| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| randall |
Posted - 11/11/2010 : 02:19:51
We saw this lovely one at FSLC a few days before its New York opening. Brits, and many Americans, will recall Prince Albert's, later King George VI's, speech impediment. It was no secret, and in fact the contemporary breath-holding tension at any of his WWII-era radio speeches occurred worldwide. But this man overcame, thanks to Lionel Logue, his speech therapist, and galvanized his nation through some very dark days.
In the theater, you'd be tempted to call this a "two-hander," since all the critical scenes take place between Colin Firth as the royal "Bertie" and Geoffrey Rush as his instructor. But there's beautiful work in the background: Michael Gambon as George's father, Guy Pearce as the first-crowned brother, Timothy Spall as Winston Churchill!, and the radiant Helena Bonham Carter as the supporting, nurturing Queen Elizabeth.
After tonight's screening, director Tom Hooper, himself the product of an Australian-British family [Logue was an Aussie], told us that he felt this case was the reverse PYGMALION: the commoner instructs the royal! Also interesting is the fact that we tend to think of British royalty as a particularly privileged family, but, beginning with the verbal mishandling of his stammer by his father, and cruel mistreatment on the part of a nanny, Bertie's life was a nightmare, and no head has ever wanted less to wear the crown. But because of his adversity, he actually humanized royalty and electrified Britain during some days of common adversity.
It's only people talking, yes, but they're so adept at it. Highly recommended. |
| 13 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/24/2011 : 17:32:15
I should clarify that I was surprised by the paper publishing it today, rather than you. There was something a while back about upper-class sex parties; quite apt given that the theme of sex-crazed toffs runs into the film. |
| Chris C |
Posted - 02/24/2011 : 17:26:26
I couldn't say one way or the other. I only saw this news for the first time today, and I knew nothing about the sex parties. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/24/2011 : 16:40:57
Didn't that news come out ages ago? Or am I thinking of the sex parties that were held there? |
| Chris C |
Posted - 02/24/2011 : 13:29:00
Ahem, The King's Peach?  |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 02/14/2011 : 06:35:12
Went to see it on Saturday and... Oh... My... Goodness! My husband and I were both in tears at the end. Amazing piece, perfectly handled, marvelous script and as randall says, everyone here does such an excellent job. Guy Pearce was a particularly good match in the looks department and did an equally marvelous job of playing the man so smitten by Wallace Simpson that he's practically lost himself to her. While I thought that The Social Network was an excellent film with insights into both the lonely and the backbiting world of overly dedicated computer geeks, this was both heart wrenching and heart warming, without ever getting sappy or stupid. Just enough personal details to understand both the frustration and the origins of this man's impediment which was perfectly laced with just enough humour and wit to keep it from being drab or dull. Everyone in the cast and crew deserve recognition here. |
| Chris C |
Posted - 02/13/2011 : 18:55:26
Just got in from seeing this. Brilliant movie. If it doesn't win a shedload of awards, then there's something wrong with this world.
Go and see it, folks. You won't regret it. |
| w22dheartlivie |
Posted - 01/16/2011 : 22:09:17
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by wildheartlivie
My speech is back now
Very glad to hear it. 
Thank you. It was hard in the afterdays, since we had kept it from my elderly aunt, who was adamant about calling to see if my "stomach flu" was better. By design, my sister intervened to be home when she called me and was able to deflect any issues. When we lost my aunt a scant month after my stroke, I could say that at least she went without carrying that worry around. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 01/15/2011 : 21:44:11
quote:
Originally posted by wildheartlivie
My speech is back now
Very glad to hear it. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 01/15/2011 : 21:43:36
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
The fact that having royals is objectionable does not in any way equate to their being more privileged than anyone else.
