Anna and the King

After watching the film, I wondered why this story, set in the country of Siam (Thailand) has been so popular. The original novel, The King and I by Margaret Langdon was first a Rogers and Hammerstein stage musical, then a non-musical film Anna and the King of Siam (1946) with Rex Harrison and Irene Dunne, then The King and I (1956) as a musical with Yul Brynner and Deborah Kerr (singing voices dubbed) and it has now been repeated as this non-musical film. There is even an Australian animated version that was released a year after this film and there was a TV series (1972).

The situational cross gender construct between the protagonists has several conflicts from the beginning. Anna is an employee and he is both the king and her employer, she is a grieving widow and he has 60+ wives and/or concubines, she is an Englishwoman and he a Siamese. The story line set in 1862 uses these male and female roles to dramatize the culture clash. However we can still find this clash, albeit subtler, in our world today. And that answers my question about popularity. We are still able to identify with their problems.

It is interesting that the king is depicted as a gentle, peaceful man who prefers negotiation to war. Yet he remains bound to a culture, which dictates violent justice. This is an ageless internal conflict and one I can relate to. Its also interesting that this is a story about love, which cannot be consummated in marriage or sex. I found a parallel to this king in the character Tomas in Kunderas Unbearable Lightness of Being who separated love and sex in his life, although probably there is a better comparison with the sexual repression of Jane Austens characters. This barrier creates one of the elements of tension in the film. The back-story of politics and intrigue creates the other.

I thought Yun-Fat Chow was superb as the king. He seemed to have a natural regal bearing. It was as though they resurrected the king himself from the grave. He delivered power, strength and sensitivity to his role.

Jodie Foster does a wonderful job of portraying a feisty, pinched faced, English school marm. However she was unable to completely hide her Americanisms and for that reason an English actress might have been a more interesting casting.

The focus is on the stars of this film and I enjoyed watching them work. However, without music, the plot seems to move slowly at first. That could be a perception due to foreknowledge.

Although there is history and depth to the story it falls into the category of an extravaganza chick flick love story with a cast of zillions, including quite a few elephants. The epilogue implies that there really was an Anna and a king and furthermore their relationship influenced the king to eliminate slavery, introduce a judicial system and bring his country into the mainstream. Its not Shakespeare, but its entertaining.

Reviewed August 17, 2003