THE KING'S SPEECH (Tom Hooper 2010)

[Chris Knipp]

Tom Hooper: THE KING'S SPEECH (2010)
Review by Chris Knipp

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/539/p97Ggd.jpg
COLIN FIRTH IN THE KING'S SPEECH

There'll always be an England: the tongue-tied monarch

In England stuttering has been an upper-class, public school gesture, "the Eton stutter." But the real thing is a severe affliction, perhaps caused by childhood traumas. Albert, or Bertie (this movie strives to make its royal protagonist just folks like you or me), the Duke of York, had a terrible case, with probable causes. Growing up dominated by his harsh, condescending father King George V he was forced to wear painful leg braces to cure knock knees and, a born leftie, compelled to become right-handed. The age of loudspeakers and radio has come, public speeches by royal personages are essential, and in his -- we see one at Wembley Stadium -- Bertie has a crippling stammer that makes his utterances as painful for listeners as for him. The King's Speech concerns his efforts to overcome this affliction with the help of an eccentric Australian therapist who enables him to perform the public speaking duties of the English monarch and in particular to give a crucial radio address. This satisfying climax comes when he's King George VI, his flighty older brother Edward having abdicated to marry the twice-divorced American "woman I love." Hitler is menacing Europe, England has declared itself to be at war with Germany. The King must give a solemn radio pep-talk. It is the essential morale-booster that, with a bit of help from Winston Churchill, will motivate his loyal subjects to last out the long hard war. And, with his Australian therapist, now a friend, alone with him in a studio, he does it. Bravo!

The King's Speech is in many ways a terrific movie, grand, rich, yet admirably focused and simple. It bids fair to parallel the art house success of Stephen Frears and Peter Morgan's triumphant The Queen. The writing, by David Seidler, would make a pretty good play. The filmmakers have added things you can't get onto a stage, even on Broadway -- posh black cars inching through thick fog; the ancient grandeur of Westminster Abbey; the royal apartments; Balmoral Castle; and the noble, if unwieldy, accoutrements of early radio. Tariq Anwar has cunningly edited the scene of the final speech to show both Bertie struggling and triumphing and all England listening, soldiers and citizens moved to uphold the dignity of the British Empire.

As Bertie, following up on his dramatic breakthrough in A Single Man, Colin Firth gives a performance that's both technically and humanly impressive. As his wife, Helena Bonham Carter reveals a polish and composure that, since The Wings of the Dove, we'd forgotten she had, even if she she can't quite match the scary gravitas of Claire Bloom's royally off-putting Queen Mother. As the speech therapist Lionel Logue, Geoffrey Rush is a strong if transparently theatrical presence. His usual hamminess is both appropriate (Logue was a would-be actor) and mitigated here (perhaps inspired by his tongue-tied patient) by moments of stillness that allow his scenes with Firth more often to speak for themselves and draw our attention on the two men's growing bond. We have an A-list English backup cast with people like Derek Jakobi, Michael Gambon, Anthony Andrews, Timothy Spall in relatively minor roles. Yes, even the Archbishop of Canterbury, Stanley Baldwin, and Winston Churchill are minor roles, because this is first and foremost the story of the therapist and his royal patient.

It''s a rousing tale, one heightened by Alexandre Desplat's stately selections of classical music and Danny Cohen's eye-filling images of the magnificent settings. And yet for all the solemn majesty, it's also a tale that's curiously peripheral to the great events going on in the world at the time. Bertie (Logue insists there must be no titles) is aware of his own irrelevance. The Empire is beginning to crumble. The pettiness of the English throne is illustrated by the way Michael Gambon, as George V, treats his two sons like children, and Edward, Prince of Wales, runs around with that Baltimorean hussy, Wallis Warfield Simpson, whose pursuit he finds more important than playing king. This is sketched in well enough, and might be a better, more historically resonant, story.

