I watched this film because I'm such a fan of Irene Dunne, particularly in her light-hearted romantic and screwball comedies. There are some amusing situations, but this is ultimately a drama and certainly not a lavish musical. It still, to me, is the best version of them all. This film hits hard right out of the gate with Anna and her son caught in a situation that neither quite expect. Rex Harrison plays the King surprisingly well despite not looking as exotic as Yul Brenner or as truly authentic as Yun-Fat Chow. Dunne's determination and caring for her son spur her on and make her brave and strong in an understated fashion as the film progresses. The main characters repartee is a delight to witness. Their chemistry is just right, and they do not have the luxury of lavish musical numbers to draw them together. One just knows they have a great respect for each other from very fine acting. I will say that I found this version the most emotionally charged of the three motion pictures, yet it is not a Peyton Place melodrama. Maybe that's why I love it so. It's so well-made in every aspect that it really packs that emotional punch for me. I didn't even recognize the usually very recognizable Lee J. Cobb and somehow missed his name in the credits the first time. I think this is about as fine an epic drama about forbidden romance and opposing cultures as I've seen. I give most of that credit to the wonderful performances of the leads and the incredibly adept script. It entertains, tugs at your heartstrings, and doesn't disappoint. I highly recommend it as the best version of them all:)

I have seen the King and I so I was anxious to see this movie: Anna and the King of Siam. I am also a huge Irene Dune fan. However, I am not sure if this movie was made for her sake, the USA sake or just plain the studios! The out right Caucasian supremacy and arrogance of Anna's character is ridiculous! So, a Caucasian woman just walked into another country and just told a king what to do and sashay out of the castle?! I mean really even in the USA at that time period she would NOT have acted that way to the President of the United States! Such disrespect would have never happened. I like her other movies much better or should I say I like the writing better in her other movies.

I really prefer this one to "The King and I", the musical version and therefore the peppier happier of the two films. This one really digs into the characters and is filled with tragedy. Rex Harrison is convincing as the king, even when compared with Yul Brenner's bigger than life version. Irene Dunne plays Anna Owens, a British widow with a young son, who comes to Siam to tutor the king's many children by his many wives. The king wants to pull his country into the larger world of the great nations and wants a modern person from a modern country to help him do so. However, in the process there is lots of clashing of culture between Anna and a king who says he wants modernity but is very used to having everything his own way. This comes to a head when his newest youngest wife - the very unwilling Lady Tuptim (Linda Darnell) - runs away from the king's household, apparently for another man. The king's offended ego brings out the caveman in him. Complications ensue. Lee J. Cobb looked ridiculous in his role as prime minister, but that handicap aside, I thought he played his part extremely well, with warmth and authority. It could easily have degenerated into caricature, but Cobb kept it sympathetic. Neither Harrison nor Irene Dunne got Oscar nominations for their roles. Gale Sondergaard, one of the great sneerers in motion picture history, got nominated for her role as the cast off - in all practicality - first wife of the king, mother of the crown prince. Her strongest moment is in the scene when she denounces Dunne for leaving Siam. Her haughty, heartless disdainful glare at Dunne is a genuinely creepy experience, and yet you also get that she still very much loves the king but is resigned to the fact that she no longer has his favor or even notices that she is alive. Instead she is focused on protecting her son.

