You got all that? Book to book to movie to play to movie. Does nobody have an original thought in their head?
Anyway, I am not here to criticize the inability of authors and producers to create original material in exchange for their seven-figure salaries. I want to talk about which version of this movie was better, particularly the casting. I'm going to stick with the two most famous. OK, the two that I have seen multiple times.
First, we have the 1956 version starring Deborah Kerr and Yul Brynner.
Second, we have the 1999 version, titled Anna and the King, starring Jodie Foster and Chow Yun Fat.
 |
| naergilien.info |
The real Anna Leonowens was a widow who had buried not only her husband but two of her four children by the age of 27. She joined the Thai court (Siam) at the age of 31 and spent six years there. Deborah Kerr was 36 when she played Anna, and Jodie Foster was 37. As far as Hollywood standards of age measurement goes, both are pretty darn accurate.
 |
| weekinreview.com |
The real King Monkut (whose name was actually Phra Bat Somdet Phra Poramenthramaha Mongkut Phra Chom Klao Chao Yu Hua- betcha didn't know that) was 58 when Anna came to his court. Yul Brynner was 36 when he played the King, Chow Yun Fat was 44. I guess the accuracy vote must go to the newer version in this case, although neither is particularly close.
 |
| allmoviephoto.com |
Side note: what not-so-subliminal message is sent when women are playing parts significantly younger and men are playing significantly older? I'll let you chew on that...
King Monkut is obviously of Siamese descent. Chow Yun Fat was born in Hong Kong during the British rule, and Yul Brynner is Russian. At least Hong Kong is in the Orient. That one goes to Chow Yun Fat, too.
Anna Leonowens was British, born in India. Neither of the two women who played her were British; Kerr was Scottish- though she lived in England for a good portion of her life- and Foster is American, born and raised in Los Angeles. Uh, I guess that one goes to Kerr.
 |
| monkut.com |
Remember how I said Hollywood doesn't care much about race or nationality?
In the 1956 version, Kerr and Brynner were BOTH nominated for Oscars and Golden Globes (he won the Oscar; she the Globe) and the film won 8 awards overall. The 1999 version was nominated for two Oscars and neither of which were for the actors. Neither Foster nor Yun Fat were nominated for any awards for their performances. Older version wins this category.
 |
| screenrush.co.uk |
I have to give one point to the 1956 version because it's a musical, and I love musicals.
On RottenTomatoes.com, the 1956 version is rated 100% fresh and the snippet for the 1999 version (51%) is: Beautiful cinematography can't prevent Anna and the King from being boring and overly lengthy. Ouch.
And, lest we forget that money makes the world go around, the 1999 version recouped only about 50% of its budget, making it a certifiable box-office bomb. The 1956 version made nearly as much money- and 43 years can do a lot to inflation. Yikes.
So, I know this will upset the fanboys and fangirls out there, but Jodie Foster loses. Badly. The win goes to Deborah Kerr and the 1956 version.
Agree? Disagree? Post your thoughts in the comments.
