Lots of baseball content the last few days, including breakdowns of the Colby Rasmus trade, the Carlos Beltran trade, and the Kosuke Fukudome trade, plus my regular Klawchat yesterday.
—
I can’t say if The King’s Speech
The King’s Speech dramatizes the relationship between the stammering Prince Albert, Duke of York, later King George VI, and an Australian speech therapist, Lionel Logue, who used unconventional methods to help the Prince overcome both the stammer and his resultant fear of public speaking. The Prince avoids most public speaking duties until, in the movie at least, he is forced to surmount this obstacle when his brother Edward, Duke of Wales, abdicates the throne to marry an American divorcée. While not quite historically accurate in its chronology or its portrayals of certain secondary characters, the film avoids the less forgivable sins of lionizing (or demonizing) its central characters or crafting an excessively sentimental narrative.
Colin Firth, as the titular King, and Geoffrey Rush, as Logue, both deliver command performances. Firth won the Oscar for Best Actor with a tense portrayal that conveys a constant sense of anxiety whenever he’s asked to speak in any kind of difficult situation, often evoking that dread through slight changes in his facial expression or a sudden explosion of temper (where the rage is merely a cover for an inner fear). But while Rush was challenged less by his role, his performance seemed totally effortless, exuding a calm confidence when his character is at work that proves superficial in the handful of scenes when he’s outside that sphere. (Rush won the Oscar for Best Actor in 1996 for another brilliant performance as a musical prodigy who suffers a breakdown due to schizoaffective disorder in the marvelous film Shine
No other character receives close to the screen time of the two leads, although there’s talent in abundance. Derek Jacobi is somewhat wasted as the sycophantic Archbishop of Canterbury, while Helena Bonham Carter provides a cornucopia of pained, worried expressions as Albert’s confident wife Elizabeth. I didn’t even recognize Guy Pearce as the rakish yet vaguely effeminate Prince Edward. The film also reunites Firth with Jennifer Ehle, who plays Logue’s wife Myrtle here but is best known for playing Elizabeth Bennet to Firth’s Mr. Darcy in the BBC’s canonical adaptation of Pride and Prejudice
Where screenwriter David Seidler and director Tom Hooper succeed most is in the film’s pacing. The story requires scenes of struggle for Prince Albert, but aside from the first, which introduces the film’s main dramatic element to the audience, we are never forced to endure the embarrassment for long. And while they sacrificed some historical accuracy by condensing the time Logue and the Prince worked together and by delaying the benefits the Prince received from the therapy until the final speech, it gave the film the necessary tension to allow that final speech – after England’s declaration of war on Germany in 1939 – to become an emotional crescendo that closes the film.
The most touching scene, other than the King’s success and the applause he receives from his inner circle (after they all clearly doubted his ability to do it), was when he returns from his coronation and his two daughters see him in full regalia. The two young actresses playing Princesses Margaret and Elizabeth (the current Queen Elizabeth II) are asked to do very little in this film, but their expressions are priceless: he left the house as “Daddy,” but returned as a king, and I doubt there’s a little girl in the world who wouldn’t be impressed to see her father in that costume.
Two interesting side notes on this film: The writer delayed pursuing production of the film at the request of King George VI’s widow Elizabeth (known to my generation as the Queen Mother or the “Queen Mum”), who asked him to wait until after her death because she found the memories of that period too painful; and (per Wikipedia) nine weeks before filming began, someone discovered several of Logue’s notebooks from that time period, allowing the writer to incorporate some of that material into the final version of the script.
Next film in the queue is True Grit. Several of your top suggestions, including Inception, The Lives of Others, and The Social Network, aren’t available for rental on iPad, so they’ll have to wait a bit.
While I agree with most of what you said, what felt when watching this movie was that I just didn’t care. I didn’t care at all the Duke of York had a stuttering problem. I mean you’re the Duke of York! Quit whining and complaining. Other than that it was a well made, well acted movie. Not deserving of the Best Picture Oscar imho. Personally, I think “The Social Network” deserved it or either “The Winter’s Bone” or “The Kids are Alright”.
Great review Keith. “The King’s Speech” is definitely a favorite film of mine.
Have you seen “Rock N Rolla” by Guy Ritchie? If not, I highly recommend you add it to your iPad movie queue. It’s shot/edited in a similar manner as “Snatch”. I found it to be very entertaining.
