Based on the memoirs of Anna Leonowens, an English woman that went to Siam as a teacher to the royal family of the then King Mongkut, gave way to Margaret Landon's novel that served as the setting for the 1946 Twentieth Century production. It was 1862 when the action occurs. The kingdom of Siam is breaking from its splendor into what became the modern Thailand. It must have been a quite a cultural shock for an educated woman facing an exotic land she knew nothing about.The original film was directed by John Cromwell who gave the material a lavish treatment. Talbot Jennings and Sally Benson adapted Ms. Landon's book into a film that even by today's standards can stand against the other versions of the novel. Of course, the Rogers and Hammerstein's musical "The King and I" was a glossy account of what had been achieved in a film with less. Who can forget Yul Brynner in the role? Comparisons do not take into account what was achieved by Mr. Cromwell.Irene Dunne was always a reliable actress that gave excellent portrayals of whatever she was asked to play. It is a pleasure watching her in the role of the woman that had the resolute spirit to stand for what she believed, even if she had to speak her mind to a king. Rex Harrison's king, while not as strong, still shows an actor that knew how to convince us he was that strange individual, cruel, as well as generous. The combination of Ms. Dunne and Mr. Harrison paid off well.The great Lee J. Cobb shows up in a supporting role. We had trouble placing him with the dark looks he was given for his part. Linda Darnell is Lady Tuptim, the girl that goes from being a favorite to being rejected by the king. Gale Sondergaard appears as the disgraced wife that only wants to have the crown prince learn from Anna.The cinematography is by Arthur Miller who produced vivid images of a phony Siam appear real. Bernard Hermann's musical score works well in the picture. John Cromwell directed with style and got excellent results from the large cast. See the film for what it is and do not compare it with what came out later. This was the original!

"Anna and the King of Siam" 1946 is the first big screen adaptation to borrow from the personal journals and public account of British school teacher, Anna Leonowens and her experiences in the far East. After the death of her beloved husband, Anna (Irene Dunne) departed England in 1862 with her young son in tow to become the educator of the King of Siam's many children. However, upon arrival, Anna discovers that King Mongkut (Rex Harrison) is very much a renaissance man trapped in heritage thinking. He refuses to acknowledge Anna's request for a house, expects that she will bow and grovel as his servant, and demands, above all else that the protocol of suppliant be strictly observed. The headstrong Anna, of course, disagrees. And although their initial meeting is marred by a considerable clash of wills, eventually the two begin to recognize a genuine affection and respect for one another. He, in marvel of her forthright nature in the face of his wielding totalitarianism, realizes his way may not always be right. She, in absence of having a man to love, discovers a fallible side beneath the king's rather gruff façade. Together these two launch a formidable quest to bring western culture and change to the seemingly backward status of Siam. However, the revolution will neither be easy nor straight forward.Director, John Cromwell does his very best to ensure an integrity in what are essentially cardboard caricatures of people who perhaps defy any three-dimensional understanding. In point of fact, Anna Leonowens probably overestimated her influence on the country and its monarch in her journals. Hence, the whole tale is thrown off balance by a very traditionalist and imperialist perspective that reduces Mongkut to parody from the start. As a Siamese king, Rex Harrison is hardly ideally cast – yet he manages to make much of the shortcoming, transforming what might otherwise have been a very dismal characterization into a challenging bit of reflection. Irene Dunne is an effervescent Anna – though in her, one sees perhaps too much of the screwball heiress a la Cary Grant in "The Awful Truth" and less of the stalwart schoolmarm that was, in fact, the real Anna Leonowens.Fox's Studio Line transfer on "Anna and The King of Siam" is impressive, if flawed. Though dirt, scratches and grain are kept to a bare minimum, there are still occasions riddled throughout, where the gray scale falters. Blacks are sometimes black, sometimes deep gray. Whites can be clean, but most often appear slightly speckled. Contrast levels vary throughout. There's some speculation as to whether dupe negatives were used for certain scenes. There is a genuine loss of fine details in certain scenes. The audio is mono but nicely balanced. The only extras are an audio commentary and a Biography Special on the real Anna Leonowens.

"Anna And The King Of Siam" is the original, non-musical, version of what was later re-made with Deborah Kerr and Yul Brenner as "The King And I". This is one of the few Irene Dunne originals that is not better than the remake. Irene Dunne was a highly original and intelligent woman and had few equals either before the camera or in her private life. In fact, if you consider all of Irene Dunne's original movies that have been remade into newer versions with the same name: such as "Back Street" 1932 or "Magnificent Obsession" 1935 or "Showboat" 1936 or "Age of Innocence" 1934 - or under a different title: such as "An Affair To Remember" which was a remake of "Love Affair" 1939 or "Something's Got To Give" which was essentially the same plot as "My Favorite Wife" 1940 - it amazes me that she was nominated six times for best actress and NEVER WON! Usually, her original versions are much better than the remakes. Anna and the King of Siam would have been had the remake not included such a lovely musical score and been so beautifully filmed in color.

Too many people who have seen "the King and I" before viewing this film have unjustly compared it unfavorably to the musical. You can't compare Sir Rex and Mr. Brynner as the King. the performances are so different. Harrison gives a wonderfully cruel yet compassionate performance. he is a slyer, more intellectual Monkut than Brynner was. His scenes with Irene Dunne bubble with chemistry. Dunne is every inch the Anna that Deborah Kerr was and gets a scene that was removed from the remake. The performance she gives after the death of her son was stunning!I recommend this film over the musical for sheer consistency of style. Sir Rex and Ms. Dunne are wonderful together and the entire film its a gem fro start to finish.