The King’s Speech. Rated M (coarse language). 118 minutes. Directed by Tom Hooper. Screenplay by David Seidler.
When King Edward VIII (Guy Pearce) abdicates for the love of his paramour Wallis Simpson (Eve Best), his brother the Duke of York (Colin Firth) becomes a reluctant King George VI. Championed by his wife Elizabeth (Helena Bonham-Carter, romping through as the young woman who would become The Queen Mother), the King-in-Waiting has been working with Australian speech therapist Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush) to conquer his childhood stammer. What awaits the determined (and hopefully articulate) young royal, are the most tumultuous events of the 20th century.
The grand themes of triumph over adversity and severe personal affliction waft through this fresh-out-of-mothballs period jaunt that frequently reminds us just how much more suited to the stage (as was originally intended) it would have been. Only twice (in a atmospheric scene in a fog-filled London park and an equally picturesque drive to a snow-bound country estate) does the story seem to take to the screen – the rest of the time remaining determinedly and self-consciously stage-bound.
Firth delivers a familiar riff on his signature wounded, doe-eyed, domiciled every-husband persona (much as he did in Nanny McPhee and A Single Man), and while his performance is technically quite brilliant, it is equally emotionally shallow. Firth and Rush (relishing a quirky, colonial Henry Higgins) have all the best scenes, but the jousting is never entirely convincing – chiefly because the quest to be able to speak fluently never seems as important to the young prince as it does to his adoring wife.
While it owes a debt to The Queen and Peter Morgan’s fascinating study of behind-the-scenes royal protocols that drove it, Seidler’s screenplay is terrifically taut – with a fine comedic line that escorts the film into almost impossibly cheerful (and accessible) territory.
You could, however, be forgiven for not fully appreciating the historical significance of the either the abdication, the ascension or the ‘speech’ of the title. Seidler’s apolitical screenplay steadfastly refuses to engage with the critical rupture in the history of the English monarchy – nor, more peculiarly, the Hitler-lead rise of fascism in neighbouring Europe. Hitler’s appearance (courtesy of some compelling archival footage) appears to be more of a distraction rather than the reason for which the King will be required to speak to his subjects in a manner in which they have never been spoken to before.
Hooper’s direction and Danny Cohen’s (Dead Man’s Shoes) cinematography are all over the place stylistically, and not even the consummate skills of editor Tariq Anwar (American Beauty) can account for the extent to which the coronation scene (the rehearsal for which is the absolute highpoint) hijacks the momentum.
Ultimately, it is only its Pygmalion-inspired triumphalism on the eve of World War II that ensures it limps home.
Pictured: Colin Firth and Helena Bonham-Carter in The King's Speech.
This review was commissioned by the Geraldton Newspaper Group.
Word of mouth is disagreeing with you. King's Speech posts "massive numbers" at Australian box office. http://bit.ly/dFmTLH
ReplyDeleteThanks Anon, but as a film reviewer, I am not influenced by the box office figures. As an observer, there's not a lot else on. I appreciate its popularity (in that 'we won't ask too much of you while you are on holidays' kind of way, but I still don't think it's a particularly impressive film.
ReplyDelete