The King's Speech

The King's Speech (2010) follows the true story of King George VI- previously the Duke of York (Colin Firth), appointed just before the war with Germany became eminent. The film follows his life as a member of the royal family with his wife, Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter) and how he deals with a difficult, controversial matter that greatly interferes with his duties toward the public: he has a speech impediment; a stammer. Elizabeth often tries to force medical help on him out of love, but the doctors- knighted, no less- that see the Duke treat his affliction in all the wrong ways and lead to nothing. In the classified sections, she finds a less well-to-do, Australian immigrant and commoner named Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), who claims he may be able to help the Duke, but only under his roof and his rules. The Duke, who is unattracted to personal situations outside of his family and who has never had a real friend, is turned off by Logue's casual nature at first, and claims it won't work out. Before he goes, Logue has him read a bit of Shakespeare on recording, while listening to classical music through headphones, unable to hear himself. He does so, and Logue lets him keep the record. Days later, when the Duke listens, he discovers that he read perfectly, and returns to therapy- which is exactly what the sessions become. And with his father, King George V's (Mihael Gambon) passing and his brother David's (Guy Pearce) infatuation with an American divorcee- and refusal of the thrown- the Duke must quickly learn to be comfortable in the public's eye. But for a member of the royal family, facing pressure from his peers to exceed expectations, at the same time keeping in all his secrets from the past, how far is he willing to go with this commoner to let loose the person he was born to be from the restraints of his self-inflicted impediment?

The film was written by David Seidler, who also wrote the child's movie, Quest for Camelot, and has recieved two Oscars, nominted for 11, and directed by Tom Hooper- who's been nominated for 15 Oscars and won three of them. Currently, this film has been nominated for 12 Oscars, 14 BAFTAs and seven Golden Globes- and it only just came out three months ago, on December 10, 2010. Seidler himself had a speech impediment as a child, believably brought about by the trauma of living through WW2 and The Holocaust. He was inspired to learn that King George VI overcame one as well, and for his entire childhood, he wanted to write about him. He devoted years of research to the King, and tried hard to build up information on his speech advisor, Lionel Logue- however, the notebooks on his work with the King were denied to Seidler on the Queen Mother's own requests. Seidler abandoned the fascination until he fought a battle with cancer in 2005, to which he proudly returned to it. It was thought that his first version was too soft and cinematic, so he rewrote it as a stage performance. The play was read by a small theatre company in London, and Tom Hooper's mother happened to be in the audience. She promptly called to tell him what his next film would be.

The film was also received well by historical critics- which is no easy feet- but Seidler made adimantly sure that his work portrayed the characters as best as he could. When the diary of Logue came to his attention only nine months before shooting, he went back and reworked it into the script as much as possible. It's claimed that certian characters like Wallis Simpson (Eve Best) and King George V (Michael Gambon) were made out to be more antagonistic in the film than they were in real life. I pose idea, however, that this is a film that is supposed to be in large part portrayed as if we are side by side with the King, trapped in his own mind by his impediment. Often, children- who grow up to be adults- are afraid of certain things, and therefore see them in an antagonistic light. George VI is afraid to be king in the film, therefore, if the film is given to us in his eyes, of course his own father seems antagonistic, as does Wallis Simpson, as she is the very reason his brother David abandons the thrown to force George VI to take over. It's also said that George VI's impediment was exagerated for the film, as well as Logue's character's casual nature. Logue's grandson claimed that he would never have called the King "Bertie" or have sworn in front of him. Never the less, as I do in all matters, I urge this to be viewed for what it is: A Story. Not a Documentary. Don't let something like that spoil your fun. Fall in love with the Logue that David Seidler and Geoffrey Rush created, and was only inspired by the real Lionel Logue.

It is hard to sum up what I did like about this movie, and can only be done by saying what I did not like about this movie. Now that I sit down to write, I must say that it's difficult to come up with anything. It's not as "cinematic" as a film could be, this is true, but I would definitely say that it's as cinematic as this film could be, for sure. This is a film in which the A Story is centered around a man who cannot talk and needs to give speeches... that's definitely an instance of a lot of dialogue- heavy on the dialogue, in fact, and at times requires you to be told instead of shown, however I think it was captured remarkably well, and for a Director, writer, and actors to make a bunch of failed attempts at speech dramatic and emotional, as well as an actual politically motivated speech being the climax of a major movie... that shows talent. Some people struggle with making a BATTLE dramatic, emotional, or even cinematic. They made two men in a booth struggling over two pages of notes the climax of a movie and it worked. Film of the year? The Academy certainly seems to think it might be, and I cannot say that I disagree.

I reccomend this film to everyone- fuck it. EVERYONE. This was a great movie. Some of you might think it's boring- it's character driven without any blood or explosions. There's no puke. There's no piss. There's humor that is few and far between. The costumes are great for the period, but they aren't jarring or attention grabbing. No, this is a film which simply has to be watched because it has to be watched. The acting is superb, as is the writing, and the dramatization has drawn a deep level of respect from me. It's like climbing the Himilayas in flip flops, guys. This film didn't have a let down for me, or anything I want to criticize. But as I said, I know some won't find it as interesting as Inception, without all the themes. But as far as I'm concerned, so far those two are neck-in-neck for me. Inception vs. The King's Speech for Best Film of the Year at this year's Academy Awards.'