Purely Joyful Movie!

The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

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

There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

This movie is based on a book by Margaret Landon in 1944. "Anna and the King of Siam" was a best-selling novel based on a true story. The story is much more interesting and intriguing than the movie can portray. And the true story within the story is more fascinating yet. So, how much of the movie is fact, and how much fiction? First, the film and then the background. The main characters are real, and played well. I don't hold with those who argue that a person of one race can't play a role of another race. That's part of what theater and acting are about. Sure, it's nice and best if one can find the talent and qualified actors to play various ethnic roles. But it's not necessary. And, I don't nitpick actors who don't look a part, or who's accents aren't perfect – unless they are quite terrible to the point of distraction.Rex Harrison does an excellent job as Mongkut, the king Siam. Lee J. Cobb is very good as Kralahome, his prime minister. He is probably the least believable as Siamese, and that's because his distinct voice, build and persona are so well known. But his acting, and broken English (as one might expect of a Siamese), are very good. Gale Sondergaard is so good in her role as Lady Thiang that she looks and sounds Siamese. Linda Darnell is almost as convincing as Tuptim.Now the background. Margaret Landon was an American missionary who served with her husband in Siam from 1927-1937. She taught here three children along with Siamese in a mission school in Trang. She studied and read all about the country. She learned about Anna Leonowens who had been a governess to the Siamese royal family in the 19th century. After Landon's family returned to the U.S. in 1937, she wrote the book about Anna. It was a best-seller in 1944, and 20th Century Fox made this movie in 1946. A decade later, her book also would become the source for the Fox musical, "The King and I." But how much of the book is true? And how much is the film true to the book, and the real life story? I didn't read the book so I can't comment on it. Another book about Anna came out in 2008 that gave a somewhat different background. "Bombay Anna" was written by Susan Morgan. It claims to tell "the real story and the remarkable adventures of the 'King and I' governess." A New York Times review of that book on Oct. 20, 2008, called Anna Leonowens a con woman. "On disembarking in Singapore as a young widow in 1859, this gifted con woman subtracted three years from her age, relocated her birthplace from Bombay to Wales, forgot her mother's Indian parentage, promoted her father from private to major and changed her husband from a clerk to an army officer." Leonowens was educated and knew languages – Hindi, Marathi, Persian and Sanskrit, and she could mimic a genteel English accent. She was Anglo-Indian and born Nov 6, 1831, in India. In 1849, she married an Irish clerk, Thomas Leon Owens. The two surnames later were merged. The couple spent several years in Australia where a daughter and son were born. First was Avis in 1854, and then Louis in 1856. In 1859, Thomas died of a stroke in Malaysia where he managed a hotel. Then Anna moved with here children to Singapore, where she revised her background to fit in among the expatriate British colony there.King Mongkut of Siam was born in 1804. He became a Buddhist monk and read and studied much. He helped establish a monastery that became the intellectual center of Siam. Mongkut became king in 1851 and reigned until his death in 1868. In 1861, he asked his agent in Singapore to find an English governess for his children. Leonowens got the job and arrived in Bangkok in 1862. She sent daughter Avis to England to school and taught Thomas along with the royal household. She later sent Thomas to England to finish his schooling, and after five years she left Siam for the United Sates. She later moved to Montreal, Canada, to be near her daughter, and she died there in 1915 at age 84.So, how much of the movie is true to history? Well, Anna didn't stay into old age when the king died. He was older than she and he died in 1868. In the U.S. she wrote her memoirs and was successful as a teacher and traveling on the lecture circuit. Her son, Louis, did not die from an accident in Siam. Mongkut did write to a U.S. president and offer elephants. But it wasn't Abraham Lincoln, it was James Buchanan (1857-1861), and it was before Anna arrived in Bangkok. Mongkut was a progressive leader who ensured liberal education for his sons. After his death, they began many of his reforms. There is much more about Siam, Mongkut, Anna and others that room doesn't allow to tell here.In one scene, Mongkut has summoned Anna in the middle of the night. He questions the Bible story of creation. Anna says "Your majesty, the Bible was not written by men of science. It was written by men of faith. It was their explanation of the miracle of creation, which is just as great a miracle whether it took six days or many centuries. I think science does not contradict the Bible. It has only made us more aware of how great the miracle was."

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.

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 -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.