Once a year (more often if you count such events as the Golden Globes, which nobody does), all of past year’s movies are wrangled up, dumped into a ring, and told to fight. The winners of the brawl advance to the round of Ten, and one of those Ten is picked out of a top hat by the ghost of Charlie Chaplin. This pick wins the Academy Award for Best Picture, a title which can be displayed proudly on DVD covers for as long as DVDs continue to exist.
This year’s pick for Best Picture was The King’s Speech, a historical drama about King George VI’s regal stutter and friendship with his peasant voice coach. It also won a Best Director Award for a Mr. Tom Hooper and a Best Male Actor award for Colin Firth, who played the beleaguered king. Egregiously, the Academy neglected to ask me for my opinion on the film before they made these announcements public.
So WAS The King’s Speech really the best movie of the year, you ask Jesse Reviews the World? Well, TKS certainly supports some of the year’s finest performances. Colin Firth has received the most attention for his portrayal of the emotionally guarded, tongue-tied king, but I would argue that Geoffrey Rush steals every scene he’s in. Rush plays Lionel Logue, a self-confident amateur speech therapist who urges the monarch to swear and insists on calling him “Bertie.” It’s a brilliantly balanced performance; Rush’s wit is quick and his tongue is sharp, but Rush also exudes empathy and vulnerability so that Logue, who in lesser hands could have felt like a plot device, becomes a fascinating character. Helena Bonham Carter makes a poised and intimidating Queen of England, but for the most part, the movie is a two-man show between Firth and Rush.
This is fine, because the relationship between the King and Logue is by far the most interesting aspect of the movie. It’s a couple struggling with very unusual power dynamics – king and subject, doctor and patient, rich and poor – and their friendship feels all the more authentic because of these clashes. Of course, the relationship progresses along a fairly traditional movie route (VAGUE SPOILERS ABOUND): antagonist relationship becomes uneasy alliance becomes friendship becomes Fourth Act Fight becomes reconciled BFFs.
Indeed, there really aren’t very many surprises to be found anywhere in the plotting. To be honest, The King’s Speech felt in many ways like a Sports Movie like Remember the Titans. There’s a clear, tangible obstacle (winning football/speaking without stuttering), a charismatic coach (Denzel Washington/Geoffrey Rush), a progression towards greatness (running drills/speaking Hamlet), social commentary along the way (desegregation was hard/Hitler was nuts), and a final SPOILER redemptive climax (State Championship game/making it through a big speech without totally biffing it).
The predictable storyline doesn’t smart too badly since all the elements involved in its telling are so strong. Still, the movie feels too safe, and only Firth’s strong performance maintains any sense of suspense. To most of us, I would guess, George VI’s stuttering problems were an unfamiliar story, but we can predict the steps along the way because we know This Type of Movie.
So should it be Best Picture? Well, at the risk of sounding overly Clintonian, it depends what you definition of “Best” is. Should we reward movies that take risks, not only in the subject manner but in the method of story-telling? Or should we reward movies that use the traditional movie-maker’s palette to effectively tug on the emotions? What do we prize more greatly, craft or innovation?
As you’ve probably guessed, I find the whole idea of a Best Picture pretty dumb, but I’d rather see an award given on the merit of innovation, to movies that make us see the potential of movies in a new way. The King’s Speech won’t be winning many of those imaginary awards. Still, it’s still a solidly-crafted, wonderfully-acted period piece that keeps its characters believable and grounded. At the end, I found myself wishing that it would go on longer, which is not something I usually feel while watching historical dramas. And never something I feel when I watch the Oscars.
GRADE: B+
Very well written Jesse as usual. Although u did forget to mention David Seidler, who won the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay. Seidler and his family immigrated from London to the US during WWII. Seidler also had a stutter. His parents would tell him the King had a much worse stutter then he did, and if the King could overcome it, he could too. This is what got Seidler interested in King George.
In his research in the 70′s he found Lionel Logue’s son, Valentine, who would share the journals of his father with Seidler but only with permission from The Queen Mother, King George’s widow. Seidler wrote to her and received a reply saying she didn’t want the story pursued any further as long as she was alive as the memories were too painful. Seidler honored the request and abandoned the project in 1982. If the Queen Mother didn’t live to be 102 (she died in 2002), this movie could have come out in the 80′s or 90′s.
Seidler even found out his Uncle also had a stutter and had sought out the very same Lionel Logue for treatment.
All points just so fascinating.
I felt satisfied that Colin Firth was nominated for and won “best actor.” I agree with you that much of the movie hinges on Rush, but while watching TKS I was struck by the immense skill that it took for Firth to play his part. He displays a wonderful range of emotion, but the real kicker is the incredible voice work he does with the King’s nasal-stutter. Like you, I appreciate risk and range. I’m not sure this was a “risky” move for Firth, but I appreciated his virtuosity.
Also, what would an “A” movie be for you?
Ben, I quite agree with you that Firth’s role was very impressive and demanding, and I don’t begrudge him an Oscar for it. I felt the need to give a shout-out to Rush because 1) it hadn’t been talked about as much, and 2) it was the emotional core of the movie. But yes, Colin Firth is a master here, and I should have said so more explicitly.
Regarding what sort of movie would get an “A” in my book, they would ideally be movies that excel at their craft to the point of defying their genre, that generate emotions or responses beyond the expectations. No Country For Old Men, a thriller that also serves as a poignant commentary on random violence and helplessness, would get an A from me. Triplets of Belleville and WALL-E are examples of animated movies that not only use the medium for spectacle and humor, but pathos and poignancy. Hot Fuzz is a comedy that also effectively manages to be a murder mystery, action flick, and meta-commentary on film-making.
So I do grade movies in somewhat different ways, depending on what type of movie it’s trying to be. Thus the grades aren’t necessarily comparable…I’d probably give Hot Fuzz, for example, an A, but that doesn’t necessarily imply it’s a “better” movie than The King’s Speech, whatever that means. It means I consider it a quintessential example of a dark comedy, while The King’s Speech is only a very good example of a period piece drama.
The danger of this, of course, is that grades can be inflated when my expectations are low. HP7 probably didn’t deserve the A- I gave it, but I was so pleased with its deepened emotional tone (compared to the past movies) that I was feeling exuberant. Still, I think there’s value in identifying that apples and oranges (or their movie equivalents) don’t necessarily benefit from being compared.
I’m curious about the asterisk. I usually enjoy your footnotes and was looking forward to the tangent on which you would have taken us.
Perhaps next time you can come on a tangent to Virginia.
Oh no! The aster-exasper! I don’t even remember what that supposed to be…I think maybe I was gonna guiltily admit that I had only seen 3 of the 10 nominees, though it doesn’t fit with that sentence.
Here’s a bonus footnote.
*Though of course none of these performances can live up to that of Gregory Yoder’s heartfelt and nuanced portrayal of King Bowser.