The King’s Speech
The King’s Speech
How much do you know about the abdication of Edward VIII? Probably not much. King Edward took the throne when George V died and promptly resigned to marry his divorced girlfriend, his little brother picked up the reins of ‘power’, and life continued more or less as before. So far, so good. What you may know less about – I certainly did – is how reluctant the man who became George VI was to step into his big brother’s shoes. Afflicted by an overwhelming stammer, it was feared that he would be a complete loss to public life… until he met an extraordinary speech therapist who promised he could succeed where all others had failed. Their true story forms the backbone of an absolutely unforgettable film.
The year is 1925 and Prince Albert, Duke of York (Firth) must deliver a speech at the Empire Exhibition in Wembley; not only to the assembled crowd, but to the entire country via the modern miracle of the wireless. It’s an unprecedented disaster. Although his father (Michael Gambon) and brother David (Guy Pearce) have taken to the radio, ‘Bertie’ is afflicted by such a terrible stammer that he is totally incapable of speaking in public. The most eminent royal physicians have all failed miserably, so when Bertie’s wife Elizabeth (Bonham Carter) hears of an unconventionally brilliant speech therapist on Harley Street she persuades her husband to visit him in a last attempt to transform him into a public speaker.
Lionel Logue (Rush), an Australian with some very outlandish theories – he thinks smoking is bad for you, for God’s sake! – is deliriously eccentric and entirely disinterested in Bertie’s status as second in line to the Imperial throne. At first, Bertie refuses point blank to deal with the “jumped-up jackaroo” and his crackpot methods, but it soon becomes apparent that his wishes may become irrelevant. As the King’s health worsens and the Prince of Wales seems increasingly determined to marry his dreadful American squeeze (Eve Best), it seems ever more likely that Bertie’s worst nightmare will be thrust upon him, and Lionel is the only man in the Empire who has a shot at helping him address his crippling anxieties.
Sensitively adapted from real events, The King’s Speech takes some dramatic liberties with the precise chronology of Bertie and Lionel’s association but maintains the spirit of their relationship. Most importantly, it resists the temptation to give the film a ‘Hollywood ending’ in which George VI is miraculously cured – as Colin Firth noted at a recent press conference, he continued to suffer from a stammer (albeit greatly reduced) for the rest of his life.
Writer David Seidler (who drew many of the therapy scenes from his own childhood treatment for a pronounced stammer) has produced a touching script calculated to show the all-star cast to its best advantage. Helena Bonham Carter’s Queen Mum is overflowing with unashamedly self-indulgent regality, and supporting roles from Michael Gambon, Timothy Spall and Derek Jacobi are most welcome.
The real praise, however, must be reserved for the two extraordinary actors in the lead roles. Geoffrey Rush’s energetic, egalitarian Lionel is enchantingly disrespectful and endlessly sympathetic to Bertie’s plight, whilst Colin Firth is on course to finally win an Oscar for his performance as the man who would rather not be King. Vividly realising the epic struggle which Bertie faced on a daily basis just to force his words out, Firth’s performance brings to life a brave and supremely persistent man who puts his own wishes aside in his determination to become the monarch his subjects expect.
Simultaneously a period drama and a touching story of duty, commitment and dedication, The King’s Speech is unquestionably the best film to have appeared at this year’s BFI London Film Festival. I am conscious of the need to separate comment and opinion, but for my money it is quite simply the best film I have ever seen – well written, superbly directed and starring two actors at the very height of their powers and careers, it sets an almost impossible standard for either Firth or Rush to beat in years to come. Sublime.
The King’s Speech is released in the UK on January 7th. See it. Just see it.
‘…it is quite simply the best film I have ever seen’
Hyperbole much? It’s a jolly romp, I’ll give you that. A kind of aristocratic bromance with a sports movie structure, complete with training montage, inevitable disagreement with the trainer and triumphant finale, but it is by no means the best film ever made. But if you do think it is you need to give a better argument than, ‘the acting was nice’. There’s no mention of the film’s look, for example, or its bigger themes. Why is it the best film you’ve ever seen?
“…it is by no means the best film ever made. But if you do think it is…” – To be fair to John, your point here is based on an assumption that’s actually semantically untrue. He never claimed to believe it was the “best film ever made”, so he doesn’t necessarily need to “give a better argument” that he “thinks it is”. He said it was “the best film he’d ever seen”, based on great acting, great writing and “superb direction”. True enough, there’s no specifics given for the latter, but it’s not like he didn’t give reasons at all. There’s also the possibility that he’s rating it on another scale that your comment hasn’t mentioned – not measurement of technical prowess, but that of pure subjective enjoyment where each man’s opinion is equally valid. Perhaps his wording should have reflected this, but it seems to me to be a classic case of cinema as entertainment vs. cinema as art. John’s review may not have made a firm case for The King’s Speech as being the finest example of the latter, but it succeeded it making me think it would be a decent thing to watch.
You seem to be suggesting, Paddy, that reviewing cinema as art is not subjective, while reviewing it as entertainment is. I don’t believe this to be the case at all. All film criticism is subjective. One man’s artful tracking shot is another’s wanky tracking shot. For me you can’t separate out art and entertainment when you’re talking about cinema; both are intrinsically entwined. I just think a reviewer should back-up bold claims, especially if they’re saying that something is quite simply the best of anything. I know the reviewer thinks it’s decent, he’s given it five stars. When I read the review I hope to come away with some inkling as to why he’s awarded said stars. If the review don’t doesn’t this, surely it’s redundant.
True enough, all reviews are subjective – if I gave the impression that they’re not, then this wasn’t intended. I feel it’s also worth pointing out that, ideally, I believe a truly great film not only entertains/enthrals with a good story, but makes use of the its medium in a way that showcases why said story *needed* to be made into a film and couldn’t have been as effectively portrayed in a book or on a stage. This, as you say, does indeed create a link between entertainment and the art form it’s been created in. I didn’t mean to disagree on this point. What I meant was that it’s harder to explain why you subjectively felt something was a “perfect piece of entertainment” than it is to raise examples of what you personally perceived as aesthetic greatness – at least without ruining a film by talking about why exactly the story arc was good for you etc. It’s easy to put something down on similar grounds (“too scmhaltzy”, “poorly paced” etc), but harder to express positives when you just flat out enjoyed it. In this light, I feel that describing the review as “redundant” is harsh, especially when to me it seems that there are indeed suggestions as to why the stars were awarded (EG: “sensitively adapted”, no Hollywood ending, “touching script”, cast at their best with extraordinary performances in lead roles, “well written”, “superbly directed”). There could have been more specific examples to support these beliefs, but it’s not as if the beliefs weren’t expressed at all.
Good Lord, that came out longer than it looked! To summarise; “best film I’ve ever seen”? An opinion which was probably made on a direct emotional level. “Best film ever”? Well, that – as you rightly say – would require more to convince me.
I found The King’s Speech to be an unexpected delight. A really well-played comedy.
you should see this film it is defently the best ive seen 100% 5 star
I saw the film last night and it moved me to tears!
I want to be sick. This was the worst film I’ve seen in a long time. Utter drivel. I was never an anti-royalist before, but films like this, and this is the worst, are turning me against the whole idea. Ugh.
Possibly the most unlikable lead character, ever? The most unlikable royal. What a twit. Utter self-indulgence and self-pity from this character all the way through. Yuck.