The King’s Speech

I would be far from the first person to suggest formulas continue to be used because they work.  Admittedly they are usually fallbacks for hack writers and the final product isn’t anything to cheer about.  Other times, much more rarely, a formula picture works, reminding us why the story became a formula in the first place.

Colin Firth and Helena Bonham Carter

The King’s Speech is about as formulaic as they come.  It doesn’t go anywhere we don’t expect, but it still draws us in and works for several reasons that make us, if not forget about, at least ignore the formula.  First, there’s something satisfying about seeing the British Royal Family behind closed doors with the same foibles that any common man or woman might possess.  Of course, intellectually we know this to be true, but there is an equalizing power to actually seeing the struggles of King George VI with his nearly debilitating stammer.  For most of us a stammer would be an embarrassing, but not fatal handicap, but for King George it hindered his ability to represent and guide Great Britain in the years leading up to the Second World War.

That satisfaction is tempered by Colin Firth’s extraordinary performance as the stammering king.  The conflict between his duty and his speaking limitations is palpable and the sympathy we feel real.  As we would expect, he puts on a brave face, but we sense the deep frustration and psychological trauma from being born in the public eye with massive expectations.  Over the course of the film Prince Albert (later King George) expresses these psychological stresses more explicitly as he grows closer to his non-traditional speech therapist, Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush).

Geoffrey Rush as Lionel Logue

In another fine performance (does he ever give us bad ones?), Geoffrey Rush plays a man who eschews commonly accepted speech therapy methodology for his own.  Albert’s wife, Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter), finds Logue after years of sampling traditional therapists to no avail.  Logue is the speech therapist of last resort but he demands a level playing field and demolishes all pretentions of social difference, something that proves difficult for Albert in the beginning.

And we all know where the story goes from there:  Albert and Logue have a rocky relationship as they build a bond, but they get too close causing a rupture in their relationship, but are brought back together for a momentous event.  We’ve seen this a thousand times in movies about an unlikely person succeeding in a sport or a disabled person overcoming their handicap.

What we haven’t seen in this formula is the intervention of history on such a personal level.  For the first half of the film, Albert isn’t supposed to be king.  His brother, Edward, is next in line for the throne.  This makes Albert’s stammer uncomfortable and inconvenient, but not critical.  But when his brother abdicates in favor of marrying a divorced (horror!) American (maybe even worse!), Prince Albert suddenly becomes King George VI.

Albert shows more character than his brother Edward (Guy Pearce).  The movie depicts Edward as a man more interested in his personal fulfillment with a woman he knows he cannot marry as king, even as the country stumbles toward war with Germany.  (That Edward and his wife, Wallis Simpson, may have been more sympathetic to Nazi Germany than they should have been probably made his abdication wise in the long run.)  Albert, however, didn’t have the option of abdicating.  How would it have looked to British subjects and the world to have two monarchs abdicate in a matter of months?  Great Britain needed a strong figurehead – without the stammer.  The climax of the picture – Albert’s speech to the nation announcing war with Germany – stands as an emotionally satisfying conclusion.  That Albert and his wife went on to become symbols of resistance, refusing to leave or to send their children out of London when everyone advised them to do so, reminds us how crucial that speech was for morale at home.

The performances make this picture successful.  Colin Firth may get an Oscar (though I still think he deserved it for last year’s A Single Man) for molding a reserved, but emotionally rich character.  He doesn’t have many opportunities to express his emotions; everything is repressed, or trying to be repressed.  We see the emotion there, Albert struggling to keep it all under the surface with occasional bouts of temper, his only moments of relief.  Also deserving recognition are Geoffrey Rush, Helena Bonham Carter, and smaller roles by Guy Pearce, Michael Gambon, and Derek Jacobi.

In the end The King’s Speech is a solid, if not great film, raised a couple of levels by some fine acting.  I fully expect to see it pile up nominations at Oscar time – the acting nominations will be deserved, the best picture and writing nominations maybe less so (though it is well directed by Tom Hooper).  It is still well worth seeing in this busy movie month.



Filed under Current Releases

7 responses to “The King’s Speech

  1. Cristiane

    I am very much in agreement with your assessment of this movie. Extraordinary performances (I also liked the genuinely chilling cameo by Claire Bloom as Queen Mary), and a solid if not great job of direction (did it seem as though there was a bit too much reliance on the fish-eye lens?). I did keep thinking that there was no way that the Windsors were ever that swift in the thinking department, though.

    • Boy I didn’t even notice that that was Claire Bloom. Thanks for pointing that out!

      Some of the Windsor’s strike me as more intelligent than others, though I take your point about some of their limited intellectual capacities. Though technically not a Windsor I’ve read that Queen Victoria wasn’t exactly the sharpest mind in Great Britain. I don’t know about the current crop. Charles seems well-intentioned but somewhat dim. Hopefully William will be able to up the ante in the coming decades. (But Elizabeth will probably be there for another 30 or 40 years.)

  2. Excellent review and a very happy surprised here Jason!

    Well, I like it even more than you, but you gave a solid appraisal here, and the formulaic lead-in is undeniable. It appears it will land in #2 position (with the French films LOURDES and CARLOS at #1 and #3 in a still uncertain ten-best list)_ Yes, Firth is extraordinary, and yes he deserved it last year, but the repression he displays here is marvelous. Rush is wonderful, as is Desplat’s lovely if repetitious score.

    An exquisite film, that clicks on every cylinder.

    • Why so surprised Sam? Did you think I was going to hate it? I knew you liked it a lot, so I was happy to be mostly in agreement with you.

      LOURDES I still haven’t seen, but as you know, I did really like CARLOS. I don’t think I will do a ten best list for the year simply because there is so much I haven’t seen. I’ve seen a lot, but nothing quite as comprehensive as you. I’ll probably wait until I get to 2010 on my countdowns which, at the pace I’m going, I should reach in 6 or 7 years.

  3. Pingback: Musical “Scrooge” with Albert Finney, Takemitsu Festival-”Ran,” “Kwaidan,” “Pitfall,” “Harikiri,” “Samurai Rebellion,” “Alone Across the Pacific” and more on Monday Mornin

  4. Whoa – Jason, is this a first? We agree right down the line on this one!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s