The King's Speech (Tom Hooper, 2010)

[James Mills]

All too often his approach distracts from the obviously formidable expressiveness of the actors, steamrolling them into functioning like some misguided Dickensian spin on the opacity of the Diane Arbus scarecrow ciphers that populate Harmony Korine films and which--when dissonantly married to this particular acting style, setting, and spirit--I could only invest in to the most limited and unaffecting extent.

Do you mind translating this into some form of human communication?

[mfunk9786]

Ooh, sassy!

[Foam]

That sentence is probably over the top, so I'll attempt a translation or really just a reformulation of my argument: Hooper's camera style made many of these characters into grotesques that I could only gawk at for their appearances, judging them rather than entering into imaginative sympathy with them. Unlike some, I don't have a problem with using cinema to do this per se; I'm more sympathetic for example to Korine's 90s films than many, for example. However I think Korine does this sort of thing for a purpose, while with Hooper it seems like an arbitrarily chosen visual gimmick which, because of his inability to use it with discretion, ends up being at odds with the degree of audience identification that is necessary for this sort of rah rah tale to function on all cylinders.

[Lemmy Caution]

All too often his approach distracts from the obviously formidable expressiveness of the actors, steamrolling them into functioning like some misguided Dickensian spin on the opacity of the Diane Arbus scarecrow ciphers that populate Harmony Korine films and which--when dissonantly married to this particular acting style, setting, and spirit--I could only invest in to the most limited and unaffecting extent.

Do you mind translating this into some form of human communication?

Here you go:

他的做法常常从分散的演员明显强大的表现力，到像一些误导对女摄影稻草人密码的填充和谐Korine电影和运作的透明度自旋他们狄更斯- 当嫁给这位特殊的行事风格，设置和精神- 我可以只投资于最有限，unaffecting程度。

Trust me, this is funny in Chinese.

And back again:

Chinese (Simplified) to English translation
His approach is often obvious from the scattered strong expressive actor, steamrolling to the female photographer, as some misguided Scarecrow Harmony Korine movie filled with a password and operation of the transparency of the spin they Dickens - When dissonantly marry the unique style of acting, set And spirit - I can only invest in the most limited, unaffecting level.

[James Mills]

That sentence is probably over the top, so I'll attempt a translation or really just a reformulation of my argument: Hooper's camera style made many of these characters into grotesques that I could only gawk at for their appearances, judging them rather than entering into imaginative sympathy with them. Unlike some, I don't have a problem with using cinema to do this per se; I'm more sympathetic for example to Korine's 90s films than many, for example. However I think Korine does this sort of thing for a purpose, while with Hooper it seems like an arbitrarily chosen visual gimmick which, because of his inability to use it with discretion, ends up being at odds with the degree of audience identification that is necessary for this sort of rah rah tale to function on all cylinders.

Thanks. I agree with you for the most part, it did feel gimmicky in some instances. I also didn't care for the contrary compositions of the characters during dialogue scenes (he has his actors in the far right of the frame even when looking camera-right). Though it was a tad distracting, I gave it a pass early on figuring it was to accent the distance in class and comfort between Bertie and the speech therapist, but they kept doing it throughout the film for reasons I'm unaware of.

[Magic Hate Ball]

Maybe he saw Sweetie and thought "wow, that's super neat!".

[Grand Illusion]

Because so much of the conversation around this focuses on the way it's shot, I figured this was worth posting. Reverse Shot has given this film its ignominious distinction of having the "Worst Cinematography" of the year, writing:

