'The King's Speech': A Little More Concentration

The prince is patrician and revered, but he's also public property, and suffers accordingly in this genteel film.

The King's Speech

Director: Tom Hooper
Cast: Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, Helena Bonham Carter, Guy Pearce, Timothy Spall, Jennifer Ehle, Derek Jacobi, Eve Best, Michael Gambon
Rated: R
Studio: Weinstein Company
Year: 2010
US date: 2010-11-26 (Limited release)
UK date: 2011-01-07 (General release)

Once upon a time, Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother was spry and witty. This may be the most splendid detail offered up by The King's Speech, though it is, to be sure, a detail offered as rather an afterthought. But if the film's focus is plainly the long-term relationship that her husband, King George VI (Colin Firth) forges with his speech therapist, Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), Princess Elizabeth, embodied evocatively by Helena Bonham Carter, is its singular delight.

It is her look that first frames the king's speech. Prince Albert -- Bertie, as his wife calls him -- initially appears as he's speaking before a massive crowd at Wembley Stadium in 1925, his performance quickly devolving into the stammering fitfulness for which he is then well known. Elizabeth anticipates what's coming, and as he sputters and halts and starts again, the camera watches her wide, pale face, patient, knowing, utterly compassionate.

Bertie's embarrassment is profound, of course, and his own patience is worn down. A introductory second scene, laying out his personal as opposed to public humiliation, shows Bertie dutifully filling his mouth with marbles, as a doctor proposes this will provide distraction en route to improvement. Again, Elizabeth observes, and again, her reaction reflects and also explains the dilemma.

He's patrician and revered, but he's also public property, and repeatedly feels ridiculous. This is the dilemma of the royals, proposes this genteel film, having to incarnate so much tradition and privilege while also wielding (relatively) little power in a modern world. Bertie's is an existence defined by wealth and advantage, but also by crushing anxiety, courtesy of his abusive father, King George V (Michael Gambon). No matter the number of marbles in his mouth, the son will not meet his dad's expectations, ever.

Elizabeth has a sense of this, though the etiquette of the era disallows her to voice her ideas too explicitly, and certainly not publicly. She promises Bertie he needn't endure "more" such preposterous therapeutics, but still, she knows his suffering is all but over. And so she does what a wife in such a place must do, secretly visiting Logue to solicit his services. When the unconventional Logue begins to spell out his rules and disdain to her as a reluctant patient's wife, she sets him straight. "I don't have a hubby and we don't play games" she sniffs, to start. When her tone suggests to Logue that he might be perceived as "the enemy," she smiles: "You will be if you remain unobliging."

And with that, the boys' engagement is in motion, and Elizabeth is moved to an intermittent background. While Logue is an outsider (he's Australian, a stage actor, and an unorthodox family man), he's hardly going to bring Bertie off his institutional rails. The men both see their work as important -- and as work -- which marks their primary difference from both their wives (Mrs. Logue is coolly played by Jennifer Ehle). If it's yet another sage of privileged people learning to appreciate their greatness, The King's Speech is also a film about performance as a way of life.

Bertie and Logue do share a wondrous, tumultuous friendship, and the film grants Firth and Rush numerous occasions to be brilliant together, whether in montagey bits of office visits, working on "mechanics," or in earnest conversations in which the prince reveals his "psychology," namely, his father's stunning cruelties. Bertie's particular circumstances include his mostly awful and arrogant brother Edward (Guy Pearce), whose refusal to "give up" the American Wallis Simpson (Eve Best) will cost him the throne in 1936, and catapult Bertie into the very position he fears most.

This and other historical points tend to punctuate the king's personal story, his efforts to overcome his disorder and resolve his troubled familial history, as The King's Speech makes various allusions to its title, as the act of speaking, as the extra-significant speech he must make to announce England's 1939 entry into war against Germany, and as the more metaphorical notion: speech as a means of communicating and so constructing national identity. The film makes clear that this process is expanding and accelerating via radio, which would seem to raise stakes (the power of Hitler's speech remains an unspoken allusion and menace here).

The king's speech is an event, process, and performance. It's also a sign of his capacity for self-expression as well as his sense of responsibility. He shares the first with Elizabeth and Logue, and takes up the second when his bad brother abdicates. Edward's badness is emphasized by his teasing Bertie and oh yes, his accommodating Nazis.

But the crucial difference between the unserious party boy and the sincere Bertie is indicated in their life partner choices. Mrs. Simpson, "a woman with two husbands living," exotic and conspicuous, is set in opposition to the redoubtable Elizabeth, a good mom and loyal wife, her strength represented again and again in moments when she watches Bertie -- telling penguin stories to their daughters or listening to his own voice, recorded and unstammering by Logue. As the camera pulls away from the prince to settle on his wife, she doesn't say a word, doesn't make her presence known to him. But her face reveals that speech is only one way to communicate.


So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.