The King’s Speech
You know Hollywood is running low on ideas when this year’s Most Inspirational Film is about a member of British Royalty with a stutter. So bravely did this man overcome the horrible impediment cursed upon him by God with nary but the assistance of a humble man from humble beginnings was he able to rise up to the greatest tyrant the world has ever known and single-handedly defeat him by speaking in complete sentences.
Michael Oher and Forrest Gump are very disappointed, your highness.
But I kid. This is a vast over-simplification and while there might be something humorous about the idea of a member of royalty having to overcome something so mild as a speech disorder (especially since it wasn’t a result of inbreeding), such disability is greater than anything I’ve ever had to deal with. So who am I to talk.
In the couple of weeks since I have endeavored on this journey, The King’s Speech has risen to become the favorite (by some accounts, who can really tell) for best picture. The film does have all the makings. the foreign intrigue and obscure historical references give the story a very artsy feeling. The acting is superb and the cinematography is mesmerizing.
There is a way the characters are framed during extended conversations that adds an air of antiquity and gravity to the scene. A similar method was used in the John Adams biopic on HBO a couple of years ago. The camera frames the characters in the opposite third of the frame. They are generally shot slightly further back than usual, including the upper abdomen and sometimes even the waist. They often sit in empty rooms, sometimes nothing but a desk or small table beside them. They are displaced from whomever they’re speaking with. The result gives the viewer a feeling that they are seeing a portrait speak. The effect lending the historical relevance of the characters to what you’re seeing on the film. You are reminded that these are ancestors memorialized throughout our nation as the fathers of our nation. Their influence on us is felt to this day and to literally put them on pedestals as we often do, it is easy to separate the man from the myth. John Adams (the series) brings those two back together in a visually stunning manner.
The King’s Speech uses similar techniques, but gets a different result. Much of the film is of a discussion between two men not entirely comfortable in each others’ presence. The result of this awkward relationship is shown in the way the framing of the characters is away from one another. The camera angle is not natural to the traditional idea of the 180 degree imaginary plane. The camera acts as a manifestation of their desire to be apart from one another. This is in only a few scenes, but it is a brilliant way to show the desire of two characters in a world that traditionally forbids any kind of outward emotion.
I don’t mean to harp on this one point because the cinematography in all aspects is noteworthy. It is dramatic and stark and the viewer is delivered a breathtaking image of life in London before the second great one. Whoever did the set and costume design also deserves an award. The film was visually gorgeous. Geoffrey Rush’s suits appeared as if they were fashioned from the same substance as the musky walls of his immense office. Brown is the theme of this film, and it shows everywhere, providing a sepia-toned element to everything. I think The Coen Brothers have a rare competitor for these two categories in which they’re normally a favorite.
So why doesn’t it win? There aren’t a lot of reasons, but the story is definitely not the greatest ever told. Despite my demeaning little introduction, the story does much better as a story about friendship. The climax of the film wasn’t that the King was able to give his speech, but it was in the way he and his therapist were able to work together after a tumultuous relationship to achieve a remarkable goal. It may not be fair to say I was disappointed in the modesty of the story. There may be a great effect one can derive from such an intimate relationship set within a palatial setting, but I didn’t feel it. The film felt more like a vehicle for Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush to show what great actors they are. And don’t get me wrong, they are. But I feel like their talents are better suited to loftier endeavors.
Watching this mix of actors, designers and director must have been what it was like watching the US invade Grenada. The mightiest military in the world was certainly not a perfect fit for the task. The Boston Police Department would have been a better use of our resources. I will probably watch The King’s Speech again because it is so visually beautiful, but I imagine my interest in the outcome will be just as indifferent.
Next up we see how effective Mark Ruffalo is at curing this seemingly unending scourge of lesbianism that is sweeping across the country. Until then…
Alouishis