The King’s Speech (2010) 10/10
The Duke of York (Colin Firth) has a lifelong stammer. Now that speaking on the new invention—radio—is part of royal duties, this is increasingly a problem. After conventional methods fail, he works with an oddball speech therapist (Geoffrey Rush). When Edward VIII (Guy Pearce) abdicates to marry an American divorceé, the Duke becomes King on the eve of World War II and must speak to his people.
The King's Speech poster: Photo by the Weinstein Company
On the surface, The King’s Speech is exactly that movie. In terms of predictability, it’s like Titanic: The boat sinks. This is a slice of history that many of us know. And I don’t happen to object to sentimentality; I’m not a fan of movie critics who are all “It’s not dark enough! Get me some Antonioni!”
But I don’t give all my stars and thumbs to a “feel good movie of the year” either. The King’s Speech is nuanced and smart. The Duke, who became King George VI and was known to his family as “Bertie,” is necessarily understated. I mean, he’s British royalty. He’s also a fearful man, who is deeply relieved he will never have to be King, and horrified when it becomes apparent he will. Firth’s performance is masterful, and the Oscar buzz is well-deserved. Bertie is angry, embarrassed, bemused, tender, and imperious. Firth plays him with just the right touch of humor, and lets the audience in on the private world of Bertie’s complexity. I’ve now seen the two performances considered Oscar frontrunners for Best Actor, Firth and Eisenberg, and Colin Firth has my (non-existent) vote.
Geoffrey Rush as Lionel Logue is a perfect counterpart to that. I’ve seen complaints that the performance is too quirky and over-the-top, but I think it’s absolutely necessary to show the two men in contrast. And kudos to the filming here: The visual contrast, and the way shots are framed, really tells a story.
During his meetings with Logue, Bertie eventually speaks of his childhood, as speech therapy begins to border on counseling. I saw an interview (and now I forget with whom; either the writer or director) saying they didn’t want to make this a psychological portrait, or dwell in childhood, but they felt it was something of a hole in the script if they didn’t address the “why” of the stammer at least briefly. That one brief conversation is so powerful that it shapes the rest of the movie.
It’s not a “feel good” movie, or a triumph over adversity in the conventional Cool Runnings kind of way. Instead, it’s about a man becoming himself, and yes, becoming more than the tormented child he once was. It’s not news, surely, how many (many) of us walk around as children in adult bodies, never awakening to the knowledge that we can be more. Bertie is such a man, and all of this is given a kind of subtlety that makes it not even a little bit cheesy.
Kudos as well to the supporting performances. Helena Bonham Carter as Bertie’s wife, the future Queen Elizabeth I (best known to most as the Queen Mum) is extraordinary. She doesn’t have a single show-off scene but she imbues her role with such graceful personhood that it’s a marvel. Guy Pearce is pretty amazing too; petulant, sympathetic, unsympathetic, kind of a jerk, kind of creepy, and yet soft and strangely sweet.
The whole production never hits a wrong note. I love the costumes, the set design, and the cinematography as well.
26 Responses to “Movie Review: The King’s Speech”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
[...] It’s up on my other blog. [...]
Deb, I just saw this yesterday –completely loved it! I want to see it again, maybe persuade my husband to see a movie that doesn’t have lasers in it! (I went with my sisters)
I was riveted from the first scene and just pulling for Bertie to overcome his personal demons. Splendid from first to last frame, Firth is going to walk away with the Oscar in this one. I didn’t find Rush’s character quirky at all, but as a man just doing his job, and so compassionate. LOVED the Westminister Abbey scene. I also thought the portrayal of David and Wallis Simpson was right on the nail, capturing their frivolity and ignorance. The scenes with young Elizabeth and Margaret were so touching, and in their subtle way remind one of the rigid conformities of royal life, but you see that Bertie and Elizabeth, in their private life, were as casual as any loving couple.
Also a note on the casting — Colin, Geoffrey, and Helena are the trinity of greatness in this picture, but there are excellent performances by Harry Potter alums Michael Gambon as George V and Timothy Spall as Winston Churchill, as well as the excellent Derek Jacobi as the Archbishop of Canterbury, and surprisingly, the legendary Claire Bloom as Queen Mary. This one has Oscar all over it.
