A Movie Review on the King and I

Throughout the film, the customs and traditions of Siam is evidently seen. For instance, one can clearly see how the Siamese (now Thai) treat and value women. The king maintains a prejudiced posture toward women, snapping his fingers to call them to attention or to do his bidding. Also, the handful of wives who have been allowed to partake of Anna’s teaching continually refer to Anna as “sir.” When Anna asks them why, the headwife explained “because you scientific, not lowly like woman.” Hence, men were known to be more superior. Women, on the other, were treated as “slaves.” The King of Siam even called Anna directly as his slave.

Not only did the film portray Siam as socially stratified in terms of gender but also in terms of ranks and classes. Since the type of government then was monarchial, the King is regarded to have more prestige than anybody else. This can be shown when the King demanded that she follow the Siamese custom of never letting her head be higher than his. Hence, there is unequal access to respect and honor. Also, slaves like Tuptim aren’t allowed to marry anyone outside her class. In other words, she cannot move from her social status unless she is favored by the King, hiring him as a concubine. To live in the palace as a concubine, as the headwife mentioned, is the most rewarding position she can access. Siamese culture would say that it is rather a privilege.

Moreover, the conflict between Anna and the King resides in the hierarchy of their relationship – who will rule, who will decide and whose influence predominated the lives of the King’s children and his subjects. The conflict between Great Britain and Siam is essentially the same. The film assumes that Siam stands to gain in modernity while England generously contributes values to be adopted. The King’s goal conflicts with the goal of the British Queen who wants to develop trade routes and to establish a foothold in Siam. The King of Siam, on the other, wants to take advantage of British interest in his country to develop Siam into a modern country with a place in international trade. The presence of the British Ambassador may report the rumor that the King is a barbarian, precipitating the Queen’s decision to make Siam a protectorate. Thus the political analogy of the variation of boy-meets-girl plot in The King and I is the ascension of unofficial British domination over Siam, a domination that may have transformed the economic, political and ideological Siamese culture. By the same token, Anna’s presence will transform the King’s children and ultimately his kingdom, in a similar manner. In the film, Anna acts intellectually and morally superior to the King, offering advice on how to impress the British government and congratulating him for reading the Bible. She barely tolerates being in the Buddhist temple, as thought it was a profane place and not a religious area. Hence, in general, I suppose that the British see the Siamese as culturally inferior but also enticing, a possession to be captured and controlled.

In my opinion, The King and I is not simply a love story between people of different cultures. Its story is actually an analogy for a political relationship between their two countries. It is this political analogy underlying the relationship between Anna and the Siamese King that gives weight to the death scene. The deathbed scene resolves both of the central conflicts in the play – both the one between Anna and the King and the larger national conflict. The death resolves the first issue by removing the King’s backward politics from Siam’s foreign policy, allowing his more modern and Westernized son to rule the country with better diplomacy