The King and I

Never learn your history from the movies. Never has this statement been more relevant than in the case of The King and I, a Rodgers and Hammerstein musical based on the 1944 novel Anna and the King of Siam, which was based on the memoirs of Anna Leonowens. Not only is this film based on something that was based on something else, but soon after the film was released, renewed interest in Anna led to the discovery that much of her story was fictionalized by the woman herself. By this time, Anna had long since died and was unable to defend her choice to conceal the truths of her life—even her gravestone contains a deliberate falsehood—so we can only speculate why she felt the need to hide the truth. Perhaps the real story is nowhere near as exciting as the one she told in those memoirs.

Whatever the real reasons are, she told a story that fascinated Margaret Landon enough to write Anna and the King of Siam. It became the fifth Rodgers and Hammerstein musical in 1951, which was popular enough to get the attention of 20th Century Fox. In 1956, it was released to theaters to critical and commercial acclaim and was nominated for nine Academy Awards, winning five. But it had stiff competition that year with The Ten Commandments, Giant, Friendly Persuasion, and Around the World in 80 Days, all vying for the top prize. Ultimately, Around the World in 80 Days won that year, though that decision is questionable in retrospect. 

The story, as told in the film, takes place in 1862. A widowed schoolteacher named Anna (Deborah Kerr) arrives in Bangkok, Siam, with her young son, Louis (Rex Thompson). She has been summoned there to tutor the many children of King Mongkut (Yul Brynner) in English and the sciences. Upon arrival, she discovers that he intends for her to also tutor all of his many wives as well, and that his children are many. On top of this, he does not grant her the home she was expected upon arrival, insisting that she stay in the palace. 

While King Mongkut is very progressive in his views in some ways, Anna soon discovers that he is also very traditional in many other ways, including his insistence that no one’s head may be higher than the king’s. He also has many slaves and concubines. He sees little value in women, including his wives and concubines, beyond baring children and being there to satisfy his every need. Previously, he had had Christian missionaries teaching the children and wives, but now he wants to educate them in more than just religious matters. Anna and Mongkut clash a great deal over differences in culture and thinking, but eventually, he will come to respect her for what she has to offer. That will be put to the test, though, when news arrives of visitors from England. Rumors have been being spoken in England that Siam is a barbaric country, and Mongkut insists that every effort be made to impress the visitors and show that Siam is in fact a civilized country. Anna is tasked to make that happen with less than a week before the guests arrive.

The first thing to know is that, as a film from the 1950s, this does not worry about casting a non-Asian actor as the King of Siam. Yul Brynner is of Russian descent and doesn’t look Asian in the slightest. Neither does Rita Moreno, who is cast as Tumpim, his most recent concubine from Burma. It was par for the course in those days to cast any Asian leading characters with non-Asian actors. While this is still problematic in The King and I, it is not as egregious as it could have been. This is no Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany’s or Peter Ustinov in One of Our Dinosaurs is Missing. Many of the background performers are Asian but none of the leads. It’s unfortunate but it is a sign of the times.

And speaking of Yul Brynner, his portrayal of King Mongkut is a touch bizarre. He is bringing a bit of levity into this performance that I haven’t seen him do before. In just a few short months, he would follow up this film with The Ten Commandments, where he was playing another leader, Rameses II, but playing it the polar opposite of what he is doing here. We have no video or eyewitness to consult as to the character of King Mongkut, and what Anne wrote cannot be relied on for accuracy, so we don’t really know the personality of the King and how he interacted with those around him, at least not in this kind of detail. This caused problems with The King and I gaining distribution in Thailand (modern-day Siam). Most versions of this story are banned in that country for this very reason. 

King Mongkut’s views on science and education are fascinating to look at in their historical context. At this time in the world, Buddhists did not recognize scientific truths like a spherical Earth. Buddhist scripture describes the Earth as flat, and it would generally at this time be considered heretical to question that. That makes Mongkut’s views very progressive for the time. Still, his views on other things than science remained more traditional, and it is debated to this day whether Anna’s influence on one of his sons, Chulalongkorn, affected further change on things after Mongkut died. 

This is a musical, yet it shies away from big musical performances, a surprising choice considering elaborate choreography was very popular at the time. Instead, most of the musical numbers are simply one singer to themselves or are in a classroom setting where the kids are singing along with Anna. The sole exception is during the British visitors sequence when the wives and concubines put on an elaborate, and odd, musical theater production of Uncle Tom’s Cabin for the guests to enjoy. This sequence is so strange, but well-staged, that it breathes a weird energy into the film that has been sorely lacking to this point. It is far too choreographed for the women to have learned in the one week they had to pull this off, but we’re not meant to be thinking about that. Instead, we are to be thinking about the parallels between the slaves in the United States and what Mongkut has going on in his own kingdom.

This film has a kernel of greatness to it. Unfortunately, because it forgoes any elaborate musical numbers, besides the aforementioned one, and because it is shot like a live filming of a stage play, there is very little energy to the whole affair. On top of that, there are only a handful of locations on display, making the castle feel very small. This is even called attention to in the film when the king complains about the sound of his kids singing as if he has no place to relocate either himself or them to give himself some peace and quiet. All of this contributes to making this film feel small in scale. There was potential here, but it really amounts to little but a mild diversion. 

Academy Award Nominations:

Best Motion Picture: Charles Brackett

Best Director: Walter Lang

Best Actor: Yul Brynner (won)

Best Actress: Deborah Kerr

Best Art Direction - Color: Lyle R. Wheeler, John DeCuir, Walter M. Scott, and Paul S. Fox (won)

Best Cinematography - Color: Leon Shamroy

Best Costume Design - Color: Irene Sharaff (won)

Best Scoring of a Musical Picture: Alfred Newman and Ken Darby (won)

Best Sound Recording: Carlton W. Faulkner (won)

____________________________________________________

Release Date: June 28, 1956

Running Time: 133 Minutes

Not Rated

Starring: Deborah Kerr, Yul Brynner, Rita Moreno, Martin Benson, and Rex Thompson

Directed by: Walter Lang