Can’t recommend it enough.
Just a note: You mean “Queen Elizabeth”, not “Queen Elizabeth I”. That one had already happened several hundred years before!
The Queen Mum doesn’t get a number after her name because she was a queen consort rather than a queen regnant.
srah, thank you! I was confused about that and researching the Windsors last night, but never figured it out.
And P.S., the best cursing scene since the opening of Four Weddings and a Funeral.
#4 – Oh yes! The cursing being the only reason it’s rated R. But it’s played so real that it’s not vulgar at all, just honest, and so funny. My 13 year old niece came with us and loved the whole movie.
Lol, nice Cool Runnings reference!
I was really afraid that this movie was going to be treacly, but while, as you point out, the general arc of the story is something of a movie cliche, it was so genuine and nuanced that it didn’t matter. And, you know, it’s history, which is by its nature a bit predictable. They managed to tell the story, though, in ways that were not.
Colin Firth absolutely blew me away, and I think the major kudos have to go to him and to director Tom Hooper. I LOVED his film The Damned United and was thrilled (and had my fears of treacle somewhat assuaged) when I read he was directing this.
I just saw this in Sal’s hometown of Baltimore. I think some in the theater jumped a little when they heard “Mrs. Wallis Simpson from Baltimore,” not realizing that the infamous Mrs. Simpson was from here. They didn’t have that many scenes but I liked the movie’s realistic portrayal of Edward VIII and Mrs. Simpson. Many (especially in America) saw it as two (stylish, well-dressed) star-crossed lovers in a time when snobs wouldn’t allow her to be queen. In reality, Edward was a reckless pleasure seeking playboy; Wallis was a social climber with a questionable reputation; and both were pro-German Nazi sympathizers who committed treasonable actions during World War II.
Empress, yes. The fact that Edward was a Nazi sympathizer wasn’t emphasized in the movie but played a big part in him being forced to abdicate, as I understand it.
Saw this on Saturday w/the spouse – we both *loved* it, and as an amateur actor, I took away a lot of ‘bits’ that I hope to be brave enough to employ someday.
@Deborah
I come from a family that is slightly obsessed with British royal history.
Actually, it looks like there have been a LOT of Queens Elizabeth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth
@ Empress, exactly! I was first interested in the story because of how it’s frequently portrayed as some gloriously romantic fairytale, but between the Nazi sympathies and the fact that Wallis pretty much admitted later in life that the whole relationship was a calculated gambit on her part that backfired spectacularly, I don’t understand why it’s so glorified.
#9 Deborah — My mom was a nurse midwife in Glasgow during this period and she certainly filled my ear with what a useless, stupid, fascist, vain little horror David, Prince of Wales (the future Edward VIII) was. From all accounts, David was spoiled, allowed to not study or work and he constantly amused himself with coming up with custom tweed patterns to be woven for him personally so that his bespoke suits would never be like anyone else’s . If there was anyone who created the cult of the celebrity, he was it. It’s rather scary to think of what would have happened to the UK if Edward VIII had NOT abdicated.
#12: I’m interested to read more about Wallis’ admission that her gambit backfired.. can you cite any sources?
#13: Bertie and family acquitted themselves splendidly during the war, as in staying in London and having the girls volunteer to do war work, so I guess we should all be grateful that David and Wallis were not crowned.
Very well acted, nice sets and costumes, good casting. The plot’s not much but it still kept me well-entertained. Geoffrey Rush was brilliant.
I did feel they glossed over how ghastly Edward VIII & Wallis were and what utter collaborators they would have been. Actually collaborator is too mild a term. They were natural-born facists who visited and praised Hitler’s Third Reich in 1937 — far too late in the game to excuse Edward for being uninformed. They LIKED what Hitler stood for. Well nobody ever accused British royalty of being brainy.
Edward and his bride were banished to “run” the Bahamas (considered suitably out of the action so they could do no harm to the Allies) and after WWII, Edward was never again given ANY official appointment.
jzzy, I did read a commenter who roundly criticized the movie for skipping all of that, but I disagree. It was not a history lesson, but a deeply personal story about one man, and how he went through his personal journey on the world stage.
Just a quick note to say I want to read your reviews but so far I haven’t seen any of these movies that you’ve been writing about.
