Anna and the King

Back to the main review

What’s the Story?

Jody Foster plays Anna, a widowed Englishwoman who lived most of her life in India. The king hires her to teach his children about the world outside of Siam. She respects the king's culture, but she is appalled by the cruel treatment of bonded servants and urges him to make changes. The king is very progressive in some ways. He respects her independent spirit and values her counsel, but he forbids her to talk to her students about that issue. Siam is independent, but bounded by colonies of France and England, and vulnerable. Anna aids the King in persuading the English that Siam is stable and "civilized." And when the King and his children are in danger, Anna provides support.

Is It Any Good?

ANNA AND THE KING is the fourth movie version of the story of Anna Leonowens, brought to Siam in 1864 by King Monghut to teach his children. Anna and the King end up teaching each other a few things, too. Of course, the best-remembered version is the classic with Yul Brynner, Deborah Kerr, and the unforgettable songs by Rodgers and Hammerstein. This version has spectacle to spare, but no "Getting to Know You," no "Whistle a Happy Tune," no genuine connection between the two leads (though viewers are supposed to believe that they are in love with one another), and a script that teeters between stolid and awful.

It's best to watch this movie with your eyes more than your ears. It is a visual treat. Cinematographer Caleb Deschanel (The Black Stallion) creates stunning images of splendor. But the dialogue is dreadful and the plot does not hold together, especially in a bizarre Mulan-style rescue. Worst of all is the all-but-loony way that the two leads, both playing highly principled people deeply aware of their responsibilities, linger over a goodbye when the bad guys are charging, dance romantically in the middle of a state dinner, and generally act like Archie and Veronica at the malt shop.