In what must have been a desperate attempt to avoid being tagged with the dreaded “British cinema of quality” stamp, director Tom Hooper and cinematographer Danny Cohen devised a visual approach that makes their quaint period piece about King George VI’s overcoming a speech impediment on the eve of World War II seem like it was co-directed by Terry Gilliam and Jean-Pierre Jeunet. No disorienting technique is spared: overemphatic wide-angle lenses, even distorting fish-eye; huge expanses of empty space with actors pushed “artfully” waaaay to the corner of the frame; dramatic low angles; ghoulish lighting that makes interiors seem cavernous and faces appear cadaverous. As a piece of awards bait, the film is mostly innocuous (even with its odd glossing over of history, especially the royal family’s dubious slow response to Hitler), but its over-baked, over-dramatic overall design speaks to a distrust of its own narrative material—and makes for a fairly hideous couple of hours at the movies to boot. It’s clear now, in this age of aggressively stylized prestige pics, that all the flack that the venerable Merchant Ivory received for years was due more to a lack of imagination on the part of the audience rather than the filmmakers. The King’s Speech’s ghastly pallor and absurdly unmotivated framing (which are so noticeable it'll probably win an Oscar) had me longing for the robustly quiet compositions of The Remains of the Day. —MK

[MichaelB]

I also didn't care for the contrary compositions of the characters during dialogue scenes (he has his actors in the far right of the frame even when looking camera-right). Though it was a tad distracting, I gave it a pass early on figuring it was to accent the distance in class and comfort between Bertie and the speech therapist, but they kept doing it throughout the film for reasons I'm unaware of.

I assumed it was to emphasise Bertie's awkwardness about the whole situation. The film is about someone who, for various reasons, doesn't want to be where he's ended up, be it Buckingham Palace or Logue's office, so I can see why, psychologically, he'd be inclined to look somewhere else in vain hope of an escape route.

[MoonlitKnight]

As good as I'm sure this is, it looks a little too Oscar Bait-y for my comfort. :-"

[kaujot]

I found it to be, despite the predictability of its storyline, quite moving. I think a large part of it was due to the performances, even with Geoffrey Rush barely managing to keep on the line between selling his character and overacting.

[karmajuice]

Featuring a character with a crippling stammer is a surefire way of securing my sympathy. Maybe it's because I suffered from a speech impediment when I was a child, but nothing makes a character more helpless or vulnerable. While their voice is incapacitated you can see their eyes roaming, searching, fully conscious of their flaw and every moment of silence that passes during their stutter. It works like a charm, to the point that it almost feels like cheating.

So, needless to say, I also found the film moving. In addition to the stuttering, there's the inexplicable phenomenon that occurs when I watch films like this, where I start feeling patriotic about a nation I've never even been to. So it suckered me in, although I think it earned at least some of that suckering. I definitely have issues with the cinematography (even in terms of conveying his discomfort, I feel the grotesque proximity of some of the shots failed, having altogether different effects), but I appreciate that they made an effort to deviate from the Hollywood standard.

Overall, an emotionally satisfying film, but one which doesn't seem so solid once the musical cues have faded away.

[ambrose]

The King's Speech lays bare the sheer scale of the republican challenge

The King's Speech is confirmation that the last war has now become our nation's defining narrative, almost its creation myth. What 1789 is to the French, what 1776 is to the Americans, 1940 is to the Brits – our finest hour when we stood alone against the Nazi menace. This is the period our children study in school; all history before, including that of empire, is increasingly hazy. When we nominate our greatest Briton, we choose Winston Churchill.

As it happens, the Windsors are not the ideal bearers of this chapter of our island story. As the film makes clear, Edward VIII was an admirer of Hitler. As the film does not make clear, the rest of the royal family leaned towards appeasement. Even the sainted Bertie sent a message to the foreign secretary, Lord Halifax, in the spring of 1939, expressing his hope that Jews – then desperate to get out of Germany – would be barred from doing so. Halifax listened to his king, sending word to Berlin urging the Nazi government "to check the unauthorised emigration" of Jews. (Such is the political intensity of Oscar season, this fact is being used as ammunition against The King's Speech by its rivals.)