The King's Speech is a succession of flashy set pieces, each one vying for attention and bidding you to forget the ones that came before. Bertie's attempts to speak are always painfully attention-getting, and so are the therapy sessions. There are occasional sweet exceptions, as when he manages to tell a bedtime story to his young daughters, Margaret and the future queen, Elizabeth. Logue is a sort of non-U Henry Higgins. He has no credentials, only solid success with shell-shocked men struck dumb in WWI. He insists that for the treatments it's "My game, my castle, my rules." Bertie and the Duchess of York must come to Logue's large but rough-looking flat in a bad part of London, and he and Logue must address each other as equals. Bertie must learn to do mouth and stomach exercises, sing and curse in a big, nearly empty, high-ceilinged room (like an empty stage) with a wall of torn-up wallpaper and a battered brass tea kettle and beat up but once nice sofa that are more memorable than the conversations in the royal household. These are the most original scenes. But Lionel and Bertie bickering in Canterbury Cathedral is pretty good, and so is Prince Edward (Guy Pearce), now King Edward VII, talking to Bertie about how he's been "kinging" while running down to the cellar of Balmoral Castle to fetch Wallis a magnum of the oldest and best champagne. The future Duke of Windsor comes across as a real idiot, which may not be far from the mark. He's a feckless party boy who's all too soft on Hitler.

It's hardly a coincidence that the director, Tom Hooper, won high praise last year for his football biopic The Damned United. The disparate elements of The King's Speech cohere because David Seidler's screenplay follows the simple trajectory of a sports movie. The royal stutterer's struggle parallels the kind of movie in which a plucky athlete overcomes a severe handicap through true grit and the help of an inspiring coach to win a race, a match, or a medal. The King's award is everyone's admiration when he toughs it out and gives a rousing address. Colin Firth's Bertie is admirable, yet pathetic. He's a royal underdog, seemingly a hopeless fellow who never expects to become king. In the fight to overcome his handicap he gives up several times, but he gets back to it; and unlike his brother he sticks to "kinging." The King's actual speech (BBC Archives (http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/ww2outbreak/7918.shtml)) and a film of his address on VE Day (http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist/BHC_RTV/1945/05/14/BGU409270010/) show he was smoother -- and Logue's accomplishment perhaps much greater -- than the film, in its effort to dramatize the struggle, would make it appear.

Has this movie got anything profound to say about handicaps, or England in the twentieth century, or WWII? I don't think so. But like a good sports movie, it makes you cry and then want to cheer. It's got beautiful cinematography, a well-made script, fine acting by a blue chip cast, and it's catnip to Anglophiles. Especially in this not-so-great year, it's clearly one of the best-of-season dramatic features. But Anthony Lane (http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2010/11/29/101129crci_cinema_lane?currentPage=all)awakens a fatal doubt when he suggests what a different film we might have had if Alan Bennett had written the screenplay or, to make the ironies draw real blood, if Harold Pinter had done the job. Thoughts of such possibilities make one realize this is a good, not great, piece of work.

http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/6816/kingsspeech1.jpg
FIRTH GIVING THE WAR TALK IN THE KING'S SPEECH

[Chris Knipp]

Judging by the Golden Globe nominations (http://www.goldenglobes.org/nominations/) for 2010, not too surprisingly THE KING'S SPEECH is a mainstream critical favorite, along with Fincher/Sorkin's THE SOCIAL NETWORK. The KING'S SPEECH GOLDEN GLOBE nominations are:

Best Motion Picture – Drama
Best Performance by an Actor – Drama: Colin Firth
Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role: Helena Bonham Carter
Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role: Geoffrey Rush
Best Director – Tom Hooper
Best Screenplay – David Seidler
Best Original Score – Alexandre Desplat

The KING'S SPEECH Metacritic rating is 87 but the SOCIAL NETWORK score is 95, so I'd give the latter the edge. However THE KING'S SPEECH is probably more of a crowd-pleaser and may seem to have rung more bells in more categories.

According to publicity people, THE KING'S SPEECH is now (December 14th, 2010) F playing in New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. Further Expansion comes December 25.

[tabuno]

Simply amazing. Chris has done it again and put words to concepts sometimes ill formed in an audience's mind, but powerful they are in their perceptive description as well as evaluative judgment of this movie, one of the year's best, yet still hinting and suggesting an element that's missing, absent, that results in this movie not quite making it all the way to the top of the awards platform.