N.B. I mean by this the most privileged of all, not more privileged than even one other person. Sorry for the ambiguity. |
| w22dheartlivie |
Posted - 01/15/2011 : 21:18:25
I put this on my must see list, although my initial impression was more akin to "Oh, Gods, please, no more Chariots of Fire." But since my brush with the stroke and its after-effects on my speech, my interest is keener. One cannot begin to fathom how horrible it is to honestly NOT be able to express one's thoughts without stammering it out. Horribly frustrating and demoralizing. And to be treated like you are incompetent because you can't SAY it, well, anger rares its ugly head. I was begging for speech therapy in the days after the stroke, only to be put off. My speech is back now, to my great relief, but the feeling hasn't gone away. I plan to see this as soon as it is on satellite (the one smart choice I made while in the hospital. I decided I no longer could tolerate picking up two television channels on rabbit ears, especially when one was public broadcasting and the greatest thing to happen to the other was the new broadcasts of "I Dream of Jeannie". Sheesh.) |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 01/13/2011 : 20:08:16
While it has some definite flaws, I loved it.
The main flaw is the artistic licence pandering to modern sensibilities, in terms of things like how relatively readily Bertie and Elizabeth get on a level with Logue and his family (the resistance seems rather token compared to how it would really have been), how affectionate he is with his children and quite how boldly personal Logue is with him &c. Firth looks far, far too old for the 1925 scene: surely they could have improved that with some post-production or fewer close-ups. The accents are a bit variable in terms of how well they match the Received Pronunciation of the time, which is very different to that of today. Mrs. Simpson is rather heavy-handedly portrayed as an unsympathetic baddie, although a scene at the end does soften both her and the Duke of Windsor. The idea that royals personally suffer for the sake of their positions is not new and so particularly interesting. It also would have been a lot more impactful a couple of decades ago when people knew less about stammering, whereas nowadays most people are pretty understanding about it.
However, the film brings the audience in extremely well and has us on side all the way to the inevitable conclusion. The performances are good, although I'd say not the crux of the film. There is now a benefit to Timothy Spall having got so fat lately. While she doesn't have any opportunity to shine, it's great seeing Ramona Marquez (the amazing Karen in Outnumbered, if you haven't seen it). Most of all, I just enjoyed watching a film about speech therapy (the only real career that linguistics leads to other than perhaps teaching English as a foreign language; I've often considered doing it, but they also have to treat people with swallowing problems, which would not be interesting).
The fact that having royals is objectionable does not in any way equate to their being more privileged than anyone else. The fairly anonymous children of billionaires are far more privileged, I would say. It's also rather strange for B.B. to object to people being interested in them. People are interested in Hitler and George W. Bush, for example: interest in someone is not related to their being good. The film presents the position of the monarchy before the Second World War changed it and society for ever: it certainly in no way endorses it. British people at least are always going to be interested in anything related to our most significent event of the last few hundred years. When Bertie mentions the Divine Right of Kings, it is extremely clear that he is aware of the foolishness of such a notion (although it's no more foolish than believing in God at all). And as wrong as royalty is in principle, in the War especially they knew the role that they had to play and they played it as well as they could.
5/5 |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 12/20/2010 : 16:20:05
Well, I totally agree about the level of filmmaking expertise. randall's points about the acting are well made and justified - it's significant, too, that of the two of them, whose close-up ends the film. The direction, while not astounding is thoroughly reliable as are all the technical supports. And the script is crisp and spare (except for a few scenes of wordy exposition) and understands the power of levity.
Pity, though, so many crits continue to be so beguiled by the whole notion of monarchy. I'm not talking now about any of the actual people who happened to be born into The Firm, as they call themselves.
At one point it's revealed that the notion of Divine Right of Kings is alive and well, held not least by the royals themselves ... and that's not so very long ago. Not a notion I'm comfortable with, dunno about you.
So as a portrait of a true friendship of equals, as Logue demands, it's a very moving experience. It would be wrong, though, to extrapolate from that, especially given what had to be left out of the account.
Despite the fact Bertie was subject to such appalling behaviour from those around him, The Firm is as privileged as is possible to be.
|
| randall |
Posted - 11/26/2010 : 23:23:51
It's being very well received over here. |
|
|
