for a white man daubed with boot polish on his face, but of all the cast it is Lee J. Cobb (as the Prime Minister to the King) who stands out, so I am not sure why Gale Sondergaard (Tip Tem) was nominated for an Oscar rather than he. The production design and photography is excellent and fully deserves the Oscar awards. There is the usual Americanisation of a British story, thus devaluing its quality. Irene Dunn is an American actress playing an English rose, she tries hard, but she is not Deborah Kerr, and her "son" is totally American, no vestige of an English accent at all! What also spoils the believability of the story (which is loosely based upon exaggerated fact) is English porcelain clearly spelling Honour as Honor! Also, the King's obsession with the American Civil war and Abraham Lincoln is baffling when you consider that this story is set in a time when the divided American States were engrossed fighting amongst themselves, whilst Great Britain was the most powerful nation on earth and the British Empire at its height. The difference between a good film and an excellent film is in the detail, accuracy, respect to race and its believability – this could have been an excellent film had such an English story not been Americanised quite so clumsily.

Like other reviewers on here, I knew the musical The King and I, which I have always enjoyed, before I finally saw this movie. And, as others have said, they are two different things, each with their own merits.

What I enjoyed most about this very fine movie was the particularly fine performance of Irene Dunne. I've seen her in other movies where she delivers a nuanced and understated performance, which is true of this movie as well, and in spades. There are times when just watching how she plays various emotions across her face is fascinating by itself. Other times she lets us see hints of emotions that her character then suppresses. Harrison is good as the King, though he plays him with broader strokes, as the script calls him to do. Anna is a complex individual, however, and Dunne does full justice to all its complexity.

------------------------------------

I just watched this movie again tonight, and I was struck, again, by Dunne's fine, understated performance, but also by the intelligence of the script and the pacing. The main characters are all three-dimensional, in an era when it would have been easy to do caricatures of the Siamese characters. Things move along at an unhurried pace, but it is never too slow.

It's really one very fine movie.

--------------------------

And now I've watched it yet again on TCM, and my admiration for this movie only grows. I still stick by everything I've written in the past. Another thing that struck me on this latest watching was the very intelligent discussion of the importance of the rule of law. I have no idea if that exists in the book on which this movie was based. But this movie makes repeated and intelligent argument emphasizing that arbitrary rule by personal whim is not acceptable in the modern world. It must have struck particular chords in the immediate post-World War II world into which it was released.

I'm not an Irene Dunne fan, and this movie didn't really change my mind about her. She plays Anna Leonowens, and yet she still speaks in her slightly Southern twang. She has all her usual mannerisms, expressions, and deliveries, which don't make for a believable character in the 1800s. Sometimes, silver screen period pieces were very convincing, but Anna and the King of Siam definitely retained its 1946 feeling. Hoop skirts and pretty set design weren't enough, and not just because of Irene Dunne. Let's address the elephant in the room: white actors pretending to be Siamese. This movie was made in 1946, and that's just the way things were done back then. So, Rex Harrison plays the King of Siam, Gale Sondergaard plays his Number One wife, Linda Darnell is Tuptim, and Lee J. Cobb plays a trusted advisor. While Gale is moderately convincing, Lee should never have been cast. He's a great character actor, but not while playing another ethnicity. Linda is beautiful and voluptuous, and this isn't the only time she plays someone "of color". While we can't change the choices made back then, sometimes it just feels silly to watch these movies. Then again, ten years later, had Hollywood really changed? A Russian actor played the King of Siam, and Rita Moreno played Tuptim.

The actors themselves certainly weren't at fault, though, especially because at that time, if they refused a role, they were suspended from the studio without pay for six months! Paul Muni's career came to a screeching halt when he complained about being cast as different ethnicities; he didn't make a movie for nearly fifteen years. With that preface, I'm going to compliment Rex Harrison. As the king, it was one of the only sympathetic roles of his career. I felt so sorry for him, as he didn't understand the culture clash and why he was being left behind by the modern world. He wanted the best for the future of his country, but he was scared his son would be a better ruler than him. Through him, I really saw the character fleshed out, as opposed to Yul Brynner's shirtless, sexy strut that didn't give much chance for inner feelings showing through.

I would of liked to see a lot more of the culture in Siam like what food they ate, what kind of bed they sleep on, what religion they follow. What do the people outside of the King's palace do for a living? Do the children go to school? Are they allowed more than one child? Where were the King's parents? Do they have pets? How did they decide who's King of Siam? What kind of medical did they practice? What kind of medicine did they have? So much of Siam's culture is missing in this. The only Siam culture this showed was when in the presence of the King you get down on the floor & are lower than the King, women are shown no respect, & have no place except as mothers, the King has many wives, & they use chopsticks. So much more could of been done.

King?

At times pleasant, but mostly so-so version of the true exploits of English governess Margaret Langdon. There are many positives; perfect costuming and art direction, which the latter was awarded an Oscar. Cinematography also won the top honor and is quite lavish and well timed. As for the performances; Harrison's king doesn't have the grace, timing and presence of Yul Brynner's later screen king. While Dunne is a fine actress, she seems too warped into the melodramatic, while missing the lightness of the character and of the relationship she shares with the king. She has moments where she is quite close to having her down, but she holds herself back. The problems with the film are not major and it is quite lovely to look at. Sumptuous sets and exceptional photography carry us through, though director Cromwell suffered from the same problems as Dunne; the film lacked a sense of fun and light heartedness. This is not a horrible film, but it's taken a bit too seriously.