Anna and the King

Ten miles of rich cloth. The largest set constructed from scratch since Cleopatra, including a seven-acre palace. Thousands of extras, amongst them children you'd love to take home. A gilded barge gliding through the waters of an enchanted jungle. Well-behaved elephants. All of this headed by the regal, charming, sexy Chow Yun-Fat. Sounds better than the Greatest Show on Earth. However, the shaky basis, unnecessary length and wobbly storyline of Anna and the King denies it a place amongst epic love stories like Ben-Hur and The English Patient.

The story of King Mongkut and Anna Leonowens is known to most, having been visited in the 1946 movie Anna and the King of Siam as well as the catchy and charming Rodgers and Hammerstein musical The King and I (starring the unforgettable Yul Brynner and Deborah Kerr). The story is simple: the king of Siam hires a foreign schoolteacher to teach his court (including his 58 children) English and give insight into the ways of the West. A clash of traditions and customs ensue, but so does a growing relationship between the stern ruler and the headstrong schoolteacher.

So why another version now? The film does not offer a clear answer. In a time when movies seem to be offering their audiences a greater message--some sort of connection to our times--this movie tries to illustrate tragic love but sometimes feels like no more than the child of extravagant producers and a director yearning to live out his fantasy of bringing an epic to the screen. What results is a movie that is "nice"--entirely innocuous, in fact--but fails to sweep you away (except with regards to its leading man).

It could be argued that the East-meets-West dynamic is an original facet to this movie. In fact, what is interesting at times is the introduction of the sub-plot of violent turmoil within Siam. However, the film has mixed ambitions--should it polish up the love story between a schoolteacher and king? Or should it present a clear story as to what is historically accurate and what is not? The film is touted as the true story of a daring British woman of Victorian times who traveled alone to a faraway land; while Leonowens may have done so, the story is most likely untrue--it is believed that in fact she may have only met the king on two occasions.

In any case, the East-meets-West dynamic that emerges is forced. Anna's character, though played well by a strong and elegant Jodie Foster, is flat. She enters the film a fearless Amazon who shows so little fear that a scene in which she picks up a lantern and scurries to investigate strange howling noises in the dark of the night causes one to laugh at the incongruity of the situation. Her characteristics are anachronistic; the film blunders and attributes to Anna the characteristics of a steely Scully-like character instead of a confused widow desperately trying remain brave in a strange new world.

At the film's start, Anna tells her son outright that the ways of the English are the ways of the world--and if they aren't, then they should be. With statements like that, the film doesn't allow for anyone's actions to speak; somewhat like a dimestore romance novel, it hits its audience over the head declaring the different sensibilities of Anna and the king loud and clear. These sentiments are bannered across the screen, although in the two hour, 40 minute movie, there is plenty of time to allow them to unfold naturally.

However, this is not to say that the sappy amongst us won't sigh and smile at the love between the king and Anna, for Chow Yun-Fat as King Mongkut provides much to sigh and smile at. While the film's message may not be clear, what is obvious is the talent of Chow Yun-Fat and his ability to carry a film. He perfectly complements and is at home amongst the rich sets and lush landscapes. Despite that neither English or the Siamese he speaks in the film are well-known languages to him, his words are infused with a range of convincing emotions. Chow is the perfect man to help illustrate traditional Thai customs, sensibilities and statecraft. Without being overly dramatic, he pulls off the role of the wise, strong, kind, compassionate ruler. Perhaps more famous for his killer with a conscience action movies, Chow shows the depth of his acting abilities in this film. The image of him almost floating through a garden through rows upon rows of his 58 beloved children seems to justify the claim by his adoring fans that Chow Yun-Fat is indeed god. Sigh.

While Asian women have been increasingly featured in U.S. films and on TV, the Asian male remains mostly ignored. If at all represented, he is usually either weak, nerdy or a crazed ninja looking to shed innocent white blood. This film scores big in bringing to American audiences an Asian male worthy of adoration for his acting, physical presence and charisma. It also should be lauded for its sensitivity in showing a range of Asian faces--not just the exotic lotus blossom of a woman, but tall, short and skinny are all in this film. The supporting cast efforts are strong and add humor and life in places where the film has potential to drag.

"It is always surprising how small a part of life is taken up by meaningful moments. Most often they're over before they start even though they cast a light on the future and make the person who originated them unforgettable." This sentiment is uttered by the king's son in reflecting upon the situation of Anna and his father. Unfortunately, the same can be said about the movie. Though its vignettes are charming and picturesque enough, they lack a unifying, moving message. This is not a bad film--it is entertaining enough to watch the schoolchildren, their instruction by Anna, the arguments between Anna and the king, the revolutionary elements in Siam wreaking havoc, as well as the breathtaking scenery. But it falls short of what it so desperately desires--to be a "moving" epic, even though those two terms are becoming mutually exclusive.