Since the movie builds on unreliable historic source materials, including the diaries of Anna Leonowens it credits, it can't hope to be good history. However, as a fictional story loosely based on the time of Kings Mongkut and Chulalongkorn it's a wonderful movie.
The movie as bad history:
The movie credits the diaries of Anna Leonowens as its source, presumably meaning her books about her five years as an English teacher in Siam (Thailand). Other historical sources discredit much of the material in her books as self-promoting, ethnocentric, and often simply fictional. The movie appears to draw from more accurate sources as well, but shouldn't be mistaken for good history.
According to the movie's Thai detractors, the worst divergence from history seems to be the Tuptim sub-plot, which to avoid spoilers I won't outline. Although Anna's books apparently tell of such events, other sources from the time period (Thai and Western) either fail to confirm her telling or directly contradict her. If Tuptim were to disappear from the movie after she joined Anna's class, Thailand would have no good reason to ban it.
Another point in the movie that Thailand may have found embarrassing -- slavery -- is historically accurate. Around one fourth of the population was bound by debt-slavery. King Chulalongkorn abolished slavery in 1909. The movie credits Anna with planting the idea, which probably exceeds even her own self-promotion.
In addition to Anna's historically unreliable books, the movie mixes in elements of her son's real friendship with King Chulalongkorn (the crown prince in the movie), and that king's reign.
The real Anna was mentioned only once in King Mongkut's diaries. She was apparently nothing more than a hired English language teacher; never an advisor at court. However, Anna's son (Louis Timothy) returned to Bangkok. He was a friend of King Chulalongkorn, an advisor at court, and founder of a timber company that still exists.
The real King Mongkut had only eight wives and about 15 children, and had spent 27 years as a monk before becoming king. King Chulalongkorn had 50 wives, and about 39 children. The movie's King Mongkut mixed his monastery background with the many marriages of King Chulalongkorn.
The Thai language is badly pronounced (according to others; I don't know a word of it). The real-life Anna claimed to be fluent, but wasn't, so the movie Anna's bad pronunciation would have been closer to history than to Anna's stories. Of course the king's bad Thai would detract from the movie for anyone who knew how the language really sounds.
The movie as great cinema:
Whatever its historical faults, Anna and the King is wonderful big screen entertainment. The acting, cinematography, costumes, sets, natural locations, and directing are all great, and the screenplay is generally good.
Jodie Foster is wonderful, as usual. Chow Yun-Fat is excellent also, in what appears to be his first serious English language drama (after a long history of mostly action movies I haven't seen). All of the supporting actors are at least competent, and many are good or excellent. The many child actors are particularly impressive.
The visual experience of the movie is wonderful. The costumes are spectacular, and quite historically reasonable. The palace and other sets are grand and wondrous. The natural locations are beautiful. The cinematography is a treat for the eyes, and well worth seeing on the big screen.
The screenplay is good, but it has some weaknesses. A real strength of the screenplay is how it expresses the king's strength and cleverness in the face of imperialism. Thailand is the only country in Southeast Asia to avoid European colonial domination, thanks to Kings Mongkut and Chulalongkorn, and the script deserves credit for showing that notable accomplishment.
The revolt sub-plot is another strength, bring action and a dramatic climax into the movie. Historically, the kings were limited to constitutional monarchy, but not until the 1930s. The classroom scenes give the lots of time to Jodie Foster and the adorable child actors, and hint at the future real-life friendship between the prince and Anna's son.
The weakest part of the story is the Tuptim sub-plot. It is the most obvious disagreement with history, and is probably Thailand's main reason for objecting to the movie. It contradicts the nature of the king's character, and adds length to a movie that's already too long for some viewers. The best part is that it puts Bai Ling on screen; too bad the script didn't give her a part that improved the movie.
Overall, the movie is one of the best of the year, as long as it's not mistaken for history. It's beautiful, wonderfully performed, and has a story that's good in spite of one notable flaw.
The movie as bad history:
The movie credits the diaries of Anna Leonowens as its source, presumably meaning her books about her five years as an English teacher in Siam (Thailand). Other historical sources discredit much of the material in her books as self-promoting, ethnocentric, and often simply fictional. The movie appears to draw from more accurate sources as well, but shouldn't be mistaken for good history.
According to the movie's Thai detractors, the worst divergence from history seems to be the Tuptim sub-plot, which to avoid spoilers I won't outline. Although Anna's books apparently tell of such events, other sources from the time period (Thai and Western) either fail to confirm her telling or directly contradict her. If Tuptim were to disappear from the movie after she joined Anna's class, Thailand would have no good reason to ban it.
Another point in the movie that Thailand may have found embarrassing -- slavery -- is historically accurate. Around one fourth of the population was bound by debt-slavery. King Chulalongkorn abolished slavery in 1909. The movie credits Anna with planting the idea, which probably exceeds even her own self-promotion.
In addition to Anna's historically unreliable books, the movie mixes in elements of her son's real friendship with King Chulalongkorn (the crown prince in the movie), and that king's reign.
The real Anna was mentioned only once in King Mongkut's diaries. She was apparently nothing more than a hired English language teacher; never an advisor at court. However, Anna's son (Louis Timothy) returned to Bangkok. He was a friend of King Chulalongkorn, an advisor at court, and founder of a timber company that still exists.
The real King Mongkut had only eight wives and about 15 children, and had spent 27 years as a monk before becoming king. King Chulalongkorn had 50 wives, and about 39 children. The movie's King Mongkut mixed his monastery background with the many marriages of King Chulalongkorn.
The Thai language is badly pronounced (according to others; I don't know a word of it). The real-life Anna claimed to be fluent, but wasn't, so the movie Anna's bad pronunciation would have been closer to history than to Anna's stories. Of course the king's bad Thai would detract from the movie for anyone who knew how the language really sounds.
The movie as great cinema:
Whatever its historical faults, Anna and the King is wonderful big screen entertainment. The acting, cinematography, costumes, sets, natural locations, and directing are all great, and the screenplay is generally good.
Jodie Foster is wonderful, as usual. Chow Yun-Fat is excellent also, in what appears to be his first serious English language drama (after a long history of mostly action movies I haven't seen). All of the supporting actors are at least competent, and many are good or excellent. The many child actors are particularly impressive.
The visual experience of the movie is wonderful. The costumes are spectacular, and quite historically reasonable. The palace and other sets are grand and wondrous. The natural locations are beautiful. The cinematography is a treat for the eyes, and well worth seeing on the big screen.
The screenplay is good, but it has some weaknesses. A real strength of the screenplay is how it expresses the king's strength and cleverness in the face of imperialism. Thailand is the only country in Southeast Asia to avoid European colonial domination, thanks to Kings Mongkut and Chulalongkorn, and the script deserves credit for showing that notable accomplishment.
The revolt sub-plot is another strength, bring action and a dramatic climax into the movie. Historically, the kings were limited to constitutional monarchy, but not until the 1930s. The classroom scenes give the lots of time to Jodie Foster and the adorable child actors, and hint at the future real-life friendship between the prince and Anna's son.
The weakest part of the story is the Tuptim sub-plot. It is the most obvious disagreement with history, and is probably Thailand's main reason for objecting to the movie. It contradicts the nature of the king's character, and adds length to a movie that's already too long for some viewers. The best part is that it puts Bai Ling on screen; too bad the script didn't give her a part that improved the movie.
Overall, the movie is one of the best of the year, as long as it's not mistaken for history. It's beautiful, wonderfully performed, and has a story that's good in spite of one notable flaw.