I like to read reviews after I’ve seen the movies though, and I do hope to see TKS in the next week or so. Will check back & read this thoroughly afterwards!
She wrote a very self-serving biography late in life, but she also gave interviews to biographers and journalists, some of whom ended up having access to her private correspondence after her death, much of which was published. If I recall correctly, she was pretty candid about her ambitions to be queen in letters to family back home and, after it became clear that parliament wouldn’t accept her as queen and David made it clear he intended to abdicate, about her desire to call everything off. I think she actually publicly tried to back out at the time, but it was too late.
The performance of Colin Firth and Geoffery Rush and their interaction is superb. It is a treat to watch them.
#18 The British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin and the House of Commons knew that the Duke of York ( George VI ) must assume the throne. The movie captures this sense of urgency. Wallis Simpson’s divorce was the official reason but German troops marched into the Rhineland in 1936. The German Ambassador von Ribbentrop was sending fresh flowers to Wallis Simpson every day. Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson were pro German.
Great Post Deb! I really enjoyed this movie, and I found it particularly interesting when Logue questions Bertie about his childhood, clearly trying to get at the cause of his stammer, and Bertie tells Logue about his other brother, Prince John, who died at 13 after being banished by the family because he had epilepsy. I sensed a guilt in Bertie about John’s banishment. I never knew this part of their family history. So, naturally, I googled it. Prince John (son of George V and Mary) was a loving child, but epilepsy impaired his ability to learn. Unable to cope, King George sends John off to a remote farmhouse so as not to besmirch the family name. I’ve also ordered from Netflix a movie called The Lost Prince, which it appears was produced by Masterpiece Theatre, and has received some accolades. Interesting….
I feel that the most compelling fact about George VI as a character is that HE was the virtuous, patriotic and decent brother as compared to the treasonous, vapid, Nazi-loving ex-King and his skanky wife. Every hero needs a foil. His speech problem is fascinating (I work in Special Education, actually) and the glimpse into the gulf between royals and commoners is a lot of fun.
And no, it’s not a history lesson — it’s a Royal Family branding product — check out Hitchens’ blazing piece in Slate today for the full checklist of offenses. Hitchens has his quirks and hobbyhorses too but he knows his English history.
I still enjoyed the movie as entertainment.
I enjoyed King’s Speech too.
But did anyone else notice the decidedly snarky portrayal of the church? One of the things I really appreciate about Mad Men is their fairly evenhanded portrayal of Father Gill. I’d love for the good Father to show up in Season 5 or 6.
@Mike C.
Why do you say that? I didn’t find it particularly snarky so I’m wondering if there was something I missed.
Maddicts who love period accuracy will appreciate knowing that Helena Bonham Carter’s great-grandfather was Prime Minister of England during the period of the greatest expansion of the British Empire and was followed by Lloyd George (the wartime PM of WWI). Her g-grandfather would have known George V and Mary for he was their PM, and he certainly would have known the six children with Edward (David) and George VI (Bertie) the eldest. HBC was pitch perfect in capturing Elizabeth’s mannerisms, a loving portrait of a marvelous woman who married for love and served her country at a level of devotion and steadfastness few of us can appreciate. She lost her beloved husband early, Bertie’s health ruined by the pressures of leading the commonwealth through WWII, with Elizabeth assuming the crown in the early 1950s. I’ve yet to see any articles that note this connection between HBC and the movie. Should Maddicts run across one, please post!
#24 Mia: Very interesting. Thank you for sharing HBC’s lineage.
Deb
thinking back, I remember the lighting and the set, especially Logue’s shabby-chic office. That beat-up collection of threads passing itself off as a rug. The wall that looked like it’d been used by a firing squad. Even Rush’s face; all showed evidence of years of use.
And, the relationship between Logue and Bertie; as a coach myself, I was intrigued to see how he set it up. You can be part of a really big change when you work with powerful people (or great athletes), but the difficulty level goes up accordingly. So you can also crash on the rocks. How do you engage a strong-willed person and direct their development? How can you convince them to allow you ‘write access’ to their head when they refuse entry to hundreds of people a day, based on who they are? That is what intrigues me. But also the lighting, the luminous faces against the drab settings.
http://broshar.wordpress.com/2011/01/16/coaching/