[Chris Knipp]

Thanks, you're too kind. I don't know about the awards though. It will be up there, with various nominations and possibly awards. THE SOCIAL NETWORK seems to be more of a favorite with critics, though.

[Chris Knipp]

Oscar just recently suggested that perhaps THE SOCIAL NETWORK is a bit overrated due to its topicality and maybe THE KING'S SPEECH is as good or better. Certailnly the director Tom Hooper is very accomplished and has done a lot for a man of only 37. From the local promoters of the film (SF Bay Area) because he's here for interviews, I received this bio, which contains much I was unaware of:


TOM HOOPER – Director

Tom Hooper's most recent film THE DAMNED UNITED starred Michael Sheen as the legendary English football manager Brian Clough. THE DAMNED UNITED was nominated by the South Bank Show Awards for best British film and premiered at the Toronto Film Festival. This Sony Pictures/BBC Film, written by Peter Morgan, was based on the novel by David Peace.

Tom Hooper has had an unprecedented run of success at the Golden Globes, winning the Golden Globe for best movie or mini-series made for television three years in a row (2007/8/9). His starring actors and actresses have won Golden Globes for their performances three years running.

Tom Hooper’s “John Adams”, starring Paul Giamatti and Laura Linney, won four Golden Globes and thirteen Emmys - the most Emmys ever awarded to a programme in one year in US television history. Based on the best selling Pulitzer prize winning biography by David McCullough, “John Adams” tells the story of the American Revolution through the eyes of the second president. Hooper directed all nine hours of the mini-series, executive produced by Tom Hanks and Gary Goetzman for HBO.

Tom Hooper’s "Longford", about Lord Longford's relationship with the "Moors Murderer" Myra Hindley, won Golden Globes for Jim Broadbent, Samantha Morton and for best TV film. It was written by Peter Morgan for HBO/Channel 4.

Hooper won the Emmy award for directing "Elizabeth I," starring Helen Mirren and Jeremy Irons. The HBO/Channel 4 miniseries won three Golden Globes and nine Emmy? Awards, including Outstanding Miniseries and best actress for Helen Mirrren.

Hooper was nominated for a Best Director Emmy for helming the revival of ITV's "Prime Suspect - The Last Witness," starring Helen Mirren. He directed Hilary Swank and Chiwetel Ejiofor in the BAFTA-nominated film RED DUST. Hooper's TV work also includes "Daniel Deronda," which won the Best Miniseries award at the 2003 Banff TV Festival, "Love in a Cold Climate," for which Alan Bates was Bafta nominated, and the multi award-winning ITV comedy drama "Cold Feet." For two years running Hooper directed the one hour specials that won "Eastenders" the BAFTA for best soap.

He wrote, directed and produced the short film PAINTED FACES aged 18, which premiered at the London Film Festival, was released theatrically and shown on Channel 4. At Oxford University he directed theatre productions with contemporaries Kate Beckinsale and Emily Mortimer, and directed his first TV commercials.

37 year old Hooper’s first film "Runaway Dog" was made aged 13 on a clockwork 16mm Bolex camera using 100 foot of film. I'd like to have a look at 'Love in a Cold Climate,' being a long-time fan fo Nancy Mitford.

[Howard Schumann]

THE KING’S SPEECH

Directed by Tom Hooper, U.K., (2010), 118 minutes

Unorthodox therapies led by practitioners who produce outstanding results but do not have an academic background or society’s seal of approval are mostly shunned by the public. Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), however, an unlicensed speech therapist from Australia who uses unorthodox methods proves extremely valuable in his attempt to help King George VI of England overcome a serious stammer in Tom Hooper’s highly entertaining The King’s Speech. Based on a true story, the film, written by veteran screenwriter David Seidler, breaks no new grounds stylistically but has a substantial core of truth that overcomes the limitations of its genre and makes it not only an engaging experience that is full of wit, but also one that is quite moving.

Colin Firth, in a performance certain to be nominated for an Oscar, is a sympathetic king even for those who dislike the monarchy. The film opens when King George V (Michael Gambon) asks his second son (Firth), designated as Prince Albert and made Duke of York in 1920, to deliver a speech at the 1925 British Empire Exhibition. Because of the Duke’s speech impediment which he has suffered with since he was five years old, the results are acutely embarrassing. Aware that leadership in the age of the wireless requires the ability to communicate clearly, Prince Albert and his wife Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter) seek out a speech disorder practitioner to try and overcome the problem.

