Anna and The King, Produced by Lawrence Bender & Ed

Elbert; Directed by Andy Tennant; screenplay by

Steve Meerson & Peter Krikes based on the Memoirs
Anna Leonownes. 1999; Colour; 147 minutes.
Distributer: Twentieth Century Fox.

Anna and the King is the fourth time Hollywood has returned to the story of Mrs. Anna

Leonownes’s. The writers Steve Meerson and Peter Krikes and director Andy Tennant claim

a closer approximation to the truth because they have based their story on the diaries of

Leonownes rather than on Margaret Landon's best-selling novel Anna and the King of Siam

(1943), the source for all previous film and stage versions of the story, including Anna and

the King of Siam (1946); the Broadway musical The King and I (1951, revived 1997); The

King and I (1956); Anna and the King (television series, 1972); and The King and I

(animated cartoon, 1999)(Smith 2000). This film is a romantic saga set in nineteenth century

Siam (Thailand) with stupendous performances by Judie Foster (Anna) and, as many argue

the hitherto underutilised, Chow Yun-Fat (King Mongkut). Critics have vehemently argued

that Hollywood has never been able to produce a historically significant version of the story;

Anna and the King fits the bill to a large extent as it trudges the beaten path with subtle

variations.

The memoirs of Anna Leonownes, since their publication, have been condensed, construed,

reinterpreted, dramatised and animated, each time giving a different perspective to the

understanding of the orient by the civilised west. Anna has been equally lauded and loathed

by the critics and her works have been studied by historians, feminists and academicians

alike. Anna’s memoirs, of a young widow-whose pluck and determination enabled her to care

for her young son and westernize a proud Asian monarch, captured the Anglo-American

cultural imagination like no other story during the post-World War II era (Donaldson, 1990).

1
Critics have pointed out that this movie posits a less Eurocentric view than its predecessors.

Not only because of the fact that the King’s role, for the first time, is played by an Asian but

also because the movie tries to strike a balance between the so called “Asian culture” and

“European standards”. Anna, the protagonist, once furiously retorts to a proud comment on

English superiority by declaring that – “I don’t recall anyone being given the right to judge

whose culture or customs are superior especially when those judging’s are frequently done

so on the point of gun”, a departure from all the other version of the story where

eurocentricity was poignant.

The film opens with an exotic and chaotic panorama of the orient, with a background

narrative by Prince Chulalongkorn, the future King of Siam (Thailand), where he mentions

that Anna was the first English woman whom he has ever met and he found out that Anna

knows more about the world than anyone else, but it was a world “Siam was afraid would

consume her” and the prince when being introduced to the teacher, tells his father – “Have I

done anything to offend you, why do you punish me with this imperialist school teacher”,

statements which astutely convey the perception of the nobility in 19th century Siam. The

movie portrays how Siam was struggling to keep itself independent in the face of occupation,

by the European powers, of its neighbouring countries and its strained relationship with

Burma, which was a British Protectorate. This movie also highlights the frequent indulgence

of the English in the politics of the states in Asia There are many instances in the movie

which effectively point to the fact that the Europeans used trade and diplomacy as tools to

consolidate their power in Asia. There is also a clear reference to the political and economical

role played by the East India Company in forwarding the ambitions of the British Empire.

Anna and the King is set in a period which has utmost historical significance. Dramatic

events were unfolding in the world in 1861– the American Civil war, abolishment of serfdom

and subsequent emancipation of the serfs formalised in Imperial Russia and Taiping rebellion
2
had escalated into a civil war in China. Thailand (Siam) is the only country in Southeast Asia

which has never been colonised and Phra Bat Somdet Phra Poramenthramaha Mongkut Phra

Chom Klao Chao Yu Hua or Rama IV or popularly known as King Mongkut came to the

throne in 1852, when European nations were carving up Asia. Thailand has been literally

known as the land of the free, since its formation in thirteenth century. The people of Siam

(Thailand) had woven a dazzling tapestry of culture and had so far preserved it through

waves of invaders but these were testing times. Historians have argued that Siam's avoidance

of colonization was largely the result of King Mongkut's skill in international relations. For

seventeen years he steered his country through the conflicting pressures and territorial

ambitions of France and England and set the course that preserved the independence of his

country-the only country in Southeast Asia never to have fallen under European domination.

King Mongkut, the monk turned king, had to tread a very thin line between diplomacy and

war in order to ensure the sovereignty of his nation.

