King Mongkut (Yul Brynner) facing Anna Leonowens (Deborah Kerr) among royal children
Film review

The King and I

1956 · Directed by Walter Lang · 2h 13m · MPA G

In a sentenceA barefoot king, a widow in a hoop skirt, and one polka that does more than the two hours around it

Bangkok, 1862. Anna Leonowens (Deborah Kerr), a widowed English schoolteacher, sails into Siam with her young son Louis (Rex Thompson) to teach the children of King Mongkut (Yul Brynner). She has been promised a house of her own outside the palace walls. The Kralahome (Martin Benson), the king’s prime minister, tells her the king has other ideas, and the king, barefoot and short-tempered, declines to discuss it. Anna is given rooms among the royal wives, led by Lady Thiang (Terry Saunders), and a classroom of princes, chief among them the heir, Chulalongkorn (Patrick Adiarte). Tuptim (Rita Moreno) is delivered to the king as a gift from Burma by Lun Tha (Carlos Rivas), who does not want to leave her there. Anna wants her house; the king wants the British to see him as a modern man; neither asks nicely.

Fi1m review

Walter Lang’s film of the stage musical is large, slow and superbly dressed, and Yul Brynner holds it up almost on his own. The songs are still good and the view of Siam has not aged well; go for him and for the ballet.

Walter Lang’s job was to put a hit stage musical on a screen twice as wide as the stage and lose nothing on the way. He has largely done it. The King and I is a big, stately, richly dressed film, shot in CinemaScope 55 so that every silk and gilded pillar gets its due, and for about half its length it is a pleasure. The other half is the price. It runs 133 minutes, the tone towards its Siamese characters is one you will have to decide whether to forgive, and only Yul Brynner, a handful of Richard Rodgers’s songs and one remarkable ballet keep it upright.

Brynner is the reason to watch. He plays King Mongkut barefoot, bare-chested and with his fists on his hips, a man who has read the European books and is terrified they might be right. He barks “et cetera, et cetera, et cetera” at anyone who has finished a point before he has, and makes the tic funny the first time and sad the tenth. In A Puzzlement, alone on the throne-room floor, he argues himself in circles about what a king ought to believe, and Brynner lets you see a clever man with nobody to ask. It is a large performance in a large film and it is never a cartoon.

Deborah Kerr has the thankless half of the bargain. Anna is right about everything and knows it, and for the first hour she is hard to warm to. Kerr plays her stiff-backed and precise, fighting for her house outside the palace walls as if the house were the point. She is best with the children: Getting to Know You, taught to a row of princes in a classroom with a world map they refuse to believe, is the one number where she stops instructing and starts enjoying herself.

Leon Shamroy shoots the palace in gold, red and deep green and lights it like a cathedral, so that even a scene about who sits where has weight. Irene Sharaff’s costumes carry more of the story than the script does. Anna’s hoop skirts are enormous and pale and take up a quarter of the frame, and every time she walks through a doorway the women in their fitted silks have to move out of her way. The scene that got at us, and we did not expect it to, is Shall We Dance?. Brynner puts his hand on Kerr’s waist, she shows him the polka, and Robert L. Simpson holds the shot as they go round the floor and round again. We had thought we knew this film. We found our throat had tightened, and nothing had happened except two people dancing who cannot say what they want.

The best fifteen minutes belong to Tuptim. The Small House of Uncle Thomas is her retelling of Uncle Tom’s Cabin as Siamese court dance, staged for a British dinner party with masks, banners and snow made of white cloth shaken by dancers, and it is the one stretch where Lang stops photographing the stage and starts making a film. It is also the only stretch where a Siamese character is allowed an opinion about kings and running away.

Elsewhere the tone is harder to sit through. Ernest Lehman’s screenplay, from the stage book and Margaret Landon’s novel, writes the court as a roomful of charming children who need an Englishwoman to explain the world. The wives giggle behind fans, the king cannot pronounce things, and Anna corrects everyone. Rita Moreno and Carlos Rivas, as Tuptim and Lun Tha, are given two duets and almost no scenes, so their romance is a plot device with a tune. Martin Benson’s glowering Kralahome is the only courtier allowed to be intelligent, and the script has no use for him. Between numbers the second hour drags, and Alfred Newman’s orchestrations, handsome as they are, cannot fill a gap that is not there for a reason.