Keep up the great work. Your writing is a big reason why I continue to renew my Insider subscription.
Thanks.
Derek Jacobi famously played the Emperor Claudius in the award winning 1976 BBC TV series I, Claudius. Claudius came to power through somewhat unusual circumstances and was disrespected (and thought to be mentally challenged) due to a speech impediment.
This bit of casting was ironic given the Archbishop’s antagonistic role in the film.
For me it’s a strong film based mainly on the performances of Firth and Rush, and it’s nice to see Helena Bonham Carter not be a crazed harpy for once. I was less convinced by the script (acknowledged to have had many historical inaccuracies), which was fairly conventional and predictable in it how it unfolded. Among the Oscar nominees last year I liked “True Grit,” “Toy Story 3,” and “The Fighter” better than this film.
The King’s speech is going to forgot about sooner rather then later. While movies like the Social Network (Winter Bone is a great movie as well, could have came from the David Gordon Greene canon, well before he got really stoned) will probably find their way on should have won lists in the near future.
If you want step back a couple of years, may I suggest Old Boy or Memories of Murder, both from Korea, before they get american remakes?
PML, I don’t have a stuttering problem, but I cared about the Duke of York because I could relate to problems that I do have. For example, I’ve always struggled with my weight. It’s easy for others to think like Albert’s movie father: “Hey! Just stop eating, idiot! It’s not that hard!” In reality, it goes far beyond the outward symptoms of the problem. Very often, there are emotional issues that must be treated at the same time, since overeating is often a manifestation of those issues (just like his stuttering was often a manifestation of other issues — small children don’t overeat, just like small children don’t stutter).
I figured everyone has or has had something like that in their lives that they could relate to, but maybe that’s not the case.
P.S. Stammer is a more beautiful word than stutter, isn’t it? Those darn Brits make English sexy no matter what they say.
I liked The King’s Speech but did prefer The Social Network for the Best Picture Oscar. Winter’s Bone I thought was horrible, but to each their own. If you haven’t added The Fighter to your “to-watch” list, I would make it a point to see it just for Bale’s performance alone.
Can’t wait for your review of The Lives of Others
In my opinion The King’s Speech was tremendous and absolutely deserved to win. Winter’s Bone, True Grit and Social Network, Kid’s are Alright were all very good, but like Keith suggests, the real majesty of The King’s Speech comes in making such a compelling movie out of a seemingly dry topic.
You must watch the Bollywood film Three Idiots sometime soon. A hilarious and uplifting movie that basically swept the 2010 Indian film awards.
if you like pacing, you’ll like true grit. better than the original.
Keith,
Your in-set text box in the ESPN.com article for the Hunter Pence trade says that the Phillies have found a reliable long-term solution in LEFT field. Obviously, it should say RIGHT field. Anyway, just FYI.
ABL
I haven’t seen The King’s Speech, but for me it would be tough to top Black Swan as the top movie of 2010. It was beautiful and grotesque at the same time. It was powerful and delicate. Kept you completely engaged while making you more than a little uncomfortable. And, of course, it featured a perfect performance from Natalie Portman. And it required her to be that good. Anything short of perfect from her and the movie wouldn’t have worked.
I’m curious how old the folks are who are touting “The Social Network”. I’m 27, about the same age as Zuckerberg, and went to school in Boston when the Facebook debuted. While I found the story interesting in the way that I find watching any person excel at something interesting, I thought a lot of the buzz came from older folks who didn’t quite get Facebook or our generation and attached more meaning to it as a result. The movie was certainly well done and worthy of a “Best Movie” nomination (especially since they expanded to 10 goddamn nominees), I thought a lot of the hype was overblown. Many of the critics I read who lauded the movie talked about how it was a glimpse into a generation, but was it really an accurate portrayal of my generation? I don’t think so. The fast talking, constant drinking, overly ambitious youth culture is a trope trotted out in many a movie. If the movie was about Bill Gates and Microsoft or Steve Jobs and Apple, would it have gotten as much buzz (I don’t know if those stories have the same narrative tension of Facebook, though naturally a lot of that was manufactured for the screen)? People are voyeuristic and being able to peer into a subculture foreign to them is a guilty pleasure and for most reviewers, the subculture portrayed in “The Social Network” is practically alien to them. I’m curious to hear what KLaw thinks and am interested if others felt there was somewhat of a generational gap in response to the movie. Most of my friends really enjoyed it, but I didn’t see the same sweeping, grandiose response that came from older folks.
