If you haven't heard of this movie yet, you're living in a cave. When you hear a lot about a certain picture before viewing it, expectations abound and some satisfaction can be found in the film living up to these expectations. I knew going in that this was a performance-centered picture, Colin Firth's portrayal of the Duke of York/King George VI being praised as the year's best performance for several months now. As the plot is rather straightforward and reliant on historical events, the weight of the picture rests mostly on the script and the acting, both of which are first class. King's speech concentrates on the Duke's fears and responsibilities as he struggles to overcome a stammering speech with the help of ex-actor-turned-speech-therapist Lionel Logue (the incomparable Geoffrey Rush). The death of his father and the inaptitude of his older brother make him next in line for the thrown, the new era of radio making it adamant that he learns to speak properly, a necessity that gets bigger with the beginning of war just around the corner. With the support of his lovely wife (Helena Bonham Carter), his new majesty will have to get over his own demons before he can get rid of those threatening his empire. Not overly tragic or nationalist, King's Speech is often funny in its depiction of human determination in the face of crushing social duty, transforming a king into a faillible human being whose greatness is born as much from perseverance than from supportive surroundings.
I thought this one was only so-so. Colin Firth was good, but it's pretty much the same part he always plays: an emotionally constrained (and therefore vulnerable) upper class Brit. The major difference here is he gets to make lots of faces while he stammers, for which he will be rewarded with an Oscar. Also, the history is very dodgy (Churchill was actually against Edward VIII abdicating, various historical figures are shown saying things they would never have said, etc)
ReplyDelete