King Mongkut, in nineteenth century Siam, decided to confront the enemy not with guns but

gifts. In a letter to Queen Victoria, Mongkut declared that he is her affectionate brother

related by the race of royalty. To other heads of states the king sends photographs of himself

by way of introduction. The king offered an elephant each to Napoleon III of France and

Abraham Lincoln. The king signed treaties with all the foreign giants. The Bowring treaty

was signed with the United Kingdom, which opened Siam for “large scale foreign

commerce” – the centripetal order of the country and the amenability of the monarch making

direct British rule unnecessary (Buzard, 1993). The king even permitted British to import the

substance he most despised – opium. Yet when the kings barrage of goodwill is over the

superpowers were disarmed, none dare invade Siam for the fear of sparking war with the

other. Therefore against the many headed dragon of colonialism King Mongkut had scored a

stunning victory even though momentarily. But the king understood that his diplomatic

3
triumph is temporary and Europe’s influence inevitable. The film portrays a progressive King

Mongkut who proclaims that – “Reform is important for my country’s progress, as tiny feet’s

changes so too will Siam” and it also highlights the King’s deeper understanding of the

intricacies of internal politics and his efforts to never displease the nobility, when he states

that – “the manner in which the people would understand such new possibilities is a process

of evolution. Everything in Siam has its own time it cannot be changed even if the king also

wants it to be different.”

Anna and the King explores the complex connections between sexuality and political power

in Siam. The crucial feature of Siam political culture were the patriarchal imperative - the

morally and legally institutionalized masculine demand of unlimited access to women, elite

male sexuality, forging political loyalties through martial ties, enabling culturally the

accumulation of wives by men, the ability of the man to retain his wives sexual loyalty

(Donaldson 1990). The King while introducing Anna to his family states that his royal family

includes –“ 23 wives, 42 concubines, 58 offspring’s and 10 more on the way, each one

unique and each one my hope for the future.” Contrary to the western logic of a modern state,

the existence of a polygamous institution in Siam was considered to be immoral and

backward by western observers. Anna, in this movie, has not abhorred polygamy on the

contrary she goes on explain to her son the significance of polygamous institution by telling

him that – “one way that the monarchy maintains control in the face of war and disease is to

have as many children as possible.” In the same vein the film emphasis the negatives of the

polygamous institution by highlighting the plight of the concubines, in the king’s harem,

often used as commodities to win king’s favour and gain political mileage.

Historians both Thai and Western have discredited many elements of Anna Leonownes’s

story including autobiographical evidence about her social class, status and her claim to have

influenced King Mongkut’s foreign policies. In two popular novels about her life in the
4
palace Anna portrays the king as cruel and gruff and the musicals inspired by the novels

depict him as a clown. Neither portrait does justice to the king who travelled among his

people as pauper and a king, and set Siam on a course to the modern world. Anna’s contempt

for the Monarch is depicted when she says in utter disdain that- “Monarch refuses to keep his

word as uncivilised, unenlightened and fatly ungrateful.” She explains to her son at one point

that- “things are very different here Louis, even love”, emphasising the cultural difference or

rather the superiority of English way. Anna’s imperial inclinations are portrayed when she

says – “India is British Louis, that is what being colonised is all about.” Anna has been

shown in the film as championing the cause of women in the king’s harem and campaigning

against slavery; it is interesting to note that the British, during same period, were subjugating

and depriving the common citizens of their rights, in their empire and protectorates, all over

the world. The film, as has been discussed earlier, does not borrow completely from memoirs

of Anna Leonownes.

The film grossly deviates from the original version, of the Memoirs of Anna Leonownes,

which narrates that Anna had been to England, when Anna’s son says – “How can it be a

proper British household, you haven’t lived in England since you were a little girl and might

not have been there at all.” Anna’s belief in the English superiority is evident in the scene

where she says that – “The ways of England are the ways of the world” but the balancing act

by the Director, between the European and Asian culture, is brought in when she latter on

laments that – “They are the ways of one world Lady Bradley, one that I am ashamed to call

my own.” Therefore Anna in this movie is more accommodating and derogatory cultural

remarks are limited, the same cannot be said about the Memoirs of Anna Leonownes from

which the film is said to have been based on. But for the initial outbursts, which make the

King say that Anna considers herself – “Not the equal of a man but the equal of a King”,

5
Tennant’s Anna is a mellowed down version of her predecessors and most particularly the

original one.

None of the post colonial rehabilitation has had any effect on the Thai government or the

country’s film board: Leonownes’s books are banned in Thailand since their publication and

so are all the movie versions of the story, under the centuries old lese majeste laws which still

survive (Smith 2000). Andy Tennant ran five versions of the script past the Thai film board,

but did not get permission to shoot the film in Thailand; therefore he had to shoot the entire

film in Malaysia. Fairy tale like storytelling, expected from Tennant after he revived the story

of Cinderella in Ever After (1998), and skilful cinematography are the highlights of Anna and

the King but it lacks the historical precession. It is worthwhile to note that, even if the movie

was slavishly faithful to original version its veracity would still have been in doubt as has

been corroborated by both Thai and Western historians.

References:

6
Film: Lawrence Bender and Andy Tennant, Anna and the King (1999)

Karen Manners Smith, Film Reviews, The American Historical Review, Vol. 105, No. 3
(Jun., 2000), pp. 1060-1061

Laura Donaldson, "The King and I" in Uncle Tom's Cabin, or on the Border of the Women's
Room”, Cinema Journal, Vol. 29, No. 3 (Spring, 1990), pp. 53-68

James Buzard, Review: Victorian Women and the Implications of Empire, Victorian Studies,
Vol. 36, No. 4 (Summer, 1993), pp. 443-453