After unsuccessfully going through some professionals, Elizabeth takes her husband to see Lionel Logue, a speech therapist from Australia who lacks academic credentials but who has been highly recommended. The heart of the film is the developing relationship between Lionel and the Duke of York. Lionel is a charming rascal who from the start sets up a situation of equality, telling the Duke that he will call him Bertie and he is to call him Lionel. “My game, my rules”, he asserts. Though their relationship gets off to a rocky start, it is fun watching their friendship develop through many shouting matches. When the duke says "you're peculiar," Logue says, "I take that as a compliment."

Because Lionel believes that behind Bertie’s stammering lies a lifetime of fear and has its roots in emotional decisions made many years ago, he probes the Duke’s family life and his relationship with his father and brothers until Bertie storms out of their first meeting in a panic. After listening to a record of his own voice that Lionel made while orchestral music was being played, however, Bertie concludes that Lionel’s methods may indeed work to help him find his own voice. On his return visit, the therapist leads him through shouting obscenities, singing popular songs like Swanee River, and engaging in physical movements to help him release years of emotional repression.

Lionel seems to have a visceral understanding of what Bertie is capable of, even though he knows that it may require a long time to achieve it. When the Duke gets in touch with the humiliation he experienced from his father, his brother Edward (Guy Pearce), and his nannies, the patient and the therapist become friends and openly share their life with each other. His life, however, takes a sudden turn. Less than a year after his brother assumes the throne as King Edward VIII, he abdicates in order to marry Wallis Simpson (Eve Best), and the Duke of York is reluctantly sworn in as King George VI. It is a time of great peril as Hitler’s armies are in full training for all out war with Europe.

Through his one-on-one work with Lionel, Bertie begins to believe in himself and his ability to communicate. This confidence is sorely tested, however, when the new king must deliver a reassuring address to the people of England in 1939 after the country has declared war on Germany. With Logue’s strong assistance, the music of Beethoven, and the steady direction of Hooper, the ending eschews false uplift and becomes a genuinely human document that allows us to realize, in the words of Anais Nin that, "Each friend represents a world in us, a world possibly not born until they arrive, and it is only by this meeting that a new world is born."

GRADE: A-

[Chris Knipp]

Based on a true story, the film, written by veteran screenwriter David Seidler, breaks no new grounds stylistically but has a substantial core of truth that overcomes the limitations of its genre and makes it not only an engaging experience that is full of wit, but also one that is quite moving.

That's an excellent summary, I think. One could discuss the issues of how the movie both appeals to Anglophile Masterpiece Theater tastes for English royalty and makes the rulers appealing by treating them as just folks with embarrassing problems. In contrast for instance Frears' THE QUEEN gave one more of an insight into the real issues and rarefied environment of the English monarchy in facing its more recent problems as "actors," a key complaint of the old king being their being pushed into that role as the various media take over.

At the same time THE KING'S SPEECH is a touching and rousing and well-made film that is very enjoyable to watch and has a lot of good moments packed into it.

[cinemabon]

When I was twelve years old, my father bought me a phonograph player for my birthday. It also had one of the first FM radios. It could play 45 rpm records and 33 1/3 records. "I know how much you love history," he said to me, "So I bought you this." One of my very first records was a compilation of historical recordings narrated by Edward R Murrow, called "Here it Now." It contained many moments in the history of radio, along with the speeches of Edward's abdication and his brother's "first" speech; both are quite moving, the later more than the former.

"...and I cannot continue, as I would wish to do, without the help and support of the woman I love!" Edward, Duke of Windsor from his abdication speech.


I never liked the Duke of Windsor (Edward). He was anti-semetic and I can't abide that sort of thing. However, his younger brother, King George VI, was a wonderful man. He was a good father, a good King and a great human being. I'm so glad they made this film. Firth plays the part so well and the scenes are portrayed with incredible subtly. More than any film I have seen in a very long time, I found I could easily love this movie and see it again and again, the true test of any classic.

