The King's Speech

So I went to see The King’s Speech (Tom Hooper) yesterday (a certain chain cinema, £6.85 student ticket during the ‘Saver’ period, thank goodness it wasn’t Saturday prime time) and it was without question the best film I’ve seen since...Winter’s Bone.
The film follows Albert, Duke of York, the man who would be George VI (Colin Firth) as he attends speech therapy in order to overcome his stammer, so that he may carry out public speaking and not get bullied by his brother and father.  As I am what has been called an ‘anarchist’ by some people, or in my own words, generally just not really a pro-monarchy kind of guy, I could have easily have pretended to hate this film, not taken an interest, and have been delighted that the king could potentially make a fool out himself in front of thousands of people.
But, as sickening as it sounds, both Firth’s performance, as well as that of Geoffrey Rush playing the therapist, Lionel Logue, genuinely evokes your sympathy the Duke’s struggles. I found it generally did this by revealing the coldness in relationships within the royal family itself – George V has no patience with his poor son’s incapacity, and his brother mockingly calls him ‘B-B-B-Bertie’ (George VI’s real name was Albert – I didn’t realise they chose names for kings like they do with the pope, just whatever sounds good).  Bertie finds more comfort with Logue, who takes him down a peg, insisting on calling each other by their first names, rather than ‘Albert Frederick Arthur George’ which the Duke starts out as preferring. Yet their relationship develops, explicitly and hilariously portrayed as Logue invites Bertie to engage with throat and mouth exercises, such as tongue twisters, shouting vowel sounds through open windows, and wobbling his cheeks around as one would do to make a baby laugh. There is no better way of describing it! Although comical, watching a member of the ultra privileged free himself from the shadow of his judgemental family is very rewarding.  
As I have previously said in earlier posts, I enjoy films without the need for over-the-top special effects, focusing on just a few important characters. The first scene with Bertie and Logue interacting is a perfect example of why I find this so engaging – fast, witty dialogue, that could make you laugh and cry, immediately revealing both the Duke’s apparent stubbornness and his therapist’s unorthodox calm determination. I also enjoyed the camera angles used within the sessions between the two men – simply following them as they sit down rather than keeping it as a wide shot was so simple yet flowing and harmonious. It emphasises their growing fondness with each other and the Duke’s increased willingness to open up his private life to a common man, even in his dark and dingy study. Contrast this to a view inside Buckingham Palace (I believe) shown directly from above, the ornate decorations adorning the walls and ceiling enclosing the lens like the frame of a painting. It highlights the film’s outlook on royal life – beautiful in the exterior but ultimately harsh and dissatisfying.
Once again I have waffled on, and not even mentioned Helena Bonham Carter, who delivers as superbly, even in a supporting role, showing a personal and caring side to royal relationships. It should also be said that this was made with the British Film Council – another example of a fantastic British film, low key, brilliantly convincing acting, and an original storyline. How could this institution even be considered for abolition as it is by the coalition government? Outrageous.
 The first and final scenes are some of the best I have seen. The opening is true buttock clenching and knuckle whitening awkwardness as Firth captures the true fear of the Duke as he prepares to make a speech. The final draws all the best parts together – what isn’t funny yet sincerely moving about Geoffrey Rush mouthing the F word and waltzing to silent music to calm to new King as he braves all and delivers his wartime speech over the wireless?

Amazing.