@Richard, I understand what you are saying. My problem is that I never felt any type of connection with the character. I honestly did not care that he had a stammering problem. Maybe it’s because I just don’t like movies about the royals much. Like I said it was a well made, well acted movie but there were too many other strong candidates this year to give it the Oscar. Although it was a better choice than “The Hurt Locker”.
ABL: I wrote that before the Phillies revealed to the world that they are the only people who don’t see that Raul Ibanez is terrible. I just assumed they’d do the obvious thing.
BSK, I’m about the same age, and I completely agree about the Social Network. Entertaining, but I didn’t think it was as amazing as everyone else seemed to. Had similar thoughts about Inception – quite entertaining, definitely worth watching, but not as mind-blowing as people said it would be. I did love The Lives of Others – for me, that and the King’s Speech are definitely a cut above the other two.
Didn’t it disappoint you just a little in not tackling the House of Windsor’s Nazi sympathies. See Christopher Hitchens’ post on the subject. http://www.slate.com/id/2282194/
The King’s Speech was uplifting for me because of its touching portrayal of two solid family men who were thrust into pretty extraordinary circumstances. While Klaw mentioned the brief scene between the king and his daughters after the coronation, there are other even better scenes in which Firth’s character engages his daughters with an impromptu story about a wayward penguin and in which Rush’s character performs Shakespearean scenes for his boys and has them guess the character and play, as they roll their eyes but clearly adore him. Yes, Firth’s character was a royal, but as he stated, he really was only meant to be a naval officer, not a king. For this guy, royalty was as much a burden as it was a benefit. What a fantastic character-driven film.
You haven’t seen the other 2010 Oscar contenders? A little slack. You should have plenty of spare time in between a podcast, cross continental flight, scouting, writing articles, radio appearances, maintaining a blog and raising a family. Pick it up mister Law.
Cordially, your biggest fan in rural Australia
I thought the King’s Speech was likewise a very good film. Nonetheless, I really had a problem with its historical inaccuracies.
The way the film is cut (and with the Churchill scene towards the end), it appears as if King George VI ascends to the monarchy just in the nick of time to fight the Nazis as WWII beckons. This is profoundly untrue; he assumed the crown in 1936. That means he was king during the entirety of the WWII build-up. He was king when in November 1937, Krstyalnacht occured (mass beatings of Jews in the streets, looting Jewish stores, etc.) Moreover, he was heavily in admiration of Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement approach. That final balcony scene? In real life, King George VI asked Neville Chamberlain to go out on that balcony with him after coming back from Munich (the disasterous ‘peace in our time’ moment, when the fortifications and army of Czechoslovakia were given to Germany in a betrayal of the Czechs of monumental proportions).
In other words, while perhaps not quite the open admirer of the Nazis as his brother was, King George VI presided over all the major missteps of British foreign policy between 1936-1939. That final speech was impressive, but it came after three years of appeasement strategy, which the King (as evidenced by openly congratulating Chamberlain) wholeheartedly endorsed.
The historian in me really struggled with this film, because it is a glorification of the King with absolutely zero acknowledgment of his first three years as monarch. Christopher Hitchens wrote on this topic a lot during Oscar season; I’d urge the admirers of the film to read up that era in British and World history.
Well-acted and gripping? Absolutely. But it’s so neat-and-tidy on the historical facts as to be dangerously close to a propoganda piece, in my opinion.
Nice to see your thoughts. Curious of what you have to say about the other films in your queue, but please don’t write about Inception if you watch it on your Ipad. I get that you’re a busy person, and the time you have on flights is probably the most practical for viewing these movies, but it’s probably best experienced in the theatre, nad if not, on a reasonably sized television that most people own these days (36″ or larger). Not to say that it won’t still be great, but with all of the visual effects incorporated into that specific movie, you’d be doing yourself a disservice.
I agree with the post above that Inception should not be watched on an Ipad. The visuals work far better in a theater but since that’s not possible, biggest TV you can find. You’ll know what we mean when you get to that hallway scene.