Sick Product of a Sick System

Plenty to Like, Plenty to Dislike

I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

Bette Davis wanted to play Anna very badly, but Warner Bros., her studio, refused to loan her out to 20th Century Fox, who produced the movie. The fact she couldn't play this role was one of her greatest career disappointments. She confessed this on a 1971 'Dick Cavett' show.

Solid drama that was the genesis for The King and I is much darker in tone than the later musical. Rex Harrison and Irene Dunne do well by their characters and Lee J. Cobb is appropriately brusk as the king's right hand man. Gale Sondergaad is compassionate and regal as the number one wife. Linda Darnell perfectly haughty and full of youthful pride as the tragic Tuptim. Her fate is quite different than the one meet by Rita Moreno in the musical. This is the picture during which she was slightly burned during filming leading to her lifelong fear of fire, a sad irony since that was to be her end. A very good film but if you enter into viewing it expecting a similar experience to the Yul Brynner/Deborah Kerr picture you're in for quite a shock.

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.

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.