Arriving just in time for awards season, The King's Speech has been heavily praised and awarded in equal measures. It depicts the struggle of Prince and Duke of York Albert (Colin Firth) to overcome his severe stammer. In an era where the radio was becoming a powerful method of communication between the monarchy and the general public, it is something of a worry to the Prince, who with his father's illness and his brother's dangerous love-affair with an American socialite, is looking at a possible long term as King. His dedicated wife Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter) tries one last possible solution in unorthodox speech therapist Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), who methods prove trying for the short-tempered Albert. Soon enough, his father George V (Michael Gambon) passes away and his brother Edward (Guy Pearce) abdicates soon after taking the reign to be with the woman he wants to marry, and with the seemingly unavoidable conflict with Germany brewing, Albert must find a remedy to his affliction in order to speak to his people.
What struck me almost instantly about the film was the unique visual style. Not unique to film in general but to a genre that usually loves to linger on pretty dresses rather than trying to conjure up emotions through clever camerawork. Cinematographer Danny Cohen seems to trap Albert in a tight box, shooting up close and watching Firth twitch every muscle in his face. It's a very effective method, and alongside Firth's excellent performance, you get a feel of Albert's inner struggle and the overbearing pressure that is quickly building up on top of him. It also looks somewhat bleak. For a film that spends most of it's time in beautiful palace settings, it looks somewhat brown and drained of colour. It's almost as if it wanted to capture an age that we see mainly through black-and-white footage and sepia photographs. Critic Martin Filler described it as being 'steeped in strong tea' and he's bang on. It captures a certain Britishness that so many films in the genre attempt but ultimately fail.
It raked up the awards, taking the Best Picture and Best Director awards, as well as an Oscar for Firth and for the Screenplay. This did initially put me off, but I reset my attitude and hoped for an excellent film.. In a way, it is an excellent film, but hardly worthy of being labelled the best film of the year. The acting is excellent all around, the music, script and as mentioned, the cinematography are also outstanding. But there are niggling problems with the film that stuck with me and brought the film down. Minor historical inaccuracies aside, which always have to be accepted to a certain degree, I was puzzled with the insistence of including Winston Churchill's (Timothy Spall) character, who seems to be there for no other reason that for us to say 'oh look it's Churchill!'. The character just seems like a caricature and the scene which he is mainly involved in took place with someone else anyway. Also Edward's character has obviously been altered to make him more of a sneering villain, a man whose selfishness and disloyalty to his country has placed Albert in this avoidable situation.
A very good film all-round, notable for Firth's excellent performance as well as his supporting players who are equally as good. In a year full of strong films, I just don't think this is quite up to the same level. But I don't work on the voting board at the Oscars, so what do I know, right?
Directed by: Tom Hooper
Starring: Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, Helena Bonham Carter, Guy Pearce, Michael Gambon, Derek Jacobi, Timothy Spall
Country: UK
Rating: ****
Tom Gillespie
No comments:
Post a Comment