lasttimeisaw
This classic musical extravaganza stars a contrasting pair Deborah Kerr and Yul Brynner, a British widow Anna sails to Siam to be the governess of King Mongkut's many children and wives in the early 1860s, as the king is dedicative to modernise his country with western civilisation.This premise is grating enough to introduce the scenario completely based on westerners' wanton concoction and superior hubris to a less civilised society. As a successful adaptation of a sensational play, the film practically is a more lavish play in a giant set, it won 5 Oscars (Brynner won for BEST LEADING ACTOR) with 9 nominations altogether including the big five.The film goes extensively into the ostentation and extravagance of its exotic setting, which must have been marvellous for audience then, all that glittery, kitschy bells and whistles are visually winsome, most prominently is the enthralling choreography of a Thai version of UNCLE TOM'S CABIN. But the central story, an oriental king versus a dignified British lady, fabricates the drama which is too primitive and too on-the-nose, what's more disheartening, the film in shamelessly biased in the Thai culture, and not in an ironical way which one can laugh about it as a self-mocking ridicule, under today's world, it is untimely, irrelevant and politically incorrect (at least hiring some real Asians in the extras for Christ's sake!). Brynner's Oscar-winning performance is quite a novelty then, a star-making opportunity for him to introduce to audience with his unique handsomeness and virility, with a bald head although it is a reprise of his role in the original play, he insistently flaunts his sinewy bod to justify his masculinity, verbalises his lines with peculiar accent and extracts a lively combination of royal panache and congenial naiveté albeit his plot twist in the end is too brusque to accept.This is maybe Deborah Kerr's most memorable role and she is so fearlessly engaging in embodying all the virtues of a dignified woman with nobility, candidness kind-heartedness and self-respect, sadly both her and Brynner cannot rescue the entire film from becoming awfully outmoded after nearly 60 years.All its music numbers are standard show-tunes from a bygone era, some is bordering on cringe-worthy for my ear, simply not my cuppa. The story itself is a detritus made only for the world-view of 19th century, our concept of ethnology has thankfully evolved through one and a half centuries, so sometimes, something better being left in its own time-frame, otherwise heedful readjustment is indispensably needed to adopt the new mindset of a different generation, as much as I adore two leads' performances and all the efforts behind the production team, the film I really cannot endorse.
weezeralfalfa
Although it's a rather difficult choice to make, this is probably my favorite R&H-scored film. Like the others, it's filled with mostly memorable songs. However, the screenplay, lavish sets, quite exotic setting, cinematography, and up and down relationship between the main characters, played by Yul Brynner and Deborah Kerr, are equally important in giving it a superior rating. Based upon the historic 6 year relationship between world-traveling, widowed, Brit Anna Leonowens and Thai King Mongkut, it introduces some significant fabrications, especially as relates to the controversial last portion, when The King somehow wills his death, after a very emotion confrontation with Anna over his imminent flogging of harem girl Tuptim for her disloyalty in running away with her preferred lover. Historically, The King died suddenly of malaria, after Anna had left for Britain, she being dissatisfied with some of the terms of her employment. By then, she was no longer teaching the palace children and women, but serving as The King's secretary, as suggested in a scene where The King is dictating a letter to President Lincoln, offering to send some male war elephants to help defeat the seceding states. This scene, as many, suggests that The king regards females as grossly inferior to males. Also, he took very seriously the custom of his subjects prostrating themselves before him, never being higher than his head. This functions as a running gag, along with the too frequently repeated "etc., etc.,etc.", even being included in the King's death scene. This is in contrast to the historic King, who actually instituted some reforms, raising the status of women, although he didn't go far enough for the critical feminist Leonowens. His son and successor , Chulalongkorn, would, over a much longer reign, institute many more reforms, as minimally suggested in the finale. As suggested earlier in the film, both kings were largely motived to institute radical legal, financial and political change to discourage being taken over as a protectorate of some European power, most probably the UK. However, as I understand the meaning of the last portion of the film, The King is conflicted as to