Producer: Louis D. Lighton. Executive producer: Darryl F. Zanuck. Copyright 20 June 1946 by 20th Century Fox Film Corp. U.S. release date: August 1946. New York opening at the Radio City Music Hall: 20 June 1946. U.K. release: 30 September 1946. London opening at the New Gallery, and Tivoli, Strand: 11 August 1946. Australian release: 2 January 1947. 14 reels. 11,548 feet. 128 minutes. SYNOPSIS: English governess meddles in state affairs in 19th century Siam. NOTES: Winner of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences' award for Best black-and-white Cinematography: Arthur Miller (defeating George Folsey's The Green Years). Also winner of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences' award for Best black-and-white Art Direction (defeating Kitty, and The Razor's Edge). Also nominated for Supporting Actress, Gale Sondergaard (Anne Baxter in The Razor's Edge), Adapted Screenplay (The Best Years Of Our Lives), and Scoring of a Dramatic or Comedy Picture (The Best Years Of Our Lives). Number three in The Film Daily annual Poll of U.S. film critics. Cutting-room floor players: Sir C. Aubrey Smith (Sir John Lawford), Margaret Bannerman (Mrs Hillary). Rex Harrison worked out his interpretation of the king in conjunction with his drama coach, Elsa Schreiber, much to the displeasure of director John Cromwell, who complained to studio head, Darryl F. Zanuck. When Harrison was supported by Zanuck, however, the director refused to even speak to Harrison on the set, concentrating all his attention on Irene Dunne. COMMENT: A disappointingly boring piece of feminist propaganda, somewhat overshadowed by its musical remake, The King and I. Cromwell's direction is surprisingly dull and the film would benefit by some sharp cutting. Most of Lee J. Cobb's scenes could go for a start. He is miscast and looks most incongruous as a native head-of-state. Then we would slice into quite a few of Miss Dunne's scenes and eliminate some of her close-ups . Rex Harrison's rounded portrait of the king is the film's chief asset, though he is not as dynamic as Yul Brynner. Gale Sondergaard has a few effective moments as the king's first wife and Linda Darnell is surprisingly powerful as the unstable Tuptim. Originally, Gene Tierney was assigned to this role but she rejected it as she felt "it was too small". The rest of the cast is completely overshadowed by the script's and the director's relentless concentration on Miss Dunne. The film is lavishly produced (though the sets and costumes cry for color). OTHER VIEWS: An exotic soap opera. Irene Dunne and Rex Harrison as the leads are a help but running gags like everyone singing "No Place Like Home" as part of Dunne's campaign for separate accommodation or Harrison's drinking soup from a plate don't really mesh with the remarkably bizarre incident where Linda Darnell as the defecting favorite is burned at the stake; and the child's death finally plunges the whole film into the lavish weepy bracket. Cromwell's direction is indecisive. "Anna and the King of Siam" used to be a must-see experience for Siamese traveling away from their homeland where it was banned. - B.P.

Personally am of the opinion that the 1956 musical 'The King and I' is the better film. That has always been a favourite of mine, and not just one of the best film versions of a Rodgers and Hammerstein musical but also one of the best film musicals. The production values, music and Yul Brynner are especially good. 'Anna and the King of Siam', a somewhat truer and more realistic account of the story, is still a very good film though, if just lacking 'The King and I's energy' and occasionally taking itself too seriously. Richard Lyon is a bit bland as Anna's son. Criticisms of 'Anna and the King of Siam' actually for me are few, and are not that major, only being occasional problems. It is especially good for the acting. Irene Dunne was born for Anna, portraying the role with touching sincerity and dignity. Her chemistry with Rex Harrison has a believable amount of tension and grows convincingly. Harrison on paper seemed a major miscast, and occasionally he overdoes it in some of his mannerisms which are reminiscent of something like Charlie Chan, but actually on the whole it is performance of great authority and complexity. They are supported by a supporting cast that are more than up to their level. Gale Sondergaard gives a very moving performance, and Lee J. Cobb is commanding in the more expanded role of the Kralahome. Linda Darnell gives Tuptin spunk and emotion, never falling into passiveness. Visually, 'Anna and the King of Siam' is pretty exquisite, with Arthur Miller's marvellous cinematography and the lavish and evocative sets deservedly winning Oscars. Bernard Hermann's music score is a good fit and a strong score in its own right, if not iconic status like 'Psycho' or 'Vertigo'. Scripting is literate and provokes thought, while the story is sensitively and movingly told with the conflict very convincing. John Cronwell's direction, apart from the odd lack of liveliness, is solid. Overall, a very good film especially for the acting. 8/10 Bethany Cox

