The King’s Speech film review
Biographical drama The King’s Speech is this year’s big Academy Award winner, taking home 4 of the most high profile Oscars – for Best Film, Best Director, Best Actor and Best Original Screenplay. This character-driven tale has also been a surprisingly massive hit with audiences, despite the fact that it’s leisurely paced, and heavily traditional in execution. The King’s Speech is certainly a classy production, although its main strength lies not in its straightforward story, but rather the wonderful performances of its cast.
Set in the 1930s and 40s, The King’s Speech tells the real-life story of Britain’s Prince Albert (Colin Firth), whose lifelong stammer has made every one of his public appearances torturously embarrassing. Having tried everything, Albert’s concerned wife Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter) seeks out unconventional Aussie speech therapist Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush). Things won’t be easy however. Before he can effectively treat Albert, Logue must break through the social barriers that limit frank communication between himself, a commoner from the colonies, and the prince. Then there’s the threat of World War II, which makes Albert’s ability to give rousing speeches even more urgent and vital – especially since he looks set to assume the throne once his dashing older brother King Edward (Guy Pearce) abdicates.
Firth completely deserves his Oscar for his work in The King’s Speech. Since Pride and Prejudice he has become cinema’s go-to-guy when casting an aloof Brit heartthrob with a hidden heart of gold. In The King’s Speech, Firth once again hauls out elements of his Mr Darcy persona. However, this time he layers his performance with fascinating complexity. Firth’s Albert is a quiet family man; a royal committed to doing the best for his people. However, beneath his restraint lies an explosive mix of rage, fear and frustration over his inarticulation, the pitying responses it provokes and its shattering effect on his confidence. It’s a powerfully affecting portrayal.
Firth has garnered a lot of attention for his work in The King’s Speech but it would be unfair not to mention the excellent performances of Bonham Carter – here reining in the eccentricities and overblown nature of her recent work with director Tim Burton – and Rush, who is probably one of the most charismatic character/supporting actors working today. And, although he doesn’t have much screen time, Guy Pearce is also really enjoyable as Edward VIII, the rightful heir to the throne, whose immaturity and whiny self-absorption cause him to shirk his royal responsibilities.
In fact it’s worth mentioning how enjoyable it is in The King’s Speech to watch history, and famous historical figures – like the British prime ministers of the wartime period – brought to convincing life. Then there’s the film’s interesting commentary on the changing role of royalty due to the emergence of mass media and instant international communications.
If there is any drawback to The King’s Speech it’s really just its leisurely pacing. At two hours, the film isn’t especially long, but I personally found my concentration waning during its final third. I also have to admit that the movie’s culminating speech, which serves as Albert’s greatest test, takes so long to deliver that its aural impact is far less than that of its accompanying visuals.
Still though, The King’s Speech is a highly polished, inspirational tale. It lacks the contemporary stylistic “edge,” of course, of something like fellow Oscar nominee The Social Network. However, this difference also makes it perfect viewing for anyone put off by the violence and vulgarity of so many movies released today.
Set in the 1930s and 40s, The King’s Speech tells the real-life story of Britain’s Prince Albert (Colin Firth), whose lifelong stammer has made every one of his public appearances torturously embarrassing. Having tried everything, Albert’s concerned wife Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter) seeks out unconventional Aussie speech therapist Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush). Things won’t be easy however. Before he can effectively treat Albert, Logue must break through the social barriers that limit frank communication between himself, a commoner from the colonies, and the prince. Then there’s the threat of World War II, which makes Albert’s ability to give rousing speeches even more urgent and vital – especially since he looks set to assume the throne once his dashing older brother King Edward (Guy Pearce) abdicates.
Firth completely deserves his Oscar for his work in The King’s Speech. Since Pride and Prejudice he has become cinema’s go-to-guy when casting an aloof Brit heartthrob with a hidden heart of gold. In The King’s Speech, Firth once again hauls out elements of his Mr Darcy persona. However, this time he layers his performance with fascinating complexity. Firth’s Albert is a quiet family man; a royal committed to doing the best for his people. However, beneath his restraint lies an explosive mix of rage, fear and frustration over his inarticulation, the pitying responses it provokes and its shattering effect on his confidence. It’s a powerfully affecting portrayal.
Firth has garnered a lot of attention for his work in The King’s Speech but it would be unfair not to mention the excellent performances of Bonham Carter – here reining in the eccentricities and overblown nature of her recent work with director Tim Burton – and Rush, who is probably one of the most charismatic character/supporting actors working today. And, although he doesn’t have much screen time, Guy Pearce is also really enjoyable as Edward VIII, the rightful heir to the throne, whose immaturity and whiny self-absorption cause him to shirk his royal responsibilities.
In fact it’s worth mentioning how enjoyable it is in The King’s Speech to watch history, and famous historical figures – like the British prime ministers of the wartime period – brought to convincing life. Then there’s the film’s interesting commentary on the changing role of royalty due to the emergence of mass media and instant international communications.
If there is any drawback to The King’s Speech it’s really just its leisurely pacing. At two hours, the film isn’t especially long, but I personally found my concentration waning during its final third. I also have to admit that the movie’s culminating speech, which serves as Albert’s greatest test, takes so long to deliver that its aural impact is far less than that of its accompanying visuals.
Still though, The King’s Speech is a highly polished, inspirational tale. It lacks the contemporary stylistic “edge,” of course, of something like fellow Oscar nominee The Social Network. However, this difference also makes it perfect viewing for anyone put off by the violence and vulgarity of so many movies released today.
Comments