[mfunk9786]

Saw this last night and am still thinking about it quite a bit. I was really impressed with Tom Hooper's ability to make a film about royalty seem so down to earth and sparse. Geoffrey Rush is absolutely fantastic in this film - when a poster (I don't recall who) stated that they were confused as to why his performance was receiving so much attention, I was going into the film prepared to be underwhelmed, but he is what makes this film's heart beat. There are nuances in his reactions to some of the more difficult stories that Bertie shares with him that convey his empathy in an easy to understand and even easier to admire way - as a speech therapist (and let's face it, just a downright therapist) he makes sure that the audience is aware of what a kind and even-headed influence he was on Bertie's increasingly difficult life. Colin Firth has an impeccable command of Bertie's stutter, to the point where I was overwhelmed by it at times - on several occasions throughout the film it seemed as if he were moments away from either passing out, or vomiting, or just completely breaking down mentally and never recovering. The frustration that comes with this, the deep down soul-crushing frustration, is something that only a great actor like Firth could convey, and the reason that performances [of stuttering characters] like that of newcomer Reece Thompson in Rocket Science are difficult to criticise too harshly.

Sure, this film is rather by-the-numbers, but it is remarkable that this story has never been told before, and I feel lucky to have seen it told with such restraint and lack of regal old-fashioned British flourishes. Hooper manages to use the camera to increase the viewer's unease without resorting to canted framing or bizarre out-of-focus or swirling effects. Simply placing Firth to the very left of the frame and having him converse with Rush, who is to his right (our left), is enough to send the senses into a place that can only give us a bit of a clue as to how uncomfortable Bertie is feeling. There are several small touches like this throughout the film - well-placed intentional filmmaking mistakes, we'll call them - that bring the viewer into the movie in a way that they wouldn't be were this filmed in a straightforward, centered, organized way. Some of the performances, like those of Helena Bonham Carter and Guy Pearce, are one-dimensional and leave something to be desired, but this film is all about Firth and Rush, and it is incredibly successful because of it.

I have a feeling that it will be very difficult to decide between James Franco and Colin Firth's excellent performances when Oscar voters are forced to do so - I know it will be nearly impossible for me.

[Roger Ryan]

...but it is remarkable that this story has never been told before...

Reportedly, there was interest in making a movie of this story for many years, but Elizabeth, the Queen Mother (whom Helena Bonham Carter plays in the film) did not want the film released in her lifetime and producers respected her wishes. Efforts to make the film didn't start in earnest until after the Queen Mother's death in 2002 (at nearly 102 years of age!).

[MichaelB]

In addition to the stuttering, there's the inexplicable phenomenon that occurs when I watch films like this, where I start feeling patriotic about a nation I've never even been to.

Conversely, though, this native Briton felt exactly the opposite: the film really lays bare the fundamental absurdity of the system of monarchy. It emphasises better than almost anything else I can recall recently just how capricious it is.

Whatever your feelings about the monarchy, there's little doubt that Queen Elizabeth II does the job as well as anyone could possibly be expected to - but if it hadn't been for her uncle's dalliances with Mrs Simpson, she might never have ascended the throne at all. Or Edward VIII might still have failed to produce any offspring and she might still have become Queen as the next in line to the throne after her father - but in 1972 (when Edward died) rather than 1952, just before all the industrial crises and the oil shocks, as opposed to the comparatively comfortable 1950s. And since television became a mass medium in the 1950s as a direct result of her coronation, who knows what impact this might have had on British cinema - which from about 1942-53 was arguably going through its strongest period? OK, I'll stop now.

[willoneill]

The mind reels once one starts considering the "what ifs" concerning Edward VIII's abdication ... what with him being a Nazi sympathizer and all.

[Nothing]

the film really lays bare the fundamental absurdity of the system of monarchy.

What is your response to Freedland's article, then, and the charge that the film ultimately glorifies the Windsors and white washes Bertie's anti-semitism / appeasement of the Nazis?

Whatever your feelings about the monarchy, there's little doubt that Queen Elizabeth II does the job as well as anyone could possibly be expected to

Hmm. If she were to cleanly separate her own head from her body and let it roll into a blood-encrusted basket I might be able to agree with you.

[MichaelB]

Hmm. If she were to cleanly separate her own head from her body and let it roll into a blood-encrusted basket I might be able to agree with you.

So on the one hand, you seem implicitly critical of Bertie's alleged anti-Semitism and desire to appease the Nazis...