Like other reviewers on here, I knew the musical The King and I, which I have always enjoyed, before I finally saw this movie. And, as others have said, they are two different things, each with their own merits. What I enjoyed most about this very fine movie was the particularly fine performance of Irene Dunne. I've seen her in other movies where she delivers a nuanced and understated performance, which is true of this movie as well, and in spades. There are times when just watching how she plays various emotions across her face is fascinating by itself. Other times she lets us see hints of emotions that her character then suppresses. Harrison is good as the King, though he plays him with broader strokes, as the script calls him to do. Anna is a complex individual, however, and Dunne does full justice to all its complexity. ------------------------------------ I just watched this movie again tonight, and I was struck, again, by Dunne's fine, understated performance, but also by the intelligence of the script and the pacing. The main characters are all three-dimensional, in an era when it would have been easy to do caricatures of the Siamese characters. Things move along at an unhurried pace, but it is never too slow. It's really one very fine movie. -------------------------- And now I've watched it yet again on TCM, and my admiration for this movie only grows. I still stick by everything I've written in the past. Another thing that struck me on this latest watching was the very intelligent discussion of the importance of the rule of law. I have no idea if that exists in the book on which this movie was based. But this movie makes repeated and intelligent argument emphasizing that arbitrary rule by personal whim is not acceptable in the modern world. It must have struck particular chords in the immediate post-World War II world into which it was released.

Other comments on this production are very interestingly expressed and I won't add any specific criticism, positive or negative, here. But one thing struck me when I saw this on a TV broadcast years ago, and that was the eerie presaging of the lovely Linda Darnell's death in 1965, as the result of an accidental house fire. In this film, playing the ill-fated Tuptim, she is burned at the stake (something that was not reenacted in "The King and I"...talk about putting a kibosh on any pleasure to be derived from Rodgers & Hammerstein's musical reimagining of this story!) Earlier in "Hangover Square"(1945) her dead body is disposed of by being carried to the top and dumped as a Guy Fawkes Day bonfire is being torched. And later in "Forever Amber"(1947) she narrowly escapes being burned to death in the London mansion of her despised husband, the Earl of Radcliffe, during the Great Fire that consumed huge portions of that city during the reign of Charles II. Talk about CREEPY! Linda's star had suffered a long decline nearly twenty years after this film premiered, but her tragic departure was something that shocked and saddened her many fans.

At times pleasant, but mostly so-so version of the true exploits of English governess Margaret Langdon. There are many positives; perfect costuming and art direction, which the latter was awarded an Oscar. Cinematography also won the top honor and is quite lavish and well timed. As for the performances; Harrison's king doesn't have the grace, timing and presence of Yul Brynner's later screen king. While Dunne is a fine actress, she seems too warped into the melodramatic, while missing the lightness of the character and of the relationship she shares with the king. She has moments where she is quite close to having her down, but she holds herself back. The problems with the film are not major and it is quite lovely to look at. Sumptuous sets and exceptional photography carry us through, though director Cromwell suffered from the same problems as Dunne; the film lacked a sense of fun and light heartedness. This is not a horrible film, but it's taken a bit too seriously.

"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.

Irene Dunne and Rex Harrison gave compelling performances in the 1946 film. The trouble is that the film is much too talky. Sociologists would have a field day with this one with Harrison, as the ruler of Siam, who realizes that the country needs to change to modern thinking but is unable to do this and acts barbaric in the way he dealt with an unfaithful Linda Darnell and her priest friend. At least, the remake with Deborah Kerr and Yul Brynner broke up the talking with fine musical interludes. Ironically, Dunne, who could sing very well, was not cast in the 1956 production probably because she was aging.(8 years after this she was campaigning for Goldwater.) Surprisingly, Dunne and Harrison both failed to receive Oscar nominations and the picture was ignored by the academy as well. The one surprising nomination was by Gale Sondergaard in the supporting category for her portrayal of the much ignored wife of Harrison. As interesting as her performance was, Sondergaard was no match for the winner that year-Anne Baxter, totally brilliant in "The Razor's Edge." In the 1956 film Sondergaard's part was totally written out. As Harrison's adviser, Lee J. Cobb was excellent Obviously, the ending in the '46 film was far more serious and sad. Dunne sure knew how to let those tears flow in the same vein as Katharine Hepburn. Wonder if Hepburn were considered for the part of Anna Owens?