The reviews in 1956 were close to rapturous. A later reappraisal calls it patronising and historically careless, and it is both. We do not think that cancels the rest. You are watching a superb performance and some of the best-dressed frames of the decade, laid over a view of Asia that was not fresh even then.

See it on the largest screen you own. On a small one the palace shrinks to a set, the hoop skirts lose their comedy, and 133 minutes starts to feel like a school term.

Critical consensus AI synthesised

75
Positive
3
Mixed
1
Negative
0
The New York Times
29 June 1956 · Bosley Crowther
90*

The critic praises the film's pictorial magnificence, intelligent book, magnificent musical score, and excellent acting, especially by Yul Brynner and Deborah Kerr, under Walter Lang's direction. It is presented as a richly preserved and vigorously executed screen version of the stage musical.

Read the full review →
Variety
31 December 1955 · Variety Staff
90*

The review states that all the ingredients of the memorable stage musical have been faithfully transferred to the screen, resulting in a pictorially exquisite, musically exciting, and dramatically satisfying motion picture. It highlights strong performances by Deborah Kerr and Yul Brynner in CinemaScope 55.

Read the full review →
The New Yorker
7 July 1956 · John McCarten
70*

The review describes the film as a colorful adaptation full of pageantry, whimsy, and song, with attractive performances by Yul Brynner and Deborah Kerr and delightful tableaux. It finds the quaint view of the East a bit too extensive but ultimately pretty and harmless.

Read the full review →
The Guardian
15 April 2010 · C+/D+
50*

The critic gives the 1956 musical a mixed verdict, praising its gorgeous Hollywoodised costumes and staging while faulting its historical liberties and patronising tone toward Siamese culture and characters.

Read the full review →

Straight answers AI written, from our review

Is The King and I worth watching?
The King and I is worth watching for Yul Brynner, the songs and one remarkable ballet, and we scored it 71. It is long and slow between numbers, and its view of Siam as a court of charming children needing an Englishwoman has aged badly. Watch it on the largest screen you have; on a small one the palace shrinks to a set.
How long is The King and I, and what is it rated?
The King and I runs 2h 13m and is rated G by the MPA in the US. It is a romance and history film.
Where can I watch The King and I in the US?
The King and I is streaming on Amazon Prime Video in the US, and it is also available to rent from Amazon Prime Video from $3.99. Availability is checked daily; the links above go straight to each service.
Is The King and I based on a true story or a book?
The King and I is adapted from Margaret Landon’s novel, by way of the Rodgers and Hammerstein stage musical, with Ernest Lehman’s screenplay drawing on both. The film treats its Siamese court loosely and, as a later reappraisal notes, is historically careless, so it is a romance rather than a record. You need know nothing of the book or the stage show to follow it.
What should I watch after The King and I?
After The King and I, try Black Narcissus (1947, Fi1m 88): Kerr again, stiff-backed among people she does not understand, in colour that hurts. Then The Sound of Music (1965, Fi1m 86): Another governess, another household to reform, and better staging of the big numbers; and The Umbrellas of Cherbourg (1964, Fi1m 88): A musical romance in painted colour where nobody gets quite what they wanted.

Cast

Awards

Academy Awards, 1957

Nominated
Best Actress
Nominated
Best Cinematography, Color
Nominated
Best Director
Nominated
Best Picture
Won
Best Actor
Won
Best Art Direction, Color
Won
Best Costume Design, Color
Won
Best Original Musical Score
Won
Best Sound

Golden Globes, 1957

Nominated
Best Film Promoting International Understanding

If you liked this, try…

  1. Anna and the King of Siam (1946) · not reviewed yetThe same story without songs; Rex Harrison’s king is drier and the politics sharper.

  2. Black Narcissus (1947, Fi1m 88)Kerr again, stiff-backed among people she does not understand, in colour that hurts.

  3. The Sound of Music (1965, Fi1m 86)Another governess, another household to reform, and better staging of the big numbers.

  4. Mughal-e-Azam (1960) · not reviewed yetCourt intrigue, forbidden love and spectacle on a scale that makes Hollywood look thrifty.

  5. The Umbrellas of Cherbourg (1964, Fi1m 88)A musical romance in painted colour where nobody gets quite what they wanted.

Free account

Know what to watch tonight

Two lists that know where things are streaming, collections you can share, your own score beside ours, and Discover that remembers what you have seen.

  • Want to see, sorted by what is streaming now
  • Seen, with your score out of ten
  • No adverts, ever