I shall be sorely distressed if it does not win Best Picture of the Year.

[Howard Schumann]

Prepare to be sorely distressed. The Social Network is the consensus winner because no one goes against the consensus.

[tabuno]

I've avoided seeing SOCIAL NETWORK, in part, because I heard that the principal character isn't really portrayed even closely to what the real-life person is like? Is this true?

[Howard Schumann]

I've avoided seeing SOCIAL NETWORK, in part, because I heard that the principal character isn't really portrayed even closely to what the real-life person is like? Is this true?

It is true (in my opinion anyway). The real Mark Zuckerberg is warm and outgoing, the opposite of Jesse Eisenberg's portrayal who shows him to be closed and mean-spirited when he was at Harvard. Personally, I thought it was an exercise in character assassination and the film did not register with me.

[tabuno]

It is true (in my opinion anyway). The real Mark Zuckerberg is warm and outgoing, the opposite of Jesse Eisenberg's portrayal who shows him to be closed and mean-spirited when he was at Harvard. Personally, I thought it was an exercise in character assassination and the film did not register with me.

How terrible! For a critically acclaimed movie to fictionally, perhaps libel, seems criminal and shouldn't deserve any sort of award except for malicious slander. If this movie had been portrayed as an alternative fantasy inspired by real events then perhaps, this movie could be considered on its own merits. This purported distortion of a movie, if true, doesn't deserve the label critically acclaimed movie, it would deserve much worse.

I don't know how I could go see it. I hope it doesn't come close to winning an Oscar, assuming what Howard says is true. How sad the state of movie critics and the audience that supports such blatant lies and mistruths.

[Chris Knipp]

. A close study of the facts will indicate that Mark Zuckerberg's behavior back in the day was not so warm and friendly as his current public manner might suggest, and the Winklevoss twins might differ strongly with any such positive interpretation of his behavior. But clearly The film as ably crafted by David Fincher, his three fine principal actors, and Aaron Sorkin exercise considerable artistic license and make no pretense of doing otherwise. It's a great movie, not a movie about nice people but about youthful brilliance, entrepreneurship, and intense competition in which some got hurt. This is not a "purportedly real-life film," if there is such a thing. See the statements of the filmmakers.

[Howard Schumann]

How terrible! For a critically acclaimed movie to fictionally, perhaps libel, seems criminal and shouldn't deserve any sort of award except for malicious slander. If this movie had been portrayed as an alternative fantasy inspired by real events then perhaps, this movie could be considered on its own merits. This purported distortion of a movie, if true, doesn't deserve the label critically acclaimed movie, it would deserve much worse.

I don't know how I could go see it. I hope it doesn't come close to winning an Oscar, assuming what Howard says is true. How sad the state of movie critics and the audience that supports such blatant lies and mistruths.

Since Aaron Sorkin is quoted as saying, "I don’t want my fidelity to be to the truth; I want it to be to storytelling," I would not have had a problem if he used fictitious names instead of the names of real people.

[cinemabon]

Howard, are you basing that consensus on the Golden Globes? I would not go down that road. Harvey Weinstein has many friends in Hollywood that owe him. He has not seen Oscar on his desk in a long time. I believe you will see a shift in that position, despite the rumors to scuttle the enthusiasm for this film.

[cinemabon]

As to Mark and friends, while the power of Facebook is unmistakable, Hollywood long ago established its own "facebook" within its tightly closed guilded doors. The five thousand plus voting members know one another and often speak. When you have a film of this high quality, and I am referring to "King's Speech," it is difficult to ignore. The mistakes of the past (like "Crash") have come back to haunt the Academy with responses like "WHAT?" We could debate the merits of other winners, too. But when you compare these two films side by side, its clear who is the winner.

[Howard Schumann]

Howard, are you basing that consensus on the Golden Globes? I would not go down that road. Harvey Weinstein has many friends in Hollywood that owe him. He has not seen Oscar on his desk in a long time. I believe you will see a shift in that position, despite the rumors to scuttle the enthusiasm for this film.

Social Network not only won the Golden Globes but practically every film critics awards across the country.

