All Nonfiction
- Bullying
- Books
- Academic
- Author Interviews
- Celebrity interviews
- College Articles
- College Essays
- Educator of the Year
- Heroes
- Interviews
- Memoir
- Personal Experience
- Sports
- Travel & Culture
All Opinions
- Bullying
- Current Events / Politics
- Discrimination
- Drugs / Alcohol / Smoking
- Entertainment / Celebrities
- Environment
- Love / Relationships
- Movies / Music / TV
- Pop Culture / Trends
- School / College
- Social Issues / Civics
- Spirituality / Religion
- Sports / Hobbies
All Hot Topics
- Bullying
- Community Service
- Environment
- Health
- Letters to the Editor
- Pride & Prejudice
- What Matters
- Back
Summer Guide
- Program Links
- Program Reviews
- Back
College Guide
- College Links
- College Reviews
- College Essays
- College Articles
- Back
The King's Speech MAG
As a history film buff, it takes quite a bit to impress me with a historical film interpretation and Oscar-winning “The King's Speech” completely blew me away. With all the current hype about special effects, sci-fi, and Westerns (which are fine in their place), it was refreshing to see a quality movie that was spectacular simply because of the actors' and director's talent.
Many of the characters in the story of King George VI are iconic, weaving in and out of the WWII section of any history textbook. Not a single character in this movie was static; there was constant but realistic character development.
Quite a few films about inspiring stories of historical figures portray a single moment when the character's life turns around, resulting in that person performing his or her wonderful deeds. “The King's Speech” steps through the entire process without being long-winded and effectively shows the work and time Prince Albert put into everything he did before becoming King George VI.
Winston Churchill (Timothy Spall, who also played Peter Pettigrew in the Harry Potter series) could have walked off the screen and given one of his iconic speeches. This was the most prominent example of a historical character being brought to life. Helena Bonham Carter and Colin Firth, as Queen Elizabeth and King George VI, drew the audience into the pressure and stress of their lives. They made viewers feel the scrutiny that they experienced every second, juxtaposed against the moving and often hysterical friendship between Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush) and “Bertie.”
Director Tom Hooper made good decisions about the timing of the movie and what to emphasize. Dwelling on the months spent for more than the minutes allotted to it would have been overkill, and he made it work by showing how King George was applying the techniques during a real speech. The lengthy scene with the king's brother was another fantastic director's choice because it showed the psychological damage that came from his brother's taunts.
Overall, this was the best movie I have seen all year. Even viewers who know how it ends will be on the edge of their seat rooting for the characters. From the adorable daughters to the infamous “Do you know the f-word?” scene to the final declaration of war at the end, this movie will make you cry, laugh, grit your teeth, and want to punch Archbishop Cosmo Lang. One line sums up this movie completely. According to Lionel Logue, “You did good, Bertie.”
Similar Articles
JOIN THE DISCUSSION
This article has 4 comments.
This was a great film, definitely one of the best of 2010. But - forgive me for saying so - I don't think you understand the filmmaking process enough to convey it accurately in your review. You wrote that "the actors' and director's talent" made the film great. However, you seem to be forgetting or ignoring the screenwriter's (David Seidler) contribution. It was he who came up with the idea of putting Bertie's life onscreen. He literally spent decades researching and writing the script, even through his fight with cancer.
You also wrote that "Director Tom Hooper made good decisions about the timing of the movie and what to emphasize." Again, even though the director is the overseer of the film, the timing of the film is largely the work of the screenwriter and film editor.
And you wrote that "The lengthy scene with the king's brother was another fantastic director's choice because it showed the psychological damage that came from his brother's taunts." Not only are you saying that this scene was the "director's choice," but by using the word "another" you are implying that almost all the good things about the film are because of the director's work...when in fact the screenwriter had to write the compelling dialogue and figure out the pacing.
Anyway, I guess this belongs to the greater issue of people focusing on directors and actors rather than people like screenwriters, film editors, and cinematographers, who are more integral to filmmaking than most people know. I hope I've helped spread awareness... :)
0 articles 0 photos 8 comments
Favorite Quote:
"If you cant annoy somebody with what you write, I think there's little point in writing." Kingsley Amis
Yes, very well written. The screenwriter is obviously an integral part of the film, but the greater percentage is with the director and actors, very few directors let a script be screened without enourmous alterations of their own, when they dont like it or want to make the screening look more effective.
These alterations are often almost to the extent of the liberties the screenwriters take with a novel to be made into a film