by Jenny from 10 Things I Hate* about your movie
If The King’s Speech earned a nickel every time the term “feel-good” or, more recently, “Oscar-bait,” was thrown around, well, they’d make a lot more money than they already have. Personally, I am not a fan of the term “feel-good.” Anytime I see, “The feel-good movie of the year!” splashed across an ad, the phrase makes me want to run in the other direction. It seems too syrupy, too exaggerated—it can’t make everyone feel that way, right? And I don’t like being told how I’m going to feel. Just let me experience it for myself.
But this film absolutely left me feeling warm and happy and, in a word, good. And not just because our underdog triumphs in the end. It felt good because it is a good story told well.
As for the “Oscar-bait” thing, I think that phrase creates an atmosphere of judgment in which you can no longer see the story for itself, but only for the boxes it tics on an imaginary Academy checklist. And then you’re thinking about the politics. I’m not saying the Oscars aren’t about politics (we all know they are), and maybe people do tend to vote a certain way. But since I don’t understand that process whatsoever, I don’t care. I’m looking for the best storytelling, as created by the cinematography, the writing, the acting, the choices, the music, how it made me feel, what I came away with, and all that mushy subjective whatnot that goes into art and stuff. It can certainly be argued that this is a more traditional film. Maybe that’s not your cup of Earl Grey, but I don’t think anyone should shy away just because it may share some common denominators with past Oscar winners. But that’s just me being defensive. Let’s go back to the beginning.
As you probably already know, The King’s Speech tells the based-on-history story of Prince Albert (or Bertie), Duke of York, and his stutter. That is to say, we follow how Bertie worked with (and befriended) Lionel Logue, an unconventional speech therapist, to overcome his debilitating stutter, all while also becoming King George VI just in time for World War II. The film begins with a speech, his famously disastrous first attempt at radio-recorded public speaking at Wembley in 1925, and ends with a speech, his broadcast to the nation on the eve of war in 1939. In the intervening 100 or so minutes, we watch this stuttering second son become a king.
I didn’t know this piece of British history before the film and apparently the movie takes a few liberties with historical timelines, but the manipulation of events for dramatic purposes is nothing new. In any case, there really was a Bertie, who really had a stutter, who really became king when his brother Edward abdicated the throne in 1936, just in time to really be in charge as his country prepared to enter World War II. All of which happened in an era of radio broadcasts, making things a bit difficult for a public figure who could not speak in public. After all, who could have faith in a leader who can’t even speak? It becomes important that Bertie overcome his stutter, not only to prove to his father that he is as good as his older brother, or to prove to his country that he can be king, but to prove to the world that he can guide Great Britain through the trying and painful times ahead in World War II. We aren’t just watching a moving personal story (which would probably still be a good movie, especially with these actors). Over the course of the film, the stakes are pushed higher and higher, moving seamlessly from personal to global significance. And I think such built-in symbolism, micro to macro, in an essentially true story no less, is pretty damn sweet (to use a technical term).
In thinking about why Bertie’s eventual triumph feels so good, I realized that with the nerves, high stakes, and public settings of his speeches, the movie can be paralleled to the classic underdog sports film format. The sport may be public speaking, but Bertie is the underdog, he has a trainer, faces one hell of a big final “game,” and what bigger opponent could there be than the Nazis? There is even a training montage! But I don’t think this fact should be seen as reductive. Rather, the format provides a very clear goal with a very clear obstacle, making for a well-crafted story in which nothing is wasted. Though I suppose it could also seem old or a little too familiar to some.
In Entertainment Weekly, director Tom Hooper said his movie is “full of me actually challenging what you’d expect from this kind of film,” and that his goals were “to subvert, to be unconventional.” While I’m not sure “unconventional” is a term that I would use to describe The King’s Speech (that’s a hard word to use around the Royal Family in general), I think the film deserves more than to be written off as Oscar-bait.
For me, it’s the performances that make the film so successful. As King George VI, Colin Firth is brilliant and deserves that Best Actor Oscar. He completely embodies his speech impediment, struggling with every fiber of his being to speak well, and his portrayal is the reason we feel his pain and cheer so loudly for him to succeed. But while Firth is talented and likeable as he always has been, and would still be brilliant on his own, you wouldn’t have such a great performance from him or such a wonderful movie overall without Geoffrey Rush as Lionel Logue. I was lucky enough to see Rush on Broadway in the play Exit the King and he was not only the best part of that show but the best performance I saw that year. I learned firsthand what a masterful actor he is (something that I somehow did not get from seeing him play a hammy pirate… strange). As Logue, he is a joy to watch – funny and lovely and at the tip top of his game, and the man plays a damn good game. He elevates each scene in which he appears and the partnership between these two actors who are so fully present is what you’re there to see. Their long scenes together are actually quite untraditional and a luxury, but then this is also a film about their friendship. In the same Entertainment Weekly (clearly the Oscar coverage one, right?), Rush said that when they read the script they thought, “Who will want to see this film about two middle-aged men who become friends?” When those men are Firth and Rush? Yes, please, count me in.
I personally think The King’s Speech should win. Not because it has a lot of the elements that the Academy traditionally rewards, but because it is a great film. I will absolutely admit that I have not seen all of the Best Picture nominees, but this was the best film I saw last year. Beautifully shot, fabulously acted, and telling a great story.
Also, extra points because it has the best use of swearing that I have seen in a long time, possibly ever. (If that was a category, it would be no contest.)
And, dammit, you’ll leave the film feeling good. Tits.