[cinemabon]

I'll give you odds it doesn't win the Oscar.

[Howard Schumann]

I'll give you odds it doesn't win the Oscar.

I'm not a betting man but I sincerely hope you are right.

[Chris Knipp]

I don't want to get involved in debating your shared condemnation of THE SOCIAL NETWORK, my favorite American or even English language film of the year, but of course it has received the highest critical rating, if Metacric, generally reliable, is to be trusted, a 95, and poor INCEPTION got only a 74 after all the hype. But THE KING'S SPEECH (Metacritic 88) would be fine with me if it won. I don't always trust the critical consensus at all; I just agree with it this time, but I don't always. This would be nothing like the victory of CRASH in the year of BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, which deeply disappointed me, because I not only loved BROKEBACK, but its loss was a steal, a political compromise that was very dubious. (Not that the Oscars are ever to be trusted.)

This time there is the relative lack of a likable protagonist in THE SOCIAL NETWORK and its youth orieintation, while the majority of the Academy voters, like the New York Drama Criitics Circle, by the way, verge on the elderly. So they might be very likely to shift to THE KING'S SPEECH, which not only has an older, more formal protagonist, but an old-fashioned feel and a period setting. THE KING'S SPEECH is a lovely film, stirring and grand and rich in human intrerest. It doesn't seem to me as smart or tightly organized or as timely and original, but that's not necessarily what the Academy looks for, and I'd be perfectly happy with THE KING'S SPEECH winning -- unlike you gentlemen who'd be infuriated if THE SOCIAL NETWORK won.

Currently indieWIRE has a shrewd analysis of the predictions as the now stand. It's called

For Your Consideration: Final 2011 Oscar Predictions. (http://www.indiewire.com/article/2011/01/19/for_your#)

It suggests that Tom Hooper's standing for Best Director is not so good. That's just the politics of the odds and valances, no reflection on the film. Let's bear in mind that we don't even know what the nominees are yet. But I would completely agree and so would indieWIRE that THE KING'S SPEECH's chances are very good of winning Best Picture, under the circumstances.

I will still consider it my favorite English language film of the year and still remember that it was the critical favorite.

[Chris Knipp]

I meant to add that rottentomatoes (a little less reliable but also often cited) rates THE KING'S SPEECH much closer to THE SOCIAL NETWORK, 96 vs. 97.

[cinemabon]

The social network is not art. I beg to differ but we are talking about the Academy of ARTS and sciences.

Take the scene where the prince shows up at the office for the first time and he enters a rather austere room with only a sofa against the wall on one side. Have you ever seen a wall like that with a sofa in front of it? The set designer painstakenly took the time to create that beautiful mosaic behind the tattered yet elegant settee. That wasn't just shot with hand held cameras. That's art, damn it!

Every shot in the King's Speech was carefully put together. The social network, on the other hand, looks like a television reality show. If the Academy, whom I respect, wants to maintain its position as promoting the ART of cinema, they need to take a long hard look at both movies and decide.... cinematography, art direction, editing, sound, acting, direction, music, costume, make up... which film stands up to those tests?

[Chris Knipp]

We just have to agree to differ. I love THE KING'S SPEECH. I just don't hate THE SOCIAL NETWORK. In fact, like apparently a lot of critics, I prefer THE SOCIAL NETWORK to every other US movie of 2010. We are really comparing apples and oranges here. Sorkin puts the emphasis on dialogue, not sets -- though the ones for The West Wing are quite impressive, to put it mildly. Fincher adds strong uses of space at various key points. That wall in THE KING'S SPEECH is indeed memorable, however, and that film is about grandeur (though less so than the usual Masterpice Theater stuff). Is the arresting-looking wall, huge room, comfy old sofa necessary? I'm not so sure. But they sure are fun. TV dramas have moved up from the Fifties. They have great sets too sometimes. Look at MAD MEN.

[cinemabon]

Even the opening shot in fog as we follow the car through the pea soup down a London street... or the scene where George reveals the abuse he suffered as a child... now compare that to the righteous indignation of computer brats. There's acting and then there's wanna be actors. I think we're comparing Winesap apples to Jonathan. I see no oranges.