...while on the other, you express lip-smacking approval of the notion of murdering people for the "crime" of being born into what you regard as the "wrong" family?

[willoneill]

Hmm. If she were to cleanly separate her own head from her body and let it roll into a blood-encrusted basket I might be able to agree with you.

Where does one find a working guillotine in this day and age?

But seriously, I'm definitely not the most pro-monarchy Canadian, but I can't see what exactly Queen Elizabeth II has done wrong in her reign.

[ambrose]

Socialist Review

The film portrays the British royal family as a deeply unpleasant bunch. George V, brilliantly played by Michael Gambon, is depicted as a domestic tyrant, feared by his children, and worried that "the firm" won't survive the "proletarian abyss" opening on the continent in the wake of the Russian Revolution.

His queen, Mary, insists on following the protocols of formal dining even as her husband lies on his death bed. The film is also candid in depicting Edward VIII's sympathy to Nazism, although there's no mention that George's Queen, Elizabeth (the future queen mother), had her own pre-war enthusiasm for Hitler.

Colin Firth puts in an outstanding performance as George VI. He does a brilliant job in evoking sympathy for the character and it takes effort to remember that it's sympathy for the devil. The British monarchy played out its trivial little dramas against the background of the Great Depression, which threw 2.5 million out of work. In parts of the country unemployment was as high as 70 percent. But, outside of a few shots of extras in flat caps, George VI's subjects are largely ignored.

They're just there to listen to the king's speech.

[Nothing]

I can't see what exactly Queen Elizabeth II has done wrong

Answered already:

The British monarchy played out its trivial little dramas against the background of the Great Depression, which threw 2.5 million out of work. In parts of the country unemployment was as high as 70 percent.

Had the aristocracy redistributed their wealth, imagine how many lives would have been saved. Imagine how many lives could be saved if their wealth was redistributed NOW. The aristocracy are simply thieves and brigands par-excellence, sitting on their wealth and priviledge for generations, sucking millions in rent from their tenant serfs (which includes the British government - for example, the £667,0000 a year paid to Prince Charles for the use of Dartmoor Prison) and receiving millions of taxpayers money into the bargain (at a time when their Eton go-to boy Cameron is trying to destroy the NHS).

you express lip-smacking approval of the notion of murdering people for the "crime" of being born into what you regard as the "wrong" family?

I'm not expressing approval of any such thing... It may, however, be observed that sometimes an occurance that would be unfortunate in isolation may serve a much larger utilitarian purpose. I doubt there are many in France who regret their revolution or, looking to more recent times, many who would fail to observe the advances that have been made in Nepalese society since their unfortunate event in 2001. One can only begin to imagine how different our own society might be had our own revolution not failed in 1660.

The fact is that every state and every system of government has it's victims - one must therefore consider which serves the greatest good whilst causing the least amount of evil.

[John Cope]

All right, so who's going to take the bait on this one? Shall we draw for short straws or just let it go (my advice)?

[willoneill]

I'm just going to point out that I asked what Queen Elizabeth II did wrong, and the response I was given concerned the Great Depression.

[ambrose]

I'm just going to point out that I asked what Queen Elizabeth II did wrong, and the response I was given concerned the Great Depression.

You are being slightly disingenuous willoneill! This follow up point from nothing is a direct response to your inquiry.

Imagine how many lives could be saved if their wealth was redistributed NOW. The aristocracy are simply thieves and brigands par-excellence, sitting on their wealth and priviledge for generations, sucking millions in rent from their tenant serfs (which includes the British government - for example, the £667,0000 a year paid to Prince Charles for the use of Dartmoor Prison) and receiving millions of taxpayers money into the bargain (at a time when their Eton go-to boy Cameron is trying to destroy the NHS).

[willoneill]

Yeah, ok, fair enough. Compared to most of the rest of the Royal Family, however, QEII has been fairly benign. But I guess that's like being voted valedictorian of summer school. And the Royal Family redistributing their wealth, well, that's not going to happen.

Either way, if it was up to me, Canada would drop the Monarchy the moment QEII takes her last breath.