I spent hours after watching THE KING’S SPEECH trying to take a step back and decide what might be wrong with it. I still can’t find anything. While it is certainly a traditionally-styled piece of filmmaking both in terms of its production values and performances, here is a wonderful film that delivers a fascinating history lesson about a lesser-known factoid from a British past not as distant as the typical period piece film. But THE KING’S SPEECH is so much more than this. It is also a measured study in the character building required of a leader, the struggle to overcome impairment or limitations and, ultimately, a story about the boundaries of friendship and how support without ego can take one to unexpected heights.
Prince Albert (Colin Firth), the Duke of York, is the devoted second son of King George V of England, and thankful for having an older brother because the crippling speaking disability of a stammer makes it virtually impossible for Albert to speak in front of people. His father knows that Albert would make a better successor to the throne than his brother, but that’s not how the royal monarchy works. Not to mention the fact that the invention of radio has now made it important that a king be able to speak eloquently to his people.
When King George V dies, Albert’s brother (Guy Pearce) becomes King Edward VIII and frustrates his family with his love for parties and his devotion to an already-divorced American woman, whom he plans to marry despite the relationship’s violation of the rules of the Anglican church, of which he is now the head. Edward chooses his love over his duties and suddenly, Albert is now king.
While all of this is going on, Albert’s wife, Elizabeth, has been spending time seeking out speech therapists to work with her husband, who is increasingly thrust into the public eye. None of them are successful, and her latest find appears to be no more promising. This man, Lionel Logue, is an eccentric part-time amateur actor and transplant from Australia who ridiculously demands that Albert come to him and that he be treated as Albert’s equal. Albert goes through a series of stops and starts working with Logue until he begins to see progress in his speaking. By the time the now King George VI is forced to publicly declare war against Germany at the outbreak of World War II live on BBC Radio, his complex relationship with Logue becomes the very thing that helps him through.
As the Duke of York-cum-King George VI, Colin Firth not only continues his acting hot streak that produced a Best Actor nomination last year for the wonderful “A Single Man,” but he elevates his game further still. Judging by the awards given out by critics so far this season, Firth is the man to beat this year, and it’s not hard to see why. Firth’s replication of a speech impediment is wholly believable, and the internal frustration that goes with it is so brilliantly played here that it becomes painful to watch at times. Firth’s performance couldn’t get any better.
As his wife Elizabeth, Helena Bohnam Carter is equally charming and firm. An actress who keeps one leg in this Victorian England world and the other in Tim Burton’s odd realms, she is convincingly of the time period here, knowing just where to find the lighter moments and demonstrating the glimpses of charm of the woman who would, in our lifetime, come to be known as the “Queen Mum” and live to over 100.
And, of course, there’s Geoffrey Rush, who clearly enjoys with this film his best role in many years. With subtle flashes of silliness cribbed from his work on the Pirates of the Caribbean films and “Shakespeare in Love,” Rush goes toe-to-toe with Firth here. He’s simply wonderful. His Lionel Logue is richly complex –every bit as dramatically potent as the title role but injected with unsuspecting moments of pure humor. I will remember his work here as one of my favorite performances of the year.
The three leads are supported by fantastic work by the likes of Timothy Spall, Guy Pearce, Michael Gambon, Jennifer Ehle and Derek Jacobi, all of whom disappear into their roles so fully that the audience is made to struggle with that wonderful “haven’t I seen them in something else?” feeling.
38-year-old director Tom Hooper has only one other feature film of note to his credit (“The Damned United”), but helmed some of the most significant films for television in the last few years, including “Longford” and the ridiculously good “John Adams” miniseries. All of his skills for period detail and shepherding the work of talented actors are on full display in THE KING’S SPEECH.
But Hooper is better than just a young director who gets out of the way of good actors. There is true craftsmanship in his mise-en-scene and camera choices. King George VI’s walk to the microphone near the end of the film to declare war against Germany has the camera tracking Firth down a long, narrow corridor through room after room filled with BBC radio equipment and employees. It prolongs the inevitable, and its tight confines echo the constriction the king clearly feels. It’s a brilliant moment, not unlike the feeling of a convicted killer being led to the gallows.
While the film as a whole is not flashy in its delivery, Hooper knows just where to use a fish-eye lens or provide an odd angle for effect. His work is every bit as fantastic as that of the actors and writer David Seidler, another veteran of mostly television work.
Every production value of THE KING’S SPEECH stands up to this same high quality, from Alexandre Desplat’s score to Eve Stewart’s production design and Jenny Beavan’s costume work. In a strange way, the film feels like it has arrived in theatres already a classic. If that’s a stretch, than it’s at least fair to say that the film has the aristocratic air of the kinds of films that the Academy likes, but is stunningly, pleasingly less stodgy.
THE KING’S SPEECH is not only one of the finest films I’ve seen so far this year, but perhaps one of my favorites from the past few years. Its riches are deep. As a former speech team coach and speech teacher, I believe this is required viewing for those who teach speech and those who perform. And I also love how the film gives us some details on the parents of the current Queen of England, details that I personally knew little about. It’s 20th Century history in a subject area –the British monarchy—where films tend to be set much further back, and it’s a pleasure to pick up on the small details about Albert, Edward and Elizabeth.
No comments:
Post a Comment