The King's Speech is like a film from a different era. So often when you hear that kind of statement, it's referring to that ineffable time when they made good movies, the likes of which we don't see anymore. This isn't one of those cases. No, The King's Speech harkens back to the 90's, when Miramax could get away with making the blandest movies imaginable and reap Oscar glory because of it. Shakespeare in Love, Chocolat, The Cider House Rules, and others of their ilk were all big Oscar players in their time, but none left any kind of lasting impression after their day in the sun. In the 2000's, the Oscars started to turn away from this kind of middle of the road mentality, instead favoring singular visions of bleakness and honesty. No one seems to have informed the brothers Weinstein of this fact, as they still pump out bland period piece films in the hopes of winning more awards. Based on critical reception, they may have finally stumbled onto something with The King's Speech, and for the life of me I don't understand why.Colin Firth plays King George VI, a man who never expected to be King of England, but found himself thrust into the position after his brother failed to reconcile his personal life with his duties as King. King George has the problem of not being able to speak without stuttering uncontrollably. To the film's credit, Colin Firth does a great job with this part. The film is always trying to manipulate us with scenes of him stuttering as people look on in embarrassment, but Firth digs a little deeper, giving us glimpses of him as more than just a man who stutters. There is anger, resentment, and a deep shyness underneath his stuttering that is far more interesting than his need to speak in public. Assisting him in his quest to speak is Geoffrey Rush as Lionel Logue. Rush is usually a really great actor, but he can have occasion to go over the top when not properly directed, and such is the case here. He is the period piece equivalent of the manic pixie girl found in so may romantic comedies - the one who is able to dig deep inside the hero and bring out the best in him simply by being different from everyone else around them. While the character of King George has facets thanks to Firth, there seems to be no real dimensions to Lionel. We see him try to audition for a part in a play, and fail by virtue of his age, but otherwise he has no dichotomy. He is so self assured that he fails to ever be engaging on a human level.
The film is beautifully made, and if movies simply had to look good this would be one of the year's best films. The art direction in particular is exceptionally well crafted. The office Lionel inhabits looks like something Wes Anderson might have done were he to make a British period piece. And the shot compositions are distinctive enough that one could very easily make a recognisable King's Speech spoof, were someone strange enough to want to do such a thing. King George is almost always framed in the bottom left corner of the screen, with much of the rest of the frame just filled with dead space. It's a strange, yet interesting way to film the story. One of the first things you learn as a DP is to frame your action in the center, so by moving the action to the corner it gets you into the mind of King George, how he hates to be the center of attention, shying away from it. And of course, the costumes are exquisite, as one would expect from a story about a King in the 1930's. But does any of that make you want to see this movie? Probably not, unless you are a big fan of art design.
Perhaps what stuck me most about how utterly unnecessary this movie was, is how it sets this man's struggle against the backdrop of World War II. It is this period of time, if in no other, that the story of a man's speech impediment would seem frivolous by comparison to what is really going on in the world. Millions of people were being persecuted, incarcerated, and executed. The entire world nearly fell apart because of the whims of a power hungry mad man with a vendetta. Some of the most interesting, heartbreaking, unexpected things to happen in the last century happened at this exact moment in time. So while I appreciate that England needed to have a leader they felt they could trust a this dark hour, overcoming a stutter - no matter how severe - is simply not that engaging or important in the grand scheme of things here. And the worst part is that this story, told in a better context of the world around it, might actually have been really interesting. Juxtaposing the speechless George with the master orator Hitler could have been a unique way of examining George, but instead we get a throw away line about how Hitler sure speaks with conviction.
A film like The King's Speech really confuses me by its existence, even more so by its embrace by audiences. No one involved with this picture took any real risks, nothing is extraordinary, and I never got the sense that this was a story that had to be told. Like I said, it exists solely because those involved want to win Oscars. And they might very well pull it off. But a part of me thinks that the Academy has moved on at this point, that they wouldn't need to take a step backwards and embrace the kind of film that made them the butt of a number of jokes for so long. If you want something challenging and thought provoking, this isn't your film. If you want something that can be easily consumed and forgotten, check out The King's Speech.