[cinemabon]

King's Speech nominated for a whopping 12 Academy Award nominations... At last, a reason to watch the Oscars!

[cinemabon]

Tom Hooper wins 2010 Director's Guild of America Best Director Award for "King's Speech!" - This is often a precursor to how the Academy will vote. I would like to congratulate Mr. Hooper on his well deserved win. The acting in this film is outstanding and he most certainly helped in that department, along with his contributions to the other artistic teams that made this movie one of the finest films I have seen in years.

[cinemabon]

Congratulations to Colin Firth and the ensemble cast of outstanding actors who took Best Actor in Feature Drama and Best Acting Ensemble in a Feature Motion Picture awards tonight (respectively).

[cinemabon]

Colin Firth interview tonight on 60 minutes (CBS).

[oscar jubis]

Thanks cinemabon.

[cinemabon]

Congratulations to "The King's Speech" for winning Best Picture of the Year, Best Actor, Best Director, and Best Original Screenplay at the awards ceremony tonight for the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. While I felt robbed of Supporting Actress, Art Direction, Editing, and Cinematography... I was pleased with the wins the picture did receive.

[Johann]

The King's Speech is a very well made film and the cinematography is the best thing about it.
I watched the movie twice (second time with Tom Hooper's commentary) and I enjoyed learning that Stanley Kubrick's favorite lens to shoot with was an 18mm lens, one that Hooper employed a lot on this film. And that early in his career Hooper worked with Larry Smith, Kubrick's lighting cameraman on Eyes Wide Shut.

While I don't relate to any of the characters onscreen, Colin Firth does a fine job as Bertie. He holds the movie down.
I'm not sure I'd watch it again though. How excited can you get about speech therapy for Royals?

[Chris Knipp]

A "feel good" movie, and a certain part of the US audience for some reason love seeing stufff about UK aristos or royals. A well made film indeed, and part of it is the music, I think, toward the end, which sweeps you away, assuming you're ready to be swept away.

[Johann]

Yes the music was effective. I wasn't "swept away" by it, but I noticed it.
Not sure if I'd watch this one again. I don't think it rewards you with repeat viewings.
Like Dallas Buyers Club, you get the point with one view.

[Chris Knipp]

You assume, logically, that one rewarches a film simply because it's good, and maybe complex. Actually people rewatch films

to study them, to write about them or for a course you're taking or teaching

because you love the film

because you only own one DVD, that one

But I like your reason best

I find I can rewatach (favorite) films most easily and often if they are pure style, and mysterious (like French film noir, or Wong Kar-wai, where the storyline and how they end is unimportant. If everything points to the payoff or the outcome, you get tired of it because you know how they end. That's my thought. I'm sure certain viewers love watching Rocky run up the steps over and over because it still gives them a lift. Lucky them.

[Johann]

Pure Style- that's definitely a reason to watch a film again and again.
If it has a certain stylistic life from opening to closing credits then that may be all you need to hit play again. Even if other aspects of the film suck, like the acting or even the story itself, Pure Style can tune me in. For example, Tarantino's Kill Bill. The movie is Pure Style to me. Glorious Style. Modelled on other cult cinema and classics.
The story is batshit retarded and can't be taken seriously. BUT WHAT STYLE... Tarantino walks with a SWAGGER. Even if he makes a bad movie, that movie has Style trading on that *perceived *shittiness. I'll take that anyday over a polished film aiming to hit all of its marks with a deadly seriousness.

Star Wars is probably the most-watched movie ever. (At least it's my guess). Is it re-watched ad nauseum because of style?
It might have a little bit to do with style, but I reckon that it's just the way George Lucas placed humans in a "Galaxy far Far Away" that resonates and will continue to resonate. The acting is bunk in Star Wars, we all know that. The script is cornier than shepherd's pie with no beef or potatoes.
It's "Space Opera", and not a little ridiculous. But those films have been seen a bajillion kajillion times over.
The reasons why are plenty.

[Chris Knipp]

In the JODOROVSKY's DUNE doc they say it would have been better than STAR WARS.

I agree with you except that I think Tarantino's ideas are interesting and his dialogue is always witty and fun.