whether to enforce his traditional way of dealing with a personal crisis, which Anna labels as barbaric, or do what she recommends. The King was determined not to appear 'barbaric' to western observers, yet felt emasculated in giving into Anna's criticism of his traditional way of dealing with the crisis. Thus, he felt he had to die, and hand over his throne to his young son, who lacked his 'baggage' of a long life of traditional Thai culture, and thus presumably felt more free to institute many European-based social and political reforms. The historic Chulalongkorn was actually mid-teen, rather than the younger boy cast, when called upon to assume the throne. Although he had a regent for a few years, he felt considerably more qualified as a young king than the boy in the film, who has to initially lean on others, including Anna, in beginning to take on the role of king.Although The King periodically says that he is determined not to be considered by Europeans as a 'barbarian', in fact, Brynner, comes across as looking and often acting like a classic palace-bound pampered oriental despot, with his large harem, shaved head, bare feet, frequent menacing look with semi-oriental eyes, sometimes with defiant Mussolini-like hands on hips or arms folded across his chest posturing, frequent finger-pointing, and generally bombastic persona. That is the central irony of the screenplay! Adding to this irony, Anna periodically states that she doesn't consider him a 'barbarian'. Yet, clearly, she(as representative of a western audience) considers some of his excesses in trying to demonstrate his overpowering authority as king as symptomatic of a 'barbarian'...Of course, Brynner had plenty of practice on stage to perfect this persona. As some have pointed out, he often acts as if he is speaking to a live audience, rather than a film audience. However, this exaggerated bravado and gesticulations actually much enhances the irony of the conflict between our perception of him and his verbal statements of how he wishes to be regarded.Scottish-born Debora was quite good in her role as a school-marmish independent-minded feminist, who refuses to be squashed by The King's immense ego, but sometimes diplomatically accommodates his disapproved actions, in the hope that eventually she can change him. Their relationship rather resembles that of a marriage between two very head-strong people, who eventually divorce, after periodic threats of separation over disagreements. Although Anna clearly couldn't become one of The King's harem, just before he dies, The King gives her a valued ring to wear , in remembrance of him: thus functioning as sort of a wedding ring, in recognition of his respect for her gumption and frequent wise advice.The forbidden romance between new harem girl Tuptin(Rita Moreno) and her Burmese boyfriend Lun Tha provides a somewhat visible romance , in a story where the lead male and female clearly cannot fully express their romantic feelings toward each other. This romance also provides the impetus for the unique "Uncle Tom's Cabin" production, in a traditional Thai drama style, as well as the tragic-appearing last portion of the film. We are left perhaps wondering what became of Tuptin, after she is dragged out of the room, having learned that her boyfriend drowned himself after her recapture. Did she also commit suicide? That would have been too much sudden tragedy for the ending of a musical. Her great granddaughter claims this historic woman became one of Chulalongkorn's harem.The melody for one of my favorite songs in this film: "Getting to Know You", was a reject from the previous "South Pacific", but fits in quite well with Hammerstein's new lyrics.Perhaps I especially like this film because, as a Westerner, I am married to a SE Asian from a traditional agrarian culture and, yes, we are both quite headstrong.
Leofwine_draca
Nothing to dislike here. THE KING AND I is a sumptuous screen staging of a stage musical, replete with exotic locations and vivid song-and-dance numbers to keep the pace running along smoothly. It's a film that's bolstered by a fine pair of central performances from the perfectly-matched Deborah Kerr and Yul Brynner, two actors who bring empathy, wit and warmth to their parts as governess and king respectively.Brynner in particular is one of those actors who's so memorable that I'll watch a film based on his presence alone. He's in his element here as the vain, arrogant, fey, funny and deeply human King of Siam, his energy helping bring the movie to life. Kerr is the emotional heart who holds it all together.The songs are fine and the moments of theatre are particularly good; the restaging of UNCLE TOM'S CABIN is, in particular, the highlight of the movie for me. But it's just one highlight in a movie that's full of them. Yes, some of the supporting performances are weak and often the theatrical roots of the production are all too evident, but for the most part this is great stuff.
