Anna and the King is the fourth film that’s been made based on events in Bangkok, Siam, in 1862, when a British governess was hired by the king's court to teach his many children (more than 50, and counting, from his many wives and concubines). The first two (Anna and the King of Siam, starring Irene Dunne and Rex Harrison from 1946, and the musical The King and I, starring Deborah Kerr and Yul Brynner from 1956) are classics. Time will tell if this latest remake will reach classic status, but it has many of the qualities: it's a "big" film with gorgeous scenery, exotic locales, a can't-miss story, and great performances, especially from the two leads, Jodie Foster and Chow Yun-Fat. On the other hand, enjoyable as it is, this isn't a film that stays with you long after the initial viewing.
Foster plays imperialist schoolteacher Anna Leonowens, widowed with a young son, who comes to Siam (now known as Thailand) after spending the past 20 years in India. She hasn't forgotten her British ways because "India is English. That's what being colonized is all about." According to her, and most British people during this time, "The ways of England are the ways of the world." The ugly Englishman is the precursor to the ugly American. Obviously, might makes right.
Anna is a woman who knows what she wants and is not going to sit meekly by even in this highly sexist society. She doesn't really care about protocol around the king and insists on being treated as an equal. She creates quite a stir in the court where all subjects are required to drop to their knees and touch their foreheads to the ground in the mere presence of King Mongkut. But Anna doesn't shrink from this fearsome presence.
The king obviously has never encountered such insolence and is intrigued by this attractive foreigner. His intrigue turns to admiration when Anna reprimands both her own son and the king's for fighting in class. No doubt Mongkut has met his match. Slowly we see sparks beginning to ignite between the two. But Anna and the King is an odd romantic epic in that nothing obvious comes of the feelings they have for each other. It’s odd, but effective. Other than a dance or two, there's really nothing they could do about their feelings at that time in history and in that society. And yet the emotion is not at all diminished – make sure you’ve got tissues handy.
At two-and-a-half hours, there are perhaps too many storylines, including a political one about a traitor in the Siamese army trying to overthrow the king and the story of young lovers whose lives are affected by the meddling British do-gooder. Still, it’s a fine adaptation and will be a crowd pleaser.
Foster's accent is surprisingly spot-on and the charismatic Chow possesses a regal majesty. And you can't argue with the lesson that all cultures can learn from each other.
