The King’s Speech Review

kingsspeech The King’s Speech Review

Touring the world’s global film festivals and being garlanded with a lot of critical praise, including winning the People’s Choice in Toronto, Tom Hooper’s film starring Colin Firth is gearing up to be a huge awards season success. Considering the previous two winners were Slumdog Millionaire and Precious, The King’s Speech is shaping up to be a serious Oscar contender.

The film tells the story of King George VI of England or Bertie who suffers from a dreadful stammer especially while speaking publicly, putting him and his listeners through hell, and as a result is considered unfit for the throne. Thus through the aid of an unorthodox Australian speech therapist, Lionel Logue, Bertie learns to overcome his fears, as he has to lead and empower his country to war.

Toronto as opposed to Cannes is becoming the place for niche films which require audience attention. The King’s Speech is exactly that, although it may have a wider appeal than on initial thought. We all know that award establishments and the other audiences outside of the UK, particularly America, have a certain reverence for British Monarchs being portrayed on screen. From Elizabeth to The Queen to Shakespeare in Love to Mrs Brown, usually leading to Oscar gold. At times deservedly so, none more deserving here than Colin Firth, who provides a brilliant performance as Bertie or King George. Last year he was nominated for A Single Man (who in my mind should have won) and is undeniably as a basis of this going to pick up a nod again. It is a different kind of performance then A Single Man, it sees him going back to the more comic buffoon we saw in Bridget Jones and matching that with the upper class snobbery of Mr Darcy.

However despite previous baggage an audience brings to seeing a Colin Firth performance, behind the exterior is a role which is beautifully nuanced and compelling. For a British audience, monarch character are usually difficult to identify with and have respect for numerous political reasons. But in the case of The King’s Speech, Hooper makes George essentially an everyman who happens to be in an extraordinary position but has a problem many people have: a difficulty of standing in front of people and talking.

The whole film is grounded by that and because Firth is at the centre of it all and we have to follow his journey and sympathise with his position. This point of entry for the audience is very well established by both Firth, who is immensely likable anyway, and Hooper. Perhaps more, controversially, than Mirren managed in The Queen. An overrated film anyway which tried to match the brittleness of our Queen’s public image with her public life, and I don’t believe it. So because Mirren’s performance was so brittle, albeit brilliant, there was no point of entry and sympathy. Here there is and is crucially important to the film’s success.

arts tiff kings speech 584 The King’s Speech Review

Around the central figure of Firth are two very fine supporting performances from Geoffrey Rush as the speech therapist and Helena Bonham Carter as George’s wife. Both are always worth their weight on screen and are always immensely watchable. Carter can lend herself to anything, from playing a mad, goth icon to refined, upper class mistress, here she gets to exercise more of her impeccable comedic timing. Rush is of course tried and tested in this kind of role and it isn’t exactly a stretch for him but he none the less shines in it.

If there is one problem I have with the film is that there is a whole subplot with George’s brother Edward VIII that doesn’t work. The plot line goes that Edward, played actually rather well by Guy Pearce, is having an affair with a married woman, which could be damning for the monarchy. I know it is all in the interest of making the film historically accurate but it is out of line with what George is going through in the progression of his story. The true, dramatic heart is of George trying to come to terms with his issues and stand for his nation and the public, the brotherly conflict does get in the way of that.

Other than the obvious padding, it is immensely watchable, nicely funny and also surprisingly tense when it gets down to George preparing the war time speech and standing in front of microphone. One to watch this awards season.

The King’s Speech will be on limited release on 26th November

Hot Stories From Around The Web
  • Annie

    A good review, but I don’t understand the negative comment about the subplot. The relationship of his brother with Wallis Simpson was a crucial part of his personal story. Bertie knew full well the constitutional, and therefore the personal implications. It was bad enough that, as Duke of York, he was expected to make public speeches. As king, he would have to broadcast to the nation and large parts of the world. His brother knew full well what an agonising prospect that would be for him, but dumped it on him anyway! How is that not vital to the story?

  • annie2shoes

    I agree with Annie and would go even further – without, what you call a ‘sub-plot (actually, THE plot of the story!) – we would have no film, as King George VI would have had no need to conquer his stammer!

  • William Creamer

    I saw THE KING’S SPEECH at TIFF this past September and it’s a wonderful film. Well acted, well written and well directed – it’s certainly a lock for some Oscars. The subplot of the brother was merely introduced to allow the audience to understand how and why Bertie was thrust into his role. If Hooper spent more time on this particular part of the story, not only would the movie have been longer, but it also would have taken away from Bertie’s story, which is what this film is about.

  • Paul Ballard-Whyte

    HE WAS NOT THE KING OF ENGLAND!!!

    HE WAS THE KING OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN………..

  • Danielle

    I liked “THE QUEEN” a lot more than I did “THE KING’S SPEECH”. The latter was entertaining, but there was nothing original about it. It was just another one of those “underdog who triumphs” movies. A “ROCKY” in a royal palace. It really doesn’t deserve to be named Best Picture. And “THE QUEEN” was a lot more complex and ambiguous. At least to me.