'The King's Speech.' Directed by Tom Hooper.

Produced by: Iain Canning, Emile Sherman, Gareth Unwin, and Geoffrey Rush.

Written by: David Seidler.

Starring: Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, and Helena Bonham Carter.

Distributed by: The Weinstein Company (USA), and Momentum Pictures (UK).

Edited by: Tariq Anwar.

Cinematographer by: Danny Cohen.

Country: United Kingdom, and Australia.

Budget: $15 Million.

Gross revenue: $64, 704, 237.

I’ve always been reluctant to see historical pictures about British royalty. I did enjoy ‘The Queen’, but the whole time I watched it I found it hard to drum up sympathy for the matriarch. I had the same problem with this film. The biggest deal for this guy on the onset of WWII was whether or not he could deliver a speech without stuttering. Give me a break. I’m pretty sure that there were a few people with bigger problems leading up to WWII, namely all those young men that had the troublesome little quandary of avoiding death at the hands of someone they didn’t even know. 


There are undoubtedly monarchist Brits and Australians out there that will point to the importance of the symbolism behind King George VI’s speech, but I’m certainly not one of them. There is a lot to be said about the importance of an authority figure that obtains power solely by birthright. The whole ‘worship of the individual’ thing that some Brits have going on for members of their royalty might be cool if it hadn’t been historically flavoured by calls to commit to wars that resulted in the deaths of thousands. I know you can say that Hitler was a really bad guy and was going to take over the world, and I’m not arguing against that, I just get the heebie-jeebies when masses of people adore people they’ve never personally met before. Anyway, now that I have that out in the open, we’ll stay away from the anarchy nugget that I seem to bring to a lot of my reviews.

As reluctant as I was entering the film, I was surprised at just how much I warmed to these characters. Indeed, the movie is largely a character piece. Though I half expected Helena Bonham-Carter to overact atrociously, I was pleasantly surprised by her performance. As the Duchess of York, she is simultaneously charming and heart-warming, a refreshing break from all her turns in Tim Burton films. You really get the sense that she cares deeply for her poor stammering husband; she plays each emotional scene with commitment, without descending into sentimentalism. I would not be surprised if she won an Oscar for this.

The movie really belongs to Colin Firth however, who nails his part on every level. Talk about guaranteed Oscar win material; Firth’s stammering is authentic, and his confession to Rush of his treatment as a child really gives depth to a character that is so reserved for the whole movie. After we see him stutter, we begin to wonder just what exactly it is that is causing it. When he tells us, it is all the more moving because the depth of his character gives the revelation weight. The private life of Royalty will always be fascinating in an odd sort of way, and by the end of the film we are so connected with him on an emotional level that he truly does ‘...cross our threshold’ as if he were speaking with us face to face. As much as I wanted to discount him as a rich, whinging wanker in deep need of some perspective, the movie really delivered the feeling that he didn’t have a choice in becoming what he was. You do start to feel sorry for him in the end, and you do genuinely hope that he will overcome his speech impediment. However, the fact remains that he is still going to remain absurdly comfortable during WWII. You can imagine him practicing his elocution with Rush while young men get ripped apart by MG42 machine guns on a continent right next door.

I know a lot of people are raging about Geoffrey Rush’s performance here, but I could take it or leave it. It was such an easy role to play really: The cooky non-comformist with a heart of gold. It’s a role that we’ve seen a hundred times over and though Rush doesn’t descend into cliché, his character is certainly not the most interesting in the film. Maybe it has something to do with my heritage. As an Australian, I can safely say that Rush’s depiction of an Aussie larrikin is extremely safe. A true Aussie-- without formal education-- would probably have done a lot more than just sit on the king’s throne; he would probably get shit-faced and piss on it. I feel a little bit like I’m shitting on Geoffrey Rush, and I don’t intend to. I think I was just expecting a little bit more from him in this instance.

All crudeness aside, there were also some inconsistencies with theme that I perceived in this movie. When Guy Pearce ascends to the throne as King, there is much furore made about him being involved with an American divorcee. Both Firth and Rush talk about it as if were a great fucking tragedy that a man associated with such a woman could possibly be king. I’m sure that the historical context demanded such dialogue, but later on a clear theme of social progression is introduced when we realise that Rush has no formal qualifications. Rush argues with the Archbishop over the importance of both their roles (Rush as a scientist, the archbishop as a keeper of tradition), and you get the clear sense that the underlying message of the whole film is that social progression is better than adhering to tradition, if only so we can avoid such tragedies as child abuse— which only occurs to Firth’s character because the tradition of royalty demands that royal parents be distanced from their children. This progressive message seems to be undermined a little by both Rush’s and Firth’s puritanical sexual leanings.

Call me a shallow person, but as good as the movie was, I don’t think I’ll be re-watching it any time soon. It’s not because it’s too intellectual or anything, it’s just that I find royalty wanky, and the puritanical nature of many of the characters is suffocating. I know that social progression succeeds in the end of this picture, but getting there just takes too fucking long.

3.5 Stars: